Who to vote for in New Zealand's Sept 2014 national election

Share |

There are a great many political parties offering their services in this coming Sept 2014 national election in NZ. I will at this point offer my thoughts on each of the parties. I'm not going to offer a comprehensive outline of all their policies simply because that would be a waste of your time and mine. The reason we can quickly dispense with some parties is simply because of their values. So lets begin.

The Labour Party, the NZ First Party, the Mana Party and the Greens Party are a pack of extortionists who seek to incite their constituents to threats of violence through political sanction. By that I mean they give people a political justification to think that its ok for them to extort wealth from taxpayers for their benefit. This is why:
1. Labour Party has union affiliation; why they seek minimum wages which are above the market rate, and basically jump on every issue which gives them an 'angle' to incite fear in people's minds. The most recent example is the TPPA. I actually have some sympathy for their position; but their position is to elicit a fear response; for you to vote for them. They are not going to solve the problem.
2. Mana Party is of course an extortion party for Maori in NZ. Their intent is to instigate claims of injustice and entitlement. Of course, if you were here first, then you can make all-manner of claims because you are the start. In the same way that, if you believe in Jesus, you created everything, so everyone should be beholden to you. There is no end and no limit to how much you can claim. It can border on the ridiculous, and it does, simply because 'more ridiculous' equals more votes, since supporters can feel morally vindicated by compromising from the ridiculous. Every claim to spiritual deprivation strangely reduces to a question of money and property claims, despite being a culture that never recognised such concepts.
3. NZ First peddles the same type of policy. In their case, they like to appeal to the fears and apprehensions of a different group of anti-intellectuals, namely people who covet national pride or patriotism as virtues. These people hark back to the good old days when NZ had a national railway system, a prosperous agricultural sector, and a great standard of living. They don't ask why this has all turned to dust; they just want it back. Now NZ First's solution is to disparage people whom they consider to have caused the problem. So immigrants are bad for stealing jobs and buying up NZ land. This type of policy proscription does not solve the problem; it treats the 'symptoms'. We need Asians because Kiwis are going abroad. The issue of how to make NZ a better place is lost on them. They are clueless, and have no sound arguments to resolve the grievances of their constituents; but since their members are clueless too, its a compelling myth.
4. Greens Party are a package of deceit in the sense that they have two schemes on the go. They each resolve around certain issues - and good examples are:
      a. Animal rights - This issue is appealing for them because its an appeal to emotion and altruism. People love their pets. They have an intrinsic love of life; so the idea of caring for animals is a lovely source of joy for them. The idea is that we would all be better off it we cared for our animals. The fact that we mistreat animals because we renounce 'self', and the greatest expression of self, is the application of one's mind. Anyway, that's too much 'cold hard logic' for them. That's not to say all of them are morally ambivalent. Some of them have evolved as well...which is a good thing, because it means they are more deceptive in their 'honest' engagement. Their illusion is more sophisticated.
       b. Climate change - The strategy is a scare campaign. What is more interesting with this issue is that it arises from the fact that liberals have evolved. A decade ago, it was hard to take liberals seriously because they did not care for rational arguments, evidence or debate. They simply knew bad things were going to happen. End of the earth from asteroids, ice age, and now greenhouse effect and of course contagion. Now, however these liberals have 'evidence' and 'arguments' that at face value 'look scientific'. They cite scientific papers, they use big words, and by shear weight of their numbers, they convey that there is a considerable weight of support behind their view. You are supposed to simply conclude...."So many people believe it; it must be true". The problem is that science is not a matter of popular opinion. Science is not conducted in the newspaper, and even imminent scientists, or those who profess to be, are not special. They just have an opinion. The implication is that it only takes one opinion to discredit all others. Ask yourself why these liberals are taking their argument to the media. The reason is because they want to 'extort' influence. They are really non-scientists who were given a 'green card' by an academic institution.

Now, in fairness to these parties, they don't have completely illegitimate or ill-founded issues to resolve; the problem is the manner in which they go about things and why. For instance, the Mana Party seems completely satisfied to have land locked up in trusts where it does not help its people, but as their people's leaders; they have complete control, and are able to pay themselves nice salaries, as well as paying themselves loans as well. The same for Labour Party. The Labour Party is taking on the TPPA issue, and it can incite a lot of fear over a document which is destined to prove contentious; but the reality is that its never going to address the real nature of that problem, and that is that statutory laws cannot resolve legal conflicts. Its context-dropping dogma that invites loopholing and injustices for both sides on any issue. The Green Party is not unwarranted in seeking clean rivers, kindly treatment of animals or the preservation of the earth. We cannot dismiss the fact that there is more plastic in the oceans, mistreatment of animals and polluted rivers. The problem is their approach to the issue. Its based on extortion, and the reason you can question their intent is because of the nature of their proscriptions for solving the problem. Its about renunciation, taxation and its always targeted at 'big business'. Big oil is a popular target. "Big oil" only produces the stuff; they never target the consumer. They are not interested in educating the consumer; they want to use politically-sanctioned government to extort power. By doing so, they get you paying money and potentially more lucrative amounts from corporations. Their 'feel good' campaign becomes a 'brand' to extort. If you want an inkling of how insidious it is, you can see how 'Cancer Foundation' brands can be used to vet products. These foundations can be used to 'extort' support. You give them money, and they give you profile. You as a consumer are probably not inclined to examine the legitimacy of the claims to 'good health'. That value is open to the foundation's interpretation, or a paid academic perhaps. Its all pretty sordid. It may not be illegitimate; but the risk is there. Some will argue that these are voluntary associations, so they are ok. I will however argue that their scam is akin to defamation, and should be open to prosecution for the same reason. This is an intellectual failing within the libertarian movement that rests on not identifying the underlying principles justifying their values. But that problem is not going to be resolved before this election, so let's put that aside.
I would also mention that groups of extorters can team up like bullies in school, or gang bangers in a football team, in an attempt to gain the balance of power. The problem is that the less credible smaller parties tend to get treated with disdain, so these members are destined to 'behave' for a time, and join the National Party. By joining the Nationals, Mana gains more influence with Labour in coming elections, but given that National posits as the 'prudentially' responsible party, Mana is actually winning credibility from that association as well. And aren't they well-behaved!

