Young Supporters of New Zealand First

ACTresses & Air-Heads

2012-02-06T18:37:00.000+13:00

It is alleged that Napoleon once advised never to ascribe to malice that which could adequately be explained by incompetence.

In the case of the ACT Party, the distinction appears to be meaningless.

Take, for example, John Banks announcing that he's "much more interested in the penguins at Antarctica than I am in some of the social problems that we have in New Zealand".

I'm honestly not sure whether that counts as incompetence or malice.

On one level, it's clearly rank stupidity. Successful politicians don't usually go out of their way to make themselves appear out of touch with the concerns of their constituents, even if they've been smart enough to be vague about which of those concerns they don't care about.

On another level, it's malice. If you're anti-gay rights or anti-abortion, then you're quite welcome to read into Banks' comments that he's just as apathetic about these issues as you are. And, as an added bonus, Banks cares about the welfare of endangered animals and a pristine Antarctic wilderness.

For a certain sort of (socially conservative) right-wing voter, this message ticks all the subconscious boxes.
It's also just vague enough for anything unsavoury to be plausibly deniable if he's confronted about it.
Full marks for figuring out how to pander to the base without alienating the swing voters *too* terribly much.

I'm not going to touch Banks' various and sundry comments about South Auckland as they've already been done to death elsewhere, except to note the vanishingly small line between incompetence and malice in ACT's parliamentary caucus that these evidence.

It's incompetent to galvanize a large swathe of the Auckland electorate against you by referring to their part of the city as a "social disaster"; and it's malicious to subsequently characterize the browner denizens of that area as subsisting on benefits in order to "sit in front of TV, smoke marijuana, watch pornography, and plan more drug offending, more burglaries" with the ultimate objective of "coming through our windows if we live in Epsom".

My inner cynic wonders why Banks wasn't so quick to condemn the white-collar (and mostly white) criminals who are disproportionately concentrated in his (and my) Epsom electorate.

Oh that's right, it's because it'd mean condemning guys like Banks' business partner, Peter Huljich.

Then again, Banks does occasionally say things that prove Napoleon's maxim.

His recent assertion that Onehunga College was a charter school was presumably just incompetence, rather than a devious soundbite designed to make it seem like ACT's new and unmandated shakeup of the education sector wasn't nearly as untried, unfamiliar, or foreign as it actually was.

Unfortunately, his incompetence here doesn't reflect very well on his ability comprehend, much less implement the wide-ranging "reforms" he's seeking for our kids.

With comments like these, I'd respectfully suggest that Deborah Coddington dubbed the wrong inept white male the Mr Magoo of Kiwi politics.

In any case, lest we think this curious combination of odiousness and incompetence is something new in ACT's leadership, let's cast our minds back to a man who was apparently unaware of that other political maxim ... "when you're already in the hole, stop mining the conservation estate".

It's odious to suggest that we must open an open-cast mine at Pike River in order to respect the men who died there; it's barely conceivable incompetence to suggest ruining our pristine conservation estate with strip-mining to create a tourist attraction.

It was, however, karmically appropriate for him to suggest there was a "silly old man leading [my] party" in light of Hide's eventual fate as leader of ACT.

Fortunately, there's a new generation of ACTress unburdened by the rank bigotry and frank incompetence of their predecessors ready to take the helm and steer the party back to being one of high-minded principle.

Oh wait...

It's one thing to call Labour out for alleged breaches of the Electoral Finance Act (weird, considering ACT was so dead set against said act that they were prepared to take then-Attorney General Michael Cullen to court over it) ... but it's quite another to try and compare Labour with the Nazi Party based around their shared use of the colour red and the fact they've both got youth wings.

ACT on Campus' persistent use of rape, whether to intimidate opponents or just to make really weird and unfounded comparisons also does nothing to endear them in my eyes.

Maybe Rick Giles wasn't so bad after all.

ACTing Out The Past

2012-02-06T00:39:00.000+13:00

This is a screenshot of ACT's website taken on the morning of the 6th of February.

There are two points of interest which I've emphasised in red for the benefit of the reader.

First, ACT obviously hasn't gotten over its crushing defeat in last year's election and is still claiming to have 5 MPs.

It's been two months, guys! Time to let go and get over it!

Ordinarily I'd have put that kind of fossilized display down to neglect for a poorly used asset; but seeing as somebody's seen fit to update the site with Banks' Address in Reply (a fossilized display of a different kind), it would appear there's some wilful obfuscation going on.

I'd tell ACT to stop living in the past, but that seems rather harsh on a party which doesn't have a future.
It would also be rather hard given their choice of Caucus Member, and the fact that Banks' speech seems substantively to be a pining ode to an imaginary 1990s.

Yes, you read that correctly. Somebody has actually developed fond nostalgia for the 90s.

The second point of interest is that it's finally dawned on John Banks why the House empties whenever he gets up to speak.

As the man himself puts it, "there is a belief that not every Member of Parliament has something worthwhile to say."

Hat-tip to Frankly Speaking.

Tenants, but in whose own country?

2012-02-05T23:27:00.000+13:00

Mark Twain once wrote that while History might not repeat, it certainly does rhyme.

Image is courtesy of Frank Macskasy's excellent blog Frankly Speaking and reposted with kind permission.

For a few blankets more...

2012-01-29T12:43:00.000+13:00

There's a common theme in films involving time-travel of eerie warnings sent back to the present from the future.

This has always struck me as doing things exactly the wrong way round.

So, without further ado, I give you ... a Warning from History about selling land to foreigners courtesy of my ancestors.

Let's not make the same mistake they did.

Tragedy. Farce. Stupidity. And a few blankets for land.

2012-01-27T20:56:00.000+13:00

This morning's announcement that National had approved the sale of the Crafar Farms to Chinese owned Shanghai Pengxin brought to mind Marx's dictum that when History repeats, it does so the first time as tragedy and the second time as farce. He might well have added that it third repeats as stupidity.

This isn't the first time a minority have sold off something that belongs to all of us to foreigners.

A century and a half ago, the problem was endemic in Maori society.
One guy would flog off tribal land to a British-owned company for some trinkets and quickly squandered personal wealth.

You'd think we'd have learnt not to trade our land, heritage and birthright for blankets and glass beads!

I am, of course, aware that the Crafar Farms were privately owned and thus not strictly something we held collective title over ... but we could have.

Landcorp has been administering the farms for some time now, and will apparently be required to still do so under Chinese ownership. It will pay $18 million a year for the privilege.

Eighteen Million.

To do what it's been doing to this point for no charge.

And the Prime Minister has the nerve to say we're not being made tenants in our own country!

What strikes me as even more odious is the fact that Landcorp was set up and endowed by previous governments to buy up and run farmland.

Farmland precisely like the Crafar Farms.

The difference between the Fay-led bid and the Shanghai Pengxin bid was around $30 million.

That's a little under two years worth of the rent we'll be paying to the Chinese.

And under Landcorp, the profits wouldn't be going overseas, they'd be being reinvested here.

So the questions almost ask themselves ... Why aren't we doing that?
Why are we not allowing the state organisation we've set up to buy and manage farmland ... to buy and manage Kiwi farmland? Why are we allowing the profits to go offshore and why are we allowing the Chinese to buy our productive assets when we're not allowed to buy theirs?

For that matter, why are we allowing some foreigners to buy land in the name of investment and fostering growth ... but not allowing others like Kim DotCom (a resident and an entrepreneur) the same privilege?

Apart from some $100,000 in donations to the National Party and the fact the Chinese had rather more weight at the negotiating table, what's the difference?

We forced DotCom to rent rather than buy. Why should we not get the Chinese to do the same?

Interestingly, this is exactly the Chinese position on foreign land ownership - and with good reason. The Chinese have learnt from their own history. They know what it's like to be economically colonized by a foreign superpower (in this case, the British) and they've never forgotten it.

I only wish we could do the same.

Think about it. On asset sales, on ACC privatization; on John Banks in government and on a race-relations policy that can quite literally be described as "Separate But Equal" ... we haven't learnt.

And that brings me to another cliche I'll use to close.

Santayana.
"Those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them!"

2011-11-27T12:28:00.001+13:00

"When you sup with the Neoliberal ... use a long-handled spoon"

2011-11-13T09:37:00.001+13:00

Much has been made this week of NZF's surge in the polls. We thank the media for finally deciding to sit up and take note of what's sure to be one of the more interesting stories this election - our comeback.

However, a surge in Peters-popularity inevitably causes all manner of spurious allegations to come out of the woodwork from the man and the party's detractors. We've already seen the re-hashing of hackneyed versions of the Owen G Glenn saga which omit to mention the police report finding in Winston's favour. Others have sought to raise the specter of Winston the Kingmaker, calling him a reason to vote against MMP due to his deftness at post-election negotiation.

Certain elements in the media (chiefly in my mind this morning's Sunday Herald editorial) are now attempting to undermine our post-election coalition position by spinning the hell out of our two previous Near-Government Experiences (rather like a near-Death experience except with more bureaucracy).

The customary opening claim runs "in 1996 Winston campaigned on destroying National and then went into government with them."

This is then followed with disparaging remarks about the 2005 arrangement, which usually attempts to seriously mis-characterise NZF's interaction with the then-Labour government.

What they're saying is that NZF can't be trusted to *remain* in opposition once we return to Parliament.

Their general thrust is plain - "you shouldn't trust Winston to keep the Government honest in 2011".

Which is ridiculous. Here's why. John Key has ruled Winston out. Winston has ruled John Key out. John Key has ruled out not selling assets. Winston has *very emphatically* ruled selling assets out. There is thus prima facie no reason to assume NZF will go into government with National in 2011.

The counter-factual narrative then usually ripostes by suggesting that New Zealand First had ruled National out in 1996. This is severely misinterpreting Winston's remark that "the price of a coalition agreement ought to be Jim Bolger's head". And, as it turned out, the price of a coalition agreement was more to the tune of ending asset sales, keeping ACT out of government, free doctor's visits for under-6s and moves toward compulsory national savings and a universal student allowance.
Or, in other words, New Zealand First hadn't ruled out National, and made substantial gains and unquestionable gains for New Zealand by going into coalition.

This contrasts markedly with 2011, wherein Winston has very definitely ruled out National; although I suppose it torments the Business Round Table no end to speculate whether he might reverse this position and entertain negotiations ... if he were to re-take his old Treasurer role and once again end the neoliberal agenda of a wayward National party.

Interestingly, it also contrasts rather markedly with the post-election stance adopted by The Greens, who consistently refuse to rule out National.
This despite its highly publicised recent use of Robyn Malcolm to castigate the Prime Minister and its seemingly-now-abandoned taxation egalitarianism.

Our logic, in effect, was this. We cannot in good conscience go into government with a major party that plans to destroy and to cheapen the nation that we love. National's second term agenda is precisely this.
They have declared they will not countenance any party which won't aid and abet them in this.
The Maori Party voting to raise GST to 15% and make our tax system more unfair as the price of its confidence & supply votes is a prime example.

