Showing posts with label Carmel Sepuloni. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Carmel Sepuloni. Show all posts

Thursday, 5 October 2023

If you can't run on your record, you have to fake it


If you have to lie, it looks like the facts don't suit you. Here's Lindsay Mitchell fact-checking Social Development Minister Carmel Sepuloni's lies this week on the campaign trail:

CARMEL: “Her government [she says] had seen higher numbers of beneficiaries moving into jobs …”

LINDSAY'S FACT CHECK: "Higher numbers may have been moving into jobs, but even higher numbers have been moving onto benefits. It’s the net difference that matters... At September 22, 2023 there were 181,167 people on a Jobseeker benefit. In September 2017, just prior to Sepuloni taking up the reins, the number was 120,726. She has overseen a fifty percent increase."

CARMEL: "I’m proud [she says] of the work Labour has done to lift over 77,000 children out of poverty.”

LINDSAY'S FACT CHECK: "At September 2017 there were 172,302 children on benefits. By June 2023 that number had grown by 23 percent to sit at 211,617."
Jacinda's Administration went into government saying they would "fix child poverty." Yet they still stare into the uncomfortable truth that simply throwing someone else's money at poverty doesn't help.

If you can't run on your record, you have to fake it.



Monday, 23 January 2023

"The fawning over Sepuloni..."


"In the 'NZ Herald' Thomas Coughlan writes: 'Sepuloni ... [is] social development minister and may keep this roll after the reshuffle (she's excelled, so far.' And at RNZ Jane Patterson says: 'Sepuloni has been a steady pair of hands in the social development portfolio'...
    "For starters emergency housing is in the social development portfolio. The take-over of motels leading to social mayhem (think Rotorua) has been a tragedy for those housed in them and those in their surrounds. The waiting list for public housing has sky-rocketed since Sepuloni has been Minister.
    "EVERY main benefit has seen increased numbers since 2017. Covid played a part, but the upward trend was established before 2020.
    "Never before has New Zealand seen demand for both skilled and unskilled labour at current levels yet 11.3 percent (up from 9.7 in 2017) of the working age population is benefit-dependent.
    "Compounding this, the average length of time people are spending dependent has gone up....
    "Her own ministry's annual reports acknowledge the department is not moving in the right direction in a number of areas.
    "Worst of all Sepuloni has overseen a rise in children living in unemployed homes. The damage to their outcomes is well researched and documented. But unheeded by this government whose sole focus has been to lift incomes with their fingers firmly in their ears over the unintended consequences of paying people to do nothing ... except have children.
    "If all of the above is 'excelling' I hate to envisage what failing looks like."
~ Lindsay Mitchell, from her post 'Sepuloni'

Friday, 30 April 2021

My favourite Govt ministers, ranked


Given that they're more meddlers than they are emancipators, here's my list of my favourite current  Government ministers -- based entirely on the Taxpayers Union's list of "how many cabinet papers each Minister had submitted to Cabinet or a Cabinet Committee since they were sworn in." The more papers submitted, the more they reveal themselves as those who most want to push and shove you around. (The number of times  their papers were ever read seriously is not recorded.)

Hat tip for the list goes to Dave Farrar who, for some reason, calls the most meddling ministers "productive"! Clearly, he and I operate on a very different standard of judgement.

So, here they, ranked in order, the laziest ministers in the current cabinet -- which, given what they could be doing if they were motivated, makes them my favourites (the number in brackets refers to the number of cabinet papers they've submitted). The top ten confirm themselves* as eminently re-electable:
  1. Marama Davidson (0)
  2. Phil Twyford (0)
  3. Willie Jackson (1)
  4. Priyanca Radhakrishnan (1)
  5. Kiri Allan (1)
  6. Aupito William Sio (2)
  7. Kelvin Davis (3)
  8. Jan Tinetti (5)
  9. Dr Ayesha Verrall (6)
  10. Jacinda Ardern (7)
  11. Peeni Henare (7)
  12. James Shaw (7)
  13. Poto Williams (8)
  14. Damien O'Connor (9)
  15. Meka Whaitiri (10)
  16. Stuart Nash (11)
  17. Megan Woods (12)
  18. Nanaia Mahuta (13)
  19. Carmel Sepuloni (14)
  20. David Clark (15)
  21. Kris Faafoi (17)
  22. Grant Robertson (20)
  23. Michael Wood (23)
  24. Andrew Little (23)
  25. David Parker (31)
  26. Chris Hipkins (41)
So it seems pretty clear: the most dangerous ministers in the current cabinet are the young and eager Wood and Hipkins, and the older, wiser and more devious Parker, Little, Faafoi and Robertson.

