BETHESDA, MD — In an astonishing Black Friday sale, Lockheed Martin is now offering to equip 2 wars for the price of 1.

“We’ve never slashed our prices this low!” said Lockheed CEO James Taiclet in a public press conference announcing the once-in-a-lifetime event. “War in Ukraine! War in Israel! War in China! It doesn’t matter! For today only, we will provide two wars-worth of death-dealing equipment to the government for the price of only one! We could fund 2 wars! 4 wars! Even 6 wars! With prices this low, we’d be foolish not to!”

Sources confirmed defense contractors Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics have followed suit with similar offers for Black Friday only. The Department of Defense is being advised to stock up on drones, hellfire missiles, space lasers, and other necessary equipment to be sent to rogue governments, terrorist organizations, and corrupt oligarchs around the world to help them make war for the benefit of the military-industrial complex.

Read more

“Good Morning New Zealand and welcome aboard. Sit back and enjoy the ride, tea and coffee will be served shortly, I am your Captain, Winston Peters, and my two apprentice co-pilots are First Officer Chris Luxon and Second Officer David Seymour. I will be taking you all on a interesting trip for about 1.5 years when hopefully the two newbie co-pilots will be still asleep. There may be turbulence ahead so keep your seat belts fastened. Once again, thank you for choosing to fly with Air Winnie.”

There is an urgent and desperate need for a switch back to the political morality of yesteryear to where a premium is placed on integrity, credibility, human values and democracy.

Traditional Labour values

I was raised in a home with pro-Labour views. My father was a railway engine driver and gave strong support to Labour to the point of voting every election, come hell or high-water, for the party. Given his occupation, in those days, this was not unexpected. So not surprisingly I then always voted Labour — well, that is until 1987.

A vote for Labour, that had first become the government in 1935, was not an injudicious choice at election time, particularly in the light of Labour’s origin, track record over the years, respected sincere leaders, and party philosophy.

Back then, Labour, almost without exception, had a succession of strong, principled leaders. I never knew its leader and first Prime Minister, the friendly soft-spoken sincere Michael Joseph Savage, affectionately known as “Mickey”, but my father spoke highly of him. He was highly regarded, indeed loved.

When in 1940, he died of cancer, Savage’s body lay in state at Parliament for two days before his funeral cortège, which was more than 1.6 km long, set off for the railway station on 30 March. It was to be the longest funeral procession, and the most striking outpouring of public grief, in New Zealand’s history recalls New Zealand History. 

Later Labour leaders

Peter Fraser succeeded Savage as Prime Minister. As a youngster growing up and from listening to the radio and reading newspapers, I became aware of him. New Zealand History says Peter Fraser was “respected, rather than loved like Savage — he is rated by many experts as our finest PM.”  

Arnold Nordmeyer who entered Parliament as an MP in the inaugural Labour government in 1935, was a former church minister. As Minister of Finance he later earned notoriety for his infamous “Black Budget” of 1958 in which he instigated significant increases in indirect taxation, particularly on cars, petrol, tobacco and alcohol, which overshadowed some increases given in benefits. 

Ironically today, the question might be, wouldn’t most applaud more taxes on tobacco and alcohol? [The first probably, but not the second —Eds] Arnold Nordmeyer possessed “great intellectual integrity: was firm but not dogmatic in his views, honest in their expression“ says The Encyclopedia of New Zealand.

In 1965, Nordmeyer was defeated in a ballot for Labour leader by a young rising star, Norman Kirk.

Norm Kirk and environmental issues

By then I was involved in environmental issues, notably the “Save Manapouri” campaign and fighting ill-conceived plans for trout farming. About 1971 through Marlborough’s Labour MP the late Ian Brooks, I personally met Norman Kirk in the lobby outside parliament’s debating chamber to explain the several reasons for opposing trout farming.

The big man sat down and invited me to explain. What was important was that he listened intently. He then thanked me and said he’d “be in touch.”

Led by Norman Kirk, Labour opposed the raising of Lake Manapouri and National’s obsession for trout farming, and decisively won the 1972 election.

I viewed Norman Kirk as a man of principle and integrity. He introduced farsighted legislation such as keeping newly discovered oil and gas fields off the Taranaki coast in New Zealand ownership. 

But in 1974 he suddenly died while in office to be replaced by Bill Rowling. I came to regard Rowling as weak and ineffectual.

Getting punished by the electorate

For some unfathomable reason, Rowling immediately caved in to international oil company lobbyists and repealed Kirk’s new law that had put in place safeguards for New Zealand’s new oil and gas fields.

