|
Soapbox Series
 This 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 submitted using this Soapbox
contribution>>> link.
Please
note that opinions expressed in the Soapbox Series are those of the
contributors.
To comment on
these articles go to letters
to editor >>>
Readers interested in opinion and debate are
encouraged to visit the NZCPR FORUM where interesting
information and fresh viewpoints are posted throughout the day - see
FORUM
>>>.
List of contributions
(#121 - 160)
1 April 09
The
Politics of Domestic Violence
By
Reuben Chapple
The
feminist-driven “domestic violence industry” is part of an
ever-expanding, tax-funded “bureaucracy of compassion”
with its attendant caregivers, social workers, regulators,
intellectuals and social scientists.
Its
use of the term “domestic violence” rather than the more
gender-neutral “relationship violence” is based on the
Marxist analysis of gender relations penned by Marx’s
collaborator Friedrich Engels which presupposes a male
'oppressor' ("Within the family, man is the bourgeoisie,
woman and children the proletariat") and a female
‘victim.’
Feminists
with a strong emotional investment in the presumption of an
oppressive patriarchy base their assessment of men
as “the violent sex” on police, court, hospital and refuge
data while waving away numerous academic studies implicating
both sexes equally in relationship violence. These seriously
troubled sisters will cite police blotter statistics and other
official data to falsely conclude that relationship violence
is a male problem ("That’s just part of how 'they'
treat 'us' as women").
There
are a number of compelling reasons why a man might be
reluctant to complain to authorities that his wife assaulted
him. These include fear of ridicule or being disbelieved;
threats that if police are called his wife will level a
counter-accusation and he'll be the one arrested by an
establishment predisposed to take her part; a reluctance to
walk out of the home that he probably paid for; the likelihood
that access to his children will be denied by a gender-biased
Family Court should he leave to escape the violence; and
fears for the children's physical safety if he's no longer
around to protect them from a violent mother.
One
of the saddest accounts of male victimisation by a violent
female was that of an army drill sergeant in the United
States, who placed his gun in his mouth at the dinner table
and blew his brains out in front of his family, after the
contrast between his macho parade ground persona and the
reality of his miserable existence became too much to bear.
New
Zealand has a network of Women’s Refuges but not a single
Man’s Refuge. And if a man did show up at a Women’s Refuge
seeking relief from a violent female partner, do you think
he’d be admitted? Like police blotter statistics, “refuge
data” clearly have significant limitations in terms of
providing an accurate picture of relationship violence in our
community.
US
researcher, Dr Martin Fiebert has examined 155 scholarly
investigations, 126 empirical studies and 29 reviews and/or
analyses in concluding that women are as physically
aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their
relationships with their spouses or male partners. The
aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 116,000
and can safely be regarded as statistically robust.
Fiebert’s annotated bibliography, first published in
Sexuality and Culture Volume 8, Number 3-4, Summer-Fall 2004,
can be viewed online at http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm.
Contrary
to the demonstrably false feminist picture of relationship
violence, men and women are implicated in relationship
violence in approximately equal numbers at all levels of
severity as assessed by a standardised "Conflict Tactics
Scale.” Both sexes are more or less equally represented in
every category from throwing a teaspoon all the way up to
murder. In some categories (e.g. punched, kicked, hit or
slapped one's partner), female involvement slightly
outstripped that of males.
Approximately
one third of violent incidents were found to be "he
assaults her," one third "she assaults him,"
and one third "they assault each other.” Most of what
is categorised as "relationship violence" was
found to be occasional, low level, and didn't result in
serious injury, i.e. shoving, pulling, slapping, throwing
small objects etc.
The
most violent individuals, whether male or female, represent a
tiny minority of those studied. Severely violent men typically
used their fists and feet on spouses or partners. Severely
violent women characteristically used weapons to even up the
size difference or attacked spouses or partners when they were
asleep or otherwise off-guard.
British
family care activist, Erin Pizzey, who set up the first
Women's Refuge in England in 1971, had a well-publicised
falling out with the Sisterhood after she wrote a
book claiming that many women presenting at her Chiswick
Women's Refuge were "at least as violent as the men they
had left behind" and self-admittedly addicted to the
adrenalin rush they got from provoking violent reactions in
their male partners, though few enjoyed the violence itself.
These women were repeatedly and often seriously verbally and
physically violent both to their own children and to other
women in the shelter.
The
foregoing analysis demonstrates conclusively that relationship
violence is in fact a human problem, not a gender issue as the
feminist movement would have us believe. The time is long past
for society to acknowledge the female contribution to such
violence rather than simply blaming males for something
women are, on all the evidence, equally involved in.
Back
to top of page >>>
3 March 09
Capitalism
for all - Ownership Democracy
By
Jens Meder
As
a legacy of Marx, the word
“capitalism” is usually associated with
private ownership, a social implication.
Yet,
as an economic factor, the creation and use of capital
-
capitalism
-
began with the first laboriously polished stone axe,
and is still subject to the same laws of physics (saving
and investment),
regardless of the social order, or the apparent
disconnection from physics through paper
money and
bank overdrafts.
We know now, that so-called communism is
just state monopoly
capitalism.
It
is sophisticated capitalism, which differentiates human
survival from the largely “earth-to-mouth”
consumption
in the animal kingdom,
although even there
the accumulation of reserves for
survival occurs.
If
we accept that on the material level “nothing can be done
out of nothing”,
the “hidden hand” which ultimately determines what
our efforts and dealings achieve, is adequately revealed by
the following
two physical realities:
1.
For economic (and biological) survival, the “calories”
consumed for the effort must not exceed the “calories”
needed for
survival.
In
other words – unless backed by subsidies and reserves –
profitability is the
primary need
for any productive
effort meant to be self-sustainable.
2.
Regardless how
hard or profitably
you work, if the lot is consumed within a certain
period of time, you end up just as poor as when you started.
In
other words – capital
creation is physically impossible
without someone’s sacrifice of consumption
(potential), or saving. So far no one – not even among those
publicly
doubtful
about the crucial
interdependence of
saving and economic growth – has come up with a
practical
or hypothetical example to refute that.
We
should also be aware about the role of saving
being confused by not differentiating between spending
on consumption and on investment, implying that saving means
money out of circulation to “under the mattress”, and not
available for investment.
Actually,
most savings if
not
directly invested, end up as working capital with the
banking system.
With
these “physics” in mind,
the stage is set for
a healthy “re-juvenation of capitalism” through an
all-inclusive effort for
a higher and widening personal capital savings
and ownership rate through the taxation system,
such as has been initiated through the NZ Super Fund,
and easily perfected by amending it into a permanent
institution of
personal accounts.
The
NZSF is bound to increase in popularity from the moment more
of it is invested at home, including needed infrastructure
construction. Those of the school “you cannot spend yourself
out of debt”
should become aware, that while
that applies to consumption spending, investment
spending is actually the only way
of
wealth
generation, if the investments are profitable, and
debts are repaid
by savings in at
least
only slightly inflated currency.
THE
INCREASED
COMPULSORY
SAVING
ENFORCED ON US
BY
CURRENT
INVESTMENT
DEBT
REPAYMENTS
GUARANTEES -
THAT WE COME OUT OF THE
RECESSION
STRONGER AND MORE LEAN AND HEALTHY, THAN WHEN WE WENT
INTO IT WITH SURPLUSES -
(unless those investments
are serious flops
and turn
practically into consumption).
This
might be
the only seriously
contestable statement
in this
article so far?
But
there are other advantages
with
the NZSF as a permanent institution of personal
accounts,
benefitting the young and raising their
confidence in the future:
1.
They would
notice, that
their NZSF contributions are
for their own NZ Super sustainablity, and not just
evaporate
with the
baby-boomers.
2.
Their accounts, together
with KiwiSavings, would be available
towards 1st home mortgage repayments.
3.
In case
of early
death before the account is consumed, it would be part
of its owner’s estate.
4.
With even those without taxable income
as (small) account owners through the GST they pay, the
movement towards
widening socio-economic unity and the abolition
of
have-not
poverty would
have been initiated in a measurable way – which could
be accelerated later along the line proposed by Dr Skilling
of the NZ Institute in his
paper “Ownership Society” about 6 years ago.
5.
There are immediate benefits after the NZSF
personal accounts allocation, when
from their owner’s
65th
birthday
they
finance
his/her
NZ Super until the account is consumed, releasing that
amount of taxation revenue for expenditure in other areas.
The
definition of Ownership Democracy –
as a deliberate effort towards at least a minimally
meaningful level
of personal (retirement)
wealth ownership by all citizens eventually – means
clearly – capitalism for all – and what
more straightforward and middle-of-the-road
alternative could
top that?
Back
to top of page >>>
28 February 09
The
three big ideas from the job summit
By
Frank Newman
The
government jobs summit has thrown-up three big ideas: A
nine-day working fortnight, an investment fund, and a NZ long
cycleway.
Is this the
best that NZ’s brightest minds can come up with?
No I
don’t think it is but it’s the sort of response one would
expect, given the nature of the conference. In fact, the very
best responses are not likely to be voiced at an invitation
only government sponsored talk-fest.
The
essential problem with the 3 big ideas is that they place
government at the centre of the solution.
Governments fail to realise that they are part of the
problem, not the solution (and I say this after having
experience in both central and local government politics).
Any
solution that is government-centric is going to fail, because
governments don’t create wealth (they consume wealth created
by others) and they think it is they that must solve other
people's problems.
It’s the
“others” we should be focusing on, not government. A
government solution will inevitably involve more regulation
– it’s in their DNA to do so, and it is the nature of
their business. Their desire to do more is despite a history
of regulatory failure and reckless financial management.
Until recently our economy has boomed, yet local
governments have mounted up massive public debt, and central
government has used most of the benefit to increase the size
of the state service to introduce its political philosophies
into our lives. Governments are shown to be the irresponsible
managers of other peoples’ money. But putting aside their
massive consumption of wealth, worst of all is their
activities result in the destruction of personal initiative
and enthusiasm which is so critical to the creation of wealth.
No one
should be surprised that the government sponsored yak-fest has
come up with three political solutions. The three issues
themselves will achieve nothing, and are not even worth
commenting on. Let’s look at the big picture.
New Zealand
has some fundamental problems, not least, we are importing
more than we are exporting, we have a welfare system with the
goal of making dependence bearable instead of making people
independent, and we have an education system that is failing
to adequately educate students – literacy and numeracy
skills are, quite frankly, abysmal.
So here are
some takeaways for the yak-yak job summit to chew on:
-
Let
the business sector get on and do what they do best:
make money. To
make money they need to employ people. Productive workers
employed in high paying jobs is what creates economic and
social well-being… that’s the way it works in
developed countries. The private sector will create
prosperity if the regulators put their clip boards away
and get out of the way.
-
Government
should focus on
repairing what they are already not doing well. They
should:
o
Focus their attention on growing our export
markets – that’s where our economic future is.
o
Reform the welfare system by transforming it
into an organisation that has its primary goal of reducing
dependency. That would reduce government spending which could
be given back to taxpayers in the form of tax cuts.
o
Improve the quality of education by establishing
minimum performance measures for teachers based on
international standards, and making teachers accountable to
parents. That would produce graduates who would actually be
productive.
In my view
these simply measures would be a heck of a lot better than
having people attend government paid “training” one day
every two weeks, establishing yet another investment fund to
do what banks will do when risk is back in balance, and build
a bike track in the vague hope that it will attract overseas
tourists.
Back
to top of page >>>
24 February 09
MAORI - a people one sees in legislation
By
Ross Baker
Queen Victoria did not sign the Tiriti o
Waitangi with a "mixed race of people"- She
signed the Tiriti o Waitangi with "a distinct race of
people” called “maori", a race though
intermarriage of their own free will, no longer exists.
Over
the years, many Acts have been passed as the “maori race” intermarried with other races and their ancestry
became further and further diluted from the “maori race” that signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840. As a
past Race Relations Conciliator of Maori descent, John Clark
stated, "Maori
today are a people with maori ancestry, as one sees in
legislation".
Some of the Statutory Interpretations of
"Maori", "As One Sees in Legislation"?
1. The Native Land Act of 1865 defined a Maori as, "An
aboriginal native and shall include all half-castes and their
descendants by natives".
2. The Qualification of Electors Act 1879 defined a Maori as,
"An aboriginal
inhabitant of New Zealand and includes any half-caste living
as a member of a native tribe according to their customs and
usages and any descendants of such a half caste by a maori
woman".
3. The Electoral Act 1893 defined a Maori as,
"An Aboriginal inhabitant of New Zealand and includes half-castes and their
descendants by natives".
4. The Native Land Court Act 1894 defines a Maori as, "An
Aboriginal native of New Zealand and includes half-castes and
their descendants".
5. The Native Land Act 1909 defines a Maori as, "A person belonging to the Aboriginal race of New Zealand and includes a
half-caste and a person immediately in blood between
half-caste and a person of pure descent from that race".
6. The Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1974 defines a Maori as,
"A person of
the maori race of New Zealand and includes any descendent of
such a person".
This final definition (6) is the definition being used today
to allow one group of New Zealand citizens to claim through
the “apartheid” Waitangi Tribunal. All these Acts came about as the "maori
race"
intermarried with other races "of
their own free will".
A Distinct Race of People
When
the Tiriti o Waitangi was signed, "maori" were "a distinct race of people". Since this time, the "maori
race" has intermarried with other races until
today they are not the people Governor Hobson," was
authorised to deal with" for cession of
sovereignty of their country. The fact is, "Maori
today are a people with maori ancestry as one sees in
legislation"; they are not "the distinct race of people" that
signed the Tiriti o Waitangi at Waitangi on the 6 February
1840.
The Waitangi Tribunal, which the Government created in
1975, is an "apartheid
tribunal", where 15% of the population, who can
claim a minute trace of "maori" ancestry, can claim against the others without the
right to claim, participate, cross examine or appeal. In 1987,
the Government "replaced"
the Tiriti o Waitangi with
"Five
Principles" without debate or the peoples
knowledge or consent, giving the Waitangi Tribunal "unbridled
power" to rewrite our history.
The Government/Crown completely overlooks the fact; “Maori
today are not, the distinct race of people, that signed
the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840”.
Most Maori today, who claim through the "apartheid" Waitangi Tribunal or in direct negotiations with
the Government/Crown, are closer related to the people they
"claim to have
ripped them off" that to their "maori"
ancestors. The Government/ Crown are allowing this "mixed race of people", through legislation, to claim
as if they were, "the
distinct race of people", that signed the
Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840. There
is no denying, the Treaty made us “all one people under one
law, one flag”, but intermarriage made us all one people
– New Zealanders!!
