Showing posts with label Paula Bennett. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paula Bennett. Show all posts

Wednesday, 7 December 2016

National leader/new PM: Your pick? [updated]

 

Unless you know something I don’t, there’s nothing to pick between any of the contenders for John Key’s job when it comes to rolling back the state. To my knowledge, the credentials of all of them on that score measures pretty close to zero. At best.

But let us know you have any cogent thoughts about any of them – or why they might be especially good or bad at the job.

And in the spirit of #dick’sdailyquestions, maybe answer this one for us too:

Q: How will John Key's resignation affect your everyday life?

UPDATE: While updating the archives, amid discovering Bennett and Joyce were both much more nannying than I’d remembered, and that Jonathan Coleman had barely attracted any mention over the years, I discovered this amusing idea from Not PJ’s Bernard Darnton for a new reality TV show that could, with these contestants, be once again very topical. He called it Benny TV:

Here's a new 'reality' TV that someone might like to pitch to Julie Christie.  Or perhaps an idea for some good research for a keen statistician.

Time for a top-rating prime-time TV show to answer the question:  “Who’s the country's biggest beneficiary?  Who really is the biggest moocher on the taxpayer, the biggest sucker on the state tit, the biggest bludger, trough-snuffler and rent-seeking-rort-mongering-entitlement-bogan in the country.”

You can see the show now, can’t you.

“Our next guest is the new Minister of Housing 'Whack-it-on-Your-Bill Phil' Heatley – a man who takes the idea of “state houses” so seriously he’s tried to corner that market himself.  A man with so many houses being paid for by so many taxpayers it would take a Cook Islands taw lawyer to work out.

“Could he be the country’s biggest beneficiary?

“Or is it the new Mistress of Police, Judith ‘Crusher’ Collins, whose arse isn’t so big that she can’t shoot up a taxpayer-funded housing loophole when she sees one, or a good old-fashioned taxpayer-funded limo ride when she can get one.

“Or the new Welfare Matron, Paula Benefit, who’s racked up a whole lifetime on the taxpayers’ tit – “a poster girl for National’s welfare policies” she called herself when she was appointed to head up NZ’s biggest spending department-- and doesn’t look like stopping any time now."

“Or is it our current Minister of Finance, Beneficiary Bill, who pulls down a bigger salary than any business would ever pay him, and claims still extra for having "a place of residence" he visits around twice every year?  A man with so many children only a thousand-dollar-a-week taxpayer subsidy is apparently enough to keep the whole brood together.

“Champion effort that.

“Or could it be it’s the former Minister of Finance Dodger Rugless, who likes to take advantage of the taxpayers' largesse to swan around on foreign holidays, making sure it’s us who picks up his tab?

“Or is it one of EnZed’s former ministers or Prime Ministers, one of them who hasn’t been picked up the latest News From the Trough, but who got a taste for things taxpayerish early on and is unable to kick the habit?  One of the former tit-suckers who can't take their mouth from the teat, and who's pulling down all the free travel and perks and the platinum-plated politicians' superannuation scheme that we're all paying for?

“What about the former Minister of Wine & Cheese Jonathan Hunt, or former PMs Shipley, Bolger, Palmer, Moore -- or the UN's new pin-up girl Helen Clark? Could one of them be our champion?”

"Stay tuned for another thrilling episode of Who’s the Biggest Beneficiary?  Brought to you, naturally, by NZ on Air, so you can see more of who you’re paying for.”

Well, maybe not such great TV – although you would see plenty of red herrings and a lot of scuttling for cover. But high time surely for someone to answer the question.

Could be fun!

.

Monday, 5 December 2016

PM to be ex-PM sooner rather than later

 

image

PM Key has announced that by this time next week he will be ex-PM Key, resigning to spend more time with his family.

In this case, that much-overused political alibi is probably true.

For a PM who’s been there nearly three terms, you would think he would leave a legacy. But in his own estimation, the “achievements” he highlighted were “the overhaul of justice agencies,” “trade liberalisation,” “advanced race relations” and “and real momentum in the Treaty settlement programme.”:

This is not great work. He calls these “reforms” and says they are “far reaching.” In any other language you would call it all “a wasted opportunity.” That’s at best; at worst, they are all destructive of the liberty that remains..

Yes, he remained extraordinarily popular with NZers – which, in many ways was a good thing (NZers taking for what he seemed to be but wasn’t: as what they think of as representing capitalism). But instead of using that political capital to roll back the state, nothing was achieved at all in that direction and much instead the other way.

After eight years of John Key, the country’s policy settings looks little different than they would have under Labour. That is his real legacy as leader.

Newstalk ZB political editor Barry Soper said attention will now be turned to who will take over.
    "Like Helen Clark, there's no natural successor in line, so this is indeed a big announcement from the Prime Minister, and totally unexpected."

Unexpected?  Easy to say in hindsight (yeah, isn’t hindsight great), but if you were to map out the ideal time for a PM to retire if they didn’t plan on a complete fourth term (as he’d previously signalled), then a year out from an election would be a good time to give a successor time to bed in for the campaign, with a holiday period upcoming to give them some space free of media pressure. So in hindsight, early-December 2016 looks ideal.

No natural successor in line? There rarely is, is there.

Joyce and English will fancy themselves, undoubtedly, but the former has less charisma than a telephone pole, and no caucus would surely want a repeat performance from Mr 22%.

Collins too would rate her chances, but I doubt any electorate would agree.

Perhaps Paula Bennett would be the one with most credentials and the least likely to scare the horses. If I were placing a bet, that’s where my money would go. But not any sentiment. 

But the choices aren’t really thick on the ground, if the last eight years look uninspiring for liberty-lovers then, none of those four are likely to correct things.

.

Monday, 20 October 2014

Send in your horror stories

I fear it’s simply a ruse to absorb dissatisfaction rather than the blunt instrument it should be to hit councils around the head, but new Local Government minister Paula Bennett has now

formally launched her Rules Reduction Taskforce aimed at finding 'loopy' property rules and regulations, naming the heads of the new body and setting up a website to solicit examples.
    "People can now head to this
rules reduction website, to start telling us what bugs them when it comes to loopy rules and regulations," Bennett said.

The “Taskforce” is headed by  National MP Jacqui Dean, with no particular qualifications for the task, and Auckland Chamber of Commerce CEO Michael Barnett.

"I'm asking property owners, builders, tradespeople and businesses who have experienced the issues caused by irrelevant or unnecessary regulations, to help draw these to our attention," Bennett said…
    "We need to hear from New Zealanders about examples that have got in the way of their building, renovation, landscaping, and home improvement plans, so that we can cut the red tape where it needs to be cut, to help them get on with the job."

I expect little – and still say the single best thing Bennett could do in her portfolio is to reverse the “powers of general competence” that former minister Sandra Lee granted councils -- but I’d still recommend you fill Bennett’s rules reduction website with all your genuine horror stories, of which I know you will have several dozen each.

At least it will give you somewhere to get them off your chest.

Lindsay Mitchell has already made a start.

Monday, 25 August 2014

School breakfasts?

These days, everything is political. Even breakfast.

"Thousands of children are getting a healthy start in the morning thanks to [National’s taxpayer-funded] programme which is growing across schools throughout the country each week," says Paula Bennett.

The only evidence Paula cares about is votes. Because there is no other.

"We have little information about adolescents, little information about the benefits of breakfast in well-nourished kids, and little information about how variation in the composition of breakfast figures into the mix," says David Katz, director of Yale University's Griffin Prevention Research Center.

