Kiwi Values

Written By: - Date published: 10:35 pm, June 13th, 2016 - 62 comments
Categories: act, Globalisation, im/migration, International, nz first, Politics, winston peters, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: , ,

National’s Epsom charity project David Seymour reckons refugees should sign a “statement of commitment to New Zealand values”, which, according to Seymour include freedom of speech, and respect for women and those of different sexualities.

Leaving aside the obvious fact that telling people what they have to say is a denial of freedom of speech, Seymour may be onto something. Winston Peters agrees, and has been quick to remind the ACT leader that he’s been saying similar stuff since, well, before Seymour was born, suggesting on Twitter that Seymour had stolen NZF’s Intellectual Property.

Still, I reckon Seymour’s on to it.

Here are some of the Kiwi values I reckon we need to insist on, not just from refugees, but from our politicians. Readers may have other suggestions.

  • Free education
  • Free healthcare
  • Full employment for those who want it
  • The Welfare State
  • Housing for all
  • Fair trade, not the TPPA
  • A nuclear free nation
  • An environmentally sound country, 100% pure once again

Ok, I’m living in the past. But what if the past was better? How do we get there from here? Do we need a visa?

And if we are going to insist on people coming in having to agree to our values, what do we do with ACT members already resident here who don’t share those fundamental Kiwi values?

Should we build a wall around Epsom to keep our country pure and safe?

 

62 comments on “Kiwi Values ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. adam 1
    13 June 2016 at 10:43 pm

    The underlying core values, have not changed. No matter how much the neo-con amoral crowed want to keep telling us they have.

    Either you want to live in a decent society where people and the environment are valued. Or you can worship money. The problem is you can’t have both – you can not engage in cupidity, and have a decent civil society – they are just not compatible.

  2. Gerald 2
    14 June 2016 at 7:02 am

    Perhaps Seymour would have refugees wear yellow badges so that the decent New Zealanders will be able to recognize them?

  3. Sabine 3
    14 June 2016 at 7:08 am

    empty Houses
    low wage economy
    hungry kids
    homeless parents
    waiting lists for surgery
    cow shite infested rivers/lakes
    zip it sweety
    double laned bridges in Northland
    more pokies
    prisons for all

    add to the list of Kiwi Values. I am sure the National Party, its stooges and handlers will agree.

  4. Keith 4
    14 June 2016 at 7:19 am

    What a mockery, but delivered like a trainee used car salesman nevertheless.

    ACT values

    1. Fuck you, its all about me (and my privileged contacts)
    2. Non existent government
    3. Spit on you, you’re loser not a winner
    4. Encourage more homeless cos they’re losers and losers end up in loserville.
    5. Despite point 2, syphon taxpayer money off into private enterprise ventures that would never fly were it not for tax payer corporate welfare, such as Charter Schools to enrich the already well off and well connected.
    6. Despite point 1 have a mutual benefactor political party and in an almost socialist team effort manipulate the electoral system and get your minority weirdo party elected off the back of your benefactor party.
    6a. But prey to the corporate money gods no refugee does likewise based on their own values.
    7. Then claim life is all about individual effort and choices whist dictating the ACT rules of life to adhere to.

    In other words simply live ACTs contradictory life of bullshit values and you’ll be fine!

  5. One Anonymous Bloke 5
    14 June 2016 at 7:23 am

    ACT’s verbal incontinence has a way of becoming National Party policy. New arrivals will be presented with a questionnaire:

    “Please assign monetary values to the following…”

  6. miravox 6
    14 June 2016 at 7:36 am

    Kiwi values?

    Suck it up

    Seems to be the answer to everything.

  7. Gosman 7
    14 June 2016 at 7:39 am

    Act’s values seem to equate quite well with yours.

    Quality publically funded education
    Quality publically funded healthcare
    Enabling the economy to provide employment for those who want it
    Supporting the welfare State to be the safety net it was designed to be not a welfare trap it has become.
    Removing restrictions that deny Housing for all
    Free trade as negotiated between sovereign nations.
    A nuclear free nation
    An environmentally sound country

    • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1
      14 June 2016 at 7:42 am

      First, right wingers tell us people become welfare dependent by making poor choices. Then, they tell us it’s in fact a trap.

      Perhaps their other values and beliefs are based on more blithering mutually exclusive drivel.