The hapless Rowling seemed powerless to withstand the onslaught of the aggressive National leader Rob Muldoon and in 1975 Labour was vigorously dumped out of government by the voting public.

What might have been if big Norm hadn’t died in office

It’s interesting to contemplate what course New Zealand’s political history might have taken if Kirk had not abruptly died while still Prime Minister. From conversations with a press gallery journalist and one or two Labour MPs, Norman Kirk who was a formidable orator and debater who used to trounce Muldoon in debates in Parliament.  

Perhaps had New Zealand not lost Kirk, National would not have won the 1975 election?Therefore Muldoon would probably never have become Prime Minister.

Even hardened National supporters had a grudging respect for Norman Kirk, such was his stature, principles, and debating ability.

Muldoon’s blunder – the snap election

In 1984 a “fueled” Prime Minister Rob Muldoon blundered and called a snap election. This resulted in Labour coming back as the government, led by a young lawyer named David Lange. Lange, with his booming oratory, intellect and promises for full democracy and transparent government, was eerily reminiscent of Norman Kirk. Like Norman Kirk, David Lange was a charismatic politician. A lawyer by profession with a quick and cutting wit, he led the Labour Party to victory in an electoral landslide.

The new government initially honoured its promise of democracy and transparency by holding an “Economic Summit Conference” at Parliament Buildings over three days in September 1984. It boded well. While David Lange was chairing the Economic Summit Conference and engaging in various prime ministerial activities, the new government’s Finance Minister Roger Douglas was working — arguably plotting — with the Treasury on the government’s first budget, delivered in November 1984.

As a result there were some dramatic and far-reaching economic changes.

By 1986 a number of public services became State Owned Enterprises (SOE) where public service became secondary to making a profit.

In December 1987, Roger Douglas announced the government’s intention of significantly reducing its debt position through a programme of asset sales. During the next two years, major privatisations included the Bank of New Zealand, Petrocorp, New Zealand Steel, the New Zealand Shipping Corporation, State Insurance, Telecom, among others.

The sales of some public assets may well have been justified.  But there were stenches of heavily discounted selling prices and important public assets being sold to the Party’s “corporate mates”. Worse still, democracy had been ignored with the public — the owners of assets — not informed, let alone asked permission.

Labour’s long standing philosophy of ‘government for the people’ had been brushed aside by the dogma of Libertarian capitalistic ideology.

Bust-up

In the wake of the 1987 stock-market crash, David Lange announced a review of the asset sales process. Escalating conflict between him and Roger Douglas finally erupted. Prime Minister Lange in 1988 made his famous call for “time for a cup of tea” signaling his opposition to the continuing sell-offs of the public’s assets.

Roger Douglas departed from cabinet in 1988, but was re-elected by his colleagues in 1989, which then sparked Lange’s resignation. David Lange had eventually stuck to his principles for democracy and transparency.

I had voted for Labour at the 1984 election but in the year or two following, watched with growing dismay — morphing into anger — at the unprincipled disposal of public assets. I was shocked at Labour’s arrogance and effrontery. On election night in 1987, I stood dumbfounded that the public had re-elected an arrogant and ruthless Labour Party with a solid majority of 17 seats.

The Rogernomics era represented an aberration from the party’s firm traditional belief in democracy and government for the people. In effect it was a political transformation from Mr Hyde to Dr. Jekyll. 

Obviously, in 1987 I did not vote Labour and from that election night on, I morphed into a committed swinging voter.

Some of the Rogernomics economic measures had justification, but the processes were so rushed. Besides, the neo-liberal style government brought collective changes to New Zealand’s once caring society. I wrote letters to editors bemoaning the tearing apart of New Zealand’s social fabric. The country’s personality lost its caring and kindness as a generally caring community-spirited one, to a dominant focus on the selfish individualism — a “dog eat dog” and “Stuff you, I’m alright Jack” mentality.

The public seemed slow to wake up but it did dawn on them and by 1990 the angry public delivered a landslide defeat to Labour. I voted National. Since that 1990 election, I can’t recall exactly who I have voted for.  

The passing parade of indifferent, arrogant governments

The Bolger and Shipley prime ministerial years never gained my vote. The Helen Clark-led Labour government probably did initially, but then lost favour with me.  The National government that followed, led by John Key, probably did not get my nod. Perhaps I voted NZ First or Conservatives?

Oh the delight in the carefree freedom of being a swinging voter!

Certainly I became increasingly disenchanted with the arrogance of National, the surface flippancy of PM John Key that disguised an inner arrogance and cunning of a “wheeler and dealer” investment and wealth financier, aligned with neo-liberal philosophy.