National have said they will stake their second term on partial asset sales. They're hell-bent on it.
They've supped tea with the Neoliberals in Epsom to try and bring their partners in crime ACT back to help them. The record of both parties in office also suggests frank economic incompetence. Under this three-ring political circus, we've seen a massive increase in the number of Kiwis seeking a Brighter Future in Australia.
We've seen rampant inflation, rampant public debt to pay for unfair tax cuts, and rampant spending cuts to both the public purse and our own wallets. We've seen all manner of shadowy constitutional and economic posturing. We've seen the Foreshore & Seabed and aspects of our economic sovereignty quite literally given away. The record of the last three years suggests the Key-lead government might well have resembled the bridge of the Rena.

Foreign Owned.

Any party which is not prepared to rule out coalition with National is, in effect, refusing to rule out assisting National in the despoilment of the country which we hold so dear.
Any party which is not prepared to be honest with voters about its post-election posturing has something to hide.

There would have to be some seismic shifts in heaven, earth, and National Party ethos before coalition with them became an idea which any party genuinely committed to social justice and national sovereignty could support.

Securing our Context & Protecting our Perspective

2011-11-11T00:32:00.000+13:00

As the 2011 campaign heats up, so to do the sentiments and the tempers of those involved in it.

Several times in the last week, NZF Youth have run into other parties' online activists brandishing the quote
"We have now reached the point where you can wander down Queen Street in Auckland and wonder if you are still in New Zealand - or some other country".
This is then customarily followed with a screaming and hysterical array of vague and ill-substantiated allegations of xenophobia.

Now, anybody who's read the quote in-context - that is to say, anyone who's actually read the speech it originated in rather than a sensationalised excerpt - will appreciate how inaccurate this is.

Here's a short precis.

"Being a New Zealander is something precious.

That is why we called ourselves New Zealand First.

It means that we place our country above ourselves.

We believe in words like patriotism, loyalty and traditional values.

We believe in the concept of the people of this country owning it.

We believe that we must protect and defend it.

And we believe that we have the right to say who should come and share it with us."

"The last census revealed that over 300,000 people in New Zealand spoke little or no English."

"New Zealand is for New Zealanders. This is our place.
The rest are here at our invitation. We will weed out those illegals who should not be here.
We will not have 20,000 overstayers 'give or take five percent'
And those who are here for genuine reasons and want to contribute and become New Zealanders, we will welcome.
And give them the same rights as New Zealanders."

What's so xenophobic about that?

"The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed"

2011-11-04T23:39:00.000+13:00

Guicciardini once wrote "L'imitazione del male supera sempre l'esempio; comme per il contrario, l'imitazione del bene è sempre inferiore". For those of us who, like myself, never pursued Italian beyond Latin .. this translates as
"He who imitates what is evil always goes beyond the example that is set; on the contrary, he who imitates what is good always falls short."

For anyone who's followed the progressive political plagiarism of NZF's policies over the previous two decades, the meaning of the above quote will be clear.

What Guicciardini meant was that it is very difficult to copy the beliefs and actions of another and put them into practice without losing something in the process. When seeking to wreak destruction, this is hardly likely to lead to a less damaging result. When attempting to perform good works, this failure tends to lead to less effectual (indeed, inferior) works. Something is overlooked; something is missing. The imitator cannot fully grasp or become the ethos behind the action, and thus cannot fully replicate it.

An apt summation of the first part of the quote is provided by the neoliberals of Labour's (arguable) past, and ACT.
(I hope nobody minds me referring to Rogernomics as 'Evil')
The first time around, from '84-'90 as is a matter of historical record, Labour did fundamental and thus far unrepaired damage to the Kiwi economy. The ACT Party, not realising quite *why* the twilight years of the Lange government took their cabinet-collective-responsibility foot off the accelerator ... then spent most of the next two decades attempting to push the neoliberal revolution further. Indeed, Roger Douglas's foundational work of ACT party mydeology, was entitled "Unfinished Business". The jaundiced, economically quasi-literate minds of ACT sought to outdo their predecessors.

As you can see, the imitation of evil begets greater evil.

The imitation of good, by contrast, is often flawed. The best recent example of this is supplied by Bill English.
(I hope nobody minds me talking about English intending to do something positive)
National recently proposed to make Kiwisaver compulsory (with an opt-out), showing they've finally started to comprehend the point NZF first articulated some fourteen years ago about compulsory savings being good for an economy. It's only taken them three decades to see the advantage of a pension-based sovereign wealth fund.
The problem, however, is the date English chose for its introduction. Half-way through the upcoming decade .. and only once we've reattained budgetary surplus. Now, excuse me for being pessimistic .. but assuming we have an economically incompetent National-led government for the next three years, returning to surplus within that timeframe doesn't seem likely. In other words, inferior imitation turns a good start gets turned into an empty, wasted opportunity.

Similar examples abound from the Labour party. They want to keep our existing state assets. Great. Let's take this to its logical extension. We want to start buying back the necessary ones which *they* flogged off. This was why the NZF-Labour administration 2005-2008 bought back TRANZRAIL.

Now this last point is interesting. It indicates to me that it's possible to correct the behaviour of a minor party (a stratagem known to the Campaign for Change as "the tail wagging the dog"). The same thing arguably happened with the Foreshore & Seabed Act 2004, wherein NZF's intervention kept Labour on-course (despite pressure from its breakaway Maori turncoats) and ensured crown title.

In sum, I came into this party with one burning sentiment.

"What we need right now is a clear message to the people of this country. This message must be read in every newspaper, heard on every radio, seen on every television. I want this country to realise we stand on the edge of oblivion. I want every man woman and child to understand how close we are to chaos. I want everyone to remember why they need us."

I used to think that meant New Zealand needed NZF as a sort of eternal champion ... a Marquis resistance always there to guard against the return of rampant Neoliberal agendas.

I now realise it also means New Zealand needs NZF for something more akin to our traditional "Keeping the Bastards Honest" role. We should also be there to guide their hands. We are, after all, in the persuasion business - it thus only makes sense to ensure that the works we've inspired are not of inferior quality.

Say what you will about us ... but we're inimicable.

How Are YOU Voting This Year?

2011-11-03T13:50:00.001+13:00

Improvements Made to NZ by Our National Government 2008-2011

2011-11-02T13:56:00.000+13:00

Achievements of our National Government 2008-2011 pt 1

2011-10-23T21:08:00.001+13:00

A while ago me and a few mates were sitting around talking about how to evaluate the performance of a government. What criteria could we use to measure the success, competency, and - ultimately - whether it'd be worthwile to re-elect it.

We noted that the simplest - totally partisan - way to look at the issue would be to go on a government's self-reported achievements, and the self-described competency of its ministe
rs and MPs.

This would be manifestly ridiculous.

According to this view, we are gently watched over by a competent managerial team led by a former finance sector wizard and a present-day economic savant who have responded to every challenge in a way we're all "comfortable" with, and created 170,000 jobs a year into the bargain.

A slightly more externally objective view - is that of its constituency considering voting for them (at this stage apparently almost half the nation) - who would perhaps consider such things as campaign promises delivered upon, crises handled competently (or at least, responded to adequately), the improvement of its own material circumstances, or the fulfilment & enactment of its 'narrative' for New Zealand. Do we feel safer today than we did three years ago? Are we finding it easier to get by now than we did three years ago. Have our power bills and our council rates and our weekly groceries come down? Are we earning more? Are we being taxed less?

Are our healthcare and education services better? Are our kids employed? Are they employed in New Zealand? Are we going to retire at 65 and how will we fund that? Are we taking as good a care of our old people as we used to? Are we leaving our children the country in a better condition than we found it?

Then we decided to think about it from the perspective of the country at large, using external, 'bigger picture', and general goals. Things that the OECD measures. Things like economic growth, unemployment, investment funding, wages, improvements in education, child poverty, an HDI.
Have the signs of our economic health and wealth improved over the last three years? How well was the global economic crisis handled? Are we laying the foundations for a prudent and prosperous future? How are we investing in making that happen? Are our people more educated now than they were three years ago? Has child poverty gotten better or worse? Has foreign ownership of our economy lessened? Are the profits and the graduates staying in New Zealand?

Ultimately, we began to think about this from the perspective of people like us. Young adults facing dismal employment prospects, probably with significant debt. We are not Waitakere Man, we're his grandkids. Do we feel as confident of getting a job when we leave school or when we graduate? If we'd been born 10 years earlier and entered the workforce when things were easy, would we have been better off? Are our meager service-industry paychecks enough for us to get by, fund study, or live independently? Are we going to inherit a country better than the way our parents' generation (0r, heaven forbid, our grandparents' generation) found it?

We're also relatively liberal in the old sense of the term. We believe in a private sphere. We believe in the importance of our legal rights - we believe we should enjoy the same rights to jury trial and legal aid that the generation before us did; and we're not amused by the Armed Offender Squad raiding harmless Kauri Snail environmentalists.

Are we as protected now as we were five years ago? When Martyn Bradbury is given a lifetime ban from a state broadcaster for criticising the Prime Minister ... is our press as free as it was less than two generations ago - before we allowed it to be sold offshore.
Is our foreign policy in alignment with the interests and opinion of New Zealanders?
Do we know what we're doing in Afghanistan?
Will I get a lawyer?

And we're Nationalists. We believe that, to (do the trite philosophy thing and) paraphrase Voltaire ... "if the Kiwi Nation doesn't already exist then it's necessary to create it."
Or, to paraphrase John Ralston Saul, "New Zealand is either an id

ea or it does not exist. It is either an intellectual undertaking or it is little more than a small chain of tourist attractions lying in the pacific just offshore from a successful economy."

Now that might sound a bit arcane (and that part of the discussion was toward the more inebriated depths of the evening), but what we mean by this is that we're proud of being Kiwis and having a strong, distinctive shared identity as part of that. With this in mind, we got to asking questions as to whether the Treaty Partnership was working better for all New Zealanders now than it was three years ago. Whether the government was articulating our values. Whether traditional Kiwi beliefs about the "fair go", egalitarianism and equality, and our own gregarious sense of community were being furthered. Whether this was the kind of country we wished to raise our children in and leave to our grandkids.

Are We Better Off?

I think you'll agree that's quite a few questions.

But we feel that to most of them, there's one simple answer.

final thoughts before the RWC final

2011-10-23T19:30:00.000+13:00

My heart sings to see our nation all fired up as one for the RWC; but why is patriotism a once-every-four-years experience? Why should we confine our enthusiasm and expenditure, our fire and our fervor to stadia and to 22 men.

Let's enjoy the match, but let's keep up the momentum post-game.
Let's strive together for a better New Zealand both on and off the sports field.

Let's win at being a country.

Ben Craven's Karori Candidate Forum Speech

2011-10-20T17:24:00.000+13:00

Speech to Karori Candidate Forum 19/10/11

"New Zealand First is the only party to fully embrace the democratic ideal of government by the people. Our philosophy is with the citizens of this country. It is with the community. It is with you.

We have faith in the collective wisdom and instincts of ordinary New Zealanders. I, for one, believe many of our country's problems could be resolved a lot easier if those making decisions actually understood their practical implications on ordinary people.

There is a tendency for our bureaucratic and political elite in Wellington to become insulated by a sort of beltway mentality that detaches them from the rest of the community.

For this reason, NZ First firmly believes in greater use of citizens initiated referenda, for example. While still respecting parliamentary sovereignty, we want to give greater weight to the public voice.

We would amend the relevant legislation so that a majority referendum vote could only be blocked by a three-quarter majority in Parliament.

