Soapbox Series

The Soapbox Series is an opportunity for those of you with a penchant for writing, to put down your thoughts – on any issue you feel passionate about. Opinion pieces should be around 500 words. Contributions can be made using the Soapbox contribution form >>>. Contributions will be published in the order they are received. Readers are encouraged to comment on Soapbox contributions via our Member's Online Forum >>>.  

List of contributions (#81 - current)  

21 April 08
No Real Political Alternative in NZ????
By Vincent Andersen

Like most western democracies around the world New Zealand has two major political parties. Every three years voters go to the polls and always it is either Labour or National who are the majority coalition partner.  The fact that people get to vote gives the semblance of a working Democracy but on closer inspection it seems that there is little or no real alternative. Labour and National are inherently the same with cosmetic differences.

With the election 2008 approaching voters are starting to turn to National, not because of the policy that National has announced but because of fatigue with the current Labour government. It is a cycle that repeats itself and is about to do so again. When Labour won the election 1999 it was mainly because National had alienated many voters. Now we see Labour doing the same thing. National has not released any policy that signals a change in direction. The status quo is obviously not working, but National feels no need to release any new policies that may contribute to a change in direction in New Zealand. This is mainly because they do not need to. They are already looking like they will be the next government, not because of any good they have done but by the poor job Labour has done.

Similarly, both Parties never release a long term goal for the future direction they wish to take this country. Neither party has offered its goal for the long term development of New Zealand, announced the policies required to reach that goal and campaigned on those policies to reach that goal. Instead, they have three types of policies, those that offer a band-aid solution for the issue in the public arena at the time, those that cater to their own interests, and those that bribe the largest voter base coming up to an election.

Take the last election when Labour was not looking like getting back into government, they then produced the Student Loan bribe and those not wanting to languish in the interest of a student loan the rest of their lives lapped it up. This time round National has offered the tax cuts bribe. Labour, who have repeatedly refused to give a tax cut through years of budget surpluses, have now decided, not to be outdone, that they too will offer a tax cut. Labour tries to justify this by saying we can afford a tax cut now, but how do they know this if they don’t know whether they have a surplus or a deficit? The hypocrisy beggars belief.  Labour and National both bribe the general population with their own tax money rather than win their vote by offering visionary forward thinking policy to build a better country.

So both parties have got their strategy for getting into government sorted, wait for the other to screw up and bribe everyone who may be sitting on the fence, but what about the governing when they are in power? You may have heard the saying “If it’s not broken why fix it??” our government says “If it’s not in the media and at the attention of the public why fix it???” When an issue is in the public arena the government will look like it’s doing something to deal with it by passing some new legislation and throwing more money at the problem. Take for instance the issue of Child Abuse and family violence that has been at the forefront of public debate in recent months. Rather than investigate the root causes of these problems and aim the solution at those, the government brought out the band-aid solution that is the anti-smacking law and aimed its solution at innocent parents. The Anti-smacking law turns parents into criminals who may find it necessary to use a light smack to discipline their child; those who are abusing their children are not going to think twice about it because the government has brought out a new law. The law effectively solves nothing, and to justify it the issue has turned away from child abuse to children’s rights. Another justification is that section 59 has been used as a defence in a case where the child was obviously abused. Is this the law or the judiciary that is at fault here???

Other examples of these band-aid policies can be seen in  Helen Clark's 12.03.2008 statement to Parliament where she details the steps that Labour will be taking in the coming year to respond to various issues. In order to deal with the issues of family violence and youth offending Helen announced a funding windfall to be directed at NGOs who are involved in the community sector.  “The new sustainable funding path will begin with an extra $37.5million in 2008/09 and build to an annual increase of $192.8million in 2011/12 and out years - that's a total of $446 million over the next four years.”