This brings us to the next group of candidates. Now, these parties tend to be defenders of individualism, aspiration and wealth creation. The first group of parties want to reshape the distribution of the 'wealth pie', whereas these parties are more interested in 'growing the pie'. Their focus is on economic growth, and to varying degrees, upon property rights to achieve that. There are several parties in this latter category, namely: National Party, Conservative Party, NZ Tea Party, Internet Party and ACT Party. Looking at them individually:
1. National Party - The National Party is a centerist party. They attempt to be all things to all parties. Their game is 'keeping it real'; simple practical/pragmatic messages to keep the balance of power. Their focus is on aspiration and austerity because its a source of credibility and 'faith' in a better future. But if there is a big-spending Labour Party; watch how quickly they abandon that premise. Fortunately after a period of largesse, they can normally count upon their fellow 'aspirants' who are peaceably retaining the 'faith'. You are not going to see libertarians or conservatives out in the streets campaigning. They are more likely to repress their disdain, or throw a tantrum and head off overseas.
2. Conservative Party - This is a new party, and of course you'd need some Christian faith to expect small government. The problem for this party is that Christian Conservatives simply lack the intellectual fortitude to defend their policy, so they are always destined to lose credibility. Their dogmatic proscriptions will draw attention to the lack of defensive for their ideas. Its not to say that all of their ideas are indefensible; but simply that they don't display the intellectual coherency to confidently and realistically assert their policy ideas. In fairness their counterparts on the left are equally impaired; but the scepticism on the left at least means that they retain the tragic vote when ideas prove unfounded. The Conservative Party has a solid lead so far. Like Family First in Australia, expect them to get a big lead in this election, but watch how their support base flounders in the next election.
3. NZ Tea Party - This party is not getting any profile yet - maybe it doesn't have the members to even be a party, but it is really just another Conservative Party. Looking at their policies it is apparent that they suffer the same illusions as the Conservative Party. They will sink without a high profile supporter with money.
4. Internet Party - Speaking of money and high profile, we have Kim Dotcom's party. There is a lot to be concerned about, but also a lot to praise with the Internet Party. Foremost, you have to love the charisma of the guy. But charisma tends to lead a party into a bubble mania that ends up exploding like a space shuttle. The problem is policy integrity or credibility. He is a guy who is associated with copyright breaches. In fairness, its not as if its a fair regime, but then he does not seem to be adding to the dialogue for a better system. He is making a lot of money out of it. A digital currency - that's great! The problem is that we effectively have one now. That's not a source of discipline. Spying is actually not a problem either; its the arbitrary law that makes it possible. He wants to support high-value tech jobs. That's fine, but he wants to subsidize such practices. The reality is that its not a bad idea if it works, but why is this a role for government. We are to believe because an internet guru is canvassing it. But can he make money without facilitating piracy? Now, the fact that politics gives Dotcom profile cannot be lost as he backdoor lists his Mega company. He also stands to benefit from political influence, but really at issue is the use of populist proscriptions, and the lack of detail. There is no question that the nation needs competition in political discourse, but it needs more 'rational' details people, not rhetoric from populists. In Dotcom's defence; he means what he says, but he's not saying much, and he's ultimately going to be serving his own agenda. His policy proscriptions attempt to bridge left-right anarchists, so there is no question he is appealing to the youths of NZ who hate their conservative parents, and older ambivalent souls. I think there is a market for them, as long as they don't stray into broader policy subjects. If they attempt to be more than their 10 point plan, I think they will lose their market. I can see them getting 4-6%, which is perhaps why they are talking to the Mana Party to make sure. This however is a dangerous move; and likely a mistake because it takes the party out of its '10 steps' to success. I think this party will be forced to evolve, and in doing so, I think it will be forced to turn left or libertarian. I think it will be left, and I think it will amalgamate with probably with the Greens Party.
5. ACT Party is perhaps the weakest party at this stage, however I would argue that is actually a positive for them because they are a 'cleaner' party in terms of the values they espouse, and the identity they project. This is the first time I have observed a libertarian party spurn its 'conservative roots' in an attempt to develop coherent policy. It is however not all good news because they are still beholden to MMP for Epsom. Its akin to a dirty secret (actually its no secret at all) that everyone accepts because it keeps the 'aspirants' in power, and of course that is a good thing. ACT will develop a very loyal following if they continue on that path. The problem is that their support base is youths who don't take the time to vote, and they don't necessarily develop their minds to a point where they can sustain the belief. This party cannot just be the 'party for principle', it has to be the party for 'principled education'. It more than any other party needs to develop campus groups, and to spread those to other communities. The problem is that there are too many conservatives in the party looking for 'results'. It is their influence which is destined to see conservatives placated. They need to abandon that tact because conservatives will vote 'Conservative', and that is where they belong. Is there hope of 'educating' conservatives. No, there is not. The political system does not permit that. That will only happen in the community when there is an on-going engagement with people. Such influence cannot be rushed.

In conclusion, I believe people should vote for an aspirational party; and I think that whilst there are a number of them, ACT is the only one who can defend their policy platform, and thus act as a meaningful defender of 'liberal principles'. This they do to varying degrees of success. For instance, I was rather disappointed with ACT's debate (Jamie Whyte vs Norman Russell) with the Greens Party. I shall post a link to my repudiation of the Greens position. This however is Greens flagship policy, so it was critical for ACT to undermine them on this because there are a lot of votes in Greens for ACT. The problem is that Jamie is not a scientist; he comes from an economics/philosophy background. I'm all three.

There is an old adage from Edmund Burke that reads:

Edmund Burke: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".

The problem is that the exponents of good values are only as useful as their last battle, and if they have not confronted their opponents, then they are not always prepared for their policy, and they may not get another opportunity to rectify it. ACT in its glee at getting exposure has given Greens a lead, and they may not get the same exposure to correct that mistake. They need to be prepared on these issues.

Disclosure: It was a tantrum that brought me to NZ. It was Australian politics which caused it.

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

Debate between Wanganui councillors - James Penn and Michael Laws

Share |

Last night the people of Wanganui were treated to some rare entertainment – a match between ‘David and Goliath’. Ok, better still, David’s son and Goliath. Interestingly, recently Malcolm Gladwell has given new meaning to the tale of ‘David and Goliath’, and this tale is analogous in some respects. The combatants are candidates in the running for Wanganui District Council. James Penn, is a local 19yo graduate of Wanganui High School, and a NZ Debating Champion, who is a 1st year university student in Auckland, studying law and commerce. Michael Laws is a sitting councillor of Wanganui, a former mayor of the city, and a former National Party MP.
It was a match between ‘the old guard’ and ‘a young buck’. There were several interesting issues about this contest:
1. The disparity in values – It struck me as a contest between an old conservative and a young libertarian; though based on Penn’s policy, arguably a conservative with a preference for smaller government  (utilitarianist). Penn looked professional throughout the debate; his open-mindedness plausibly a redeeming appendage to his youthful ignorance.
2. The disparity in debating styles – Penn is strictly correct whilst Laws is intimidating and plays dirty, at times losing credibility and respect with the audience. His attacks were often straw arguments or red herrings, and on one occasion he conflated his discredited argument with Penn's rebuttal. So much for intellectual honesty. He'd on occasion had to temper his outrageousness.
3. The value proposition offered by both candidates – Old people are important because of their historical knowledge; but youth brings new ideas and methods. There is a role for both.

James Penn is a star pupil, so despite his tender years, you’d expect some ‘fight, both in terms of factual content and ‘worldly experience’. James is not without worldly experience. He comes from an upwardly mobile family, has travelled extensively, and lived abroad (UK). More poignant is the following. Ignorance or the lack of experience (as you’d expect in an 19yo) is not necessarily a bad thing. Earlier in the week I was talking to a sitting councilor Rangi Wills. A knowledgeable man whom we could all learn a lot from. You want that type of knowledge on council. The problem I have, conveyed by both Rangi Wills and Michael Laws, is their ‘presumption of knowledge’, whereas a ‘young buck’ like James is less likely to presume facts and arguments. Particularly a star pupil like James, who is less likely to defer to other people’s views. He is more likely to go off and research topics. You can make much of his need to focus on studies, particularly since law is an area of study that requires a great deal of reading. Unless he can make case studies of Wanganui, I wonder if he will be able to serve Wanganui effectively, particularly given the 'role' I see him filling. He will need reading in order to develop 'arguments' against the old guard. One of the reasons why star pupils are stars is because most people don’t develop aptitude in critical thinking. In many schools, its only taught to the best students, if at all. James would have developed these skills as a debater in school. It was evident last night against a formidable and intimidating opponent.
In the case of Rangi Wills early in the week, my topic was ‘waterworks’. I’d read in the Wanganui Chronicle that there was a requirement to spend $40 million-odd on flood mitigation to protect housing/urban areas in Wanganui East. I emailed my solution to Rangi over a year ago. I never got a reply. He said he gets 90 emails a day. I can’t believe its rate payers, so he must have an active social life, or perhaps he is a busy career man. In any respect, he wasn’t addressing my concerns. In our conversation, he played down my suggestion, arguing that there would be a lot of public opposition to a dam on the Upper Wanganui River, and that the area had been investigated in the 1970s, and the area found to be ‘geologically unsuited’ for a hydro storage. Currently there is an oversupply of electricity in NZ thanks to the imminent closure of the Rio Tinto smelter (which I actually foresaw), however irrespective of the market context, a producing/profitable asset is better than simply a flood mitigation scheme that 'protects' what already exists. You could argue a flood would only 'immerse' houses, and not write them off. I'm not in a position to know. They are issues that should be addressed. The fact is that new engineering solutions are being developed all of the time; and we need young people who are prepared to find them. Maybe its not an issue for a 'young prospective lawyer' so much as a 'young engineer'.

Now, this is the useful technical knowledge that you want on council. Local governments need good technical knowledge. It does not have to come from the inside; however outside consultants also have a tendency to offer 'safe' proven solutions. There needs to be a tender and project team to entertain alternative solutions. A mayor hydro scheme might actually win private-national government support; particularly if such a scheme could function as a load balancing reserve like the Snowy River Scheme in Australia. But I’d also be interested in knowing if any technological innovations have occurred in the last 30 years to challenge this ‘accepted wisdom’ because most things are ‘bad ideas’ until a new engineer comes along and proves otherwise.
In this particular debate, Michael Laws, older and more experienced, was telling James Penn that ‘innovation funds always fail’. A woman from the audience cited ‘her evidence’ that micro-finance worked in Africa. I too know that micro-finance has worked very well in third world countries. No idea should be dismissed out of hand, however it must be acknowledged that the context is different. Third world communities are 'low-skill' countries that can afford to work with low-cost capital. They struggle to buy a sewing machine. This is not the nature of the Western 'capital hurdle'. The greater concern is that Western kids, and rural kids particularly, are not as 'commercially astute' or savvy as they need to be. Financial literacy is at a low point. Its not just about 'backing winners'; its about ensuring that your 'youth capital' has the right values to actually want to succeed. As Michael indicated, its little point helping youths if they are inevitably going to leave, and they should leave. I went to Japan and the Philippines, and now in my 40s, I'm in Wanganui as Michael said.

