Answer the Question Auchinvole

Last Wednesday a friend and I stopped in at the National Party tent at the A&P Show to give them a rark up over their actions around the anti-smacking law. We spoke with newcomer, list MP Michael Woodhouse and Chris Auchinvole, MP for the West Coast. Woodhouse has a good grasp on ACC but we spoke primarily with Auchinvole about the smacking issue. Auchinvole stated that the reason National didn't support ACT MP John Boscawen's bill to amend the law to allow correctional smacking with the hand only, was that the bill would bring about an incredible invasion of family privacy. Boscawen's bill is essentially the same as the bill put forward by National MP Chester Borrows in Feb 2007 which did not pass, and Auchinvole claimed that Borrows had said that it was "verbatim". He railed against the bill as he stated that it specified down to the most intricate level, the specifics of the legitimate use of reasonable force by parents upon their children. However if he had taken the trouble to read and understand the bill he would know that while it is slightly more complicated, it is far from unenforceable or a massive breach of family privacy. Instead it specifies a few things that parents must and must not do, while at the same time altering the law to permit the use of reasonable force for the purpose of correction.

However on 20 Feb 07 Chester Borrows stated that “The full National Party caucus supports my amendments". So why would Auchinvole give his support for the amendment in 2007 when in the opposition but now oppose the amendment in 2009 when he is comfortably in government. Auchinvole and the rest of the National party were happy to support this substantial amendment to Sue Bradford's anti-family bill when they were in opposition, as this was an opportunity for them to be seen to be for the people. But in 2009, a year after they formed the new government, here's a government MP claiming that this same bill is a waste of time. The worst thing about it was that Auchinvole absolutely refused to acknowledge that the current law meant that a correctional smack was a criminal offence. Instead he repeated his statement that "parents can give their children a smack", but when I pressed him as to the legality of this action, he neither confirmed nor denied, but simply refused to answer. I asked him several times but each time he avoided the question. Eventually I told him, "I think it's a criminal offence that you ask an MP a question and he refuses to answer you". Obviously this was a play on the law we were discussing which makes a correctional smack a criminal offence. Chris asked me if I was calling him a criminal, however this was simply an attempt at side-stepping my real accusation. Eventually he played the get out of jail free card, telling me that I was being rude and offensive and that our conversation was over. I don't know how these people get their jobs, but when a 66yr-old representative in Government can't give you a straight answer to a fair question, there's something seriously wrong.

Motivation of Govt. Advertising Questioned

An article over at MercartorNet takes a look at Government advertising in the States - is it aimed at informing, or controlling?

Mornings on radio in the United States are filled with advertising. From the time we wake up until the time we fall asleep, it seems the advertising never ends. The jingles, catchy and appealing, sometimes want you to adopt a child or to pony up for National Parks. Sometimes they pressure you to wear a seat belt or to use a booster seat (4.9 is the magic age for using a booster seat -- according to the ad brought to us by the Department of Transportation). For its part, the Department of Health and Human Services wants us to adopt a teen. And so on, and so on…

Of course, they are all good ads with clever jingles and cute lines. At least they seem that way the first few times you hear them. And, obviously, listening to such ads is the price we pay for hearing the news or the music, or whatever the radio is offering. What is surprising, though, is the reversal that has taken place in radio sponsorship. Once the domain of private enterprise, it is now increasingly becoming the voice of government. Our own tax money is put to work to convince us of something politicians and bureaucrats think we ought to do...

...Once again, the messages do promote good causes. We all agree that people can eat too much or guzzle too much gas. And it is certainly a good thing to adopt a teen. But, what are the ads really selling? Why should citizens be urged to use more services which make them more dependent on Uber government? What is the real goal? To have us grateful for all the hovering government? Is this an effort to have federal and state governments dispense all goodies to a grateful populace? To me, that type of government has an overreaching, imperial ring, like the rule of the Caesars or Louis XVI or Czarist Russia.

Click here to continue reading.

Bad Govt. Department Just Got Better

The Families Commission is another one of those superfluous government departments which sticks a dirty great suction hose into the Government's slush fund of tax-payer dollars, and delivers relatively very little. Not only this, but the commission is necessarily obsolete, seeing as our country currently has the laws in place that necessary to ensure the well-being of families. However dark, foreboding clouds sometimes have a silver-lining...