Under our system, politicians would not have been able to ignore, for example, the 80% of voters who gave a resounding 'NO' to Labour's anti-smacking law. Nor would they have been able to ignore the 81% of people voted to reduce the number of list MPs in 1999.

Personally, I think it is arrogant for Parliamentarians to believe that only they are qualified to legislate public morality, or to decide important constitutional matters. We don't advocate a system like they have in Switzerland; we just believe the popular will cannot, and should not be ignored by those in power.

In light of these blunders, we must ask ourselves: Are our elected representatives actually representing us? Or are they merely pushing their own ideological and sectional agendas?

We also need to foster a greater sense of community cohesion. I think the rise of 'Neo-liberalism', the idea that whatever the market delivers is good for society, has been a corrosive influence on our nation's social fabric.

Yes, okay, personal responsibility is a virtue that must be extolled. But we should never forget our egalitarian past, and we should continue to cling to that good old fashioned Kiwi notion of 'The Fair Go'.

This country was built on the idea of everyone working hard, pulling together and chipping in. But I feel that American consumerism, and the selfish individualism promoted by some are eroding these Kiwi values.

Come 26 November, I implore you all put your community first, and vote for the only party that will restore real power to the people.

On the 26th of November, vote to put New Zealand First."

Investing In NZ's Future - Where We Stand With Students pt 1

2011-10-14T19:26:00.000+13:00

Interest on student loans
We strongly supported Labour's bill to remove interest on student loans as a first step toward tackling our escalating student debt crisis.
However, taking interest off the loans was only a partial solution. Our students are still forced to begin their working lives saddled with crippling debt, and our best and brightest are still driven offshore in order to pay it back. New Zealand First will fight to keep your student loans interest free. Better still, we will strive to reduce the amount you have to borrow to live and to pay your fees with our universal student allowance policy and movement toward a zero fees model for tertiary education.
In the mean time, our dollar-for-dollar student loan repayment scheme will make it easier for you to pay off your debt faster.

Student loan entitlement
Access to tertiary education is a fundamental birthright for all Kiwis - whether you've just finished high school or you're a mature student. We noted Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce's moves to restrict student loan entitlement with concern as surely, in the midst of a recession, the most logical thing for many to do is retrain and upskill in the hopes of finding future employment. New Zealand First will make it easier for Kiwis to access tertiary education by lowering your fees and preserving your ability to get a student loan.

Student allowances
New Zealand First has vigorously campaigned for a Universal Student Allowance since our founding in 1993. Students are one of the few groups in our society forced to borrow to live, as well as being some of the most economically vulnerable - especially during a recession. It is unreasonable to expect full-time students to have to seek full-time employment to survive, particularly when many of the job vacancies you would otherwise be filling simply no longer exist. It is also fundamentally unfair to decide whether to hand out assistance to struggling students on the basis of how much your parents make. Not only does this make it far harder to allocate allowances on the basis of need, the current system is open to abuse by students from wealthier backgrounds whose parents have mastered the art of income trusts.
Kiwi students used to enjoy a generous universal student allowance back in the "good old days". New Zealand First will give students a fair go by restoring this entitlement.

Tertiary fees
Kiwi students pay some of the highest fees in the developed world. This is partially due to persistent under-investment in tertiary education by successive governments; and partially because universities have been allowed far too much freedom to make up the short-fall by gouging you, the students, their customers.
In the long term, New Zealand First wants a Zero Fees model for tertiary education - as we used to enjoy up until Tertiary Education Minister Phil Goff abolished it in 1989, and as many successful economies such as those in Scandinavia have today. However, we are also realists who recognise that such a change would be difficult to implement overnight. New Zealand First will re-impose a cap on tertiary fees as a first step and then progressively reduce your fees over a number of years. We will also ensure that this does not harm the quality of your education by once again properly investing in your education and our future from the public purse.

VSM / student control of student services & support
The ACT Party's "Freedom of Association" bill was an ideological solution looking for a problem. Rather than seeking to improve accountability, transparency, and value for money in our student associations, this government has instead decided to indulge in an old far-right game called union-busting. We note with considerable bemusement that implementing this law will neither decrease the fees you pay nor increase your control over how the money is spent. Instead of paying a levy to a democratic student association accountable to you, you'll pay higher fees to your education provider. Prior to the law's passage, New Zealand First would have instead advocated a strengthened opt-out clause. Now that it's passed, we fully expect to see the quality and availability of your services to be reduced. We are further concerned that universities will simply be able to ignore your views on the issue in the absence of effective student associations to represent and advocate on your behalf.

Student representation in institutions’ decision making processes
New Zealand First is deeply concerned about the decline of our student associations and their ability to represent your views. Since the passage of ACT's VSM legislation, the ability for students to make their voices heard has become more crucial than ever so as to ensure that the service you're paying top dollar for is acceptable to you - the customer - and meets your needs. We do not believe it is possible to have a viable university or student culture without an independent student voice. New Zealand First would therefore ensure that - in the absence of fully independent student associations - your university listens to you.

An Open Letter To WINZ

2011-09-19T16:11:00.000+12:00

Follows is a letter written by one of our Christchurch-based supporters to Work & Income New Zealand.

"Kia Ora

Some of you will be aware that at the moment I am having a stoush with the Department of Work and Income, after they cut my unemployment benefit in late August. After the initial complaint to WINZ through their website, they assigned the manager of the Riccarton branch in Christchurch to deal with my case. Whilst they helped me get in contact with Studylink, and apologised initially for their mishandling of my case, events since then have shown to me that WINZ has fundamental problems needing policy change and Ministerial intervention.

As yet they still haven't reinstated my unemployment benefit - they say that they can't by law, but they expect me to struggle by on $80 a week for food. Further more their staff are seriously deficient in people skills, if not completely lacking. When I go into a department, I expect to be treated with respect and compassion, not to be looked upon as a problem and a burden. When I went in Wednesday the staff member who served me did not make any effort to do background checks, did not ask how I was or what I thought the problem was. More over when I showed him a bank statement indicating I am in serious overdraft because of WINZ's actions, he just ignored it.

WINZ put me into overdraft. WINZ can get me out of it.

I have no confidence that they can or will without Ministerial intervention. Subsequently there is an e-mail currently residing in Paula Bennett's inbox. There is another in the inbox of shadow Minister for Social Development Nanaia Mahuta.
A third one went to WINZ so that there can hopefully be a whole lot of faces drained of colour on Monday morning.

What do I think the problem in WINZ is? There are numerous problems. Some are fairly simple, yet quite fundamental in nature. Others are policy problems that may require legislative change.

1) I think WINZ needs a "fit for purpose" review - just like my old employer Environment Canterbury was subjected to. It is obvious that they have significant problems regarding their internal management; customer service; and expected outcomes.
2) Once a person tells WINZ that they are studying, they should be given a grace period to make contact with Studylink and get on a benefit or allowance. If they are on a benefit there should be a 4 week window or similar.
3) A benefit payment range, partially linked to the market - if basics are more expensive, then there should be a certain amount of leeway allowed by increasing the benefit, and lowering if the prices go do - not from week to week, but maybe from quarter to quarter (Jan-Mar;Apr-Jun...)"

- Rob G

First steps toward tackling endemic youth unemployment

2011-08-17T15:01:00.001+12:00

What of the Real Culprits - Speech by Winston Peters

"This week the government took a major step towards cementing a two tier society in place in New Zealand.

The two tiers of our society are of course the rich and the poor or as more commonly phrased, the haves and the have-nots.

This government is made up of rich people.

It governs for rich people, its policies benefit rich people and it regards the rest of the people, who are struggling to live and feed their families, as a "problem."

The first of the poor on the government's hit list are 15-19 year old teenagers who are going to be forcibly trained to work in jobs that do not exist. New Zealand First has always been for education and training, the problem is that unemployment is rife among this group with nearly thirty percent without jobs.

Their dole is going to be stopped and paid to parents or by some other means to ensure they do not waste it on booze and cigarettes. Both these products are illegal for under eighteens to buy now.

So that means if you are 17 years old and not in training you have to ask your mother - or some other person - for several dollars if you want to splash out on something reckless like a Big Mac or, heaven forbid go to a movie.

Again, New Zealand First is all for training and education. For years we have led the field in policies to give young people an allowance while they are training. NZ First is all for teaching young people that liberty is not licence. That the twin of freedom is responsibility.

But we are nervous about a system that defeats itself before it is even started because it is unbelievably stupid to try to train people for jobs that are simply not there.

Do we really need to train Australia's work force?

We have already sent hundreds of thousands of skilled New Zealanders across the Tasman and this new scheme appears as though it has no other logical outcome.

It is all a big public relations hoax of course - something that has been designed by the government's public spin doctoring department to appease certain groups in election year. My challenge to Mr Key is this - when you said in May that you would create 170,000 jobs in four years - what did you base that promise on?

New Zealand First suggested a better form of youth training several weeks ago and we gave a real incentive for employers.

Our idea is to set up crash education courses to ensure teenagers can read and write and then establish as many trade training schemes as possible.

We even have a scheme to help employers. If they give one of these youngsters an apprenticeship, we will pay them the dole the young person receives as an initial subsidy.

Such a scheme would pay for itself as the youngster starts earning a weekly wage and starts paying taxes.

It's what you call a win-win situation.

But going back to the idea of handing out food vouchers and the like, it smacks of the sort of Victorian charity that our ancestors left the Old World to escape.

And don't think for one moment that the government will only target the young.

For many weeks there has been a barrage of propaganda aimed at senior citizens.

Teams of highly paid bleaters are bleating about the cost of superannuation.

They want the age of entitlement lifted and the amount reduced.

Who is going to suddenly employ thousands of 65 or 66 year olds?

Where are the jobs?

It's just another part of the softening up process on the way to poverty.

The government is edging towards the concept that being poor is somehow immoral.

Next minute they will be referring to the ungrateful poor.

John Key is already on record as saying people should be able to live on 300 dollars a week if they budget properly.

We are sure that people in this audience could put him straight on that one.

Only a truly rich person would tell a truly poor person to be thrifty.

It's like Oscar Wilde said..."telling the poor to be thrifty is like telling a starving man not to eat too much!"

What many people don't realize is that the pressing financial problems of our age are all man made. And we can tell you which men made them.

The leaders of irresponsible capitalism - the bankers, the financiers, the futures traders, the currency speculators and the teams of monetary middlemen created this crisis.

It was not caused by anyone in this room. Ordinary people are not guilty.

Yet the pillars of the world of finance have brought the system crashing to its knees because of their insatiable greed and their willingness to do anything to make a fast buck.

Their losses were so great in the Western world that entire governments face bankruptcy baling these people out.

Governments did not believe they could let these firms collapse. So they are pumping money into the system to prop them up.

If they stop, it's been estimated that unemployment in America alone will soar to thirty percent.

It would cause a depression that would make the Great Depression of the 20th century look like a mild recession.

But as already mentioned, the people who bear the brunt of this financial folly are not those who caused it.

Ordinary people lose their jobs, get behind in the mortgage, can't look after the kids - the human cost goes spiraling down.

And at the bottom of the heap all you get told by the smiley face at the top of the heap - is you better budget more carefully.

We want to remind ordinary people there is something you can do about your plight.

