|
NZCPR
WEEKLY ARCHIVE
If the links don't work
visit our HELPDESK
here>>>
or email me to sort out the problem.
|
|
New Zealand Centre for
Political Research - www.nzcpr.com
|
THE
NZCPR BLOG...
|
| THIS
WEEK... |
|
TRIBALISM VS
DEMOCRACY
New
Zealand
is
at a crossroad between tribalism and democracy. The
Maori tribal elite, backed by the Maori Party - and now
the National Party - are gaining momentum, pushing the
country towards a future where corporate iwi will
control our key institutions and resources.
Thanks to decades of overly-generous taxpayer funding of
Treaty of Waitangi claims, the Maori aristocracy has
grown rich. Under their new protectorate – the
National/Maori Party government - they are becoming
New Zealand's new power base. With race-based laws to
elevate their status and a willing government keen to
buy into the ‘Treaty partnership’ myth, the tribal
elite are becoming the privileged class. Unless
something changes, all other non-iwi New Zealanders are
destined to become second-class citizens in our own
country.
The Iwi Leaders Group consists of the chairmen of 57
iwi. It is the driving force behind the resurgence of
tribalism. With wealth estimated at $25 billion, the
days of iwi being able to claim victim status have long
gone - and with it the need for generous taxpayer-funded
subsidies.
To her credit, former Prime Minister Helen Clark had the
sense to limit the demands of Maori tribal leaders. She
refused to give them the foreshore and seabed in 2004 in
spite of aggressive advocacy, and in 2008 she ended the
right for iwi to submit historic Treaty claims. In
taking such a strong stand she did the country a
service.
No-one should forget that tribalism is based entirely on
greed and self interest. The good of the country does
not matter one iota to the tribal aristocracy. As their
wealth grows, so too do their demands.
With modern societies having moved beyond tribalism, it
is unbelievable - and ominous - that
New Zealand
law makers are now embracing it.
Tribalism is a closed hierarchical system, underpinned
by ancient supernatural beliefs and outdated customs,
and characterised by nepotism, cronyism, and corruption.
Standing in the community is determined by birthright,
not achievement, and while those who are part of the
aristocracy prosper, collectivism ensures that many
others can never get ahead.
A
study carried out by Te Puni Kokiri in 2008, found that
one in six Maori were living in Australia, with many
having moved there to escape tribalism: they expressed
an overwhelming sense of relief on being “free of
Maori culture”, of being able to “get away from the
rigid beliefs of our elders”, of getting “away from
tikanga Maori and whanau dynamics or pressures
associated with being whanau”; and “you know the
story - marae, whanau hui, whanau politics, continuously
fighting each other but still whanau in the end. It
feels like we are able to live our lives without being
answerable or having to think is this good for the rest
of the whanau”.[1]
In
light of this reality, it is unbelievable, that under
John Key’s leadership, the government is about to give
tribalism its biggest boost in modern times through a
massive transfer of public property rights and
national wealth.
This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, law lecturer and
Treaty expert David Round, describes the Prime
Minister’s plan to repeal Crown ownership of the
foreshore and seabed in favour of Maori tribal ownership
and control as a “monstrous crime” and “horrific
sacrifice of public property and public prosperity”.
He warns that this “theft of our common heritage” is
pushing
New Zealand
towards an increasingly “apartheid state”. He
states:
“This new law will be the most indescribable gift to
Maori of an enormous part of the remaining public
property and public wealth of this country. It will
deprive the rest of us of any possibility of enjoying
the immense economic opportunities which the sea affords
and which, heaven knows, we so desperately need… We
must understand too that even this act of suicidal
renunciation is not going to bring peace to this
country, is not going to end Maori clamour for yet more
and more, and indeed will not even be the last word on
the foreshore and seabed.”
In his article, David raises some very serious concerns
about “tikanga”: “This new customary title is
going to be granted if it can be established according
to ‘Maori tikanga’. Now this tikanga is known to
Maori alone. They have it ~ or say they have it. They do
not give us any details. If they do not have it, they
invent it. We will never know. The introduction of
tikanga alone is the handing-over of a blank cheque. You
can bet your bottom dollar that a surprising amount of
the coastline will be considered by Maori ‘to be ours
now, really. I mean, we let people go there, and we
don’t stop them or say anything to them, but we always
feel, you know, its our beach, that’s just our
tikanga’ ~ and he’ll keep a straight face, and the
whole thing will be in the bag. In response to
questions, both the Prime Minister and the
Attorney-General are already refusing to say
categorically that even popular
Auckland
beaches (certainly not ones ‘exclusively occupied’
by Maori) will not have customary title awarded over
them.” To read David’s article, click the sidebar
link.
A document prepared for the elitists Iwi Leaders’
Group, outlining their preferred options for the
foreshore and seabed verifies David’s concerns. They
wanted to ensure that ‘tikanga’ is “not be
defined by statute.” Drawing on the principles of
the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples, they wanted tikanga to hold “first
law status” – but they were also concerned to ensure
that such suggestions did not “scare
the horses”.[2] New Zealand’s affirmation of the
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was, of
course, authorised by John Key in secret earlier this
year - in spite of Helen Clark having staunchly opposed
it while she was PM on the basis that it was totally
inconsistent with New Zealand’s domestic laws. While
John Key tried to claim it was only symbolic, clearly
Maori don’t agree since it is now being used to shape
and justify domestic policy.
The whole foreshore and seabed debacle would certainly
‘scare the horses’ – if only the public were aware
of what is going on. From the beginning, John Key issued
devious assurances that nothing much would change as a
result of the new law. Then there was the calculated way
the public review document was released over the Easter
break to coincide with a highly controversial mining
review that totally overshadowed any debate about the
foreshore and seabed. Public meetings were barely
advertised and there was little opportunity to ask
questions. Four stakeholder groups with interests in the
foreshore and seabed that need to be protected were
identified - recreational and conservation interests,
Maori customary interests, business and development
interests, and local government interests – but in
spite of the claims that all would be consulted, only
Maori were.
Then
there is the sticky issue of submissions. The Review
document clearly stated that “The
Ministry of Justice will publicly release your
submission, a summary of submissions and a list of names
of submitters on this website after the
consultation process has finished”. Yet here we are,
four months after submissions closed, and no submissions
have been published. When asked last week when we could
expect them to be published, the Attorney General’s
office replied: “No
decision has yet been made about when the submissions
relating to the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act
2004 will be made public. It will be some time
after the new Bill has been introduced to the House of
Representatives”. So here we have censorship of the
worst kind: 1500 submissions, many of which will have
raised serious concerns about the repeal of Crown
ownership, being withheld from public view - no doubt to
further stifle public debate.
Removing
a major public property right over the 10 million
hectares of the foreshore and seabed, through the repeal
of Crown ownership, is a significant constitutional
issue. There are massive strategic implications for
New Zealand's
Territorial
Sea
, yet there has been no public debate about how it will
affect defence, trade, infrastructure and other crucial
matters. And what about the country’s national wealth
that is tied up in the foreshore and seabed – where is
the debate about what should happen to that? Crown
Minerals has estimated the iron sands alone to be worth
$1 trillion – is that going to end up in the coffers
of private Maori tribal corporations, instead of the
consolidated fund for the benefit of all New Zealanders?
What about the conservation values of our wild and
beautiful coastline? Will it become littered with
spiritual and cultural exclusion zones imposed by
competing iwi that will prevent non-iwi from freely
enjoying their birthright?
[If you are concerned, you might like to read Michael
Coote’s Breaking Views blog: “Whale vetoes point the
way on foreshore and seabed legislation”.]
And what will “mana tuku iho”, the “universal
recognition” that will be applied to the whole of
New Zealand
’s coastline as a right of tribal co-management mean
in practice - especially regarding consents and leases?
Will it involve the setting up of iwi co-management
committees, with fees paid to the un-elected
representatives, and will that money have to be recouped
by way of an iwi tax on all coastal activities?
The way John Key is trying to rush this monumental
change through Parliament by Christmas is scandalous.
Presumably he is hoping we will have forgotten all about
it by the time the election comes around!
But this will change the future of our country forever.
Not least because it will take us down a slippery slope
- according to the Minister some 2,000 km of coastline
is expected to be transferred to Maori tribal ownership
and control (the distance from Cape Reinga to the Bluff
wrapped around the coast and stretched out to the 12
nautical mile limit) but this will only be the start.
Over time, future governments will undoubtedly be
persuaded to lower the bar until eventually the whole of
the foreshore and the
Territorial
Sea
(and possibly even the entire Exclusive Economic Zone!)
will be owned by corporate iwi.
As concerned citizens, our options are to either accept
this backwards step to tribalism or fight back! In the
absence of a Parliamentary party speaking out in
opposition to John Key’s plan and championing Crown
ownership of the foreshore and seabed, the Coastal
Coalition was formed. The Coastal Coalition is a grass
roots movement of people of all ages and political
persuasions who are united in our love of this country
and our desire to protect the beaches and
Territorial
Sea
as the common heritage of all New Zealanders. If you
care, please join us in our campaign to inform the New
Zealand public about what’s going on – you can help
as a volunteer or send in a donation: already we have
high profile billboards in Auckland and Wellington and
we are planning more initiatives once John Key’s bill
has been tabled in Parliament and submissions called
for.
