Joe Hendren

Is the fall of the Palace an opportunity for Auckland's rail aspirations?

2010-11-23T22:04:00.007+13:00

Last week we saw the sad sight of the 124 year old Palace Hotel fall to the ground, seemingly as some 'reconstruction' work was going on. Auckland lost another piece of its history - it is unfortunate the CBD has so few such pieces left.

Yet when I heard the news a thought suddenly struck me - the site could be a key part of Auckland's future. On Thursday the Transport Committee of the new Auckland Council will meet. (Hat tip Jarbury) One of the first items on their agenda will be considering the business case for the CBD rail tunnel from Britomart to Mt Eden.

The Palace Hotel site would be perfect spot for a SkyCity entrance/exit to the proposed Aotea/Midtown underground railway station. It would be approximately 80 to 100 metres from the Midtown platform to the street. Given the capacity of this station is expected to be greater than Britomart it would make sense to have a greater number of exits to spread the foot traffic.

Say when they rebuilt the site they included a small underground retail precinct with a large 'subway' type entrance on the corner facing SkyCity. This could be linked up by underground pedestrian subway when Midtown station opens, and the retail alongside immediately gets a massive foot traffic boost. I imagine being able to get a escalator up that big hill from Queen Street would be pretty popular for pedestrians as well as rail users.

If the business case for the CBD rail tunnel works out as well as is expected, there should be no need to involve the private sector in a so called public private partnership. These are nothing new - its worth remembering all the private sector railways in 19th century England that were all bailed out by the Government. Instead I wish the Council look back to the mojo of Henry George and Julius Vogel, and look to fund rail projects by ensuring the public recapture the 'unearned increment' of those holding the land. Why should private enterprise privatise the benefit of public investment merely because they live next door?

Keeping these issues in mind doesn't even have to be particularly radical. At the very least there should be a developer levy with the funds going towards the rail tunnel.

The council could also look at buying strategic sites around the proposed stations and develop these areas with provision for their transport plans. Another thought - could we have the pedestrian subways we will need for Midtown before we get the station? The construction activity will help the Auckland economy in the downturn, and the ability for the council to make the leases dependent on the needs of the transport development could potentially lower overall long term costs and improve outcomes. Plus the fact the council could gain some of the benefits of the expected increase in property values once the station is operational.

Riding on the Singapore MRT last year it dawned on me how much easier and cheaper it must be to design and build an excellent public transport system when the Government owns 58% of the land (most land in Singapore is leased). Hopefully with the new Auckland Council in place and a spacial plan in development, some of the tragic planning mistakes will be rectified and Auckland's transport problems will improve. A lot of this puzzle is rethinking how we are using the land.

I hope the Council look at buying the Palace Hotel site - its in a useful location. Before the collapse the owners of the Palace Hotel were looking to reopen the building as a brothel. To end on a cheeky note, there seems no reason why the ground and underground floor of the new building could not be an entrance to Midtown station. Brothels usually don't want or need a high profile street entrance! That said, it is not a kind of establishment I have ever frequented!!

Bye Bye Bloglines - sob

2010-09-22T17:56:00.004+12:00

Sad to hear that Bloglines will be shutting down its servers, just over a week away, on 1 October 2010.

I've used Bloglines as my primary blog reader for some years. Sometimes a simple uncluttered interface can be so much easier to use than something that tries to do all the bells and whistles.

Unfortunately this blog, or at least the counter of subscribed readers is going to take a hit with bloglines shutting down. Around half of my subscribed readers (22), at least according to feedburner stats, use bloglines to read this blog.

So dear readers I would appreciate it muchly if you were able to transfer their subscriptions over to another blog reader. Thanks to a recommendation of a friend I am trying out Google reader. This link shows you how to download your subscriptions from Bloglines and upload them into Google reader, so you don't have to go entering all your blog subscriptions in again.

Another option is to subscribe by email. If all else fails put this into your blog reader.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/JoeHendren

Since Bloglines came along all those years ago, it is clear that blog readers have fundamentally changed the way people read blogs. While they certainly make it more convenient, I suspect they are one reason the smaller blogs do not get as many visitors as they used to, and don't attract as many comments. I am comparing the situation to when I first started blogging over six years ago now, and even saying that I feel old. Despite this I suspect the advent of blog readers has increased readership overall.

Another change, which I am not sure is for the better is that some blog readers have presented only the first few lines of a post as a teaser, rather than the entire post. Some blog owners have adopted this format so that readers are forced to click through from a blog reader to the site to read the entire post. In some cases this may be motivated by wanting to keep their visitor count up. Personally I find all these click throughs annoying - if I want to read something I want the entire post on screen thank you very much. Sometimes I don't bother reading blogs that force me to do a click through to read anything. Even Public Address!

It is also possible this 'teaser' culture has encouraged people writing on blogs to structure their posts more like news stories.

Be interested on peoples thoughts on these blog related ramblings. Also interested to hear what other blog readers people use, and how they find them.

Satire: Garrett to discuss identity theft with Israeli officials

2010-09-17T08:26:00.002+12:00

Act MP David Garrett today confirmed he is to travel to Israel to meet with officials and security experts to discuss identity theft and passport fraud.

"Israel have many years of experience in forging passports from a wide range of countries. They represent international best practice."

"Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency has previously used identities of disabled people as part of security operations. I successfully obtained a false passport using the identity of a dead baby.
I look forward to learning from their experience" said Garrett.

Mr Garrett also noted that his Act party leader, Rodney Hide had taken a sympathetic attitude towards Israel after two Mossad agents were caught attempting to illegally obtain New Zealand passports in March 2004. After then Prime Minister Helen Clark criticised Israel for their actions, Hide said her anti-Israel sentiments were "an embarrassment". The Act party also defended the right of the deputy chief of staff of the Israeli army to visit New Zealand, after a stay was placed on all high level visits pending satisfactory resolution of the passport affair.

Mr Garrett also looks forward to discussing the Day of the Jackal with real intelligence operatives. "I want to know if more of the techniques from the book can be used for real."

"This is great stuff. Its just like the Boys Annual I read when I was 26."

The discussions with Israeli officials will be held alongside a tour of Israel by New Zealand MPs, led by the Speaker the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith

Garrett also hopes to discuss his trip with former Defence Science Agency chief Stephen Wilce, who has claimed to be a former MI5 and MI6 intelligence officer.

"Right thinking people can be rest assured they will not expect undue scrutiny when they lie and in Stephen's case, embellish their CV to impress the Defence Force and the Security Intelligence Service".

---
All quotes by David Garrett have been made up for the purposes of satire. He is scheduled to take part of a Speakers tour of Israel, however he is not meeting with Israeli officials to discuss passport fraud.

The attitude taken by the Act party in relation to the Israeli passport affair is based on true sources, including the quote from Hide.
---

Background
In 2004 two reported Mossad agents, Eli Cara, 50 and Uriel Kelman, 31, were caught and jailed for trying to illegally obtain New Zealand passports. In June 2005 Israel made a reluctant apology to the New Zealand Government where they promised that "Israel commits itself to taking steps to prevent a recurrence of similar incidents in future."

Yet in January 2010 a senior Hamas official was murdered in Dubai, and it emerged that the death squad used forged passports from countries such as Britain, Germany, Ireland and Australia to enter the United Arab Emirates. Many of the real 'owners' of these passports turned out to have visited Israel or were living there with dual citizenship. Thanks to the Israeli operation innocent civilians now found themselves on Interpol arrest warrants for murder and other serious charges. In response both Britain and Australia expelled Israeli diplomats.

Could you table a punched card in parliament?

2010-08-25T21:02:00.006+12:00

During Question Time in Parliament today, Green MP Sue Kedgley asked how the Government could possibly reduce alcohol related harm while it continues to allow the liquor industry to spend $73 million a year promoting alcohol. To support her question Kedgley sought to table a CD containing recent television advertisements for liquor.

The Speaker, Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith, promptly refused permission to table the CD, and became quite ratty with MPs who were having trouble understanding his ruling. He later clarified that he was using a very narrow definition of 'document', that being that a document is a piece of paper (Hat tip NRT)

"Mr SPEAKER: The Standing Orders provide for the tabling of documents, not for the tabling of CDs. If members want CDs tabled, they will need to change the Standing Orders."

When documents are tabled in the house, copies of each are put in every wooden in-tray in the parliamentary complex, unless you ask the messengers not to.

Last night on TV1 there was a documentary about the cruel people who keep big cats as pets, and the sad tales of owners killed and maimed when their big puddy cats suddenly revert to being wild animals, and surprise surprise, attack them. No doubt there would be some people who would like the idea that a lion could be tabled in parliament, with a live copy of the lion then appearing in every office in-tray. So it is is probably fair that documents to be tabled in parliament should be restricted to things that can be easily reproduced (hmm so can lions, but it takes a while).

But in the digital age there is no reason why 'documents' should be restricted to paper. A CD can be easily reproduced. It also should be relevant that a definition of 'document' that includes digital formats is already part of the law. Take the definition of document in the Official Information Act for example.

"document means a document in any form; and includes—
(a) any writing on any material:
(b) any information recorded or stored by means of any tape-recorder, computer, or other device; and any material subsequently derived from information so recorded or stored:
(c) any label, marking, or other writing that identifies or describes any thing of which it forms part, or to which it is attached by any means:
(d) any book, map, plan, graph, or drawing:
(e) any photograph, film, negative, tape, or other device in which 1 or more visual images are embodied so as to be capable (with or without the aid of some other equipment) of being reproduced"

That got me thinking about how the speakers ruling today could be further tested. If one printed out one of the ads on the CD as a printout of binary code, would the Speaker have to accept it on the basis the document happened to be on paper? Ok, maybe it would be better to use hexadecimal to save trees.

Then I thought of a better test. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, before floppy discs or CDs were invented, computers relied on punched cards to input information. These were pieces of stiff paper that represented digital information by the presence or absence of holes in the paper at predefined positions.

This would be a good test of the Speaker's ruling as it is a document made of paper, but happens to represent information digitally.

If the Speaker said no to punched cards, I would then try a document written in braille, which essentially is a similar concept to a punched card. Now if the speaker refuses a document printed in braille, this could make it difficult for a blind person to be a member of parliament.

Am I attempting to trifle with the speaker? Yes, of course :)

Lockwood Smith is normally a good speaker, and deserves some credit for improving the quality of questions and answers at during Question Time. That said, the times I have listened to Parliament this week Lockwood has appeared grumpier than usual. I don't think Lockwood's ruling that a document must be on paper does his office any credit, and I think that is unfortunate. I hope the Speaker 'reflects' on his ruling once again.

Australian minnow socialist parties give the left the mandate to govern!

2010-08-23T00:51:00.004+12:00

The Australian election over the weekend has dealt a hung parliament with neither Labor or Liberals (ie Tories) with a overall majority.

Straight away the Tories started screaming that because they won the most number of seats and the highest number of primary votes they should be the government. This is constitutionally a lot of bullshit and is based on some self serving mathematics.

Under a Westminster style parliament government formation is based on gaining a majority in the House of Representatives. If Tony Abbott cannot gain the support of 76 MPs in a house with 150 seats he cannot be Prime Minister. Projected results expected to give Tony Abbott one or two more seats than Labor. Yet if the centre-left can combine the support of the Greens and a few independents they will be able to form a legitimate government.

The inescapable fact is that no party won the election. While there was a 4.87% swing against Labour, the party led by Tony Abbott only gained 0.63%. Hardly a strong mandate to be Prime Minister. The Greens gained by far the largest positive swing of all the parties, gaining 3.63%. While the election of the first Green MP in the lower house is to be celebrated, the inescapable fact is that the Greens were robbed by an electoral system that is fundamentally broken. With 11.42% of the primary vote the Greens would have won 17 seats under proportional representation. It is a small consulation that the Greens hold the balance of power in the upper house (the Senate).

Back to Abbott's dodgy maths. Abbott is attempting to claim a mandate because the Liberals and the parties that normally support the Liberals gained more votes than Labor on its own. Of course its is fundamentally ridiculous in this situation to compare a coalition of parties on the right and not also add the Green vote to the centre left.

If we add the Labor total of 38.51% to the Greens 11.42% we get a figure stupidly short of a majority - 49.93%. Rather amusingly, it is the stupidly small Socialist parties that push the centre left over 50% and give the left the mandate on a first preference basis. These are the Socialist Alliance and the Socialist Equity Party, on 0.07% and 0.09% respectively!

Hence my tongue in cheek title :)

The Labor party won the popular vote, on a two party preferred basis, with 50.67% of the vote, compared to the Liberal share of 49.33%.

Over on Red Alert, Chris Hipkins wonders about the public reaction in the situation where the government ends up being led by the smaller of the two major parties. This could happen in Australia as a result of this election, and is even more likely to occur in New Zealand given we have a proportional electoral system.

The public reaction will only be a problem if the born to rule screaming from the Tories is given the oxygen it does not deserve. What it represents is a demand for single party rule on the basis they failed to gain the support of a majority of the population, just as the Tories used to demand their right to rule under First Past the Post when over 60% of the population did not vote for them.

Despite it being constitutionally improper and fundamentally undemocratic Tory friendly commentators in Australia on Saturday night started the screaming - 'our party won the most seats'. They were just following the lead of the UK Conservatives who attempted the same swindle in the aftermath of a hung parliament in the UK earlier this year.

In the case where the smaller of the two main parties gains a majority in the house by forming a support arrangement/coalition with a minor party, in my view the left needs to welcome this as a result representative of the wishes of a larger number of voters.

I look forward to the day the National party in New Zealand is stranded on 55 seats, and Labour forms a government with say 49 MPs and support from the Greens and other parties providing 12 or so seats. Let the Tories scream away - it will be a day to celebrate as our proportional electoral culture matures once again, and the FFP mindset of the dinosaurs finally gives up for dust.

PS: Of course there is an argument that the policies of the Australian Labor party are essentially those of a centre-right party, and it is true that many Labor MPs would have more in common with the Liberals than they do with the Greens or the real social democratic left. A grand coalition of the major parties is not going to happen - the aim of my post was to highlight Abbott's dodgy maths and willful constitutional ignorance.

PPS: The percentages may change over the next few days!

Update on Hawkins and why a by-election would be good for Labour

2010-08-06T00:46:00.002+12:00

In my last post I looked at how Labour leader Phil Goff was handling the fallout from Chris Carter's brain explosion, and the reaction of Labour MP George Hawkins to being mentioned in Carter's missive.

Carter claimed Hawkins was to face a challenge from within the party for the candidacy of Manurewa, the seat Hawkins has held since 1990. I said that Hawkins reaction demonstrated the same 'sense of entitlement' that Goff (justifiably) criticised Carter for in relation to large travel bills.

Hawkins has now announced an intention to stand for a local board in the October Auckland local body elections. He says he will withdraw his nomination for his parliamentary seat if he is elected, meaning that he will not stand at the next election. But if he is not elected to the local board he will stand for parliament again.

The least charitable interpretation of this would be to claim Hawkins is attempting to discourage a potential challenger to his seat, as nominations close on the 1 September. The most charitable interpretation was that standing down from parliament for the local board was always Hawkins intention, and Carter chose to put an uncharitable spin his intention for effect.

Yet in either case Hawkins still gives the impression of wanting to hang on for dear life, which looks like a sense of entitlement to me. I still hope the challenge happens.

The more I think about it, the more I think a by-election in a seat like Manurewa or Te Atatu would be entirely in Labour's interests. Take this for a scenario.

Hawkins resigns from his seat, and challenges Carter to do the same thing. Labour regain the initative, and Hawkins gains a graceful exit in the arms of a grateful party.

Explain to the public that while by-elections are expensive, at the end of the day democracy and the right of the people to have a say is worth more. This would tie in with a strong message about the lack of democracy in the Super City too. Highlight how National Maungakiekie MP Sam Lotu-liga oped to stay on the council after being elected an MP, and avoided a by-election for the political convenience of his CityRat mates.

At the beginning of the by-election campaign/s Labour annouce they will use every public meeting to tell people about the National party's attempts to bring back the Employment Contracts Act in drag, and every pamphlet delivered for the by-election will also be accompanied by a leaflet explaining the negative effects of the proposed employment law changes on 'every wage and salary earner'. Strong soundbites against '90 days' echo through news bulletins for three weeks.

Labour would be bound to win Manurewa with an ok candidate and Te Atatu with a strong candidate, which would help build momentum and exposure and make it more difficult for the Nats to control the news agenda. There is not likely to be any harm in the Greens running good candidates in either seat, for the same reasons.

So Chris Carter is going on two months 'sick leave'? Is this to waste just enough time so the 'election is too close for by-election' excuse can be trotted out? Please Chris, you may not care for Goff, but please resign from parliament immediately for the sake of the party you claim to care about. The public want you gone.

Telling Carter to go while protecting Hawkins is a mistake

2010-08-02T07:43:00.003+12:00

Overall Labour leader Phil Goff has handled the impact of his MP Chris Carter's brain explosion reasonably well. Carter's antics, which have included sending an unnamed gossip sheet to the parliamentary press gallery yet addressing the envelopes in his own handwriting, must go down in New Zealand political history as one of the most inept attempted coups ever. It has to take a vain individual to start an whisper campaign against his leader, when the said individual secretly wants everyone to know it was him all along.

Goff has made the best of a bad situation, using last week as an opportunity to demonstrate how he can be a decisive and strong leader. While Goff has done well overall, some weaknesses in Goff's public position have begun to emerge. The suggestions from senior MP Trevor Mallard and Goff that Carter is 'unwell' may be an honest attempt to explain the bizarre behavior of the later, however this may rebound on Labour if Carter and Government MPs accuse Labour of bullying. Better to state the facts of Carter's behaviour and let the public work that one out for themselves.

The second weakness is the apparent differing treatment of Carter and long time Labour MP George Hawkins during this affair. In his gossip sheet to the gallery Carter alleged unionist Jerome Mika was looking to challenge long time Hawkins for his Manurewa seat, and that Hawkins was threatening a byelection if the challenge went ahead. Significantly, Hawkins refused to deny this was the case when he was questioned about this by journalist Rebecca Wright.

Not only did Hawkins chose to comment on an issue that should have been immediately redirected to the press office of his leader, he did so in such a way that confirmed 'all sorts of rumours'. I am not saying that Hawkins conduct is on the same scale as Carter but the underlying issues at stake are similar.

Goff has criticised Carter for having a sense of entitlement. From the looks of things you could say exactly the same thing about Hawkins sense of entitlement to his seat. Hawkins said that it wouldn't be the first time someone with political ambitions has eyed his safe Manurewa electorate as an easy way of getting into Parliament. That goes for staying there too George.

While acknowledging the seat was subject to a party selection process, Goff sent a message of support to Hawkins by saying "I am confident that George is well supported by the people in his electorate and that he would be confident of being elected even if it was contested". At the same time Goff has called on Carter to resign his Te Atatu seat as he no longer represents the Labour party. The danger is that the Te Atatu electorate committee could also demonstrate support for their troubled MP, as they have now done so.

For these reasons, and some potential legal difficulties in expelling Carter from the party, its good to see some Labour figures backing of this threat for now. A plea bargain of sorts may emerge, perhaps along with a lighter punishment like suspension, where Carter promises not to publicly comment on the leadership of the party, not to travel or be involved in any way in the selection of a new candidate for Te Atatu. Carter has already said he will not stand at the next election. Better to state the facts of Carter's behaviour and let the public work that one out for themselves.

It would a great shame if Hawkins held on for another three years on the back of Carter's stupidity. When now Act MP Roger Douglas resigned his Labour seat in 1990 he anointed Hawkins has his successor, and Hawkins has been a member of the right wing faction in Labour ever since. After a single bumbling term as a minister between 1999 and 2002, Hawkins was quietly told to stand aside as a minister before others made the decision for him. Hawkins career isn't going anywhere, and Manurewa stands as one of the most obvious electorates where rejuvenation is required.

I have only briefly met Jerome Mika, so I don't feel I can comment on his suitability as a candidate. I have heard he is not lacking in ambition, and that he is such a natural at 'working a room' that he sometimes does this at work. Recognition among some of South Auckland's large industrial sites, along with support from Labour's Pacific networks could make some interesting numbers. He may not win the nomination, but Jerome would help send a message.

To my mind the worst thing for Labour would be the appearance of an attempt by head office to stop the challenge to Hawkins, as this would only give Carter's outbursts more credibility and highlight the differing treatment of Carter and Hawkins. Either Hawkins should face the challenge with a little more grace than he has demonstrated so far, or he should announce his intention to stand aside at the next election. The later would also allow alternative candidates to emerge - a more open contest can only increase the chances of Manurewa getting the kind of MP its healthy majority deserves.