You can go and vote.

You can tick a box called New Zealand First and it might be just the best tick you've ever ticked in your life.

We will not stand by and watch ordinary people being trampled on.

We identify with the battlers and the strugglers because that's how we started out in this world.

Help is on the way at the end of November.

Let me give you this assurance. If we win - you win.

I'll repeat it - we win - you win. It's what they call a win/win situation.

And remember, it can only happen if you party vote New Zealand First in November."

Ben Craven's Speech 08/08/11 Wellington Central Candidate's Forum.

2011-08-09T09:31:00.000+12:00

Ladies and gentlemen, members of the public and fellow students - welcome.

My name’s Ben Craven. I’ve put my name forward to be the NZ First candidate for Wellington Central this election.

I’m not a rich kid, I’m living on my overdraft. I don’t have a flash suit either. And I’m a member of the New Zealand First Party.

So what’s going on?

Once upon a time I thought NZ First was, quite simply, a party of pensioners.

When you think NZ First, you think Gold Card and oldies. Probably a few zimmer-frames too.

But I looked a bit deeper. I looked beyond the media coverage and found a party that upholds ideals that resonate well with me.

You see, the reason why there’s quite a few elderly people in NZ First is not because it’s a pensioners party. It’s because they remember a time when New Zealand used to be a great country.

They realise it’s not a great country anymore. Not by a long shot.

They’ve seen assets sales by both Labour and National. They’ve seen the rise of consumer culture and the destruction of community.

Who here even knows their neighbours?

Furthermore, they have seen the divide between the “haves” and the “have nots” grow greater each year.

And have seen consecutive governments fail our young people.

New Zealand First have a vision and long term plan to right these wrongs, to guarantee everyone a fair go and to ensure New Zealand is a country that our generation and the generations after us actually WANT to live in.

So why vote NZ First this election?

NZ First believe in a universal student allowance.

University costs far too much to make it viable for a great number of young people. They’re so worried about the debt that they’d rather go and work a minimum wage job - or better yet, go on the dole.

In investing in YOUR future, we’re investing in this country’s future.

“But wait - there’s more…”

NZ First’s dollar for dollar student loan repayment scheme is set up to help you guys.

The way it works is pretty simple. For every dollar of your student loan that you pay back whilst in New Zealand, we’ll match it.

What’s the point having a huge student loan scare all of our graduates overseas? The figures might look good on paper, but it’s money this country will never see again.

NZ First believe in helping graduates enter the workforce and prosper.

Some sectors want to ban graduates leaving the country until they’ve paid off their student loans!

We at NZ First do not believe this country should be a graduate-prison. But a place where graduates actually WANT to live.

Make no mistake, unlike other parties with their sectional interests, New Zealand First is a party for ALL of New Zealand, ALL New Zealanders, and ALL of those people who call New Zealand home.

We don’t give a stuff about David Letterman. Who here has seen Mr Key’s video?

In it, our National Prime Minister, the “Right Honourable” John Key, makes a mockery of this country and its inhabitants.

If he’s going to fob us off in order to prostrate himself in front of a US media mogul, then what chance does this country have?

Where’s this brighter future he guaranteed us?

Or should we assume that his policies for his contemptible countrymen will merely echo his personal sentiments?

NZ First are a party that take New Zealand, and New Zealand interests, seriously.

Who and what are Mr Key’s interests?

America.

Make no mistake - National and their YoungNats are parading the right slogan - they’re all “Key People!”

Through Mr Key, the US see an opportunity to fleece us all.

You’ve seen it all over the news. The US are up against the ropes, they’re desperately in need of some easy cash and they see us as an easy target.

And why wouldn’t they?

Instead of resisting their advances, what has Mr Key done?

He’s committed more of our people into the atrocious US-led war in Afghanistan and opened up down-town Wellington to the US Marines!

So what’s this love fest all about?

It’s about the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and the erosion of New Zealand’s economic sovereignty.

The Australians already have such an agreement with the US. Now they’ve got American tobacco companies on their backs for trying to wean their population off smoking.

Yes, that’s right. Tobacco firm Philip Morris and others are looking to sue the Australian government under this Free Trade Agreement.

Now the US have Pharmac in their sights.

The fat-cat American drug companies will leech the life out of this country with ludicrously expensive medicines, your average Kiwi will be out of pocket and John “the smiling assassin” Key will get a pat on the back.
This government has shown us that they want to divide and conquer.

They’ve been flip-flopping their policies like a dying fish.

Just look at VSM.

Originally National explicitly said they were not going to support VSM, now they’ve done a great U-turn.

As students, OUR community and OUR representation has been all but gone to the dogs.

NZ First believe in preserving and fostering community. We want to maintain and uphold the values of democracy and for that reason we are explicitly against VSM.

This election it is imperative that we put NZ First.

A FUTURE FOR NEW ZEALAND YOUTH

2011-08-03T15:29:00.001+12:00

Young people get a bad rap in New Zealand and it is undeserved. New Zealand First believes investment in our youth is investment in all or our futures. Our youth will face up to the future if they are given the tools and opportunity. We have an exciting policy for students, but not everyone is made for university. New Zealand First is embarking on a ground-br4eaking programme, new learning, new trades, new apprenticeships, new skills and new competencies for the digital age. You know we look after our grandparents, but we are going to look after our grandchildren as well.

NEW SKILL TRAINING FOR NEW TRADES

Technologies constantly change, but the need for skilled adaptable people stays the same. New Zealand First will pull back on the practice of bringing in workers from overseas, while untrained New Zealanders stand in dole queues. Our long term economic plan invests in our manufacturing sector to provide more jobs and most importantly, apprenticeships. But it doesn’t end there. We will consult manufacturers about the skills they require to complete on world markets. And we will start training people in these skills. Many young people have asked to make trades training a condition of receiving the unemployment benefit. New Zealand First agrees. Basic reading, writing and numerical skills will be included. Skills levels will be lifted and employers will be given incentives for ‘on the job training;. We will increase the number of places available at polytechnic trade training.

TERTIARY GRADUATES. “DOLLAR-FOR-DOLLAR” LOAN REPAYMENT

Student debt amounts to billions of dollars, and it has to be sorted out. We will face up to it before it inflicts more damage on yet another generation of young New Zealanders. We will introduce a scheme where Government makes a matching dollar-for-dollar payment on student debt for students staying and working in New Zealand. So if a student with a student loan of $20,000 pays back $10,000, the Government would match that sum to extinguish the debt and remove a big incentive for young Kiwis to go overseas. A generation of our young Kiwis are effectively economic exiles because of student debt. We want them to bring their stills and ideas home. In the long run this will save New Zealand money.

NZF Youth Report - This Is Our Time

2011-08-01T09:10:00.000+12:00

"Ten months ago I came before you with a vision. A vision for the future - of our party and of our Nation.

Today, I am happy to report that our Youth Section has gone from strength to strength.

We have expanded and rolled out on university campuses across the country.

We have experienced surges in support produced by our online campaigns on facebook and other digital media.

Most hearteningly, a recent Horizon poll indicated that 14.5% of first time voters were intending to vote for New Zealand First.

But the real story isn't just in the number of 'likes' or 'friends' we have on facebook, abstract polling data, or how many campuses we've arrived on.

It's in the reactions we're getting - and how they've changed over the last two years.

18 months ago, when we started doing this, NZF Youth seemed something of an oxymoron.

The best public reaction we received were amused references on some of the more effervescent
right-wing blogs to the emergence of a fanatical "Winston Youth".

Well we're here alright.

A year ago, there were small flurries of interest. Excited whispers that Barbarossa - asleep in the mountains - was soon to awake and return to his Nation in its hour of need.

For a select few, anything seemed possible and we struck sparks of inspiration wherever and whenever we spoke.

At last, we said, we had a genuine alternative to the other big two major parties - a way forward and a vision.

Today, when we talk to Youth, the reaction is easily summated:

Faith.

Belief.

Hope.

Young people know increasingly what we stand for, and want to stand with us.

They are hearing our message.

They realise that we stand on the edge of oblivion, they see how close we are to chaos;
and they - along with the rest of the Nation - are beginning to remember why they NEED us.

Our generation is feeling the pinch created by thirty years of neglect for the things which nurture and foster a healthy youth.

Which turn children to contributing members of society - here - and which give and guarantee a productive position and stake in the Nation.

In 1989 Labour's Education Minister Phil Goff abolished free tertiary education.

The previous National Government abolished apprenticeships, started moves to scrap school-C and introduced NCEA.

Our present overlords have presided over a shameful increase in youth unemployment to somewhere around twenty per cent.

A fifth of those willing & able to seek work my age are unemployed, and the wage-gap between New Zealand and the Developed World continues to increase.

Small wonder 24% of Kiwis under 30 are intending on leaving the country to seek better fortunes in those well-renowned "greener" pastures (or coal-mines) across the Tasman.

Don't get me wrong - we recognise and enthusiastically endorse the OE as a Kiwi rite of passage; and as a valuable way of accumulating human capital.

However, there is quite clearly something sick in our society when OE comes to stand not for Overseas Experience but rather Overseas Exodus.

So, what will New Zealand First do. What panacea do we have to cure the Nation's ills.

It starts with Youth. With giving us not just the opportunity for a stake in the Nation, but allowing us the opportunity to help build it.

You've all seen the Student Army down in Christchurch - that's the kind of potential and good old-fashioned Kiwi grit we intend to bring to the table.

Last Convention, also held down in Christchurch, we passed remits to grant young people seeking to increase their human capital a Universal Student Allowance - as we once enjoyed.

During our previous term in Parliament, we fought successfully for more apprenticeships, and abolished Youth Rates.

Recently, we have announced plans for a dollar-for-dollar student debt reduction scheme that's proved wildly popular across the country.

Today, these gains are under threat. ACT are campaigning heavily on reinstating a separate Youth minimum wage - and calling everyone up to their mid-20s "youth".

National have sought to cap tertiary student numbers, and cut university funding.

This government has also seen fit to cut and curtail funding and personel for our Defence Forces - which provide a valuable set of life-skills and pathway to prosperity for many - and often at-risk - youth.

Further, they have cut funding to over 2,000 early childcare educational services, and are moving to abandon requirements for educational providers to be certified, qualified teachers.

Again, these are not signs of health - and still far less signs of wealth.

Rather, they are the signs of a fundamentally sick society.

Earlier I stated that Youth are hearing our message.

That message is simple: Help is on its way!"

- Speech to 2011 NZF Convention

Without Winny

2011-06-28T21:24:00.001+12:00

NZF's gettin' back in from the outside, from the outside, from the outside .. 'Cause we're no longer pollin' down below five, down below five, down below five..

Guess who's back..

Back again..

Winston's back..

Tell a friend..

Guess who's back, guess who's back, guess who's back, guess who's back

guess who's back, guess who's back, guess who's back..

I've created a Messiah, cause nobody wants to see Goff no more

They want Winny, Phil's chopped Labour

Well if you want Kiwi, this is what I'll give ya

A little bit of weed mixed with some hard liquor

Some Nationalism that'll jump start the economy quicker

than a Shock Doctrine by Ruth while I'm not co-operating

When I'm critiquing the neolib' agenda while she's operating (hey!)

