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 >>>.  

Further, if you have suggestions for articles or issues that you believe I should be looking into please don’t hesitate to send those ideas through as well. Email me on muriel@nzcpr.com.

List of contributions (#41 - 80)  

25 March 07
One Law For All
By Dr Lech Beltowski

The Police Complaints Authority have recently ruled that the shooting of a machete armed man three times was the "only option" when officers were threatened while attempting to seize a radio following complaints of loud music at a North Shore address in 2004

If that's the case, then surely the shooting in self-defence of a machete armed robber at an Auckland gun shop (who was shot and disabled with just one shot rather than the three police needed to achieve the same result) was even more justified.

Even if we ignore the vexing question of how it was that an "untrained civilian" was able to do with just one shot what a "trained police officer" needed three shots to achieve, there is no doubt this Police Complaints Authority finding makes the decision of police hierarchy to subsequently press firearms charges against the Auckland gun shop owner even more illogical, small-minded and elitist. It will certainly help swell the numbers of those who believe  police policy increasingly favours criminals and that these charges are an abuse of the legal process.

 Police hierarchy understand well the very serious emotional and financial costs a court appearance to justify the use of deadly or potentially deadly force in self defence brings to the defendant and their family. That is why the police complaints authority has for decades routinely investigated all such incidents first. Interestingly, to date, the Police Complaints Authority has also never ever found any police officer to have used force (including deadly force) improperly-even when the evidence presented appears inconclusive or even possibly contradictory.

How is it then, that when a member of the public responds to a potentially life threatening situation in exactly the same way as a police officer is expected to do, they are treated in such a  different manner both by police and by the legal system? Both surely are performing an equal socially beneficial act and both should be lauded and protected equally?

Indeed, there is a serious conflict of interest when police have the power to  prosecute previously law-abiding  citizens for using force to defend themselves from violent criminals as this is a direct and inevitable consequence of the police's own failure to adequately protect the public in the first place. The regularity with which police do prosecute those who defend themselves makes it clear that they appear to believe police have more right to self-defence than the  ordinary citizen and that they simply do not care how much emotional trauma, family stress and unnecessary legal costs they impose on innocent victims of violent crime.

Since the law on self-defence makes it clear self-defence is a universal right available to everyone if necessary, it is high time attempts by police hierarchy to monopolise effective self-defence through the imposition of vindictive and extra-judicial penalties on ordinary citizens be addressed.

Given the steady rise in violent crime in New Zealand (a rise that police currently appear powerless to reduce or even hold steady) it can be predicted that self-defence incidents will become more frequent over time, it is surely not unreasonable to suggest the setting up of a less formal and therefore less costly and less stressful independent self-defence tribunal, somewhat along the lines of a coroners court. Such a tribunal would also take the place of  the present Police Complaints Authority investigations into any police shootings thus ensuring the whole process of police accountability becomes more legally robust, less elitist, more transparent and more independent

Since these are among the lowest-cost units of the legal system one would think the idea would find widespread support  in both legal circles and in the wider community - except possibly amongst those whose poor past judgement and vested interest has created the need for them in the first place.

Back to top of page >>>

18 March 07
Burton Parole
By Nick Lindo

From the strange to the incredible

That convicted murderer - and already the server of a 14 year “life” sentence - Graeme Burton, should so soon have had the chance to kill again is a tragedy for the Kuchenbecker family and an indelible blot on the many government agencies that combined to make such an outrage possible.

Exoneration for all

That various inquiries into the events leading up to it have now exonerated all and sundry shows just how seriously rotten is the state of judicial Aotearoa , New Zealand , 2007. Mr Barry Matthews, the CEO of the benighted and ludicrously named, Corrections Department, has, quite preposterously, asserted Burton ’s release was “well managed.” Worse - and cravenly - he adds, “There’s no blood on my hands.” (“So I can definitely keep my job as the “incident” is someone else’s fault for which I am not remotely responsible. My conscience is perfectly clear.”)

