Archive
Nikki Kaye – playing politics with children’s health
.
.
It is a given that most politicians will do whatever it takes to win voters to get elected. It’s pretty much why their reputation is often at the same level as telemarketers and sex-workers (which, fair to say, is a slight on sex workers and telemarketers).
The responsibility for our perceived untrustworthiness of politicians is generally laid directly at their feet, when they often say things that are;
- a manipulation of facts/statistics
- cherry-picks facts, omitting the whole picture
- promises that are eventually watered-down or dumped entirely (eg, as with National’s policy to include agriculture in the ETS scheme in 2008, 2014, and 2015
- convenient “memory lapses”
- an outright, obvious lie
Our previous prime minister, John Key, could be flexible with the truth – and the public knew it.
The latest piece of self-serving political grandstanding came recently from National MP, Ms Nikki Kaye.
Usually one of National’s more sensible and mature MPs, she took a swipe at Green Party MP, Gareth Hughes’ call to restrict unhealthy foods sold in schools and instead opt for healthier options;
“Last year we saw 29,000 kids have their teeth pulled, obesity is going up – we are facing an epidemic – and our schools are still selling pies and cokes and chips and lollies.
I think we’re a food bowl in New Zealand. We could be providing nutritious, affordable food for every kid.”
Ms Kaye’s response was to drag out the old “Nanny State bogeyman;
“We need to acknowledge the world’s moved on since 10 years ago, so we need to acknowledge many more schools are providing healthy options and it is a bit nanny state.”
Her snide dismissal of addressing this crisis in our children’s health flies in the fact that obesity is a growing epidemic in our country. According to a recent statement from the Ministry of Health;
New Zealand has the third highest adult obesity rate in the OECD, and our rates are rising. Almost one in three adult New Zealanders (over 15 years) is obese, and one in ten children.
Ministry of Health statistics show a grim increase in our obesity levels – including for our children;
Adult obesity statistics
The New Zealand Health Survey 2017/18 found that:
- around 1 in 3 adults (aged 15 years and over) were obese (32%)
- 47% of Māori adults were obese
- 65% of Pacific adults were obese
- adults living in the most deprived areas were 1.6 times as likely to be obese as adults living in the least deprived areas*
- the adult obesity rate increased from 27% in 2006/07 to 32% in 2017/18.
Child obesity statistics
The New Zealand Health Survey 2017/18 found that:
- around 1 in 8 children (aged 2–14 years) were obese (12%)
- 17% of Māori children were obese
- 30% of Pacific children were obese
- children living in the most deprived areas were 2.1 times as likely to be obese as children living in the least deprived areas*
- the child obesity rate increased from 8% in 2006/07 to 12% in 2017/18.
The increase in child obesity occurred under National’s watch and was not helped by then-Minister of Education, Anne Tolley and then-Minister of Health, Tony Ryall, who scrapped the previous Labour government’s Healthy Food in Schools policy;
.
.
By 2038, an estimated two million New Zealanders will be obese, according to Otago University. The additional pressures on our health system with increased diabetes, heart disease, etc, will be staggering.
Even National could no longer ignore our worsening obesity epidemic. In October 2015, the Ministry of Health launched a Childhood obesity plan. The policy appeared largely ineffective as obesity levels grew.
And even Nikki Kaye understood the looming crisis, when she stated in April last year;
.
.
“Physical inactivity cost New Zealand’s health care system over $200 million in 2013 and some research indicates that around 20 per cent of young Auckland children are overweight.
The Education Minister needs to continue the Auckland Education Growth Plan which was being worked on by the previous Government and was due to be considered by Cabinet last November. It is important to look at the work done so far to factor in potential opportunities around sport and recreational infrastructure.
We must prioritise sport and recreation in our communities and Auckland Council and the Government must front up with more funding to support Auckland’s sporting infrastructure.”
Nowhere does she address the grim reality that we are feeding crap “food” to our children.
National MPs would be hysterical with rage if marijuana, alcohol, tobacco, etc, was made legally available to children. Not for one moment would they accept the nonsensical proposition that banning children from accessing such drugs (whether legal or not) would be “Nanny Statish”.
But when it comes to crap food with high levels of salt, fat, and sugar – then it’s acceptable to National MPs. It becomes a “free choice” issue. That’s despite a supposedly intelligent, well-informed person like Ms Kaye being cognisant of the fact that “… around 20 per cent of young Auckland children are overweight”.
Referring to plans to combat rising obesity in our children should be a social responsibility, just as preventing drink-driving and smoking in restaurants and bars became the norm.
Labelling anything that reduced child obesity as “nanny state” is reprehensible because it plays politics with our young people. Invoking “nanny state” to win a few votes is self-serving.
A politician who casually parrots and throws around catch-phrases like “Nanny State” exploits the health of our children for personal gain.
Ms Kaye should reconsider her stance on healthy food in our schools. Or consider changing professions to something equivalent to political activity – but not likely to be a liability to our children’s health.
Try telemarketing.
.
.
.
.
References
Bay of Plenty Times: So, just how trusted is your profession?
Scoop media: ‘Carbon neutral’ policy added to scrap heap
NZ Herald: Agriculture ruled out in Emissions Trading Scheme review
TVNZ: Defiant John Key defends Cameron Slater texts: ‘I haven’t been caught out’
Mediaworks/Newshub: Public sides with Dotcom in poll
Mediaworks/Newshub: Green Party calling for return of food in school guidelines to keep kids healthy
Ministry of Health: Obesity
Ministry of Health: Childhood obesity plan
Ministry of Health: Obesity statistics
NZ Herald: Greasy school tuckshop food on way out
Fairfax/Stuff media: Schools’ healthy food rule scrapped
NZ Herald: Two million obese New Zealanders by 2038, study finds
National: Council & Govt must prioritise sport infrastructure
Previous related blogposts
Can we afford to have “a chat on food in schools”?
National’s Food In Schools programme reveals depth of child poverty in New Zealand
Children’s Health: not a high priority for Health Minister Tony Ryall
Why did the fat kiwi cross the road?
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 11 February 2019.
.
.
= fs =
The Rise and Rise of Daddy State: MSD blackmails NGOs for private data
.
.
Nanny State takes a Shower
What do showers have to do with this issue?
Wait and see.
Spying, Spooks, and Silly Journos
Nearly five years ago, the highly controversial Search and Surveillance Act 2012 was passed by National. As reported at the time;
The Search and Surveillance Act, which was passed through Parliament in March, extends production and examination orders to the police and legalises some forms of surveillance.
It will let more government agencies carry out surveillance operations, allows judges to determine whether journalists can protect their sources, and changes the right to silence.
[…]
Police could complete some forms of surveillance and searches without warrants, but [Police Assistant Commissioner Malcolm] Burgess said the situations were pretty common sense.
Yes, indeed. Police surveillance and seizure powers were being massively extended. But according to the Police Commissioner, citizens could rely on the Police using “pretty common sense” to use them.
Then-Justice Minister, Judith Collins offered this excuse for the extension of police powers;
“ The new Search and Surveillance Act 2012 brings “order, certainty, clarity and consistency” to messy, unclear and outdated search and surveillance laws.”
(Interestingly, the fact that Collins felt the need to use irony-quotation-marks, in her Beehive statement, to enclose the phrase order, certainty, clarity and consistency is revealing.)
This is the same Judith Collins who, in 2009, passed personal phone numbers of a civil servant to far-right blogger, Cameron “Whaleoil” Slater.
A year later, the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill was being hotly debated throughout the country.
Essentially, the Bill (since passed into law), would allow the GCSB to spy on New Zealand citizens which up to then had been the sole province of the NZ SIS.
