A Loving Smack - To Smack or not To Smack?

We are currently enmeshed in a debate about the role of smacking in society here. A piece of legislation currently in Parliament is calling for the abolition of the right for parents to use “reasonable force” on their children. Of course how does one define reasonable force. New Zealand struggles with a culture of violence towards children (adults also) and this legilsation has been seen as a way of saying no to any kind of violence.

http://www.greens.org.nz/campaigns/section59/

Now this has seen some people get pretty steamed up about the government interferring in their “right” to discipline their children as they see fit and the middle classes will be criminalised for just giving occasional smacks which hardly qualify as violence. It’s been quite a ding dong battle with Parliament passing the legislation against general public opinion which has been against it.

I had this letter published today in the Christchurch Press,

Dear Sir,

The response to the proposed Bradford legislation has been quite revealing about attitudes towards children in New Zealand. As John Tamihere eloquently expressed children are mere chattels to be dealt with as any parent sees fit. That used to be the way husbands viewed their wives and judging by the statistics on domestic assault some still do. It is only through legislation that real social changes have been able to take root and become embedded in society.

At first this legislation can seem invasive but as Pita Sharples exhorted it’s about saying no to any kind of violence within our families. There are many non-violent ways to discipline a child. Some don’t give instant results like a sharp smack but in the long run they have better results. We need to listen more to our children and find out why they are behaving inappropriately and then deal with it. Hitting someone and then telling them you love them is a lame excuse for a lazy and angry approach. Big respect to Pita Sharples for making a stand even though he knows it’s the harder road to take.

Yours Sincerely.

So what do people here think? As Pita Sharples said “how can we hit something we love”. But some would say a short sharp smack lets children know when they have stepped over the line (i’m just saying that for balance).

Parenting is damn hard work and parents need way more help and resources to bring up their children. Such irony…one of the easiest and most pleasureable things to create and one of the hardest to look after

I feel that resorting to any kind of violence is simply reinforcing a culture where violence is used as a method of resolving disputes whether at a basic interpersonal level or a geopolitical one.

The attraction is that violence usually gets you an immediate result but the long-term consequences are usually a disaster. So what can we do? What do we need to do to make a non-violent society. I have my own ideas but i would love to hear from others on this subject.

Peace and love to all.

Parliamentary Officers - Keeping the Long View

A few weeks ago in New Zealand we celebrated the 20th Anniversary of our Parliamentary Commissioner of the Environment. This is an office of Parliament and therefore independent of the government of the day. The Commissioner reports to the Speaker of The House and the officers of the Parliament Committee.

This is an incredibly important position. Government is hamstrung at the best of times by short term considerations such as re-election and the constant sniping from the lobby brigade. The Commissioner on the other hand can afford to take a long term view and can criticise the government freely and ultimately acts as a guardian for the environment.

The only other country to have such a position is not a country but a province of Canada. Ontario passed an Environmental Bill of Rights back in 1994 which was a very forward thinking piece of legislation and this is monitored by the Environmental Commissioner of the Environment.

Canadians and New Zealanders both live in spaces of outstanding natural beauty and wonder. And yes we rely on the land for our food, energy and shelter but we are also aware that it cannot be pillaged without due thought for the consequences.

These officers provide a balance to the me-now culture that dominates courtesy of a society drunk on credit and the growth imperative that follows. Whilst i am not a great fan of bureaucrats Parliament (or similar legislature) is the representation of the people and the common good and more countries could use this type of model.

In Europe there are several Sustainable Development Commissions. Their job is to be an independent voice also and often are appointed by the Prime Minister with a mandate to be objective and critical. Of course their powers are limited to an advisory role whereas an officer of Parliament carries more weight.

Democracy is in a fragile state these days. We don’t respect our politicians, the election process is more and more about money and people feel disenfranchised. Officers of Parliament can bring more respect as they work on behalf of the people and the institution that represents them.

It’s time to rescue our political institutions before they become completely corporatised. Let them take the long view without interference and let’s leave short term-ism to the business sector.

How to curb excessive house price rises

Today Michael Cullen revelaed an audacious plan to apply a mortgage levy to fixed rate mortgages. This predicatably went down like a lead balloon. It’s just another tax on property owners and likely to be very regressive in nature.

