As more and more redundancies are announced, complete silence continues to reign re: the suggestion to revert the tax on redundancy pmts to its 80′s level of 5%.
It’s 39% right now.
A move that would be wildly popular, that would give the Nats something they could point to when the left accuses them of not caring about workers, and a move that would not cost the consolidated fund much at all, yet would make a huge difference to every single person in this position.
A fantastic article in today’s Herald, articulates the case for Maori seats well. Chris Barton writes:
“Why should there be Maori seats?
It’s the Treaty, stupid. Why the Government chose to ignore the Royal Commission’s extensive research and consultation on this matter is difficult to fathom. The Commission concluded there should be three safeguarded seats for Maori – two voted from the Maori electoral roll and one appointed by a mana whenua committee.
Its primary reason was “to give effect to obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi”. General considerations of equity and fairness of representation also came into play, said the Commission, but to a lesser extent.
The provision of three safeguarded seats for Maori is also consistent with the spirit and intent of the Local Government Act 2002, which requires local authorities to establish processes for Maori to contribute to decision making.”
This from the NZ Herald, hardly a pantheon of “whingers” “brown hands” and “lazy, sit on your arse, indoctrinated victimites on welfare”.
The more you think about Kingis demand – “Maori want a guaranteed voice for tangata whenua” the more ridiculous the proposition becomes.
Maori want reward for being here first, they obviously place great importance on ‘coming first’ – (whilst conveniently rejecting the democratic election principle of ‘coming first’ in the Auckland Super City).
But then you have to deal with the claims of racism for just acknowledging every other category maori come first in.
If we are to reward citizen status based on the order of arrival I would like to know what that does to those groups that arrived here say, 8th and 9th . ? according to the Kingis ‘reward’ system new kiwis from say Cambodia may not even receive Health, Education, nor the right to vote…….…what was this called in Sth Africa again?
oh Patrick, Patrick, Patrick, Patrick! I note you ignore the substantive points raised by the article. In what way, do you think you are better qualified, or more informed than, the Royal Commission commissioners who heard over 3500 submissions before making their recommendations? Would you pit your expertise against the following:
Honourable Peter Salmon QC is the Chair of the Royal Commission. Dame Margaret Bazley and David Shand the Commissioners.
Honourable Peter Salmon QC is a retired High Court Judge with a wealth of experience in environmental and resource management law. Hon Peter Salmon is a founding member, as well as the first President, of the Resource Management Law Association and practises as an arbitrator and mediator and in other areas of dispute resolution. In 2004 Hon Peter Salmon was appointed to the United Nations Panel of Arbitrators.
Dame Margaret Bazley has extensive experience in the public service, including being a former Secretary of Transport, former Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Policy and Director-General of Social Welfare. Dame Margaret was appointed Chairperson of the New Zealand Fire Service Commission in 1999 and has recently served as the Commissioner on the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct. Dame Margaret is also on the Waitangi Tribunal.
David Shand has vast international finance experience, working for both the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and he has worked with the OECD on public sector reform issues. Mr Shand has held a number of senior positions in state and federal government in Australia. Mr Shand chaired the recently completed Local Government Rates Inquiry.
Shall I hand you back your shovel, actually no, you are doing a fine job of making a fool of yourself as it is.
How about you read the recommendations. MAORI SEATS WERE IN IT!
Your credibility is officially negative 100. If you had stuck to your argument instead of resorting to low grade attacks as per usual from the right, you may have been able to argue your case more credibly than simply “you dick head.”
“Because National has never and will never hold them, that’s seven seats in Parliament they will never be able to get their mits on”
“The right have always been prepared to judge generally without context being taken into account.”
“why does the right always like to blame and shame”
“The same right wing arguments will fly as they always have, based on hate, based on factual and logical inconsistencies and based on this belief that if I don’t have it no one should. Well guess what boys, sorry to break your parades of conservative vitriol”
“start getting out your dictionaries of hate”
“I don’t appreciate differing views, however if those views are simply hateful, racist and vitriolic splurges, I tend to ignore them.”
“Not once have I said someone is a racist. Not once. I may have labelled their comments racist, but never them personally. Similarly, I don’t believe calling someone right wing is an insult.”
“What segregated kkk-dream world do you live in?”
“the right will only ever be able to respond with personal attacks and racism.”
“Not that those who have made racist, rude, comments”
“Maori aren’t everyone else. We are Tangata Whenua,”
“Asian people have no relevance to this discussion.”
“We have a treaty, asians don’t. Get over it.”
“I am the first to say we need to stop whinging about past injustice and start working towards improving outcomes.”
“Maori on average are the most disadvantaged in our society”
“pakeha responsibility for the inherent disadvantage Maori face”
“at the hands of the British our populations were decimated by pakeha introduced disease that we had no immunities against.”