To
volunteer, please click here>>>
To donate, please click here>>>
Doing
nothing and hoping for the best is not enough. Neither
is acquiescence an option.
New Zealand
as a country will only prosper and grow if we build on
the governance and institutional arrangements that
strengthen democracy. Powerful Maori tribes are doing
everything they can to undermine our democratic state,
using the country’s resources and institutions to
foster the Maori tribal world view. If you want to join
us in drawing a line in the sand and saying enough is
enough, then help us now - because the only way we can
stop the juggernaut is if we all band together.
NZCPR POLL
This week’s poll
asks:
Do
you believe
New Zealand
is moving down the tribalism path?
To
vote click here>>>>
(Readers
comments will be posted here>>>
daily)
View feedback
on last week's poll here>>>
|
FOOTNOTES
Articles
can be found on the NZCPR RESEARCH PAGE - click
here>>>
1.Paul
Hamer, One in Six? The Rapid Growth of the Māori
Population in
Australia
2.Iwi Leaders’ Group, Outline of Possible Alternative to the
Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004
NZCPR ADMIN
Please
forward
this newsletter on to your
own networks and encourage other people to subscribe - that's
how we grow.
To help support the publication of
these newsletters and receive your free EBOOK and unlimited
access to our website Forum click here>>>
To join the mailing list for this
free newsletter please click here>>>
Submit
your
article for our
website
Soapbox Series here>>>
If you enjoy political debate visit the Debating
Chamber Forum
- many of our forum subscribers post up information for the
public to view daily.
To contact Muriel about this week’s column please click here>>>
You can reach Muriel by phone on 09-434-3836, 021-800-111 or
post at PO Box 984,
Whangarei.
NZCPR
Weekly is a free weekly periodical
from the
New
Zealand Centre for Political Research, a
public policy think tank at www.nzcpr.com,
established
in 2005 by former MP Dr Muriel Newman.
If you have a change of address,
please note your old address and
your new one and click here>>>. To
unsubscribe, please click here>>>
and send.
(Please note - if you get back a message saying the address is
not on the mailing list, it means you are subscribed under a
different address and you will need to submit that one)
|
|
|
Back
to top of page >>>
|
|
New Zealand Centre for
Political Research - www.nzcpr.com
|
|
FORESHORE
& SEABED UPDATE:
The
Prime Minister met with Iwi Leaders last Thursday to
update them on the foreshore legislation before
it is signed off by Cabinet this week.
Corporate
iwi stand to be the big winners if John Key's plan to
repeal Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed by
Christmas goes ahead.
First
up a massive 2000 km of coastline is expected to be
privatised to iwi -
that's almost the whole distance from Cape Reinga to
Bluff wrapped around the coast. What's more, Maori won't
even need to go to court to prove their claim - the new
law will enable secret deal-making with friendly
Ministers.
Under
John Key's proposed law, New Zealanders will be the big
losers as a massive confiscation of public property
rights takes place. The foreshore and seabed has
immensley rich mineral deposits - the ironsands alone
have been estimated by Crown Minerals to be worth up to
$1 trillion. Yet over time this enormous wealth will be
effectively stripped out of the public purse and given
to the Maori aristocracy.
New Zealanders have deliberately been kept in the dark
about the true impact of this bill. To
help fund the Coastal
Coalition's public information campaign - so all New
Zealanders become aware that our coastline is about to
be privatised to corporate iwi - please
click here>>>
|
THE NZCPR BLOG...
|
| THIS
WEEK... |
|
HEAT
TURNED UP ON GLOBAL WARMING
When a new supermarket in Mt Roskill recently advertised
for new staff over 2,700 people applied for the 150
positions. This desperate situation is being replicated
up and down the country. It is symptomatic of an economy
in trouble.
When
asked about this in Parliament last week, Finance
Minister Bill English explained that
New Zealand
’s “extremely poor performance, particularly since
2004, was simply mismanagement of the economy: excessive
Government spending, too much regulation, crunching the
export sector, and excessive debt. This government has
the job of cleaning up that mess, and then improving
New Zealand
’s economic performance.”
I wanted to ask the Minister precisely how he reconciled
that answer with his government’s introduction of a
carbon tax in the form of an emissions trading scheme
(ETS) which everyone warned would come at the cost of
jobs and growth. In a report produced in 2008 report,
the New Zealand Institute for Economic Research
estimated that by 2012 National’s emissions trading
scheme would have lowered GDP growth by $900 million,
reduced average household spending by $600, and cost the
economy the equivalent of 22,000 jobs.[1] It explained
that an ETS would impose major costs
on business and cause a contraction in the domestic
economy, a loss of competitiveness internationally, a
reduction in wages, a contraction in household spending,
and an increase in prices. It further identified export
industries, especially the agricultural sector as being
the most affected, noting that no other emissions
trading scheme in the world penalised its farmers by
including agriculture.
It
is very clear that the direct costs of the ETS, in the
form of increases in power and petrol and rising prices
across all goods and services in the economy, is having
a negative effect in these bleak business conditions.
How much it has contributed to the increase in 19,000
people who have lost their jobs over the last few months
- to take unemployment back up from 6 to 6.8 percent -
is difficult to tell. What is not so hard to ascertain
is that the decision to implement the ETS was clearly a
victory of one-eyed ideology over common sense, thus
making a lie of Bill English’s promise that his
government is focussed on improving the country’s
economic performance.
What makes all of this so bizarre – like a skit out of
Monty Python - is that within two years emissions
trading schemes around the world that are based on the
Kyoto Protocol will collapse. All the expense of setting
up such schemes, the huge government bureaucracy that
has been created, the costly red tape that has been
imposed, not to mention the massive amounts of
taxpayers’ money that has been sunk in business
subsidies - and let’s not forget the grants to the
tribal aristocracy (upon which this government relies as
a support partner) - are all an avoidable drain on the
economy. In all, this represents an unforgivable waste
of valuable time, energy and resources.
In May, the London School of Economics in conjunction
with Oxford University published a watershed report
outlining a new direction for global climate policy
following the death of the Kyoto Protocol at Copenhagen
last year.[2] "The Hartwell Paper" is a
collaborative work by 14 authors from the UK, Asia,
Europe and North America. In their report they claim
that the concept of mitigating mankind’s impact on the
climate, which underpins the Kyoto Protocol, is
fundamentally flawed because it is based on the notion
that mankind’s use fossil fuels is “sinful” and
must be punished. In fact, they deride the focus on
carbon dioxide emissions stating, “It is now plain
that it is not possible to have a ‘climate policy’
that has emissions reductions as the all encompassing
goal.” Instead they offer an approach that is based on
“adaptation” to the vagaries of the climate, with a
focus on the production of cheap and affordable power.
In their paper they also explain, “There is no obvious
logical reason for connecting policies for reducing
emissions of methane with those for reducing the
emissions of halocarbons” thus casting doubt on what
has always been a senseless decision by the government
to include methane
and agriculture in New Zealand’s emissions trading
scheme, when most agricultural methane production is
through the natural digestive processes of ruminants.
In their paper, the Hartwell scholars condemn the
behaviour of those who exaggerated man-made global
warming by manipulating data and discrediting those who
raised legitimate concerns. One such agency that gets
special mention “as a consequence of errors and
sloppiness” is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). This is the United Nations' agency that
Climate Change Minister Nick Smith said he relied on to
provide the evidence that justified the National
Party’s decision to introduce their emissions trading
scheme on July 1st - instead of suspending it to align
with Australia, as many were suggesting including over
4,000 readers of this newsletter (to sign the petition
to suspend the ETS – click here>>>).
The Harwell report explains that as a result of
“climategate” and falsifications carried out by the
IPCC and other government agencies, “Universities,
governments and the United Nations are all now
conducting inquiries into many aspects of climate
science and the conduct of climate scientists and
science bureaucrats. In short, the legitimacy of the
institutions of climate policy and science are no longer
assured.”
This of course is a live issue here in New Zealand where
the legitimacy of claims by NIWA (the government’s
National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research),
that our country has experienced greater levels of
global warming over the last hundred years than
virtually any other country in the world, has come under
scrutiny.
The
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, a group led by
climate science experts committed to ensuring that New
Zealanders receive balanced scientific opinions that
reflect the truth about climate change, have lodged a
claim in the High Court challenging NIWA’s evidence
that New Zealand’s climate has warmed by 1°C
over
the last hundred years. This temperature increase is
almost double the global average for that period and was
used by the government to justify an emissions trading
scheme.
This
week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, Bryan Leyland, the
chairman of the Coalition’s economics panel and an
electricity industry consultant, explains:
“The
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition has asked the High
Court to rule on the validity of NIWA's 'Seven Station'
New Zealand Temperature Record (NZTR) that features
prominently on its website and is used in information it
passes on to schools and is also used to support the
emission trading scheme, resource consent applications
for wind farms and many other key aspects of policies
designed to ‘fight climate change’. If this action
succeeds, NIWA will be obliged to withdraw the Seven
Station series and all the advice that they had given
based on it. They will also be required to produce a new
NZTR, which is both transparent and independently peer
reviewed.
