|
NZCPR
WEEKLY ARCHIVE
Having
trouble with images and links? Visit our HELPDESK to sort out
the problem - click here>>>
|

|

New Zealand Centre for
Political Research - www.nzcpr.com
|
|
Support
the NZCPR & receive The Treaty of Waitangi by Sir
Apirana Ngata as an exclusive EBook subscription offer - click
for details>>>
|
NZCPR
Commentary
|
|
Too Much Secrecy
On Wednesday, eight central North Island tribes will take
control of 170,000 hectares of forests in the Kaingaroa region
in the country’s biggest Treaty of Waitangi settlement to
date. The total cost of the claim is over $400 million of
taxpayers’ money.
Maori grievances over Treaty settlements date back to 1840. In
his iconic booklet The Treaty of Waitangi, written to
educate the public about the Treaty, Sir Apirana Ngata
explains that under Article One of the Treaty, Maori Chiefs
"do absolutely cede to the Queen of England forever the
Government of their lands". Under Article Two, “the
Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and
Tribes and to all the people of New Zealand the full
possession of their lands, their homes and all their
possessions”. And, under Article Three, “Maori and Pakeha
are equal before the Law, that is, they are to share the
rights and privileges of British subjects”. In other words,
the Treaty gave New Zealand a Sovereign Queen, it created
private property rights, and it established equality under the
law - no more and no less.[1]
Over the years, many of the Treaty related transactions
between Maori and the Crown have been the subject of on-going
protest and litigation. The deals were claimed to be unlawful
or unfair, and any compensation provided by the government,
inadequate. These grievances were often brought by the next
generation of claimants, and successive Parliaments have dealt
with them.
In
1975, the Kirk Labour Government decided to formalise the
process for dealing with Maori grievances through the
formation of the Waitangi Tribunal. While originally set up to
investigate contemporary claims only, as a result of intense
lobbying, the Lange Labour Government in 1985 extended the
Tribunal’s jurisdiction back to 1840 in order to deal with
historic claims. This paved the way for the rapid development
of a professional Maori grievance industry – now estimated
to be 1,000 strong.
Since 1975, some 1500 Treaty claims had been registered with
the Waitangi Tribunal – that is until the previous Labour
Government introduced September 1st 2008 as the
final cut-off date for historic Treaty claims, when a further
1800 claims were lodged.
Since 1990 a total of 26 historic Treaty claims have been
settled. That brings the full value of the Treaty claims
settled in modern times to $1,049,207 million. According to
the Office of Treaty Settlements, negotiations are under way
with a further 9 Iwi groups, Heads of Agreements have been
reached with 16 groups for settlements worth more than $300
million, and Deeds of Settlement have been established with
three groups, which are awaiting final legislation.[2]
It is revealing to look at what taxpayers are offering
claimants, by examining the Deed of Settlement of one of the
groups waiting for final legislation, Taranaki Whânui ki Te
Upoko o Te Ika. Their claim relates back to the sale of
Wellington’s Port Nicholson Block in 1839 - before
the Treaty of Waitangi was signed![3]
Leading the negotiations for the 17,000 claimants were
Professor Ngatata Love and Sir Paul Reeves, and representing
taxpayers, was the Minister of Treaty Negotiations, Hon
Michael Cullen, and his predecessors Hon Mark Burton and Hon
Margaret Wilson.
The settlement agreement has three parts: an agreed historical
account and Crown apology, cultural redress, and financial and
commercial redress.
The cultural redress recognises “the
traditional, historical, cultural and spiritual association”
of the claimants within their area of interest in Wellington,
enabling them to “protect and enhance the conservation
values associated with these sites”. The eighteen sites
include islands, lakebeds, scenic and recreation reserves,
properties on Thorndon Quay and former college and school
sites.
In addition, thirteen sites will be registered with a
Statutory Acknowledgement, which means that the claimants to
be involved in all resource consent applications. These sites
include river and stream beds, coastal marine areas, the bed
of the Wellington Harbour, sea and river marginal strips, the
Historic Reserves of Government Buildings and Turnbull House,
parks, scenic and local purpose reserves, and the Turakirae
Head Scientific Reserve.
There are also Deeds of Recognition for reserves and parks,
which entitle the claimants to management input, although
neither these nor the Statutory Acknowledgements are exclusive
– in other words more than one iwi can have similar status
and involvement.
Then there are the eight place names that will be altered by
the legislation, including changing the name of Mount Misery
to Mount Wai-ariki, Baring Head to Orua-pouanui, and Steeple
Rock to Te Aroaro-o-Kupe.
Further, in recognition
of the aspirations of the claimants to “provide for the
enhanced well being, revitalisation and protection of its
members”, the Crown will facilitate “access to government
services and work programmes” and they will ensure that an
“appropriate” Minister of the Crown will chair an annual
hui.
In addition, protocols will be issued by the Ministers of
Conservation, Arts, Culture and Heritage, and Fisheries, to
encourage good working relationships on “matters of cultural
importance”, including the writing of “letters of
engagement” to Centre Port and Wellington International
Airport inviting them to discuss “issues of common
interest”.
The financial redress includes a cash settlement of $25.025
million, along with an additional contribution of $4.859
million to cover the costs associated with the claims process.
It also provides an opportunity for the claimants to purchase
Crown properties and lease them back to the Government -
including the High Court, the National Library, Archives New
Zealand, and Wellington Girls’ College. They have also been
granted the first right of refusal to purchase all surplus
Crown land in the area for the next 100 years.
While this deal is meant to settle Taranaki
Whânui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika’s historic
grievance, the legislation contains an opt-out clause, so that
those who do not agree with this settlement can seek separate
redress.[4]
Treaty settlements have been an on-going feature of
Parliamentary business over the years, but what is puzzling is
the number of repeat “full and final” settlements. A
report prepared for the Lange Labour Government by the Justice
Department’s Richard Hill in 1989 provides some interesting
information.[5]
For example, Parliament passed a law in 1906 to provide a
“final settlement” for Ngai Tahu relating to a grievance
over lands that were sold in 1848. Within a decade the
grievance resurfaced and a second “full and final”
settlement was eventually made on December 15th
1944. By the late 1960s, Ngai Tahu were again agitating for a
better settlement and in 1973, the Labour Government
negotiated a third “full and final” settlement. Ngai
Tahu’s fourth “full and final” settlement was granted in
1998 and was worth $170 million of taxpayers’ money.
The Justice Department report also contains information that
raises questions about the veracity of the Waitangi Tribunal
process. On page 11, the report states “In 1958 the Tuhoe
(later Tuhoe-Waikaremoana) Maori Trust Board was established,
upon settlement of claims relating to the Urewera for a lump
sum payment of £100,000”. Yet on April 6 2009, Judge
Patrick Savage, the Presiding Officer of the Waitangi
Tribunal, wrote to the Minister of Maori Affairs regarding the
Tuhoe’s Te Urewera claim arguing that the Crown has never
compensated Tuhoe for the land they say was wrongly
confiscated.[6]
The figure of £100,000 that the government paid Tuhoe in 1958
in full and final settlement was never mentioned.
David Round, a law lecturer at Canterbury University and
author of “Truth or Treaty?”- a book that was seriously
contentious when it was released in 1998 - is this week’s
NZCPR Guest Commentator. In his article “Reflections on
Treaty Issues”, David describes the controversy that has
surrounded Treaty issues and introduces his series of weekly
columns that will appear on the NZCPR website - along with
those of our other columnists - every Wednesday (see here>>>):
“The Treaty has been the instrument of righting some
historic wrongs; it has also been for two decades a vehicle
for claims of racial privilege and discontent. It has
fostered, among some Maori and European sympathisers, a very
lucrative little industry of vested interests. At the same
time it has irritated many good-hearted New Zealanders. No
more historic claims may be lodged; but well-meaning judges
have informed us that the Treaty is a ‘living document’
always speaking to us, adaptable to every situation, and one
which should be interpreted generously and not in any
quibbling legalistic spirit. (It was obviously not their own
assets that the judges were so casually and high-mindedly
giving away.)”
He then explains what he would like to achieve through his
weekly columns: “The Treaty, then, is still around. It is
still capable of becoming a focus for future discontents. It
would be good if it were to beckon us towards a harmonious
united future, but the gloomier option is just as possible. I
hope it will be useful, therefore, to provide readers, with
some solid information and critical although respectful
reflections on Treaty issues. What I offer will not solve the
problems we will be facing in the future, but some clearing of
the undergrowth may help us to see better and reduce our
chances of going astray”. To read David’s article, click
here>>>
In 1994, the Bolger National Government introduced a fiscal
envelope of $1 billion dollars for the settlement of all
historic Treaty of Waitangi claims. Two of the bigger
settlements, that of Ngai Tahu and Tainui, have relativity
clauses that will automatically trigger an increase in the
value of the settlements if the fiscal cap is exceeded. While
the present total value of claims now over $1 billion - with
many more claims in the pipeline - it is important to
understand that relativity mechanisms are based on 1994
values. Taking account of interest and inflation, a settlement
of $50 million in 2006/07 is equivalent to a settlement of $26
million in 1994, so there is still some way to go before the
relativity clauses could result in Iwi groups that have grown
exceedingly wealthy through the generosity of successive
Governments coming back to the negotiating table to ask for
more.
Since the Waitangi Tribunal process does not involve advocacy
on behalf of the taxpayers who foot the bill for Treaty
settlements, that responsibility lies firmly with the Minister
of Treaty Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson, who, before
entering Parliament, acted as a Treaty claims negotiator for
Ngai Tahu.
While the Treaty settlement process is an open one, in that
the information is available to anyone with the time and
inclination to find it, it can hardly be described as
transparent. There is a huge opportunity for claimants to
re-write history and to demand settlements that are
excessively generous in the confines of a system which is
essentially hidden from public scrutiny. Yet it is taxpayers
who not only have to pay the bills, but who need to understand
that many important state assets are effectively being gifted
and sold off to Maori without so much as a murmur.
NZCPR
POLL
This
week’s poll asks:
Do
you believe there is a need for more transparency regarding
the Treaty settlement process?
To
vote click here>>>
(Readers
comments will be posted here>>>
daily)
To view last week's comments click here>>>
FOOTNOTES:
All articles can be
found on the NZCPR RESEARCH PAGE - click here>>>
1.Sir
Apirana Ngata, The Treaty of Waitangi
Available from the NZCPR - click for details>>>
2.Office of Treaty Settlements, Progress of Claims
3.Deed
of Settlement, Taranaki
Whânui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika
4.Select
Committee Report, Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui
ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill
5.Richard Hill,
Settlements of
Major Maori Claims in the 1940s
6.P.J.
Savage, Letter of Transmittal
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>>>
Why not submit your burning issue for publication on our
website Soapbox
Series?
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)
|
|

REFLECTIONS ON THE TREATY
David Round
Behind
all Treaty claims lurks an inchoate grudge, a belief
that Maori have been wronged and that whatever is done
by way of amends will never be enough.
We may settle Treaty claims, but the grudge remains.
Maori are over-represented in all our worst statistics
~ crime, poverty, ill-health, family violence,
truancy, illiteracy, unemployment…
Whatever
the reasons for this over-representation may be, it is
a fact we have to face. A resentful growing
underclass, to a considerable extent racially distinct
(Pacific islander as well as Maori), is already a
problem. Treaty settlements do not seem to be solving
it. Settlements are largely with tribal groupings, and
these lost people, the very people most in need of the
benefits of settlements, usually have little or no
contact with their ancestral tribes...
To
read click here>>>
|
|
|
NZCPR
Columnists
(New
columns each Wednesday)
|
Ronald
Kitching
ECONOMIC
REFORM
About
Taxation part
1 For
those who believe the government should own or
monopolise the control of industries
let’s
listen to the views of an expert on the State
ownership of property.
More>> |
Alan
Peachey
FROM
OUTSIDE THE TENT Fight
Against Drugs:
I
was called on to lead
the secondary school principals’ fight against the
Labour Government’s attempts to decriminalise
marijuana. More>>> |
Marc
Alexander
LAW
& ORDER:
Improving
Political Intercourse:
The
referendum isn't about smacking. It's about whether
parents or the state has primacy in the raising of
children
. More>> |
David
Round
REFLECTIONS
ON THE TREATY:
View>>> |
|
|

|
|
|

Achieve
Operational Excellence and keep your
QuickBooks/MoneyWorks accounting system
Visit our website: http://www.pcss.co.nz
|
|
|

|
|
|

Order
this brilliant DVD
on the life and ideas of
Milton Friedman
CLICK
HERE>>>
|
|
|
|
SPECIAL
RATES