“70% of paedophiles in the states who are white men”
“I point to the decimation of centuries of civilizations. Egyptians, Romans, Persians and so on. All at the hands of who? Yes thats right.”
“no one but white men. Would that be ok? Would that be representative? I think not”
“Because the White male who has dominated and controlled human society for centuries”
“Heaven forbid other cultures and points of view that somehow come into conflict with western ways of thinking!”
“in Maoridom, the fact that men always sit on the paepae not Women, is something that I am opposed to in that it degrades Women to being somehow lower than men. However cultural shifts take time, change in general takes time.”
KINGI:::::::::The Royal Commission that recommended MMP recommended also that the Parliamentary Maori seats be abolished. Are you suggesting we should implement the recommendations of both these elite bodies. Personally I trust the judgement of Joe Sixpack above any of these intellectuals.
Looks like old Kingi has issues. So if Maori get their three seats Kingi how will they be filled. I suspect you don’t do democracy well, given your comments. My guess is that the three seats would go to those “entitled” or the brown aristocracy for us white fellas. Maori don’t need special privileges or their own seats they need to get rid of the so called leaders that take great delight in telling their people they are victims. Many Maori’s are simply pawns used by the so called elite to feather their own nests and to boost their over inflated egos.
Kingi – the original MMP “Royal Commissioners” advocated that the Maori Seats (for the NZ parliament) be abolished. Do you argue that this recommendation is accepted with equal enthusiasm…or is that somehow different?
Kingi, I’ve just read the Chris Barton op-ed in the Herald and can’t say it’s all that convincing.
He is right … “It’s the Treaty, stupid”. As I’ve just commented though on the original “A Maori Councillor writes” thread the Treaty firmly sets out a clear division between kawanatanga-ship and rangatiratanga-ship.
The Maori explicitly petitioned Queen Victoria for a Governor, who would govern the emerging towns and districts. They knew this Governor would have the civil control of the population. The missionaries had explained it as being like Herod’s governorship of Judea. They knew that the tangata whenua, the Jews, didn’t have civil control but had to defer to the decisions of the Roman governor.
Meanwhile Article 2 enshrines the Chiefs control and authority over their taonga (this is their rangatiratanga-ship).
And Article 3 gives Maori, all Maori, the rights of British subjects. Like the right to stand in an election, and to vote in that election.
The Supercity council is clearly kawanatanga-ship. The Chiefs explicitly signed that away to the Crown. They didn’t want any involvement in it. Given the times I suspect they were glad to be shot of it.
So, it’s the Treaty stupid. The Treaty clearly draws a line between civil control, which was the job of the Crown with no Maori involvement, and chieftainship, which was the Chief’s undisturbed authority over their people, lands, fisheries etc.
That’s what was signed up to. That’s the full meaning and spirit of the Treaty. Maori barracking now for undemocratic representation on city councils is clearly not in the spirit of that Treaty.
Kingi … I see in Chris Barton’s article he refers to the problems with any Mana Whenua seats being reserved for Ngati Whatua and Tainui, and how this rules out Ngapuhi (the largest Maori tribe by population) from representation.
Firmly tongue in cheek … if we want to get all 1840s about this … surely the authentic historical response would be for Ngapuhi to storm the first council meeting, kill the Ngati Whatua and Tainui representatives, eat them, and then take their land/seats?
Or do you think the world has moved on since 1840 and that maybe hanging on to the past isn’t the best approach?
So unless you think there is substance in the accusation that you are a dick head, please address this part of Patrick’s arguement:
Read the Royal Commission terms or reference
I am sure you will find that the terms were so narrow they had no choice but to recommend for Maori seats. Royal commissions work alot like computer simulations: “garbage in, garbage out”. Put the wrong terms of reference in and you get a racist and offensive result.
Unimaginative Nats take the soft option
By ROGER DOUGLAS – The Dominion Post
Last updated 10:05 29/05/2009
OPINION Bill English’s Budget is being financed by deficits. But the real deficit we should be concerned about is the deficit of imagination that both he and John Key are clearly suffering from. They have taken the soft options and decided to borrow and hope.
They managed to redeploy savings of $301 million. Those savings amount to just 0.4 per cent of core Crown expenditure. Michael Cullen increased spending by $18 billion, and all Mr English could find was a mere $301m?
By focusing on the deficit, they have been able to trumpet meagre savings at the fringes. But the deficit is a smoke and mirrors exercise to enable National to avoid confronting the real issues. The Budget deficit is one-third the level it was in 1984. Back then, it took us three years to get back to surplus. Under Mr English’s leadership, it will take 11 years.