Whereas the ones doing what we want most, i.e., nothing, are heroes like Marama Davidson, Priyanca Radhakrishnan, Apuito William Sio, Kelvin Davis and Willie Jackson. Galt save them all.

* Please note that the virtue of all the top ten can't be completely confirmed. True, Phil Twyford has apparently been granted leave to care for his sick wife, but his previous bumbling and inertia does confirms him as one with a ministerial career to savour. Whereas, before her own illness, Kiri Allen was beginning to look like a small bundle of focussed energy, which was concerning. That said, as the only one in cabinet medically qualified to consult on Covid, Dr Ayesha Verrall's six papers on the subject suggest more measures should be considered about their employability than simply the number of papers they've written. But it's a start, right?

Tuesday, 29 May 2018

The Welfare Expert Advisory Group has been asked to focus on "the overall purpose of the system." So what *is* the overall purpose?



The Government has just announced their 101st Working Group, what will undoubtedly prove to be the most expensive in this small country's history: its Working Group on Welfare.

Including in its make-up every variant of wretchedly grasping progressive, and headed up by proven liar Cindy Kiro,
the Welfare Expert Advisory Group has been asked to undertake a broad-ranging review of the welfare system [says Labour's Minister for Enforced Charity Carmel Sepuloni]...
Areas that the Welfare Expert Advisory Group has been asked to focus on range from considering the overall purpose of the system, through to specific recommendations on the current obligations and sanctions regime.
My own recommendation for "the overall purpose of the system" would make "the current obligations and sanctions regime" moot. Because my recommendation for the system is simple: Termination.

And the reason for that recommendation is very simple: Because the Moral Cannibalism of Enforce Welfare Must End.

Here's how the argument might go were I to head up the Group instead of Cindy ...
The question is asked: "Is it more moral, to give or to receive?" I suggest it is far more moral to produce, for without the producer there is nothing for either party.