CLICK
HERE>>>
|
|
|
|

This
book is guaranteed to help you through the recession -
great for the whole family!
CLICK
HERE>>>
|
|
|
|

lTROUBLE
WITH IMAGES?
Visit
our HELPDESK topic to solve problems with
newsletter images -
view>>>
l POLL
RESULT
Last
Week's poll asked:
Is the
referendum question “Should a smack as part of good
parental correction be a criminal offence in NZ?”
ambiguous?
Result: Yes
9%, No 91%
Last week's comments here>>>
Previous poll comments here>>>
l QUICK
LINKS
Links
to all Acts of Parliament, Submissions called by
Select Committees, Parliamentary Order Paper and more
on the Homepage NOTICEBOARD - here>>>
lDONATION
FORM
To
download the NZCPR donation form - click here>>>
|
|
|
NZCPR
EXCLUSIVE

This
booklet was published by the Department of Maori
Affairs in the days before the Waitangi Tribunal was
established. They stated:
“Sir Apirana was trained as a lawyer and had a
brilliantly lucid understanding of legal and
parliamentary technicalities. His analysis of the
Treaty, article by article, is so clearly and simply
written that even young people will be able to
understand it, in spite of the complexity of the
subject-matter”.
The book is now
available as an NZCPR EBOOK
CLICK
FOR DETAILS>>>
|
|
|
|
PLEASE
JOIN OUR RESEARCH PANEL

Please
join the NZCPR Research Panel to take part in
nation-wide polls and surveys about policy issues -
emissions trading, tax & so on
CLICK
HERE>>>
|
|
|
|
|
Back
to top of page >>>
|

|

New Zealand Centre for
Political Research - www.nzcpr.com
|
|
NZCPR
is setting up a research panel to conduct nation-wide polls on
topical public policy issues - such as whether the public
really are confused by the 2009 Referendum question!
We urgently need more volunteers - if you would like to
register please click here>>>
|
NZCPR
Commentary
|
|
A
Smack in the Face of Democracy
"But
this is about democracy, the right of people to be heard and
it's the absolute height of arrogance that the prime minister
is going to use a technicality within the law to circumvent
people's rights to express their views on the issue." John Key backs
election smacking referendum, July 2008[1]
The extraordinary political posturing over the upcoming
Citizens Initiated Referendum on the smacking law – which is
scheduled to take place by postal voting during the first
three weeks of August - is breathtaking in its absurdity. To
try to discredit both the question and the referendum process demonstrates how desperate the anti-smacking brigade has become. They
not only want to turn people off voting but they want to bring
the process and therefore the result into disrepute. Sue
Bradford, the Green MP who is the architect of the
anti-smacking law, has called the question “confusing”.
Phil Goff, Leader of the Labour Party claims that it is
“badly worded”. And Prime Minister John Key has said it is
“ambiguous”. Both leaders have said they do not intend
voting in the referendum.
Citizens Initiated Referenda are an important feature of New
Zealand’s democratic process. They are based on the
principle that political sovereignty resides in the people,
who may, from time to time, be called on to deliberate
directly on policy matters, rather than leaving it to their
chosen representatives in Parliament. As such, referenda are
an important tool of representative government, enabling
voters through their political sovereignty to make specific
policy recommendations directly to government. While the
results of a referendum are not binding, governments that
ignore the overwhelming will of voters will be judged
accordingly.
Citizens Initiated Referenda are not cheap to run.
However, it is important to put that into perspective.
Firstly, according to advice given by the Chief Electoral
Officer, the difference in cost between a referendum held on
its own or during an election is not significant – between
$5.9 million and $7.3 million for a referendum held at
election time, and between $6.5 million and $8.1 million for a
stand-alone referendum.[2] Secondly, such expenditure is exceedingly rare with
only three other Citizens Initiated Referenda being held –
the 1995 fire-fighters’ referendum, Margaret Robertson’s
1999 referendum to reduce the number of MPs, and the 1999
referendum by Norm Withers to introduce tougher sentences for
violent crime. Each gained overwhelming support from voters.
New Zealand’s Citizens Initiated Referenda Act, which was
passed unanimously by Parliament in 1993, sets into law a
rigorous 6-stage process for the establishment of referenda.[3] It involves the proposed petition question being publicly advertised in
all daily newspapers for a month, so that any interested
parties can have their say on the wording of the question. The
ultimate responsibility for the final wording rests with
Parliament’s Chief Clerk, who must be satisfied that it
complies with the Act by clearly conveying the “purpose and
effect” of the referendum, as well as being a question that
can be answered with “only one of two answers”.
In light of the criticisms that are being leveled at
the 2009 Referendum question and process, I have invited the
organiser of the petition, the former MP Larry Baldock to be
this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator. The referendum, which
was launched in February 2007, before the law was changed and
asks, “Should a smack as part of good
parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”
With regard to the criticisms over the wording of the
petition, Larry
explains:
“The
original question we submitted to the Clerk of the House of
Representatives back in early 2007 was “should a smack in
the context of positive parental correction be a criminal
offence in NZ?” As required by the CIR Act 1993, the Clerk
published the question in the Gazette and advertised the
question in all major papers with an invitation for anyone to
submit their opinion on the wording of the question over a 28
day period. Only two submissions were received. One from a
couple who stated their opinion that a smack should never be a
criminal offence, and the other from the Ministry of Justice.
The Ministry’s submission raised four concerns that
were considered by the Clerk in consultation with myself and
anyone else the Clerk wished to take advice from as required
by S9 of the Act.
“At the time the Clerk of the House was David McGee QC who
was widely acclaimed as the most experienced and qualified
Clerk in the Commonwealth. Upon his retirement as Clerk in
2007 to assume the post of Ombudsman he was given many
accolades by MPs for the diligent way he performed his duties.
Surely it is inappropriate for the Prime Minister, Leader of
the opposition and Sue Bradford to now be insinuating he did
not do his job properly. Especially given that they did not
bother to take the time to participate in the submissions on
the question when they had every opportunity to”. To read
Larry’s full article click the sidebar link>>>.
Violence against children has always been a criminal offence
in New Zealand. The 1961 Crimes Act is very clear on that
point. For over 40 years Section 59 of the 1961 Crimes Act
provided an exemption for parents who used “reasonable
force” for the purpose of correcting their children. This
was to protect parents who used light force for disciplinary
purposes from charges of assaulting their children.
The law worked well. A review of case law carried out by the
Maxim Institute, found only 6 cases with a successful Section
59 defence out of more than fifty cases examined over the last
decade or two.[4]
However,
in spite of the law working well, in 2003 Green Party MP Sue
Bradford decided to draft an “Anti-smacking” private
members bill to repeal Section 59 in order to impose a United
Nation’s ban on corporal punishment onto New Zealand.[5]
Her bill was drawn in the ballot in 2005 and in a speech to
Parliament she explained the underlying agenda driving the law
change: “When Pākehā colonists first arrived here,
they brought a culture that taught that children, along with
women and servants, were the property of their father,
husband, or employer, and that they were mere chattels to be
brought into line by force. Section 59 is the last legal
vestige of that culture”.
The Bill did not have sufficient support to be passed –
until the resignation of Labour MP Phillip Field in February
2007 provided an opportunity for a deal: the Greens agreed to
support Labour if Labour supported the Bill. However, there
was still doubt over the numbers – until aspiring Prime
Minister, John Key, saw an opportunity to demonstrate
Parliamentary leadership by brokering the deal which finally
enabled the Bill to pass. The rest is history.
Smacking a child in New Zealand is now against the law. No
matter how light the smack or tap, prod or flick - anyone who
uses any sort of physical force on a child for disciplinary
purposes risks prosecution. Whenever a complaint is lodged,
the Police are required to investigate and to inform the
Department of Child, Youth and Family. Whether or not charges
are laid depends on the circumstances.
What all of this means is that every day all over the country
parents, grandparents, and other caregivers are being
criminalised by the new law whenever they use any kind of
physical force to correct a child’s behaviour. Many live in
fear that someone somewhere will tell the authorities what
they have done. As a result some are becoming ‘afraid’ of
their children - especially those that are being coached on
their ‘rights’ at school. Such children are reveling in
the power the anti-smacking law has given them.
Despite the incidence of child killings and violent abuse
being virtually unchanged since the smacking bill was
introduced, do-gooders have the audacity to claim that the law
is working. Their assurances that the repeal of section 59
would stop such abuse are quietly forgotten.
John Key has said that if the new law is not working he will
change it. That puts the onus onto the public to let him know
if the law is not working. Larry Baldock and the 390,000 New
Zealanders who signed the referendum petition believe that
voting “NO” in the referendum is a powerful way of sending
that message.
Given the controversy surrounding the referendum, I have used
this newsletter to outline some of the key issues. I have also
provided an opportunity for the organiser of the petition to
set the record straight regarding the referendum so that you
are in a better position to decide for yourself the facts of
the matter. I would therefore appreciate you circulating any
relevant information to your friends and contacts so that they
too can become better informed.
I also need to say that if you feel that these newsletters
play a useful role in helping to keep you
informed, then please support us – we can only keep our
newsletter and website going if readers like yourself
support our efforts. To help, please click here>>>
Finally, while the NZCPR Weekly newsletter is published every
weekend, from Wednesday,
Mid-Week Politics
on the NZCPR homepage will feature regular opinion pieces from
our four NZCPR Columnists: David
Round (law lecturer and author of “Truth or Treaty”)
on the Treaty of Waitangi, Marc
Alexander (former MP and author of “Justice With Both
Eyes Open”) on law and order, Allan Peachey MP (Chairman of Parliament’s Education Committee and
author of “What’s Up With Our Schools”) on education,
and Ronald Kitching (Mont Pelerin Society member and author of
“Understanding Personal and Economic Liberty”) on economic
reform.
NZCPR
POLL
This
week’s poll asks:
Do
you think the referendum question “Should a smack as part of
good parental correction be a criminal offence in New
Zealand?” is ambiguous?
To
vote click here>>>
(Readers
comments will be posted here>>>
daily)
To view last week's comments click here>>>
FOOTNOTES:
All articles can be
found on the NZCPR RESEARCH PAGE - click here>>>
1.Herald, Key backs election smacking referendum
2.Annette King, Briefing Note:
Conducting Citizens Initiated Referenda
3.CIR Act
4.Maxim, Supplementary Material on Crimes Amendment Bill
5.Sue Bradford, Greens draw up their own Anti-Smacking Bill
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>>>
Why not submit your burning issue for publication on our
website Soapbox
Series?
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)
|
|
THE REAL STORY OF THE ANTI-SMACKING REFERENDUM
Larry Baldock
Despite
the well intention attempt by John Key to amend the
bill by confirming that the police may use discretion
and not pursue prosecutions for smacking offences, the
fact remains that we are now criminals in the eyes of
the law if we use any form of reasonable force to
correct our children. This fact has been strenuously
denied for a long time by the supporters of the law
change as they have claimed there were never going to
be large numbers of good parents criminalised by the
new law.
So how should the
referendum question be answered?
If people believe that any physical correction, even a
light smack, is an assault on a child then they should
vote “yes”, thereby supporting the law as it now
stands.
If people believe parents should be permitted to smack
their children for a corrective purpose without being
criminalised and they want the current law changed
then they should vote “no”...
To
read click here>>>
|
|
|
NZCPR
Columnists
(New
columns each Wednesday)
|
Ronald
Kitching
NOTES
ON:
Economic
Reform Click
to view>>> |
Alan
Peachey
NOTES
ON:
Education
Click
to view>>> |
David
Round
NOTES
ON:
Treaty of Waitangi
Click
to view>>> |
Marc
Alexander
NOTES
ON:
Law and Order
Click
to view>>> |
|
|
PLEASE
JOIN OUR RESEARCH PANEL