In effect what is happening here is Labour is throwing millions more taxpayer dollars at a system that has so far proven ineffective and is geared up to address the symptoms of the problem rather than the cause. Similarly, in order to deal with youth crime Helen announced that Labour will extend to six months the time which can be required to be spent in residential facilities by youth offenders.  This is another stop gap measure which will do nothing to address the root causes.  Those who are committing the crimes will not stop because they might have to spend an extra 6 months in a youth facility. 

Labour is not alone in its band-aid solution policies. In John Key's 29.01.2008 “A Fresh Start for New Zealand” speech, he detailed how National is going to deal with youth crime. Key said that “ First we’re going to extend the jurisdiction of the youth court so it has the power to deal with 12 and 13 year olds accused of serious offences. Secondly, we’re going to give the Youth Court new powers for following up on proven young offenders once they walk out the courtroom doors. Thirdly, we’re going to create a tough new range of sentencing options for dealing with the hardcore group of young criminals.” This is another example of policy that addresses the symptoms and not the cause. New Zealand is never going to be able to solve its fundamental societal problems unless government addresses their root causes and National and Labour are both unwilling to do so. 

As well as similar approaches to gaining power and governance, National and Labour also have very similar policies. When it comes to Foreign affairs, Trade and Defense there is no difference in both parties’ policies. Both parties are looking to further integrate our economy through FTAs aiming towards a single economic market with Australia and continue to strengthen traditional relationships with Australia, the EU, The US and Canada. When it comes to social policies, there is no difference again. National have stated they will retain all benefits but try and be more stringent with who is eligible for them. To cope with youth crime National and Labour are both going to beef up the powers of the youth court and extend the time required to stay in education to 18. For law and order both parties are going to get tough on crime and also institute early intervention policies to “deal with anti-social behavior at a young age.” As far as immigration is concerned both parties are going to allow skilled migrants and those with money into New Zealand and “ensure that New Zealand continues to meet its obligations as a good international citizen.” Both parties have also both signaled they will be giving long awaited tax cuts. Both parties have signaled they will honour the Kyoto treaty and will seek to fulfill New Zealand’s obligations towards that treaty. Both parties’ health policies consist of funding millions in various areas. All policy can be found on both the parties websites see for yourself that what I’m saying is the case. 

They would have you believe that they are in opposition to each other but their policies are the same, and they have been known to join together to pass unpopular legislation in the face of public opinion. Remember the anti-smacking bill?? Polls at the time showed 70% of New Zealanders opposed the bill but National and Labour combined their vote to get the bill passed. This shows that the parties will work together when it suits their interests even when it goes against public opinion. This is blatantly undemocratic and goes against all that it is to be a democracy. But it was not the first time that the government has shown a disdain for democracy. In 2006 there was a call for a commission of inquiry into 2005 election spending; the government then passed retrospective legislation to legalize its activities. In 2003 against widespread opposition, the government closed over 300 schools, now in 2008 we have overcrowded schools. In 1999 there was a Citizens Initiated Referendum on Law and Order. The question asked was “Should there be a reform of the justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims, providing restitution and compensation for them and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offences?" 

92% of the population answered yes. The government response was to ignore the results saying that the question was contradictory, confusing, subjective, presumptive and arrogant.  In 2003 the Supreme Court bill was passed, 80% polled wanted a referendum but there never was one. 

2008 in New Zealand is like living in the twilight zone, both major political parties are one and the same. It doesn’t matter if red or blue get in because both parties have the same policies and the same methods of governance. National give the impression that they’re a changed party with their new fresh faced leader. Never mind that the policies Key gave in his recent fresh start speech quoted earlier are the same policies as in 2005 when Brash was the leader. If National win the next election there will not be a change of direction. The price of everyday living will continue to rise in all facets of our lives; living will continue to get harder. The middle class will continue to shrink as it feels the strain and crime will increase as the hardest hit lower class suffers even more. Home ownership will continue to stay out of reach of most young New Zealanders. The globalist policies will continue. Our human rights rhetoric will continue to ring hollow. In short the status quo will remain as we the people continue to sleep walk into our future. We are deluded into thinking we have a say by one vote every three years that makes no difference. People need to start looking for a new political alternative if they want to vote for a real change in direction and not a phony change of colour.