Yet the overall purpose of State Welfare is to loot producers in favour of non-producers. It should be abolished. 
The concept of a state-enforced welfare system rests on the premise that if a person can demonstrate a need, then "society" -- i.e., her neighbours -- must be plundered to fulfil that need. This Group rejects the ideology of the welfare state in its totality. 
Enforced state welfare helps no one long term -- neither the person who has been plundered, nor the recipient of the plunder, nor even the community who demands such plunder. The community itself is plundered in the name of the afflicted and, anyone who has ever been so afflicted as to need to come face to face with the stage agencies doling out the largesse would understand the full meaning of the phrase "as cold as charity."
The idea of state-enforced welfare has been instituted around the world a relatively short time even in the modern human time-scale, but even in those few decades virtually every mature welfare state has come to virtually overwhelm itself with debt to pay its ever-increasing bills. 
And as voters see the ability to vote themselves rich and politicians to exploit the "needy," we have seen both the variety of needs to be met by the state and the numbers of people who find it possible to demonstrate those needs to have mushroomed. So much so that we now see great numbers of once able-minded and frequently able-bodied people in a miserably dependent state while they go through their days sucking their lifeblood from their fellow countrymen.  
And we see communities of people whose natural benevolence is being slowly destroyed by finding the state's hand constantly in their pocket to pay for these people being so wretchedly exploited by politicians' promises. 
As W.H. Auden was supposed to have remarked, "If we are all here on earth to help others, I often wonder what the others are here for."   
Such is the effect of an all-pervasive and bankrupt morality, where demonstrating a need can be more easily rewarded than demonstrating an ability, and so eventually any person's need becomes more important than every person's ability. 
It is not just absurd. Many years ago humanity rejected cannibalism as inhuman. It is time that enforced state welfare be recognised as moral cannibalism, and be reviled as such. 
This Group rejects absolutely this moral cannibalism on which state-enforced social welfare feeds.  
Only such a fundamental rethink by New Zealanders will make significant inroads into unnecessary dependency.  
MOST OF US REALISE that if we fall on hard times, our family, friends and colleagues can choose whether and in what way they would like to help (and such help would be so much the easier for having one's pockets unpicked). It has become the task of this Group to remind New Zealanders that what is clearly right within individual personal relationships is even truer on a wider scale. 
So how do we get from here to there? This Group's answer would be to concentrate initially on getting all state, state-assisted and mandated social-welfare agencies either abolished, deregulated, or transformed to a stand-alone, privately-funded basis. 
Substantially less funding will be forthcoming from government, but some will be able to compete as charitable institutions or offer insurance cover on an equal basis with existing and new private organisations.
  • WINZ for example could continue to provide assistance into work training schemes with voluntary philanthropic funding - no doubt the politicians who support these ideas and their party members will be the first to put their hands in their own pockets.
  • WINZ could also be able to continue to offer loss-of-income insurance schemes with competitive premiums. "Actually, I personally, says the Group's head, "would like to see WINZ's income support functions handed over to Metiria Turei, Susan St John & Sue Bradford to run as they see fit. Let's see, when they can fund their socialist ideas voluntarily, if their supporters will actually put their money where their own mouths are, instead of at the enforced expense of the rest of us."
This Group regards it as urgent that force be removed from human affairs, and that as soon as possible this state-enforced form of misguided and misdirected charity end. 
POLICY PRIORITIES
A peaceful transition to a more moral state is important. In an age in which today's routine moral cannibalism is so widely accepted such proposals may seem radical, but with the coming of enlightenment the following recommendations for social-welfare deregulation will be seen to almost write themselves:
  • Our senior citizens who are in and approaching retirement have, on the whole, paid the most taxes for the longest time and would have the greatest difficulty adjusting. We recommend that the age at which superannuation be received be immediately raised to 67, per the Labour Party's own recommendations at the previous election. Thereafter we recommend raising the age requirement by one year every two, effectively ending state superannuation over two decades while ensuring security for current recipients who can no longer make other plans. Priority should be given to ensuring income for current and genuinely impecunious senior citizens - and those currently fifty five and over - by providing annuities with funds boosted from the sale of state assets. Following this, and even during this transition, New Zealanders will come to have complete free personal choice over the plans they wish to make for their own retirement.
  • Priority over this transitional period should be given to providing for existing seriously disabled people by similar means, and for.
  • We urgently recommend that all low-income working people who are currently receiving income support and supplements will immediately have that support replaced by the substantial tax cuts that all New Zealanders deserve, and that this Goverment could now afford: GST being immediately dropped to just 10% (as at the time of its introduction), and the first $25,000 of every NZer's income being made totally tax free.
  • We further recommend that the many impediments to entering the workforce be urgently removed (such as those impeding many unemployed from temporary employment as produce pickers, and those impeding youngsters from beginning their first job) meaning that all non-working but able beneficiaries may immediately benefit from the growth in opportunities to work that would be expected with reduced taxation and this deregulated business and labour environment. The unemployment benefit can then very quickly be axed.
  • The Domestic Purposes Benefit began as almost a small ad-hoc grant, and has now grown from a benefit to an incentive. We recommend that existing solo parents will -- over a suitable transition period -- continue to receive annuities to support them until their final child's third birthday. (Child-maintenance payments from an absent parent will be pursued, but only where it can be justified under a legal burden of proof.) After this three-year period, state-funded DPB may be axed. Over this period, the growth of private adoption and fostering agencies will be encouraged, and people who want to adopt children may be able to arrange this with the birth parents. This would have the effect of paying people who either can't cope or don't really care for their children to give them up rather than be paid them to keep them and have more, as the current system does.
  • The child safety, severe neglect and youth crime management functions of the Children, Young Persons and their Families Agency (regularly re-named in an attempt to remove the regular embarrassment their blunderings cause) should be transferred to proper management under the justice and police system. All other functions can be transferred to private agencies.
Virtually everyone admits they want to help people who are going through undeservedly distressed times. These recommendations -- above all leaving people's money in their own pockets -- means they may do so, for whatever circumstances and by whatever means they prefer.  
In the wake of these recommendations implementations, therefore, we should expect that existing private welfare organisations such as Women's Refuge, Presbyterian Support Services and The Salvation Army will mushroom -- both with volunteers and new money -- and new agencies will evolve, much as they did in the days before the state abrogated the role of the community in caring for the afflicted.  
Neighbours would help neighbours -- not because they are forced to, but because (as they always tell us) they want to.
Ending moral cannibalism would therefore allow the growth of stronger communities and greater personal benevolence. What could be a greater achievement of any Labour-led Government?


