Dr Muriel Newman 

Contact Muriel:

Email: muriel@nzcpd.com

Phone 09 4343 836 
or 021 800 111.

PO Box 984, Whangarei

Soapbox Series

The Soapbox Series is an opportunity for those of you with a penchant for writing, to put down your thoughts – on any issue you feel passionate about.

Opinion pieces should be around 500 words. Contributions can be made using the Soapbox contribution form >>>. Contributions will be published in the order they are received. Readers are encouraged to comment on Soapbox contributions via our Member's Online Forum >>>.  

Further, if you have suggestions for articles or issues that you believe I should be looking into next year, please don’t hesitate to send those ideas through as well. Email me on muriel@newman.co.nz.

List of contributions (1 to 40)

18 June 06
A Ban on smacking did not change public attitudes to corporal punishment in Sweden 
By Dave Crampton

In 1979, Sweden passed legislation that effectively abolished corporal punishment as a legitimate child rearing practice. The primary reason for the ban was to change attitudes to corporal punishment.

In 1957 the statutory defence was completely removed from the Swedish Penal Code in order to provide children with the same protection from assault that adults received. However the Parent's Code, a civil code governing family law, still contained a paragraph permitting parents to use physical discipline that would not be assault under the Penal Code.

In 1966 a parent's right to use corporal punishment was removed from the Parents Code, although not explicitly banned, until 1979.

The reason for a legislative ban, rather than a ban with penalties, was because the primary purpose of the law was to change attitudes in society regarding physical discipline, rather then punish for trivial smacking.

Should physical chastisement met out to a child cause bodily injury or pain which is more than of a very temporary duration it is classified as assault and is on offence punishable under the criminal code. Although as before, trivial offences will remain unpunished, either because they cannot be classified as assault or because an action is not brought (Min of Justice 1979)

Assault is categorised into three levels in Sweden. Aggravated assaults are serious warranting prison sentences up to 10 years, Common assaults carry a maximum of two years prison and petty assaults are the mildest level and are punishable by fines.

Child advocate Joan Durrant has said this: "Although the actual child physical abuse rate can never be known, it can be estimated through an examination of child criminal deaths" - which did not increase for the ten year period before and after the 1979 ban.

Durrant has noted that the "Child criminal deaths rates, which have remained at a constantly low rate since 1974, suggest that child physical abuse has not increased in the wake of the corporal punishment ban. In fact by the late 1980s, infant homicide was the lowest in the world."

What Durrant failed to state was that Swedish infant homicide has been the lowest in the world for many years before the late 1980's, and the corporal punishment ban had no effect on child abuse and infant homicide rates. The following illustrates how the percentages of smacking approval have been tabled, and is compared with figures in a report written by Julian V Roberts, from the Department of Criminology in the University of Ottawa in Canada. Compare the figures with those released by the Ministry of Justice in New Zealand at the time smacking was banned in Sweden.

As you can see from the above, decline in public support of corporal punishment was more significant before 1979 than after, reducing from 53 percent to 26 percent in 1979/1981, and actually rising to 34 percent in 1995. It is significant that Durrant does not include the statistics for 1979, 1980 and 1995 in her analysis. It is also significant that New Zealand has about three times the smacking approval percentage than Sweden did in 1980.

Furthermore Durrant has compared the 1994 figure with the 1965 one despite different questions being asked on the surveys. From 1965 to 1981 the question to respondents was, " A child has to be given corporal punishment from time to time". In other words, physical punishment is some times necessary.

But in 1994, a national survey was commissioned by the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs and carried out by Statistics Sweden. This study revealed that only 11% of Swedes now support the use of corporal punishment in child rearing . The 11% cited by Durrant in 1994 were "positively inclined to milder forms of physical punishment", while a further 22% were "in principle against all forms of physical punishment, but can use such punishment if upset enough."

Only 56% were against all forms of physical punishment, and the remaining 10% did not choose any of the three options. The survey also included the following item, which was closer to the wording used between 1965 and 1981: "Mild or moderate physical punishment is sometimes necessary as a child rearing method, but should be carefully considered and not the result of anger." Thirty-four per cent agreed partly or fully with this item, an increase from the 26% support in 1978, just before the 1979 ban.

So the 11% figure Durrant was using compares apples with oranges, which is perhaps why Roberts omitted it in his analysis.

The question in the 1995 poll was "Respondents were asked to agree fully, partly or not at all with the statement that "mild or, moderate physical punishment is sometimes necessary as a child rearing method, but should be carefully considered and not the result of anger".

Durrant conveniently omits this in her analysis.

In 1995 34 percent agreed partly or fully with the statement  with 11 percent "didn’t know". In 1981 only 3 percent responded with "didn’t know".

Between 1965 and 1971, the proportion of Swedes who believed that children should be brought up without the use of corporal punishment increased from 35% to 60% further indicating that public attitudes had changed well before reform.