National’s ‘spinned message’ – constantly parroted by Dear Leader Key – was;
“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…
[…]
The advice we have recently received from the Solicitor-General is that there are difficulties interpreting the legislation and there is a risk some longstanding practices of providing assistance to other agencies would not be found to be lawful.
[…]
It is absolutely critical the GCSB has a clear legal framework to operate within.”
In fact, the law was clear with it’s wording and intent and Section 14 of the Act (since altered to reflect the Amendment) stated with crystal clarity;
14Interceptions not to target domestic communications
-
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.
Some journalists were too lazy to fact-check Key’s lies;
.
.
Journalists who failed to realise that Key was being disingenuous, and simply parroted the government’s official spin, did immense damage to public understanding of the issues involved.
Others, like Audrey Young and Tracy Watkins were sufficiently experienced and knowledgeable to recognise a government ‘stitch-up’ when they saw it;
.
“ The GCSB Act 2003 expressly forbids it from spying on the communications of New Zealanders. But, by a series of snakes and ladders through the stated functions and objectives of the act, it convinced itself it was allowed to help the SIS and police spy on New Zealanders.” – Audrey Young, 26 June 2013
.
“ The GCSB’s interpretation of the law was so loose it managed to spy on 88 New Zealanders even though the law specifically stated it was not allowed to do so.” – Tracy Watkins, 3 August 2013
.
National ignored strong public opinion wary of extending the GCSB’s surveillance powers. The Bill became law on 26 August 2013.
The Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Act was followed by the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act (TICS), made law on 11 November 2013.
The TICS law made it mandatory for all electronic communications companies (telcos) to comply with spy agencies demands to intercept and decrypt phone calls, txt-messages, and emails.
The excuse for this piece of intrusive legislation from Communications Minister, Amy Adams;
“ The fundamental reason that I have sought to introduce this bill is to safeguard New Zealand public safety and security. ”
The Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act was, in turn, followed by the Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill (split into several Bills after it’s Second Reading in Parliament on 9 December 2014).
This Bill, covering three existing laws, allowed the SIS to conduct surveillance on terrorist suspects without requiring a judicial a warrant for up to 24 hours; to conduct secret video surveillance on private property; gave SIS access to Customs Department data in relation to suspected terrorism, and allowed the Minister of Internal Affairs increased powers to arbitrarily suspend or cancel a passport.
The Labour Party were so opposed to this law change that they voted for it. (NZ First, the Maori Party, and the Greens, to their credit, voted against it.)
Then Dear Leader Key used the usual “defending Kiwis against terrorist” bogeyman to justify the State’s growing surveillance powers;
“ The threats faced by New Zealand have grown and it is important that we have the ability to respond to that. The Government has a responsibility to protect New Zealanders at home and abroad…”
Simultaneously in 2014, the IRD signed an agreement to share data with the Police;
Taxpayer information is required to administer New Zealand’s tax system effectively. This information can be supplied by taxpayers, or it can be collected by Inland Revenue during an audit.
Broadly, the government’s current legislative position is that this information is not shared with other government departments on the basis that it is ‘tax secret’.
However, there are instances where sharing taxpayer information relating to serious crime could bring offenders to justice, support the goals of other government departments, and offer the State broad efficiencies.
Up until that point, the IRD expected everyone who earned money – whether from legal or illegal mean – to pay tax. This meant that, for example, sex workers prior to 2003 would be expected to pay tax on their earnings regardless of the fact it was an illegal activity.
The tax department didn’t care where or how the money was earned – they just wanted their “fare share”.
After 2014, the IRD abandoned that policy, and data-sharing with Police was implemented. It means that taxing other illegal activities such as the production and sale of cannabis, is no longer feasible. This has unintentional consequences – such as the hoarding of cash; use of firearms to protect that cash; and violence.
This is part of an on-going wider process of government departments sharing private information with each other.
The Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Act, Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act, and Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill all follow on from previous extensions of State power, notably the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002.
This poorly thought-out law was Labour’s contribution to George Bush’s ill-conceived “War on Terror”.
Throughout National’s three terms in office, it has extended Police powers; widened the scope for the GCSB and SIS to spy on New Zealanders; and created a vast data-sharing network amongst it’s bureaucracy.
MSD, NGOs, and Demands for Data
To date, New Zealanders have been mostly apathetic as the government build up it’s ability to spy and store personal information on us. Most of the government’s “targets” have been so-called “terrorists”, immigrants, criminals, student-debt defaulters, and those on welfare benefits or living in state houses.
Most of Middle New Zealand find it difficult to identify with these elements of our society.
Recently, however, Radio NZ has been running a series of stories and interviews on a disturbing development regarding state aquisition of personal information.
.
.
On 2 March, on Radio NZ’s Nine To Noon programme, Kathryn Ryan interviewed Brenda Pilott, the chairperson of ComVoices (an umbrella organisation for NGOs).
At issue was the disturbing revelation that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), presumably under direction from National ministers, was forcing NGOs to collect and pass private information about their clients back to the Ministry, in return for on-going funding. This proviso was to be written into new contracts set to take effect in July this year after negotiations had concluded after Easter.
>Kathryn Ryan interviews Brenda Pilott – 2 March<
Accordingly to Comvoices, NGOs were expected to pass on;
- names of clients
- birth dates
- ethnicity
- other personal details such as dependent children’s names
NGOs that refused to share this information with MSD would forego funding. The result would be predictable;
.
.
According to Brenda Pilot, the Ministry’s excuse to demand this data was;
“ They want to be able to find out what services are effective. And that this will provide information over time that will allow sensible decisions to be made about government funding and where to apply that funding.”
Ms Pilot voiced concerns that private, identifiable information would be used for tracking individuals who used NGO services. She said that vulnerable people needing to use services such as counselling, Women’s Refuge, Rape Crisis, etc, would be reluctant to engage those organisations and would “walk away”. Ms Pilot was concerned that passing personal, identifiable data to MSD would force NGOs to violate Privacy Laws.
Ms Pilot said that the Privacy Commissioner was also concerned at MSD’s intentions to obtain such data, and was investigating. She said the Commissioner would most likely report on the issue by the end of this month.
On 3 March, Radio NZ reported; grave concerns held by at least one NGO, Women’s Refuge;
Women’s Refuge chief executive Ang Jury said agencies would have to abide by the contract change if they wanted to keep their funding.
“If agencies choose not to share this information they won’t be contracting with the ministry. That’s pretty much where it sits.”
Dr Jury said it was not an ideal situation for the refuge but they were not in a position to say no.
“This is not something that we would happily go out and say, ‘yes, this is exactly what we want to do’.
“If it is going to happen, our job now is to make sure we get the sort of safeguards built around that information that we need to keep our women and children safe,” she said.
At least one privacy lawyer doubted the legality of MSD’s demands;
Privacy lawyer Kathryn Dalziel said the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) looked to be on shaky ground.
“This is a potential breach of privacy because they don’t appear to have identified, anywhere, the purposes for which they are collecting that information.
“There doesn’t seem to be any transparency around it … I also don’t think it’s fair,” she said.
“Principle 2 of the Privacy Act says that if you want to collect information from third party, you have to have a good reason.
“You also have to have … lawful and reasonable purposes for collecting that information in the first place. Now, none of that has been done.”
However, what really raised fears was Ministry of Social Development deputy chief executive, Murray Edridge’s responses to Kathryn Ryan’s questions. His answers not only failed to reassure, but raised serious concerns as to MSD’s intentions regarding the storage and end-use of personalised, identifiable data.
Edridge parroted the usual monetarist rhetoric of “the New Zealand public demands that government spend it’s money well”.
