Mad Matt

What a load of codswallop from Matt McCarten today. If he was right about ACT than I would be an utter misfit. I would never have been placed on last election's list, let alone within cooey of becoming an MP. First he launches into the Business Roundtable;

Its ideology is quite simple: we're all essentially greedy and we should be free to make as much money as we can. If we exploit others in the process - well, that's just the free market at work. Now it seems Labour may be defeated this year, it appears to be getting ready to get back into the driving seat. No doubt it would have been behind the recent manoeuvre to bring Douglas back into Act.

We are all essentially self-interested. Greed and self-interest are completely different things. They produce different outcomes. The NZBR would concur with Adam Smith's defence of self-interest. In a personal sense I am self-interested. Those things that matter most to me are to be protected and cared for or I will become unhappy. I am protecting my own interests when I protect those of my children, family and friends. Business is the same. Self interest in one's own business success requires creating an environment where everyone employed or traded with is gaining something. When exploitation occurs - personally or professioally - unhappiness and failure result.

The NZBR is behind Roger Douglas's re-emergence? The person behind Roger's re-emergence is Roger. I am sure some people have been persuaded to stand for ACT indirectly via the NZBR simply because they promote (very well) sound ideas similar to those ACT promotes. We share the philosophy of individualism. This grand plan conspiratorial stuff is just self-gratification of the loopy left temperament.

It would have been devastated when John Key, a moderate, took out Don Brash as leader. Therefore it had to resort to a Plan B and coax decrepit Douglas out of retirement. With the support of his Roundtable cronies, Douglas is now effectively co-leader of the Act Party. I'm wary of political ideologues who claim our economic and social ills can only be cured if we adopt their plan. Apparently, Douglas and Act have a new 20-point plan. Most of us are probably tempted to roll our eyes about this nuttiness. But don't think they are harmless fruitcakes.

So what's your plan Matt? Drive New Zealand right off the bottom rung of the OECD ladder? All pre-election policy is a plan. Could we have some credit for being transparent about ours? No. I didn't think so. Because that blows another right-wing conspiratorial theory - the cloak and dagger hidden-agenda one. That's the one you now save for John Key.

Unfortunately for the far right, there is a major block to their success - the Maori Party......Therefore it should be no surprise the Business Roundtable released research it has sponsored which runs along the supposedly reasonable line that as we now have MMP, the Maori seats are unnecessary and allow a disproportionate number of Maori in parliament. Funny how the Roundtable didn't produce a report about the over-representation of white males in parliament.

.....The Business Roundtable doesn't give a fig about the role of Maori - good or bad. The report is merely propaganda to influence the public so National sticks with its promise to hold a referendum on Maori seats. Ask our country's 86 per cent non-Maori population if these seats should remain and the answer is a foregone conclusion. They will go, as the Roundtable intends.

This has nothing to do with Maori. It's the far right removing obstacles so it can get in a government it can influence to finish off the neo-conservative agenda begun in 1984.

That the NZBR (and by implication ACT) "doesn't give a fig about the role of Maori" is a ugly misinterpretation. One can care about people as individuals without agreeing to tribalist, collectivist notions and practices. That is the most important concept and maybe Matt McCarten just can't comprehend it. If New Zealand prospers (and prosperity is undeniably linked to freedom, not government) the people who will experience the greatest improvement in the quality of life are those who currently have the least.

Matt, if you are right, and the Business Roundtable and ACT are run by 'greedy, white, rich men' wouldn't they also be of the selfish 'I'm- alright- Jack ilk?' Why would they be spending their time and energy and MONEY bothering with ideas, philosophy and politics? Especially in their 60s and 70s. It doesn't stack up Matt.

I wish

From an interview with the Sunday Star Times,

Brash says while he was largely happy with National's policy platform in 2005, seeing it as a necessary compromise, he wonders whether he might have gained more votes campaigning as a conviction politician.

We will never know. But it's not too late to have another go Don. All you need is people around you who share the convictions you hold about what is needed to turn this country around.

Green/Maori Accord

Back in February I blogged the reasons why a Maori/Green Accord is a distinct possibility.

Today's Green conference has brought more talk about such a possibility.

The Greens and the Maori Party holding the balance of power after the next election would be a very dangerous situation for New Zealand to find itself in.

Political cross-dresser

How quickly a leopard can change its spots. Reason describes the new Mayor of London's transformation from libertarian to authoritarian. Fascinating piece. Populism is so seductive.

Art and schools

To give you an idea of how schools utilise technology while still learning hands on creative skills have a look at this. I am amazed at the variety of drawings that came out of the 20-odd children I worked with yesterday. They each had a copy of a photo of an afghani child (I had already drawn in pastel so was familiar with the subject). I demonstrated how I would tackle the subject using oil pastels and they followed. It was a real pleasure. The children are aged 9-10.

Who is he kidding?

Some lawyers really do lay it on thick. A brutish, callous 19 year-old was yesterday jailed for two years after his vicious attack, caught on camera, on a 17 year-old. The defence counsel says, as the offender heads off to prison, the turning point in his client's life would be when he got out of prison and had to take responsibility for his young partner and their expected child.

What??? He should be nowhere near a child. Hopefully his 'partner' will run a mile. But I've known silly girls who romanticise and mope after their incarcerated love objects. Parting is such sweet sorrow....

Give me a break. Likely the judge had similar thoughts running through his head. His parting comment to this individual was, "For what it's worth, I do not think you could care for a guinea pig."

Let's hope someone from care and protection services was paying attention.

Front page but it's not news

The following appears on the front page of the Dominion Post. It's not news - not in sense that news implies something 'new'.

Dr Van Herck, who is originally from Belgium and has been working in New Zealand for 2½ years, said many able-bodied sickness beneficiaries should be on the unemployment benefit instead.

"A lot of people on sickness benefits say Work and Income staff have sent them and just expect you to sign the form."

He had seen one woman who had been on a sickness benefit for 19 years because of asthma but smoked a packet of cigarettes a day. Work and Income had offered her several quit programmes. "She admitted she was too lazy to go."

Another sickness beneficiary's documented reason for not working was they "could not be bothered".

He signed off both beneficiaries but wrote on their forms that they needed follow-up and reassessment.

On the day he saw the asthma sufferer, he also saw a man whose leg had been amputated above the knee and who worked full-time, despite pain. Another woman continued to work after a stroke.

"They are paying taxes to sustain somebody with asthma smoking a packet of cigarettes a day. Many GPs have complained; it becomes a culture of handouts."

What it is going to take to break this culture? First there has to be a consensus that 'bludging' just isn't acceptable. Until that happens isolated individuals will struggle to stand up to the intimidation or sheer persistence. Alongside the culture of handouts is the culture of making excuses for people. The opposite doesn't demand that we stomp all over people punitively. What it requires is more people showing, teaching and expecting aspiration and ambition.

Sometimes those people just aren't available in the lives of beneficiaries. But they exist in the community. And I have seen the difference 'mentoring' relationships can make.

Then I have also seen the resistance of people to any effort to help and encourage them. In which case we need to relearn a culture of just saying 'NO'.

Questions

National's Simon Power is playing to the law and order buffs. I should know, being one. Here he highlights how many people on home detention are absconding.

Mr Power said the Government had put its obsession with reducing the number of prison inmates ahead of public safety.

Obsession? If Labour is obsessed the statistics don't reflect it.