Back to top of page >>>

11 April 08
Kyoto is about to impact on NZ but who’s paying?
By Harvey Bell

As the ink is drying on the FTA with China potentially increasing export receipts by $200 to $300 million pa, there is a Bill before a select Committee that proposes the expropriation of at least $44 billion of value from private land owners.

The Climate Change Bill implements the Kyoto Protocol obligations where it was agreed that the emission of increasing amounts of green house gases (GHGs) is causing global warming. These gases include CO₂ (from burning fossil fuels and other organic material), methane (CH₄ from animal digestion & decomposition of organic materials -  21 times more harmful than CO₂) and nitrous oxide (N₂O particularly from farming & industry - 310 times CO₂).  Other less well known gases are even more harmful. Collectively these are termed CO₂e.

The remedial theory is that the global emissions of CO₂e at 1990 levels would not contribute to global warming. The aim of Kyoto was to implement a framework to get the world back to 1990 net emission levels.

The first problem is that the world’s three greatest GHG emitters, the US, China and India are not Kyoto signatories.  This means that those embracing Kyoto are going to decrease their competitiveness against these three. Is this economic suicide for NZ? Time will tell!

On the other side of the equation is carbon sequestration. A significant amount of quantifiable carbon is sequestered in trees (it takes 3.67 tonnes of CO₂ to create one tonne of organic carbon).  The obligation under Kyoto is to maintain the 1/1/1990 level of sequestered carbon.

The issue for NZ is that the Government didn’t own all the carbon sequestered in trees on 1/1/1990. Over 1 million hectares was on privately owned land but without any consultation this land was committed to the Kyoto obligations.

Then there is the 1.4 million hectares of privately owned indigenous forests, 20% of which are on Maori land, from which no benefits accrue to owners under the provisions of the Bill.

The price of CO₂ is determined by the as yet fledging global market-place. The Government calculations were at $15/tonne of CO₂.  Our figures are based on $25/tonne but the current European price is over $50/tonne.  This price is likely to rise!

In getting to the $44 billion (or $88 billion at European prices) value loss to private land-owners, we estimate the deforestation liability for pre-1990 exotic forests is $10.9 billion. This is rising at just under 6% per year in line with tree growth (not price growth)! 

The next expropriation relates to post-1989 trees.  Under the Bill, owners cannot sell any carbon sequestered prior to 1/1/2008.  We estimate this loss at $4.4 billion.

The big value loss is indigenous forest.  We estimate that there is around $28.5 billion of carbon sequestered in these trees, $5.75 billion on Maori land.  The Bill does not include these.

This “nationalisation” of private assets dwarfs anything any democracy has seen in the past but the commentator silence about it is deafening.

To check our assumptions visit www.carboncalcs.com/nz/kyotocosts.htm.

Back to top of page >>>

11 April 08
Proud Kiwi Now Living in Australia
By Neil

I am one of the many kiwis that now live in Australia and have done so for 8 years.

I understand a record number of kiwis left New Zealand last year for a better life. Your Prime Minister Helen Clarke has to ask WHY.

I also understand the total amount of doctors trained in New Zealand last year, left to live in Australia . It’s disgraceful. Yes Helen Clarke has to ask WHY.

I have heard Helen Clarke comment that a percentage of kiwis are coming back to New Zealand .  Why are they leaving in the first place? Helen Clarke has been in government long enough to do something about the exodus but has failed to act.

I now no longer have the problem where I would go to a local tavern and have a social drink with a mate to find my car was keyed or the radio was missing on my return. Yes the damage done to my only slightly above average car was happening around 50% of the times when I visited my local Auckland North Shore tavern.

I was absolutely horrified to find out that after my father died (a kiwi, who paid taxes all his life in New Zealand ); my mother at the age of 52 had to go back to work because the system would not give her a widow’s benefit without humiliating her.