Economics for Everyone - free seminar today

2010-06-21T23:59:00.008+12:00

Heading along tonight to the second part of 'Economics for Everyone' a free presentation by Canadian union economist Jim Standford, hosted by the Fabian Society.

Last weeks session was so well attended, they had to move the talk into the larger downstairs room at the Trades Hall. Great to see so many people there, and Jim provided a jargon free introduction for those who feel they know little about economics. I also think its useful for people who may know a little more. I often find looking at a subject in a new framework allows for clearer thinking - in essence it makes you a better teacher, and Jim is a great teacher.

If you missed last week you can catch up with the audio podcast

The first seminar, 'Understanding the Logic of Capitalism', was be held last Tuesday.

The second, 'What Went Wrong? The Failure of Neo-liberalism, and the Alternatives', will be held today: 22nd June 5.30pm – 7.30pm, at the Trades Hall, 147 Great North Road. Auckland.

TVNZ make a mockumentary of their own decline

2010-06-01T23:51:00.006+12:00

So, for a 50th Anniversary of television broadcasting in New Zealand, TVNZ did a mock celebrity game show with heavily forced product placement.

It would be nice to think this was a spoof, but sadly TVNZ could not have done a better demonstration of what is wrong with our publicly owned broadcaster if they tried.

The programme could have been so much more - they had a treasure trove of New Zealand cultural history at their fingertips. A means to show how TVNZ has not only been a camera lens, but involved in New Zealand life itself. Dig out clips of those old programmes no one has seen for years, even if people don't know what it is they can still laugh at the haircuts.

It was like TVNZ went to Te Papa only to read the trashy magazines in the waiting area. They really sold themselves short.

The answer to this disaster may be in the demographics. The only ratings that matter are the eyes attached to the 18 to 35 year olds - the olds don't really count. Hopefully the ratings are senstive enough to pick up the large number of TVs that went off before the first half hour was up - mine certainly did.

TVNZ did use a few clips from old shows and news broadcasts, but they were so short one could have blinked and missed them. Perhaps the advertisers were worried the public might remember what real public broadcasting looked like....

Well might I just scrape into the 18 to 35 age bracket, yet I remember TVNZ when it was a real public broadcaster.
---
To make matters worse, Tumeke reports the Minister of Broadcasting Johnathan Coleman ordered TVNZ to deliver a new channel exclusively on the Sky pay TV platform, thereby undermining investment in TVNZ's own Freeview platform. "It is hardly conceivable that a more tragic and self-destructive present could be opened on such an anniversary. To use the Head of Digital's own assessment it will mean a "slow suicide" of the TVNZ digital channels (whose charter funding is set to run out in a few years). Great news for the SKY shareholders and another concocted reason to sell off the state broadcaster, so we can see why the National government did it."

Against the Current also suggests John Key's government is readying TVNZ for sale.

Coalition of losers govern in United Kingdom

2010-05-13T01:10:00.003+12:00

This is the headline the Conservatives and their apologists in the media would have screamed had the Liberal Democrats chosen to form a government with the Labour party, and left the Conservatives as the largest party and the opposition.

So on the grounds that no party actually won the election, the new Conservative Liberal Democrat government should also be called a coalition of losers. Of course its asking too much of the fans of the Tories to expect consistency. While I loath the Blairite Press Secretary Alistair Campbell, he succeeded in uncovering the clear pro Tory bias of the Murdoch controled Sky News and their political commentator Adam Boulton. Stunning.

I don't actually believe the headline in this post. Constitutionally speaking it is simply irrelevant that the Conservatives happened to win the largest share of the vote (36%). All that it is required is for a government to demonstrate it holds a majority in Parliament. Over 70% of Britain did not vote for the Conservatives. A rainbow coalition/support arrangement that comprised of Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens and the Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties would have been just as legitimate as the Lib Con government that has just been formed, and in fact would have been more representative of a greater number of UK voters.

So why didn't the UK get a more progressive government?

The alternative so called 'rainbow' government was undermined by a number of factors. A significant faction of the Labour party, just like the born to rule Tories they really are, demonstrated an unwillingness to share power when they foolishly publicly dismissed an offer by the Scottish National Party to support an alternative government. Labour chastised the SNP for wishing to appear relevant, precisely because that is exactly what the SNP were - as vital to an alternative government as Labour. It is likely members of this faction, such as the loathsome David Blunkett, wished to drown an alternative government because there was too much danger of real electoral reform being the result. Some may have feared greater devolution of powers to the Scots and Welsh assemblies, even independence, but the result of this election is likely to increase pressure for this anyway - politically speaking the Kingdom is anything but United.

Another fear was that the SNP, the Welsh Nationalist party would demand some protection from the savage cuts to public spending as a price for their support. Actually this would have been a very democratic result. The Tories have no mandate outside Avalon - in Scotland they won a single seat and 16.7% of the vote, while in Wales the Conservatives won 8 seats out of 40 and 26% of the vote. In Northern Ireland they and their new partners won absolutely nothing. A coalition of losers indeed. It was England that voted for the Tories. So while the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish may have felt for the greater cuts imposed on the English, they would have had a simple reply - you got the policies you voted for.

I believe Nick Clegg chose to form a government with the Tories in the final week of the election campaign, perhaps even before. I discussed some of the rationale for this in my previous post. Nothing else seems to explain his pronouncement in the final week that he would first try and form a government with the largest party. He would have known then this was likely to be the Tories. Just as I predicted, this move cost the Lib Dems significant numbers of seats as voters ran back to the major parties. I believe in doing this Clegg had another purpose - he was preparing his party to back the Conservatives over Labour.

It is also apparent that the Lib Dems are closer to the Tories in terms of their approach to dealing with the deficit. Yet a programme of savage cuts to public spending threatens to deepen the recession - Herbet Hoover made a similar mistake in the United States in the 1930s, and despite this neoliberals across the world are demanding the same mistakes be made all over again.

In a touch of irony, apparently Cameron made his first speech as Prime Minister as a rainbow could be seen across the sky of London. Now how powerful would that have been if Britain had been welcoming a rainbow coalition instead?

Here is hoping Britain votes for electoral reform

2010-05-06T00:27:00.006+12:00

Like many political geeks I have been following the run up to the British election. While it appears the tide is going out on the present Labour government, when the polls are converted into seats things are still close. To my mind progressively minded folks should have a clear aim - vote to obtain electoral reform.

Following the performance of Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg in the first leaders debate, the LibDems surged in the polls and leapfrogged Labour into second place, with the Conservatives with the most popular party by a small margin. Yet due to the deeply undemocratic First Past the Post (FPP) electoral system Labour could still gain the most seats and remain in Government despite receiving less support in the popular vote than the LibDems or the Conservatives.

Assuming the LibDems gained enough support to deny Labour or the Conservatives an outright majority, and Clegg keeps his backbone, this could be the last British election under FPP. Hopefully the result will make clear a real proportional voting system is needed, not just Alternative Vote which is FPP in drag. A fairer electoral system would also be of great benefit to parties to the left of both Labour and the LibDems, and would make it harder for the Conservatives or the right wing of Labour adopting Thatcherite policies again. A hung parliament is a means in order to obtain a better democracy. A website has started to help voters achieve this result.

It is most unfortunate Labour did not progress electoral reform while they were in government as this would have set the stage for a long term Labour - Liberal alliance with the potential to shut the Tories out of Government for a long time. Yet as Will Hutton notes the key problem is that senior Labour party figures hate electoral reform and wish to maintain the two party system. In the current situation Hutton suggests Labour should offer Nick Clegg the role of Prime Minister in a coalition deal. Under this scenario Clegg would have to front up to any issues faced by a coalition government, while Labour could develop an alternative PM in waiting.

Yet after the Guardian/Observer endorsed the LibDems, Nick Clegg sprung to the right and said he would not back Labour in a hung parliament if they came third in the popular vote - this essentially opened the door to the Lib Dems supporting the Conservatives, despite the Tories being even more strongly opposed to real electoral reform than Labour. Following this development, in an interesting piece of timing, the Guardian carried a high profile article by Gordon Brown calling on LibDems to back Labour in Labour/Tory marginals.

Yet on another level Nick Clegg's moves should not be such a surprise. Nick Clegg is known to be on the right of LibDems, and the record of the party in local government elections is to campaign to the left, but govern to the right. The Lib Dems are already in coalition with the Conservatives in a number of city councils, including Birmingham, Leeds, Warrington, Camden, Southwalk and Newport, Gwent. A coalition of cuts. Clegg's claims to lead a progressive force have a hollow ring when compared to their council record.

The UK media are deciding only to report on the fortunes of the three 'major parties', those being the Conservaties, Labour and the LibDems. Yet as John Oyston points out the fortunes of minor parties in the regions could determine the result of the election in a close contest. Conservative leader David Cameron knows this - he visited Northern Ireland this week in a bid to support the Ulster Unionist candidates who will back the Conservatives in Westminster. If the difference to forming a government comes down to 10 to 20 seats, the media could look like stunned mullets as they realise the influence small parties have on the formation of the next British government.

If small parties do well this will strengthen the case for electoral reform. There are quite a few seats where minor parties have a strong candidate with a good chance of winning. Neither Labour or the Lib Dems really deserve the votes of the left - at least in some electorates the left have better options. The Scottish National Party may gain more seats in Westminster than its current seven. The Welsh Nationalist party Plaid Cymru is also on the left of Labour. Respect have a good chance in Bethnal Green and Bow, Birmingham Hall Green and Poplar and Limehouse. Caroline Lucus has a very good chance of winning Brighton for the Greens, who are also putting in a strong showing in Norwich South. These will be the seats I will be watching.

The last few days of the campaign has seen Labour increase its support, and the Lib Dems fall away, most likely as a result of Clegg's monumental error in cuddling up to the Conservatives. Not only has Clegg suggested he will support the Tories if they are the largest party (which encourages LibDem voters to switch back to the two old parties) but he is also appears to be going soft on electoral reform by stating this is not a precondition of talks with the Conservatives. In response to Clegg's comments Green party leader Caroline Lucus summed up the situation nicely, highlighting how Clegg had previously said electoral reform was an "absoulute precondition"

"The Liberal Democrats have made a huge noise about being the party of change but when it comes down to it all they really are is the party of changing their minds. It's common knowledge that the Tories don't want electoral reform. Any coalition negotiations that don't set out electoral reform as a deal breaker will lead to five more years of the same old system and it's the voters who will suffer."

Auckland Philippines Solidarity - message to friends and family of James Balao

2010-04-20T00:16:00.004+12:00

Yesterday in the Cordillera region of the northern Philippines friends and family of James Balao gathered to mark his 49th birthday and the 580th day since his enforced disapperance. Philippine government security forces are widely believed to be responsible for his abduction. The organisers explain the programme:

"A message from the family, messages of solidarity, poems and prayers for James will be delivered and read during the short program. The program will culminate with the putting up of 49 prayer flags with messages for James within the Healing Gardens of the Sta. Scholastica Convent. The prayer flags are adapted from the concept of the Tibetan prayer flags which the people put up to promote peace, compassion, strength and wisdom. There is a belief, too, that messages written on the flags will be brought by the wind to its recipient."

Auckland Phillippine Solidarity sent the following message to be read at the gathering in Baguio City. Its a little odd to write something about yourself in the third person, but I thought it would be easier to be read aloud that way.
--
Greetings from Auckland Philippines Solidarity in New Zealand. In October 2008 one of our members, Joe Hendren took part in the International Solidarity Mission to Surface James Balao. Since his return Joe has written articles about the case and spoke at a public meeting about the disappearance of James.

APS calls on the Philippine state to Surface James Balao and all victims of enforced disappearances. APS calls for the abandonment of the campaign of political repression known as Opan Bantay Laya, and believes the Filipino people will only be safe once those responsible
for human rights abuses are brought to justice. The responsible authorities should also be held to account for their lack of real effort to find James, and their constant denial and cover-up of the
military's hand in the abduction of James and over 200 victims of enforced disappearances under the Arroyo watch.

We would like to send our aroha (love/compassion) to the family and friends of James, and the long efforts to locate him. There are now people all over the world who know the name of James Balao, and we are all hoping for his safe return to his community.

Kia Kaha (stand strong),

Auckland Philippine Solidarity, New Zealand (Aotearoa)

Consistency - Whale Oil style

2010-03-26T01:05:00.004+13:00

The right wing blogger Whale Oil has been throwing that H word around a lot today, accusing all in sundry of 'utter hypocrisy' for saying one thing now and another thing at another time.

Yet only last week Whale Oil celebrated the resignation of Porirua City Councillor Hemi Matenga as 'One less Labour Trougher'. "Bring shame and humiliation down upon their heads until they resign". "Good riddance, now pursue him for his salary for non-performance"

Matenga missed four consecutive council meetings, and subsequently resigned from the council.

But what did Whale Oil say only a few months back, when Eden-Albert Community Board member Ryan Hicks missed four meetings and had to be sacked from the Board?

"The left are want to bang on about equal representation and transparency in democracy but when it comes to feather-bedding for their own they are a little more quiet about all that. Rocky from the Standard aka Rochelle Rees has just been appointed by the City-Vision majority on the Eden-Albert Community Board to replace an elected C&R representative (Ryan Hicks) who failed to turn up for 4 consecutive meetings. Whilst on the surface this looks like a matter of replacing an AWOL representative, in fact Ryan Hicks appears to have been hounded from the role by the nasty spiteful City Vision members on the Community Board, making life unbearable for Mr Hicks at meetings, so much so that he no longer came to the meetings."

The board member in question happened to be from the right wing Citizens and Ratepayers ticket, the National party in local drag.

At the time Citizens and Ratepayers HQ bought out the smears in an attempt to deflect from the fact they selected a representative who was simply not doing his job. CityRat boss John Slater (and Dad of a Whale) told the central leader "City Vision has treated him quite shabbily. He has been poorly treated and it's simply disgraceful"*. Somehow I suspect the Slaters believe this sort of compassion for missing meetings should only apply to the blue team, as there is a big difference between this and calling for 'shame and humiliation'.

In constructing his little conspiracy theory, Whale Oil also neglected to mention Rees was the next highest polling candidate in Eden Albert- making her the logical replacement in a situation where a by-election was not going to be held. A much clearer example of a gerrymander was in Maungakiekie. Following his election as local MP, CityRat Pesta Sam Lotu-liga opted to stay on the City Council, double dipping in other words, just long enough to avoid a by-election in the council seat. He then got his mates to vote that the seat stayed vacant (the next highest polling candidate was Labour's Rosie Brown). Essentially Lotu-liga cheated his constituents from being fully represented at council for the sake of the political convenience of the CityRats. While trying to juggle both jobs, Lotu-liga missed Council meetings too.

Whale Oil accusing anyone of being a hypocrite or a party hack are claims as hollow as an echo chamber.

* Central Leader (4/11/09), "Member of board sacked"

PS: I have thrown out a few old newspapers tonight - this shows it always pays to read them again!

Rodney Hide attempts to protect Telecom from democracy

2010-03-24T01:13:00.005+13:00

This week Act leader Rodney Hide demonstrated how the Regulatory Responsibility Bill and any of its bastard offspring in terms of 'regulatory principles' are really about protecting big capital from democracy.

Hide rode to Telecom's defence, attacking the decision of Communications Minister Steven Joyce to fund the roll-out of high-speed broadband in rural areas by redirecting tens of millions of dollars Telecom received from its rivals under the Telecommunications Services Obligations*. Hide moaned this impaired Telecom's property rights. In order words regulation was going to cost them money.

"Mr Hide, who is also Regulatory Reform Minister, branded the plans a breach of National's own regulations policy and a "sad indictment" on the Government. He released a strongly-worded letter to Telecommunications Minister Steven Joyce that signals one of the biggest fallouts between ACT and National since the parties agreed to govern together."

"I'm very displeased and the reason I'm displeased is not only is it poor law-making, it also sends a signal to any investors into New Zealand that their investment isn't safe, and therefore it makes it tougher to get the sort of infrastructure and the sort of investment we need to grow the economy," he said.

Essentially Rodney is demanding that when government is considering legislation or regulation the squeals of needs of business and property holders should be treated as a special case. Bullshit. Large corporations are currently able to use the same mechanisms available to the rest of us to voice their concerns, such as writing to Ministers and making submissions to select committees. In fact there is already good evidence large business are already able to have a disproportionate voice through these channels, in particular in terms of access to Ministers.

An analyst at the multinational banker J P Morgan, Laurent Horrat went straight for the hyperbole when he declared that Telecom is becoming "a worst case scenario worldwide for the effect of government regulation on an incumbent telco". "I understand the policy objectives, but if you take the list of things Telecom is faced with, there aren't any incumbent telcos facing such an extensive list." Horrant also captured the pure sense of entitlement transnational corporates believe they deserve. "Typically in regulatory discussion between government and incumbent telcos there tends to be a give and take. I can see a lot of the take, I can't see a lot of the give here," said Horrut.

Horrut has a horribly short memory. Telecom has been on the take ever since it was privatised,

running down the assets of the company to pay out high dividends to overseas shareholders
paying its CEOs ridicious salaries for their efforts to avoid regulation.
charging high prices for slow broadband well below international standards.
fighting and suppressing competition whenever it had the chance to occur.
worldwide there would not be many telco's who 'had it so good' for so long. If Telecom had been regulated earlier there would not be this impression of regulation happening all at once.

For years representatives of the 'markets', of which Horrut is only the modern equivalent, warned any attempt to regulate Telecom in favour of telecommunications users would crash the sharemarket given that Telecom was the largest listed company (it no longer is). This is oddly reminiscent of the claims the US banks were 'too big to fail' - well if that the case then this is an excellent argument for breaking such companies up and introducing regulations to ensure nothing gets 'too big to fail' in the first place. Its also a good argument for keeping key infrastructure in public ownership.

While Hide and his cohorts love to talk about the magic of Adam Smith's 'invisible hand', in reality Smith would have been the first to demand that Telecom's monopolistic outrages be bought to an end, and thats if Smith even accepted Telecom's existence as a 'joint stock' company in the first place.

If superannuation and Kiwisaver funds of New Zealanders happen to hold significant Telecom shares this only means that financial advisors and superannuation trustees need to be held to account for making poor investment decisions. Funnily enough this is a poorly regulated area too. Its not as if they were not warned the Telecom dividend machine was likely to be switched off. In 2007 Christopher Niesche called on Telecom to stop being a company obsessed with holding back the tide of regulation at any cost and become a company seeking growth.

A key reason why a select committee recommended against the Regulatory Responsibility Bill was that it increased the litigation risks associated with adopted the principles of the LAC guidelines and the regulatory impact statement requirements into legislation. The threat of litigation from litigious corporations like Telecom and Infratil, who then might start demanding compensation for government actions in the public interest. One hopes this and Hide's clash with Joyce will demonstrate to National why they should kill the Hide/Douglas Bill when it comes back into the House. Hide admits he is yet to secure National party support for the bill.

Telecom have always attempted to blame the threat of regulation for everything. Is it a co-incidence that Telecom's market friends are screeching about regulation at the same time Telecom's XT network is also screeching to a halt? Are they attempting to create the impression the slump in the share price had nothing to do with Telecom's own incompetence at running a mobile network?

I say call their bluff. Given the extent of Telecom's pillage since privatisation, perhaps a just outcome would be leaving to go it into receivership so the core network could be bought back into public ownership for a song. Regulation of the industry could then happen without Telecom's meddling, and access to the network could be rented out to telecommunications providers on the terms set by the representatives of the people. Ok receivership is a pipe dream - but a fun one. I actually suspect Telecom are overstating the extent of their poverty in any case.

David Cunliffe as communications minister in the previous government did a great thing when he broke the cycle by ignoring Telecom's protests and unbundled the local loop. Cunliffe stood up to Telecom where his Labour predecessors in the portfolio appeared to cower at Telecom's feared wrath. Another part of breaking the cycle is to ignore the protests made on behalf of 'foreign investors' - these are exactly the kind of foreign investors which bled Telecom dry in the 1990s. Real investment is welcome, but rent seeking ideologically driven cowboys are not. One could also ask why Hide, as a government minister is effectively encouraging a capital strike of the speculators.

In the wake of the collapse of the finance institutions in the United States which started the Global Financial Crisis and the examples of multinational corporations in our own backyard attempting to bully governments at the expense of the people, it is time whether it is asked whether corporations really ought to have more influence on government than everyone else.

And to cap it all off this week the Government appointed former Telecom boss Rod Deane to undertake a review of defence spending. Was he Hide's pick, or a payoff for all those donations Deane gave the National party?

