In an act of pure ego, Hone Harawira is forcing taxpayers to pay for a by-election that will probably be held in July – less than three months before the House dissolves for the election.

The NZ Herald reports:

“I want to recall the $36 million being wasted on a bloody yacht race in San Francisco and spend it instead on heating in the poorer suburbs of Christchurch,” Harawira said.

I agree on not funding the America’s Cup bid but sadly the last Labour Government signed a contract forcusing us to do so. However we do have a choice over whether to have an un-necessary by-election, and the $500,000 wasted could also be used heating homes in Christchurch or even in Northland.

Parliament can only resolve not to have a by-election if the resignation occurs within six months of Parliament automatiically dissolving (22 May) or the announced election date (26 May).

If Helen Clark was still in power, I seuspect she’d be tempted to retrospectively amend the Electoral Act so that the six month period is extended to seven months. Then Hone would be out of Parliament and unable to use taxpayer funding to set up his new party.

The $500,000 costs may be on the light side. As this is a Maori seat, they will need many more polling places than in a general seat by-election.

What really peeves me about this also, is that the new Mana Party is obviously totally backed by the UNITE union – the very same union that doesn’t even pay its taxes – in fact has collected PAYE tax off its staff and failed to pay it to the Government as legally obliged. So they are campaigning on how people should pay more tax, and they don’t even pay tax themselves.

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia – currently in Russia for a conference – said she did not know if the party was standing a candidate in the byelection.

But she did much the same as Harawira before the 2005 election: quitting Labour and resigning her Te Tai Hauauru electorate to renew her mandate in a byelection.

Not quite the same at all. Turia resigned in May 2004 – well over a year before the September 2005 election.

It’s late due to hangover impairment.

Some big decisions for Don Brash and ACT this week. They include:

1. Who will be Deputy Leader – Boscawen or Roy
2. Who will be Parliamentary Leader – Boscawen, Roy or Hide?
3. Will ACT seek to retain two Ministerial roles?
4. If yes, which two MPs will be Ministers?
5. And what portfolios will they seek and get?
6. Who amongst the ACT parliamentary staff will keep their jobs, and who might return there?
7. Will Don move to install a new President and/or Board over time (he has said the President is an issue for another day)

Interesting times ahead.

Had a very fun night in Palmerston North last night (a sentence which some might say was unlikely to ever be uttered by me) watching the Royal Wedding. Yes I’m a Republican, but I can still enjoy a good wedding. The dress code was tiaras for women and black tie for men.

It was a hilariously mixed group of people. Three out of the five Kiwiblog editorial team were in attendance, plus I’d guess half the Don Brash coup committee. A wedding can be a good uniter 🙂

We also had members of the Monarchist League and Republicans, so it was a very good fun night. Debating the constitutional reform at 1 am is so much more tolerable after many bottles of champagne.

Mike Treen of the UNITE union has outlined some policies for the Mana Party. They include:

• Abolish GST and replace with the Social Credit Financial Transactions Tax
• Nationalise all monopolies and duopolies
• Effectively bring back compulsory union membership

I’m not sure if they also plan to declare war on South Korea.

The NZ Herald reports:

Independent MP Hone Harawira spent $43,000 on travel in three months – nearly as much as the entire Maori Party’s bill of $44,410.

I guess he’s had lots of huis to attend.

Claire Trevett and Audrey Young report:

Don Brash wants to be finance minister, and claims the Act Party could gain 15 per cent of the vote in this year’s election under his leadership.

“I’d love to be finance minister,” he said last night.

“When I went into Parliament in 2002, that is what I was hoping to be. I wasn’t planning to be National leader. I was planning to be finance minister in a Bill English-led National government.”

Finance Minister is unlike any other portfolio, as it is so central to the Government, and affects every other portfolio. I would think a party would have to poll at least 15% to be able to make a serious bid for that role.

If ACT make it back into Parliament, the role I’d love to see Don Brash take is education, and have him introduce performance pay for teachers, bulk funding for all schools, abolish school zoning and introduce full parental choice of schools. I think such reforms are vital to improving our country’s future prospects.

He indicated he would ask Mr Key to give Mr Hide’s portfolios to another MP, citing as a precedent Mr Hide’s decision to strip Heather Roy of her portfolios because of her coup attempt.

I can’t imagine he is going to ask Hilary Calvert to become a Minister, so this looks like he is seeking Heather Roy to be reinstated as a Minister.