In New Zealand fewer than 20 percent of people believe that children should be brought up without the use of corporal punishment.

If the 1979 law had indeed changed public attitudes, rather that reflected them, it would be reasonable to expect the percentage of respondents endorsing this use of corporal punishment to have declined from 1979-1995. In fact, in 1991 the Swedish statistical agency asked a random sample of mothers a number of questions about the ways they punished their children. Slightly more than half (51%) admitted to using some kind of physical punishment.

The Swedish reform did not reduce the level of public support for parental use of corporal punishment as a means of disciplining children. Support for physical punishment began declining years before the reform was passed - since 1965 at least - and the decline was in no way accelerated by the law reform. Changes in public opinion may have generated the legal reform, but the reverse is not true.

Changing people’s attitudes towards physical discipline is not a valid justification for legislative change. It didn’t work in Sweden when support for smacking was just 26 percent of the population in 1979, and it won't work in New Zealand where 80 percent of our population support the option of legally smacking their children.

Back to top of page >>>

11 June 06
Thinking Outside the Square
By Nico Francken
 

New Zealand has been a leader in the field of socio-economic development on a number of occasions and many world political leaders have quoted our efforts as example for the rest of the world.

When following the debate about taxation, I believe that we would do better to consider something new again. The current debate is very much along traditional lines: the socialists from the Labour party want to spend other people’s money and the other lot prefer to leave it to the people themselves.

I think it is about time that we as a country did something completely different. Clearly, the government needs to have some income to provide the minimum of services, which we collectively think should be provided by government.  To cover these needs, I think we should consider changing our taxing philosophy entirely and abolish all taxes on income completely and consider financing the government’s spending needs with taxes on expenditure instead.

This would be easy to implement as we already have a tax on expenditure, the Goods and Services Tax (GST). To cover the needs of the Government, the rate may have to be increased from the current 12.5%. I have not calculated the actual rate required but I believe that about 30 % would be enough.

Naturally, people spending more money will pay more tax and people spending less money will pay less. If we believe we should give some extra support to people with low incomes, we could introduce a multi-tier rate like some European countries have it. This could be a rate of, say, 6% on food and other necessities and socially desirable things and the standard rate of 30% on all other expenditure.

To please those people with socialist inclinations we could also add a higher rate (say 36%) on luxury expenditure (expensive cars, boats, second homes. etc.). This has been done in a number of countries in Europe .

To avoid that foreign investors take out their profits without making any contribution, I would suggest that we would also levy the tax on dividends (and maybe interest and royalties) paid to overseas residents.

The advantages of this system would be:

* Businesses will have more money available for investment, to pay wages, etc. as they do not pay the tax.

* GST is a very easy tax to administer and there will be no need to calculate depreciation and other complicated deductions; consequently the compliance cost imposed by the taxation system will be substantially reduced;

* Individuals will have more money available for expenditure and investment.

The net cost for the government of all this should be zero; besides the amount of tax can be reduced as the government will need less people to police the system. The current tax system is very cumbersome. The GST component is relatively easy. Having worked in some countries with multi tier systems, I believe that a number of different GST rates hardly add to the compliance costs. Book keeping programs to do so are readily available. In any case such a system will save more money as it can reduce the number of people involved in administering our complicated tax system.

I think it is about time that we start thinking outside the square and may be an idea like this should be considered.

Back to top of page >>>

28 May 06
Labour Party Propaganda
By Carl Chambers
 

It is extremely obvious to me- and what seems like an ever decreasing number of others - that Labour is not only running an orchestrated campaign to control the language of politics, but these near sighted, naïve group of ‘I know best Politicians’ are also beating this country and it's people into submission.  Not with a stick mind you, but with something far more powerful and far more politically correct…the written and spoken word.

This Labour Government says they want to promote National Identity.  Great idea, but do we really want to be seen as a bunch of dependent plodders who are not prepared to take risks, stand out, speak up or challenge the status quo? Because this is what Labour want...whether they intend it or not!  Either way we are most definitely going down the wrong track. 

What we need for this Country to be great once again, is to be seen as an independent, innovative, creative, competitive, stand up, speak out, leading edge country and people.  We need to be prepared to take risks and be accountable and responsible for our actions. But we will most definitely not get this with a controlling, nanny like, politically...what's the word...correct just seems to nice...maybe 'agenda orientated correct', wrong side of the fence, Government. 

This Country needs a Vision.  It needs a Plan.  We need to think Big Picture.  Macro, not Micro - and I don’t mean chip, but that’s another story!  We need a true, inspirational Leader to ignite the people. 

Sure, we’re all different and have different objectives and ideas for our own lives, and that’s great.  But we also need some common objectives that we can all work towards for the betterment of this great place we call home.  Let’s put an end to the divisive culture we have that is detrimental to us all, and start playing like a team.  We are a small Country and we can turn things around in matter of years not decades...but the longer we wait the harder it gets.  We can start today, and we should.

