Their aim is to engage the public in the challenge of rebuilding greater Christchurch.  This one was held in New Brighton and concentrated on Christchurch East. 

What a difference a day makes.

Within 20 hours of finishing our meeting in which we positively envisaged rebuilding Christchurch and the eastern suburbs in an integrated package of eco-city sustainability, the gods of wrath spoke again.  All hell broke loose, in the inner city, the southern suburbs, and the east.  People who attended (about 120 all up) were struggling once more with their immediate life needs. 

We shall, no doubt, be out there, in the streets, once again, to assist – as we did back in February. 

Did the two vicious quakes of 13 June nullify the value of what we achieved the day before? You bet not.

First off, we had the most high caliber experts that Christchurch can offer, presenting to us. 

Di Lucas spoke of the need to meld a city in harmony with the land and surrounding Nature.

Harvey Perkins reminded us how a revived city would look, and would function, socially and economically.

Simon Kingham described eloquently the natural trend around the world towards sustainable living and public/private transport – and how Kiwis might attain that goal.

Jasper van der Lingen gave us a vision of a green city and suburban community.

Andy Buchanan showed us how safely, how sustainably, and how beautifully wooden homes and commercial buildings can be – with 21st century technology.

Andrew Dakers explained how an integrated water management system could be – but how complex that is to set up in a post-crisis situation where rapid restoration of basic human needs is a humanitarian imperative.

And Maire Kipa described the reaction of iwi to the February experience, and how Maori values should shape the collective response and the challenge of rebuilding our communities.

None of this has been nullified by 5.6s and 6.3s.  We have come to expect them, now.  Some people may take off, and those personal decisions would be respected.  But most will stay, in varying degrees of defiance and hope. 

And to them, we say, unite with us – we shall rebuild a beautiful city.  It will rise, literally, from the ashes of death and destruction.  And it will honour what has gone before.

We are proceeding with our 3rd forum – in Lyttelton – next Sunday.

We were fortunate that no one was killed – for that we can be thankful.

On behalf of the Green Party, our thoughts go out to the people hurt yesterday and those whose houses, businesses and lives suffered in another day of damage.

I was driving through the city when the 6.0 hit.  I felt like Peter Blake surfing a 30-metre in the Southern Ocean.  The trees and lamp-posts swayed towards the car before having mercy and pulling back. 

It was immediately clear the quakes were significant and that their effects would be widespread.  All cars came to a halt and rolled with the seismic waves  like the rest of the city.  The driving thereafter, with no traffic lights and potential gridlock, was almost exemplary.  Kiwi drivers voluntarily giving way – miracles happen.

After the initial shock and as the size of the quakes sunk in to the collective consciousness, the usual fear for our city and our people kicked in.  The rush to contact friends and family began.  I count myself lucky that my whanau were OK and that our house had escaped damage, yet again.

Yesterday was another hard day for Christchurch. But the determination and resolve to rebuild this beautiful city remains.

I will be on the ground in Christchurch today doing anything and everything I can do to help, again.

I lived in Canada (Ottawa) for three years a while back – beautiful country, and great people.  I have an appreciation for the complexities of its domestic politics, and how proud Canada’s country’s foreign policy used to be through UN peacekeeping and human rights leadership.

This result comes on the back of a wave of Green successes in Britain, Australia, Germany and France. I believe the tides of change are coming and we’ll start making genuine progress on the many critical global issues facing our world.

That said, the wonderful Canadian result also highlights how deeply flawed their first-past-the post electoral system is. If they had a fair proportional system that provides for representation that matches the amount of support they have – the Greens would have 13 seats in Parliament.

In the 2008 election they had almost a million votes but no representation in Parliament.  That situation is intrinsically unfair.  It undermines the fundamental tenet of democracy – that people have someone to represent them in decision-making.

We believe it is vital that MMP is retained in New Zealand in this year’s referendum and that we not return to the unrepresentative FPP system.  MMP makes sure that a party’s share of power is directly proportional to the share of votes it wins, and there’s no chance of an unfair and undemocratic outcome.

