Russel’s maiden speech in Parliament
You can read the transcript, or watch the video. Here’s the first half:
At Bastion Point in Auckland there is a memorial to Michael Joseph Savage. It is a simple concrete obelisk above his grave looking over the beautiful Waitemata Harbour and says at the base, ‘he loved his fellow men’.
Savage, a fellow immigrant from Australia, knew that having a right means having a chance, it means having a roof to shelter under and a meal on the table, a school and a doctor. That a nation that truly values the rights of her citizens promises a fair go to each and every one. Savage helped create a society where there was hope of a better life, and there was fulfilment of that hope…
There is another memorial in Auckland. One dedicated to those who turned their backs on ordinary New Zealanders. In the Auckland CBD there is a memorial to Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson, it is a casino in the shape of a syringe. They created a society in which desperate people’s only hopes are pokies and drugs.
You’re gonna reap just what ya sow. And we are reaping in South Auckland and Bridge Pa.
Here’s the second half of his speech:
There is perhaps a single new idea at the heart of the green movement, and that is that the planet is finite. The planet has limited ability to absorb our pollution and supply us with resources, it has limited minerals, forests, soils, rivers and lakes.
The realisation that the planet is finite is a simple yet profound insight into the true nature of human existence. It is an insight that we, the human race, are struggling to come to terms with.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:50 am
M J Savage voted against the introduction of the petrol tax because it would hurt the owner-operator and help the big companies like Winstones. He believed that roads shouldbe funded from income taxes. He must have foreseen Michael Cullen.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:53 am
“There is another memorial in Auckland. One dedicated to those who turned their backs on ordinary New Zealanders. In the Auckland CBD there is a memorial to Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson,….”
Well there will be another soon as this economy goes down the gurgler.
Whoever wins the next election is going to have to do a Rogernomics.
There is not enough taxation money to be had to pay for the lifestyle we are trying to lead.
One would have thought that over the last 9 years to goverment (ably supported by the Greens) would have invested money in productive enterprises (where people would earn enough to pay taxes) instead of the public servants who neither contribute to the tax take nor to productivity.
Similarly, the likes of PhilU sucking on the public fountain are going to be in for a shock. There will not be enough money raised by taxation to keep them in the lifestyle they thinks they are entitled to.
The taxpayer is squeezed dry. And is the reason the ETS will fail. There is no money to pay for it.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:26 am
“There is not enough taxation money to be had to pay for the lifestyle we are trying to lead.”
I would go further: there is not enough planet to be had to pay for the lifestyle we are trying to lead. Perhaps one solution worth looking at is to change our lifestyle so it is more planet friendly.
There certainly is not enough to keep the jet-setting, flesh-guzzling elite in the lifestyle they think they are entitled to.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:46 am
“Dear Russel,
The benefits instigated in 1938 were paid for by a dedicated social security tax, not general taxation, and included unemployment, sickness and invalid benefits.
Mickey Savage did not give us the DPB. The children you refer to are almost entirely from single parent homes. I doubt very much that Savage’s vision for New Zealand included mass separation, unpartnered childbrith and kids having kids.
The only answer your party has to this problem is greater transfer of wealth and more collective responsibility whereas the only real and lasting solution will be for people to take individual responsibility for their lives and those of any children they create. People will not make good decisions, people will continue to act in self-destructive ways, as long as society picks up after them.
Your brand of ‘compassion’ can only cause more harm to future generations of children. Children of beneficiaries are not being punished by Labour refusing them the In Work payment. They are being punished by a system that encourages their parents to live apart; that encourages entitlement and victimhood mentalities; and that makes meal tickets of them.
The ‘last time’ we did something for beneficiaries was when we eased abatement rates and introduced the In Work payment which allows them to earn more from work than from income support. You would turn that on its head.
And we would end up reaping what you have sown. More benefit dependence and more discontent on all sides. Widespread welfarism hasn’t brought members of society together. It has divided them. Look a little deeper than mere income levels. The greatest inequalities lie in degrees of personal commitment, conscientiousness and caring. You cannot bridge those gaps with benefit money.
Lindsay Mitchell
http://www.lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/
July 4th, 2008 at 9:05 am
um..!..i think i have to say ‘a good job..well done’..
..to say otherwise would be churlish..
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/russel-norman-gives-a-goodpowerful-maiden-spee ch/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 4th, 2008 at 9:17 am
“because outsiders are not born; they are made.”
True. By the welfare system you support and wish to extend.
Provide enough incentive for people not to contribute and participate and - guess what - they don’t.
Besides, as posters above have pointed out, the money is gone, and we’re plunging into recession. Which services do you intend to cut now that the fountain has run dry?
July 4th, 2008 at 9:23 am
It would be/(have been?) nice to be a citizen of Kuwait as everyone got a fat benefit.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:28 am
makes me happy that I’m green. thanks russel - superb job.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Don’t worry BluePeter Russel doesn’t need money he will just magic the beneficiary’s money into existence.
Why do we love welfare so much in NZ?