If I wasn't such an optimistic, risk taking, self determined, motivated, and strongly independent person who wants freedom of choice and accountability for me and my family...I would be frustrated and angry.  I would eat myself to obesity (even though I know healthy food from bad); I could see myself being depressed and suicidal (even though I know we as a country rank highly in these areas); I could easily give up trying so hard and just plod along living from one week to the next (even though the country can not afford this...either in the workplace or on the benefit); If I was young I would probably binge drink because I wouldn't be able to see the future I wanted (At least I could afford the alcohol).  I could go on...and my wife says I do, but I think I have made my point. 

I truly believe failure is part of success...but I think we have learnt enough from our mistakes already...let's stop failing and start succeeding!

Back to top of page >>>

28 May 06
Fact, not fiction, about land confiscation in the Waikato
By Martin Doutre
 

Martin Doutré responds to the claim, “The colonial government dishonoured the Treaty by committing an unjust civil war with the sole intent of confiscating land from the Waikato people so that they could then use it to pay their soldiers and settle the fertile region. This has effectively left the Waikato people landless - and this is a sore issue for many Waikato today.”

Martin replies,

In the past thirty years or so we have heard a lot of this Marxist pseudo-history garbage. In truth it's nothing more than grievance-industry driven, politically expedient fantasy, which has little or no basis in fact and can't be corroborated by the observations of those who were there on the ground at the time. The same gaggle of social engineers who stole our egalitarian Treaty of Waitangi off "All the people of New Zealand" and turned it into a document of apartheid are responsible for fabricating this nouveau version of colonial history. Hearsay has replaced history.

Unfortunately for the Government, Potatau Te Wherowhero died on the 25th of June 1860. Had he lived, it's doubtful that there would have ever been a Waikato war, as Te Wherowhero remained a good friend to the British and an advisor to their Governors, for about two decades.

The fact is that Hobson's Government was asked to move from the Bay of Islands to the Waitemata ( Auckland ) by such chiefs as Te Kawau of Ngati Whatua and his son Te Reweti Tamaki. Ngati Whatua chiefs had even travelled up to the Bay of Islands to finalise arrangements for the seat of government to move to Auckland . The first purchase of land by the Hobson government from Ngati Whatua was about 3000 acres. By 1842 land as far South as Papakura had been sold by Maori owners to the Crown. By the 1850's large tracts of land, extending through Franklin & Manukau ( Eden County ) and southwest to parts of Northern Raglan had been purchased from the native owners. Early purchases on the south eastern side of the Auckland Isthmus included Clevedon and Miranda. Fifty years later it was possible to buy from the Crown sections at a lower price than they originally cost.

'The Maori population, which had dwindled, sadly, during the past quarter of a century, was now scattered here and there, in small hapus for the most part, though there were still some fairly populous villages. At Mangere Mountain, Ihuimata, Wairoa, Papakura, Patumahoe and Tuakau were fairly prosperous communities, and there were a considerable number on the Awhitu Peninsula, but these were greatly scattered' (Wily).

By about 1851 Wiremu Tamihana began advocating that a Maori King should be chosen. Hongi Hika's forces had, over 3-decades before, driven the sub-tribes of the lower Waikato and Coastal regions into the interior and they were now thickly clustered in Taupiri and the fertile lands east of the Waipa, as far as Te Awamutu. It was estimated at the time that the Waikatos could muster a fighting force of 1200 men, which denotes a population of probably 7000. Potatau Te Wherowhero, in his old age, was chosen as king in 1858, but died within two years. He was succeeded by his son Tawhiao.

The latter Waikato War stemmed largely from an 1861 incident wherein a young Patumahoe Maori man was found dead from a gunshot wound to the chest. Other Maori assumed the murder to have been carried out by a white man, although there was never any evidence found to confirm this. Rumours spread that Patumahoe natives were going to murder all of the white settlers at Mauku in retaliation. The women and children were evacuated and the men garrisoned in the church to protect the settlement. Reverend Robert Maunsell left Te Kohanga to enter into peace talks with the Patumahoe natives and avert bloodshed. However, another large group of Maori came up from Waikato to investigate the incident. Maunsell, Selwyn and others met with them at Rangipoki in South Mauku and convinced them to let the law deal with the situation and bring the murderer, whether white or brown, to justice.

Some months later a part Maori surveyor (Fulloon) told the Government of a plot to attack Auckland from the Hunua Forest regions close to Auckland . It was known that the Waikatos were accumulating large stocks of weapons and ammunition. This led to the Auckland Defence Department mustering a force for the protection of the city and redoubts were built in anticipation of an invasion from the Waikato . During the summer and autumn of 1863 it was an almost daily occurrence that outlying settler's homes were invaded and looted and the occupants subjected to violence and intimidation. These incidents were far to the North of the Mangatawhiri Stream, which constituted the northern boundary of the Kingite territory.