Every year, the Royal New Zealand Navy fires a "twenty one gun salute" at Waitangi verifying British
Sovereignty over New Zealand in 1840. HMS Herald logbook entry
8/2/1840, "A
salute of 21 guns was fired to commemorate the cession to Her
Majesty of the right of sovereignty of New Zealand".
Queen Victoria did not sign the Tiriti o
Waitangi with a "mixed race of people"- She
signed the Tiriti o Waitangi with "a distinct race of
people” called “maori", a race through
intermarriage of their own free will, no longer exists.
It’s time the people of New Zealand woke up to this
monstrous scam being forced on them by the Government/Crown
today. It’s an undeniable fact, Maori today are not
“the distinct race of people” that signed the
Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840, they are “a mixed race of
people” as one sees in legislation”.
He
iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people – New Zealanders
Research
Department, One New Zealand Foundation - see
www.onenzfoundation.co.nz.
Back
to top of page >>>
24 February 09
CARBON DIOXIDE: The importance of Carbon Dioxide to your health
By
Robert Chouinard
It’s common knowledge that when
we breathe we take in oxygen and give off carbon dioxide but
what is not generally known is that we are greatly affected by
the level of carbon dioxide in the air we breathe as well as
the way we breathe. Because
many people with a wide range of health problems find relief
when given enhanced levels of carbon dioxide, it follows that
these people would benefit from any rise in the level of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The importance of CO2 and proper breathing is
nicely covered in the following audio lecture and followed
with scientific references.
Audio
lecture: http://www3.telus.net/public/rrrobbie/audio/03_carbondioxide.mp3
What
are safe levels of Carbon Dioxide?
Source: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/faq_othr.html
Levels
of carbon dioxide (CO2), a colorless, odorless gas,
have been known to reach 3,000 parts per million (ppm) in
homes, schools, and offices with no ill effects. The maximum
recommended by the National Institute of Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH) for an 8-hour occupation is 5,000 ppm (13
times the current level of 380 ppm). The Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) also use 5,000 ppm as their
threshold for occupational safety.
But
5,000 ppm appears to be a very conservative estimate of safe
levels because other sources claim we can tolerate up to 1.5%
of it in air, 15,000 parts per million.
Consider:
people with respiratory problems are given medical
gas typically consisting of 95 percent oxygen and 50,000
ppm (5 percent) carbon dioxide.
This gas can also be obtained with CO2
ranging from 1%
to as high as 10% for treating people who have been
asphyxiated.
Also
consider: we would die if we did not breathe in such a way as
to retain very close to 65,000
ppm (6.5%) of CO2 in the alveoli (tiny air
sacs) of our lungs.
And
finally, the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA)
reports that 100,000 ppm (10%) of CO2 is the
atmospheric concentration immediately dangerous to life.
Scientific
studies on higher levels of CO2
Altitude sickness is caused by hyperventilation
which results in increased oxygen (O2) in the blood
but decreased CO2. (Note: oxygen (O) occurs as a
molecule in nature, hence the symbol O2) The
lowered CO2 will not allow the increased O2
to be utilized. Adjusting
to this condition is called “ventilatory
acclimatization”. While
it is not completely understood all that happens during this
process, it has been observed by experimentation
that supplementing CO2 prevents this
acclimatization as well as preventing the sickness. It
appears that respiratory distress due to lower levels of O2
(requiring ventilatory acclimatization) can be relieved or
eliminated by the application of a higher level of CO2.
This
might be a good time to ask: since we exhale CO2,
why do we need it to be present in the air we inhale?
Good question, but apparently, we do as demonstrated by
the above experiment.
Other
experiments found that simply circulating CO2
up one nostril and out the other while the subject held their
breath cured migraine headaches as well as allergic symptoms.
Other researchers propose administering CO2
to people who suffer from epilepsy,
Parkinson’s, and autism as well.
Clearly, we are affected by low levels of CO2
in
the air we breathe and need to acclimatize
to these low levels, if we can, but not everyone can.
Consider:
· People
who experience periodic
breathing as well as apnea (cessation of breathing) during
sleep benefit from higher
levels of CO2.
These conditions affect a lot of older people.
· Increased
levels of CO2 can improve the sleep of young people
as well. One study
found that healthy young men on a submarine slept well when CO2
levels rose but not as well when the levels dropped.
· Furthermore it’s administered in the form of medical gas (1%
to 10%) for many medical conditions to stimulate
respiration. For example, people with asthma require from
3% to 5% for therapeutic effect.
Studies suggest that a lower level than this but
somewhat higher
than present atmospheric levels would prevent the attacks
in the first place and prevent subclinical symptoms associated
with asthma such as anxiety, insomnia, immune dysfunction and
excessive sensitivity to pain.
CO2 levels higher than 5 per cent are used
for extreme cases such as for treating victims
of asphyxiation and to stimulate breathing of newborn
infants as well as speeding recovery of patients who have been
anesthetized.
· The majority of us have
some degree of lung impairment, which affects the more
critical function of the lungs in regulating the proper level
of CO2 in the alveoli
(tiny air sacs). Metabolic
syndrome alone includes approximately 20 – 30 % of
adults in the U.S. and Europe.
Then there are smokers, asthmatics, and people with miner’s
lung, emphysema and scarred lungs due to previous bouts of
pneumonia, old people, and many more conditions.
Furthermore, a wide range of medical
conditions and infectious diseases manifest in pulmonary
symptoms. All
these conditions can require medical gas because the present atmospheric level is not optimum and
appears to lack a safety margin for people with lung
impairment. Breathing is a tricky business.
We have to breathe fast and deep enough to get the O2 we need but not so fast as to hyperventilate and lose
control of our blood’s CO2 balance (pH). Over
the last 50 million years the O2
level and CO2
level have both dropped as well as atmospheric density which puts us into the
same predicament as the mountain climber who must acclimatize
to a higher altitude. Even
healthy mountain climbers reach a level at which they cannot
further adapt. People
with lung impairment are like the climber who has reached that
level. Either an
increase in the O2 level or an increase in the CO2 level would be a benefit. It is for good reason that
people hospitalized are fitted with air tubes to their
nostrils providing them very high levels of oxygen and carbon
dioxide. (Typically,
4.5 times the oxygen but, more importantly, 130 times the
carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere)
· Experiments
have shown that even healthy people have different tolerances
(or sensitivity)
to CO2 levels.
However, we
can all acclimatize to much higher levels simply by
constant exposure to those levels.
Physiological changes occur as well as adaptive
breathing changes. There
is a curious variation in these physiological changes noted in
studies of people who live at higher altitudes, which seem to
be a result of genetics. The
natural experiment of human colonization of high-altitude
plateaus on three continents has resulted in two—perhaps
three—quantitatively different arterial-oxygen-content
phenotypes among Andean, Tibetan and Ethiopian
high-altitude populations.
The dominance
of Ethiopian (and neighboring Kenyan) athletes in
endurance marathon running events would appear to be a result
of their unique evolutionary adaptation in this regard.
Making Sense of it all while keeping it simple
The two most immediate concerns when treating patients in
intensive care are their blood gasses and their blood electrolytes.
Marathon runners frequently pass out and can even die
because they did not replenish their electrolytes which were
depleted through excessive sweating. One of these electrolytes
(bicarbonate) acts as a buffer in the blood to regulate the
blood’s pH but can be depleted in an attempt to compensate
for blood gasses. (The reverse can also happen as
respiration can change and become distressed in an attempt to
compensate for bicarbonate.)
Consider the mountain climber who has to acclimatize to
a higher altitude over a one or two day period (ventilatory
acclimatization). It
is a slow change in his body chemistry using his available
bicarbonate that makes this possible.
To a lesser degree, we all depend on these electrolytes
on a daily basis; a proper diet is essential to replenish
them.
Our blood gasses (O2
& CO2) depend on the efficiency of our
respiration, which consist of two phases: oxygenation (intake
of O2) and ventilation (exhalation of CO2).
The audio clip nicely explains the ventilatory phase
and what happens when we breathe too fast and lose control of
our CO2 but what it fails to address are the
problems we can encounter when we don’t
get enough oxygen. These
problems are the result of the ventilatory phase being much
more efficient than the oxygenation phase due to various
factors. Here are
three: (1) ease of exchange of CO2 is normally 20X
the ease with which O2 can be exchanged; (2)
swelling and/or scarring of the lung tissue will impede O2
transfer more than CO2; (3) the impulse to take
another breath is determined by the CO2 content of
our blood, not the O2 content.
Here is how a higher CO2 level helps: it
decreases the CO2 rate of exchange during the
ventilatory phase causing the need for more vigorous breathing
to maintain a CO2 balance and this helps our uptake
of oxygen. In
other words, it stimulates our breathing and better balances
the oxygenation phase with the ventilatory phase.
Conclusion
Over the last 350 million years CO2 has
varied by 10 fold, approximately 250 ppm to 2,500 ppm with
an average level of 1,500 ppm.
This average level happens to be the optimum level for
plants, it seems by evolutionary design, and is the reason
that this level of CO2 is used in greenhouses
Since plants and animals evolved together it’s likely
that humans also evolved to function best at some higher
level. However, at 380 ppm we are not far from the lower
end of that 10 fold range. Because so many people benefit from
enhanced levels of CO2, it appears that our present
atmosphere is already lower than the minimum to which some
people can adapt. Scientific
studies and established medical practices leave no doubt that
increased levels of CO2 help people with
respiratory problems and, some time in our lives, that will
include nearly every one of us.
Back
to top of page >>>
24 February 09
A Better Approach to Child Support
By
Graeme Phillips
This Soapbox Contribution is written to criticise
the child support system.
I am arguing against the way it works on the basis that
it promotes single motherhood, it is an infringement of the
rights-responsibilities, libertarian and you-reap-what-you-sow
principles.
In many e-mails sent out by NZCPR, there have been various
articles written about how the welfare benefits system, in
particular DPB, encourages women to take up single motherhood
because it is financially advantageous.
If you are bored of your marriage and a stay-at-home
mother and therefore likely to gain custody of the children in
the event of a divorce, the fact that the government will lop
off a proportion of your husband's income if you divorce him
removes one of the obstacles to seeking a divorce.
The purpose of DPB is to give the recipient a
"reasonable" standard of living, but not to make
single parenthood attractive and it is my view that the child
support system should work in the same way.
In many divorces that come to court, men lose their home and
unwillingly lose custody of their children too; if he didn't
want a divorce in the first place, then that is an even worse
situation. It
therefore seems a case of kicking someone when they are down
to collect child support from a man in this situation.
Sufficiently regular contact with one's children is a
right that a man should have (particularly in light of Dr.
Newman's articles about the damage that absentee fatherism
does) and I don't think alternate weekends is a sufficient
fulfilment of that right.
A responsibility that a man has along with this is the
responsibility to provide for his children.
However, if a man has to pay child support for children
he is only allowed to see on alternate weekends, he is getting
the responsibility without the right.
Collecting child support on a percentage basis is also an
infringement of libertarian principles.
If a man lives with his children, then the state allows
him the freedom to provide for his children's basic material
needs and no more if that is what he decides.
Maybe the father wants them to live simply, so that the
children don't develop the materialistic attitudes that blight
most of the world? Why
should a man lose this right just because he ceases to live
with them? Similarly,
people are at liberty to disinherit children, provided
sufficient provisions have been made for underage ones, if
they so wish. If a
man wants to shower his children with expensive gifts, then
fine, but if not, then the state should keep its nose out,
providing the children's basic material needs are being
fulfilled.
Finally, collecting child support on a percentage basis is an
infringement of the you-reap-what-you-sow principle.
Supposing a woman gets pregnant by a man, doesn't see
him again after the night of passion, but nevertheless
collects child support and the man works extremely hard in his
job 15 years later and gains a promotion that dramatically
increases his wages, the woman stands to benefit from his
increased wages, despite the fact that she has done nothing to
help him get the promotion.
Also, there might be another woman in similar
circumstances who gets pregnant by a one-night-stand with an
even wealthier man, meaning that she gets more child support.
Why should that woman receive more child support just
because she copulated with a higher-earning man?
Neither children nor spouses/ex-spouses should have the
right to proportionally benefit from money they didn't earn.
My proposal is that child support be given out at a flat rate
that is just enough to give the children a basic standard of
living, with additional contributions being solely at the
discretion of the non-resident parent.
I also propose that child support should be denied if a
woman unilaterally divorces her husband and receives custody
of the children against his will.
Child support should only be collected if a man has
walked out on his children on his own accord or if the wife
has divorced him for an extremely exceptional reason (e.g.
regular adultery or violence lasting several years).
Back
to top of page >>>
04 February 09
Scepticism or Wisdom?
By
David Bellamy
As Darwinism is again the flavour of the year I found myself
completely absorbed in the latest publication of the Linnean
Society of London. It jogged my memory that Charles Darwin was
the first natural historian to realised that massive coral
reefs are found only in those areas of the tropical world in
which the sea floor is going down.
As
the sea floor sinks below the tides the reef forming plants
and animals remain on station in the lighted zone sequestering
carbon dioxide to build these amazing limestone structures.
The
Darwin deniers had a ball until 1950, when in preparation for
the testing of the H bomb geophysicists drilled down through
the coral limestone of Eniwetok Atoll.
There
they discovered the balsaltic foundations of the atoll on
which the reef had maintained station by growing at a rate of
an inch every millennium for more than 30 million years.
Biodiverse solar powered, self-repairing sea defences and fish
nurseries without equal.
Having
had the privilege of diving on many reefs around the world
before over-fishing, siltation, eutrophication and shoreline
development began to take its toll clouding the clear nutrient
poor waters.
Back
in those halcyon days of diving it was amazing to see how
quickly reefs could recover from the heated attack of that
little rascal El Nino, passing tsunamis and marauding packs of
Crowns of Thorns.
Sadly
since that time the decades of destruction of ecosystems
across the world have done their worse, little wonder coral
reefs are now in such a sorry state..
When
Charles Darwin visited Australia as the little ice age began
to come to an end, he wrote “pasture is everywhere so thin
that settlers have already pushed too far into the interior;
moreover the country further inland becomes extremely
poor,----therefore so far as I can see, Australia must
ultimately depend on being the centre of commerce for the
southern hemisphere.”
Malthusian
scepticism or words of wisdom? Well take a look around and
judge for yourself.