“From information available on NIWA's website,
Coalition members have been able to plot temperatures
from 1900 to the present based on the actual readings of
the thermometers and based on the readings from the same
thermometers after adjustment by NIWA. The unadjusted
readings showed an insignificant warming of 0.3°C per
century while the adjusted readings show a warming of 1°C
per century.”
In
his article
Bryan
reminds us that official claims of excessive warming
have extended further than just paving the way for the
government to introduce an emissions trading scheme: “
New
Zealand
's
temperature record has a disproportionate effect on
global estimates, because there are very few long-term
temperature stations in the
Pacific Ocean
. It influences government policies, at central,
regional and local level, in their policies to ‘fight
climate change’. These include the economically
damaging emissions trading scheme, devaluing seaside
properties because of fears of extreme sea level rise,
incentives for expensive and ineffective windfarms and
disincentives for what could be really useful – new
fossil-fuel power generation.” To
read
Bryan's full article, click the sidebar link>>>
No matter what the outcome of the court challenge, it is
only foolish governments that think they can control the
climate by imposing financial penalties on their
citizens. Common sense should tell them that climate
cycles and climate ‘events’ are natural and cannot
be controlled by man. And if they doubt that, they
should just remember Eyjafjallajökull (now try and say
it!) the Icelandic volcano that has discharged enough
carbon dioxide to negate much of man’s long term
global efforts to control emissions.
The
Hartwell paper indicates that a sea change in thinking
on climate change is taking place. This is no doubt
driven to a large degree by the fact that climate
policies are having a crippling effect on economies.
In the
US
, the Senate has finally thrown out their emissions
trading scheme bill on the basis that citizens should
not be penalized by a reduction in living standards for
something that cannot be validated. However, in
Britain
, energy prices are expected to surge 10 percent by
Christmas, putting huge pressure on household budgets,
as the cost of the government’s climate change polices
- mainly carbon emissions reduction and the promotion of
uneconomical renewable energy schemes – looks set to
treble over the next decade.
Meanwhile
New Zealanders are facing financial penalties and a
reduction in living standards because of National’s
emissions trading scheme – and while it will have no
affect on the climate, it has definitely become a
millstone around the neck of our fragile economy.
NZCPR POLL
This week’s poll
asks:
Do
you believe the emissions trading scheme is providing
any benefit at all for
New Zealand
?
To
vote click here>>>>
(Readers
comments will be posted here>>>
daily)
View feedback
on last week's poll here>>>
|
FOOTNOTES
Articles
can be found on the NZCPR RESEARCH PAGE - click
here>>>
1.1.NZIER,
The impact of the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme on NZ’s
economy
2.London School of Economics, The Hartwell Paper
NZCPR ADMIN
Please
forward
this newsletter on to your
own networks and encourage other people to subscribe - that's
how we grow.
To help support the publication of
these newsletters and receive your free EBOOK and unlimited
access to our website Forum click here>>>
To join the mailing list for this
free newsletter please click here>>>
Submit
your
article for our
website
Soapbox Series here>>>
If you enjoy political debate visit the Debating
Chamber Forum
- many of our forum subscribers post up information for the
public to view daily.
To contact Muriel about this week’s column please click here>>>
You can reach Muriel by phone on 09-434-3836, 021-800-111 or
post at PO Box 984,
Whangarei.
NZCPR
Weekly is a free weekly periodical
from the
New
Zealand Centre for Political Research, a
public policy think tank at www.nzcpr.com,
established
in 2005 by former MP Dr Muriel Newman.
If you have a change of address,
please note your old address and
your new one and click here>>>. To
unsubscribe, please click here>>>
and send.
(Please note - if you get back a message saying the address is
not on the mailing list, it means you are subscribed under a
different address and you will need to submit that one)
|
|
|
Back
to top of page >>>
|
|
New Zealand Centre for
Political Research - www.nzcpr.com
|
|
FORESHORE
& SEABED UPDATE:
If
you believe that our beaches and Territorial Sea
stretching out to the 12 nautical mile limit, our
coastal harbours and tidal estuaries, the mineral wealth
below the area and the airspace above, are the
common heritage of all New Zealanders, then you
must support the Coastal Coalition in our battle to
keep this crucial public resource in Crown ownership.
Any day now John Key’s new bill to allow the Maori
tribal elite to negotiate ownership of
New Zealand
’s publicly owned foreshore and seabed will be tabled
in Parliament. If National gets its way, it will become
law by Christmas. The bill represents not only major
constitutional change, but a gross confiscation of
public property rights.
We believe that if the public really understand that
John Key is planning to sacrifice the democratic rights
of all New Zealanders for the votes of Maori activists
(who are desperate to get their hands on these publicly
owned riches - Crown Minerals
has valued the iron sand reserves alone at up to $1 trillion!),
they will rise up in opposition. To support the Coastal
Coalition's public information campaign fundraising
appeal, please
click here>>>
|
THE
NZCPR BLOG...
|
THIS WEEK... |
|
THE
DARK UNDERBELLY OF WELFARE
According to Saturday’s Herald, the co-leader
of the Maori Party, Pita Sharples, is trying to save a
Black Power gang house from being demolished by the city
council because it caters for the "spiritual and
cultural needs" of Maori. He claimed that the Mt
Wellington property - which had been the Black Power
headquarters and hub of a $1.5 million cannabis ring
before being seized and sold under the Proceeds of Crime
Act – was sometimes used as a marae.[1]
In a letter to the City Council written on Maori Party
letterhead in March, Dr Sharples said, “I can confirm
that the large room in the middle of the house was set
up as a wharenui [meeting house] and as such provided
for the hui that we were present at to be conducted in
much the same way as if at a marae."
"As the local member of Parliament for Tamaki
Makarau I have no hesitation in supporting the
application to consider a waiver to the resource
consents compliance on the grounds that this house has
been utilised for cultural occasions and events."
The
property was owned by Dr
Sharples' electorate manager, a former Black Power gang
member, before being sold to the gang. Black Power has
already moved back into the house, in spite of the
property now having a new owner.
Meanwhile, the Council, which conveniently turned a
blind eye to major building consent breaches while owned
by Black Power, has come down hard on the new owner with
enforcement orders and council fines. This approach is
typical of various arms of government when faced with
the truly menacing – instead of forcing compliance
they ignore them and instead focus on pushing around
basically law abiding citizens.
What this case highlights, besides the self-serving
views of Maori fundamentalists like Pita Sharples, is
the existence of the welfare society in
New Zealand. The welfare “underclass” is not only
alive and kicking, but now has its own cheerleaders in
our House of Representatives.
The underclass is the dark underbelly of
New Zealand's welfare system: unskilled, uneducated,
teenage girls getting pregnant and going on welfare to
raise children fathered by transient partners who have
no intention of ever taking any responsibility for the
mother or the child. Tragically, all too many of these
children end up being shaken or molested, bashed or
neglected, often ending up in state care. Denied proper
love, care, and protection, as well as adequate
healthcare and a decent education, a large proportion of
these children gravitate to gangs and onto welfare,
unable to escape from the deadly grip of the dependency
cycle they were born into.
Entrenched
long term welfare dependency is the scourge of our
society. Permitted to destroy the life opportunities of
generations of children, it is a real blight on
New Zealand's social policy record. And while successive
governments must share culpability for the magnitude of
this problem, at last there is a faint glimmer of hope
that something might be done to address this scandal.
The Welfare
Working Group, established by the government in April to
conduct a wide ranging review of
New Zealand's welfare system has been looking at the
problem of long-term welfare benefit dependency. Asked
to come up with some recommendations (by the end of the
year) on ways to turn around the growing benefit numbers
and poor social and economic outcomes, the Working Group
was asked to consider a wide range of issues: how
long-term benefit dependency can be reduced and work
outcomes improved; how to promote opportunities and
independence from benefits for disabled people and
people with ill health; how welfare should be funded;
and whether the structure of the benefit system and
hardship assistance in particular, is contributing to
long-term benefit dependency.[2]
Last week, the Working Group released an Issues Paper
outlining the results of their initial investigations.
It does not paint an optimistic picture of the state of
New Zealand's welfare system.
As at the end of April, over 365,000 working aged people
were receiving welfare benefits - one in eight of the
working age population. Of those, around 75,000 were on
the dole, 66,000 were receiving a sickness benefit,
96,000 an invalid’s benefit, 108,000 the domestic
purposes benefit, 6,000 a widow’s benefit, 3,000 an
emergency benefit, and over 2,000 teenage mothers were
receiving an emergency maintenance allowance (the sole
parent benefit available for people who do not qualify
for the DPB - young teeange girls, new immigrants etc). While these figures included the
13,800 partners of people receiving one of the main
benefits, there were an additional 14,000 people under
the age of 18 and over 65 who were also receiving full
benefits, bringing the total number of welfare
recipients to 370,000.
The Welfare Working Group wanted to know how many of
those on benefits had been there in the long-term. They
found 171,000 had spent more than five of the past ten
years on a benefit: 12,000 on the unemployment benefit,
24,000 on the sickness benefit, 65,000 on the invalid
benefit, 53,000 on the domestic purposes benefit, 1,000
on the widow’s benefit, 3,000 on an emergency benefit,
and 13,000 partners. Almost 60 percent – 100,000 - had
spent nine or more years of the last ten years on a
benefit.