The problem with old people is that they are accustomed to being right; that they can struggle with the possibility that they are wrong. They are always armed with more factual evidence to convince themselves that they are right. Pretty soon they are only reading materials that actually supports their view, if they read at all. Sometimes they'll read contrary views and find some rationalisation to reject it. Michael was adamant that ‘innovation funds never work’. The reality is that ‘government funded custodial funds’ usually do fail, and there is good reasons for this to be the case. The point being that Michael Laws never saw the ‘black swan’ to know that not all swans are white. This is not a justification for James Penn's innovation fund; its reason to look at its merits. This is where youth and critical thinking are useful. Now, you might question whether James is too young. Well, there is another issue and that is context. We live in an internet world now. There is so much knowledge online these days, that youths are exposed to such a diaspora of information, that they are far more knowledgeable than these old folk when they were of equivalent age. More importantly, they are more adept at researching in the modern era. James brings that dynamism as well as critical thinking to the table. He will however have his limits however because he is barely out of school. Don't expect him to be a Fullbright Scholar from the get-go; but does he offer something on Wanganui Council...I think so.

Not everything went well for both candidates. Both candidates failed to pick up on a flaws in their ‘economic policy’. Wanganui Council is struggling with high debt levels. The response of both candidates conveyed some ignorance of finance. Laws wants to ‘peg rates to inflation’ whilst Penn wants to index them to ‘inflation plus’. Penn did qualify that by saying that he would use more discretion. The reality however is that it should only be about ‘cost vs benefit’ to rate payers; most particularly when debt is so cheap. If you are going to use debt, now is the time. You would think debt is therefore an opportunity. The problem is that councils are 'democracies' and democracies are majoritive rather than rational, and the clowns are usually in the majority. We need more critical thinkers like James Penn, Michael Laws and Rory Smith, and fewer populists like Phillipa Baker-Hogan and Hamish McDouall.
You can argue that there is an assessment about ‘which ratepayers’ given some level of cross-subsidisation across the electorate, but inflation is not a good barometer, and it should never have been flagged as a benchmark of suffering because ‘inflation’ is not a benchmark of purchasing power. This is mythology. There is no correlation between inflation and cost of living. Consider:
1. Monetary policy changes need not pass through to ‘cost of living’ inflation; but rather through to ‘asset inflation’. Clearly people on a pension are most vulnerable to the latter; and that people in Wanganui are less exposed to ‘asset inflation’ because of depopulation.
2. There is an over-supply of labour and competition from Asian labour markets, so there is no growth in ‘unskilled’ wage costs. People living on benefits and pensions are therefore vulnerable; so that is probably a starting point for rates. Maybe the selling argument for Wanganui is a 'rates regime that is indexed to the pension', as opposed to inflation. Would that not give certainty to a lot of rate payers and lifetime pension collectors. Of course, these are not high-income recipients, but at least it would fill vacant housing stock and get the construction industry going.
So both candidates did poorly on this issue; and both candidates failed to address the ‘elephant in the room’, which is the poor perception of Wanganui – thanks to crime. Unless any candidate is prepared to address the social issues in the town, then people are simply going to avoid Wanganui. Laws unfortunately has a track record in this arena as former mayor. More problematic perhaps is the fact that he ‘still has a voice’. In fairness to Michael, he is a very articulate and good critical thinker; the problem is that he is not ‘self-critical’. His deference to his own ego is immeasurable. This is a problem for Wanganui because ‘as a leader in the community’ he becomes a ‘significant danger’ for the following reasons:
1. Andrew Wilson was not a threat to Wanganui. Media coverage had ‘exposed it’. Laws took the issue national, and made Wanganui a ‘pedophile haven’ when in a broader ‘weighted’ perspective, we ought to realize that 75-85% of pedophilia occurs within the family.
2. Laws, and others like Hamish McDouall, our local Labour Party candidate gave this a profile it did not need, in order to fight ‘a not-in-my-backyard’ (NIMBY) campaign. They were even prepared to take it to the High Court. This is one way council mayors and councillors have been wasting rate payer money. In James hands, Wilson would have been probably treated as any other paedophile….given that they are all around us. Laws created a false stereotype…but it gets worse.
3. Laws was engaging, along with other councillors, and they should all be identified by the Wanganui Chronicle, in fear-mongering for populist reasons. Philippa Hogan-Baker is out doing the same over illegal highs. Laws actually was critical of Hogan-Baker, and rightly so, but again, he simply lacks the ‘self-critical’ quality that has him ‘pinned as an autocrat’, yet he stands ready to identify Penn as so. Pot...Kettle from Laws. The problem with Laws fear-mongering is that people in the streets of Wanganui are now vulnerable to accusations of incest simply by talking to a child or walking along the street. He has created that much fear. Laws has precipitated a witch-hunt. I know of one case; it would be interesting to know from police if there had been an escalation in ‘reported incests’ since this issue became a national scandal. Awareness is great - but let it be cased on facts and understanding; not fear and loathing.

In terms of debating skills, James Penn was far more dignified and respectful to his counter-party, but Laws was able to land some ‘illegal punches’ so to speak, as well as some 'solid blows'. James did allow Laws to lampoon him on seemingly a simple issue of ‘h’ in Wanganui. He should have more strongly argued that Laws made the ‘h issue’ a national issue by holding a referendum on it. Moreover Penn allowed Laws to attack him as ‘undemocratic’ because he would not have funded the referendum on the ‘h word’. He needed to reiterate that it was a small issue that needed a decision from the council, not populist mandates from  a costly referendum. People don't know what they want until they are educated. Michael Laws rendered a 'straw argument', that its democracy or not. Not that simple Michael; its a question of the 'type' of people participation. So Michael peddling false dichotomies.

Laws did convey a better awareness of the dynamics which shape Wanganui. He correctly realizes, as in other rural cities worldwide, that youth tends to leave for the big cities, and likewise it can be argued that most immigrants tend to prefer cities for the greater support for their respective cultures. Laws therefore wants to target former residents when they have children. Which poses the question – why is he making Wanganui about Wilson? He might well argue that Wilson has a threat to that image. I would argue he blew the issue out of perspective. We are surrounded by paedophiles. Risk is managed; not avoided. Laws created unrealistic fears; precipitated scaremongering (along with other councillors) and failed to even observe the evidence related to paedophilia. He ditched the ‘selling point’ he had identified for Wanganui for populism. He was however right on another issue. Wanganui cannot match the cities for night-life; but by the same terms, Wanganui could do a lot better to cater for youths. Maybe it only requires an inter-city bus at opportune times. i.e. What if drunkards could be taken off the road at night by being given a ‘low-cost bus service’ to and from Palmerston, and vice versa, so that folk here would have a ‘cheap’ means of taking in other restaurants and pubs, and Palmerston can do vice versa. Even if it was a ‘pre-booked’ opportunity offered infrequently. This would partially see more people spending money in other cities, but at least it would mean ‘intra-regional’ opportunity and dynamism, and it might serve to keep people in the community. Maybe it might see people living in Wanganui, but working in Palmerston North. Likewise people in Palmerston North might welcome a trip to Wanganui and its beach. Such a means might even be a means of increasingly services from their respective airports. A one-hour bus to Wanganui airport for a flight to Auckland, or a one-hour bus to Palmerston North for a flight to Christchurch. It might be the better alternative to a poor transfer in Wellington en-route to Christchurch or Sydney for business people who these days don't need to live in these high-cost cities. These are the type of ‘flexible’ work-arounds that allow business and their families to locate in Wanganui. Being from Sydney myself, it is a very hard commute to East Coast Australia. If there were more flexible arrangements for business and regular commuters, Wanganui would attract more people. We already have pretty seemless arrangements to Australia, so better connections might be a precursor to more Australians, and for 'Big Oil' seeking oil & gas offshore NZ, better flight connectivity might actually pip Wanganui over New Plymouth as a regional office serving these offshore fields, given that Wanganui is closer to the centre of government.

