NZ Constitutional Consultancy a charade

Share |

Anyone who takes the time to participate in political discourse will realise that the process is designed to defeat change - whether the exponents or stewards of such 'purported change' realise it or not. There are a number of reasons why its a charade:
1. The representatives appointed to the panels which preside over the issues in these affairs are selected by the government. i.e. The government is destined to select an appropriate number, ratio and spread of people to make the process look 'broad based', but at the same time, it is destined to avoid giving any consideration to people who are destined to radicalise the agenda by offering ideas too controversial to entertain. In the case of the Constitution Reform issue, you can see that this panel is stacked with liberals, lawyers and Maoris. No one who will make a difference.
2. The terms of reference is the outline establishing what a 'so-called' independent commission or inquiry is supposed to cover in its inquiry. The problem is that such terms are destined to curtail or delimit the scope of the program or inquiry, to the extent of actually directing its outcomes. For instance, this is the terms of reference for an inquiry into Constitutional issues in NZ. It purports to offer direction, but the Terms of Reference are so explicit that they prevent any consideration of political reform. This panel is all about getting a few Maori to sanction the process and the outcome; irrespective of how 'staged' the result. In effect, these people are being paid to give a good show.
3. The person to head the inquiry is very important. In this case the head is a government minister; and that's about as safe as you can go. Sometimes a government will want to appear more detached from the process. When the Australian PM Kevin Rudd pursued an inquiry into human rights; he got a Church clergy to head it. This was another political process. The inquiry went nowhere. It was simply forgotten.
4.  The findings will be confidential or only advice to the government. There will be no requirement for the government to act on the advice; in fact it by shear incompetence in their selection process, that some radical agenda was offered, they could easily bury or publicly castigate the panelists, and never employ them again for such duties. In the case of this NZ Constitutional Inquiry, its clear who is controlling the process - a Catholic Deputy PM Bill English:

"The Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Māori Affairs will jointly lead a Consideration of Constitutional Issues. They will consult with a Cross-party Reference Group of Members of Parliament on major findings and reports before reports are made to Cabinet".

Even a hundred years ago there was less government control over the process. In this case, the government cites the fact that it will 'consult widely', however it is far from the most accessible process, and the process by which the report will be tabled is just as flawed. This is a process merely intended to give the greatest reformers 'hope' or 'faith' in a better life. They are dreaming. This is governance which is intended to keep people in their place. It is not about intellectually engaging with people. Its rhetoric which says people are important but fails to treat them as human beings. Consider that even the framework describes its over-arching philosophy, which is to subjugate:

One need only consider how this constitutional issue arose in the first place:

The Relationship and Confidence and Supply Agreement between the National Party and the Māori Party (16 November 2008) agreed to establish a group to consider constitutional issues, including Māori representation.

The National Party had no interest in constitutional reform. It is merely going through the issue because membership of the National Coalition would mean Labour would be forced to give greater consideration to Maoris, and not take them for granted. i.e. Labour had to learn respect because Maori hold a very powerful role - the balance of power - in our extortion based system of representative government. It is this very reason for the Western world to drop the facade and lambast this hopeless system of tyranny for the inefficient and deceptive piece of nonsense it is. This process is not a source of hope; its a deceptive effort to have representatives of Maori sanction the process and to keep the general Maori population waiting....losing faith, until they are so disenfranchised they just die. The government is trying to outlast Maori.
I hope that Pakehe don't view the process this way because white Europeans have more to gain from the process than Maori - precisely because they have less. By way of their good fortune, Pakehe have long believed they already had political rights. Its only when viewed alongside the token respect for Maori sovereignty that you realise how little regard politicians have for 'white fellows'. Pakehe have no voodoo. They are downtrodden after centuries of Western subjugation. Maoris are in contrast empowered by:
1. A sense of pride in their culture and sovereignty
2. A sense of victimisation
3. Liberal sympathies
4. Formal recognition of sovereign claims