If
you are sweltering beside what’s left of the Murray River as
it does its best to flow down to the sea. Please worry
about unsustainable irrigation
and the continued destruction of native bush and those biodiverse
soils, not the 0.7 of a degree Celsius rise in temperature the
global warmers warn are going to kill us.
The
first questions most people ask me these days are how could
all those global warmers have got it so wrong and is there any
good news?
My
answer is to remind them of the millennium bug, the dot com
bubble and the credit crunch. Together these caused
tens of thousands of the worlds most highly paid and computer
literate people to succumb to a mass hysteria.
The
good news is that despite all the carbon dioxide that has
poured into the atmosphere over the past decade the
temperature has not gone up infact it has and is still going
down.
The
reason is that the sun which provides all the energy that
warms the Earth, has put a new spotless hat on.
The
bad news is that we should not shout hooray to loud because we
may be jumping out of the frying pan into the freezer.
Back
to top of page >>>
04 February 09
Defending Sir Roger
By
Daniel McCaffrey
There’s
an old joke that if you play a country and western record
backwards you get your house back, your wife back, the porch
back and the dog back.
If the
cracked record of the latte socialists saying Rogernomics
destroyed New Zealand was played backwards we
could return to the socialist paradise that was New Zealand in
July 1984 under that crusty old socialist Sir Robert Muldoon.
It isn’t
true.
Play the
record backwards and bang; back on the porch would be 71
million worthless sheep.
Muldoon was
a real socialist. His thought the path to a prosperous New
Zealand was to grow two blades of grass where one grew before.
And
he wasn’t afraid to spend unlimited sums of
taxpayer’s money tearing the hillsides down, subsidising
sheep, fertiliser and fences to make this happen.
The Douglas
deniers blame Sir Roger for the closing of the freezing works
because the heartless man stopped the subsidies to the
farmers.
The
closures happened on his watch so he must be to blame.
They ignore
the delusionist who conned the taxpayers and farmers into
owning so many worthless sheep in the first place.
Interestingly
the same is going to happen in the next few years.
The
socialists who just vacated the Beehive threw the public’s
hard-earned cash into unproductive civil servants.
And they
can’t be parked on the windswept paddocks of the King
country.
They have
to be paid, get a pension and need millions of square metres
of well-carpeted air-conditioned space in Wellington.
(Bet when
they get sacked National will get the blame not the silly
socialists who hired them.)
But back to
the sins of Saint Roger.
Another
wicked antisocialist thing the financial reformer did was to
sell the state silver, the assets of the people, the ones that
taxpayers were taxed at 66% to pay for.
State owned
liabilities would be closer to the truth.
For
instance with inflation raging at 17% the peoples bank, the
post office savings bank, paid 3% interest, ran at a loss
and couldn’t pay the few
hundred millions needed to move from paper passbooks to a
modern computer.
The
“assets” were all losing millions.
The
railways were a joke. The ferries were even more of a
liability.
The Bank of
New Zealand was a fiscal time bomb.
The state
airlines lost more than Aeroflot and provided marginally
better service.
If the
Rogerphobes had their way tomorrow all these would land on the
porch and be slung around the taxpayers neck again.
Together
with an 8 billion dollars debt for “think big”, a wage
price freeze, inflation raging at 16%, a run on the currency,
an immediate need for $1200 million and a current account
deficit that would take decades to pay down.
Oh happy
days would indeed be here again.
As George
Orwell pointed out in 1984 the key to socialist control is to
change the past; “he
who controls the past controls the present and he who
controls the present controls the future.”
If you can
change history you can persuade people that Muldoon was a
benevolent big brother with the countries best interests at
heart and in the problem free days of August 1984 Roger just
took a bad fit of pique and wrecked the country for no
particular reason.
The trouble
with telling lies about the past is that it soon drifts into
telling lies about the present and making false promises about
the future.
As my
political hero Deng Xiaoping said, “you must proceed from
reality”.
It’s a
hard world out there. The idea that the world would long
indulge a New Zealand economy that
fancied 40 million extra sheep, 30 thousand non-productive
civil servants and a bunch of state liabilities sucking taxes
into a vortex is a delusion.
I for one
am glad that when the country went bankrupt in 1984 there was
a government with the courage to take the hard decisions, to
set aside its set piece ideology, face reality, fix the
problems and set the path for a productive, prosperous New
Zealand.
Back
to top of page >>>
04 February 09
The Decline of Capitalism
By
Vincent Gray
Capitalism
only works if it manages to resolve the conflict between the
selfishness and greed of individuals and classes and the need
for them to cooperate for the benefit of all. History is a
record of the fluctuations of this compromise. There are
always rulers and ruled and the process
called "democracy" does not change this,
particularly when the rulers find ways of controlling public
information.
The losers will tolerate the excesses of the winners provided
they get minimum satisfaction. At intervals the winners
overreach themselves and the losers band together to gain
more. If the winners resist too
much we get the British, French, American, Russian and
Chinese revolutions. A new compromise starts off the next
cycle.
Karl
Marx analyzed this situation when it occurred in the
middle of the 19th century and it is a little
surprising that a recent "Time" article brought him
back into consideration when his popularity is
in decline.. The trouble with Marx was that he saw no
solution except the abolition of all classes
and the carrying out of this process by the working
class.
But the
working class have always been prepared to compromise, not
rebel, and the communist and socialist movements which tried
to carry out Marx's policy found that they had ended up being
themselves separate
ruling classes. In Russia and China they became managers and
technologists. Our last Labour government consisted of
schoolteachers and union officials, not workers. Our new
government is led by a banker who will try and keep the same
bankers in business.
We have
now reached the end, the final decline of the current period.
As usual the business and political leaders have steadily
taken a larger share of the wealth and have neglected sound
business practice, maintenance
of infrastructure and innovation. They have allowed
themselves to be weakened by the anti capitalist philosophy of
environmentalism, and its success in selling the global
warming delusion, so that the structure of capitalist
enterprise is itself no longer viable.
The
usual corrective process for business failure is bankruptcy,
but the leaders are
unwilling to apply this, so their first response is to throw
public (or printed) money at the failed enterprises in the
hope that they are capable of changing their extravagant ways.
It is already evident that this does not work, but they do not
have the courage to apply bankruptcy where it is deserved and
start again. Would government-run banks be any better? It
looks we will have to find out.
The idea
of restoring credit by imposing very low interest rates is
bound to fail as it goes against the basic law of
supply and demand. Who would lend if there is no interest? The
Japanese billionaire who buried his money in the garden shows
what will happen. It did not work in Japan.
So what
is happening now cannot work. The Davos leaders in their
executive jets will have to be replaced.
Sooner or later we have got to have banks and business
enterprises run by responsible managers, different from those
who have caused the current crisis. It almost looks as if we
are going to have to have
another revolution before this could happen.
Back
to top of page >>>
03 November
08
The High Costs of Central Planning
By
Owen McShane
Many
people are now complaining that the last nine years of a
Labour-led Government have left us languishing near the bottom
of the OECD tables of economic growth and development, and are
seeking explanations.
While
a number of left-wing policies are held to blame, the most
obvious explanation tends to be overlooked.
Socialism,
Fascism and Communism – the great failed experiments of the
twentieth century – were all committed to central planning.
The “Great Leaders” of these regimes declared the modern
world to be too complex to depend on spontaneous order.
Therefore central planning was needed to direct and control
our chaotic lives.
Today’s
band of “controllers” claim that our population, wealth,
technology, and consumption are combining to destroy the
planet, or will do so in the future, unless, of course,
‘environmental planners’ are empowered to
‘sustainably’ order, direct, and control, every aspect of
our lives.
In
his seminal work, The Road to Serfdom, Hayek pointed out that
central planning fails because it attempts to form a universal
view on matters on which there can be no universal agreement.
The planners must necessarily coerce those people who are
unwilling to go along with their visions. When the ARC decides
how and where future Aucklanders must live, all those people
with plans of their own must be coerced into making
second-best choices. They lose their property rights – and
their liberty.
The
Great Leaders of the planned economies never admitted error.
They simply increased the size and power of their police
states and imposed more detailed and more widespread controls.
Experts who criticised the Soviet Great Plan for Agriculture
were dispatched to the Gulag for heresy – even though
millions were starving.
The
most striking change over the last nine years of Government in
New Zealand has been the proliferation of central plans – at
all levels of government.
The
Resource Management Act was intended to deregulate the use of
land, by declaring that people and communities were to be
enabled to promote their own wellbeing, provided they managed
their environmental effects.
But
by introducing the words ‘Sustainable Management’ into the
lexicon, the RMA opened the door to takeover by those planners
who promoted ‘sustainable development’ as the solution to
modern threats.
For
example, the Courts were soon persuaded that the ‘Plan’
was part of the environment and must also be protected from
‘adverse effects’. Applications failed if they
“undermined the integrity of the plan” – which seriously
undermined innovation.
However,
the RMA’s enabling provisions continued to frustrate the
dedicated Central Planners especially when subjected to higher
levels of Judicial Review.
Consequently
the Government passed the Local Government Amendment Act of
2002, a Central Planner’s dream, which put the RMA in its
place by reversing the enabling provisions of the RMA. As the
MfE says:
The
reforms encourage local authorities to focus on promoting the
social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of
their communities, consistent with the principles of
sustainable development.
Councils
are now empowered to rule, rather than ‘enable’, and have
been given “the powers of general competence” to do so –
in spite of the task being beyond anyone’s competence.
The
new Central Planners decided that Soviet Central Planning
failed because it was “top down” and hence their ‘benign
tyranny’ insists on consultation on everything. Neither
approach solves the real problem, which is that central
planners simply cannot acquire the information necessary to
manage resources better than individuals making decisions in a
market-led economy.
Putting
it brutally, the new central planning of sustainable
development replaces the ignorance of the tyrants with the
ignorance of special interest groups with time to spare.
These
Councils must now embark on lengthy rounds of LGA consultation
and hear submissions on their Long Term Council Community
Plans and Annual Plans, and then publish a Draft District or
Regional Plan or Policy Statement, and then finally publish a
Proposed Plan or Policy Statement. Then follows a round of
submissions, followed by a round of further submissions,
followed by a year or five of Hearings, followed by a year or
so of mediation, and finally Hearings before the Environment
Court, the High Court, the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court.
When all this is completed the Plan becomes fully Operative
Rodney District's Plan, optimistically named ‘Rodney
2000’, is really nowhere near Operative because it is being
overturned by the new Regional Planning Documents prepared
under the LGA, and Auckland’s special LGA which require
Districts “to give effect” to their regulations.
Naturally,
if a Central Plan fails the solution is to increase the size
of the territory. Let a Super-City-State bloom!
If
that sentence sounds like a mouthful it was meant to. Soon
half of the population will be permanently consulting while
the other half will be being permanently consulted.
These
expensive processes all generate uncertainty as to ongoing
property rights. Property owners have learned to expect that
every plan variation or review will remove or threaten more of
their existing rights, and increase their compliance costs.
And
they are right.
Aaron
Wildavsky found – in “The Politics of the Budgetary
Process” – that all departmental budgets increase over
time. Similarly, all Planning Documents get longer and more
complex over time. Hence his cautionary “rule of thumb”
which said “Any plan which is thicker than my thumb bears no
relationship to the real world.” When Councils ask their
advisers to review the Plan, they are hardly likely to be told
the existing plan is perfect.
A
slim and simple plan is a sty in any Central Planner’s eye.
Since
2002, Plans have been expanding their orbit at both ends of
the scale. Regional Plans attempt to enforce “sustainable
urban form.” Local Plans assert controls down to the colour
and profile of the window joinery. Climate Change alarmists
regulate our light bulbs and shower-heads.
This
is bad enough at the best of times – but we happen to be
entering the worst of times.
The
National Party has already promised to make significant
changes to the RMA, which will make any planning document
obsolete – at least in part, and in some cases, a very large
part indeed.
It
may be that the changes made in the first 100 days will focus
on process rather than substance but if so, then the changes
will have little effect on the investment climate in New
Zealand.
Although
many Councils have been warned that their expensive Plan
Reviews are potentially wasting millions of dollars of
ratepayers’ money, their advisers understandably insist the
gravy train must continue to roll. Times are tough enough
without losing their biggest source of income. Hence the old
adage, "Never ask your Barber if you need a
Haircut."
The
only way to stop this totally unproductive spend-up is to
impose a moratorium on all district and regional plan reviews,
national policy statements, structure plans, regional policy
statements, visions, and nightmares, until the RMA and LGA
have been thoroughly scrutinised.
If
any urgent plan changes are required, by either the public or
private sector, they can be submitted to a new RMA Regulatory
Reform and Review Committee for approval by Order in Council.
The
pressure groups and bottom feeders will scream – but the
vast majority of productive people will be eternally grateful.
We
might even end the recession.
Originally
published in NBR
Back
to top of page >>>
03 December
08
A New Vision for New Zealand
By
Vincent Andersen
It is unarguable that from the
recent election we would be guaranteed that National or Labour
would be the major party in a coalition government. Although
traditionally these parties represent polar opposites, the far
right and the far left, these days they are both center
parties, there is little to differentiate between the two. The
structure of our entire government is geared up towards an
outcome like this. MMP and party politics have passed their
used by date and it is time for a change in the way we run our
country.
When
asked whether she would form a coalition government with
National on 3.11.2008 during the TV3 leader’s debate, Helen
Clark replied that, “No chance. Labour was not prepared to
cut public spending and sell state assets.”
Key immediately replied, “Nor am I.” Clark is
trying to reassure those getting a benefit of some sort from
the government that under her leadership they would not lose
it but under National they would. Key doesn’t want to
alienate any potential voters so of course they won’t be
cutting any public spending either. During the debate Key
indicated that Working for Families would remain and said that
he was “not opposed to buying services from the public
sector.” The traditional right wing National was about
privatization, selling off state assets and slashing benefits,
unlike the new Labour clone National. They have well and truly
met Labour in the middle. It is well known that their policies
are the same. That is why both leaders tried to frame the
election as an issue of trust. Who do you trust more to lead
the country?