I detected disturbing signs of more erosion of democracy. Select Committees treated the public with disdain, giving just five minutes to make submissions.

I became appalled at the National government’s snub to democracy when it carried out a state seizure of the democratically elected Environment Canterbury council. I saw it as undemocratic.

Besides, it was bizarre that a National government would toss its own philosophy out the window and implement a communist-like state takeover.

From bad to worse: the Ardern years

When Labour came to power in 2017 I was heartened by the solemn promise to turn around the deterioration in the public’s rivers, streams and lakes. Jacinda Ardern seemed like a breath of fresh air but then soon followed a hint of an all-controlling, dictatorial regime.

Covid serendipitously gave Ardern and her cabinet strong powers of control which they eagerly used. They wielded it with increasing pressure and with a strategy of inflicting “divide and conquer” on the people. When PM Jacinda Ardern was asked by a Herald reporter whether she was creating two classes of citizens, between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, she replied “Yep, yep that’s exactly what it is.”

She also said “We [her government] will continue to be your single source of truth” and that “unless you hear it from us, it is not the truth”, with echoes of George Orwell’s “Big Brother” in his acclaimed novel 1984. 

Freedom of speech, the hallmark of a democracy, was under attack. In July this year, the Labour/Greens coalition government set up a multi-stakeholder group to advise on countering misinformation. There were more references by government ministers to shutting down freedom of expression. Kieran McAnulty infamously said in a TV One interview: “There are provisions that we have in this country that wouldn’t stand up to a purely academic democratic framework, but that’s not how we work in New Zealand.”

In January this year, Ardern abruptly vacated the Prime Minister’s seat, thrusting her right-hand lieutenant, Chris Hipkins, into it. Her sudden departure was strangely similar to John Key’s shock stepping down in 2017 as PM, to throw his deputy Bill English into the chief role not long before an election.

The reasons — word has it — differ for the two resignations. But both were so similar,

Ardern’s henchman Chris Hipkins – more of the same 

Hipkins, while trying to project a fresh-faced school boy persona to the voters, had his role as Ardern’s chief henchman tarring the image. In April this year Hipkins told RNZ’s Morning Report: “There’s absolutely no change to the principle of one person one vote. Our elections are still going to be one person, one vote for councils, for general elections.”

“This is demonstrably not the case,” National’s spokesman Paul Goldsmith countered.

In 2022 Labour had passed the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Act, which clearly moved away from the principle of one person, one vote.

“Under the Canterbury Act, the people of Canterbury elect 14 councillors. Everyone gets a vote – Māori, Pakeha and everyone else. And then something extraordinary happens: Ngāi Tahu appoints two more councillors, with no election and no vote. One person, one vote has been abandoned in Canterbury,” said Paul Goldsmith.

During Parliamentary debates, Labour MPs made it clear during the passage of the Canterbury Bill that it was intended to be the first of many across the local government sector.

Alarmingly the public input process of select committees became farcical. Following the 2019 Mosque massacre by an Australian terrorist, to whom, inexplicably, police had granted a firearm licence despite glaring deficiencies in his application, the Ardern government began ramming anti-firearm laws through with National’s support. Labour pretended it had considered over 13,000 public submissions in just two days — 48 hours. It defied credibility. It was an arrogant insult. 

There were numerous other instances: in November 2022, a motion, raised by the leader of the House Chris Hipkins claiming urgency somehow because of the Queen’s death, pushed four bills forward without going through the select committee process, which otherwise would have enabled the public to have their say on proposed legislation.

The Ardern/Hipkins political reign had all the characteristics of Orwell’s Big Brother State.

Law Society Concern

Earlier this year, the Law Society condemned the frequent use of urgency, in a submission on a review of Standing Orders, saying it denied legislation “valuable in-depth scrutiny.” 

Current rules allow parliament to go into urgency without prior notice and without debate. They can allow more than one stage of a bill to be passed in one day, and without going before a select committee for detailed analysis.

The National-led Government used urgency in its dying days in 2017. The Labour Government employed the same process in its last weeks. “The Law Society condemns this practice in simple terms: It gives too much power to politicians over the people” said a report.

Democracy is in a serious decline and the downward slope has steepened alarmingly under Labour’s dictatorial reign. 

Where is the sense of duty and democracy of yesteryear?

Norman Kirk, Michael Joseph Savage, Peter Fraser, Arnold Nordmeyer and David Lange and those other politicians of yesteryear who had served with a sense of duty to the public blended with integrity and proud party principles, would have been deeply saddened by the destructive policies.

I would imagine they might have voted for Labour in 2017, but by the 2020 election they would have been deeply disappointed and would not have voted for the Labour-led government in either that year or this.