Paheke have none of that because they were born subjugated by parents, an education system, a parliament. Look back long enough, they were subjugated by monarchs as well. People are accustomed to thinking so little of themselves, that they just obey and accept the law, irrespective of how irrational or immoral it is. It does not have to be internally consistent, i.e. You can have one standard for politicians, one for others. You can treat low-life one way, business leaders another. You can have statutory laws which breach common law. This is the politicians discretion to keep you in your place. Oh well, when will it end. It won't end with this process. Will it take a new type of leader? This process seems to be above any particular leader? Does it lie in the party machine? This process is intended to keep people subjugated to the entrenched party interests, and that means the people who have fought to get to the top, and who want to preserve the motivation that made the fight worth having, and the legacy, so there is no question of them deserving the spoils of high office.
You want to learn more about this constitutional process - see their website or download this booklet.

Asian property markets outperforming Japan Foreclosed Guide Philippines Property Guide
Profit from mining with Global Mining Investing eBook

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

NZ Referendum - your choice is MMP

Share |

New Zealand's two largest parties are up to no good. A significant part of this 2011 election is a referendum on NZ's voting system. History has taught me how these referendums are misused. I am reminded of the Australian referendum on becoming a republic. Most people wanted to become a republic, but the government offered a choice no one wanted, so the Republic idea was voted down. In effect, John Howard, the Conservative, sabotaged the process.

In the case of the NZ referendum, both parties are being tight-lipped about their choice. Expect this to change after the referendum is held; and perhaps sooner, if they get a sense that the wind is blowing the wrong way. The Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system is the best system - and it ought to be kept for now. The only better approach would be a lower hurdle for getting elected, i..e Currently a party needs 5% of the national vote in order to get a list MP allocation, or a electorate seat. This is an unnecessary obstacle to representation, so I think the 5% hurdle should be lowered to 100/120=0.8%.

The MMP system is popular; and that is likely because people appreciate the appeal of having greater competition in parliament. The problem of course is that minor parties are not given the same airtime as the major candidates. There is no justifiable reason for this limitation, as it effectively means that the media defines which candidates are successful. In fact, minority candidates might have to adopt controversial positions in order to get media attention, and the implication of that is that they might be seen as 'extreme'....whatever that means? Extremely principled is a bad thing in a pragmatic political discourse based on extortion, i.e. The tyranny of the majority.

MMP is criticised for forcing the government into coalitions with minor parties, i.e. the need to negotiate with others. What a terrible outcome? Yes, the late Roger Kerr, head of the NZ Business Roundtable supported FPP; the system which sees a very popular Libertarian Party in the US lack any representation, despite strong support, which is forced to back conservatives or liberals. But Kerr is satisfied because it delivers 'decisive government'. Hitler was decisive. But business likes that; just as many churches and business executives liked Hitler until he started shooting people. But that's not extreme; because decisiveness is economically 'pragmatic'; well, except for the Jews and minority parties, whose interests are marginalised. What the other systems offer is more power to the major parties. This is bad because it means less accountability and less competition. It is true that minor parties can extort influence by holding the balance of power, however this is not the problem with MMP, but rather the folly of representative democracy which gives a moral sanction to the majority; and not to rational arguments, no matter who holds them. Yes, for centuries political parties have advanced the representative democratic system because it delivers arbitrary power to them. Perhaps that was the best they could do 500 years ago; but now we can do better...now we need a meritocratic approach to government. Now reason ought to be the standard of value; just like it 'kind of' is in our court system. The difference of course is that power should not be so centralised. Do that - and you will live through another political-economic revolution.

For more information on your voting choices see MMP system along with others indicated. My concern is that, even if you choose MMP in the referendum, the next government will have the power to 'tinker' with it. This could see you placed between a rock and a hard place, like they were in Australia, i.e. I can see how the government will try to raise the hurdle - maybe to 10%, to reduce the influence of the minor parties. Beware!

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Life in the wake of the Christchurch earthquakes

Share |

NZ will have to change the way it thinks about life. Most people tend to take life each day at a time. We can't afford to do that......at least not after one confronts the urgencies of the tragedy and trauma. The deaths and injuries in Christchurch to date were because we hold ideas in disdain for the 'practicalities' of the moment. People with ideas warned government officials that there were risks, and they were ignored. Never expect government officers to be champions for ideas. They are middlemen who deal in concrete matters because their lives are driven by perceptions, which tend to evolve around facts because that is all that most people consider.