The graph above groups the sentenced prisoner population according to current eligibility for discretionary release (either on parole or home detention). Prisoners in the category “no discretion for release” include those whose sentence does not allow early release on parole or home detention, as well as those who are eligible but have yet to pass their parole eligibility date. “Discretionary release eligible” refers to those who have passed their parole eligibility date or home detention eligibility date but have yet to be released or have been granted leave to apply for front end home detention but have yet to be released.

The data reflects the influence of parole laws introduced in 2002, which meant that parole eligibility occurred earlier in the sentences of longer-term prisoners. However, this has not meant that prisoners have been released earlier. Instead, the number of sentenced prisoners currently eligible for release, but who have yet to be granted release by the Parole Board, exceeds the number who are not eligible for release.


As it stands 48 out of 2,500 home detainees absconded. My point is, if National says it can do better, then they are saying they will eliminate all the risk. That would entail keeping all 2,500 home detainees in prison.

So will they be making a commitment to abolishing home detention and building prison capacity? What exactly is it that National are going to do better than Labour?

Maori Party and Poverty Elimination

Has the Maori Party poverty elimination policy been costed???

My goodness. This (I notice it is not co-issued by Tariana Turia AND Pita Sharples which is usually the case) puts the Maori Party to the left of the Greens.

The Maori Party says:

* Provide a universal benefit for parents raising children. If families are already well off, recoup the benefit from tax on higher incomes. (Universal benefits reach the neediest families most effectively.)

* Set a baseline for poverty at 60% of the average wage, and a deadline of 2020 to eliminate child poverty.

* Exempt the first $25,000 of income from tax.

* Raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour.

* Remove GST from food. (The government says this would make the tax system too complex, but that argument hasn't stopped them granting all sorts of exemptions from the Emissions Trading Scheme.)

* Investigate other sources of revenue - capital gains tax, bank transaction tax.

I will attempt some VERY crude costings and please feel free to put me right if I err.

1/ A universal benefit for parents. Which parent? How much? In 2006 there were 515,000 families with dependent children. A modest universal benefit of $20 per week would cost $536 million. But why should a parent with one child receive the same as a parent with 5? The old family benefit (scrapped in the early 90s) used to be paid per child. In which case it would cost over $1 billion.

2/ Set a baseline for poverty at 60 percent of the average wage. The average income from wages or salary was $893 a week in June 2007. So at 60 percent every family head (employed or otherwise) would receive $536 a week. That's around double the current benefit rate. With roughly 114,000 parents on a benefit, instead of $1.5 billion the welfare bill would be $3 billion (and that doesn't include family support and accommodation supplement.)

3/ Exempt the first $25,000 from income tax. That would cost (very roughly) about $11 billion.

4/ Raise the minimum wage to $15. (Cost to business about $1.2 billion)

5/ Remove gst from food. $2.4 billion (DPF figures)

That's $15.9 billion. To be raised from incomes and income over $25,000. That's about 1 million workers paying an extra $15,900 a head in tax.....

...or whatever effort and wealth-creation tax the Maori Party prefers.

When they have driven all the workers away they won't have to worry about divvying up the pie any more. There won't be one.

Having talked this through with my own 'economic adviser' he wonders whether this isn't a cultural policy designed to return NZ to the economic approach that prevailed before colonisation.

Still missing the point

Today's Dominion Post editorial is about the Kahui twins and the Kahui family. It runs through the all too familiar list of high-profile child murders and concludes;

Many of their cases have common features: alcohol and drug abuse, lifestyles fuelled by crime and benefits, mothers with children to different fathers, delays in seeking medical help and a refusal to cooperate with police once a crime has been discovered. Many, too, occurred within Maori families.

Maori are not alone in abusing their children. Every culture has its dirty secrets, but there is no escaping the fact that Maori children are disproportionately represented among the victims.

Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples says this is because Maori are over-represented in poverty-stricken and under-achieving communities.

He may be right, but that is an explanation, not a solution. The killing will not stop till relatives and neighbours of mistreated children recognise that they owe their loyalty to society's most vulnerable members, not to those who abuse them.

Again this misses the hub of the matter. Again we are seeing the responsibility shifted to people other than the mother and father. The killing will not stop until those individuals bringing babies into the world make a commitment to them. But too often they are too young themselves; too consumed with having a good time whether that's getting on the piss, partying, taking off to play the pokies, smoking P. It's all about escaping life and responsibility. What is the reward for behaving any differently? Loneliness (a baby isn't much company), ostracism (you can't hold your piss) hostility (you're a nark).

It is no good appealing to the cuzzies when it is quite likely they are the source of malevolent 'peer pressure'. Where the whanau is any good the babies have long gone usually to grandma.

It takes an incredibly strong individual to raise a child well in this sort of environment and the fact is there just aren't that many to be found. Lifestyle welfare has created a feckless and inhospitable setting for children. Caring 'relatives and neighbours' can't compete with it.

What would they fight about?

This is a quote from Judy Kirk addressing the National Party northern regional conference on the matter of the EFA,

I don't think it's a damned good idea, Mike Williams; I think it stinks and I think you and your party should be ashamed of yourselves and what you have done to this democracy. You're not prepared to fight with us on ideas. You'd rather break all conventions and ram through anti-democratic legislation. Well you will fail.

Can you guess which part of the quote had me choking?

You're not prepared to fight with us on ideas.

Just which ideas would they find to fight over?

- That the purpose of government is to equalise people's incomes and outcomes?

- That the purpose of government is to use taxpayer's money to do what the private sector can and should do?

- That the purpose of government is to usurp private property rights when it suits?

- That the purpose of government is to intervene in the social and moral spheres of New Zealander's lives when it sees fit?

Now those debates would be worth hearing. But they could never occur between National and Labour whose prescription for government is the same.

What Cindy Kiro really thinks

The New Zealand Herald reports on a survey commissioned by Family First about behaviour and attitudes to smacking since the passage of the anti-smacking legislation;

Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro said yesterday that she had not seen the survey.

But she urged people to move on and learn better parenting skills.

"The key message is, 'For goodness sake, can't we move on?' So much energy has been wasted debating this."

That's an interesting attitude in itself. Very. It reveals that the Children's Commissioner does not care for discussion or debate when it comes to what she wants to do. To those of us who would put up objections, the key message is actually, "you are wasting your energy". Presumably we will be wasting our energy opposing any other of her initiatives like mandatory screening of every baby's home life.

The Office for the Children's Commissioner should be disbanded. It is partisan, it is authoritarian. And worse still, of the matters that it seeks to control, which has improved since its inception? The number of established child abuse cases? Bullying in schools? Youth violence? Adolescent pregnancy?

The only real success the office has achieved is in rubbing good parents up the wrong way while spending their money touring the world promoting New Zealand as some sort of world beater. How ironic.

As the Commissioner is so very fond of 'sending messages' here is mine; I will decide what is and isn't a waste of my energy. I am not here to roll over at your behest.

NZ doesn't fit the mould

Apparently the US has a small welfare state because a majority of Americans believe that work is a determinant of success.

From the NCPA;

Capitalism, when combined with a relatively small government, is a well-established ticket to improved standards of living. However, many countries continue to oppose capitalism. The resistance of many countries to adopt capitalist economic systems has puzzled economists for decades, says Kevin A. Hassett, a senior fellow and the director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

In a recent study, economists Alberto Alesina, Edward Glaeser and Bruce Sacerdote found that pre-existing social attitudes toward luck may be the crucial determinant of the political path of a society. The authors uncovered a striking difference between American and European attitudes towards the poor:

* If you ask Americans whether they believe the poor are lazy, 60 percent agree.
* However, if you ask Europeans, only 26 percent say yes.