In the year 2000, I was very privileged to resettle in Australia without question and within 2 years became an Australian citizen.

I am one of, probably around 300,000 kiwis since the year 2000 (including my brother and family who came to Australia from Mt Roskill in NZ after being told his daughter would be the only child speaking English in her class when she started school) that have crossed the Tasman to live in a safer and warmer climate than offered in New Zealand.  I guess if it wasn’t for the lack of safety, the bludgers, and the racial tension, I would have put up with the colder weather and remained in New Zealand. My brother’s daughter is doing so well in her school on the Gold Coast and has fun with the other 19 children in her class. I trust that the number of students in her class at her public school is a hint.

I would bet the new immigrants from emerging counties have a lot less to offer the New Zealand economy than the approximate 300,000 wealthy kiwis that have left since I left.  It is apparent that the Maoris, verses the Whites, verses the Polynesians, verses the multitudes of other races, verses the crime, verses the poor education, verses the poor hospital system, now draw on the remaining tax payers to subsidize them.

A second crossing over the Brisbane River , just south of the Brisbane Airport is already under-way, without delay and I find the second crossing of the Auckland harbour has not commenced. I would not mind betting that there are insufficient funds to proceed.

You may say I am biased. I had my mother last year, who was 81 years old with two artificial knees and could not drive (yes she had to pay top dollar for her new knees herself) robbed of her purse outside her home. The police said if she wanted to lay a complaint, she had to travel to a police station as they were too busy with serious crimes. My partner has a ladies fashion shop in Southport on the Gold Coast. She had female customer stuff a top down her pants. A call to the local police resulted in them attending the incident immediately. We supplied the police her car registration number. They immediately visited her at home. Charges were laid and the culprit subsequently returned to the store in tears, and paid for the top she stole. Kiwis I tell cannot believe the police would be so active. I wouldn’t mind betting they don’t have the funds to pay for the extra policing in Auckland .

Whilst people like Helen Clarke, a professional politician (who has never had a real job and has never been in business continues to run New Zealand) remains as Prime Minister, I will live in Australia and wait until New Zealand returns to the beautiful, safe country it once was without the racial demise it is moving deeper and deeper into. I ask the question, is it now too late. Virtually none of the Labour party has had a business and has no idea on how to make a real buck. It’s easy to tax people who get off their bum and in turn give tax dollars to the people who get benefits who whine and believe the world owes them a favour.  I am 51 years old and used to share my marmite sandwiches with my best mate, a Maori boy call Joe McPherson. This sort of stuff never occurred when I grew up.

I was watching the demise of Freedom Air and the very attractive air fares Air NZ was offering people to travel from the Gold Coast to Auckland return. Two weeks ago the return air fare I could have purchased in advance for the late March change over was AU$422.00 including all taxes. The price has been altered from Air NZ to a cost now of over AU$600.00. This is a 3 hour flight. How can the same flights increase by 50% so quickly? I am traveling to Kuala Lumpur in June this year return from the Gold Coast including all taxes for AU$548.00. Yes that’s the cost of the trip Gold Coast to Kuala Lumpur and then Kuala Lumpur back to The Gold Coast including all taxes. This is an approximate 7 hour flight each way and is more affordable than the 3 hour flight to Auckland . I can then fly on to Bangkok or Phuket for an extra AU$43.00 each way. Why would I want to be ripped off by Air New Zealand at a higher cost? Asia Air who started this sector late last year is doing very well from this route. There was a huge article this week in The Gold Coast Bulletin about the huge number of tourists that have taken up their offer. Over here Qantas ripped the flying public off for years by charging super high domestic airfares. They thought they were doing the right thing by their share holders. High fares allowed Virgin Blue to start up and take over 30% off the Qantas domestic market. They in turn started panicked and started Jetstar to help confine the bleeding. I bet Air NZ think they now don’t have the competition and can lift their airfares. Go Virgin Pacific. Increase your flights to Auckland and force Air NZ to be honest.