When Ms Ryan put it to Edridge that MSD was attempting to track NGO service-users, he denied it;
“ No we’re not tracking them. What we’re doing is we’re saying to providers, look, for us to understand the effectiveness of services, to understand where the resources are best invested, where we will decide between priorities in terms of investment we need to understand who the people are and what value they get from the services. For some time we’d had concern that investment’s been made in social services where they’re not the most effective mechanism for the people that require them, and this is part of the mechanism by which we understand the clientele better and we understand how we can serve them better and invest in services that are going to support them.”
When Ms Ryan put it to Edridge that anonymised data would work just as well, Edridge kept referring back to needing to know “who these people are“.
Moments later, Edridge contradicted himself by admitting “we know who the clients are, we know all about them“. If that wasn’t creepy enough, Ms Ryan then asked Edridge why MSD demanded further information about NGO service-users. She asked why MSD needed to know who was approaching (for example) Women’s Refuge for assistance..
Edridge’s response was further contradictory and throughout the twelve minute interview he could provide no satisfactory answer why MSD was requiring personalised data from NGOs. At one point he attempted to cloud the issue by stating that MSD required “demographic information”.
Ms Ryan dismissed that claim by remind Edridge that MSD was seeking names, addresses, ethnicities, children’s names and that was not simply “demographic information”.
When Ms Ryan suggested that NGO service-users might not want their details passed on to MSD or other ministeries, Edridge could only respond,
“ Well, we need to know where to get the money in the right place.”
Four days later, Rape Crisis draw a line in the sand and announced it would flat out decline to sign contracts with MSD in return for passing private information about service-users in exchange for on-going funding.
>Rape Crisis reject “data-for-funding” contracts – 7 March<
By 16 March, pressure on MSD and Minister Tolley was such that the ministry caved, and was forced to step back from demanding personalised data from some NGOs dealing with sexual violence.
>Temporary reprieve over ‘private data for funding’ contracts – 16 March<
The “reprieve”, however, was only temporary, and would last for only one year until MSD “works out how to securely collect and store their clients’ private data”. It also did not apply to all NGOs.
The Creep of Big Brother and the Daddy State
Up till this point, data-collection has centered on those who come in contact with the Justice system; WINZ beneficiaries; and Housing NZ tenants. These are generally New Zealanders who are usually the most deprived and vulnerable socially and financially, and rely on State assistance to survive.
A person seeking help from WINZ and Housing NZ is forced to supply both ministeries their private data. To refuse means no help. Next stop; the street;
.
.
A citizen in contact with the Justice system has even less option to refuse to provide private data.
MSD’s demand for personalised data from NGO service-users marks a new stage in National’s slow advancement in building a data-base on every person in the country.
NGO service users may not necessarily be unemployed beneficiaries or live in state houses or have broken the law in some way – but their details will still be required to be collected and supplied to the Ministry of Social Development.
The ministry has assumed the de facto role of collecting and storing data on New Zealanders who – up till this point – may never have come into contact with any governmental organisation such as Housing NZ, WINZ, or Police.
The implications of this are staggering.
The net to scoop up data on as many citizens as possible, has just widened considerably.
If you think you – the reader – may never need the services of Women’s Refuge or Rape Crisis, consider for a moment that there are thousands of NGOs operating in this country and hundreds that are funded by the State.
Victim Support is just one state-funded NGO;
.
.
So if you’ve just become a victim of a crime; Victim Support enters your life; the State now has your personal data on file;
- Client: Name, address, gender, date of birth, primary ethnicity, Iwi.
- Dependents: Name, date of birth, relationship to client.
- Service Level: Information Programme/service name, start date and end date.”
Middle-class New Zealanders who may never have had cause to have personal data collected on them may soon be on file with various ministeries. With data-sharing, personal information from MSD can end up throughout other ministeries. Or on the desks of ministers;
.
.
Never mind “Nanny State” – this is the muscular arm of Daddy State flexing it’s strength to reach out to grab more and more of our private information.
And it won’t end with this.
Not until we say “Enough is enough. No more“.
Back to Showers
Remember this?
.
.
In the lead-up to the 2008 general election, National attacked the then-Labour Government for “Nanny Statism”.
Following on from a disastrous drought in 2007 that cost the country’s economy over $2.8 billion (in 2008/09 dollars), the then-Labour government sought out ways and means to conserve water. The alternative was the possibility of further water-shortages or costly storage and irrigation systems. Labour opted for conservation. This included measures to save water in residential areas.
It could be suggested that water-saving shower heads and energy-efficient light-bulbs are the least of our concerns. National has surpassed anything that Labour envisaged, as this government reaches further and further into our private lives.
If there is one thing that history has taught us – governments that spy on their own people do not trust their people, and are fearful of them.
National must be very frightened of us.
.
.
.
References
NZ Legislation: Search and Surveillance Act 2012
NZ Herald: New police search and surveillance law in force
Beehive: Search and Surveillance Bill becomes law
Radio NZ: Collins defends giving details to blogger
NZ Legislation: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill
Beehive: John Key – PM releases report into GCSB compliance
Legislation.govt.nz: Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003
NZ Herald: Spying on NZ: More power to watch us
Dominion Post: Spy bungles start to entangle PM
Fairfax media: Kiwis do care, prime minister
Parliament: Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Bill
Parliament: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill
Fairfax: Spying bill passes into law
Parliament: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Third Reading
Parliament: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill
NZ Herald: Foreign fighters bill passes 94 – 27
Fairfax media: Labour backs anti-terror laws, despite attacking it
IRD: Information sharing with New Zealand Police
IRD: Cross-government Information-sharing to Identify, Stop or Disrupt Serious Crime
MacNicol & Co: Tax News – IRD to share information with police
NZ Legislation: Terrorism Suppression Act 2002
Wikipedia: Terrorism Suppression Act 2002
Radio NZ: Government demands private data from NGOs
NZ Family Violence Clearinghouse: Relationships Aotearoa to close; funding models and issues in spotlight
Radio NZ: Govt on shaky ground over data-for-funding contracts, lawyers say
Radio NZ: Rape Crisis reject “data-for-funding” contracts
Radio NZ: Temporary reprieve over ‘private data for funding’ contracts
Comvoices: HomePage
Victim Support: Where does your funding come from?
NZ Family Violence Clearinghouse: MSD to require individual client level data from community agencies
NZ Herald: Bennett gets tough with outspoken solo mums
Dominion Post: Minister defends releasing private details
Fairfax media: Bennett won’t rule out releasing beneficiary details
Scoop: Showers latest target of Labour’s nanny state
NIWA: 2007 – much drier than average in many places
Beehive: Drought costs NZ $2.8 billion
Additional
Fairfax media: UN privacy expert slams government stance on privacy and ‘big data’
Other Blogs
The Standard: Social investment meets the surveillance state
Previous related blogposts
OIA Request points to beneficiary beat-up by Minister Chester Borrows
Audrey Young, Two Bains, old cars, and… cocoa?!?!
National Party president complains of covert filming – oh the rich irony!
An Open Message to the GCSB, SIS, NSA, and Uncle Tom Cobbly
Dear Leader, GCSB, and Kiwis in Wonderland
One Dunedinite’s response to the passing of the GCSB Bill
The GCSB Act – Tracy Watkins gets it right
The GCSB – when plain english simply won’t do
The GCSB law – vague or crystal clear?
The Mendacities of Mr Key #1: The GCSB Bill
Campbell Live on the GCSB – latest revelations – TV3 – 20 May 2014
The real reason for the GCSB Bill
Letter to the Editor: John Campbell expose on Key and GCSB
A letter to the Dominion Post on the GCSB
Dear Michael Cullen: the GCSB is not International Rescue!