We need to think conceptually, which means analytically, critically and long term. It is what distinguishes us from animals which function on the basis of mere correlation. Our capacity to appreciation or 'understand' causation is the capacity which allows us to see around corners. Japan only sparingly learned the lesson because of its far greater exposure to earthquakes. It shows that earthquakes are not particularly dangerous if we anticipate them, plan for them, and build for them. The buildings in Japan shake like trees and yet they preserve their structural integrity. Those buildings and the people who occupy them go about their lives knowing that they are safe in the knowledge of technological progress.

Japan suffered from the tsunami because of its compartmentalised thinking. It shows that people might live under the illusion that they are prepared, but its merely accepting the reassurances of 'short-range' government bureaucrats. Only one of the mayors in the NE of Honshu had made adequate provisions for tsunamis. His provisional construction efforts, which entailed building a number of concrete sea walls, spared the lives of his electorate. He is a rare thinker who challenged popular consensus. Such thinking is all too rare because it is not supported or affirmed by our political system. On the contrary, our political system advances perceptions or concrete facts as the basis for decision-making. I don't think you can fully comprehend the damage this has done to society, and what it will do to Western democracy in the future.

I will say more on this issue, but I will save it for forthcoming books.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

NZ kids given false hopes for peace and security

Share |

Here is an interesting story. I just wanted to apologise to the members of the United Nations General Assembly who were given the illusion of empowerment recently. They were coaxed into thinking superficially that they had some importance, that arguments mattered, and they had some influence. Most of all I wanted to apologise to them for the despicable education offered. They probably learned that democracy offered real participation; that capitalism is evil for polluting the environment; that Libya will be a better place if it was a democracy; that it’s a choice of democracy or authoritarianism. They also seem to be under the illusion they are going into space. Let me reassure them that their feet will never be allowed to leave the ground because escalating statism will sooner take them into the Dark Ages. More planes will crash, and we have yet to reach bottom before we ever achieve such feats. Your idiotic parents just don’t think. You never had a chance.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Australia and NZ - their economic relationship

Share |

The visit of Australian PM Julia Gillard to NZ has sparked a media discussion about the relationship between the two countries. I would offer the following:

The differences between Australian and NZ are real for several reasons:
1. Australia has benefited from high business investment and strong demand for its mineral & energy exports. It can confidently integrate with the global market.
2. NZ remains isolated and suffering a ‘brain drain’, mostly to Australia. Its food exports are only just about to recover, but it otherwise is on the back foot.
NZ is in some respects like South Australia, a small isolated population of Australia detached from the rest. Until NZ discovers oil, or its currency depreciates to a value-proposition, it will remain isolated, just as South Australia did before it discovered minerals (i.e. Olympic Dam). Interestingly, this discovery was made because of a $25mil govt-sponsored geophysics program. Might I suggest the NZ govt sponsor geophysical surveys over the offshore regions of NZ, in order to ignite oil & gas exploration. Oil for NZ would make it the richest country in the world, like the United Arab Emirates. John Key could be a god if the investment pays off. It’s a justifiable investment.

The economic stagnation that has placed NZ on the back foot is not a new phenomenon; it has been the reality ever since commodity prices dropped in the 1960s, and the UK joined the EC in 1973. Ever since NZ terms of trade and currency have under-performed. People no longer wanted NZ wool or milk. The ascension of China and India will change that. Asian girls will want milk so they can be as voluptuous as their Western cousins. Yes, guys! That means more 'big tit-tees'. We have seen poorly implemented privatisation, and others just 'back peddling' which has created welfare rather than income generating opportunity. Worst still is that the country seems to be moving towards Australia. Australia is successful not because of its regulatory framework, but despite it. Australian leaders can take all the credit for the turn around in its terms of trade and investment, but the reality is that it has more to do with India's isolationism in the past, and China's repressive Cultural Revolution in the 1960-70s. Those policies have unleashed an avalanche of wage disparity needing a market.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com