You waited this long to stop the House debating

Cause I'm back, smokin' a fag and Pontificating

I don't know if you've seen the job market lately but our economy's problems're complicating!

So GST they won't let be

they keep trying to fuck around with ACC

And then shut me down on TV3

But it just feels so empty, without me

So, come on and get exports on ships

Fuck the TPPA trying to blow PHARMAC to bits

And get ready, cause this shit's about to get heavy

I just settled all my lawsuits, FUCK YOU O-Gee!

Now this looks like a job for me

So everybody, Party Vote for me

Cause we need a little, controversy

Cause it feels so empty, without me

I said this looks like a job for me

So everybody Party Vote for me

Cause we need a little, controversy

Cause it feels so empty, without me

Little Hellions, ACT's feelin rebellious

Embarrassed their economic policy dates from the era of Elvis

Privatized 3-strike prisoners helpless

'til someone comes along on a mission and yells BRASH!

A Visionary, Vision seen Clearly

Should start a Reformation, buyin' back the airwaves

A rebel, so just let me revel and bask

in the fact that I'm about to start kickin' some arse

And it's a disaster, such a catastrophe

- the Earthquake Response we got under Brownlee.

Well I'm back, na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na

Fix your Foreshore & Seabed and then I'm gonna

Get in, keep the Nation from deterioratin' any longer

The Balance of Accountability, back from Tauranga

I'm Questing, advocating Compulsory Saving

Investing in NZ's future and jesting!

"Hey Media, attention please!"

Feel the tension, soon as someone mentions me

Here's my ten cents, more of which is GST

"Ruled Out?" Heh .. have we got news for Key! :)

Tizard's in a casket, I go tit for tat with

anybody who's talkin' economic bullshit

Sean Fitzpatrick, you can get your arse kicked

Leadin' them Randian Libertarianz bastards

And Don-B? You can get stomped by Rolly

You Friedmanite baldheaded political zombie

Your policy's too old, let go

It's over, 2025 Taskforce honcho!

Now let's go, just gimme the signal

I'll be there with a whole list full of new insults

I been slick, givin' sermons on the hill

ever since Philly first abandoned his principles!

But sometimes the shit just seems

everybody only wants to discuss me

Now without too much digressing,

It's actually about the whole party!

While I'm not the first king of controversy

I am the most eloquent since David Lange

I'm just saying let's take a Corporatist approach to the economy

and use it to make our Nation wealthy

(Hey!) Vote for an approach that works

Lest any other "white motherfuckers" emerge

But no matter about Banks gettin' a vote or three

It'll be so empty, without me

Frank Si-inatra, ya-ya-ya-ya-ya

Lady Gaga*, la-la-la-la

Kiwis!

*[this will only make sense to those who were present for the now-infamous "Let's hook Vivian's iPod up to The Chief's soundsystem and re-expose him to P-Diddy" incident]

7 Steps to Recovery

2011-06-02T11:37:00.000+12:00

Step 1: Savings

You are taxed on income; and then you are taxed on the interest your savings earn.

With inflation running at, at least 5%, where can ordinary people save with security and still get a reasonable rate of return?

The answer is nowhere!

New Zealand First will introduce:

A bold set of tax incentives to encourage private savings - the first $10,000 of interest earned would become tax free.

We will introduce government guaranteed inflation proof bonds - eligible to New Zealand citizens resident in New Zealand only - and that will pay the inflation rate (measured by the CPI) plus 2.5%

Step 2: Saving our Land

New Zealand First will impose strict restrictions on foreign land ownership.

This is not xenophobic - it's the same restrictions that Kiwis face if they want to buy land in many other countries.

Only New Zealand citizens will be able to buy land and that land already owned offshore can only be sold back to a New Zealand citizen.

Step 3 Foreign Ownership

We will also create a new agency The NZ Ownership Agency- with an initial budget of $500m.

This agency will have a specific mandate to promote New Zealand ownership - and would develop a comprehensive long term plan to buy back strategic assets.

Step 4 Manufacturing

We will have policies to actively support, encourage and where appropriate protect this sector.

There are too many jobs, skills and wealth creation at stake in manufacturing to allow the sector to wither and die.

For example, we will protect government sector contracts such as the building of railway wagons for our own rather than Chinese railway workshops.

Step 5: Student Debt

We will introduce a scheme where government will make a matching dollar for dollar payment on student debt.

So, if a student had a student loan of say $30,000 - (a not unlikely sum) and paid back, $15,000 government would match that sum to extinguish the debt provided that student stays and works in New Zealand.

A matching contribution scheme would effectively halve student debt and remove a big incentive for young Kiwis to go overseas.

Step 6: Aussie Banks

They have had a dream run in New Zealand.

And recall that is was those same four Aussie banks who had to repay $2 billion to the IRD for tax avoidance in late 2009.

As KiwiBank and TSB show we are perfectly capable of operating our own banks.

New Zealand First policy is to give all Government business to a locally owned bank.

Step 7: Infrastructure

There can be no clearer example of a wasteful approach to public investments than the Government's so called Roads of National Significance (RoNS) project.

This $12 billion plus project is actually all about building more motorways.

New Zealand First policy is to scrap the RoNS project and free up massive financial resources for public transport in both metropolitan and provincial areas.

These policies will be developed further as the year progresses.

Welly got Wood

2011-05-21T15:29:00.000+12:00

So Wellington is about to construct a garish stamp of 'identity' based around a bad toponymic joke from ten years ago. It could have been worse. The Miramar Cutting may have been re-named Miramax.

Now assuming this isn't the result of some urban planner's pre-Rapture freakout, three possible reasons for Wellywood's erection stand out.

First, John Key horribly mis-understood requests from the last round of Warner Bros execs for a "working environment more like home";

Second, having decided that he can't possibly spin his way around the "100% Pure" fiasco, Key amends NZ's national branding to read "100% Pure Compared to Las Angeles";

or Third, as a small South Pacific Nation with an ill-defined identity, crippling self-esteem issues, and a lingering subconscious need for Superpower validation .. we're trying to ape our new American Big Brother (as opposed to British Colonial Mother). Somewhere, no doubt, Bruce Jesson is turning at sufficient speed in his grave to more than compensate for the wind-farms which were so controversial to build in the hills around the same city.

"This Government is Pro-Choice"

2011-02-17T11:47:00.000+13:00

Not wishing to be outdone by Tony Ryall's curious views on children's nutrition, that well-known Mubarakian John Key decided to use the same 'other people's choices' line when asked why exactly his government was buying a new fleet of luxury limousines. Betraying his irritating lack of originality, he then did it again when queried about the increasing number of families reliant upon food parcels.

Ryall stated that children's nutrition was "an issue for parents and families" rather than the government. In other words, an issue of choice for which the Government could not be held responsible.

Key argued that he "[couldn't] take responsibility" for the behavior of his Internal Affairs ministry, blamed the exercise of a rollover option in 2011 on the previous Labour government, and then refused to rule out whether he'd have ok'd the sale if he'd known about it. Other people's choices, other people's fault.

He then responded to a question about our rising use of and dependence upon food parcels by attempting to answer a different question altogether - why were more Kiwis out of work and on benefits. This was blamed upon the global recession rather than any indigenous failure of policy; and topped off with a supposition that the only reason one would be reliant upon food parcels would be as the result of "poor choices". Like this government?

Given the cap-handedness of these responses, I can only assume some keen journalist managed the rare feat of capturing senior National ministers outside the protective range of their spin-doctors. Caught off-guard by having to think up an excuse for themselves for a change, they've reverted to type and started spouting what passes for Nat philosophy these days.

Put in terms rather more articulate than the Ministers themselves, their thinking appears to run thus:

'Some problems are beyond the ambit of government to solve. Impersonal quasi-natural forces govern unemployment, and bad things only happen to people who make bad budgeting choices. When things go wrong it's someone else's fault - whether parents, workers, the hungry, or Labour. And since it's someone else's fault, government doesn't have to fix it. So we won't.'

This misses the point on several levels.

As a far greater National Prime Minister (the Right Hon. Sir Robert Muldoon) once put it - "The whole concept of government is based on intervention." Even if Key's flawed economic management were not responsible for lost jobs, higher prices, and some seriously debatable growth in wages, I'd still prefer a government with the gumption to get involved in giving long-suffering Kiwis a leg-up - rather than writing off difficult situations as being the poor outcomes of 'other people's choices'.

That's an excuse, not an answer.

Know this, Key. Votes are 'other people's choices' too.

"Let Them Drink Milk"

2011-02-15T21:27:00.000+13:00

Earlier this evening, 3 news ran a story about the rising cost and reduced consumption of milk by our Nation's youth. Noting the vital role the substance in question plays as a source of calcium for Kiwi kids, and in a rare feat of critical journalism, they asked the Health Minister Tony Ryall what he thought of the issue. His response?

"What children eat and drink is an issue for their parents and families."

Now I could have some fun with this axiom and take it to its logical conclusion - that beer and malnourishment are apparently acceptable parts of a Kiwi upbringing ... but I won't. The health of our kids is far too serious a matter for the frivolity habitual of the Minister of Silly Ties. What I will note is that it's rather odd to see a Health Minister taking such a hands-off approach to the nutrition of our youth. Effectively, Ryall has decided to cast this as an issue of choice and pass the buck on to families. What he ignores is that the prohibitive cost of milk renders this an issue of choice only for those who can afford it.

With this in mind, I'm reminded of another bold axiom delivered by a failed public figure on her way out. When informed that her people were starving, Marie Antoinette allegedly proposed to "Let them eat cake!"

It genuinely saddens me to see a Kiwi staple (and, after all, what's more Kiwi than milk?) priced out of reach of ordinary consumers. There have been calls from some quarters to rectify the nutritional issue by bringing back milk in schools. It needn't be so complex. Why don't we start by taking GST off Milk. And continue by finding a Health Minister less prone to 'bovine scatology' who actually gives a damn about the health of some of his most vulnerable charges.

God Defend New Zealand from Bad Journalism

2011-02-15T20:19:00.000+13:00

God Defend New Zealand from Winston?

The Herald on Sunday's editorial of the 6th of February heaps praise on Prime Minister John Key for so boldly announcing that he would not be a part of any government including that scourge of MMP, Winston Raymond Peters.

Winston Peters, we were warned, had done more to discredit MMP than any other individual. Apparently he's a skilled practioner of language, too. It's a pity the HoS editor wasn't. Verily, it was a piece of journalism as Yellow as Hide's abominable jacket.

But what of the claims made? They do warrant a response. The central claim is that Peters' style of politics is negative. Voters, we're told, have a stark choice: the aspirational and 'forward-looking' style of John Key; or the 'divisive' and 'inflammatory' style proffered by Peters. It's almost as though the secretive cabal of vested interests and media personalities regard the presence of Peters as an affront to the democratic process. How ironic.

We're told that Peters, in 1996, campaigned to topple the National Government of Jim Bolger – only to return Bolger and National to power. We're told that Peters 'dawdled' through post-election talks, keeping the country waiting for eight weeks. Then there's the curious claim that Peters is somehow responsible for making our political discourse 'vituperative'. And finally, we're told that in 2005 Peters promised to reject the 'baubles of office' – only to become the Minister of Foreign Affairs in a Labour-led government. This, we're supposed to believe, points to Peters being the scourge of MMP. More than any other individual, Peters is believed to have brought our electoral system into disrepute. But has he really? This is a rather big call to make.