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 20 March 2017.
.
.
= fs =
“Moral mandates”, “mass medication”, and Mayors vs Ministers
.
“Moral mandates”
.
Acknowledgement: Fairfax Media – Nats look to 2014 governing options
.
What was that about “moral mandate”, Dear Leader?
Key said the largest party had the “moral mandate” to govern.
“If National was to go out there and poll 46 per cent or 47 per cent – very similar to the result in 2011 – and not form the Government I think there would be outrage in NZ.”
So Key now believes in large numbers and percentages?
Interesting.
Because he certainly paid no heed to the Will of the Electorate when the majority (up to 75% in some polls) opposed partial privatisation of State assets.
Nor did Key pay any attention to the finer points of the results of the 2011 election. The majority of Party Votes went to parties opposing asset sales,
.
| National , ACT, United Future Party Votes | Labour, Greens, NZ First, Maori Party, Mana, and Conservative Party votes |
|
National – 1,058,636
|
Labour – 614,937 |
|
ACT – 23,889
|
Greens – 247,372 |
|
United Future – 13,443
|
NZ First – 147,544 |
|
Maori Party – 31,982
|
|
|
Mana – 24,168
|
|
|
Conservative Party* – 59,237
|
|
|
TOTAL – 1,095,968 |
Total – 1,125,240 |
.
So even though the Conservative gained no seats in Parliament (*because of the 5% threshold), they gained over double the electoral-support for ACT. The Conservative Party, it should be noted, opposed asset sales.
It certainly did not matter to Dear Leader on the issue of public opposition to asset sales. He was more than willing to ignore the majority of New Zealanders who opposed his privatisation agenda.
Key’s claim that “morally” he should lead the next government post-2014 because National may be the largest Party in Parliament – he should remember one thing; size doesn’t always count.
Key’s assertion on having a so-called “moral mandate” to govern post-2014, is obviously a message directed at Winston Peters.
His message to Peters is simple – ‘if we’re the biggest party, then we are the rightful government. And we will push this meme in the public consciousness which will make life difficult for you if you don’t co-operate’.
This is the kind of deviousness which National’s party strategist (taxpayer funded, no doubt) has come up with, to ensure a third term for John Key.
It now falls upon Peters to see if he’ll cave to pressure from the Nats.
Other Blogs
The Standard: Moral mandates
The Pundit: On coming first, yet losing
*
.
“Mass medication”
.
.
A curious event took place on Monday 1 July on Radio NZ’s Jim Mora’s panel…
His guests that afternon were left-wing, Labour supporter, Dr Brian Edwards and right wing, National supporter, Michelle Boag.
One of the topics of discussion was fluoridation of urban water supplies. As is usual on issues like this, the debate became passionate.
But curiously, it was the position taken by each guest, Brian Edwards and Michelle Boag, that I found curious.
Usually, a left-winger will argue from a position of Collective action and responsibility. Like the issue of Food in Schools, the Lefts supports the stance that raising children, and ensuring their well-being, is a community responsibility.
The Right usually argues from a position of Individual choice and responsibility. On the issue of Food in Schools, the Right reject any notion of collective responsibility and instead hold to total parental responsibility as a default position.
I expected the same in the fluoridation debate between Brian and Michelle – only to find their positions reversed.
Brian was advocating from a Libertarian position of individual choice. He opposed flouridation.
Michelle was supporting the Collectivist position for a socialised benefit. She supported flouridation.
Their debate can be heard here:
Such complex creatures we humans are…
.
Mayors vs Ministers
.
Eqypt is not the only country wracked with coup d’états.
On 30th March 2010, National seized control of Environment Canterbury, postponing elections, and three weeks later appointing seven, un-elected Commissioners to run the body. The new Commissioners were vested with new powers to implement regional plans for Canterbury that could not appealed to the Environment Court (except to the High Court on points of law).
Roger Young, a trustee of the Water Rights Trust, suggested one of the prime movers for central government seizing control of ECAN was the vexed problem of water rights in the Canterbury region,
“After the commissioners’ own recommendations for a mixed member governance model at ECan post-2013 were ignored by the government, we see ECan now as simply a puppet to the bidding of a government which appears determined to increase irrigation and intensive farming in Canterbury despite the first order priorities in the Canterbury Water Management Strategy.
The slow pace of change behind the farm gate means that we will still have rising stocks of dirty water at a level that will haunt Cantabrians for decades.”
Acknowledgement: NBR – ECan ‘just a puppet to government bidding
The Canterbury Central Plains Water project is a half-billion dollar project, and National Ministers wanted to ensure that the money was spent according to their agenda. As we all know, farmers tend to vote National.
Three years later, and National has extended it’s power in the Canterbury region “to oversee the Council’s consents department”. We are told that this was by invitation by the CCC. I am reminded of puppet regimes that, once installed by a Super Power (former-USSR, US, China, etc) , duly “invited” their sponsor to send troops to help prop up the proxy government.
Was the Christchurch City Council “persuaded” by Gerry Brownlee to “invite the Minister for Local Government, Chris Tremain, to put in place a Crown Manager to oversee the Council’s consents department“? Were there back-room dealings where Mayor Bob Parker was issued an ultimatum by Brownlee;
‘Invite us to take over; save face; and save your arse at the up-coming local body elections – or we’ll take over anyway; you have egg on your face; and Lianne Dalziel takes over as Mayor in October – Your call.’
Is that the discrete conversation that took place between Bob Parker and Gerry Brownlee?
I suspect so.
Central Government: 2
Local Government: nil
Another recent announcement had John Key confirming central government’s support for Auckland Council’s rail loop and other transport plans.
Len Brown was, understandably, ecstatic. Christmas has come early for the Auckland Mayor,
“I am delighted the government has agreed to support this project…
… I want to acknowledge Aucklanders for being very clear in their support for this project.”
However, the Nats are not ones to offer something without expecting something else in return,
.
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – City’s shares eyed for rail
.
So central government will pay up a few billion bucks to upgrade Auckland’s transport system – but the Nats expect Auckland City to privatise their community owned assets?
Cheeky buggers.
Draw: 1 all
When it comes to Nanny State, National out-performs the previous Labour government in spades. Labour hardly ever engaged to this degree of interference in local government affairs. Executive power under National is growing, and impacting more on our lives.
With National intending to increase the powers of the GCSB and force telecommunications companies to store and hand over data to police and the spy agencies, the state’s influence in our lives grows day by day.
By comparison, Labour was practically a hands-off, “libertarian” style government.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 5 July 2013.
*
References
Sharechat.co.nz: Environment Canterbury elections cancelled as commissioners appointed (30 Match 2010)
Fairfax Media: Environment Canterbury commissioners named (22 April 2010)
Ministry for Primary Industries: Government funding for Central Plains Water Irrigation (18 Feb 2013)
NBR: ECan ‘just a puppet to government bidding’ (14 March 2013)
Interest.co.nz: Auckland Mayor celebrates Government’s agreement to support rail loop (26 June 2013)
NZ Herald: City’s shares eyed for rail (1 July 2013)
Interest.co.nz: PM Key says IANZ decision to strip Christchurch Council of consenting power is ‘unprecedented’ (1 July 2013)
Christchurch City Council: Council to invite Crown Manager to oversee consenting (3 July 2013)
.
.
= fs =
National’s disdain for democracy and dissent
.
Continued from: National’s disdain for the law
.
.
Protestors vs The Power of The State…
In the late 1970s, one of the very first protest activities I became involved in was highlighting the imprisonment of Soviet dissidents in the now-defunct USSR. (This was of intense interest to me because of my Eastern European heritage.)