* Used to be called the Kiwishare

Its the wrong ICC - Howard as President of the International Cricket Council is a joke

2010-03-03T00:08:00.007+13:00

In a move that stinks of pure cronyism and 'jobs for the boys', Cricket Australia and New Zealand Cricket have nominated former Australian Prime Minister John Howard to become President of the International Cricket Council (ICC) in 2012.

The only ICC John Howard should be sent to is the International Criminal Court for sending troops to the illegal war on Iraq.

As Peter Roebuck says, the International Cricket Council is "no place for this inexpert right arm slow" and the actions of Cricket Australia in promoting Howard as their candidate is "as pitiful as it is disrespectful". "Plain and simple, he is not qualified for the job".

To be fair to New Zealand Cricket they resisted backing the Howard appointment for some months, but the Australians just would not let it go. New Zealand Cricket put forward former banker and cricket administrator Sir John Anderson for the job, and by all accounts he is a constructive and credible candidate, as well as being an existing ICC board member. That said, even the appointment of Anderson would not be free of the stench of cronyism. Anderson is the former CEO of the National Bank, which just so happened to be New Zealand Cricket's major sponsor for many years.

Under a protocol adopted by all cricketing nations a few years ago, it is Australasia's turn to choose the next President of the ICC, and Australia and New Zealand were expected to chose a candidate by the end of 2009. "Instead they kept arguing and were obliged to ask the ICC to extend the deadline by two months. Inevitably the other nations chuckled. Administrative bickering was supposed to be a subcontinental custom."

Cricket Australia appears to believe Howard can act to curb on the growing Indian dominance in the administration of the game, something Roebuck says is "much resented" in Australia. But how can such a divisive figure, and at times a divisive figure on race issues at that be an effective leader when cultural understanding. credibility and diplomacy are key parts of the job? While Howard did recant on his infamous 1988 remarks about curbing Asian immigration, modern South Africa may be interested to know Howard did everything he could to undermine the anti-apartheid movement, even going as far as to tell then Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser he had it wrong when Fraser told the 1981 Springbok rugby team, on route to New Zealand, that they could not refuel their plane in Australia. Afghanistan also plays cricket - not only did Howard invade their country he endangered the lives of the Tampa boat people in a cynical election motivated stunt.

Watch this and weep - the same man had the gall to accuse of Sri Lankan off-spinner Muttiah Muralitharan of being a chucker.

So while the Australian cricketers are here I hope there might be a few homemade banners* around the ground highlighting what a joke the Howard appointment is. There is a facebook group opposed to Howard's appointment here.

If John Howard does go to the ICC, there may be grounds for a plea bargain if he testifies against George Bush and Tony Blair. What a shame both ICCs are unlikely to function as they should.

* I mean banners with some wit, like those seen before the banner competition become sponsored by corporates and became all about pretty pictures and bland messages. There was a particularly good example spotted at the 20/20 this week, "Tsunami covers more of New Zealand than XT"

Edit: Fixed broken link.

Bob Parker sets up sale of Red Bus company

2010-02-24T00:18:00.005+13:00

No Right Turn has highlighted how the Government appointed review of Environment Canterbury is an undemocratic farmer coup against Canterbury ratepayers. Apparently its a failure not to allow farmers to fill Canterbury waterways with as much cow shit as they want, and the review panel are seeking to replace ECan with an unelected 'commission' to push through their agenda.

To make matters worse, the Government appointed Wyatt Creech to lead the review, despite his company Open Country Cheese being found guility for illegally polluting land, rivers and streams as a means to increase profit.

But there is another agenda at play here too, and Christchurch Mayor (Sideshow) Bob Parker appears to be right in the thick of it. Christchurch and Timaru city councils are looking to take control of the region's public transport from ECan, and due to ideologically driven restrictions of current legislation this would force the city council to sell the Red Bus Company. So Sideshow Bob is pushing privatisation by stealth.

Red Bus is currently 100% owned by Christchurch City Holdings, which acts as the holding company for Christchurch City Council's trading assets. Christchurch is currently the only major city in New Zealand which has true electronic integrated ticketing across all bus and ferry operators and this has been operational since 2003. Determining factors in this success are likely to be that the City Council owned the major bus company and that Stagecoach/Infratil never made it to Christchurch. In the case of integrated ticketing, ECan succeeded where other regional authorities failed.

This is what the review into ECAN says about the regional council's responsibilities for managing public transport.

"Christchurch City Council is strongly of the view that the present arrangement leads to material additional costs due to the overlaps in responsibility between Christchurch City and ECan, and that this resource would be better applied to improving public transport services. Rather than making specific recommendations to address perceived issues, the Review Group feels that it is appropriate that the Commission initiate a review to consider the optimum arrangement for the management and operation of the public transport fleet within the Region. The overwhelming bulk of this activity is within Christchurch, however we note that three other Districts are also serviced by public transport managed by ECan. The Commission we have recommended to replace ECan would act on that review when completed."

The same strategy is in effect. Remove an elected regional council and replace it with unelected commissioners who will be appointed by Ministers. No doubt they will give the big thumbs up to changes to transport management if a side effect happens to be the privatisation of Red Bus. This is being proposed at the same time Auckland is up in arms at proposals that Ministers will appoint the initial directors of Auckland Transport, under the new Super City arrangements, with the current proposed structure offering elected councillors very limited ability to represent their constituents on transport issues. The same strategy is in effect.

Citizens of the People's Republic of Christchurch will not want the bus company sold. Since a National Government in the 1990s forced the City Council to sell Southpower the citizens have fought off the privateers more successfully than in Auckland or Wellington.

In 2006 the Christchurch City Council proposed selling effective control of the Lyttelton Port Company to a Hong Kong Multinational Hutchison Port Holdings and their was a significant public outcry. The same year the Council removed Red Bus and its contracting business City Care from a list of strategic assets to be protected. While Hutchison thankfully decided to walk away from the deal, these changes were designed to clear the way for the privateers in the future.

Sideshow Bob must know that taking over control of transport will necessitate the sale of Red Bus. Not surprisingly he has not been upfront about this. Given Bob's previous mismanagement, some citizens will wonder if the expected proceeds from the sale of the company will end up propping up another one of David Henderson's dodgy property deals....

Peter Dunne can't even get his unpleasant political facts straight

2010-02-01T21:28:00.008+13:00

Tumeke tears Peter Dunne to shreds in an amusing post fisking Dunny's mean spirited attack on Jeanette Fitzsimons and his delusions that United Future have been a more effective party than the Greens.

Peter Dunne: First, no member of the Greens has ever held office as a Minister in a government. That sets them apart from every other small party that has emerged under MMP. The Alliance, ACT, New Zealand First, the Maori Party and UnitedFuture have all had Ministers in government, able to push through key aspects of their respective parties’ policies. In contrast, Jeanette’s self-confessed Parliamentary career highlight was chairing the Local Government Select Committee. The usual hallmark of political success is being part of a government, and on that basis the Greens have been our most unsuccessful small party under MMP.

Tumeke: "And why have they not been in government? Because Peter Dunne in particular has kept them out by refusing to sit alongside them if they were ministers. He preferred being a minister with Winston Peters, even when his shameless deceptions and rorts were on full display in the final year of the last Labour government."

Check out the NZ Herald from 2005 - where he reiterated his demand that the Greens not be part of any formal coalition. The same article recalls Dunne's bizarre attack on the media on election night.

It is a shame Labour went along with Dunny and Winston Peters unjustified demands to exclude the Greens from Government. In 2002 Labour could have formed a Government with the Greens, but the Labour party leadership chose to go with United Future instead. In 2005 two Green MPs were appointed as Government spokespeople for Energy Efficiency and the Buy Kiwi Made Campaign. Was there much effective difference between these 'spokespeople' positions and the minor ministerial portfolio outside cabinet held by Dunne? In effect, not a lot. Being a minister was more of vanity project for Peter in any case.

Given his previous statements about the Greens, Dunne wondered aloud whether to attend Green co-leader Rod Donald's funeral in 2005. He ended up going, and ignored repeated requests from Dean Peter Beck to turn his cellphone off. His cellphone rang during the service.

Dunne's majority in his electorate has been disappearing for the past four elections, so hopefully in 2011 we will see the end of another of Roger Douglas' friends from the Forth Labour Government.

Conscription already a reality in the US

2010-01-12T17:22:00.007+13:00

The American war machine is so desperate for numbers it has resorted to a form of backdoor conscription.

A US solider has been jailed on criminal charges in Georgia for writing and recording a rap song that blasts the army and describes going on a shooting spree. Marc A Hall used music to vent his anger after being told he was not allowed to leave the army after four years this February as he had planned, and he would be forced to remain in the ranks for a year-long tour of Iraq starting in December 2009.

The 'stop-loss' policy is the involuntary extension of a service member's active duty retaining them beyond their initial end of term of service. The policy originally dates from Vietnam, but was also used during the first Gulf War and the so called War on Terror. More than 185,000 U.S. troops have been forced to extend their time in the military since September 11. While there is a clause in recruitment contracts allowing involuntary extension to end of term service dates this clause has been subject to some legal challenge, interestingly on the basis that Congress never formerly declared war in the case of Gulf War II (Iraq). 'Involuntary' means it is a form of conscription in all but name.

One can see how soliders who ask to leave could be treated. "No, we will keep you here for another 12 months under stop-loss - if we can't think of a suitably 'brave' mission, I think the bomb disposal squad requires some more recruits" (read cannon fodder)

In 2007 Secretary of Defence Robert Gates ordered military bosses to minimise their use of mandatory tour extensions, and the military responded by increasing its use of stop-loss by 43%.

The Canadian Press reports:
Hall posted the song, called "Stop Loss," on his Web site. Klimaski said he also played it for many soldiers in his unit, the 2nd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment of the 3rd Infantry Division. On the recording, Hall denounces the Army for the policy used to keep thousands of soldiers in the ranks beyond their scheduled dates to leave the military. He also raps about opening fire with his military-issue M-4 rifle.

"I got a (expletive) magazine with 30 rounds, on a three-round burst, ready to fire down," Hall raps on the recording. "Still against the wall, I grab my M-4, spray and watch all the bodies hit the floor. I bet you never stop-loss nobody no more, in your next lifetime of course. No remorse."

"They're saying it's a threat. We're saying it's a fantasy," said Jim Klimaski, a Washington civilian attorney who has talked to Hall about the case. "He's mad, but he's not stupid. He's not violent."

I can't help but recall the episode of Blackadder the Forth, set in the Western Front in 1917, where everyone was preparing to go 'over the top'. Blackadder recalled that the traditional way to get out of the fighting was to pretend to be mad, by putting underpants on your head, sticking two pencils up your nose and saying 'wibble'.

As Blackadder said as his final words "Who would notice a madman around here?". Quite.

Update: You can hear Marc Hall's rap here. Predictably the 'shooting spree' as described by the media is only one or two lines of the song.

Cartoon: A brief history of corporate whining

2009-11-16T13:03:00.007+13:00

Great cartoon from Barry Deutsch at Lefycartoons.com

My Surface James Balao article is now online

2009-11-08T13:38:00.003+13:00

While I was in the Philippines last year I took part in an international human rights mission to highlight the case of activist James Balao who was a victim of an 'enforced disappearance' on September 17 2008. James has now been missing for over a year, and Philippine government security forces are widely believed to be responsible for his abduction.

I wrote an article on the Balao case for Kapatiran - the magazine of the Philippine Solidarity Network of Aotearoa, which has just been published online here. I also wrote a short legal update on the case. As part of the international mission our search for information on James' whereabouts took us to the regional police station of the Philippine National Police, a camp of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), the Philippine Commission on Human Rights, as well as meeting with Bagiuo city councilors and members of James' family.

James Balao is a key member of the Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA) from its foundation in 1984. The CPA has been very active on campaigns opposing Government policies, particularly around mining and logging, opposing militarisation and organising community protests.

Fillipno Human Rights group Karapatan estimate 202 people were victims of enforced or 'involuntary' disappearance between March 2001 and March 2009. Over 1000 people were victims of extrajudicial killings or arbitary executions over the same period. Karapatan lays the blame at the state security forces of the government of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and their so called 'anti-terrorism' policy Oplan Bantay Laya.

In May 2009 Philip Alston, the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings criticised the Arroyo regime for failing to put in place substantive reforms as he had recommended two years ago, and said any actions the government had taken so far were largely symbolic.

"While current levels are significantly lower than before, they still remain a cause for great alarm, and reflect the failure to make the recommended structural reforms," Alston said. "Moreover, forced disappearances and illegal detentions remain all too common, as does the bringing of trumped-up charges against Filipino activists and human rights abuse victims," he said.

Why we need an Onehunga to Airport bus service

2009-10-30T12:30:00.001+13:00

Attempting to travel between the Onehunga and the Airport by public transport is a pain due to a lack of direct connections.

The airport bus speeds past Onehunga on State Highway 20 on its way into town. Even if it did stop it would still charge passengers the full fare of $15 for going half the distance. While its possible to get off at Three Kings Plaza and bus back, at a total (un)fare of $19.20, the cheapest taxi at $25 starts looking very good.

The Auckland Regional Council/ARTA have improved services to the airport last year, increasing the frequency of the Airport bus to the CBD and through the introduction of the 380 Airporter service to Manukau. ARTA were rewarded with a 13.5% increase in patronage, demonstrating there is demand for better airport services. The Manukau service has great potential as it links up with the rail system at Papatoetoe, which together could offer a more reliable service into Auckland CBD, particularly at peak hour. Unfortunately, there has not been enough marketing and promotion of this service for it to reach its potential. An airport services page on the Maxx website would be a good start at no cost.

Flying back home on Sunday I thought I would try an experiment. How easy would be it to catch the 380 to Manukau and then get a bus to Onehunga from there? While I would normally check the Maxx website to see where the routes best interconnect, I thought it would be more interesting to take the position of a tourist new to Auckland. So I asked at the Airport helpdesk. The older woman behind the counter was very helpful, familiar with the 380 service as she sometimes used it to get to work. She suggested staying on the bus to Manukau and catching the connecting bus from there.

My flight landed at 4.30pm. The 380 arrived after 15 minutes and took roughly 10 minutes to reach Papatoetoe station and another 10 to arrive in Manukau. So far so good. There were about 7 passengers on the bus. Unfortunately being Sunday I happened to strike an hour and a half long break in the timetable for the next 348 to Onehunga, and had to wait 50 minutes for the connecting bus. At least the mall was open at the time. This is likely to be nearly the worst possible scenario as the 348 connection is more frequent at other times in the week.

While the 348 is a lovely fast bus from Onehunga into town, before this it snakes like Slytherin through Mangere and Mangere Bridge for 40 minutes. This meant I didn't reach Onehunga until 6:45pm, meaning a total of 2 hours travelling time. With a straightforward connection between the 380 and the 348 it would take an hour.

I later found out it is possible to get off at Papatoetoe and catch the 348 on St George Street - this would take approximately 15-20 minutes off the total journey time (cost $8.60). Another option, more direct, but only available during the week, is to catch the 375 from the airport and transfer to the 348 on Ascot/Kirkbride Rd.

Despite the two hour commute last Sunday, I would catch the 380 again, but would only try it during the week. Also would like to try out the 375/348 combo as this is the cheapest ($3.20) and most direct route from Onehunga to the Airport. I only wish the 375 ran more often. That said I suspect only transport geeks like myself and students will bother with having to catch more than one bus.

The reopening of the Onehunga branch line for passenger trains next year provides a great opportunity to fix the Onehunga to Airport transport hole. A connecting bus from the Onehunga train station to the Airport would be a great way to encourage more patronage on the line, as well as create demand for the eventual extension of the line to the Airport. The combination of the bus lanes to be built on the new Mangere Bridge motorway crossing and the ability of rail to sail past peak hour traffic on the Onehunga to CBD stretch, will improve the potential reliability and speed of the service. Geoff on the Better Transport forum make a similar suggestion here. That said, the following could make a Airport>Onehunga>CBD service even more viable.

ARTA are currently planning for half hour peak services on the Onehunga line, with services each hour off peak. An airport service, if it was to be used for travel to the CBD would require half hour off peak services at the very least. While I appreciate the Britomart tunnel is a troubling bottleneck, could some other southern line services stop at Newmarket until we get a CBD rail tunnel?
Move the Onehunga bus terminal closer to the new Onehunga railway station. I am told the Onehunga Business Association have previously resisted such suggestions for no other reason than they want people to walk 10 minutes past their shops. This won't happen - people travelling from the south will stay on the bus into town instead of transferring to the train. Given the recent attitutes of bus companies like Infratil, Aucklanders are plain sick of myopic business owners who demand the public transport system should be screwed up for the benefit of their private profits.
Integrated ticketing, or at least a combined ticket for the bus/train journey into town.

I really hope ARTA consider the idea of an Airport bus service to Onehunga that linked up with the train and other buses. It strikes me as a good use of existing infrastructure while we keep the demands persistent for the CBD rail tunnel and an airport rail service.

2009 Bruce Jesson Lecture: Robert Wade on Wednesday

2009-10-23T11:37:00.003+13:00

On Wednesday Professor of Political Economy and expatriate Kiwi Robert Wade will give the 2009 Bruce Jesson Lecture.

What: How to stop the money men from taking over the world (or, when will be face another September 2008)
Who: Robert Wade
Where: Maidment Theatre, University of Auckland
When: Wednesday 28 October 6.30pm

"Taking off from Bruce Jesson’s ‘Only Their Purpose is Mad: ‘The money men take over NZ’, Robert Wade discusses several reforms of the international monetary and financial system aimed at stabilising global financial markets and curbing the power of the financial sector. After considering the easy part -- ‘what should be done’ -- he goes on to discuss ‘what can be done’, nationally, regionally and globally."

"Professor Robert Wade is one of the world’s most prominent independent thinkers about the contemporary challenges facing the global economy. As professor of political economy at the London School of Economics, Wade espouses a heterdox approach to economics in contrast to the prevailing neoliberal / neoclassical paradigm. As an expatriate New Zealander he has continued to contribute to discussions on New Zealand’s economic direction, including in the context of the global economic crisis."

The Bruce Jesson Lecture is organised by the Bruce Jesson Foundation and the University of Auckland.

Obama gets Nobbled with Nobels

2009-10-10T22:07:00.004+13:00

Barack Obama got the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize because he is not George W Bush. It is hard not to come to this conclusion given he was nominated for the award after only eleven days as President of the United States.

That was my immediate reaction. Yet if this was the case, would Hillary Clinton have been a shoe in had she won the Presidency? Would John McCain have received the prize for his patchy but mostly good record in legislating against torture? As there are some doubt as to the likelihood of these alternative scenarios, I no longer see my initial reaction as a sufficient explanation.

I suspect Obama gained his nomination based on his campaign for President, and the positive response of the American people to his message of 'hope'. Indeed the Norwegian Nobel committee pretty much cite his 'hope' campaign slogan.

"Only rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future."

The committee also congratulate Obama for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons".

Obama's speech in Cairo may have been an important change in tone with regards to relations with the Middle East, and his abandonment of an unworkable 'missile defence shield' in Eastern Europe is welcome. That said it still feels like he received the award for his performance in the opening credits, when the major plotlines of his Presidency are still to be revealed.

Obama patently fails to meet one of the criteria set for the Peace Prize. Alfred Nobel wished to acknowledge the person who has done the most for 'the abolition or reduction of standing armies'. Obama has increased troop numbers in the war in Afghanistan and is currently considering a further increase, despite the many examples of unsuccessful 'conquest' of the country. Why send armies to defend Hamed Kazai's dodgy record of electoral fraud and legislation that appears to condone the rape of women within marriage?

A real peacemaker may have instigated a process that sought to bring the waring factions - even the Taliban - into a negotiated settlement, perhaps even a form of shared government, safe in the knowledge that not many guerrillas manage the transition into long term legislators, and can fade away as a result.

It is unfortunate for Obama that the 2009 Peace Prize is likely to be compared with the 1973 award which was controversially won by Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho for negotiating the ceasefire in the Vietnam war.

The ceasefire was signed on 23 January 1973, which would have been only a week before nominations would have closed for the Nobel award for that year. Like 2009, the 1973 award was also described as a work in progress. Vietnamese representative Le Duc Tho refused the award on the grounds that peace had not really been restored in South Vietnam, and he was right - the ceasefire failed to hold and the war did not finally end until 1975. Le Duc Tho increased his standing by refusing the award, whereas Kissinger accepted with 'humility'.

Yet in the same year, Kissinger "helped" a military coup in Chile that violently removed a democratically elected government. Clearly the Peace Prize is for pieces, and not the whole of ones actions.

Given that Obama has said that he does not feel he deserves "to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize", I wonder if he may have done more to increase his standing had he refused it "at this time".