As both
parties are the same they need to convince voters to vote for
them another way. And that is to bribe the electorate with
spending promises. During the final leaders’ debate on TV1,
Clark said that Labour could not responsibly put up the zero
fees for doctors visits policy because of the current economic
situation. After being pressed by Sainsbury she then conceded
that they would still be putting up the universal student
allowance policy. Clark was hoping that the student bribe will
pull her through this election as it had before. Both parties
announced they will be giving tax cuts, although National
offered more than Labour. Labour said that this is because
they cannot afford such cuts and there is no room to reduce
spending. National said that it will be able to afford them by
cutting spending elsewhere and then borrowing to meet the
shortfall. By some twisted rational this is not borrowing for
tax cuts; I would beg to differ. The billions that both
parties offer up in election spending promises are all tax
payers’ dollars. Both parties can’t afford to cut public
spending or give substantial tax cuts but they can afford to
pledge billions of our dollars away
As every
election time rolls around, all the pledges and promises
emerge along with all the bribes designed to secure votes.
When the time comes to get into power they will do and say
anything to get there. There does not seem to be any public
plan for the future, the focus based rather in the present
pursuit of power. Once in power the real agenda comes out.
With Labour we have seen the nanny state encroach into our
houses further than ever before. The state controls how you
bring up your children and now wants to control how you
shower. With National you would expect them to cozy up to the
United States and turn away from workers to business, but will
probably not see them dismantle the Labour legacy in its first
term.
Wouldn’t
it be nice if instead of getting bribed at election time and
kept in the dark about policies, instead politicians were
straight up and laid their agenda on the table? Wouldn’t it
be nice if they set a goal for the future and detailed how
they were going to accomplish that goal? Is it too much to ask
that we know what direction a party is planning on taking this
country? No one foresaw the coming nanny state when Labour
first came into power in 1999. No one really knows what
National’s true agenda is and what path they will lead us
down. We can only go on their track record and that is, to put
it lightly, horrific.
What we
need in this country is a party that sets a goal for the
future and then says how it is going to reach that goal. A
good goal could be to make the country completely self
sustainable by 2020. You would start by building up industry
in low socio-economic areas to generate jobs and alleviate
poverty. You would start with the core things required to
live, like food, clothing, and energy and after achieving self
sufficiency in those areas move into other industries as well.
The people would know the plan and know exactly what they were
voting for. The benefit system could be gradually reformed to
abolish the dole as more jobs are generated by the investment
in industry. This system would have only the needy on the
benefit, such as single mothers, those with disabilities, and
the sick. Once we have a self sustainable country we want to
keep it that way. Government would need to be reformed so that
we don’t have parties getting into “power”, but instead
those who are voted in would be the “custodians” of the
country. They would be tasked with making sure that future
generations inherit a self sustainable country intact, and not
a sinking ship. To have a true democracy we need to have local
body elections in which anyone can stand. Regional elections
would follow in which those elected in the local elections
would attend, culminating with national elections to elect
those who will go off to parliament.
The tax
system would have to be reformed so that we would be paying
only direct apportioned taxes rather than an income tax. The
financial system would also have to be reformed so that our
dollar would be based on something tangible and not a
worthless fiat currency vulnerable to the whims of the global
economy. We would allow government to print its own money
without charging itself interest. Government would be scaled
back to have a much more minimal role with more emphasis being
placed on communities making decisions at the local level.
This is not to say that we would not have any national
cohesion as the regional and national bodies would ensure
this.
Surely
this is a noble goal and much more preferable to the status
quo. At the moment we have two major parties that are both
maneuvering to take power and further their own agenda. They
do not have public goals for the country and have done no good
in all the chances they have been given, hence the current
situation. That is why it is necessary for a new party and a
new mindset for the governance of the country. Morals need to
be brought back into politics, goals need to be set for the
country. The nanny state has got to go.
Back
to top of page >>>
03 November
08
More "Maori" in Parliament?
By
Reuben P. Chapple
The Maori Party looks increasingly
likely to hold the balance of power after the upcoming
election.
Its bedrock negotiating position with respect to potential
coalition partners is that the Maori Parliamentary seats be
entrenched in law.
The Maori Party also wants every New
Zealander classified by ethnicity (presumably on the basis of
boxes ticked on the census form) and all 18 year olds of even
remotely Maori descent placed automatically onto the Maori
electoral roll.
Every census shows more Maori marrying
or cohabiting outside the group with which they culturally
identify. There has been a corresponding exponential increase
in the number of New Zealanders with Maori ancestry.
Should the Maori Party get its way, the
number of Maori seats would need to be expanded every election
to keep pace with a growing “Maori” population. Over time,
these clever race hustlers will have manipulated the
mechanisms of representative democracy to engineer a
"reverse takeover" of our Parliament.
Before this is allowed to happen, the
New Zealand public needs to understand why we have separate
Maori seats in the first place, and whether there is a valid
argument for their retention. If not, they must be abolished.
When the Maori Representation Act was
introduced in 1867, the right to vote rested on a property
qualification, and was restricted to property-owning males.
It is now widely held that the Act was
introduced because Maori were disenfranchised by their
multiple ownership of land. This is incorrect.
Maori in possession of a freehold estate
to the value of twenty-five pounds – even if “held in
severalty” – were entitled to vote.
The real problem was the disputed
ownership of customary Maori land which had not yet become
subject to a registrable proprietary title, the proof of the
then prevailing electoral requirement.
When the 1867 Act was still at the Bill
stage, the view was expressed in Parliament that the Maori
Land Court (established in 1865) would have resolved all these
questions within five years.
The Maori Seats created by the Act were
intended as an interim measure for five years only. It was
hoped that by this time enough Maori would hold land under
freehold title to remove the need for separate representation.
However, in 1872, the temporary
provision was extended for a further five years. Before that
period expired, the Maori Representation Continuance Act 1876
decreed that separate representation would continue “until
expressly repealed by an Act of the General Assembly.”
In effect, the 1867 Act gave Maori the
manhood franchise 12 years before European males were accorded
the same right. It was not until 1879 that the Qualification
of Electors Act introduced European male suffrage as an
alternative to the property qualification.
Universal suffrage in 1893 extended
voting rights to all New Zealanders, subject only to an age
qualification. Any practical reason for separate Maori seats
had altogether disappeared.
However, “politics as usual” kept
the Maori seats in place for more than a century past their
use-by date. The bottom line: politicians liked the fact that
a separate Maori constituency could be pork barrelled in
return for political support.
When Parliament finally reviewed the
Maori seats in 1953 along with a major re-alignment of Maori
electoral boundaries, the vested interests of both Labour and
National meant the issue was quietly shelved.
In the 1946 General Election, the two
parties were tied for general seats. It was only Labour’s
hold on the four Maori seats which enabled it to remain the
government. National, for its part, feared that cutting the Maori seats would bring thousand of
Labour-voting Maori flooding onto the general roll in its
marginal rural electorates.
In the 1980s, the Maori seats were
increasingly linked with the independence aspirations of Maori
nationalists, and turned into a political hot potato. Pressure exerted by these groups meant that after the MMP electoral
system was introduced in 1993, the number of Maori seats
became tied to the number of New Zealanders electing to
register on the Maori roll. After several well-publicised taxpayer-funded enrolment drives,
these seats have increased in number from four to seven.
It is today widely believed that the
Maori seats have some kind of quasi-constitutional status and
should be retained as long as Maori want them. This is a bogus
argument for retention.
The Treaty of Waitangi does not provide
for separate Maori political representation. Nor is there any
constitutional basis for its existence.
What the Treaty does provide for is that
all New Zealanders, irrespective of cultural affiliation,
ethnicity, religious belief, or indeed any other
distinguishing characteristic, will enjoy equality in
citizenship. This means the universal suffrage subject only to
an age qualification that has been in place since 1893.
The Maori Party’s non-negotiable demand for the Maori seats to be
entrenched in law with all 18 year olds of Maori descent
placed automatically onto the Maori roll thus poses a serious
threat to our representative democracy.
The Maori seats have got to go, as do
the race-hustlers of the motley Maori Party, none of whom
would stand even a remote chance of gaining election in a
general seat by playing the race card.
Most New Zealanders of all races are roundly
sick of identity politics. If John Key and the National Party
undertook to place all New Zealanders onto a single electoral
roll as a first order of business on becoming the Government, they would be able to govern alone on a landslide.
Back
to top of page >>>
08 September
08
Teaching
My Kids to Read and Write
By
Ronald Kitching
Because
our three young boys were not learning to read and write at
the state school, we decided to engage a private teacher to
rectify the matter.
I
was informed by the state that it was illegal to employ
private teachers and that my boys had to attend the state
school, or a school approved of by the state. I was informed
that the boys all had dyslexia and that was an impediment to
learning. In any case, the state insisted on ‘testing’ the
boys intellectual capacity.
The
eldest boy Peter and I flew to Brisbane and there we spent two
days while they tested him. The chief tester informed me very
officially “there is nothing wrong with his eyes, his ears
or his intelligence, but he has certainly missed out.”
“Yes”, I replied, “and he has missed out in your state
schools. These days you are not teaching them to read and
write properly.”
We
had a bit of a ‘go in’ as you may call it and the
EduFuhrer informed me that they were starting a new school in
Brisbane for children who had ‘missed out’. “It should
be an easy matter for a man like you to board him out close to
the school”, she suggested to me.
Naturally
I was appalled, as the boy was at that time only approaching 9
years of age.
The
lady Edufuhrer then informed me that they wished to test my
second boy. So again, Robert and I flew to Brisbane. After the
two day test the Edufuhrer asked me, “Have you noticed that
this boy is particularly intelligent?”. “Yes”, I
replied, “we have noticed that he has an extraordinarily
good visual memory”. The Edufuhrer noted that again, this
boy needed to “come to Brisbane” to attend their new
remedial school.
“And
when will you be bringing your third son to see us” she
demanded. I replied, “I shall not be doing that, as he is
like the other two boys, bright and intelligent and it is a
huge expense for us to endure these unnecessary trips to
Brisbane.
I
told her that I would find a teacher and engage in a private
remedial course at home. Well again the Edufuhrer informed me
that that sort of action invited state penalties including
jail.
Because
I was looking, I got to know a very good teacher who
knew how to teach properly. I made her an offer to teach my
three boys and she was delighted. We sealed the deal and she
advised the Education Department of her resignation at the end
of the year, as she proposed to work for me. As a courtesy, I
also advised the Edufuhrer that we were starting private
tuition at the beginning of the year.
The
next episode was when the lady teacher visited me in a very
tearful state. She said that the Education Department advised
her that if she took this job, privately tutoring the Kitching
children, she would never ever be employed by the state again.
In short, she was blackmailed. I immediately told her that she
was, under the circumstances, under no obligation to me.
I
was on a business trip to New Guinea where my business partner
and I had interests, when a friend told us that he had
organised a dinner party that evening with some friends and
asked us if we would like to attend. And so we did.
Quite
by chance I found myself sitting next to an adult but small
girl from Scotland. As the dinner got going I asked her,
“And what do you do Fiona?” “I teach” she replied.
“And what do you teach” I asked, “I teach infants,”
she answered with a flourish. Then I asked, “Do you like
teaching Fiona?” “I love it, I am a born teacher, I
specialise in teaching English” was her reply. I got to know
her a bit better as the night wore on. I was careful enough to
swap business cards with her.
Next
morning I rang her from the Port Moresby hotel. I suggested,
“Fiona, I’d like you to come to the hotel for morning tea,
as I wish to discuss a proposition with you”. She answered
in a very sharp tone, “What sort of proposition?” I
replied, “It’s a business proposition involving teaching.
I do not wish to discuss it over the phone as it is a bit
involved. If it would make you feel any better bring one of
your mates with you.”
And
so at about 10 am she turned up with a mate. I told her the
story, showed her a picture of the family and she agreed that
so long as I paid the airfares and expenses, she would fly
from her family home in Hobart to Cairns after Christmas, and
stay with the family for a week while she decided whether to
take the position or not.
She
was only at our home for a day and a half and she told me that
she decided that she would certainly take the job. I told her
I was astonished that she had decided so quickly, she replied
that she was afraid that she may be getting into a situation
where she had to deal with the spoiled children of
over-indulgent parents, “But I can see that that is not the
case”, she observed.
So
I bought a used Holden for her to use, fitted it out with seat
belts all around, arranged a flat for her in town and at the
beginning of the school year the teaching began.
The
state Edufuhrer was furious, as first of all, she could not
blackmail Fiona, as Fiona had never ever had anything
whatsoever to do with Queensland Education, she was trained in
Scotland. However, the Edufuhrer insisted on ‘testing’ the
boys in June and December at an institution she had
established in Townsville. I was warned that should the
experiment be failing, the boys would be required to
immediately return to the tender loving care of the state.
Furthermore I could be subject to serious penalties including
a jail term as the operation remained illegal.
After
the June test she rang me and advised me that I was a very
lucky man indeed, as I had acquired an excellent teacher. And
after the December test she rang to say that the eldest boy
had done 3 years work in a single year. “What do you think
of his dyslexia now?” I inquired. She ignored my rude remark
and replied that the other two boys were also up to date.
“They can now all return to school” she firmly dictated.
“No they won’t, I have given up on the state.” As Fiona
had planned to stay only for the year, I organised another
teacher.
The
new teacher was recently married and had already resigned from
the Indoctrination department, so she too, was for the time
being, immune from blackmail. She too was a good teacher and
maintained standards. Meantime the Edufuhrer fumed and
plotted.
Then
my teacher’s husband received a transfer to the State
Agricultural Research Station at Walkamin about halfway
between Atherton and Mareeba. At that time the Education
department was advertising a teaching position for Walkamin
for the beginning of the following year. After discussing it
with me she applied, intending to stay the full year with me.
The
next episode was when she came to me in tears. She tearfully
sobbed, “The education department had contacted me and told
me that unless I immediately ceased teaching the Kitching
boys, I will never ever be employed by the state again.” On
the other hand, if she resigned immediately, she would be
placed at Walkamin at the beginning of the next term, six
months before the advertised position was to be filled.
Of
course I agreed that she should resign and I started my boys
at the Kairi State School not far from our farm. If anything,
they went down hill again until I started them at All Souls in
Charters Towers as boarders after grade seven.
All
of the boys were apprenticed at Mount Isa Mines and, after
becoming tradesmen, Peter and Robert became Power House
Operators there, before moving on to better things. Graham,
also became a tradesman, and now, although well versed in
practically every form of Engineering there is, is a fully
qualified Gas Engineer and holds a responsible senior position
with Origin Energy in Sydney.
I
am proud to add that all of the boys excelled at their
respective trades, winning awards etc.
The
only reason a system of state education was started in
the first place was to ensure that our children learn to read
and write to a reasonable standard. But as it is a
bureaucracy, and cannot respond to the profit and loss system,
it has all got out of hand.
