Archive
That was Then, This is Now #22 – Lowest wages vs Highest wages
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 24 January 2014.
*
.
Previous related blogpost
That was Then, This is Now #21 – Increasing Govt Charges for Services: Labour vs National
References
Fairfax Media: PM – No money for aged care workers
NZ Herald: PPTA ‘cautiously optimistic’ over school leadership changes
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the Editor: What taxes John Key’s mind?
.
.
FROM: "f.macskasy" SUBJECT: Letters to the Editor DATE: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 08:26:50 +1300 TO: " Sunday Star Times" <letters@star-times.co.nz>.
The Editor Sunday Star Times . With continuing high unemployment and ongoing job losses; increasing child poverty and wage/wealth inequality; a shortage of decent, affordable housing; threats to our coastal environment from deep-sea drilling; increasing state surveillance on New Zealanders; rising interest rates to come - what taxes John Key's mind? The flag. Nice to know that Dear Leader has our interests at heart and is focused on the real, sole critical problem confronting our nation. The next election can't come soon enough. -Frank Macskasy (address & phone number supplied)
.
*
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen
.
.
= fs =
Letter to Radio NZ: Key, the flag, and irrelevancies
.
.
FROM: "f.macskasy" SUBJECT: Flag DATE: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 07:53:28 +1300 TO: Checkpoint RNZ <checkpoint@radionz.co.nz>.
Kia ora Geoff & Simon, It should be fairly evident to all by the most naive that raising the flag is Key's juvenile attempt at distracting voters from the real problems confronting this country. Chief amongst those is rising child poverty, wage/wealth inequality; high unemployment; shortage of affordable decent housing, etc. With all these problems facing the country, Key focuses on irrelevancies and suggests a referendum. We had a referendum on the sale of state assets and he ignored the results. So now he wants another referendum and he'll respect the results of that one? Pathetic and laughable. -Frank Macskasy
(phone number supplied)
.
*
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen
.
.
= fs =
Latest Roy Morgan poll bad news for National
.
.
The latest Roy Morgan poll is bad news for John Key, as it confirms a downward trend for the current National-led government and a rise in the left Labour-Green bloc.
Taken between 6 January to 19 January, 2014, the poll was conducted through calling 1,509 respondents, both on landline and mobile telephones. (Currently, Roy Morgan is the only polling company that calls cellphones as well as landlines.)
The poll showed that voter-support for the main ‘players’ is fluid and that none of the parties can take anything for granted. At 46%, the Labour/Green Bloc is outstripping National’s 43.5%, which appears to have no viable coalition partners on the Right.
The Numbers
The Right Bloc:
National Party: 43.5% (- 1.5%)
Conservative Party of NZ: 2.5% (+ 0.5%)
Maori Party: 2% (+ 0.5%)
United Future: 0.5% (+ 0.5%)
Act: 0% (unchanged)
The Left Bloc:
Labour Party: 33.5% (+ 3%)
Green Party: 12.5% (- 2%)
Mana Party: 0.5% (- 0.5%)
Wild Card:
NZ First: 4% (- 1%)
The Trend
.
.
The Analysis
1. At 43.5% in the poll, this constitutes a 3.8 percentage-point drop from National’s election night result of 47.3%, in 2011. A few more percentage points lost between now and Election Day this year, and it’s Game Over for this hopeless government.
A point to consider is that part of Key’s unbelievable success can be laid at his public persona of an easy-going nature, and his uncanny ability to de-politicise politics. As he is forced to become more political in a very politicised year, that easy-going nature and de-politicised approach to issues, will be put to the test. The Prime Minister may yet become a political creature like his predecessors.
2. Labour’s 33.5% poll result contrasts starkly with their poor election night result in 2011, where their support collapsed to 27.48%. If the Labour-Green-Mana bloc can increase their support by a couple of more percentage points – the next Prime Minister will be David Cunliffe and Dear Leader John Key will be taking an extended vacation in Hawaii.
Expect Labour to attack National on it’s weak fronts;
- rising mortgage interest rates – estimated to reach 7% to 8%
- rising fuel prices as the global economy picks up, and the demand for oil increases
- a bounce upward in unemployment, as businesses attempt to cut costs by reducing staff
- an on-going shortage of affordable housing
- young New Zealanders forced out of the housing market, due to National’s sign-off on Reserve Bank policies
- continuing wages lagging behind CPI increases
- worsening balance of payments and another credit downgrade by Standard & Poors, Moodies, and/or Fitch
- and as winter sets in – an outbreak of infectious disease in low socio-economic areas will impact on Key’s reputation as a sound political manager
3. Though NZ First currently polls at 4% – just under the 5% threshold – this blogger believes Peters can pull his Party up, and return to Parliament. The only qualifyer to this is if the public are sufficiently spooked by Peters’ continuing refusal to indicate which Bloc he will support, post-election.
In essence, voters will be reluctant to give him a “blank cheque”, knowing that (a) he will be “king maker” and (b) he may “make the wrong person king”.
For a Voter who supports a Labour-led Coalition – what if Peters joins the Nats?
For a Voter who supports a Key-led government – what if he opts for a left-wing government headed by Labour?
This “fetish” of Peters – whilst strategically sound in some respects – may start to annoy a significant proportion of swing-voters to such a level that they are reluctant to take a “punt” on him.
As always, when playing two elephants off against each other, there is a risk of being trampled underneath.
4. It appears that Labour has ‘cannabalised’ support from the Green Party. Anyone in Labour rejoicing at this will need to smarten up their ideas. The task ahead of us is to grow the overall Labour-Green-Mana vote – not cannibalise each others’ support. Attacking each other is a mug’s game and the only person who will rejoice is the current Prime Minister.
There were 800,000 non-voters at the last election. They are the ones we should be engaging with.
5. National seems to have lost support to the Conservative Party, which has recorded a rise in polling. But if the Conservatives fail to win an Electorate Seat, their small rise – at National’s expense – will not only be wasted, but will harm National’s overall Parliamentary seat numbers.
6. Act’s currently zero polling indicates that there may be no strategic value for National to “gift” them the seat of Epsom. If the next Act candidate (John Boscawen?) cannot pull in another Act MP on his “coat tails”, then the Nats might as well take their seat back.
That will be the end of Act and another nail in the coffin that is being prepared for neo-liberalism in this country.
7. If everyone who voted Green in Ohariu sobers up long enough to cast their electorate vote to the Labour candidate, that will be the end of Dunne’s political career. Had 1,775 Green voters who gave their electorate vote to Gareth Hughes voted for Charlers Chauvel instead, Dunne would have lost his seat in 2011.
8. The Maori Party is doomed.
9. The Conservative Party will not cross the 5% threshold, nor win an electorate seat. Aside from alienating women voters by calling them sexually promiscuous, or opposing marriage equality for all New Zealanders, regardless of sexual orientation; or admitting to breaking the law and assaulting his own children – Craig and his Party are simply too ‘fringe’ for 99% of New Zealand voters to stomach.
Even the religious-based Christian Coalition in 1996 could only achieve 4.33% of the Party vote. Not enough to cross the 5% threshold.
And if by some miracle (!), Craig wins an electorate seat and/or crosses the 5% threshold – who else will be on his Party List? The Conservative Party list may field candidates every bit as loopy and ill-disciplined as Peter Dunne’s rag-tag band of eccentrics in 2002. And that did not last very long either.
10. We are on track for a change of government at the end of this year. But there is still a lot of work ahead of us.
Note
Of all respondents/electors surveyed, 4% (unchanged) did not specifically nominate a preference for any party.
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 23 January 2014.
.
*
.
References
Wikipedia: New Zealand general election, 1996
Wikipedia: New Zealand general election, 2002
Wikipedia: New Zealand general election, 2002 – Early activity
NZ Herald: Key says he’ll quit politics if National loses election (3 January 2011)
Wikipedia: New Zealand general election, 2011
NZ Herald: No proof to promiscuity claim (9 May 2012)
TV1 News: Conservative leader says gay marriage ‘not right‘ (27 July 2012)
NZ Herald: Colin Craig: I smack my child (13 January 2014
Roy Morgan Poll: Jan 22 2014
Previous related blogposts
Post mortem #1: Green Voters in Electorates (27 November 2011)
Mr Morgan phoned (1 September 2013)
Latest Roy Morgan Poll – on course to dump this rotten government (14 September 2013)
Census, Surveys, and Cellphones (Part rua) (12 December 2013)
Latest Roy Morgan Poll: next govt too close to call? (15 December 2013)
Letter to the Editor: Winston Peters, Kim Dotcom, and blank cheques (22 January 2014)
Other blogs
The Daily Blog: Does Winston want to go home?