No heads to roll

Inconceivably - but sadly only too true to form - once again, no-one is prepared - or obliged - to take responsibility for the grievous failings leading to this catastrophe. Not a head will roll; not a “correction” in any meaningful sense will be administered.

Running for cover

What’s more, the obvious and cowardly running for cover of anyone with involvement in the case must be a sickening sight for Burton’s several totally innocent -  “in the wrong place at the wrong time” - victims. They will be truly “gutted” and wondering how such genuine “travesties of justice” can be. And so should we.

How grotesquely bizarre................

that the killer himself should apparently have been encouraged to commit to paper his articulate thoughts on the matter. Have we really reached the point where a ruthless offender - who really does have blood on his hands - is actively urged to put in his two bits worth and, along the way, cite all kinds of perceived failings on the part of the authorities which, in his weighty opinion, led directly to his cold-blooded murder of the blameless Karl Kuchenbecker on his quad bike in the hills above Wellington as wsell as his vicious attack on Mr Rea and his daughter in the same area?   Only in New Zealand?

Sinking incredulity

It is worth considering, if with a growing feeling of sinking incredulity, some of the points arising from the three “reviews” of this unmitigated disaster. Try this: The Parole Board released Burton, “before checking the veracity of allegations about his conduct in prison.” Nevertheless, the verdict was Burton’s parole application was “reasonable.”

A comment was added to the effect that “it would have been prudent for the board to delay its decision until it had clarification about the allegations.”

Well, there’s a good idea. Next time, perhaps.

Surveillance teams on holiday

Then....it “has also been revealed” the police requested their specialist surveillance squad be activated to track down Burton last year not long after his release but were refused by the upper hierarchy. Despite there being two such specially trained teams in active existence both were on leave at the same time.

Crass incompetence

An Inspector Quinn confirmed they were indeed on holiday and the decision to recall neither of them was to ensure: “officers had breaks and were not working 24 hours a day seven days a week.” You’re right; it’s hard to believe such crass incompetence.

Prize-winning explanation

But the prize for the most bizarre explanation for Burton being out and about must go to the Parole Board for “its sense that Burton should be freed.”

“The possible reasons for such expectations may be linked to a sense that, with the passage of time (14 years) and rehabilitative efforts Mr Burton was undertaking he deserved   (my italics) to be released.”

In other words it was a sort of collective hunch on the part of the distinguished members of the Parole Board that led to Burton’s freedom to kill again and bring anguish and permanent misery to the Kuchenbecker family.

Belief and intelligence

Can that really be true? I don’t see why not After all, everything about this case both defies belief and insults the intelligence.

Candidates for the chop

The Chairman

Undoubtedly heads should roll. Of all the abysmal examples of murderers-on-parole of whom this nation boasts a depressingly long list, this has to be the worst. In a pompous, if not downright fatuous comment, Judge David Carruthers, chairman of the demonstrably flawed Parole Board, when assuring us of his Board’s desire to introduce changes to its procedures, declared, “We don’t have the luxury of sitting around on this.”

Thanks to the bureaucratic foul up in which his Board as well as numerous other arms of government were involved, neither Karl Kuchenbecker’s two children nor his parents, will have the luxury of seeing him again.

Mr Carruthers should never again be in a position to make such a grave misjudgement.

The CEO

Mr Matthews, CEO - as stated - of “Corrections” should also go. Anyone of rank who could blandly announce, “Some things could have been done faster. However, I don’t believe this had any impact on the final outcome. Overall his parole was well managed,” has clearly failed completely to grasp the enormity of the errors of omission for which he and his department were transparently guilty.

The Minister

But at the top of the list of potential “resignees” has to be the Minister himself, Mr Damien O’Connor. It is really quite a surprise to see his name still there. In many Westminster-style, parliamentary democracies the Liam Ashley tragedy / debacle, when the 17 year-old was murdered in a police van by a hardened killer who should never have been in the same vehicle with him, would have been enough to have had Mr O’Connor’s letter of resignation on the desk of the Prime Minister the next morning. But not in New Zealand . 

I am therefore not expecting a resignation this time either, justified and appropriate as it certainly would be.