When they investigated the prime factors leading to long
term dependency, they found what we could have all
guessed, that people who receive welfare as teenagers
are the most vulnerable to becoming trapped in the
system. What is particularly disturbing is that with
over 10,000 young people aged from 16 to 18 years old
entering the welfare system every year, there is a
strong likelihood that many will remain dependent on
benefits in the long term. With a high proportion coming
from dysfunctional families, unless something changes,
the cycle of benefit dependency and severe disadvantage
will continue unabated.
The great Maori leader Sir
Apirana Ngata warned of the dangers that social welfare
would bring to Maori, and it is a sad indictment of the
welfare system that this situation has been allowed to
come to pass. Figures produced by the Working Group
show benefit dependence amongst Maori is more than
double the rate for the population as a whole, with
census figures from 2006 showing that 27 percent of
Maori between the ages of 18 and 64 years are receiving
a benefit compared to 12 percent in the total
population. One in three Maori women are on welfare,
compared to one in five Maori men. If age is factored
in, the highest welfare dependency rate is for Maori
women in their twenties, with 40 percent on welfare
(largely the DPB), while for men the peak is in their
thirties with 20 percent on welfare (largely the
unemployment, invalid or sickness benefits).
In
general terms, the Welfare Working Group has pointed out
the glaring reality that
New Zealand's welfare system has a very weak employment
focus. Apart from the Unemployment Benefit, there are
virtually no requirements for beneficiaries to get a
job. That’s also why New Zealand does so poorly on
international child poverty comparisons - with one in
five children (220,000 in total) being raised in
families dependent on welfare benefits that have few
work incentives, the mechanisms to pro-actively help
such families to get employment and leave poverty behind
are lacking.
What the Working Group’s report also shows, which is
what we have been arguing for years, is that it is
systemic failure within the welfare system itself that
is nurturing the underclass, entrenching disadvantage,
and costing the country its economic progress. If
welfare went back to providing support for those who
genuinely cannot look after themselves, giving everyone
else a hand up in times of need, the whole country would
be far better off.
This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, welfare analyst
Lindsay Mitchell, has been closely following the
progress of the Welfare Working Group and also considers
that its work offers the best opportunity in years for a
sensible debate about welfare reform options. But she
makes the point that this will only happen if there is
sufficient supportive feedback. In her article
“Welfare reform becomes a political football –
again” Lindsay explains that the objective of the well
organised ‘left’ is to turn public opinion against
reform. She asks:
“And what of the views of those who want to see more
New Zealand
children realise their potential in life rather than
grow up with the same low expectations and sense of
entitlement as their parents? Who are alarmed at the
economic implications of allowing long-term dependence
to continue growing? Who are convinced that welfare has
had a hugely detrimental impact on the family? Don’t
wait for the media to come looking for them. Sensible is
not sexy.
“Which is why the Issues Paper provides an opportunity
for every interested party to make their view known.
Make the effort because this government is as
poll-driven as any other. They need to know they have
support for change. They need a mandate to accept at
least some of the recommendations that the group will
make in December this year. Don’t let the naysayers
carry the day again. If this opportunity is lost we may
wait years for another.” To read Lindsay’s full
article, click the sidebar link>>>
Public submissions are due by September 17 – details
can be found on the Welfare Working Group’s website
at: http://ips.ac.nz/WelfareWorkingGroup/Index.html
NZCPR POLL
This week’s poll
asks:
Do
you believe the welfare system is in need of major
reform?
To
vote click here>>>>
(Readers
comments will be posted here>>>
daily)
View feedback
on last week's poll here>>>
|
FOOTNOTES
Articles
can be found on the NZCPR RESEARCH PAGE - click
here>>>
1.Herald,
Minister weighs in to save gang pad
2.Welfare Working Group, Long-Term Benefit Dependency: The
Issues
NZCPR ADMIN
Please
forward
this newsletter on to your
own networks and encourage other people to subscribe - that's
how we grow.
To help support the publication of
these newsletters and receive your free EBOOK and unlimited
access to our website Forum click here>>>
To join the mailing list for this
free newsletter please click here>>>
Submit
your
article for our
website
Soapbox Series here>>>
If you enjoy political debate visit the Debating
Chamber Forum
- many of our forum subscribers post up information for the
public to view daily.
To contact Muriel about this week’s column please click here>>>
You can reach Muriel by phone on 09-434-3836, 021-800-111 or
post at PO Box 984,
Whangarei.
NZCPR
Weekly is a free weekly periodical
from the
New
Zealand Centre for Political Research, a
public policy think tank at www.nzcpr.com,
established
in 2005 by former MP Dr Muriel Newman.
If you have a change of address,
please note your old address and
your new one and click here>>>. To
unsubscribe, please click here>>>
and send.
(Please note - if you get back a message saying the address is
not on the mailing list, it means you are subscribed under a
different address and you will need to submit that one)
|
|
|
Back
to top of page >>>
|
|
New Zealand Centre for
Political Research - www.nzcpr.com
|
|
FORESHORE
& SEABED UPDATE:
The Coastal Coalition is an umbrella group of
concerned people who believe ownership of the public
foreshore and seabed, which is the common heritage of
all New Zealanders, should remain with the Crown. The
Coalition is raising funds for a public information
campaign as most people are completely unaware of
John Key's radical plan to repeal Crown ownership in
favour of Maori interests by Christmas. The
repeal bill is expected to be tabled in Parliament this
month.
To
donate to this public information campaign, please click
here>>>
A
selection of billboard ads (one is below) have been
submitted to the Coalition for use in the campaign - we
value your opinion on which you think would be the most
effective. Everyone who takes part in this survey
will go into the draw to win a FREE copy of the
award winning New Zealand Investment Game.
To view ad samples and take part in the survey, please
click here>>>
|
THE
NZCPR BLOG...
|
THIS WEEK... |
|
COUNCILS
THREATEN THE GOOD LIFE
For generations of Kiwi families, once the children
arrived, so too did the dreams of a home and a bit of
land in the country. Five or ten acre lots were ideal
– they provided tons of space for the kids, room for a
pony, a few steers, some sheep, chooks and a pig, as
well as a big veggie garden and an orchard. In addition,
of course, the house would have a garage, maybe even a
sleep-out, and with luck, one or more sheds for dad.
Sadly, in many parts of the country, this freedom to buy
the dream lifestyle has been destroyed by planners who
see the countryside not as a locale for Kiwi families,
but as a landscape that needs protection from human
habitation.
That charge is being driven largely by environmental
organisations like the Environmental Defence Society
(EDS), which states as its aims, “Our research and
policy work focuses on improving the legal and policy
framework so that
New Zealand
can become an
exemplar of international environmental best practice.”
These worrying words echo the same sort of extremism
that has driven Nick Smith to impose onto
New Zealand
consumers the world’s “most comprehensive”
Emissions Trading Scheme.
The EDS then goes on to explain that they work by
becoming “directly involved in issues of national
importance in order to influence policies and laws at a
strategic level.” That’s why most people haven’t
heard about this radical activist group. Their modus
operandi is to target and persuade key policy makers in
central and local government (Environment Minister Nick
Smith is said to be significantly under their influence,
as are many of the staff and politicians in local
government).
Furthermore according to the EDS website, the advice
that the EDS gives to community groups and individuals
on environmental issues is funded by you, the taxpayer,
via the Ministry for the Environment. The EDS accounts
don’t reveal how much that is, but one assumes it is
part of the $268,000 total referred to as “grants”.
One wonders what arrangements there are between EDS and
the Ministry for the Environment? How rigorous is the
auditing? How appropriate is this spending at a time
when all government spending is under review?
This generous funding enables the EDS to have a strong
influence on policy development by engaging in “last
man standing” litigation. This involves them making
submissions to council plans and pursuing their
submission through to the appeal process, knowing full
well that virtually all of the other submitters will
drop by the way-side due to the rapidly rising costs. As
a result, the end policy in the planning process is
largely shaped by those able to go the full distance:
very often only the EDS, the Department of Conservation,
and the local council itself. That is a very benign
forum for the EDS to negotiate its protectionist
policies, such as the replacement of reasonable
subdivision rules with the extremely large (20 hectare
or 50 acres) minimum lot sizes that are increasingly
being imposed by councils in rural and coastal areas.
According
to the Taranaki Daily News, the New Plymouth District
Council is
in the process of increasing their minimum rural
allotment size from four hectares to 20, as well as
changing the minimum setback from a road from 10 to 30
metres. All of this is being done in order to “protect
rural character” by reducing the number of lifestyle
blocks in the countryside, even though anecdotal
evidence shows that owners of smaller lots are more
likely to increase plantings and improve biodiversity to
a far greater degree than those on the larger more
expensive blocks.
Empirical
realities are, however, of little interest to
ideologically driven council employees and lobbyists
like the EDS, who believe that people should be forced
to live in clustered high density urban environments,
rather than being allowed to own a home and a piece of
land in country areas within commuting distance of work.