July 4th, 2008 at 10:12 am
“The only answer your party has to this problem is greater transfer of wealth and more collective responsibility whereas the only real and lasting solution will be for people to take individual responsibility for their lives and those of any children they create. ”
I think we tried this one - then there was a downturn in the capitalist economy (AKA the depression) and all the people left to take ‘individual responsibility’ were left high and dry and went out and rioted, so we got social welfare to keep capitalism running smoothly.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Sam,
Capitalism is also running out. Where will the money come from then.
I agree with kiore1 (first time ever?). The world as we know it is unsustainable and is about to change. Welfare will be the first to go.
So while we have the Greens on one hand promoting green sustainablity (which I fully support - want that sailing trading schooner real bad), on the other hand we have the Russel Normans’, Sue Bradfords’ etc promoting unsustainable welfare.
Something tells me you cant have both.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:30 am
How much planet do those on the dole consume, compared with those living on the pig’s back (or in New Zealand’s case, the cow’s tits).
If we are concerned about welfare then perhaps we could start with corporate welfare, for example the socialisation of all the pollution caused by farming interests and much major industry such as the paper mills. Also the fishers who made such a stink about not being allowed to kill more dolphins. I am glad Jim Anderton advocated further bans on set nets; it is the first time I have ever agreed with him.
These people make the mess and expect the tax payer (and non-human animals and the environment) to clean it up, or wear the damage. If that is not a form of corporate welfare, then what is?
July 4th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
An interesting thread, but I fear that we are talking past each other on this one! As a female and as “senior citizen” who was brought up by “Depression generation” parents at the time that the Welfare State was supported by those of that depression generation and those that returned from WW2 and wanted a better society for us all, I’ll try to comment on a few gaps.
(1) jh says: “Mickey Savage did not give us the DPB. The children you refer to are almost entirely from single parent homes. I doubt very much that Savage’s vision for New Zealand included mass separation, unpartnered childbrith and kids having kids.”
I reply: I grew up in very “virgin marriage” days when single women (”girls”) who became pregnant were whisked off to seclusion in institutions where they worked to pay their keep until they had their babies (which they were never allowed to see). These babies were adopted by childless couples and many were never told that they had been adopted. The result has been a lot of screwed up people: both birth mothers (whose “sentence” can be lifelong) and their adolescent/adult “children”.
So the pendulum has swung the other way, as pendulums do!
Bring into that mix the influx into Aotearoa of Pacific Islanders (partly to fill a NZ need for workers, and partly to honour our “very British Colonial” past of interfering in other people’s countries…)
It was not unknown in the Pacific for young women to “prove their fertility” before marriage. With communal living, and shared resources, this was not a problem. This custom was later overlaid by strict rules of “virginity” and “modesty” associated with last century’s (European) Christian missionaries. This is a fairly difficult mixed message for any adolescent to cope with. There can also be a power difference between male and female roles.
……………………….
(2) jh says: “The only answer your party has to this problem is greater transfer of wealth and more collective responsibility whereas the only real and lasting solution will be for people to take individual responsibility for their lives and those of any children they create.”
This sounds good in theory, and is an excellent aim. I personally have always taken responsibility for myself and my family, through some difficult times.
However (and this is the most important point): any society that does not look after its weakest members is missing the whole point of “Community”.
(I would also add that:
The DPB numbers are actually inflated (and very hard to assess) because anyone in need of a Benefit for temporary unemployment or sickness etc who has a dependent child is automatically put on the DPB for administrative purposes because it has all the “child stuff” attached to it.
AND
Many “working” people with children who have a variable income have the DPB as a “top up” (to make up the difference when needed, thus ensuring that their kids are provided for). In this case some employers take advantage of that fact. Thus they are the ones “bludging off the State”.
(3) “People will not make good decisions, people will continue to act in self-destructive ways, as long as society picks up after them.”
Yes! But in order to stop “picking up after them” we as a society needs to invest MORE, not less money to alleviate the problems.
This money in the form of : expert help and programmes that will work, require community involvement and community support.
blue peter says: “because outsiders are not born; they are made…
By the welfare system you support and wish to extend.”
That is true to an extent, and that is why, to solve that conundrum we may well (”will” actually!) need to spend even more (for a while!)
Rehabilitation costs more than maintenance.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Eredwen says:
These babies were adopted by childless couples and many were never told that they had been adopted. The result has been a lot of screwed up people: both birth mothers (whose “sentence� can be lifelong) and their adolescent/adult “children�.
So the pendulum has swung the other way, as pendulums do!
…………
Are you saying “screwed up” is the rule?
==================
The complaint about the DPB is that it crosses a line where it changes behaviour in so far as it affects decisions to have children as an occupation. People associate crime in South Auckland not with Roger Douglass or Ti tiriti but with welfarism. Welfarism creates Kahuis (apologies to others of the same name). Greens (actually red greens) don’t acknowledge that this.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Basically the Greens approach to welfare comes not so much from compassion but from anti capitalist (binary) ideology. As Sue Bradfords poster says: Blame the system. Fight
July 4th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Ha I now know what underlying belief system informs his opinions on this blog. Hes a Social Darwinist! Or fascist? Blut und Boden! eh jh? A wolf in sheeps clothing? Maybe you’re more suited to posting at their blog eh? They share your concerned with sustainability and the moral superiority of Europeans.