“On my best read of the literature, it's hard to make a case for that we'd get any great benefit from the programmes. Rather, we often find that they don't even increase the odds that kids eat breakfast at all,” says Eric Crampton, having studied the literature.

Politics is never about evidence, however -- and now National is serving up breakfast, every other party wants to deliver lunch.

It’s a fair metaphor for government creep, don’t you think?

  • Breakfast Downgraded From 'Most Important Meal of the Day' to 'Meal' – ATLANTIC
  • Breakfast in schools: it just doesn't work – Eric Crampton, NBR
  • Thursday, 1 August 2013

    #SurveillanceState: When acts of honour are made illegal

    "When robbery is done in open daylight by sanction of the law, as it is done
    |today, then any act of honour or restitution has to be hidden underground."
    -Ragnar Danneskjold

    The government wants to spy on your communications and harvest your private details. Actually, they already consider they have the power to do that—and have done  it to some—now they just want to do it legally.

    Their argument is they need to spy on you to protect you.

    But this argument falls at the first hurdle. If the “war” they are engaged in involves warding off terrorists, then that war requires naming and targeting the enemy. It does not require, and nor should it involve, a massive spying dragnet on New Zealanders.

    The government says it will be careful with the information about us that it harvests.

    But the kerfuffle over the public release of journalist Andrea Vance’s private details gives us a clue how little the agents of government value the privacy of our private details.  We have their assurance this is not the tip of an iceberg. But people’s private details have been made public in vast numbers by ACC, by the Ministry of Health, and by Paula Bennett’s Ministry of Social Development. “Oops,” they say after it happens. But “oops” doesn’t help those who’ve been blundered upon.

    And the news that government departments who extract private information from us will soon be sharing information with the Inland Revenue, the department dedicated to extracting money from us, gives cause for great alarm--particularly in an age when cash-strapped governments will do anything for money, and in the US the Inland Revenue Service has been used by Presidents past and present to frighten and scare off their political enemies. 

    This is just one reason to spurn the argument that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear from Big Brother monitoring your communications. Because those communications will more and more routinely be used against you to enforce, right or wrong,either the government’s will or the will of those in government.

    Consider the revelations that the very journalist who broke a story about illegal spying was snooped on by Parliament’s bureaucrats. “The violation of Vance’s privacy is a prospect now facing every citizen in the country under the GCSB Bill,” says Gordon Campbell, and he’s right. Get offside with the government of the day, and don’t be surprised if your private details become public, whether by design or by incompetence. “The boundaries of privacy are being erased for no discernible reason, and in the absence of any proportionate threat… But who will be watching the watchers [under the new bill]? Why, it will be the same kind of people – in key respects, the very same people – who brought about the Andrea Vance scandal.”

    Bullied investigative journalist Jon Stephenson is another local case in point. His communications were allegedly monitored on behalf of the very defence force that a leaked NZ Defence Force document reveals lists investigative journalists as subversive threats.  Would you like to be surveilled by the American NSA at the invitation of our Army? Or bullied by the SAS because what you say makes someone uncomfortable?

    Kim DotCom is another case in point.  What he is alleged to have committed is a crime, fair enough. But while that crime has still yet to be proven, his life has been made public, his property has been stripped, and the NZ government has bent over backwards to give agents of the US government access beyond law, and without proof, to do over a New Zealand citizen.

    Which makes the argument ‘we have nothing to worry about’ absurd. Because at the moment the US government’s departments and security agencies are going rogue. Journalists are bugged and surveilled; political campaigners are targeted by the IRS; air travellers are humiliated and delayed; and a programme of drone strikes controlled by the CIA, and apparently monitored by no-one, suggests any idea the powers given them by the PATRIOT Act to fight terrorists has long become simply power itself, exercised for the sake of itself.

    Again, you may not like everything about Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden, or even Nicky Hager, but if what they and others have been revealing does not leave you using the word “frightening” to describe many of those revelations, then your head is planted more firmly in the sand than Cameron Slater’s fingers are in his ears.

    If it was disturbing when we learned Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World hacked people’s phones,  then how much more frightening is it when folk are surveilled by people with an arsenal of guns, drones and IRS agents, and not just a basement full of printer’s ink.

    When you realise what they can do to you, why would you not think twice about what you’re doing.

    Whistle blowers like Manning and Snowden have become heroes to many because what they’ve exposed about illegal hidden government operations would not have appeared in public without them—and what have exposed about legal government operations is frightening.  As Ragnar Danneskjold says in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged,

    "When robbery is done in open daylight by sanction of the law, as it is done today, then any act of honour or restitution has to be hidden underground."

    That’s a dangerous place in which to operate.

    The Ayn Rand Center’s Yaron Brook makes the relevant final point that only needs one addition to make it local:

    A proper government is the agent of its citizens, not the master. In its role as the agent, the default should be openness, not secrecy;  in very few contexts is it appropriate for the government to operate in secrecy. Only when the government can convince its citizens that secrecy is necessary for protecting their rights is it acceptable. With respect to the NSA [and GCSB and SIS] surveillance programs, that burden has not been met.

    And nor is it likely to be.

    Thursday, 7 June 2012

    Getting “tough”

    No, I can’t get excited about Paula Bennett’s latest announcement to “get tough” on someone. Or at least to look like she is.

    Her announcement this week informs us she intends to “’consider’ giving courts the power to remove children from abusers at birth,* something CYFS can—and does—already do.” **

    This is not the first time Bennett has announced what has happening without her for some time.

    In this she differs from Judith “Crusher” Collins, her cabinet mate, only in that while Bennett’s reputation for “getting tough” is based on announcements she might do something about something already being done, “Crusher” earned her nickname for announcing she will do something about things that still aren’t being done.

    They make an ideal pair of virtual book ends, fiddling with “announcements” while their portfolio areas burn.***

    * * * * *

    * Not that there should be excessive controversy. The job of governments—the only job—is to protect individual rights. The primary way this is done is by criminals losing  rights commensurate with their crime. The only principled objection to this could be what government agencies do with the children they seize. Which is not always pretty.
    ** Thanks to Dim Post for the observation.
    *** Both child abuse rates and benefit numbers are up on Bennett’s watch. While under Collins’s watch as minister for police and ACC the reputation of both reached their nadir.

    Tuesday, 8 May 2012

    Is this state control of reproduction? [updated]

    Welfare Minister Paul Bennett has announced beneficiaries already taking the Domestic Purposes Benefit will be “encouraged” to take contraceptives to avoid having further children while sucking on the state tit—to the extent, apparently, of giving them free contraceptives which they will of course be expected to use.

    It’s as if women are too dim to realise, if the state didn’t point it out to them, that having sex without protection invites impregnation—as if all that’s needed to lower the birth rate of beneficiaries is for contraceptives to fall fortuitously into their hands.

    As if those women weren’t getting pregnant by choice.

    So is this state control of reproduction? Well, yes it is: rest assured that those employed by the state will be offering “incentives” to beneficiaries  to cooperate with the plan—and when bureaucrats begin “strongly suggesting” to beneficiaries they should take up an “offer,” they expect their “suggestions” to be obeyed. (As former minister Marian Hobbs once explained the state’s view of “encouraging” behaviour the stale likes, “we start with encouraging, but there’s always the big stick.)

    Every beneficiary is aware of the big stick.

    So it is state control of reproduction.

    But that’s the deal you make when you accept government as your senior charity provider, isn’t it. Whatever they do by definition involves coercion.