Please
join the NZCPR Research Panel to take part in nation-wide polls and surveys about
policy
issues - emissions trading, tax & so on
CLICK
HERE>>>
|
|
|

|
|
|

|
|
|

To
enquire about our NEW extremely competitive rates
- click
here>>>
|
|
|

lTROUBLE
WITH IMAGES?
Visit
our HELPDESK topic to solve problems with
newsletter images -
view>>>
l POLL
RESULT
Last
Week's poll asked:
Do
you believe race should be a basis for govt policy-making?
Result: Yes
1%, No 99%
Last week's comments here>>>
Previous poll comments here>>>
l QUICK
LINKS
Links
to all Acts of Parliament, Submissions called by
Select Committees, Parliamentary Order Paper and more
- here>>>
lDONATION
FORM
To
download the NZCPR donation form - click here>>>
|
|
|

To
order this brilliant DVD
on the life and ideas of
Milton Friedman
- click here>>>
|
|
|
|

Do
you have a copy of this excellent book to help you
through the recession?
A great gift for the family!
Click
here>>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back
to top of page >>>
|

|

New Zealand Centre for
Political Research - www.nzcpr.com
|
|
Do
you look forward to receiving the NZCPR Weekly? Is it worth a flat
white or a long black to you?
YES>>> or
NO>>>
|
NZCPR
Commentary
|
|
Is
Maori Disparity a Myth?
“Mäori continue to experience relatively poorer outcomes
than other New Zealanders, indicating that Mäori social
potential has yet to be fully realised. In maintaining a focus
on realising Mäori potential, the basis for the development
of Te Puni Kökiri’s social policy advice and intervention
is premised on what is important within a Mäori cultural
construct… with a particular focus on the benefits that can
be achieved through Mäori designed, developed and delivered
initiatives”.
Briefing to the Incoming Minister 2008, Te Puni Kokiri.[1]
Over the years claims of a growing disparity between the
socio-economic outcomes of Maori and non-Maori have dominated
the rhetoric of Maori ethnic politics. The
existence of this so-called “gap” has been blamed on the
failure of government to uphold Treaty of Waitangi rights
along with a lack of ‘culturally appropriate’ government
services. These arguments have led to an explosion in special
taxpayer funded race-based services for Maori with an emphasis
on ‘by Maori for Maori’ provision.
Helen Clark and her newly elected Labour Government escalated
race-based spending to new heights in 2000 through a high
profile “closing the gaps” campaign that allocated well
over $100 million for Maori development. Three years later, a
report published by ACT New Zealand demonstrated the extent of
state subsidies to Maori, with estimates that total government
spending on Maori had reached $7.3 billion a year, while the
amount of total tax paid by Maori was $2.3 billion a year.[2]
Maori socio-economic disparity claims are based on data
collected by the government. The main source is the
five-yearly population Census. Up until the 1976 Census,
ethnic data was based on the fraction of racial origin, with
Maori being defined as having half or more of Maori blood.[3]
In 1974, as a result of growing hostility by Maori rights
activists to the question (no doubt driven by the looming
inevitability of a diminishing population due to widespread
intermarriage) the Kirk Labour Government changed the
definition. The Maori Affairs Amendment Act of that year
re-defined Maori: “All those with Maori ancestry, no matter
how remote, were Maori for the purposes of the Act”.
The next Census in 1976 therefore asked two questions – the
usual ‘degree of blood’ Maori descent question along with
a new one about Maori ancestry. The respondents, however,
found it all rather confusing, and as a result the next Census
in 1981 reverted back to the fraction of blood question.
There have been many changes since that time to the way Maori
are defined, with ethnicity information on births, deaths and
hospitalisation using the fraction of Maori blood question
right up until 1995 even though it had been finally dropped on
Census forms in 1986. Nowadays, the Census asks: “Are you
descended from Maori?” and “Which ethnic group do you
belong to?” However, it is clear that comparative data about
Maori is no longer as robust as it used to be when the degree
of blood question was used.
Simon Chapple, a former senior researcher with the Department
of Labour, challenged the concept of Maori disparity in a
paper prepared for the Ministry of Social Policy in 2000. He
explained that, as a result of widespread intermarriage, Maori
are not a clearly defined ethnically homogenous group. He
states, “At the margin Maori imperceptibly shade into
non-Maori. For some people their Maori identity is likely to
be very central to their lives. Other Maori are unlikely to
think it greatly important: other aspects of their social and
personal identities – class, occupation or profession, job,
education, religion, leisure pursuits, sports clubs or other
gang connections, regional location, family, gender, political
leanings and so on – may take precedence”.[4]
He explained this “fluidity” of Maori by describing that
“One in every four officially measured Maori in 1996 was not
Maori in 1991. One in every twenty officially measured Maori
in 1991 had exited the group in 1996”. He also outlined how,
“One in every ten Maori descended person in 1996 had
discovered their Maori ancestry over the last five years and
one in every twenty had lost it”.
The reality is that as a result of intermarriage over the last
200 years, all Maori will have some non-Maori ancestors. The
fluidity of Maori, which nowadays depends to a large degree on
the public policy incentives that are on offer to those who
identify as Maori, also makes a mockery of the notion of
biculturalism which presupposes separate Maori and non-Maori
populations that do not mix. In fact, most Maori children
growing up in New Zealand today have a non-Maori parent. From
a public policy perspective, the fact that all
children with a Maori parent are counted as Maori for
statistical purposes - no matter how distant the ancestry –
creates a significant over-representation of Maori in official
data.
For instance in the 2006 Census, while 298,395 people
indicated their ethnicity as “Maori only”(sole Maori), a
further 266,931 people identified with Maori and other ethnic
groups (mixed Maori). This means that while sole Maori made up
only 7.4 percent of the population, when mixed Maori are
added, the proportion rises to 14 percent. And when the 78,648
people who indicated they had Maori decent but did not
identify with Maori ethnicity are also added, the number of
Maori rises to 15.9 percent. If Statistics New Zealand’s
classification practice categorised "mixed" Maori
according to their other ethnicity, instead of their Maori
ethnicity, the number of reported “Maori” in New Zealand
today would virtually halve.
The categorising of mixed Maori as Maori and combining them
with sole Maori for the purposes of claiming socio-economic
disparity between Maori and non-Maori creates another problem.
The differences between Maori and non-Maori, is effectively
dwarfed by the differences between mixed Maori and sole Maori.
The reason is that the mixed Maori group is younger, is more
likely to be better educated with greater job flexibility, and
is more likely to be geographically mobile, prepared to move
to areas where jobs are available. In other words, this mixed
Maori group shares greater similarities with non-Maori, than
sole Maori. This makes their combination for policy and
funding purposes illogical.
In a world where increasing intermarriage is rapidly blurring
the homogeneity of racial groups, Statistics New Zealand’s
classification protocol has resulted in Maori not only being
significantly over-represented in official data, but by
embedding such huge disparity between the various groups of
Maori into the statistics, policy responses become almost
meaningless.
Over the years, indigenous leaders around the world have made
good use of racial disparity displayed in official statistics
to argue for special rights and resources based on race.
Professor Helen Hughes, a Senior Fellow at the Centre for
Independent Studies, along with her husband, Mark Hughes, an
independent researcher, are this week’s NZCPR Guest
Commentators with a paper which looks at this issue from an
Australian perspective.
Helen and Mark explain that in Australia, where the Census
asks “Is the person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander
origin?” the politics of indigenous rights has resulted in
separatist policies that have created atrociously
dysfunctional communities: “The
impossibility of defining ‘Aboriginality’ emerges in
defining entitlements. Self identification breaks down when
entitlements are in sight. The right to reside in a community,
distribution of royalties and hunting rights lead to frequent
court disputes over ‘who is Aboriginal’. As the value of
land, royalties, forestry, and farming on the 1.25 million km2
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander holdings increases, the
disputes will become worse.”
They explain that “positive discrimination has led to
appalling living standards. Communal, inalienable land title
has deprived Aborigines of the private property rights that
enabled other Australians to acquire land, houses, business
and other assets. Jobs are limited to government services with
virtually all taken by non-Aborigines because separate schools
with special curriculums result in 100% illiteracy and
non-numeracy. Australian apartheid policies have had the same
dreadful results as they did in South Africa, but they
continue to be supported by the ‘Aboriginal industry’. In
South Africa, the left led the fight against apartheid; in
Australia it supports it.” To read the article click the
sidebar link>>>
There is very real danger in Apartheid policies. The Maori
rights movement has been extremely successful in persuading
successive New Zealand governments to allocate increasing
levels of funding to race-based initiatives. Most have been
appropriated in the name of reducing so-called Maori
disadvantage, even though being “Maori” does not cause
disparity. What causes disparity in New Zealand are factors
like age, education, literacy, location, marital status and
gender – as well as other dynamics like benefit dependence,
sole parenthood, substance abuse, violence and criminality.
Being Maori does not signify socio-economic failure and so
allocating resources on the basis of race is a gross waste of
taxpayer’s money. The best way to tackle disadvantage is to
ensure that all children succeed in school, that basic
literacy and numeracy training is available to all, that
workers in dying industries can re-train, and that the welfare
system does not trap people in dependency - nor allow them to
stay on a benefit in the long term in areas where there are no
jobs.
NZCPR
POLL
This
week’s poll asks:
Do you believe race should be a
basis for government policy-making?
To
vote click here>>>
(Readers
comments will be posted here>>>
daily)
To view last week's comments click here>>>
FOOTNOTES:
All articles can be
found on the NZCPR RESEARCH PAGE - click here>>>
1.Te Puni Kokiri, Briefing to the Incoming Minister
2.ACT New Zealand, The Maori Tax to Benefit Gap
3.Statistics NZ, Report of the Review of the Measurement of
Ethnicity
4.Simon Chapple, Maori Socio-Economic Disparity
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>>>
Why not submit your burning issue for publication on our
website Soapbox
Series?
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)
|
|

WHO ARE INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS?
Prof Helen Hughes
Mark Hughes
Waves
of migration have contributed to the evolution of most
nations. Relationships to country evolve with each
wave of immigrants. Not only have families of European
origin that have farmed land for generations developed
strong ties to their land, but many migrants begin to
feel more at home among eucalypts than pine trees or
bamboo thickets long before they lose their accents.
Consequently there is increasing resistance to the use
of ‘indigenous’ as a synonym for Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander. Although Aborigines and Torres
Strait Islanders are recognised as the first
immigrants, their attachment to country is not unique.
All Australians - those that are indigenous because
they were born in Australia and those who immigrated
and become Australian citizens by choice - are
entitled to equal rights in return for equal
responsibilities...
To
read click here>>>
|
|
|
NZCPR
Columnists
|
Ronald
Kitching
NOTES
ON:
The
Philosophy Behind Climate Change - View>>> |
|
|

|
|
|

|
|
|

To
enquire about our NEW extremely competitive rates
- click
here>>>
|
|
|

lTROUBLE
WITH IMAGES?
Visit
our HELPDESK topic to solve problems with
newsletter images -
view>>>
l POLL
RESULT
Last
Week's poll asked:
Should
welfare reform be a High,
Medium or Low priority for govt?
Result: H
95%, M 3%, L 2%.
Last week's comments here>>>
Previous poll comments here>>>
l QUICK
LINKS
Links
to all Acts of Parliament, Submissions called by
Select Committees, Parliamentary Order Paper and more
- here>>>
lDONATION
FORM
To
download the NZCPR donation form - click here>>>
|
|
|
PLEASE
JOIN OUR RESEARCH PANEL