Democracy is precious and to be cherished and nurtured, not treated with disdain, arrogance and ignorance. As to the character of the Labour government of 2017 to 2023: words like tyrannical, totalitarian, dictatorial and authoritarian flood to mind.

From Labour voter to swinging voter

From a once loyal Labour voter, I’m now a swinging voter. On deeper reflection the sad reality is that at most recent elections, I’m voting against the government; a negative voting attitude.

I make no apology, any government and in this case the Ardern/Hipkins Labour government, by its actions and utter disrespect for democracy and the people, are the cause. For that reason, I am very unlikely to vote Labour again.

I can appreciate the frustrations for many that can lead to a person not voting or even not being registered as a voter. That is their answer to the credibility gaps and lack of political integrity by governments. But that is doubly negative, by abdicating the right to vote and a snub to democracy.

I was brought up to believe Parliament was court of last resort, where the public could expect a fair deal based on a history of honour, truth and justice. There is an urgent and desperate need for a switch back to the political morality of yesteryear to where a premium is placed on integrity and credibility and human values and democracy.

(Tony Orman has had a working career in land surveying, town planning, school teaching and journalism.)

Judicial activism is showing no signs of slowing down, and it’s a stain on our society.

If you have any fraction of Maori in your bloodline, it is, according to a Family Court judge, “necessary to consider familial, community and cultural matters which are inherent in the development of the identity of a Maori child. These considerations are different from those for a Pakeha child.”

If you’re concerned about the growing level of tension in race relations in this country, look no further than those appalling words from Family Court judge Jill Moss.

How can a member of our judiciary state that Maori are different from non-Maori and say that some children in New Zealand need a different kind of upbringing to others?

What’s more this judge says the obligation to consider those “familial, community and cultural matters” arose from the Treaty of Waitangi.

That is insulting and arrant nonsense.

Which Article of the Treaty says some New Zealanders should be treated differently to others?

Even those with just a rudimentary knowledge of the Treaty understand the three Articles: 1 – the Chiefs ceded the right to govern to the Crown, 2 – Maori would retain ownership and control over their lands and other property, and 3 – all New Zealanders would become British subjects.

It is in Article Three that the concept of “all the ordinary people of New Zealand” having the “same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England” is clearly spelled out.

How can a learned judge of the Family Court re-interpret a much studied document of 183 years ago and find that some ordinary people of New Zealand have different rights and duties?

This whole Family Court debacle came about after a gay female couple wanted a child and decided for reasons best known to themselves to have a Maori sperm donor.

The complication came when the mother and the sperm donor signed an agreement allowing the donor to have a role in the child’s life.

Bad, bad mistake.

If you’re female and gay and want a child, keep the father anonymous and out of both your life, and the life of the child. It’s much less complicated.

In this case the relationship between the mother and the sperm donor fell apart, yet the donor wanted not just to be part of his daughter’s life but also insisted that “she be aware of her identity and proud of her heritage.”

A psychologist’s report quoted the sperm donor father as saying his daughter needed “urgent attention to matters relating to her identity and a defined sense of belonging within her whanau.” The psychologist went on to assert “that approach does not accord with Eurocentric social science theory.”

In the end the Judge decided this sperm donor father can see his daughter once every three weeks. The young girl is currently five years old. I despair of the confusing upbringing she will have.

But I despair more at the insults that educated people are throwing at my non-Maori, or if you like Pakeha, culture. I’ve always led a way of life where family connections are paramount and where we all have a sense of belonging.

I’m deeply offended that a Family Court judge says that Maori children should have different considerations than those for a Pakeha child, and that a psychologist believes “Eurocentric social science theory” (whatever the hell that is) does not include a sense of belonging inside a family.

It is time academics in ivory towers stopped praising Maori and whanau life as superior to the rest of us.

It is not.

We are all New Zealanders. We all have, under Article Three of the Treaty the ”same rights and duties of citizenship.”

It is time to stop the insults and the division. It will ease the tension.

Writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Subscribe to Peter William’s Substack here

How successful they’ll be is questionable, though.

Our friends at the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (“IARPA”, another dreaded 5-letter) are designing “Smart Garments”; apparel that has the ability to track, monitor and record its wearer, because if there’s one thing the American public needs, it’s their pants spying on them. These Smart Garments coincide with the World Economic Forums goals, so that’s good, two tyrants, one stone.

Continue reading

Realpolitik

–the enacting of politics with pragmatic objectives based on compromises and the given circumstances rather than moral and/or ideological notions. The German pronunciation is [ʁeˈaːlpoliˌtiːk]