Once upon a time we knew where the buck stopped; not any more.

Back to top of page >>>

17 March 07
Preserving Parental Authority
By Sue Reid 

One vital element that underpins our western law is the ability to have a fair trial in court, without corruption and each citizen is deemed innocent until proven guilty. Most of us would go to great lengths to preserve this right. That is until (it seems) it is parents who will be in the dock. Much has been said in the debate about ‘Section 59’ of the Crimes Act. Many would be familiar with much that has been written of late about Green MP Sue Bradford’s proposal to repeal the section of law that gives parents the legal authority to use reasonable force when disciplining their children. At the heart of this debate lies the thinking that somehow (generally) parents cannot be trusted to utilise their authority properly if they are allowed to use force. That all physical discipline is by definition violent and that physical discipline is an archaic way to raise children, especially in the face of all our modern child raising theory and practice.

A handful of cases have proceeded to court with parents facing assault charges against their child. Often these charges are brought by social workers – interestingly not the children themselves. The present law allows parents to be equipped in court with a defence that they used ‘reasonable force to maintain domestic discipline’. The most important thing to keep in focus through this hot debate is that parents need something in place to go hand in hand with the responsibilities they carry – after all, parents are legally responsible for their children until aged 18. Any sane person would surmise that anyone with an assault charge thrown at them is entitled to a fair hearing, with judge and jury to hear the whole case and then a fair and just decision to be concluded based on all the evidence (and in the right context too). NOT based on emotive feeling or whatever flavour philosophy one might subscribe to. Most would agree that this is sensible and reasonable. However, parents are set to lose their defence if section 59 is removed – leaving a scary big hole in law. Sure the court case with a jury will still proceed but it will be to decide if a parent has used assault or not. The wider context of what was going on in the family, history etc will not be considered and certainly not whether a parent was using force for correction.

Those in favour of repeal often quote court cases that ‘got it wrong’. I find this outrageous and arrogant, given that a judge and jury have heard all evidence and have often come to quite quick decisions that yes a parent was right to use physical discipline and could clearly see a positive behavioural change in his or her child. What concerns me in using these court cases is that we fail to hear the stories behind the cases. The use of a horse crop becomes a horse whip, a plank of wood is actually a 30cmx2cm piece of kindling, the size of a child’s ruler or wooden spoon. Emotive language gets thrown in along with hysterical claims that this '‘violence’ should be eliminated.

Slowly the stories are starting to emerge – the ‘horse crop case’ in Timaru only reached court because a parent was meeting with school staff and a social worker to commend the mother on the wonderful change in behaviour that was evident in her son. They asked how she achieved this and she told them that she gave him ‘six of the best’, to the horror of the social worker who then led the flurry of outrage into court. Police were reluctant to lay charges but the child was removed from the family. Since then, CYF has felt it was better to drug the child to modify behaviour rather than using tried and true methods of short, sharp punishments. The drugs used (apparently) hold warnings that advise they should not be administered to young people. It is important to have these stories within the public arena – this case has been heart breaking for the family concerned and it continues to this day. So one worker with an ideology that physical discipline is wrong was able to inflict much damage on the family. That one worker ignored the fact that there was greatly improved behaviour in the boy, that he had a family deeply committed to his care and well being, and loved him dearly.

The cruel twist to this story is that the court case found in the favour of the mother (and was judged as reasonable force), however the child has not been returned to the family home despite his requests to return to his family. This sort of case would alarm most parents and there would be no crueler way to punish children than remove them from their families. Some serious questions have gone unanswered here – who gave the welfare agency the power over a court to with-hold the child from his rightful family? Clearly a court case found no fault with his mother but he was not returned to her care. Yet, this case is held up in parliament as an example of how courts got it wrong!

As the Select Committee hears submissions either for or against such a law change, I hope these sorts of stories are heard clearly and considered with great thought. Parents are given responsibilities and as I have written many times before, they need the legal recognition of their responsibilities and authority to go with the task of raising children to become positive contributors to society.