Please
join the NZCPR Research Panel to take part in
nation-wide polls and surveys about policy issues -
emissions trading, tax & so on
CLICK
HERE>>>
|
|

To
order this brilliant DVD
on the life and ideas of
Milton Friedman
- click here>>> |
|
|
|

Do
you have a copy of this excellent book to help you
through the recession?
A great gift for the family!
Click
here>>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back
to top of page >>>
|

|

New Zealand Centre for
Political Research - www.nzcpr.com
|
|
How
many cups of tea a week is the NZCPR Weekly worth to you?
Choose your subscription package here>>>
|
NZCPR
Commentary
|
|
Recession Increases Need For Welfare Reform
While socialists have blamed capitalism and the free market
for the global financial crisis, economist Richard M. Salesman
holds “altruism” responsible. In his article “Altruism:
The Moral Root of the Financial Crisis”, he explains that
altruism, which is based on the notion that being moral
consists of sacrificing oneself for the needs of others, has
long been a driving force of government policy.[1]
In the US, not only has this resulted in a burgeoning welfare
state, but altruistic home ownership initiatives targeted at
minority groups, created a house of cards of catastrophic
proportions.
Salesman describes the welfare state as the political ideal
of altruism, since it facilitates “the sacrifice of the
successful to the needy”. He reminds us that Karl Marx was
the pre-eminent altruist of the 19th century
advocating that in a truly socialist world, wealth would be
perpetually transferred “from
each according to his ability, to each according to his
need”. The popularity of progressive tax systems around
the world - long-favoured by socialist politicians - bears
testimony to the power of political altruism.
New Zealand has always had a strong welfare state tradition.
In its original form - as introduced
by Michael Joseph Savage in 1938 - state welfare was more
pragmatic than altruistic. It was designed to be a hand-up to
work, supplementing widespread community-based charitable
efforts to assist the needy. For thirty years, right up until
the late sixties, there were less than 15,000 people receiving
state welfare, with fewer than a thousand unemployed.
In the late sixties, however, amid growing concerns that the
benefit system was losing relativity with rising living
standards, the Holyoake Government established a Royal
Commission on social security. Many of the recommendations
contained in their 1972 report, were adopted by the 1973 Kirk
Labour Government. But it was three of those recommendations
in particular that were responsible for the establishment of
New Zealand’s permanent dependency culture.
The first of the three recommendations changed benefit
eligibility from being needs-based and available only to those
‘of good moral character and sober habits’, into a
universal entitlement. That change destroyed a
well-established social contract between taxpayers and the
government that had ensured that only those who were good
citizens and met community standards were eligible for state
benefits. For the first time ever, the welfare system thus
began to reward indolent and destructive behaviours such as
alcoholism, drug addiction, and criminality.
The
second of the three misguided recommendations was the raising
of benefit levels closer to a working wage. Instead of
temporary welfare benefits being sufficient to tide people
over while they found a new job, the Commission wanted to
ensure someone on a benefit could “enjoy a standard of
living close enough to the general community standard for him
to feel a sense of participating in the community and
belonging to it”. As a result of this change, the urgency
for a beneficiary to find a job – to ensure they would be
appreciably better off - all but disappeared, setting the
scene for the establishment of long-term, intergenerational
benefit dependency.
The
third recommendation - one that changed the face of welfare
and the family in New Zealand forever - was the introduction
of the Domestic Purposes Benefit. The DPB, a statutory benefit
for sole mothers with dependent children, was established to
enable an estimated 20,000 women to escape violent
relationships. It was a landmark change to the benefit system,
being the first benefit available for reasons of personal
choice - such as no longer wanting to remain married - rather
than for reasons outside of a person’s control such as the
death of a spouse, the loss of a job, injury or accident.
More
than thirty years on, the results of those three major changes
speak for themselves. One in three of all New Zealand families
with children are single parent families. A quarter of all
children now live with one parent instead of two.[2]
According to the budget estimates, in the next financial year
336,000 working age people will be in receipt of a welfare
benefit, 400,000 or so working families will be receiving Working
for Families payouts, and some 538,000 retirees will be in
receipt of a pension. Altogether the total cost of income
support will be $21,509 million or one third of all government
spending.[3]
In comparison, total income support in 1972 (arguably before
altruism took hold!) was around 23 percent of all government
spending.
The
Ministry of Social Development provides a breakdown of benefit
data as at March 2009.[4]
Their figures show that the number of sole parents receiving
the Domestic Purposes Benefit has risen by over 6,000 from a
year ago to 102,003. Of those, 76,000 have been on a benefit
for longer than a year, with 15,500 receiving a benefit for
more than ten years. Maori are massively over-represented –
while they comprise 15 percent of the population, they make up
41.5 percent of all DPB recipients.
The numbers of beneficiaries migrating onto the Sickness and
Invalid Benefits continue their relentless rise (largely as a
result of the benefits not being work tested and in some cases
being more generous) with increases over the last twelve
months totalling 5,365 and 2,831 respectively to take the
totals to 51,041 and 83,961.
And while the budget shows unemployment benefit numbers rising
to 85,000 in the next financial year, the breakdown of the
37,146 receiving the dole in March shows more than a third are
Maori, and 31 percent are young people aged from 18 to 24.
This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, Luke Malpass a policy
analyst with the Centre for Independent Studies, reminds us
that the National Party campaigned on reforming welfare. He
explains that with the country now in recession, getting the
incentives in the welfare system right is more important than
ever:
“Welfare
policy is important at all stages of the economic cycle. When
the economy is growing steadily the aim of welfare policy
should be to get every person who is able into the labour
force. And, when the economy is in recession it is even more
vital that welfare policy is designed to encourage able people
into the workforce. To this end welfare policy is a hugely
important area in which to legislate. The rules around
conditionality are important and the incentives they create
crucial.
Luke
explains that, “Internationally,
New Zealand is behind best practice. In Scandinavian
countries, the United States and Germany, welfare has been
reformed with remarkable results. Numbers on welfare rolls
have been reduced dramatically with the tightening of
conditionality and reciprocal obligations. Workfare schemes,
time-limiting of benefits, and compelling single parents back
into part time work once their youngest goes to school have
all been shown to be effective and have positive benefits for
peoples’ job prospects. Yet in New Zealand this is still
characterised as cruel and uncaring.
He
concludes, “As
New Zealand heads deeper into recession it is more important
than ever that the government’s welfare policy gets it
right. Reform is important, because allowing people to become
lost on welfare rolls and out of touch with the world of work
is a failure of government, and by extension, a failure of
society.” To read the full article “Incentivising
Welfare”, click the sidebar link>>>
There is no doubt that as the welfare lines grow longer and
the cost of income support soars, a major re-think of welfare
policy is urgently needed. For instance, New Zealand is one of
only a handful of countries that has a stand-alone benefit for
sole parents. Most provide temporary support based on the
expectation that the mother will re-enter the workforce after
a year or two to properly provide for herself and her child.
Many countries
have unemployment insurance schemes, or time-limits for the
unemployment benefit, as well as a full-time programmes of
work, training or job search designed to prevent job seekers
becoming isolated and losing their confidence. And with regard
to disability benefits, the most successful way to discourage
‘freeloading’ is through tightening
the rules of eligibility and more intensive monitoring.
As well as needing to reform our main benefits, we surely need
to rethink the whole Working
for Families scheme as well. With a stroke of the pen in
2004, the Labour Government effectively turned hundreds of
thousands of independent working families – including some who
earn up to $120,500 a year - into
state beneficiaries.[5]
With fear of losing their benefits affecting their
decision-making and their lives - dictating to some extent
whether they take the new job or accept the promotion package
– it could be argued that the massive $2.7 billion in Working
for Families payments would be of greater benefit
redirected into tax cuts. Tax cuts, as we all know, are vital
to incentivising work and wealth creation, and would certainly
help the country move out of recession far more quickly.
These are important issues. At the present time more than a
quarter of working-age adults are relying on benefits to some
extent, and, with a growing population of retirees, younger
workers are being condemned to a future of struggling under an
increasing tax burden – as the government soaks up more and
more of the nation's wealth to pay for our growing state
dependency.
The destructive effects of welfare are much too serious for
governments to ignore. Now more than ever the culture of
welfarism that has burdened us for more than 30 years needs to
be broken. Regrettably it is something our new government has
not yet acknowledged, let alone addressed.
NZCPR
POLL
This
week’s poll asks:
Do you believe that welfare reform
should be a high priority, medium priority or low priority for
the new government?
To
vote click here>>>
(Readers
comments will be posted here>>>
daily)
To view last week's comments click here>>>
FOOTNOTES:
All articles can be
found on the NZCPR RESEARCH PAGE - click here>>>
1.Richard
M. Salesman, Altruism: The Moral Root of the Financial Crisis
2.Statistics NZ, Projected Families by Family Type
3.Treasury, 2009 Budget Economic and Fiscal Update
4.Minstry of Social Development, National Benefit Factsheets
2009
5.IRD, Working for Families Tax Credit Chart
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>>>
Why not submit your burning issue for publication on our
website Soapbox
Series?
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)
|
|

INCENTIVISING WELFARE
Luke Malpass
Lauren
has a two year old child and lives in a committed
relationship with her boyfriend, the father of her
son. The child has two committed parents living
together and it sounds all above board. Unfortunately
it turns out that Lauren had been claiming the
Domestic Purposes Benefit for being a solo mum, and as
such she has defrauded her fellow taxpayers to the
tune of $480 a week, or $17,000 odd in total.
That she has broken the rules and defrauded the
taxpayer of a substantial amount of money to which she
was not entitled is not in doubt. But what is the
incentive for the couple here? The way that this
payment is structured makes it more economical for her
and her partner to live apart, regardless of whether
this is best for the child. Or it encourages them to
break up, or it simply encourages them to lie, as they
did, to WINZ.
It demonstrates a central problem with the modern
welfare state—unintended consequences arising from
poorly thought through incentives...
To
read click here>>>
|
|
|
NZCPR
Columnists
|
Ronald
Kitching
Successful
Political & Economic Reform:
Drive
Shaft of Human Progress - View>>> |
Alan
Peachey
What's
Up With Our Schools?
Secret Registers
Click
to view>>> |
|
|

|
|
|

|
|
|

|
|
|

lTROUBLE
WITH IMAGES?
Visit
our HELPDESK topic to solve problems with
newsletter images -
view>>>
l POLL
RESULT
Last
Week's poll asked:
How
do you rate the Government’s budget - good,
satisfactory or disappointing?
Result: Disappointing
67%, Satisfactory 22%, Good 11%.
Last week's comments here>>>
Previous poll comments here>>>
l QUICK
LINKS
Links
to all Acts of Parliament, Submissions called by
Select Committees, Parliamentary Order Paper and more
- here>>>
lDONATION
FORM
To
download the NZCPR donation form - click here>>>
|
|
|
PLEASE
JOIN OUR RESEARCH PANEL

Please
join the NZCPR Research Panel and take part in a
series of nation-wide polls and surveys about policy
issues - tax, super, climate change & so on
CLICK
HERE>>>
|
|

To
order this brilliant DVD
on the life and ideas of
Milton Friedman
- click here>>> |
|
|
|

