The government recently claimed in parliament that DIY building work is ‘shonky’.

They were justifying the Building Act 2004 which makes a person liable for a fine of $20,000 if they carry out work that the government have decided can only be done by a registered building practitioner.

This so-called restricted work covers virtually everything that a keen Do It Yourself home handyman would carry out during his or her weekends off.

Soon you won’t be able to build a deck, fix the plumbing or do some simple wiring.

Pretty much everything is banned, prohibited and restricted.

However if you want to slap on a coat of paint then that is OK. Unless of course you have to use a scaffold to get up under the eaves. Then you will have to hire a registered building practitioner.

This act is ridiculous and to refer to all Do It Yourself work as Shonky is an insult to all home handymen who take a pride in their workmanship.

There is an organisation called Habitat for Humanity which employs community volunteers to build houses for low income families.

They have built 240 houses round the country.

The volunteers are current or retired tradespeople and keen DIYers.

Under this new law, Habitat for Humanity will not be able to build new homes for the poor because they don’t have funds to employ registered building practitioners.

Once again it is the volunteers and those Kiwis who show resourcefulness, self reliance and ingenuity who are being penalised.

We don’t need this restrictive law.

ACT will get rid of laws that cripple enterprising Kiwis.

Give your Party Vote to ACT

If you enjoy doing maintainence around the house you should be worried by the implications of the Building Act 2004.

Tama Iti was filmed by a news crew on January 16 firing a double-barrel shotgun into the New Zealand flag on the ground in Ruatoki as the Waitangi Tribunal arrived for hearings into the Tuhoe claim.

The police turned a blind eye.

It was ACT MP Stephen Franks who wrote to Police Commissioner Rob Robinson requesting that Tame Iti be prosecuted on three firearms offences.

“For many years Labour has turned a blind eye to the non-prosecution of Maori activists when they break the law,” said Mr Franks. “Some Tuhoe, for example, trashed national park assets years ago and never paid any penalty. It’s no wonder that Tama Iti, Te Kaha, and others, think they are beyond the law.”

ACT believes that all New Zealanders, regardless of race, must be treated equally before the law. The public is sick and tired of Labour’s one law for Maori activists, and another for everybody else.

We should not be intent on prosecuting every minor offence. Prosecution must be fair. It’s time the Arms Act was used against thugs and aggressors and they stopped prosecuting victim defenders.

Give your Party Vote to ACT. We speak out for fair play for all. If the outcome in the Tame Iti case helps send a message that the years of turning a blind eye are over I’ll regard my efforts in parliament as worth while.

ACT believes that that those who fire shotguns during public events should be prosecuted regardless of race.

Bell was jailed for a non parole period of 33 years. But it took a public outcry after he murdered three people at the Mt Wellington-Panmure RSA for the sentence to be imposed.

He carried out these brutal murders while he was on parole.

He was released on parole after serving only part of a previous sentence for aggravated robbery.

This is yet another example of the inevitable failure in the parole and home detention system.

Labour has pretended to toughen up on law and order but in fact they have reduced the non parole periods so dangerous criminals are being released back into society sooner.

The feeble attempts at supervision allow them to re-offend at will.

The system isn’t working. It is time to look at other solutions.

Its time for truth in sentencing and an end to apologies for punishment.

Its time to abolish parole and introduce mandatory post sentence supervision with random testing.

In this way we can protect innocent victims from criminals on early parole.

The victims deserve better.

The criminals should be given a different message. If you commit the crime, you will do the time.

Give your Party Vote to ACT and we will give them the message.

The manufactured hysteria over the Police ‘computer porn scandal’ supposedly resulted in frothing public indignation and alarm, but actually it caused amusement and disbelief for most of us.

The downside is that this was an unwarranted blow to the image of the police. A very small percentage of the force had been found to have objectionable emails in their files and for this the whole force is being tarnished.

The over-reaction did not distinguish between sicko stuff that should be criminalised, and the everyday lewd and grubby stuff that should merit no more than a warning.

If there is child porn or bestiality on the files then those involved should be prosecuted. But the word is that this stuff was mostly just bad taste.

Nothing more.