# jh Says:
September 3rd, 2007 at 10:36 am
BJ.
You may wish to avoid the coupling of ecological wisdom and justice with the social justice agendas, but these things are impossible to separate. You cannot exercise one without accepting the other.
================
If resources shrink and those with good land, resources and power to support them kill off those without, that is ecological wisdom.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
jh asks: “Are you saying “screwed upâ€? is the rule?”
The answer is “no”. I was talking about the difference between behaviour and expectations then, and behaviour and expectations now.
For part of my career I was involved in the training of students who later worked in various early childhood areas … some at the highest level.
Basic misconceptions:
First of all, let’s get rid of the notion that “they” deliberately have children as an occupation (and thus as a means to get money out of the tax payers pocket!)
That is used as a rationalization.
I think you would find that the general scenario is a mixture of hormones, ignorance of a “taboo” subject, and, unfortunately, sometimes coercion.
The important thing is for us to ensure that these young mothers get the knowledge and the support they need to parent well. We need to help them to break the cycle. I have seen examples of this that would impress even the sternest critics.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
On the DPB i’m saying the Greens have a left-wing bias which is out of kilter with biological/ behavioral/ ecological reality. On the Treaty I’m saying Green policy is silly, but it separates leftists: those who think society is disposable paper cup, from the rest of us (seems like a cult initiation)?.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
jh: I think the problem here is that you are trying to apply “left” v “right” political analysis that is no longer relevant to Green analysis.
In your terms, Greens are “left” in ensuring that the costs of addressing ecological issues are primarily borne by those who can afford those cost, rather than by those who cannot.
But we are also “right” in respecting property rights, including those of iwi and hapu that have been extinguished by Government legislation.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Please stop trying to put us in an old box !!
“Green” is not best described as “left” or “right”.
It is a new dimension that takes in the interests of species other than our own.
We call that new dimension “Green” (and funnily enough so do an increasing number of other people, though many of them tend to use a lower case “g”).
We are not left. We are not right. We are GREEN.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
eredwen Says:
July 4th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Basic misconceptions:
First of all, let’s get rid of the notion that “they� deliberately have children as an occupation (and thus as a means to get money out of the tax payers pocket!)
…………..
Can you prove that ?
[can I?
You can do a motivational analysis and you can compare how numbers on the DPB have increased since it started.]
toad Says:
July 4th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
But we are also “right� in respecting property rights, including those of iwi and hapu that have been extinguished by Government legislation.
Given that Ti tiriti guarantees tino rangitiratanga and undisturbed possession of forests and fisheries (etc), which part of the country do not come into that category Toad? Please name a location.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
jh says: “On the DPB i’m saying the Greens have a left-wing bias which is out of kilter with biological/ behavioral/ ecological reality.”
How do you come to that conclusion JH?
It is a biological imperative for a species to protect its young.
In that process the species needs to protect the mothers of those young.
THAT is what the DPB does!
July 4th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
JH
Behaviour and expectations in our society have changed a great deal since the time when the DPB started.
(Incidentally it was needed originally because too many male parents were avoiding their responsibilities as fathers.)
I’ll leave it to you as taxpayer (and therefore as a reluctant male supporter of other men’s children) to find any research done, (or alternatively, to do your own research) on the topic.
I’m much more interested in support/intervention programmes to ensure that the current/next generation are raised in a manner that can break the “welfare dependent cycle”.
Unfortunately for you, that will cost tax payers more of their “hard earned” money. (Do I hear you sigh?)
e
July 4th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
STH - You mean BP …no? I haven’t put a dog in this fight. BJ
July 4th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
bjchip,
No jh. Read what he wrote in the statement that quoted.
# jh Says:
September 3rd, 2007 at 10:36 am
BJ.
You may wish to avoid the coupling of ecological wisdom and justice with the social justice agendas, but these things are impossible to separate. You cannot exercise one without accepting the other.
================
If resources shrink and those with good land, resources and power to support them kill off those without, that is ecological wisdom.
No wonder he is so obviously a Malthusian. Though he predated Charles Darwin Thomas Malthus was the first “social darwinist”, at the very least he was widely read by many social darwinists who believed in their own personal superiority and voraciously consumed any writings that confirmed that belief.
jh would fit right in with the National Front types. They want a Clean, Green country like us, except minus the brown (Immigrants, Pasific Islanders)
Their website is down, but this google description sums it up pretty well.
“New Zealand National Front has the Greenest policy of all New Zealand political parties. The Green nation will no longer be just a catch phrase;”
July 5th, 2008 at 8:38 am
“If resources shrink and those with good land, resources and power to support them kill off those without, that is ecological wisdom.”
…………………………………
Your right Sleepy thats pure survival of the fittest not ecological wisdom. I should have said: “If resources shrink and those with good land, resources and power to support them kill off those without, that’s the wisdom of ecology.”?