Do
you have a copy of this excellent book to help you
through the recession?
A great gift for the family!
Click
here>>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back
to top of page >>>
|

|

New Zealand Centre for
Political Research - www.nzcpr.com
|
|
Is
the NZCPR Weekly worth the value of a cup of coffee a week to you?
View full subscription package details here>>>
|
NZCPR
Commentary
|
|
Budget
Spend-up Continues
“This
is the message to New Zealanders: under National, tax cuts are
a priority—under National, personal tax cuts are a priority.
Most of all, New Zealanders will be able to believe our tax
cuts, they will be able to trust our tax cuts. Most of all,
our tax cuts will not just be about putting dollars into the
pockets of hard-working New Zealanders. They will actually be
about delivering the right incentives in the economy. Tax cuts
let New Zealanders get ahead in their lives. They encourage
New Zealanders to work hard, to get extra responsibilities, to
save, and to get further education. We believe in tax cuts, we
believe in the power of tax cuts, and we will deliver them.”[1]
- John Key.
Well,
that was last year, when John Key delivered the Leader of the
Opposition’s speech about the 2008 Budget.
The National Party’s promised tax cuts were the central
component of their election campaign. After nine years of
taunting Labour for not delivering tax cuts, they were very
clear that they would be able to deliver on their promise
because the cost of the tax cuts would be covered by cutbacks
they were proposing to research and development and KiwiSave: “Taken
together, the removal of the R&D tax credits and the
changes to KiwiSaver mean National will not have to borrow or
cut public services to fund our personal tax cuts. This is a
prudent and responsible tax package. National will not
undertake additional borrowing for tax cuts.”[2]
So if the cost of tax cuts was already covered by the savings
already made, why were they cancelled in Thursday’s budget?
The answer is that National cancelled the tax cuts because it
was easier than cutting government spending. All those
opposition years of explaining that lower flatter taxes are
vital to driving economic growth and building prosperity were
forgotten when faced with pruning nine years of socialist
spending programmes put in place by Labour.
After all of the brave talk of ‘razor gangs’, line-by-line
reviews, and reducing wasteful spending, only $301 million was
saved; meanwhile core government spending is set to increase
from $57,997 million in this 2008/09 financial year to $62,362
million next year, and $65,282 million the year after![3]
The promised tax cuts – and remember that they were already
pre-funded by the cutbacks to KiwiSaver and the dropping of
the R&D tax credits – were not massive. Just $98 million
was needed to fund the tax cuts next year, $494 million in
2011, and over $800 million thereafter.[4]
If the incentive effects of lower flatter taxes are taken into
account, the tax cuts should have quickly paid for themselves
through higher growth and increased productivity.
That was certainly the experience of the 1984 Labour
Government, which, facing bleak economic conditions,
dramatically cut taxes and government spending to balance out
the deficit within three years. As Roger Douglas put it,
“The current level of Government deficit is one third what
it was in 1984. Back in 1984, we managed to get the books back
into the black within 3 years. Today, with a deficit one third
of the size it was then, it is going to take 11 years to get
back to surplus. Any deficit today has to be repaid with
interest by future generations. The deficit is not huge, but
its existence shows the unwillingness to make modest cuts to
return to surplus quickly”.[5]
A cursory examination of Thursday’s budget identifies many
areas of expenditure which hardly resemble “essential”
spending.[6]
For instance, does the country really need hundreds of policy
analysts costing us close to $600 million a year? Of course
government Ministers need policy advice, but does the Minister
of Social Development really need $53 million worth of advice,
the Minister of Education $32 million worth of advice, or the
Minister of Maori Affairs $26 million worth of advice?
In fact, do we really need more than 200 agencies run by the
government? [view>>>]
Is
the Families Commission, which costs $8 million to run, really
necessary when there are already many private sector groups
doing research on the family and advocating on their behalf?
What about the Charities Commission at $5 million, or the
Retirement Commission at $5.6 million. In these days of gender
equality do we really need a Ministry of Women’s Affairs
costing $4.8 million to run? And given the country’s ethnic
diversity can we really justify the Ministry of Pacific Island
Affairs costing $7.5 million a year to run or the Ministry of
Maori Affairs costing $179 million annually.
Should taxpayers really be bailing out stadium projects in
Dunedin, Nelson, Christchurch, and Whangarei to the tune
of $35 million? And what about the $13 million of taxpayers’
money we will be spending on the Americas Cup in the next
twelve months – can that really be justified as essential
spending? And why are the producers of big-budget film
and television productions getting $35 million?
What about the $158 million appropriated for public
broadcasting services – including Television NZ and Radio NZ
– or the additional $67 million spent on Maori radio and
television services? Are taxpayers getting good value for
money for that $225 million?
How do we feel about the $132 million that will be used to
fund legal aid? Do we agree with $102 million of taxpayers’
money being used to fund environmental research while $71
million is used for health research?
Keeping in mind that the “unaffordable” tax cuts would
have cost $98 million next year, how do we feel about the
appropriation of $550 million that has been set aside for
climate change? Most of this has been ear-marked for buying
carbon credits to give to businesses to get the emissions
trading scheme off the ground. Those who believed that the
Government was genuinely awaiting the outcome of an
“independent” Select Committee review will be disappointed
to see that the die is already cast. And consumers worried
about the added cost of an emissions trading scheme will be
especially concerned to find out that the half a billion
dollar cost is only the beginning of what will be an
enormously unproductive drain on our already fragile economy.
This appropriation on its own would have almost paid for the
tax cuts for the next two years. Unfortunately it demonstrates
that rather than looking ahead with a vision for growing the
New Zealand economy and catching up to Australia by 2025 –
as promised after the election – National appears to have
become somewhat captured by the bureaucracy to the point where
they are satisfied with tinkering with their predecessor’s
socialist spending promises rather than implementing real,
badly needed reform.
This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator Roger Kerr, the
executive director of the New Zealand Business Roundtable,
outlines the “appalling economic legacy” that has led to
the dire situation we are in today:
“Core Crown expenses are set to rise by as much as $3
billion this year and to go up from 32 percent of GDP in
2007/08 to 37 percent in the government’s term of office.
Public consumption is forecast to grow every year to 2012 (by
around 12 percent in total) while private consumption growth
is negative each year (falling by nearly 3.5 percent by 2012).
Citizens are being asked to tighten their belts while
the government lets its belt out further”.
He goes on to state, “As commentators have been noting, the
government broke a firm election policy commitment in
deferring planned tax cuts.
This looks like a soft option relative to cutting more
of the last government’s poor quality spending.
None of the modest ‘line-by-line’ review savings
represents hard political choices either.
“What was perhaps most disappointing about the budget was
that it contained few indications of forward thinking to deal
with the need for structural adjustment and substantially lift
productivity growth. There
should also be more urgent short-term action. The forecast
rise in the unemployment rate to 8 or even 10 percent of the
labour force, for example, should not be passively accepted.
It is an indicator that nothing significant in this
regard came out of the Jobs Summit and that more fundamental
changes are needed.
“Overall, what can be said at this stage is that the budget
does not have an economic strategy that is capable of
achieving the government’s overriding goal of catching up to
Australian income levels by 2025”. To read the article
“The 2009 Budget – What’s Next?”, click the sidebar
link>>>
So rather than provide a clear vision for how New Zealand is
going to become that prosperous country that we all aspire to,
with lower taxes, greater personal responsibility and more
individual freedom, the budget gave us a stable credit rating,
aspirational rhetoric, and no tax cuts.
But all is not lost - we did get a $50 million cycle-way. And
we mustn’t forget the sweetener to the Green Party, the $323
million for home insulation refits. The problem with those,
however, is that if you read the study on which they are
justified you will find that general practitioner and hospital
records fail to show any real evidence to support the policy.
In other words, while people in insulated homes ‘feel’
healthier there is no empirical evidence to show that they
actually are.[7]
I will leave the final word to Milton
Friedman: "I
am in favour of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for
any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible. The reason
I am is because I believe the big problem is not taxes, the
big problem is spending. The question is, "How do you
hold down government spending?" The only effective way I
think to hold it down, is to hold down the amount of income
the government has. The way to do that is to cut taxes."
NZCPR
POLL
This
week’s poll asks:
How
do you rate the Government’s budget - good,
satisfactory or disappointing?
To
vote click here>>>
(Readers
comments will be posted here>>>
daily)
To view last week's comments click here>>>
FOOTNOTES:
All articles can be
found on the NZCPR RESEARCH PAGE - click here>>>
1.John
Key, Budget Debate 2008
2.Treasury, Core Crown Expense Tables
3.National’s 2008 Election Tax Policy
4.Radio NZ, Government defers promised tax cuts in Budget
5.Roger Douglas, Budget Low-Lights
6.Treasury, Estimates of Appropriations
7.British
Medical Journal, Effect of insulating existing houses on
health inequality
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>>>
Why not submit your burning issue for publication on our
website Soapbox
Series?
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)
|
|

THE 2009 BUDGET:
WHAT'S NEXT?
Roger Kerr
It
If
we are to catch up to Australian income levels by
2025, the government (and the community at large) have
to recognise the need for policy settings much more
like those of more successful countries.
We can’t continue avoiding ‘third rail’ issues
such as the superannuation eligibility age,
privatisation of commercial businesses, a freer labour
market and welfare reform.
We need to think much more in terms of the smaller
role that governments play in small, high-income
countries such as Hong Kong and Singapore and less in
terms of the high-tax, welfare state models in Europe
which the previous government favoured.
These countries look even more likely to remain
economic laggards in the years ahead.
..
To
read click here>>>
|
|
Ronald
Kitching
Successful
Political & Economic Reform:
Political
Influence in China - View>>> |
|
|

|
|
|

|
|
|

|
|
|

lTROUBLE
WITH IMAGES?
Visit
our HELPDESK topic to solve problems with
newsletter images -
view>>>
l POLL
RESULT
Last
Week's poll asked:
How
do you rank the NZ media in terms of giving a good
balance to the debate over global warming?
Result: Average
5%, Poor 95%
Last week's comments here>>>
Previous poll comments here>>>
l MEDIA
PAGE
A
reader writes:I
have just returned from Australia were I read The
Australian each morning for almost a month. There
has been an ongoing series of articles about Climate
Change and hundreds of letters to the Editor both for
and against mainly well reasoned full of information
and opinions. THIS is what a newspaper should do -
provide information for both sides of an argument,
rather than all sorts of items that are biased in
favour of WARMING, ignoring the other side almost
completely. I really do miss The Australian!!
*Dear
reader – please don’t forget
that you can read The Australian ,
Wall St Journal, and others every
morning by logging onto the MEDIA page of the NZCPR
website view
here>>>.
Why
not add the page to your website favourites?
l SUBMISSIONS
See
details of full list of public submissions on bills
called by Select Committees - here>>>
lDONATION
FORM
To
download the NZCPR donation form - click here>>>
|
|
|
PLEASE
JOIN OUR RESEARCH PANEL

Please
join the NZCPR Research Panel so you can take part in
a series of nation-wide polls and surveys:
CLICK
HERE>>>
|
|

To
order this brilliant DVD
on the life and ideas of
Milton Friedman
- click here>>> |
|
|
|

THE MILK REPORT
How
much is a 2 litres of milk? Where
are the best buys?
TO READ THE RESULTS OF THIS OILY RAG SURVEY
- please click here>>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back
to top of page >>>
|

|

New Zealand Centre for
Political Research - www.nzcpr.com
|
|
Is
the NZCPR Weekly newsletter worth the value of a cup of
coffee a week to you? YES
or NO
|
NZCPR
Commentary
|
|
Cooler
Weather Heats Up Debate
Earlier this month a briefing paper for US government
officials and environmental leaders on ways to “re-frame”
the global warming debate in order to build stronger public
support for climate change legislation, found its way into the
hands of the New York Times.[1]
Re-framing is
a technique used by politicians to make radical ideas more
palatable to the public by replacing controversial expressions
with language that evokes empathy, cooperation, and a sense of
interconnectedness.[2]
The concept is largely based on the work of George Lakoff,
Professor of Linguistics at Berkley University and well known
adviser to the environmental movement, who believes that if
you control the language of a debate then you control the way
that people think.
The report obtained by the New York Times had been prepared by
the Washington-based public relations firm EcoAmerica. They
explained that terms like “global warming” turned people
off because they fostered images of “shaggy-haired liberals,
economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes”. The
report suggested that rather than talking about ‘global
warming’ they should be discussing “our deteriorating
climate”. They went on to recommend that instead of using
the term the “environment”, they should use “the air we
breathe, the water our children drink”, rather than
“energy efficiency” which made people think of
“shivering in the dark”, they should be saying “saving
money for a more prosperous future”, and instead of
confusing people with “cap and trade”, they should be
using terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution
reduction refund.”
The report stressed the need for aspirational language and
shared ideals like “freedom, prosperity, independence and
self-sufficiency while avoiding jargon and details about
policy, science, economics or technology”.
Of course, there has already been a major shift in the
language of the global warming debate, whereby the term
“global warming” has been replaced to a large extent by
“climate change”. This has occurred mainly because the
physical evidence on global temperature change does not match
the predictions.
According to the theory of global warming being touted by the
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), Al Gore and many others (who have spent an estimated
$50 billion trying to show man-made greenhouse gas emissions
are causing catastrophic global warming) the earth’s
temperatures should be rising in line with a continuing
increase in carbon dioxide emissions.[3]
The problem is that the planet stopped warming more than a
decade ago. In fact, as the graph below shows, global warming
has now been replaced by global cooling and while carbon
dioxide levels continue to rise, temperatures continue to
fall. This graph demonstrates that the global warming theory
based on the computer models of the IPCC and others, is wrong.

