Monthly Archives: Sep 2017

Hugh Hefner: Divisive in life and divisive in death

Posted on by
Reply

Hugh Hefner was divisive in life. Hugh Hefner was divisive in death.

I am not sure how appropriate it is to acknowledge Hugh Hefner, founder of Playboy and the man who established the famous Playboy Mansion. So, perhaps this rather short statement is more to acknowledge his existence, rather than than to necessarily lead a cheering squad for pornography, hardcore or not. Tasteful or not.

It should not be a surprise if it does some sort of cheer leading squad. Some loved Mr Hefner and will point to his estate, to Playboy, the magazine and this includes both men and women. If Mr Hefner was so bad as some say, why did and do so many respect his contribution for what it is – or is not – to society? If he was so bad, why have we not heard about alleged abuse like we have about Jimmy Savile  and Rolf Harris?

I sit on the fence. He is what he was. I do not endorse exploitation of women. But in his 91 years, I am not sure he did either.

But if an adult woman chooses to become involved in making programmes/movies/documentaries of an overtly sexual nature, that is her choice. If an adult woman chooses to do a photo shoot in which she is stark naked, and knows that the photos will be a spread in the pages of a major magazine, again that is her choice.

If two consenting adults of the same orientation want to have sex in front of the camera and record it, fine. The key words are “adult” and “consenting”.

What we need to do is stop pretending. We need to acknowledge school boys at an age well under the minimum probably look for porn on their phones, or on the internet. Did I say it was okay? Not at all. NOT. AT. ALL.

But they do. And they will.

Parents need to grow a spine. Be a parent. Not their best mate. You might love them with all your heart but you have a job to do and that is show them right from wrong. Good from bad. Yadda yadda yadda.

So does the justice system. Cut the crap and call rape, rape. That all it is. A disgusting, damaging offence for which the only answer is jail and a rehabilitation into society that can only start when the offender acknowledges that they did a terrible wrong.

Mr Hefner may have contributed to moral issue around this. I acknowledge that.

Hugh Hefner was a person who for as long as I can remember him was associated with pornography. There was no getting away from it.. Mr Hefner proclaimed to be the man who whose mere attendance gave hope to his play bunnies. I think it s fair to say that whilst we did not know what Mr Hefner had envisaged, the reality was that his politics had angered or annoyed people to a one-on-one. The story never really had fairy tales or was perceived as being a moral hazard.

At some point or another many girls who thought – mistakenly – that they would be up to the arduous tasks to impress their boss and get the media hounds onto them quickly had become disillusioned. Ones body – male or female – is worth more than the lines or imagery necessary to explain what Playboy Mansion was trying to achieve. His memory will live on, though I am not sure it it will ever address the confronting nature of pornography in society, it will definitely belong to one of the more colourful – if not divisive – members of society.

Hugh Hefner. 09 April 1926-27 September 2017.

 

M.M.P. not to blame for decimation of minor parties

Posted on by
Reply

Once again we are seeing the detractors of Mixed Member Proportional voting trying to suggest that the system is flawed and that New Zealanders want a new one.

The election on 23 September 2017 resulted in the decimation of the minor parties. Of that there can be no question – it was a dreadful night for them.

For some of the parties, their demise was was natural – Greg O’Connor, who used to be a top policeman in New Zealand stood for Labour in Ohariu electorate. This is the same electorate where United Future self destructed with the resignation of long serving M.P. Peter Dunne, whose departure left no one with any street credibility left in the party..

Likewise Gareth Morgan’s The Opportunities Party fatally shot itself when Mr Morgan described Labour Leader Jacinda Ardern as lipstick on a pig. Perhaps not being a cat lover with a declared vendetta against them, also cost him many votes as cats make wonderful pets for those living alone or who are elderly – and at the same time, as my family discovered with our three cats, excellent bird killers as well. Mr Morgan’s party had been seen by some as the next big opportunity to create more of a peoples movement and Mr Morgan – like Colin Craig with his Conservative Party – threw huge sums of his own money at the election

A.C.T failed to get to 30,000 votes whereupon with its leader David Seymour retaining his Epsom electorate seat, it would have been able to bring Deputy Leader Beth Houlbrooke into Parliament. Many will say the A.C.T. brand  was probably destroyed by its M.P.’s conduct in the first term of the Government of Prime Minister John. Certainly since then it has consistently polled at no more than 1-2% in the polls.

The Maori Party was the victim of a resurgent Labour vote in the Maori electorates, where former weatherman Tamati Coffey defeated co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell as all seven electorates swung back towards the Jacinda Ardern inspired Labour. Some will say their decision to go with National for three consecutive terms probably undid their chances of making up with the centre-left. Three consecutive terms with no notable progress on the hefty issues of school truancy, getting people on benefits into jobs or training, to say nothing of Maori being disproportionately rated in crime statistics has created many a disgruntled voter.

But there was nothing wrong with this. It was simply the Mixed Member Proportional system at work. People wanted more Labour seats in Parliament. The Greens had botched their campaign with Metiria Turei’s acknowledgement that she misled Work and Income New Zealand. New Zealand First didn’t run as convincing a campaign as they could have and it was time to make United Future and the Maori Party pay for their support of National. Those extra Labour seats had to come from somewhere.

Loss of M.P.’s a blow for South Island

Posted on by
Reply

With the loss of New Zealand First Members of Parliament Denis O’Rourke, Richard Prosser and Ria Bond, the South Island has had a significant reduction in representation in Parliament. Mrs Bond was New Zealand First list Member of Parliament for Invercargill. Mr Prosser was New Zealand First list Member of Parliament for Waimakariri and Mr O’Rourke was list Member of Parliament for Port Hills electorate.

