Chapter 8: Dabbling in Politics

In the late '70s I was encouraged to join the Sydenham branch of the National Party. Sydenham was a Labour stronghold the seat held for years by Norman Kirk then subsequently by his son John Kirk.

Our party always struggled to find a good enough candidate to stand against him so one year (1981 I think) – by this time I had become Chairman of the Branch and I said that if no one better was nominated by close of nominations, I was not going to be faced with having no candidate so would stand myself.

So I stood on the platform of 'Sykes for Sydenham',

I was proudly one of 'Rob's Mob'.

I certainly recall standing on street corners – yes we still did that– arguing for National Super to be a pay as you go system, entitling everyone from 60 years of age to receive (without any kind of means testing – thus removing a large administration cost) 80% of the average wage.

I argued for this strenuously and National were subsequently elected and the policy introduced. . As to be expected, being in Sydenham, I did not get elected.

Pity that !

But now that I am fully retired (yeah right) I could live on 80% of the average wage, but struggle now that it has been slashed to 50% of the statutory minimum wage and not even payable till 65.

In my opinion both major parties have been responsible for this sheer dereliction of duty!

Some years later I did manage to spend a couple of hours or so going over this discussion document though with our local electorate MP.

The document follows in its entirety .

Discussion Document

As a former electorate Chairman and Parliamentary Candidate I could no longer even vote National largely because of the whole heap of broken promises, not to say almost 'criminal' actions.

Although it used to be said that the only thing wrong with New Zealand was nine years of a Labour Government, we are certainly no better, probably much worse.

I would appreciate the opportunity to present my views, hopefully enter into 'meaningful dialogue' and perhaps eventually right some of the obvious wrongs.

Index

National Super

Education

Electricity

Transport/Traffic

oOo

NATIONAL SUPER. In 1981, as the National Candidate, I stood on street corners (quite literally) expounding the virtues of National Super. These were clearly defined as

Being a 'Pay as you go scheme' paid out of general taxation in recognition of years of hard work older people had already contributed to the country.

Being Paid to ALL N.Z. Citizens from the age of 60 until death.

Being paid at the rate of 80% of the average weekly wage

Being a RIGHT, not subject to the whim of Public Servants

Being regarded as income and therefore taxed along with any other income.

You will be aware that the Labour Party at the time was promoting their scheme, which (like the more modern Kiwisaver) required both employers and employees to contribute to the NZ Super Fund, which the Government would then invest on the NZ Stock Exchange.

This very cleverly meant that after some ten years or so the Government would own at least 51% of EVERY major public company in NZ.

This was seen as 'Nationalisation' by stealth and was abhorrent to many. Not that nationalisation is necessarily bad (see Page 4 – Electricity).

The current Kiwisaver is similar but somewhat softened by having several Kiwisaver suppliers 'competing' to place funds and the danger of 'the Government owing everything' is no longer such a real threat.

It is, however, still, of course, yet more indirect (i.e. hidden) taxation.

HOWEVER.

What has happened now is that whereas the qualifying age of 60 was designed to encourage people to properly retire and thus effectively create new jobs by allowing younger people to 'move up', this was scrapped and the age made 65.

How many new jobs this cost can never be known neither can the hardship of the retirees effected be properly estimated. It is interesting to note that France is now planning on reducing the qualifying age to 62 for the very reasons espoused above.

80% of the average wage was designed to be enough to live on, again to allow proper retirement and no doubt create more jobs 'at the bottom end'. So what have we done now? Screwed the rate down to the extent that everyone must now 'work till we drop', just to pay living expenses.

What a way to treat our Senior Citizens.

It also seems that Public Servants are once again tasked with the job of making life as hard as possible for older folk.

In my own case every year I am quite viciously attacked in an attempt to reduce my meagre income – which although now in my 70's am still having to work part time to supplement.

Would you not agree that this really is nothing more or less than state sanctioned elder abuse?

The probing, interfering questions, the unreasonableness are, quite frankly absurd.