Last night, Mr Key distanced himself from the “extreme” views of Act and said Dr Brash had “virtually no chance” of becoming finance minister or deputy prime minister after the next election.

The Prime Minister said Act was “not likely to be a party of such size that would be commensurate with those portfolios”.

He said Act had always had extreme policies compared with National’s moderate approach and “my view is that nothing has changed here”.

I doubt anyone can point to an economic issue on which Rodney and Don disagree. So the PM is right that ACT’s policies and views are not changing. What has changed is that ACT may now be able to attract greater support.

Don has said he thinks he can attract 15%. John Ansell has gone even further and claims ACT can get 40% and Don will become PM. Either way, this suggests that ACT will not be expecting National to “take it easy” in Epsom. If they poll over 5% they don’t need Epsom (even though it is always useful to have it as backstop). So my guess is that National will campaign actively for both votes in Epsom.

So the first target for ACT led by Don is to make 5% – otherwise they may not be there at all.  But if they get just 5% or 6 MPs, then they will represent 10% of the Government, so their influence would be roughly 10%.

If however Don can lift ACT to 10% then they have 12 MPs, and would roughly be 20% of the Government. So they would have significantly more influence.

Again, the next couple of sets of public polls will be interesting.

Stuff reports:

Responding to critics’ relentless claims, US President Barack Obama has produced a detailed Hawaii birth certificate in an extraordinary attempt to bury the issue of where he was born and confirm his legitimacy to hold office. He declared, “We do not have time for this kind of silliness.”

By going on national TV from the White House on Wednesday (local time), Obama portrayed himself as a voice of reason amid a loud, lingering debate on his birth status. Though his personal attention to the issue elevated it as never before, Obama said to Republican detractors and the media, it is time to move on to bigger issues.

Maybe now people will STFU on this issue. It has been the right wing equivalent of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists on the left.

I suspect Obama finally released his long form record as Donald Trump has started championing the birthers claims.

Rodney Hide resigned as Leader of ACT at midday. Don Brash will be elected Leader at the next Caucus meeting.

I’d like to pay tribute to Rodney at this point in time. It is primarily due to Rodney that ACT survived in 2005 and 2008. Over his 15 years in Parliament Rodney has had a greater and more benficial impact on Parliament than most MPs.

I’m glad he is so happily married to Louise, and has become a Dad again. That will remind him of what is truly important in life – far more so than politics.

It looks like Rodney will remain an ACT MP and Minister until the election.

The immediate issues for ACT are:

1. Does John Boscawen remain Deputy Leader, or does that revert back to Heather Roy.
2. Does John Banks stand in Epsom for ACT.
3. List Ranking

While I have said previously that I’m not sure how good a fit John Banks is to ACT, there is considerable logic to having a candidate in the seat who will clearly win it for ACT. If they look guaranteed to win the seat, then they can campaign that voting for ACT is not a wasted vote, and that the more people who vote for them the more influence they will have on policy.

It is possible a Brash led ACT will also make it harder for Winston Peters to get traction (which is of course a good thing). Winston planned to campaign hard on the foreshore & seabed issue, but a Brash led ACT may be more effective in appealing to the coastal coaltion supporters.

Where NZ First, and Labour and Greens, will attack is on economic policy – especially wages, asset sales and superannuation. Goff is already suggesting that it was a cunning National plot to have Don roll Rodney (which is hysterically untrue).

The reality is that Don and Rodney are near identical minds on economic policy. What will determine their influence on Government is not so much who the leader is, but how many seats they win. At 10 seats you roughly expect twice the influence of 5 seats.

So as I said earlier, the next few polls will be interesting.

UPDATE: An excellent blog post from Cactus Kate on ACT.

Stuff reports:

Don Brash believes he has the numbers to roll Rodney Hide and become the new ACT leader as soon as today after furiously lobbying MPs.

The fates of Brash and Hide rest with the party’s newest MP, Hilary Calvert, who pledged her support for Hide at the weekend – but spent yesterday afternoon in a meeting at Brash’s Auckland apartment with Hide opponent Sir Roger Douglas.

Calvert did not return calls and refused to comment as she left. But after the meeting, Brash said he was “cautiously optimistic” of securing the ACT leadership, suggesting he believes he has her support.

He told National Radio that if she switched votes it would be “logical” for Hide to resign as early as today.