If you take pieces of law out without some logical, commonsense alternative then we are asking for trouble in future cases. It amounts to bad law. I see a repeal as giving too much power to a government agency – already overworked and under staffed. It relies on subjective judgements of what constitutes reasonable force or discipline. To repeal sets up an adversarial environment in law with parents pitted against their own children. This is all very divisive.

A friend told me a story about what she witnessed in a department store. A mother was struggling with her young child who was in full flight of tantrum mode – we all know it, most have experienced it. In a matter of moments the police were at the poor mother’s side asking about all the fuss and were attending because someone had rushed to the police reporting a mother assaulting her child. The cruel twist in this sort of story is that someone felt it was better to run and get the police rather that give aid, support or an offer of help to a mother struggling. Someone decided that a mother pulling her child to their feet in the midst of a flurry of emotions constituted ‘abuse’ or ‘assault’ and felt an urgency to bring in the aid of the police.

Sadly this sort of scenario will happen more often if the repeal goes through. Rather than being pitted against one another, there is a need to see we are all working to get the same result at the end of the day. We all want our children to grow up to be law-abiding, disciplined, positive contributors to society. One final point – those advocating for change fail to realise that to maintain their law against parents they have to use force and it will be less than reasonable.

Back to top of page >>>

24 February 07
An Inside View - the UN Climate Change process
By Dr Vincent Gray 

To start with, the IPCC was founded (1988) just before the Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992), which defined "Climate Change" as follows:

"Climate change” is a change of climate, which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

The Nations who signed this Convention  (which included New Zealand ) accepted this as a legally binding definition. The use of the term "climate change" means legally, that you accept that human changes in greenhouse gases are causing it. Although they seem to admit the existence of "change of climate" which happens "naturally", they insist that this is merely "variability" not actual "change"

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The words "Climate Change" in the title imply that its task is to obtain evidence to support the FCCC definition.

They claim in a footnote to their first page - "Climate Change in IPCC usage refers to any change in the climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as the result of human activity"

If they were serious they would change their title, which lay persons tend to associate with the FCCC definition, without reading the footnote.

They continue to regard "natural" effects on the climate as merely "variability". They are, indeed, reluctant to study any kind of "veracity", but are always seeking "trends" which can be attributed exclusively to the greenhouse effect, since they are not regarded as "variable".

The whole process is closely controlled by Government representatives who are biased in favour of those supporting their theory. They appoint Lead Authors who are mostly Government employees or financed by Government funds. Those who do not support the greenhouse theory are mostly marginalised. The First Report plainly stated: "there is a minority of opinions which we have not been able to accommodate". Or, I might add, give voice to.

Just in case somebody finds dissident opinions somewhere in the Report, they provide a "Summary for Policymakers" which has to be agreed line-by line by Government representatives. There was a scandal with the 1995 Report when the "Final Draft" of the Report, presumably agreed in some fashion by all the scientists, was altered so as to accommodate the views expressed in the "Summary for Policymakers". This time they have published the Summary well before the Report, which is supposed to have reached a "Final Draft", but is now threatened with last minute amendments.

They claim to operate a "Peer Review" process, but this is a sham. Admittedly it would be difficult to take into account, or answer, the very large number of comments. With Journal publications only a few peer reviewers are involved. But their process permits them to completely ignore important criticisms of their assessment, without any reply.

The Reports are all heavily biased in favour of the greenhouse theory. "Natural" explanations are marginalised, put at the back of the Chapter or rejected with exclusively unfavourable references. This is assisted by the Editors of the main Journals who discourage greenhouse criticism to the extent that we are forced to publish in supposedly "non-peer-reviewed" Journals, or even, beshrew the thought, the World Wide Web, or in Email newsletters.

The enthusiastic support of prominent Journal Editors means that papers supporting the theory not only get a fast track, they get away with failing to give details of their data or procedures. A recent example of this was the downfall of the "Hockey Stick" graph promoted in "Climate Change 2001", which was shown to be based on faulty mathematics by McIntyre and McKitrick, but were forced to publish in the sympathetic Journal Energy and Environment which the IPCC had to swallow hard to accept.

