LET'S NOT SQUEEZE THE NUTS OF THE VULNERABLE

Now here’s an interesting article:

“Beneficiary with children had benefit cut by half for seven months” [STACY KIRK, stuff.co.nz]

Hmmm.  And here’s another:

“Christchurch tetraplegic man disgusted after benefit slashed without warning” [CATE BROUGHTON, stuff.co.nz]

Oh, whoops, and here’s another:

“Marriage to US pensioner cuts Kiwi's pension to $80 a week” [CATE BROUGHTON, stuff.co.nz]

You’re seeing the picture about now I guess.  You have to wonder, why are so many of these stories hitting the New Zealand news right now?  Well, this is Election Year 2017 here in New Zealand, and we go to the polls on 23 September.  So, the main reason these stories are hitting the news now IMHO, is that the opposition Labour Party are using such stories as electioneering.  It’s a little cynical, but frankly, this current right-wing government in New Zealand needs to be severely taken to task on this issue.

And the issue is this: there are vulnerable people in this country who are not being given the help that they need.  The issue is real, and it is not confined to the people referred to in the articles above.  My own experience was entirely consistent with that.  

Now, the “Comments” sections in these stuff.co.nz articles are always fascinating reading.  These are comments that readers can add to the foot of the article, and multiple comments can build up quite an interesting debate.  Of course, there are a few comments from ill-informed, right-wing hacks that decry the radicals.  These hacks say that the issue of benefit cuts is NOT an election issue, and it is to do with our benefits department, WINZ (Work & Income New Zealand), only.

Oh, but it is an election issue.  And here’s why.

It’s fair to say that the culture and policy at WINZ is defined by the government of the day.  And these stories, above, show that there is currently a culture and a policy of trying to scrimp money off our most vulnerable people.  As you can deduce from the articles, the problem is systemic, when previously it was not under the Helen Clark Labour government.  Therefore, it is – at the very least – recent government policy.  So, the logic is that this current National Party, right-wing, heartless government is trying to claw back money from those who need it most.  So, rather than raise the tax rate at the higher income level, it is preferable for this government to target the vulnerable instead.   

All because the rich don’t like paying tax.

It would perhaps be justifiable – if immoral – were the National Party to be honest about the current policy at WINZ: “Well, our rich friends and sponsors – the ones who really support us, not the moaning, middle-class mortgage whores – want us to reduce their tax burden.  Rather than spend money on those who need it, we’re trying to rape and pillage every penny we can from social services, so we don’t have to raise income tax on our wealthy mates.”

But no, instead we see this spin from John Key; “… you can measure a society by how it looks after its most vulnerable”.  John Key was our previous Prime Minister who resigned suddenly, left to holiday in Hawaii and gifted Bill "Dull" English the leadership.

From what you can gauge in the articles above, Key's words are in complete contrast to what his government has ACTUALLY been doing over the last nine years, since those utterances.  Make no mistake; just because Dull English has taken over the reigns, that attitude and policy towards beneficiaries was formulated under Key and continues under English.

Call me old-fashioned, but I thought the definition of a civilised society is that the Haves look after the Have-Nots.  A civilised society does not demonise the vulnerable and deny help to the needy, as this right-wing government constantly does.

All because the rich don’t like paying tax.

Remember, remember, 23^rd September; you have a choice, New Zealand.  You can continue to vote for a party that squeezes the nuts of the vulnerable.  You can continue to vote for a party that is morally bankrupt.  Or not.

FURTHER READING:

"Under the line: Impact of poverty on children's health" [SAMANTHA GEE,  stuff.co.nz]

"Cristiano Ronaldo appears in court on tax charges" [Richard Conway, BBC Sports News]

"The (not so) wonderful world of WINZ" [CLAIRE BROWN,  stuff.co.nz]

"New Zealand's welfare system is no longer a functioning system, experts claim" [JOHN EDENS,  stuff.co.nz]

John Key  “you can measure a society by how it looks after its most vulnerable”.

https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/john-keys-first-speech-national-party-leader

THE CHRISTMAS DONKEY

Now here’s an interesting article;

"Keys wish Kiwis a happy Christmas" [New Zealand Herald, 22 Dec 2016]

I haven’t written a blog specifically on John Key yet – I mean, where do I start?  There's too much material!  But this nonsense is a doozy worth making the effort.

"I love Christmas; it's a time of family and friends, a little bit of downtime and to get that work-life balance back into perspective," he says.