Historically, large welfare states have emerged in countries where citizens generally believe that luck determines income. According to the authors:

* If bad behavior (or laziness) is viewed as a source of poverty, then the welfare state is small.
* America has avoided the fate of Europe because its citizens disproportionately believe that luck is not that important a determinant of one's circumstances, but hard work is.
* If Americans are predisposed to believe that high incomes are generally merited, then they will be resistant to change.
* However, when capitalists succeed because of bribery and corruption, citizens become less convinced that the income distribution reflects merit, and are more willing to redistribute.

It takes more than luck to maintain a free society. If America is to avoid acquiring a welfare state the size of Europe's, the rule of law must be vigorously defended and the corrupt must be adequately punished, says Hassett.

But a recent NZ study found an even larger number of Kiwis blamed being poor on being lazy. A whopping 73 percent.

Yet New Zealand has become a large welfare state. The best reason I can come up with is that for decades now NZ has been 'ruled' by minority opinion. The special pleaders and anti-capitalists are running the show. The lobbyists are powerful and our parliament is not representative of how many New Zealanders feel about work and welfare. And political correctness has made people afraid to challenge the status quo.

Not the whole story

Susan St John, champion of welfare for children, telling us half the story,

Child Poverty Action Group economist Susan St John said the Budget made no effort to make it easier for beneficiaries to work by lifting the $80 a week limit on income they can earn before the benefit is reduced - a limit that had not changed for 22 years.

Limits for earned income have changed for those on the dole (who might also have dependent children.)

Until 1996 an unemployed person could receive the maximum benefit and earn NZ$50 (or $60 for beneficiaries with dependent children) a week before the benefit was abated. Under current arrangements an unemployed person can earn an income of $80 a week before the benefit is abated.

And although the $80 limit wasn't changed, for those on the DPB and WB, the amount of benefit lost between $81 and 180 was reduced from 70% to 30% for those with a youngest child over 14 in 2003. From the MSD press release,

This change to a social development approach is supported by the introduction of a new single abatement rate for DPB/WB clients allowing them to keep a greater proportion of any income they receive while on the benefit.

DPB/WB clients will be able to earn up to $80 a week on top of their benefit with no affect on their main benefit, and income between $80 and $180 reduces the benefit by 30 cents for every dollar received and by 70 cents for every dollar received over $180.

There are increases coming in the family support for beneficiaries with children. Family support is becoming a really big ticket item of government expenditure.

These are the figures from 2003-09 (actual to forecast)

$862 833 846 1,285 1,699 2,081 2,132

So as usual the CPAG are ignoring increases in assistance in order to strengthen their case for greater redistribution. Sadly it's what you come to expect from beneficiary advocacy groups.

Give parents and pupils choice

Flat tax and anti-smacking legislation

Sir Bob Jones was on Good Morning TV yesterday talking about tax, the Douglas era and how Roger's reforms were 'radical' in comparison to what was happening in the rest of the world. The Muldoon era of daylight robbery is discussed (actually 'discussed' isn't right - Bob thankfully does all the talking), the Laffer Curve effect, what's happening in Slovakia with their flat 10 percent tax, and why we should be following suit. It starts at 1:45.

(If you enjoyed Bob stay tuned for an announcement about my campaign launch where he will be guest speaker)

Then stick with the Good Morning (it soon won't be) and watch Beth Wood (Save the Children) and Ian Hassell (ex Children's Commissioner) argue with Bob McCoskrie (Family First) about the anti-smacking legislation. Quite teeth gritting stuff with the presenter clearly biased towards the proponents. This starts at 2:05.

Churches refuse to register as third parties

Thanks to a religious group getting involved in the 2005 election we are now lumbered with the ludicrous and unfathomable Electoral Finance Act.

Now more religious groups want to get involved in the 2008 campaign and are claiming the EFA does not apply to them and they will not be registering as a third party.

The churches are distributing 50,000 copies of the first of five leaflets, on child poverty, coinciding with the Budget this week.

Methodist Church president Brian Turner said the Electoral Commission recommended that they should "err on the side of caution" and register as third parties under the new Electoral Finance Act. But they decided not to.

"We don't see it as electioneering or promoting any particular party against others, so we didn't see the need to register," he said.

The same churches made it clear just weeks ago they want benefit levels raised. They are in the same camp as the CPAG who are backed in their legal action against the government by the Greens and the Maori Party.

The leaflets and 2500 posters are being sent this week to Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian and Salvation Army churches under the auspices of their umbrella group, the Council of Christian Social Services.

The Council of Christian Social Services is very political. They make submissions to the Social Services Select Committee and they are traditionally left-wing.

I hope that the Electoral Commission is very fair-handed in administering this Act - if that is possible. But somehow I cannot imagine the churches being prosecuted. It makes me very unhappy to have to urge the application of rules with which I don't agree but then again the rules were supposed to bring about a level playing field and the churches should not be above them.

Not stacking up

I am a little perturbed by this front page story from today's DomPost.

Pacific Islanders' crime rates, poor education and low employment are creating an underclass and a drain on the economy, a study says.

Issued last week, the document says Polynesians are less productive and less likely to contribute to economic growth. They have the highest unemployment in every age group....

Not according to the Household Labour Force Survey. Maori have slightly higher rates.

Polynesians are over-represented in crime statistics and have higher rates of convictions and prosecutions.

Assuming Polynesians continues to mean Pacific Islanders, their crime rates are not especially high. In fact the article later disputes this saying,

Statistics NZ crime figures show Pacific Islanders made up 9100 of 112,774 people convicted in 2006 - just over 8 per cent.

8 percent is pretty much in keeping with their share of the population remembering that they are a young population and the age group that most commits crime is around 18-25.

Yes. Pacific rates of imprisonment are higher than European but considerably lower than Maori.



They are more likely to need Government assistance for housing and income.

More likely than who? Of those working age New Zealanders currently receiving a benefit 7.6 are Pacific. Again in keeping with their proportion of the overall population. (Maori on the other hand make-up 31.5 percent).

I would be the first to defend a researchers right to publish an ethnicity study without being subjectively attacked but on the basis of what has been reported I can understand why Pacific communities are angry about the focus on their people as producing an underclass.

AND, as with Maori, it must always be appreciated that many Pacific people are doing jobs that, although not well paid, are crucial to the functioning of our institutions.

UPDATE: Having listened to an interview with the study author I understand that the research is about different immigrant groups and their contribution to economic growth. But now I am even more concerned because the statistics are about ALL PI people, 60 percent of whom are not immigrants. He clearly believes that PI people are a drain and will become a bigger drain on social welfare but when asked specifically about those figures couldn't respond. His conclusion is that more PI immigrants should not be encouraged until the problems are sorted. They shouldn't be taking jobs off other low skilled people like Maori.

Why not? If they are more willing, if they have a work ethic, why not welcome them?

Serving up red herrings and victimhood for breakfast

Not unusually I can hear my husband loudly remarking "Silly b----h," at the TV.

I know in a minute he will put his head around the door and tell me about the latest display of mammoth intelligence from some hand-wringer.

"What's that about?" I enquire not lifting my eyes from the keyboard.

"Oh the silly b----h says that it's the fault of the liquor industry that so many more women are drinking and driving. Apparently it's because they have been targeting young women with alcopop thingies. Marketing is to blame. "

"Well you know," I respond,"That these women advocates will never have a bad word said against females. It couldn't possibly be their fault that they are drinking and driving. It's got to be consumerism or capitalism or any damn thing but the individual."