Good luck to New Zealand . It needs more than good luck to grow its economy with people who are left. It needs a Prime Minister who would be offered $20,000,000 per year with incentives to drive the economy forward and return New Zealand to the country it once was once – ‘the best little secret in the world’.  

Hell Ralph Norris ex ASB bank and ex Air NZ is getting $10, 000,000 as the boss of Commonwealth Bank in Australia . Why don’t we attract the best brains to drive the NZ economy forward? Running a country must be more difficult than running a bank.

I would like to end this email with a story I have told hundreds of Australians. In New Zealand the law is if you have a criminal record you are not allowed to drive a tow truck. I refer to the activist Sue Bradford who was arrested in Parliament grounds as a trespasser prior to her becoming a member of parliament. She is able to participate in the running of the country but she won’t be able to drive a tow truck. Shame on her. Shame on New Zealand and people like Sue Bradford who has nothing to offer the New Zealand economy. New Zealand also has a pot smoking Rastafarian in parliament. Where did NZ go wrong?

By getting rid of this government and attracting the thousands of kiwis back that used to pay taxes when they lived in New Zealand, the country may have the funds for health, education, roads, and law & order

NP - a Kiwi loving the Gold Coast who used to be a proud Kiwi

Back to top of page >>>

28 January 08
It's the Sun
By Bob Kay

Stimulated by the idea that human activities are  influencing the climate, there's increasing concern on the part of politicians, the public and the media that corrective action is required.  The evidence suggests this concern is misplaced.  A Royal Commission would quickly establish that climate change hysteria is political propaganda.

That's not to say we don't face a problem.  We do - but the problem is political.  The mistaken idea that governments must do something is building pressures that will misdirect resources in a way that will damage national economies, decrease standards of living and increase poverty.   If not for this economic damage, one might consider the present concern about climate as nothing more than just another hilarious fad.

Consider the facts:  Last year, there were icebergs off the Otago coast.  It snowed in Buenos Aires for the first time in 89 years.  In Peru, the cold was so intense that states of emergency were declared  in 14 of the country's 24 provinces.  Chile's agriculture minister lamented "the toughest winter in the past 50 years" that destroyed crops and livestock.

This northern hemisphere winter, Europe is freezing.  North America is experiencing snow as far south as Texas.  December 2007's snowfall in Concord, New Hampshire, totalled 44.5 inches (113cm) topping the record 43.0 inches (109cm) set in 1876.

Bitter cold and heavy snow has gripped vast areas from Afghanistan through Central Asia to Pakistan.  On January 11, snow fell in Baghdad for the first time in 100 years.  And, for the first time, snow whitened the sand dunes of the Loot desert in the province of Kerman, Iran.

Severe snowstorms have hit central China.  It started to fall in Anqing, Lu'an, Hefei and other cities on January 12, damaging 87,000 hectares of crops.  A total of 1,033 houses were toppled by the snow.  Local meteorologists say the snow is the heaviest of the past 17 years.

Earth's environment includes the Sun.  The solar influence includes:  fluctuations in irradiance (total energy), related to the sunspot cycle.  Variability of the ultraviolet portion of the spectrum, which affects the amount of ozone in the stratosphere.  Variations in solar wind that modulate the intensity of cosmic rays.

We are now in a solar minimum.  For more than a year, since the end of Solar Cycle 23, the Sun has been blank (no sunspots) and experiencing a lull in activity.  The planet has been cooling since 1998.  Human-caused increases in the CO2 level are quite insignificant to climate change.  Natural causes of climate change, for their part, cannot be controlled by mankind.

Back to top of page >>>

3 February 08
Dysfunctional Families
By Christine

Everytime a young person goes off the rails and commits some crime against society, they are immediately labelled as coming from a 'dysfunctional family'. 

My Webster's Dictionary defines 'dysfunction' as “ abnormal, impaired or incomplete functioning'. 

So: dysfunctional family = abnormal family. 