The greatest betrayal of integrity is their recruitment of the scientists responsible for models as salespersons for them. The models have never been properly tested, and they accept this, by talking about their "projections" instead of "predictions". The scientists are then asked to give their opinions on whether their models are OK, and their opinions are graded into levels of "Likelihood" and given spurious probability figures. They use the "range" of opinions as a substitute for scientifically determined accuracy limits.

I have devoted fifteen years of my life trying to get this system honest, and it seems to get ever more impossible. There is very little scientific or human integrity in this organisation, and my only hope is that it will wither and die.

Wellington based Dr Vincent Gray is a New Zealand expert reviewer for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – I asked him to comment on the integrity of the IPCC process…Muriel.

Back to top of page >>>

24 February 07
Global Warming
By Roger Dewhurst 

I will start with an analogy. When your car will not start in the morning the first assumption that you make is that the battery is flat rather than that the bendix (pinion) gear has jammed.

It is a bit like that with GW. The first assumption should be that whatever has caused climatic change in the past is the most likely cause now. Climate has of course changed in the past and will change in the future. Ice covered Scotland to a depth of a kilometre or so and extended as far south as London a mere 16,000 years ago. It warmed until the Younger Dryas cold period about 10,000 years ago and then warmed again. There have been both warmer and cooler periods since then. It was warm in Roman times, in mediaeval times and cold in the Little Ice Age a couple of hundred years ago. In mediaeval times the Norsemen settled in Greenland , calling it that as the name befitted it at the time. They abandoned it to the Eskimos when it cooled again. The Polynesians paddled their canoes all over the Pacific, collected the sweet potato, Ipomoea batatas, from South America and settled in New Zealand . The Maoris call it Kumara and a South American tribe call it Kumar! Common sense alone is sufficient to suggest that the climate at the time was warm, wet and stable. If it was not warm they would not have settled in New Zealand . If it was not wet they would have died of thirst on their voyages. If it was not stable their canoes would have swamped in the storms.

Ice core analyses show that the tenor of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere changed in the glacial and interglacial periods. When it warmed the carbon dioxide tenor rose but carbon dioxide followed temperature not the other way about. I am not yet prepared to accept that Neanderthal man or his ancestors chipping stones or cooking had any influence on atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Furthermore there were hundreds of atmospheric CO2 measurements taken in the late 1800s and in the first half of the 20th century which tend not to support the official position that CO2 has increased dramatically since WW2. These inconvenient analyses have been conveniently omitted.

The whole case for AGW is founded on Mann's hockey stick which was comprehensively rubbished by top statisticians in the USA . Water vapour is a far more significant greenhouse gas than CO2 as anyone who has spent nights in Alice Springs, for example, and Darwin or Singapore would conclude should they address their minds to the matter.

Atmospheric CO2 is of course the sole source of carbon in every tree, bush or plant around us. All animals of course are dependent on plants at the bottom of the food chain.

There is much talk of numerical models of the climate. Numerical models require precise algorithms that account for all the inputs and outputs. Many of these are unknown and the most important one, water vapour, is too complex to include! Furthermore if someone, sometime, does construct a proper numerical model it will still have to be calibrated over a full glacial cycle to see it works! I am reminded that one can fit a curve through every currant in a pudding bar one, at least if reduced to two dimensions, but it will be pure chance of the last currant lies on the curve.

Sun spot activity provides a much more plausible explanation for climate as current research clearly shows. A fellow in Denmark has demonstrated the mechanism whereby cosmic rays (charged particles) form nuclei for water droplet and thus cloud formation.

Two factors that should, but never, get mentioned are collapses and reversals of the earth's magnetic field and the effects of loess.

When the earth's magnetic field collapses, as it does quite frequently, the Van Allen belt collapses and charged particles freely enter the atmosphere. Normally charged particles largely enter the atmosphere parallel to the magnetic lines of force at the magnetic poles thus giving rise to aurorae. The skies around the world will indeed be a spectacular sight when the geomagnetic field collapses again.