The truth is people drink and drive because of a widespread culture of irresponsibility. Period.

Can you help?

My son is doing a social studies project to gain some NCEA credits. It involves a 6 question survey aimed at people who will be directly affected by the Emmissions Trading Scheme. If you could assist by answering his questionnaire could you e-mail him at

mitchellr@athena-college.co.nz

I know he would be very grateful.

Vision versus reality

Labour's vision for state housing was as per the poster,



The reality was described thus,

Interviewer:Even as late as 1958 when Les Baily was seconded by the Department of Education to begin organising recreational activities for the children of the Hutt Valley, conditions and attitudes had not greatly changed.

Les Bailey:I was looking around that area, I always felt sorry for them in some ways with the predominance of state housing that was put into the district. All you saw was bare lawns, there wasn't a tree growing anywhere, no shrubs, no gardens, no places where kids could play freely, you know? — and there certainly was a lack of playground space. It wasn't a very attractive area at that time.

Sure they had the riverbank, the riverbank in those days wasn't the playing fields that are all there now, there weren't the stop banks in and so on.

Interviewer: This is the Hutt River?

Les Bailey: The Hutt River, yeah, and there was a lot of these pretty scrubby sort of areas down there and I imagine that perhaps that is where some of the Mazengarb report activities — as reported by them — took place.


And today those areas are even worse, particularly the 'shopping centres' (euphemism for takeaway shop, more takeaway shops, second hand shops selling over-priced junk, Credit Union, Housing NZ and Work and Income Offices). And the government is still forking out,

State house tenants say the sooner the Government starts insulating their homes, the better.

This week's Budget will include $53 million to make all state houses warmer and dryer within five years.

Peter Petterson has been in his state house in the Lower Hutt suburb of Taita for 30 years and says the upgrade is much needed.

"They are cold, you've got to use heaters. Some of the older people stick on some more clothes and blankets."

Mr Petterson says it is a shame the upgrade is happening after his children have grown up and moved out, but at least his grandchildren will benefit when they come to stay.


Labour's vision under Mickey Savage was never realised. All that happened was people were made dependent, robbed of their initiative and ambition, made poor, and frequently bitter and resentful. And still the socialists press on.....

What real commitment looks like

At last, a real plan to regain New Zealand's economic standing in the developed world. According to Radio New Zealand,

The ACT Party says slashing the number of MPs and offloading state businesses, would lift economic growth and leave the average New Zealander $500 per week better off.

They're part of 20 pledges that party leader Rodney Hide is promising to carry out, if ACT holds the balance of power after the 2008 general election.

Mr Hide is also committed to flattening tax rates, cutting state spending and remodelling climate change policies.

Mr Hide says the plans would help lift New Zealand from being poorer than the lowest ranked states in Australia and the United States; Tasmania and Mississippi.

He says the proposals would boost annual growth, by 5%.

The 20-point plan is here

Maori Party welfare policy

This is a late comment in response to an interview of Tariana Turia by Gordon Campbell. Never before have I heard Tariana spell it out so clearly. Their 'tough talk' on welfare applies only to Maori men, not Maori women.

Campbell: You’re saying welfare is bad for Maori, so we have to break the cycle by introducing a compulsory element -

Turia : We’re talking Maori unemployed. We’re not talking about Maori women on benefits.

It is shocking attitude. This is why.

The Maori Party condones Maori women raising their families on the DPB. With this action they are destroying the role of Maori men as fathers and providers. What is the imperative for having Maori men in jobs when they have no direct role to play in supporting their families beyond paying child support which, by the way, rises as they work their way up the food chain.

There are five times more Maori on DPB than on the dole. Maori childrens' needs are no different from any other. They need security, structure, predictability, and consistency, from both parents. When these things are missing there will be problems. These are more likely to be missing when they are being raised on welfare than when they are being raised by two parents earning a living from work.

And this differentiation highlights another aspect of the Maori party. Their policies are not only racist but sexist. But then traditionally Maori culture features a good degree of sexism. This policy does not bode well for the prospects of their tamariki.

As an afterthought Willie Jackson recently made this observation. That many of today's Maori leaders had strong fathers.

Assuming Kiwis will accept lower wages

That's what the Wall St Journal is saying our government's plan to implement an emissions trading scheme is predicated on.

The cost, for farmers and industry alike, is likely to be prohibitive. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, an independent consulting firm, recently estimated that the government's plan would result in 22,000 job losses by 2012, or 1% of today's employment. That translates into NZ$4.6 billion ($3.6 billion) annually in lost GDP, or a NZ$3,000 cut in each household's annual spending.

This analysis assumes that as greenhouse gas fees make Kiwi industry less competitive globally, businesses and jobs will move overseas. The government disputes this conclusion, mainly because its own analyses assume New Zealanders will be willing to take lower wages. That's debateable, to say the least.

That aside, give the Kiwis credit for honesty. Having signed up for Kyoto, they're actually talking about shouldering the costs of meeting their commitments. Whether or not they end up regretting it, other countries will now have a chance to see what the anticarbon crusade does to an economy.

So how do you feel about being the guinea pig?

Waiting

One of the good aspects of life is anticipation. Optimists like setting themselves goals. Looking forward to something is often as enjoyable as the event. But 'waiting' can be quite a different story.

Having endured a fair bit of pain recently I finally succumbed yesterday and went to the doctor. Beginning the process of eliminating possibilities she referred me to a specialist. Thank goodness for the private system. She could secure me an appointment within 24 hours. When you can't sleep without painkillers you do not want to hang around.

So I read this piece about waiting times in the Canadian public health system with great sympathy for the individuals who cannot afford private care. Of course, the same applies in New Zealand.

Excessive waits for health care services endured by Canadian patients have imposed huge costs on the nation's citizens according to a study from the Centre for Spatial Economics.

Other major findings:

* The study of medical wait times in all 10 of Canada's provinces found excessive delays for four key procedures--total joint replacement surgery, cataract surgery, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans--cost the nation an estimated $14.8 billion in 2007.
* This in turn lowered federal and provincial government revenues by a total of $4.4 billion, the report noted.

However, it is individuals who bear these costs. When the government controls all of health care, it looks for ways to save money, and the easiest way to save is to deny care or ration care through long waits, says Charles M. Arlinghaus, president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy.

Rationing care by using waiting lists puts a heavy strain on an economy by incurring high costs through reduced worker productivity, says Devon Herrick, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis. Canadian Medicare uses rationing by waiting because the cost of lost productivity is borne by the individual and employer, whereas the cost of actually providing needed care falls on the public system.

For example:

* Excessive waiting for total joint replacement surgery was the most expensive byproduct of Canada's health care rationing, at nearly $26,400 per patient.
* That was followed closely by MRIs ($20,000), coronary artery bypass graft surgery ($19,400), and cataract surgery ($2,900).

Herrick disagrees with the study's policy prescription, saying private care options would be more effective than increased government investment in the system.

"Canadians should be allowed to pay for care privately if they so choose. It is unconscionable to forbid patients from paying for care the public system cannot provide them in a timely manner," he says.



Absolutely unconscionable.

Just another Royal Commission

The Kiwi Party want another Royal Commission on Social Policy.

We have had two Royal Commissions on Social Policy in recent times. One in the 70s and one in the 80s.

The first stressed the principles of allowing beneficiaries to participate and belong (and gave us the DPB) and the second confirmed those principles.