The Soviet Union had approximately ten thousand political prisoners locked up in “Corrective Labour Colonies”, “psychiatric” institutions, and various prisons. (Most of which were located in the Moldavian region and not the archetypal Siberian labour camp that Westerners thought characterised the Soviet political penal system.)
Two of the charges commonly laid against Soviet dissidents were “anti Soviet agitation and propaganda” and “slandering the Soviet system.” Either charge could land a hapless political activist in prison for five, seven, ten, or more years.
The heavy sentences were handed down not just to isolate dissidents from their colleagues and the public – but to serve as a dire warning to anyone else who might ‘buck the system’.
That could never happen here in New Zealand, right?
Right?
Wrong.
It is happening here, and now, in our own country.
After the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, in April 2010, it was little wonder that East Coast locals and environmental activists joined together to protest against deep-sea drilling of their coast.
East Coasters – and the rest of the country – have had a clear warning of the potential danger of an environmental catastrophe that might strike the region. One that we are simply unprepared for, as the grounding of the MV Rena showed, eighteen months later.
Public disquiet and anger was such that by November 2011, Key was prepared to be secretive about his meetings and discussions with oil companies,
.
Acknowledgement: TV3 -Key keeps meeting with Anadarko boss quiet
.
In normal circumstances it would seem unusual that a Prime Minister would keep such a top-level meeting secret. One would think that it should be quite a coup to have a visiting CEO of such a large corporation visiting New Zealand. Especially where there is Big Money to be made.
Remember Key’s recent big trips to Hollywood? South America? China?
Recently, on TVNZ’s Q+A, on 3 April, Energy Minister and Dear Leader Mini-Me, Simon Bridges announced a new law with heavy sanctions against protesters who “want to stop other people going about their lawful business and doing what they have a permit to do and they are legally entitled to do”.
He said, in part,
JESSICA MUTCH I want to start off by asking you your predecessor in a speech, Phil Heatley, said, ‘I’m determined to ensure the mining sector is not hampered by unsafe protest actions by a small but vocal minority.’ You’ve been working on this since taking over. What are protesters in for?
SIMON BRIDGES So, that’s right. So we are acting, and so two offences are going to be put into the Crown Minerals Bill. Look, the first of those is truly criminal offence. Effectively, what it says is that it will be stopping people out there at deep sea, in rough waters, dangerous conditions, doing dangerous acts, damaging and interfering with legitimate business interests with ships, for example, seismic ships, and what they’re doing out there.
JESSICA What fines are we talking about there?
SIMON Well, for that one, 12 months’ imprisonment, or $1000 (please note: the minister meant $100,000 not $1000) or $50,000 fine, depending on whether you’re a body corporate or an individual. Then a lesser, more infringement offence, really, strict liability offence for entering within a specified area, probably up to 500 metres within that ship, again because of the dangers associated with doing that.
Acknowledgement: TVNZ: Q+A – Transcript Simon Bridges Interview
Bridges even admitted that vested interests were involved in the law-change,
JESSICA Did mining companies complain to the Government?
SIMON Oh, there have been complaints. Look, I’ve talked with a range of businesses.
JESSICA So isn’t this just basically a sot to mineral companies and mining companies?
SIMON No, I don’t think so. In fact, I think what’s also true is this is best practice. You look at Australia, you look at other countries, they already do this. We’re also, I think, here filling a gap in the sense that to the Territorial Sea – that’s 12 miles out – you already have these sorts of provisions. Even the Exclusive Economic Zone, as I say, a massive area – 4 million-odd square kilometres – there are some provisions for oil rigs and so on. But for these moving vessels, where it was very dangerous and we thought so, that’s where we’re acting.
JESSICA Was this prompted by the Elvis Teddy case?
SIMON Look, that’s certainly part of the genesis of this.
Acknowledgement: IBID
The hypocrisy and self-serving nature of the proposal to criminalise protest action was best exemplified when Bridges assured viewers that he “passionately” supported people’s right to protest,
JESSICA Don’t you think a lot of New Zealanders would agree, though, that people have a right to protest? Even if I’m not out there with a placard, you still support people’s right to be able to do it.
SIMON Absolutely, and I think, you know, that goes to the heart of being a democracy. I believe that passionately. My point is there are a huge variety of ways which New Zealanders can protest about anything. I would never want to stop that, but what they can’t do is dangerously, recklessly interfere with other people’s rights to go about their business.
Acknowledgement: IBID
And yet, when Bridges talks about the right to protest, he is adamant that “what they can’t do is dangerously, recklessly interfere with other people’s rights to go about their business”.
I would submit to the Minister that proposed legislative changes are directed at the wrong party. It is oil companies that should be prevented from undertaking activicties that would “dangerously, recklessly interfere with other people’s rights to go about their business” should another blowout send millions of barrels of oil washing across our East Coast.
.
.
Unfortunately I cannot submit anything to the Minister. No one can. (Except oil companies.)
It is a startling fact: the proposed law change to criminalise sea-borne protests will not go before a Parliamentary Select Committee. It will be passed through Parliament as a Supplementary Order Paper, meaning that it will avoid Select Committee scrutiny or a Public consultation process.
This blogger cannot emphasise how repugnant this proposed law-change is – nor how much it brings to mind the abuse of State power, as happened in the Soviet/Eastern Europe bloc.
This is how National wants to rule; by decree from the Executive.
Replace “Cabinet” with “Politburo”, and you begin to get an understanding of what I’m describing here.
It does away with the Parliamentary process; it avoids scrutiny by a Select Committee; and it eliminates any opportunity for the public to be involved by making submissions.
This is bad law-making.
This is anti-democratic.
This is naked authoritarianism.
This has the hallmarks of a government that distrusts and fears it’s own people and views public inclusion with disdain.
Never mind Labour’s so-called “Nanny State” that National complained about in 2007 and 2008 – this has all the hallmarks of a quasi-fascist state.
This is a desperate, shabby thing that Simon Bridges and his Party are doing.
It is so wrong that I am in disbelief that it is happening.
Continued at: National’s disdain for taking responsibility
.
*
.
Addendum – Update
.
Acknowledgement: Radio NZ – Legislation cracking down on mining protests passes third reading
.
In just under two weeks, National has rammed this legislative amendment through the House, with the assistance of two grubby MPs who should not even be in Parliament.
Nek Step: National passes legislation banning all protest activity in public places. Key reassures New Zealanders that protest activity will still be legal in the privacy of peoples’ own homes. (Though for assemblies of three or more people, a Police-SIS-ODESC-GSCB permit will be required.)
Law abiding New Zealanders will having nothing to fear, Dear Leader Key reasurres us, as long as those New Zealanders do nothing.
Continued at: National’s disdain for our credulity
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 17 April 2013.
.
*
.
Previous related blogposts
Corporate Welfare under National
Anadarko: Key playing with fire
Petrobras withdraws – sanity prevails
References
NZ Herald: Protester law avoids public submissions and Bill of Rights vetting (3 April 2013)
Other Blogs
The Daily Blog: The Conspirators
The Daily Blog: The Guts and the Authority: Curbing the Powers of the GCSB
The Daily Blog: Worse Than We Thought: Rebecca Kitteridge and the New “Community” of Spooks
.
.
= fs =
When is ‘Nanny State’ not a ‘Nanny State’?
.
… when National does it.
From one day ago,
.
Acknowledgement: Dominion Post – Young people banned from sunbeds
.
But when the previous Labour government attempted to improve the health of our children, National condemned it as,
.
Acknowledgement: Dominion Post – ‘Nanny state’ fears on health bill
.