    Because when private charity providers can and do offer whatever incentives they are able to contrive to encourage the recipients of their charity to become more independent, those incentives are offered by private organisations in the context of offering voluntary charity. But when the state doles out charity not only is it given begrudgingly, but every incentive imposed to change or improve behaviour comes with accusation of the state meddling in people’s affairs.

    Like I said, this is the deal you make when private charity is crowded out by the state. And why incentives to get off state welfare are so rarely introduced.

    Because as the kerfuffle around the introduction of even this very mild form of incentivisation indicates, the very real fear of coercion in private affairs is enough to make everybody queasy. Which is just one more reason the state is not the right organisation to distribute charity.

    UPDATE:  “As pathetic as it is, Paula Bennett’s attempts to encourage mothers on the DPB to use contraceptives is a classic example of the state trying to fix a problem that was caused squarely by the state,”  says Peter Osborne, Libertarianz spokesman for Social Welfare. “Ms Bennett would do better handing out her condoms to her fellow politicians, so we would no longer have to endure the next generation of their ilk.”

    Monday, 27 February 2012

    Stop patronising us - Pacific leaders

    Here’s something very encouraging that happened over the weekend: the reaction of Pacific groups to in NZ to Paula Bennett’s patronising “green paper” on so called “vulnerable” children.

    At the national conference of the Pacifica women’s council over the weekend, the Minister of Social Development was told bluntly her suggestions the Pacific family is the solution to child abuse and neglect is based on “a romantic myth.” [AUDIO REPORT HERE]

    Basically, Bennett’s report recommends “recreating traditional island villages in cities as a solution to Pacific Child abuse and neglect.”  But the response of participants at the meeting was essentially: “Get real.”

    The chief executive of west Auckland’s Waves anti-violence trust [for example] told the national conference of the Pacifica women’s council it is a wonderful fantasy.

    The assertion, she says, that “taking care of the Pacific family automatically ensures healthy, safe children is a myth.”

    And Peggy Fairburn-Dunlop, lecturer in Pacific Studies at AUT, says the suggestion is the Pacific family is the solution,

    but it’s time to stop ignoring that it’s also a big part of the problem… We all know there are things that are not so good that go on within families, and we can no longer hide those and pretend we don’t see them.

    A refreshing honesty that if transmitted more widely should itself begin to be part of the solution.

    Equally, she says, it’s dangerous to make policy on the assumption all Pacific families are the same—suggesting at least implicitly that it’s time to start treating people as individuals rather than as “members” of some community predicated on skin colour.

    And South Auckland youth worker Katrina Mika reckons young families of whatever colour  just need good parenting help, not (in my words, not hers) more patronising mush from Ministers.

    And many suggested even the idea of calling these children “vulnerable” was itself patronising, which it is, and all children should be treated equally, whatever their race.

    I couldn’t agree more.

    And I couldn’t be happier hearing sentiments like these from those one so rarely expects it.

    Tuesday, 15 February 2011

    Welcome Great Pumpkin

    GreatPumpkin-771480

    How much would you pay for one pumpkin?

    The question is academic: you’ve already paid for it. It cost you $317,278.

    A Community Max scheme for a Far North vegetable garden [set up by Paula Bennett’s ministry]reaped only one pumpkin, it was alleged last night. The four-acre project – pitched as employing eight unskilled young workers with two supervisors – was … given a $317,278 subsidy to employ 24 workers… The ministry had said the garden was providing food to the elderly but, when 3News visited, there was only one pumpkin.

    It gets better.  There are hundreds of these make-work projects around the country, from a sewing circle in Kawerau allegedly repairing clothes for second-hand clothes shops (of which none could be produced), to a bunch of mobile phone users in Wellington allegedly texting defendants remind them to show up in court (of which no texts .

    All up, around 4500 folk around the country “employed” in hundreds of programmes like these were paid $38 million dollars to do things that nobody ever checked were done.

    paula-bennett-600But why should anyone even bother to check? The intent of the multi-million dollar scheme was not to get things done, Minister Paula Bennett told 3News last night, it was to get unemployed people learning about “getting up every morning,” about “showing up to work on time,” about getting a regular pay cheque. 

    It was, in short, to teach them a “work ethic”—an “ethic” based on getting a pay cheque for producing nothing, paid for by duping naive politicians.

    These are the “outcomes” this programme is buying, according to Minister Bennett.

    Minister Bennett is happy with the scheme—just as Sir Humphrey Appleby’s administrators were with their award-winning hospital that served no patients.

    So too of course will Keynesians be happy, those advocates of big-spending who measure industry not by how much it produces by how much it consumes. (“Pyramid-building, earthquakes, even wars may serve to increase wealth” said Keynes, if nothing better comes along. Like pumpkins.) The only beef these alleged economists would have with these schemes would be they haven’t consumed enough.

    Taxpayers however won’t be so happy. There are things they could have produced with that money, including jobs, if it hadn’t been taken instead to give to non-workers to produce nothing.

    Someone should hollow out that pumpkin and put it on Bennett’s desk to help remind her whose money she’s spending, and on what.

    Tuesday, 10 August 2010

    The “safety net” is actually a hammock [updated]

    Greece’s bankrupt welfare state should have been a recent wake-up call for everyone that state-enforced largesse is neither benevolent, nor affordable. NZ’s ever-growing state welfare monster has finally had a microscope applied—by a team led by former Commerce Commissar Paula Rebstock no less--though not yet any kind of scalpel. The hope, a vain one perhaps, is that the former might engender the latter.  We shall see.

    The welfare state itself is unsustainable. That much should be clear to any serious student of politics. In its current form it is a fairly modern invention —the “mature” welfare state and the mechanisms of finance and banking on which it relies are barely six decades old, and on the scale now involved barely half that—and any honest commentator would have to say it’s an experiment that’s failed.

    It is a political ruse by which one group of people—”the needy”--seek to make themselves wealthy at the expense of another by means of that great fiction, the state. It is a ruse based on a moral subterfuge—that one person’s need is a claim on another’s life and production. But like every other ruse, it can’t last.

    “There are two kinds of need involved in this process: the need of the group making demands, which is openly proclaimed and serves as cover for another need, which is never mentioned—the need of the power-seekers, who require a group of dependents in order to rise to power. Altruism feeds the first need, statism feeds the second, Pragmatism blinds everyone—including victims and profiteers—not merely to the deadly nature of the process, but even to the fact that a process is going on.” *

    The needy and the greedy—one needing largesse; the other greedy for political power—both feeding parasitically from the group who keep them both afloat, the producers, who never figure in their thoughts except as anything more than the owners of wallets ripe for plucking.  The needy and the greedy, in both of whom is engendered the disease of Entitle-itis.

    “There is only one institution that could bring about [this kind of dependency}: the government—with the help of a vicious doctrine that serves as a cover-up: altruism. The visible profiteers of altruism—the welfare recipients—are part victims, part window dressing for the statist policies of the government.” *

    When Germany’s military dictator, Otto Von Bismarck, first began the welfare state on which all others were first modelled, he at least knew what he was doing.  He knew it was a means by which citizens could be turned into subjects.  Those today who still go along with it, thinking mistakenly that extracting wealth from one group and giving to another is somehow a kindness, fail to see either the moral cannibalism on which the system is based, nor where such a corrupt system will end up.

    “So long as the power-seekers clung to the basic premises of the welfare state, holding need as the criterion of rewards, logic forced them, step by step, to champion the interests of the less and less productive groups, until they reached the ultimate dead end of turning from the role of champions of ‘honest toil’ to the role of champions of open parasitism, parasitism on principle, parasitism as a ‘right’ (with their famous slogan turning into: ‘Who does not toil, shall eat those who do')” *

    As a system, it is both morally and economically corrupt.