Many Americans have high expectations of Obama as President, as do many others across the globe. Many politicians are keen to keep in check the expectations of the electorate, yet I am coming to the conclusion Obama attempts to use high expectations to his advantage, even with the inherent political risks of disappointment.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has increased the stakes again.

40 years of Monty Python and an anacdote from Idle

2009-10-06T23:27:00.006+13:00

It was forty years ago today, a parrot sat on a perch to play...dead that is.

Oh alright, it was technically yesterday, but Britain will always be hours behind New Zealand.

On October 5 1969, one of my most favorite comedy series ever, Monty Python, first aired on TV. I wasn't even alive, but I don't know whether this means I had the same existential status as the parrot.

To celebrate their 40th anniversary, the surviving Pythons, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones and Michael Palin have put together a documentary covering the history of Monty Python and the Python team. A not surviving Python, Graham Chapman, died in 1989.

Monty Python: Almost the Truth (the Lawyers Cut) screened in a UK cinema for one night on the 29th of September. Hopefully it will make its way here - having it on TV over Christmas would be good.

While this is being touted as the first time in 20 years the surviving Pythons have come together on a project, the team did a few sketches in an interview show hosted by Robert Klein in 1998. The Pythons apparently bought Graham Chapman along in an urn of ashes, which Gilliam 'accidentally' spilled on stage and attempted to clean the remains of Graeme with a Dustbuster. Cleese dipped his fingers in to taste it. Wonderfully tasteless!

Almost the Truth may be similar to the book, "Autobiography by the Pythons". While of course this was an very amusing read, I was interested in the mock military training young Eric Idle was forced to endure at boarding school in Wolverhampton in the early 1960s. The indoctrination started from the age of 11.

"Since I was head boy (by default) the school insisted I must be head of the CCF (Combined Cadet Force), which I didn't want to be. At the end of military training they made the mistake of sending us off on a Civil Defence Course which showed just exactly what happened when a nuclear bomb went off, and as a result I had become violently pacifist. During the Easter hols (1962) I went on the Aldermaston March, the annual Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament rally. We marched from Aldermaston in Hampshire to Hyde Park behind banners, signing protest songs, a distance of 54 miles."

"When I got back to school, the padre called me in and said, 'You're a hypocrite, Idle, you're the head of the CCF and went on the Aldermaston March'. I said 'Well I resign', and he said 'You're not allowed to resign'" (p. 40)

In response young Eric adopted an entirely reasonable attitude to enforced militarism and the insistence of its patently pathological underlying values.

"I refused to go to Military Camp at the end of term. It was just a sort of 'fuck you' to the school because they couldn't throw me out. I'd been accepted to Cambridge, I was on the Aldermaston March, I didn't take any of their fucking CCF seriously. I just went off in my own world and that was reassuring, that was really good for me because I could finally say 'Screw you'"

Kia kaha Sue, we will miss you

2009-09-29T23:45:00.003+13:00

On Friday Green MP Sue Bradford announced her retirement from Parliament. While she expressed a little regret she that she would not have the opportunity to change things for the better as Minister of Social Development or Minister of Housing, I hope Sue leaves Parliament with her head held high.

Some ministers manage to go through their entire ministerial career without even passing one significant bill. Some even manage to pass no laws at all. Yet Bradford as a backbench MP, introduced three private members bills in one parliamentary term, and succeeded in having all three passed into law. Bradford proved you didn't have to be a minister to get things done.

A significantly greater number of 16 and 17 year old workers will now be paid adult rates for an adult job, following Sue's bill that sought to remove youth rates. The bill as passed got very close to achieving its goal, despite significant opposition from senior Labour party ministers. Again, thanks to Sue, mothers in prison will now be able to keep their babies with them for up to 2 years.

Her most controversial and significant achievement is the Child Discipline Act which removed the defence of 'reasonable force'. Child abusers were using this defence in court as an excuse for excessive violence towards their kids. In the future I suspect many will look back at this debate in bewilderment and wonder how on earth a small number of small minded (so called christian) conservatives were so successful in hijacking the debate over the 'anti-smacking' bill. Bradford's opponents were never challenged on their wider agenda - promoting a narrow view of family values where the wider community has no say in the education and development of the value systems of children (this aids indoctrination).

In an interview with Katherine Ryan on Nine to Noon on Friday, I thought Sue identified a key insight about this debate. Radio NZ only keep interviews on their website for a week, so I retyped Sue's words as I thought they deserved more than being wiped off the internet after only a week. When asked how being on the front line of the debate over Section 59 bill had affected her Bradford said:

"I have no regrets, I am really honoured that I was able to play the role in this very deep controversy."

"It has hurt me and saddened me. I think what has affected me most, when I think back on again quite recently, is the violent minds and natures of some of the people who are so keen to retain the legal right to assault their kids as part of bringing them up, that that kind of psychological violence is then directed at people like me who are the champion of the other side."

Bradford confirmed she had received death threats and "really nasty emails". She also expressed some dismay that:

"(In) our country, so many people are so fundamentally violent in the way they see the world; and the way this reflects on how they view their children as property. Anything I've done to be able to help to begin to shift that culture seeing our children as property, seeing our children as worth less than us adults to see our children as less than human in some way that we should be able to legally hit whack them etc as part of bringing them up. I just hope we continue to change that culture."

It is an irony that in the same day Bradford spoke these words, the right wing of the blogosphere went out of their way to demonstrate their accuracy. Just take one look at Whale Oil or the comments on Kiwiblog to see violent minds at work. That said, its good to see both Farrar and Whale Oil have spoken out against the death threats.

While Bradford was talking about the controversy over the Child Discipline Bill, I could not help but think her words are also relevant to the issue of Palestine. In defending the right of the Israeli state to make indiscriminate and disproportionate war on Palestinian civilians, there are indeed some who appear to direct psychological violence against those who dare to question the motives behind Israel's actions, and highlight the daily injustice metered out to the Palestinian population. Responding with an accusation of 'anti-Semitism' in this context is nothing more than the actions of a psychological bully who in practice is cheapening the cause of genuine cases of anti-Semitism in this world.

PS: I would have posted this in the weekend but for losing the first version of this post thanks to a computer crash, arrghh!

Why capitalism fails

2009-09-21T01:44:00.001+12:00

The value of a scientific theory is based on its ability to predict phenomena and events, and at least amongst those of a more rationalist persuasion, its explanatory power. Yet free market economics completely failed to predict and explain the financial crisis of 2008-2009. Many are now leaving the free marketeers to their ever increasing Ptolemaic circles, excuses and epicycles and are looking for explanations outside the free market religious cannon.

This has lead to a resurgence of interest an American economist who did see what was coming, Hyman Minsky. Stephen Mihm in The Boston Globe recently wrote about how Minsky's ideas are being given new life in the context of the financial crisis (Hat tip Sam F).

"Minsky called his idea the “Financial Instability Hypothesis.” In the wake of a depression, he noted, financial institutions are extraordinarily conservative, as are businesses. With the borrowers and the lenders who fuel the economy all steering clear of high-risk deals, things go smoothly: loans are almost always paid on time, businesses generally succeed, and everyone does well. That success, however, inevitably encourages borrowers and lenders to take on more risk in the reasonable hope of making more money. As Minsky observed, “Success breeds a disregard of the possibility of failure.”

"As people forget that failure is a possibility, a “euphoric economy” eventually develops, fueled by the rise of far riskier borrowers - what he called speculative borrowers, those whose income would cover interest payments but not the principal; and those he called “Ponzi borrowers,” those whose income could cover neither, and could only pay their bills by borrowing still further. As these latter categories grew, the overall economy would shift from a conservative but profitable environment to a much more freewheeling system dominated by players whose survival depended not on sound business plans, but on borrowed money and freely available credit."

"Once that kind of economy had developed, any panic could wreck the market. The failure of a single firm, for example, or the revelation of a staggering fraud could trigger fear and a sudden, economy-wide attempt to shed debt. This watershed moment - what was later dubbed the “Minsky moment” - would create an environment deeply inhospitable to all borrowers. The speculators and Ponzi borrowers would collapse first, as they lost access to the credit they needed to survive. Even the more stable players might find themselves unable to pay their debt without selling off assets; their forced sales would send asset prices spiraling downward, and inevitably, the entire rickety financial edifice would start to collapse. Businesses would falter, and the crisis would spill over to the “real” economy that depended on the now-collapsing financial system."

From the 1960s to the last years in the 1990s, Minsky warned of the dangers of securitisation and other forms of 'financial innovation'. John Kenneth Gailbraith's (1990) explanation of financial innovation seems particularly relevant: "The world of finance hails the invention of the wheel over and over again, often in a slightly more unstable version. All financial innovation involves, in one form or another, the creation of debt secured in greater or lesser adequacy by real assets". In tracking the changing face of New Zealand capitalism in the 1980s and 1990s, Bruce Jesson tracked the 'financial innovations' that accompanied Rogernomics.

For nearly half a century few economists listened to Minsky.
"By the end of the 20th century, the financial system that Minsky had warned about had materialized, complete with speculative borrowers, Ponzi borrowers, and precious few of the conservative borrowers who were the bedrock of a truly stable economy. Over decades, we really had forgotten the meaning of risk. When storied financial firms started to fall, sending shockwaves through the “real” economy, his predictions started to look a lot like a road map.

“This wasn’t a Minsky moment,” explains Randall Wray. “It was a Minsky half-century.”

Open Country Cheese locks out workers seeking a union agreement

2009-09-13T20:46:00.008+12:00

Open Country Cheese, a dairy product manufacturer set up by a couple of former National party cabinet ministers is planning to lock out its 100 staff for the audacity of seeking a collective agreement with basic redundancy and transfer of undertakings protection.

The company is also adopting aggressive public relations stance by telling lies about the wage claims made by the members of the Dairy Workers Union, and is enlisting farmers to make unsubstantiated comments in Open Country press releases, and encouraging them to scab on the workers by doing their jobs while they are locked out. The farmers involved are nothing but a modern version of Massey's Cossacks - the farmers who came to town to break the 1913 Waterfront dispute. The farmers ought to be wary here - the distaste of the towns for their behaviour was one of the drivers behind the formation of the Labour party in 1916.

Nor should the farmers be so ready to support Open Country's outright bullying tactics. One only needs to look at how the supermarkets have treated their suppliers to see how easy the company could later decide to maximise its own profits by pressuring the farmers into accepting lower and lower returns.

Open Country farmer Brendan Barrett claims the Dairy Workers Union approach is “outrageous” given the perilous state of the industry. “How the Union can credibly claim anything other than the status quo is beyond me. Suppliers have just had a 35% pay cut this year, and forecast another 15% drop this year. Our own returns have fallen 50% and yet the Union is demanding huge page increases."

Three days after this Open Country press release, the company increased its advance payment to farmers from $2.90 per kg of milk solids to $3.05, which appears to contradict the attempt at doom and gloom above. Is the timing of this increase really an coincidence?

Over on Red Alert Dairy Workers Union National Secretary James Ritchie outlines the very moderate claims the workers are seeking:
"There is no wage increase on the table. Workers are seeking a collective agreement which protects them from being made temporary or casual at any time. They want a say on how their rosters and hours of work can be changed so their family lives are not disrupted without notice and consultation. They want temp workers to be paid the same rate for the job after 3 months. They want temp workers to be made permanent after 11 months service. They want redundancy compensation if made redundant and they want to be paid for a meal break if they can’t leave the plant. - Most of all they want to be treated as human beings- not a commodity to be tossed aside when no longer required. They want decent jobs."

The Dairy Workers Union have not been involved in a strike for 20 years, so attempts to portray them as a 'radical union' are not going to have any credibility. Faced with a deeply ideological employer it seems Open Country have given the union no other option but to issue notice of strike action. Like the attitude of Infratil towards their bus drivers, the company have grossly overreacted to the situation by imposing a lockout.

Talleys Group, who the Standard have dubbed 'the worst employers in New Zealand' are the largest shareholder in Open Country Dairy, which in turn owns 100% of Open Country Cheese. Andew Talley and former National party cabinet minister Wyatt Creech are on both Open Country boards.

NoRightTurn points out that the actions of the company in imposing the lockout are a prima facie case of illegal undue influence, as employees have a legal right to decide whether to join the union or not. Open Country have demonstrated their ignorance of current industrial law by calling for industrial action to be restricted in the dairy industry, when in fact the industry already is classed as an 'essential industry'. There is no way protecting farmers profits should be treated as essential as firefighters, so NoRightTurn has drafted a bill to correct this error - it would be great if the bill could be drawn from the ballot in the next six weeks...

Please support the cheese workers at Open Country and help beat these ideological corporate bullies.

Big Business wants First Past the Post to Privatise

2009-09-09T02:11:00.007+12:00

Last Saturday the NZ Herald published a column by deputy editor Fran O'Sullivan which revealed that Cabinet was to begin discussions on a public referendum on Mixed Member Proportional(MMP) this week. O'Sullivan makes it clear she supports First Past the Post as an electoral system, if in a runoff against MMP.

O'Sullivan also stated a referendum on MMP is "clearly unfinished business for many Kiwis". Its interesting she used Roger Douglas' turn of phase here, as when she mentions Kiwis she means the section of the business community who genuinely believe the country should be run for their benefit foremost, and ask the rest of us to believe in the trickle down theory. O'Sullivan concludes:
"Fighting the next election on an electoral system - even First Past the Post - which gave more power to the major party to implement sensible policies would do more to even the gap with Australia than endless horsetrading."

Horsetrading, in this context means that annoying thing called democracy - ie the thing we did not have when the Labour Government of 1984-1990 and National Government of 1990-96 used cabinet majorities to push through far right neo-liberal 'reforms'. Funnily enough the gap with Australia became significantly wider in these twelve years. Not that the new right would ever be intellectually honest enough to admit it might have been a combination of their chosen polices and the method of their execution.

In a later interview with Larry Williams on NewsTalk ZB (hat tip Frog), O'Sullivan described what she meant by 'sensible policies', explaining what MMP had stopped for the last decade or so.
"…various single issue or smaller parties will be able to point to wins they have had through [their] influence on the major parties that happens to be in power. But there are also some big things that aren’t happening – there are things from a business perspective. No-one can talk about privatisation… "

So there you have it - the sponger side of business community wants a return to First Past the Post in order to restart the privatisation agenda. The business community do not believe they can convince over 50% of New Zealanders to adopt their chosen policies based on a system where votes are of equal value.

In 1993 the Anti-MMP campaign was headed by Telecom Chairman Peter Shirtcliffe who bankrolled the misnamed Campaign for Better Government (CBG) along with other big business backers. I really hope some of the 1993 advertising is replayed and replayed - as it will completely do in Shirtcliffe's crediability. In 1993 CBG warned MMP would put our future at risk alongside the chorus of crying babies - yes really - see here. Now it can be seen for the scaremongering nonsense it is, as well as a dummy run for the National party's Hollow Men campaign of 2005.

Fran O'Sullivan quickly responded to Frog's post. She clarified that she only became aware of the forthcoming cabinet discussions following a question raised by a participant at business breakfast meet in Auckland. In second comment O'Sullivan said:
"To clarify – Personally I favour either FPP or STV – I do not like a system where the party vote delivers half the MPs. Would prefer to tick a candidate."

Yet there is only one system that will deliver the 'unfinished business' of privatisation that Fran champions above - a rotten borough system* known as First Past the Post. This impression is also reinforced by Fran's endorsement of Shirtcliffe's timetable for a referendum - a single referendum held in 2010, and applied at the 2011 election. O'Sullivan says "Frankly, Key should adopt Shirtcliffe's timetable. If past polling is anything to go by, many Kiwis would vote MMP down if given the chance". Clearly Shirtcliffe can't wait, and sees an opportunity to remove MMP by doing it quickly - this was also the strategy of Roger Douglas to avoid the interference of democracy.

That said, on this occasion I am prepared to give Fran the benefit of the doubt. I note she sometimes uses her columns to channel the views of others, and sometimes this can give the strong impression these are the views she also supports. Yet if Fran was being a complete partisan hack it is likely she would have downplayed the reemergence of Peter Shirtcliffe and not raised the "fundamental issue of fairness" raised by the differing treatment of Act and NZFirst at the last election, where Act remained in parliament despite receiving around 10,000 less votes than NZ First.

I would suggest people look at the campaign to keep meaningful proportional representation in New Zealand as a long game. Having journalists write stories about 'the other side' can at times be useful, as well as adding to the debate in a useful way. If Fran found out more about who was funding the anti-MMP campaign - this would be worth a few hail Mary's would it not?

* I am defining rotten borough in this context to mean any system where a vote is not necessarily of near equal worth. John Key's preferred option of Supplementary member is just a rotten borough with a thin layer of icing designed to cover up the rottenness.

PS: Fran in case I have your attention I would appreciate it if the next time you wrote one of your fawning columns about the 'benefits' of free trade with the USA you would also mention the potential costs. This comes from a solid source, the US Trade Representative's publication 'Foreign Trade Barriers', but the majority of pro-free trade business journalists either don't know, or perhaps more likely don't want to know such a document exists - if the risk is Kiwis paying more for their medications surely the public deserve better than journalists who stick their fingers in their ears and chant 'see no evil'.

Film Archive says Happy Birthday to Vanguard Films

2009-09-07T00:03:00.008+12:00

For 30 years Vanguard Films have done a great job recording some of New Zealand's most important social and protest movements, often raising facts, voices and issues not to be heard in the mainstream media. The Film Archive in Wellington is showing a retrospective of their work this week, with showings of their films playing each day until Saturday.

A few films have screened already, but there is still plenty of good stuff to see this week.

The Lumiere Reader summarise Vanguard's history and achievements.
"[Vanguard are] behind some of the most politically radical cinema to come out of this country, from films such as A Century’s Struggle (a film about the seamen’s union) to Wild Cat (striking forestry workers in the Bay of Plenty) to Rebels in Retrospect (the Progressive Youth Movement’s reunion in Christchurch). The films gave voice to people who were usually denied theirs in mainstream media. While the films have traditionally been marginalised (and even lambasted in Parliament) some of Vanguard’s latest efforts have gathered much more widespread coverage – films such as Alister Barry’s The Hollow Men or Russell Campbell’s film on World War II dissenters Sedition. "

I reviewed Sedition here.

Of the Vanguard films I have seen I admit my favorite is probably Rebels in Retrospect - memoirs of the Progressive Youth Movement (PYM) - largely because many of the late 1960s and 1970s activists in the film are now my friends. The PYM were a key part of the anti-Vietnam war movement, and highlighted (some previously unknown) US military links in New Zealand. Did you know a very young Murray Horton got his photo in the Press calling for a system of free bicycles for the citizens of Christchurch? That was over 30 years ago, and its still a good idea. Rebels in Retrospect screens on Wednesday.

Someone Else's Country looked at how a new right power elite imposed neo-liberal reforms on New Zealand, and is one of their few films to be screened on television, even if it did take TVNZ 11 years to get around to it. (Thursday)

I would love to see more of Vanguard's earlier films, particularly Islands of the Empire (1984) which examined the military links between the US and New Zealand during the ANZUS years. Unfortunately many of their earlier films are difficult to get a hold of, particularly as many are only on VHS if you happen to know someone who has a copy (my video recorder died years ago). There is now another political generation who would love to see these films (hint hint), so I hope Vanguard consider making them available on DVD (how about a compilation DIVX DVD?).

On National Radio yesterday Chris Laidlaw interviewed Russell Campbell and Alister Barry from Vanguard (this link will work for about a week). Short exerts of their films can be seen on youtube.

The retrospective at the Film Archive is screening until September 12. Now I wish I was in Wellington this week...

Another world is possible

Left party make big gains in German elections

2009-09-01T00:04:00.007+12:00

Rather enthused with the success of the Left party in the recent German state elections. Conservative Chancellor Angela Merkel will be feeling less confident about the upcoming federal election in four weeks time, after some significant defeats in two of the three state ballots over the weekend.

The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) has lost its majority (31.2%) in the eastern state of Thrirrua. The Left party received 27.4% of the vote beating the SPD into third place on 18.5%. If the Left and the SPD are able to form a coalition there is a chance the Left's Bodo Ramelow will become the party's first ever Premier of a state.

In the West German state of the Saarland, home to Left party co-leader Oscar Lafontine, the Left got 21.3% of the vote, a big improvement on their 2004 result of 2.4%. With 24.5% for the SPD and 5.9% for the Greens, there is the potential to chuck the CDU out of another state.

The CDU did better in Saxony (40.2%) and will probably govern with the FDP(10%). In this state the Left (20.6%) got nearly twice the vote of the SPD (10.4%).