When the previous Labour government tried to conserve energy use, National condemned it as,
.
Acknowledgement: Scoop – Showers latest target of Labour’s nanny state
.
Evidently it’s ok for National to pass laws controlling a legal (if somewhat unhealthy and dangerous) activity. The Nats are attempting to ban a group of young people from engaging in activity that older New Zealanders are still allowed to do.
But not for the previous Labour government when they wanted to replace unhealthy food with healthy food in school cafetarias/tuck shops.
In fact, when National took office in November 2008, they reversed the healthy foods policy in schools,
.
Acknowledgement: Fairfax Media – Schools’ healthy food rule scrapped
.
According to Ms Tolley – National’s Education Minister at the time – it was “up to parents and students to make decisions about healthy food”.
The Nats couldn’t wait to allow fatty, sugary, salty, artery-clogging, diabetes-inducing, garbage back into schools for our young children to consume. And shorten their life-spans by several decades, no doubt.
That was ok. No “nanny state” here, folks – junk food was given the Big Tory Tick.
But not sun beds.
Apparently, Associate Health Minister Jo Goodhew and her National colleague, MP Paul Hutchison, don’t mind putting on a “Nanny” frock and instructing under-18s that cooking themselves with UV radiation has been banned by Big Government.
I wonder if when this Bill comes before the House for it’s three readings, that Labour and Green MPs sitting opposite Ms Goodhew and Mr Hutchison will be quieting chanting…
“Nanny state… nanny state… nanny state… nanny state… nanny state… nanny state… nanny state… nanny state… “
Gowan. Do it.
You know you want to.
.
.
.
= fs =
The Power of National’s “Daddy Statism”
.
.
A constant theme of National’s criticism of the previous Labour government was that Helen Clark’s government was engaging in “Nanny State” politics. The constant refrain was that Labour was controlling more and more of our lives and the repeal of Section 59 (commonly referred to as the “anti smacking law”) was held up as the prime example of state interference in our lives.
Yet, National voted in favour of that same Bill, passing it through the House with near unanimity.
National’s own penchant for state interference in our lives – referred to as “Daddy State” by some – is actually more pronounced than Labour’s ever was.
The latest example of state interference in the lives of ordinary New Zealanders is this extraordinary story, which appeared in today’s NZ Herald,
.
.
Anne Tolley has stated explicity,
“The biggest influence on learning is the teaching, and we want to make sure we have world-class teachers across the board. Making changes to initial teacher training and setting ‘disposition to teach’ criteria is to make sure we get the right people going into teaching.” Source
‘Disposition to teach’ criteria?!
The government intends to determine who is/isn’t suited to teach?
Three points;
- If National wants to alienate our teachers and inspire them sufficiently to move to Australia – they are doing a fabulous job at it. We will have lost our teachers in the next few years, if National is returned to power.
- What will be the next profession where government sets “disposition criteria”? Doctors? Architects? Airline pilots? Ambulance drivers? Firefighters? All Blacks?
- Will National set “disposition criteria” for aspiring political candidates “to make sure we get the right people going into politics”?
National’s plan to test individuals for “disposition criteria” is one of the more chilling policies I’ve heard in a long time.
God knows what sort of society National politicians are envisaging – but I want no part of it. This is downright quasi-fascism. With a huge dose of bizarro-creepiness thrown in for good measure.
If anyone votes for National after this, they need a “disposition criteria”-check carried out on them.
.
.
Jobs for the bro’s?
10 September 2011
.
Is it me – or does this sound plain wrong…
.
.
Why was the position not advertised, as is common practice?
Is this an example of nepotism? (Silly question. Of course it is.)
And at a time when this government has thrown thousands of government workers out of their jobs, and onto the unemployment scrap-heap – how much is this “advisor” job costing the tax-payer?
As an indication, this case might give us an idea,
.
.
And once again, the highly-paid “advisor” involves the English family.
Another case,
.
.
So much for this government “cutting expenditure”. They are sacking ordinary workers – and rehiring “advisors” aid exorbitant amounts of tax-payers’ money?
What on Earth is going on here?
.
***
.
+++ Update +++
.
.
It appears that the ‘heat’ has gone on Tony Ryall in this matter. He and his colleagures may have been hoping that Mervyn English’s appointment slipped in “under the radar” – but New Zealand is too small a country for that to happen.
Appointments of family and friends to jobs that are not publicly advertised is never a good look, and it is surprising that the government was silly enough to think they could get away with it. It reeks of corrupt practice.
.
***
.
19 November 2011
.
And yet more of the same…
.
.
“Katherine Rich has been appointed to the Health Promotion Agency Establishment Board, which replaces the Alcohol Advisory Council.
The move has outraged advocacy group Alcohol Action. Spokesperson Doug Sellman says Ms Rich has been one of the most vociferous defenders of the alcohol industry.
Professor Sellman says supermarkets normalise alcohol as an ordinary commodity and sell it by the tonne at ultra-cheap prices up to 24 hours a day.” Ibid
.
.
“The Labour Party agrees the appointment of Katherine Rich is too much a conflict of interest.
Health spokesperson Grant Robertson told Radio New Zealand while he holds Ms Rich personally in high regard, he believes her role with the Food and Grocery Council does clash with being part of such an agency.
“I think the linkage with her role supporting and advocating for the supermarkets is unfortunate and doesn’t sit well with the health promotion role that the future agency will have.”
However, in a written statement on Saturday, Health Minister Tony Ryall says Ms Rich, a former National MP, was appointed for her experience, balance and integrity.” Ibid
.
(L-R) National MPs Simon Powell, Katherine Rich, former National leader Don Brash, National MPs Nathan Guy and Gerry Brownlee applaud John Key as he delivers his speech as the New Zealand National Party launch their election campaign at Sky City on October 12, 2008 in Auckland, New Zealand.
.
Stacking government and quango roles with party hacks (even if they are talented party hacks) seems to be a time-honoured tradition that National is loathe to depart from.
However, the Radio NZ report does raise an important question regarding her appointment to the Health Promotion Agency Establishment Board, which replaces the Alcohol Advisory Council.
ALAC was an organisation dedicated to raising awareness of New Zealand’s considerable alcohol related (some say fueled) problems.
A 2009 BERL report estimated that “$4.437 million of diverted resources and lost welfare” could be directly attributed to alcohol abuse. That $4.4 billion is reflected in ACC, hospital admissions, crime, family violence, lost productivity, etc, and places a firm dollar cost on the harm that alcohol abuse is causing NZ society. These are costs we all pay for through ACC levies and taxes spent on medical intervention; policing; and the justice system.
Whilst working for the Food and Grocery Council, Ms Rich was a firm advocate of liberal laws surrounding marketting and retailing of alcohol.,
“The New Zealand Medical Association (NZMA) and Alcohol Advisory Council (Alac) strongly backed the recommendations.
Alac chief executive Gerard Vaughan said it set out a clear objective of reducing alcohol-related harm which stretched to structure and role changes for the district licensing agencies responsible for managing liquor licensing in their own communities.
Communities up and down the country were sick of the violence and vandalism that came with drinking and that proposed changes to licencing regimes would help address the problem, Mr Vaughan said.
Nearly 3000 submissions were received by the commission, many of which supported the tightening of laws around alcohol sales, purchasing and consumption.
But NZ Food and Grocery Council chief executive Katherine Rich said the report reflected “classic nanny state thinking.”
It failed to target those causing the problems and punished everyone, she said. The industry was already one of the most regulated, and more sensible ways to approach existing problems included better enforcement of current rules and better use of legal powers, along with industry-led initiatives.” Source
New Zealand has a $4 billion-plus problem with alcohol abuse (BERL report) and Katherine Rich dismissed attempts to address this crisis as “classic nanny state thinking“.