I’d love to see James Penn on the council. More concerning however is that he is only one voice. We need 6 other James Penn’s, well perhaps somewhat older, in order to ensure a ‘reflective’ critical perspective of city issues. One of the huge problems for cities in NZ is keeping skilled persons, and Wanganui is more vulnerable than most communities because its small and depopulating.

You can view the entertaining debate at Wanganui Online.

Michael Laws for mayor?
One of the pressing issues with respect to Laws is the fact that he is also one of 3 candidates looking to become mayor. The problem is that he simply lacks credibility for a number of reasons – least of all his track record on mayoral issues. He has supplanted the prospect of a healthy image for Wanganui with a deference for his own ‘pseudo-ego’. On the issue of gang patches and Stuart Murray Wilson, he placed the image of Wanganui in the media for all the wrong reasons. Now, in fairness to him, Wanganui has social issues, but he made no progress resolving those. The greater issue is that no leader is making a difference on this issue. They simply don’t because there is little insight on this issue, inside and even outside the community. Wanganui needs to find its own innovative solutions. Laws acknowledges ‘the lack of leadership in social services’, but he did not deliver as councillor or mayor in this respect. Frankly, the city is without a capable leader, so I'd argue that it needs 'by default' Annette Main with a more capable CEO who can actually tackle those issues. Clearly that is not a person to be elected; its an appointment.
The other problem with Laws as leader is that he is simply an egomaniac who needs to be the centre of attention. Humorous until you receive your rates bill and wonder where does it go. He is a capable contributor as a councillor, but he’s utterly destructive as a community spokesperson. Even his role as a radio host is ominous. For this reason, I’d prefer to see Annette Main as mayor and both Michael Laws and James Penn as councillors. I think there are other capable people as councillors, but I’d like to see Penn elected most particularly for what he can become as a ‘future mayor’? He might instead be a future MP for Wanganui in a few years when Chester Burrows retires. Who knows.

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 2011 election - dirtiest election ever?

Share |

This article and the hounding that NZ Herald and other journalists are giving to the National Party and ACT Party highlights the extent to which the media are interfering in the NZ election. This would have to be the most corrupted election I've seen since President Arroyo was caught in a 'real tape scandal', where President Arroyo stands accused of benefiting from election bribing. This issue is currently being investigated in the Philippines. But back to the 3rd world:

1. Labour and Greens are trying to discredit the National Party and ACT Party because of their 'private conversation'. Nothing controversial was said except they referred to NZ First Party supporters as dying out; hehe funny 'private' joke, and the imminent resignation of Don Brash. Oh, and surprise surprise, Winston Peters is expounding the fact that Catherine Isaacs is being vetted by Key as the new leader. Should that surprise anyone? She is has 2nd ranking on the party list Winston. Winston Peters discredited himself here.

2. Greens Party people are caught sabotaging National Party billboards; and many in the party are supporting the action, saying party supporters would have welcome the moves. Yes, I guess because a chick is being unfairly treated, we ought to break the law indulgently. You'd think the media would be more interested in this story, but they are more interested in tarnishing the reputation of John Key. I don't much like John Key's pragmatism, but I think his credibility stands up a great deal better than the Green's ideology. Yet there is nothing in the media; and far from two people (John Key and John Banks) being scandalised for a harmless 'private' conversation, we have 50+ Greenies defacing billboards, and members unapologetic for the action, and the media doesn't think this story is newsworthy. Wow.

How biased can the media get. I hope the Elections NZ decide that the news media has tarnished the credibility of this election, and call upon the media to pay compensation, and for a new election to be held; hopefully in a new parallel universe where Don Brash is not ACT Party leader, so they can secure 15 seats! What a shocker!

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

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

The misappropriation of political information

Share |

The NZ Herald has attempted to defend its story by garnering the support of a 'victim' of the 'News of the World' scandal in the UK. The effort is rather pathetic. Consider the lawyers arguments:

Barrister Mark Lewis said “The "teapot tape" should be released and is in no way comparable to the News of the World scandal”.[i]

Really? In no way the same? Not even a little? They occurred on the same planet? They involved taped conversations between known parties; journalists with a personal interest in the activities.

Barrister Mark Lewis: "The News of the World were really using what is lazy journalism - they were hacking people's phones to get cheap stories".[ii]

What difference does it make whether the journalists were lazy or deliberate in their activities. The issue is not whether they tried to record the incident; the issue is whether they are attempting to profit from it after the fact.

The fact that these politicians made parts of their conversations or the imagery pertaining to the conversation available or ‘public’ does not mean that every aspect of their life has to be exposed. The fact that the media asked for permission to publish the tapes is evidence enough of that.

“Mr Lewis said he believed it was in the public interest for the transcript of the tape to be released”.[iii]

How can he know if the releasing the tape is in the public interest without knowing the contents of the tape. Ethically, only the police can determine what is ethical or proper to do in this case, as well as the journalist and media executives who have viewed its contents. They will be morally and legally liable if they misuse the information. If there is any criminal content; this would not even necessarily justify release of the taped information, though I suggest it should in order to permit collaboration of evidence.

Barrister Mark Lewis: "There is a difference between the News of the World hacking into someone's phone to find out private information and seemingly - whether accidentally or on purpose - effectively a journalist investigating some kind of political statement”.[iv]

This barrister really has no concept of philosophy. There is a distinction to be made between private and public lives. i.e. You cannot plant video cameras in public toilets. That is the principle involved. Yes, hacking into someone’s private communication represents a higher level of deceit, but both actions are morally reprehensible. A barrister should know that.

Barrister Mark Lewis: "But if it's particularly a political statement which affects the future government or the ways to achieve future government in a country, then that's something in the public interest and it sounds like it should be reported without the unfavourable comparison to what was clearly a criminal act”. [v]

Well, that is fine if the content of the tape was public, or if the content which the media sought to publish was ‘public policy’, but they are after scandal. So it’s a big ‘if’ that this barrister has not even explored. Even if there is content which might be deemed ‘in the public interest’, that is for the owner of the private information to decide. Only if the evidence suggests illegality should this information go to the police; and otherwise there ought to be no publication without the intellectual property owners authorisation. It has been duly rejected by John Key.

Why a barrister is inclined to screw up on this point is that they fail to see the broader context of public accountability; which is a respect for principles. In a sense, the barrister is saying that we will discard principles for the right to affirm the public's interest....whatever that is. i.e. He is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

According to the NZ Herald,

“News Corp is trying to negotiate a settlement with the Dowlers and has offered them £2 million (NZ$3.9 million)”. [vi]

Barrister Mark Lewis’ comment on the John Key-John Banks tape recording therefore entails a ‘conflict of interest’, and I would suggest his inflaming the NZ political issue could well make him liable to legal action by the PM, John Banks, the ACT Party and the National Party. The conflict of interest arises because he is apparently trying to render his case as more serious, unique, and thus of greater significance. This would of course justify a greater pay-out for his client.

“Mr Lewis said there was a difference between taping the PM speaking about something which could be deemed "very crucial politically" and recording him talking about personal matters, like his health or his family”. [vii]

Actually there isn’t. If the media is so hungry for public policy so that the public can get to know their political candidates, then I’m sure there is no shortage of time available by them; particularly the minority candidates who seldom get much. The reality is that the media wants us to think there are some important sound-bites on here. Maybe there is some crude language or embarrassing comments about Don Brash. Maybe they even hint to the resignation of Don Brash after the election. These are private opinions; they are strategic concerns of the people who did not intend to make them public. The notion that a journalist can accidentally benefit from secret tapes is ridiculous, whether they intended to do it or not. It could only sponsor a raft of ‘disorganised crime’ or purposeless crime. i.e. Smuggling of drugs. Oh sorry, I did not know my BF planted drugs in my baggage, but since I did not know, its ok if I sell them in the destination country.

Barrister Mark Lewis: "If it's to do with how the country is governed then that's good journalism".[viii]

Actually its poor journalism because apparently the action was not deliberate, and the decisions since show poor moral judgement by all concerned.