Thursday, 18 September 2014

The All-New, 100% Pure, Official 2014 Liberty-Lover’s Voting Guide [update 2]

Every MMP election you have two votes, and two questions: to whom should I give my party vote, and to whom should I give my electorate vote.

Well, three questions really, the this being: should I vote at all?

My default answer to this is always: don’t vote, it only encourages the bastards.

My default position on voting has always been not to vote for bastards. To vote only to vote for what I believe in. Voting for the lesser of two evils still results in evil. And voting against a greater evil just results in the folk you’re voting for ruling with the help of your blank cheque, and their pathetic claim for your mandate.

For every election since 1996, liberty lovers  been able to give their party mandate to something they could believe in, but now that option is gone I personally had been intending to stay home.

I’d been intending to stay home until I became bowled over by what I like to call New ACT.  Especially by their promise, finally, to abolish the RMA and replace it with common law.

Old ACT deserved to die. But David Seymour and Jamie Whyte are for once genuine liberty lovers, and Jamie Whyte has done an outstanding job of promoting policies that any liberty lover can get behind. I gave him four out of five; Liberty Scott gave them 8 out of 10. And as Lindsay Mitchell notes

There have been so many polls I missed the Colmar Brunton poll that has ACT on 1.2%.
That'll do it. I feel I can safely give them my party vote without wasting it.

To the incredulity of many of you who’ve read me tearing strips off this party for 18 years – and, truth be known to my own incredulity as well -- I’m now intending to do the same. I think you should too.
[UPDATE 1: Lindsay Perigo draws my attention to ACT’s 5-point plan now resiling from abolishing the RMA, and retreating back the weasel word of “reform.” Since driving a stake through the heart of that Act is my litmus test for a party’s support for property rights, my own personal bottom line, I’m now wavering from lending them my support until I have that clarified.
UPDATE 2: Clarification here.]

But what about your electorate vote?

Every election the irrepressible Liberty Scott offers readers the official rooting, tooting all-shooting liberty-lover voter’s guide to how to fill out your electoral ballot, with which I only ever have minor quibbles. (Mostly because he’s too nice to the bastards.) Same again this time except for two minor caveats.

First, given all National has done to Christchurch, if any Cantabrians even consider voting National they can quit moaning for ever about the state of their city.

Second, there’s no point recommending votes for the racist seats. The only thing to recommend there is abolition.

So with that done, let’s take a deep breath and dive right in …

Liberty Scott's 2014 New Zealand voting guide for lovers of liberty (IN PROGRESS)

Thursday, 10 November 2011

DOWN TO THE DOCTORS: “What will your party policies do to help the poor and underprivileged of NZ?”

_richardmcgrathYour weekly prescription of good sense from Libertarianz leader Dr Richard McGrath.

This week, around the hustings.

I’ve attended so many meetings and shaken so many hands recently I’ve prescribed myself a course of hand-cream and antibiotics, along with therapy to counter the insanity of all the state worshippers I’ve encountered.

But it’s not all bad. Take a recent meeting in Upper Hutt, when the first person that Labour candidate  Michael Bott attacked during the meeting was me! And he commented before we started that he had read a lot of our stuff. So as Mrs Marsh said on the Colgate TV ad: “it does get in”.

At least two of the other parties represented yesterday, including Labour, explicitly made mention of a tax free income band in their policies. If I recall correctly, we came up with that policy. Now the others are copying it. Great!

The Nats didn’t come, which went down poorly with the audience, a fairly left wing mob of about 50 people.

A heckler from the audience (who was the Greens candidate in Wairarapa in 2008), was told to shut up or leave by the chairman (who was the Alliance candidate in Wellington Central up against Bernard in 2008).

The Conservative Party was represented by a thoroughly nice guy, who I drove back to Masterton after the anti-ETS rally in Wgtn last year.