Mr O’Rourke was a significant voice for environmental, Christchurch, transport and human rights issues. His career as a Christchurch City Councillor, followed by being chair of the committee in charge of the Kate Valley landfill project and later the Central Plains Water irrigation scheme gave him a huge exposure to environmental and local governance law. During his time in Parliament Mr O’Rourke was the spokesperson for Christchurch issues and often took on the cases of disaffected residents having trouble with E.Q.C. or the now defunct Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority.

Mrs Bond is a small business owner who established a hairdressing business in Invercargill. During her time as one, she also chaired the New Zealand Association of Registered Hairdressers. Her time in New Zealand First started with a position on the party’s Board of Directors before she stood for Parliament in 2014.

Mr Prosser stood for New Zealand First in 2011 at no. 4 and entered Parliament along with leader Winston Peters and six other M.P.’s He stood again in 2014 and was returned. During his time in Parliament Mr Prosser championed biosecurity issues.

New Zealand First has a new South Island M.P. named Mark Patterson. Mr Patterson lives in the large Clutha-Southland electorate where he is a farmer. Mr Patterson has said that he will continue to advocate for Clutha-Southland as a list Member of Parliament. Mr Patterson says that he will advocate for rural New Zealand and push for additional Government support to help rural communities.

 

National’s M.S.D. failure

Posted on by
Reply

Every election we hear about the need to address social welfare in New Zealand. We hear the Greens and Labour going on about the need for compassion and making sure that people on the benefits are reasonably able to afford basics. We hear about the need to reform social welfare to stop it being a hand out as opposed to a hand up from National and A.C.T. After nine years of National and A.C.T. being in office, I get the distinct impression that they have lost sight of their message.

Or that the message they are putting out is perhaps not the message that the centre-right should be putting out about social welfare. I mean, the supporter base of both parties are the ones talking up employers – and there are many great employers, don’t get me wrong – and talking down the beneficiaries whom they claim are druggies, fraudsters and so forth. The same also generally go for bureaucrats as being financial wastage costing hard earned income. Which brings me nicely to my next point.

A good example of bureaucratic mismanagement is the Ministry of Social Development. I have heard stories of time, money and resource wastage by staff from others who have dealt with the M.S.D. and its umbrella agencies such as Work and Income New Zealand, Child Youth and Family Services, as well as Studylink. I have also seen inept practices with my own eyes.

To some extent I believe the Social Welfare Act is to blame. It is a rigid piece of legislation that is not fit for 2017 and its application forces staff to straight jacket cases that simply cannot be. The result is a misguided attempt to help clients that just as regularly damages individuals and their trust in the very agencies that are supposed to be assisting them, as it actually helps anyone.

But also there is a need to have a sea change from the Minister down in terms of how the Ministry operates. The culture of the management does as much to fuel the wastage as the Act. When one has staff treating completely innocent clients as if they are criminals, with an air of suspicion and a complete lack of empathy, of course one should expect them to treat one with contempt. It is not to say the staff member/s in question are necessarily bad people and it might be their training, or lack of that is to blame.

An average request in my experience at W.I.N.Z. took two meetings to do what generally could have been done in one. For the most part the second meeting was simply an exercise in time wastage, as were subsequent meetings. When across five separate meetings you find yourself telling staff the same data each time and no tangible changes being given effect to, I think the client has a good reason to ask what is going on. When a staff member who has never had your case before tells you what he thinks of you after just five minutes, is he not jumping to conclusions – or off a proverbial cliff? Especially when it happens without even looking at your case notes or even realistically giving you a chance to explain your situation.

And the paperwork. I understand the need to leave a paper trail to cover ones legal behind, but sometimes the sheer pedanticism of the letters that get sent out makes one wonder if paper wasting is not part of their brief. An example that I remember clearly was being told in one letter that I was over paid by $0.65c or similar in a weekly benefit payment and that W.I.N.Z. would correct this over the next two weeks – yes such pedantic nonsense actually does happen.

Given this wastage and ineptness costs hard earned income by requiring more tax and more money to be borrowed – which has to be paid back at some point (but that is another story) – the silence from National and A.C.T. about one of the biggest waste machines in Government is quite extraordinary.

Negotiations are premature – wait for the special votes

Posted on by
Reply

In the 48 hours or so since the election results became obvious, commentators have been talking about how the election results might look once the special votes – all 400,000 of them – have been counted. Others are talking about the negotiations under way. They are trying to determine who will govern and how their deal will be reached.

All of this I find somewhat premature. No one knows how those 400,000 votes – which are thought to likely cost National a couple of seats – will play out. For all we know, despite the past history of specials suggesting that the Green Party or Labour will do best, National might pick up a seat or David Seymour might not have to rename A.C.T. the David Seymour Party.

I am also sure that the negotiations will not last nine long weeks like they did in 1996, when New Zealand First leader Winston Peters was king maker. He stitched up a deal with the National Party from which he had resigned just a few years earlier to form New Zealand First. Unfortunately for him, New Zealanders were annoyed with the length of time it took and support for his party plunged. Only because he held the Tauranga electorate and took it back by less than 100 votes did New Zealand First survive the 1999 election. I am also sure that both Prime Minister Bill English and Labour Leader Jacinda Ardern will not be wanting a hastily stitched up deal that fails only a year later. Should one or the other be after such a deal, they should concede the 2017 election now.

But, okay. Let us suppose for a moment Labour and the Greens pick up another seat each. That gets Green Party candidate Golriz Ghahraman, an Iranian who fled to New Zealand when she was a child into Parliament It means National will have to concede a seat. Another seat may be conceded for Anna Lorck, the highest ranked Labour candidate to not enter Parliament. If this were the case, National would be down to 56 seats in Parliament. They could still negotiate with New Zealand First.

So let us see how this turns out. One thing is certain. This election is not quite over yet.