Barrister Mark Lewis: "The public choose their politicians ... they really ought to know wherever they are in the world".[ix]

Nonsense. Politicians are not always public persons; they also have private lives, and it is the decision of the politician, not the media, to decide when it is public or private, or it can be determined from the context. Voters should only be interested in the public policies of politicians; the fact that they make private comments, etc is really of no importance because they are not well-considered, deliberate or analytical thoughts, as I am conveying here. If my analysis is flawed, then I can be rightly criticised for it. Some of my writing is less well-considered, and whilst I can be criticised for it, I hold myself to a lower standard for that. It is a question of context. I could care less that John Brash curses Don Brash in private or public; the issue is whether they are effective politicians. In that assessment, I do not think people should hold them to unreasonable standards, nor sanction the use of misappropriated information/property.

Mr Lewis suggests a better comparison would be with ‘former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's gaffe when a microphone he was wearing picked up his comments that Labour supporter Gillian Duffy was a "bigoted woman".[x]

Frankly, I actually think this is a similar situation. If the journalists intentionally released that information and they had good reason for believing they were private thoughts; then they ought not to publish it. If he was making those comments to specific people, as opposed to strangers, then that is private.

Barrister Mark Lewis: "Politicians need to be careful about TV cameras and microphones. They should watch out that things aren't recording". [xi]

Notwithstanding the practical value of anticipating ‘crouching tigers’, we would tend to argue that we do not live in a caveman society, but rather a conceptual society where we expect people to act in accordance with the law, and that the law will entail consonance with ethical principles and more importantly human nature. Where is the ethical principle that the victim is 100% responsible for the consequences of their actions and others actions.

“Mr Key said his police complaint was based on principle. "What happens when it moves to other high profile New Zealanders having a conversation with their wives about personal issues?” [xii]

This is a fair comparison, but the following ethical justification by John Key is not.

John Key: "What happens if a couple of high profile New Zealanders have a conversation about their son or their daughter being suicidal - a Sunday paper reports that and that child takes their own life. We're at the start of a slippery slope here and I for one am going to stand up and ask the police to investigate it".[xiii]

A defining quality of a “suicidal” people is that they have a propensity to commit suicide. John Key seems to be embarrassing a utilitarian or consequential or pragmatic conception of justice here – sadly. The issue is the means by which a person acquires the information. Certainly if the information was misappropriated and caused embarrassment, it could precipitate suicide. This might reasonable considered a ‘causal’ connection between the illegitimate action and the suicide.

References

---

[i] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[ii] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[iii] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[iv] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[v] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[vi] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[vii] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[viii] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[ix] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[x] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[xi] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[xii] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[xiii] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

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

Speech by Don Bash - election 2011 campaign launch

Share |

Don, I took the opportunity to identify the problems I have with your recent speech. You have my partial support…sadly not my vote since I don’t vote..since I don’t sanction the process.

On 13 November 2011 12:00, Don Brash wrote:

ACT: THE RIGHT PARTNER FOR THE JOHN KEY GOVERNMENT

AN ADDRESS BY DON BRASH, LEADER

ACT 2011 CAMPAIGN LAUNCH

13 NOVEMBER 2011

Ladies and gentlemen,

New Zealand needs ACT! New Zealand’s a wonderful country.

Blah blah blah…you should try Australia…Kiwis love it J too

We live in a country which is bigger than Britain, with more natural resources per person than almost any other country on Earth.

A country which has more fresh water per person than almost any other country on the planet.

I would have noted the oil & gas potential, quite startling for a country of 4million people. Basically NZ has an offshore basin the size of Europe. Other than that there is the titanomagnetites of West Coast Nth Island and Southland lignitic coal, there is not much mineral wealth really aside from the oil potential. Yes, NZ has farming, a great climate and water supply, but not a startling benefit. The lack of development of oil & gas is due to isolation and lack of political support.

A country which gave women the vote before any other country, and has one of the oldest democracies in the world.

Democracy is not such a triumph...after all its engrossed us in the current problems. You should be canvassing a meritocratic democracy.

A country where we can say with certainty that, no matter how vigorously we disagree with each other about politics, nobody will get shot, or beaten to death, in political turmoil.

Yeh, but crime rates are not impressive, and economic based injustice (i.e. bank fees, currently the basis of a common law action in Australia) are real rproblems, not to mention state-sanctioned systematic statutory abuses. i.e. Punitive, arbitrary laws.

A country which has produced Ed Hillary, and Kiri Te Kanawa, and Kate Sheppard, and Katherine Mansfield, and Jean Batten, and Apirana Ngata, and Bill Buckley, and Angus Tait, and Bill Gallagher, and Ernest Rutherford – a man ranked by some as close to Newton and Einstein in terms of his contribution to our understanding of physics.

Not so impressive...might get you votes though.

It is a wonderful country.

But ladies and gentlemen, this country is at risk. Far too many people are finding it hard to make ends meet. Far too many young people can’t get a job. Far too many people fill our jails. Far too many children are poorly fed and poorly housed. Far too many families break down in acrimony and violence. Far too many young people come out of school unable to read and write. Far too many working age adults languish on a hand-out. Far too many towns and cities spew untreated waste into our once-clean streams and rivers.

And to a large extent these are the social costs of the under-performance of our economy. Once, we were one of the richest countries in the world. Our productivity was up with the best.

One has to acknowledge that a collapse in commodities was party to blame - it hit Australia too.

But then we were hit by the loss of our best export market, and by the disastrous policy response to that. By 1984, New Zealand was on the verge of bankruptcy. We were rescued by Sir Roger Douglas, the Minister of Finance who went on to found the ACT Party, and for more than 10 years productivity started growing strongly again.

This seems somewhat controversial; and not supported by evidence, as NZ does not seem to have gone on to create any great industries in this time. I suggest you need to argue this point, i.e. Arguing that minimum wages were an obstacle, if they were?? Do they pre-date this period, etc.

But when Winston Peters became the Treasurer in 1996, and even worse when Helen Clark became Prime Minister in 1999, the momentum ended.

She introduced the envy tax for those on higher incomes; she reversed many of the labour market reforms; she introduced legislation giving local authorities the power to do whatever they wished; and she massively increased government spending towards the end of her reign – an increase which set up the years of deficit since 2009.

Today, the Government is borrowing hand over fist; $20 billion in the last year, hundreds of millions of dollars every week, the equivalent of hundreds of dollars a week for every household.

Govt is borrowing $20bil - is this not misleading because its because of the earthquake relief. Otherwise its mostly private debt. Govt debt is not so bad I seem to recall. Not bad for a farm commodity producer with a lot of oil potential.

Productivity growth has fallen away – to an estimated 1% annually according to the Reserve Bank.

Yep...NZ workers have a sense of 'lifestyle' entitlement. A country with few resources other than oil 'potential', and you have to rely on labour, like Singapore, then you need a new education system. But you really need a new political system, and NZ, being the first to adopt women voting, ought to be the first. It has the legal framework best suited for change. It could lead the world.

Despite the best export prices in a generation and weak import demand, the balance of payments is still in deficit – with that deficit projected to increase over the next few years. And as a result our debt to the rest of the world gets bigger, year by year – not yet at Greek or Spanish levels, but damned uncomfortable just the same.

Agreed.

Two credit rating agencies have downgraded us, and as a former Governor of the Reserve Bank I know that that’s an ominous sign.

The IMF projects growth in per capita income over the decade to 2016 to be half the growth they project for Australia over the same period. In fact, 148 countries are expected to grow faster than we will over that period. We would have been in a state of national mourning if even one other country had beaten us at rugby – we seem relaxed at being 149th in the economic growth stakes!

The gap between incomes here and incomes across the Tasman continues to grow. When National came to power, the gap was 35%; now it’s closer to 40%. As a result, New Zealanders leave in ever-increasing numbers; nearly 300,000 over the last decade.

Not realistic comparison. Can I suggest comparing NZ with South Australia. Even then, wage levels in Sth Aust will be set by Australian context. Like NZ, Sth Australia is probably depopulating, except it might have turned around with the commodities recovery and mining boom. The lesson for NZ is that Sth Australia spent $25mil on a Mineral Discovery Program - geophysics across the entire state. This is why resource development is key to retaining population growth in NZ. NZ needs a $50mil geophysics program to test offshore areas. Set up a state oil enterprise; do the work, then farm out the most prospective areas to foreign companies on 'market terms', then sell off the enterprise to NZ'ers.

