Awaiting debate with bated breath

Dear Editor, We should be grateful that the CIP President Nga Jessie offered an opinion, even if it has been suggested that he was not the author of the letter he signed, dated Wednesday April 11. But because it is from the CIP president it would have to then be an official position from the Cook Islands Party. If anything, it is precisely what helps build a better democracy; constructive criticism giving a clear indication of where each party stands on different areas of public policy. It is positive to the extent necessary to help voters draw their own conclusions on party policy, helping them make informed decisions in the June elections. So, what can we take from the CIP president’s letter? We can now establish the CIP position in at least four areas, those being the four areas the opposition raised with the New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern in February of this year in our open letter. The CIP president says the government is working on electoral reform. He might have this wrong. I think he means the Cook Islands Party, not the government? In general, a government matter would require a bill or an amendment to the Electoral Act, and come to parliament, but before that there would be debate – similar debate as we have seen in the last few weeks on this subject alone. So how the CIP president knows about reforming our Electoral Act when MPs don’t is a curious point. I hope Mr Jessie in a future letter can clarify this. If it is political reform policy that the CIP president is referring to from the Cook Islands Party, now that would be a first, and it would be prudent to now provide to the public the CIP position on political reform. Let’s see it, let’s debate it. We don’t want to read about it after the elections. I seriously doubt that any CIP reform initiatives on this subject would be serious enough to include voter equity. We wait with bated breath. In the same vein, when the CIP president responds, which I hope he does, can he tell us whether he is aware that his government on their recent ‘state visit’ to New Zealand had on its agenda commerce legislation under the guise of ‘consumer protection’ up for discussion and were simultaneously seeking assistance from New Zealand? How does that assistance compare with our suggestion to New Zealand prime minister Ardern as an alternative? Again, I doubt that Mr Jessie is aware of this, otherwise the letter would have been crafted differently. Is this the proverbial left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing? Finally, from the letter in the final two points, both on ‘Law and order’ and ‘Audits’, what is your policy then? Remain with the status quo, and do nothing? If it is then say so – advise the public that your policy is largely to do and say nothing and that the status quo of one law for all, is, for as long as the law doesn’t affect our leaders remain unchanged and to seek no new recommendations. If the CIP are happy with the breaches of the Constitution when it comes to reporting both ‘unauthorised expenditure’, eight years of failure and Crown Accounts’ six years of failure in this area are acceptable to you and the public then please say so. If you have a method that will fix it other than passing legislation to retrospectively cancel this responsibility, like the core tax writeoff, then inform the public. I look forward to robust debate in the weeks ahead on these important subjects. James Beer Democratic Party Candidate 2018

Dear Editor, We should be grateful that the CIP President Nga Jessie offered an opinion, even if it has been suggested that he was not the author of the letter he signed, dated Wednesday April 11. But because it is from the CIP president it would have to then be an official position from the Cook Islands Party. If anything, it is precisely what helps build a better democracy; constructive criticism giving a clear indication of where each party stands on different areas of public policy. It is positive to the extent necessary to help voters draw their own conclusions on party policy, helping them make informed decisions in the June elections. So, what can we take from the CIP president’s letter? We can now establish the CIP position in at least four areas, those being the four areas the opposition raised with the New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern in February of this year in our open letter. The CIP president says the government is working on electoral reform. He might have this wrong. I think he means the Cook Islands Party, not the government? In general, a government matter would require a bill or an amendment to the Electoral Act, and come to parliament, but before that there would be debate – similar debate as we have seen in the last few weeks on this subject alone. So how the CIP president knows about reforming our Electoral Act when MPs don’t is a curious point. I hope Mr Jessie in a future letter can clarify this. If it is political reform policy that the CIP president is referring to from the Cook Islands Party, now that would be a first, and it would be prudent to now provide to the public the CIP position on political reform. Let’s see it, let’s debate it. We don’t want to read about it after the elections. I seriously doubt that any CIP reform initiatives on this subject would be serious enough to include voter equity. We wait with bated breath. In the same vein, when the CIP president responds, which I hope he does, can he tell us whether he is aware that his government on their recent ‘state visit’ to New Zealand had on its agenda commerce legislation under the guise of ‘consumer protection’ up for discussion and were simultaneously seeking assistance from New Zealand? How does that assistance compare with our suggestion to New Zealand prime minister Ardern as an alternative? Again, I doubt that Mr Jessie is aware of this, otherwise the letter would have been crafted differently. Is this the proverbial left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing? Finally, from the letter in the final two points, both on ‘Law and order’ and ‘Audits’, what is your policy then? Remain with the status quo, and do nothing? If it is then say so – advise the public that your policy is largely to do and say nothing and that the status quo of one law for all, is, for as long as the law doesn’t affect our leaders remain unchanged and to seek no new recommendations. If the CIP are happy with the breaches of the Constitution when it comes to reporting both ‘unauthorised expenditure’, eight years of failure and Crown Accounts’ six years of failure in this area are acceptable to you and the public then please say so. If you have a method that will fix it other than passing legislation to retrospectively cancel this responsibility, like the core tax writeoff, then inform the public. I look forward to robust debate in the weeks ahead on these important subjects. James Beer Democratic Party Candidate 2018