The Standard: National’s first strategic mistake
The Standard: Latest Roy Morgan – Labour + Green ahead
No Minister: Key softens stance on deal with Peters
Gordon Campbell: On National’s election fling with New Zealand First
Polity: The science of Key’s 2014 coalitions
Public Address: Hard News: All John’s Friends
The Dim Post: Winston Peters is not that unpopular
.
.
= fs =
Whalers go gunning for Whaleoil
.
Source: Radio NZ – Blogger believes death threats from West Coast
.
On Radio NZ’s “Checkpoint” this morning, poor ole right wing blogger and Sultan of Sleaze, Cameron Slater, was painting himself as the “victim of bullies”;
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/2583839
Oh, the irony and hypocrisy… *shakes head*
He obviously still does not understand that if you attack, denigrate, and abuse people – that eventually he will strike someone who will hit back. Hard.
Karma is not a mystical thing. It is humans getting pissed off.
That he doesn’t understand this simple aspect of human nature reaffirms in my mind that Slater doesn’t understand people. The term psychopath comes to mind.
Or just plain arsehole.
Postscript:
Folks should lay off the death threats. We know that Slater is a foolish little man who acts in a repulsive manner – but death threats are not cool. (That’s if the “death threats” are real, and not an attempt by Slater to garner sympathy and headlines. We’ll see if he goes ahead with the police complaint.)
Still – death threats. Not cool.
.
*
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the Editor: A Rock Star Economy?!
.. FROM: "f.macskasy" SUBJECT: Letters to the Editor DATE: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 22:32:06 +1300 TO: "NZ Herald" letters@herald.co.nz . The Editor NEW ZEALAND HERALD . HSBC chief economist, Paul Bloxham, describes New Zealand as the "rock star" economy among OECD nations. I hope not. Rock stars have a nasty habit of burning out early (the Rolling Stones being an exception) through drugs, booze, and other nasty vices. I recall that Ireland was described as the "Celtic Tiger" between 1995 and 2000 - until it's economy crashed and burned later. It's massive foreign investment led to an unsustainable property boom which collapsed like a house of cards in 2008 with the GFC. The "Celtic Tiger" has lessons for our own nation, as we also face an unsustainable property boom and associated private debt that, by 31 June 2012, reached a staggering $256.4 billion, or 125.3% of GDP (ref; RBNZ). I've no doubt that the HSBC - a UK-based bank - is loving our "rock star" economy. They are no doubt amongst big lenders, funding our property speculation habit. Trouble is, like most suppliers of a "habit", they will eventually seek payment-in-full. That's when we'll see how rock stars crash. -Frank Macskasy (address & phone number supplied)
.
*
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen
.
.
= fs =
David Cunliffe’s State of the Nation, 27 January 2014
If you missed David Cunliffe’s State of the Nation speech, here it is;
.
[Click on image]
.
The only thing he missed out on; that he will take on the role of Minister for Children once he becomes Prime Minister. Cunliffe was correct; children are the future of this country.
A quarter of a million children in poverty is not an “issue” – it is a crisis slowly exploding into our communities. Only fools with their heads buried in neo-liberal sand willfully ignore such a growing problem.
David Cunliffe, Prime Minister & Minister for Children.
Such a move would add unassailable gravitas to such a portfolio. It would be a good start.
.
.
= fs =
Beehive make-over
Seen from Molesworth Street, in down-town Wellington,
.
.
The Beehive is under-going a face-lift/make-over.
Just in time for the coming election and the new, incoming, Labour-Green-Mana(-NZ First?) government.
Good timing.
.
.
= fs =
A proposed Labour-Green-Mana(-NZ First?) agenda – part rua
Continued from: A proposed Labour-Green-Mana(-NZ First?) agenda – part tahi
.
.
An incoming Labour-Green-Mana(-NZ First?*) coalition government will have much work to do – especially in it’s first three years.
In the six years that National has been in power, they have passed many odious and often repressive pieces of legislation. Labour and the Greens have already committed to repealing some of these laws and policies.
As a Labour-led coalition government addresses growing problems of child poverty; income inequality; a shortage of decent, affordable housing; and chronic unemployment (currently at 7.1% according to the 2013 Census), a legislative programme will demand a long list of progressive reforms.
In no particular order;
Welfare “reforms”
Drug testing welfare recipients – the sign of a National government desperate to deflect attention away from it’s lack of credible job creation policies, and stigmatise the victims of the Global Financial Crisis by insinuating that they are lazy, shiftless, drug-numbed layabouts.
Or, as the Salon website wrote last year about this very same issue in the United States,
The logic behind extant drug testing laws goes something like this: Taxpayer money shouldn’t be used to buy illegal drugs. People collecting welfare receive taxpayer money. Some of these people use illegal drugs. Therefore, we should test them in order to stop giving taxpayer money to those who use illegal drugs.
It’s true, people on welfare use drugs. But so do people from every socioeconomic level. People on welfare also receive taxpayer money. But so do people from every socioeconomic level. If the goal is to stop people from potentially using taxpayer money to purchase illegal substances then we should apply these programs to every person receiving government funds. That means testing students who receive government scholarships, laboratories receiving government research grants, and farmers receiving farm subsidies. It means testing veterans, police officers and firefighters. It means testing the employees of the companies that administer the tests. And it most certainly means testing politicians, from the governor all the way down to city council members.
But you won’t see any governors calling for extensive testing. This is because none of these other groups have the stigma of poverty attached to them — a stigma that leads many to turn a blind eye to harmful policies that affect only the poor, but would never be tolerated if done to other groups.
Welfare-based drug testing is only a symptom of a larger societal ill that sees the poor as inherently parasitic and viceful (e.g., “They take advantage of government programs, not us.” “They do drugs, not us.”). As a result, legislators heap unfair, ineffective policies on those in poverty simply to court public favor by playing to their prejudices. The welfare queen, cashing government checks, smoking drugs and living the life of luxury, continues to be a useful myth when it comes to winning votes. And as more of these policies, whose support is borne by an unfounded disdain for the poor, are enacted, the humanity of those living in poverty is further eroded as the chasm between the haves and the have-nots grows even wider.
The same Salon article reported,
In 2009, Arizona was the first state to adopt a program that drug-tested recipients of welfare whom officials had “reasonable cause” to believe were using drugs. Besides stigmatizing recipients of government assistance, implying that they’re a group of no-good drug fiends, the bill was implemented to try rand resuscitate a failing budget, and Arizona officials believed that testing could save the state $1.7 million a year.
But in 2012, three years and 87,000 screenings later, only one person had failed a drug test. Total savings from denying that one person benefits? $560. Total benefits paid out in that time? $200 million. Even if we include the savings from cutting benefits to the 1,633 people who didn’t return the pre-test survey, it brings the total to only 0.1 percent of the amount distributed over that period.
Similar results were found for Oklahoma and Florida,
Similarly lackluster results have dogged Oklahoma’s drug testing program in which only 29 people failed. When contacted, Oklahoma’s Department of Human Services said it didn’t keep track of the amount the state saved by denying benefits to those who tested positive, but testing fees are estimated to have totaled $74,000.
Florida had a testing program in 2011 that was halted by the courts not long after it was started. During its brief lifespan it had similarly poor results. Only 2.6 percent of those tested turned up positive for illicit substances. And since Florida reimbursed those who were clean for the cost of their tests, the state actually lost $45,780 because of the program.
So what were the results here in New Zealand? As the NZ Herald reported on 11 January, this year;
Of the 8,001 beneficiaries sent for jobs requiring drug testing, only 22 tested positive to drug use or refused to take tests.
Twentytwo people. Out of 8,001. That’s a “fail” rate of – wait fer it – 0.27% !!
When asked how much this exercise in futility has cost the taxpayer, deputy chief executive of Work and Income, Debbie Power, replied that “there was no information available showing how much the drug testing scheme cost. There was also no information showing actual or estimated savings”.
Which, intriguingly, mirrors the United States situation, where they also could not provide financial details when requested.
Similar policies in both the USA and New Zealand, and a similar lack of available information surrounding costs.
Coincidence? Or is this right-wing strategy emanating from the same (or inter-connected) right-wing think tank/s?
The lack of information is made even more farcical when Welfare Minister Paula Bennett claimed that the policy was “driving beneficiaries away from using drugs“. Yet, her office admitted to having no data to support the claim. Nothing. Zilch. In other words, she made it up.
She probably also made up the original “costings” figures in August 2012, when she announced the policy,
She said estimates at the high end put the cost of enforcing the policy at $10 million. “We really think the real cost is around $3 million for those that will be known as dependent, once this testing comes in. The savings are estimated to be around $10.5 million.”