Not
only in Queensland, and all over Australia, but in most
English speaking countries, education is a big problem. It is
a well known fact too, that all have had, and still are
experiencing reading and arithmetical problems with students.
The fact of the matter is that in 99.9% of cases, it is not
the students who are the problem, nor is it the teachers, but
the state. The state resists serious competition. In fact it
has abolished it.
The
essential weak feature of state education is the absence of
competition. Every teacher must conform; every student must
conform; if they learn anything at all, it is only what the
state wishes them to know. And the higher the level the more
rigid becomes the framework within which the teachers must
conform. Universities have, since Federation become hot-houses
of anti-British sentiment and hot-houses of socialism
State
education from primary school to secondary and on to
University level has become today, a socialist indoctrination
programme.
Back
to top of page >>>
28 August
08
Poor
Language Skills Disadvantages Student
By
Les Allen
I must say that I am saddened (but not surprised) by the
observations about poor written language skills exhibited by
many - if not most - of today’s New Zealand school-leavers.
I
am a retired university lecturer, with extensive
tertiary-level teaching experience, initially in the UK
(Central London Polytechnic School of Management), and
latterly, as a Senior Lecturer (School of Management, Victoria
University, Wellington).
The
low written language skills exhibited by disturbing numbers of
my students manifested themselves in:
While
these and other related language shortcomings may be
acceptable in some walks of life they certainly strike a
discordant note at a tertiary level. So far as competence is
concerned, many New Zealand educated students have entered a
linguistic graveyard spiral long before they enter the doors
of tertiary institutes.
This leads me to the conclusion that, at primary and
secondary levels of education in New Zealand, teaching of
basic written language skills has fallen over. It seems that,
in effect, pupils are emerging with the belief that low
standards of English language are okay.
When
I went to primary and secondary school I was taught that
correct spelling and grammar were essential when writing
essays. Grammar included sentence construction, punctuation
and spelling. Errors were drawn to my attention and I was
required to demonstrate, through practical exercises, that I
had understood the nature of my error and mastered the correct
approach.”Write out the misspelt words 50 times”.You
always spelled them correctly after that!
After
completing my tertiary education I worked for several years in
sales and marketing, written communications with existing and
potential customers had to meet competent standards.
During
my years as an educator I applied what I had learned, and
expected to find evidence that the linguistic principles and
rules (especially relating to clarity) I deemed to be
essential would be evident in written assignments submitted by
students. Alas, I was too often disappointed. Many submissions
were near-incomprehensible, containing bad grammar, poor
spelling, misuse of words (spellchecker-disease), and lax
punctuation. Indeed, poorly or unpunctuated sentences more
than half a page in length were not uncommon.
I
was often asked to make comments on CVs and accompanying job
applications. I can say with certainty that if many of those I
was asked to ‘vet’ had been submitted to myself by a job
applicant, they would have been immediately consigned to the
waste-paper bin.
Alas,
it is undeniable that written language basics are no longer
being satisfactorily taught to many New Zealand school pupils
– a growing future generation of semi-illiterate adults.
Who
is to blame?
Am
I expecting too much? I think not, and in any case, as a
tertiary educator many times I asked myself: “is it my job
to be engaged in remedial English teaching, attempting to
patch failures in primary and secondary education.”
Back
to top of page >>>
12 August
08
The
Climate Change Agenda
By
Steven O'Connor
Firstly let me state that I was one of the
scientists that signed the Manhattan Declaration, and as such,
I am a "denier". Secondly, I am in the oil business,
which appears to disqualify me from commenting on global
warming, (aka climate change for those that want a bob each
way), despite the fact that I have spent the last 40 years of
my career studying the stratigraphic response to climate
change over the last 2000 million years. An understanding of
stratigraphy and its predictability in response to climate
change is the fundamental underpinning of oil exploration, and
indeed all sedimentary geology.
I won’t elaborate, as most thinking people are fully
aware of the way climate has radically changed in response to
astronomical events, tectonic activity and the creation of a
biosphere.
As a brilliant example, there is a rock deposit in
the western USA called the Green River Formation. This deposit
records around 2.5 million years of sediments deposited in a
large lake. Many people have seen the fossils from this lake
without
realising the significance in terms of climate change. These
fossils can be found in many rock and crystal shops. They are
beautifully preserved fish, reptiles, insects and plants that
are around 50 million years old. This is the attraction for
most people.
However, the real story is this:
These rocks contain layers of alternate light and dark bands
known as “varves”, which represent semi-annual deposits
(winter and summer) over that period. On close examination,
however, the pollen/spore content shows a cyclical pattern of
tropical/temperate/arid conditions with almost monotonous
repeatability over
the whole period.
The story gets better.
Because these rocks are exposed at the surface, rock cores
have been taken
to cover the 2.5 million year span of the life of the lake.
These varves, to the naked eye, just look like a series of
repeated layers, albeit some thicker than others. There is a
mathematical technique called Fourier Transform Analysis. One
use for this is to resolve a jumble of radio signals into the
individual frequencies. When photoscans of these rock layers
were analysed using this technique via computer analysis a
remarkable resolution was uncovered. When the layers were
resolved into their individual frequencies, a climate pattern
emerged that could be directly correlated with:
1) 8-10 year El Nino cycles
2) ~30-year possible sunspot cycles
3) Earth's ~20,000 year axial wobble (Milankovitch Cycle)
4) 100,000-year precession around the Sun.
A dissertation sent to the Sunday Star Times about
2-3 years ago, in response to their request for submissions,
was rejected (or edited out to become pointless) on the
grounds that "the science is settled". And this is
where the nasty face of politics and quasi-religion comes into
the picture.
Did you ever wonder what happened to all the
radicals after Communism was discredited? Did they go quietly
into the night? Not at all. They found a cause - the climate
change movement - that was closely aligned to their previous
agenda. The best definition of western Communism I have heard
is “Organised Envy”. In New Zealand, for example, they
seamlessly moved from the Alliance to the Green Party, where,
thanks to MMP, they have become a powerful voice that knows
which buttons to press with the credulous masses. What appeals
to the radicals is that the agenda is anti-capitalist, and
particularly anti-American. In their usual agitprop manner (a
60's term for Marxist agitation propaganda) they have hijacked
the climate debate and used their tactics of oppression
against those scientists that accept climate change is
occurring, but deny it is all caused by greedy right-wingers.
One can see in the language of correspondents all the
left-wing rhetoric: neo-conservative, deniers, consumerism
etc. The call to ban publication of opposing views to
anthropogenic climate change is also typical of totalitarian
regimes. It has worked, however, as many scientists,
particularly geologists, to whom the study of historical
climate change is fundamental to their profession, are now
afraid of officially raising their head on the issue.
Last year at an Australian conference I met
geoscientist Dr S Djin Nio, who has used the concept of
orbital forcing to predict rock systems and has subsequently
patented the technique. He runs a short course for the
European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers called
“Climate Stratigraphy”: Principles and Applications in
Subsurface Correlation. He has also recently worked with his
team on ice cores and has demonstrated that the Earth moves
from mini - Ice Ages to hot periods over a 500-year cycle. He
has had his paper refused for publication. He was bemused and
asked me why. I filled him in on the politics.
I have now just seen the most frightening website
for anthropogenic climate change campaigners. I thought at
first it was a spoof, but not so. This
website, called Climate Cops (www.climatecops.com)
is provided by npower from the UK. It is geared at young
children and teenagers, who are encouraged to snoop around
their parents' and relatives houses to look for "climate
crimes". They are then supposed to prepare a report and
submit it to gain membership to the Climate Cops.
Their parents/relatives/friends will then be
"encouraged to mend their ways, or else". What the
"or else" means is not specified. This is basically
the tactic of the Hitler Youth or the Communist Pioneers to
dob in their heretical families. An exposé is presented on http://eureferendum.blogspot.com:80/2008/07/climate-nazis.html
I
believe that this sort of thing must be fought at all costs,
as it will come to New Zealand should the current Labour/Green
government get elected. Thinking scientists must stand up and
be counted, lest we descend into an eco-fascist State. The
debate must be allowed to go on, and a determined push made
for a return to reason. The very nature of civilisation is at
stake.
Back
to top of page >>>
12 August 08
Oil
is NOT a Fossil Fuel
By
Peter
J. Morgan B.E. (Mech.), Dip. Teaching
We all grew up believing that oil is a fossil fuel, and just
about every day this ‘fact’ is mentioned in newspapers and
on TV. However, let us not forget what Lenin said – "A
lie told often enough becomes truth."
Soon
after the end of World War II, the Soviet dictator, Stalin,
realised that the then Soviet Union needed its own substantial
oil reserves and production system if it was ever again called
upon to defend itself against an attacker such as Hitler's
Germany. In 1947, the Soviet Union had, as its petroleum
‘experts’ then estimated, very limited petroleum reserves.
Stalin’s response was to set up a task force of top
scientists and engineers in a project similar to the Manhattan
Project – the top-secret US program to develop the atom bomb
during WWII – and initially under the same secrecy, and
charged them with the task of finding out what oil was, where
it came from and how to find, recover and efficiently refine
it.
In
1951, the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic
petroleum origins was first enunciated by Nikolai A.
Kudryavtsev at the All-Union petroleum geology congress.
Kudryavtsev analysed the hypothesis of a biological origin of
petroleum, and pointed out the failures of the claims commonly
put forward to support that hypothesis.
Stalin’s
team of scientists and engineers found that oil is not a
‘fossil fuel’ but is a natural product of planet earth –
the high-temperature, high-pressure continuous reaction
between calcium carbonate and iron oxide – two of the most
abundant compounds making up the earth’s crust. A team
consisting of Russian scientists and Dr J. F. Kenney, of Gas
Resources Corporation, Houston, USA, have actually built a
reactor vessel and proven that oil is produced from calcium
carbonate and iron oxide, as detailed on the Gas Resources
website www.gasresources.net/AlkaneGenesis.htm
A
continuous reaction occurs naturally at a depth of
approximately 100 km at a pressure of approximately
50,000 atmospheres (5 GPa) and a temperature of
approximately 1500°C, and will continue more or less until
the ‘death’ of planet earth in millions of years’ time.
The high pressure causes oil to continuously seep up along
fissures in the earth’s crust into subterranean caverns,
which we call oil fields. Oil is still being produced in great
abundance, and is a sustainable resource – by the same
definition that makes geothermal energy a sustainable
resource. All we have to do is develop better geotechnical
science to predict where it is and learn how to drill down
deep enough to get to it. So far, the Russians have drilled to
more than 13 km and found oil. In contrast, the deepest
any Western oil company has drilled is around 4.5 km.
This explains why Russia is today one of the world's major oil
and gas producers and exporters.
The
current US energy strategy, driven by the erroneous beliefs
that oil is a fossil fuel and that its supply will soon be
exhausted, is illogical. Given the fact that oil is produced
naturally at rates far in excess of what mankind could ever
conceivably consume, it makes absolutely no sense for any
nation to buy it from foreign sources if it is cheaper to
drill for and pump its own – and that is precisely what the
US should be doing immediately.
If
the US switched from being a net consumer in the world oil
market to becoming a net supplier, the price of oil would
plunge, perhaps to around $US30 per barrel, with the result
that the world's economies would boom as never before.
Most
importantly, people would have confidence to invest in their
futures, safe in the knowledge that oil would never run out. A
bonus would be that the US military-industrial-political
complex would no longer feel the need to use military force to
control the Middle East's oil supplies, and neither would any
other world power. A further bonus would be that all subsidies to
producers of alternative fuels and energy supplies could be
removed, with the result that such production would occur only
if it was economically viable, which would mean that most such
producers would either cease, or greatly scale down, their
businesses. All development of wind farms would cease
forthwith as they are so uneconomic and so unreliable, apart
from being unsightly blots on so many landscapes.
Back
to top of page >>>
12
August 08
A
Piece of History:
Submission on Private Schools Integration Act 1975
By Colin Rawle
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the
proposed review of the Private Schools Conditional Integration
Act, 1975. I submit my views as a private individual. However
it is likely that a large percentage of anyone associated with
Rudolf Steiner schools - and 100% of those who have
intensively studied their spiritual / philosophical /
sociological basis, would concur with what I say.
I have studied the art of Rudolf Steiner education for
some twenty years. Both my sons were Steiner educated, in New
Zealand and the U.K. One is a Doctor of physics and the other
is a biochemist. My wife and I have both worked in Steiner
schools in various capacities, and we were part of the
initiative group which established the Motueka Rudolf Steiner
kindergarten in 1984.
There is essentially just one important point that I
wish make- a point however which is pivotal to the whole
ongoing dilemma of education and which encompasses most of the
issues the government currently wishes to address. These
issues will only finally be resolved by squarely facing the
central issue, i.e. freedom - individual, intellectual, and
spiritual freedom.
In simple terms, the State - i.e. politicians - do not
have any legitimate role to play in education beyond the
provision of the required funding.
Politicians are not, and should not aspire to be
educators. It is simply not their role. Such erroneous
thinking carries with it dangers which should be self evident.
It is flawed thinking to assume that because the state
supplies the finance for education that it therefore has right
to direct it, or influence it in any way.
In the first place, if there is any group in society
which has expertise in the field of education then that group
surely must be teachers, not politicians. Unfortunately, the
states long involvement and influence in teacher training
itself has made even this general truth somewhat questionable.
Secondly, the money that the state supplies to
education is, of course, public money - it belongs to the
public. "Government money" is a dangerous illusion.
There is no such thing. The management of a nations’ money
carries with it only responsibilities, not rights. Therefore
politicians have no inherent right to impose any conditions
upon the supply of public money to responsible social
institutions. Of course, the actual amount of money the state
supplies to any given institution is a separate matter and
will be subject to the usual practical budgetary
considerations.
The 1975 Private Schools Integration Act was an
enlightened piece of legislative innovation - seriously
compromised by the state's mistaken belief that it must
control education, and by clear inference, its social purpose.
Knowingly or unknowingly, this type of thinking seeks to
shackle the minds of the future to the past.
Every aspect of education and its administration should
be the exclusive concern and responsibility of practising
teachers who through their interest and dedication have made
this field of work their vocation. Here is the reason that it
is a mistake to allow proprietors and community appointed
school trust boards, (where these are not also teachers), to
have any input into purely educational matters - such as
teaching appointments. They are simply not qualified in this
capacity.