This one sentence alone demonstrates how out-of-touch this donkey is with the lives of real New Zealanders.  For many of us, Christmas is a nightmare.  We dread mulling around the shops sweating it out with the rest of the frantic proles, trying to find Christmas presents that fit into our limited budget.  And that’s only AFTER we’ve sworn at the idiot who’s stolen our parking space.

I’m not saying that I wouldn’t LOVE for Christmas to be the same as DonKey’s vision.  But frankly, he and his government ain’t makin’ it happen.  For many of us, Christmas is an hour glass, running out of sand while we try do all the USUAL things in our lives -  AS WELL AS prepare for Christmas.  

For some reason,  I can’t see DonKey swearing as he has to face the Christmas rush AGAIN, when he’s remembered a last minute Christmas present. I can’t see DonKey having to argue with one of the proles, that have stolen HIS parking space that he was about to reverse into.  I can’t see DonKey worrying that the postage of a present abroad is going to root his budget.  I can’t see DonKey having to choose the cheaper present, because the dearer one would smash his VISA bill next month.  I can’t see DonKey cooking Christmas dinner – can you?  In fact, I can’t even see DonKey putting up his own Christmas tree - unless there's a news camera team present.

It’s obvious from his Christmas message that DonKey lives in another world.  I rather think that he only has to issue instructions to the people he pays – and they do it all for him.   I rather suspect that DonKey has so many people running around after him, that it’s clear he’s never even had to use a hammer in his life.  Unlike the rest of us, living in real New Zealand.

"John Key Hammer Fail" [TVNZ One News, March 2015]

"Nailed it! Not... John Key admits: 'I'm no handyman'" [NZ Herald, March 2015]

"Asked if he was a home handyman, Mr Key said no. "Bronagh [Mr Key's wife] gets a man in. Don't worry about that." 

I don't know about you, but in my 16 years in New Zealand, I have learned more about DIY than in the other 34 years of my life.  Why?  Because I've had to.  I can't afford to "get a man in" any time there's a nail that needs hammering.

It’s fair to say that his wealth solves most – if not all – his Christmas woes.  So, I can’t see DonKey worrying about much at all at this time of year – hence his Christmas message.  And because he doesn’t have these worries, he doesn’t understand that the rest of us - living in real New Zealand – often DREAD Christmas.  

Of course DonKey loves Christmas – he doesn’t have to do any of the work that we have to do, in the insane run-up to the Festive Season.  This is why the man who supposedly governs us shouldn’t BE governing us – he’s completely out of touch with the “real New Zealanders,” he thinks he knows.

For us “real New Zealanders,” Christmas is a frantic end to an exhausting year of fending off the wolves and trying to make ends meet.  We don’t have any “downtime.”  And we don’t have the luxury of being able to pay people to put up the Christmas tree, buy the presents on the shopping list or cook Christmas dinner.  For most of us, we have to do all these things ourselves.  For many of us – and I’m luckier than those further down the ladder  – DonKey’s message is a painful reminder that Christmas is actually a time of deadlines, stress and financial hardship

Yes, Christmas is great if you don’t have to worry about time or money.  How many of us living in real New Zealand are relieved of that burden?

JUDITH WANTS TO STAB OUR EYES OUT

Now here’s an interesting article:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/7719245/Collins-appalled-by-Scott-Guy-TV-coverage

And so it continues: the erosion of our democratic rights. The continual right-wing spin chips away, trying to push our democratic status back to that of the industrial revolution. And we, as a result of the structure of our democracy, are letting them do it. For many years, the establishment in this country - dutifully represented by the National Party - fought tooth and nail to prevent cameras in court. Now, Minister of Justice Judith Collins (pictured right) claims that it has become a media circus.

And you know what? She’s right.

But don’t faint at me agreeing with a right-wing hatchet-girl, because here’s her spin. Sick of the media’s selective clips, Judith Collins says she wants to prevent court being turned into reality TV. She wants to take away the only eyes in court we have, when we can't attend actual cases. It has become a drama, but I don't think that’s her real motivation. As my article last year expressed, right-wing governments will try their utmost to erode the democratic rights we’ve fought for. And public access into our courts is one of our democratic rights, isn't it? And so, I would say that access to other recordings of proceedings is a democratic right as well. Let’s face it, who pays for the damn court system? IT’S US, THE TAXPAYER, THAT FOOTS THE BILL! Read these articles:

• "Judges go Under the Microscope" [Stuff.co.nz]
• "Jetting Judges Fly at Taxpayer Expense" [Stuff.co.nz]

So, considering the exorbitant wage and expenses bill of the judiciary, isn't it fair that there should be taxpayer accountability? So, isn’t it fair that we should have intimate knowledge of our courts working, as part of that accountability? You’d think so.