The crackdown would involve up to 13,000 beneficiaries a year getting treatment for drug dependency.
Ms Bennett said a Ministry of Health report from 2007/2008 said beneficiaries were three times more likely to be cannabis users. “That would put them at around 20 per cent of beneficiaries, if you went by that number. The UN says that New Zealand and Australia have the highest use of cannabis anywhere in the world,” she said.
Funny how Bennett had the figures available in 2012 – but not readily available now, after the drug testing policy has been in force for a little over six months?
Nor did Bennett have “time to trawl through evidence” supposedly provided “from face-to-face meetings with employers and others” who had supposedly complained “about beneficiaries failing drug tests“, when requested by Helen Kelly from the CTU.
Perhaps everyone in this country should be drug-tested? No exceptions. John Key can lead the way. His wife and children next.
After all, as a civil servant, he himself is a beneficiary of the State. (A very highly paid one, at that.)
It is also worthwhile noting that Police Minister Anne Tolley categorically refused to consider drug-testing for New Zealand’s police,
Anne Tolley says the overwhelming majority of police staff are doing a fantastic job and they should not face workplace drug testing. She says police are quick to prosecute their own if there is any wrongdoing.
Considering that police officers have access to deadly weapons, one would have thought that mandatory drug testing would be done as a matter of course. Only recently, a Police Prosecutor was convicted for possession and use of cannabis and methamphetamine.
Why are all New Zealanders not drug tested? Why the insistance by this government of focusing only on welfare recipients?
Because, as The Salon article above pointed out with crystal clarity, it serves the purpose of the National Party to deflect attention onto the unemployed; depict them as lazy drug-users; and thereby Key and his Ministers avoid taking political responsibility for chronic levels of high unemployment. As Bennett alluded to on 28 August 2012,
“Welfare reforms are resetting expectations and obligations and recreational drug use is simply not an acceptable excuse for avoiding available work.
Illegal drug use should not get in the way of getting a job if you are on a benefit.
Too many beneficiaries are missing out on job opportunities because of recreational drug use and that’s just not acceptable.”
She used all the dog-whistle references in that speech. This is what is known as scape-goating, and if sufficient numbers of gullible, uninformed voters ‘buy’ into this strategy, then it serves National’s purpose as it seeks re-election this year.
As “Bomber” Bradbury pointed out on Tumeke in August 2012,
“…National don’t believe in creating jobs, they create ‘environments’ where jobs are created, likewise they won’t find the unemployed jobs, they’ll find ways to create an environment that disqualifies them from gaining a benefit in the first place.
Drug testing beneficiaries isn’t aimed at making them work ready in a 9.1% real unemployment labour market, it’s aimed at disqualifying them from recieving a benefit, thus removing them from the official 6.9% unemployment rate into the invisible world of poverty.”
Which Paula Bennett confirmed on TVNZ’s Q+A, on 29 April 2012, in a roundabout way,
“There’s not a job for everyone that would want one right now, or else we wouldn’t have the unemployment figures that we do.”
Regardless of the obvious bullshit nature of this machiavellian policy, an incoming Labour-led coalition must repeal this odious policy forthwith. In doing so, Cunliffe and the new Minister of Social Welfare must explain clearly and concisely to the electorate the duplicitous nature of this policy and why it serves no purpose in creating jobs.
Labour and it’s allies must not only dump this policy – they should take the opportunity to educate the public so that National will find it impossible to ever reinstate it again.
National Standards
Another favourite of right-wing politicians, National Standards was introduced in 2010, and has been steadily opposed by every education sector group, whether it was the NZ Principals’ Federation, NZEI, Boards of Trustees; PPTA; and many parents.
A year earlier, an open letter had been sent to then Minister of Education, Anne Tolley. The letter was signed by high-regarded professionals and experts in the education sector; Prof. Martin Thrupp (University of Waikato); Prof. John Hattie (University of Auckland); Prof. Terry Crooks (University of Otago); and Lester Flockton (University of Otago), and stated in part,
“Minister, in our view the flaws in the new system are so serious that full implementation of the intended National Standards system over the next three years is unlikely to be successful. It will not achieve intended goals and is likely to lead to dangerous side effects.
We are very concerned that the intended National Standards system wrongly assumes that children are failing if they do not meet the standard for their age. This will lead to the repeated labelling of many young children as failures and will be self-fulfilling because it will damage children’s self-esteem and turn them off learning and achieving in literacy and numeracy and other curricula areas. There are many successful New Zealanders with unexceptional school records who would not have succeeded had they been constantly labelled as failures during their childhood. A better form of assessment and reporting would focus on the progress that children are making and we believe this is the approach that should be being used.
Minister, you are aware the international record on the effects of national testing is damning. We recognise the intended National Standards are not national tests, but our understanding of why national testing has such adverse effects convinces us that the intended National Standards system will suffer most of the same problems. We are concerned about the damage that will occur if the performance of children against the Standards is reported publicly, as has happened internationally. We stress that such reporting of results at each year level will distort and impoverish the culture of teaching and learning and assessment within schools. It will undermine the new curriculum and lead to a narrower, less interesting form of primary education for New Zealand children. It will also result in inappropriate judgements about the quality of schools and teachers.
[…]
In our view the intended National Standards system has little chance of engaging the hearts and minds of New Zealand primary teachers. Our primary teachers have a strong ethic of care for children. We believe they are opposing National Standards not because they are reluctant to be accountable but because of genuine concerns about the effects of the national standards system on children and their learning. “
Part of the problem of National Standards – aside from the bizarre notion of attempting to “standardise” all children’s learning – was the likelihood of National Standards results being turned in to League Tables. Such a move would pit school against school and introduce competition into a system that was better served by collegial, co-operative action.
In other words, this was a thinly-veiled neo-liberal policy being implemented. The ultimate goal? Further commercialisation of schools? Privatisation?
As a sop to mounting criticism, in October 2009, then Education Minister, Anne Tolley, pledged not to facilitate National Standards,
After months of disputes, Education Minister Anne Tolley has struck a deal with primary school unions that will see them work together on its controversial national standards policy.
Under the agreement, the Government has confirmed it will make it as difficult as possible for the media to produce league tables that rank schools.
Mrs Tolley told The Dominion Post the deal was a “a momentous occasion”.
She said she told the groups she was prepared to work with them to stop the use of league tables. “We want to make it as difficult for you [media] as possible. It will be too hard and too much work and not worth it in the end. There are a few ideas we will discuss as to how we can do that.”
By 2011, that pledge had changed,
National leader John Key this afternoon announced the party’s full education policy, including early childhood, schools and the tertiary sector.
He said National’s “next steps” on the controversial National Standards scheme would include using performance information to “strengthen the accountability of schools”.
[…]
Education spokeswoman Anne Tolley said a National-led Government would not roll out any league tables of its own but primary schools would, from next year, be required to publish their results against the National Standards. There were be no steps to stop media or anyone else from constructing league tables out of the information.
“We want the system to be far more accountable to parents and communities,” Tolley said.
(Hat-tip: Dim Post blog)
Unsurprising really. Experience has shown that trusting National politicians to keep their word is a wholly futile exercise.
On 11 June 2013, Labour’s education spokesperson, Chris Hipkins pledged that an incoming Labour-led government would scrap National Standards. He made no bones about Labour’s view on the policy,
“It’s now abundantly clear that National Standard results are neither national nor standard. There is no proper process in place to ensure that a student judged as meeting a standard wouldn’t get a different outcome if assessed by a different teacher at a different school. The data released today is therefore is completely useless.”
Useless indeed. This is another of National’s ideologically-motivated policies that deserves to be “filed” here,
.
.
(* At this point in time, NZ First’s leader, Winston Peters, has not indicated which bloc – Labour or National – he intends to coalesce with. As such, any involvement by NZ First in a progressive government cannot be counted upon.)
To be continued at: A proposed Labour-Green-Mana(-NZ First?) agenda – part toru
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 17 January 2014.
.
*
.
References
Salon: An inane, money-eating sham: Drug tests for welfare a huge failure
NZ Herald: Drug testing of beneficiaries set to come into force from July
NZ Herald: Minister claims low drug result as victory
Radio NZ: Bennett defends drug-testing of beneficiaries
Dominion Post: PM gets $9200 pay rise
Radio NZ: Police minister says no to drug tests at work
Related blogpost: Letter to the Editor: Was Paula Bennett ever drug tested?
Radio NZ: Prosecutor sentenced over drug charges
Beehive: Pre-employment drug testing for jobseekers
TVNZ: Q+A – Transcript of Paula Bennett interview
Tumeke: What the real aim of drug testing beneficiaries is
Roy Morgan: unemployment statistics
Open Letter to the Minister of Education, Hon Anne Tolley
Fairfax media: Tolley and unions strike league tables deal
Fairfax media: Nats open door to primary school league tables
NZ Herald: Labour would dump National Standards
Labour Party: Only constant is Hekia’s waffle
.