Brash also made it clear he saw no place for Hide in any party he led, suggesting it would be his advice to Hide “to go, quite frankly”

Most of the speculation has been on whether Boscawen would back Brash, not Calvert.The Herald reports:

On Sunday, she said that she backed Mr Hide and would vote for him over Dr Brash, and on Tuesday she repeated that position.

But yesterday, when the Herald asked if her position was still the same after her meeting with Dr Brash, she said: “I’m not prepared to make any comment.”

There’s been a fair amount of disinformation flying around, so we’ll see how things play out today.

However if the media are correct, then Don has won and will become Leader. I still stand by my comments about the nature of the coup. It is about winning the war, not the battle. And my concern is that Don has damaged his brand which was almost being above politics.

If Don does become leader, all eyes will be on teh next set of public polls. I have no doubt ACT will go up in the polls. The two key questions are how much, and from whom will they pull their extra support. I’d also caution not to take the first set of polls as gospel – there is a honeymoon effect. The second set of polls are likely to be more indicative.

Anyway let’s wait to see if the media have it right, and if Don has won. If he has, I’ll blog some ideas for key policies he can campaign on – apart from closing the gap with Australia.

Have just downloaded the Sky TV app for the iPad and can see me using it a lot.

The basic app is that it allows you to see the programme guide for the next week, in an easy to follow format. But the real killer part is that once you enter in your account details you can set your My Sky box to record programmes from your iPad.

So you no longer need to be at home to record things. You might be at a friend’s place and see a programme that you want to record. Hit your iPad and it will be recording within seconds back home.

If you forgot to set it in the mornng to record something, you can do it at any stage during the day.

I wil be using this app a lot.

The Dom Post editorial:

National MP Tau Henare’s plan for a private member’s bill allowing shops to open on Good Friday and Easter Sunday will be the ninth attempt in 15 years to bring some sense to trading laws long past their sell-by date.

This time, Parliament should seize the opportunity to repeal rules which are archaic and riddled with anomalies to the point of being ridiculous.

However, there is little to indicate the Government will have the courage to lead the way.

If history is anything to go by, Mr Henare’s bill will be considered as a conscience vote and fail at its first hurdle, defeated by the usual – and unusual – alliance of Labour, National and Green MPs. Those who vote against it will do so on the grounds of guarding workers’ rights or protecting the sanctity of the most important festival in the Christian calendar – or, in some cases, both.

The unholy alliance of unions and churches.

The list of anomalies is as laughable as it is long. A person can buy or sell a house on Good Friday or Easter Sunday, when real estate agents are allowed to open, but they cannot buy a bottle of bubbly to celebrate – unless they get it from the vineyard on which it was made.

A garden centre can open on Easter Sunday, but not Good Friday – a rule ignored by many as the huge demand easily brings in more than the $1000 fine. Bookstores at airports, train stations and other transport hubs can open, but those in shopping centres must stay closed. Perhaps most glaringly of all, brothels can open on Good Friday and Easter Sunday to sell sex, but those with bars are breaking the law if they sell alcohol.

It is hilarious that brothels can open, but not bars. I wonder if the brothels can sell alcohol?

The usual suspects defend their decisions to ban employees from earning overtime on those days, on the proposition that employers are so evil and callousthey they will break the law and force employees to work against their wills.

On Twitter the other day I asked a Labour activist if he could name a single employer that has done this. I said I’ve worked for around 20 employers and none forced me to work against my will. He also was unable to name a single employer – saying none of his former employers had. But he insisted that it was widespread all the same. Never mind the lack of emperical evidence.

But this got me thinking. Wouldn’t it be useful if the Government or Dept of Labour did a random scientific survey of employees in retailers, to ascertain how many currently have employers who force them to work on days they don’t want to, and also perhaps to look at annual leave taking – do they get to choose when to take annual leave, or does their employer over-ride their wishes.

It would be a great boon to informed debate to have some good data about how employees and employers currently interact.

I have been somewhat surprised at how amateurish the attempted ACT coup has been. In fact, I’d go further and say it somewhat resembles a cluster fuck. I’ll explain where I think mistakes were made, and what I would have done differently.

But first I should make clear that I am in fact highly supportive of the aims or “ends” of Don Brash. I just don’t think the means have been well chosen.