Family First NZ is welcoming the appointment of child advocate Christine Rankin and Parents Inc’s Bruce Pilbrow as Families Commissioners. - Press Release, 12 May 2009

Sue Bradford is not happy however, as Christine Rankin and Bruce Pilbrow are pro-family, and opposed to unnecessary government intrusion into family. She complained on her Twitter, page,

Shocked by news Christine Rankin has been appointed a Families Commissioner - major threat to their good work, about to do media release.

Hahaha. I don't like the Families Commission, but I like Christine Rankin on the Families Commission!

It looks like Stuff's political editor Colin Espiner is upset too, as he has the spade out, attempting to dig dirt on Christine in his article by making an amateur lists of bullet-points which he seems to believe are reasons why she should not have been appointed.

Hat tip: Big News

NZ Needs a School Voucher System

...for the same reason that ACC should be sold to the private sector or shut down, and compulsory health-insurance through private firms be implemented.  Below is an excerpt from Dr. Muriel Newman's latest article for the New Zealand Centre for Political Research entitled, Time to Modernise Education...

"We believe that the growing role that government has played in financing and administering schooling has led not only to enormous waste of taxpayers’ money but also to a far poorer educational system than would have developed had voluntary cooperation continued to play a larger role." - Milton and Rose Friedman, “Free to Choose”.

It is 193 years since the first school opened its doors in New Zealand. On August 12th, 1816 Thomas Kendall established a missionary school for 33 pupils at Rangihoua in the northern Bay of Islands.[1] Seven years later in 1923 a second missionary school was opened near the Stone Store in Kerikeri, and this time adult students were permitted.

As New Zealand’s settler population increased, education flourished. Those early schools were private enterprises, run largely by the churches. It wasn’t until 1852, when the Constitution Act established the provinces that councils began to assume responsibility for education.[2] By 1867 schools were spread throughout the country, including secondary colleges in the major population centres. There were even plans for a University.

However, in 1877 the Education Act changed the face of schooling in New Zealand, with responsibility for education passing onto central government through the imposition of a national system of “free, compulsory, and secular” education. This move effectively socialised education in New Zealand, with the result that for the last 142 years, the government has effectively been responsible for the funding, regulation, and delivery of primary and secondary education services in this country. The problem is, however – as Milton and Rose Friedman pointed out in their opening quote - that whenever a monopoly provider is protected from competition, the incentives for improving services, increasing quality, lifting productivity, innovating, or minimising costs are either very weak or altogether absent.

Click here to continue reading this excellent article

An education-voucher system is the obvious step ahead if the Government hopes to combat New Zealand's bleak academic horizon. Rather than forcing parents to effectively pay twice for their child's education if they opt for a private-school, a school-voucher system would enable the parents to direct the child-specific government funding to the school of their choice, be it a state school or a private school. Confronted with a host of higher-performing private schools, it would quickly become evident that there was no longer any need for the State to run any primary/secondary educational institutions.

Dr. Muriel Newman was a founding member of the ACT Party, and served from 1996 - 2005 as a Member of Parliament. She now runs the New Zealand Centre for Political Research (NZCPR), a high-profile conservative think-tank which embraces economic liberalism.

NZ: Emergency Contraceptives Free + No Prescription Required

On Friday I was at the pharmacy, picking up some outrageously expensive antibiotics. I had just been on the dentist's chair and was standing at the counter waiting for the girl in the white lab-coat to turn around and notice me. The right side of my face was pretty numb, and it was almost closing time. The phone rang and the girl in the white lab-coat went to answer it. I stood resting on one leg, leaning on the counter, flicking my credit-card with thumb and forefinger.

I glanced around the room; a fairly typical chemist's. It was with disbelief that my eyes lighted on a big brown poster hung in a prominent position behind the counter. It read "Emergency contraception available here without prescription". I had heard that this was the case; that contraception could be had without first getting approval from one's doctor, however it was a shock to see it promoted like this. I am not opposed to contraception - unless that contraception is abortifacient (pronounce: abort-if-a-shent). Abortifacient contraceptives are ones that do not merely prevent conception, they in fact destroy a young life.