In June 1863 the governor instituted measures to protect the outlying settlers and more redoubts or fortified defence facilities were built in areas like Papakura, Mauku, Pukekohe, Ramarama, Bombay and other frontier locations. The situation had become so intolerable and dangerous for the settlers that the Government, in exasperation, required that Maori living to the immediate north of the Mangatawhiri stream, in the region of growing hostility, plundering and constant unrest, swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen or move to the south of the stream. Those who moved to the south were allowed to take their firearms with them. Evidence suggests that earlier, Sophia, a relative of King Tawhiao, had crossed the Manukau to Waiuku to supply the Waikatos with several large cases of arms and ammunition.

Murder of the outlying settlers began in earnest after June 1863, which led to the first engagement at Koheroa, east of Mercer. The entrenched Maori warriors were chased out of their rifle pits by the 14th and 70th regiments, with heavy losses to the Maori combatants. Following this battle there were many months of hard bush fighting.

In January 1863 Governor Grey had visited Wiremu Tamihana (the kingmaker) at Ngaruawahia. At this meeting it was admitted to Grey that there had been a plan to attack Auckland , but it had placed in abeyance when Grey had replaced Gore Brown, the previous Governor. By mid-June 1863 there was a report that the plan to attack Auckland had, indeed, been reactivated, while the government's troops were in Taranaki, but the plan had been opposed by Tamihana.

In August a combined force of Wairoa Rifle Volunteers and Auckland Volunteer Rifles found a large secret camp, with enough whares for 1500 men. It was hailed as the Maori base for an attack on Auckland .

In September another combined force from the same unit, under Major Lyon, attacked a Maori village at Otau, which was full of supplies and in December Jackson 's Forest Rangers [with Von Tempsky in attendance] surprised a secret Maori camp deep in the Hunuas. Several [battle] flags were captured.

These finds provided Grey with evidence that positions within the Hunua Ranges were being prepared for use as staging areas for a major assault on Auckland . The situation, for the safety of the seat of government in New Zealand , was getting very dangerous.

Grey prepared an 18-page summary of this and other reports he was receiving from the Waikato and finally made up his mind to proceed with the invasion, for which he was now fully prepared.

In 1843 the Great South Road had been commenced to provide a thoroughfare to the outlying settlements south of Auckland City . It started at New Market and ultimately proceeded through Greenlane, Penrose, Otahuhu, Papatoetoe, Manukau, Manurewa, Papakurato Drury and Bombay , over the Bombay Hills to the banks of the Waikato River . By 1861, with the growing unrest and prospects of war looming, Governor Grey gave priority to the road's completion. Thereafter, the (now) military road was constantly besieged by small guerilla forces and it took a lot of manpower to protect it or the supplies flowing to forward settlement and engagement positions.

What followed after 1863 was the usual ebb and flow in the fortunes, misfortunes, triumphs and tragedies of war, for both sides. Finally, on February 20th, 1864 Cameron employed a tactic which effectively stripped the Waikatos of their ability to make war from Paterangi Pa. One thousand men marched silently past the Pa and through the night, reaching Otowhao (Te Awamutu) at daybreak. They pushed on to Rangiaowhia plantation, upon which Paterangi Pa relied for its sustaining supplies. The Pa was evacuated shortly thereafter and its occupants fled into the King Country. Apart from a few ongoing skirmishes in the months that followed, the war was over.

Nearly 200,000 acres of land were confiscated to pay for the war. In a single tract, that would be a piece of land about 17.6-miles X 17.6 miles square. Of this 20,000 acres were given back. Some of this confiscated territory went to Maori soldiers who fought in support of the government. The issue concerning whether confiscation of land during these wars was justified or not has been argued back and forth ever since. Sir Apirana Ngata observed in his book, The Treaty of Waitangi- An Explanation:


‘Some have said that these confiscation's were wrong and that they contravene the articles of the Treaty of Waitangi, but the chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the Sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority, war arose and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and the land was taken as payment. This in itself is Maori custom-revenge-plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscation's cannot, therefore, be objected to in the light of the Treaty’.

Prime Minister David Lange was issued with a report by Richard Hill of the Justice Department, outlining the settlement of grievances for Ngai Tahu, Tainui (Waikato Kingites) and others. The "Full and Final Settlements" were completed by the Fraser Government by 1947 after much consultation and many huis, extending over several years of negotiation.

Sources, quoted very copiously in this forum letter:

South Auckland , by Henry E.R.L. Wily, 1939, Franklin Printing and Publishing Company Ltd., Pukekohe, NZ.

The Road - The War - The Redoubts, Auckland - Waikato Historical Journal, September 1993, article by Don Hamilton.

The Lively Capital - Auckland 1840 - 1865, by Una Platts.

