Chester Borrows MP

GOOD PEOPLE MUST ALWAYS ACT

nospam@example.com (admin) — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 12:30:00 +1200

Last weekend was a fitting one to hold the Taranaki-Wanganui Soldiers Day commemoration and Freedom of the City celebrations, as New Zealand received home the first fatality in conflict of one of it’s serviceman for a decade. There is not a loyal kiwi who doesn’t feel for the O’Donnell family in their loss.

There is a famous saying that “all it takes for evil to flourish is for good [people] to do nothing.” This is the reasoning behind our forces being in Afghanistan and in more than 20 countries around the world. Thank God for men such as Tim O’Donnell who are willing to volunteer for such service. Now will come those who would call our troops home out of harms way to duties which would see them safe on home soil. Yet the engagement in Afghanistan is what our services train for. There seems little point in so training them to remain home. There is a similar analogy with armed police, which was discussed in a recent column. Here also it is salient to recall that nine police have been shot in two years here in New Zealand.

It is proper to see the media pay attention to this loss, as no sacrifice of human life should go unnoticed. Because those who serve do so on our behalf, these debates should receive profile. The fact that New Zealand forces have been so well represented and regarded in battle for over ten years without loss is a tribute to their training and proficiency. Given that our forces are involved in a war with guerrilla troops who don’t heed conventions and terms of engagement, it is fortunate there has not been a greater loss of life. American troops number 150,000 in Afghanistan and last month they lost 90. However, as was well noted by Robin Fletcher, National President RSA, the loss of a young serviceman is no less because it is one and not many, to the families and friends of that young serviceman.

The fact is that New Zealand is not immune and the terrorist acts of the Taleban and the like have on occasion cost the lives of our countrymen. We have responsibilities as a civilised and able country to give a response. To do nothing is akin to watching a beating outside a pub on our main street or a bully standing over a mate in a school yard and doing nothing. It is right to intervene – to do nothing is not an option.

War is a waste of manhood, energy, potential and resources and no civilised people should rush off to war unthinkingly or without due consideration for the costs. But there is no integrity in turning a blind eye, or using only words against those forces too drunk with power or hate to listen. The bullets and bombs they are deploying are real - killing fellow human beings usually in no position to fight back. Bullies never pick on the strong.

No officer should hand a weapon to a serviceman, civilian or otherwise, and not take responsibility for that action. No politician should order troops into battle without taking cognisance of that instruction. In the end we are all responsible because those who serve do so in our stead, and we are gratefully out of harms way, which we may not be in the future, should they refuse to go, or we choose not to send them.

HOW LOW CAN YOU GO

nospam@example.com (admin) — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 12:25:00 +1200

You can’t sit tall in the saddle of a high horse when you’re telling lies. This last week has been devastating for Labour, after Chris Carter stated what was on the mind of not only their membership and supporters, but also the voting public – cite the polls. Any student of politics knows that only two New Zealand governments have been given the boot after only one term. That was Walter Nash’s in 1960 after the Black Budget and Bill Rowling’s government after Norman Kirk died in 1975. It seems pretty obvious that had those two events not occurred, those administrations would have been re-elected.

Even across the Tasman, the last one term government was in the 1930’s. The fact is that Kiwis and Aussies don’t like election campaigns and would rather not chop and change governments. They like certainty and consistency and have only given a government the boot when they decide they’ve had a gutsful of an administration. Then all the accumulated gaffs, trips, stumbles and re-starts are stacked up against the incumbents and the slide starts – and ends in a change of administration.

So Chris Carter decided to create a few sneaky leaks. He took envelopes printed with something like “from the Minister of Finance” and in his own handwriting addressed anonymous letters to the press gallery, foretelling of a coup to over throw Phil Goff as leader of the Labour Party. When confronted with the treason by Goff et al, Carter denied any part. That was only until it was pointed out that his handwriting appeared on the envelope. Carter, having been in parliament 17 years, has handwriting very familiar to the Labour Party frontbenchers.

No media has shoved a microphone under Carter’s nose though and asked why he lied by denying he sent the letters. If he is so proud to have taken the stand, and to quote the man himself, “if it takes my political career to remove Phil Goff then so be it – I’m quite happy about that,” why not proudly claim the moral high ground? The fact is he had been caught and had no choice but to admit the crime.

The big problem for Phil Goff now is that he’s drawn a fairly black line by saying there is no place in the Labour Party for Carter – but Carter faithful don’t want him to go. Huge numbers of the party faithful are musing “He’s only saying what we’ve been thinking.” Now the wannabe leader, Party President Andrew Little, is using this to his advantage by talking about “stress” and “pressure” which relates to Carter having to carry the can for his ridiculous antics with international travel expenses, and then hiding behind a gay-bashing quote. When he knew more expenses stuff was about to splash with the next release of member’s expenses, he dropped the bomb last week.

Now apparently on sick leave for two months, he hides behind a mask which cynically seeks to align his meltdown to mental illness. Those with genuine health concerns will see this for what it really is – and all because of one little lie.

If Chris Carter had admitted his scepticism of Goff’s leadership and his advice to the media, he’d have some integrity left, but he didn’t and so he doesn’t.

