ACT on Campus is today disappointed by the ill informed press conference held at Parliament by leading New Zealanders.

"Members of Parliament, Former Governors General, Knights and Dames should know better than to promote social policy based on bad science and bad economics," says Peter McCaffrey, ACT on Campus President.

Statistics quoted at today's press conference included a claim that 700,000 New Zealanders are problem drinkers as well as a comment by National MP Jackie Blue that problem drinking in New Zealand cost $25 billion a year.

"Statistics can be twisted to suit any political agenda and the Law Commission has simply defined anyone who consumes more than four or six (for females/males) drinks over the course of a night as a binge drinker to inflate the figures and exaggerate the problem," says McCaffrey.

"Similarly, the Law Commission's own figures, calculated by Business and Economic Research Limited (BERL), put the social cost at only $4.8 billion a year and even this figure has already been heavily discredited as being hugely inflated, including private costs and ignoring any external benefits of alcohol consumption. The study was assessed last year by economists and Treasurery officials who called it "grossly exaggerated", "bad economics", "seriously flawed", "misleading" and "shonky"."

"Undoubtably we have a problem with alcohol abuse in New Zealand but it's time that alcohol policy was based on good science and sound economics instead of hype, political spin and scare tactics by politicians and the public health lobby. Only then will we see real solutions and real improvements to the problems we face," says Peter McCaffrey, ACT on Campus President.

Today there's a new feature on the ACT website that I designed about the ETS:

I preferred this design, but apparently it's a bit too gross for the homepage of the ACT website:

Feel free to spread either image around!

Student Job Search is conducting a survey assessing the quality of their service which is partly funded by students associations.

Tucked in near the end of the survey is this question:

But the real question is, which of these services are ACTUALLY paid for by the student association?

Today, the government announced a final offer to settle the 'leaky homes' argument that has gone on for years.

Should governments treat it like a natural disaster and cover costs, forcing all taxpayers to fund repairs or should regional councils be held accountable for approving consents for bad building work, forcing all ratepayers to fund repairs?

Ideally, businesses themselves would be held accountable but many simply liquidated and reformed under a different name.

This points to an interesting question for libertarians - should we support the legal creation of limited liability for businesses?

In November 2008 I dedicated this song to the National Party and John Key, today I dedicate it to the Conservative Party and David Cameron, although he might not even be able to make it with the help of friends:



In November 2009, UKIP offered to not contest the UK general election at all if the Conservative party promised, in writing, a referendum on the EU Lisbon Treaty. The Conservatives ignored the offer.

On May 8th, UKIP cost the Conservatives an absolute majority. To win an absolute majority in the UK you need 326 seats (tecnically slightly fewer due to Sinn Fein not taking up any seats they win). The Conservatives won 306 seats. UKIP won more votes than the Conservatives lost by in 23 seats. 306 + 23 = 329:



1. Bolton West: Lab 18,327, Con 18,235 – majority 92. UKIP 1,901.
2. Derby North: Lab 14,896, Con 14,283 – majority 613. UKIP 829.
3. Derbyshire North East: Lab 17,948, Con 15,503 – majority 2,445. UKIP 2,636.
4. Dorset Mid & Poole North: Lib-Dims 21,100, Con 20,831 - majority 269. UKIP 2,109.
5. Dudley North: Lab 14,923, Con 14,274 – majority 649. UKIP 3,267.
6. Great Grimsby: Lab 10,777, Con 10, 063 – majority 714. UKIP 2,043.
7. Hampstead & Kilburn: Lab 17,332, Con 17, 290 – majority 42. UKIP 408.
8. Hull North: Lab 13,044, Con 12,403 – majority 641. UKIP 1,358.
9. Middlesborough South & Cleveland East: Lab 18,138, Con 16,461 – majority 1,677. UKIP 1,881.
10. Morley and Outwood: Lab 18,365, Con 17,264 – majority 1,101. UKIP 1,506.
11. Newcastle-under-Lyme: Lab 16,393, Con 14,841 – majority 1,551. UKIP 3,491.
12. Norwich South: Lib-Dim (gain) 13,960, Con 13,650 – majority 310. UKIP 1,145.
13. Plymouth Moor View: Lab 15,433, Con 13,845 - majority 1,588. UKIP 3,188.
14. St Austell & Newquay: Lib-Dim 20,189, Con 18,877 - majority 1,312. UKIP 1,757.
15. St Ives: Lib-Dims 19,619, Con 17,900 - majority 1,719. UKIP 2,560.
16. Solihull: Lib-Dim 23,635, Con 23,460 – majority 175. UKIP 1,200.
17. Somerton & Frome: Lib-Dims 28,793, Con 26,976 - majority 1,817. UKIP 1,932.
18. Southampton Itchen: Lab 16,326, Con 16,134 - majority 192. UKIP 1,928.
19. Telford: Lab 15,977, Con 14,996 – majority 981. UKIP 2,428.
20. Walsall North: Lab 13,385, Con 12,395 – majority 990. UKIP 1,737.
21. Walsall South: Lab 16,211, Con 14,456 – majority 1,755. UKIP 3,449.
22. Wells: Lib-Dims 24,560, Con 23,760 - majority 800. UKIP 1,711.
23. Wirral South: Lab 16,276, Con 15,745 – majority 531. UKIP 1,274.