For example I had managed to put a little money aside and earned some $20 interest. They demanded that I get the bank to 'verify' this – the bank required (quite reasonably I feel) the sum of $45 to dig out the figures to do so. Eventually the bureaucrats accepted that access to my IRD figures would suffice.

But hang on a minute, I thought that Inland Revenue dealings were sacrosanct. It consider this to be most unreasonable.

No doubt I shall have this fight again later this year.

Mind you now that the government is happy for all govt departments to have direct access to all citizens IRD files then it seems complaining is pretty pointless. I am also most concerned at the 'Politics of Envy' exhibited even within our own region. If one lives in Thames, Tairua or Whangamata a so called 'Accommodation Supplement' can be claimed.

However if you live in Pauanui (which I had to in order to work) it is said that 'if you can afford to live in Pauanui you can afford to pay the rent' and the Supplement is capped at a much lower figure.

I now live in Tairua, despite the fact that some 60% of my super now goes on rent!

I would appreciate your comments on this terribly unfair attitude.

Education

The NOVAPAY disaster is a classic case of 'Big Brother Interference'.

It is well accepted that it costs some $5000 per year to educate each child, and also that there are many good NZ written and supported payroll programs (Ace, Vip etc immediately spring to mind) each of which cope 'magnificently' with up to say 500 employees.

Why on earth does the Education Dept. not simply pay each school the $5000 per pupil and let them organise their own affairs, including payrolls?

There is, in my view, no need for the present shambles to exist.

At the local level I am appalled at the Dept. requiring a school to re enrol what is simply a young thug who, in reality should be in what is euphemistically called a 'juvenile correctional establishment'.

They then provide money as a bribe to the school. To take him back. What nonsense !!

Surely any available money should go either to the pupils with a good attendance record or good achievement or even good effort – but not thrown at a young criminal.

Your comments would be appreciated.

Electricity

In my younger days I was part of the electricity supply industry at which time the two most important things were:

a. Security of Supply

i.e. Having sufficient 'spinning reserve' to cope with unexpected eventualities, having lines running at typically half their maximum capacity and generally following 'good housekeeping' practices.

b. Keeping costs to an Absolute Minimum.

i.e. being well aware that cost of electricity has a substantial impact on every New Zealander, not only directly inasmuch as 'home usage' but even more so as a business cost which ends up in the overall price of goods. Whilst it used to be thought that inflation was 'too much money chasing too few goods' it is now realised, instead to be a direct result of governmental charges, in particular that most insidious of 'hidden taxation'. This puts the selling price of all goods up and creates immense pressure for wage rises. It was therefore crucial that pricing be kept to an absolute minimum.

But what happens now !!!

After Max Bradford (who, as a former President of the Manufacturers Federation should have known better) set out to 'free up the industry' – yeah right, the industry has well and truly gone to the dogs, effectively allowing the government to 'screw the consumer' with yet another form of indirect (i.e. hidden) taxation, the price rising astronomically ever since.

As I understand it the 'players' now compete, not as one would expect to keep prices as low as possible, but to drive profitability up as much as possible. When the former Meremere Power Station (correct name – Mercer Steam Plant), was sold it was conditional on its not being used to generate electricity ever again in case it became a competitor and might in some way hold prices down. (Although as a coal fired 'base load station' with a history of unreliability I am not quite sure how.)

I would have thought that this would contravene something in the Trade Practices Act. Mind you demolishing of standby power stations, keeping brand new stations 'out of service' and similar questionable tactics all seem to be done in order to keep prices (i.e. profitability) sky high.

For example when I came up here from Christchurch some ten years ago I was paying $80 per month for electricity, (still an inordinately high amount) but now am required to pay $350 per month. All this with a less than 25% increase in National Super. It is no wonder so many of us are in such dire straits. I recently learned that Transpower (i.e. the industry arm responsible for simply transmitting electricity throughout the country) after paying all its costs, loans etc is still 'levying' (my word is screwing) every single consumer for an extra $250 per annum each. Surely this cannot be allowed to continue.