.
= fs =
A proposed Labour-Green-Mana(-NZ First?) agenda – part tahi
.
.
An incoming Labour-Green-Mana(-NZ First?*) coalition government will have much work to do – especially in it’s first three years.
In the six years that National has been in power, they have passed many odious and often repressive pieces of legislation. Labour and the Greens have already committed to repealing some of these laws and policies.
As a Labour-led coalition government addresses growing problems of child poverty; income inequality; a shortage of decent, affordable housing; and chronic unemployment (currently at 7.1% according to the 2013 Census), a legislative programme will demand a long list of progressive reforms.
In no particular order;
“The Hobbit Law”
Enacted on 29 October 2010, the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill/Act ( aka “The Hobbit Law”) was passed by National in just 48 hours. If Parliament was an Olympic event, Key and his cronies would’ve won a Gold Medal for the breath-taking speed at which this Bill was rammed through the House under “Urgency”. The law effectively stole the rights of workers to be treated as employees (rather than “sub-contractors”) and negotiate collectively.
It was part of a package of corporate welfare for Warner Bros, which included a $67 million subsidy, courtesy of the taxpayer. That was despite the first installment of The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey making over US$1 billion, world-wide.
Never before in our history has a government yielded to such naked, open pressure to change our labour laws to suit a foreign corporation. The term “prostitute” doesn’t begin to cover the heinous nature of this sell-out by a New Zealand government to a trans-national corporation.
A year later, Labour announced it would repeal this odious piece of legislation. I expect them to keep their word. If only to send a clear message to firms wanting to do business in this country that our laws are not for sale.
Charter Schools
Sponsored by the one-man-band ACT Party, Charter Schools are private companies using tax-payer’s money to make a profit. No wonder Russell Norman likened John Key to Robert Muldoon – this is Muldoonism at it’s best/worst (depending on your point of view).
The Charter Schools policy was never put before the public during the 2011 general election, and there is no mandate for it. The ACT website’s Education Policy contained a vague, oblique reference to “reforming education towards a more market-like and entrepreneurial service” – but no specific regard to “Charter Schools”.
There are many things wrong with the Charter Schools policy – chief amongst them that they are not accountable under the Official Information Act; nor are registered teachers required; companies running Charter Schools need not hold any education experience; public scrutiny is weak to non-existent; and overseas evidence shows that Charter Schools are not a solution to education problems.
In fact, they may owe more to ideology than to any robust study and even Treasury – no bastion of progressive thought – has voiced criticism on the proposal,
However they also show Treasury is not convinced the benefits of introducing the schools will outweigh the costs and risks.
The papers express scepticism that increasing competition between schools will improve the education system.
The documents show both the Treasury and Ministry of Education opposed the Government’s plan to allow partnership schools to hire unregistered teachers.
Treasury told the Government that teacher registration is an indication of a minimum level of quality.
Labour has firmly stated that legislation enabling Charter Schools will be repealed.
Excellent. As it should be. This is not about educational “excellence” nor parental “choice”. This was an ill-conceived, ideologically-driven, nutty policy from a small, dying political party that gained 23,889 (1.07%) popular votes at the last election. As such, the education of our children cannot be left to the idealogical whims of what is, in reality, a fringe group of right-wing, free-market zealots.
Terrorism Suppression Act
This was a legacy from the Clark-led Labour government and it was a knee-jerk, ill-conceived, poorly executed piece of repressive garbage that belongs more in Pinochet’s Chile or Ceausescu’s Romania, than in a social democracy such as New Zealand. The Act was a ‘nod’ to our so-called “allies” in Washington and London, post September 11, when paranoia about global terrorism was at it highest.
The law was used to facilitate the Urewera Raids in 2007 (along with raids in Auckland, Wellington, Palmerston North and Hamilton). Eighteen people were arrested.
None stood trial under the Act itself, and instead four individuals were eventually charged under more mundane firearms offenses. The Court threw out out “evidence” which had been illegally obtained.
The Terrorism Suppression Act itself was described by Solicitor General, David Collins, QC, as, “unnecessarily complex, incoherent and as a result almost impossible to apply to the domestic circumstances observed by the police in this case“.
Considering that the Urewera village of Rūātoki was held in lock-down by para-military garbed and armed police, with many innocent people including women and children confined for a lengthy period under armed guard, this was nothing less than a suspension of our rights as citizens, and a step towards a neo-fascist state (though one suspects there are some New Zealanders who would happily welcome such a regime) . The only acts of terrorism on that day in October, seven years ago, was by the State and it’s frightening, menacing, para-military which forced it’s way into people’s homes and threatened them with lethal weapons.
Thirty years previously, movie-maker Sam Donaldson presented us with Sleeping Dogs – a cinematic version of C.K. Stead’s novel, Smith’s Dream. The storyline was of a nightmarish, dystopian near-future, of New Zealand as a repressive police state, with all dissent brutally crushed.
That future arrived on 15 October 2007.
.
“We are from the government. We are here to help.”
.
In December 2013, the Human Rights Commission published a report on the raids – called “Operation 8 by Police – which stated, in part, that innocent people had been exposed to unnecessary trauma. Earlier that same year, the Independent Police Conduct Authority stated that the police had illegally stopped vehicles, detaining people in their homes, and taking their photographs,
Three children under 10 had rifles with red laser lights pointed at them and were kept under armed guard in a shed for nine hours without food or water during the Urewera police raids in 2007.
“They smashed through our front gate and came running up towards us telling us to come out with our hands up,” Tu Temaungaroa Moko, now 14, said yesterday after the Independent Police Conduct Authority branded police actions during the raids unlawful, unjustified and unreasonable.
Tu was bundled into the back shed with his mother, Awhi Tia Koha, and brothers Te Ahoaho Hellman, now 15, and Taihakoa Rawiri Moko, now 9, and kept there by two armed police.
“We had tried to hide in the bedroom, we were scared stiff, we didn’t know what to do,” he said.
The armed police arrested their father, Moko Hellman, and searched the house.
“They tipped food on the floors, wrecked the furniture and pulled everything out of cupboards and shelves.”
All the search recovered was several rounds of .303 ammunition belonging to the boys’ grandfather, Tu said.
The IPCA report published yesterday says police had no right to block roads, search vehicles, detain and photograph locals, or detain residents while their homes were searched.
This was shocking, brutal, and unacceptable behaviour by the State.
This law must go. It has no place in a civilised society that purports to respect civil rights and justice. There are adequate firearms laws enough with which to pursue and prosecute those who mis-use guns, or conspiracy laws to deal with more nefarious activities.
The Terrorism Suppression Act gives too much power to the State, and it’s para-military arm, and events in 2007 demonstrated that such tyrannical laws can easily be mis-used.
This law was a product of a Labour government. It is an obscenity. It must be repealed by a new Labour government.
Search and Surveillance Act
Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Act
Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Act
As if the Terrorism Suppression Act wasn’t sufficient power with which the State could coerce it’s citizenry, this National-led government found it necessary to implement more draconian laws. The Search and Surveillance Act, Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Act, and the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Act all gave government extraordinary powers to monitor New Zealanders and to carry out searches on the flimsiest pretexts.
In 2012, National passed it’s Search and Surveillance Act, which as TV3 reported,
It gives police the right to search or keep people under surveillance without a warrant in urgent or emergency situations, changes the right to silence and empowers judges to decide whether journalists can protect their sources or not.
That Orwellian piece of legislation was followed up a year later with not one, but two, new laws allowing the State to further spy on New Zealanders.
As I wrote on 30 June last year, despite the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 being fairly clear on the issue, the Bureau still had the mistaken belief that they were somehow entitled to spy on New Zealand citizens and permanent residents.
Either in ignorance, or another of his pathetic lies, John Key maintained this fiction,
“In addition, the Act governing the GCSB is not fit for purpose and probably never has been. It was not until this review was undertaken that the extent of this inadequacy was known.”
Acknowledgement: John Key – PM releases report into GCSB compliance
Despite the fact that the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 is actually quite clear – especially Section 14 which states –
Neither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person (not being a foreign organisation or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident.
– the myth was perpetuated that the law is “unclear”.
The GCSB was never mandated to spy on New Zealanders. John Key’s National government changed all that with it’s one-seat majority in Parliament, and not only legitimised the Bureau’s spying on 88 New Zealanders – but has given it authority to spy on us all.