Germany is currently governed at the federal level by a grand coalition of the largest centre right party, the CDU/CSU and the historically centre-left SPD. In the upcoming federal election Merkel hopes to gain the numbers to spurn the SPD in favor of the free market FDP.

The Left party was formed in 2007 as a coalition between a breakaway group from the SPD, WASG, largely based in Western Germany, and the Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS) from the East. WASG included many trade unionists, and a former leader of the SPD, Oscar Lafontane, who is now co-leader of the Left. Its economic policy is not that much more radical than the policies of New Zealand's first Labour Government when it was elected in 1935. Central to the economic policy of the German Left party is: "a Keynesian use of state intervention to balance market forces. In the current election program, this includes socializing the entire banking system, outlawing non-transparent financial products, hedge funds, and venture capitalism, and restricting currency markets."

In many ways the low vote for the SPD in Sunday's elections is a continuation of the loss of support that occured under SPD Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's administration, where he pushed the SPD towards more neoliberal economic policies and cut back the welfare state. Unfortunately, the current SPD leader Frank-Walter Steinmeir is regarded with suspicion by many on the left, given he was an architect of Schroder's right wing welfare and labour reforms.

The SPD has continued to refuse to form a federal coalition that involves the Left party, on the grounds that the PDS was once the old East German Communist Party. In the last federal election in 2005, a majority of Germans voted for a centre-left government, yet they got a centre-right Government instead because the SPD chose to form a government with the conservatives rather than deal with the left. Now the SPD risks loosing its brand from being in bed with the conservatives.

"On the federal level it's very clear, there will not be cooperation with the Left," said SPD head Franz Muentering after preliminary election results from Sunday announced.

Of course a better explanation for the SPD sniping, is that like other former social democratic parties that have embraced key principles of neo-liberalism, it just hates having competition to its left. The attitute of the German Greens towards the left has also been hostile, despite the Left highlighting the common policies of the two parties.

The SDP may fear the reaction of the CDU to a centre-left-left coalition, as the CDU runs hysterical scare campaigns against the prospect of a so called red-red coalition, highlighting the 'communist past' of the PDS and the Left party. I find it quite bizarre that large sections of the German media have bought into this neo-McCarthist nonsense and refer to the left as 'toxic' and the 'political pariah' of German politics.

It is time that someone called the CDU's bluff - most importantly because the CDU can't claim to have a perfect history either. One of the CDU precursor parties, the German National People's Party formed a coalition with the Nazis in 1931. As part of the short lived Government of National Concentration, the party supported Adolf Hitler as Chancellor and the Enabling Act which was the key step towards establishing Hitler's dictatorship. Another CDU forerunner, the Centre Party, more reluctantly supported the Enabling Act. To cap it all off, in December 1966 the CDU made a former Nazi the Chancellor of Germany. Chancellor Kurt Georg Kiesinger was a former card carrying Nazi and worked in radio propaganda section of the Nazi Foreign Ministry. I don't wish to make strong comparisons here, only to demonstrate that perhaps those in glass houses should not be so ready to throw stones.

There must become a point where all the huffing and puffing attempting to associate the Left with the PDS communist past simply becomes stale and irrelevant. Given the passage of 20 years, it is close to the point where the political generation with that past has passed the torch to new representatives. Even those who were involved with the Socialist Unity Party in East Germany, such as Lothar Binksy, were from the younger generation who supported Mikhail Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika. Binsky is now part of the moderate social democrat faction of the Left, and a co-leader of the party.

The fact that the SPD and the Left have been in coalition government together in Berlin since 2001 ought to cut the wind from the windbags.

For the record I greatly admire what the SPD managed to achieve in the years after World War I, where they created a welfare state well ahead of its time, despite the crippling economic burdens of the Treaty of Versillies. It also must be said the SPD were intollerant of their left even then. But the SPD can't continue to trade on its history while appeasing the neoliberals in its ranks.

Under a political squeeze from the Greens and the Left, the SPD has adopted some politices that we would be unlikely to see from New Zealand Labour at the moment, such as a small tax rise for high income earners and free tertiary education for a person's first degree. We are talking about continential Europe here - not the wannabe Anglo American wild west.

A coalition with the Left Party may have the effect of revitalising the SPD, in a similar way to the way the involvement of the New Zealand Alliance in the government in 1999-2002 gave the appearance of rehabilitating the Labour party from its rabid neoliberal 1980s. A SPD-Left coalition would also serve to rehabitate the Left from its proported past - perhaps thats just what the SPD are afraid of.

So next month I am hoping that Germany will once again give the combined forces of the The Left, The SPD and the Greens a majority of support. Lets hope the SPD learn the lesson from 2005 and remember whose side they are meant to be on.

It is possible left leaning German voters used these state elections to send a message to the SPD - the question is - are they listening?

Unfortunately the current polls seem to indicate a CDU/FDP government is more likely, with the FDP also doing well in Sunday's state polls. One poll showed the Left party on an all time high of 15%, 5% behind the SPD, with the Greens on 10%. The CDU/CSU/FDP together gained 49% support.

Greedy hypocrisy of Telecom bosses

2009-08-28T00:11:00.006+12:00

At the same time Telecom are attempting to force their staff employed as lines engineers to become dependent contractors, a move that will more than halve their income, the company continue to defend paying multi million dollar salaries to their top executives.

To make matters worse, Telecom CEO Paul Reynolds recieved his full performance bonus despite Telecom recently announcing a 43% drop in profits. The EMPU estimate his total remuneration package for the year is $7 million. Six other top executives receive a total of $11 million to share amongst themselves.

This problem is not new, and despite the excuses has nothing to do with the recession. A 2007 survey by Sheffield of 501 chief executives* found the proportion of bosses not reaching targets rose from 28 per cent in 2006 to 43 per cent in 2007. Those who missed targets were still paid three quarters of their targeted performance pay. Its highly unlikely these same bosses were so understanding when it came to paying their own workers based on performance.

Telecom chairman Wayne Boyd said Reynolds got the maximum bonus for his outstanding first full year in which he had negotiated the company's obligations with the government. It says a lot that Telecom believe Paul Reynolds deserves $7 million for his work attempting to influence the Government. It says a lot because this demonstrates how skewed the priorities of the company have been ever since it was privatised - protect the monopoly, or something as close to the monopoly is the goal - not providing decent telecommunications services.

As John Minto says, Telecom have been a boil on the country's backside for almost 20 years since it was privatised by Labour and National. Minto also notes the company employs over 90 lawyers and suggests this monster legal team is there to protect Telecom's near monopoly.

Telecom's relations with government have sometimes resembled Elizabethan style patronage, where monopolies were given out to loyal courtiers, who undertook a little price fixing to ensure they were enriched at public expense. This is an close description of the privatisation of the company, yet most people have no problems describing Elizabethan examples as political corruption. Telecom would have loved the 16th century - even if there were no phones.

Quite by accident, I did a google search in New Zealand with the words outstanding and CEO. Funninly enough its a rather boring platitute hosted on a lot of CEOs. Its just false flattery, in the mode of 'Oh, your majesty' (note capitalisation is a political issue).

Just this week, a telecommunications watchdog, the Independent Oversight Group found that Telecom had breached its operational seperation undertakings by offering wholesale discount deals to its customers. The IOG called these breaches 'non-trivial', which is another way of saying these breaches were serious. So Telecom is up to its old tricks, fighting and suppressing competition whenever it has the chance to occur. Why am I thinking about the prospects of a 'dissolution of the monasteries' right now? If that's going a bit far, at least make operational separation a genuine separation and break the company up.

It is also up to its old tricks in its relations with its employees. Even National MPs are recommending the engineers refuse to sign the nonsense contracts offered by Telecom

Telecom are not offering their engineers a genuine 'business opportunity' as they are setting all the terms of the contract. Work will only be offered on Telecom's terms - these workers will be nothing like real independent contractors, and will lose the overtime payments they receive now. Telecom are offering no redundancy, yet the engineers are being given the 'opportunity' to front up with $60,000 for their own vans and equipment. The income of the lines engineers will drop by up to 66%, which of course is the reason why Telecom is attempting to pull this stunt. Please support the engineers and their families - in this situation they have little option but to go on strike.

Instead of gifting their new CEO all sorts of travel allowances when Paul Reynolds shifted from the UK, why didn't Telecom ask him to bring his own plane?

* Source: Dominion Post (6/3/2008), "Bosses collect despite targets"

Telecom Alternative Annual Report now available

2009-08-24T07:18:00.003+12:00

From the Council of Trade Unions. I will update the post when a weblink to the PDF document becomes available. Given Telecom released their annual report this week, the following should also be of interest to investors.
---

Telecom Alternative Annual Report 2009

Performance highlights:

OECD leader! – Top 5 highest prices, but amongst lowest reinvestment in infrastructure.
Terminator! – Commerce Commission says Telecom’s termination charges are twice as high as they should be.
Walk the talk! – Dragging its feet over opening up the network to competition.
Top gear! – New mobile network interfered with rival’s signals before launch because of lack of filters.
Roger that! – Perennial nominee in Roger Award for Worst Transnational Corporation – Winner 2004 and 2007!
Roaming! – Call centres offshored.

Employee relations:

Chorus of disapproval – Telecom lines division Chorus hangs engineers out to dry.
Vision problem – Telecom turning blind eye to Visionstream’s ugly dependent contractor model.
BYO – If you want a job, bring your own van and equipment – decent income not included.
Our most important asset – You’d think Telecom would have more concern for skills shortage workers essential to its business, not allow its contractor to drive down their earnings, put them at risk of bankruptcy, and maybe lose them from the industry altogether.

Customer service:

Own goal – It’s Telecom’s cables that won’t get fixed if engineers have to cut corners to try and squeeze a living out of the job. Guess who else loses? That’s right – you, the customer.

Support the Telecom line engineers – Call 0900 STAND TALL to make a $10 donation to the support fund, or call 0800 1 UNION for more information on how you can help.

Silence from Labour on ministerial housing is a mistake

2009-08-06T07:01:00.008+12:00

It is most unfortunate the Labour opposition have made the decision to join National's conspiracy of silence over the out-of-town housing allowances issue. Even if Labour had some dirty laundry themselves, it is more important to speak out and differentiate themselves clearly from National, who being in Government would normally take most of the rap.

Instead, Labour look like they are out of touch. When they have reluctantly commented on the issue they have appeared nervous and indecisive.

If Phil Goff was a better opposition leader he would have gained the initiative by immediately demanding an inquiry into the issue, freely admitting there may have been some Labour 'mistakes'. At the same time he could have barraged Key with suggestions on how to do things better. Good use of parliamentary questions and Trevor Mallard may have uncovered information that put ministers under more pressure.

Instead Goff let John Key gain some of the initiative with his soft as Teflon 'review'. Through their actions the right encourage cynicism toward politicians - it just so happens a electorate with less expectations of politicians usually suits their agenda. So in their silence, have Labour helped the right undermine faith in democracy?

Unfortunately, a 'plague on both your houses' has been a common theme this week - in more ways than one.

As for the Greens, IMHO they had nothing to worry about regarding the Green Futures Superannuation Scheme - the fact they have been more open about their arrangements for years should provide enough political cover.

There are reasonable and necessary expenses for being an out-of-Wellington MP. Its only the profit seeking rorts that need to stop.

I was working in Parliament in 2001 when National and Act's campaign against Hobbs and Bunkle was in full swing. It went far beyond just raising issues - it was the right of New Zealand politics at their most nasty, personal and vindictive. I remember thinking at the time there soon must come a point where the public would start feeling sorry for Hobbs and Bunkle - it really was that bad.

Richard Prebble was particularly obnoxious - it might be a small mercy, but the end of his second political career can be traced to his involvement in the Hobbs and Bunkle bashing. Speculation about his replacement as Act leader started soon after the 2002 election.

The memories of that National and Act campaign were a key motivation behind my posts this week.

Not that I am suggesting Labour and the Greens should now run a similar campaign - instead its more important to remind the public how nasty the Nats can be, as well as highlighting their obvious hypocrisy. How easy would it be right now to paint the Nats and Roger Douglas as greedy out of touch bullies? Unfortunately the opposition are failing to be an effective opposition right now.

Many of the National MPs who were frothing at the mouth in 2001 are now claiming, on questionable grounds, higher out-of-town allowances than Bunkle or Hobbs - it just beggars belief.

Wayne Mapp's career - don't speak ill of the dead

2009-08-05T21:12:00.008+12:00

National party ministers, including Wayne Mapp are facing public condemnation for their practice of renting out their own Wellington apartments while they claim allowances from the taxpayer to live in more plush surroundings.

Reading through some old Hansard's again - I wondered - did Wayne Mapp predict the end of his own political career nearly eight years ago? The incident by which I refer was on 1 August 2001 when he criticised Marion Hobbs and Phillida Bunkle for claiming out-of-town housing allowances.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National---North Shore): I can only say to Mr Benson-Pope that those in glass houses should not throw stones. I have only to think about the likes of Marian Hobbs, and what she has done. Or to think about Phillida Bunkle, which leads me to wonder why Phillida Bunkle is still sitting over there. Are the pleas of that member to her leader still going unanswered?

Hon. Murray McCully: Don't speak ill of the dead.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Well, there we are: ``Don't speak ill of the dead.'' That is now on the record.

Wayne Mapp - don't speak ill of the dead - that is now on the record.

The same goes for McCully too.

If Mapp thinks the political career of Bunkle and Hobbs' was over in 2001, to have any consistency, he must think his own career has now hit a big iceberg in 2009.

In 2001 Bunkle and Hobbs stood down while their out-of-town allowances were investigated. Despite the public anger, in 2009 no National party ministers have resigned or stood down. Clearly John Key sets lower standards for his cabinet than Helen Clark did.

Not only is the reference to those in glass houses not throwing stones ironic given his own behaviour - it was also the title of a Colin Espiner blog this week on stuff. I am sure glass houses don't cost $1000 a week. Nor would shipping containers or double bunking.

Following the election last year I heard reliable rumours the Department of Defence were not relishing the impending appointment of Mapp as their Minister. So I am sure another Minister can easily be found.

National's hypocritical bunkle over housing allowances

2009-08-04T00:04:00.002+12:00

A number of National party ministers are renting out their own Wellington apartments at a profit while they claim allowances from the taxpayer to live more expensive homes. Murray McCully, Tim Groser and Phil Heatley essentially have Wellington property investments indirectly subsidised by the taxpayer by the fact they don't have to live in them. Additionally, Bill English claims around $50,000 a year of allowances to pay the mortgage on his $1.2 million dollar Wellington home.

When the story concerning Bill English's home first broke I was prepared to consider he may have a special case given it would be difficult to house his large family in a typical ministerial house. That said I expect that one could be found if required.

Yet as I thought about it more, two things made me less sympathetic. The first was the revelation of the rort being played by other ministers who already have Wellington apartments. More seriously, as my mind cast back to 2001 it became very clear that many of the Ministers in question are being simple hypocrites.

In 2001 National attempted to make a big issue out of Labour Minister Marian Hobbs and Alliance Minister Phillida Bunkle claiming out-of-town allowances to subsidise Wellington accommodation, worth up to $16,000 a year, while they were on the Wellington Central electoral roll. Both were eventually cleared of wrongdoing, but Bunkle did not get her job back.

In 2001 now local Government Minister Rodney Hide expressed disappointment* that an Auditor General's review of out-of-town accommodation allowanaces paid to Wellington based MPs was only going to look at the rules rather than the two MPs concerned, Hobbs and Bunkle. I very much doubt Rodney will be consistent and now say Prime Minister John Key's review should concentrate on the behaviour of certain individuals instead of just looking at the rules.

So what were Bill English, and Murray McCully saying in 2001 about this issue? Indeed it could be said McCully invited such comparisons in a speech to the house on 14 February 2001.
"I take the opportunity today to remind two members of this House of some words they have used on previous occasions, and to invite them to inspect their conduct of recent weeks against the yardsticks that I believe they have created for themselves."

Quite. Your turn Mr McCully. It is also interesting that in your attack on Bunkle you suggested the court of public opinion is a better guide as to what is right - so you can hardly claim to hide behind the rules now can you?
"To most members of the public, that looks like a person who lives in Wellington inquiring of the Parliamentary Service Commission, before she had even become a member, what she would have to do to collect the allowances, then contriving her circumstances so as to be able to complete the assertions that she did complete, and thus collect the Wellington allowance. That is how it looks to ordinary New Zealanders."

To most ordinary New Zealanders collecting rent on a Wellington apartment you own while you live in another taxpayer funded house looks like a taxpayer funded money making scam. Yet McCully's own words would also seem to doom his own deputy leader.

Bill English moved his family to Wellington some years ago - its where his wife works, and where his kids go to school. On these grounds most members of the public would regard him as a Wellington based MP. Claiming you live apart from your family in Clutha Southland seems like contriving your circumstances to collect allowances, which is rather similar to how the public regarded Phillida's claims she lived in Waikane.

With Heatley and English claiming between $48,000 and $52,000 its worth noting this is over three times the value of the allowances claimed by Hobbs and Bunkle.

On 14 February 2001 Bill English made this contribution to the debate on the Prime Ministers Statement
"Today's Evening Post headline sets the tone for the Government for the year: ``Ministers face legal probe''. When have we ever seen a headline like that in a newspaper? Two Ministers face a legal probe for a couple of simple reasons. One reason is that Marian Hobbs told Wellington Central people that she was a Wellington Central resident, while she was claiming an allowance for being an out-of-town MP. Ms Bunkle had any number of houses, one of which appears not to have existed while she was claiming an allowance for living in it. There will be more to be disclosed about that. But that is the tone that has been set. "

Has Bill 'any number of houses' English set the tone for his own Government this year? If you were to take his own words at face value it would appear so.

* Source: TVNZ, 25/1/01 'Another inquiry into MP allowances'

Currently AFK

2009-07-10T10:51:00.002+12:00

As some may have gathered I am currently AFK - away from keyboard.

I do intend to return near the end of this month when I have regular internet access again.

In the meantime, I am pleased to be still receiving interesting responses to this post.

See ya soon.

Turn the Beehive into a Prison - Collins

2009-06-22T22:31:00.004+12:00

The Beehive will be converted into the Wellington Central Prison, Corrections Minister Judith Collins announced today. Ministers of the Crown will move their offices into shipping containers on the lawn outside Parliament.

"The proposal will result in significant cost savings for the taxpayer, and members of John Key's Government will be housed in offices fitting their station" said Judith Collins.

Ms Collins noted the Beehive already possessed useful security features.
"Due to the circular design, anyone attempting to escape via the lift will not be certain as to what direction they are facing. Security cameras are already in place throughout the building."

"As all entrances of the Beehive are already equipped with metal detectors and security scanners, little additional expenditure will be required in order to turn the Beehive into a correctional facility."

"As New Zealanders expect of a National Government, we are thinking about lowering costs, and not much else."

Ms Collins was also enthusiastic about the idea of using shipping crates for ministerial offices. "I will support anything so long as it has a heat pump"

"The lack of windows is a great advantage, particularly when eggs are an occupational hazard."

The current parliamentary cafe, Bellamy's, will need to be significantly upgraded in order to serve prison food to the required standard.

Prime Minister John Key was shocked at the high cost of ministerial offices. "That is an outrageous sum of money, that is more than the average cost of the average New Zealand home. I can't see that the public are going to support a situation where politicians are going to be put in an office that cost more than their house," Mr Key said.

When asked whether the crates would allow the Prime Minister to remove ministers by truck in the middle of the night, Mr Key declined to comment.

Rethinking Crime and Punishment director Kim Workman questioned whether it was humane to inflict a building of questionable 1970s taste on prisoners. "I guess one advantage of having ministers housed in the crates is that the entire cabinet can be shipped off to the Hague if that becomes necessary."
---
All the quotes above are made up for the purpose of taking the piss. With the minister supporting downright silly ideas, serious comment is more than it deserves. We only need more prison space because politicians from both the major parties have legislated for longer and longer sentences. So it seems entirely appropriate a prison is build in their own backyard.

Bain evidence: hearing what you want to hear

2009-06-11T23:24:00.007+12:00

In the forth form* I had a memorable music teacher called Mr Williams. He looked and sounded like a mad professor, strode around the class with exaggerated movements and told risque jokes. Which of course endeared him to most forth formers (year 10). Mr Williams was a lot of fun.

One day he rigged up an ancient reel to real tape machine so we could attempt to answer a famous question in musical folklore. Does playing Led Zeppelin's Stairway to Heaven backwards reveal satanic messages? While it is true that guitarist Jimmy Page is quite the fan of Alistair Crowley, the fact that this conspiracy was uncovered by the American Christian right ought to make most people run to the church of high skepticism.

