General elections are one of the ways governments find out which rights people think they should have. Each Party has a fundamental philosophy which more or less clearly defines what rights that Party thinks people should have. The Parties construct policy packages which they believe are the best way to enable people to exercise those rights. When people vote for their member of parliament they are giving an indication that they agree with the assumptions about human rights which underlie the policy. The REAL Party believes that this system of determining the wishes of the people is highly fallible. Some rights are fundamental to the Party's philosophy and are appropriately chosen by electing the Party to government but others need to be clarified but the Party would be happy to administer whatever the people chose.

We would seek to clarify issues and put them before the people for direct voting in referenda. This would be a long slow process so in the mean time we will indicate a few issues we have addressed and where an issue is not mentioned we will assume current policies are consistent with the wishes of the people unless there is strong evidence from opinion polls that this is not the case. We would not deviate from positions on human rights advertised before the election or those implied by current practice where those are not incompatible with published positions unless there was either clear public support for the change, in opinion polls, or majority support in a referendum. Policy changes would only be those developed as a result of consultation with the people involved as better methods for achieving the same goals. If a REAL government felt a change in policy was necessary which did not fall into these categories they would either hold a referendum or resign and call a new General Election.

Voting for REAL, the Egalitarian Party of New Zealand, is your way of indicating that you do not believe that some people should have more rights than others. The philosophical assumptions behind REAL policy are founded on the assumption of equal rights. The REAL Party believes that equal rights extend not only to every human individual alive today but also to future generations.

The REAL Party believes that equal rights imply equal status before the law and therefore believes that all individuals have a right to equal status before the law. This does not mean that the law cannot distinguish between categories that people have chosen to belong to. There can and should be different laws for participants in different occupations including leisure occupations. The differences should however be derived from the same fundamental principals, including the principal that impact on other people and on other species needs should not diminish the ability of those others to exercise their rights. Different rules for citizens and non-citizens are alright as long as the rules for obtaining citizenship apply equally to everyone. Discrimination by the state by non-choice categories, such as race or sex, is not acceptable.

Where a non-choice group can be shown to be disadvantaged by non-governmental discrimination then governmental 'reverse discrimination' can be justified as an equal right of all groups and individuals to compensation when other individuals or groups fail to recognise their equal rights. Clearly the ideal in these cases would be for the cost of such reverse discrimination to fall ultimately on the non- governmental groups or individuals failing to recognise the equal rights of their fellows.

Equal rights usually implies limited rights. Suppose that there is an apple tree in my household and we decide that every one in the household has an equal right to it. If there are four people in the household the maximum number of apples any one of them can have a right to, so that their rights remain equal, is one quarter of the crop. We all have a right to apples from the tree but none of us has a right to all the apples on the tree and we may or may not find that we have a right to as many apples as we want or as many apples as we consider we need.

We can decide that each of us will always have a right to one quarter of the crop or we can decide that members of the household will always have equal rights. Now, if a new person joins the household, if we have decided that each of the original people had a right to one quarter of the crop then the new person is at a disadvantage. They will have to buy their apples, either from outside or from one of us, or they will have to depend on the generosity of the original members of the household. If on the other hand we had decided that members of the household will always have equal rights then the new person would have a right to a share of the crop. In which case the rights of the original members appear to have changed. They thought they had a right to one quarter of the crop but they now find that they have only a right to one fifth of the crop.

The above example illustrates two important points about equal rights to limited resources. First, a right to use a limited resource cannot imply an unlimited right. Second, where the size of the entitled population is changing the amount of the right will also change. If equal rights apply to future generations then the present generation clearly cannot be given fixed rights to limited resources in perpetuity or rights to sell or bequeath such rights.

There are some rights which we can all exercise without diminishing the amount available to others. We can all have a right to the value of our labour. If I mine gold and you cast it into an artistic form both your labour and mine have value which we created and for which we can be paid. The value of my labour is part of the value of the final product but not part of the value of your labour. The value of your labour can be determined by comparing the value of the raw material which I produced with the value of the finished product which you produced. The REAL Party believes every individual has a right to the full value of their labour.

Sometimes rights we would like to think we have seem to conflict. The REAL Party believe an important role of government is to define rights as being limited in such a way that they do not conflict. If you need a complex and delicate operation and I am the only available person to perform it, you may claim a right to life and believe I must perform the operation while I may maintain that I have a right to freedom of choice over my action or inaction. This is the kind of conflict of rights which the REAL Party believes governments should determine the wishes of the people on and ensure that clear definitions of priorities are made.

The definition of a priority of rights is likely to be an ongoing process as new conflicts between rights become apparent. In the above case the REAL Party believes that recognition of a right of one person to something which requires someone else to do something for them would be highly dangerous and difficult to enforce. The right to life must be limited by the right to freedom of inaction. We would however expect that most people would consider it right for me to perform the life saving operation and would expect the social pressure to do so to be great even if I was not personally convinced of my moral duty. It is possible for us all to consider it morally reprehensible not to save life if we are able but still not to believe that you have a right to have your life saved if that involves someone else having to do something whether they want to or not. The right to freedom of action must, however, also be limited. No one has a right to kill any other.

The rights of the human species must also be limited by the rights of other species indigenous to this planet. Since it is impossible to know precisely what the wants and needs of other species are and since individual humans differ as to how the rights of other species should be recognised, the REAL Party believes that human rights should be determined only in relation to relative rights of human individuals and should generally be assumed to be the maximum positive rights that can be exercised without compromising the principle of equality. Each individual can then incorporate their view on how human rights relate to the rights of other species into the way they exercise their rights. Except in the recognition that we cannot allocate natural resources in perpetuity the REAL Party believes the nature and quality of what we leave to future generations must be decided by each individual exercising their rights in a way which is consistent with their views on the rights of future generations. This seems the only way in which the full spectrum of individual cultures and ethics can be respected as being of equal value.