Parliament

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

NZCPR Weekly                                                                              

THE NZCPR BLOG...
Breaking Views
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 Tribalism is a closed hierarchical system, underpinned by ancient supernatural beliefs and outdated customs, and characterised by nepotism, cronyism, and corruption.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)

NZCPR 
Commentary




A CRIME AGAINST 
THE PUBLIC


David Round 

Customary title claims may be sorted out, and title awarded, after private negotiations with the Minister. And so, without any public scrutiny or input, the public will be betrayed time and time again by politicians who just want to do deals with the Maori Party for support on other things. Already, it is politically impossible to have anyone but a Maori as Minister of Maori Affairs. What if a Maori became Minister of Treaty Settlements? Could we ~ to put it bluntly ~ be certain where his or her first loyalties lie ~ to the people of New Zealand or to his own race? Quite a few Maori Party Members of Parliament have already declared more or less openly that their first loyalty ~ and indeed probably just about their only loyalty ~ is to their own people rather than their country. 

 
To read click here>>>

 



Have you joined the 
Coastal Coalition yet? 
For details click here>>>

 

Have you signed?
 
The investment strategy game.
WINNER BEST NZ GAME>>>
 

 


lDONATION FORM
Download the NZCPR donation form here>>

lcid:image014.gif@01C7A844.ED724540POLL RESULT
*Last week's poll:
Do you believe the emissions trading scheme is providing any benefit at all for NZ ?
Result:
Yes - 1%, No - 99%
*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 New Zealand Centre for Political Research is an independent public policy Think Tank that promotes freedom, liberty and limited government through research, publications and open public debate. It was established by former MP Dr Muriel Newman in 2005. 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

NZCPR Weekly                                                                              

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...

Breaking Views
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)

NZCPR 
Commentary




NIWA & THE NEW ZEALAND CLIMATE SCIENCE COALITION

Bryan Leyland 

Because 1°C per century is higher than the generally accepted figure for global temperatures of 0.7°C per century and because Dr David Wratt of NIWA has also stated that New Zealand would be expected to have a smaller temperature rise than the rest of the world (because it is surrounded by ocean), the Coalition asked for the “schedule of adjustments” that should show exactly how each temperature record was adjusted over time. (Some adjustments are often desirable because of changes to sites and, in particular because of the urban heat island effect that produces an artificial warming effect as rural areas become urbanized.) After many requests, including requests under the Freedom of Information Act, appeals to the chairman of NIWA and questions in Parliament, NIWA have not produced this information...

 
To read click here>>>

 



Have you joined the 
Coastal Coalition yet? 
For details click here>>>

 

Have you signed?
 
The investment strategy game.
WINNER BEST NZ GAME>>>
 

 
 


lDONATION FORM
Download the NZCPR donation form here>>

lcid:image014.gif@01C7A844.ED724540POLL RESULT
*Last week's poll:
Do you believe the welfare system is in need of major reform?
Result:
Yes - 98%, No - 2%
*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 New Zealand Centre for Political Research is an independent public policy Think Tank that promotes freedom, liberty and limited government through research, publications and open public debate. It was established by former MP Dr Muriel Newman in 2005. 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

NZCPR Weekly                                                                              

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...
Breaking Views

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."

T
he 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)

NZCPR 
Commentary




WELFARE REFORM BECOMES A POLITICAL FOOTBALL - AGAIN

Lindsay Mitchell

Long-term dependence is caused by other factors beyond unemployment. One of the significant identified factors leading to long-term dependence is entering the benefit system aged 16 and 17. This group has the greatest risk of staying on welfare long-term. It is clear to me that an expectation of eligibility for a benefit leads to educational under-effort and a subsequent 
failure to acquire skills or qualifications. Over time these youngsters make up an increasing share of the total reliant at any given time. A further factor leading to long-term dependence is people adding children to an existing benefit, also detailed in the paper, along with the passivity of the current benefit system. When the economy is strong the deeply entrenched dependence problem persists. Therefore other factors beyond job scarcity are driving it
...

 
To read click here>>>

 


Have you joined the 
Coastal Coalition yet? 
For details click here>>>
 

Have you signed?
 