The GCSB Act was followed in quick succession by the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Act which, as Thomas Beagle, explained,
The TICS Bill is a replacement for the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Act 2004. This law forced communications providers (ISPs, telcos, data networks, etc) to provide “lawful intercept” capabilities so that the Police, SIS and GCSB could access communications once they had a suitable warrant. The new bill expands and clarifies these requirements.
[…]
The Bill specifies that the law applies to companies whether based in New Zealand or overseas. It then goes on to give the Minister the power to ban the resale of an off-shore telecommunications service in New Zealand if it does not provide interception capabilities. This could stop the resale of foreign-hosted VPNs, instant message services, email, etc.
[…]
Network operators must decrypt the intercepted communications if they have provided the encryption, but there is no obligation to do so if the encryption is provided by others.
What does this mean for providers such as Mega (file locker) or LastPass (password storage) who have a business model based on the fact that they supply a cloud product that uses encryption but have deliberately designed it so that they can not decrypt the files themselves? This gives users the assurance that they can trust them with their data. Will the government close them down unless they provide a backdoor into the system?
The TICS Act is insidious because it forces telcos to comply with politicians and spy agencies demands for access to our communications. In effect,any company such as Telecom, Vodaphone, Slingshot, Chorus, etc, which offers a telecommunication service becomes a spy-agent for the State. Not content with the Police, SIS, and GCSB, private companies become extensions of the State to surveil the populace.
Orwell himself could not have dreamed of a more unbelievably cunning plan.
Little wonder that telcos, Apple, Google, etc, opposed this draconian piece of law-making,
Opponents may be facing an uphill battle against spy bill fatigue as TICS goes through the house.
But there are a couple of intriguing twists.
One is its provision for the ICT Minister to require service providers (such as Apple with iMessage, Microsoft with Skype and Google with Chat, Talk etc) to make communications on their services interceptable. Apple and Google have submitted against the legislation. Will they ramp up their opposition as TICS works its way through Parliament – especially given Vikram Kumar’s revelation that they could be forced to allow the GCSB back-door access, with the orders kept secret? And would the likes of Apple, Microsoft, Google or Facebook actually decide to give New Zealand a swerve?
These three laws are inimical to an open, free, society that prides itself on respecting privacy and civil rights for its citizens. Because, really, just how many bad people does New Zealand have, as enemies, to warrant such hard-line laws that would be more at home in a nation at war with it’s neighbours?
All three should be repealed forthwith, by an incoming Labour-led government.
To be continued at: A proposed Labour-Green-Mana(-NZ First?) agenda – part rua
(* At this point in time, NZ First’s leader, Winston Peters, has not indicated which bloc – Labour or National – he intends to coalesce with. As such, any involvement by NZ First in a progressive government cannot be counted upon.)
Continued at: A proposed Labour-Green-Mana(-NZ First?) agenda – part rua
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 16 January 2014.
.
*
.
References
Statistics New Zealand: 2013 Census QuickStats
Fairfax media: Controversial Hobbit law passes
Radio NZ: Government defends Hobbit subsidies
Dominion Post: The Hobbit hits $1billion mark
Fairfax media: Nats criticise Labour’s ‘Hobbit’ law stance
NZ Herald: Norman – Key ‘acting like Muldoon’
The Press: No mandate for charter schools
ACT Party: Education Policy
Stanford University: CREDO Report on Charter Schools
Radio NZ: Treasury papers reveal reservations on charter schools
Labour Party: Charter school applicants put on notice
Wikipedia: 2011 Election Results
Parliament: Terrorism Suppression Act 2002
NZ History: 2007 ‘Anti-terror’ raids in Urewera
NZ Herald: Terrorism Act ‘unworkable’
Radio NZ: Mana ‘trampled’ by Te Urewera raids, says HRC report
Waikato Times: Police ‘unlawful, unjustified, unreasonable’ in Urewera raids
TV3: More surveillance powers for Govt and police
NBR: Govt proposes GCSB control over NZ communications in new TICS Bill
NBR: As GCSB Bill becomes law, focus turns to Telco Intercept Bill – which has a protectionist twist
Additional
NZ Herald: Banks wrongly held back charter school information
Fairfax media: Facts about Terrorism Suppression Act
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the Editor: Winston Peters, Kim Dotcom, and blank cheques
.
.
FROM: “f.macskasy”
SUBJECT: Letter to the ed
DATE: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 11:17:04 +1300
TO: “Dominion Post” letters@dompost.co.nz.
The Editor
Dominion Post.
One thing that can’t be denied is that a vote for NZ First –
despite having some policies I agree with – is pretty much a
blank cheque for Winston Peters. I’ve no idea if a vote for
NZF is a vote for a Labour-led bloc or a center-right block
led by John Key.Kinda like a vote for Kim Dotcom’s Party – what would we get
if we voted for his party? A potential coalition with
Labour? National? Sitting on the cross benches?As a voter, I’d like the privilege of an informed choice –
not a stab-in-the-dark-and-hope-for-the-best.Really, is that too much to ask?!
.-Frank Macskasy
(address and phone number supplied)
.
.
.
= fs =
Radio NZ: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams – 20 January 2014
.
– Politics on Nine To Noon –
.
– Monday 20 January 2014 –
.
– Kathryn Ryan, with Matthew Hooton & Mike Williams –
.
Today on Politics on Nine To Noon,
.
.
Click to Listen: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams ( 23′ 00″ )
Labour and National are polling very similar numbers. Mike and Mathew look at the year ahead in politics.
en Brow.
.
= fs =
The Growth of State Power; mass surveillance; and it’s supporters…
.
.
Next time there’s a debate on state surveillance on an internet blog or other forum, check out who is supporting more power for governments to spy on us. Have a look at those who parrot the cliche, “nothing to hide, nothing to fear”.
They generally use pseudonyms.
.
.
= fs =
The Power of your Vote (part rua)
.
.
A point for some folk to think about if they are considering scrawling “No Confidence” on their voting paper…
Writing “No Confidence” carries zero weight.
Your ballot will simply be recorded as “spoiled” and categorised in a general “Invalid” category.
There is no such thing as a “No Confidence” category. Politicians will never see your “No Confidence” ballot paper. Neither will the Electoral Commission keep a tally of “No Confidence votes” to pass on to politicians.
All that will happen is that your ballot is invalid and not counted.
Writing “No Confidence” on your ballot has simply rendered that person invisible and irrelevant to the democratic process.
That is a self-indulgent luxury which we cannot afford.
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen
.
.
= fs =
The Power of your Vote (part tahi)
.
.
I watched the Brand video…
He’s a passionate man.
Passionate in defending his own style of apathy.
Let me repeat; non-voting will help no one except the 1%. They, and their aspirationist, middle-class, supporters WILL vote.
And things like beneficiary bashing; removing worker’s rights; undermining unions; mining in DoC land; deep sea drilling; selling state assets (again to the 1%); tax cuts for the wealthy; increased GST and user-pays for the poor; more corporate welfare; increasing police powers and state surveillance; weakening environment protection laws; forcing tenants out of state houses; higher prescription charges; etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc… these will all continue.
Because as sure as the sun rises each morning, the Right Wing understand the power of the vote.
Why do you think you NEVER see right-wingers advocating non-voting?
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the Editor: National Party election lies start early?
.
.
FROM: “f.macskasy”
SUBJECT: Letter to the ed
DATE: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:12:32 +1300
TO: “Sunday Star Times” <letters@star-times.co.nz>.
Letters to the editor Sunday Star Times . I note that the National Party has started it's election campaign early, with the spread of propaganda claiming credit for low inflation and low interest rates. This is disingenuous in the extreme. Low inflation was a consequence of the Global Financial Crisis; low consumer demand; reduced export receipts; and cheap money. Unless the National Party Party is claiming responsibility for the Global Financial Crisis, low inflation was a natural consequence of a worldwide recession and not by any 'Herculean' efforts by Southland farmer and MP, Bill English. As for claiming credit for low interest rates - what rubbish! Most people will be well aware that these are set by the Reserve Bank via it's OCR announcements. Unless National has changed the Reserve Bank Act and interest rates are now set from the Beehive? When did this happen? And if the Nats are claiming credit for current low interest rates - will they also claim responsibility when interest rates are expected to be hiked to 7.5% to 8% later this year? Or will they blame that on the previous Labour government, as Key often does? The Nats must be desperate for good news if they have resorted to fabricating "facts". -Frank Macskasy (address & phone number supplied)
.
.
= fs =
The Paul Henry Show – Insulting or Insightful?
.
.
TV3 have been running ads promoting the new “Paul Henry Show”. The ad shows Henry walking down a darkened alley, with a disembodied voice-over – hype over-flowing like the Waikato in heavy flood – and just as murky. Tantalisingly, or nervously perhaps, TV3 gives little idea what the programme’s content will be.