Emergency contraception differs from other forms of contraception in that it is taken "the morning after", and is intended to prevent the implantation of the embryo in the womb. However in many cases the sperm and the egg have already fused, creating a new embryo: biologically speaking, a new life has begun - a child with separate DNA from its mother. Therefore in many cases, emergency contraception is simply a polite if deceptive way of saying "early abortion".

Incredible to think that a little girl who needs a panadol at school must have her parent's permission, is allowed to be handed an emergency contraceptive pill over the counter without her parent's or her doctor's permission or notice. Maxim Institute summarises the hypocrisy:

In New Zealand, parents must be consulted and their permission sought before their child can be given a Panadol at school. However, a young girl can have an abortion without her parents ever knowing, let alone giving their permission.
Section 38 of the Care of Children Act 2004 says that a girl of any age can give consent to an abortion and that consent operates as if it were given by her parents. Therefore, her parents need never know that their daughter is having such a procedure."
- Maxim Institute

Believe it or not, New Zealand's abortion law does not specify the minimum age at which a girl can have an abortion - or the minimum age at which a girl can have an abortion without her parent's permission or notification. New Zealand's government wants abortions to take place. Why else would they take such extreme measures to enable them to go ahead?

Unsurprisingly then, the fully-government-subsidised and often abortifacient pills are promoted to women of all ages, and every attempt is made to ensure that the pills make it into the hands of those who want them.

What other medication can you get for free - and with no prescription?

$%@#!

Lollies: Not Our Future

The Government has been running the Not Our Future campaign since 2006. It is a campaign especially targetted at youth, which stars celebrities giving youth good reasons why they should stop smoking - or never start. It consists of bus-stop adverts and... yes, you guessed it, another expensive-looking Flash website. I haven't been able to dig up any information regarding how much the Government is spending on this campaign, but it must be well into the millions of tax-payer's dollars.

Just like drinking coffee, sniffing glue and eating lollies, smoking - as we all know, is damaging to our health. Do we need the Govenment to spend our money to tell us this? All of the things I've just mentioned can be used in moderation and for their intended purpose, with minimal detriment to one's health. Staying up late at night can also be harmful to your health. Perhaps the Government should introduce legislation on when we sleep, and for how long. Exemptions could be made for people working night-shifts, but there would be monthly checks done to make sure that people were not taking advantage of this clause.

They seem to have a problem with cigarettes being sold next to the lollies (sweets). But where's the concern about lollies being sold next to the cigarettes?

This is a post I've had in the pipeline for a while. I could rave on for ages, but who likes to read long, drawn-out raves on random people's blogs? Not me!

Zimbabweans Resort to Bartering

The situation in Zimbabwe is deteriorating rapidly. I can't understand why everyone seems to have a lot to say about it, but nothing is being done, and the citizens of that country are just trying to make it til tomorrow. Below is an article that Lyd forwarded to me,

"I popped out for a Z$25,000 loaf of bread last Friday. It had gone up to Z$30,000 dollars. I ran home for the extra, ran back to the shop - and the price of my loaf had risen to Z$44,000. That's life in Zimbabwe today - or at least it was, until this week when our government took bold and decisive action to reduce the inflatory spiral, and predictably everything got even worse straight away. Perhaps alarmed by the forecasts of doom issuing from the lips of American ambassadors and others, the government decided that the simplest way to cut prices was to... well, cut prices. An order went out to all manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers to slash their prices by half. Any who showed the slightest reluctance to do so were visited by the Green Bombers - young graduates from the Zanu-PF terror camps whose economic arguments are enforced with a smack on the head with a stout stick. Those shops that obeyed the edict and reduced their prices were invaded by fervent shoppers, and the result was chaos, with many businesses threatening to close their doors for the rest of the week at least, if not for good. And the end result? Where it worked best, where prices were cut by a genuine 50 per cent, the government succeeded in reducing the cost of living to almost exactly what it was 10 days ago..."

Make sure to read the rest of the article here at www.thefirstpost.co.uk

The UN should go in and burn Robert Mugabe's playhouse down.