Anyway, congratulations again to Elizabeth May.  I met and worked with Elizabeth at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference – one of the few good things to come out of the meeting for me.  We’ve stayed in contact ever since on this and I’m looking forward immensely to collaborating with her on this most vital of all issues, now that she will be spending much of her time in Ottawa.

Now it is time to refocus and plan for our rebuild.  For that I’m convening a series of public forums across Christchurch designed to engage the public in developing a collective vision of a future new city.  The link to our website on these forums is here.

The first meeting was last week, on 20 April, just before Easter.  It was a tremendous success – with about 200 people attending on a cold night in the Netball Centre Hall at Hagley Park.  Five experts gave spell-binding presentations on their vision of a 21^st-century eco-city that would be Christchurch.

• Di Lucas conveyed her insights on how the land should be respected, to mould the shape and nature of the city.
• Suzanne Vallance asked us to consider what it is to be a community, either during times of normalcy or times of crisis.
• Jasper van der Lingen showed us, through beautiful slides, how green spaces might bring a city together.
• Andy Buchanan explained how wood can be utilised as the most environmentally harmonious and resilient structure for buildings – whether residential or commercial.
• Chris Kissling offered a vision of how public and private transport can complement rather than compete to the common good.
• John Peet, summing up, made it clear that we must, above all, attain strong sustainability, sooner rather than later, if our communities are to survive over the long-term, rather than simply the short-term.

Following the presentations, participants broke into five discussion groups reflecting the themes of the evening – landscape, city, architecture, building, and transport.  Facilitators reported back to the plenary session.  A lively general discussion ensued.

For my own part, I sensed six related thoughts emerging in support of a common vision.  They were: green spaces, social harmony, architectural beauty, environmental sustainability, community resilience and risk management.  How these gel into one strategic vision remains to be thought through.

We are not there yet.  There is a variety of ideas, not all entirely compatible.  But that is a good sign.  It means that civic engagement is kicking in.  If we can achieve the optimal balance between expertise and public insight in developing our collective ideas of how to rebuild a city for our descendants – fifty, a hundred years from now – we shall have met our responsibility to posterity.

Next meetings are in Lyttelton and then New Brighton.  Programmes will appear on the website shortly.

There is more and more evidence that we are an increasingly unequal society and that inequality negatively affects everyone. We support a fair and robust system for debt collection but we need to be careful it does not push people who are already struggling over the edge.

We need a justice system that keeps communities safe and addresses the causes of crimes.

While we can see the value in streamlining processes for collecting fines et al, we have not supported this bill and the Government’s proposed amendment.

One of our key concerns is that there has been no analysis or evidence provided of the impact of this bill on deprived socio-economic groups.

Introducing stricter provisions for when people default on their fines or debt will clearly have a disproportionate impact on vulnerable communities and people with limited financial means.

There needs to be mechanisms (such as potentially a case management system) to identify and work with people who do not have the financial means to meet fine or civil debt obligations. Putting people in jail, crushing their cars, taking their driver’s license, automatically taking money out of minimum wages and benefits – when they are struggling financially could have considerable negative flow on the people involved, their families, communities and ultimately New Zealand society as a whole.

The bill’s proposal to extend the amount of time that people can spend in jail for failing to pay fines and sending people to jail for failure to pay reparation orders are a clear case in point.

Putting people in jail, generally makes them worse and more likely to commit further crime. It is no solution for our fines system and at around $90,000 per annum for each prisoner it is very expensive.

We believe that keeping communities safe and addressing the causes of crimes need to be the focus of our justice system

We feel the punitive aspects of the bill do not reach this standard which is why we oppose it and the Government’s SOPs’.

That can never last, nor should it. Today the emotion came, sweeping over us all like a tsunami. 

A memorial service was held at Burnside High yesterday, for the victims from just one tragic address – the CTV building.  Even more specifically, the staff and students of King’s Education, the language school housed on the 3^rd floor. 

Out of the 180 presumed dead across the city, 80 (71 students, 9 staff) are from King’s Education alone.  Five staff, all 71 students, were foreign citizens.  28 were from Japan. New Zealand was, effectively, remembering the visitors among us – they who chose this land for the opportunity of a lifetime. 

