Stewardship of Public Assets

Wow! I must have been busy on other things. Clearly it has been a long time since my last post. Have you ever noticed that no one looks after your stuff the way that you do? Have you ever lent something to a friend and it has not come back in the state it left you? Or maybe you have the experience of being a landlord and you have found your property has deteriorated more than it would have had you been the occupier? I have experienced both of these. It leads me to the conclusion that if everyone owns it no one cares for it (a nail in the coffin of socialism). It is also my conviction that private ownership leads to good stewardship, lower costs and more efficiency. Owners of assets steward them. In the instance of my experience as a landlord certain legal restraints did not allow me to exercise the stewardship I would have preferred of those assets, and the rental income I charged did not have the desired effect of engendering in the tenants some sense of responsibility for someone else's possession. I support the Government's proposed asset sales. But I think there are some smart ways they can unload some of our social burdens and make people more responsible for themselves. The Government is a landlord. From my observation many of the houses that the taxpayer owns and the Government rents on our behalf are badly stewarded by the tenants. Often the Government is actually paying the tenant to pay the rent, by way of Unemployment Benefit and then Accommodation Supplement. My proposal would be the following: 1. The Government gifts the house to the current tenant (subject to the house being suitable for the current needs of the tenant i.e. not overcrowded and not uninhabitable) 2. In exchange for the taxpayer's generosity the new owner of the house agrees to never rely on the taxpayer for the provision of accommodation again and agrees on behalf of their offspring (current and future) the same. Two generations will be able to use the taxpayer's gift to ensure they are adequately housed. The new owner will have a house which they can care for and dispose of or use as they see fit. If their family expands they can borrow against the house to extend it or they can sell it and buy a more suitable home. They could borrow against the house to get their children a tertiary education or to assist them into their own homes. The Government will no longer have to provide houses. They won't have to maintain their property portfolio and they won't have to collect rent. I would go even further to identify private rentals where the Government is effectively the tenant i.e. by paying the Unemployment Benefit and/or Accommodation Supplement and acquire these properties under the Public Works Act and gift them to the current tenant. This may seem like a costly proposal. I don't have the resources to cost this and determine whether the Government and taxpayer will be better or worse off under this proposal, but I think there are huge merits to it. An initial investment of some capital could remove a lot of on-going costs from the system that seem perpetually guaranteed to grow. There is a huge amount of injustice in this too. What about the "battlers" who are scrimping and saving to buy their own home to get off the rental treadmill? Well, life is not fair! But maybe this proposal will free up more savings by reducing your taxes allowing you to save faster.

Doing the decent thing...

This lady deserves a New Year's honour. She has done more for making New Zealand a decent society than all the politicians and all the public servants in this country put together. Persuading her own son to turn himself in to Police is an example that could be emulated by more in society.

It seems that some laws are more rigorously enforced than others. Harbouring a criminal is not an offense that comes up in the court pages very often, but I suspect that there are numerous people living everyday, knowing the offender in a particular crime, and not coming forward.

Another point that readers may have missed is that the son in this case was 18. When I talk with people about parental responsibility I get the impression that the majority of people think their parenting stops as soon as their child turns 16 and is old enough to leave school. (Some people give up even sooner.) My kids know that they live by my rules while they live in my house, so if they are here till they turn 20 then they will not get away with anti-social, larakin behaviour.

I've expressed my view on the debate about raising the driving age. Nothing needs to change in law, but parents need to step up and be responsible. This article just proves that. All the socialist thinking in New Zealand causes people to bleat on about the Government needing to change the laws. Utter rubbish! They should enforce the law. And then, in the case of learner drivers, parents should "man up" and take responsibility for their own children's actions (whether it is driving, firing bb guns out car windows or drinking at parties).

Somehow New Zealand has to reverse the damage done by the last 2 or 3 generations who have been raised in a socialist environment. It is patently obvious that Governments are powerless to make change at an individual level. And the more ink they waste on legislation and then waste money on the bureaucracy to administer the unworkable regulations, only to have to draft some more unnecessary legislation to patch up the first, the worse it gets.

Being a decent society comes down to individuals doing the decent thing. They don't need a pile of laws to tell them what to do. But it is the cumulative actions of every individual and not the collective 'relative inaction' of Governments and their supporting bureaucracy that make New Zealand a decent society.