Taxpayer-Funded Humanist Propaganda

At a community centre in Christchurch yesterday, I found a display of pamphlets on a stand. Produced by the Ministry of Health, there are four pamphlets in the series, and they are entitled Feeling Good, Good Communications, Grief and Loss and Anger, Conflict, Bullying. The Anger and Communications pamphlets are not that bad. However, tax-payer's dollars should not be used to produce the politically correct drivel which is contained in other two. That's not to say that they have no worth at all, but they will not ultimately help people who need the help that the pamphlets appear to be offering. Flicking through the pages of these snazzy, upbeat tri-fold pamphlets, I was surprised to find that they were published in 1994. If these are fourteen years old, I would hate to see a revised 2008 version. Below are a few excerpts from the pamplets, with my comments in italics - will try to keep them brief!

Feeling Good Pamphlet

Do you want to feel happy? Do you want to have an inner strength that no one can take away from you? Then try some of the following ...If you have negative thoughts, catch yourself and turn the thoughts around."

Negative thoughts are important - simply ignoring them because they are negative is foolish.

Encouraging and Praising yourself: You don’t have to wait for someone else to give you praise and encouragement - you can do it yourself..."

Let another man praise you, and not your own mouth - Proverbs 27:2

Accepting yourself: It’s natural to like some things about yourself more than others. Try to accept yourself - both the good things, and the points you don’t feel happy about..."

No, if there are problems in your life, simply accepting them will not help you one iota. You need to work at solving the problems, and accept suggestions and criticisms from friends and family

Expressing yourself: People sometimes think their feelings are either “good” or “bad”. For example, being happy is good, being sad is bad. In fact, no one can be happy all the time. No feelings are either right or wrong. They just are. It is better to accept feelings than to push them away, because there is always a reason for how you feel... ...Express your feelings in words to yourself or others. Say how you’re feeling clearly and directly. Express your feelings by yourself by doing anything creative like music or art, having a cry, writing them down, hitting your pillow or shouting out loud."

No, there are good and bad feelings - and there are feelings that it is imperitive that we push out of our minds as quickly as possible. Writing down your feelings or hitting a pillow or shouting is not going to help.

Treating yourself well involves getting used to being relaxed about yourself and being kind to yourself.
You can do this by giving yourself gifts like: Doing something you enjoy e.g. listening to your favourite music, reading, playing sport. Going out and having a good time."

To truly feel good, you should do good to others. The Bible teaches that our duty is first to Jesus, then to Others, then to ourselves (You), and that is how to find true JOY.

Being Happy by Yourself: Spending time alone gives you a chance to get to know yourself better. This can be scary at first, but over time it becomes less weird and more enjoyable."

Do we really need the Government to tell us to spend time by ourselves to get to know ourselves better?

Grief and Loss Pamphlet

"Escape from your grief for a while by listening to some of your favourite music, going to the movies, playing sport or reading. Anything that gives you a rest from it."

Though there are some good recommendations made in this pamplet, the awful thing is that it offers no hope. Temporary measures for dealing with grief are discussed, but really, what can a godless, humanistic Government department offer grieving people in the way of genuine hope or comfort?

An excerpt from the Anger pamphlet is worthy of mention,

"There are things you can do to let your anger out without hurting yourself or others. You are ANGRY! Go to a place on your own. Talk, swear, bang a pillow, do something physical. Get the anger out of you. Use your anger energy somewhere else. Go for a run, hit a punching bag."

---

I think if you wanted to sum up the message of the four pamphlets in just one sentence, it would be this:

"We don't need God"

The simple fact is, the Government has no business telling people how to think and act. It is the responsibility of friends, families, community groups and Churches to give what support is needed to people who are struggling. Not Nanny State.


I believe that the timeless hymn, What a Friend we Have in Jesus has much more to offer on the questions which the Governement's little pamphlets fail so miserably to address.



1. What a friend we have in Jesus,
all our sins and griefs to bear!
What a privilege to carry
everything to God in prayer!
O what peace we often forfeit,
O what needless pain we bear,
all because we do not carry
everything to God in prayer.

2. Have we trials and temptations?
Is there trouble anywhere?
We should never be discouraged;
take it to the Lord in prayer.
Can we find a friend so faithful
who will all our sorrows share?
Jesus knows our every weakness;
take it to the Lord in prayer.

3. Are we weak and heavy laden,
cumbered with a load of care?
Precious Savior, still our refuge;
take it to the Lord in prayer.
Do thy friends despise, forsake thee?
Take it to the Lord in prayer!
In his arms he'll take and shield thee;
thou wilt find a solace there.