Although not a fan of industry Nationalisation, on this occasion it does seem to me to be by far the lesser of two evils. The current fragmentation means there really is no-one truly accountable for the shambles at present existing, there is little if any control over price gouging as present carried out, and, of course, the consumer as such really is just a downtrodden pawn. Any concept of supplying a service has been replaced by a 'screw the consumer' attitude. I am appalled. You ?

Transport

This is where the vitriol really starts to flow and the language could even be termed 'abusive'. I make no apology for this as the crimes committed against the citizens of the country in the terms of this portfolio could be termed horrendous!

Firstly, the National Roads Board Act (1954) required ALL income derived from (subsequently) long suffering motorists was to be vested in the NRB for the good of said MOTORISTS. In addition the government would contribute an additional 25% as its 'social contribution'. So what happens now ? The government steals all the money and then drips some of it back to where it rightfully all belonged in the first place.

In addition so much is siphoned off beforehand this must be regarded as a crime. For example some $750 million is taken just in vehicle licensing fees. As a part of this – when putting a new vehicle on the road there is a penalty tax demanded – but hey this is not refunded when the vehicle has reached the end of its useful life and is taken off the road again. Is this fair or reasonable? I suggest not.

I doubt very much if there is any justification for arbitrary speed limits, WOF exams, or even random breath testing.

All of which severely impinging on the rights of NZ citizens.

The old bogey of 'safety' is likely to be shouted but in reality this is just platitudinous claptrap.

But even if political correctness means that these regimes cannot be simply killed then there are two things that can and should (in my opinion) be done to improve the situation somewhat.

Firstly the level of infringement fees has to be seriously looked at.

With most being at least twice that any reasonable man would agree to. $300 for no flag on a trailer outboard motor for example! So called speeding infringements are also absolutely outrageous! To say nothing of WOF, registration and similar so called offences. It is usually acknowledged that any law that automatically criminalises 80% (or more) of the population is bad law. These fees are also so high that, for many citizens, having to pay them simply puts off further away the day when they are able to afford, repairs, re licensing etc.

The 'system' could be significantly improved if the police should simply be required to have 'just cause to suspect' and not be permitted to carry our random checks, embark of what the courts describe as 'fishing expeditions', and should have to treat motorists in the same way as they are supposed to do with the general population.

Originally there was some sympathy for the officer who was attacked with a machete. However this quickly evaporated once it was discovered that instead of stopping the car because it was stolen (which would have met the 'just cause to suspect' criteria) he stopped it out of sheer bloody mindedness.

A recent officer attack seems to be in similar vein. When will they ever learn?

As an example I quote the occasion when a truly drunk driver had been reported as 'weaving all over the road' and being a danger to other motorists (and the general public) – he went on to actually kill. When reported to the police, their response was that they would prefer to check thousands of 'ordinary' drivers, not waste resources dealing with one. I ask you!! happily infringing on civil liberties of thousands instead of dealing with a genuine criminal.

Backed by what can only be called 'those dickheads in Wellington' they now regard every motorist as a potential (or even actual) criminal.

I suspect the reality is that when Colin McLaughlan decided to merge the Police and Ministry of Transport this gave licence to the Police to act in this way and enabled the very worse side of their characters to come to the fore.

This really has to stop.

By all means if we are going to keep this highly oppressive regime in operation then at least punish the crime – not the possibility of some so called crime perhaps being committed sometime in the future.

Speaking personally I have no doubt that the detestation, or even outright hatred of the police which some people end up carrying throughout their lifetime is a direct result of this stupid police attitude.

I now wish to comment on other related philosophical matters.

As far as excessive fuel and other costs are concerned this too directly attributable to this government.

Much is made of oil company profits but in reality most motorists costs are directly attributable to those dickheads in Wellington.

Even though virtually all consumables have a transport element in their costs this government seems to take the attitude that all motorists should be punished (severely) just for being on the road!

What nonsense!

In my own case when I came up here some 10 years ago, road user charges for my van were $18 per 1000 km (still absurdly high) but now, only 10 years later under this government they are now $60 per 1000 km. Six times the price !!!!

This in addition to the actual greatly increased diesel price.

Quite frankly this is ridiculous.

Now we come to the piece d' resistance.