      • Gosman 7.1.1
        14 June 2016 at 7:51 am

        The point is the values are not so different from that put forward. If they were made a little more generic then I’d have no problems adding them in to any values that people needed to sign up to if they wanted to come here.

        • vto 7.1.1.1
          14 June 2016 at 7:55 am

          it was realised recently in this housing crisis that NZ needs to bring in squatter rights, and that Act is the party that should be promoting them given its libertarian basis

          • Gosman 7.1.1.1.1
            14 June 2016 at 8:20 am

            Who realised this – You?

            • vto 7.1.1.1.1.1
              14 June 2016 at 8:25 am

              Immaterial.

              Squatters values line up entirely with Act values, so best you get out there and support them.

              Remember, there is no such thing as society. Only individuals…

              loony toons man, loony toons

              • Gosman …
                14 June 2016 at 8:57 am

                I think you are mistaking Act with the Libertarian party. While it is true many libertarians support Act it is not a Libertarian party. Your logic would be like stating Mana is a Socialist movement just because it has many Socialists supporting it.

                • vto …
                  14 June 2016 at 10:00 am

                  Your admission of the obvious – that Act has a base of libertarianism – is sufficient for Act to support squatters.

                  Come on – stand up for your ‘values’ and at the same time you could actually look good for once, helping out those in need… it would be a first…. might even be some votes in it for you…

                  • Gosman …
                    14 June 2016 at 10:11 am

                    How do you square squatters rights with property rights?

                    • vto …
                      14 June 2016 at 10:17 am

                      Clearly the property right holders are going to have to move over somewhat. But those property rights are generally all about what is best for society as a whole and given Act does not recognise society it is an easy obstacle to overcome in favour of the individual doing the squatting.

                      The question is more, how do you dance on a pinhead to avoid the calamitous hypocrisy that would otherwise be exposed by favouring society over the individual?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1.1.2
          14 June 2016 at 8:07 am

          The point I’m making is that your opinion is utterly worthless, because it has no internal consistency.

          • Gosman 7.1.1.2.1
            14 June 2016 at 8:49 am

            You haven’t shown this. It is merely your opinion. I equally think your ideas are nonsense. It doesn’t make it true.

            • Pat 7.1.1.2.1.1
              14 June 2016 at 9:01 am

              ” I equally think your ideas are nonsense.IT DOESN’T MAKE IT TRUE.”

              probably the most accurate thing you have ever said on here.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1.1.2.1.2
              14 June 2016 at 9:17 am

              If you can’t figure it out for yourself I guess I’ll have to take you through it one baby step at a time.

              The right wing lies that:
              a: welfare dependency is a trap that cannot be escaped and
              b: that welfare dependency is a consequence of personal choice…

              …are mutually exclusive. It cannot be both. In fact of course it is neither; lying is the only way your mouthpieces can get elected.

              • Gosman …
                14 June 2016 at 10:14 am

                You make assumptions that right wingers believe those things together or even separately. Care to show where they are detailed in Act or National manifestos?

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  14 June 2016 at 11:46 am

                  😆

                  Are you denying that they are commonly parroted right wing gobshite, despite referencing one of them two comments ago.

                  You’re a waste of space.

        • Robert Guyton 7.1.1.3
          14 June 2016 at 8:13 am

          Right Wingers like Gosman should be required to sign up to a statement of commitment to The Standard’s values before being allowed to comment here.

          • Gosman 7.1.1.3.1
            14 June 2016 at 8:51 am

            I do. I acknowledge the sites T&C’s and attempt to abide by them. I also acknowledge the moderators have the right to moderate my views as they see fit as this is their site.

            • Robert Guyton 7.1.1.3.1.1
              14 June 2016 at 8:59 am

              “acknowledge”
              “attempt”

              Okay then, we’ll ask the refugees to have a quick squizz of the NZ List of Values and hope they’ll attempt to remember abide by them, as you do here.
              Job done.

              • Gosman …
                14 June 2016 at 10:15 am

                And if they don’t we kick them out.

                • Robert Guyton …
                  14 June 2016 at 10:34 am

                  “kick”?
                  We kick the refugees out?
                  This is Act-think?

