Kiwiblog

There’s a call for all tractors to be fitted with seatbelts.

Why stop there? How about motorcycles also?

A reminder of what is in store if people do not vote to change the Government.

The Greens are often a contradictory party. They stand up for civil liberties on the one hand, but want to ban almost anything they disagree with or think is bad. They advocate in favour of scientists when it comes to climate change, but campaign against science when it comes to genetics.

In many ways they are the ultimate nanny state party. The list of things they want to ban puts Labour in the shade. In recent days I got wondering how many things do they want to ban? So I engaged my masochistic side and decided to find out by reading every Green policy they have released. Yes I have now read every single one. And below is the list of 85 things the Greens want to ban.

Now of course with any list that long, there might be one or two different people agree with. But what is scary is looking at the list as a whole, and seeing how banning is their first instinct.

Now this is only stuff they officially want to ban as detailed in a policy statement. I haven’t even attempted to go through the masses of press releases and speeches where MPs have advocated additional bans on anything that moves. So this is a conservative list.

1. Ban fizzy drinks from schools
2. Ban fuel inefficient vehicles
3. Ban all gaming machines in pubs
4. Ban the GCSB
5. Ban violent TV programmes until after 10 pm
6. Ban feeding of antibiotics to animals that are not sick
7. Ban companies that do not comply with a Code of Corporate Responsibility
8. Ban ACC from investing in enterprises that provide products or services that significantly increase rates of injury or illness or otherwise have significant adverse social or environmental effects
9. Ban commercial Genetic Engineering trials
10. Ban field testing on production of GE food
11. Ban import of GE food
12. Ban Urban Sprawl
13. Ban non citizens/residents from owning land
14. Ban further corporate farming
15. Ban sale of high country farms to NZers who do not live in NZ at least 185 days a year
16. Ban the transport by sea of farm animals, for more than 24 hours
17. Ban crates for sows
18. Ban battery cages for hens
19. Ban factory farming of animals
20. Ban the use of mechanically recovered meat in the food chain
21. Ban the use of the ground-up remains of sheep and cows as stock feed
22. Ban animal testing where animals suffer, even if of benefit to humans
23. Ban cloning of animals
24. Ban use of animals in GE
25. Ban GE animal food
26. Ban docking of dogs tails
27. Ban intrusive animal experimentation as a teaching method in all educational institutions
28. Ban smacking
29. Ban advertising during children’s programmes
30. Ban alcohol advertising on TV and radio
31. Ban coal mining
32. Ban the export of indigenous logs and chips
33. Ban the use of bio-accumulative and persistent poisons
34. Ban the establishment of mustelid farms
35. Ban new exploration, prospecting and mining on conservation land and reserves
36. Ban mining activities when rare and endemic species are found to present on the mining site
37. Ban the trading conservation land for other land to facilitate extractive activities on.
38. Ban the further holding of marine mammals in captivity except as part of an approved threatened species recovery strategy
39. Ban the direct to consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals
40. Ban sale of chips and lollies on school property
41. Ban any additional use of coal for energy
42. Ban fixed electricity charges
43. Ban further large hydro plants
44. Ban nuclear power
45. Ban further thermal generation
46. Ban private water management
47. Ban imported vehicles over seven years old
48. Ban the disposal of recyclable materials at landfills
49. Ban the export of hazardous waste to non OECD countries
50. Ban funding of health services by companies that sell unhealthy food (so McDonalds could not fund services for young cancer sufferers)
51. Ban healthcare organizations from selling unhealthy food or drink
52. Ban advertising of unhealthy food until after 8.30 pm
53. Ban all food and drink advertisements on TV if they do not meet criteria for nutritious food
54. Ban the use of antibiotics as sprays on crops
55. Ban food irradiation within NZ
56. Ban irradiated food imports
57. Ban growth hormones for animals
58. Ban crown agency investments in any entity that denies climate change!!
59. Ban crown agency investments in any entity that is involved in tobacco
60. Ban crown agency investments in any entity that is involved in environmentally damaging oil extraction or gold mining
61. Ban non UN sanctioned military involvement (so China and Russia gets to veto all NZ engagements)
62. Ban NZ from military treaties which are based on the right to self defence
63. Ban NZers from serving as mercenaries
64. Ban new casinos
65. Allow existing casinos to be banned
66. Ban promotion of Internet gambling
67. Ban advertising of unhealthy food to children
68. Ban cellphone towers within 300 metres of homes
69. Ban new buildings that do not confirm to sustainable building principles
70. Ban migrants who do not undertake Treaty of Waitangi education programmes
71. Ban new prisons
72. Ban semi-automatic weapons
73. Ban genetic mixing between specieis
74. Ban ocean mineral extractions within the EEZ
75. Ban limited liability companies by making owners responsible for liability of products
76. Ban funding of PTEs that compete with public tertiary institutes
77. Ban the importation of goods and services that do not meet quality and environmental certification standards in production, lifecycle analysis, and eco-labelling
78. Ban goods that do not meet quality and sustainability standards for goods which are produced and/or sold in Aotearoa/New Zealand
79. Ban new urban highways or motorways
80. Ban private toll roads
81. Ban import of vehicles more than seven years old unless they meet emission standards
82. Ban imported goods that do not meet standards for durability and ease of recycling
83. Ban landfills
84. Ban new houses without water saving measures
85. Ban programmes on TVNZ with gratuitous violence

If you discover further things they want to ban, add them on below!