Ideally proprietors and trust boards would be a single
body which assists the teachers in all those practical matters
in a school which are not directly concerned with education
itself. However under existing arrangements the proprietors
must remain free and independent in their role of maintaining
the special character of an independent school.
If it has been accepted that a private / independently
initiated school is well founded and delivering proper
education then it should be state funded by right - just like
a state school. This would put such schools on the same
footing as state schools and eliminate the attendance fees
problem. After all, the government, (i.e. the public), would
have to meet the cost of educating the pupils of the said
school in its absence.
Needless to say, there has never been any question of
parents who have chosen an alternative fee paying education
for their children of receiving any taxation rebate.
Hence, until the advent of state integration parents of
pupils attending non state funded schools were effectively
paying twice for their children's education.
Whether any school is religion based or secular is a
matter of the individual freedom of those involved. It is no
concern of the state.
In this connection I note that a question in the
questionnaire speaks of - "an absolute right for all
students to attend a secular school", but there is no
mention of an absolute right for students to attend a
religion-based school.
Instead there is a question which asks for reasons why
provision should not be made for religion based schools. This
is of concern. It is a mistake to believe that secular
education leaves a pupil intellectually and psychologically
free, and that a religion based education does not - because
in the absence of any concept of a religious world view, a
secular world view must automatically fill the void created. A
person, especially a child is a much influenced by being
deprived of ideas and concepts as they are by being introduced
to them.
In any event, there is absolutely no chance of anyone
avoiding exposure to the secular world view in today's
society. Therefore an obvious imbalance is created if a
religious / spiritual world view is withheld from children -
and secularism is as much a belief system as is religion.
There is no risk, given competent auditing, in the
state relinquishing full responsibility for education to
suitably qualified educators drawn from the diverse wider
community. The risk rather lies in control of education by the
political sphere, wherein some degree of adherence to a
particular socio / political philosophy or ideology is the
general rule.
Further to this, the auditing of all schools should be
the responsibility of a politically independent organisation
of experienced teachers. As far as adherence of any school to
its special character is concerned, only those with intimate
knowledge of its special character are competent to assess
this.
"All who meditate upon the art of education are
convinced that the fate of empires depends upon the education
of youth". Aristotle.
I realise that what I have said is unlikely to be
influential, but there are times when the truth should be
clearly and unequivocally stated.
Back
to top of page >>>
25 July
08
Wealth Creation Not
Social Responsibility
By
Stewart Haynes
A
seventeen year-old Westlake Boys High School pupil, Alex
Mackenzie bedazzled a collective of business leaders at a
function in Auckland honouring new laureates into the Fairfax
Media Hall of Fame.
This
young whipper snapper, described in an article in a recent
Dminion Post article as a business executive, gave a “blistering
attack on modern business ethics” in his presentation to 400
of the nation’s “business elite.”
The
Dominion quoted from Alex Mackenzie’s speech:
“…we live in a world where efficiency and profit
are elevated above ethics and morals. Often it is both the
political and business leaders of the world who are
encouraging this. I am a young 17-year old in this ever
increasing corrupt world. If the only people I have to look up
to are going to encourage me to sacrifice my soul for money,
what hope do we have for the future of the world? …the
laureates inducted that night into the Hall of Fame achieved
success by concentrating on doing what was right for their
customers and on philanthropy – not simply chasing
profits”.
These
words of wisdom were greeted with the loudest applause of the
night!
There is
an increasing idealism that is creeping into business culture
that is championing the concept of corporate social
responsibility. This deserves to be challenged. Our schools
seem to be aiding this fashionable trend of promoting triple
bottom line accounting where social and environmental
responsibility is promoted above financial bottom line
objectives.
Alarmingly,
Alex Mackenzie, is part of the Young Enterprise Scheme, that
encourages our youth to learn and experience running a
business. I guess Alex’s business principals reflect the
culture that is prevalent in our education system.
It seems
that political correctness has taken precedence over core
business principals. The first duty of a business is to its
shareholders and employees is to make a profit. The
old-fashioned, one-dimensional financial bottom line must
always take precedence. The failure to do so, has its own
serious social consequences.
Business
is the wealth-creating institution of society. Its prime
“social” role is to meet consumers' needs in the most
efficient manner, and this is how capitalism has raised living
standards to the level we enjoy today.
Business
should not be seen as a social welfare adjunct, however it is
unsettling to discover that pupils like Alex Mackenzie will
soon be joining the profit apologists that are establishing
themselves in our business community.
Back
to top of page >>>
13 July
08
Roadworks
Code of Compliance
By
John Carter
It is of concern that there is not a code of compliance
for road works signage.
In some situations there is signage all over the place,
no men or machinery on the road (there could be or could have
been). We are asked to slow to 30kmph and indeed if we do not
then a policeman can cite us for an infringement.
Therefore there is a responsibility toward the motorist
to provide a realistic appreciation of the danger to
themselves as well as to the safety of the personnel who work
on the road.
The real problem seems to be that in approaching road
works with no personnel or equipment apparent a driver may be
seen to not comply
with the warning signs. That is dangerous because of the cry
wolf situation when there is a danger to themselves or the
personnel working.
It is proposed that a graduated system be applied which
more truthfully reflects the situation and that a trained and
qualified person in the gang
puts the signs up according to the code of compliance.
There is the ! sign, a LSZ sign, 80, 50, 30, stop
signs.
! and the men at work sign would indicate that there is
road works ahead or the road is not secure and you may need to
slow.
Next a LSZ would indicate to proceed with caution no
personnel are present and nothing is being done but work to
the side of the road , no road markings, or the surface has
loose stones. It would also serve as
slow down to the following signs. Emphasising the catch
phrase “Drive to the conditions when they change reduce your
speed.”
80 would indicate that people are present and equipment
moving to the side of the road but not impeding the flow of
traffic, loose stones had not been swept, 50 would indicate
work on the road surface or traffic across it and diversion
likely, water damage to the road, potholes 30 would indicate
that you should be prepared to stop, major road works are
causing you to drive on a broken surface.
And stop for stop.
At night signage and diversions are universally in the
dark and that is worse if the driver is not familiar with the
route, or it is raining. I propose that any requirement to
slow to below 50 is lit with warning lights and route lights.
And when road works are completed the signs are
removed.
As part of this process of giving drivers more
responsibility, it could mean that where drivers did not
comply and obviously went through road works with no concern,
the qualified person could forward their registration number
to the police who would issue a warning; three such warnings
over a year could constitute an
infringement.
The signs would be placed say a stipulated 500m from
each relevant zone so that the driver knows he has 500 m to
comply with the roadwork signs which are 500m up the road.
Back
to top of page >>>
3 July
08
Chinese
Free Trade - Path to the New Third World
By
Frederick Van Dorestien
Democracy is a very poor form of government but
precious to citizens who value human rights; individual
rights, equal opportunity, the right of free speech and the
right to chose governments and construct democratic law.
Such vital functions of freedom have not yet been won
by the Chinese people.
The Chinese Communist Party rules with oppression and
totalitarian power that crushes any form of opposition.
A multitude of detention camps and organ transplant
hospitals are strategically placed in China to round up any
outbreak of emerging democracy and break its body and spirit.
These labour detention camps manufacture product marketed in
Australia and New Zealand.
COMMERCIAL PREPARATION...
The Communist’s aim is to gain tacit control of raw
materials vital to maintain their hold on absolute Chinese
political power and manufactured wealth provided by an
exploited and controlled labour market that is not liberated.
There is noticeable investment infiltration into New Zealand
and Australian strategic public utilities like power
generation networks, grids and large electricity generating
corporations. The Chinese Government is also currently
purchasing substantial slices of Australian mineral resource
companies and is in a hostile takeover of a leading ore
producing Australian corporation. Parliaments are politically
indifferent to these emerging trends on both sides of the
Tasman.
THE PATH TO THE NEW THIRD WORLD...
In traditional economic terms, a third world nation was
categorised by impoverishment caused by insufficient wealth
per capita for citizens to purchase basic household items.
Such circumstances prevented the development of
manufacturing industries within the country that could produce
essential items for domestic consumption.
These inadequacies prohibited successful economic and
employment growth.
Over the last two decades parliaments have stood by and
witnessed the ongoing demolition of our manufacturing
industries. Much
of this condescension has been justified on the need to
display benevolence on the global stage due to the wealth of
first world nations compared to emerging or developing
countries.
During this period many third world nations have
exploited opportunities and mobilised ultra low cost and slave
labour into a potent means in which to develop manufacturing
industries. Thus
the third world has been reclassified as the Developing
World. These developing nations have been producing
enormous balance of trade surpluses through investment
connections with global business for the founding expertise
and capital required. Whilst
the first or developed world, including the nations of New
Zealand and Australia, have continued to produce progressively
larger balance of trade deficits.
Huge debt based, unsustainable, economic growth and
importation of basic goods manufactured in developing
countries has been the outcome.
Political indifference continues.
So what of future consequences…?
THE EQUALISATION THEORY...
“The Equalisation Theory proposes that economic
reversal is in motion between the Third World (Developing
World) and the nations of the First World.
Whilst the Developing World is engaged in progressive
development that produces constant surpluses in economic and
trade terms, the First World maintains a consistent regression
that results in the creation of unrelenting trade imbalances
causing unsustainable deficits.
The theory is further reinforced by the ongoing
transference of manufacturing industries, from the First World
to the Developing World, in a reversal sense.”…Author.
It is not feasible to consider that First
World nations can maintain sustainable economic health and
current status without an extensive manufacturing industrial
base.
THE DOWNWARD SPIRAL...
The consequences of our First World debt growth based
economies are identified with the present global “Credit
Crunch” in 2008 that has resulted in a dramatic loss of
company value on global share markets and continuing loss of
productivity. Our
politicians must face the reality that our economies cannot
compete against unfair non-free market countries.
Our modern politics simply accepts perceived
inevitability and sidesteps national interest considerations.
The future holds a continuation of the current economic
“Reversal Spiral” unless politics moves away from
the imbalances of “Free” Trade Agreements toward
bilateral agreements and importation border protection fee
structures. There
are no choices.
The “Ripples” or “Oscillations” produced
as a by-product of debt based economies are exampled in the
collapsing events of 2007 and 2008. The 2007 “oscillation”
in the developed world share markets and the “current” 2008
“oscillation” have, globally, obliterated trillions
of dollars worth of value from the share and finance
markets. Yet
economists and politicians still refuse to accept that the
path to economic failure is in motion and these “corrections”
will become more frequent, deeper and last longer with
each successive downward step of productivity regression.
CHUNKS OF POVERTY...
In Australia, poverty continues to increase.
Today, some 2.5 million people are considered as
existing below the poverty line.
Outward NZ migration by residents conceals New
Zealand’s statistics. The
undisputable point is that fundamental flaws remain in
our base economies through massive trade imbalances that are
not being addressed by political parties or governments on
either side of the Tasman.
Following the Clarke government’s, politically
motivated, Free Trade Agreement with communist China more
manufacturers are closing down their New Zealand businesses
and moving offshore to the developing world. The Free Trade
public negotiation policy has clearly failed and must be
abolished.
The New Zealand Parliament had an excellent opportunity
to start a process that would have arrested the present
downhill path by acting on behalf of the majority of voters.
Thus circumventing the Chinese Free Trade
Agreement that will continue to demolish vital
manufacturing industries.
Frederick
Van Dorestien - Political
Economic Research, Wellington
- is an assumed name in the interests of Author Privacy.
References:Canadian
Independent Investigation Report (Chinese Organ Harvest),
Melbourne Institute of Applied Research (Poverty),Wikipedia
(Poverty), Trans Tasman Media (Articles)
Back
to top of page >>>
3 July
08
Rat
bones reduce colonisation time???
By
Martin Dout
Dr Janet Wilmshurst from
Landcare Research has just published her paper purporting to
show that the Pacific rat (Rattus Exulans) has only
been in
New Zealand
since about the year 1280 AD. This finding supposedly proves
that the species was introduced by the Polynesian-Maori. The
announcement was hailed as something to celebrate by
Maori-activist, Ranginui Walker, who stated that we can
finally lay to rest the "Moriori Myth".
The use of Rattus Exulans
as an indicator of "first
arrivals" was also employed fairly recently by Dr. Terry
Hunt of the
University
of
Hawaii
to prove that Polynesians were the first people to inhabit
Easter Island
. See: Late Colonization of
Easter Island
, by Hunt & Lipo, 2006. For insights into some of the
problems Hunt & Lipo failed to addressed see: http://www.celticnz.co.nz/Easter%20Island/Easter%20Island%201.htm
In
a similar vein, Wilmhurst states: "We are not
saying that Maori arrived at any different time than we
believed, but we are confirming that Maori were the first
people to settle
New Zealand
. There wasn't this other group that arrived in 200 BC. (
Christchurch
Press, June 4th, 2008).
She adds: "The
researchers are now turning their attention to other islands
in east
Polynesia
where similar controversies exist over the timing of initial
human settlement".
These
all-too-contrived statements sound suspiciously like
social-engineering and have a resounding propaganda ring to
them.
Unfortunately for Wilmhurst,
her hypothesis is in direct conflict with the careful research
of Richard N. Holdaway, Richard G. Roberts, Nancy R.
Beavan-Athfield, Jon M. Olley and Trevor H. Worthy, who proved
scientifically that the Pacific rat was in NZ at least a
1000-yrs before Maori arrived. See: Journal of the Royal
Society of
New Zealand
, Volume 32, Number 3, September 2002, pp. 463-505. This
can be downloaded from the Internet at: http://www.rsnz.org/publish/jrsnz/2002/024.php
The paper concludes with two
definitive statements:
"… hence, the presence
of Pacific rats in the
South Island
nearly 1000 years before Polynesian settlement."
"… the hypothesis that Pacific rats did not
reach the main islands of
New Zealand
until the time of Polynesian settlement about 750 years ago
must be rejected".
The insurmountable problem
for Dr. Janet Wilmhurst is that there were several stringently
imposed controls that led to this conclusion by Holdaway and
his colleagues. Two major ones were the carbon dating results
and the fact that at least one specimen of Rattus Exulans
had been found beneath undisturbed tephra ash deposits from a
volcanic explosion, the date of which was well known.
Ash band layers play a very
important part in dating the eras of
New Zealand
's unfolding history. The wonderful thing about this fairly
widely distributed tephra ash is that each band or layer
carries its own unique signature and the source location of
the ash can be identified. Coupled with that is the nature by
which volcanic ash settles. The largest and heaviest particles
fall first, so that the bottom of the band is the coarsest.