• I most definitely want a coalition partner for National that is economically more reformist than National, and can attract enough support to survive the tidal ebbs and flows of politics.
• I have been worried for some time that National’s long-term prospects (post Key) could be somewhat bleak as if ACT (and United once Dunne retires) disappears there are no partners for National. Over time I expect the Maori Party will go with Labour more often than it does with National.
• I would like National to be more economically reformist. I doubt I disagree with Don Brash on many significant economic issues. However I do believe you have to take the electorate with you – otherwise you get thrown out and all your reforms get reversed. It is only by getting re-elected for multiple terms can your reforms become too entrenched to reverse

So in principle I’m supportive of what Don is trying to achieve – a more popular and hopefully permanent coalition partner for National, that will lead to more economic reform (which will help close the gap with Australia).

But I think the campaign to try and bludgeon ACT into handing over the leadership to Don has been clumsy, not thought through, and has in fact significantly damaged Don’s brand, and hence the brand of any new party he sets up. My criticisms are:

1. Demanding the sole leadership, not even co-leadership, while not even a member of the party. This makes it look like you see the party as purely a vehicle for your ambitions.
2. Openly threatening to destroy the party if they do not make you sole leader. This not only pisses off ACT party members, but also damages your standing with voters.
3. Negotiating through the media. Never a good strategy.
4. Not leaving room for a dignified compromise. By publicly demanding that the leadership be handed over to you, or you will destroy the party you place the board and caucus in a position where if they then agree they get left with no dignity. In politics you should always be thinking about how to make something look like a win-win (even if it isn’t).
5. Only commissioned polling data after you launch your public bid for the job. This should have been commissioned weeks ago.

So what would I have done if I was advising Don

1. Negotiate privately with ACT to see if there is a suitable role.
2. If no agreement can be reached, then start the work on forming your own party. Do not publicly demand ACT hand over the leadership or you will destroy them.
3. Announce you are creating a new party.
4. When media asked why not join ACT, then reveal you tried to, but no agreement could be reached. Then explain that you are doing a new party because you think at best ACT will only be able to win up to five seats again and that you want to win at least 10 seats, so you’ll have more influence on economic policy.
5. If they ask about the ACT leadership, reply that there is no vacancy there. If they ask whether you considered challenging Rodney, reply that you and Rodney have been friends for over 15 years, and you would never challenge him. Also make clear that you will not stand in Epsom.
6. Announce you will be standing in Tamaki but your aim is to win 5%. However if Tamaki voters want him as their local MP he would be happy to do so.
7. Differentiate the new party from ACT by saying the party will be primarily focused on just two areas – economic reform and choice in education. Say that you hope ACT and your party will both be in Parliament to help drive better policies, but that you believe you can attract the most support based on the doubling of National’s vote in 2005.

By demanding ACT hand the leadership over to him or be destroyed, Don has pissed off the very activists that his new party would want to attract. He’s made it a Rodney v Don issue, rather than an issue of how to get better economic reform.

Don’s tactics in 2011 are very similar to his 2003 coup. Coups are normally done behind closed doors and with no media statements. But the key difference is that in 2003 Don was already in caucus. It is different when you are not even a member of the party you seek to lead.

As I said at the beginning, I support what Don is trying to achieve. And I agree with most of what Don says economically. But I don’t think the way he has gone about it has put him in a good light, and hence actually lessens his chances of being able to achieve his goals.

Unless something dramatically changes, it looks like he will not be leading ACT, and he will presumably set up his new party. This is more complicated than one might think. You need a set of rules. You need an initial board. You need rules on who selects candidates, who elects the board, who elects the leader etc. You need principles and policies. You need offices and staff. You need members and activists – and you need money. The last should not be a problem from the sounds of it.

Mark Mitchell has won National’s nomination for Rodney on the first ballot – a resounding victory. Congratulations to him.

I’ve profiled Mark previously here.

Rodney is a very safe seat for National, so Mark is likely to have a relativly long parliamentary career.

The potential line up for the leaders’ debates amongst the minor parties verges on the hilarious. It may include:

• Russel Norman or Metiria Turei
• Rodney Hide
• Don Brash
• Winston Peters
• Hone Harawira
• Pita Sharples or Tariana Turia
• Peter Dunne

They should make it pay per view entertainment.

Key and Goff will stick with the Prime Ministerial debates unless they are bonkers.

Claire Rogers at Stuff has an article on 1 Night:

Start-up 1-Night has launched a service that takes the “paper pain” out of ticketing, letting people present their iPhone or a customer card to enter concerts and events.