They call it “Smart Growth” but in reality it’s
just dumb economics. The end result, of course, is a
shortage of urban land (economics 101 tells you that
once you restrict anything it becomes scare and the
value rises), which pushes up the cost of sections in
particular and housing in general. This is one of the
reasons that house prices have become unaffordable in so
many parts of the country.
Given that Council plans are governed by the Resource
Management Act (RMA), I asked this week’s NZCPR Guest
Commentator Owen McShane, the Director of the Centre for
Resource Management Studies, for an assessment of
whether National’s recent changes to the RMA will
address some of these concerns. Owen
explained that the reforms, which came into force on
October 1st last year, were designed to
improve the Act and speed up the process, but he warned
that sometimes speeding up the process means that bad
decisions are simply reached more quickly:
“Over the last couple of months a steady stream of
applications for a new town or comprehensive residential
developments have been rejected by the Courts. They
usually fail because they are not where some ‘Smart
Growth strategy’ says they should be, or because the
local community does not want any more houses like their
own ‘intruding’ into the landscape. These failed
applications are always written up as a ‘triumph for
the community’. Presumably building trades-people,
young families, and the unemployed are not a part of any
community. Every thousand houses represents about 5,000
direct jobs and say 35,000 downstream jobs. So that’s
25,000 direct jobs and about 250,000 indirect jobs lost
– and the recovery continues to falter. And think of
the 15% GST!”
Owen explains that “There is another ‘downstream’
impact on employment. As investors and developers suffer
this stream of failures, and have to write off millions
of dollars in land and compliance costs and legal fees,
they simply give up and withdraw from the market. They
know they will lose such Appeals because the Resource
Management Act says 'Landscape' is a matter of national
importance, while employment and affordable housing do
not rate a mention in the hierarchy. And the Environment
Minister Nick Smith has promised the Environmental
Defence Society this will not be changed in the second
round of reforms because there will be no changes to
Part 2 of the Act.” To read Owen’s full analysis,
please click the sidebar link>>>
Part of the difficulties with the RMA relate to section
6, which defines matters of “national importance”.
These include:
(a) the preservation of the natural character of the
coastal environment (including the coastal marine area),
wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins, and
the protection of them from inappropriate subdivision,
use, and development:
(b) the protection of outstanding natural features and
landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use, and
development:
(c) the protection of areas of significant indigenous
vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna:
(d) the maintenance and enhancement of public access to
and along the coastal marine area, lakes, and rivers:
(e) the relationship of Maori and their culture and
traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites,
waahi tapu, and other taonga:
(f) the protection of historic heritage from
inappropriate subdivision, use, and development:
(g) the protection of recognised customary activities.
In addition to the specific clauses that elevate the
requirements of Maori above those of other citizens, the
RMA is another Act of Parliament that contains one of
those undefined Treaty of Waitangi clauses: “In
achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons
exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to
managing the use, development, and protection of natural
and physical resources, shall take into account the
principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o
Waitangi).”
This focus on Maori in the RMA process is now, however,
leading to claims of extortion whereby in many parts of
the country applicants applying for resource consents
have to get “permission” from local Maori. Many
dollars later, a standard “cultural analysis” is
submitted along with the application, while local Maori
smile as they pocket the money and give thanks to those
gullible politicians who enabled them to get onto this
particular gravy train.
The way the RMA works at present means that Maori also
have extraordinary powers when it comes to claims
regarding sites that are of special significance to them
in a cultural or historic sense. The problem is that in
most local authority districts, these sites are not
required to be identified on district plans, so the
public are often unaware that there is an issue with a
site until they try to do something – or until Maori
decide that they want to exercise some authority.
There are numerous cases of local Maori deciding that
they want to take back the private land that was sold by
their ancestors (without paying for it!). To achieve
this they claim that the land contains waahi tapu and
archaeological sites, but they do not necessarily have
to prove the
existence of such sites of significance; it is up to the
landowner to prove that the waahi tapu or
archaeologically significant sites do
not exist! This is, of course, virtually impossible,
since there is rarely any evidence to back up such
claims, which can often date back 500 or 600 years! The
end result is a dramatic drop in the value of the
property, which enables those making the claim to pick
it up for little more than a waiata.
The RMA was born with good intentions, but has been
nurtured by activists. Huge problems remain in its
implementation and the public need to be forever
vigilant in how it is being manipulated by idealists and
vested interest groups who are determined to erode
public freedoms and private property rights. In fact,
with the law as it stands, the only way to really
protect your rights is to take an active interest in the
policy making process of your council and have your
democratic say on issues as they arise.
NZCPR POLL
This week’s poll
asks:
Do
you believe 20 ha (50 acres) should be the minimum
subdivision lot size in rural areas?
To
vote click here>>>>
(Readers
comments will be posted here>>>
daily)
View feedback
on last week's poll here>>>
|
NZCPR
ADMIN
Please
forward
this newsletter on to your
own networks and encourage other people to subscribe - that's
how we grow.
To help support the publication of
these newsletters and receive your free EBOOK and unlimited
access to our website Forum click here>>>
To join the mailing list for this
free newsletter please click here>>>
Submit
your
article for our
website
Soapbox Series here>>>
If you enjoy political debate visit the Debating
Chamber Forum
- many of our forum subscribers post up information for the
public to view daily.
To contact Muriel about this week’s column please click here>>>
You can reach Muriel by phone on 09-434-3836, 021-800-111 or
post at PO Box 984,
Whangarei.
NZCPR
Weekly is a free weekly periodical
from the
New
Zealand Centre for Political Research, a
public policy think tank at www.nzcpr.com,
established
in 2005 by former MP Dr Muriel Newman.
If you have a change of address,
please note your old address and
your new one and click here>>>. To
unsubscribe, please click here>>>
and send.
(Please note - if you get back a message saying the address is
not on the mailing list, it means you are subscribed under a
different address and you will need to submit that one)
|
|
|
Back
to top of page >>>
|
|
New Zealand Centre for
Political Research - www.nzcpr.com
|
THE
NZCPR BLOG...
|
|
The Coastal
Coalition is an umbrella group committed to
retaining the foreshore and seabed - the common heritage
of all New Zealanders - in Crown ownership. We have
volunteers all over the country helping to inform New
Zealanders that John Key plans to repeal Crown ownership
of the foreshore and seabed by Christmas. But we need
your help:
- to become a volunteer to help inform the public, click
here>>>
- to support our major public information campaign
fundraiser, click here>>>
Your assistance is greatly appreciated - there is
no time to lose.
|
THIS WEEK... |
|
JOHN
KEY - SELLING OUT TO MAORI ACTIVISTS
Almost without a ripple, John Key’s administration is
about to table a bill in Parliament that will have far
reaching consequences that few can imagine. I am of
course referring to the Government’s proposed changes
to the foreshore and seabed.
The foreshore and seabed is the common heritage of all
New Zealanders. It has always been held by the Crown on
behalf of us all. Now Maori are claiming it for
themselves. But if
Maori had really believed they owned the foreshore and
seabed, almost every Treaty of Waitangi claim since 1985
would have included it. None did.
By Christmas, John Key intends to have passed a law that
will result in the race-based
privatisation of
New Zealand
’s beaches and sea. This priceless
public asset will be given to Maori, not because the
present law is not working, but because John Key wants
to build a long-term political relationship with the
Maori Party. Politically it’s a good move – he takes
the Maori seats away from a potential Labour coalition,
and he has an alternative to ACT. But political wheeling
and dealing has a price and this is a price too high.
What’s more John Key has no mandate for trading away
the foreshore and seabed to Maori radicals. If National
had campaigned on giving the foreshore and seabed to
Maori at the 2008 election, they would not have won. And
with only 2.3 percent of the Party vote, the Maori Party
does not have the mandate of wider Maori either.
John Key is banking on the fact that the public will
remain largely unaware of the great trade-off that his
government is about to perpetrate until after the law is
passed. If all goes according to National’s plan,
Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed will be
repealed by Christmas, leaving the way open for Maori up
and down the country to begin lodging their claims for
our priceless public asset. Not only that, but the Prime
Minister’s assurance that once Maori tribes own the
foreshore and seabed, public access will be guaranteed,
does not hold water. Once Maori take ownership, they
will also be given the exclusive right to ban public
access to areas that they deem to be of special
significance to Maori. There is no transparency about
this process and no rights of appeal, so if Maori owners
decide that popular fishing spots and holiday sites are
sacred, then tough luck - public access will be denied.
And with three different levels of Maori claims able to
be imposed on the foreshore and seabed through the new
bill – customary title, customary right, and mana tuku
iho – involving hundreds of different tribes each with
their own wahi tapu, the public should expect that their
access rights could be severely compromised.
When the Prime Minister has been asked in Parliament to
guarantee that under his proposed law, access to the
beaches and the sea will be free,
he has been unable to give such an assurance. That means
that if Maori tribal owners decide to charge for access
to their newly privatised beaches and
Territorial
Sea
– there is nothing that can be done to stop them.
After all, many tribal activists already believe they
own the country and openly flout the laws of the land,
driving away people with legitimate rights of access. No
politician will be able to guarantee that Maori will not
charge for public access to the foreshore and seabed
once the area is in their private hands.