A mournful flute caresses the faces of cheerful students, recently deceased, their trusting smiles beamed onto a giant screen before a packed, and hushed, auditorium. 

Ngāi Tahu’s Mark Solomon gives the whakatau.  Dean Peter Beck officiates (“This is so hard”.)  Mayor Bob Parker apologises to the world for the anger of Papatuanuku. 

We all pray. 

Prue Taylor, widow of deceased head of the school, Brian, reads the lesson – dignity and beauty personified in the moment of grief. Two pākehā men, members of the Board, struggle through their tributes – Southern men, constricted of throat.  Pui Mungkorn, a recent graduate, bids farewell to four Thai compatriots in beautiful, halting English.  Margaret Aydon, staff survivor, bespeaks her love for nine colleagues.

Yet it is the music that brings on the tears.  Graeme Wardop’s Let It Be – my very own vintage.  Once the tears come, they just roll on of their own accord.  Emily Twemlow sings You Are My Sunshine – the school favourite. She staggers back, flops into her chair, wracked with sobbing.   

Gerardo Torres, of Peru, sings a song of farewell to his sister Elsa, head teacher, deceased.  Raw Latin emotion sweeps over New Zealand’s cosmopolitan crowd.

I speak later with Chan, Malaysian Kiwi who provided homestays for King’s students. On Monday 21^st, he had introduced four young Filipina women to King’s Education.  They had registered, taken tests, and got themselves ready for their first day of tuition in English on the Tuesday.  Tuesday, 22^nd, they had duly turned up.  Day 1 was their last.

Chan himself had been in the building that morning to see the Director, and had walked out at 11.30 a.m., into the fresh air.

And when the broken-hearted people living in the world agree,
There will be an answer, let it be.
For though they may be parted there is still a chance that they will see,
There will be an answer, let it be.

We have become, in Christchurch, a tale of two cities. Out west, we are relatively unaffected and seek to help.  In the east, the CBD and the south, we are devastated and struggling to survive.  There lies a natural, if tragic, marriage of interest.  My heroes and heroines fall into these two categories.

They Who Struggle to Survive

Barry of New Brighton, who has been acting as a street-leader, acquiring a generator early on, linking homes for power by cable, establishing an out-door food and water distribution centre, appealing (through me) for gas coupons and port-a-loos, and devoting a large fraction of his personal money to kick-start his community’s local relief effort.

Daphne of Dallington, who, in her mid-70s, survived an eruption of liquefaction that snapped her concrete living-room floor in two as she sat there, a swirl that also poured in through the front door and enveloped her to knee-level, and who, unable to get out that way, negotiated her way through the back and out through the garage.  She continued to live in her house for ten days, with putrefied carpet and thick mud to accompanying odour, until being relocated by friends to the safety of the western suburbs.  She has remained indomitable through this ordeal, confining herself to the observation that her relatively new home was ‘just a building’ and that what is important is life itself.  She was recently widowed.

Another heroine around the corner whom I met and whose name I have, mid-70s, with cancer and a husband with a serious heart condition, unable to leave the house, eking out a post-quake life on food brought in, concerned more for her husband than herself, asking only for water, milk and bread, and the continuing monitoring of their medical team, but prepared to continue living where they do; asking for nothing more, remaining proud.

Andrea of New Brighton, pleading over a three-day period for a port-a-loo to service two families with five kids, in a manner that was unfalteringly intense, urgent, persistent and courteous.

They Who Seek to Help

Bruce Tulloch, who works around the clock, combining compassion, energy, foresight and stamina to the myriad tasks of network building between east and west, food and water storage and delivery, food cooking (with Doreen), fund-raising, and sign-writing. 

Ashley Robinson, who does much the same (with Stella), with the added brilliance of tuning in to Concert Radio so we could hear Thomas Tallis as we drove through the dusted Hell that was Wednesday’s nor’wester.

Suzanne and Jane, who attend the MP hotline for trouble-shooting with unfailing efficiency, courtesy and good cheer.