However, when my wife and I went to court to seek a restraining order against our next door neighbour, we were appalled at what information is NOT released into the public domain. For example, what many of us don’t know is that court staff produce a document called “Notes of Evidence” after proceedings. Court staff call it a transcript, but it’s nothing of the sort. Why? Because it doesn’t contain HALF of what is said during the proceedings. We were flabbergasted that some key things were seemingly omitted. This included, what we thought, were some flippant and sarcastic comments from “our” judge Michael J Crosbie:

• Sarcastic comments such as, “Yes, I’m beginning to wonder who exactly the applicant is,” were omitted.
• Comments illustrating the judge’s apparent indolence were omitted, such as, ”I’ve got enough cases hanging over me.”
• His summing up, including confirmation that we had suffered distress, was completely omitted.
• His comments, that he agreed with our transcript of abusive comments from our harassing neighbour, were omitted.

And these were but a few examples. Remember, we pay these civil servants in excess of $360,000 a year to be patient and objective. It took us a lot of courage to take our harasser to court, but do you think Michael Crosbie was able to to be patient and objective after hearing THIS case the very same day?

We didn’t think so. We also think he simply couldn't be bothered with our case.

If you go to court - and I encourage you to sit in the public gallery of any court room - you'll be surprised. You’ll be surprised at the time-wasting. You’ll be surprised by the inefficiencies. You’ll be surprised by some of the comments from the judge, as we were. In the research for my complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commission, I was flabbergasted by the sheer contempt of judges and the court system for its paymasters – us, the taxpaying public. There is an entire regime dedicated to NOT releasing information - in a supposedly free society. This regime of arrogance exists because not enough of us know that such contempt exists. It exists, because there are no apparent target outputs or key performance indicators for the judiciary or court system. In other words, this contempt exists because there is no accountability to the public.

And this is the real reason why Judith Collins and the rest of the establishment can’t abide cameras in court – because they show up the true farce that is our legal system. The legal system is not for you and I. It is for the rich, for big business to resolve disputes and to put away criminals who threaten property. Everything else involving us, the public, is a protracted mockery. Our legal system, based on the English system, is not designed to protect us, but those to protect those who rule us.

My belief is that judges have become so resistant to any kind of accountability, that they will push and push and push to avoid it. Jonathon Temm, Law Society president, has cynically used this opportunity to call for cameras in court to be removed. And I think his comments vindicate my take on the self-importance of the legal profession elite. I suspect they have been lobbying Collins for some time for the removal of cameras, or any kind of recording that lets us into the true minds of our deeply arrogant and flawed judges, and our deeply flawed legal system. For example, we tried to have the tape recording of our court hearing released, but the judge wasn’t having any of it. Crosbie had the power to release the tape, but I think he knew there were many things on there that he said during the hearing, which shouldn’t have been said – otherwise they would have been on the “Notes of Evidence.”

Yes, judges make mistakes. We all do. Yes, judges are flawed. We all are flawed. However, unlike judges we have to be ACCOUNTABLE for the things we say and do. Despite the Judicial Conduct Commission, I don’t think judges are accountable, at all, for the things they say and do.

So let’s get back to Collins and her transparently fake disgust. If you were that bothered by edited, dramatic segments of the trial being shown, Judith, why not show the whole trial? Put the video of the trial online as a public document. Have the guts to follow up on your convictions. Oh hang on, I can hear it now: “We can’t show the whole trial, because we want to protect the privacy of individuals involved in the trial." Oh, please. If you read between the lines, you’ll see that Judith Collins’ comments aren’t those of someone wishing to protect the privacy of individuals. Let’s be blunt, after Paula Bennet’s outings, this government has lost its opportunity to say it respects the privacy of individuals.

No, I think Judith Collins’ comments are those of someone who wishes to protect the failings, secrecy, and machinations of our farcical court system - and the contemptuous judges who lord over us.

Further reading:
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2012/09/27/message-to-media-jump-or-be-pushed/
http://www.lawfuel.co.nz/news/442/heralds-take-on-temms-cameras-in-courts-comments
http://www.lawfuel.co.nz/news/440/cameras-in-court-and-on-the-princess-what-judge-neave-might-do
http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/opinion/7728853/Editorial-No-reason-to-remove-TV-cameras
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/14949530/support-grows-for-cameras-in-court-ban/