The MPs suggested the Women's Affairs Ministry could be absorbed into the research unit of the Social Development Ministry, and said they suspected some of the work was already replicated there.
This is just obfuscating. The result then is an even bigger MSD.
Why can't ACT take a clear cut position? Perhaps it is the political bob-each-way, ever mindful of hankering after the 'women's vote'.
They said all departments should seriously consider issues of gender equality, just as the private sector did, without relying on a gender-based body to abrogate any responsibility.
'Gender equality' is a collectivist notion. ACT is supposed to be a proponent of individualism. So for that matter is National, though it is less disappointing when they don't get it. Individual rights should trump gender rights. My rights as an individual supersede any rights based on my gender, my ethnicity, my sexual preferences etc.
The whole problem with contemporary society is that collectivist rights are trampling over individual rights. It is evidenced in the environment via the RMA and local government edicts; and in the vast amount of wealth redistribution with the taxpayer having no power to refuse to cede the product of his work to any favoured group: and through legal institutions like the Family Court. Collectivist rights strip people of individual and private property rights.
The ACT MPs might argue they were advocating voluntary adhesion to gender equality. But exhorting "serious consideration" of gender equality gives it weight and veracity, whereas any employer should be free to choose staff based on merit or whatever other priority they put on the make-up of their workplace.
7 comments:
MSD is far, far worse for NZ than Womens Affairs.
It's much better policy for ACT to keep Womens' Affairs provided MSD is abolished (oh and all its welfare programs too).
Promoting the rights of anyone group takes no account of the impact on other groups.
That's why I'm a peopleist not a feminist - people have rights because we're people.
that should be: any one group not anyone.
people have rights because we're people.
taxpayers have rights because we pay tax.
The rest of 'em - the 90% of New Zealanders on benefits, on the Dole, Codger-Dole, WFFer, teachers, nursers bludgers all - pay no nett tax and have no nett rights
All humans beings have rights...they are inseperable from our nature as man the social animal.
Rights protect me from you and you from me....and they prevent bludgers and moochers from living off of others..which is why the left revile them.
Anon: I suspect most of the people on "Codger-Dole" have already paid their taxes to deserve this benefit.
And some of them fought in wars to preserve your precious freedom.
(PS No, I'm not a pensioner)
Anon: I suspect most of the people on "Codger-Dole" have already paid their taxes to deserve this benefit.
The Codger-Dole (no need for quotes!) is paid out of the general fund - that is my taxes today.
And some of them fought in wars to preserve your precious freedom.
And they'll be on war veterans pensions, not the Codger-Dole.
Any serious discussion about welfare in NZ needs to talk urgently about reducing the Codger-Dole, along with all the rest: Bludger-Dole, Breeder-Dole, Worker-Dole...
Post a Comment