So while UKIP didn't get the 5% and 1 seat that they were after, they did increase their vote by 1.1% to 3.1%, making them clearly the 4th UK party by vote percentage, and also achieved their goal of a hung parliament. Something for large parties to think about.

ACT on Campus does not promote, nor discourage, the consumption of alcohol by New Zealanders we simply advocate the idea that the individual should make this decision for themselves without interference from the state.

In a free society the government's role is to protect its citizens from harm by keeping the peace and enforcing the rule of law. The government should intervene only when direct harm is being done to someone by another.

It is not the job of politicians to protect people from themselves and their choices - this is what we call a nanny-state. The government has no role in telling New Zealand’s when and where they may consume alcohol and how much fun they are allowed to have.

The one exception to this rule is in the case of minors where we recognise that the rules often need to be different and that those responsible for children may be in a better position to make decisions for them.

The drawing of a line to determine the age of maturity is not a science and will never be perfect but in New Zealand we consider age 18 to be old and wise enough for someone to get married, to join the police or the army and go to war, to sign contracts and get a credit card, to own a gun and even to vote.

Our challenge to MPs who wish to raise the drinking age is for them to reject any votes they receive from 18 and 19 year olds at the next election. If an 18 year old is not rational enough to be able to have a beer after work with their workmates, how can they possibly make such an important decision as to who should represent them in parliament?

ACT on Campus urges all MPs to oppose the raising of the drinking age to 20.

[Original notes - actual comments may have varied slightly.]

The youth wings of the National, Labour, Green and ACT parties have joined forces in the Keep It 18 campaign, to tell their MPs that increasing the purchase age for alcohol to 20 is the wrong thing to do.

“Parliament has twice voted for the purchase age to be 18, and it is disappointing that the Law Commission is trying to turn the clock back again,” said group spokesperson Jenna Raeburn.

In 1999 Parliament voted to change the age of purchase from 20 to 18 by 59 votes to 55. The previous law had numerous exemptions to it, so in fact 18 year olds had been able to legally drink alcohol in licensed premises for many decades.

In 2006 a move to change it back to 20 was defeated 49 votes to 72. The members of Keep It 18 urge MPs to not spend time on trying to reverse history, but instead to focus on measures that target problem drinkers, rather than seek to punish all 140,000 18 and 19 year olds.

“While primarily focused on the purchase age, we also are concerned over the proposed nationwide setting of closing times, and mandating a one way policy for bars after 2 am. In our opinion, these also fail to target problem drinkers, and again will disadvantage the many responsible young people who enjoy a night out dancing and drinking with friends.”

Young Nationals President Daniel Fielding said “Let's not have a return to nanny state policies, a blanket measure of raising the drinking age will not change the drinking culture. This can only be achieved by introducing measures that places responsibility back onto the individual“

Nicola Wood, Young Labour spokesperson for Keep It 18 said “Young Labour feel a higher drinking age would serve only to exacerbate the harms caused by alcohol. If we want to create a culture of responsible drinking, we need policy which better enables young people to make positive decisions about how they use alcohol, while at the same time acknowledging that this broad problem cannot be pinned on one sector of society. We will oppose any change to the law which discriminates unfairly against young people “