From Treaty To Conspiracy, by Ross Baker, One New Zealand Foundation, 1998. Richard Hill's report for the Lange Cabinet, excerpt, pp. 127 - 131.

Back to top of page >>>

20 May 06
Budgets, Taxation and Kiwis!
By Dorothy McMillan

The big O.E. is something that many young New Zealanders do – almost like a “finishing school”.  Unfortunately for New Zealand , many of them choose to stay and make their home overseas, where they are welcomed and appreciated for their work ethic.

The question is – Why do they see Ireland , U.K. or Australia as their best option?

Australia ’s economic policies are seen to be fairer to all than New Zealand ’s, which are discriminatory.  Australia encourages the work force by allowing them to decide how to spend their income.  We in New Zealand do not have the same encouragement because of the higher taxes, which leave less disposable income - a lighter purse.

Whichever method a government chooses to tax the nation it will still receive tax revenue, whether directly on income or indirectly on spending through GST or Excise Duty.  The important issue is that people would like to be able to choose how they use their income.

We can do two things with our income:  (a) save it or (b) spend it.  That is if we have enough disposable income to be able to make a choice.  Some New Zealanders do NOT have enough to be able to save, be it for a holiday or for retirement.  Government spends public money on advertising to persuade us all to save for retirement but, seemingly, is oblivious to the fact that many New Zealanders cannot save because they simply are paying high taxes of one kind or another!

A reduction in tax on incomes would give us a choice on how we use our income.  Some would be able to save for their own or their children’s future and so on, if they received more of their earnings in their “pay packet”; some low income earners would spend it on necessities which they now have to go without, others would maybe afford luxuries.  Government would then see what they apparently want to see happening – i.e. more New Zealanders saving for their retirement and even buying their own Health Care plans!  Thus, responsibility for a major part of social welfare would shift from government to the people.

If people were able to take home more of their earnings, maybe we would see less demand for pay increases, which helps both producers and workers/consumers.  A happier workforce also increases productivity and loyalty, in turn leading to increased profits and greater investment by the business sector.  A happy stable workforce must be good for economic growth

The economy in Australia is being improved further, surely, because of the population being better able to afford the goods and services, which their producers are putting into the market place.  Producers are encouraged to continue producing because they see demand being strengthened by the tax changes in their recent Budget giving consumers greater spending power.

Our standard of living is measured by the amount of goods and services, which we can afford to buy.  Obviously, Australians can now afford to buy much more than New Zealanders.

New Zealand ’s government is over-enthusiastic with regard to regulations!  We are over-regulated in so many areas of life.  Small businesses particularly need less interference and less tax on profit.  We need to be able to compete with our close neighbour but are disadvantaged when Australian businesses pay less tax on their income (profit), than New Zealand businesses.

One of the principles of Taxation is that it should be “fair” or “equitable”.  When government chooses to give what is perceived as “hand-outs” to one sector of the population, then it is seen as “unfair”.   If those families eligible for the Families Package had not been taxed so heavily in the first place, they wouldn’t need the hand-out.  There are others in the country who need some relief but, alas, there is none in sight. 

Another principle of taxation is that “it should NOT be costly to collect”.  It seems a waste of time and money to be collecting tax from all the families who then must apply for the Families Package – in itself a humiliating process which could well deter some of them from applying anyway! 

Dr Cullen’s Budget, just announced, gives us to understand that there is to be a budget SURPLUS of $8.5 billion.  One person’s spending is another person’s income, therefore government is withholding a huge amount from circulating around the economy. In doing so he is deflating incomes generally, as a result.  If the country were running budget deficits, then a stubborn refusal to cut taxes could be understood. 

Those New Zealanders who have been pondering whether to go or not to go to Australia for some time will, no doubt, see the wise option now!  It will now be an even greater   temptation to many of our younger people with ambition, or simply those wanting to have a better standard of living, to leave this beautiful country for greener pastures!   There is a wealth of talented and innovative young people coming out of our New Zealand educational establishments. They need incentives to keep them here!

Why oh why is our Finance Minister so stubborn on this issue of tax cuts!?  Can’t he see the benefits to other countries? Ireland , as well as Australia , comes to mind.

Back to top of page >>>

3 May 06
Youth Crime
By Alan Davidson

I like Ron Marks. He is one of the better MPs. However, his Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill will send 12 (perhaps 10) year olds to jail for quite minor crimes: “adult punishments for adult crimes”.  

This will take us full circle back 150 years, when English children were jailed (and hanged) the same as adults. Their only protection were the common law presumption of “doli incapax” (child did not know that the crime was seriously wrong), and compassionate juries which often refused to convict a child.   

Churches or the government established “industrial schools”, and later, “approved schools”, to “save” children from crime and jail.  

These schools, tough by modern standards, were for many the happiest time of childhood: clean sheets, warm bed, good food, discipline and protection, with generous opportunities for literacy, work and social skills.