The layering gets progressively more refined until the top
layer, which can have the consistency of talcum powder. At
least one of Holdaway's 1996 Rattus Exulans specimens
came from beneath the Taupo explosion of (circa) 186 AD and it
was ascertained by very careful observation that the rat had
not burrowed down later to make a nest in the subsoil beneath
the ash band.
Holdaway comments: "most
archaeologists have never actually excavated through two feet
of ash. It seals everything underneath it. You can see every
last wormhole in it and you can see where there is damage to
it. So if something is underneath you know it was there before
the ash fell..." (See Rat Revisionist, NZ
Listener, 7th of December 1996).
Using
ash band layering, archaeologist Russell Price, in
collaboration with some of
New Zealand
’s leading scientists, uncovered clear signs of human
activity at Poukawa,
Hawkes
Bay
before the Waimihia volcanic explosion of 1320 BC.
As for the very deceptive way
in which Holdaway's comprehensive research has been obscured
or eclipsed by the press statements of Wilmhurst, he responded
to one interested party in the following irate manner:
"As usual, Landcare
misrepresented my research and results: I have never advocated
a 200 BC colonization or even visitation. In fact, I was
advocating an AD 1290 settlement before they were. That of
course leaves open the question of TRANSIENT visits (think of
Lieutenant James Cook). My data indicate some kind of visit by
transients about AD 200… during which Pacific rats were
introduced. The persistent miscitation of my data and views is
rather annoying.
"She cannot have been
referring to the SAME rat remains (the term 're-dating' is
completely misleading because the rat bones are totally
consumed in the dating process: dating another rat bone does
NOT re-date the first one. That would seem to be common
logic…)."
For
a larger article on this topic go to: http://www.onenzfoundation.co.nz/Rats.htm
Back
to top of page >>>
3 July
08
Qualmark's
Dark Green Agenda
Stewart Haynes
Qualmark
have bowed to political pressure by inserting an onerous
environmental criteria into its quality assurance assessment
system for accommodation providers, visitor activities,
transport and services.
This
is a knee-jerk reaction to appease political correctness and
nanny state’s broader initiative to introduce an
environmental doctrine to businesses and the public.
Qualmark New Zealand Limited is
New Zealand
tourism's official quality agency. It is a government -
private sector partnership between Tourism New
Zealand
and New Zealand Automobile Association.
Accommodation
providers undergo an assessment to become part of the Qualmark
licensing system. Properties are required to meet minimum
standards and star ratings are appraised on cleanliness,
safety, security and comfort and a range of guest
services.
Triple
bottom-line, Left wing corporate babble-speak has been
unilaterally introduced to businesses that are now expected to
“tell a story” to the public about their commitment
to “Responsible Tourism”
The
environmental criteria will focus primarily on environmental
concerns but will also measure any community activities the
operator chooses to engage in.
For
Qualmark licence holders providing motel accommodation, the
new environmental criteria will simply be inserted as a
separate section in Qualmark’s overall quality assurance
assessment criteria. This means that environmental and social
initiatives will be assessed alongside other sections of the
assessment and will be reflected in the final Qualmark star
gradings.
What
sort of weighting will Qualmark give to their new
environmental criteria? Well, it will start off at 5% and will
eventually blossom to 12% of the of the total quality
assurance assessment. The priority of importance given to
environmental issues in the assessment will eventually be
prioritised first equal with cleanliness. Properties will be
effectively forced to comply or put their star grading at
risk.
Qualmark
will impose their new environmental criteria to licence
holders from 1 August 2008. There is an assurance from
Qualmark that there will be no extra cost, however it is
unclear how long this will be able to be sustained. The
environmental criteria was seeded by government funding in
2006 with an injection of $300,000 over 2 years for research
& development. The Government have pledged further funding
of $840,000 over the next 3-years to help tourism businesses
grasp the new Qualmark standards.
What
impact will this have? Arguably accommodation providers
that introduce worm farms, compost waste and engage in feel
good community activities such as sponsoring the local cat
shelter could well boost the chances of a favourable star
rating. Arguably the opposite could also occur with
accommodation providers that have little opportunity or find
it economically unsustainable to fully embrace the new
environmental mantra. This will do nothing to advance the
accommodation industry and will erode Qualmark’s assessment
credibility with operators. Arguably this may also confuse the
public whom will face difficultly trying to decipher what the
tangible differences are between Qualmark’s star gradings.
There
is no denying that Qualmark’s environmental guidelines are
all worthy opportunities for some accommodation providers.
Most Accommodation providers already have environmental
practices based on actual consumer demand and economic
sustainability. It should be up to the individual operator as
to how their environmental practices can be furthered and
promoted.
This
initiative by Qualmark is the biggest shake up of its quality
assurance assessment criteria since its inception. Ironically
this has been announced with no direct consultation with the
very operators that this will have the greatest impact on.
There seems to be little understanding or empathy with what
impact this may have on typical Ma & Pa small tourism
businesses and will take the focus away from economic
sustainability and tangible guest services.
Stewart
Haynes is a second generation motelier that runs Teal motor
Lodge in sunny Gisborne with his wife Lynda. They also own the
business of White Heron Motor Lodge that is also situated in
Gisborne.
Stewart is a long time enthusiastic supporter of the
motel industry and has previously served on his local tourism
association and Motel Association executives. He was on the
Qualmark Industry Development Board, is the immediate past
national President of the Motel Association of NZ (MANZ) and
is currently an accredited mentor for MANZ. More recently,
Stewart has been elected to the board of Host Accommodation
NZ.
Back
to top of page >>>
3 July
08
Climate
Change
By Ken Ring
By Ken Ring
The call to arms at the moment is that " we must
stop climate change ". While we are at it we might also
want to stop earthquakes, volcanoes and possibly the rotation
of Earth, for all those contribute to the change of climate.
Then there is the geographical location of countries, because
distance from the equator largely determines seasonal
temperature trends.
As the poles slowly shift over thousands of years,
countries find themselves at varying latitudes and thus
experiencing more warmed, colder, drier or wetter seasons than
in previous thousands of years. Using our state-of-art
technology we need to be able to move the equatorial line as
we require. This should be at the whim of the UN and Al Gore,
because the contentment of polar bears and seal populations is
vastly more important than the welfare of humans. We know this
because there are currently lots of laws being drafted about
species-conservation but no international recommendations of
legislative measures for the protection of threatened members
of our race, many facing extinction from colder winters.
We also need to change the movement of the sun through
the Milky Way galaxy, because solar radiation cycles that
cause ice ages are contributory to "climate change".
The chemical composition of water might also be looked at,
because at the moment the steam molecule is lighter than air
and rises to form clouds but the cooler liquid H2O molecule is
heavier than air and sinks as rain, in which amounts these
contribute to climate. The ice molecule must also be altered
to allow ice to thaw at -70C, which is the current winter
temperature at the South Pole, and even at 0C which is the
current summer temperature 1000 miles south of the North Pole.
Otherwise the pesky poles will not stay melted all year
around, and snow and ice will return each winter. The average
height of the atmosphere will also have to be altered. At
present it is only 3-4 miles high at the poles, compared with
12-15 miles at the equator, which means that presently the
cold of space always comes closer to the polar ground,
freezing everything in sight. Truth be known, the ice caps
serve no useful purpose except as freakish landscapes which
block shipping and endanger kayakers. "Climate
change" is affected by their continuing presence and
international pressure must be organised to eliminate these
barren regions. Actually anywhere that trees don't grow is a
menace, because only trees can soak up CO2 which causes
"climate change". So that means all deserts,
beaches, airport tarmacs, tennis courts, streets, bridges and
rooftops will also have to be eliminated, as their surfaces
may, by being treeless, affect and bring about "climate
change".
Then there is the shape and positioning of mountain
ranges. We must relocate these. It is rather pointless
tolerating the existence of steep barren hillsides and oceans,
all which contribute to "climate change", if no
people are prepared to live and grow forests on them. Farming,
among other practices, is counter-productive to climate and
must be halted to stop "climate change". Animals
that belch are catapaulting the planet and solar system -
because Mars and Venus are also heating up - towards a
catastrophic end for the universe. Cows and sheep take up land
that could be used for forests.
Only the Green Party know the full extent of this, such
is their advanced wisdom on the matter. Meat and dairy
production must be stopped. Nor is eating vegetables an option
either, as they need to be harvested, and that requires
exercise which produces CO2. All engines, heaters and lights
must be stopped, because they cause or contribute to
"climate change". Nor can we burn candles(wax
produces CO2), walk anywhere(puff out more CO2), or light
fires(burning wood and coal produces CO2).
Fishing is ruinous to the climate because not only is
it an industry that uses boats that have engines which burn
fuel, but it also enables people to physically work, which
produces CO2. And because it harms a species of dolphin that
already is sensitive to "climate change", closing
down fishing is an environmental necessity.
All of life produces and consumes carbon, in an endless cycle.
As carbon contributes to "climate change" we must
end life.
Many measures are now in place to achieve this. Taxes
are being introduced that are forcing people into homelessness
and bankruptcy. The health service is grinding to a halt
because it is unworkable, allowing many to die, and there is
no effective police force left to prevent or adequately punish
those who choose to murder. Those in charge of our transport
are doing a fine job of eradicating life, with many dangerous
corners now in place, especially near schools, designing cars
that go ever faster on inadequate roads and a drinking culture
that ensures plenty of driving errors. Larger loads on trucks
are now being introduced that will increase the numbers of
these accidents. Finally the world's seas, the sky, and the
troposphere, through the loss and gain of carbon dioxide
absorption and surface release of carbon dioxide, have also
been found to affect "climate change" and therefore
should be gotten rid of. We cannot tip the sea into the sea
because that has already been done. Removal of the sky also
poses problems. How to complete the task will no doubt occupy
the creative minds of generations to come. You can bet the
research grants are being applied for right now.
For more
from Ken, see www.predictweather.com
Back
to top of page >>>
15 June
08
Working
with David: Inside the Lange Cabinet
By
Hon Michael Bassett
In
Wellington last Monday night my new book “Working with
David: Inside the Lange Cabinet” was launched by Professor
Margaret Clark of Victoria University. It was a grand family
occasion. My son Sam, an Auckland accountant, was MC, and my
wife, daughter, daughter in law and grand daughter were all
there. So too were many from the political family which pushed
through the reforms of the 1980s that freed up the economy and
eased us into the modern, globalizing world. Geoffrey Palmer,
Roger Douglas, Stan Rodger, Russell Marshall, David Butcher,
Ken Shirley and Peter Neilson rubbed shoulders with Jim McLay,
Don Brash and Bob Jones, and a number of leading Wellington
people. It was a reunion of many of the biggest contributors
to politics over the last thirty years.
“Working
with David” is drawn from the huge number of documents I
gathered during my own political career. I took notes at every
Labour caucus and cabinet meeting of my political career and
there are many notes from colleagues and personal memos
written after discussions with them. The thrust of the book is
that the Fourth Labour Government was a game of two halves.
Between 1984 and 1987 while David Lange’s health held up,
there was cooperation at the highest levels within the
cabinet. “You can’t put a cigarette paper between me and
Roger”, Lange said at one point as the ministry pushed on
with deregulation and the creation of state-owned enterprises.
The
second half of the government after Labour was returned with
an increased majority in August 1987 gradually faded off into
controversy as David Lange succumbed to a variety of illnesses
and to alcoholism. He couldn’t work out how to resolve his
relationship with his speechwriter who admits that she kept
advising him to fire Roger Douglas. “Who elected her?” the
editor of the Herald asked
tartly after Lange followed her advice and sacked Richard
Prebble and Roger Douglas. And yet the reforms continued
despite an increasingly dysfunctional ministry. The Reserve
Bank Act 1989, Bill Jeffries’ ports reforms, and my local
government reforms came into force, and charitable trusts took
over ownership of the assets of savings banks. Some
privatizations of state assets took place. That process
gradually reduced the government’s debt, thus helping bring
the rampant inflation that we had inherited in 1984 under
control.
“Working
with David” is a book about a reforming government at work.
Many students of politics will find interesting the details
about the operations of cabinet and caucus. I’m sure I have
made occasional mistakes, although I tried to be very careful
as my footnotes show. I interviewed most of my cabinet
colleagues. Maybe some more MPs from that government, and
others since, will be encouraged to write their memoirs? After
all, books of this kind are common in other countries but
surprisingly rare in New Zealand. I’d be the first to
welcome some more of them.
Back to
top of page >>>
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.
The reality is that through the United Nations,
too many people, and too many nation states, are over-involved
in other people's business, and insufficiently involved in
their own. They need to be told in the strongest and most
direct terms to take responsibility for engaging with the
conditions in their own countries that inhibit wealth
creation.
Back
to top of page >>>
21
January 08
Some
reasons why Global Warming is not the result of “humans”
By
John Poole
I
suggest to all those people that support the theory of
"Climate Change", that this is the appropriate
title, as the climate is changing and always has done.
The point
is, are humans responsible? In my opinion the short answer is
no, but we have many politicos and scientists around the world
that are going along with this theory – ‘scam’ I would
call it. They have many people on their staff whose job it is
to look for the reasons for climate change. Unfortunately they
appear to be following one school of thought, that “humans
are responsible”. Most of their reasons for this is derived
from “computer models” although there is plenty of
evidence of “global warming” in the past millennium that
suggest other wise.
There are those out there scare mongering, and painting a very
disturbing picture, particularly the estimates of the oceans
rising. If the sea levels are going to rise, then surely we
should be doing something about safe guarding our shores, most
of the big cities of the world, are on the sea side or on
rivers. Now here is the un-talked about part of the theory:
seas rising that is - if the seas rise, the rivers rise, and
anyone who really thought this was going to happen, should
surely start putting the pumps and electrics of the Sky
scrapers on the third or fourth floor. Like wise all subways
and under ground services should be brought above ground and
put high enough to not be effected by the rise in water
levels, and let them not forget the inland towns and cities,
that are on the rivers.
But of
course this is not going to happen. I will tell you why: all
this "Global Warming", as it was called before the
safer bet was to call it “climate change”, has been
produced
by
computer modelling. You don't have to do that, just go back to
facts. It is a fact that the "Vikings"
farmed on Green Land, from between about AD 850 to AD
1350, allow for a hundred years before that for the ice to be
seen to be melting, so you have a situation where for six
hundred years there has been ice melting. Let’s not forget
the North West Passage, was clear of ice, and the
"Vikings” navigated it and left stone cairns to show
the way.