But what constitutes a 'normal' family these days? Dad goes to work and Mum stays home to look after the children till they go to school? Then gets a job from 9 – 3 and is always home in the school holidays? Never a cross word is spoken in front of the children – in fact do these parents ever have arguments? These people don't sound like anyone I know. 

What about the family where the father's career involves him regularly travelling away for days at a time, and mother is left to keep the family going? Is that considered 'dysfunctional'?

Whether it's right or wrong, today's definition of a normal 'functional' family has changed, and that family is just as valid, hard working and caring as the 'perfect' family described above – the challenges they face raising their children are exactly the same. 

Dr Fiona Beals, a Victoria University academic, is quoted as saying:

....Youth at risk (who) are seen as doomed from birth and by the time they offend it's too late. The other group were young people who were just talked about as going through adolescence and going off the rails. They were given a second chance."....

I challenge that by saying 'ALL youth are at risk from birth – but with the right guidance most survive to become good citizens. But often the risk they take, like trying drugs, can damage their adolescent brains to the extent that they become irretrievable if left unchecked. If their drug-taking is not intervened with, they can become the kids stabbing people to death in acts of uncontrolled violence. There is no second chance for them, or their victims. 

Much of todays crime, violent or otherwise, has drug-use in the background. Society needs to realise that it's not just kids from 'dysfunctional families' that get into trouble. Through the Fight Against P website I am contacted by very respectable parents, desperate for help in this situation. Many a good family becomes 'dysfunctional' AFTER the child starts getting into trouble with drugs, simply because there is no intervention available to help them. 

Dr Beals goes on to say: "We really need to start looking at who we are as a society and what qualities we have that perpetrate what is happening." 

One of the qualities we have is that too much emphasis is placed on Rights instead of Responsibilities. Using Marijuana and P is already against the law, but Police are not interested in intervening in that, even at Parents request. They refer you to Social Services, who tell you that nothing can be done until the Drug User wants help to stop. That usually requires the User to 'hit the bottom', and the bottom is often jail or death. 

This issue needs to be dealt with on three levels.

First: implement the laws already there and put resources in place to stop current hardened Drug Use – this would prevent much of the crime at the other end; 

Second: provide assistance to parents who beg for intervention in their family member's newly-found drug habit;

Third: push the anti-drug message with the likes of the hard-hitting Montana Meth Ads in our living rooms, where the issue can be discussed within the family.

If our  Society doesn't put measures in place to stop drug use,  innocent people will continue to be harmed and more good families (of the victims and the perpertrators) will continue to be destroyed.  

Back to top of page >>>

28 January 08
Climate of Fear
By Rob Dole

Interesting argument this global-warming/cooling/whatever …..

Michael Crichton writes ‘novels’ based in scientific fact and his recent book “A Climate of Fear” addresses CDP’s reservations explicitly. He points out that the scientific community is largely funded by grants from the politicians that are generated … you guessed it …. by the political efforts of ….  scientists. Without a ‘climate of fear’ the scientific community would depend on private funding – and would probably starve.

The argument as I see it is applicable to a remarkable series of predicted events that have appeared and disappeared throughout recent history ….

•     In the 30s Velokovski predicted the planets would collide and in fact had already done so – bugger ! 
•     In the 60s we were all going to die because of the ‘population explosion’, but the bomb never went off
•     Capitalism would self destruct (Hah !)
•     The Russians are coming …. Communist hoards are arriving to re-educate us. I met one once … Boris was scared of Policemen and drank a lot
•     In the 70s we were all going to be immolated in a global nuclear holocaust, nah – that never happened
•     In similar vein, nuclear energy or propulsion will turn us into frogs if genetically engineered tomatoes don’t get there first
•     Self rule in Africa would create a democratic paradise
•     Eating chickens causes hormones to get out of control and results in pregnancy in 10 year old girls (Silly me … I thought something else caused that)
•     Aids was going to kill us all
•     As  was the ‘unstoppable’ Ebola epidemic (that never left central Africa)
•     Genetic cloning  would be endemic and result in all of us being the same ….. except nobody seemed to know where we are going to get the women who will carry these millions of babies
•     Recently we were all going to get Asian Bird Flu (actually not one single transference case emerged) but we spent millions preparing
•     Mad cow disease infected nobody outside Britain except politicians and cannibals
•     MacDonalds is solely responsible for our obesity and puts pig/chicken fat in milkshakes - really ? (Instead of on chickens or pigs where it belongs and is really quite tasty)
•     Comets and asteroids are cueing up to destroy earth (Bruce Willis saved us …. one of my Grandchildren told me that !)
•     Now the earth is warming, the poles are melting and we’ll all drown (In fact Vanuatu is expected to disappear after the oceans rise by a foot or so (Personally  I’d put the house on piles instead)