The Greens, proud champions of regulations for showers, have their brightest and boldest policy – a zero population policy.

In fact it is even worse than that – they want negative population growth so NZ can have room for Pacific Island climate change refugees.

Rodney Hide has the best comment:

Act leader Rodney Hide said it was a first step toward zero-population growth. He suggested that perhaps if parents planted a field of trees, they might be able to have twins.

Yes, you will have to build up enough carbon credits in order to get permission to have a child.

And Tariana:

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia said it was a case of “middle-class” Greens trying to tell others how big their families should be.

“Tell them to go to China where there is a One Child policy. But don’t start trying to control fertility and social engineering like that here.”

The defence:

Greens population spokeswoman Metiria Turei yesterday denied it was an attempt to discourage people from having large families. She said awareness of the impact their families had on resources and the environment would allow parents to make an “informed decision” about their family size.

For fuck’s sake. Having kids is the biggest decisions parents make anyway. Having Metira tell families they need to make an “informed” decision is as offensive as laughable. What she means is she wants people to feel guilty if they have kids as kids use up scarce resources.

There is a problem with over population globally, but for most of Europe the problem is under population – not enough children are being born to replace those dying.

The replacement fertility rate is 2.1 children per woman. Current fertility rates according to the UN are:

• Greece 1.33
• Russia 1.34
• Germany 1.36
• Italy 1.38
• Canada 1.53
• Australia 1.79
• UK 1.82
• France 1.89
• NZ 1.99
• US 2.05

So NZ already has a declining population growth from fertility, being under the replacement rate of 2.10. And we are at the top end of European countries. So where is the global population growth happening:

• Niger 7.19
• Palestine 5.09
• Tonga 3.83
• Pakistan 3.52
• Saudia Arabia 3.35
• India 2.81
• Libya 2.72

So let’s make sure we have this right. NZ already has a shrinking population from fertility. But in order to allow India, Libya, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan and the Niger to carry on with their over-populating, NZ families should have less children.

The Greens policy even includes:

Facilitate the development of regional population plans, in partnership with local tangata whenua.

So what the fuck will a regional population plan be?

They also advocate:

Support initiatives to raise awareness amongst parents and potential parents regarding the issue of sustainable global population levels.

What this means is taxpayer funded bureaucrats working on pamphlets and seminars to frighten parents off having more kids. Can you imagine every school in NZ having some dour faced do gooder preaching to all the kids they they should not have children, in order to save the planet.

How about a nice pamphlet “About your foetus and save the planet today” – have that in every doctor’s surgery.

The Greens are saying of course it will be up to each family to decide for themselves how many children they have – but nevertheless they want to run education programmes and awareness initiatives to help those parents make the right decisions.

Labour have done a temporary retreat on their weak showers policy of a maximum rate flow of six litres a minute. But they still have an even worse policy lurking – to limit the size of hot water cylinders in small homes to 180 litres. So your shower won’t be weak, but it may turn cold! This is to come into force in February 2009.

How is this for a policy – you can have as big or as fast a shower as you fucking want to – so long as you pay for the water and power. If you want to put in a 400 litre hot water cylinder and have a 15 litre per minute shower you should be able to. The Government should get the hell out of the way.

What next you need to get permission to have a spa pool?

A maximum depth for baths?

Is there no end to nanny state?

Labour have backed down on the Labour/Green plan to restrict showers in new homes to six litres a minute.

But remember before the last election Helen Clark said she would not ban smacking – and she effectively did. This is a tactical retreat, not a strategic withdrawal. If they are re-elected, they will try again!

The Greens still want it though, describing it as a missed opportunity:

Green Party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons said that if the option of six-litre showers was removed altogether, people building new homes would have fewer opportunities for meeting energy efficiency standards.

Is that like those opportunities those nice Nigerian widows keep e-mailing me about?

The ODT reports on how the Government is banning incandescent light bulbs:

Once new standards were introduced, no new stocks of the incandescent bulbs could be imported for sale.

I can not see the rationale for a ban, just because they are energy inefficient. On that basis we should ban certain cars, fridges, TVs, computers and heaters. I should stop there before I give the Greens too many wet dreams ideas.

I only buy energy efficient light bulbs now. I do so because I have calculated that the higher purchase cost will save money in the long term as they last longer, and also use less energy. More and more people are doing so.

But if someone wants to use an incandescent bulb, why should it be illegal to do so?