Another massive deception being perpetrated by John Key
involves claims that the new law will enable Maori to
have “their day in court”. The genesis of this
deceit goes back to 2003, when the Court of Appeal ruled
that Maori had the right to take claims for “customary
title” over the foreshore and seabed to the
Maori Land Court
. However, in making that ruling, the Judges noted that
there was likely to be little - if any - Maori customary
land left in New Zealand, since over the years it had
been the job of the Maori Land Court to investigate the
ownership of all unallocated customary title in order to
allocate it to Maori owners as Maori freehold land. The
test for customary title is high – Maori had to own
‘contiguous’ land adjacent to that being claimed and
in addition, they had to prove to the satisfaction of a
Court of law that they had had continuous and
uninterrupted usage of the area since 1840. The Appeal
Court Judges thought few, if any, such claims would
succeed.
Labour’s 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act, which
reaffirmed Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed,
was designed so that Maori could have “their day in
court”. If Maori wanted to claim a territorial
customary right, they had to prove their case in the
High Court using the “contiguous” land and
“exclusive and uninterrupted usage since 1840”
tests, as well as being able to show that they had
retained the right to restrict public access to the
foreshore and seabed in question. Since the law was
passed six years ago, no such claims have been
completed, although Ngati Porou’s is in the pipeline.
This means is that the claims by politicians and the
Maori elite that Labour’s Foreshore and Seabed law
denied Maori their day in court, is false. Similarly,
the claim that John Key’s new law will give them their
day in court is also false. The proposed new law does
NOT require Maori to have a day in court at all. Instead
they can sidestep the legal process (which is a
principal public interest safeguard whereby claimants
have to prove their claims in an open court of law) in
favour of a purely political process, whereby claimants
can negotiate favourable settlements through backroom
deals with friendly Ministers. While the “day in
court” option will exist it will clearly only be used
when political hose-trading has failed.
This week’s Guest Commentator, Michael Coote, an
Auckland based freelance writer and financial
journalist, has carefully analysed John Key’s proposed
new law and warns that it will be “open slather for
claims ranging from the average high tide mark,
including coastal riverbeds, out to the 12 nautical mile
limit and including all airspace above and seabed below.
No wonder potential Maori claimants are smacking
their lips at the prospects lying before them.
They are being gifted the biggest land (and sea)
grab in
New Zealand
’s modern history. Short of donating
New Zealand
’s entire landmass as well, there will never be a
better deal for Maori than what the government has
determined upon doing, even if the price to the rest of
society includes violation of the government’s duties
of good stewardship of Crown assets and trampling on the
rights of all other New Zealanders in the process.”
In his conclusion Michael asks, “Can the general
public have any faith in the National-led government to
defend its legitimate existing interests in the
foreshore and seabed?” He answers with a resounding
“No”!
“The way the government has structured the deal around
relinquishing Crown title to create ‘public space’
guarantees destruction of the legally defendable public
interest in the foreshore and seabed, and the legal
definition of that area ensures that Maori claims will
be vast and sweeping, further augmented by the Trojan
horse concept of ‘universal recognition’.
“The government itself – principally in the
persons of Prime Minister John Key and Attorney
General/Minister of Treaty Negotiations Chris Finlayson
- has made repeated statements that have the appearance
of being calculatedly false, misleading and deceptive
about how minimal the changes that will flow through
will be. The
public should not be reassured by the government’s
soothing words, and instead should be up in arms to
defend its legitimate and abiding interests from the
Maori foreshore and seabed grab.” To read Michael’s
full article, “The Great Foreshore and Seabed
Sellout”, click the sidebar link>>>
At a time when Scotland is fighting to wrest control of
their foreshore and seabed from the UK government, so
that the citizens of Scotland can gain the full benefit
of their natural coastal resources, it is inconceivable
that John Key is planning to deny New Zealand citizens
those benefits through his race-based privatisation
plan. And it’s not as if the country is so rich that
we don’t need the economic boost - any visit to a
hospital emergency department out of regular hours will
demonstrate only too clearly that New Zealand now has
third world living standards instead of the first world
facilities that we aspire to.
At the present time the foreshore and seabed is
preserved as an unalienable and common heritage of all
New Zealanders through Crown ownership and management.
It is an important part of what makes us New Zealanders.
Over time the benefits of that resource - including the
substantial mineral wealth and energy reserves - will
flow back in improved living standards. And the value of
those resources is considerable: Crown Minerals has
estimated the value of the 30 billion tonnes of iron
sand reserves alone at up to $1 trillion over time, and
then there is titanium, vanadium, rock phosphate, coal,
gas hydrates, rare earths, as well as aggregate, to name
but a few of the priceless resources that belong to all
New Zealanders through Crown ownership of the foreshore
and seabed.
John Key should not be allowed to get away with trading
our heritage for Maori Party votes. He thinks that as
long as he can pass his legislation before Christmas
that Kiwis will forget and still vote for him at the
next election. But he should realise that
New Zealand
’s love affair with the coastline runs deep, and
it’s something they will not want to give up to
radical Maori in yet another Treaty of Waitangi-style
handout.
John Key needs to think twice about trading away that
connection for his political convenience. If the Bill is
tabled and passed in the form currently proposed the
public’s outrage will gain a momentum - and that will
be at National’s expense.
NZCPR POLL
This week’s poll
asks:
Do you support John Key’s plan to open the floodgates
for foreshore and seabed claims by dropping the
requirements that Maori claimants must own
‘contiguous’ land and that they must prove their
claim in a court of law?
To
vote click here>>>>
(Readers
comments will be posted here>>>
daily)
View feedback
on last week's poll here>>>
|
NZCPR
ADMIN
Please
forward
this newsletter on to your
own networks and encourage other people to subscribe - that's
how we grow.
To help support the publication of
these newsletters and receive your free EBOOK and unlimited
access to our website Forum click here>>>
To join the mailing list for this
free newsletter please click here>>>
Submit
your
article for our
website
Soapbox Series here>>>
If you enjoy political debate visit the Debating
Chamber Forum
- many of our forum subscribers post up information for the
public to view daily.
To contact Muriel about this week’s column please click here>>>
You can reach Muriel by phone on 09-434-3836, 021-800-111 or
post at PO Box 984,
Whangarei.
NZCPR
Weekly is a free weekly periodical
from the
New
Zealand Centre for Political Research, a
public policy think tank at www.nzcpr.com,
established
in 2005 by former MP Dr Muriel Newman.
If you have a change of address,
please note your old address and
your new one and click here>>>. To
unsubscribe, please click here>>>
and send.
(Please note - if you get back a message saying the address is
not on the mailing list, it means you are subscribed under a
different address and you will need to submit that one)
|
|
|
Back
to top of page >>>
|
|
New Zealand Centre for
Political Research - www.nzcpr.com
|
|
The
NZCPR funded by voluntary donations from
newsletter readers. To help please click here>>>
|
THIS
WEEK... |
|
Problem
or Fact of Life?
"What is happening to our young people? They
disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents.
They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed
with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to
become of them?"
There is a widespread perception that today’s youth
are more badly
behaved than ever before. The fact is, however, that
such concerns have always been with us. The above quote
is attributed to Plato in 400 BC – and the following
is an inscription on a 6,000-year-old
Egyptian tomb:
“We
live in a decaying age. Young people no longer respect
their parents. They are rude and impatient. They
frequently inhabit taverns and have no
self-control."
To
get a better idea of what is really going on with our
young let’s have a look at some research.
First of all, the recent death by alcohol poisoning of a
16 year-old King’s College school student has raised
serious concerns about binge drinking amongst young
people. The Chief Coroner released data to show that the
number of young people who have died as a result of
binge drinking, since the beginning of July 2007, is 12.
Between July 2007 and February 2010 the number of people
of all age groups who have died of alcohol poisoning
stands at 83.
According to a Law Commission report on youth and
alcohol from 1996 to 2003, the percentage of publicly
funded hospitalisations for young people aged from 15 to
19 -where the primary diagnosis was alcohol related -
fell from 15.3 percent in the year 2000 to 12.5 percent
in 2003.[1] This included the period during which the
drinking age was lowered from 20 to 18.
When it comes to traffic accidents, Ministry of
Transport figures show that in the 12 months to
September 2009, young drivers aged from 15 to 19 were
involved in crashes that resulted in 67 deaths, 21 of
which involved alcohol. However, over the years, the
number of road deaths involving young drivers has
reduced dramatically from the peak in 1987 when 195
young drivers died. Similarly, the number of young
drivers involved in crashes where alcohol was recorded
as a factor has dropped from a maximum of 418 accidents
in 1995, to 298 in 2003.[2]
While road fatalities attract a great deal of attention
and public money, more New Zealanders die from suicide.
Between 2004 and 2007, while 1,654 people died on the
roads, suicide claimed 2,008 lives. Of those, 198 were
young people between the ages of 15 and 19.