Video Update

nospam@example.com (admin) — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:15:53 +1200

Continue reading "Video Update"

NOT ALL CRUISEY ON ISLAND IN THE SUN

nospam@example.com (admin) — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:53:00 +1200

Life as an MP is not all work. I spent last weekend on the Chatham Islands playing rugby for the Parliamentary Rugby team. (Yes we paid our own travel and accommodation!) Life’s not all play either as we took some time to meet with the District Councillors about the many issues that challenge those on the island. These include the cost of electricity being up at 93 cents per unit; the wharf deteriorating due to poor workmanship and needing replacement ($6m); the airstrip needing lengthening and strengthening ($3.m); the need for a breakwater so ships can birth, unload, and reload without having to ‘stand off’ awaiting calm weather – which at $10,000 per day for 60-90 days per year is quite significant ($7-10m).

The way these issues interweave create the points of hardship on the island. For example, boats being unable to birth easily threaten the viability of service because they can’t stick to timetables. The high price of electricity means island based freezing works and fish factories are unlikely due to the cost of electricity pricing them out of the market. Stock now needs to be sent to New Zealand for sale, but freight costs and the need to allow animals to recover prior to sale means that an $80 lamb may incur $28 in freight, grazing and yarding fees. Similar costs for beef are $110 for a yearling and up to $300 for a fully grown beast.

The lack of a long and strong airstrip means planes are limited by capacity so freight is expensive and so is tourism. Vegetables are expensive - $6 per cabbage – but obviously fish and meat are cheap.

Now a simple response can be “well the islanders choose to live there so why should we bother?” But this is a little simplistic given the Chathams are recognised as part of New Zealand and not a foreign country.

New Zealanders are not expected to pay for their electricity generation or taxed for freight costs in the same way Chatham Islanders do. Although there are costs to living rurally in New Zealand, many of the costs Islanders incur are not replicated here.

The compelling argument the Chatham Islanders make is the huge contribution they make to the New Zealand economy, as the Islands are in New Zealand territorial waters. The most lucrative fishing is on the Chatham Rise and this must contribute tens of millions in tax take alone. The exploitation of the wealth of this small community has resulted in very little being contributed to the infrastructure on the island and big dollars for New Zealand. The complete annihilation of orange roughy stocks and crayfish without compensation, or even a per kilo fee that would see some money staying on the islands, has left the Chathams with a lack of resources and a lack of quick answers for big problems in the island.

A lack of reasonable electricity rates means a lack of jobs, which means a lack of work for young people, which then means a declining population, (now only 612). Why should Wanganui and South Taranaki residents and taxpayers care? Because they are New Zealanders. Our area contributes to the NZ economy and receives a dividend from it. The scales don’t tip so favourable for the Chatham Islanders. It never hurts to learn a little more outside the bounds of your own electorate.

BIG DECISION RESTS RIGHTLY WITH THE POLICE

nospam@example.com (admin) — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:04:42 +1200

In the last week we’ve seen two police officers and their dog shot, and an offender shot by Police. So as far as victims go it’s two to one in favour of the criminals, not counting the police dog. This is also a time when everyone becomes a commentator, the most emphatic of which have never stared down the barrel of a loaded firearm aimed in menace with intent to kill. Such experience focuses the mind more than a little. My experience came as a 20 year old policeman, when I was held at gunpoint by a murderer escaping the scene. He was upset at recently being dumped by his girlfriend and had taken several shots around the neighbourhood, killing one and attempting to kill several others.

He was quite polite but resolute – which was scary enough. But at least he was sober and could be engaged in discussion long enough for reinforcements to arrive. Nevertheless, after noticing another officer coming on to the scene, he pulled the trigger. Good luck and a temporary malfunction meant no shot was fired, so he was dumped by us and arrested without further loss of life. We probably put ourselves into the situation too quickly and without as much thought as I hope officers apply today to similar situations. The Queen recognised what was described as bravery, but with 30 plus years of hindsight my actions could well be described in less charitable ways.

Back in those days the phrase often heard was, “if we arm the police, the criminals will be armed”. And maybe there was some truth in that. However, that argument does not stack up today. The criminals are well tooled up, and we have no idea of who is armed with what. A change in licensing regime years ago meant individual firearms were no longer accounted for. Prior years of not registering shotguns or air rifles and the proliferation of military firearms after two world wars means there are probably several hundred thousand, if not a million, illegal firearms out there. Add to that the invasion of internet importation and purchasing, and it’s fair to say the bolted horse is long out of the barn.

Hearing the musings then of commentators wanting to blame police behaviour for the recent shootings surely rankles. These are doubtless the same folk who blame the police for car chase deaths rather than the dangerous driving idiot behind the wheel. They seek to mitigate the actions of the lawless but damn the efforts of those working on behalf of society to bring them into line safely. People who take up firearms against the police often do so in the heat of the moment. But obtaining them, sawing the barrels off, secreting them and doing all this without the requisite licence is done rationally and soberly. They know what they are doing when they decide to obtain and retain firearms. It is a decision to live outside the law, expecting that there may well be a time when they are prepared to kill. This is probably because of violent associations or a willing involvement with drugs. Having made that decision though, the guns are often used when drunk or high on some other substance.

The Minister of Police has told us last week that arming the Police is an operational decision for the Commissioner. She’s right. Having people completely disassociated from the responsibility of law enforcement whimpering about the prospect of arming the Police pays no mind to the threat to all our safety while the status quo remains.

The world has changed. Guns are easy to get, relatively cheap and easy to use. Criminals are keener to use them with all the junk they put into their bodies fuelling more violent behaviour. Would it surprise anyone that policing policies need to acclimatise to this new environment?