A third commission would see a much stronger lobby for re-stating these principles (which rest on wealth redistribution and ignore the destructive incentives inherent in the process) than any opposing voices. The Kiwi Party must already know the same forces that lined up behind the anti-smacking legislation would line up at a Royal Commission arguing for 'inclusion' 'social justice' and other social democrat warm fuzzy concepts.

I can understand their political motivation for calling for another commission but am very sceptical that it will achieve anything beyond giving another platform to the poverty industry protagonists and keeping printers in work as they churn out volumes of reports.

ACT Tax Policy

Larry Williams interviews Rodney Hide about ACT's new tax policy. (Interview begins at 38.20)

The policy includes removing the 39c rate and making the first $10,000 of income tax free thus giving every earner on the average wage a $50 cut.

This is a good start because it is simple and it is heading in the right direction. It will also widen the gap between benefits and low wage work and stop this silly business of taxing kids with paper rounds or part-time McDonald's jobs.

Green concoctions over Comalco

What utter hypocrites the Greens are. Jeanette Fitzsimons;

Ms Fitzsimons says Rio Tinto should have no special allowances under the emissions trading scheme. She says although the operation is an important part of the economy, it is not so important that it should get special privileges ahead of ordinary New Zealanders.

This is the party that argues for tariffs - special privileges - to protect manufacturers.

Their entire social policy relies on greater redistribution of wealth - special privilege for some and penalties for others.

They urge government sponsored special treatment for NZ made products.

They support 'fair trade' which picks winners at the cost of other producers.

The Greens love privilege versus penalty. That is what gives them their power to plan and control human beings. Now they pretend to 'fairplay' by invoking their concern for the ordinary taxpayer. That'll be the ordinary taxpayer they want to pay for their grand desire to lead the world in the fight against climate change.

Talk about wolves in sheep's clothing.

Why we need more ACT MPs

"With government controlling more and more of our economy, the fact that crooks have to go where the money is causes more and more of them to turn to government employment. However, there is probably an even stronger reason for individuals to become politicians. That is the power which accompanies political office. Many idealists think they know better than the ordinary person what is good for that person. They consider themselves a cut above the ordinary individual who just isn’t smart enough to know what he or she should do. Idealists seek government power to impose their ideas upon the rest of us. They may be personally honest insofar as not thinking of lining their own pockets with money but have little compunction about bolstering their egos with government power. This attitude explains the environmentalists, the do-gooders, and others whose ego causes them to seek government power to impose their ideas upon those of us who just want to make our way in a free market in open competition with everyone else."

— Harry Hoiles, editorial from The Register [June 2, 1979]

This is why we need more MPs who will defend the free market and neutralise the above individuals.

ACT and the anti-smacking legislation

This is for the benefit of the Libertarianz Party who had their conference at the weekend and implied ACT had no position on the anti-smacking legislation. The above (which says Let Parents Choose and featured photos of Rodney and Heather)is part of an ad campaign run in the Sunday newspapers a few weeks back. Rodney and Heather also joined the anti-smacking march from Civic Square to Parliament in late March and voted against the legislation. Libz would do better to get on with their own promotion instead of running down the party which is closest to their ideals.

WFF - get rid of it

Naturally it has now dawned that Working For Families will discourage partnered women from the workforce. There is no consensus over whether that is a good or bad thing. Conservatives tend to like women to be in the home raising their children and leaving more employment opportunities open for men. The social democrats still believe strongly in equality and choice for women. The second part of the social democrat goal is about where I sit EXCEPT it must not be achieved through redistribution. Simply, if women want choice - home or work - they can pay for it.

Anyway, today's NZ Herald editorial has this to say;

The drop in employment can be greater than the rise in unemployment because the latter excludes people who are not actively looking for another job.

So long as those people are not urgently in need of a paying job - the greater number of them are women and the decline follows a rise in the "working for families" benefit - the figures are less of an economic concern and may even be a plus for the economy in present circumstances.

The trouble is, with WFF, all we are doing is dividing up the pie instead of growing it. There is at least a consensus (barring the Greens) that we do need economic growth. So I do not accept that the figures constitute "less of an economic concern". And neither would it seem do the new Australian government which is promising "a giant review of tax and welfare."

Effective marginal tax rates are a particular problem for partnered women with children, who see little value in working when their family benefits are withdrawn. The Government aims to get more of these women into the workforce.

I remain convinced - though the chances of ever proving my instincts are right are remote - that governments should just butt out of social arrangements. The more they try to centrally plan societies the more they stuff them up. They get caught on a never-ending see-saw of readjustment, wasting enormous resource and energy in the process. A low flat tax and the minimum of social assistance would see people organise themselves into situations that are beneficial both economically and socially.

Bits and pieces

This will be interesting as it unfolds. A pharmacist on charges of supplying pseudoephedrine. Pharmacists supply pseudoephedrine every day all over New Zealand. In this case the charge accompanies those of possession of pseudoephedrine and possession of the equipment to make 'P'. Perhaps the first charge should actually be (or correctedly reported as) knowingly supplying pseudoephedrine for the manufacture of methamphetamine.


Bloggers make news again. From a piece about Judith Tizard in the Herald on Sunday;

"I understand Tizard is kept quite busy by being Helen's Mini-Me at all those Auckland cocktail parties..." wrote one emailer to the kiwiblog forum. "She's not stupid, just moody and, well, not the hardest working Labour MP by a long shot," wrote blogger Liberty Scott. "One thing is for sure, Judith won't be remembered as a mover and shaker, but as one of those odd MPs who is really there because of family heritage."

Love the comment at the end of the piece. Tizard says she doesn't want to be in cabinet because, "It's an awful waste of a Monday."


And the Sunday Star Times reports beneficiaries are worse off now than after the benefit cuts of 1991, 'worse off under Labour'. Will Labour peg core benefit rates to average wages? I think they just might promise to with the spin being 'as we have reduced benefit numbers by so many we can now afford to "invest" more, particularly in those families with children.' The Maori Party and Greens will agree. That'll secure the quarter-million-strong beneficiary vote for a left government.

Lunatics

The following provoked an angry reaction from me. The twisted logic is almost worse than the motivation behind it. Read till the end to see the worst of it.

Feminist Daily News Wire
May 6, 2008

Anti-Choice Groups Launch Deceptive Campaign against Oral Contraceptives

Anti-choice extremist group the American Life League launched a campaign against oral contraceptives that will culminate with protests on June 7 outside clinics that distribute birth control. The Pill Kills Babies falsely labels oral contraceptives as abortificants, claiming that oral contraceptives are the same as abortion except that it "kills a preborn baby" earlier.

Reproductive Health Reality Check points out the disturbing lies that the campaign proclaims. The American Life League falsely claims that the pill is dangerous to women's health because it causes breast cancer, cervical cancer, infertility, birth defects, and "much more."

The anti-choice extremist groups chose June 7 as the protest day because it is the anniversary of the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut case that overturned a Connecticut law banning the use of contraceptives on the basis of marital privacy.

According to RH Reality Check, the anti-choice extremists claim that "attempting to prevent abortion is abortion too."

Media Resources: Feministing.com 05/06/08; RH Reality Check 05/05/08; The Pill Kills 2008; Griswold v. Connecticut

"ATTEMPTING TO PREVENT ABORTION IS ABORTION TOO."

But hold on. The usual line anti-abortionists use is abortion is murder (or genocide.) So now trying to prevent murder is murder too?? These people are lunatics.

On 'denial'

I gave this release from the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition a quick once over yesterday before forwarding it to my son at school.

It has become commonplace knowledge, and is unchallenged, that global average temperature has not increased since 1998. This corresponds to a 9-year period during which the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast, did increase, and that by almost 5%.