Diatoms thrive in the oceans only where sufficient nutrients are available. Availability often depends on upflows of cold water from a great depth as is the case of the Humboldt Current which feeds the micro flora on which the huge shoals of anchovies depend. It has been shown that it is iron deficiency which generally limits the growth of the micro flora. There are already proposals to fertilize the sea with iron in order to grow the micro flora which will feed the fish on which we ourselves can feed.

When glaciers recede they leave behind them vast masses of rock flour which may be incorporated into till or tillites or blown by the wind to settle and form the vast loess soils of central Asia and elsewhere. Of course much of this rock flour or loess was blown out over the oceans to settle and fertilize them. Intuitively I feel that the early postglacial seas must have teemed with fish feeding on the micro flora. The micro flora of course obtains their carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The reader will have heard or read of Stern's report to the UK government. I am no believer in Stern's alarmism. My own view is that the discount rate that Stern uses is effectively zero. This is nonsense as it puts a ridiculously high value on events far out in the future and thus attempts to justify an absurd level of remedial expenditure now. The reader may be familiar with the standard equations for determining the time value of money. At the discount rate one might consider appropriate in real life Stern's alarmist proposals are absurd.

Back to top of page >>>

18 February 07
Home affordability and council fees
By Frank Newman (Councillor, Whangarei District Council, www.newman.co.nz)

In the last few weeks the home affordability debate has become more intense. Everyone is pointing the finger of blame at others, and looking for remedies to what many are now calling a home ownership "crisis". Some are saying central government regulation is having a significant impact on building costs, others say local authorities are pushing up land prices by imposing restrictive landscape protection regulations and limiting the amount of land available for residential development. Surprisingly little has been said about the effect of council's development impact fees. 

Section 199 of the Local Government Act 2002 gives local councils, "the power to levy a development contribution if the effect of a development is to require new or additional assets or assets of increased capacity and, as a consequence, the territorial authority incurs capital expenditure to provide appropriately for reserves, network infrastructure, or community infrastructure."

In other words, councils experiencing population growth have been given an additional revenue mechanism to recover the cost of putting in infrastructure to service that growth.

By way of example, the Whangarei District Council charge development impact fees where a new "household" unit is created. That could range from a person building a granny flat on the back of their section right thru a 1000 lot subdivision.

The charge per household unit is very significant as the following table shows.

For example, a person living in the coastal settlement connected to a council water supply and waste water services would pay $39,852 in development impact fees for each new household unit (or new lot in the case of a subdivision) they create.

Those costs are less in the city area, $21,312, but still significant. Assuming average land value of $150,000 and a building cost of say $250,000 making a total of $400,000 for a new home, the development impact fees would add anywhere between 5% to 10% to housing costs.

The cost could be mitigated over time if council’s reduced their general rate take to reflect the development impact fee income. The Whangarei District Council however treats the fees as additional income, which is about $6 million a year.

There are of course other factors that have caused the cost of building to rise. Businesses have had to pass on increased costs (wages and fuel increases being obvious examples), and developers are facing higher resource consent costs as greater levels of protection and layers of expert reports are required.

When home owners are coping increases from all directions, it is not difficult to understand why the cost of building a new home is continuing to rise. Ironically those increases are most affecting those who can least afford it – first home buyers and low income earners.

Back to top of page >>>

18 February 07
One Possible Solution to Reduce Welfare Benefit Dependency
By Jesmond Micallef

I would like to outline a vision that could possibly have a positive affect on the economy in general, the taxpayer and those depending on social welfare. My intention is to simply share a concept, which in the mind of an average person like myself – could potentially work. I also understand that social welfare is a delicate subject and removing/making change to it requires caution, since it could be a political issue for most democratic governments. 

An example of this vision is as follows: 

·          John B (name exemplary) could be a local property developer/s selected to build a housing estate for government, mainly consisting of suitable but basic, inexpensive one, two or three bedroom apartments or houses.  

·          A scheme could be designed, administered and marketed by the government, (possibly in association with a financial institution) as an alternative for people presently benefiting from the ‘social welfare’ system. 