    “Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes. A substantial part of the confiscation is effected by taxation. But the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they wished to retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and they had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending, i.e., they had to borrow money, by issuing government bonds, to finance welfare expenditures on a large scale. …
    ”The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds which -- through a complex series of steps -- the banks accept in place of tangible assets and treat as if they were an actual deposit, i.e., as the equivalent of what was formerly a deposit of gold. The holder of a government bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding than real assets…” *

    As you can perhaps now understand, the very process of government money creation, which just brought the world to its knees, is itself based on having a welfare state against which the Reserve Bank may issue its paper money.

    “The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves… Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth.” *

    One might have thought that former Commerce Commissar Rebstock might have understood some of this, or even mentioned how minimum wage laws and youth rates make many people effectively unemployable at those rates, but sadly neither her remit in this inquiry nor the comments in her report go that far.

    For perhaps the first time ever, however, a report has been issued that actually looks at some of the problems involved in a state welfare system in which one in eight adult New Zealanders is ensnared, and the facts it outlines are so stark it seems few wish to confront them.

    • In 1960, one in fifty adult NZers were taking a benefit. The proportion is now one in eight adult NZers, and one in five children.
    • Of these present 356,000 adults in name only,
      • nearly half have spent more than half of the last five years spending other people’s money;
      • only 20 percent have any sort of work expectation;
      • only a handful actually attend the “training programmes” in which the likes of PIta Sharples, Phil Goff and Paula Bennett place so much stock.
    • The majority of disabled people are actually in paid work. So much for primary moral justification of the welfare state—that it is necessary to help those who can’t help themselves because of a physical infirmity.
    • Only one in three mothers with dependent children is in paid work, and only one of every two solo mothers.
    • Most children who grow up with a parent on a benefit end up one themselves in their adult life. That’s a big unsustainable “tail” being built up.
    • Half of the 16- & 17-year olds who receive a benefit spend half of their next decade on the mooch—perhaps a result of intergenerational emulation.
    • Even during the boom period of 2004 to 2007, when one in ten adult NZers were receiving a benefit, employers were still finding it difficult to find staff—making it clear that this is not an “unemployment” problem in the sense understood by any of the mainstream commentators.

    Written by the unlikely hand of former Commerce Commissar Paul Rebstock, this report on NZ’s unsustainable, unaffordable, iniquitous and destructive welfare system barely scratches the surface of the welfare state’s real problems, but even what it does say is far too much for NZ’s juvenile media to handle, apparently.  Because as Lindsay Mitchell points out, they aren’t up to even understanding it, let alone discussing it intelligently. Says Lindsay Mitchell,

    _Quote The paper is titled Long-term Benefit Dependency: The Issues. Author Paula Rebstock said yesterday that it is not about the unemployment benefit which has actually been operating quite well over recent years. The focus is on the DPB, sickness and invalid's benefit… the report is about long-term welfare dependency and what drives it - the type of dependency that persists during good economic times.”

    Yet as Lindsay points out, not only did TV One’s alleged news show lead by carefully crunching numbers that failed to address the core points of Paula Rebstock’s report, all of which they could have easily got from the report’s fact sheet, we had to suffer morons like Sue who can’t see past their own noses insist this are all about “a lack of jobs,” fools like Phil Goff and the Labour Party bloggers at The Double Standard wheel out the line that the government has “manufactured a crisis.”

    Which is certainly true, but emphatically not in the sense that either Fool Goff or his fellow fools at the Sub-Standard meant.

    Monday, 9 August 2010

    Welfare “reform” that socks employers

    Lindsay Mitchell comments on the government's latest welfare-reform that isn’t.

    _Quote I see that the welfare working group is preferring to focus on promoting insurance for sickness and disability.
    Paula Rebstock has prioritised this for the media since the group was created.

        “Employers may be asked to pay part of the costs if their employees have to go on sickness or disability welfare benefits under an insurance-based reform of the welfare system flagged in a new report today.”

        Insurance is fine. But employers can't be expected to stump up for sickness insurance and pay tax for the state-provided sickness benefit as well (not to mention ACC). Or are we looking at another of the National private/public partnership ideas?
        I can hear struggling employers all over NZ groan as they read this latest bright idea which essentially tells them the government is going to punish them if their employees get sick.

    Welfare “reform” that socks employers.  That should help them recover.

    Wednesday, 21 July 2010

    Mine, mines, mining

    You know, it’s great that Gerry Brownlee is still trying to keep the mining momentum rolling, but you’re probably wondering now why the government will now be spending up to five-million dollars of your money to undertake a “magnetic aerial survey in Northland and the West Coast, to explore for minerals.”

    You’re probably asking yourself, “Isn’t this something on which private companies should be risking their own money?’ to which the answer is, of course, yes.

    The reason, however, that it’s the government risking your money instead of a private company spending their own is that mineral rights in New Zealand are nationalised.  Owned by the government.  Just like it used to be in the Soviet Union.

    Before the first Labour Government passed legislation in 1937 nationalising whatever mineral and petroleum resources might be found around New Zealand, ownership of that potential resource was determined by the common law, essentially giving rights to the resource to whomever discovered it and/or owned the space on which the resource lay—a great incentive to discover and exploit new resources. After 1937, however, any oil, gas, radioactive minerals, gold, silver, coal and all other metallic and non-metallic minerals and aggregates found anywhere in New Zealand belonged not to those who discovered and were prepared to exploit them, but by the government in perpetuity. Just like it used to be in the Soviet Union.

    Which explains why the government is now using your money to pay for the magnetic aerial survey in Northland and the West Coast to explore for minerals, instead of a private company paying for it themselves. Just like it used to be in the Soviet Union.

    Which as much as anything else also explains why Australians derives so much greater wealth from that country’s mineral resources than we do from this one’s, even though ours is nearly as much per-capita than theirs.

    And which as much as anything else also explains why anything involved with mining in New Zealand is so heavily politicised, so hard to undertake, and puts the government in the position of both miner and environmental guardian. Just like it used to be in the Soviet Union.

    Further reading:



    Tuesday, 15 June 2010

    Increased unemployment. Still no recovery.

    A few months ago the government made a very great deal indeed about a fall in the unemployment figures, even though

    a) they made them up, and
    b) youth unemployment was still soaring, and
    b) the real reason for the “drop” was that 7,198 people left an unemployment benefit in February to go on the student allowance.

    The massaging of the figures was as transparent as the American trick of subtracting temporarily-hired census-workers from their unemployment numbers.  Nonetheless, the “dramatic drop” her department had engineered allowed Social Development Minister Paula Bennett to enthuse about a “recovery,” Alan Bollard to start raising interest rates, and Treasury to start pretending the NZ economy was going to grow at around three percent over the next year.

    So what are they all saying now that the latest unemployment figures show unemployment is still rising (up 329 to 60,106)?  That total benefit numbers are rising even faster (up 1887 to 329,349, about one in every eight New Zealanders of working age)? Are they conceding their earlier errors?  Are they admitting that talk of a “recovery” is premature, if not pure fantasy? Are any of them admitting they were wrong?

    No, of course not.  The spin this quarter is that we should all be happy that nearly 2000 more people are now on a benefit because this increase remains “below forecast.”

    What a lot of cant.

    Still, no-one’s using that word “recovery.”  And it’s been a long time since I’ve head anyone say “green shoots.”

    Unless they’re laughing when they say it.