Co-founder Josh Dry said people who purchased tickets through its website would have the information stored in their 1-Night account – which was synched with their customer card or could be accessed through their iPhone.

“There’s no waiting for a courier or printing on to paper. You can’t lose your ticket because it’s all stored on your account.

I had a catch up with 1 Night a few weeks ago where they briefed me on their business model, and I have to say I was really impressed. As someone who is always losing tickets, I love the idea of not just buying all my tickets online at the one site, but more importantly being able to use my mobile phone as an entry ticket. You never have to worry about lost tickets again, you can buy at the last minute and you get access to an event much quicker.

But their iPhone app goes beyond just ticketing. One can use it to scan in barcodes (using your camera) in ads in magazines (or even posters) and it will purchase the tickets for you (subject to confirmation).

A great example of Kiwi ingenuity. I hope they do well, and also welcome the competition they bring to Tictetek and Red Tickets. At the moment they are servicing just the music industry but I reckon there is great potential to expand to other areas.

Charles Finny, a former MFAT staffer, writes at Stuff on changes to MFAT:

I met a former MFAT colleague a few days after Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully had delivered his speech on planned changes to the way the Foreign Affairs and Trade Ministry does its business.

I was reminded that many of the proposed changes were actually suggested in the 1989-90 period and about how the MFAT system had been able to muster so much opposition to the proposals that few were implemented. It is therefore with little surprise that I read editorials and op-eds from former diplomats questioning some of what is being proposed.

MFAT has managed to fight off change for many decades.

MFAT has been extremely resistant to change. It has taken longer to embrace new technologies and management systems than pretty much every other organ of government. It is hierarchical and it has never quite come to grips with the tension that exists between specialists and generalists within the organisation. And until Mr Allen took over as CEO, it has never valued experience gained outside the ministry. Those seeking to come back to the ministry after years away were told that they would have to enter at the level they were at when they departed.

MFAT seems to have this strange rule that you can’t be a senior manager there, unless you are also a diplomat.

I agree fully with Mr McCully that competition should be introduced at head of mission level. There are plenty of current and past public servants from New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, Treasury, the Economic Development Ministry, Customs and Defence with the skill-set and experience necessary to do a head-of- mission job. Martyn Dunne, who is about to go off to Canberra as high commissioner, is an example of this type of person. And from time to time politicians will be the right person for an assignment. Mike Moore is doing a great job in Washington DC right now, as is Jim McLay in New York.

Diplomats deal with both diplomats and politicians. Sometimes the best person for the job will be a senior former politician such as Jim McLay. What should cease is the practice of sending politicians such as Graeme Kelly to a senior overseas post.

I am on record calling for even more radical reforms of the head- of-mission appointment process than Mr McCully. I believe those nominated for these important roles should be forced to appear before the foreign affairs and defence select committee and be the subject of questioning on their knowledge and experience relevant to the proposed assignment.

That’s not a bad idea.

Stuff reports:

Labour has called on the govermnment to halt all decisions on the broadband roll-out because the man responsible for designing it is at the centre of anti-competitive findings against Telecom which resulted in it being fined $12 million in the High Court yesterday.

Labour Communications and IT spokesperson Clare Curran says a cloud now hangs over the whole of the government’s broadband scheme as Bruce Parkes was named at the centre of the so-called ”two tails” case.

”The Government is trying to legislate for a 10-year regulatory holiday for Telecom, and Mr Parkes has been involved in the design. An independent review must be urgently conducted of both the process and system of the rural broadband initiative (RBI) and the Ultrafast Broadband scheme (UFB,” she says.

Curran says the review should be undertaken by an international expert as the New Zealand industry is too involved and inter-connected on these issues.

I think it is highly regretable that Labour have attacked a public servant in this manner, on the basis of something he did ten years ago when working at Telecom.  Bruce worked diligently for Telecom when he was there, as his job was to get favourable outcomes for Telecom. So through my work at InternetNZ, I often oppossed Bruce and his arguments at fora such as the Commerce Commission.

But he left Telecom, went out to work for Contact Energy, and also became a board member of Citylink. And some time after that got hired by the Chief Executive of the MED to head up their telecommunications section. At the time I commented I thought it was a good appointment – poachers often make the best gamekeepers. People are hired to do a job to the best of their ability, and it is silly to assume you know a person’s views on the basis of their previous jobs.