House prices are expensive especially when related back to wages and rents. The question to ask is why prices have risen so much in the last 5 years. One simple explanation is increased migration. This creates demand for new housing for the new population but it is also the nature of the new arrivals that is important. Many immigrants are skilled and wealth with 60% approved last year under the business or skilled categories. Added to this was a general weakness in the NZ$ back in 2001/2002 which made NZ property look very cheap. This in turn allowed higher prices to be paid for property mainly through the auction process here which created a general revaluation of property across the board.

That revaluation in 2002/2003 lifted prices and generated a whole new group of property investors and developers. Property was suddenly on the move and a great investment. With immigration picking up again it is hard to see how prices can fall from current levels.

By imposing a mortgage levy all the government would achieve is to make people less well off leading to higher wage demands. As the imposition of stamp duty in the UK showed it is hard to restrain a property market when demand is strong.

With so much overseas capital arriving, even with the NZ% so strong (though it should be noted not so strong against A$, Eur or Stg) it is very difficult to control the property market.

One alternative is to look at the actual supply of money otherwise known as credit. There has been mention of LoanToValue ratios and attempting to control them. It may be easier to actually limit or reduce the amount of credit banks can grant, in essence saying “hey there just isn’t any more money out there”.

I will explore the issue of changing the reserve asset ratio another time but it is clear that the mortgage levy is not the answer.

Do incentives work?

Research from the UK into people’s “green” behaviour demonstrates that people respond poorly to price signals and very rarely make the changes required without strong arm tactics. Recent fuel surcharges on air travel have made little difference to people’s travel plans. As our recent experiences with credit show us, people are always happy to go into debt to have what they want right now. Ecological credit is no different.

We must stop offering unlimited ecological credit if we really want to cap greenhouse gas emissions at any chosen level. Like our money supply it is currently in an acceleration phase upwards with little or no control.

Time to Limit Fossil Fuel Production

Climate Control: Managing Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions

It’s time to face the fact that climate change can only be dealt with at the global level in a similar manner to ozone depletion.

I issued the following press release today. Read the full paper at the above link.

Should we limit fossil fuel production
Monday, 5 February 2007, 11:56 am

Press Release: Sustento Should We Limit Fossil Fuel Production?NZ economist proposes global fossil fuel production quotas to stem greenhouse gas emissions.

Christchurch-based policy institute Sustento says governments must set up a global quota system urgently to control fossil fuel production.

Institute director, Raf Manji says the Sustento Framework is based on the reality that climate change is a global problem and needs to be dealt with at the global level.

“Currently efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have been devolved to the national level where policy has been limited to improving energy efficiency and switching to renewable energy. This approach has not yielded major results and other policy proposals such as carbon based taxes have not found favour with either politicians or their voters.

“As the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report demonstrates this policy impasse needs immediate attention,” he urges.

The Sustento Framework calls for action at the production rather than consumption level. The Framework combines a global carbon inventory with an agreed limit to global greenhouse gas emissions, and from that produces an annual production quota for fossil fuels.

“This guarantees that agreed targets will be met - unlike current consumption reduction approaches which simply hope that this will happen,” he says.

Mr Manji is aware that critics of this approach argue that producers will not like the idea of quotas but, he counters, this approach was very successful in dealing with ozone depletion via the Montreal Protocol where producers rather than consumers were targeted.

Quotas also currently operate within OPEC and informally within the IEA, which represents non-OPEC producers. In July 2006 the G8+5 met for the first time to consider climate change issues. This group alone controls 76% of global coal production, 57% of natural gas and 38% of crude oil production. G20, which is an enlarged version of the G8+5, controls 94% of coal, 73% of gas and 59% of crude oil.

“If the problem of climate change is to be taken seriously by the major nations of the world then it is likely that forums such as the G8+5 will be the place where concrete action will be possible,” he says.

In 1977 the Brandt Commission proposed an international strategy on energy.

“If we are to limit growth in greenhouse gas emissions now is the time to implement such a proposal,” concludes Mr Manji .

ENDS