Not surprisingly, what's missing from the Herald editoral is context. There is no sober analysis of the facts. Just vehemence and hostility – more personal than political. But then, that's exactly what we would expect from a newspaper.

First, the circumstances around the 1996 post-election negotations are well documented. The oft-repeated claim that Winston Peters ever ruled out a coalition with National in the lead up to polling day is false and any serious journalist would surely appreciate this.

What commentators tend to forget (or would prefer to forget) is that in May 1996, New Zealand First reached its then zenith in public opinion polls. A Heylen-One News poll at the time placed party support as high as 28 per cent – effectively pushing Labour into third place. The prospect of a New Zealand First-led government was a real one in 1996. Peters' deputy, Tau Henare, publicly ruled out ever sitting at a cabinet table with Jenny Shipley and Bill Birch. Not only did he break this promise but later went on to join the National Party itself. Peters himself was reported at the time as saying the price of a coalition with National could be Bolger's head. Peters' intention in 1996 was not simply to topple National, but to displace it as the main conservative party. By all accounts, he believed he could be prime minister. A resurgent Labour party dashed these hopes.

Post-election realities inevitably brought National and Labour to the negotiating table with Peters. NZ First's 17 seats gave it considerable bargaining power, but not the leverage it needed to bring down Bolger. A Labour-New Zealand First coalition, while possible, still needed the support of Jim Anderton's Alliance to get the crucial numbers. For his part, Anderton early on ruled out a coalition with Labour and refused to commit his party's support on all matters of supply and confidence. As political commentator Chris Trotter observed at the time, Anderton's obstinate position gave Peters and his MPs 'all the excuse they need for throwing their support behind National' (Independent, 25 October 1996, p. 13). Of course, Anderton's role is today forgotten by most - as one assumes the man and his 'Progressives' will soon also be.

The length of time taken to negotiate New Zealand's first MMP government has also been the subject of much criticism. But as political scientist Barry Gustafson noted at the time: “Things aren't being done in an alarmist or crisis way. This is a much more orderly and rational process than the pandemonium of the 1984 and 1990 elections, which people have conveniently forgotten. Those elections seriously damaged confidence” (The Dominion, 29 November 1996, p. 7). Few experts were prepared to criticise the parties for acting cautiously, and responsibly as they navigated their way through new and uncharted territory. Fifteen years on, MMP has proved remarkably stable - probably somewhat due to the fact that there was such an orderly transition the first time around. Indeed, the only hints of instability to the system seem to be introduced by minor parties in crisis who would in all likelihood still be returned to the House under an FPP system.

Peters takes a disproportionate amount of blame for the collapse of the National-New Zealand First government. The reality is the National Party and a conspiracy amidst its internal factions was far more culpable. Jenny Shipley's ascent to office can, in part, be attributed to the bitter resentment many in National felt towards their New Zealand First colleagues. Unlike Bolger, Shipley had no willingness to work with Peters. The fate of the coalition was sealed from the moment she took office.

Peters' acceptance of the 'baubles of office' in 2005 may have riled some of his supporters, and frustrated his opponents, but he wouldn't be the first politician to realise that changed circumstances might result in changed positions. Peters' archnemisis, the yellow-jacket wearing perkbuster Rodney Hide must surely take the prize for that in this current Parliament. And, indeed, a cursory examination of Peters' record in that office indicates that it was a positive outcome for the Nation.

Besides, if we're going to look for Parliamentarians who've brought our House into disrepute, Peters is not the most obvious target. The troughing by people like Roger Douglas, Rodney "Perk Buster" Hide and Bill English, the party-hopping of Alamein Kopu and numerous others, Clark's 'Paintergate' and Key's Tranzrail shares, National's broken promise not to raise GST, Hone Harawira's outright racism, and numerous other post-MMP examples spring instantly to mind. Yet according to the Herald, somehow Peters is the biggest threat to the credibility of our electoral system. Just how any journalist can state this, and then claim – with a straight face - to be 'dispassionate' is incredible. If we are to search for the most obnoxious and abhorrent ways in which our electoral system has been brought into disrepute, nothing compares to the broken promises and economic vandalism of Labour and National between 1984 and 1993.

The most bizarre allegation the Herald throws at Peters' is that he is a 'demagogue'. As if appealing to popular discontent is somehow anti-democratic. One of the things that sets Peters apart from others is his staunch opposition to elitism. But underlying this populism is a deeply conservative political philosophy which has pitted him against both the liberal milieu of the post-Rogernomics era. Peters is often criticised because we know what he's opposed to, but not what he's for. This is a mistake. Peters is for the opposite of everything he is against. Perhaps this is the reason Peters' opponents find him so frightening.

The Herald might well claim that Peters' style of politics is "rearward looking". And yes, Peters does appear to have a great respect for the better elements and values of our National heritage. However, not only was the original utterer of the 'rearward looking' jibe the same man employing familiar faces like Gerry Brownlee, Bill English and Roger Douglas, but his plan “to move on into the future” bears a disconcerting resemblance to the discredited policies of previous Labour and National governments. That strikes us as less "Path to Prosperity" and more "Shining Path".

In short, then; God Defend New Zealand - and if He doesn't, Winston will.

- Curwen Rolinson & Josh Van Veen

"I don't think Paul Henry looks or sounds like a real New Zealander"

2010-10-04T23:40:00.000+13:00

I must confess that I don't watch Breakfast. This is mostly due to circumstance - I, like most students, am asleep at that ungodly hour - but that aside, I consider Paul Henry an excellent reason to change the channel. Other commentators have over the past year devoted quite a bit of attention to the man's many gaffes, sparing us the effort of detailing them here.

Usually, these have been attacks upon individuals laced with spurious adjectives and calculated to cause offence. However, his recent remarks about our Governor General are, to my mind, rather broader in application. Rather than simply attempting to racialise and 'foreignise' an individual, it seems to me like Henry has in fact put forward his own skewed definition for who does or does not look like a New Zealander.

It is a short step from there to providing a rather exclusive definition for who is and is not a Kiwi on the basis of race. With this in mind, one wonders how Henry would have reacted to any of the slew of previous Governor Generals of English extraction cosmetically indistinguishable from a Caucasian Kiwi, but ten thousand kilometres away in terms of culture and loyalty.

Let us be clear: Sir Anand Satyanand is one of us. An attack upon him and his place in this Nation is an attack upon all of us.

NZ Soldier dead

2010-08-04T07:11:00.000+12:00

A New Zealand Soldier lies dead, killed by the Taliban in Afghanistan. And while that will no doubt sharpen public debate about New Zealand's mission there, for now I simply want to say our thoughts are with the family of the fallen man, whose identity as of yet has not been released.

The Rule of Law

2010-07-30T10:03:00.000+12:00

"Local Farmers have claimed that imports from New Zealand will affect their business". Yes. Generally, when someone exports a product as basic as milk to another country, this means local producers of milk will have to compete with the imported product.

Now it may be difficult for the Indian farmers to compete with ours. One imagines they are organised far less efficently, in small farms, with much less modern equipment and work practices. But perhaps the people who organised these violent attacks should ask themselves if it is worth destroying the trading relationship with New Zealand over this? How many more Indians are employed making goods that New Zealanders buy?

One hopes the Indian Government takes a strong stand against such criminals. Protest is one thing, but to actively attack and threaten legitimate trade is theft, vandalism and even terrorism.

Registering All Guns in New Zealand

2010-07-26T15:57:00.000+12:00

This story has two interesting proposals; A) that very powerful Air Guns should require a licence to purchase and B) a recommendation by Keith Locke that ALL firearms be registered.

I agree with A). If a weapon has clearly lethal powers, and is known to be a weapon of choice amongst scumbag career criminals such as methamphetamine producers, FOR the fact that it is easier to obtain legally than a firearm that uses conventional bullets, it makes sense to close that loophole.

But B) is an attempt by Mr Locke to piggyback his own distaste for weapons onto that debate, in an attempt to make gun ownership that little bit more arduous, that little bit more bureaucratic. And more than that, it is difficult to see this measure have any impact on the ability of police to do their job, or reduce crime in any way. Scumbag criminals don't get licences now and exist in a state outside the law, and are not going to go through the process of registering firearms they are already not legally allowed to carry.

Lets keep NZ just that bit freer, and trust in law-abiding citizens to be responsible for their actions - and clamp down ever harder on those for whom the law is an inconvenience to sneak around, while selling poison and wreaking general havoc.

Course Passed

2010-07-14T18:14:00.000+12:00

Ok so we have been rather slack - for myself, in the time since I last posted I've moved to Masterton and passed a Level 3 Professional Cooking Course at the Wairarapa Campus of UCOL. But we're back baby and better than ever.

I'm just going to note in passing that the debate about arming Police Officers is on again - it seems to come about every time an Officer is shot. How about we end it quickly before the next time to mourn a situation where if the Officers had been armed the confrontation with criminal elements would have gone quite differently or not taken place at all.

I'll assume that almost no one is watching this blog as it has been dormant the last few months, but we're definitely going to work on building a readership again over the next wee while.

And?

2010-02-27T12:29:00.000+13:00

When I read this my reaction was the same as the title of this post. If someone is insulted by you doing your own thing, clearly not offering any insult, then it really isn't worth knowing them. And really, I don't think the Japanese would be insulted to any degree that would influence how they percieve us or engage with us, any more than Western diplomats are insulted when African representatives conduct talks dressed in traditional dress, or when Muslim representatives request that no alcohol be served at a reception.

Good international relations are based on give and take between the two parties, underpinned by a sense of mutual respect. Clearly Len Brown is stuck on give mode, and he is not afraid to take from the ratepayers to do it.

I don't intend to talk much about the supercity elections, but if this is the caliber of the frontrunner, Auckland has much to be afraid of, as does the National party who will have to wear the blame for a rushed process - not to mention the thouroughly undemocratic transition set up by Rodney Hide. Supporters of this Government should ask themselves, exactly when did it become acceptable for a Government minister to set up a shadow council of good citizens to determine things for everyone else?

"Step-Change"

2010-02-11T00:48:00.000+13:00

I note 'Not PC' has been criticising the so called "step-change" the National Government promised on tax.

I really can't see why: I think the metaphore perfectly conveys the actions the National Government are taking. While Wikitionary does define the phrase "step change" the image it conjured for me was of two things: rugby players making a side-step or sudden break, or a solider marching out of time with the rest of his company and making the small shuffle that gets you back in time.

Either way, you are still playing for the same team, wearing the same uniform and going for the same goal. Now consider that John Key's budget is a "step change" from Labours. Thats right, same team, same goal, just hoping to do it a little better.

In any event, English had better have a few grenades left on his belt if he is going to get any bang for his buck come budget day, with even National super-blogger David Farrar giving him just a B.

Should New Zealand ban the 'burqa' in public places?

2010-02-10T22:41:00.000+13:00

The 'burqa' is a style of dress that covers the wearer head to toe, completely obscuring them from sight.

While this particular dress is unique to countries with large Muslim populations, many would claim that its origins are to be found in Arabian culture, as opposed to the tenets of the Islamic religion.