The Democrats for Social Credit were represented by an old timer who was wobbly on his feet and terrified me as I thought he was going to topple off the stage every time he got up to speak.

The Alliance were represented by a guy from Hawkes Bay who was fairly unimpressive and read off sheets printed off the Alliance website.

ACT’s speaker was Graeme Tulloch, a 75 year old man with fire in his belly who answered questions well.

There was a panel of three inquisitors, a guy from from Caritas (the Catholic welfare organization), a woman who provides lunches for kids in one of Masterton’s low decile schools, and a virulent poisonous nasty bitch from the Child Poverty Action Group.

The speeches + answering questions went on for two hours – quite a long meeting, and most of the audience hung around for the cup of tea at the end. Answering the question “What will your party policies do to help the poor and underprivileged of NZ?,” here’s what I said to them:

Welcome ladies and gentlemen.
 
My name is Richard McGrath, and I work as a doctor in general practice and in the field of addiction treatment.
 
I represent the Libertarianz Party, who believe that solutions to poverty need to take regard of the rights of everyone in society.
 
They need to reward endeavour and productivity, and they need to avoid eroding the moral fibre and self-esteem of welfare recipients.   
 
The key to addressing the problem of poverty is in making it easier for people to help themselves and others, and to give those who are truly disabled the security of an adequate income stream.  
 
The poor and underprivileged can be divided into 2 groups – those who can do something to help themselves, and those who are truly disabled and can never hope to discover self-sustaining sources of income.
 
The Libertarianz Party has policies that will assist both groups of people.
 
For those people capable of work, we advocate:
 
•       Abolishing minimum wage laws.
 
These laws stop the low-skilled from obtaining their first job, and threaten the livelihoods of marginally productive workers.
 
My party believes it better that a young man with time on his hands be earning $10 an hour in gainful employment, than $5 an hour playing on his X-Box on the unemployment benefit.
 
       Implementing a tax free band for the first $50k of income.
 
Currently government taxes from the first dollar, then gives low and middle income earners Working for Families tax credits. There is a cost to this double handling, which could be eliminated by not taxing low income earners in the first place.
 
•       Abolishing GST, a tax which hurts everyone including the poor.
 
For those people permanently incapable of work, Libertarianz Party policy is:
 
•       To fund the permanently incapacitated by way of private individualized annuities 
         funded from the interest on capital raised from the sale of state owned enterprises.
 
•       To encourage the young and able of today to think ahead and purchase disability,
         income protection and accident insurance;    join private welfare groups such as trade 
         unions, friendly societies or lodges;    or set aside sufficient savings so they are
         adequately covered in the event of permanent disability. Reward this sort of forward
         planning with tax credits.
 
The Libertarianz Party believes in a smaller less intrusive government, that would allow local communities and neighbourhoods to set up their own solutions to the problems of poverty, long term unemployment and disability; using their own money.
 
Eighty years of government-run welfare has failed the poor and underprivileged – my party has a better plan that is fair to everyone. 
 
Thank you.

Minto’s Forced Equality Would Destroy Ambition

In my spare time I’ve been looking at other party’s policies, such as they are. One that caught my eye was John Minto’s call for GST to be abolished.  I support him. But don’t just lift the GST on lentils and cumquats, as Phil Goff suggests as well - take it off all goods and services, and instantly make them 15% cheaper.

Minto is quite correct in calling for “dramatic, revolutionary change in economic policy” - but the change New Zealand needs is not the poverty and slavery of communism that he advocates, but the motivation and life-enhancing opportunities offered by free market capitalism.

imageI also back John Minto’s calls for a tax-free income band, but  the Mana Party are “wimps” for suggesting a figure of $27,000 whereas I hold that the first $50,000 of income should be exempt from molestation by the IRD.

The Mana Party’s backing of Labour’s $15 an hour minimum wage, fixing it at two-thirds of the average wage, is a cynical method of ensuring there will always be an underclass of jobless New Zealanders that the hard left can manipulate.

If minimum wage laws worked, then all the left-leaning political parties, including National, would be calling for $100 an hour as the bottom line. The fact is that minimum wage laws cause unemployment, particularly for the young and vulnerable who need jobs the most. That’s why Libertarianz wants such laws struck out.

The rest of the Mana Party tax policy is lifted straight from the Communist Manifesto – which I’m sure comprises Mr Minto’s bedtime reading.