I could NEVER vote for someone who voted in parliament to raise the 'driving' age.

And the only reason I voted for you personally was that you had not been tarnished with that brush. If Sandra had still been the local candidate NEVER as she was one to vote for this most ridiculous change.

I also consider learning to drive to be much akin to learning to swim – that is as children grow up it is just something they are taught (or learn). Once they go to high school they should get a lifetime licence.

Consider the analogy of a river gently flowing to the sea.

Once these dickheads decide to dam (or should a better word perhaps be damn) the river, hold the water back for as long as possible then finally let it go when forced to do so, it is any wonder that stupid things happen.

It could be seen to be a self fulfilling prophesy – you assume that teenagers only drive to misbehave, and lo and behold, having held them back so unreasonably long that is quite often just what happens.

All the fault of those dickheads in Wellington.

So thus with drivers. How on earth can anyone say 'you must not even learn to drive until you are 16 !' and even then what used to be available to us at 15 cannot be achieved until 18 or so (after jumping through all sorts of hoops) – again deliberately reducing employment opportunities for the young.

Any hand wringing over youth unemployment is entirely unjustified given my comments earlier

and, of course, what I am saying here.

To emphasise – my son had a chance of (admittedly part time) employment, some 6 k away from home – he could easily and safely have driven there and home again, but those dickheads said to me 'no you will have to take an hour off work drive home (20k) take him to his work, then go back to your own job!'

This to be repeated at the end of day. Despite the fact that my loss of income would probably not have been met by his earnings, and that a total of 12k has suddenly become 50k, this is what they required!! What utter nonsense.

The whole graduated licensing regime is a complete and utter disaster. How many people it keeps employed I cannot hope to imagine.

Again using a personal perspective, my son obtained his Learner's Licence the day after his 16th birthday (whereas I had obtained my FULL licence at 15), then as encouraged he logged 130 hrs. of 'supervised driving' which equates to some 5000 km, (and over $1000 in fuel cost), some country driving, (gravel roads etc), some motorway driving, (in and out of Auckland on many occasions), long distances (sometimes towing a caravan or trailer), and generally making up for lost time.

He now has his restricted licence which is marginally more useful, but I still am really annoyed that these dickheads take the view that 'new drivers' only drive to misbehave.

I repeat my scenario above about the river flowing. They only misbehave because their normal progression has been so severely held back.

These dickheads seem determined to reduce employment opportunities for the young, instil in them what is probably a lifelong hatred of the police, and generally treat all drivers as either potential or actual criminals. Considering we used to regard ourselves as a broad spectrum party, standing up for the rights of the individual we have certainly now fallen well short.

We really must consider the punitive cost regime too. $100 for what is euphemistically called a 'learners licence', in reality simply 'permission to learn', another $130 or so to sit for a restricted license, another $80 per test too!! Is this fair or reasonable? I suggest not. In my view a 'licence to learn' should be available (at no charge) on application, regardless of age, it should automatically become a restricted license once the person goes to high school, and then after a test at say 15 becomes a full license. I am yet to be convinced that the current oppressive regime has any advantages whatsoever, to anyone.

oOo

Finally, a word about our insidious hidden taxation – not well understood by many people and kept well and truly under wraps by politicians.

The average person pays income tax at over 30% , then despite an absolute guarantee that GST would never be levied above 10%, it is now charged at 15%, fuel cost is 50% pure taxation (and also goes into prices of everything). Electricity prices are largely hidden taxation, and encouraging

private companies to further price gouge is quite frankly utterly unacceptable. The argument of competition is quite ridiculous.

The reality is that we all spend well over 80% of any income on hidden taxation. An appalling situation.

oOo

I welcome the opportunity to present my views, I do realise that at as backbench MP (even a government one) your influence is somewhat limited (and likely to me more so as an opposition one), but the attitude, arrogance and general unwillingness to correct obvious wrongs has become the hallmark of the current administration..naturally I could never ever vote National again. As for my electorate candidate vote I reserve judgement.

oOo One of his comments was 'I wish we had you in parliament now'!!

but back to the story