Radio New Zealand solemnly passed on an expert’s warning that undesirable material is “a major problem for NZ corporates with over 30% of work computers infected.”

That’s us!.

That’s our workplaces!

One in three of us have viewed undesirable material. Does this mean that we should be scandalised and appalled that the police are just like us?

We must call for fairness to the cops involved. What I’ve heard so far suggests that most of the targets were just the victims of fashionable prudishness, not porn perverts.

When Police are so short staffed, it would be tragic, if the same government that has legalised prostitution and taken away police powers to enforce laws against underage sex, then drove out 300 more police for being sadly, too normal.

The cops who were pilloried are casualties of a Government desperate to look terribly strict on computer images of sex, to distract attention from the actual sex loosed by their own dodgy agenda described by John Tamihere.

As ACT MP’s we abhor the cowardice of political correctness and the intellectual dishonesty of those who promote it.

When all other politicians go silent, or join in conspicuous outrage it is time for a genuine opposition to stand up.

If you think the police are being unfairly singled out, Give your Party Vote to ACT.

Three out of four kids in New Zealand cannot swim to a safe standard. (Water Safety New Zealand’s Matt Claridge.)

This is an appalling statistic in a country that is surrounded by water.

We head for the lakes and rivers and beaches at every opportunity and we put our kids at risk every time we take them there.

We like to think that we excel at water sports. We sail and row to Olympic standards.

But these are just an elite few. The majority of our kids cant swim.

In the past we could happily assume that kids would learn to swim at school. That no longer happens.

Schools say that the cost of compliance is too much. Its easier to close the pool than to wade through the regulations and petty requirements.

Teachers are afraid that they will be liable if they teach swimming. So they don’t teach it any more.

The curriculum only requires that kids be taught Aquatic Skills and these could be taught in a puddle.
When kids get to the water they are unprepared. They cant swim and they drown.

Last year 130 people drowned in New Zealand, and that is the second highest drowning rate in the Western world.

The fear of liability is creating a generation who will be even more vulnerable when faced with the reality of nature in the sea, river or lake.

Its time to stand up for commonsense and teach our kids to swim again.

ACT will roll back the ridiculous compliance requirements that are closing pools.

ACT will protect from liability those who teach our children survival in the water.

If you think our kids should be taught how to swim, give your Party Vote to ACT.

“… continuing and deepening human rights abuses being perpetrated in Zimbabwe, … increasing use of torture ….. cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment ….” (Amnesty International.)

What has this got to do with us here in New Zealand?

A representative of President Robert Mugabe, who presides over these human rights abuses, has just been made a member of the UN Human Rights Committee.

Unbelievable?

This crowd includes some of the worlds worst human rights violators; China, Cuba, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and now Zimbabwe.

They decree that criminals in New Zealand must remain entitled to cash payouts, even though criminals in their own countries are denied the most basic of human rights.

Even more unbelievable is that we are kowtowing to them.

Justice (and Foreign Affairs) Minister Goff recently refused to allow changes to his Prisoners and Victims Compensation Bill, to ensure that prisoners get no more right to compensation than their victims. This was purely a grovel to the UN bodies that pontificate on human rights, and in particular the committee on which Mugabe’s man sits.

The victims made it crystal clear they were not after money. They just wanted assurance that the “justice” offered by our feeble prison sentences would not be made even more pitiful by tax free payouts to criminals for hurt feelings.

So Mr Goff’s Act could not have been more insulting to the victims. His Victims Special Claims Tribunals will cost $534,000 to set up, and $379,000 per year to run, just to pretend that victims might get some of the $60,000 paid out on average to upset prisoners each year.

There will be more chance of winning Lotto than being successful with a victim claim for genuine suffering.

Prisoners can sue for fanciful loss, with legal aid paid by the taxpayer.

Genuine victims and their representatives, like the Sensible Sentencing Trust, spend their own money to seek justice for very real injuries and loss.

Its time to assert our rights as a sovereign nation. ACT stands up against Ms Clark and her ministers at all times, not just when an election is looming.
No more grovelling to Mugabe.

Give your Party Vote to ACT.
We stand up for ordinary New Zealanders.