On first listen it sounded to most like the strange groaning of something being played backwards. Mr Williams then suggested what some of the words might be, and where to hear them. Around half the class exclaimed 'oh yeah' while the arch sceptics laughed and said it was all nonsense.

That in a nutshell is what happened with the tape of David Bain's emergency call. The police claimed he said 'I shot the prick'. On hearing the tape on the news tonight I am certain I could hear less of the accused words in the Bain tape than I could hear in the backwards Stairway all those years ago. It was simply meaningless garble. The NZ Herald reports.

"...the words had not been recognised in the first trial in 1994 and did not form part of the transcript. Nor had the ambulance officer who took the call heard them. When the ambulance officer was again played the tape after the police detective said the words were there, he had heard "I shot the prick, I shot" and said he was "stunned that I hadn't heard the words previously."

Just as the Christian right had a reason to go after Led Zeppelin, the police had reasons to 'want' to find something to convict their 'man'. Its significant that some of the people advising the police on the case told them not to use it - no doubt they saw as as simply crap evidence that was only going to damage the police case in the eyes of the judiciary. Which it did. Should it have been suppressed? Perhaps the judiciary were trying to help the police save face, as the police have done precious little to help themselves in their conduct of the Bain case. Chief Justice Sian Elias said the evidence was not relevant nor reliable.

This highlights a key problem with the police investigation. The police decided early on that Bain was guilty. So much so, they didn't even bother to collect evidence from the scene that would suggest otherwise. It sounds like a case of Groupthink amongst the police - a similar rationalised conformity in decision making lay at the heart of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.

Evidence of the abuse of Laniet by her father gave Robin Bain a strong motive - but the police failed to investigate this option properly. I am inclined to believe Robin was involved somehow, but without the full potential evidence we will never know for sure. It is also possible a proper investigation may have uncovered evidence to indicate Robin's innocence.

So in essence, the police investigation failed the entire family.

PS: A severe lack of critical thinking was also evident with the decisions of our major media outlets to run this as the major news story with headlines like 'I shot the prick' - the next time they criticise the blogosphere for promoting dodgy claims in an irresponsible fashion they deserve to be mocked.

* slight edit - I think I Mr Williams was our third form music teacher, rather than the forth form. It was a few years ago now!

The legacy of neo-liberalism on family life - some thoughts from Blackball

2009-06-09T00:46:00.010+12:00

I wrote most of the following post around three weeks ago, and was always intending to go back and finish it. I thought it might be an opportune time after seeing a related item on the news tonight.

A neonatal paediatrician is warning parents to do all they can to avoid putting their young children in daycare, saying it could permanently harm their developing brains. Dr Simon Rowley advocates for a parent to stay home with children in the early years if they can. He cites research looking at the hormone cortisol that found 80% of children in daycare become more stressed during the day, with toddlers showing the highest levels of stress.

Early Childhood Council chief executive Sarah Farquhar has taken issue with Dr Rowley .
"It's going back to the times of women being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. That's not healthy for children and it's not healthy for women . . . making parents feel guilty about their choices is not the way to go."
The Early Childhood Council also happens to be protecting its market - as an organisation representing private childcare centres. Kids are their source of cash.

Now its possible that Dr Rowley is running a socially conservative agenda here, particularly when he blames the social policies of Helen Clark, and many social conservatives demonise Clark. Yet to leave the issue there I think does the left a disservice, as it may leave empty political ground for socially conservative politicians if the left is not seen to be engaging with the issues in a deeper way.

What got me thinking about this was a very interesting discussion during the Blackball May Day celebrations earlier this year. We looked at the legacy of neo-liberalism in New Zealand, with a focus on its affect on family life.

I am greatly thankful to my fellow participants for helping me think about the issues in new ways.
--
The Blackball Working Class History Project now has a blog.

This year I attended the May Day celebrations in Blackball. It was an enjoyable and engaging weekend. As 2008 was the 100th anniversary of the famous Blackball miners strike, the numbers were smaller in 2009, but this allowed the issues to be covered in greater depth.

On the Saturday morning a forum was held on The Legacy of Neo-Liberalism. Many people prepared provocations for the forum in order to start the discussion. Rather than focus on economics and the undemocratic nature of how neo-liberalism was forced on the electorate, many people spoke of the legacy of neo-liberalism on families and family life.

It is great to see many of these contributions from the forum now appearing online. Paul Manuder has written a rundown of the weekend. Sandra and others highlighted the punative attitude of many government departments.

"I’ve got a friend in Greymouth who cares for her baby granddaughter, her ten year old son and her suicidal adult son. Can someone tell me why this woman, this mother, grandmother, carer of our most vulnerable, is being badgered by WINZ to get paying employment?"

I believe part of the explanation for this lies with the Social Security Amendment Act passed by the last Labour Government. This Act changed the whole purpose of the Act famously passed by Michael Joseph Savage in 1938. Rather than a focus on the welfare of the community, the focus came on getting a job - any job - as the only legitimate form of social assistance. I suggested Savage would be turning in his grave if he knew about these changes.

To return to the focus on the impact of neo-liberalism on family life, it was interesting that many saw the lack of family time due to financial pressure as a key problem. For example, a local teacher, Te Whaea Ireland saw many children with a desperate need for one on one contact with adults. Sandra summarised Te Whaea's comments like this.

"Parents love their children but the children are stressed. Families are stressed through everyone working long hours to survive economically. Children are arriving at school earlier, then there’s after school care, there’s no adult with the time to help with homework, no time for mooching- that stress-free space which generates self management, relatedness, creativity etc. The family is no longer functioning as a nurturing unit. She saw among her peer group, the stress in terms of a young couple trying to acquire a home and to have a family. She saw the traditional homemaker, once gender equality is accepted, as a valid and vital role in society."

It ought to be stressed that Te Whaea was not advocating a socially conservative agenda, as she assumes the acceptance of gender equity. Freedom and equity should aim to give people greater choices. The issue is that due to financial pressure parents no longer have the choice whether they wish to work OR be a homemaker.

Essentially, over the past 50 years employers have used the rightful work aspirations of women to halve 'real' family incomes - double incomes are now required to raise families in most cases. The Employment Contracts Act made the situation worse. I do not wish to go back to the 1950s here - what I am highlighting is how New Zealand employers and their right wing friends have used this societal change to their own economic advantage.

In terms of policy responses the following might be a useful starting point. The challenge of the left is not only to announce such policies but to demonstrate how they are relevant to the issues currently facing families. I am not sure the left has done so yet, or as effectively as it might.

A new industrial relations framework which delivers a fairer share of company profits to families (the new Australian legislation might be worth looking at - particularly if we are serious about a real CER that is not limited to just what the business community wants)
A minimum wage set at two thirds of the average wage (sign the Unite petition)
Universal Basic Income (which would recognise the currently unpaid work of homemakers)
A year or more of paid parental leave.
More research on children's experiences on daycare - are there ways to make it less stressful and more confortable for the kids?

I very much welcome comments on this post, as I feel as if I am still working out the issues as I go.

--
During the Blackball forum I also suggested that the Clark Labour Government may be seen by future historians as playing a key role in embedding neo-liberalism as it deliberately avoided changing any of the neo-liberal legislation or the aggressive 'free trade' policies of the forth Labour Government. Despite the country voting left in 1999, the Reserve Bank Act, the Public Finance Act, the State Sector Act and a strict orthodoxy of 'balanced budgets' remained. Even after nine years. Indeed it is significant that in his valedictory speech the former Labour Finance Minister Michael Cullen spoke of his pride in pursuing free trade agreements and maintaining a socially progressive but fiscally conservative party.

I respected Cullen's intellect and his wit a great deal, but I always thought his views on the inevitability and the desirability of the WTO version of the global market were simply pollyanna. While he did renationalise the railways, this was only after costing the country millions by entering into a failed public-private partnership with Toll Holdings in 2004. In 2003 he had the opportunity buy the railways on the cheap and to tell Toll to noddy off, but did not do so.

Musing on Mt Albert poll

2009-06-08T00:04:00.001+12:00

A poll out tonight shows Labour's David Shearer will win the Mt Albert by-election easily.

The TV One poll had Shearer coasting at 59%. National's disaster of a candidate Melissa Lee could only manage 21% support. She is in real danger of being relegated to third place in the contest, with the Greens Russel Norman at her heels on 15%.

TV One also polled on the party vote in the electorate (even though there is no such thing in a by-election). Jordan Carter finds good news here too - compared to the 2008 election result Labour have gained 6% additional party vote support in the electorate- this essentially puts numbers on the damage Melissa Lee has done to John Key's government.

Now that we can safely assume Labour are going to win. Labour and the left could make this an even sweeter victory if Russel Norman beats Melissa Lee - in this case I really hope some Labour supporters consider voting tactically for the Green.

With a 38% margin - could David shout Russel 8% and then share a drink over a really bad night for the National Government?

Of course the Labour leadership will be pushing for the highest vote possible for Labour. Most of the time this will also be in the interests of party members - but not always. In 2005 many Labour party activists were understandably dismayed when the senior leadership of their party, given the choice, formed a government with Winston Peters and Peter Dunne and excluded the Greens.

Labour and the Greens winning both first and second place in this by-election is in the interests of both parties. Not only will Labour retain the seat, a credible showing by the Greens will help build momentum and credibility for an alternative Government in 2011. The next election may be a while away yet, but Labour would be wise to give the Greens a few lilly pads forward, at little cost to itself, in order that the overall position of the centre-left is strengthened.
-
PS: Haven't been posting recently as I have been in Aussie over the past two weeks. Hope to make a couple of roo related posts later in the week.

Mt Albert candidates debate on Wednesday

2009-06-07T23:18:00.004+12:00

Good to hear TVNZ 7's Backbenches show is making an appearance in Auckland for a Mt Albert by-election special. The candidate debates so far have been fiery and fun!

I will be heading along to the Neighbourhood Brew Bar in Kingsland at 8.30pm on Wednesday. Relying on free to air TV, I don't get TVNZ 7 so this will be the first backbenches show I have seen.

Backbenches will screen live from Mt Albert from 9.07pm on TVNZ 7.

The panel: ACT MP John Boscawen, Green MP & Co-Leader Russel Norman, Labour Candidate David Shearer, National MP Melissa Lee, and United Future Candidate Judy Turner.

TVNZ say 'be there or be square'. I suspect many of us politico geeks might resemble that remark already :)

Free market electricity ripoff

2009-05-23T19:27:00.012+12:00

This week the Commerce Commission released a damming report on the so called 'electricity market' in New Zealand. Electricity companies have overcharged New Zealanders over $4.3 billion dollars in six years.

While the report found no breach of the Commerce Act - its conclusions were far more devastating for those who would argue for further privatisation and the maintenance of a 'lightly regulated' framework. The Commerce Commission concluded the electricity companies used their market power to maximise profits in a legitimate way within the current market structure and rules. These being rules created by free market minded politicians.

The Otago Daily Times editorial puts the blame right where it ought to be - the National Government of the late 1990s and the Labour-led Government between 1999 and 2008. While Labour introduced the Electricity Commission, and appointed an old Rogernome to run it, their actions effectively embedded the infamous reforms of Max Bradford. I don't think I will be revealing any state secrets when I say the Alliance at the time was very uncomfortable in being asked to support the Electricity Amendment Act in 2001 - an Alliance Parliamentary adviser working on these issues told me it was so bad we should not have supported it at all. But Labour had light-handed regulation as a religion - and lack of regulation is one of the key problems identified by the Commission this week.

If Labour really had the will to fix things up they could have bought back Contact in 2004 when its parent company Edison Mission Energy was in need of cash. With the main four in Government control, Labour could have made the significant changes to the sector that are required, without the interference of the rent seeking privateers.

Our regulatory regime is so pathetic it doesn't even mandate the provision and collection of the data required for the calculation of competitive benchmark prices. Most other countries do. Professor Wolak, who crunched some of the numbers for the Commission said it took him more time to compile and clean the datasets on the New Zealand electricity supply industry than it did for all his previous projects put together - this includes an analysis of market outcome data from California, England, Wales, Columbia, Australia and Spain (p. 25).

It sounds very much like National and Labour have effectively allowed the electricity industry to design the system to suit themselves. Electricity companies do not even have to participate in the collation of meaningful data. Gee, in whose interests might that be?

A couple of comments from the Commission are worth highlighting. "The experience of countries that have liberalised wholesale electricity markets has shown that the assumption that markets will naturally produce a competitive result is not always justified....[T]he economics of electricity has specific attributes, which makes competition in this sector significantly different from that for most other products." These include very high market entry costs and the fact that demand is largely unaffected by changes in the wholesale price, as consumers do not immediately face price increases as scarcity increases. This companies gain substantial market power.

And before some clown points to the fact three of the major electricity companies are State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) and attempts to argue that government ownership is somehow the problem - I would remind them that the primary goal of SOEs is to make money*. So on this basis I would argue New Zealand already has an effectively privatised electricity system - it just so happens one of the robber barons is the government.

Sadly no SOE has ever gone Kiwibank and aimed to lower costs for consumers. Another model would see power companies run like non-profit trusts with the aim to produce power in the most socially responsible and environmentally sustainable way.

Dunedin blogger Chris Ford calls on the Government to order the electricity companies to pay back their ill gotten gains to consumers. While there is some justice in this proposal, this would effectively require the Government to pay out dividend money that now lives in the Crown accounts. I would sooner use a $4.3 billion pot to fix up the industry once and for all, and if nationalisation is the most effective means of achieving effective policy change, so be it.

The report by the Commerce Commission this week is a damming incitement on the current electricity system. Yet it also dams the agenda of those who want to further privatise the SOEs and maintain a lightly regulated market.

It is simply opportune nonsense for Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee to blame it all on the Electricity Commission - the problems go a lot deeper than that. The Commerce Commission have effectively demonstrated the difficulties in creating a functioning electricity market in a small place like New Zealand. Perhaps it would be better not to try.
--
Cartoon credit: The cartoons in the above post are the work of a couple of creative Dunedin Alliance members (E. & H.). Thanks for giving me the ok to post them here.

* It could be argued the SOEs are failing to live up to a requirement in the State Owned Enterprises Act to exhibit a sense of social responsibility - unfortunately many other SOEs seem to ignore this too.

Cake stall for redundant LWR workers

2009-05-17T22:00:00.004+12:00

Lane Walker Rudkin has been placed in receivership - a situation created by inept management and the short sighted and self serving actions of Westpac bank.

Tomorrow, outside Westpac House on Willis Street (Wellington), the National Distibution Union is holding a cake stall to support the redundant workers. If you are out for lunch between 12pm and 1pm a cake or a donation will be greatly appreciated.

Stalls in other centres are being cooked as we speak. If you are on facebook please join Bake a Cake for LWR workers for updates.

Last week the receivers announced 186 jobs will go. There is no guarantee the workers will see any of the holiday or redundancy pay. This is capped under the receivership laws at $16,420, and long serving employees face losing most of the money they are owed. As Westpac instigated the receivership they will have priority as a creditor.

As Laila Harre explains
"This is a dreadful situation and the workers and their union are very angry. How the bank allowed LWR to continue to trade and build up so much debt for so long is beyond belief. Yet today, that same bank, Westpac, washes its hands of its responsibility to the workers and refuses to even meet with the NDU and Council of Trade Unions to discuss the situation.

"We need both the Government and Westpac to come up with a mechanism that will guarantee the holiday and redundancy pay owed to the workers. And the Government also needs to come to the party to fund a worker-led redundancy support service"

Great to see some good blog support already for Bake a Cake from the Hand Mirror and The Standard.

Report from Mt Albert Byelection: The Transport Forum

2009-05-14T01:42:00.009+12:00

Just got back from a fiery Mt Albert Transport Forum, where the Mt Albert by election candidates faced over 100 people crammed into small lecture theatre at Unitech.

The meeting had a fantastic atmosphere - it was as good as the famous Aro Street election meetings in Wellington.

The fact that National announced their preferred option for Waterview only a few hours before the meeting gave it greater urgency and passion. To many locals, not only had politics arrived at the front door of their house, politics threatened to take their house completely.

National candidate Melissa Lee spoke first. Her opening words were a demand for water. She describes Waterview as 'a difficult issue' and said she felt for those in the 365 houses that would be lost due to the project. Really - is this the same woman who threatened many more houses with her 'above ground for me' proposal earlier this week. Attempted to make some noises about integrated ticketing and improving public transport. Lee also attempted some nasty dog whistle politics when she said a lot of burglaries were [the result of] people coming from South Auckland.

A comrade of mine, Lynda Boyd put it like this - "A meeting full of passionate Waterview residents who don't want to lose their houses and community, and a national candidate who needs to do her homework and learn a bit more about how to be respectful towards the general public". Similarly, on National Radio on Monday Laila Harre thought Lee's appearance on Q&A on Sunday demonstrated a "rather shrill and almost slightly nasty streak in terms of her communication towards David Shearer and people don't like that sort of stuff and won't respond well to it".

Act candidate John Boscawen spoke next. Act handed out their own a leaflet with an alternative route for Waterview. This only sought to confuse many locals who were worried this was the official plan. Yet on their map Act mislabeled Unitech as AUT University. The whole room roared with laughter when this was pointed out.

To be fair to John, his best moment came when he questioned a commitment to integrated ticketing just given by Lee. He pointed out National opposed a transport amendment bill to enable integrated ticketing in the last parliament, while Act supported it. Good point John.

Labour candidate David Shearer spoke about how Mt Albert needs an MP that will stand up for communities. He also said this community was about to be destroyed. He still backed the completion of the motorway, but only the tunnel option that was previously proposed by Labour. In his most memorable line, David Shearer said "If this motorway was being built for Paritai Drive or Remuera, we wouldn't be having this meeting"

Work is not expected to get underway until 2011, which also happens to be an election year. Shearer promised Labour would revisit the project if they became the government.

Green party co-leader Russell Norman started with a few slogans about the debate being between a green future and a grey past. Thankfully he soon dispensed with the slogans and used his sound knowledge of transport issues to directly address residents questions in a way that wasn't matched by the other candidates. He cited NZTA figures to show the Waterview motorway will be congested on the day it opens in 2015.

He talked about the Michael Joseph Savage memorial on Bastion Point and what that meant to people, and compared this with the Skytower - a syringe that is 'acts as a memorial to the Rogernomes'. It struck a nerve - a young woman with an Act party rosette responded with a single finger salute.

Norman made a strong case for prioritising public transport. For the same money that was going to be ploughed into Waterview, Auckland could have both the Avondale to Southdown rail link, and a rail line to the airport. He said he was not against the tunnel in the future, however he wanted the public transport investment to happen first. In 10 years time he suspected the Waterview connection would not be needed, particularly given the expected rise in the cost of oil.

Libertarianz candidate Julian Pistorius was predictable - let the market decide everything. He believed it was not up to the government to decide where to build roads. Property rights were sacrosanct - roads could only be built where people were willing to sell their properties. Its fair to say Pistorius was not taken particularly seriously by the audience - his manner was a bit arrogant at times, such in the way he claimed the other candidates 'don't know what they are talking about'. Perhaps Pistorius' only function was to make the Act members uncomfortable at the enthusiasm of their candidate for running roadshot over the 'property rights' of residents losing their homes. A few Act members left early.

Act candidate John Boscawen said the Waterview project should have been completed 15 years ago. Norman said the only reason there is not a surface motorway through this community is because this community had risen up to stop it. He promised to help the community fight the proposed motorway, saying we need money, experts and lawyers. He thought many lawyers would work pro-bono as the proposal was so stupid. He also saw a role for civil disobedience and protests outside the offices of Auckland National MPs.

At the conclusion of the debate, someone bought up the issue of Melissa Lee's alleged use of taxpayers money to enable a National party political video. There were loud chants of 'pay it back' from the Labour crowd at the back, a little piece of utu as 'pay it back' was the favourite of National party hacks following Labour's alleged overspending during the 2005 election. The added presence of Boscawen could well have made it sweeter.

The back of the room was a sea of large National and Labour party placards. No doubt they were there for the TV, but they did nothing to gain the votes of the locals who complained they could not see past.

Most that I spoke to afterward thought Norman won the debate. I should point out none of these people were Green party members. As for the audience, Norman gained by far the most applause for both his opening and closing statement.

Perhaps Shearer was second - another friend of mine accurately described his performance as Green-lite. I have tried to be fair to the candidates here - but Melissa Lee is clearly not the candidate the National party hoped she would be.