According to a report “Doing Better for Children”
published by the OECD last year, the latest youth
suicide statistics puts New Zealand above all other OECD
countries: New Zealand’s rate of 15.9 deaths per
100,000 young people aged 15 to 19 compares with a rate
of only 3 deaths per 100,000 in the UK, 7.7 in the US,
8.5 in Australia, 9.5 in Ireland, and 10 in Canada. The
OECD average is 6.9 deaths per 100,000 15 to 19 year
olds.[3]
New Zealand
’s
highest recorded rate of youth suicide was in 1997 when
72 young people in the 15 to 19 age group took their own
lives. For the younger 10 to 14 age group, the highest
number was 12 children who died in 1998. In comparison,
in 2007, 42 young people in the 15 to 19 year age group
died, and 2 children aged between 10 and 14.[4]
When it comes to youth crime, the trend is downwards. A
Ministry of Justice report shows that the child
apprehension rate for 10 to 13 year olds has fallen from
a peak of 543 per 10,000 head of population in 1996 to
336 in 2008, and the youth apprehension rate for 14 to
16 year olds has fallen from a peak of 1,926 in 1996 to
1,572 in 2008.[5] In addition, both child and youth
apprehensions for property offences, which is the most
common category of offence, have fallen to an all time
low in 2007 and 2008. When it comes to violent offences,
while child apprehensions are stable, youth rates have
increased by 13 percent. However, overall offending by
young people over the last decade has fallen by 15
percent.
In any policy area where there is heightened public
concern, there is a temptation for politicians to
propose high profile ‘solutions’ designed to appease
community unease. The
real question is whether such solutions are largely
window dressing, leading to more regulation and higher
taxpayer costs, or whether they will genuinely produce
better outcomes.
The
National Government has already announced a range of
policy responses that they claim will improve outcomes
for young people and society as a whole. These include
raising the driving age from 15 to 16, a move that they
expect will save 4 lives a year, and introducing a zero
blood alcohol limit for drivers under the age of 20,
which they expect will save 2 lives a year.[6]
In the area of youth offending,
falling crime rates have not stopped politicians from
pushing ahead with a very expensive youth justice
facility which opened this weekend in Rotorua at a cost
of $47 million. This new facility, which has 30 beds for
12 and 13 year old young offenders, takes the number of
such residences around the country, to 4.
However, the strategy of placing young offenders
together in large institutions has been criticised by a
former Youth Court Judge who has labeled them as a
‘gateway to prison’. Carolyn Henwood is strongly of
the view that the relatively small number of children
who commit most of the country’s youth crime need very
close individual care, not institutionalisation.[7]
With
regards to alcohol, while the Law Commission in its
recent report recommended a number of sweeping law
changes - including substantially increasing the excise
tax, introducing stronger regulations relating to the
sale and advertising of alcohol, and raising the
drinking age back up to 20 (it was lowered from 21 to 20
in 1967, then to 18 in 1999) - the government’s
intended response is unclear.
This
week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator is policy analyst David
Seymour, an expatriate New Zealander based in
Canada
, who believes an excessive use of alcohol by young
people is a symptom of a far wider problem:
“The
question at the heart of the youth alcohol abuse debate
should be why so many youth have decided that such a
destructive activity is worth giving up their other
opportunities. Most of the popular explanations are
variations on the theme that alcohol has become more
seductive. The lowered purchase age and more outlets
have made it more available; the synthesis of alcopop
drinks has made it more digestible, advertising has made
it more desirable. The logical conclusion is that if
only these could be reversed, youth would switch back to
safer, more productive activities.
“Or perhaps the root of our troubles is that other
opportunities have become less meaningful for youth.
Over the past decade, their efforts and choices in
education, the housing market, and the economy have been
trivialised, meaning they have less to lose by getting
sloshed.”
He concludes by saying “Even ignoring the
impracticality of taking alcohol away from the young,
doing so would leave a much more serious problem
untouched in our society. The only real long-term
solution to youth alcohol abuse is to attack its root
cause; the diminishing ability of youth to make a
difference in their own lives.” To read David’s full
article, Youth
Alcohol Abuse is the Symptom of a Wider Disease,
click the sidebar link>>>
David’s article raises not only the wider issue of
intergenerational equity, whereby the younger generation
is expected to carry the cost burden of long term public
policy decisions on welfare, health, superannuation and
so on, but also the wisdom of short term policies that
adversely impact youth opportunities - such as Sue
Bradford’s abolition of the youth wage.
However, the real question - given that concerns about
the behaviour of young people, is neither isolated nor
new - is whether anything can realistically be done?
Clearly the politicians, whose stock and trade is to be seen
to be solving problems (rather than actually solving
them!) like to think so – and it is definitely in
their interest to create alarm even if it is not
justified. But as tragic as it may be that the
consequences of irresponsible youth can lead to
disastrous results, the question remains as to whether
or not this is a problem that can be solved.
NZCPR POLL
This week’s poll
asks:
Do
you believe the “problem” of rebellious youth is any
worse now than when you were young?
To
vote click here>>>>
(Readers
comments will be posted here>>>
daily)
View feedback
on last week's poll here>>>
THE
NZCPR BLOG...
|
FOOTNOTES
Articles
can be found on the NZCPR RESEARCH PAGE - click
here>>>
1.1.Ministry
of Justice, Young People and Alcohol
2.Ministry Transport, Young Drivers – crash statistics
3.OECD, Doing Better for Children
4.Ministry
of Health, Suicide Facts: Deaths and intentional self-harm
hospitalizations 2007
5.Ministry of Transport, Safer Journeys
6.Min
Just, Child and Youth Offending Statistics
7.Herald, Youth facility just gateway to jail
NZCPR
ADMIN
Please
forward
this newsletter on to your
own networks and encourage other people to subscribe - that's
how we grow.
To help support the publication of
these newsletters and receive your free EBOOK and unlimited
access to our website Forum click here>>>
To join the mailing list for this
free newsletter please click here>>>
Submit
your
article for our
website
Soapbox Series here>>>
If you enjoy political debate visit the Debating
Chamber Forum
- many of our forum subscribers post up information for the
public to view daily.
To contact Muriel about this week’s column please click here>>>
You can reach Muriel by phone on 09-434-3836, 021-800-111 or
post at PO Box 984,
Whangarei.
NZCPR
Weekly is a free weekly periodical
from the
New
Zealand Centre for Political Research, a
public policy think tank at www.nzcpr.com,
established
in 2005 by former MP Dr Muriel Newman.
If you have a change of address,
please note your old address and
your new one and click here>>>. To
unsubscribe, please click here>>>
and send.
(Please note - if you get back a message saying the address is
not on the mailing list, it means you are subscribed under a
different address and you will need to submit that one)
|
|
NZCPR
Commentary
YOUTH
ALCOHOL ABUSE IS A SYMPTOM OF A WIDER DISEASE
David
Seymour
Youth
are told they are inheriting a natural environment on
the brink of collapse, and that further economic
activity may catastrophically damage it. For example,
they are regularly told that if all humans were to share
our developed world lifestyle, the resources of two and
a-half planet Earths would
be required. Reasonable people may disagree about the
validity of such statements, but the impact on youth is
clear:
They come to believe that our way of life is
unsustainable, even immoral, and any success they have
in it will be nullified by environmental costs...
To
read click here>>>
|
| |
|
Have
you joined the
Coastal Coalition yet?
For
details click here>>>
|
| |
Have
you signed? |
| |
WINNER
BEST NZ GAME>>> |
|
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
|
lDONATION
FORM
Download
the NZCPR donation form
here>>
l POLL
RESULT
*Last
week's poll:
Do
you support the arming of front-line Police?
Result:
Yes
- 85%,
No - 15%
*Read last week’s poll comments here>>>
*All
previous poll comments here>>>
 FACEBOOK
Join
the NZCPR
Facebook
group and have your say - to
view click here>>>
lTECHNICAL
HELP
Visit
our HELPDESK to
solve problems with the newsletter here>>>
lCONTACT
YOUR MP
All
MP email addresses on NZCPR
Parliament page here>>>
|
| |
 |
| |
|
ABOUT
THE NZCPR
The
NZCPR,an independent public policy Think Tank that
promotes freedom, liberty and limited government through
research, publications and open public debate, was
established in 2005 by former MP Dr Muriel Newman. The
NZCPR neither seeks nor accepts government funding,
relying instead on voluntary contributions from
supporters who share the view that sound
market-orientated public policies are vital to building
a successful and prosperous society.
*To
support the NZCPR
-
please click here>>>
|
|
|
Back
to top of page >>>
|
|
New Zealand
Centre for Political Research -
www.nzcpr.com
|
|
The NZCPR is funded entirely by
voluntary donations from readers
of this newsletter - please
support us
here>>> |
PETITION UPDATES...
*Foreshore
& Seabed:
sign
petition
here>>>
Taranaki coastal rights
claim - Taranaki Daily News:
"Te
Atiawa will seek customary rights to the
foreshore and seabed from New Plymouth
to Motunui, which could give the iwi
control over coastal developments.
Customary title would give the iwi the
right to decide which developments can
and can't go ahead, and would allow them
to put their own developments on the
area. These might include such
activities as aquaculture. Te Atiawa is
the first of seven iwi with a coastal
boundary in Taranaki to show an interest
in seeking customary title after Maori
struck a deal with the Government last
month. A successful claim would
guarantee the iwi the deed to the
coastal area, giving it greater control
including the right to veto or initiate
development. The iwi would also have the
right to some minerals, such as
ironsands..."