The greenhouse hypothesis - which asserts that carbon dioxide increases of human origin will cause dangerous global warming - is clearly invalidated by these data.

As if that were not enough, a leading computer modelling team has recently published a paper in Nature which acknowledges what climate rationalists (the so-called “sceptics”) have always asserted. Which is that, contrary to IPCC assessments, any human influence on global temperature is so small that it cannot yet be differentiated from natural cycles of climate change. The same modellers have even predicted (after the start of the event, of course) that cooling will now occur for at least the next few years.

This morning I see that Chris Trotter has titled his Dominion Post column, The moral equivalent of war. Um. What could that be about I speculate.

"...the fight against global warming must become the moral equivalent of war. The threat we face is much greater than the threat posed to the world by Hitler....indeed the argument is strong for an all party coalition dedicated to bringing us through the crisis. Nor can there be the slightest suggestion that anything other than full equality of sacrifice constitutes the guiding principle of our climate change policies. And most importantly, we must learn to recognise the nay-sayers, the special pleaders, the not-in-my-backyarders, and the climate change deniers for the Quislings that they are and treat them accordingly."

By doing what exactly?

The only war going on here is between emotion and reason.

And I will borrow a quote from this week's Maxim newsletter,

"Men are never so likely to settle a question rightly as when they discuss it freely."

Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1800 - 1859

"Employment declines"

That's the headline at Statistics New Zealand website. By the time Ruth Dyson has got her hands on it, and the spin appears at SCOOP it's become "Labour Force Survey reflects stability (in the face of economic challenges)"

Take your pick. The facts remain. In seasonally adjusted terms, the number of people employed dropped by 29,000 (1.3 percent) in the March 2008 quarter.

Having browsed through the tables a few things stand out;

The biggest increase in unemployment is in the 20-24 year-old age group with 18,000 unemployed up at the end of March, up from 11,000 in December.

The Pacific unemployment rate has jumped from 4.8 in December to 8.2 percent in March.

One parent with dependent children only households where nobody is employed have increased from 38.9 to 45.6 percent.

Well I hate to say I said so, but I did. The downward trend of the DPB is plateauing.

But I have just realised something worse. Usually employment grows between December and March. The opposite has happened.

Who to believe

A public meeting to talk about crime in Christchurch took place last night. Contradictory views were expressed;

[Superintendent Dave] Cliff presented police statistics showing violence, drugs and anti-social behaviour offences had all increased in Canterbury by almost one third since 2003 despite a decline in total crime for the period.

The number of all recorded offences over the past four years decreased by 6% with 50,807 offences recorded in 2003 compared with 47,853 in 2007.

The figures showed violence offences had risen 29%.

This reflects the national trend.

Penal reform campaigner Nigel Hampton, QC, gave the meeting a different perspective.

Hampton said the media over-reported violent and sexual crime and distorted the perception of how violent New Zealand was.

Hampton said Christchurch was a safe place to live and he accused the media of letting interest groups use them.

Given the presence of a number of victim's families at this meeting, this was either a brave or foolish thing to say. Is Christchurch a safe place to live? I imagine it would depend very much whereabouts in Christchurch you live. But it's also about perception. If people feel frightened about being out and about after dark, or worse still, frightened in their homes, their quality of life is impaired. The statistics may show that their fear is irrational. It never the less exists. Its presence is surely what drove the convening of such a meeting.

And blaming the media is a waste of time. It is the media's job to report the news. Crime is news. Beats me how a journalist can over-report an event...unless the same crime keeps cropping up due to extraordinary length of time it takes cases to proceed through the justice system. Perhaps the QC should be advocating for reform in that area.

Blaming the media for "letting interest groups use them"? Well isn't that exactly what a QC campaigning for penal reform is? An interest group. And he most certainly will have wanted the media to report on his 'perspective'. Precious.

"It's a free world"

Did anyone see Key on TV last night being asked about Tama Iti's release from bail conditions to travel overseas? Now-famous pictures of Iti shooting the ground predictably appeared and I recalled Stephen Frank's assiduous pursuit of that action. If he was watching I am sure he would have been somewhat frustrated to see John Key shrugging the question off with, "It's a free world." Actually it's most definitely not a free world when you are on bail.

Appalling mismanagement

How slack are our law and order authorities? I read this story from the Manawatu and then searched the offender on the Sensible Sentencing Trust database. From there we learn;

29/9/2006 A MANAWATU Mongrel Mob member was jailed for 12 months yesterday for failing to honour his parole conditions and assaulting a protected female. Leon Tuiriangi Hakaraia, 27, formerly of Palmerston North, appeared in the Invercargill District Court before Judge Murray Abbott after pleading guilty to the charges. Judge Abbott said Hakaraia assaulted his former partner at Palmerston North Hospital's accident and emergency waiting area in the presence of two security officers on March 13. After an argument and confrontation, Hakaraia punched the woman in the back of the head then kicked her twice to the torso, the judge said. He had already previously breached the conditions of his parole.

In April this year he had been granted bail yet again. This time from Manawautu prison, where he was remanded in custody awaiting trial on a charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Surprise, surprise he absconded from the care of Maori wardens (are the Maori wardens a problem? Is Maori blood thicker than water?)

Now police are warning people that he and his equally violent brother are at large and dangerous. For chrissakes. Why can't those charged with keeping the public safe do their jobs properly in the first place?

"Getting it"

A team of councillors in New Plymouth have been dubbed The Razor Gang. Good on them. They have "outlined plans to slash council spending in an effort to keep rates down."

One caused a stink last night when he ripped up what he called a bad report from Venture Taranaki Trust. He called it a cover-up. He is obviously trying to control council spending on 'economic growth'.

That provoked a response from the chief executive of the Trust, also present at the meeting; "And as far as I'm concerned, economic development is like sex - as long as you're getting it, don't knock it."

Sounds like something Cactus might say. But I am sure she would appreciate that economic development using other people's money is never as productive as economic development using voluntarily invested money. And money taken from ratepayers is money that can't be spent elsewhere.

There is sex and there is sex. Just "getting it" is a pretty pathetic ambition.

Disorientation

I only clicked on this headline, Hungry kids fed 30,000 meals in Red Cross plan, to see if I was looking at a story about the Sudan or South Auckland.

When a state-owned asset isn't

Just listened to the ever-energetic and sharp Richard Prebble being interviewed by Paul Henry on the issue of the rail by-back.

He calls the move 'looney'. The government paid way over the odds and are now subsidising the largest Australian-owned trucking company in NZ. Prebble says government in NZ has owned railway for over one hundred years through about 40 different governments, none of which have been able to run it successfully, so why does this Labour government think it can?

He has a neat solution for National's folly in putting their head in the noose by promising no asset sales in their first term. Since when has rail in New Zealand been an 'asset' he asked? Quite.

(My own further thoughts) The truly awful aspect of this is the PM's statement that 'we are not in this to make money'. No. They are in it to lose money. Your money.

But why stop here? Why doesn't Cullen buy Foodstuffs and run it as a not-for-profit organisation? Food prices are hurting New Zealanders much more than rail costs. Is that a good idea? And we could subsidise Woolworths at the same time, seen as profit and competition aren't important.

I am living in a nuthouse of a country.

Morning-after

No, I don't have a hangover. Just two comments with a morning-after theme;

On the morning-after the government bought back rail this makes gloomy reading.

When the state gets involved in projects that can be done by private enterprise, the results are almost certain to be bad. We would therefore be best off with a firm rule against such endeavors, says George C. Leef, vice president for research at the John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy.