The Heirloom Boys (Jim and Logan) who run My Garden Ltd, producing the greatest organic vegetables known to mankind, who donated much of it to our Green volunteer cause on Saturday.

Mark and Annabel Roulston, with their Loburn orchard which produces the tastiest and crispest organic apples in the world (hyperbole is in order for this blog) and who donated/discounted 140 kg just like that.

Jamie, Sam and Holly, of Christchurch Farmers Market, who have deserved an honour for some time for developing the glorious market at Riccarton Bush each Saturday, and who assisted with the Green fund-raiser Saturday morning that effortlessly raised $2,061.50 within a few hours.

All the Green volunteers who have devoted time and energy and camaraderie to our humanitarian ventures out east, and those non-members who were happy to pitch in with us – especially the mother-daughter combinations: Judy and Rosie; Jackie and Olivia. 

Sam Johnson, Richard Evans and their student colleagues for their remarkable feats of organization and group energy in spade work and leaflet-dropping, showing the special spirit that only youth can display in times of crisis.  Thank God for youth. 

None of these people – and there are others I could name — asked for, or expected, anything.  Nor possibly will they receive any official acknowledgement.  But they represent the best of the human spirit, and to them, I simply say – you are the heroes and heroines in my life, in this place, at this time.

At shovel distance, it starts to attain a character you can come to terms with. If that is a metaphor for this stricken city, then not all is lost.

This morning I volunteer to do some shovelling down at Beckenham Primary School, south of the city centre just below the Port Hills. I arrive at 9.00am with shovel and spade, and a touch of apprehension. I am told to ask for the school caretaker. A man is wandering around protectively. I ask if he is the caretaker. No, he is a board member: “Do I look like the caretaker?” I say he does. He takes it as a compliment. We are off and running. So are the kids. There must be 100 of us, young and old, shovelling. And we are having a good time. Because we are doing something. We are grouping, uniting, summoning our resolve. We comment on that. It is a catharsis. We shall not be daunted. Especially Rachel, another board member whom we instinctively look to. We all have to look to someone. Funny thing, leadership – uniquely individual. But it’s there in spades all around me (puns are being granted special licence today).

Liquefaction comes in three grades. When it spreads across the asphalt, it is almost normal black sand, West Coast style. Not unpleasant – easy to dig up. Grade A.

Grade B is wetter, and heavier, closer to clay. You only fill half a wheelbarrow and leave it to the younger ones to cart away. Onto the streets, that is, for collection next week. We dig channels between the mounds and the kerb, so water can run by when it rains. Eastern Terrace, down by the Heathcote River, is closed. Lateral spreading – you will know by now what that means. Too much water lying around won’t help.

Grade C is the least charming. It is sludge, and hard to get up. We are ankle deep in it by the tree outside the junior school, and suddenly a distinct odour arises. We clear the kids away. The imperative is to avoid dysentery among the young.

We work hard – men, women and children – between aftershocks. Not much is spoken. No elaborate introductions – I am Ken from Ilam, from the western suburbs, the best introduction a stranger can have.

The Herald on Sunday people appear. They photograph the kids and they interview Rachel. Then they leave as fast as they arrive – no time to extend a helping arm. A helicopter hovers above – no time to look up, and no point, really. It will be the Minister.

Tomorrow I have arranged for a Green group to be attached to Sam Johnson’s Student Army. It is not just young shovellers that are valued in this brave new world – it is the elders who can door-knock and listen to, and counsel, the traumatised. We have more than a few of this ilk, and so our Green numbers will be significant. The students are pleased; they have taken the initiative. So are the elders; they are responding to the call of youth. I now know we shall get to the anointed place. It will take time, and it is purgatorial, but it is no longer Hell while we are shovelling, at least where there is no death. We shall get there.

We exchange stories before we get down to business. One of us was close to the crushed buses. She went to mount a step but the step kept moving away. In the end she gave up and went back into the street, knowing it was the earthquake-to-end-all.