Now right bang in the middle of this time, the six hundred
years that the “Ice” had been receding, “William the
Conqueror", crossed the English Channel and landed on the
coast of England at Pevensey Bay. Now with three hundred years
or so of "Global Warming", at that time, was the
English Channel wider because of all that extra water, was -
Pevensey Bay further inland than it is now? Let’s look it up
to find out.
“Pevensey
is a small village which was built on the east side of Pevensey
Castle walls, its history is tied in very closely
with the Castle. Its name comes from the Saxon
"Pefe Ie" , and translates to the "Island of
Pefe" in time this has degenerated to Pefeie then
Pevensey. In Roman
times, the sea lapped around the base of the castle, since
then the sea has retreated, and is now about 2 miles away at Pevensey
Bay.”
So
at the time when the seas should have been rising, according
to these computer model’s, the sea actually receded, taking
into fact that at the time of the Romans building the Pevensey
Castle, the Ice Melt of AD 800 had not even started.
So we had
a situation where the Romans built a Fort on the edge of the
English Channel, some time before AD four hundred, and yet ice
started melting in the Artic two or three hundred years later
and the sea actually receded. Why did the sea recede with all
that extra ice melt? One theory is that it gets taken up in
the form evaporation.
Now the experts tell us that the weight of ice on
Greenland actually has pushed the land down, perhaps the extra
weight of water in the oceans, pushes the sea bed down.
To cement my findings:
the Tower of London was built by William the Conqueror on the
side of the River Thames at the height of the supposedly
higher sea levels due to ice melt in the Artic? One would have
thought that the Tower would be further north of the river if
indeed the river was wider in those times of ice melt. The
"Magna Carter” was signed at the side of the river at
Runnymede - that place is still where it was, as are all the
bridges in Europe. Some of them were built before the so
called "Global Warming" and they were not awash by
the onslaught of rising water levels.
The “London Stone”, that the Romans erected to show
where the Thames tidal flow reached, is now quite some
distance down stream, to where the tidal effect is now. This
is easily explained by the fact that modern shipping has
required deeper and wider channels in the Thames estuary, and
marsh lands that reduced the tidal flow have been dredged
away, therefore the force of the sea reaches further inland.
Radcot
Bridge, north of Faringdon, is a triple arched 12th century
bridge which has foundations that may date back to Saxon times
and is the oldest surviving bridge on the Thames.
"Stamford
Bridge” is where Harold defeated the Norsemen, at this time
as well. There will be evidence that the river levels at those
places, is no different to the present time.
There was
a King of England called “Kanute”. His subjects thought he
was all-powerful. To prove them wrong he sat on the beach and
commanded the sea to stop rising. He failed - not surprising!
It is said he never wore his “Crown” again, to show that
he was mortal.
I have
given some plausible explanations for the argument, against
the “Global Warming “theories”. I hope you will take
time to give it some serious consideration.
The writer is not an educated person, but he does take the
time to do a bit of research on the web - as any one can. It
is a pity more of the people that count, don’t!
Back
to top of page >>>
12
January 08
Message from Sweden
By
Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Here's a good piece of news from Sweden: On Nov
9, inst. Ystad District Court acquitted a father who had
smacked his 5-year old daughter. I have translated an article
that was published in Aftonbladet for your convenience.
This case, like the 2004 case with the 15 year old who spat in
her stepfather's face, is going to get a lot of attention.
I guess people are starting to realise that "We
are bringing up a generation of monsters" that Linda Skugge
wrote about and that really "The
children are embarrassing Sweden", to quote Roger Lord. And maybe they are beginning to
realise that it is better to smack them to change their
ways than have some desperate parents shoot them off in an
attempt to protect their families, like the case in Rodeby on
October 6, inst.
Sincerely
Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Smacked
5-year old - father acquitted
He admitted but smacking the District Court meant that
the blows were not hard enough.
Aftonbladet - 2007-11-14 http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article1250685.ab
A father in southern Skåne has been acquitted, in
spite of him admitting to smacking his 5 year old daughter.
The District Court's views are that the blows should not be
judged as abuse.
The reactions to the verdict came immediately.
A faulty verdict. I expect that it is going to be
changed in the appeal, says Göran Harnesk, general secretary
for Children's rights in the Society (Bris), to the Telegram
Bureau.
According to the District Court, the 54 yr old father
from Skåne, has smacked his daughter's bottom on several
occasions. But the corrections have not been sufficiently long
lasting and intense for him to be punished. The pain has not
been sufficiently serious, according to the Court. Göran
Harnesk thinks it is the wrong way to reason.
Zero tolerance is what it is about. A child can feel bad even
if it doesn't feel physical pain. It is the belittling that is
decisive, he says.
Convincing
impression
The judge and one of the lay-judges gave dissenting
opinions and wanted to sentence the father to fines for
assault to a lesser degree. However, the Court was unanimous
in acquitting the girl's 42-year old mother, who admitted that
she had "flicked" her on the head on one occasion
when she was stubborn. That, according to the verdict, does
not meet the level of punishable abuse.
It was the girl who spontaneously started telling a
nurse about her punishments when she attended her five year
health examination. I a video filmed questioning the girl said
"Daddy has smacked me on my bottom so it hurt when he had
come home from work and was very angry. ...Also Mamma hit me
on my head once so it hurt."
According to the District Court the girl gave a mature
and convincing impression. Her parents have explained their
actions by the girl's stubbornness.
Clear legislation
The Children's ombudsman (CO) Lena Nyberg is not allowed to
comment on particular cases, but she points out that Sweden
has a very clear legislation concerning child abuse.
- Adults are not allowed to use physical punishment or
violence towards children.
The CO deems that there is the need for a new information
campaign about adult's violence towards children like the one
that was staged when the anti-smacking law was passed in 1979.
- Now there is a new generation of parents who perhaps need to
be informed that it is forbidden and what they should do
instead of using violence when the feel that they are not on
top of the situation, Nyberg says.
The Telegram Bureau was unsuccessful in reaching the
prosecutor, but the lawyer Hans Hulthén, who represented the
girl, has told the Skåne Daily that he is considering an
appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Acts:
Previous acquittal was overturned
In 2004 a man was acquitted by the Varberg District
Court, in spite of the fact that he had smacked and pushed his
15-year old stepdaughter. The verdict was changed in the Court
of Appeal and the man was sentenced to fines for petty abuse.
Smacking is prohibited in Sweden since 1979. From 1980 to 2000
it seems that the number of children who were smacked
declined. Since then the numbers have been on the increase.
According to an investigation made by the University of
Karlstad and the Children's home Charity, 1.1 percent of the
parents who were interviewed in 2000 admitted that they had
smacked their child. In 2006 the number was 2.3 percent.
During the first half of this year there were 714 police
notifications about abuse of small children, according to the
National Council for Crime Prevention. The reports have been
increasing for several years.
Back
to top of page >>>
19
December 07
Carbon Footprints
By
Dominic
Last
week I was invited to participate in a "Focus Group"
on global warming. As I assumed the meeting was organised by a
marketing company. I chose to go along out of curiosity as to
the type of client who would be paying for this sort of
discussion.
They
kicked off cautiously asking the group if they had personally
experienced the effects of global warming. A nice lady to my
left began by informing the group that she had indeed felt the
changes, describing recent weather events hot or cold as
harbingers of the dread global warming. After 7 years in
Sydney she has returned to a New Zealand winter where she was
able to wear a T shirt all season and records showed average
temperatures had not been this high since 1980 something. As
she spoke a few polite nods of assent came from various
members of the group.
Next to
share his view was a chap from across the table. While he had
not personally felt much change he focussed on the need for
his business to appear to be carbon neutral commenting that
protesters in England were picketing airports and haranguing
travellers for the thoughtlessness and greed demonstrated by
their choosing to travel from where ever in airplanes thus
speeding up the inevitable destruction of the planet. This
form of protest he wisely surmised would soon manifest in
overseas markets boycotting NZ produce because of the air
miles it must travel to reach their shores.
In reply
to the first question I too agreed that I had noticed the
changes caused by global warming. The effect on me is
pronounced. I get hot flushes and short tempered because of
global warming. I pointed to the fact that not a day would go
by that was not marked by news bites reporting ministers and
environmentalists stating that Global warming was a fact and
therefore all policy, debate, discussion and media reporting
on the subject must start with the indisputable premise that
we all know global warming is happening. Leaving us with only
one thing to focus on which is the next indisputable fact, as
we all know Carbon is the cause of it all. This pair of
'facts', like the laws of physics are immutable which is handy
because this leaves only the important issue of what we must
do about our 'carbon footprint'. It is too big so how do we
reduce it. We can look to our churches for the answer. We can
end sin and world hunger only by faith in our doctrines,
living right and money. So that people who know better than
you and I can fix the problem for us.
The
devil is Carbon my brothers and sisters and we are going to
charge you in so many ways for the carbon you didn't even know
you were creating.
I
concluded that until I see weather events that are not
followed by statements like the worst forest fires since 1987
or the highest water levels since 1963 I can not be told that
things are trending in any direction. In the late 70s we were
told that the world was plunging into another ice age, In 2000
the worlds economy was going to collapse due to the Y2K bug
and throughout this decade we have had global pandemics one
after another like SARs and the newer nastier Birdflu I hope
you all had your tammy flu shots or Mr Tammy Flu will not be
happy?
To my
great pleasure I noticed that everyone in the room was in
total agreement with me and all, including the two card
carrying greenies shared their stories of similar loss of
faith in the Global warming religion. While we all rambled the
two marketing people and the quiet woman from the firm of
consultants who were planning on offering a service where they
could give your home and business a carbon reduction
certification for a small fee, kept trying to bring us back to
the point of our focus meeting which was to show we had a need
and would be prepared to pay for Carbon footprint consultants.
We all agreed that it was important to the world and to each
of us to reduce waste, and that we should incentivise farmers
to use zero chemicals and that we should clean up our
waterways and pressure countries with rain forest to stop
destroying them. But equally we all as a group firmly, bluntly
stated that Carbon was a dirty word and Carbon was a smoke
screen for hidden agendas that did not focus on the
environment in any way.
Back
to top of page >>>
17
December 07
Only a second chamber
will save us from a despotic cabal in the House of
Representatives
By
David Thornton
Much has
been said and written about the allegedly undemocratic
implications in the Electoral Finance Bill [the EFB].
As the
spokesman for a well-known and well supported lobby group I am
deeply concerned that my group’s voice may, at worst be
silenced, and at best our opinions, if published, will be
scrutinised for breaches of an undemocratic law.
Not to
mention the bureaucratic nightmare we will have to go through
to register as a so-called ‘third party’ in election year.
But much
scarier for all people in this country are the implications
for New Zealand democracy in the ever-increasing irrelevance
of Parliament as the place to which the people can turn to
defend the rights of the individual – and as the place to
hold the government of the day accountable.
The way
that Labour MPs, and their supporters, closed out debate
during the critical committee stages of the Electoral Finance
Bill reminded me of tin pot dictatorships that litter the
historical and present landscape of third world countries.
After just
a couple hours of debate Labour members repeatedly called for
the “question to be put” (the closure motion), and these
calls were agreed to by the Assistant Speakers (Labour), who
were presiding over of the Committee of the Whole House – a
parliamentary process which enables all MPs to debate select
committee reports on legislation on a clause by clause basis.
In
response, the Shadow Leader of the House, National’s Gerry
Brownlee, - asked for the Speaker to be recalled, a quite
unusual step when the House is “in Committee”.
The Speaker
– Margaret Wilson (Labour), - consistently agreed with the
motion to close debate, and that was it.
As she
pointed out, the chairperson is the sole judge of motions to
terminate debate.
Thus there
was no real debate on all the amendments put forward by
National, which incidentally has only one seat less than
Labour in the House.
Gone are
the days when, under the concept of Westminster democracy, we
had speakers who were truly independent – a situation still
largely true of the present British House of Commons
Along come
the Greens, United Future and NZ First to support Labour in an
attempt to preserve their own tenuous grip on continued
representation in Parliament.
Who knows
what deals were done behind closed doors to secure the support
of those minor parties?
The minor
parties are exerting far too much influence over a major party
which is desperate to retain power by any means it can.
The EFB is
but the latest example of Parliament’s increasing
irrelevance as the ‘People’s House’.
Labour’s
‘theft’ of Parliamentary funds for its electioneering
pledge card. This applies to many other parties in the House
– although the biggest culprits were Labour and its
supporting minor parties.
We are
witnessing increasing attacks – under Parliamentary
privilege - on civil servants.
More and
more untrue, incorrect or misleading statements by Ministers
have had to be subsequently corrected.
The
debating chamber, now televised for all to see, is reminiscent
of an out-of-control under-age kindergarten
Bad
behaviour is of course always headlined – and the usual
excuse is that the debating chamber is a boiling cauldron
which sometimes gets very heated.
But even
bad behaviour could be forgiven if the House made decisions
which were democratically arrived at.
New Zealand
is one of the few developed countries to be governed by a
single chamber of elected representatives.
The is no
second chamber where new and controversial legislation can be
subjected to further scrutiny – and be delayed if in the
public interest.
We, the
people, are not protected from the actions of a despotic
minority government and its avaricious allies.
New Zealand
used to have a second chamber – the Legislative Council.
This was abolished in 1951 – possibly because its structure
and membership form were inappropriate for a modern democracy.
But without
that second chamber there is absolutely no way to contain a
government intent on pushing through constitutional
legislation with the aim of ensuring its own re-election at
any cost.
It is time
for the establishment of a new second chamber, elected by a
democratic process, which would have the power and ability to
delay any legislation which it decreed to be against the
public interest.
While many
may baulk at the thought of even more politicians, democratic
government in this country - of the people, by the people, for
the people – will surely perish if we do not have an
effective brake on the unbridled powers of a despotic cabal in
the House of Representatives.
Back
to top of page >>>
 2
December 07
Marching
to the Drum
Marching
to the Drum in the bright sunlight,
Each
of us unknown to the other but bound by a common cause.
Thousands of us, all different, all colours, all political
persuasions, marching together in unison to the beat of the
drum in the bright sunlight today in Queen Street.
A
powerful thing is united action.
Our
unification was brought about by the crass stupidity of our
Prime Minister in riding roughshod over our democratic rights
and our sensitivities as responsible, fair minded, ordinary
New Zealanders.
In
ramming through the Electoral Finance Bill to further her own
ends she has grossly underestimated the sense of outrage in
the electorate. She does not realise the enormity
| 