    Wednesday, 2 June 2010

    DOWN TO THE DOCTOR’S: Key cutting

    Libertarianz leader Dr Richard McGrath ransacks the newspapers for stories and headlines on issues affecting our freedom.

    This week: Key cutting

    Our Prime Minister created ripples this week that extended well beyond the borders of the Shaky Isles when he shared the fact that he has been vasectomised.

    In fact he thought getting a vasectomy was such a good idea that he now wants to make the process compulsory, starting with his Cabinet Ministers. [Some of us would advocate a much deeper cut – Ed.] Given that last month was NZ Music Month, ministers were asked to nominate a song they would prefer as background music while their work is done.

    Deputy Prime Minister Bill English nominated Rod Stewart’s ballad ‘The First Cut Is The Deepest.’

    Maurice Williamson could only think of the Joy Division dirge ‘Love Will Tear Us Apart.’

    Gerry Brownlee betrayed possible hillbilly ancestry when he suggested Lynard Skynard’s ‘Gimme Back My Bullets.’

    Murray McCully came over all misty-eyed as he recalled the Neil Diamond/Barbra Streisand classic ‘You Don’t Bring Me Condoms Any More.’

    Judith ‘Crusher’ Collins had to be restrained from launching into a rendition of ex-Kiss member Ace Frehley’s number ‘Rip It Out.’

    Wayne Mapp, a golden oldies fan, suggested ‘Great Balls of Fire’ by Jerry Lee Lewis.

    Chris Finlayson may have an S&M streak as he recalled 80s band Culture Club and their song ‘Do You Really Want To Hurt Me’, along with John Mellencamp’s ‘Hurt So Good.’

    Nathan Guy thought ahead to possible future children post-vasectomy with his suggestion, Jim Croce’s 1973 hit ‘If I Could Save Sperm In A Bottle.’

    Tim Groser winced as he hummed the tune to REM’s ‘Losing My Religion.’

    Georgina Te Heu Heu cackled as she remembered a song by Queens of The Stone Age: ‘Suture Up Your Future.’

    Tony Ryall contemplated elective surgery of a sterilising nature to Nirvana’s tune ‘Half The Man I Used To Be.’

    Paula Bennett’s ideal background music as she supervises Phil Goff’s family planning with a rusty tin lid would be Gloria Estafan’s ‘Cuts Both Ways.’

    Jonathan Coleman, a medical doctor, said he would prefer to do his own vasectomy with the benefit of local anaesthesia to a medley by Nine Inch Nails – ‘The Beauty of Being Numb’, ‘Somewhat Damaged’ and ‘Mr Self Destruct.’

    Toward the end of his media conference yesterday, the Prime Minister said real men bike home after their vasectomies. He was then asked how things are in the nutsack region these days.

    ‘Love Hurts,’ he replied.   

    [Note: The Libertarianz Party’s policy on vasectomies is that they should be done by mutual consent in the private sector, by whatever practitioner a person wants to employ. The medical monopoly and crumbling public hospital system should be opened up to competition, thus putting downward pressure on the cost of this surgical procedure.]

    When the people fear the government, there is tyranny - when the
    government fear the people, there is liberty.
    - Thomas Jefferson  

    Thursday, 25 March 2010

    Paula Bennett, Gerry Brownlee & ObamaCare: What’s the connection?

    Q: WHAT’S THE CONNECTION BETWEEN these three recent events:

    • the victory this week of ObamaCare
    • National’s “welfare reforms”
    • The Brownlee Plan for mining in parks

    On the face of it there’s no direct link—but there is one nonetheless.

    Can you spot it?

    It’s a moral link.

    1. Let’s look at Obamacare. Obama’s health care plan, famously touted as “extending health care to 32 million Americans, was introduced to America on the justification that every American is every other American’s keeper—that they each have a moral “duty” to each other--and the state exists to ensure that relationship is enforced.
    And since Republican party apologists agree with that too, it’s no wonder they entered the Obamacare debate morally disarmed, and ended it trounced.  They agreed with that proposition that the state exists to enforce charity, so how could they disagree when a more consistent proponent of that doctrine calls their bluff.  (Watch that happening here to Stephen Moore.)
    No wonder they lost.

    2. How about Paula Bennett’s so-called  “welfare reform”?  Shuffling around the deck chairs while the Titanic welfare bill sinks us all. 
    New Zealand’s now-bloated welfare state is premised on the notion that every new Zealander is every other New Zealander’s keeper—that we each have a moral “duty” to reach other--and the state is there to enforce that.
    National’s lukewarm “welfare reforms” don’t challenge that a whit—they accept the notion that the moral cannibalism of the welfare state is a given; that the money extracted from Peter to dole out to Paul represents an “entitlement” to Paul; that while the state may occasionally shuffle around how Paul (or Pauline) is kept, or what his (or her) entitlement is called, or how often Pauline (or Paul) has to front up to re-register for their “entitlement,” that “entitlement” itself—their passport to ravage the pockets of the productive -- must never, ever, be challenged.  
    That’s the premise on which Paula Bennett is working, and also the basis on which she’s being attacked.
    That’s why these reforms are argued on the improvements they’ll supposedly make to the beneficiaries, instead of how they might benefit those who are forced to pay for them.
    No wonder the “reforms” are so tepid, and will arguably just make things worse.

    3. So how about that mining, huh?
    Time for a reality check, here.
    National isn’t “freeing up” government land for mining because it wants the economy to surge ahead.  It simply wants to “let out” that land so they can rope in some help to pay that burgeoning welfare bill.  And it’s a biggy.
    To their credit, some members of the National cabinet recognise that with one-in-ten New Zealanders now receiving a benefit (358,000 NZers at the last count), the Titanic welfare bill is slipping out of our grasp and may be the iceberg that finally sinks us. They recognise that if the National-led Government is borrowing $250 million a week to maintain those 358,000 at others’ expense, they will very shortly need some others to help pick up the tab. And since the premise that every new Zealander must be every other New Zealander’s keeper must (apparently) never be challenged, Gerry Brownlee (to his discredit) wants to use mining companies the way Margaret Thatcher used North Sea oil companies--to pay in royalties to keep the welfare state from bankruptcy.
    Gerry wants to dig, baby, dig –- not to make the country rich, but to keep the state’s welfare coffers full.
    No wonder we’re stuffed.

    Can you now see the moral connection with each : Creating new “entitlements,” and refusing to cut back old ones. More specifically, refusing to recognise “entitlements” for what they are: which is alms, extracted at the point of a gun.

    It’s a form of moral disarmament—and it’s the reason the welfare rolls are increasing, your tax bills are rising (roll on that GST rise, eh!), and why every single argument against the advance of the welfare state is repelled before its even fully advanced: Because every mainstream proponent on both sides of all three arguments accepts the same fundamental premise that empowers the welfare state:

    • The creation and maintenance of an “entitlement culture”—of a state in which everyone is given the moral imprimatur to live at everyone else’s expense.
    • The idea that one persons means can become another person’s ends—by the power of law.
    • The notion of a “duty” to be our brother’s keeper—at the point of a gun, if necessary.
    • That need itself is the moral claim that trumps all others—with that need made an “entitlement” by the power of government.

    And there’s a worse mistake still: The idea that liberty and duty can somehow co-exist.  As Ayn Rand pointed out,

    “In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.”

    And so they have been.

    And so they will be until it’s recognised that we each have the right to live for our own sakeand the notion of duty is expunged from the pages of history for ever.

    Wednesday, 3 February 2010

    DOWN TO THE DOCTOR’S: Ohariu Hard Dunne-By, and Paula at Parachute

    Libertarianz leader Dr Richard McGrath ransacks the newspapers for stories on issues affecting our freedom.