Health Promises Highlight Ryall’s Contempt For Doctors

Tony Ryall’s election promise to make doctors provide around-the-clock medical care for all children under six - regardless of the urgency of the perceived problem and free of any surcharge - is bullying and hypocritical.

This promise was made without consulting those who would have to provide the service: GPs like myself and our staff.

imageThis is a blatant election bribe that treats doctors as chattel who can be ordered to provide services day and night, for no charge, at the whim and behest of the Minister.

This is the same Tony Ryall who once described the Clark regime’s management style as command-and-control. So now he’s running the show, how does Tony’s regime differ?

The reality is that the National Party government is no better than the one it replaced. It has equal contempt for general practitioners and their staff.

The Libertarianz Party would excise the State from the provision of health care services by abolishing subsidies, reducing taxes, and opening up orthodox practitioners to competition. We would allow more affordable options for people on limited budgets.

And, importantly, we would enforce the ban on human slavery which Mr Ryall has conveniently sidestepped with extravagant election promises that would impose further obligations on already-overworked GPs.

Labour/National Economic Policy is Insulting

In the face of the most severe economic crisis since the end of World War II, New Zealanders are looking to political leaders for direction—or at least for them to get out of the way. However all we are being offered is the same old tired formula of divide and bribe.

Labour/National and their various cling-on parties are practitioners of the worst kind of “trickle down” imaginable. All are addicted to the concept of central government sucking up as much money as possible and then trickling down on the rest of us.

Libertarianz recognizes however that economies are, in fact, organic. That they grow from the bottom up, through the actions of hard working folk acting in their own rational self interest—the very people Labour/National treat as milch cows.

New Zealanders have the boldness to get ahead in life, the wisdom to know it takes effort to do so, and the maturity to respect those who succeed. By contrast, our professional politicians seek to appeal to people’s worst instincts: to laziness, greed and envy. They regularly behave like overgrown toddlers themselves in Parliament, and apparently assume the rest of us to be similarly infantile.

It is time to stop looking for answers from this political “elite” who see every crisis as merely an opportunity to increase their own power base.

We need to get unproductive politicians and bureaucrats out of the way of productive workers and businesses. In Parliament, Libertarianz will support any legislative step, however small, towards reducing the tax and regulatory burdens on private enterprise.

imageTaxing Kiwis into a state of financial hardship and then drip feeding them back our own money in order to keep us dependant on the state is simple cruelty. At the very least, bribing us with our own damn money and then expecting us to be grateful for it is a massive insult.

A vote for Libertarianz is the best way for New Zealanders to send the message they refuse treated with such contempt any longer.  A vote for Libertarianz is a serious protest vote.

Libertarianz have released a video on the problems created by government bribery – available at http://youtu.be/xYPnpSTnEfE

Libertarianz Party Creates Unusual Political Broadcasts

imageOh, and in a move away from the usual brief adverts on main channels,  Libertarianz candidates are presenting a series of four half-hour shows starting this Thursday at 8pm on Stratos TV (Freeview channel 21 and Sky channel 89).

By creating full length programs and broadcasting on the less expensive Stratos TV, we hope to impart more information to potential supporters of our radical ideas.

Tonight, we present a special documentary on the Christchurch earthquake, appearing at 8pm on Stratos TV (Freeview channel 21 and Sky channel 89).

It shows the devastating effect of government bureaucracy following the earthquakes of 2010 and 2011, and argues for Libertarianz policy to make Christchurch a free enterprise zone.

Spread the word!

Radio Interview

I just finished an interview on Radio 531PI with morning host Yolande, who had looked at our website and was interested in our principles based around freedom!  I was given free rein to advertise Libz and spoke almost uninterrupted for 10 minutes.

The station is aimed at a Pacific Island audience, so I talked about low taxes and abolishing the minimum wage.

imageI said our party wouldn’t have to stand if National stuck to its stated values, which are largely along our lines.

I pointed out the arrogance of taxation – government thinking it knows better how to spend your money than you do.

I called politicians cold blooded reptiles who don’t mind sacrificing their children and grandchildren on top of a mountain of borrowed money.

I said electing governments has been like electing a school bully who will pick your pockets for the next 3 years.