The
graph above shows the temperature changes of the lower
troposphere from the surface up to about 8 km as determined
from the average of two analyses of satellite data. The best
fit line from January 2002 to April 2009 indicates a decline
of 0.25 Celsius/decade. The Sun's activity, which was
increasing through most of the 20th century, has recently
become quiet, causing a change of trend. The green line shows
the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, as measured at Mauna
Loa, Hawaii. [4]
The fact that the earth is now in a cooling phase should come
as no surprise to New Zealanders, given the unseasonally cold
weather we are presently experiencing. Some weather
analysts are even predicting that we may miss out on autumn
altogether this year!
But what is a continuing surprise is how our political leaders
could be so unaware of what is going on that they can be
contemplating passing laws to combat catastrophic global
warming when the climate stopped warming of its own accord
more than a decade ago. Could this possibly be a modern day
version of the Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale “The
Emperor Has No Clothes”, where everyone can see that the
planet is cooling but with the country’s rulers claiming
they are fighting global warming, loyal subjects are afraid to
speak out for fear of ridicule or persecution?
Yet with global warming well and truly over and global cooling
upon us, serious questions need to be asked. How can the
government justify appropriating taxpayers’ money for
schemes based on global warming when the warming stopped over
a decade ago? Where are the government’s science advisers in
all of this? Why are they not advising the government that we
are now in a global cooling phase - and if they are advising
the government of this, but the government is not listening,
why not?
A quick review of the 200 or so organisations that are run by
the government (see the list here>>>)
shows that at least 20 deal with climate related matters.
Surely some of these publicly-funded bodies must have raised
concerns that the policy responses (if any at all are needed)
for global cooling would be very different from those
presently operating on the basis of global warming. In
particular, surely the National Institute of Water and
Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has a particular responsibility to
keep the government well informed about such matters.
Another question that needs to be answered is why isn’t the
press inquiring into the fact that the government is still
running global warming policies a decade after global warming
stopped? As the fourth estate, the free press has a crucial
responsibility in a democracy in scrutinising the actions of
government and acting as a watch dog for the public. When they
are doing their job well, the media play a vital role in
facilitating greater transparency and accountability in
government. Not only that, but by highlighting problems in the
government’s agenda by providing details of all sides of an
argument, they enable the public to become well informed about
important public policy issues.
It is worth noting that last year SKY TV did an outstanding
job in this regard by screening both Al Gore’s film “An
Inconvenient Truth”, which claims that man-made carbon
dioxide is causing catastrophic global warming, and Martin
Durkin’s documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle”,
which explains that it is natural forces such as the sun, the
deep ocean currents, the clouds, and other climatic factors
such as snow and ice cover, that drive the climate. They even
followed up with a studio debate between climate realists,
broadcaster Leighton Smith and scientific expert Dr Willem de
Lange, and a team
of three global warming advocates, Dr David Wratt NIWA’s
chief climate scientist, Prof Martin Manning of the NZ Climate
Change Research Institute, and Cindy Baxter from Greenpeace.
I have invited Dr Willem de Lange, Senior Lecturer in
the Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University
of Waikato, to be this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator and
share with us not only why he is a climate realist, but his
experience of working with the IPCC.
Dr de Lange begins his article by explaining that as an expert
on sea level change, he was asked by the IPCC to contribute to
a chapter on that matter for their Second Assessment Report:
“In keeping with IPCC procedures, the chapter was written
and reviewed in isolation from the rest of the report, and I
had no input into the process after my review of the chapter
draft”. In fact, as he explains, he disagreed with the
assumptions of a one metre sea level rise that was being
proposed in the report, stating instead that “sea level rise
would not necessarily result in flooding of small island
nations, because natural processes on coral atolls were likely
to raise island levels”.
Dr de Lange explains that when the report was finally
published he found himself to be one of the 3,000 or so
‘scientists’ who were listed by the IPCC as agreeing with
their proposition that there
was discernable human influence on climate even though
“I was not asked if I supported the view expressed in my
name.” In fact, he states “my understanding at the time
was that no evidence
of a discernable human influence on global
climate existed”!
In his article he exposes not only how “extreme scenarios
were added at a late stage of the review process” into the
IPCC and New Zealand climate impact reports, but that he was
asked “to state that sea level rise was accelerating, or at
least could be accelerating”, which he refused to do.
Dr de Lange also explains that while it is well known that
satellite data gives an accurate measure of global sea levels,
they are grossly inaccurate at measuring tidal changes. There,
tide gauge data must be used. In spite of this he recounts a
situation where the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report
“spliced the satellite data onto the tide gauge data to
‘find’ acceleration in sea level rise over the period of
satellite measurement. This is being used to imply that global
sea level rise is accelerating due to global warming (now
renamed Climate Change). The satellite data only covered the
period of increasing sea level associated with decadal cycles,
and the known
discrepancy between satellite trends and tide gauge trends was
not corrected for. This is poor science comparable to the
splicing of proxy and instrument data in the infamous Hockey
Stick graph, and the splicing of ice core and instrumental CO2
measurements to exaggerate the changes”. To read the full
article including Dr de Lange’s explanation of what drives
climate change, click the sidebar link>>>
In the report on reframing the global warming debate obtained
by the New York Times, EcoAmerica suggested that discussions
about carbon dioxide should be dropped in favour of
expressions like “moving away from the dirty fuels of the
past”. This demonising of carbon dioxide by deliberately
calling it a dangerous pollutant is one of the dirty tricks
being used by global warming advocates. Some readers of this
column have accused me of not caring about pollution or the
environment because I have raised concerns about the agenda of
global warming alarmists. To set the record straight, the
reduction of dangerous pollutants is a separate issue and one
that is to be encouraged because a clean, green environment is
in all of our best interests. And as technology advances, over
time the emission of dangerous pollutants will be
substantially reduced.
However, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is one of the
raw materials that plants use to make food and is therefore at
the heart of the food chain. Without carbon dioxide, there
would be no life on earth. Making up a miniscule 0.038 percent
of our atmosphere (380 parts per million), carbon dioxide
levels are presently amongst the lowest they have ever been in
the history of the earth. In the Jurassic Period 200 million
years ago, carbon dioxide concentrations were around 5 times
higher causing plant growth to flourish to levels that could
sustain dinosaurs and other massive herbivores.[5]
The highest recorded carbon dioxide concentrations at 7,000
parts per million – 18 times higher than today - were found
during the Cambrian Period, over 500 million years ago.
Clearly, rises in carbon dioxide do not threaten the planet as
the alarmists claim.
NZCPR
POLL
This
week’s poll asks:
How do you rank the NZ media in
terms of giving a good balance to the debate over global
warming?
To
vote click here>>>
(Readers
comments will be posted here>>>
daily)
To view last week's comments click here>>>
FOOTNOTES:
All articles can be
found on the NZCPR RESEARCH PAGE - click here>>>
1.NY
Times, Seeking to Save the Planet With a Thesaurus
2.Katy Butler, Winning Words
3.Jerry Carlson, Will Media Expose Global Warming Con Job?
4.Friends of Science, Global Lower Troposphere Temperatures
and CO2
5.Ray Evans, Thank God For Carbon
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>>>
Why not submit your burning issue for publication on our
website Soapbox
Series?
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)
|
|

WHY I AM A CLIMATE REALIST
Dr Willem de Lange
It
is clear that the oceans warmed over the 20th
Century by about the same amount as the atmosphere.
This agreement should not be entirely surprising as 70
percent of the mean global air temperature comes from
over oceans. The inconvenient truth is that the
atmosphere is not capable of warming the oceans to any
significant degree – 99.9percent
of ocean heat is derived from sunlight. What does this
mean for climate change? It means that variations in
the amount of sunlight reaching the oceans will
control the rate at which the oceans warm. This is
influenced at long time scales by changes in the
Earth’s orbit. At short time scales there are
changes in the amount of sunlight associated with the
sunspot cycle. These changes are small, but due to the
ability of the oceans to store heat it may be possible
to have a cumulative effect as sunspot cycles wax and
wane. However, the main control is the amount of cloud
and ice cover. Clouds and sea ice reflect sunlight
before it can be absorbed by the oceans, and is
referred to as albedo. Albedo changes have a greater
influence on climate than the Greenhouse Effect...
To
read click here>>>
|
|
|
Allan
Peachey MP
What's
Up With Our Schools: Improving
School Performance
Click
to view>>>
|
|
|
Ronald
Kitching
Successful
Political & Economic Reform:
Free
Market China
Click to
view>>> |
|
|

|
|
|

|
|
|
|

|
|
|

Have
you visited the Oily Rag Website for FREE tips and
money-saving ideas
?
Click
here>>>
|
|
|

lTROUBLE
WITH IMAGES?
Visit
our HELPDESK topic to solve problems with
newsletter images -
view>>>
l POLL
RESULT
Last
Week's poll asked:
Should
the Government should go ahead and budget for the
promised tax cuts for 2010 and 2011 if they need to be
funded by cutting wasteful public spending?
Result: Yes
94%, No 6%
Last week's comments here>>>
Previous poll comments here>>>
l SOAPBOX
SERIES
Carbon
Dioxide: the importance to your health by Robert
Chouinard
To read click here>>>
l PRESS
GALLERY
Visit
the NZCPR Press Gallery Forum here>>>
To view videos:
*Human Induced Climate Change by Dr Ian Plimmer
*Does CO2 Cause Climate Change by Prof Bob
Carter
*Climate Change is Natural by Prof Fred Singer
*The Great Global Warming Swindle by Martin
Durkin
To read:
*Nonsense of Global Warming by historian Paul
Johnson
*Aliens Cause Global Warming by Michael Crichton
lDONATION
FORM
To
download the NZCPR donation form - click here>>>
|
|
|

If
you would like to join the NZCPR Research Panel and
take part in future surveys, please click here>>>
|
|
|