Just last week, the Herald on Sunday wrote of the Kiwi families living in Australia but longing to come home. Couples like Adrian and Jules Paalvast, with three New Zealand-born sons – longing to return to New Zealand, but feeling unable to do so because Adrian makes three times the salary in Australia that he could make in New Zealand, thus enabling Jules to stay home with her four children.

A survey of 4,000 13-year-olds recently found that an astonishing 27% of them wanted to leave New Zealand permanently when they were old enough to do so.

Dealing with this challenge should be the dominant theme in the election campaign – but it’s not. The serious danger is that we could reach a tipping point, the point at which so many New Zealanders have left that it becomes a cumulative process, with each new departure easier to justify than the last one. Some suggest we may already have reached that point.

At this critical time in our country’s life, voters face a stark choice: do they want a centre-left government headed by Phil Goff or do they want a centre-right government headed by John Key? There are no other options available.

Hang on - aren't you a 3rd choice?

We in the ACT Party are in no doubt at all about which of these two men offers the better prospect for our great country, and we have already declared publicly that we will give Confidence and Supply to a John Key-led Government.

Hmmm...after having bagged him out.

The Labour Party is advocating policies which nobody who cares for our long-term future could support – massively more borrowing than even National proposes; employment legislation which would see a return to the industrial mayhem which prevailed before 1991; a $15 minimum wage which would lead quite directly to more unemployment; an end to the 90-day trial period in employment contracts; a capital gains tax; a big increase in the compliance costs imposed on small businesses because of the exemption of fruit and vegetables from GST; a huge increase in the costs of the farming sector as a result of bringing biological emissions into the ETS in 2013; and an instruction to the Reserve Bank to stop worrying about inflation and start focusing on the exchange rate. This is crazy stuff.

Why is a capital gains tax a bad thing given your arguments about the deficit? You might ask whether now, a sustained recession, is the time to adopt tax cuts. Relying on private sector stimulus at a time of recession does not strike me as sensible, i.e. When you – Don Brash - were RB governor (2002) was the time for this. Opportunity lost now.

As an aside, I understand as well as anybody the problem which big swings in the exchange rate cause for exporters. I spent almost 14 years of my life trying to reduce those big swings. Alas, there are no easy ways to eliminate them, not at least if keeping inflation under control is also an objective. The Labour Party pretended they knew what to do about this issue in 1999, when they were campaigning to win the election in that year, and promised to have the whole Reserve Bank framework put under a microscope. When they won the election, they duly appointed a monetary policy expert from Sweden to do exactly that, and after months of study, the expert declared the New Zealand monetary policy framework world’s best practice.

It may sound good to exporters for Labour to say that they will smooth out those exchange rate fluctuations and keep inflation under control: believe me, no central bank has yet discovered how to do that.

So there’s not the slightest chance that ACT could support Labour after the election.

But like many others, we want a John Key-led Government to deal more decisively with the challenges which our country faces than has been the case over the last three years.

The Government has introduced National Standards in the school system, and some of our schools are world class. But far too many young people are coming out of 10 or 12 years of school barely literate. Parents who scrimp and save to send their children to independent schools are forced to pay twice for the privilege, once through taxation and a second time through school fees. The school system remains highly centralised – with a centralised curriculum, and a centralised and bureaucratic remuneration system.

There has been a pleasing reduction in violent crime in the last three years, and the ACT Party can take some of the credit for that – we supported National in increasing police numbers, especially in South Auckland, and we were responsible for getting the Three Strikes legislation passed, so that repeat violent and sexual offenders spend longer in jail.

This is not social policy; its repression. Discipline is not education.

But there is still far too much senseless violence, and too often the police prosecute the victim of that crime, as when Virender Singh was prosecuted a year or so ago when he tried to defend himself with a hockey stick while being attacked by five drunken youths.

Right now, the world economy is looking more ominous than at any time in my life-time. I spent a few days visiting London and Washington late last month to get a first-hand picture of just how bad things might get. I came home deeply worried – the Eurozone is in serious trouble because of irresponsible government spending in the countries of southern Europe; the United Kingdom and the United States are struggling under massive government deficits; and Japan seems unable to get to grips with its own massive government debt. The scope for the world economy to endure a prolonged and deep recession is all too evident.

Good argument to make.

In this threatening global environment, we believe the Government needs to urgently focus its spending on those who most need it, to flatten and reduce taxes in order to encourage investment, and to radically reduce the bureaucracy which makes life so miserable for homeowners, farmers, and manufacturers – indeed, for anybody wanting to do something!

Acknowledging that you are in a recession but not recognising that private investment is not going to fly is unrealistic. Why can't you 'contextually' validate the concerns of Labour for the plight of those who have lost their jobs or in long term unemployment, and to offer 'conditional support' for those on welfare, so they don't just stay on welfare...so they become ACT Supporters. i.e. Don't assume that people on welfare are happy on welfare. The problem is that you guys peddle a false dichotomy - harsh vs soft. There is a contextual, principled position. Call it the 'third way'. But its not a compromise; its just contextual, so realistic, as opposed to detached dogmatism or over-simplistic rationalism.

Realistically, ACT is the only party which can help National do what John Key and the rest of the Cabinet know needs to be done. And Friday’s “cup of tea” shows clearly that John Key knows that.

You will not impact on John Key unless you are able to increase your vote, and that requires differentiating yourself from NP. John Key will not achieve anything. He is a pragmatist. He lacks the intellect. NP-ACT = 3more years of what we just had, with a NP scared to act. All the most surprising when you have a wolly like Phil Goff in opposition. Utterly clueless. But it is a recession, so you need to be empathetic....not detached. There is value in cutting costs in this period, but not at the expense of demand. Refine rather than cut. i.e. Better education policy.

Over the last three years, ACT has ensured stable centre-right government – indeed, we enabled John Key to announce that he was in a position to form a government on the night of the last election, because we had pledged support to National in advance, as we have done again.

Again and again, we supported National Party-initiated legislation when without our support legislation would have failed.

Unconditionally? Are you saying that you are just a patsy for the NP? Because the electorate might punish you if this is the implication; most particularly if that is their perception, or you are telling them so. i.e. To punish the electoral system. This statement is a particular concern with the MMP up for debate. Don, sometimes I think you could not have done a better job of destroying the ACT Party. We'll see. Is John Banks the final kick in the teeth? We'll see.

We gave voice to widespread public concern about the Anti-Smacking law, the Marine and Coastal Area Act, and the Emissions Trading Scheme, though ultimately in vain.

Yep, we need access to oil. ETS is a tax scam...unsupported by good science. Too much political influence...helps to cite arguments.

http://www.thegwpf.org/press-releases/2296-flawed-climategate-inquiries-failed-to-restore-confidence-in-uk-climate-science.html . Nothing wrong with the Anti-Smacking idea in principle, just wrong execution.

We can claim much of the credit for the retention of the right to silence in criminal cases.

And as I’ve mentioned, as a result of our initiative, the Three Strikes legislation was passed. As a result of our initiative, students are no longer obliged to join a union. As a result of our initiative, the Productivity Commission was set up. As a result of our initiative, the 2025 Taskforce was set up, and the National Party committed to promoting policies which would close the income gap with Australia by 2025. (National doesn’t talk about closing that gap much anymore, because they know they don’t have a plan to close it. ACT does!)

Well, its hard to close a gap during a recession; who is spending money. So not fair to beat them up for no efforts now; but yes with respect to Helen Clark.

So we’ve shown we can work with National, and can deliver positive benefits for New Zealand. But much remains to be done.

Indeed.

In the last few weeks, National has gone some way towards policies which we strongly support by proposing quite far-reaching welfare reform, some useful changes in employment law, and some steps in the right direction in enabling employers to take on teenagers at less than the adult minimum wage. They’ve even made some tentative suggestions for reforming the Resource Management Act. We support all these moves – as far as they go.

But let me set out what we would like to achieve in the next Parliament.

There are nine policy areas we’ll be looking to work with National on to improve the lives of all New Zealanders, and perhaps especially those New Zealanders whom the major parties seem to have forgotten – those who struggle to keep small and entrepreneurial businesses alive, the farmers and those who provide services in rural communities, the self-employed taxi drivers and dairy owners (for whom earning even $13 an hour for the hours worked seems a distant dream), those struggling to cope with the burden of bureaucratic officials and senseless red-tape.

Pass Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill and Regulatory Standards Bill

1) First, we want to ensure that the two Bills introduced by Rodney Hide in the last Parliament are passed into law – namely the Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill and the Regulatory Standards Bill.