I am glad Telecom got pinged $12 million for their behaviour over data charges. I recall the days when they charged $1900/month for a product which today is under $100/month. This is why things had to change, and artly resulted in the operational separation of Telecom.

But to suggest that because of something that happend over a decade ago, that Bruce has some how contaminated the UFB and RBI process is unworthy. I’ve been critical of aspects of those processes myself, but smearing a public servant who can’t defend himself is not appropriate behaviour.

The PSA normally publicly defends public servants who get attacked by politicians. Why have they not spoken up on this case?

The President of Iran with National’s candidate for Wellington Central. Captions welcome below – funny, not nasty. Hat Tip: Dim Post

I have tended not to comment on national party candidate selections, even when I have strong preferences. It’s a decision for local members, and it is essentially a private decision.

But sometimes a selection may attract public headlines, as Rodney has done, or have a national impact – as oppossed to a local impact.

Whale Oil has blogged at length on Rodney. His exposure of what was happening helped the Board nullify the initial selection process, and re-open nominations.

First there is the issue of the electorate chair, as reported by Tv3:

The National Party chairman of Rodney electorate was a leader of a pro-white homeland South Africa party, it was revealed today.

The Rodney electorate has already been in the news over reports of infighting and allegations the selection committee was stacked, and the process has been restarted.

Today, TV3 political show the Nation reported that Rodney electorate chairman Cehill Piernar had been a leader of the Conservative Party in South Africa’s Orange Free State, and he fought to retain a white homeland.

The Nation showed documents where Mr Piernar said that if the party could not get the-then Apartheid Government to agree to the whites-only state, “the only option open to us will be to use violence”.

National Party President Peter Goodfellow said Mr Piernar was now a New Zealander.

“He’s in New Zealand now, we’re now a melting pot and people come to New Zealand and establish lives for themselves and he’s been elected by members in Rodney and became chairman some years ago,” he said.

Being electorate chair is a thankless task. Lots of work, no pay, and relatively minor influence. Mr Piernar has probably served in the background well for many years.

However his past is now in the public domain, and a past that advocated violence for a whites-only state is not a good one – even if he has since changed his views.

I’m a big believer that the party is bigger than any individual. Mr Piernar’s past has the potential to damage National. If I was in his shoes, I would put the party first and step down as chair.

Mr Piernar faced accusations of stacking branch membership within the electorate so a fundamentalist Christian accountant, Brent Robinson, could win the nomination for the safe National seat.

Mr Robinson’s candidacy is supported by members of the fundamentalist Life Church.

I don’t know Brent Robinson. All I know is that 150 members of a fundamentalist church signed up to try and help make him the candidate. To me that reeks of hostile takeover.

I’m all for aspiring candidates signing people up to National – but they should do that by door knocking and identifying National party supporters.

If a member of a rotary club sought nomination for National, there is no way I would expect 150 members of that rotary club join the party to vote for him. The fact that 150 church members have joined up suggests to me that it is because they wish to see National adopt their religious views.

I have absolutely no problem with MPs who have strong and deep religious convictions. In fact I consider several of them my friends. My problem is when they seek to legislate their religious beliefs on New Zealand.

I hope delegates in Rodney consider that their choice can and may have ramifications for the wider party. National will not continue to attract the broad based support it does today if it looks like it is going down a path of religious fundamentalism.

And it is on that topic we turn to North Shore, when Ewen McQueen is one of the candidates. Again I have not met Ewen, but he is a former leader of the Christian Heritage Party. I’ve spent the last 15 years trying to keep Christian Heritage out of Parliament, and to be blunt don’t want them to enter Parliament as a National Party MP.

Having the former leader of Christian Heritage in a National Caucus would send tens of thousands of younger urban voters fleeing to Labour. Hell, even I’d consider giving Phil Goff a go if that is the case.

When Christian Heritage wound up in 2006, McQueen said:

Mr McQueen said parliament was lacking a political party that would make a strong and clear stand for the importance of family life, the primacy of marriage and the sanctity of human life …

Mr McQueen said that those who advocated working as individuals to espouse these values within other parties ignored the fact that our parliamentary system was essentially based on political parties. This was even more the case since the introduction of MMP

Mr McQueen should follow his own advice and re-establish a niche party based on his desire to outllaw abortion, civil unions and bring back the death penalty (all CHP policies).

The delegates in Rodney and North Shore have the ability to damage the party significantly with their decisions. I hope they consider their options carefully and elect people who will help lift the party vote for National, not scare voters off National.