We agree to set up a tiered communications structure to contact all Canterbury Green members and see how they all are. We fly into action Friday morning. By late afternoon all Ilam members have been contacted, and it produces the first fruit. One member is living inside the cordon with no water, power or sanitation. She needs to live elsewhere. As she cheerfully put it, “it is easier this time, because at least I know my house will be condemned.” Another member is leaving the city and offers her home. I pick our inner city colleague up at the cordon and take her to the Papanui house. They bond and occupancy is exchanged.

I share the concern of another member over the confused messages being circulated to the public about sanitation. Wednesday we are all advised to bury our human waste in the garden. No problem – it’s like camping, at least for a while. But Thursday the message is, if you have water pressure, you may flush your toilets – “use sparingly”. That appears to be an anatomical anomaly but who’s worrying? Well I am. It’s one thing to flush in the western suburbs and confirm that everything is working wonderfully in your section and your street. It’s another to wonder where the glorious product heads. Answer: it heads east. I enquire with Civil Defence. Yes, they reply, most of it will end up in the Avon “but we have to put up with that for a while”. I beg to differ. Surely we can make a distinction between the elderly and infirm, and the able-bodied who can continue with their garden escapades. Maybe, they say, we’ll give that thought. But I then wonder whether there is a sanitation threshold for gardens, if you get my delicate drift. He is not sure. I am not reassured. A strange mixture down here between high professionalism and casual risk-taking.

Minister Brownlee has just assured us on air that liquefaction is not a bad thing. I suppose I know where he is coming from, but I wonder whether our eastern suburb residents agree with him.

I am contacted by a young Green leader who has a small army of 40 volunteers ready to go but not the authorisation to be in the field. I call Sam Johnson, the student leader with an army of maybe 1,000, who has authorised capacity to be in the field. I link them up and Sam has 40 more – 41 if I am allowed to risk my back. I aim to do so.

Bruce Tulloch and I drive through the eastern suburbs and witness the liquefaction. We drive up the Port Hills and witness the damaged houses. We enter one – owned by Bruce’s nephew. Every brick has sheered off the exterior walls. Its front is cracked open from the rest of the house. EQC advice is not to stand in front of it. They show the resilience that you can only admire. We visit the deputy chief of the fire dept. Showing inexhaustible energy through the exhaustion, he tells us of experiences I cannot retell. But the searing story on radio of the two men repairing the organ at Durham St Methodist Church is too much. That was the church I spoke of yesterday – two doors from my office. When I peered into my office window yesterday, I now assume they were lying there still.
It is time for tears, but they do not come.

Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil.

The background to this is the following. Her predecessor, Kevin Rudd, was visiting last year and had specifically requested to address the NZ Parliament, in session. I was involved in this discussion in my role as the Green Party musterer, our representative on the House Business Committee. 

After considerable discussion the Green Party opposed this proposal. We did so for the following reasons:

The NZ House of Representatives, sitting in session with the mace, is the symbol of national sovereignty. No one apart from New Zealand MPs has ever been allowed to address a sitting session of Parliament, not even our own Governor-General. The reason for this is that sitting sessions of Parliaments are for New Zealand law makers to exercise their democratic powers.

The idea that we would only invite our ‘closest friends’ to address Parliament in session is problematic.  Who might they be, and where might the line be drawn?  Australia might be seen as no. 1.  Perhaps the US would be no. 2, and the UK no. 3.  Which other countries might fit in the top ten?  What would be the criteria?  Where could the line be drawn? Such decisions are intrinsically political, and therefore subjectively influenced by the colours of a particular Government of the day – whereas the issue must be seen as having constitutional implications independent of politics.

The Green Party position, however, pertained only to having a foreign leader address the Parliament in session.  We made it clear at the time that we welcomed the proposed visit as we had with previous visits.

The US Congress formally moves out of session when they receive addresses from overseas dignitaries; our position is consistent with this.
 
The PM, who is effectively acting as host of a state occasion, has decided that Ms Gillard may address MPs (not the Parliament) in the debating chamber, out of session (with no Mace present, and with Dr Lockwood Smith acting as chairman of the meeting and not as Speaker).  While the Legislative Council Chamber would probably have been a better choice of venue, the choice is for the PM to make, and we respect that decision.