In the late 1980s Sir Geoffrey Palmer went hunting quasi-autonomous national government organisations. He killed many. Some were useless, some valuable. Some of their carcasses spawned dragon’s teeth offspring more numerous and more expensive than their parents.

I have sometimes wondered whether our full-time Law Commission is one of those. It replaced Law Reform Committees made up of respected academics and practitioners, serviced by dedicated Justice Department officials. That blend of practical experience, academic reflection, and government policy input produced slow but widely supported reform.

I was reminded of this in my Parliamentary committees’ discussion last week with the Australian Attorney General, and separately the chairman of the Australian Law Commission. They seemed to favour for South Australia, which does not have any full-time law reform body, the Tasmanian model. That is an institute providing a full-time secretariat, and drawing for part-time help on academics and practitioners in their relevant fields.

This of course parallels the structure of the American Law Institute, which produces the widely influential Restatements of law that strongly influence state and federal legislatures.

Another quango was established yesterday when the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill passed. It establishes Victims’ Special Claims Tribunals. Each Tribunal consists of a District Court Judge drawn from a panel designated by the Chief D. C. J. They are to oversee funds sequestered from payouts to prisoners who’ve claimed in tort or for breaches of their human rights. The Tribunals will decide, generally on the papers, whether victims get first claim against the funds.

A crime victim is more likely to win Lotto than money from these funds. First, the new law does not relax the ACC scheme prohibition against personal injury litigation. It creates no new grounds of claim. It merely suspends limitation periods for exemplary damages actions etc while the prisoner is in prison. Secondly, there are few prisoner payouts. Most payments are small, arising from miscalculation of release dates.

The United Future minority view in the select committee’s report shows they understood the result clearly “… the Bill has not achieved its overall intention to prevent one more cent of taxpayer money from reaching the pocket of prison inmates…”. Nevertheless they voted loyally with Labour for the Bill to proceed at the select committee stage. United Future was rescued from ignominy yesterday by the seething anger of their law and order man, Marc Alexander, who ensured they voted against the Bill.

In contrast the Greens opposed the Bill up until yesterday, when they were persuaded to support it by the government’s concession of a sunset clause. The right to initiate claims, but not, it seems, the existence of the Tribunals, will expire in two years time.

This farce offers some truly stunning delights for quango connoisseurs.

First, Dr Cullen’s budget discloses that the Tribunals will cost $534,000 to set up, and $379,000 a year after that. The government could have saved money by simply promising automatically to match payments to an offender with payments to his victims. Figures released for the last 10 years show the total abuse claim payouts, including legal costs, at less than $1m.

The six year total to November 2001 was $566, 000, including approximately $325,000 in September 2000 as a pre trial settlement with Mongrel Mob associates, Raheke, TeHei, Ratima, and Gillies. Until September 2004, when Taunoa and co got $130,000 plus $358,000 in costs, the only other disclosed compensation was of the $1200 to Macmillan, for his injured feelings when part of an angry letter from the father of one of his female victims was withheld.

Spending an average $417,750 per year over the next four years, on a quango to distribute an average of $69,720 per year to crime victims, in the unlikely event that any qualify, must win this month’s prize for a Labour lunacy sighting.

Think of the other uses for the money. Garth McVicar’s Sensible Sentencing Trust does more every day for victims than the Tribunals will do in a year. Yet he may have to shut up shop because he cannot keep funding his work.

And all this nonsense because Mr Goff would not assert New Zealand sovereignty to the representatives of Sudan and Zimbabwe and the other thugs who nominate to the UN Human Rights Committee.

He rejected ACT’s straightforward solution offered last September. In effect it would have put criminals in the same practical position as their victims, by ending judge invented Baigent awards for human rights breaches and instead beefing up prisoner rights to ensure proper disciplinary action for abusive gaolers.

Kids learn by pushing the boundaries. By taking risks. We’ve all learnt that way. We’ve learnt about life by being out in it, and consequently we are better prepared for all the unexpected crap that life eventually brings to us.

As kids we learnt by pushing boundaries. By taking risks.

We learnt about the joys of the Kiwi out-door lifestyle on school adventure trips and by playing sports.