I pointed out that taxing those on low incomes and giving some back as welfare payments is wasteful double handling, and a pernicious theft of people’s futures.

I said Labour would prefer young and low skilled people to be sitting at home playing X-Box for $5 an hour than out there in productive work earning $10 an hour. 

I got a word in re our website and directed listeners to it.

I thought it went bloody well. Yolande was courteous and complimentary and said she wants to interview me again during the campaign.

I genuinely think her curiosity has been tickled by what I had to say. I came on straight after Carmel Sepuloni who had been giving listeners the same old Big Govt diatribe, and the first thing I did after introductions was attack the way big government solutions had failed the people of NZ.

Good to be out there offering some semblance of sense in an election based more than most on evasion of basic economic realities.

See you next week!
Doc McGrath

Wednesday, 13 April 2011

DOWN TO THE DOCTOR’S: Ninnies, nannies and more

_McGRath Libertarianz leader Dr Richard McGrath invites you down to his clinic for an inoculation against this week’s stories and headlines on issues affecting our freedom.
This week: Ninnies, nannies and rent-seeking guild socialists.

1. STUFF: “Labour MP Damien O’Connor fronts up over gay commentsRejected at the last election by West Coast voters, Damien O’Connor apologises but does not back away from his claim that the Labour Party selection process is controlled by unionists (Little, Dalziel, Fenton, Beaumont, Wood, Mika, Curran, Lees-Galloway, Pillay) and gays (Robertson, Chauvel, Street, Wall, Carter)…

THE DOCTOR SAYS: And apologise he should, as he omitted three other important sources of Labour Party candidates – school teachers (Street, Mallard, Davis, Beaumont, Sepuloni) political studies graduates (Goff, Robertson, Jones, Hipkins) and lawyers (Parker, Chauvel, Dalziel, Huo).
    Delete members of these groups from the Labour list and there’d be few with knowledge of the real world left to stand.
    The ultimate Labour candidate would be a gay disabled Islamic trade unionist ex-school teacher with a background in race relations, membership of CORSO, Oxfam and Greenpeace and a degree in political studies.
    Shame to see Damien O’Connor apologise, obviously he has been nobbled by someone further up the chain, probably a gay unionist who took offence at hearing some home truths. Good thing however that O’Connor hasn’t backed away from the comments, merely expressed “regret” that someone took offence. Won’t hurt his chances at the next election, provided West Coasters have forgotten Helen Clark’s labeling of them as “feral.”

2. DOMPOST: “Jetstar stops disabled pair flyingDisabilities Minister Tariana Turia condemns Jetstar’s decision not to allow two wheelchair bound people on one of its aeroplanes…

THE DOCTOR SAYS: What is wrong with letting the market judge Jetstar, instead of a minister? If this decision is so horrendous, then Jetstar’s profits will drop as potential customers vote with their feet. The last thing these two disabled travellers need is an interfering politician using the situation to grandstand at taxpayer expense.
    All the more reason to abolish the post of Disabilities Minister – along with the swarms of other unnecessary ministries and departments that harass New Zealanders and eat out their substance.

3. DOMPOST: “Proposal to regulate teeth-whitening productsThe Environmental Risk Management Authority wants to force people to consult with a dentist before they use some types of mouthwash…

THE DOCTOR SAYS: Not content with trying to ban dihydrogen monoxide, our guardians now want to regulate the use of hydrogen peroxide.
    Commonly used as a hair bleach, it can also be used to bleach teeth. The Dental Council are shocked – indeed scandalised – that a person can just go and buy whitening gels direct from the shelf and (gasp) apply them to their own teeth without first paying a fee to their members.
    Why can’t these rent-seeking do-gooders be told to mind their own business and allow adults to decide what they put into their own body instead of treating them like children? If people are injured through the use of bleaching agents, word will get around, and people will very quickly learn what products are safe to use and which are not. The last thing adult New Zealanders need is more rent-seekers and more nannying, which tends to undermine our capacity for independent thinking and decision-making.
    The Libertarianz Party, of course, would abolish both ERMA and the Dental Council, and allow adults the freedom to make their own decisions and to live with the consequences.

See y’all next week!
Doc McGrath

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may
be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons
than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty
may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but
those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end,
for they do so with the approval of their consciences.
– C.S. Lewis