The approved schools were few, small, open (no detention rooms), for ages 11 to 16.   They were very successful. Youth crime rates were very low, and children’s lives were turned around.   Of course there were failures: with children progressing to borstal, prison or suicide.  

New Zealand ‘sort of’ copied Britain . We had an industrial school at Burnham. We had girls’ and boys’ homes with detention wings and muddled  policies, which were closed down in the late 1980s for  ideological reasons. We still have welfare homes, a few “special schools” or “health camps”, and some “secure beds” with soft, muddled policies.  

Approved schools in Britain were closed down suddenly around 1970 on the whim of Home Secretary Roy Jenkins. The children were sent back to the families and welfare homes, which failed them in the first place.

Now in Britain , child and youth crime is serious. Britain is building jails for children from age 12, with 10 as the age of criminal responsibility. These jails are notoriously grim and unsuccessful. “Doli incapax” has been abolished.

Now in New Zealand , child and youth crime is serious. This Bill suggests building jails for children from age 12, with 10 as the age of criminal responsibility.

What will these jails, or adult punishments, look like? Will silly immature children be caught in the net with the serious young criminals?

Remember that young criminals do not suddenly appear out of thin air. Why are illiteracy, truancy, bad behaviour, bullying, and suicide, such problems in our schools? Perhaps in years to come, industrial or approved schools will once again be set up to save children from crime and jail.  

I doubt this. The churches are no longer capable, society has changed, ideology has drowned compassion, and the government often does more harm than good.

Ron Marks shows the first sign of a political will to address youth crime. His Bill deserves serious debate.

Back to top of page >>>

26 April 06
Leadership & Democracy
By Somed Natraps

Historically the fine balance of leadership and trust has always been, at a high level, the underpinning of democratically aware nations and states.  Where this balance becomes too distorted forms of elitism begin to evolve - sometimes this decline is rapid, short-lived and violent; at other times it grows like a malignant tumour - quiet, invisible and destructive.  The negative repercussions of such turmoil can long outlive the generation that initially endured it, making the subsequent generations inheritors of values and laws, which were never promoted legally or morally by the majority in the first instance.

With this in mind comparisons should be made between the fundamental idea of what 'democracy' is and what the true nature of this government has become.  Using the ideals of Trust and Leadership we can determine our faith in this government’s ability to satisfy the wants and needs of this country.

How do we rate this government in terms of its leadership qualities?   I'm sure this would be a very subjective classification for many but taken in light of the NZCPD column entitled 'Lowering the bar' I think this establishes the essential behavioural traits and undeniable facts of leadership within Helen Clarke’s government. It also reveals what she herself believes to be responsible behaviour on the part of herself and her cabinet.  

Even when compared with previous governments Helen Clarke’s attitudes and behaviours are stark examples of how power can be abused by minorities.  No matter the number of betrayals, power-shifts and colourless varieties of minorities, the numbers always seem to be present to reinforce her prime concern: that is her own leadership position – always by self-interested factions at the expense of the rest of New Zealand .  Many of her previous cabinet ministers have either left of their “own free will" or been forced to vacate their positions because of inherently unstable personalities or because of untenable relationship sustainability with their power broker.  Some of the behaviours, which have surfaced amongst her cabinet, are no less evident in her own behaviours yet Helen Clarke manages to hold her position of power without any effective criticisms or accountability.

From the above surely we could expect that those positions of Leadership must always imply behavioural accountability, personal responsibility and overall consistency not only for the cabinet ministers but more so for the position of PM. Any failure at this level should invalidate the legitimacy and legal status of that ‘governmental’ leadership position and the tenure of the government itself.  

In a democracy the idea of Leadership implies an element of trust. As implied above the level of trust in this Labour-led government amongst those with any integrity, is not only diminished but we tend to consider those in power to be above the law.  This is a notion constantly being reinforced by those who actually hold office not simply by their day-to-day actions but who from a legislative perspective seem to consider themselves the arbitrators of values and cultural practices which prove to be contradictory to the beliefs and wishes of the majority of New Zealanders. 

An acid test of trust in government is best measured by the values and beliefs you want to leave for your children, and whether those values are represented by those making policy in the relevant areas of legislation.  The values I raise my children by do not conform to those of the state at this time and they never will, given the overbearing nature of the policies being imposed on the integrity of the family - the most basic cornerstone of our society.  I do not want my children to become indoctrinated into this government’s base mediocrity.


It is becoming increasingly apparent this government represents an ever-decreasing portion of the total population of the country, yet it remains in place imposing policies and legislation, which contradict popular beliefs.  This surely would have to be classified as ‘non-democracy’ at best - yet New Zealanders refuse to stand up for themselves and remove the source of the problem.  This must be due either to New Zealanders lack of options in the political arena or to political naiveté on the part of New Zealanders themselves.  While some semblance of sanity appeared to exist in the core values of the National Party and ACT the backbone of these institutions appears to be broken and they can offer only so much encouragement to New Zealanders and only limited opposition to the current manifestation of this belligerent Labour government.