·          The government could provide these people with the opportunity/choice to purchase these apartments/houses on the following conditions: 

A.      With no deposit but with and/or part of their present ‘benefit’, being instead deposited as a monthly repayment on such property. This for a period of time only – e.g. the first three years.

B.      That all/any applicants opting for such option is made to freely and willingly understand that no further benefit would be granted to them and that no further mortgage repayments on such property would be carried out on their behalf – after the stipulated period.

C.      That such scheme is simply designed to give them a kick start/ a chance/second chance in life and not to accommodate them eternally. It should be made clear that they are expected to take care of themselves and/or their families and manage their own responsibilities once and after the granted grace period expires.  

The government could also provide free assistance to such people through Employment Training Centres, thus providing them with the opportunity to find employment. One could almost state that the government’s responsibility is to motivate and create employment opportunity but the responsibility for finding and accepting employment remains that of the people.

 The benefits of such a scheme if marketed and coordinated properly could be but not limited too - as follows: 

A.      The Government would benefit politically from such welfare dependant’s since they could view this scheme as almost philanthropic – hence winning their confidence.  

B.      The Government would benefit politically from other taxpayers since they could view such scheme as fair and that something is finally being done about the problem – hence winning their confidence. 

C.      The Economy would benefit from such a scheme since property creates wealth and generates business within various industries  - hence winning public confidence.

D.      Tax Payers, Small Businesses, Sole Operators and Companies could benefit through alternative incentives/ tax benefits, which could potentially be introduced to them. People and the people in business create the nation’s wealth.

E.       The welfare dependant who at a time may have felt disadvantaged in the community now owns an appreciating asset of his/her own. They should now become more responsible and improve their attitude towards the community - since responsibility carries weight – in this case financially.

F.       One might also experience improvements in other areas such as behaviour in Alcohol, Drugs, Gambling, which are all very expensive hobbies. Paying a mortgage along with one’s day to day living is not cheap and also a responsibility in itself, thus people might have less funds and time for such luxuries.

The above is off course an outline of a vision, which would need to be explored in detail to ensure its feasibility. Being a strategist, I could definitely see the big picture in my own mind, which could be developed further to create widespread advantage when and if the need arises.

Back to top of page >>>

4 February 07
Time to Toughen Up
By Jim Cable

Once we accorded far more thought to the substance of those we elected - and governments then were very much more aware that their most important duty of office was to ensure that no policy would be harmful to the nation.  Policy underpinned the social fabric - and governments worked at it.

But since the ‘70’s, policies have impacted to erode the social fabric, undermining the principles and values by which we lived.  Most damaging have been those that emasculated standards of discipline under which children were raised, and to which they were expected to conform. Today, elemental societal values like respect for parents and elders are very much less. 

We’ve seen nearly three generations of young adults develop without benefit of adequate guidance or role model at the most critical stage of their lives.  Dr Spock’s dreamy concepts, more “laid back” attitudes to alcohol availability, deemed it OK for children to act up at home because discipline was the “job of the schools.”   But schools became unable to maintain effective discipline due to heightened disruption by children from such homes and now the manifest consequences are everywhere. Oh, Dr Spock did finally admit that his ideas had been wrong.

In many homes and schools, little is now done to instil the recognition and fear of “consequence.”  Across all socio-economic groups, young adults grow without essential guidelines as to their “place,” without even elemental grasp of direction or uprightness.  We’ve attained Orwellian absurdity where “good is bad” and the destructive nonsense is seriously imparted.  Naturally, the flaccid breed that are today’s politicians uphold and play-to the status-quo - more concerned with electorate image than discerning the substance of what might be right and responsible.

Absurdities abound in justice and the courts.  In too many cases penalties are both travesty and nonsense.  If a person fined doesn’t pay, his/her “circumstances” are “taken into consideration” at the time of the hearing of their next offence, when their prior fines will be wiped and the offender given leave to apply for something as equally non-contributing as home detention.  With instances of accumulated fines totalling $20,000-30,000 and even more being written-off, just what does such “justice” convey to young offenders. Is there any consideration due to their vict