The Spending Cap Bill would not require any reduction in government spending – indeed, it would explicitly allow government spending to increase as our population grows and as prices rise, and it would allow for a complete exemption from the cap to deal with a national emergency, such as the Christchurch earthquakes – but it would prevent future governments engaging in the kind of grossly irresponsible electoral bribes which the Clark Government undertook in the last three years of that Government’s life. For this reason, we believe its passage is well overdue.

Similarly, the Regulatory Standards Bill – opposed by most government departments and supported by most people in the private sector – would raise the bar on new legislation and regulation to the considerable benefit of everybody.

Only a party vote for ACT will get these two fundamentally important pieces of legislation passed into law!

The problem with this is that its arbitrary and context dropping. What if there was another earthquake - this time in Auckland. What about a war?

Reduce government spending relative to the size of the economy to enable radical tax reduction, and a lower exchange rate

2) Second, we will be pushing for a faster reduction in government spending – relative to the size of the economy – than that currently envisaged. At the moment, government spending is a larger share of the total economy than in any year of the last Labour Government. And yet there are a number of spending programmes which National criticised strongly when in Opposition but which remain untouched – programmes which have little or no merit in terms of any concept of social justice.

Getting spending under control more quickly would have three important benefits.

It would hasten the day when we’re no longer borrowing from our children to make life more enjoyable for ourselves.

It would enable tax rates to be reduced and flattened. We’re especially keen to get the company tax rate reduced – that’s vitally important if we’re to see a strong increase in investment in New Zealand. Yes, our company tax rate was reduced last year, but taken together with the change in depreciation allowances the overall effect was to increase the effective corporate tax rate. In any event, our company tax rate remains at 28%. That in fast-growing Singapore and Hong Kong is only 17%.

By how much could tax rates be reduced? The 2025 Taskforce showed that, if government spending could be reduced to the same share of GDP that it was in 2005, at the end of Labour’s second three-year term in office, then the top personal tax rate and the company tax rate could both be reduced to 20%. I’m not confident that that’s still possible, but a radical reduction of both rates could certainly be achieved.

Because of the crucial need to raise wages and salaries by increasing investment, we favour accepting that there will need to be an ongoing gap between the company rate and the top personal rate (as there is currently) by introducing a radically lower company tax rate at 12.5%, with the top personal rate as low as revenue will allow, perhaps 25%. We don’t doubt that that would have a very dramatic effect on investment, and therefore on wages, salaries and jobs.

Another substantial benefit of getting government spending reduced more quickly is that it would help reduce the exchange rate – vitally important if farmers and other exporters are to generate the strong growth in exports that our high level of overseas debt demands.

This is partly because much of the borrowing being undertaken by the government is being done by selling bonds to foreigners – and of course those foreigners have to buy New Zealand dollars to buy the government bonds.

It’s also partly because tighter restraint on government spending would almost inevitably prompt the Reserve Bank to further reduce the Official Cash Rate, and that too would reduce the upward pressure on the exchange rate. Yes, the OCR is lower now than at any time in our history, but it’s also higher than in any other developed country except Australia. There can’t be much doubt that if the OCR were, say, 1% rather than 2.5%, the exchange rate would be lower and export growth would be stronger.

Only a party vote for ACT will get government spending back under control quickly, and take the pressure off exporters!

You cannot expect to retain people in NZ if you start cutting spending - you need to find more productive ways of employing them. You need to live as effectively through this recession as possible. I would suggest your best bet is farm stimulus and oil & gas stimulus...that is where NZ spending has to go to displace any cuts you make. You will be sending NZ public servants to Australia. Australia loves big govt.

Radically reduce bureaucracy

3) Third, we will be pushing for a strong attack on bureaucracy. And by that we don’t simply mean a reduction in the number of bureaucrats, though that would no doubt be part of it. We mean taking an axe to some of the more ridiculous rules and regulations which those bureaucrats enforce:

· The rule which enables Auckland Council planners to tell a home-owner to paint her white house black or brown because it’s near the Kaipara;

· The rule which requires a retailer of farming equipment in Masterton to get approval before erecting a sign on his own property;

· The rule which requires a farmer to get approval before building a hay-barn on his own property;

· The rule which enables local authority planners to designate a farm as having outstanding landscape value, without any suggestion of compensation for the loss of value which that designation involves;

· The rule which requires a farmer to get a building consent to replace his home after it’s burnt down;

· The law which enables local authorities to tightly constrain the supply of land, with disastrous consequences for housing affordability for most young New Zealanders.

Fixing these frustrating and expensive rules would almost certainly require a fundamental reform of both the RMA and the Local Government Act, and quite possibly an amendment to the Bill of Rights Act to ensure that the right to peaceful enjoyment of one’s own property is enshrined in law.

Only a party vote for ACT will make a serious dent in the inane bureaucratic rules which cost us a fortune and ruin our lives!

Take an axe to the Emissions Trading Scheme

Agreed, but that means taking an axe to the science. There is a James Cook University (impartial Australian) academic who is your man! Start attacking the science. This ought to be a big issue for you. You should be getting out there on this issue. There is a lot of cynicism about climate change, and a great way of winning NP votes, and Green conversion to NP votes.

4) Fourth, we also want to take an axe to the Emissions Trading Scheme. Whatever you believe about the causes of climate change, it makes no sense at all for New Zealand, producing just 0.2% of global greenhouse gas emissions, to have the only all sectors, all gasses, ETS in the world.

No other country penalises farming for its production of greenhouse gases, and yet that is a major part of the ETS in New Zealand.

Yes, National proposes to defer the inclusion of agriculture into our ETS until 2015; Labour proposes to include it from 2013.

Key will not support it; he just knows that the evidence is fake, but wants the Gillard govt to quit first.

But even now agriculture is hurt by the effect of the ETS on the price of electricity, petrol, diesel, and coal. If biological emissions were to be included in the ETS on the basis proposed by the Labour Party, it would have an absolutely devastating effect on the viability of a great many farms. Even the deferment proposed by the National Party would at best leave farmers paying thousands of dollars for their use of on- and off-farm energy. New Zealand’s farming sector – the most efficient producer of food in the world – doesn’t deserve that kind of punishment.

Indeed, there’s a strong argument that biological emissions don’t add to greenhouse gases at all: every unit of carbon emitted by pastures, crops and animals was first absorbed from the atmosphere.

Only a party vote for ACT can protect farmers – and the rest of us – from the ETS!

Give parents effective control over their children’s education

This is good policy. But I think you need to make the argument for it. Wish I could help on this issue, as I'm currently writing a book on parenting.

5) Fifth, we want taxpayer funding to “follow the child”, to give parents an opportunity to send their children to any school willing to take them, as already happens with Early Childhood Education. This would enable parents to send their child to an independent school if that was their preference, or to an “integrated school”.

And to enable parents to make an informed choice about which school is best suited to their child, we would open up SchoolSMART, a website run by the Ministry of Education which holds information about schools, about pupils’ performance, about teacher performance and about other indicators. National once campaigned to make this information available to parents. In Government, they haven’t done it.

Hmm...sounds nice but actually I'm not a fan of this approach to performance enhancement because it drops the context in which teachers perform. Stick with your policy above with greater autonomy for principals and let the principals deal with the issue.

We would recognise long-established and well run state schools, such as Auckland Grammar, Epsom Girls, McLean’s College, Rangitoto College, Wellington College and Christchurch Boys High School, as “trust schools”, and allow them to operate substantially free from bureaucratic control – including giving them the ability to establish other campuses, perhaps by acquiring schools which might be losing pupils.

Only a party vote for ACT will give parents a chance to choose the school which best suits their child, and boards of trustees and principals a chance to run their schools free from the stifling hand of Wellington bureaucrats!

Promote a multi-party consensus on changes to New Zealand Superannuation

6) Sixth, we will push for a multi-party consensus on changes to New Zealand Superannuation to ensure its long-term viability as our population gradually ages.

I have utter sympathy for NZ'ers - there are few opportunities to make money here as there is no market size or growth. Expand the swimming pool so bigger and more fish can grow. I think the only way to get NZ'ers to save is to give them easier access to the Australian market place. My suggestion is that NZ needs to:

1. Facilitate easier access to the Australian market place for NZ investment, i.e. Allow NZ'ers to invest in Australia's economic success, as well as allow NZ companies to raise money in Aust easily.