    This week: Ohariu Hard Dunne-By, and Paula at Parachute

    1. Dunne’s seat ‘ripe for the picking’Labour have kicked off their campaign to kick Peter Dunne-Nothing out on his arse at next year’s general election. Dunne’s Ohariu electorate seat is no longer one of the safest seats in Parliament, and if the trends of the past two elections continue, he will be looking for honest work in 2012.
        First elected in 1984 when Bob Jones split the conservative vote to ensure the demise of National’s Hugh Templeton, Dunne –- like Rodney Hide -– has assumed that being thrown a cabinet post will ensure a high profile and enhance his re-election chances.
        The only thing consistent about Peter Dunne is that with every change of government, Peter dumps his old girlfriend and starts cuddling up to the new one. The voters of Ohariu may very well give this hobo the bum’s rush in 2011 – and not before time. But just look at who came runner-up in 2005 and 2008 –- the oleaginous Chuck Chauvel -- yuk!! Better vote Libertarianz instead!

    2. NZ begins talks for free trade deal with India – Tim Groser, having flown all the way to Copenhagen in a carbon-spewing jet airliner a few weeks ago to listen to a bunch of climate fraudsters wringing their hands over a non-existent problem, finally sets his mind to something important: a free trade deal with India. This is potentially of huge benefit to New Zealanders, if tariffs can be removed and peaceful commerce allowed to develop.
        With a population of 300 million and growing, the Indian middle class is an enormous market for our products. New Zealanders may also benefit from products exported from India. Everyone wins from the division of labour -– consumers, who can often buy a given product, imported from a Third World country, at a better price than the same product made at home; and the workers in Third World factories and so-called sweatshops whose continued employment is supported. 
        Free trade is the best form of foreign aid a person can give.

    3. Police follow strong leads in taxi murder – I hope the person who murdered taxi driver Hiren Mohini is apprehended and brought to justice swiftly, and that an appropriate sentence is handed down.
        Unfortunately, the compulsion touters have used this apparent homicide as an excuse to force taxi companies to install cameras in their vehicles. At no cost to the compulsion touters, of course - unless they happen to want to use a taxi, at which time they will probably find the fare more expensive than it was before and their digital image available to the taxi company for all eternity thereafter. Bet they didn’t think of that.
        I say let the taxi companies decide for themselves what level of security measures they wish to utilise. Let the do-gooders mind their own business; while their suggestions might be helpful, they have no right to ask the likes of Stephen Joyce to assist in imposing their bright ideas on others by force.
        Common sense dictates that if a proposition is that good, people will embrace it by choice without having their arms twisted up their respective backs.

    4. Message at Parachute: family before moneymaking – Paula Bennett regales the masses at the Parachute Christian music festival on the virtues of raising children, citing the importance of spending time with one’s children if one is able, rather than focusing solely on moneymaking. And yes, the taxpayer was involved, via Peter Dunne-nothing’s Family Commission who sponsored a ‘debate’ on ‘the family,’ in which Bruce Pilbrow, of Parents Inc, raised the topic of income splitting.
        What wasn’t said, but should have been, was that if taxes were lower then couples wouldn’t feel they both had to work to support their children’s nutrition, education and leisure. If there was a flat low income tax, then income splitting wouldn’t be an issue. If the government didn’t trap people in welfare and encourage solo parenthood, fathers would be more inclined to live with their children.
        Paula Bennett should look at the destruction government has visited upon families, and then do something positive: shut down the Family Commissariat, swing a wrecking ball through IRD’s head office, and most importantly stop paying no-hopers to breed. Remove the financial incentive for people to procreate. Stop the miserable cycle of unwanted and unloved children who end up bashed, tortured and killed by the drug-addled and indifferent adults to whom their welfare is entrusted.
        It’s not rocket science, Paula.   

    “When the people fear the government, there is tyranny – when
    the government fear the people, there is liberty.”
    - Thomas Jefferson  

    Wednesday, 25 November 2009

    DOWN TO THE DOCTOR’S: Sad stories

    Libertarianz leader Dr Richard McGrath takes his regularly irreverent look at some of the past week’s headlines.

    1. Big Rise In Kids Raised On Benefits -  The number of children living with beneficiaries rose just under 7% in the year to April 2009. The total number of unemployed is up nearly 9% over 3 months. These are serious numbers. The DomPost interviews two Wellingtonians, paedatric surgeon Brendon Bowkett - erroneously described as a paediatrician – and solo parent Deb Kilkelly.

    Mr Bowkett believes access to “free” medical assessment for children in poorer areas of the community is vital. It is true that financial considerations are a factor in people not presenting to a doctor when they are seriously ill. But that is not the only factor. Often a family’s lack of funds available for medical care is a result of poor spending decisions and a lack of money being put aside for emergencies. I see it all the time where I work – people pleading poverty while flaunting luxury items such as iPods, mobile phones, pimped cars, cigarettes, jewellery and tattoos.

    Solo parent Deb Kilkelly is sucking at least $272 every week from the taxpayer - who had no say in the conception of her child. She doesn’t like paying doctor’s bills. I wonder if she ever thought that if she had a child, it might one day require medical treatment? Has she looked at purchasing medical insurance? Has she shopped around for a less expensive doctor? Has she thought of using cloth nappies? Has she looked at Muriel Newman’s Oily Rag website?

    Social Welfare Minister Paula Bennett says New Zealand has a “generous” welfare system – for whom, Paula? For those forced to subsidise dysfunctional families and thus encourage more of them, or for those trapped on benefits where attempts to move into employment are penalised?

    2. Family Wins Compo Fight For Meningitis Boy – Two issues here: firstly, doctors are clobbered not only if their intervention harms the patient, but if they choose not to intervene and the patient’s condition worsens. Secondly, doctors and other health professionals face double and triple jeopardy if their treatment is considered substandard.

    This story is sad – a toddler contracts meningococcal disease and loses part of two limbs. A doctor fails to make the notoriously difficult diagnosis at first presentation – I can tell you that is every GP’s nightmare. The child later develops a rash suggestive of meningitis. The parents, apparently having been told by the doctor that the problem was not meningitis, delay presentation to the hospital, with tragic results.

    ACC accept a claim for medical misadventure. This is overturned on appeal to the District Court. The doctor is landed with $3000 in costs. But here’s the kicker: according to the doctor, the Health and Disability Commissioner had already cleared him of making any error.

    So there we have it. Despite being exonerated in one forum, the doctor can be punished in another. And let’s not forget the Human Rights Review Tribunal, yet another place where doctors can be hauled and put on trial. Triple jeopardy. Where’s the justice?

    The good news is that ACC, the monopoly accident insurer we are forced to fund unless we want to go to prison, will now be paying compensation to the poor lad.

    3. Wire-cutters Threat Over Paper Road – Sick of vandalism and abuse of his land, a farmer wants local government (the people who force him to allow others access across his property) or local Maori (the main users of this accessway) to pay for a fenced road across his land. The Central Hawkes Bay district council have suggested the landowner fork out $27,000 for fencing materials so that a new road can be built. The owner, quite rightly as I see it, wants the council to go to hell. It’s high time paper roads were sold or gifted to those on whose land they lie, with ownership established so that disputes like the one above would not even arise.