TV3’s website offers this, somewhat less-than-illuminating, “information”,
.
.
The text refers to “covering everything from the erudite to the outrageous” – and that, frankly speaking, does not reassure me one iota.
We know that Henry can be “outrageous”. He has form. Whether it be reference to a woman’s appearance or giggling like a ten year old at someone’s unusual-sounding name – Henry’s behaviour can certainly qualify as “outrageous”.
If outrageous is what TV3 want, I suspect Henry can deliver that by the monster-truck full. As much as TV3’s executives; the show’s producer(s); and the public can stomach before Henry once again over-steps the mark and the audience vomit back any tasteless performance he rams down our throats.
Which is not to say that there is a percentage of the viewing public that will always rush to Henry’s defense after one of his spectacularly tasteless performances.
Then again, some people defended Tony Veitch after his vicious assault on his girlfriend. Not that I’m comparing Henry with Veitch. No, I’m comparing their audiences whose moral compasses were so skewed that they would defend the repugnantly indefensible.
Henry can do outrageous, tasteless, shocking. It’s not that hard to cater for society’s lowest common denominator. Ignorance, juvenile “humour”, and tastelessness require no thought whatsoever. Just check out Courtney Place in Wellington or Queen St in Auckland, in the early hours of Saturday and Sunday mornings, for evidence of that kind of behaviour.
But I’ve also seen Henry’s better, more serious side, where he has hosted intelligent current affairs programmes with maturity, dignity, and professionalism. That side of Paul Henry is one that treats viewers, and his own profession, with respect.
I’m not expecting a sombre, sullen, Henry – fresh from a funeral or roadside crash.
But is it too much to expect maturity and dignity from a man who is quite capable of delivering a professional performance?
Paul Henry has talent. I would love to see that in his new show. I would love to see TV3 encouraging that talent. And I would love to be part of an audience to appreciate it.
So Paul, I look forward to a solid, professional, engaging, performance from you.
Just leave the clown nose at home this time. Ok?
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 9 January 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the Editor: Colin Craig – law-breaker!
.
.
FROM: "f.macskasy" SUBJECT: Letter to the ed DATE: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:56:35 +1300 TO: "Dominion Post" <letters@dompost.co.nz>.
The Editor DOMINION POST . Wannabe politician, Colin Craig, recently admitted to hitting his daughter. When asked on Radiolive, on 13 January, he replied, "I occasionally do it now." With the repeal of that part of Section 59, which permitted adults to use the excuse of "correction" when faced with allegations of physical abuse, that kind of behaviour by parents and guardians became illegal. Which begs these questions; 1. How can we have a politician in Parliament, who is sworn to uphold the laws of the land, admit that he flouts laws that don't suit his particular beliefs? 2. Why should a person, who also happens to be an aspiring politician and millionaire, be above the law when the rest of us are held to account for infringements both small or large? 3. How will National reconcile it's "tough on crime" stance when at the same time they actively seeks Craig's party as a potential coalition partner, even though Craig admits to flouting the law? It will be intriguing to see John Key's response to this issue - once he gets back from his latest overseas junket. -Frank Macskasy (address & phone number supplied)
.
Addendum
Section 59 of the Crimes Act says: –
* Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of:
– preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person
– preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence
– preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour
– performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
* Nothing in (the above section) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
* To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.
Source: NZ Herald – Colin Craig: I smack my child
.
.
= fs =
March of the Puppies – It’s “moving day” for Wellington’s SPCA! (part rua)
Continued from: March of the Puppies – It’s “moving day” for Wellington’s SPCA! (part tahi)
.
.
NZ, Wellington, 22 December 2013 – On Sunday 22 December, it was moving day for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). A march of puppies, dogs, and their Human companions made the two kilometre journey on foot – and paw – from their previous premises in Adelaide Road, to the old Fever Hospital in Mt Victoria.
Halfway along their journey, the marchers made their way up Constable St, on a fine Wellington summer day,
.
.
Meanwhile, in Alexander Road, which runs along part of the Mt Victoria ridge-line, the convoy of SPCA vehicles had arrived and parked on the roadside, outside the Fever Hospital grounds,
.
.
The convoy made it’s way into the old-hospital grounds, where their passengers disembarked,
.
.
The smallest of the small, were given special attention, to help any frayed nerves,
.
.
The new premises would offer much more space for Human and animal alike, putting to good use a historic building ,
.
.
As Dominion Post journalist, Kate Chapman wrote on 5 December, last year,
There are now stainless benches and crisp white walls where previously there was junk and graffiti. A “dog house” building has been erected, along with a new fence to help keep animals within the grounds. Cupboards are ready for use and workers are busy with the final pieces of work – including painting and preparing to install cages.
“We’ll be working right up till the time we move in,” chief executive Iain Torrance said yesterday.
The laundry has been deliberately left half-finished, to help retain the heritage look and show how the hospital used to be.
.
.
.
Eventually, the ‘stars’ of the day, the March of Puppies, arrived, much to the delight of the crowd (off camera) watching,
.
.
It had been a long walk, and both four-footed and two footed were looking forward to cool drinks and inspecting their new home,
.
.
Nearly there…
.
.
And finally arrived at their new ‘digs’,
.
.
Human companion and ‘Misty’, patiently waiting to enter her new home,
.
.
Meanwhile, Wellington mayor and invited guest, Celia Wade-Brown was on-hand to watch the move and see for herself how the City’s investment was being put to good use. She stood with SPCA chief executive, Iain Torrance, as the walkers went by,
.
.
Iain gave Celia a guided tour of the facilities, pointing out each new feature and where specific work would be carried out by staff and community volunteers,
.
.
In between showing Celia through the facilities, this blogger spoke to Celia and Iain. I asked them both for their views and thoughts on the day.
Celia made no effort to hide her enthusiasm for the partnership project between Council and SPCA,
“I’m delighted to see the dogs and cats and other animals coming up here. This fever hospital has been empty for ages and this such a superb partnership. It’s going to be a great place to take the dogs for walks and Iain’s just been telling me about the dog-friendly cafe. I think whether you’ve got a dog or not, this is a great place to walk to.”
Iain Torrance, the SPCA’s chief executive was equally excited about the new premises and soon-to-be-opened public cafe,
“By Easter we’re looking to get a cafe set up right here behind us. So this is all about bringing the public back into a community site. It’s got a community location for the community to use. So this’ll bring a whole lot of people up here. They walk their dogs here anyway, and this will use the whole town belt, so they can come in, make use of the building, and actually come and have a look at the dogs and cats and all the other animals available for adoption. But bring your own pet along as well!“
.
.
Meanwhile, the puppies and dogs were being settled in to their little “apartment” cubicles by their Human companions,
.
.
A well earned rest by both Human volunteers, and their companion-animal charges,
.
.
Though ‘Misty‘ had her own area outside,
.
.
There was plenty of love and dedication shown by staff and volunteers alike, for their animal charges. It was evident that these animals were in good hands, and well tended to,
.
.
It’s a shame that the same cannot be said for all our companion animals outside of the fences of the SPCA.
This event also marked the positive aspect of local bodies engaging with community organisations and investing ratepayer’s money in worthy projects. If anything demonstrated that Councils have a role other than rubbish, roads, and reticulation – this partnership between the SPCA and ratepayers was a clear example.
So next time some politician in the Beehive complains that local bodies should focus on just “the basics” – remember that life and the communities we live in consist of more than just “the basics”.
Enjoying more than just “the basics” is what makes our country; our cities; our neigbourhoods generally the envy of the world. Though there is certainly much more we can do to improve the lot of many of our fellow New Zealanders – whether on two feet or four.
It’s not often that this blogger gets to write a positive story – but this is one of those pleasurable moments. So, a big bouquet to Wellington’s mayor, councillors, and the staff and volunteers at the SPCA.
.
.
Job well done.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 8 January 2014.
.
*
.
Donations
The SPCA is still seeking public assistance to help pay for the up-grades and renovations at their new complex. Even contributions of a few dollars will be helpful. So if you can, check out the Donations page. Every little bit helps!
.
.
*
.
Media
Fairfax media: SPCA’s new home among the ghosts
Fairfax media: SPCA Move to New Home at Fever Pitch
Fairfax media: Wellington SPCA Moves To New Home
Information
Live Journal: Fever Hospital – Wellington, NZ
Donate: SPCA Page
Facebook: Wellington SPCA
Historic Places Trust: Fever Hospital (Former)
Copyright (c) Notice
All images are freely available to be used, with following provisos,
- Use must be for non-commercial purposes.