Several European nations have taken stands against the dress, which is controversial, given that women are often said to be coerced to wear it upon threat of violence. Jack Straw, a prominent Government Minister in the UK, declared he would only allow constituents into his electorate office if their face was uncovered. France banned all signs of religious affiliation, which included the burqa.

In western nations, covering the entire face has long been an unacceptable practice in the public sphere. One cannot walk into a bank with a motorcylce helmet on, for example. Not only is this offending the mores of society, it poses a danger - it is much easier to get away with robbing a bank if your face cannot be seen by security cameras.

So it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that if you allow a certain section of society the special privilige to ignore this rule, that someone would try to exploit it. And in France, two bank robbers have done exactly that.

I don't believe the people acting through the state has the right to enforce a ban on what you wear in private situations. But the people do have a right to manage their safety in public spaces - one cannot walk down main street with a loaded gun for example. And the problem with the burqa is that it destroys the safety of public space - without the ability to identify the person under the burqa, it creates an opening that can be exploited.

New Zealand should take steps against just such an event, by banning the full concealment of the face in public areas (banks, Government offices etc) by any type of clothing.

Iranian heroes

2009-12-29T06:13:00.000+13:00

I found this image on the Huffington Post attached to this story and I've been mesmerised by it for a couple of minutes now. It almost seems like one of the paintings from NotPC celebrating defiance. Fantastic stuff.

Infamous the world over

2009-12-19T16:55:00.000+13:00

Apparently Coca Cola wants to trademark the phrase "World Famous in New Zealand", a phrase closely associated with Coca Cola's 'L&P' brand of soft drink.

Someone actually from the town the soft drink is named after has decided to stand up on behalf of all of us and fight this attempt to appropriate a kiwism, and he deserves a bit of recognition. After all, its not often someone takes a positive stand against a global mega brand for little personal gain. It is the kind of action we need to celebrate more.

So we here at this blog pledge that should we ever find ourselves in Paeroa in the company of Mr Tony Coombes, we'll shout him a beer.

Until then, we wish him the best in his courageous endeavour.

"Read My Lips : No New Taxes"

2009-12-19T16:20:00.000+13:00

The above quote does, of course come from George HW Bush's 1988 address to the Republican National Convention; however this post isn't about National's peculiar brand of tax "reform". Rather, I thought I'd check up on John Key's committment to avoiding privatisations in his first term; another shallow rightist electoral promise.

Mister Key's words are not necessarily a prima facie prediction of privatisation by themselves, however they take on a worrying implication when read in context with recent remarks by Bill English. English recently declared in what can only have been an exceptional slip of the tongue that "one of the benefits of not having asset sales this term is that it's given us the time and the space to focus on all of the Government's assets and some of them are in good shape and some of them aren't in such good shape."

I may be guilty of a sin of interpretation, but I'm choosing to read that as a declaration of intent for the rest of this term - 'rationalising' state assets to make them more enticing for easy (part) privatisation from 2011 onward. This fits quite well with the pattern of events to date, ranging from recent moves on TVNZ to (more especially) Nick Smith's attempt to fully pre-fund ACC, and of course the succession of Taskforce reports urging exactly this.

In short, my attitude to the Key insistance upon a lack of privatisation plans can be summed up with another HW Bush quote from the same speach:"My opponent now says he'll raise them as a last resort, or a third resort. But when a politician talks like that, you know that's one resort he'll be checking into."

Taskforce, Taskforce everywhere; but not a drop of sense

2009-12-17T22:46:00.000+13:00

It was with considerable bemusement that I saw a "Capital Markets Development Taskforce" had issued its final report this morning, calling for (you guessed it) further privatisations.

This prompted three questions in my mind:

i) Why do we have such a profusion of task-forces (especially when they seem to generate suspiciously similar recommendations)?

ii) What has the cost to the taxpayer been to employ these ivory tower crystal ball-gazers for the last eighteen months?

iii) If we were serious about generating *good* ideas for developing our economy, might we not be better off asking *small* business owners, workers, students etc. (in other words, the very-real New Zealanders that'll be most effected by any taskforce's recommendations) what they reckon?

Call me cynical, but I believe that this succession of "reports" has two purposes. First, to provide a coterie of "expert" oppinion to draw upon as justification for the 2011 revelation of National's privatisation agenda. This is fairly obvious; the panels having obviously been set up to generate a pre-determined oppinion (one only needs to look at the chairman of the 2025 taskforce for compelling evidence).

However, it is their more insidious second aspect that causes me more concern. The idea here is to have numerous different voices saying broadly the same thing - that a particular neoliberal development path (featuring privatisations) is the *inevitable* way forward; and to construe any dissent to this as being promulgated solely by a *minority* of backward traditionalists. Suffice to say that this is a well-worn tactic in the circles of modern economics which we've already witnessed in action several times over the last quater century during both previous rounds of neo-liberalisation and the irrational exuberance that surrounded Globalisation (for a more elucidated discussion of this, check out John Ralston Saul's "The Collapse of Globalism and the Reinvention of the World").

The easy provision of Government sinecures for Business Round Table associates is probably also a factor in this profusion of politicised pestilents.

Communehagen

2009-12-11T21:56:00.000+13:00

To clarify, I believe the climate is changing, and I'm not denying that humans may have a role in that. In fact, I don't think it would be fair to say that the climate only appears to be static on the human scale; take any great length of time, such as a million years, in earth's history and the climate has always changed There are an enormous number of things we have done to change the world - city scapes and deforestation change the way the world absorbs heat from the sun, we alter the contents of the atmosphere which changes how the atmosphere retains heat and we pump out heat itself in the form of mechanical activity - that trying to deny we have any impact on the world's climate seems to me far-fetched. Despite this, I also think it stretches credibility to deny some other explanations for climate change such as changes in the energy coming from the sun, or natural cyclical variations such as changing ocean currents may have impacts as great or even greater than human impacts on the climate. I'd say my position is that of a rational sceptic.

What I've seen from the Copenhagen conference however leaves me less than impressed. The parade of third world officials and guests decrying the "Rich countries" for "creating the pollution in the first place" and demanding "they must pay". Between the BBC and al-Jazeera news I've heard the same thesis advanced half a dozen times: 'the West' got rich by polluting the world, at a time when other countries didn't. This pollution is bound to imminently destroy the lives of billions of people in the poorer countries, leaving the West with a moral legacy to support those people in developing first world lives without adding even more to greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.

There are a number of problems I have with this. First, there is a moral difference between the industrial development of 18th Century Britain and modern China: no one in Britain can have been expected to know that developing a steam engine that runs on coal would lead to the industrial civilization it would and have such drastic impacts on the surface of the world. The Chinese and other developing nations that are polluting like crazy can not claim the same. This is the difference between someone accidentally hitting a child that runs out in front of them on the road and someone intentionally running over the same toddler. In the first instance, if the person in no way could have prevented the event but was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time by random chance, we do not hold them responsible for anything. In the second instance, we hold the person responsible for murder. To put it another way, we consider Marie Curie a great scientist for her work on radioactivity, and mourn that she could not have known how dangerous it was as it most likely lead to her death. We would consider that anyone who, knowing the dangers, replicated her work without taking precautions to shield themselves and others from the effects of radiation a maniac.

Secondly, to say "The West got rich by polluting while the rest of the world wasn't" is a flawed point to score. The obvious place to start is by asking why the rest of the world wasn't taking advantage of these wonderful new technologies: and the answer was that by and large only Europe could develop them. It had gone through the enlightenment and thrown off the tyrannical shackles of superstition, and developed a culture that not only tolerated but gloried in the intellectual development of man. It was unique in this regard, aside from the classical Athenians, and the rest of the world has been raised from the depths of poverty by it. The other side of the enlightenment is that it lead to British subjects in the American colonies deciding to challenge the authority of the British King and committing to living in a country based on freedom. It is this element of personal freedom which has made America and Europe the wealthy, pleasant countries they are today, more than a measurement of pollution output. After all, if pollution output had a direct correlation to material wealth, the Soviet Union would have been the richest country on earth. The key point to make however is that if Western polities can be said to have responsibility for their actions in creating pollution, so other polities can be said to have responsibility for their citizens poverty; for example Haiti is not poorer than almost any other country in the America's because it as an entity faced a lack of opportunity compared to other countries in the Caribbean and South America. It is poor because it has had a succession of brutal dictatorships that have robbed the citizens of that country of the opportunity to work and build up wealth for themselves. If the West must pay Haitians and other developing nations off for the simple fact of their poverty, then we have ceded the role that effort plays in life. All nations must have the same relative outcomes per capita; regardless of the responsibility their Governments have in the inputs which determine those outcomes.

Thirdly, if the effect of Copenhagen is to limit human activity and transfer wealth from producers and innovators to those who are not productive but wish to enjoy the living standards and lifestyles of westerners, there is the very real danger of limiting the whole world's ability to fight climate change and its effects on human life by means of innovating, developing and producing new technologies. After all, it is the same freedoms that produced the wealth and intellectual muscle that have produced the very science that allows us to identify not only climate change but all manner of environmental deficiencies our lifestyles and industries produce, and regulate those accordingly.

In sum, the aims of the Copenhagen summit and the values that underpin are flawed and deeply troubling. They rely upon a reading of history that places Western achievement at the centre of everything that is wrong and sees countries as blocks that should have equal outcomes regardless of their merit. This is in effect a new international mantra of communism. There is a very real risk that the outcome of the Copenhagen summit will be to limit human development, not only reducing the living standards of those in the west but reducing our collective ability to identify and respond to new challenges in the future. Worst of all, there is no reason to expect that if its measures are followed it will do enough to stop climate change or even that it can, as the planet may heat or cool due to factors completely beyond human intervention, such as changes in the amount of solar energy reaching earth.

So what should be the alternative? Western Governments should invest in potential new green energy resources, such as the recently featured experimental tidal harness in the Orkneys, as well as researching projects that may solve climate change, from carbon capturing towers to a giant soletta that can reduce/increase the amount of energy reaching the planet from the sun and every other plausible idea in between. Globally, the effects of climate change should be monitored and where humanitarian disasters arise, such as drastically altered weather patterns or rising sea levels making Islands uninhabitable, assistance should be offered - as nations should in any case, regardless of cause. By following this course, we can maintain our civilization with its freedoms intact, and also provide help to those who have become victims of natural forces outside of their control.

Can We Fix It?

2009-12-08T13:39:00.000+13:00

Yes We Can!

No, that wasn't an Obamaism. Rather, I thought I'd open by quoting Winston Peters - a leader with a far better track-record in Public Healthcare.

This posting isn't just about healthcare however, although that will be touched on eventually.
Rather, I thought I'd start a small series outlining what we think is wrong with New Zealand at present (chiefly the economic and social snarlups brought on by our flirtation with Neoliberalism); and how we envisiage them fixed (Big-Thinking government economic programmes including import substitution, government job-creation as an alternative to the dole; and vitally needed education reform).

At first glance, it might look like I'm simply re-hashing the development policies of the so-called Asian Tiger/Dragon economies. This has been avoided for two reasons.

First, their strategy hinged upon a competitive advantage of cheap well-skilled labour - specifically the "cheap" bit. New Zealand trying to compete on this basis is impractical and ill-advised; not only because we'd be up against the sweatshop labour of the modern economic giants, but also because we should be fostering increased wages in order to boost our standard of living.