We are looking forward to listening to the Australian PM’s address to us.

We think it is healthy to have a debate about this issue but believe such a change should not be made at the whim of a sitting government.

I asked Kennedy to describe that time of his life and give us an insider’s view of what happens diplomatically when a small country on the edge of the world declares it’s independence from the world’s largest superpowers.

You can listen to the podcast here [MP3].

For those who couldn’t make it, here is Suzuki’s speech.

There will also be an MP3 of his speech available here in the near future.

Also note that the quality might not be so great on parts three and four because they were only just uploaded.

An Urgent Debate requested by Labour was granted on the resignation of Judge Bill Wilson which took effect last Friday. 

Labour had always concentrated its fire on the alleged shortcomings of Attorney-General Chris Finlayson, and Acting AG Judith Collins, over the affair.  The exception was Charles Chauvel who gave a thoughtful and reasoned speech that differed obliquely from his colleagues.

For my part, I have always been keen to get something positive out of this sad story.  The only thing that seems feasible is to seek to ensure it does not happen again – cannot happen again.

Hence my Bill, which I drafted earlier this year and put into the ballot in August.  At present it is being carried by Dave Clendon, since my 2nd bill, on sustainability indicators for the budget, is already in the ballot.

In my speech yesterday, I stressed the need for the Legislature to scrupulously respect the principle of judicial independence while nonetheless asserting its right to debate, and legislate on, broad issues pertaining to the judiciary.

The Attorney-General, with whom I had discussed the bill in some detail already, has indicated his readiness to consider moving on its contents, in one way or another. 

I am entirely open to how the thrust of the bill might proceed, and look forward to getting some positive realisation out of the Bill Wilson affair.

And I wish former Justice Wilson the best for the future.

Such a register would stop financial conflict of interests or perceived conflicts of interests from occurring in the future.

While the case against Justice Wilson has been dropped, the perception of a conflict has led to his resignation, with the Government accepting this as necessary to stop ongoing damage to the reputation of the New Zealand judiciary.

This whole messy situation could have been avoided had New Zealand had a register of the financial interests of members of the judiciary. Such as the one that is currently used for Members of Parliament.

I have drafted a member’s bill that is currently in the ballot to set up a register. Hopefully, the Government will pick it up and stop situations like Judge Wilson occurring again.

Open and honest government is the cornerstone of a fair and free democracy, and the Green Party is committed to promoting high standards of transparency.

Most of the time, the House reverberates with two forms of adversarial action:

• Question Time when the trick is (usually) to score a ministerial goal – and for the ministerial goalie to defend;
• Debates over legislation in which supporting parties rationalise a draft Bill in the knowledge they have the numbers, and opposition parties heap trenchant criticism or filibuster for tactical gain.

Quintessential in its Western brand, but less than totally edifying in the greater scheme of things.

This week’s treatment of the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill was an exception.

With this Bill the Government sought to introduce audio-visual links into courtroom activity.  The stated rationale was to make cost savings, improve efficiency, and ‘increase access to natural justice”.

 The Green Party, along with Labour, initially indicated support.  To its credit, the Maori Party opposed it from the beginning on the basis of their suspicions of the Government’s intent.   

In Committee, it emerged that the Bill contained a fundamental flaw.  It would also place in the hands of the judiciary the decision whether a defendant in a criminal trial might be beamed in by AVL, and not appear physically.

This would strike at the very heart of a time-honoured constitutional right – the right to be ‘present’ at one’s own trial.

In the 2^nd reading on Tuesday and the Committee stage on Wednesday, we mounted a vigorous and sustained assault on this provision, section 9(1) of the Bill.  I introduced an (SOP) amendment (and Labour introduced a separate one) that would have exempted AVL from applying to a defendant in a criminal trial.

During the debate there seemed to be a chance the Bill might be voted down but ACT, notwithstanding its own distaste for this provision, steeled itself to support the Government.