- Where purpose of use is commercial, a donation to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) is requested.
- At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals or groups.
- Acknowledgement of source is requested.
.
.
= fs =
March of the Puppies – It’s “moving day” for Wellington’s SPCA! (part tahi)
.
.
NZ, Wellington, 22 December 2013 – On Sunday 22 December, it was moving day for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA),
.
.
They had outgrown their cramped premises at Riddiford Street, Newtown, in suburban Wellington and were moving to more spacious ‘digs’ at the old “Fever Hospital” in Mt Victoria.
The old premises had once upon a time been a hospital for TB sufferers; influenza patients; and other infectious diseases. The buildings are listed with a Category 2 classification with the Historic Places Trust.
The full upgrading project has cost nearly $10 million, according to Dominion Post reporter, Kate Chapman.
Having been earthquake strengthened and refurbished by Wellington City Council, the premises were occupied by it’s new two and four-legged residents in a mass move, one sunny Saturday afternoon.
Animals were led out, some walking under their own power,
.
.
Others were assisted out, by their human companions,
.
.
Several SPCA vehicles were on hand to transport those that would be driven to their new home, about two kilometres away,
.
.
Strangely enough, few of the animals seemed stressed or outwardly worried and appeared to be content with the goings-on around them,
.
.
The Bunny Family were not forgotten, gently helped into their carry-cages for the move,
.
.
One good thing about transporting animals – you won’t hear “are we there yet?’ umpteen dozen times.
The puppies and mature dogs were brought out, each on a leash, and each guided and cared for by their respective companion human,
.
.
This wee chap wasn’t so keen on the shift, and was given the personalised, deluxe service,
.
.
Once outside, they were keen and eager to hit the road,
.
.
As the vehicles filled, the courtyard became an assembly point for Human and companion animal alike that would walk the journey,
.
.
Some were more exuberant than others, at hitting the road,
.
.
And some just chilled, enjoying the afternoon summer sun,
.
.
A final strategy conference amongst the group…
.
.
… and the march of puppies began,
.
.
.
With the water-bearer close by, for anyone needing a quick drink of refreshing water along the way,
.
.
The procession made it’s way down the long drive, out toward the road. Companion animals seemed to lead the way for their Human friends,
.
.
And finally out onto the road, there was something of a “Biblical” nature as Human and animal headed off to their “Promised Land“,
.
.
Humans, meanwhile, busied themselves with lining up the SPCA vehicles, also ready for the final move. Somewhere, in my head, I could hear a certain musical tune, and a deep, American voice, announcing,
“This here’s the Rubber Duck, I think we got ourselves a con-voy!”
.
.
The marchers, moving steadily up Constable Street. The puppies and dogs had probably not had such a long walk for ages,
.
.
Crossing busy intersections,
.
.
Halfway to their destination, their new homes awaited.
To be concluded at: March of the Puppies – It’s “moving day” for Wellington’s SPCA! (part rua)
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 8 January 2014.
.
*
.
Media
Fairfax media: SPCA’s new home among the ghosts
Fairfax media: SPCA Move to New Home at Fever Pitch
Fairfax media: Wellington SPCA Moves To New Home
Information
Live Journal: Fever Hospital – Wellington, NZ
Donate: SPCA Page
Facebook: Wellington SPCA
Historic Places Trust: Fever Hospital (Former)
Copyright (c) Notice
All images are freely available to be used, with following provisos,
- Use must be for non-commercial purposes.
- Where purpose of use is commercial, a donation to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) is requested.
- At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals or groups.
- Acknowledgement of source is requested.
.
.
= fs =
“You Break It, We Fix It” – Is That How It Works?
.
It all began in 1984…
But first, let’s look at the Governor-General, Sir Jerry Mateparae’s 2014 New Year’s speech,
.
“As a nation, and as communities, we need to both celebrate our successes, and examine how we can help those families facing particular difficulties, so every child can grow up in a safe and secure home.”
.
My initial reaction upon hearing this statement from the Governor General was, thank god that the issue of deprivation facing children in our country is finally ‘trickling up’ the coridors of The Establishment.
It’s not like we haven’t been banging on for the last few years about the problems confronting us with child poverty; increasing inequality; homelessness; unemployment, under-employment; the growing wage-gap with Australia; etc, etc; etc; etc…
Once upon a time, New Zealand was one of the most equal societies on this planet. And we took great pride in that fact.
But then, something happened. Something disastrous which we were aware of; initially viewed with alarm; and then, like the frog in the pot of water steadily heating up, we got used to it.
We got Rogernomics.
Later followed shortly thereafter by the nastier, “crack-cocaine” version referred to as “Ruthenasia”.
From there, despite all the rhetoric and promises of wealth “tricking down”, things got worse. Much worse.
Sir Jerry’s speech was duly reported in the Otago Daily Times on 1 January;
The release of Children’s Commissioner Russell Wills’ report into child poverty in December found a quarter of Kiwi children were under the standard 60 per cent income poverty line, of which, 10 per cent were in severe and persistent poverty.
The report also highlighted the links between the lack of affordable housing and the preventable diseases spread through overcrowding.
Sir Jerry said while the structure and dynamics of New Zealand families had changed, the desire of parents to raise their children in a caring, loving environment had not.
“I often hear people say that everyone should have a New Zealand childhood.
“The care we provide to our most vulnerable citizens – our children – is a barometer of the wellbeing of our families and our society.”
But not all families could cope with the “inevitable challenges” life threw at them, Sir Jerry said.
Perhaps families could have coped better had National – not “life” – not thrown these challenges at them;
.
.
Note how only a month after being elected into office, National was already spinning the public meme that Labour was to blame for the consequences of National’s impending ACC levy-rises? Such would be National’s modus operandi for the following years; everything blamed on the previous Labour government; accept no responsibility whatsoever.
If National wins a third term in office this year (unlikely), will they still attempt to use Labour as a scapegoat for their unsuccessful policies?
In the meantime, National continued their policy of raising government charges and taxes,
.
.
English’s promise that income tax cuts would be “more than offset the rise in GST” ended up hollow when more government charges were further raised;
.
.
Yet more indirect tax rises were forthcoming;
.
.
And cuts to funding for social services. Again, children were targetted;
.
.
And hefty user-pays charges implemented and increased;
.
.
With perhaps this, being the most odious and damaging of all to struggling low-income, poor families;
.
.
Although NZMA chair, Paul Ockelford, asserted that prescription charge increases were “unlikely to be a barrier for most”, that statement appears to be the kind of arrogant, self-delusional nonsense that people out of touch with reality readily express amongst polite company, at well-laden dinner tables, of the tut-tutting affluent classes.
As writer, Herman Melville pointed out,
“Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well- warmed, and well-fed.”
Reality away from the likes of Mr Ockelford’s genteel circle is much different, and grimmer;
.
.
From the above Herald story,
Nikki Turner, who works as a GP in Wellington as well as sitting on the Child Poverty Action Group, said any assumption that the $2 increase was a minor issue was not looking at the bigger picture.
“For a lot of people that’s fine, but for many people there are a lot of barriers to access to primary health care.”
New Zealanders on lower incomes, particularly those with large families or complex medical problems, would find the hike in prescription costs as another barrier.
“We know from the Ministry of Social Development’s own data on severe and significant hardship that many families don’t pick up prescriptions because of costs. If they’ve got a small amount of money left over, then prescriptions will go or they’ll delay picking them up,” she said.
.
And remember – National presided over two tax cuts in 2009 and 2010. Cuts which benefitted the highest income earners in the country.
It is abundantly clear that those tax cuts were paid for by massive borrowings; state asset (partial-)sales; raising GST; cuts to funding for state services; and raising user-pays charges for other State services (often for the most spurious reasons).
In simple, easy-to-understand-terms, low and middle income earners (but especially those on low and fixed incomes) ended up paying for tax cuts for the rich,
.
.
This is what National does.
In the meantime, unemployment is still at 7.1% and – according to the Children’s Commissioner, in his first Child Poverty Monitor – child poverty has dramatically worsened,
The 2013 Monitor shows that one in four Kiwi kids are growing up in income poverty and one in six are going without the basic essentials like fresh fruit and vegetables, a warm house, decent shoes and visits to the doctor. Ten percent of children are at the hardest end of poverty and three out of five kids living in poverty will live this way for much of their childhood.
[…]
Children’s Commissioner Dr Russell Wills says the project is about giving New Zealanders the full picture on child poverty rates and to get Kiwis talking about it.
“265,000 New Zealand children are living in poverty. Is this what we want for our kids?
[…]
The Child Poverty Monitor is funded by the J R McKenzie Trust, an organisation with a long history of involvement in important social issues. The Trust’s Executive Director Iain Hines says they initiated this project because they saw an opportunity to make a difference for children missing out.