The investment strategy game.
WINNER BEST NZ GAME>>>
 

 
 


lDONATION FORM
Download the NZCPR donation form here>>

lcid:image014.gif@01C7A844.ED724540POLL RESULT
*Last week's poll:
Do you believe 20 ha (50 acres) should be the minimum subdivision lot size in rural areas?
Result:
Yes - 9%, No - 91%
*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 New Zealand Centre for Political Research is an independent public policy Think Tank that promotes freedom, liberty and limited government through research, publications and open public debate. It was established by former MP Dr Muriel Newman in 2005. 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

NZCPR Weekly                                                                              

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...
Breaking Views

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)

NZCPR 
Commentary




The Impact of Simplifying and Streamlining Amendments to the RMA

Owen McShane

The current generation of plan-writers graduating from our high schools and planning schools are fully imbued with the new philosophy of eco-centric environmentalism, which regards man as the enemy of the Earth Mother, and hence justifies any interventions necessary to protect the Earth Mother from rape and degradation. If Parliament writes laws that reduce their powers of intervention then these laws must be ignored or “re-interpreted” so that true virtue can prevail. This sets a new standard for the law-makers. Laws designed to promote anthro-centric environmentalism (in which the environment is managed to enhance human welfare) must leave little “wriggle-room” for the extremists to exercise 
their visions
...

 
To read click here>>>

 



Have you joined the 
Coastal Coalition yet? 
For details click here>>>

 

Have you signed?
 
The investment strategy game.
WINNER BEST NZ GAME>>>
 

 
 


lDONATION FORM
Download the NZCPR donation form here>>

lcid:image014.gif@01C7A844.ED724540POLL RESULT
*Last week's poll:
Do you support John Key’s plan to open the floodgates for foreshore & seabed claims by dropping the requirements for Maori claimants to own ‘contiguous’ land and prove their claim in a court of law?
Result:
Yes - 1%, No - 99%
*Read last week’s poll comments here>>>
*All previous poll comments
here>>> 


FACEBOOK
Join the NZCPR Facebook group and have your say 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 New Zealand Centre for Political Research is an independent public policy Think Tank that promotes freedom, liberty and limited government through research, publications and open public debate. It was established by former MP Dr Muriel Newman in 2005. 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

NZCPR Weekly                                                                              

THE NZCPR BLOG...
Breaking Views

The campaign to keep the foreshore and seabed in Crown ownership.
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 i
f 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)

NZCPR 
Commentary




THE GREAT FORESHORE & SEABED SELLOUT

Michael Coote

One of the standing falsifications within the 
whole Maori grievance industry in general, 
but also within the 
foreshore and seabed 
issue in particular, 
has been a determined attempt to obscure the truth that Maori tribes are 
purely private interests, 
because the superior 
power and privilege 
these tribes are acquiring 
as private interests over all other interests 
– both private and public – 
in New Zealand is utterly odious and oppressive 
to
our society...

 
To read click here>>>

 

Have you read 
John Ansell's 
BREAKING VIEWS blog?
 



Have you joined the 
Coastal Coalition yet? 
For details click here>>>

 

Have you signed?
 
The investment strategy game.
WINNER BEST NZ GAME>>>
 

 
 


lDONATION FORM
Download the NZCPR donation form here>>

lcid:image014.gif@01C7A844.ED724540POLL RESULT
*Last week's poll:
Is the “problem” of rebellious youth worse now than when you were young?
Result:
Yes - 80%, No - 20%
*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 New Zealand Centre for Political Research is an independent public policy Think Tank that promotes freedom, liberty and limited government through research, publications and open public debate. It was established by former MP Dr Muriel Newman in 2005. 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

NZCPR Weekly                                                                              

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...
Breaking Views

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 co
sts...

 
To read click here>>>

 



Have you joined the 
Coastal Coalition yet? 
For details click here>>>

 

Have you signed?
 
The investment strategy game.
WINNER BEST NZ GAME>>>
 
 
 
 


lDONATION FORM
Download the NZCPR donation form here>>

lcid:image014.gif@01C7A844.ED724540POLL 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

NZCPR Weekly                                                                              

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>>>>