Zachary Dorner, Young Greens spokesperson said “Raising the drinking age has more to do with pointing the finger at young people than solving the real issues. What we need to do is to take a look at ourselves and start treating alcohol as the harmful drug that it is”

ACT on Campus President Peter McCaffrey said “Politicians have no right to tell New Zealanders what they can consume and when they can consume it. The government's role is to protect you from others not from yourself. The government should focus on targeting people who are causing harm to others rather than act as a nanny-state, telling everyone how much fun they can have “

Jenna Raeburn continued “All our political parties have 18 and 19 year old members who are allowed to vote, allowed to marry, allowed to have sex, and trusted enough to go out and do volunteer work for their parties. Saying that these same members can not be trusted to purchase a bottle of wine from a supermarket or a pint of beer at a bar is hypocritical and insulting, and we urge all MPs in Parliament to reject an age change.”

“We accept the problems caused by alcohol abuse in our society, and are happy to work with MPs in identifying which proposals put forward by the Law Commission are worth supporting. But increasing the purchase age is not one of them. Criminalising 140,000 18 and 19 year olds is the wrong answer,” concluded Miss Raeburn.

ENDS


NOTE: The five spokespersons will hold a joint press conference on Thursday (29 April) at 1 pm to formally respond to the report, outline their opposition to a change in the purchase age, and comment on other proposals made by the Law Commission.

For further information please contact:

Jenna Raeburn, Group Spokesperson for Keep It 18, phone 021 055 6614, e-mail: jenna.lafille@gmail.com

Daniel Fielding, Young Nationals President, phone 021 397 050, e-mail daniel.fielding@national.org.nz

Nicola Wood, Young Labour Spokesperson, 021 127 4706, e-mail: wellington@younglabour.org.nz

Zachary Dorner, Young Greens Spokesperson, 022 618 6761, e-mail: zachary.dorner@younggreens.org.nz

Peter McCaffrey, ACT on Campus President, 021 1417 026, e-mail president@actoncampus.org.nz

ACT on Campus held our 2010 AGM on the 26th of March, where the results of our executive elections were announced.

The new executive has now taken over and we wanted to introduce ourselves to everyone.

We're all looking forward to ensuring the passage of the VSM bill, spreading freedom on campuses around the country and ensuring ACT on Campus and the ACT Party is ready for the general election next year.


The 2010/11 Executive:

President Peter McCaffrey Peter is a fifth year student at Victoria University where he has completed a BA in Political Science and International Relations and is close to completing a BSc in Operations Research. Peter became involved in ACT on Campus in 2006, was the Treasurer in 2007 and 2008 and the Vice President in 2009. Peter stood for ACT in the Otaki election in the 2008 election and is a libertarian with occasional anarcho-capitalist tendencies. When taking a break from politics, Peter volunteers his time as the Treasurer for a national youth-for-youth charity, enjoys watching and playing football, xkcd, milkshakes and slushies, Facebook and even finds the odd spare hour for university study.

Vice President Lukas Schroeter Lukas is a libertarian who has been an ACT party member since 2003 and represented Rodney Hide at Youth Parliament in 2004. He has been an ACT on Campus member since starting study at Victoria University in 2006 and will complete his LLB/BCA(econ) this year. Lukas has also spent time interning at the New Zealand Business Roundtable. When not at University or work, he enjoys badminton, organising parties, jogging on Wellington's waterfront and travelling. A particular highlight in the latter included spending five days in North Korea in 2008.

Treasurer Sam Bonner Sam has been an ACT Party member since 2005 and active in ACT on Campus since he began studying Information Systems and e-Commerce and Political Science at Victoria University in 2007. He has held the position of ACT on Campus Treasurer since 2009. As a libertarian Sam is committed to increasing the ACT Party’s influence in government and ensuring high quality, freedom enhancing policies are enacted. In his spare time Sam enjoys reading, films and web development.

Secretary Andy Moore Andy studied Commerce and Political Science at the University of Canterbury. He is a Christian and a pro-life libertarian who wants the government to get out of the market and out of individuals' lives. He holds that individuals must be free, irrespective of morality, to do whatever they want, so long as their actions do not take away the freedoms of another. Andy is currently working as a political researcher and in his spare time is involved in political action, charitable community work and supporting the pro-life movement in New Zealand.

Here is the ACT on Campus submission to the Education and Science Select Committee on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. Hit the Fullscreen button for a better view.