He's Not a Good Joker

Mike Moreu is not a good joker, I often find his cartoons to be offensive and trivialising such serious issues as child abuse, and even going so far as to gain some sense of self-importance by scribbling libelous drawings, attacking perfectly decent people.

However, Winston Peters is not a good joker either. And so despite my dislike of Moreu, today's cartoon is so apt, so timely that I have to show you it.

If you're wondering what the cartoon is about - because you're not from New Zealand, in a word, Winston Peters, leader of the NZ First party has been caught out not declaring donations (over $100,000 dollars). And the ironic thing is that it was his party which tipped the balance and enable the Electoral Finance Act to go through; that draconian piece of legislation whose main purpose is to crack down on anonymous donations, and what some have termed "the Americanisation of NZ politics". The NZ First party and the Labour party make up New Zealand's current Government, so Helen Clark is scared of denouncing Winston, as his party's support is essential for her to remain Prime Minister. However the blogs and newspapers are calling for Winston's blood.

Kiwi Party Law and Order Policy

The Kiwi Party has just released their law and order policy, which I have copied below, with my comments in blue. Click here to download the policy. As you can see, we hardly see things the same, though there are areas where I can agree with their policy.

Law

• Return the minimum drinking age back to 20.
It has been a mistake to lower the legal drinking age while simultaneously increasing the availability of alcohol. It is time to reverse this social experiment and work on reducing the access young people have to alcohol while imposing tougher sentences on parents and others who supply alcohol illegally to minors.
Nope. There is nothing wrong with alcohol, it is when people misuse it that we have a problem. Harsher sentencing for drunkeness in public, or crime committed while under the influence would be a far better move than the far-too easy option of simply criminalising all young people.


• Those convicted for murder and the manufacture and sale of Class A drugs should be locked up for the course of their natural life.
No parole should be considered for a minimum of 20 years and then only if the public safety is not threatened by the prisoners release due to confirmed rehabilitation within the prison system or old age.
I'm not sure if selling drugs should necessarily be a criminal offence. But those convicted of murder - and where there is crystal clear evidence, including witnesses should be put to death. Parole is just a joke, and as for the public being safe from prisoners out on parole, well just take a look in your newspaper for evidence why this does not work.


• Criminalise the buying of the services of a prostitute on the street and re-criminalisation of ‘living off the proceeds of the prostitution of others’.
Studies prove that legalising prostitution has not solved the social issues it creates. Cities like Amsterdam famous for liberal sex trade laws are now reverting back to criminalizing the sex trade.
Since the Prostitution Reform Act was passed in 2003, the number of prostitutes does not appear to have increased in New Zealand. Individuals should be free to make agreements between each other, and the State probably does not need to interfere at this level. As for soliciting on the street, at the very least, prostitutes should have to aquire a license as do other street vendors. And even then, licenses should be granted only in certain situations and vicinities.


• Hold a binding referendum on New Zealand’s attitude to the sale of sexual services.
A nation’s law should reflect the will of the people. A referendum will reflect the values and will of the people, which government must respect.
A referendum probably wouldn't hurt. Legalising something such as prostitution may result in that thing becoming normalised. However there is a huge different between a potentially harmful activity being legalised, and that activity being actively endorsed as a viable career option. It's a real tough one.

Policing

• Change drug policy from harm minimisation to harm elimination.
A multi-pronged strategy is needed to overcome a problem that has its roots in social orientation but ends in crime. Research shows that faith based and community centered models run by those with experience and neighborhood connections deliver the best results. The Kiwi Party would promote successful community coalitions, drug testing within workplaces and schools, screening and intervening to interrupt the cycle of drug abuse, providing quality drug treatment services and establishing drug treatment courts.
We can't eliminate harm, we can only ever attempt to minimise it. Drug-use in public, in schools or in the workplace is obviously innapropriate. Government funding of community initiatives which encourage people to give up their drug-habit would definitely be a step in the right direction.


• Introduce separate identification of police and traffic safety officers.
While acknowledging two forces share some common concerns and so need to retain strong connections, with regards to public perception and police effectiveness, the Kiwi Party would initiate differing uniforms and patrol cars.
Sounds like a good plan. Seperate the two jobs and privatise the traffic policing for a start.


• Establish a special task force to address the rising level of gang related criminal activity.
The Police Association has been calling for this task force for several years. The Kiwi party fully supports this.
Sounds fine.