In a major feat of social engineering last year the appearance of an iceberg offshore from the South Is was offered as absolute proof of the global warming phenomenon …… when in fact the mere fact that it got here is absolute proof of the opposite ….

After all it hadn’t melted had it ?

Has it occurred to you that most of these ‘epidemics’ generate fear through lank, lousy, lazy, junk sensationalist journalism ?

Fact – global warming will be great  if it creates warmer, wetter weather in New Zealand !

The point of all this is that somehow GLOBAL WARMING never gets mentioned when money gets into the mix …. Here’s a prime example:

Our local community is slowly becoming aware that plans are afoot to remove all the pine/gum forest between the eastern shores of our hydro lakes and the nearest town – a distance of 33 kms by road. This is a huge area of land. The plan, apparently supported by government, is to permit the exploitation of additional dairying units in a global market that is currently booming for those involved, in particular our government.

In fact, some Maori native forest land is already being cleared (bloody quietly).

Not only would this plan remove a major existing economic resource (i.e. Timber) together with all the jobs associated but would reduce the visual appeal of a major part of our tourism industry …. Taupo and Rotorua ! People buy land here for lake and forest views.

Consider now the global warming/environmental issues embodied in the plan:

•     Lets replace carbon-credit forests with carbon-debit dairy farms (cows produce methane) then pay this money to the world's greatest polluter, China
•     Lets kill all the local forestry jobs and close down the associated towns, just move people to cities instead - they'll be happier on the dole in South Auckland anyway
•     Lets send all the timber harvested offshore to make more paper which we can buy back to print masses of environmental reports
•     Lets dump even more dairying effluent and top-dressing run-off into our 3 hydro lakes which already suffer an oversupply of nutrient
•     Lets then tip all this into the Waikato River from which 1/3rd of our population draws water
•     Lets not worry about where we might get timber for building the future or the timber market that must arise through shortages
•     Lets put ALL our money into dairying like we did into Sheep, Kiwifruit, Tamarillos, Grapes, Timber, Deer, Alpacas, Emus & Ostriches …….. until some idiot sells our technology to countries that will delight in killing our markets

How is it that this plan hasn’t managed to catch the attention of our Fourth-estate, the Green Party, the Department of Conservation, the Opposition or all those presently engaged in stopping Japanese people from hunting whales 2,000km away ?

Maybe I’m just getting a little cynical in my old age.

Back to top of page >>>

28 January 08
No Income Tax Party
By Ragnar Berg

Are you one of the few that has heard of NITP? I’m not surprised that you haven’t heard of them because it isn’t a party as yet; however it might be sooner than you think. So what is NITP?

NITP is a concept of tax reform that has the backing of everyone that has had the opportunity to hear how it works. Why; because people like the idea of not pay income tax, having greater disposable income, having the ability to build a nest egg and that there is a more equitable way of distributing the tax burden.

Income tax is an archaic form of tax collection. It is the oldest form of tax, as old as society itself. It probably was appropriate back then to collect a portion of the farmer’s harvest to feed the troops but it is no longer an appropriate form of tax collection. It and many of the other forms of taxation could be scrapped and replaced by a single tax.  Taxes such as company tax, fringe benefit tax should go because there is little benefit in continuing administering them.