Government officials are apt to undertake projects that should not be done at all, explains Leef. Even if they hit upon a potentially worthwhile venture, they will approach it in a very inefficient manner. Politicians and bureaucrats are not spending their own money and do not stand to lose if they are wrong. Therefore, resources will be wasted.

And on the morning-after contraception pill. Predictably the conservatives are up in arms about a scheme to provide these pills free through community pharmacy. The Waikato Health Board wants a reduction in teenage pregnancies, a commendable goal. Should taxpayers foot the bill? It's one of those 'pay a little to pay less' situations thanks to the socialist health bind we are caught in.

But I'll make a prediction. It won't work anyway. Existing free contraception hasn't so why would more? The reporter states that the number of teenage births have been relatively stable this century. He bases that on Health department statistics (on which I must make a closing comment). He was only provided with data to 2004.

More recent Statistics NZ data shows the 15-19 birth rate hit a low of 25.6 in 2002 and has climbed back to 31.3 in 2007. Hence my comment that existing free (or subsidised) contraception isn't having the desired effect (although one could mount an argument that the teenage birth rate would be even higher without it.)

And with regard to health statistics. I haven't followed the issue closely but there is dissension from the private sector over the new Public Health Bill and it's proposed capacity to force statistical information from them. That's rich. The availability of health statistics from government departments is appalling. Their statistics are typically very dated and hard to access. They should look to their own record keeping first.

Thumbs down on emissions trading

Two radio stations have mentioned the Stuff poll today so the message goes beyond internet land.

71 percent of respondents are opposed to the government's emission trading scheme.

So is ACT.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 119 New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland, Field.

Noes 2 ACT New Zealand 2.

This is Rodney Hide's contribution at the first reading;

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) : I know that Mr Harawira worries about the quality of the speeches given under urgency, but I say that the speeches on this bill have been excellent.

On behalf of the ACT party I feel as though I need to offer an explanation, because I believe that we will be the only party voting against this bill. Let me explain. I first became aware of the possibility of anthropogenic effects on the world’s climate, I believe, in 1972. There was some debate then about whether the earth could be possibly warming or cooling, and certainly there was a possibility of an effect of industrialisation and its impact on world climate. Subsequently, the consensus emerged in the late 1970s, interestingly, that the earth was cooling as a consequence of human actions. Indeed, because of my interest in such matters I went on to do a master’s degree in ecology and environmental science, and indeed lectured in environmental science for many years, and did a master’s degree also in resource economics.

Over that time a lot of scares came along and obliterated the concern people had about the possibility of human impact on world climate. These scares have come and, thankfully, gone. I am mindful of Mr Peter Dunne when he was speaking, and alarming the House about Y2K. The scare now of course is global warming, or in fact as it has now been called, climate change.

It is a worry, of course, because we are having such a large impact on the earth, and it is a worry in a host of complex ways. New Zealand is a trading nation, and the perception of New Zealand and our markets is crucial. So whatever we might think of the science, we have to be good environmental citizens. I use the word “good” not in an objective, scientific way, but in a way to justify ourselves to the very peoples we want to be selling our products to in order to maintain our access, and, more particularly, to win a preference for New Zealand goods and services. It is good that New Zealand maintains and extends its green image, and I fully support that.

Let me just run through why we are opposed to this bill. I think essentially it is that we do not want to be running ahead of the rest of the world. If we are going to constrain carbon emissions in New Zealand, it is going to be a huge cost on New Zealand. I find it interesting that not even a rudimentary cost-benefit analysis has been done on the scheme. I notice with some interest that the National Party leader, John Key, said “Oh, by 2050 we’re going to reduce what emissions were in 1990 by 50 percent.”, which is a huge stretch. It would constrain enormously New Zealand’s capacity to produce, and divert resources out of current industries from which we make a great deal of money into those that are not even on the horizon. It is hard to imagine how New Zealand could possibly meet that goal. Even holding the level of emissions has proved impossible for this Government. We can set these worthy goals without thinking about the costs, but if we are going to hold down carbon emissions it will be a huge cost on the economy, and indeed a huge disruption to the economy. So members should make no bones about it; this is a big issue.

The second point I will make is that although there is some debate about the science, I think a good working place for politicians to start is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We can all point to that and say that, yes, this is where—I guess I am saying—there is scientific consensus, but we all know that science is not run by consensus; it is run by facts. Yet as politicians we have to come up with a response, and that is a good place to start. I should point out that that is a political response. The science does not tell us what we should do. At the end of the day it is going to be politicians, not scientists, who have to decide what the response is to any environmental scare or threat. As limited as we are in many people’s imaginations, it is hard to think of any other route whereby there can be a response, other than a political one, to the questions and issues of science and, in particular, of the environment.

When we look at it, certainly the alarm statistics we were having some years ago have somewhat diminished, so it is less scary than it was. We are talking a long time frame—a hundred years, a temperature rise of 2 or 3 degrees over a hundred years. But a lot can happen in a day, a lot can happen in a week, a lot happens in a year, and a heck of a lot will happen in a hundred years. For example, the Western World will probably be three times richer per capita. Poorly developed countries will be eight times richer per capita, hopefully, if they pursue good policies. So the world will be a richer place, it will be a different place, and it will be a technologically advanced place compared with what it is now. So the sorts of things that we are worried about—about where we are going—are quite something.

Let us think about temperature. There are a lot of cold countries in the world. Finland is cold, and it is a very successful economy. I guess its average temperature must be zero degrees or 5 degrees. If we look at Singapore, its average temperature must be jolly hot, and the temperature range between Singapore and Finland is far, far higher than any change we are talking about for the world, even in the worst case scenario from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That is the point that I would like to make in this speech. The amazing thing about human beings and modern society is our ability to adapt to our environment and, indeed, our ability to change our environment, which is what we are debating here. All this alarm that we have that we must stop climate change, and that we must stop carbon emissions, escapes the point that we can adapt to changes. We can adapt to somewhat higher water levels; of course we can. We have adapted to far worse. We can certainly adapt to different temperature regimes. Human beings demonstrate that. We can succeed in cold environments and warm environments. Yet the suggestion is that somehow some change in temperature would be a calamity. Actually, the facts do not bear that out. So my view on the science is that we should just be a bit cautious and a bit sceptical, particularly in our response.

I know that Jeanette Fitzsimons said that this bill will have an almost negligible effect on New Zealand’s carbon dioxide emissions. That is absolutely true. This bill is a political thing so that Parliament, the Government, and the political parties can say they are doing something. But the actual impact is quite small. It goes nowhere to meeting the commitments that Labour and National have signed up to; all it does is set up a soft regime. That is another point about this environmental trading scheme.

Here is my worry about it. I was involved on the side, as an academic, in setting up the quota scheme for the fisheries, so I know something about setting up market schemes. I heard Dr Nick Smith say that we need to incentivise in pricing, and I think that that is true. But what we are doing here, I think, is setting up a scheme that will be a potentially corrupt scam worldwide, because what is being traded is an odd thing—the ability to emit carbon dioxide, and eventually other greenhouse gases, I guess. Countries that are crooked will be involved, and companies that are crooked will be involved, and they will be trading in these emissions.