*To
keep the foreshore and seabed in
Crown ownership,
join the Coastal Coalition
here>>>
*Emissions Trading Scheme petition:
sign
petition
here>>>
Forestry a
greenhouse gas emitter - Radio New
Zealand:
"A
global study of the forestry industry
has found it is a net emitter of carbon
dioxide, not an absorber.
The study, by the United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organisation, has
found the industry in 2007 emitted about
420 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, or
1.4% of global emissions...more>>>"
*Share
examples of the
damage being caused by the ETS
here>>>
THIS WEEK... |
|
ARMING THE POLICE
Last Tuesday a routine Police
call-out left two Police officers with
gunshot wounds and a Police dog dead. In
the drug-related fracas, one officer had
his jaw shattered by a bullet, while the
other officer took a bullet in his thigh
- just missing his femoral artery. Gage,
a six year old German Shepherd, was shot
and killed trying to protect the
officers.
This event brings the
number of officers shot in the line of
duty over the last two years to nine.
Three officers have died from gunshot
wounds since 2008. Gage was the 23rd
Police dog to have been killed in the
line of duty and the sixth to have been
shot dead.
Attacks on Police have
been getting worse both in frequency and
severity. According to Police
statistics, in 1999/00 there were 1,965
assaults on Police with a total of 59
involving a weapon, 19 of them firearms.
By 2008/09, the number of assaults had
risen by 26 percent to 2,481, with the
number involving weapons increasing by
73 percent to 102, and the number with
firearms doubling to 41.[1]
These figures are indicative of the
relentless rise in violent crime within
society. Over that same two year period
the total number of violent crimes
recorded by Police increased from 52,892
to 62,874 - an 18 percent increase -
with serious assaults, which make up
over a third of recorded violent crimes,
increasing by 21 percent.
Without a doubt, drugs
and organised crime are key drivers of
this increasing violence. Firearms are
now commonplace within the illicit drugs
industry. The question we should be
asking ourselves is whether we think the
Police should have greater powers to
protect themselves and the public?
This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator,
Greg O’Connor the President of the
Police Association, strongly believes
that individual Police officers need
better access to firearms - if they are
in a situation where they may need them:
“What we are hearing from our
frontline officers is that they want
better availability of firearms. It is
no use having a weapon back at the
station when you are going into a
potentially life-threatening situation.
Fourteen percent of officers have been
threatened with a firearm in the last
year and yet there has been a consistent
reluctance to discuss the matter of
police access to firearms.
“The argument that
criminals will arm themselves if police
officers are armed is naïve. The
criminals are already armed. They arm
themselves to protect their valuable
illegal trade in drugs and other
activities. They arm to protect
themselves against other criminals and
unfortunately the police often end up as
the ‘collateral damage’.
“The
question is this: If our police officers
cannot be kept safe from violent
criminals then how on Earth can the
public expect to be safe? Police
officers need the tools to do what they
swore an oath to do – protect the public
- it really is as simple as that.” To
read Greg’s full article
The ability to respond quickly is
imperative, please click the sidebar
link>>>
The Police in New Zealand, like police
in the United Kingdom are routinely
unarmed. In Australia, the US, Canada,
and many European countries they are
armed, and carry a range of weapons
including handguns, with
tasers and rifles also readily
available.
It goes without saying that where police
have greater access to firearms, there
is a far greater emphasis on weapons
training. And it also needs to be stated
- to put this debate into context - that
in those jurisdictions where police are
routinely armed, most officers go
through their entire career without ever
having to draw a gun whilst on duty.
The arguments in favour of routinely
arming the police include the following
points:
·
Arming the police is a strong deterrent
to criminal behaviour.
·
An increase in armed violence demands an
appropriate response from the police if
they are to avoid being seen by the
criminal fraternity as a soft touch.
·
When violence is commonplace the general
public not only feel safer when they see
armed police, but they also believe that
officers should have the ability to
protect themselves since they are
risking their lives in the public good.
·
When police officers are armed the
balance of power shifts from the
criminals to the police and often
situations that would have escalated
into gun violence can be resolved
without any firearms being discharged at
all. At the moment it is the criminals
with the superior armoury.
The arguments against arming the
police are mainly focused on concerns
that such action would lead to an
escalation in gun crime. The reasoning
is that criminals who presently do not
carry weapons are more likely arm
themselves for protection if the police
are armed, causing an escalation in gun
related crime and the possibility of
harm to innocent bystanders.
The
call for a more onerous gun registration
system is also promoted as a way of
reducing gun crime, but since criminals
who own and use guns are unlikely to
register them anyway, this can be seen
to be a bureaucratic and ineffective
crackdown on law-abiding citizens, that
ties up the police and keeps them from
more pressing duties.
This whole discussion raises serious
questions about what is causing this
increase in violent crime in New Zealand
society. In addressing this, it needs to
be stated at the outset that the drivers
of crime are complex, involving a wide
range of factors. These include social
change: the breakdown of the family and
the rise in fatherlessness; the loss of
community values and moral standards;
the failure to equip disadvantaged
children with an education that will
enable them to succeed in the workforce;
the growth in the “underclass”, in
career welfarism, and in taxpayer-funded
criminality; and the ascendancy of a
serious drug culture. On top of that,
there has been a systemic failure of
police leadership resulting in the
situation where many classes of crime
provide lucrative rewards for
perpetrators with little danger of being
caught: police statistics show that
while the resolution rate for recorded
violent crime in 2008/09 was over 77
percent, the resolution rate for car
conversions was only 19 percent, for
burglary 16 percent, and for theft from
a car 6 percent.
Last year, a
Police Association survey asked police
at the coalface, “What do you believe is
the most significant threat to law and
order emerging in New Zealand?”
Forty-one percent identified gangs and
organised crime - especially the
gang-controlled methamphetamine and
drugs trade - as the most significant
threat. This was head and shoulders
above all other concerns with the next
biggest being the effectiveness of the
courts and justice system at 12 percent,
and increasing violence at 6 percent.[2]
As a result of these concerns, the
Police Association undertook an in-depth
investigation into organised crime,
publishing the results in a series of
articles in Police News.[3] They
explained how organised crime networks,
include not only gangs, but also
business interests that are engaged in
both lawful as well as criminal
activities. With Police estimating that
the methamphetamine trade alone is worth
up to $1.5 billion annually, money
laundering is clearly big business in
New Zealand: “We have reason to believe
several high profile and extremely
wealthy business people and politically
active individuals in New Zealand are
associating with people who are involved
in organised crime, at least through
social and apparently legitimate
business interaction.”
Their
investigation examines corruption in
State institutions, claiming that the
large numbers of Mongrel Mob and Black
Power gang members in prisons
effectively gives control over prisoner
behaviour to the gangs, who direct
whether the gangs “provide protection,
intimidation, violence or even execution
of any person who may be sent to
prison”. They claim this power is used
to control criminals and business
partners outside of the prison, as well
as being used to extort prison cell
‘rentals’ - which has become such an
important source of income for organised
crime that “gangs now ensure they have
trusted ‘managers’ imprisoned in each
prison to run their business.”
The investigation goes on to state that
“During the late 1990s, official reports
cited at least 26 examples of corruption
of officials across at least the
following organisations: Department of
Corrections; Department of Courts;
Department of Social Welfare; Local
councils; Land Transport Safety
Authority; New Zealand Employment
Service; New Zealand Immigration
Service; New Zealand Police; and Work
and Income NZ. Our information gives us
strong reason to believe that
individuals are now being strategically
placed by organised crime in employment
in State institutions. Again, this has
been the pattern in every other market
economy in the world, including
Australia. Usually it takes a major
scandal and subsequent inquiry to lift
the lid on the extent of corruption,
even within a very limited area of
government. Yet examples of corruption
detected in New Zealand are quickly
dismissed as isolated individual
criminality.”
In the Listener
article, “The fall of Mr Asia”, David
Lomas back in 2004 outlined events that
led to the exposure of the Kiwi-based
heroin drug ring that had ‘left
thousands of lives in addicted ruin’. In
the article he stated: “I also learned
from Auckland police their frustrations
over the inaction of the police
hierarchy. The boys in ‘bullshit tower’
couldn’t comprehend a multinational,
multi-million-dollar crime group,
detectives said, so as a way of
embarrassing resources out of their
bosses, they leaked the story to the
Star.”[4]
Police have been
warning their bosses about the dangers
of the methamphetamine trade and
organised crime for years. They have
explained that far more sophisticated
methods of policing are needed if they
are to be effective in fighting this
extremely serious threat to New Zealand
society. Until now their calls have
largely been ignored.
However, if the current call for greater
Police access to firearms is in response
to the arming of those within the
lucrative drug trade, then shouldn’t our
political masters admit that since the
problem is getting worse not better,
they should take the drugs issue more
seriously than they do at present and
give it a priority that it currently
does not enjoy. And shouldn’t we extend
the debate regarding the arming of our
police to the underlying reasons why
frontline officers see the need to arm.
Perhaps this is the real issue that
needs addressing.
NZCPR_POLL
This week’s
poll asks:
Do you support the arming of
front-line Police?
To vote click here>>>>
| | | |