Second, I'm a great believer in having domestically developed solutions to our problems. It is a truism to say that foreign-built solutions are almost always tailor-made to fix problems in their own country of origin; problems which will most likely be quite distinct from those we face here, rendering such plans inappropriate for our domestic circumstances. Besides which, the Asian Tigers were effectively newly developing economies who had a good deal of the shelter of the Bretton-Woods system; New Zealand by contrast is an already well-developed country seeking to reverse its decline against a global economic backdrop wholly lacking in such stability (and with the added shackle of our immense distance from some of our main trading partners).

However, there are some definite similarities in intent and imposition; such as a need to nurture naescent domestic industries, ensure domestic capital retention (and thus re-investment), improve the post-secondary education system, and improve our export-lead growth.

I think we'll call it Taniwha Economics.

How to Use Oil

2009-11-25T15:40:00.000+13:00

Upon hearing Gerry Brownlee's enthusiastic estimate that crown reserves from prospective oil revenues would ammount to approximately ten billion dollars, the first thing I wondered was where that money would be going. Knowing this apparently act-led government, it would probably be used to finance tax cuts - to my mind, this is exactly the wrong thing to do. What we should be doing by contrast is taking a leaf from the Norwegians and establishing a robust sovereign wealth fund along the lines of their Statens Pensjon Fond Norge - namely, a fund directing that money into domestic investments.

The prime reason why such a fund would be desirable is due to the deletarious consequences of foreign investment in our companies. The surplus wealth generated winds up going overseas in the form of dividends, rather than staying in New Zealand or funding further expansion. If the Government were providing the investment instead, the money would obviously be far more likely to be retained and re-used here. This would be a long-term far more viable national investment strategy than the present enthusiasm for foreign direct investment as a quick capital injection. If National is serious about encouraging beneficial economic growth here as a result of a predicted oil boom, this would seem the logical way to go about it.

Unfortunately I haven't seen any such foresight from the prospective Sheiks in blue.

Running the Vote Bradford campaign, again.

2009-11-03T08:56:00.000+13:00

I was watching Prime TV News last night when an article on MMP came up. It went through the usual things: the reporter erroneously suggested that the electoral system could be on its last legs when the 2011 referendum is the first of what would have to be two stages, that minor parties would disappear without MMP when STV could very well mean more minor party MPs, and then some 'MMP Advocate' just about made me throw my remote at the TV.

Sam Huggard is an ex-NZUSA Co-President. He is a supporter of trendy causes everywhere, which is perfectly fine, except when you are speaking on national TV and proclaim that MMP should be retained because it would help you with your other causes.

One of the reasons Labour lost the last election is that it was forced to run the Bradford campaign; that is, campaign on the repeal of Section 59. Voters saw Labour as being aligned with Bradford. Regardless of the moral merit of their campaign the fact is they got hammered.

However, I think the people who would change our electoral system to bias the result - from businessmen calling for the return of FPP to Sam Huggard saying it "Were it not for MMP, we wouldn't have had things like Paid Parental Leave, the Gold Card for Superannuitants and initiatives like the home insulation scheme".

We also wouldn't have had MPs like Sue Bradford.

The point is that not only is it grossly undemocratic to try and get people to choose an electoral system that is biased in your favour, by campaigning on minor party policies you will almost certainly drive people to vote for the alternative.

Why New Zealand First is poised for a strong return to Parliament

2009-10-31T17:52:00.001+13:00

National has a powerful 25-30 point lead depending on which poll you read, more than a year into their term.

But this actually makes me quite confident for New Zealand First. I don't think National is going to maintain their enormous advantage through an election campaign. Come election time in 2011, they will almost certainly have dropped below 50% and I believe will end up getting around 47-48% of the vote, barring some horrific event to weaken public confidence in them.

But the soft support for them is not going to necessarily transfer over to Labour. Labour has yet to convince the voters that ditched it that it is a party worth returning to power. Indeed, with Goff still as leader and running at 30% in the polls coming into election year, there is every chance that their support could collapse as far as 20% as voters do the math and see Labour won't win, just as happened to National in 2002.

The other minor parties are probably going to rise, but the picture is not as rosy as some might conclude. The Greens seem to have a ceiling of support at around 9-10%, and given that they usually poll better than they do at the election and are currently sitting on 4% while Labour is weaker than it has been since 1996, they should be genuinely alarmed about their chances in 2011. Peter Dunne is the new Jim Anderton and Jim Anderton is done. The Maori party will run a big campaign for the party vote in 2011 and will do better than in previous years, but I don't see them going over the 5% threshold. With four or five electorate MPs they will likely only get one or two list MPs. ACT's support could very well rise in the 2011 election, but they will only take that off National in a zero-sum game.

So I'm projecting that going into the 2011 election there will be between 15-20% of soft support that could end up going to a party that makes a strong case for being a voice in Parliament for the policies not being represented. New Zealand First with its strong brand in terms of Winston Peters and a good campaign could very well be returned to Parliament with a bigger, better team than ever.

An Issue that should get every Kiwi steaming mad

2009-10-29T08:29:00.000+13:00

Rodney Hide's privatisation agenda is well known, and to be fair he has never denied he wants to hock off New Zealand's family silver, or what is left of it anyway.

But if National in any way leans towards Hide's plans to privatise water services it will be their second term that goes gurgling down the drain.

Water is the single most important resource in life and there should be no commercial incentives surrounding its supply. Both from the point of view of the consumer, who wants to know that the water they are drinking and using around the house and business is clean and safe, and from the environmental standpoint as our water resources need to be carefully managed, taking into account their long term viability and the relationship kiwis have with rivers and lakes. Making the responsibility for managing this precious resouce yet one more step removed from the voters is a ridiculous idea.

Investing in New Zealand Broadband

2009-10-26T14:04:00.000+13:00

In a stirling example of what is right with Scandinavia, the Government of Finland has decided to make broadband access a legal right. This is a laudable example of 21st century government infrastructure investment, and the successful Scandinavian approach to government economic investment.

Poor performance on the part of our privatised national telecommunications giant has resulted in our equivalent infrastructure being in a woeful state. Considering a supposed government emphasis on creating a "knowledge economy" (whatever that means), the vitality of the internet in general, and its ability to mitigate to a certain extent our inherent disadvantage in being located on the other side of the world; one would think rectification and improvement of our internet problems would be imperative.

Regrettably such strident measures have not yet eventuated here. While National has indeed agreed to fork out one and a half billion dollars creating such infrastructure here in New Zealand, there are two problems with its plan. First, their committment to using private sector companies' part-funding. Given the rather appalling record of private control of infrastructure that this country has (the obvious examples being railway tracks), it seems somewhat odd to entrust such a vital element of our national growth to anyone but the public.

Second, to my mind they aren't going far enough. The key difference between the NZ plan and the Finnish plan isn't the speed (100 megabits per second in both cases), but rather an entirely different kind of access. The Fins have decided to make such fast broadband access a national right available to all; whereas National's silence on the matter (excepting their excellent idea of ensuring availability to schools) convinces one to assume it will be the 'user pays' system of our historically tight market.

Having publically ensured (and subsidised) broadband access for everyone might seem to be at the rather cavalier end of "thinking big" policy, but it is this writer's belief that in order to secure both parity with living standards in Europe, and to take and hold an international competitive advantage, such a plan is necessary for New Zealand.

Praise for Simon Power

2009-10-25T06:50:00.000+13:00

I'm a fan of our Mixed Member Proportional electoral system - New Zealanders put it in place because we were sick of single party Governments that would be elected on a mandate only to do act in complete opposition to it once elected. Proportional systems ensure that your vote counts at a national level regardless of your geographical location, and electorates ensure local issues and independent candidates can be included in the national election process.

So while I would rather that Parliament hold an inquiry into improving MMP rather than a referendum on whether to switch to another electoral system I'd like to praise Simon Power for creating a referendum process that is fair.

An irony

2009-10-25T06:10:00.000+13:00

I've been watching online the BBC "Question Time" Episode which features Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party. Towards the end of the first part the African-American Deputy Director of the British Museum says about the infamously intolerant and born-out-of-racism party:

"You do have to ask yourself the question: What kind of a so-called political party is based on an idea of indigenous people? It just doesn't exist"

Clearly she believes it to be deeply disturbing and inherently racist that a party base itself on the idea of advancing the interests of one race over others. I don't think anyone being fair minded about the issue could disagree.

Perhaps members and advocates of the Maori party could help the modern BNP answer the question.

The Great ACC Coverup (Or: Fattening for Slaughter)

2009-10-19T11:24:00.000+13:00

As aggrieved motorcyclists are no doubt already aware, ACC levies are on the increase due to an alleged new budgeting shortfall. Now, leaving aside my own serious doubts as to the veracity of the figures indicating the last "crisis", and taking the available evidence as-is rather than with a handful of the salt no doubt about to be rubbed into the wounds of the Woodhouse Report; things still seems mightily odd.

The root of the present "shortfall" and corresponding levy increase appears to have been a decision to increase the forecasts for costs (even going so far as to add a "future cabinet and regulated rate increases" category), apparently in an attempt to increase ACC reserves beyond their already impressive projected 3.5 years. In other words, the Government is attempting to inject enough money for it to be more self-sufficient for at least another election cycle. Indeed, The Listener estimates that 8.3 years worth of reserves would render the scheme entirely pre-fundable.

To put it bluntly, the Government is inexorably pushing ACC toward financial independance, probably as part of yet another bid to inject privatisation into this element of the insurance market - either by re-allowing private competition, or by wholly or partially privatising the scheme. National's refusal to genuinely confirm ACC's future, and pointed ambiguity as to the prospects of privatisations in their second term certainly do nothing to disprove this.

Putting New Zealand First on the Net

2009-10-10T14:37:00.000+13:00

Well, here we are. Curwen and I are the first to join this blog, but I think the long term vision is to build up a group of bloggers as we help to build a stronger youth wing for New Zealand First. It should be made clear however that we are not speaking in official capacity for NZF, we are merely enthusiastic supporters.

"Youth Wing? New Zealand First? Aren't they mutually exclusive?" I can hear some of the more sceptical amongst you ask yourselves. Despite the stereotype, we think there is every reason for kiwi youth to get energised by the issues New Zealand First brings up. Despite National's rhetoric in opposition about ending the brain drain, we have seen precious little action on this issue since they have got into Government. The most talented youth we have do not see this country as the dynamic, exciting land of opportunity it needs to become to keep its place as a first world nation. Both Labour and National are responsible for the twenty five years old neoliberal experiment that has eroded our public services, destroyed our manufacturing sector and sent us tumbling down the OECD ladder. So that is why I've decided to put my efforts going into the 2011 election with a party led by a man who has resolutely opposed these policies both as a opposition frontbencher against the Rogernomics of the Lange Government and as the man with the courage to leave National over its betrayal of the electorate in committing to Ruthanasia.

But more than that I'm committed to getting a party elected that will put New Zealand's economy back on track, that recognises the importance of keeping critical assets such as Kiwirail and Air New Zealand in New Zealand hands, that wants to create a New Zealand of full employment and has the courage to propose new and innovative ways to manage the economy, rather than carrying on with the failed Reserve Bank Act which up-ends our economy with every sign of growth.

That is why I'm with New Zealand First.