• Establish a uniformed voluntary policing force.
Establishing a uniformed voluntary policing force of retired persons similar to Maori wardens to help support police by attending to routine work and also assisting in being the “eyes and ears” in every community. We support communities who take initiative to care for themselves.
Sounds fine.

Corrections

• Increase the number of addiction recovery and detox facilities.
It is estimated that 27% of our youth over 15 years of age are using drugs. Many good parents are eager to place their children into programmes but cannot because of a lack of facilities. While it is difficult to rehabilitate a drug user who does not want to change, anyone convicted of a crime committed while on drugs should first be required to undergo treatment that completely eliminates drugs from their body and maintains them in a drug free environment for a period of time. Those then choosing further help on the road to recovery can be referred to appropriate services. Those refusing treatment may find themselves in prison as a consequence.

It is imperative that our prisons become drug free. If the Government run Department of Corrections cannot achieve this, the Kiwi Party supports establishing a task force to investigate how this can be attained through the transfer of our prisons management to private contractors as has happened in other nations with circumstances similar to ours.
Compulsory drug-rehab for prisoners sounds like a good plan.


• No home detention and no parole for those convicted of serious violent crimes.
Society should not risk the re-offending of those who have committed heinous crimes. A system of recognizing and rewarding a prisoner that is making progress in rehabilitation and overcoming their violence should be established within prison walls before release and not in the community.
Of course! Serious and violent or not - if you do the crime, you do the time.

Justice

• Establishment of night Courts.
There is a huge backlog of cases that could be heard and processed by night Courts. Criminals need to be confronted with efficient and rapid convictions for their behaviour rather than spending months and years going through the revolving door, being charged, then released on bail thus creating the possibility for re-offence before they are sentenced. Also the lives of the innocent are put on hold before they are acquitted of false charges. Night courts would also avoid the disruptions to work and other commitments of those involved.
That sounds like ACT policy, released about two months ago. Good policy.


• Ensure there are powers for Judges to pursue truth.
The goal of our justice system should be to reveal truth. A criminal should not be allowed to get away with a crime through hiring a lawyer with an ability to abuse a loop-hole or the short comings of a defence attorney with an overloaded schedule. If common sense deems it feasible to further investigate a situation, a Judge should have the means to do so.
That sounds a bit draconian, pragmatic. Common-sense is a dangerous term.

Judges should also have the power to award against the Crown, the costs of a person charged and found not guilty. Otherwise our justice system is creating victims of those being wrongly accused.
Absolutely.


• Victims rights before criminals rights.
All victims of property crime should be entitled to full restitution and the awarding of costs along with an appropriate apology. This is natural justice.
Not just full restitution, repayment should be made two-fold or three-fold. As for the apology, it's not up to the state to force people to apologise to each other.


• Imprisonment for property offending should be confined to a small number of the most serious cases.
Imprisonment costs the taxpayer around $90,000 per annum and removes the capacity of the offender to recompense the victim – and adds costs to the State if the offender’s family requires welfare.
That's why prisoners should pay their way through prison. Why should the taxpayer be hit with the bill?


• Compulsory DNA testing for all those convicted of crimes.
It has always been accepted that a convicted criminal be fingerprinted and records be kept for future identification. Advancement of technology has made DNA samples an improved alternative.
No problem with this.


• No bail for those being charged with serious violent offences.
Of course not.

Minimum Wage Must be Lowered

A recent Kiwi Party press release set my teeth on edge. I sat up straight, stared at the screen and then held my head in my hands. "No, not this". Yes, the Kiwi Party wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour...

"...the Kiwi Party backs a policy which would raise the minimum wage to $15.00 an hour.” The party leader said.

Mr Baldock’s suggestion to Government would be to offer a tax credit to employers which will offset the extra cost, thereby making the policy fiscally neutral to business. The increased wage will then be inflation adjusted.

“The Kiwi Party’s policy is to uphold New Zealand’s tradition of all workers rights. We want to see the people of this nation being paid a fair wage. This is a huge step towards creating a stable living environment for all Kiwis”

When the minimum wage is raised to a level above what employers on a whole are prepared to pay their workers, then it becomes artificial. At some point, that higher pay-rate will come back and hit the employee in the stomach like a sack of spuds. Because if the employer is not truly getting his $15 per hour worth of value out of his employee, then he has to soak up this extra expense somewhere in the business, and he will most likely accomplish this by raising the price of his goods.