Thank you, Ms Rich. It’s nice to know where you stand on social problems that affect us all.
It is worthwhile reflecting that since liquor laws were de-regulated in the mid 1980s (as part of the wave of Rogernomics “reforms”), that 25 years later things have gotten steadily worse. In those 25 years, the free market system has reigned practically unchallenged and unchanged.
Somehow I think “Nanny State” has little to do with it.
Nanny is still nursing a hang-over from the last 25 years.
.
Related
Community Needs vs Business Demands
New Zealand 2011AD: Drunken Mayhem and a nice Family Day Out
Our ‘inalienable right’ to destroy communities through alcohol abuse
Govt’s consultants’ bill $375m and rising
.
.
Country of Origin Food Labelling – A Big Green Tick!
.
.
.
The issue of country-of-origin labelling on food is one of my pet-peeves (along with those horrid little sticky labels on apples,oranges, pears, etc – yes, we know they are apples, oranges, pears, etc!) when I do my grocery shopping.
When I buy food, I look at several factors; fat/salt/sugar content; price-per-kilo; and country-of-origin. All three hold equally high priority for me. Though I will usually always lean toward locally-produced items. At the very least, I prefer to support local manucturers who employ local workers and I can be (reasonably) assured of good quality ingredients and high standards of production.
In short, I am a fussy b*stard when it comes to grocery shopping.
As a consumer, I demand the right to know the source of my food.
So when John Key’s spokesperson sez,
“”The primary reason for not adopting mandatory labelling is that the costs to consumers, industry and government outweigh the benefits…“” Source
… then I highly unimpressed.
I’m sorry, Mr Key, but as an elected representative of the people of this country, it is not up to you to determine that something will be a “cost to consumers, industry and government outweigh the benefits“! You are neither my Nanny nor my Daddy to tell me that.
Your job, Dear Leader, is to ensure that the needs of the public are met on such issues – not to tell us what we do or don’t need.
Jeezus H, it’s not Labour that was a “Nanny State” – it’s this current government that keeps telling us what is/isn’t “beneficial” for us.
Thank god the election is only 25 days away.
Green Party – you get the big Green tick from this blog! It’s refreshing to see politicians looking after the needs of the folk who elected them into office!
.
Addendum
Silliest country-of-origin label seen on a food item: “Made from local and imported ingredients”. Said item was a leg of ham. *facepalm*
.
.
Nanny State, Daddy State, poor state?
.
.
National intends to sign up all workers?
Isn’t that… compulsion?
Isn’t that… “Nanny Statism“?
Isn’t that what National complained so bitterly about in 2008, promising to undo the dreaded tentacles of Nanny State?!
Well, let’s see…
.
.
.
.
Perhaps I’m being unfair on National. Calling them hypocrites on “Nanny Statism” may be unwarranted. After all, National voted against the Repeal of Section 59 (“anti-smacking legislation), right? They voted against the Green Party initiative, right?
“The legislation also carries an amendment agreed earlier by Prime Minister Helen Clark and National leader John Key that says the police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent where the offence is considered to be inconsequential.” Source
Oh, no! National did vote for the Repeal of Section 59!!
It seems apparent that the term “Nanny State” was nothing more than a very clever election “bogey”, designed to paint Labour as some kind of authoritarian Party that loves to do nothing but micro-manage our lives. It was a clever ploy, and it certainly played it’s part in helping to defeat Labour in 2008.
But as with the banning of using cellphones whilst driving or launching a “Food in Schools” programme, National is not averse to legislation to enforce “social-engineering” policy.
Their change-of-heart in regards to Kiwisaver may be viewed as a further step into so-called “Nanny State” heartland. But, like other changes to the way in which we organise our society and manage our economy, it is a necessity which we cannot do without.
Some folk may jump up and down and whinge till the cows come home, that compulsory enrollment is a violation of their right to exercise choice; that it is not necessary; etc, etc.
Well, newsflash, my dear fellow Kiwis – it is necessary, and it is long overdue. The spend-up we’ve been having has been financed through massive borrowings from overseas – and the credit agencies have taken notice of our borrow & spend habits.
.
.
Much of our debt is private debt – fuelling our housing bubble – and based on other peoples’ savings. Very little of it goes into the productive sector. In effect, the property speculation is based on borrowed money.
And the party, people, is rapidly coming to an end.
Kiwisaver will do for New Zealand what Australia’s compulsory super-scheme did for that country: save.
Australia has amassed savings of over $1 trillion dollars,
“After more than a decade of compulsory contributions, Australian workers have over $1.28 trillion in superannuation assets. Australians now have more money invested in managed funds per capita than any other economy.” Source
It is little wonder that Australia is a wealthier society than New Zealand. Their superannuation savings scheme – compulsory since 1992 – has meant that Australians do not rely on foreign capital to the same extent that we do, here in NZ.
By contrast, New Zealanders voted away a compulsory savings scheme in 1975, when we voted for Robert Muldoon and his National Government. His (in)famous “Dancing Cossacks” election ad was sufficient to “spook” us – as was a certain measure of self-interest. We simply didn’t want to save for our future if we could get away with it. And Muldoon was only too happy to be elected into power and oblige us.
The current National Government – a different creature from the one in the 1970s – understands the sheer necessity to wean us off foreign borrowings. That is why they belatedly support Kiwisaver after initially condemning it when they were in Opposition.
However, it seems that Key and English haven’t quite got the stomach and cojones to make Kiwisaver compulsory, as in Australia. They will be offering an “opt out” clause to voters.
I guess they don’t want to be devoured by that mythical beast they created, the dreaded Nanny State.
Daddy State will have to do.
.
Additional information
Dancing Cossacks anti Labour party political TV ad
.
.
How To Beat Up a Story
Today’s “Dominion Post” contained an interesting editorial – interesting because the editorial related to what amounts to be a non-story;
No police record, no known next of kin, no mail, no benefit history. For 30 years 88-year-old Michael Clarke kept to himself in his Newtown bedsit. Some time last year he died the same way.
His remains were discovered in his bedsit at the grim Newtown Park Flats last week. Authorities believe he may have been dead for as long as 14 months.
The discovery has triggered an outpouring of dismay, but the discovery of a body in Wellington City Council accommodation is not an uncommon occurrence. As far back as 1997 former Wellington coroner Erika Kremic called upon the council to institute regular checks of its tenants. It is a call that has been echoed periodically by police who have to deal with the grisly remains when a death goes unnoticed.
But the council says there is a limit to what it can do. Council social portfolio leader Stephanie Cook said this week that staff tried to keep tabs on tenants and knocked on doors and visited them at least once a year. Yet many of the council’s tenants valued their privacy and did not like intrusions. The newspapers plastered over interior windows in the Newtown Park complex bear out her words.
However, it is no more acceptable for bodies to lie around for weeks or months than it is to shoehorn the vulnerable into cramped, dilapidated tower blocks that reek of urine.
Tenants in the council’s 40 housing complexes – a high proportion of whom are either elderly, immigrants, or suffer from physical and psychological disabilities – should be checked upon. Any who object should be informed that the checks are a condition of occupancy.
To its credit the council is taking steps to improve the quality of its accommodation, much of it built in the 1960s to accommodate single workers.
In conjunction with the Government, it commenced a $400million upgrade of its housing stock in 2008. Interior walls have been knocked down to make bigger flats suitable for families, communal landings and long corridors have been removed to get rid of gathering places for undesirables, and communal gardens have been established to encourage neighbourliness. Already the Central Park flats at the bottom of the Brooklyn hill have been transformed and work has commenced on the three tower blocks that are to remain at the Newtown Park Flats.