For details click
here>>>
|
|
|

For details click
here>>>
|
|
|
From
The Emperor's New Clothes by Hans Christian
Andersen
Many
years ago, there was an Emperor, who was excessively
fond of new clothes. One day, two rogues, calling
themselves weavers, made their appearance. They gave
out that they knew how to weave clothes which should
have the wonderful property of remaining invisible to
everyone who was unfit for the office he held, or who
was extraordinarily simple in character. The Emperor
ordered a suit...
So
now the Emperor walked in the midst of the procession
and all the people cried out, “Oh! How beautiful are
our Emperor’s new clothes!” in short, no one would
allow that he could not see these much-admired
clothes; because, in doing so, he would have declared
himself either a simpleton or unfit for his office.
“But
the Emperor has nothing at all on!” said a
little child. “Listen to the voice of innocence!”
exclaimed his father; and what the child had said was
whispered from one to another. “But he has nothing
at all on!” at last cried out all the people. The
Emperor was vexed, for he knew that the people were
right...
|
|
|
|
Back
to top of page >>>
|

|

New Zealand Centre for
Political Research - www.nzcpr.com
|
|
As
we are not Government funded our survival depends on your
generosity: are we worth a cup of coffee a week? YES/NO
|
NZCPR
Commentary
|
|
Creating
a Wealth Revolution
In
his acceptance speech at the Republican convention in August
1988, President Bush announced: “And the Congress will push
me to raise taxes, and I’ll say no, and they’ll push and
I’ll say no again, and they’ll push again. And I’ll say
to them “Read my lips: No new taxes”.
In June 1990 he found himself agreeing to a rise in
taxes after all in order to keep the deficit from getting out
of hand. One day reporters pursued the President as he jogged
laps in St Petersburg, Florida, pressing him to clarify his
stand. “Read my hips!” he smirked, and jogged on. Bush’s
acceptance of tax hikes in violation of his pledge hurt him
badly when he ran for re-election in 1992. He was defeated at
the polls that year. P.
F Boller, Presidential Anecdotes[1]
John Key and his National-led government would do well to
reflect on the fate of President George Bush senior after he
broke his election tax pledge. After all, tax was a main
election pledge of the National Party at the 2008 election. In
their case it was a three-year programme of tax cuts that
attracted the support of many New Zealanders who were
disgruntled with Labour’s broken tax cut promise in 2005.
John Key said, “I make no apologies for sending a clear
message that National values enterprise, hard work, and people
getting ahead under their own steam. We think personal tax
reductions are the priority in the current environment. The
surest way out of the red ink is for the New Zealand economy
to grow faster than is currently projected. One of our first
priorities is reductions in personal tax. In the short term,
personal tax reductions will provide much-needed flexibility
to taxpayers confronted with difficult economic conditions. In
the medium term, our tax package will help make New
Zealanders' after-tax wages more competitive. It will improve
incentives in our economy and it will drive growth.”[2]
While the 2009 tax cuts have now been delivered, National
promised tax cuts in 2010 and 2011, “On 1 April 2010 we will
shift the threshold at which the 33 percent rate applies out
to $50,000 and lower the top rate to 37 per cent. On 1 April
2011 we will lower the 21 per cent rate to 20 percent. The top
tax rate applies to many of the skilled workers our
communities rely on - including school principals, GPs, police
officers, and many teachers. By reducing the top rate we will
show these people that they have a real future in New Zealand
where their effort and aspiration will be rewarded.”
John Key explained, “This programme of tax reduction will
provide welcome relief for households who are feeling the
pressure of a down-turning economy. That means that under
National's tax plans around 80 percent of taxpayers will be
paying no more than 20c in tax for every additional dollar
that they earn. As a result of our changes to the tax
structure, most workers with second jobs will pay a secondary
tax rate of no more than 20 percent. Our longer-term plan for
the income tax system is a simple three-tier structure with
the highest rate at no more than 33 percent for income above
$50,000.”
National was very clear that there would be no borrowing to
fund tax cuts: “Taken together, the removal of the R&D
tax credits and the changes to KiwiSaver mean National will
not have to borrow or cut public services to fund our personal
tax cuts. We will, in fact, be booking a small saving from the
changes we are proposing - $283 million over three years. So,
no matter what smears my opponents may try to spread, you can
be confident. This is a prudent and responsible tax package.
National will not undertake additional borrowing for tax
cuts.”[3]
With National’s tax cut pledge being fiscally positive,
there is no sound reason for them to break their tax cut
promise.
Indeed, with the government’s accounts looking increasingly
bleak, the prudent course of action is to do what households
have had to do and tighten their belt. After all, the current
administration has become bloated by nine years of Labour’s
regulations, laws and special interest spending promises.
Considering that National opposed much of Labour’s agenda
they should have no hesitation in eliminating non-essential
expenditure.
In their briefing to the incoming government, Treasury advised
National that the rate of growth of government spending over
the last nine years is unsustainable. They recommended bold
action to reduce spending to affordable levels.[4]
This message has just been reinforced by the Secretary of the
Treasury, John Whitehead, who in a speech on Friday, stressed
how imperative it is that National gets public sector spending
under control. He explained that more needs to be done to
eliminate wasteful spending including cutting existing
programmes that do not fit the Government’s objectives, and
he identified $38.5 billion
of public money “that could be better used”.[5]
The Secretary warned, “The
state sector is a very large part of the economy - central and
local government combined represent about 40 percent of GDP -
so it is hugely important that it works as efficiently as
possible to support the private sector. We cannot afford to
crowd out private enterprise or impose unnecessary costs on
people and businesses.”
And that’s the point. It is the private sector - the wealth
makers - that will lift New Zealand out of the recession not
the government, who are wealth consumers. That’s why lower
taxes, less regulation, and a smaller government must be the
priority. Empirical evidence shows the optimal size of
government to be about 25 percent of gross domestic product.
Switching the dead-weight loss of wealth being consumed by
government to the private sector would provide the jobs the
job summit merely talked about, creating a wealth revolution
this country has not seen for a very long time.[6]
Treasury is of the view that National should prioritise tax
reductions in order to improve New Zealand’s economic
performance. In particular they have recommended that the top
personal rates of tax be brought down to 30
percent or lower. They have also noted that company tax is now
far too high and should be reduced: “Average
corporate tax rates in the OECD continue to trend down, and
New Zealand’s 30 percent rate is now relatively high, with
small OECD countries having an average company tax rate of 26
percent in 2008”. If National is to succeed in their goal of
lifting living
standards so that New Zealand can catch up with Australia by
2025, an on-going programme of tax cuts is vital.
In his article “Judging National’s First Budget“, this
week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator Sir Roger Douglas MP explains
that there are ten fundamental economic truths that should be
kept in mind when assessing a government’s budget - one is
tax cuts:
“Tax
cuts incentivise work and saving.
Ensuring all income is treated the same will remove
costly distortions in our economy – like those occurring
when people set up businesses in different ways to avoid tax.
The only way to reduce tax is to reduce Government
spending. If Government spending is controlled, taxes can be
low. Mr English
calls tax cuts unaffordable.
He’s wrong. High
levels of Government spending are unaffordable.
If we indulge the whim of every special interest group
with tax money, taxes will be high.
“New Zealand’s current account deficit has ballooned.
If Government continues to spend at current levels, the
deficit will increase. This
will see our credit rating downgraded, and our currency drop
even further. But if the Government reduces spending –
freeing up resources for tax cuts – it will help New
Zealanders get through the recession and make the adjustment
more manageable. In a recession we must tighten our belts and
Government must realise this applies to it as much as to
us”. To read
the full article click the sidebar link>>>
At a time when wealth creators need greater certainty and less
government interference, we are unfortunately being subjected
to a number of initiatives that will deliver the exact
opposite.
The first is in the vital Auckland region where the plan is to
restructure seven cities into one super city. This is bound to
create widespread uncertainty for an extended period while new
consenting authorities are established and new regional plans
put in place. This, of course, comes on top of the major
uncertainty associated with the reform of the Resource
Management Act itself. It is highly likely that many
development projects will be put on hold while investors await
the outcomes of these changes – at the very time when the
country is in desperate need of the economic activity created
by Auckland’s “power house”.[For
more on this read Owen McShane’s Mid-Week Politics - see
sidebar NOTICEBOARD for the link]
The
second is National’s proposed new tax increase – in the
form of an emissions trading scheme. It is, of course, the
worst possible time to impose a new tax on a country as it
will significantly hold back our economic recovery. The
proposed Emissions Trading Scheme has already had a
devastating effect on investment in New Zealand as the
submissions to the ETS Review Select Committee from the
country’s major industries reveal. Billions of dollars of
future investment has been put on hold, and tens of thousands
of jobs are in jeopardy as firms consider downsizing or
relocating if the scheme is imposed. The proposed
Emissions Trading Scheme presently hangs like a pall over New
Zealand’s vital industrial sector.[7]
As National faces its first budget - in the wake of the
Australian budget which last week delivered on the
government’s tax cut promise – our Prime Minister and
Finance Minister must not lose sight of the fact that families
and small businesses are hurting badly. Many will have voted
for National’s tax relief, since the tax cut promise, to
drive economic growth and lift living standards, was central
to their election campaign. The last thing National should be
contemplating is breaking that promise because
“postponing” the tax cuts is an easier option than cutting
government spending. Voters have long memories.
Earlier this year an opinion poll on tax cuts was published by
a left-wing organization which asked whether tax cuts should
go ahead “if the government had to borrow to fund them”.
Unsurprisingly, a majority of respondents said no and this was
used to suggest that New Zealanders did not want future tax
cuts.
This week the NZCPR would like to ask for your help in getting
as many people as possible to answer this week’s poll
question on tax cuts, which we will send to the Prime Minister
and Finance Minister. The question asks whether the tax cuts
should go ahead “if the government had to cut wasteful
public spending to fund them”.
I have posted a short paragraph explaining the poll question
at the end of this column and would ask for your help in
copying it into an email and sending it on to those people in
your address book who you think would like to have a say.
Further, if you would like to join the NZCPR’s Research
Panel so that you can take part in a regular series of on-line
surveys on attitudes to tax, climate change and so on, please
click here>>>
NZCPR
POLL
This
week’s poll asks:
Do
you think the Government should go ahead and budget for the
promised tax cuts for 2010 and 2011 if they need to be funded
by cutting wasteful public spending?
To
vote click here>>>
(Readers
comments will be posted here>>>
daily)
To view last week's comments click here>>>
FOOTNOTES:
All articles can be
found on the NZCPR RESEARCH PAGE - click here>>>
1.P. F Boller, Presidential Anecdotes
2.John Key on Tax Cuts: The National leader's speech
3.National's Election Tax Policy
4.John Whitehead, Looking to and through budget 2009
5.Treasury, Briefing to the Incoming Minister
6.Richard Rahn, The Optimum Government
7.Parliament, Emissions Trading Scheme Review Submissions
Further reading: Owen McShane, NZCPR Mid-Week Politics -
Thoughts on the Auckland Super-City
...see link on the sidebar NOTICEBOARD.
MESSAGE
TO COPY AND SEND TO YOUR FRIENDS
BY EMAIL:
SUBJECT:
Tax Cuts
TAX CUT OPINION POLL
Some recent opinion polls have indicated that many New
Zealanders are not in favour of the tax cuts promised in the
election if it means that the government will have to borrow
to fund them.
The New Zealand Centre for Political Research would like to
find out whether the public are in favour of the tax cuts
planned for 2010 and 2011 still going ahead if it means that
the government will have to cut
wasteful public spending to fund them. The results of this
poll will be sent to the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Finance.
If you would like to take part in this one-question poll,
please click here>>>
If you would like to join the NZCPR Research Panel
and take part in future surveys, please click 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>>>
Why not submit your burning issue for publication on our
website Soapbox
Series?
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)
|
|

JUDGING NATIONAL'S FIRST BUDGET
Sir Roger Douglas
The
basis
of a free society is limited Government.
The most obvious interference in the life of
the ordinary person is the capacity for the Government
to forcibly take money from them to spend on projects.
Unless we restrain that capacity, we can be
sure the power will be abused and the size of
Government will expand. The past 12 years demonstrate
the Government’s enormous tax and spend appetite. We
should limit the growth in spending to inflation and
population growth, unless a referendum affirms an
increase. This
has two benefits: a referendum would make the
trade-off between Government spending and tax clear.
Also, it would allow the size of Government to
reduce as a proportion of GDP, while allowing real
Government
spending
to stay the same...
To
read click here>>>
|
|
|

|
|
|
|

|
|
|
|

|
|
|

lTROUBLE
WITH IMAGES?
Visit
our website HELPDESK topic to solve the problem
with your newsletter images not displaying properly
- view>>>
lMID
WEEK POLITICS
OWEN
McSHANE
"Thoughts on Auckland's Super-City view>>>
l POLL
RESULT
Last
Week's poll asked:
Are
you are prepared to pay higher prices for electricity
generated from wind power?
Result: Yes
8%, No 92%
Last week's comments here>>>
Previous poll comments here>>>
l SUBMISSIONS
See
details of the full list of public submissions
on Bills called by Select Committees here>>>
lREGULAR
COLUMN
Allan
Peachey MP
What's
Up With Our Schools:
The
Need for Accountability
Click
to view>>>
lRonald
Kitching
Successful Political &
Economic Reform:
Post-war
Taiwan
Click to
view>>>
lDONATION
FORM
To
download the NZCPR donation form - click here>>>
|
|
|

|
|
|

This
page of the NZCPR website provides access to political
news, party websites and contact details for MPs
- click
to view>>>
|
|
|