Whether the Government reimburses the employer or not is irrelevant, because it's not their money to give - it's the money they stole from the employer in the first place.

What is meant by these terms "fair wage", a "stable living environment", and "worker's rights"? A wage can be determined to be fair if the employee and the employer are agreed on it. A stable living environment - at the end of the day, why should the employer have to make sure that his employee has a "stable living environment". Of course I completely agree that worker's have rights, and these must be upheld. But, ahem, where is the mention of the employer's rights?

Why is there this fascination with the Government running our everyday lives? How can it be a good thing for them to force employers to pay their employees $15 an hour, and then (mind the red tape), offer them a tax-credit.

Patricia Schnauer, Justice Spokeswoman for ACT and Member of Parliament talks some sense in the article ACT's Approach to Employment Law (1999). Below are a few comments relating specifically to the concept of a minimum wage from her article...

"...You cannot help workers by legislating for a minimum wage, compulsory unionism, or a national award system. Such policies increase unemployment and reduce living standards because workers and employers are prevented from coming together to make deals that suit them best.

Minimum wages impact particularly negatively on low-skilled workers, since it is these workers who are often denied a chance in the workplace as a result of the mandated minimum. The huge number of Maori in our dole queues is in large part due to this misguided policy."

"Income adequacy is far more effectively addressed through the tax-and-benefit system than through a minimum wage. Consequently ACT supports repealing the minimum wage, thus providing a major boost to job creation."

"...Mainstream economists have long recognised that a minimum wage costs jobs: no employer will hire a worker if the extra value produced by the worker is lower than the mandated minimum."

While I strongly disagree with a minimum wage as high as it is at the current time ($12.50 per hour), there is a place for a minimum wage, but it should be set far lower, perhaps around the $7 per hour mark. This would be for the sole purpose of ensuring that workers were not persuaded, forced, or left with no option but to work for a ridiculously low pay-rate, for instance $2 per hour.

With a nice low minimum wage ($7 per hour), Employees would be empowered to get the best possible job at the best possible pay. Because if they were putting in the effort - and their employer was not rewarding them for this by paying them at a good rate, then the employee could simply move on.

And from the other side, with a low minimum wage, the employer would be able to afford to pay his workers what they were truly worth. Instead of having the slack eighteen-year-old and another hard-working, long-serving and trusted employee on the same (or very similar) pay-rate, the employer could reward each worker accordingly.

Performance-Based-Pay is the only way.

Ramses II and MP3 Players

Approximately 3,500 years ago (around 1570 BC), the ruler of Egypt (Ramses II) was working on a strategy to attempt to destroy the faith of the Nation of Israel - all of whom were his slaves.

In the beginning of Exodus chapter five, Moses visits Ramses and tells him "Thus says the Lord God of Israel: Let My people go" Ramses doesn't want to lose his valuable work-force, and so responds "Who is the Lord, that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I do not know the Lord, nor will I let Israel go... Why do you take the people from their work? Get back to your labor.”

Angered by Moses' request, the Pharoh brings in a new ruling.

"...Pharaoh commanded the taskmasters of the people and their officers, saying, 7 “You shall no longer give the people straw to make brick as before. Let them go and gather straw for themselves. 8 And you shall lay on them the quota of bricks which they made before. You shall not reduce it. For they are idle; therefore they cry out, saying, ‘Let us go and sacrifice to our God.’ 9 Let more work be laid on the men, that they may labor in it, and let them not regard false words.” - Exodus 5:6-9

Pharoh's strategy was to so fill the lives of the Israelites with work that they would have no time to congregate together and to worship God. For a people who are pre-occupied with worldly matters will soon lose their trust in God, and instead turn to man and man-made things. Particularly of interest is Pharoh's reference to "false words", i.e. the Word of God. This has to be one of the earliest recorded instances of the State attacking Christianity (or it's precursor, Judaism).