This anonymous woman deserves recognition for the huge contribution she has made to making New Zealand a more decent society, and the example she is to all parents.

I can't hold back on this one...

I see in today's Herald that debate has begun about raising the age for obtaining a driver's license. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10463733

I do no believe the age for obtaining a driver's license should be changed.

Our eldest son is currently on his Restricted License for a car and motorbike. We live rurally, and the benefit of having him driving is immense. He has a couple of part-time jobs, one of which involves him being on the job at 5:30 am. There is no public transport here, and even if there was the odds of it operating at 5:00am to our gate are not good. I hold down a full-time job myself, and I would be strongly averse to getting up at 5:00 am to drive him to work, and then come home for a bit more sleep and then go back to pick him up. That's before I take account of the extra cost of fuel (hopefully those of a Green persuasion will look at this and realise the environmental impact of raising the driving age).

My viewpoint is that the problem with young drivers is not the youngsters themselves, but their parents. If my son proves to be an idiot behind the wheel, there is no way I am going to let him advance to his full license. That's my responsibility as a parent. We have already stipulated that he will not own his own car while he lives at home and is at school. His choice of vehicles, therefore, is restricted to practical family vehicles of modest power. When he comes to make a choice of his own vehicle, then I hope that I will have a hand in this too. When I chose my first car my parents were involved in that decision, and were fully aware of the choice of vehicle I was making, despite me being over 21 at the time.

We have been so indoctrinated with the socialist mentality in this country that every time there is a problem it is supposed that "society will fix it". People are too eager and quick to throw away their volition and expect the Government to step in. I see this, not only in this matter but in other areas of topicality. Take the national response to anthropogenic climate change. Everyday I see examples of people who are convinced that climate change or global warming or whatever has been caused by mankind. Yet, even though they are utterly convinced that man is responsible, they do NOTHING to moderate their own behaviour. The most zealous believers in anthropogenic climate change seem to be the ones who do least to moderate their own behaviour, but instead agitate for "society to address the issue".

My point is not to get into the climate change debate, but to illustrate how Kiwis have become infected with a socialist mentality. Look at the variety of responses to problems of domestic child battery. The Children's Commissioner wants to commission another study into the issue. Politicians are skirting the obvious demographic, socio-economic and ethnic statistics and claiming it is a universal societal problem.

BUNKUM. It is a problem of a lack of personal responsibility and accountability. It is a history of poor parenting generating poor parenting.

Back to the driving age issue.

Leave the driving age at 15. There are many practical reasons for it.

Secondly, parents should start teaching their children to drive from as young an age as possible. Get the "mechanics" of driving taught as soon as the kid can see over the steering wheel. Take them out into a paddock and get them driving around and developing the skills so that when they have their learner's license and are on the road they are able to concentrate their efforts on negotiating traffic and other obstacles.

Thirdly, when your teenager gets their license, teach them in as many situations as possible. Don't just teach them to drive in town. Get them out onto the highway and unmarked country roads. Have them drive at night, in the rain and in heavy traffic. Don't let them take on these unfamiliar circumstances on their own when they get to their restricted license stage. [I am not one for too many regulations, but in taking my son through his Learner's License I thought it would be a good idea if Learners had to keep a diary of their driving experience, including such things as the daylight, weather and traffic conditions under which they had trained. The examiner could look at the diary and determine whether the candidate has had enough varied experience.]

Fourthly, as parents we must take responsibility for our children, and parent them. We must be parents, and should not hand that responsibility over to the State. Set sensible and logical boundaries that are appropriate to the age, experience and temperament of your child. You know them - an anonymous "pencil neck" at the Ministry of Transport or a Minister of Transport cannot make a sensible decision about the age at which your child is qualified to become a driver. Some 15 year olds are very good drivers. There are some 40 year olds who should be disqualified and kept off the road for good. Age is such an arbitrary measure. If your child is too immature to drive, then do not allow them to sit a license. If they are an idiot behind the wheel of a car then don't let them drive a Mitsubishi Evo - and if you do and they kill themselves or someone else, then don't blame the Government or "Society".

Kiwis, I appeal to you, don't concede on this one. Despite their reassurances, the Government does not know best.