Have
you visited the Oily Rag Website for FREE tips and
money-saving ideas
?
Click
here>>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back
to top of page >>>
 |

New Zealand Centre for
Political Research - www.nzcpr.com
|
|
Will
you pledge the value of a cup of coffee a week to help support
the NZCPR YES / NO
|
NZCPR
Commentary
|
|
The
Rising Price of Power
Many people have been shocked to learn that the Department of
Conservation has received more than $8 million dollars in cash
payments from state energy companies, in return for withdrawing
their opposition to projects with significant environmental
effects.[1]
While not unlawful, under the Resource Management Act –
referred to by some as the Ransom Management Act - such payouts
have the look, feel and smell of “back-handers”.
On a world scale, New Zealand has always ranked very highly as a
country that is largely free of corruption. But the “soft
corruption” inherent in the Resource Management Act has been
evident since it first became law.
Designed by Labour, but passed by the National Government in
1991, the Resource Management Act encourages “affected”
parties to receive financial compensation to appease their
environmental objections. Faced with years of delay, significant
holding costs and massive legal fees, many applicants have
simply paid the money, kept their mouths shut, and got on with
the job. One hopes that National’s review of the Resource
Management Act puts a stop to this sort of soft corruption.
The Department of Conservation was paid $175,000 by Meridian
Energy in return for not opposing their Project Hayes wind farm
development. Estimated to cost up to $2 billion, the Meridian
Energy proposal will compromise the Lammermoor Range near
Dunedin, an area of New Zealand long termed “iconic”. So
while DOC might be expected to object to the building of a
dwelling in an area rich in outstanding natural features and
landscapes, because of their payout they will not object to the
building of 176 wind turbines standing 160 metres tall covering
a designated area of almost 100 sq km.
There is no doubt that wind farms are in vogue around the world
as governments prioritise renewable energy projects in order to
comply with the demands of the Kyoto Protocol. Such “green”
energy projects are being promoted by environmentalists as the
best way to not only save the planet from global warming, but to
create thousands of green jobs in the process. On further
investigation however, these claims are found to be spurious.
Global temperatures are now cooling not warming, and for each
green job created, 2.2 other jobs in other parts of the economy
are destroyed.[2]
The pressure to reduce mankind’s dependence on fossil fuels is
at the leading edge of a global political attack on
industrialisation. This battle is epitomised by stunts such as
“earth hour”, whereby radical environmentalists ask people
to switch off their power for an hour in order to
“celebrate” the renunciation of electricity as a symbol of
mankind’s commitment to a “carbon free” future. This
return to the dark ages is seen by these climate activists as a
worthy aspiration for mankind.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Energy is the lifeblood of modern civilisation. We use it every
minute of every day to give us the quality of life we enjoy
today. In fact, we should be celebrating the lights shining in
our homes and throughout our cities as symbols of human progress
and modern achievement, not decrying them as evil, as the green
movement would want us to do.
Nor should governments succumb to such political pressure to
replace efficient power generation with the inefficient, since
such action will not only drive up energy prices putting
enormous financial pressures on industry and households alike,
but it will also cost jobs - and invariably lives.
New Zealand already has one of the highest rates of renewable
energy generation in the world. According to the Ministry of
Economic Development, during December last year, 74 percent of
the 10,067 Gigawatt-hours of electricity generated in the
country was from renewable sources. The breakdown shows that 59
percent of the supply came from hydro-power, 18 percent from
gas, 11 percent from geothermal sources, 7 percent from coal, 3
percent from wind, with the balance coming from wood, biogas and
oil.[3]
This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, energy expert Bryan
Leyland, outlines the controversial facts surrounding the use of
windpower in New Zealand:
“In New Zealand we are told that windpower is economic
compared to alternatives, that the unpredictable short term
fluctuations can easily be covered by our “abundant
hydropower”, and it helps conserve hydropower storage.
Therefore, we are told, we should happily accept destroying
iconic landscapes and seriously upsetting people who live
nearby. The truth is, as I will show, that windpower is
expensive compared to alternatives, hydropower schemes have no
spare capacity to back up windpower in a critical dry year and
wind power output is lowest in the late summer and autumn when
we need it most.
“Furthermore, windpower adds a new source of major
fluctuations to power systems that are, anyway, inherently
unstable. Constant adjustment is needed to ensure that the total
generation in a power system matches the normal fluctuations in
load – seldom above 50 MW - on a minute by minute basis.
If the fluctuations are excessive, the lights go out.
With about 1000 MW of windpower on the system we are
likely to see swings of 500 MW in a few minutes.
The system operator will find it very difficult – and
expensive – to find generating plant that can match these
swings. The cost
will be passed on to the consumers.
Bryan concludes, “Windpower
exists worldwide because of grants, tax breaks and massive
subsidies and because, consumers, taxpayers and ratepayers, not
the generators, pay for the cost of transmission and backup
power stations. I believe that, given the high cost and
operational problems of wind power, no responsible Board of
Directors of a state-owned or private company could – or
should - agree to ‘investing’ in windpower.
There are better and cheaper alternatives”. To read the
full article click the sidebar link>>>
A ground-breaking
study from Spain backs up this view. The Madrid-based Rey Juan
Carlos University has recently published a report that outlines
the damage caused by excessive government assistance to
producers of expensive wind and solar energy. The result has
been a dramatic rise in the cost of power in Spain with
electricity rates for large consumers increasing by almost 55
percent last year. This has resulted in a massive loss of
competitiveness in Spanish industry with more and more
businesses relocating or expanding into countries with lower
energy costs. Further, as the growth in the supply of expensive
renewable energy increases, so the share of the cheaper and more
reliable hydro and nuclear power decreases. This means that
power prices will continue to rise into the foreseeable future,
harming business and households alike, with no end in sight.[2]
According to the Ministry of Economic Development’s energy
price data, in 1995 New Zealand had the second cheapest
household power and the third cheapest industry power out of
Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, the UK and the USA. But by
2006 that had changed with New Zealand becoming the second most
expensive for both household and industry power, with household
power rising by 37.5 percent and industry power by 56.3 percent.[4]
While there are many factors responsible for these increases,
the $8 million in payouts that the Department of Conservation
has received from energy companies to offset environmental
impacts and obtain resource consents, is indicative of the
massive costs associated with the Resource Management Act that
have clearly contributed to the rising price of power.
Looking ahead, with 70 percent of the country’s electricity
supplies being generated from the cost-effective renewable
hydro-power and geothermal power sources, there is surely no
need for the government’s State Owned Enterprises to be
saddling consumers with other forms of more expensive renewable
generation. Because, as the Spanish example shows, as each new
windfarm comes on stream and feeds its more pricey power into
the grid, so the overall cost of power to the New Zealand
consumer will continue to rise.
But if we are honest, the biggest driver of power price
increases is yet to come. National’s planned Emissions Trading
Scheme will effectively impose a carbon tax across the economy,
which will adversely impact on businesses and consumers alike.
Officials have already estimated that such a scheme will
increase electricity prices by at least 5 percent and they have
also warned that there will also be flow on increases from other
parts of the economy as well.
Keeping the cost of power as low as possible so that
householders can afford to enjoy the benefits of modern life and
Kiwi businesses can be internationally competitive is surely a
goal that New Zealand should be striving for.
NZCPR
POLL
This
week’s poll asks:
Are you are prepared to pay higher prices for electricity
generated from wind power?
To
vote click here>>>
(Readers
comments will be posted here>>>
daily)
To view last week's comments click here>>>
FOOTNOTES:
All articles can be found on the NZCPR RESEARCH PAGE -
click here>>>
1.RadioNZ,
$13m paid in RMA agreements by power companies
2.Dr Gabriel Calzada, Effects on employment of public aid to
renewable energy sources
3.MED, NZ Energy Quarterly, Dec ‘08
4.MED, Real Energy Prices for Households, Industry
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>>>
Why not submit your burning issue for publication on our website
Soapbox
Series?
If you enjoy political debate visit the Debating
Chamber forum - many of our forum subscribers post up
information for the public to view daily.
To contact Muriel about this week’s column please click here>>>. You
can reach Muriel by phone on 09-434-3836, 021-800-111 or post at
PO Box 984,
Whangarei.
NZCPR
Weekly is a free weekly periodical
from the
New
Zealand Centre for Political Research, a public
policy think tank at www.nzcpr.com,
established
in 2005 by former MP Dr Muriel Newman.
If you have a change of address,
please note your old address and your new one and click here>>>. To
unsubscribe, please click here>>>
and send.
(Please note - if you get back a message saying the address is
not on the mailing list, it means you are subscribed under a
different address and you will need to submit that one)
|
|
|
Back
to top of page >>>
 |

New Zealand Centre for
Political Research - www.nzcpr.com
|
|
Yes, I
would like to subscribe to the NZCPR today!
|
NZCPR
Commentary
|
|
Time
to Modernise
Education
We believe that the
growing role that government has played in financing and
administering schooling has led not only to enormous waste of
taxpayers’ money but also to a far poorer educational system
than would have developed had voluntary cooperation continued to
play a larger role. Milton and Rose Friedman, “Free to
Choose”.
It is 193 years since the first school opened its doors in New
Zealand. On August 12th, 1816 Thomas Kendall
established a missionary school for 33 pupils at Rangihoua in
the northern Bay of Islands.[1]
Seven years later in 1823 a second missionary school was opened
near the Stone Store in Kerikeri, and this time adult students
were permitted.
As New Zealand’s settler population increased, education
flourished. Those early schools were private enterprises, run
largely by the churches. It wasn’t until 1852, when the
Constitution Act established the provinces that councils began
to assume responsibility for education.[2]
By 1867 schools were spread throughout the country, including
secondary colleges in the major population centres. There were
even plans for a University.
However, in 1877 the Education Act changed the face of schooling
in New Zealand, with responsibility for education passing onto
central government through the imposition of a national system
of “free, compulsory, and secular” education. This move
effectively socialised education in New Zealand, with the result
that for the last 142 years, the government has effectively been
responsible for the funding, regulation, and delivery of primary
and secondary education services in this country. The problem
is, however – as Milton and Rose Friedman pointed out in their
opening quote - that whenever a monopoly provider is protected
from competition, the incentives for improving services,
increasing quality, lifting productivity, innovating, or
minimising costs are either very weak or altogether absent.
The effect of this long-term lack of competition in the
compulsory education sector is that educational outcomes are
simply not keeping pace with the demands of a modern world.
According to the Ministry of Education in their briefing to the
incoming government, “The system continues to under-perform
for a significant minority of students. Major challenges remain.
A significant minority of students struggle to obtain core
skills in areas such as literacy and numeracy. Attainment gaps
are apparent from a young age, and these gaps often persist as
students progress through the school system. New Zealand has a
higher proportion of students who achieve at the lower levels of
literacy and numeracy than most other countries with high
average attainment. Around
a third of school leavers fail to obtain NCEA Level 2
qualifications or higher. Leaving school with low or no
qualifications narrows the opportunities available to young
people and can have serious impacts throughout their lives. It
also has serious consequences for New Zealand’s economic and
social development.”
| | |