Update: Radio NZ is reporting Lee said people drove to the electorate from South Auckland, and that the new motorway extension could divert some of that traffic and criminals from Mt Albert. This and Not PC's comments confirm Lee made similar comments more than once - I wrote down her comment about burglaries at the time. On Newstalk ZB this morning she claimed 'I didn't actually say South Auckland' - oh yes you did - and the Radio NZ audio proves it. Given she said it more than once it will not be credible for National party spinmisters to claim it was a one off gaff. Later on Radio NZ she apologised to South Auckland people who were offended by her comments. Not PC seems to agree that Russell Norman won the debate and was the most well informed candidate - even if he disagrees with what Norman said.

State Highway 20: A bit sneaky

2009-05-10T21:13:00.009+12:00

Yesterday I took the opportunity to walk along the new section of State Highway 20 before it opens for traffic next Friday.

NZTA claim to have made provision for rail in the future as part of the SH20 project. Despite looking through a number of NZTA documents over the past few months I have found very little detail on what this means, besides leaving a little extra room under the bridges.

I couldn't see where the railway line would go, so I asked one of the representatives in the public NZTA information tent. He pointed to a narrow section of grass running alongside the eastern side of the new motorway, where "light rail" for passengers could run. He confirmed this ruled out heavy rail like the rest of the Auckland network, carrying both freight and passengers.

There is only room for a single track light rail - it seems NZTA planners are oblivious to the huge amount of recent double tracking work over the rest of the Auckland rail network. A passenger service that is single tracked over 4km is going to have limited service frequency.

The guy I spoke to was a good natured sort. He even ventured to say with a smile that building SH20 on a designated rail corridor was "a bit sneaky'. You could say that.

It sounds like top dogs in NZTA and the Government decided to do the minimum they thought would be required to build their road. Unfortunately it sounds like we have lost rail options for the future already.

So while NZTA claim they have left provision for rail, "including ARTA's promosed rail link to the airport", this does seem at odds with ARTA's draft 2009 Auckland Transport Plan which includes a Southdown to Avondale link for both freight and passengers, following the proposed route of SH20 to Waterview.

Its also worth noting that Onehunga residents lost their beach in 1984 when a motorway was rammed over the waterfront, despite a Government promise to fix up their mess when they next extended the motorway. Well that is now happening, and it looks like Onehunga will be given what NZTA believes is the bare minimum to make the problem go away. The Onehunga Enhancement Society is to launch a legal challenge.

These examples ought to be a warning to the residents of Mt Roskill as NZTA start the "consultations" about the extension of SH20 to Waterview.

As I was walking back I heard another couple asking those in uniform where the railway line was going to go. Good.

I predict a double tracked rail line will be needed at some point, but because of the decisions made over SH20, its likely to become a more expensive project. I fear that Auckland's transport problems will never be solved while there remains a focus on the ultimate sovereignty of the car and short term economic cost/benefit analysis. Particularly when such decisions limit options for the future.

PS: At least they let the kids draw on the Motorway for one day (see pic above). If Auckland City Council gave out free chalk - would there be such a graffiti problem?

This blog is now five years old

2009-05-04T10:59:00.005+12:00

This blog is now five years old. I don't think I will be in trouble with the Ministry of Education if I do not enroll my blog at school, even though it has reached the age it should start compulsory education :)

Sitemeter Hits since May 2, 2004: 42876
Hits last month: 932

I know by the standards of some blogs these numbers are small, but I am happy being in the little leagues. I know I could get much higher traffic if I changed format to a high number of short postings, instead of blogged down long ones. I don't intend to, as I see no point in being a news service - there are plenty of websites that cater for that. Instead I saw more value in reflections and analysis after the immediacy of the news had died down, as I don't think this is something the mainstream media do particularly well. So I aim to write the kind of things I value myself, in the hope there a few more people in the world who value the same kind of thing.

Comments and feedback from readers is welcome :)

PS: This post is a little late as I had a fun weekend at the MayDay celebration at Blackball on the West Coast - 101 years since the famous miners strike. Yeah, I know, most people would head along to the 100th anniversary instead :)

Bad flu confirmed in NZ and Israel

2009-04-29T01:58:00.010+12:00

Yikes - three New Zealanders have tested positive for 'Swine Flu'. I understand these cases are not as serious as those in Mexico at this stage, thanks to early medical treatment. I wish all those afflicted a speedy recovery.

Sandy Szwarc, on her Junkfood Science blog, suggests a good reason why there have been more deaths in Mexico than elsewhere. Rather than being exposed to a more virulent strain, Szwarc says Mexicans are afflicted by extreme poverty.

The leading story on BBC World News is the confirmed cases of 'swine flu' in New Zealand and Israel.

I watched parliamentary debate on Tony Ryall's ministerial statement on the flu outbreak. Good to see all parties taking a constructive approach. Many were thankful of the work carried out over the past four years in preparing for the day New Zealand would face a potentially deadly flu outbreak. One hopes this makes National a little more kindly disposed to the public service in the upcoming budget.

Unfortunately the reaction from the government in Israel has been less than helpful.

"Ultra-Orthodox Deputy Health Minister Yakov Litzman on Monday declared that Israel would call the new potentially deadly disease that has already struck two continents 'Mexico Flu,' rather than 'Swine Flu, as pigs are not kosher. "We will call it Mexico flu. We won't call it swine flu," Litzman told a news conference on Monday, assuring the Israeli public that authorities were prepared to handle any cases. "

'Swine' flu may not be the most medically accurate term to use, but it sure beats unfairly tainting the citizens of an entire country by naming it after them. It would also be unfortunate to give the public the impression only those with contact with Mexico are are risk - confirmed human to human contact and the age of air travel makes this a nonsense.

One wonders what Israel's Ultra-Orthodox politicians would be saying in the case a flu started in Israel, and people suggested calling it Israel flu. I suspect their reaction would be hysterical and predictable.

That only serves to demonstrate the stupidity of naming the flu after a particular country.

The 1918 flu only came to be known as the Spanish flu because it received greater press attention when it moved from France to Spain in November 1918, and Spain did not have wartime press censorship at the time. There are a number of theories regarding its starting point - suggestions include the Far East, Kansas and Austria. Of course in New Zealand, it would be most appropriate to call the 1918 outbreak the Massey flu.

The 25th of April is still a day of selective rememberance

2009-04-25T22:39:00.008+12:00

With the media full of stories related to ANZAC day, my favourite contribution this year is provided by Dean Parker in an opinion piece in the NZ Herald. While there is value in a day of remembrance for those who lost their lives in war, this is not the issue many in the peace movement have with ANZAC day. A common problem is the determination of who is going to be remembered, and often this is highly selective.

"After the end of World War II, a veteran of the fight against fascism turned up at an Auckland Anzac Day parade to march with the RSA. He was told he couldn't."

In other words the RSA refused to recognise those who had the foresight to fight fascism before World War II. Those like Tom Spiller who demonstrated against Mosley's black shirts in the UK in the 1930s and fought in the Spanish Civil War. The RSA told Tom his Spanish service did not make him a real war veteran, and he could only tag along at the end by himself.

Perhaps this has something to do with the history of the policy of appeasement, which was strongly supported by conservatives all over the world prior to the start of the war in 1939.

Britain and France, instead of leaping to support the Republican government of Spain when it faced a military coup d'etat in 1936, chose to place an embargo on support for the besieged democracy. Only two governments spoke up to defend democratic Spain in the League of Nations - the USSR and the New Zealand's first Labour government. This is the genesis of New Zealand's independent foreign policy, not David Lange's reluctant establishment of the anti-nuclear ban. In 1936, the New Zealand National party were indignant Labour were were failing to support our traditional allies - in other words the National party are the original promoters of appeasement in New Zealand.

When Tom came back to New Zealand as part of nationwide tour for the Spanish Medical Aid committee he was greeted by special branch police and asked how long he intended to stay. This is consistent with the approach adopted by western intelligence services to the Spanish conflict - their sympathies did not belong with the Republicans.

Parker explains how this was a gift to Hitler and Mussolini
"The Germans and Italians had tested their weapons in war and tested the parliamentary democracies' resolve to fight fascism. When the former were found unexcelled and the latter non-existent, the two powers pushed ahead with territorial expansion and the Spanish Civil War became the overture to full-blown war in Europe."

This morning I watched a documentary on the experiences of New Zealand prisioners of war. Landing back in their homeland many faced negative reactions from those who believed the act of surrendering to the enemy meant that these New Zealanders were not real veterans. Thankfully such views are no longer commonplace, but it does demonstrate how 'selective remembrance' of war has changed over time.

In the aim of a more inclusive ANZAC day I would personally like to see the RSA also recognise conscientious objectors as prisoners of war - the only difference was that COs were imprisoned by their own Government instead of being imprisoned by the enemy. Given the so called apology given to the Vietnam Vets by the Government last year for having to face low public opinion, the RSA might like to apologise for their role in encouraging the disgraceful and dismissive treatment of COs by the Government and the own attitudes and actions towards the peace movement.

I like the concluding thoughts of Anna from The Hand Mirror on her ANZAC day post
"The theme of ANZAC day is 'Lest we forget'. If we treat war as some romantic, nationalistic boys' own adventure, then we've already forgotten."

We will remember them, but glory is misguided.

No more Scrutiny confirmed

2009-04-21T00:46:00.007+12:00

The CEO of Triangle Television has confirmed that the current affairs interview show Scrutiny has been cancelled. Here is the reply I received from Jim Blackman of Triangle TV/Stratos

"Hi Joe – Thank you for this supportive email – we really appreciate it – and I have to say I was delighted to read your Scrutiny column. We are sorry to have lost Scrutiny too, but unfortunately it is a sign of the times

News and current affairs are a priority for us – but unlike the “major” players we are tightly constrained by the almighty dollar – especially in these times – to give you an idea – the TOTAL NZoA funding available for 13 regional channels last year was about 850,000 – and thats paper thin...OOOOH But thats been raised for next year they will say – to 1.5 million ---- still of course among the 13 channels....... thats the equivalent of about an hour and a half of prime time doco on the main broadcasters!!!!

The problem is that we need to try to make cloth fit and we have to assess costs all the way along.

I want to assure you that we are working on a replacement show which we hope you will find equally thought provoking – all I can say is “watch this space”

So while it is pleasing that Triangle are working on a replacement show, it still can not hurt to let Triangle know why the format of Scrutiny was appreciated, as this may influence the makeup of any new show. So let them know at info@tritv.co.nz

The meagre funding of regional television stations suggests too little consideration is given to the non-profit television sector. While the previous Labour government gave TVNZ additional charter funding it still required TVNZ to operate as a profit making entity. Indeed it was said the Government provided the funding for 'public service' broadcasting along with an expectation Treasury would take it away again. The new National government plans to transfer this money back to New Zealand On Air (NZOA) so it can be accessed as a contestable fund that TV3 and others can also access. They are wrong to assume public service broadcasting can be delivered in a platform neutral way - I can already hear the profit seeking turkeys starting the next great gobble gobble.

While public broadcasting advocates should always hope for the day we get a Government with a commitment to public broadcasting and a real policy to carry it out, there remains a question of how we might respond in the current environment. It may be worth advocating for National to at least modify their policy so that providers with fewer avenues for alternative funding, that demonstrate prime time public service values, could be given greater priority for funding from NZOA.

In the current environment there is a danger regional TV stations may be squeezed - some may even have to close. On the other hand, one can only hope that such stations do not begin to slash and burn their greatest assets - good quality programming that people want to watch. Too much focus on the immediate bottom line can sometimes be a recipe for ever decreasing circles.

In March Peter Thompson published a thoughtful column on the prospects for public service broadcasting in New Zealand, pointing out that while Labour's broadcasting policy was flawed, the plans by National to dispense completely with the TVNZ charter risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Grocery Store Wars

2009-04-20T13:19:00.003+12:00

This is very cute (Hat tip Claire D)

The farm is what gives us our power, it is a kind of field, that creates all edible things. But alas the market has been taken over by the dark side of the farm...an empire of pollution and pesticides has ruthlessly cornered the market....

No more Scrutiny for Auckland?

2009-04-19T23:42:00.009+12:00

Last month I said some nice things about Triangle TV's current affairs interview show Scrutiny. In particular I highlighted how its host Edward Rooney is a far better interviewer than the recently reheated has-been on TVNZ's Q&A, Paul Holmes.

Last week David left a comment on my post with some concerning news.
"Scrutiny just got the chop after Triangle pulled funding. The idiots need a kick up the arse. Scrutiny's one of the best current affairs/interview shows on T.V"

Scrutiny screens on Wednesdays at 7.30pm.

I have been looking around the net for some confirmation of this news, at least so I had something to link to when I blogged about it. In the absence of finding anything I thought I would write to the CEO of Triangle TV, Jim Blackman about this issue. If others also want to send Triangle a message they can do so at info@tritv.co.nz

--
Dear Jim,

Last month I made a post on my blog where I praised Triangle TV's current affairs interview show Scrutiny. I made a comparison between a recent interview of EPMU National Secretary Andrew Little on Scrutiny and a similar interview by Paul Holmes on TVNZ's new show Q & A. I concluded that Edward Rooney's interview was far more competent and revealing.

Some fellow Scrutiny fans later responded to my post. I was disappointed when they informed me that Scrutiny is to be no more, as Triangle has cut the funding to the show. Is this true?

It would be a real shame to lose yet another real current affairs show given there are now so few shows free of hype, haste, hyperbole and tabloid values. I also enjoy watching Triangle's feeds of DW-TV and Aljazeera English TV, and hoped this content would help build an audience for a local current affairs show. With the impending reorganisation of Auckland's local government I thought Scrutiny would not be short for potential topics or guests.

Now I admit I have not watched Scrutiny from week to week, but have enjoyed it when I do. As I hope the show will continue, I was wondering if more could be done to promote the show online among bloggers and other news nerds. For example, Triangle could send out a press release to scoop.co.nz with the names of upcoming guests so people would have a reminder to tune in. I also really liked how the old Agenda would publish transcripts of interviews - this made it easier for interviews to be commented on blogs and other media. If the old Agenda is anything to go by, the comments made by interviewees could end up creating leading stories in the primetime news.

So I hope there is still a place for a show like Scrutiny in the Triangle TV schedule.

Germaine Greer on Thatcher

2009-04-14T20:44:00.008+12:00

Feminist Germaine Greer tears Margaret Thatcher's legacy to shreds in a great article in the Guardian (UK). I liked this bit in particular.

"A story is often told of how, when she was leader of the opposition, Thatcher turned up at a seminar at the Centre for Policy Studies with a copy of Friedrich Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty, banged it down on the table and declared "This is what we believe". She claimed to have first read Hayek when she was at Oxford, but her version of his arguments is one he might not have recognised. Her commitment to a free market, wealth creation and lower taxation was absolute. She had no time for Hayek's misgivings and probably never knew that he believed that "probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rules of thumb, above all of the principle of laissez-faire capitalism". "Wooden insistence" describes Thatcher's style exactly...."

"Success and profit were identical. Her career shows a bland disregard of the principles of honest dealing that ought to underpin the free market in which she had such blind faith. One of the enduring mysteries of the 20th century will be how on earth she got away with it.From her first days in power Thatcher developed and refined ways of circumventing political protocol and procedure, partly because hers was usually a minority opinion."

Greer goes into some detail on Thatcher's dodgy arms dealings, believing it demonstrates "the kind of recklessness and lack of scruple that is now being blamed for the global financial crisis.". Thatcher exported arms to many a nasty dictator, including Saddam Hussein's Iraq (despite a ban officially being in place), Suharto in Indonesia and Pinochet in Chile. It has been suggested Thatcher's own wayward son Mark gained a commission of between 12-20m pounds from a deal involving the Saudi defence minister's son. While Mark Thatcher has denied this, it is not a good look for Maggie.

It would have been useful if Greer had also highlighted the reliance of the UK economy on the defence industry, as this is a useful context for the points she makes. The UK remains the second largest defence supplier in the world, with the defence industry a key source of export dollars. As Thatcher's policies had the effect of narrowing Britain's industrial base, her advocacy on behalf of the defence industry, is not a surprise. Moving Britain closer to a military-industrial complex was one way among many Maggie modelled the UK to be more like America. NewLabour have embraced this element of Thatcherism just like they have embraced the rest, with a Minister of State For Defence recently crowing with pride that the projected UK defence budget is now 10% higher in real terms than it was in 1997.

Given the difficulties now faced by the UK with the global financial crisis it is about time Thatcher's role in in all is revisited, given that she largely began the wholesale liberalisation of the banking and finance sectors. Lax regulation is now widely cited as a key cause of the crisis.

No doubt when Thatcher kicks the bucket the neo-liberal myth making machine will go into overdrive and produce all matter of sick making hagiography. Personally I liked this take on the death of Ronald Reagan...

Rooksmoor, a blogger in the UK also commented on Greer's article.

In 1980 Thatcher's famous catchphrase was "this lady is not for turning". Well to end on a lighter note - I always took this to mean Thatcher was denying that she was a vampire :)

Should the Greens weaken their policies to gain greater political support?

2009-03-26T00:02:00.001+13:00

Pablo over at KiwiPolitico has an interesting post looking at whether the Greens should consider "a more nuanced and less ideologically rigid, but no less idealist in principle, approach to New Zealand’s foreign affairs". While I do not agree with his general thesis, I believe Pablo has identified some of the tension points that may arise if the Greens ever become part of a Government.

I posted the following as a comment over at Kiwi Politico.

The problem with the idea that the Greens should moderate their politics in order to become more of a mainstream party is that I can’t think of examples where such a strategy has been successful. I also don’t think it takes into account the impact of MMP and the need for parties to maintain a distinct political brand.

Reading your post I could not help but think of the fate of the German Greens, who watered down their foreign policy stance, particularly with Joschka Fischer serving as Foreign Minister. While their 2002 result was slightly higher than 1999, they also lost a lot of their core support. This hardly demonstrates that softening their policy stance will gain the NZ greens significantly greater political support.

A similar story could be told about efforts of Anderton and his cronies to weaken the policies of the Alliance between 1999 and 2002. Their strategy can now be judged, as it describes the policy direction of the Progressives - its ended up with Jim as a single MP.

I also fear you are following the business press when you equate opposition to open economies and current free trade agreements with ‘a generic opposition to trade’. Given the evidence of the many nasties contained in ‘free trade’ agreements, its reasonable to oppose this model while advocating for reform of multilateral institutions and considering trade within a wider economic strategy that considers economic development and the environment. Equating this with opposing trade full stop is a straw man argument aiming to shut down opposition to the free trade agenda. I should clarify that I do not wish to imply you are doing this personally - its more a comment on the free trade proponents who don’t even want to admit there might be negatives to a particular trade deal.

I also agree with what Rich had to say in the comments.

Triangle TV Scruitiny blows Paul Holmes out of the water

2009-03-25T20:47:00.007+13:00

Tonight's edition of the Triangle TV programme Scrutiny demonstrated why Paul Holmes should not be the host of TVNZ's revamped Agenda - now called Q&A.

Journalist Edward Rooney questioned EPMU National Secretary and new Labour Party President Andrew Little about how he planned to do both jobs. Holmes conducted much the same interview on Q&A on Sunday, and the difference was stark. A small regional TV station blew TVNZ and all its resources out of the water.

Holmes narrowed down with a tabloid like fixation on conflict as a concept -"conflict you might say", "there is a conflicted situation isn't there", yet failed to show whether there was any substance to any of these potential conflicts. Instead Rooney looked to ask questions that would seek out the answer in letting his subject talk, and by so doing found a real issue Holmes simply didn't get to.

Both major political parties in New Zealand are dependent on funding from corporate sources, with party presidents regularly playing a key role in soliciting such donations. Rooney questioned how Little could seek such funding, at the same time he was advocating, potentially in an adversarial sense, with the same corporate bodies on behalf of union members. For example Telecom seeks benefaction through such donations - it is also a significant EPMU site. Little acknowledged the problem and said he could not be involved in that.

Instead, Little said he would focus on gaining smaller regular donations from a larger number of people. This would make the Labour party more democratic, but turning around 25 years of significant corporate wine and cheese is not something that can be done before the next election, and Labour could be left with small pockets in 2012 as a result. So while Little's democratic aims are laudable, this can only be a long term project.

While in the Holmes interview Little said he had committed to the union until 2011, where he expected enter Parliament, in the Rooney interview Little gave an indication he could step down earlier, by mentioning "succession plans" that were underway within the EPMU. Gaining revealing answers from subjects is another way to judge the skill of an interviewer, and who is just a show pony.

Holmes also has a habit of impatiently interrupting people, enforcing a format where interviewees can only give banal cartoonish like answers and simple soundbites. I found Therese Arseneau to be the most interesting commentator on the Q&A panel last Sunday, and wished Holmes would quit constantly interrupting her.