                • framu …
                  14 June 2016 at 12:28 pm

                  so you favour thought crimes?

                  if they break a law we already have a system – the courts

                  yet you want to make people sign up to nebulous moral concepts then deport them when they think differently

                  theres an ideology where that type of crap is right at home

    • Sabine 7.2
      14 June 2016 at 7:50 am

      bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

      David?
      David?
      Is that you David Seymour?

    • vto 7.3
      14 June 2016 at 7:52 am

      to have values one must first have an understanding of how society works.

      act has rejected the notion of society.

      act replaces society with an individual.

  8. Ad 8
    14 June 2016 at 8:15 am

    TRP forget the party it comes from and look at the idea behind it.

    It would do no harm if New Zealand immigration were consistent with the Australian values statement that all immigrants are required to understand and sign. I’d go so far as to say every citizen should sign it:

    Australian values statement

    You must sign this statement if you are aged 18 years or over.

    I confirm that I have read, or had explained to me, information provided by the Australian Government on Australian society and values.

    I understand:
    •Australian society values respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual, freedom of religion, commitment to the rule of law, Parliamentary democracy, equality of men and women and a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces mutual respect, tolerance, fair play and compassion for those in need and pursuit of the public good

    •Australian society values equality of opportunity for individuals, regardless of their race, religion or ethnic background

    •the English language, as the national language, is an important unifying element of Australian society.

    I undertake to respect these values of Australian society during my stay in Australia and to obey the laws of Australia.

    I understand that, if I should seek to become an Australian citizen:

    •Australian citizenship is a shared identity, a common bond which unites all
    Australians while respecting their diversity

    •Australian citizenship involves reciprocal rights and responsibilities. The responsibilities of Australian Citizenship include obeying Australian laws, including those relating to voting at elections and serving on a jury.

    If I meet the legal qualifications for becoming an Australian citizen and my application is approved I understand that I would have to pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people.

    Signature of Applicant

    • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1
      14 June 2016 at 9:29 am

      Apart from the fact that right wing Australians no more respect any of those things than right wing New Zealanders do…and yet they’re the ones who insist new arrivals sign up to them…

      Yeah nah.

    • AB 8.2
      14 June 2016 at 10:25 am

      Nice sentiments on the whole, and would do no harm. It’s symbolic though – you can’t inculcate a culture by making people sign things.

      You inculcate a culture by having the people already here truly live it.

      And we fall seriously short of this statement in a number of areas. For instance, no ACT party voter could sign this bit with a straight face:
      ” a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces mutual respect, tolerance, fair play and compassion for those in need and pursuit of the public good”
      They are all about pursuing private good,

      • Ad 8.2.1
        14 June 2016 at 10:37 am

        The point is not whether we fall short. Most do.

        The point is to put our values into law and state that all should abide by them and agree to them before they confirm they are eligible to be citizens. (You could revisit the Bill of Rights Act and re-write something similar. A Treaty of Waitangi mention would be appropriate.)

        I am pretty bored with governments that think solely in instrumental terms about what they would do and what they would change. It’s well overdue that we stated in black and white some actual values, expressed by pretty minimal codes for living here. We don’t have to do the full Norwegian indoctrination thing.

        A bold alternative government would make a clear statement of values that we should all have to live up to. Nor does doing this mean we would replicate the kind of moronic behavior we see from the Australian Immigration Minister. It simply is what it is: a statement of basic values you ascribe to, in order to be a citizen.

  9. mac1 9
    14 June 2016 at 8:33 am

    “including those relating to voting at elections……”

    One important difference between the expression of Kiwi and Aussie values.

    “Yeah Nah” should not apply to the responsibility to vote.

  10. Sacha 10
    14 June 2016 at 9:11 am

    A wonderful deluge of NZ values appeared on Twitter in response to Seymour’s daftness:
    https://twitter.com/hashtag/newzealandvalues?src=hash

  11. Psycho Milt 11
    14 June 2016 at 9:15 am

    Right-wingers usually stop being keen on this “sign up to Kiwi values” requirement for immigrants when they realise it would lock out fundy Christians from South Africa as well as Muslims. Not to mention all those wealthy Chinese…

    • Gosman 11.1
      14 June 2016 at 10:47 am

      Left wingers usually make stuff up about right wingers because they like to feel morally superior to a mythical bad person figure.