Before I let you into the secret of how the taxation system works I’ll tell you why it probably will not happen. Two words, vested interests, because of the reform there will be less need for Accountants, tax Lawyers, tax consultants and IRD staff. As a result it has been predicted that there will be an avalanche of protests and lobbying action from these groups, and they have access to the ‘right’ people. It is like many good ideas; it will have a lot of difficulty getting off the ground because of vested interest and not because of its merits.

Here is a truncated outline of NITP.

1.    There will essentially be a single tax system, a spending tax or as we know it as GST. It is difficult to circumvent, other than by bartering, but that has limited scope.

2.    The definition of spending will need to be amended.

3.    You don’t pay tax on what you earn; you pay tax when you spend it. The more you spend the more tax you pay.

4.    Money saved or invested will not be taxed until it is spent.

5.    Money leaving the country will be taxed. That includes individuals and businesses alike.

6.    Declared money coming into the country will be credited tax.

7.    Imported goods above a set value will be taxed; not too different from the present system.

Imaging a place without income tax or company tax – disposable income will be much higher but the cost of goods and services will be more, ability to save will become possible for many more, manufacturing industry will become viable again, exporters will not be disadvantaged, overseas lenders will pay their fair share and so will tourists, overseas investors will not be disadvantaged until they cash up. Our borders will be inundated with immigrants and businesses wanting to establish here.

Back to top of page >>>

28 January 08
International Socialism Marches On Unchallenged -- Frederic Bastiat's Right Boot
By Michele Cabiling

Despite the supposed collapse of Communism in the early 1990s, Marxist “Class Warfare” ideology proves durable and ongoing in both a national and international context. As a result, international socialism’s goal of disassembling the economies of the Industrialised West and redirecting the First World's economic resources into a global welfare state continues to advance.

A number of erroneous assumptions underlie this movement. One of these is that differences in economic condition among nation states leads to wars. A second is that terrorism is the result of economic desperation channelled into political acts. In order to mitigate these currents, we are told that the Industrialised West’s economic condition must be brought down, levelled, to economic equality with other, less successful nations.

The notion that the Industrialised West is responsible for everyone else’s economic difficulties, morally obliging it to economically upgrade other nations, began life as a Marxist agenda to destroy capitalism while simultaneously confiscating capitalism's production to build up world socialism in other countries. It is now widely disseminated via the Mother of World Socialism, the United Nations.

This world view has been taught independently of direct association with Marxism or with the wildly shouted angry emphasis on destruction of Western Industrial capitalism pushed by radical activists. In its more bland form it has become widely accepted by soft minds wanting world peace by any means and by elements in religious denominations. It is taught at universities as economic, psychological, and social truth. It is a frame of reference in a system of bizarre circular reasoning.

Statements that we must share ‘our’ wealth with the rest of the world deserve to be mercilessly deconstructed. The 'our' in such declarations deletes the concept of the individual in this while facilitating the assumption of group ownership and, hence, right to group disposal of what is really individual creation.

Poverty is the natural human condition because it requires no effort to produce it. Poverty only becomes apparent when wealth is created with which to compare it. It is immature and erroneous to assert that if the people of one nation go about their own business and build a thriving economy, leaving other nations to continue living as they always have in their continuing corruption and superstition, there is some psychological or political law that this will produce war, and within the predictability of that law, productive, advancing nations are guilty of provoking war and terrorism.  

Wars are not only fought for economic reasons. They have been fought to satisfy personal ambition. They have been fought over personality clashes between leaders. They have been fought over self-deceptive belief that other people are the cause of one’s troubles. They have been fought for religious reason. They have been fought over issues such as slavery in America. They have been fought over land. They have been fought over ideologies. Most of the causes of war are irrelevant to economics.

If someone sees things that their culture or political system or belief system does not produce and wants them, the countries that advance themselves are not the problem. The attitude within cesspools of obstinately held superstition, of corruption, of petty jealousies, of believing life or the world owes them something for nothing, is never confronted as the actual problem.