At the last moment, the Minister of Justice entered the chamber, following negotiations with me (on behalf of the Green Party) and colleagues from other parties.  He introduced an amendment to his own draft legislation, making an exception to 9(1) which would grant the right to a defendant in a criminal trial to be present.     

With that, I was able to withdraw my SOP, and vote for the bill in its amended form.

A true example of parliamentary debate honing the positions of multiple parties, coming from different philosophical persuasions and with competing policies, to a point of common understanding.

The outcome was a victory for reason and common sense .

Minister Simon Power was persuaded by the debate in the House to amend the legislation under discussion.

The right of the accused person to be present in Court during the whole of his trial (subject to practical constraints) was to be undermined by proposal in the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill.

When the dust settled MP after MP stood up to reflect on what happened.

Here’s our own Kennedy Graham:

It is great to see that the Government has listened to the Green, Labour and Maori parties and protected the right of defendants to be present at their own trial …I salute the Minister for his decision to accede to our entreaties.  The outcome is a victory for parliamentary democracy.

Labour’s Chris Hipkins said it was unusual for parties to all work together in this collaborative manner … the public like to see more of this …

National’s Chester Borrows said we worked together in a very collaborative way … there was a willingness to engage with … the enduring nature to it [the legislation] because it will work past those political divisions…

National’s Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi said a very good standard of democracy [was displayed]… good government always listens to logical reason.

Labour’s David Parker said it’s the sort of interchange that we should have in respect to pieces of legislation that the public wants us to do… We have actually built confidence in this institution this week.

It was the hope of supporters of MMP that Parliament would regain its function of deliberating on legislation drawing on broad community perspectives and engaging in constructive debate.

Wednesday was a further illustration of MMP delivering great democracy for New Zealanders.

In answer to a question in the House yesterday, the Foreign Minister (actually the Attorney-General in his absence, which guaranteed an articulate exchange) stated that New Zealand will not ratify, over the next seven years, the amendment to the Rome Statute incorporating aggression as a justiciable leadership crime.  

My question arose from the decision of all 111 states parties to the ICC, in Kampala last week, to make aggression a justiciable crime.  New Zealand is one of the parties and participated in the decision by consensus.

Under the agreement, the Court will not exercise jurisdiction over the crime until after 2017, and only when parties ‘re-adopt’ the decision by a two-thirds majority.  That is fine.  It is worth waiting, after 90 years.

BUT, there is nothing to stop states parties from ratifying the amendment to the Rome Statute anytime from now to 2017.  Why bother?  Because it sends a political signal from member states that they meant what they said in June 2010, and that the movement to having the Court exercise jurisdiction is continuing to gain strength.

The Government, says the AG, “wants to be sure that the Court, which is a very new institution, is ready to assume the additional burden of the jurisdiction”, before it supports the activation.  That reflects a timidity to quaint excess. 

The Court is not especially new.  Its founding statute is 12 years old.  It commenced operation 8 years ago.  It has a number of trials (on genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity) running and they are running well.  Its expert working group has done its work on aggression.  The states parties agreed on the proposals – the ‘additional burden’.  A burden, incidentally, which the victorious Allies had no compunction in carrying, over sixty years ago in Nuremburg and Tokyo.  There is no reason to withhold ratification.

Other than, in their view, the one that was unspoken.  That is, ratification would raise the question of domestic implementation of the crime – making it a crime in NZ law.  That would concentrate the minds of our own leaders – they could not commit aggression without being criminally liable.  And, as they claimed last year in voting down my International Non-Aggression & Lawful Use of Force Bill, it would surrender New Zealand’s foreign policy to the whims of a UN Security Council veto.  Defence Minister Wayne Mapp cited the Kosovo intervention as an example.

BUT, the Government is wrong on this point too.  As the UN Secretary-General made clear in 2004, the emerging ‘Responsibility to Protect’ doctrine remains subject to UN Security Council authorisation. That includes the possibility of a veto.

The Attorney-General acknowledged as much in his response to my second supplementary question.  It is clear that the Minister of Defence needs to benefit from some briefing from the Attorney-General on a few basic points of international law.  The reason the Government voted down my 2009 non-aggression bill rested on a lamentable shortcoming in knowledge and fundamental error of judgement.

