Category: imported_weekly
Last week the National and Labour Party leaders gave their State of the Nation addresses. Squaring off in the first bout of the contest that will end on election night, it was disturbing to see that neither dwelt on the urgent need to dramatically reduce government spending. In spite of the government now having to borrow $300 million a week to cover its spending commitments both leaders focused mainly on their plans to raise extra cash. For Labour it was tax increases for the rich. For National it was asset sales.
A modern day extension of biculturalism is multiculturalism, the notion that many cultures can exist side by side within a society. This is in contrast to the more traditional belief that a nation can only function cohesively if the different groups within adapt to the cultural values of the society at large.
As we step into election year, it is surely time to take stock of what the National Party said it would do, and what it has actually done.
With the general election now less than 12 months away it is time to reflect on whether the National Government has lived up to expectations in the first two years of its term.
The National Party has a problem, thanks to their list MP Christopher Finlayson. He no doubt promised his Caucus colleagues that he could deliver on a bill to replace Labour’s Foreshore and Seabed Act that would satisfy the Maori Party’s desire to address perceived injustices in the Act and in a manner acceptable to National’s voting constituency. He would have persuaded them that with the help of John Key’s assurances that non-Maori have nothing to fear from the changes, a public backlash could be avoided.
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter”.- Martin Luther King
Maori protest action has created a pall over the Far North community of Taipa. It’s the one that is in the news at the moment, but everywhere Maori activists have been allowed by the authorities to take the law into their own hands, the community has been forced to suffer the consequences. Invariably, the protesters bully and intimidate local residents, making their lives a misery. Fuelled by the government’s proposed foreshore and seabed law, which would see Maori gain ownership of vast tracts of New Zealand’s coastline, such radical protest action may well become commonplace. If it is not nipped in the bud, locals will be denied the right to the peaceful enjoyment of their community through constant harassment and threats from Maori sovereignty activists, and local businesses will bear the financial cost.
In his iconic book “Free to Choose”, Milton Friedman explained the strategy used by many governments when they want to pass legislation that will benefit a minority of citizens at the expense of the majority: “When a special interest seeks benefits through highly visible legislation, it must not only clothe its appeal in the rhetoric of the general interest, it must persuade a significant segment of disinterested persons that its appeal has merit. Legislation recognised as naked self-interest will seldom be adopted”.
“Conventional politicians ignore structural reform because they think they are in power to please people, and pleasing people does not involve making them face the hard questions. They use the latest polls to fine-tune their image and their policies, in order to achieve better results in the next poll. In other words, their aim is really to be in perpetual power. Their adherence to policies which focus on their immediate problems rather than the country’s future opportunities, brings accumulating difficulties. It becomes increasingly clear to people that the problems have not been solved and that opportunities have been thrown away. And so, such governments are voted out.”
“A discussion document released today said the Government preferred to declare the foreshore to be public domain, but reassert the right of Maori to seek modified customary title through the courts. Mr Key said the public domain concept was a pragmatic way to heal a ‘weeping sore’, but if there was not wide support then the current law could remain in place. The intent here is to put this issue to bed in a satisfactory way to the bulk of New Zealanders...” - NZ Press Association, March 31 2010
Loading ...