But the revamp will take time and will not entirely solve the problem. As a provider of last resort housing, the council will always have antisocial tenants who object to anything they regard as scrutiny. It will also always have vulnerable tenants who are fearful and suspicious of authority. They may prefer to keep to themselves, but regular checks are preferable to the alternative – dying alone and unnoticed as Mr Clarke did.
I have two problems with this editorial.
1. The editorial claims that “the discovery has triggered an outpouring of dismay“?
That claim is debateable at best – and a downright exxageration at worst. Comments left on the “Dominion Post’s” own webpage were, by considerable majority, of the view that Mr Clarke’s passing was regrettable and that these things sometimes happen. In other words, it is a fact of life – however sad and unpleasant – that sometimes people will pass away in such circumstances.
I have read very, very, few comments of “dismay“.
In fact, the only “dismay” seemed to be directed at the media that appeared to be “feasting” on this story and beating it up for all it’s worth. The media appeared to be totally out-of-step with public thinking on this issue.
2. The next issue that I raise is this part of the editorial;
“Tenants in the council’s 40 housing complexes – a high proportion of whom are either elderly, immigrants, or suffer from physical and psychological disabilities – should be checked upon. Any who object should be informed that the checks are a condition of occupancy.”
Pardon?!
Since when did New Zealand society take a sharp right-turn (or left-turn,depending on your political viewpoint), and abrogate peoples’ rights to privacy and keeping bureacrats out of their lives, as a “condition of occupancy”?!
Would the writer of this editorial insist that everyone living in a rental flat, regardless of socio-economic position, be “checked as a condition of occupancy”?
Or is he/she simply insisting on Council/HNZ tenants?
As MilesLacey stated on a “Dominion Post” Forum;
“As a former Wellington City Council tenant I think it’s worth pointing out that people move in and out of WCC flats all the time so it was probably assumed by everyone that Michael Clarke had simply moved on like so many others. Even if people do think that it’s odd that someone hasn’t been around for some time there is still the notion that it’s none of our business to meddle in the affairs of others unless they let us.
We can’t force people to care about others. We can’t force people to watch out for their neighbours. Once we start doing that we move into the murky world of the surveillance state where everything we do starts being monitored “for our own good”.
And I would also point out that not all people who die alone and aren’t discovered for weeks or months on end are elderly or living in city council flats. Why impose upon the privacy of council tenants, as proposed by the editorial [of Sept 3], but not anyone else? Seems less like looking out for our neighbours and more like snooping on the “undesirables” such as the poor.” – Miles Lacey, Sep 03 2011
Considering that Council/HNZ tenants are at the bottom of the socio-economic pile (generally), the suggestion is that if you are,
A. Poor
B. An immigrant
C. Have a disability
… then you are less deserving of privacy that someone well-off; not an immigrant; and able-bodied/minded. This is not “Nanny Statism”. It’s not even National’s “Daddy Statism”. This is Big Brother, knocking on our doors, and demanding that we open up for inspection!
Today it will be Council/HNZ tenants.
Tomorrow, it may be superannuitants.
And next week – the rest of us. Big Brotherism – for our “own good”.
And it all began with the “Dominion Post”.
For our own good, of course. Are we feeling any safer now?
From “Nanny State” to “Daddy State”…
I don’t think there’s much question that serious social problems in this country are not being addressed in any meaningful way by this current government…
So is the Prime Minister, John Key, really aware of what is actually going on in New Zealand right now? Well, judge for yourself…
So what is National doing about soaring youth unemployment?
At their recent Conference, held in Wellington, they came up with this…
(Article abbreviated)
They’re going to clamp down on booze and cigarettes?!?!
That’s it?
Oh good lord! And people thought that Labour was “Nanny Statist”?!?!
I wonder who will be next to feel the iron fist of National’s Polit-buro state control? The retired? Civil Servants? Anyone using state hospitals???
Congratulations, my fellow New Zealanders: we have gone past Nanny State to Big Brother.
It might be worthwhile considering that,
- Not all unemployed youth smoke
- Not all unemployed youth drink
- Even if they do, Key says that they will still receive “a limited amount of money for young people to spend at their discretion“. Like… on booze and ciggies?!
- Even if they won’t have enough “discretionary pocket money” – what is to stop them stealing it? Or selling their Food Card for cash, and then buying ciggies and booze?
In the meantime, how many jobs will this piece of neo-Nanny Statism create?
The answer, I submit, is: 
Even the NZ Herald was quick to acknowledge this simple fact in their August 16 editorial,
“Yet there is also nothing in the Prime Minister’s announcement that creates jobs for young people. There, the Government still has work to do.”
Meanwhile, as National blames the young unemployed of this country for the world recession, and proposes to penalise them by tinkering with their only means of survival – the problem continues unabated,
The last time youth unemployment was this high was in 1992…
1992?
Wasn’t that the previous National government led by Jim Bolger, with Ruth Richardson as Minister of Finance? And didn’t she implement a slash and burn economic policy in her “Mother of All Budgets” that resulted in unemployment reaching over 10%?!?!
Why, yes. It was.
Are we starting to see a pattern develop here, folks?
It is abundantly clear that National has no clue how to address this problem. Attacking welfare benefits which keep people from starving to death, or more likely, breaking into our homes to find food, is not an answer. It is a cheap shot geared toward winning votes from uneducated voters who hold the illusion that living on a benefit is a cosy arrangement (it is not).
There are no policies being announced to create jobs, or to train young people into a trade or profession.
National should be throwing open the doors of our polytechs to train young people into tradespeople that the community desperately needs. With the re-building of Christchurch shortly to commence – where are the necessary tradespeople going to come from? (Most have buggered of to Australia.)
If this is the best that National can come up with, then, my fellow New Zealanders, we are in deep ka-ka.
Meanwhile…
Dr Mapp said the research science and technology was the way to create jobs, economic growth and a higher living standard for the country.
“To that end, it is vital that high-tech, exporting companies maintain their competitive edge in global markets.”
The grants range from $300,000 to $5.9m and run for three years.
They are valued at 20 per cent of the research and development spend in each business and provide a maximum $2.4m a year for three years.
Dr Mapp said they provide the businesses involved with more financial security over that period.
Businesses to get grants in the latest round were involved in software development, biotechnology, manufacturing and electronics.
Wellington companies which received grants:
Core Technology: $629,400
Open Cloud: $2,394,920
Xero: $4,040,000
Xero was founded by Rod Drury in 2006, who made $65 million in the same year after selling his email archiving system AfterMail. Xero purchased Australian online payroll company, Paycycle, in July of this year for A$1.5 million.
Which begs the question as to why the government has given away $4 million of tax-payers money when the owner is ‘flush’ with $65 million and has enough capital to buy off-shore companies elsewhere.
Is this a prudent use of tax-payers’ money, especially when,
* government is cutting back on social services?
* government has cut back on youth training programmes?
* government is borrowing $380 million a week, and telling the rest of us to “tighten our belts”?
At a time when government is berrating unemployed 16 and 17 year olds for being on the dole and “smoking ciggies”, instead of providing meaningful training and/or employment, it seems that National is still “picking winners” in the field of commerce.
$4 million could go a long way in providing training, and a future, for many 16 year olds.
By contrast, how much do young people, living away from home, recieve from WINZ? It must be a grand sum, to earn the Prime Minister’s stern attention. The answer is:
It’s a shame they’re not “picking winners” with our unemployed youth.
News Archives
Crony Watch
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Frankly Speaking... 