Posted on 04/02/2003 8:51:10 AM PST by NormsRevenge
,,, can we talk about your formative years?
If Al Gore were President, and was conducting the war, Helen Clark would have supported the war. Socialist comrades stick together.
You may like to take a look at where those policies that sent New Zealand on the path of major economic reform back then are held as good as gold now.
How does she, or Arnett, or any of the rest of the media know even what the "plan" is in the first place?
,,, sound advice.
BTW, when I said hijacked, I didn't mean that was a bad thing.
I've figured it out!
The NZ PM is the result of a one nighter between Helen Thomas and NZ ex-patriot Peter Arnet.
That explains the haughty attitude and the hate for America when it's not under the RATS control.
NZ says "sorry" on virus
By TANYA KATTERN, MARTIN KAY and GORDON JON THOMPSON
The Government has made a top-level apology to Chinese visitors to avoid a diplomatic incident after they were banned from a sister city convention.
At a hastily convened dinner last night, Foreign Affairs Minister Phil Goff said organisers of the Masterton conference were wrong to ban the 43 delegates after more than 60 calls from residents worried about catching the severe acute respiratory syndrome.
He said they should not have bowed to public concerns that the delegates may spread the virus, which has killed more than 70 people worldwide.
"Can I . . . express my regret that you were not able to participate. It's not redneck or racist. It was an over-reaction in terms of the actual level of risk."
Mr Goff made his comments to the delegation last night at a dinner in a Wellington Chinese restaurant that aimed to ease tensions after the snub.
The ban had been greeted with fury by Chinese ambassador Chen Mingming – who learned of it while waiting to meet delegates on Wednesday night – and almost led to a diplomatic row.
He warned that the ban could have damaging effects for New Zealand's relationship with China.
"I don't think it's going to do any damage to our government-to-government relations . . . but I suspect it will have an adverse impact on the booming tourist flow between our two countries. People will feel that somehow the Chinese will be picked out for discrimination."
Mr Chen was still welcome to attend the conference, where he was to have been a guest speaker. But he boycotted it along with New Zealand's ambassador to China, John McKinnon, who was also welcome despite living in Beijing and travelling home through Hong Kong, an area most at risk from the virus.
Both men attended the dinner last night. It emerged yesterday that the ban was because of community alarm that some of the Chinese could be carrying Sars, a pneumonia-like illness that originated in Guangdong in November. More than 60 calls were made to Masterton District Council and conference organisers on Wednesday expressing alarm about the risk.
Sister Cities NZ president and former Hastings mayor Jeremy Dwyer said the ban came after some Masterton people indicated they would not provide catering, transport or accommodation for fear of infection, threatening the whole conference.
"I realise it is very embarrassing for the Chinese, and I'm sorry for that but we had to make the call. The level of anxiety within Masterton was very high."
Li Xiaolin, vice-president of the Chinese People's Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries, said the ban was "unfair and unreasonable".
"We feel it's awful . . . How could you make this kind of decision – everyone has the possibility of carrying a disease. We have a population of 1.3 billion people, and very, very few, only about 1000, have this disease."
Madam Li said none of the 19 Chinese travelling with her came from Guandong, and only a handful came from areas where there was infection.
But Masterton Mayor Bob Francis said it was unfair to criticise the ban because the council was left to "make the hard call" on its own, despite asking for guidance.
Mr Chen said his embassy received calls yesterday from New Zealanders appalled by the ban, and several mayors had invited the groups to visit. Madam Li said her group would visit Rotorua and Auckland.
~ A Fiji rugby player who took part in last week's Hong Kong sevens competition is in hospital amid fears he has Sars, according to Fiji Television.
~ New Zealand Rugby Union deputy chief executive Steve Tew said the union was monitoring players who had returned from Hong Kong.
Here ya go, hot off the press...
DIAGNOSIS NOT GOOD UNDER LABOUR
Weekly Column By Dr Muriel Newman, ACT Member of Parliament
Sickness Benefit figures, released to me last week by the Social Development Ministry, appear to indicate that New Zealand is becoming a sicker society.
Strangely, despite improving healthcare and increased health spending, the number of sickness beneficiaries has increased 17 per cent over the past two years, to almost 39,000. This rise in the number of sickness beneficiaries has largely been driven by Labour’s policy changes. After Labour’s 1999 election to Government, the Beneficiary Unions presented them with more than 100 demands for social welfare system changes. High on their list of priorities were the scrapping of work for the dole, removing work testing of the Domestic Purposes Benefit, and re-establishing the Sickness Benefit as a stand-alone benefit.
The Labour Government willingly complied with those demands: work for the dole has been scrapped and work testing of the DPB removed.
However, history shows that the rise in the number of sickness beneficiaries is a direct result of the Sickness Benefit’s re-establishment as a stand-alone benefit. Numbers on the Sickness Benefit climbed relentlessly over the years, and successive governments have voiced their concerns that – whether it were sore backs, RSI or stress – the number of people receiving a benefit, because they are too sick to work, has inexorably increased.
Concerned about such rapid growth, the previous national Government attempted to encourage beneficiaries back into the workforce, by including the Sickness Benefit in the newly-created Community Wage. As a result, case managers at the work-focussed WINZ one-stop shop conveyed an expectation to sickness beneficiaries that – one day – they would again be well enough to work.
The worked-focussed strategy proved successful: between 1998 and 2001, for the first time ever, the number of people on a Sickness Benefit fell from 36,000 to 31,000. By reinforcing the fact that the Sickness Benefit provides temporary support until people recover – and that they are expected to recover, or be transferred to the Invalids Benefit – the number of people moving back into work exceeded the numbers falling sick.
The Labour Government inherited this decline in Sickness Benefit numbers in 1999. However, since the trend was not consistent with their long-term goal of expanding the welfare state – nor with their strategy of implementing the Beneficiary Union demand for a stand-alone benefit – Labour changed back to the failed system of old.
Apart from the growth in Sickness Benefit numbers – and the fact that thousands of people have been on this ‘temporary’ benefit for more than 10 years – many people remain concerned about the high number of sickness beneficiaries who appear too sick to work, yet fit enough to commit crimes.
The Court pages of any daily newspaper will show that sickness beneficiaries commit a large proportion of burglaries, assaults and similar crimes. The Department of Corrections census of prison inmates shows that, of the more than 2,000 offenders who committed crimes serious enough to result in a prison sentence, almost 25 percent were receiving a Sickness or Invalid Benefit when they committed their crime.
These people – who claim to be sick but clearly are not – are not only ripping taxpayers off, but giving the Sickness Benefit a bad name. Taxpayers deserve to know that those on the Sickness Benefit are genuinely sick, that those whose conditions are permanent are moved onto the Invalids Benefit, and that those who claim to be sick – to avoid the need to find a job – will be ousted.
The sooner the stand-alone Sickness Benefit is returned into a work-tested regime – so the needs of taxpayers and the genuinely sick are given priority – the better. Further, it is Long past time that capacity testing was introduced, so that those who are well enough to contribute in some manner are encouraged to do so.
Our social welfare system exists to provide a safety net for those in need: welfare for those who cannot support themselves and a hand-up to work, independence and a better future for those who can. Putting safeguards in place, to ensure the system is treated and used fairly with minimal opportunity for abuse, is surely a core role of Government.
The escalation in Sickness Benefit numbers show that Labour is clearly failing in this regard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.