It would be fair to say that most New Zealanders at least have access to the knowledge available, which is critical for decision-making. But perhaps like myself, they sometimes lose interest and lose heart.  Information gathering is critical and these discussion forums are important for that reason alone - however we have to assemble the information into something we can relate to and act on.  The responsibilities of the opposition leaders lies in continually providing that knowledge and the guidance needed to act on it. We do not all have the requisite skills to fight individually but urgently need trustworthy leaders to fill this void. 

So where are our Leaders at this time?

Back to top of page >>>

24 April 06
Barrow Pushing
By Tony Bunyan


Statistics are not facts. They are mathematical models. They are easily misused. Statistics often dress pseudo-scientific opinion as scientific fact.

Therefore is it too much for us to expect that learned academics and “scientific” spokes-people analyse and interpret statistics based on results rather than drawing conclusions driven by their social agendas?

Often these experts can’t even ask the kinds of questions that their results beg.  Instead they drag out the barrow that’s going to provide them with funding for their pet project or gain the most politically correct attention.

Recently it was reported (TVNZ website) that an increasing number of younger adults are dying from heart disease. My first thought was “What kind of heart disease is killing young adults?”  “What is the cause?”

Instead Heart Foundation medical director, Professor Norman Sharpe, leap on the social inequality bandwagon. He is quoted as saying, “ the study shows there are intolerable inequalities in the health system, relating to people's socio-economic status, their ethnicity and where they live.”

Strange that although inequities have always existed the results are only now being manifest. Stranger still that Prof. Sharpe, who undoubtedly would/should have more statistical skills than I, draws conclusions about cause based on a statistical association. Prof. Sharpe’s comments are as useful as observing that you are more likely to suffer heart attack if you are bilingual. It does not demonstrate CAUSE.

In truth the rate of heart attack is increasing in the WHOLE population born since 1951.

It takes much more cold courage to speak plainly about the CAUSE of this increase. Namely lifestyle choices like recreational drugs (especially the amphetamine based drugs), lack of exercise coupled with obesity and tobacco. That’s because it places much more emphasis on the individual taking responsibility for their health.

Instead there is much chest beating and wailing from the medical community about society’s responsibilities. Scarce heath dollars will be spent on bureaucracy, “targeted (read race based) education” and social policies (read discriminatory) that create “equity”.

Far more effective and permanent change would be affected if the police were empowered to clean up the burgeoning drug trade.

Back to top of page >>>

19 April 06
Should We Consider a Universal Health Insurance for New Zealanders? 
By Peter Grove 
 

Arising from Muriel Newman’s ‘Waiting for Help’. The numbers involved are interesting. Especially the figure of $10 billion currently being spent on Health funding. On examination this figure equates to an amount of $2500 for every man woman and child in this country each year. My wife and I have a private surgery-only health insurance, which costs us the princely sum of $1787.16 p.a. It seems to me that for $2500 we could each have a comprehensive policy, as could every other New Zealander, paid for by the Government at no further cost to the taxpayer.

Health insurance of this nature could be arranged with Insurance companies in much the same way that ACC was managed in the brief split second in our history that it was opened up to private enterprise. If I remember correctly those companies interested in covering accident compensation were required to submit tenders. The same would hold good for would-be health insurers.

It goes without saying that the entire Health Sector would need a complete overhaul to weed out inefficient and wasteful practices, as well as to bring Medical Practitioners within the gambit of the Consumer Guarantees Act (ie ‘no cure, no pay’).

I favour also the concept of vouchers as are being spoken about in respect of education, being applied to the medical profession. With such a system in place Medical Practitioners would find themselves in a competitive environment knowing full well that failing to give satisfaction could see their patient base walk in search of better health care.

I envisage a fully privatised health system whereby the present health infrastructure was contracted to provide medical facilities. It is entirely possible with such a system in force the cost of Health care in this country would actually decrease. There would need to be some careful supervision of fees and the current rorts of paying a full consultation fee for a routine prescription repeat would need to be examined, just as would the fees charged by some specialist practitioners.

This could, of course, lead to an exodus of medical people from the country. No doubt there have been plenty already lured overseas by higher wages and better conditions. It would however, result in better outcomes for patients with the principle of  ‘No cure, No pay’ in force, leading to fewer demands on the medical fraternity.

Existing staff of hospitals would remain in place and should be able to replace those people made redundant by the demise of the existing health bureaucracy. Clerical staff should be employed by Medical practitioners to handle billing and related tasks. There may need to be some increase in numbers of these people that would reflect in fees being charged. The Voucher system would take care of that with patients able to change their practitioner if they considered the fees too high. As has been often said; competition is a powerful incentive to improve.