They’ve given up on fiscal prudence. They have used the deficit to renege on tax cuts. The cost of their tax cuts was $1b a year. Core Crown expenditure is $65b. All they needed to do to deliver the tax cuts was find 1.5 per cent of Government spending to cut. But they failed. It is now obvious that there is only one party in Parliament willing to cut taxes.
Their lack of imagination is even more obvious when we look at the home insulation scheme. They’re locked into the mindset that, if something is good, the Government must provide it. They had to throw money at home insulation, rather than, say, requiring insulation information to be recorded on every Lim report. This would ensure that buyers and sellers knew the quality of insulation, incentivising homeowners to upgrade.
The real concern, though, is in health, education and welfare. National have jumped on the bandwagon, increasing health spending by about 6 per cent in real terms. We shovel money into the bureaucracy, and hope like hell that it eventually reaches people in the form of decent education, healthcare and welfare. This makes the bureaucrat all powerful. He decides where your child is educated; he decides whether your medical treatment will go ahead; he decides what level of income assistance you require.
If National were serious about setting New Zealand up for prosperity, it would leave the money with those who earned it. ACT would encourage them to buy their own education, health cover and insurance against risks such as job loss, accidents and illness. This would ensure that people had choice over their lives, and ensure costs stayed down as firms were forced to compete for business.
But National have given up. They’ve given up on tax cuts, on personal responsibility, and on prosperity.
* Sir Roger Douglas is an ACT MP and former finance minister.
“I am sure you will find that the terms were so narrow they had no choice but to recommend for Maori seats”
IMO you’re bang on !. The Royal Commission terms of reference state:
“what changes to current legislation (consistent with the purposes and principles of local
government as described in the Local Government Act 2002) are considered desirable to
achieve or support the achievement of the inquiry’s objectives; and…
what…governance,…. and institutional arrangements are required to ensure …..to support and enhance—the ability of the Auckland region to respond …. cultural, and social challenges .
Exclusions from inquiry and scope of recommendations
But We declare that you are not, under this Our Commission, to inquire into the following matters:
(a) the purposes and principles of local government as described in the Local Government Act 2002:”
Which of course leads to the LGA 2002
“Treaty of Waitangi. In order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and to maintain and improve opportunities for Maori to contribute to local government decision-making processes, Parts 2 and 6 provide principles and requirements for local authorities that are intended to facilitate participation by Maori in local authority decision-making processes”
Not only did the Labour Government restrict the Royal Commission to the Local Government Act 2002, They Royal Commission also consulted separately with maori
and the seperatist seats were actively pre-empted at the outset;
“If new bodies or forums were created as part of any restructuring of Auckland’s governance,
Māori may wish to have specific representation on these bodies. If so, this is likely to lead to
further issues. For example
• How should Māori representatives be appointed/elected?
• Should a set number of Māori representatives be drawn from each of the iwi whose
rohe fall within the Auckland region? If so, how many people should represent each
• What role should urban Māori have in any representation?
• Should a pan-tribal organisation (such as the Mana Whenua Forum) have a part to play?“
The entire thing was a set up. The Commission had the bloody cheek to claim: “the Commission is completely independent from both central and local government” – yeah right
As more and more redundancies are announced, complete silence continues to reign re: the suggestion to revert the tax on redundancy pmts to its 80’s level of 5%.
It’s 39% right now.
Agree totally. Or what about making them tax free altogether? If the person stepped quickly into a decent-paying job they’d have to declare their redundancy payout at the end of that tax year and pay an appropriate level of tax on it according to their overall income. If they had to eke out a living using their redundancy while looking for a job, their annual income falls and their liability for tax consequently reduces.
As you say, reid, it basically costs the government next to nothing.
As Viking2 notes above, Sir Roger Douglas points out – correctly IMO – that they’ve taken the easy way out and funneled even more money into inefficient bureaucracies rather than insisting on real efficiency gains (i.e. not cuts to services). Ironically, Peter Conway of the CTU also proffers some valid criticisms, particularly the lack of focus on job creation and training.
English, remember, is a creature of Treasury, and Treasury are notoriously unimaginative. They’re also bureaucrats themselves, so it simply never occurs to them to cut bureaucracy.
Perhaps you should try and get your excellent idea debated at the next Nats conference, which might force English to pay attention to something other than the whispers of his Treasury handlers.
i wonder what dept in the maori party kingi works in, opps i know THE FUCKEN BIG CHIP ON THE SHOULDER dept and what makes me laugh KINGI most working white honkies/rednecks/pakehas (READ WORKING )kingi they dont give a fuck about your worries, kingi and stop whinning kingi remember you might think you are a bright poster kingi but if your power cord isnt plugged in you are just as dim as the rest of us posters