We see this today. The entertainment media is screaming out to us "you need this to be cool... Angelina Jolie is about to have another baby... get this game... watch this movie". With New Zealand's top tax-rate of 33%, dad has to be out long hours to bring in the money for the family. Our Government is encouraging our mothers to deposit their children in early-childhood-institutions from a ridiculously young age - enabling them to get back to work just as soon as possible. The kids wake up, bleary-eyed and wander from their bedroom into the living-room where they eat their breakfast in front of the TV. When they get back from school the TV is on and everyone collapses in-front of it for the rest of the evening. Half the people you see walking down the road are wired for sound, MP3 players of all descriptions are literally flooding the market.

The parallel is definitely there, though the situations are obviously different. In Moses' day it was the rulers of the land who were putting the pressure on God's people. Today it's definitely a mixture of the media and the Government. Christians need to ensure that they are not being sucked in by the media or sold over by the government - which will be detrimental to their Christian life.

Instead, let's be in the World but not of the World, like Jesus says in John 15:19.

The Harsh Truth About Public Schools

Bruce Shortt has written a book entitled "The Harsh Truth About Public Schools," presents myriad reasons why government institutions are failing America's children and thumbing their noses at parents with a religious worldview. In this, he writes from a biblical perspective, presenting rigorous research about the agenda and effect of government schooling on the nation's young people. I am keen to get my hands on a copy of this book, which was published three years ago. Below are a few excerpts from WorldNetDaily's article on the book.

"Contrary to what many Christians have been led to believe, there is no such thing as a 'neutral' education," Shortt writes. "All education is religious and conveys a worldview, and there is no more important decision that we make as parents than how we educate our children."...

...In the book, Shortt documents the pitfalls of public schools, saying the anti-Christian thrust of the governmental school system produces inevitable results: "moral relativism (no fixed standards), academic dumbing down, far-left programs, near absence of discipline and the persistent but pitiable rationalizations offered by government education professionals."...

...Shortt makes his argument by citing a school district in Texas. "There is no public school district in the country that has more Christians in the community or in the schools than that of Plano, Texas," he said. "In fact, the largest and most powerful church in the state of Texas, Prestonwood Baptist, is located in Plano. Yet, it took a court order to force the Plano schools to allow Christian school children to privately give classmates Christmas gifts that had a Christian message. Moreover, the school district had even prohibited schoolchildren from bringing red and green napkins to the school 'holiday' parties for fear the colors might remind someone of Christmas.

I completely agree with Bruce. It never ceases to amaze me at how desperate parents are to surrender the minds of their children to the State. "They've got to face it at some time in their lives", they tell me. Absolutely, at some stage we all need to let go of the apron-strings. But handing your children to State institutions from the age of three is just wrong. And let's just not talk about the fact that these institutions are entirely tax-payer funded. Brrrrrrr! Amazon.com has got a copy for $11.

Dark Agenda from The Press

Every Tuesday, The Press publishes "The Box" which is a weekly entertainment lift-out. It carries celebrity gossip, game, movie and technology reviews. After having a brief look at the article claiming that more and more old people are using Macs, I flicked over to the "Films of the Week" section, near the back of the lift-out.

I was intrigued to note that all the movies which had been reviewed and given a rating on this page were rated AO (Adults Only Programmes containing adult themes and directed primarily at mature audiences source).

Superman Returns was the only movie listed that would have been worth viewing and even it has the AO rating slapped onto it. However, the Office of Film and Literature Classification gives this movie anrating (Contains medium level violence). Superman is a cool movie, aimed at children, and does not "contain adult themes directed primarily at mature audiences".

So the question now is why was Superman given the AO rating? TVNZ (Government owned) begins by putting AO ratings on decent films that are suitable for children. And then once it is a common thing for children to be watching AO rated movies, TVNZ can lower the standard and bring out increasingly filthier and more perverted movies with a guaranteed increase of the number of children watching.

National: ahead of Labour in the Roy Morgan poll

The latest Roy Morgan Research poll shows National has lost ground although it is still well ahead of Labour.

The poll of 899 voters puts National on 45 per cent support, down 3.5 points on the previous Roy Morgan poll, with Labour unchanged on 36 per cent.

The Green Party was unchanged on 8.5 per cent, ACT was up 1.5 points to 2.5 per cent, The Maori Party was up 2 points to 3.5 per cent, New Zealand First was down 1 point to 2 per cent, and United Future was unchanged on 1.5 per cent.

The poll was conducted between February 19 and March 4.

The previous poll was conducted between February 6 and February 18.

The latest poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 per cent.