    4. Wellington Trains On Track To $2.5m Blowout – The Wellington train service is losing money because of piss-poor

    Service. What a surprise. Numbers using the service dropped by 8.5 percent. But don’t worry, the ratepayers captured by the greater Wellington Regional Council (including yours truly) will foot the bill. Do we get a chance to sack the incompetent KiwiRail operators? Not a chance. We just have to keep subsidising these losers, along with lifetime busybodies like Fran Wilde, Chris Laidlaw, Judith Aitken, John Burke, Sandra Greig and Ian Buchanan who sit on the GWRC using our money on projects we would never consider in our wildest dreams spending a cent of it on.

    If no-one wants to use these substandard trains, then wind the service up. Why should those of us who never use the trains be made to subsidise this inconvenient and outdated method of transport? If rail is such a good option, people who use it won’t mind paying for it in full. Otherwise, put Michael Cullen’s train set back in the cupboard.        

    See y’all next week!
    Doc McGrath

    Tuesday, 27 October 2009

    LIBERTARIANZ SUS: Just your regular long weekend of property crimes and un-policing

    Enjoy your long weekend?  Susan Ryder did.

    susanryder Long weekends are great for those of us who get to enjoy them and I’ve always loved Labour Weekend in particular, especially when I was younger, especially because I have a birthday at this time of year. I still love the holiday; still love the birthday, too; only more the celebration these days than the change of number. Goodness knows who I offended in the interim, though, because the gods seemed determined to upset my applecart this year.

    Firstly, circumstances conspired to prevent me from attending my own party some 500km away on Sunday afternoon. Pity, because it was destined to be a cracker with seven birthdays from the 19th to the 30th celebrating a combined 400+ years at a lovely place in the country near the Kapiti Coast. I’m told that a terrific time was had by all, so I’ll have to finagle an invitation for next year. (And if any miserable sod has stopped to do the maths, I must point out that the others were loads older than me!)

    But that’s not what I’m writing about. On Saturday morning, my parents awoke to find their front lawn destroyed.

    They’ve spent the last few months re-landscaping their whole property. “She’s a pretty big job” as my wee Mitre 10 mate from New Zealand’s greatest ever television commercial would sagely say. On Friday, they spent hours cutting and laying the rolls of new grass. My nephews helped, too, their primary school being closed for the day. So it was a hell of a shock the next morning to pull back the living room drapes to admire their handiwork and see anything but. During the night, vandals had hopped over the low fence and torn everything up, throwing it all over the place and stomping on gardens in the process. I happened to ring shortly after they’d discovered the mess.

    “Ring the police!” I said, amid a few choice epithets.

    “What for?” said Mum. “They never turn up for things like this anymore!”

    “Well, I realise that” I replied. “But it’s to register the damage, otherwise they can’t know. And the bastards may well have damaged other properties along the way. ”

    To be fair, my mother was put through to a decent chap. During the conversation she learned that her call to the local police station had been automatically rerouted to Palmerston North, the local station being closed until today. He was courteous and sympathetic, but there was little he could do except to record the complaint and advise her to make a statement at her local station after the long weekend.

    It’s pertinent that my parents’ home is on a main road – State Highway 1 in fact – and well lit. Traffic is constant right throughout the night, which is likely why the vandals weren’t heard. Worryingly, this blatant crime also gives credence to the suspicions of many residents in smaller locations that nightly police patrols are virtually non-existent, a sentiment with which my sister has recent experience in the same town.

    A couple of weeks ago she and her husband were awoken at 1.30am by a crowd of people making a hell of a noise out on the footpath in front of their home on a quiet residential street. As far as she could ascertain, the crowd was trying to uproot the street sign on the corner – as you do in the early hours of a weekday morning. They didn’t want their young children to wake up frightened, or the crowd to get any ideas of further trespass upon their property or those of their neighbours, so rang the same police station to request an urgent call-out. Unfortunately, the man she spoke with wasn’t quite as concerned as the police officer in Palmerston North.

    “How many of them are there?” he enquired.

    “Well, I can’t say exactly! But there’s quite a few out there and we want them to go – now!”

    “What do they look like? Can you describe them?” he persisted.

    “Oh, for God’s sake!” she said, “I’m peering out of my window through the trees into the darkness and I don’t want to draw attention to myself. All I can tell you is that they’re wearing hoods, there are a lot of them, they’re making a racket and it’s really scary.”

    I certainly wouldn’t have been so polite. I’d have asked him if he would prefer that I put on my dressing gown and slippers and pop out with the phone and let him have a personal chat to get the bloody details! In spite of this occurring no more than one kilometre from the police station, nobody ever showed up or followed up. Finally frustrated in their efforts to fully upend the street sign, the crowd contented themselves with hauling out some shrubs from a neighbouring property before eventually buggering off.

    This sort of nuisance property crime occurs all too often – and is ignored all too often. We can date political unconcern back to the 1980s when former Police Minister Ann Hercus said that she was only worried about violent crime, a point previously noted on this blog. I wonder if she ever read Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point that subsequently proved the wisdom of nipping minor crime in the bud. In spite of all the predictable talk prior to every election, no Police Minister has acted differently since.

    So now we have Judith Collins, who recently made headlines with her potential get-tough policy with nuisance motorists. I’d like to draw Ms Collins’s attention to the ongoing neglect of authority toward property crime and policing in general. And I’d like to know what she’s going to do about it.

    The elephant in the sitting room is, of course, several decades of excessive state welfare where losers are paid to screw losers with no regard for the consequences including ensuing children. But it’s no use expecting any reform in that department. I say that based on a letter I received from Social Development Minister Paula Bennett last week, an excerpt of which I forwarded to welfare activist Lindsay Mitchell who compared it with comments made by Labour’s Steve Maharey when he held the portfolio, to discover that it was virtually identical in sentiment.

    With regard to policing priorities, there’s this little gem to finish with.

    Getting out of Wellington is a slow form of torture every Friday afternoon, but holiday weekends are the proverbial nightmare. After contending with the build-up at Paremata, there is the obligatory crawl through Paraparaumu and Waikanae as a result of the Kapiti Coast District Council digging in its dark green heels to prevent construction of the western bypass – (see Opinionated Mummy and Liberty Scott for full and frightful details of that) – before grinding to a halt at the Otaki roundabout.

    Levin lies a further 15 minutes north. From that point the worst is usually behind you and it’s a decent run, weather/crashes permitting. Foolishly thinking that they might start to make progress, northbound motorists on SH1 last Friday evening faced a further hold-up at Levin’s southern entrance. Adding insult to injury, four police cars – yes, four of them – were stationed with jovial officers checking for current warrants and registration. They were still happily doing this at 7pm and heaven only knows when they finished. I guess Bill English won’t be grizzling about it, though. I bet he scored a nice little earner out of it. But then he probably wasn’t stuck in that traffic jam, either.

    These would be the same cops who don’t seem to patrol the town streets at night anymore and who don’t seem to give a damn about property crime at all, let alone its effect upon victims.

    Lord knows I struggle with the concept of tax at the best of times, but surely some decent policing is not too much to expect for what we’re forced to continually hand over. There are countless stories like this one and it’s not bloody good enough. The last government couldn’t have given a continental about property crime (the glaring exception being the attack on Helen Clark’s electoral office), so I’d like to know what John Key’s much vaunted “broad church” is going to do about it.

    I’m all ears, Judith Collins.

    * * Susan Ryder is Libertarianz Sus, Read her column every Tuesday here at NOT PC * *

    Wednesday, 5 August 2009

    Benny TV [update 3]

    Here's a new 'reality' TV that someone might like to pitch to Julie Christie.  Or perhaps an idea for some good research for a keen statistician.