There will also be people sitting on property rights that are made valuable simply because of legislation such as this. They will defend those rights to the death, lobby politicians, and say: “No, you can’t do that.” We have seen that already in New Zealand with the forest owners. They said: “We thought we were planting these trees and that we’d own these carbon credits.” I think the potential for abuse and corruption on this is massive. I agree with Jeanette Fitzsimons that this is a very second-best solution. We can achieve Nick Smith’s goal of incentivising in pricing by a tax. The virtue of a tax is that it does not create a property right or therefore a political lobby group that will be arguing around that. In fact, a tax creates a lobby group that says: “Is this a good thing that we should be doing—paying this tax?” But the lobby groups will be huge on this bill when it goes through the committees, and over time.

It is a great thing to be part of the ACT party. We are just two MPs, but we have two votes against this scheme.

Some suggestions for Tapu Misa

Tapu Misa's constant theme is child poverty should be alleviated by higher benefits. The unfortunate family she uses to plead her case is led by a father with cancer. An unusual family but exactly the sort a state-provided safety net is there for. Could he be paid more?

Well here's a couple of ideas. If the 40,000-odd single parents looking after school-age children only and totally reliant on a benefit became at least partially self-supporting, considerable financial resources would be freed up. If benefit-dependent single parents looking after one child only (around half of DPB total) could look after the children of one or two others, releasing them to become at least partially self-supporting, again more would be available for cases of genuine need.

Tapu Misa can try laying a guilt trip on the 'wealthy', those who contribute through paying their taxes everyday. Maybe they could contribute more through charitable organisations. But it's people wringing resources wrongly out of WINZ who could really make a difference.

Blissful oblivion or apathetic ignorance?

Nearly one quarter million eligible-to-vote New Zealanders do not even know there is an election this year.

National Manager Murray Wicks says they are alarmed at the number of people who do not know an election is only months away.

He says over half of Pacific Islanders and young people, and just under half of Maori and Asian people do not have a clue.

Almost 240,000 people still are not enrolled to vote.

I find it hard to get excited about this bunch. When I was a teenager I was one of them. The only reason I voted was because my mother badgered me into it. My vote would have cancelled out one from somebody who had invested heaps of energy and thought into which party to choose. Leave them alone, I say.

I mean, isn't this just another example of wiping people's bottoms for them? The Electoral Commission will spend a fortune in sending out forms to every enrolled voter and the bulk will be binned. Absolute waste. Let people take some responsibility for organising and educating themselves. Voting is a right but it is also a privilege. Allow people to value it as such.

They are probably both right

Here's an exchange of views. The first from criminologist Greg Newbold and the second from Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples. They are spin-off comments regarding a documentary about the Mongrel Mob made by Ross Kemp;

Newbold said "the brown middle-class who are tending to revive Maori culture and to possibsome extent rewrite Maori prehistory" would find the links offensive, but they were based on well-researched fact.

Other social issues among Maori such as prevalent domestic abuse, alcoholism and violence had historical cultural roots, he said.

"Almost every time you hear about a child that's been beaten to death they are Maori that's not new. It's a bloody sad truth. They can keep arguing the point but it's not going to change until people acknowledge it. Everyone who's involved in this kind of work knows it... But very few people are prepared to say it because you are called a racist."

Sharples said: "Greg Newbold is talking rubbish. In pre-European times Maori did not whack their babies and there was no alcohol. What I've looked at is the impact of colonisation on Maori and the bringing in of fatty foods and flour and all these kinds of things into a group that did not fit in the mainstream.

"It's natural that the group should be over-represented in negative and low socio-economic statistics."

The reason for their disagreement is the definition of 'historical terms'. Newbold is probably talking about the Maori/European period whereas Sharples is clearly going back further. There can be no doubt that since Maori have been trading for and using alcohol there have been problems. Then throw welfare into the mix and for some reason the combined detrimental effect has been greater than on Pakeha. The difference will almost certainly have to do with different values. In particular the Pakeha culture of individualism versus the Maori tradition of collectivism. Of course that is a very black and white statement and over the one hundred and sixty years or so the line has become blurred as the races have mixed and Pakeha have increasingly embraced collectivism. Unfortunately I suspect those Maori who have embraced individualism have buggered off. We need to get them back.

Waiting a long time

The failure of the petition to force a referendum on the anti-smacking legislation to deliver the required number of signatures rekindled the debate on talkback this week. Some callers insisted that the issue is not dead and they are still very angry; others said that we need to give the legislation a chance, time to work.

Consider this;

Children at risk

For a number of years, attention has been drawn to conditions for children at risk. The work of the social services and other authorities in this area is undergoing continuous development. This group of children includes children who grow up in homes in which physical or psychological violence takes place, children who are neglected, children who have been subjected to sexual abuse, children of substance abusers, children of people with mental disorders and children who live in conditions of economic vulnerability.

Children who have experienced domestic violence have long been disregarded by society, but are being given increasing attention. According to the Committee on Child Abuse, around ten per cent of all children have at some time experienced this type of violence, and five per cent experience it often. Attention has been given to the need to develop support for children who have experienced violence and in other ways have been affected by violence by and towards family members.

No. This is not an excerpt from a New Zealand report although the statistics quoted mirror ours. Click on this link to see which country the report is referring to. Smacking was banned there in 1979.

Sexual abuse of Maori children

On the eve of Rape Awareness Week, an Anglican Minister reiterated these claims;

“Organisers of this week estimate that 1 in every 3-5 girls, and 1 out of every 6-10 boys are likely to be sexually abused or raped before they turn 16. Maori children are twice as likely as other groups to be abused so rape and sexual violation of children is a very serious issue for us.”

Just using some loose numbers let's say that means 1 in every 1.5 - 2.5 Maori female children are sexually abused or raped before they turn 16.

Right now there are around 104,000 Maori female aged 0-15.

So between 41,600 and 68,640 are sexually abused or raped over fifteen years. Get real. Unless 'sexual abuse' includes inappropriate touching or unwanted kissing.

In the 11 months to December 2006 there were 397 findings of sexual abuse among Maori children (not to be confused with 397 children being sexually abused - multiple findings may apply to one child.) Extrapolate that over 15 years to get 6,496 findings which could apply to either sex.

Yes, an amount of sexual abuse will go unreported and uninvestigated but let's keep some sense of perspective here.

Why long-term migration matters

Chris Trotter writes in today's DomPost that there really is too much fuss over people leaving NZ. That's what they have always done apparently. Jilted lovers, greedy acquisitionists, adventurers.

The long-term departure tables I could quickly get my hands on (1993 - 2007) show that in the five years from 1993 236,682 people left. In the five years from 2003 this rose to 325,461 or by 37.5 percent. Interestingly a lot more people left during a period of lower unemployment on both sides of the Tasman.

One gets the feeling that Trotter is a bit miffed about the idea that our "best and brightest" are leaving. He is still here after all.

Probably the talent and drive that goes is replaced by the talent and drive that arrives but as I have said before, the disruption to families is significant. There was a time when all of my siblings and me had moved to the UK and had established ourselves there. My parents had all but decided to join us because they wanted to be there as we started having families of our own. In the event it wasn't necessary but I know a number of elderly people who are badly missing being part of their grandchildren's lives. I don't want it to happen to me. And so making NZ a place that people want to stay in or come back to is very important.

But Trotter is right in one respect. It will take more than a cut in personal income tax to make New Zealand economically competitive.

Anti-Social Behaviour Orders

Now a subject for NZ debate.

The Government has a guarded view on ASBOs.

In a recent Cabinet paper, Justice Minister Annette King rejected them as a way of tackling organised crime.

She said the orders were designed to counter social problems peculiar to Britain. They had an economic and social cost, and their benefits for the criminal justice system were unclear.

I am struggling to think of a social problem that would be peculiar to Britain. Can you?