The Medical fraternity will be full of indignation at such a suggestion. They are a self-regulating industry at present. It is a smug attitude to consider the system is not without scope for improvement. Private insurers are noteworthy for ensuring the best possible outcomes for their clients. Once the heavy hand of the State is evident in any enterprise the need for frugality and efficiency simply disappears. More so in today’s environment where the earlier very good principles of Public Service Management seem to be non-existent.

Back to top of page >>>

15 April 06
The Northland District RSA Cateract Project
By Mrs Marian Barclay JP, Chairmwoman Northland District RSA Trust 
 

In 2002, concerned at the number of veterans waiting for cataract surgery through the public health service, the Northland District undertook a Pilot Project for RNZRSA to set up a programme for surgery to be done privately. The Northland District RSA Trust was established with this as its main, but not exclusive, objective.

An approach was made to Northland DHB to use their facilities but pay the surgeon’s fees: this was declined. We then approached the local eye surgeons, asking if they would give a discounted price for Trust-funded procedures. All said they would.

Our funds come from Northland RSAs and affiliated organisations, Northland Provincial Patriotic Council, RNZRSA, individual donations and the applicants themselves. It is made clear to applicants that the Trust will not assist with surgery so that they can leave their money to their children. Depending on the financial situation an assessment of a contribution is made.

Applications are prioritised according to service. No. 1 priority is Returned Service WW2, followed by spouse of Returned Service WW2: then Post-WW2 Returned: then Home Service WW2.

To date, the Trust has raised over $160,000.

The first procedures were carried out in January 2004. To date, 69 have been approved, including 10 ‘second eye’. Initially we intended to pay for only one eye but the enhanced improvement in quality of life led us to reconsider. Letters of appreciation have delighted the Trustees and shown what an improvement to quality of life has resulted from the operations. For example, renewal of driving licenses, ability to read books again, comments such as ‘second chance in life’, ‘I had forgotten how beautiful New Zealand is’, ‘the trees and flowers are so beautiful and bright’: ‘I can now see my friends across the street’ and ‘I can’t say thank you enough….the operations have given me a new outlook on life…’.

In summary, the Trust and the RSA, believe that this project has had a positive impact on the wider community as well as helping veterans and their dependents. We have improved the quality of life of at least 100 people so far, including the husband or wife of the veteran, and there are always applications in the pipeline. We are confident that through this project non-service people on the hospital waiting list will also have benefited through fewer people being on the waiting list. We have demonstrated to the general public how some of their donations to the Poppy Day fund have been spent.

This project was commended by the Ministers of Health and Senior Citizens but no Government funding has been forthcoming!  The reason given to me as Chairman of the Trust is that the Health Vote is providing sufficient monies for surgery.

Back to top of page >>>

9 April 06
The Littlewood Treaty
By Very Concrned Citizen
 

It is getting more and more worrying by the day at where the pressing for Maori Sovereignty together with more and more people enrolling on the Maori Roll is leading this country. Surely the time has come for us to all be treated on the same footing and the Maori Roll should be abolished.  No-one with less than half Maori blood should realistically be on the Maori Roll in any event.

I'm not sure how many people know about the Littlewood Treaty, but the book on this subject by Martin Doutre, should be read by every New Zealander.  A summary of this book can very easily be viewed by going into the Google search engine and putting in 'Littlewood Treaty'.  I'm firmly of the opinion that this is the actual long lost original English text of the Treaty, not the incomplete one (dated 3 February 1840) that is now enshrined in legislation and which has been further enlarged upon since the 1980's. Traditional Treaty of Waitangi interpretations have undergone such radical revision over the past three decades that it is no longer resembles the original Treaty and should not be called such. The Littlewood Treaty (dated 4 February 1840) mirrors perfectly throughout, in terms of the sequence of statements, word weight per sentence and the use of synonymous words in each language, the Maori version, which the Chiefs understood and signed.  The 3/2/1840 one differs from the Maori text in several very important respects, including omitting the words 'all New Zealanders'.

Duplicitous politicians are trying to tell us that the Littlewood Treaty is only a back translation of the Maori version which is absolute nonsense as the Littlewood Treaty was dated 4 February, the Maori version is dated 5 February 1840 and the dating was meticulously done at the time so as to know which was the latest one.  They are contradicting themselves because if it was a back translation it is telling us in English exactly what the Maori chiefs believed they were signing so surely that is the one we should be using as it includes all New Zealanders in their guarantees, not just Maori, and does not give the Maori chiefs and their people anything else other than taking them under the umbrella of Queen Victoria and guaranteeing them all the protection, rights and privileges of everyone else.  Nowhere are fisheries and forestry mentioned or even alluded to. 

The English version currently enshrined in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 is not the correct one and needs to be replaced and all inaccuracies in legislation amended by an honest Government.&