Looks like they are doing it again.

New Zealand needs to worry less about American neuroses over aggression as a leadership crime and take a cue from European nations, African nations, Latin American nations.

Do not see it as a parapet risk, Prime Minister.  It’s not Gallipoli any more.  It’s The Hague.  And we are in a different world.

More than 3000 people gathered in Cathedral Square in Christchurch to protest the sacking of the Canterbury Regional Council and the threat to the region’s rivers.

The decision to replace the Council with commissioners was made in March, after the Government raised concerns about its management of fresh water.

But the Our Water, Our Vote coalition, which organised the protest, says that was an affront on democracy and will lead to abuse of the environment in order to make money.

I wish I could have been there to support them.  The movement is growing against Nick Smith’s and Rodney Hide’s appointment of an unelected junta to allocate water rights that will allow farmers to draw unsustainable amounts of water from, and seriously pollute, the streams and rivers in Canterbury.

The replacement of the democratically elected Regional Councilors in Canterbury, and denying Cantabrians the vote that everyone elsewhere in New Zealand has on their regional governance later this year, is a travesty to democracy.

It’s great to see the people of Canterbury fighting back, and to see Green MPs Russel Norman and Kennedy Graham supporting them, to return to democratic regional governance.

But I see Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn has beaten me to it, and I don’t think I could say it any better than he has:

In his general debate speech on Wednesday, Green MP Kennedy Graham launched a blistering attack on the government’s plans to overthrow Canterbury’s elected regional council and replace it with an appointed dictator:

…the Creech report is a shoddy piece of work and fails rudimentary tests of professional standards. First, the report lacks intellectual integrity. It criticises Environment Canterbury for being science-driven and not science-informed. The Creech report is politically-driven and not politically-informed. If it were politically informed, it would acknowledge that democracy is bigger than business; that the subsidiarity principle is bigger than government; and that one does not replace elected councillors with appointees of central government, just because they are making decisions one might not like. That is political arrogance of the highest order.

But its not just arrogant – its also a perfect example of the clash of worldviews in New Zealand, between those who want to grow endlessly, like a cancer, and those who want us to live within our environmental means. Canterbury is at the sharp end of that clash, its aquifers sucked dry and its rivers filled with shit, to meet the demand of farmers for more water to feed more cows making more milk producing more money for their corporate owners (the family farm have gone the way of the Moa long ago). This is opposed by people who see rivers not as “water pouring out to sea”, but as valuable in and of themselves, and who want to be able to drink what comes out of their tap without being poisoned by cowpiss. But when the people cry “no more” and elect councillors who work (albeit too slowly) to protect the environment, the advocates of growth try and remove their right to vote. Growth, it seems, comes before even democracy.

Fundamentally, the growth lobby is unsustainable. You can’t shit in your own nest forever. If we poison our rivers and drain our aquifers, there will be no economy. Canterbury’s farmers, pushing for unfettered water use, are like the people on Easter Island cutting down the last tree. But they’re not just destroying their own futures – they’re destroying ours as well.

Salient, the student magazine of Victoria University, has rated our own Dr Kennedy “The Academic Avenger” Graham as the sexiest New Zealand politician in parliament. The academic come silver fox was reportedly chuffed at his recognition amongst the yoof.

Simon Bridges, the dapper member for Tauranga and John Key’s “padawan”, came in second with a solid 8.5 rating.

Father, Activist, youngest, newest Green MP and hunky spunk, Gareth Hughes came in third. Tagged with the “Babe Alert” label, his youth and intelligence will guarantee he stays in “NZ’s hottest politician” lists for many years to come.

The Chief of Staff has already put in a requisition form with security for an extra guard to be posted in the foyer to fend off the hoardes of adoring fans that throw their select committee submissions at Dr Ken and G-Dizzel.

Watch this space to pre-order your “Guys of the Green Party 2011 — Election Special” calendar.

To see who else else got on Salient‘s hotties list click the image below.