    Time for a top-rating prime-time TV show to answer the question:  “Who’s the country's biggest beneficiary?  Who really is the biggest moocher on the taxpayer, the biggest sucker on the state tit, the biggest bludger, trough-snuffler and rent-seeking-rort-mongering-entitlement-bogan in the country.”

    You can see the show now, can’t you.

    “Our next guest is the new Minister of Housing 'Whack-it-on-Your-Bill Phil' Heatley – a man who takes the idea of “state houses” so seriously he’s tried to corner that market himself.  A man with so many houses being paid for by so many taxpayers it would take a Cook Islands taw lawyer to work out.

    “Could he be the country’s biggest beneficiary?

    “Or is it the new Mistress of Police, Judith ‘Crusher’ Collins, whose arse isn’t so big that she can’t shoot up a taxpayer-funded housing loophole when she sees one, or a good old-fashioned taxpayer-funded limo ride when she can get one.

    “Or the new Welfare Matron, Paula Benefit, who’s racked up a whole lifetime on the taxpayers’ tit – “a poster girl for National’s welfare policies” she called herself when she was appointed to head up NZ’s biggest spending department-- and doesn’t look like stopping any time now."

    “Or is it our current Minister of Finance, Beneficiary Bill, who pulls down a bigger salary than any business would ever pay him, and claims still extra for having "a place of residence" he visits around twice every year?  A man with so many children only a thousand-dollar-a-week taxpayer subsidy is apparently enough to keep the whole brood together.

    “Champion effort that.

    “Or could it be it’s the former Minister of Finance Dodger Rugless, who likes to take advantage of the taxpayers' largesse to swan around on foreign holidays, making sure it’s us who picks up his tab?

    “Or is it one of EnZed’s former ministers or Prime Ministers, one of them who hasn’t been picked up the latest News From the Trough, but who got a taste for things taxpayerish early on and is unable to kick the habit?  One of the former tit-suckers who can't take their mouth from the teat, and who's pulling down all the free travel and perks and the platinum-plated politicians' superannuation scheme that we're all paying for? 

    “What about the former Minister of Wine & Cheese Jonathan Hunt, or former PMs Shipley, Bolger, Palmer, Moore -- or the UN's new pin-up girl Helen Clark? Could one of them be our champion?”

    "Stay tuned for another thrilling episode of Who’s the Biggest Beneficiary?  Brought to you, naturally, by NZ on Air, so you can see more of who you’re paying for.”

    Well, maybe not such great TV – although you would see plenty of red herrings and a lot of scuttling for cover. But high time surely for someone to answer the question.

    And no fear those of you up in the gallery saying these people earn their money.  We all know that's not true. 

    And no fear either saying they need to be paid the salary and perks commensurate with what private employers are paying.  We all know no private employer would pay any of these pillocks for their putative skills and talents -- any employment offered them privately now is offered not because of their well-developed skills at hand-shaking and shucking off responsibility, but only on the basis of the political pull they might bring to a board-room table. (And if you doubt that, then just check out Cactus Kate's recent research on this very question.)

    So come on someone, who's got some hard figures? Who shall we crown NZ's Biggest Beneficiary?

    And do you think we might interest Julie Christie in the idea for a TV programme?

    UPDATE 1: A couple of changes to your scheduled programme. 

    1. John Key – for whom the only test of ethics is ‘will this make me look bad in the Herald’ – has decided just before this afternoon’s Question Time that Beneficiary Bill’s walletectomy of the taxpayer doesn’t quite pass the smell test, but it might do if Bill hands back around $12,000 of what he’s been pulling down. So that takes our early favourite down the ranks a little.
    2. But a late entrant has arrived on the set: Alan Bollocks from the Reserve Bank, who takes more than half-a-million dollars out of taxpayers’ pockets every year -- not to mention the damage he does in his day job.  Could it be we could abolish the Reserve Bank, refit the building with ministerial cells, and just shove all the trough-snuffers in there?   We could save all the salaries and subsidies (and on all that monetary harm) and if we filmed all their goings on in there we could call it Bludger Big Brother.

    UPDATE 2: Bernard Hickey points out that the gap between “public sector” wages and those of the people who pay for them is now greater than ever. This is the only “income gap” we really do need to worry about, and the only one that needs to be reversed.

    UPDATE 3: Cactus Kate suggests the $99-a—night Ibis Hotel for all out-of-Wellington MPs for the three nights they stay in the city every sitting week.  Still sounds far too generous to me, when their salaries are so far above what any of them could earn elsewhere.

    Thursday, 30 July 2009

    NOT PJ: Public Finances

    This week Bernard Darnton looks at what happens when you sup with the devil and ask for seconds.

    _BernardDarnton The media is aflutter with concern for the “right to privacy” of two beneficiaries who chose to whine about their finances in public. The aggrieved pair are “astonished” and “flabbergasted” that Minister for Westie Affairs Paula Bennett trumped their “right to privacy” with “turnabout is fair play.”

    Mses Fuller and Johnston were the stars of a Sunday Herald story histrionically titled “Govt axe destroys dreams.” There are innumerable cases where government axes – or at least sharpened clipboards, suffocating paperwork, and strangulating red tape – do destroy dreams. In some crappier parts of the world the government axes are less metaphorical and more, well, axe-like.

    In this case, however, the dream was the dream of yet more free cash from the government. The axe was a budget decision that there would be minutely less money dished out on education subsidies this year – probably because most of it got spent on basket-weaving and similar nonsense. Bennett’s crime was to inform us that the Sunday Herald’s two heroines were already pulling down about $80,000 between them.

    Welcome to the welfare state: Give a man a fish and he’ll demand chips too.

    Sue Bradford immediately accused Paula Bennett of beneficiary bashing. Mind you, anyone who suggests that it’s not the state’s job to provide free breakfast in bed with extra caviar is accused by Sue Bradford of beneficiary bashing. Listening to her is just extra wear and tear on my eardrums that I can do without.

    Somehow, Annette King has concluded that the financial affairs of Fuller and Johnston are private and should remain secret, even after Fuller and Johnston have published details of their financial woes, alongside suitably sad photographs, in the Sunday Herald and also after King herself had discussed said financial affairs in Parliament.

    Nope. The way that modern democratic socialism works is that thousands of wannabe beneficiaries gang up every election and vote themselves the contents of each other wallets. This system supposes that the contents of everyone’s wallets are of intimate concern to everyone else involved. So it’s a bit bloody rich for the supporters of this scheme to complain when those of us who pay the bills find out where the cash actually goes.

    There is such a thing as the right to privacy but it derives from the right to property. What goes on in my house is my business because it’s my house. But that changes if I invite the Sunday Herald into my house to show them the broken windows and mildew and to have dejected photos taken. And if someone then points out that it’s not as crap as I’d made out I can hardly complain. And if I was using the publicity to try and convince people to chip in and buy me a spa pool I should probably just slink back to where I’d come from.

    The details of my income are private because they’re a purely voluntary arrangement between me and my employer. They don’t concern anyone else. Those of Mses Fuller and Johnston on the other hand (and that of Ms Bennett, for that matter) concern everyone who has their pay packets raided by Inland Revenue to fund our gargantuan welfare state.

    The debate has been framed as a big, bad government picking on a couple of helpless individuals battling to improve themselves. A big, bad government trying to chill the free speech of a couple of citizens who dared to criticise it. In fact, the ones telling this story are the ones trying to make the government bigger and badder.

    If you don’t want the government to tell everyone your income then stop voting for governments that demand to know how much you earn.

    * * Read Bernard Darnton’s column every Thursday here at NOT PC * *