“We are concerned that the rate of child poverty in 2013 is twice that of the 1980s. We think this is unacceptable. If New Zealand’s road toll was twice that of the 80s there would be outrage and immediate action taken to reduce it. We need the same momentum and action on child poverty.
It is mind-boggling that we have arrived at a state of affairs where child poverty is increasing each year – and successive governments seem unable/unwilling to tackle it.
To our shame, governments seem more interested in throwing money at multi-national corporations and yacht races rather than the nation’s children – our future.
National, in particular stands guilty of inaction.
This was clearly highlighted when it was revealed that the Children Commissioner’s report was funded by a private organisation, the J R McKenzie Trust. Key’s government refused point-blank to fund the investigation and subsequent report. Instead, the cost – $500,000 – was paid by the Trust.
By contrast, National found it easier to hand out corporate welfare such as $30 million to the Rio Tinto private aluminium smelter. Or millions to the Rugby World Cup tournament. Even Southern China Airlines got a $4 million tax-paid hand-out, courtesy, National.
One thing is for certain – Dr Russell Wills should not be expecting to be re-appointed Children’s Commissioner when his term is up. Not if the Nats are still in office by then.
Just to remind the reader, in his speech, Sir Jerry said,
“But not all families could cope with the “inevitable challenges” life threw at them.”
Unsurprisingly, I take great exception to Sir Jerry’s comments. It is not “life” that is throwing “challenges” at New Zealand’s families: it is successive government policies and inaction. And nor are they “inevitable”. The sun rising every day is inevitable – government policies are not.
Polices such as these have been carefully planned for years prior to National winning the 2008 election and have been methodically and unscrupulously executed with deliberate intent to further an agenda of gradual “transformation” to a user-pays, low-tax, minimal-State economy.
It is shameful and sickening that Sir Jerry now laments that “not all families could cope”. Once again, those at the bottom of the socio-economic heap are blamed for their precarious position. Unfortunately Sir Jerry, not all of us can live at the Governor-General’s residence at tax-payers’ expense.
Some families, however, can cope better than others,
.
.
Perhaps equally galling is that even while our social problems worsen and poverty increases, people like John Key and Bill English continue to insist that things will, eventually, get better.
John Key in January 2008,
“This is a great country. But it could be so much greater. It has been so much greater.
So the question I’m asking Kiwi voters is this: Do you really believe this is as good as it gets for New Zealand? Or are you prepared to back yourselves and this country to be greater still? National certainly is.
[…]
National knows New Zealand has a great future if we embrace good ideas and put them into action. And my sense is that in 2008, New Zealand is ready for those new ideas – ready for a fresh start.
At this election, the National Party has the chance to harness the growing mood for change and march New Zealand towards a better tomorrow.
We know this isn’t as good as it gets. We know Kiwis deserve better than they are getting. We are focused on the issues that matter and we have the ideas and the ability to bring this country forward.
National is ambitious for New Zealand and we want New Zealanders to be ambitious for themselves. “
Five years later, John Key, in December 2013,
“I am passionate about the future of New Zealand, and I’m in politics to make a difference for the better of our society.
By 2038, young people of today will be our leaders – whether it be in politics, business, academia, education, sport or arts.
They will guide the values, principles and direction of the country in years ahead.
One thing I’m sure of is while we will still be a young country, we will be a more confident multicultural country than we are now, a country that was built on a bicultural foundation. And today’s young people will help guide that future.
From the calibre and talent I see in our youth today, there is cause for real optimism about the years ahead.”
According to Key and other right-wing politicians, we just have to keep persevering with their policies. So that, sometime in the future, things will “get better”.
Even as they get worse.
Getting worse since 1984…
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 6 January 2014.
.
*
.
.
References
John Key: A Fresh Start for New Zealand
Otago Daily Times: English confirms big ACC levy rise likely
Scoop media: Government delivers April 1 [2009] tax cuts, SME changes
NZ Herald: Tax cuts: High earners set to benefit most
Dominion Post: Petrol prices creep higher
NZ Herald: Budget 2010: Income tax slashed, GST to 15 pc
Dominion Post: Tax hikes disguised as `reinvestment’
Sunday News: Hundreds march over early childhood cuts
NZ Herald: Govt borrowing $380m a week
Scoop media: Vulnerable children at risk from Family Court fees increase
Statistics NZ: 2013 Census QuickStats about national highlights – Work-Unemployment
NZ Herald: Prescription fees increase
Radio NZ: Pharmacies carry debt for prescriptions
Otago Daily Times: Governor-General urges Kiwis to care for children
Radio NZ: Challenge to help vulnerable families
Fairfax media: Govt pays $30 million to Tiwai Pt
Scoop media: NZ’s first monitor of child poverty released
Scoop media: Wellington philanthropic trust helping with survey of child poverty
Scoop media/NBR: The NBR Rich List 2013: The Rich Continue to Get Richer
NZ Herald/John Key: Kids of today offer bright future for NZ
Fairfax media: Hungry kids scavenge pig slops
Additional
Facebook: Inside Child Poverty New Zealand
Facebook: Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG)
Scoop media: Inequality keeps rising, says UC social research expert
Previous related blogpost
A Blighted Future – the price of an apple
.
.
= fs =
That was Then, This is Now #21 – Increasing Govt Charges for Services: Labour vs National
.
.
Oh dear. It seems the Nats have rather short memories when it comes to criticising the previous government for increasing Court charges…
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 4 January 2014.
.
*
Previous related blogpost
That was Then, This is Now #20
References
Scoop media: 450% increase in court fees is ‘tax by stealth’ (2004)
Scoop media: Vulnerable children at risk from Family Court fees increase (2012)
.
.
= fs =
Ariel Sharon
This piece from ‘The Nation’ outlines Ariel Sharon’s bloody past,
.
.
Well worth a read before people start lamenting his passing too much…
I have little time for those who commit or actively support, acts of genocide. Whether they be Nazis, Stalinists, Khmer Rouge, fascists, or nationalists of one description or another – mass-murderers stand to be tried and condemned, whether in a Court of Law, or the Court of History.
Sharon’s legacy will be written in the blood of innocent people.
.
*
.
Other blogs
The Daily Blog: A brief word on the death of war criminal Ariel Sharon
The Daily Blog: The death of Ariel Sharon – Gaza’s prison warden
Robert Fisk: Ariel Sharon: Peacemaker, hero… and butcher
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the Editor: Was Paula Bennett ever drug tested?
.
.
FROM: "f.macskasy" SUBJECT: Letter to the ed DATE: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 15:56:11 +1300 TO: NZ Herald <letters@herald.co.nz>.
The Editor NZ Herald . Only 22 people have drug tested positive out of the thousands sent to 8,001 job vacancies which required drug testing, reported David Fisher in his story, "Minister claims low drug result as victory" (11 January). Social Welfare minister, Paula Bennett, says that "It's great so few people failed tests in the first six months of this new policy, that's partly due to the strong signalling effect of this policy where many people reported quitting marijuana use before it was even implemented, but we're also giving people the opportunity get clean before they're tested." Or, as is most likely the case, those who are unemployed are ordinary fellow New Zealanders who've been made redundant since 2008 and the on-going recession, and are no more likely to be using drugs than their fellow workers who've not been made redundant. Redundancy does not automatically lead to drug taking. It seems that National's demand for drug testing welfare beneficiaries stands revealed for what it is - a waste of taxpayer's money that does not create jobs (except in the drug-testing industry, maybe). The policy achieves nothing except cater to the ill-informed - those who are prejudiced against the unemployed and other welfare recipients as a matter of course. It is a form of scape-goating those who cannot fight back against such character slurs. Tellingly, Bennett's office cannot answer simple questions such as how much the drug testing costs; how much it has saved the taxpayer; how many of all the unemployed sent to those 8,001 vacancies were drug tested; nor whether in fact the policy is indeed affecting drug usage at all. Her office simply has no information on these questions. But I have a question for the Minister; when she was on the DPB herself as a solo-mother, how can we - the taxpayer - be reassured that she was not a drug-user and smoked the odd joint or three? Can she reassure us that she did not take drugs? Was she drug tested at the time? If not, why not? . -Frank Macskasy (address & phone number supplied)
.
*
.
References
NZ Herald: Minister claims low drug result as victory
.
.
= fs =
National Party propaganda meme – sorted!
Recently released National Party propaganda, complete with a few errors;
.
.
With errors corrected;
.
.
Sorted.
Happy to help our National Party chums.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 4 January 2014.
.
.
= fs =
News Archives
Crony Watch
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Frankly Speaking... 