  12. marty mars 12
    14 June 2016 at 9:23 am

    Kiwi values

    Radical idea but maybe we could learn and add some ideas and values from immigrants to this mythical kiwi values. Really just seems like some continuing zombie assimilation program to me. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt – it says ‘now we are one people’ gotta laugh at that bullshit eh.

  13. Enough is Enough 13
    14 June 2016 at 9:52 am

    This is Winston’s bread and butter which is why David is trying to get in on the action.

    New Zealand will be a nasty bigoted place if NZ First or Act ever hold influence again.

    2017 could deliver the NZ First/National/ACT cabinet. Horrible

    • Gangnam Style 13.1
      14 June 2016 at 10:05 am

      “2017 could deliver the NZ First/National/ACT cabinet. Horrible” Here come the ‘Sleeping Dogs’.

    • Dale 13.2
      14 June 2016 at 9:10 pm

      But aren’t you counting on NZ First support to form a government?

    • Dennis Frank 15.1
      14 June 2016 at 9:39 pm

      Doubt it. It’s aged quite well, eh? Except this bit: “The task ahead is not to assimilate the Maori but to help him foster his racial and cultural identity.” Nothing to say about her. Or could it be (shock, horror!) the manifesto writer was sexist? Apparently not: “The status of the traditional female values which stress co-operation, nurturing, healing, cherishing and peace, should be raised, these are the values which are needed if everyone is to survive. Men and women should share work and home environments – there is no reason why both can’t be breadwinners, and it is generally desirable for both to spend time bringing up children.”

      Some things never change: “The gap between rich and poor countries is widening, and will never close if the present system of international trade and economic organisation is allowed to continue. The internal policies of our government are based on eliminating poverty and inequality – surely our external policies should have the same set of values? A just world order and a stable world economy is essential if starving millions are to be fed, homeless people housed, and illiterates educated to reach their full potential. Three main kinds of assistance are needed for the underprivileged areas: relief aid, development projects, and help with political, economic and social change. Multinational corporations have too much control in too many foreign countries – including New Zealand.”

      Those government policies to eliminate poverty and inequality hit the brick wall of Muldoon that year, then were forgotten by Lange & the Rogernomes, then ignored by Bolger, Clark & Key. Social Darwinism may have been discredited a century ago as an ideology, but that hasn’t prevented the left from implementing it in government in collusion with the right. Idealism discredited, noble aspirations unrealistic, so we all accept poverty and inequality are eternal… ?

  16. Stuart Munro 16
    14 June 2016 at 11:56 am

    ACT have no values, they only have a price.

  17. weston 17
    14 June 2016 at 5:09 pm

    It would be nice to think immigrants to nz might be persuaded to respect some things such as for instance when we kill an animal we do it humanely rather than face the east cut one vein and let it bleed to death whilst invoking the name of a prefered deity .
    i think it would be worth while to spell out to would be immigrants that our respect of animal rights were very hard won took centuries to achieve and that by doing so we as a society then actually earned the right to consider ourselves civilized

    • Gangnam Style 17.1
      14 June 2016 at 7:40 pm

      Except Bobby Calves, idiot. (Well their welfare is being ‘phased in’ the next 2-3 years)

  18. Pat 18
    14 June 2016 at 7:48 pm

    NZ…population 4.6 million

    Number of variations of what constitutes “Kiwi values”…in excess of 4.6 million.

  19. Dennis Frank 19
    14 June 2016 at 10:06 pm

    TRP, your eight traditional kiwi values seem valid, even if the first three now seem unrealistic. And I agree that Seymour & Peters are onto something. Such a pledge or declaration for immigrants could indeed be used to revoke their citizenship if they fail to honour it. The basic principle of contract law is that those who breach are held accountable, so their idea would be more effective if actually framed as a contract.

    Islamists who seek refuge here then become terrorists would render themselves as exportable consequent to a court verdict of committal of crime. Karma, enforced. Contract law is a fundamental element of British common law with immense legal power and it need not be merely commercial. It is already applied to employment as well. Just a matter of extending the principle further.

    Here’s the clause I would use: “I reject those sections of the Koran that require believers in Islam to kill non-believers. I understand that violence is an unsuitable method of conflict resolution, and that I am allowed residence in New Zealand on condition that I do not commit violent crimes.”

Links to post