And generally there was a volunteer teacher, a friend, or mum or dad to make sure that we were ok and that the risks were reasonable.

That experience is rapidly changing.
The volunteers are afraid.
The school trips are being cancelled.

In trying to over protect the children the government has created a climate of fear with its interpretation of the OSH regulations.

The volunteers who ran the trips are afraid that if anything goes wrong they will be sued.

So they are now becoming much more wary of volunteering.

Why should they volunteer? They’re not compensated for the risk.

Today’s parents could be the last generation of New Zealanders who can genuinely claim the national character – stoic, adventurous, and confident off-road.

The next generation of kids are not going to get that outdoor experience that is so vital to their safety, because the volunteers won’t be there to guide them.

Kids will still take risks. That is the nature of learning. But now they will have to take those risks away from the school and away from the caring eyes of the volunteers. They will no longer play sport because there will be no volunteers to supervise.

This is robbing our kids of valuable life experiences.

It is wrong and I am putting up a Volunteers Bill that helps to protect volunteers from the stupidity of the current law changes.

Give your party vote to ACT.

We are working to roll back the creeping paralysis of the bubble wrap society.

Life can be learned as a game, where winning is infinitely better than losing.

Sport is a valuable opportunity to teach the difference between playing with determination, and playing half-heartedly.

However, I believe that New Zealanders’ record of success in sport and our tradition of volunteering are threatened by red tape, the growth of victim law and the creeping paralysis of political correctness.

State indoctrinated teachers pretend that losing is as good as winning, and are trying to stamp out competition at vital ages, leaving kids bored with sport.

These kids, who are not encouraged or allowed to experience the risks and excitements of sport, will find other ways to compete.

They will seek to push the boundaries of risk, often with petty crime, drug taking or vandalism.

If we can’t reverse this attitude that winning doesn’t matter, then young New Zealanders’ future may be to ‘fetch and carry’ for more skilled and determined Asian masters.

ACT will work for a revolutionary increase in government respect for sport, by:

* Welcoming participation, but unashamedly celebrating winning.
* Getting rid of the laws that put those who coach, administer or provide sports facilities, at risk of liability.
* Cutting the red tape that frustrates volunteers, including teachers, who can first instil a love of sport.

Give your Party Vote to ACT and we will continue to oppose political correctness that is hostile to winners.

It’s 3.30am. You hear footsteps on the drive. You snap awake with a pounding heart. There is the familiar scrape of the garage door opening. A shadow of an intruder!

What do you do when you live in the country?

Call 111?

You may be beaten to a pulp before they arrive.

Call your neighbours?

If you have already called 111 the police may hold the line open to prevent you from calling your neighbours for help.

Switch the lights on and shout in the hope that the criminals will run away?

Yeah right.

Or would you grab your shotgun, call the neighbours and 111, and then go out to confront the thieving scum?

Current Police advice boils down to this: Do nothing. Take no risks. Don’t try to defend yourself. Try to look at the thieves without offending them and call your insurance company in the morning…if you are still alive to do so.

Most of all they decree: Don’t Take The Law Into your Own Hands.

But the law has always been in our hands. There has never been a time when there could be enough police to protect us all.

The mutual trust and security that was part of our heritage did not come from having enough police to watch every scumbag. It came from ordinary decent people who shared responsibility for upholding behaviour standards and the laws of the land.

They stood up for themselves and for their community, and the law stood up for them.

But not any more.

Now if you defend yourself against criminal invaders the government will force the police to prosecute you. Then the courts will accept the intruders feeble excuses and corrections officials will apologise for upsetting their criminal self esteem.

The state has no right to punish citizens who defend themselves and their property when the state itself cannot or will not do it for them.

I am campaigning for law reform that will protect law abiding citizens from prosecution if they defend themselves.

Parliament is currently thinking about this very issue. You can make your views clear. Right now. Let Parliament know what you think before 8 June and you could help restore the sensible law we had up to 1980.

Click here to learn more about my amendment – http://www.act.org.nz/selfdefence – and to have your say.

I am interested in your experiences with intruders in the night. Send me your anecdotes.