Someone will claim we need to do so because of carbon emissions. But this is why I support a cap and trade ETS. Because by doing so the price of electricity will reflect those carbon emissions, and send a market signal out to buy more efficient light bulbs.

I see no reason for a ban. Only things which are clearly hazardous should  be banned. Why should the state decide on behalf of every household what type of light bulb they can buy?

Sure some will argue that people will make bad choices and ignore the savings from more efficient light bulbs. Well yes they will, but you know people make bad choices all the time.

Now they will claim the environmental impact of inefficient light bulbs costs everyone money, so we should be allowed to ban them. But again an ETS will cover those costs so that argument falls away.

If we allow the state to choose for us what sort of light bulb we can use, then where do we stop?

The ultimate Nanny State bill continues with select committee hearings:

Yesterday, Fight The Obesity Trust spokeswoman Dr Robyn Toomath told the parliamentary committee considering the bill that was exactly what people wanted.

“People are desperate for Nanny State’s help. Parents are desperate for help to get children to eat healthily,” she said.

It is not help but coercion they will be getting.

The food industry soon struck back, as the Confectionery Manufacturers Association painted a picture of the Director-General of Health being granted the power to ban Pineapple Lumps, Perky Nana bars and Easter eggs.

This is not an exaggeration. The Public Health Bill gives immense powers to the Director-General of Health – more powers than Cabinet currently has.

I can’t be bothered doing the normal debate on the stupidity of laws which prevent willing employees from earning extra money on Good Friday or Easter Sunday. Those who believe it is their job to “force” people not to work will never be persaded I accept. They probably opposed Saturday shopping also.

But what I do want to touch on is this reported statement by Green MP Sue Bradford:

Meanwhile, Green Party industrial relations spokeswoman Sue Bradford said last week the party would like to see the Department of Labour given the power to close businesses for the day if they broke the law, rather than the current $1000 fine.

She wants the state to have the power to close businesses for the day, rather than just fine them.  Okay – how would this work when the Greens obtain power.

Will staff be arrested by Police if they refuse to stop serving customers? Will customers be tear gassed if they don’t stop buying goods at a store Sue has ordered closed? Or will Department of Labour inspectors just put up barbed wire fences around offending businesses?

The HoS has come out in support of the Public Health Bill, and says people should not refer to it as nanny state.

I disagree.

Health authorities already have widespread powers – including the power to detain people and require them to take medication – to contain the spread of communicable disease. The cheap argument against extending it to non-communicable disease is that it is not the business of the state to protect people from themselves.

I despair at such an attitude. An inability to see a significance difference between a communicable disease and something which isn’t even a disease at all. Communicable disease management requires regulation and management because it can travel from person to person. That is massively different to issues such as obesity which is caused as much by lack of exercise as by food.

The Government says relax, no codes will be binding – well until three years are up. After that you may have a legion of inspectors going from dairy to dairy. Oh sorry Madam,  you are within 500 metres of a school so you can’t sell that. Sorry Sir, but you need to hide those items and put your healthier items up the front.

You think it won’t happen? Look at the explosion in health bureaucrats in the last few years?

Rather than try to regulate unhealthy foods out of existence, why not have an extra hours PE every day at school, or have DHBs provide free or subsidised gym memberships.  Because if they really think making shop keepers move certain foods to the back of the store will have any effect, they are dreaming.

Bill Ralston writes on the same issue:

The Public Health Bill is the latest example. … considering giving the Government power to control where and how supermarkets display unhealthy food.

It is a small clause in the bill and the Greens’ healthy food campaigner Sue Kedgley is adamant it would be unlikely to be used. Much.

In my experience, however, if you give Governments an inch they tend to take a mile.

Absolutely, and all our experience of Government backs this up.

People know the ugly truth of what unhealthy foods can do but some choose to gobble that Moro bar anyway. They have made a reasonably informed choice. It may not be the right choice or one that Matron Kedgley would advocate, but it is their choice.

The Government can try to control the sale of foods it dislikes but people will go on eating it. All this bill will do is create still more bureaucrats to administer it.

Yep, watch for a massive increase in public health officials.

It will be illegal to sell party pills from April, and illegal to possess any from October, under the law passed last night.

I predict some great parties on the 30th of September!

Well done to the Greens, ACT and the Maori Party for rejecting this silly ban. It will be just as successful as prohibition was in the US in the 1930s and will criminalise thousands of young party goers. If the party pill supply dries up, then they’ll just use other, much worse, drugs.
Top quotes:

Maori MP Hone Harawira said Mr Anderton was a killjoy and he thought it ridiculous to ban the pills when tobacco and alcohol remained legal.

Ms Turei described Mr Anderton as a “Muldoon Mini Me” for deciding to change the law but not allowing time to adjust. She said it was “utterly irrational” to think outlawing the pills would eliminate their use.

Next I await Parliament banning easter eggs due to their moderate risk of harm.