2. Offset this lost domestic investment by facilitating greater foreign investment in NZ, i.e. Like with my oil investment initiative.

The Labour Party has recently announced their support for a gradual increase in the age of eligibility, as we proposed months ago. They’ve adopted the proposal of the Retirement Commissioner, which would see the age of eligibility reach 67 by 2033.

We think that that’s too slow, not affecting in any material way the baby boomer generation.

The Australian Labor Government has announced that the age at which Australians will become eligible for their taxpayer-funded pension scheme will reach 67 by 2023, 10 years earlier than the Labour Party has proposed here.

But whether by 2023 or 2033, this issue needs to be put on the agenda. Most other developed countries are gradually increasing the age at which their citizens become eligible for taxpayer-funded retirement income, and for the same reason. We’re all living longer. It’s totally irresponsible to pretend that no increase will be needed.

Only a party vote for ACT will ensure that this issue is addressed in a timely way!

Promote a safer, more secure, society

7) Seventh, we will push to make New Zealand a safer and fairer place by ensuring that the victims of crime are not subject to unfair scrutiny by the police when they try to defend themselves, and ensuring that young offenders are appropriately dealt with before their criminal activities escalate.

The statute books already entitle people to use reasonable force to defend themselves and their property. But in practice it’s all too common for the police to charge people who defend themselves – in other words, for the police to treat victims as criminals.

I mentioned the case of Virender Singh a moment ago. I could have mentioned the case of Greg Carvell, charged with shooting and wounding an intruder who was threatening him and two of his staff with a machete. Or the case of Paul McIntyre, charged with shooting and wounding one of three men who were trying to steal his property in a remote location in the dead of night. There have been far too many similar cases.

While clearly the use of force in defence of person and property must be reasonable – it would clearly be absurd to use lethal force against a teenager retrieving a ball from your front lawn – the present policy needs to change. We believe there’d be merit in enshrining the right to self-defence in the Bill of Rights Act.

In respect of youth offending, there’s a lot of evidence that to the extent young people get away with minor offending, there’s an increased chance of their engaging in further and more serious offending. We will ensure that all young people know that breaking the law has consequences, in order to ensure our young people stay on the straight and narrow. Ensuring that young people receive a decent education, and can find a job when they need one, will also help keep young people out of trouble.

This is too simplistic policy. Strikes one as behaviourism…anti-intellectual.

Only a party vote for ACT will protect your right to self defence, and make it clear to our young people that every crime has a consequence!

Push for equal legal status for all New Zealanders, irrespective of race

8) Our eighth agenda item is to give effective force to Article III of the Treaty of Waitangi – the clause which asserts that all New Zealanders have equal status at law. We reject the notion that the Treaty established a “partnership” between “the Crown” (on behalf of all New Zealanders) and a subset of New Zealanders defined by their ancestry. If Article III is taken seriously, it leaves no room for separate Maori electorates in Parliament, no room for Maori wards in local government, and no room for requiring consultation with Maori over and above the obligation to consult with any other New Zealander.

Agreed, but you are a long way from displaying empathy for Maoris. I think you need to acknowledge the failings of prior policy. There is a great deal which can be validated or acknowledged about the Maori position. Not good engagement on this issue.

We believe that, except where already in private ownership, the foreshore and seabed should belong to the Crown, on behalf of all New Zealanders. Because we are a party which believes in the rule of law, and in particular the right of all New Zealanders to have access to the courts, we also believe that those who think they have a customary right to certain parts of the foreshore should be allowed to have their claims tested in court. And we mean tested in court: we don’t regard negotiating such claims with a minister, within an intensely political environment where Parliamentary votes are at stake, as at all a substitute.

Agreed.

We favour the enactment of a simple piece of legislation providing that nothing in any statute or regulation, whether passed by Parliament or by any other regulation-making body, should confer any benefit, preferment or special status on anybody by reason of the ethnicity of that person.

Only a party vote for ACT will move New Zealand forward to a state where all New Zealanders – those of Maori ancestry, those of European ancestry, those of Asian ancestry, those of Pacific Island ancestry – all of us have equal rights under the law!

Don't you mean equal slaves? Very little mention about our system of govt; rights in this policy statement. Nothing about economic rights. What happen to libertarianism? I thought there were principles? Or are we getting direct inspiration from God these days. Ok, that's on the ACT website. You ought to refer to it, as National Party have a pretty empty framework.

Re-establish a constructive relationship with Fiji

9) Finally, we will push to rebuild our relationship with Fiji.

The ACT Party has long been in broad agreement with the thrust of New Zealand’s foreign policy: in particular, we favour the drive for building new relationships with China, India and other emerging countries in Asia, and for working hard to bring the Trans Pacific Partnership to a successful conclusion. We have supported the Government in its determination to fulfill New Zealand’s commitments in Afghanistan until next April. We continue to regard a close relationship with Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada as fundamental to our security.

But we’ve come to the conclusion after extensive talks with Fijians now living in New Zealand, and New Zealanders with long experience in the Pacific, that our present policy of holding the Bainimarama regime at arm’s length is not working for New Zealand or for Fiji.

Fiji has long been family: many New Zealanders holiday there and a significant number have business interests there. Many New Zealanders were born there.

We need to rebuild a positive relationship with that country – encouraging the regime towards its professed aim of building a vibrant colour-blind democracy, based on one vote one person.

Only a party vote for ACT will lead to a re-examination of our relationship with Fiji!

So there you have a summary statement – the ACT Plan for the next Parliamentary term if you like – setting out what we will be aiming to achieve in the next Parliament.

All of our policies are motivated by a concern for those New Zealanders who, like Adrian and Jules Paalvast, want to return to their homeland, but feel that they can’t do so in fairness to their children. And for those who still live in New Zealand but feel deeply torn between what this country has to offer and the much higher living standard which, for the foreseeable future, they could enjoy abroad.

And when we look at the policy positions being adopted by other potential partners of the National Party, we’re convinced that ACT is the most logical partner for National.

The parties of the left – Labour, Mana, Maori and Green parties – are in a competition over who can come up with the most economically irrational policies. They are in a race to increase the minimum wage – in the process, destroying jobs and consigning those they claim to represent to the unemployment benefit. So much for compassion!

Their other policies would be just as destructive. The Maori Party wants to exempt the first $25,000 of income from tax; to make teaching te reo compulsory in secondary schools; to scrap the 90 day probationary period; to write Treaty of Waitangi principles (whatever they are!) into employment law; and to give iwi a veto over foreign investment.

The Green Party wants to protect the environment, as of course we in ACT do also, but has a totally unworldly view of how economies work and has no understanding what a devastating impact on our living standards the implementation of their core policy platform would have. For a party that talks up their opposition to big business, they seem intent on delivering massive subsidies to big businesses that promise to create so-called “green jobs” – despite policies of that kind leading to massive job losses in countries such as Spain which have gone down that path.

Well, they might argue that you are unrealistic because they seem strong on issues which might prevent oil spills, i.e. Renunciation of oil exploration

By contrast, ACT shares much the same basic philosophy as the National Party – a belief in freedom, in individual responsibility, in limited government, in equal citizenship, a belief that New Zealanders’ lives would be better by having less government – less government taxation, less government spending, less government borrowing, less government bureaucracy. And we actually mean it!

Since when was 'limited govt' a principle? A lot of work needed here.

Of course, we have differences of opinion with National too. We want to see much more vigorous action to deal with our problems than National has felt able to deliver over the last three years.

But we haven’t the slightest doubt that we could again work constructively with National, to the benefit of all New Zealanders – high income and low income; young and old; urban and rural; Maori, Asian, Pacifika and European.

And that’s my message to all New Zealanders. ACT is the only party with the experience and the commitment which can help a John Key-led Government deal with the challenges which our country faces.

And those challenges are huge.

In a world getting tired of countries which can’t live within their means, we’re still borrowing like there is no tomorrow.

In a world where our people are getting steadily greyer, we’re not confronting the challenges posed by the increasing cost of New Zealand Super, of care for the aged, and of healthcare.

In a world where people find it easier and easier to move countries, we’re drifting off the pace, and seeing too many of our young people deciding to make a better life for themselves somewhere else.

A party vote for ACT at this election is your best way to ensure that we meet those challenges, for the benefit of all New Zealanders.

ENDS

Hugs and kisses Don....but room for improvement.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

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