It is a shame TVNZ have consistently thought less of Agenda than it deserved. It might have been a show for political geeks, but then TVNZ only ever showed it early on weekend mornings - so it was never going to be 'mainstream'. Agenda regularly showed its value by breaking stories that were later part of prime time news bulletins - it is surprising how often comments made on Agenda ended up as front page news.

TVNZ have seriously erred by imposing Paul Holmes as the host of Q & A. Particularly as the start of the Holmes show in 1989 is around the point many Agenda fans would see as the death of thorough, issues based political journalism in New Zealand. Anyone else remember what Ian Fraser or Ian Johnstone were like in their prime? After that real journalists like Ian Johnstone went off to make great documentaries like Someone Else's Country and it look TVNZ 8 years before it bothered to screen it.

Paul Holmes as host of Q&A is like having an unscrupulous developer as head of the Historic Places Trust.
--
PS: A few weeks before Helen Clark is expected to be appointed to a top UN job, TVNZressurects the career of the same Paul Holmes who made international news after he referred to the head of the UN as a 'cheeky darky' - sigh.

Update: I have since discovered Telecom stopped making political donations in 2006. At the time Chairman Wayne Boyd said the decision was "absolutely not" a reaction to the unbundling of the local loop - I am sure readers will reach their own conclusions on this.

Auckland rail stations to prop up a debt ridden KiwiRail?

2009-03-23T00:15:00.002+13:00

The decision the National Government to abandon the regional fuel tax, but promise to fund Auckland's rail electrification left a number of other significant transport projects unfunded. This included railway station upgrades, ferry terminals and (long fought for) integrated ticketing.

The Auckland Regional Council (ARC) based its budgets on income that was expected from the regional fuel tax, only to find the rug pulled out from under it by unilateral action from central government. Its not the ARC being irresponsible here*.

Now it appears National may have had an ulterior motive. To cover the shortfall, the ARC may be forced to cede the region's control of 41 railway stations to government owned KiwiRail, with Mike Lee calling the move a 'technical confiscation'.

If another Government was attempting to pull the same trick and the train stations happened to be privately owned National would have been crying communism and predicting the end of the capitalist world order. That said, its a pity Labour were not this hard nosed with Toll Holdings, the former owners of the railways.

I don't discount there may be strategic advantages to having KiwiRail own the stations - but the way National is going about it is very underhand, particularly as they are dealing with locally owned public assets. The ARC is likely to be the more responsible public owner at present, particularly when National is attempting to run spending cuts across the public service.

At the same time Transport Minister and former Hollow Man Steven Joyce is announcing new investment in KiwiRail as a 'stimulus package', when it is nothing of the sort. Instead Joyce is merely re announcing investments made by the previous government, and forcing KiwiRail to take on more debt as a means of gaining long overdue new locomotives. He is also cutting public transport funding to build more roads. In other words, cynical public relations spin many people would just call lies.

There may be a link between Joyce's demands to reorganise the train set in Auckland and in KiwiRail nationally. By acquiring Auckland's rail stations KiwiRail gains significant assets and land to add to its balance sheet. This would only encourage National to load yet more debt onto KiwiRail - is this the grand plan?

* One wonders Stephen Joyce, as one of the more 'cynically motivated' Nats has an ulterior motive for attempting to undermine the ARC, with the Royal Commission into Auckland Governance soon to report, and Mike Lee likely to be the main challenger to John Bank's quest to be 'Lord Mayor' of Auckland. Hmmm

Joining the blackout

2009-02-23T00:32:00.004+13:00

For more information on the reasons behind the blackout please click here

Beneficiaries need cellphones. Nat + Lab rght wng pollys sux

2009-02-18T01:30:00.002+13:00

Letters from Work and Income telling debt ridden families to take out more loans and pawn off cellphones is more evidence of a mean and punitive culture within the organisation that neither major political party has done anything significant to change.

Its a little hard for a prospective employer to ring you if your cellphone is at the pawn shop.

While the letter approved an application for a Temporary Additional Benefit it also suggested some rather obnoxious additional steps to be taken.

Taking out loans to cover arrears (in other words talk to a loan shark)
Pawning cellphone and children's playstation
Ringing debtors to reduce payments or refinance debt (in other words talk to a loan shark)
Seeking budgetary advice

It was good to see Social Development Minister Paula Bennett quickly dismiss the practice when she was questioned about it in Parliament yesterday. One wonders if some of her National party colleagues may have been less quick to do so.

The issue was raised by former Labour party minister Annette King, yet it was the decision of the former Labour government to abolish the special benefit that largely created this situation. The 'replacement' Temporary Additional Support (TAS), placed more restrictions on emergency support - removing a degree of discretion the special benefit made available to WINZ staff. In essence Labour were telling WINZ staff they had to be tougher on beneficiaries.

In March 2008 Green MP Sue Bradford explained how Labour's April 2006 changes led to more beneficiaries being forced to susist within "an endless cycle of debt".
"Up until that point the special benefit had provided a third-tier level of last ditch discretionary assistance for people in the situation where the gap between their actual income and the necessities of life was too high to bridge by any other means. With benefits remaining low and even some low-wage workers requiring assistance from Work and Income, the special benefit played a key role in allowing case managers a way of topping up people’s benefits to liveable levels."

One will certainly end up in even more of an endless cycle of debt if your case manager is telling you to take on more.

In order to be eligible for TAS "cash assets" held by a person can not exceed a prescribed amount. Cash assets as defined in the 2005 Social Security Regulations includes cash and "other assets of the person that can be converted readily into cash". Motor vehicles, caravans and boats worth less than $2000 are excluded from the calculation, as are 'personal effects', however cellphones are not specifically excluded. Nor are student loans, even thought WINZ have attempted to claim this as "cash" in the past.

Later Social Security Regulations added further exclusions, suggesting the TAS is simply poor policy. Its worth noting that following the election National passed another such regulation to exclude ReStart payments.

A history of the special benefit by Advkit Para Legal Services reveals that in 1994 Labour (including Clark, Cullen and Maharey) strongly criticised the decision of the then National Government to restrict the discretionary nature of the special benefit, yet in Government Labour abolished it completely.

While Labour may have raised the issue in the house, in fact it was nothing more than their own right wing Blairite welfare policies coming back to haunt them. Policies that National also supports I might add.

40,000 hits

2009-02-04T00:00:00.002+13:00

This blog clocked up 40,000 hits on 30 January 2009. I started this blog on the 30th of May 2004.

Also did some spring cleaning of the link list. Some more to do but that will do for tonight.

Israel's blockade of Gaza is counterproductive

2009-02-03T00:16:00.008+13:00

Before Israel's dirty disproportionate war on Gaza killed 1300 Palestinians, Israel imposed an economic blockade for a year and a half, refusing to allow fuel, medicines and other essential goods into Gaza. No fuel means no electricity. Food supplies were also affected.

It was in the context of the economic blockade that a minority of Palestinians upped their rocket attacks on Israel - it was an act of desperation.

In November aid agency Oxfam called on world leaders to break Israel's blockade of Gaza, fearing a humanitarian catastrophe.

Israel wished to destablise the elected Hamas government of Gaza. Israel accuses Hamas of launching rocket attacks on Israel.

Yet Israeli actions are only managing to entrench and strengthen the power of Hamas in Gaza. While the following article from the UK Telegraph attempts to play the facile Fatah good; Hamas bad game that appears to fascinate the Western media, it makes some interesting observations.

"In the two weeks since Israel withdrew its soldiers and tanks from the crowded strip of land, inhabited by 1.4 million people, Hamas is deploying a mixture of money, manpower and physical force to restore its kind of order....Hamas has also established almost complete control of private food distribution, using the scores of tunnels along the border with Egypt which have re-opened since the war, and which are now the only source of fresh produce in the markets."

"Thanks in part to an Israeli embargo on anyone moving cash from outside into Gaza, Hamas also has a near monopoly on the currency used in day-to-day transactions. The official banking system is desperately short of paper currency. But Hamas smuggles money through the tunnels from Egypt, distributing it to loyalists and to some of the thousands of supporters who lost their homes or relatives in the Israeli onslaught.

Late last week Ahmed al-Kurdi, the Hamas social affairs minister, personally delivered boxes of cheques totalling $2 million (£1.4 million) to a Hamas tent in the Jebaliya refugee camp. As his aides checked people's identity cards and logged their details on computers, Mr Kurdi handed out 6,000 pre-printed cheques, for different sums, to be cashed at money exchange shops also run by Hamas. With the banks forced to restrict the cash they can give out, the Hamas outlets are thriving - increasing the group's influence even further.

"There is a severe scarcity of cash you can carry in your hand in Gaza," said Mike Bailey, a spokesman for Oxfam. "If Hamas is dispensing cash it will probably make political overtures at the same time and the example of what that means for political power is there for all to see.". Like many aid workers, he is puzzled by the Israeli logic in going to war to crush Hamas, then apparently permitting Hamas to shore up its power by supplying all of Gaza's cash. "It makes the reason for all that destruction by the Israelis all the more perplexing," he said.

So much like the sanctions imposed by the US on Iraq during the 1990s, the economic blockade imposed on Gaza by Israel is not only responsible for great human misery and death, politically it is having the opposite effect to what was supposedly intended. Of course it could be just another facite of Israel's brutal policy of collective punishment - its answer to the decision of the Palestinian people to elect a Hamas government.

Whatever one may think of Hamas, I think it deserves more respect as the democratically elected government of Gaza. If the people of Gaza have functioning political institutions there will be less need to resort to rocket attacks. The Palestinians are not solely to blame - the world bears some responsibility for appeasing Israel and ignoring the rights of the Palestinian people under international law.

Palestinians have faced an illegal military occupation for over 30 years.

When Tony Blair suggests talking to Hamas - this only demonstrates how out of step Israel, the US and the rest of the wing nuts really are.

Israeli tennis player enthusastic supporter of the military

2009-01-07T13:15:00.005+13:00

As Israel's war on Gaza kills hundreds and injures thousands of Palestinian civilians, an Israeli tennis player is playing in the ASB Tennis Classic in Auckland this week. GPJA have written to the player and asked her to consider pulling out of the tournament.

To make matters worse, Shahar Pee r, a top seed in the tournament, is enthusiastic about her involvement in the Israeli military.

While military service in Israel is mandatory, Peer would not have it any other way. "There was no question", she said. "All my friends were going and I wanted to be part of it. " "When I am home, I have to go. I want to do my part,"

From Shahar Peer's website
"Israeli citizens have mandatory army service at the age of 18. Shahar and her family strongly believe in the importance of contributing and giving back to the country. Shahar realized the importance of carrying out this service and felt it was her duty as an Israeli citizen. In Israel, there is a special program for outstanding athletes where the army helps the athlete continue their career while still assigning them a job in the army. As a member of this program, Shahar, like every other Israeli woman, had a required two-year period in the army. She did basic training for three weeks, then got an office job in a small unit. Starting in October 2005, every time she was home in Israel, Shahar attended her job in the army. She completed her army service in October 2007."

As part of a special programme for athletes Peer no doubt became part of the public relations machine of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), directly or indirectly encouraging other young Israelis to take part. Some of those soliders are now likely to be involved in the Gaza invasion.

Peer completed her two year service in October 2007, and especially enjoyed her elementary combat training where she excelled in rifle marksmanship. "That was one of the best things in the basic training...I really liked it. It was special and I learned a lot". In the context of the Israeli army it is unlikely she was being trained to shoot rabbits.

Peer worked as an military administration secretary on a part time basis, spending 3 months a year in Israel. One wonders what details went past her desk. In essence she was a paper shuffler for an illegal occupation.

As is demonstrated by the growing number of athletes and entertainers in Israel who find ways to avoid military service, it is likely Peer could have been excused from this if she had asked. Braver still are the Israeli citizens who refuse to serve in the Israeli Defence Forces on the more principled grounds - the 'Refuseniks' oppose the polices of the Government as implemented by the IDF.

Peer will face a protest calling on her to withdraw as part of the launch of a sports boycott on Israel. GPJA have not received any response to their letter to Peer and will gather outside the ASB Tennis Classic at 9am. Please bring an old shoe.

Broad unconvincing in wake of police spying revelations

2008-12-17T01:16:00.001+13:00

In the wake of the revelations of police paying informants to spy on legitimate activist groups and political parties, I was most unimpressed by the reaction of Police Commissioner Howard Broad.

According to the Sunday Star Times Rob Gilchrist acted as a $600 per week plus expenses informer. He ratted on Greenpeace, animal rights activists, peace groups, unions and political parties. Police sought personal information on individuals, including details of sexual relationships among activists.

Broad appeared on Radio NZ Nine to Noon programme on Monday. He seemed desperate to claim these protest groups were involved in 'violent acts' - he used this phase several times. In repeatedly using the words 'violent acts' and 'terrorism' Broad is simply engaging in outright spin, if politically motivated slander. How is holding up a coal ship for a few hours, dropping straw on a floor or chaining oneself to a fur shop a 'violent act'? How can all this surveillance activity be by any measure in proportion to the gravity of any potential offence?

When it was set up in 2004 the Special Investigation Group was dedicated to national security related crime with a focus on counter-terrorism. Yet Broad once again demonstrated that terrorism can mean anything authorities want it to mean. "Terrorism is wherever you find it. Someone who wants to commit a violent act or do serious damage to property or disrupt our community substantially.". Even though New Zealand legislation includes an overly broad definition of terrorism, it does not cover serious damage to property (only infrastructure).

Against the Current also takes issue with Broad's claim that the police targeting individuals and not the groups they were involved in. He points to an email Gilchrist received from police asking specifically about the actions of "Climate Change Groups". This demonstrates aspects of Broad's defence are of dubious veracity.

People may ask - how else do you expect the police commissioner to respond? I think he would have been better to acknowledge that police intelligence work is always caught in a balance between community safety and the right to privacy. He could have implied that aspects of this operation may have overstepped the mark, without actually saying so. Broad could have acknowledged that police now have to operate in an environment where the public have higher expectations of police conduct, and this is reflected in the purpose statement of the 2008 policing legislation that demands that policing services are provided in a way that respects human rights.

Wouldn't this have this killed the issue dead? Maybe not, but such an approach would have painted the police in a much better light.

In saying this I am not attempting to give the police free pubic relations advice, but to demonstrate how a police commissioner with social democratic values and genuine respect for human rights might respond. It is clear now that Broad is not such a man. While Broad is preferable as Commissioner if the alternative had been Clint Rickards, it is time there was a new Commissioner.

While Broad may have been the front man this week, Nicky Hagar has previously noted that Assistant Commissioner Jon White has a history of harassing and inprisoning people involved in legitimate protest activity. I will not be surprised if some White neo-McCathyist paw prints are found all over the Gilchrist case.

New kiwi blog

2008-12-11T08:49:00.002+13:00

My friend Quentin has a new blog New Masses. In the first posts he looks at the National party's proposed bill to strip people of their employment rights in the first 90 days of a new job.

GPJA Forum Tonight 7.30pm Politics of Mining in the Third World

2008-12-01T14:05:00.006+13:00

Tonight I am speaking at the Global Peace and Justice Aotearoa Forum, along with Maire Leadbeater. The topic is the politics of Mining in the Third World - we will look at the situation in West Papua and the Philippines. In short - its local communities verses the mining multinationals.

Where: Trades Hall, 147 Great North Road, Grey Lynn
When: Monday 1 December 2008, 7.30

From GJPA newsletter.

GPJA FORUM – THE POLITICS OF THIRD WORLD MINING. Speakers include: Maire Leadbeater, human rights activist, will talk about the struggle for self-determination in West Papua and the impact of the Freeport mine operations, December 1st is the day the local people raise the West Papuan flag in defiance of their Indonesian occupiers who have banned the flag raising ceremonies in West Papua. Joe Hendren, New Zealand trade union activist recently returned from the Philippines and will talk will talk about the recent landslide at Itogon as an example of what damage mining can do and why people are concerned about the issue. He will then share some photos of the protest outside the Asia Pacific Mining Conference in Manila, where many speakers warned about the dangers of the Oceania Gold project. This will lead into an introduction of the campaign in the Philippines, the upcoming solidarity mission to the area and a discussion about what we might do in New Zealand in support. Oceania Gold Mining is an Australian NZ Gold Mining Company, with mines in NZ in Macrae and Reefton. It has members of the board of Directors in Auckland and is financed by the ANZ and the HSBC banks. There is currently a campaign lead by local indigenous communities to close the Mine and they are seeking assistance in doing so from activists here. We plan to discuss this at the meeting. Information and an online petition can be found here:

Election 2008: Labour now led by Goff and King

2008-11-11T23:07:00.006+13:00

Phil Goff is now leader of the Labour Party, with Annette King acting as his deputy. Both are from the right wing side of the Labour party, and both were allies of Roger Douglas during the forth Labour Government.

It is likely that Labour will move to the right under this leadership team, despite being in opposition. Goff could argue Labour needs to attempt to reconnect with what he sees as the 'centre' in New Zealand politics. This may lead to situations where Key appears to be on the left of Goff on some policies - this cannot be good for the rejuvenation of the Labour party.

Interesting that Goff describes himself as a "loyal Labour party person" - does this explain why he supported the forth Labour Government when they were enacting Act policies? For many he will also be remembered as the Minister who first introduced student tertiary fees.

Its possible the new National/Act/Dunne Government will attempt to shore itself up by starting the age old debate over who is tougher on crime. Act leader Rodney Hide is pushing an expensive three strikes policy and likely Justice Minister Simon Power is known for beating the crime drum. Goff had a reputation as a more reactionary Justice Minister, and King just finished a stint as Minister of Police. I really hope this does not mean they join the right in the meaningless 'mine is tougher than yours' competition. Instead I hope Labour join the Greens and the Maori party to stand up for policies shown to cut crime rates and lessen the need to build more prisons. Rationality may not swing short term political support, but logic has a greater chance over the longer term.

I also fear a Goff/King Labour party would support reactionary amendments to the Suppression of Terrorism Act and similar legislation.

Helen Clark did a great thing by announcing her resignation on election night. While it may have shocked some supporters, Clark was likely to move on in the next three years anyway. She ensured she left the leadership of the Labour party under her own terms, and while making a gracious speech, she also took some of the focus off John Key on election night. She also allowed the parliamentary party to reorganise itself quickly, in order that it can better prepare to challenge the new Government on day one of the Parliamentary term. It also gives the Labour party more time to tweak the leadership before the next election if need be.

Outgoing deputy leader Michael Cullen is upbeat. "We've got the best and strongest intake we've had since 1984, it's a generation, the base for a very strong performance by us moving forward so our message is to the National Party, being a law and order party, is three years and you're out.". He also promised "I don't want to become one of those old men in the Muppet Show up the back." This is a shame - I always though the old men in the Muppets had some of the funniest lines!

While the leadership of Helen Clark was a strength of the Labour party for a number of years, her dominance of the caucus and the party also limited the opportunities for any successors or an organised succession plan. This created the situation where Goff only need to bide his time and he would become the front runner by default.

While Goff was an effective minister this does not necessarily provide the style and skills required to be an effective opposition leader. As a minister Goff often defended Government policies by talking in a monotone and giving his opponents or journalists few opportunities to interrupt - on some days he sounded like a Borg drone powered by the Energizer bunny. As a ministerial tactic this could be useful, but the role of opposition leader requires the ability to empathise and talk in a way the public can identify with. I am not sure Goff is there yet - but this may improve now he is out from under Clark's shadow.

Election 2008: Extreme Makeover Parliament Edition

2008-11-09T22:31:00.005+13:00

A couple of days before Saturday the reality of the likely result started to sink in. Polls had looked poorly for some time, but in the final week I suspected the overall trend was a further swing towards National. Particularly after Mike Williams ineffective attempts to land mud on John Key.

Apparently this was Williams' personal crusade - yet just like the medieval variety it failed to find the relics and caused a great deal of collateral damage in the process.

On Friday a friend attempted to console me that the late polls may be going the other way, but my head was telling me otherwise.

The scale of the National party win is still a shock. John Key is in a strong position in Parliamentary terms, with a clear majority for confidence and supply from Act, United Future and possibly the Maori party. That said, there is no mandate for radical change. It is good to see Key recognise this with his reassuring noises about leading a centrist government, and ruling Roger Douglas out of cabinet. I have some lingering doubts here - I will return to this and the Roger issue in a later post.

While I feared the Labour vote would be hollowed out, I did expect the Greens to do better. I will return to this issue also.

Watching the so called roof top party that formed part of TV One's coverage, I was dismayed at some of the reasons given by some people for switching their vote to National. I can respect people who take a liking to a particular policy of a party, but 'time for a change' is meaningless. It demonstrates a sense of disengagement that regards politics as a mere commodity, as merely the faces they see on the TV each night. Extreme Makeover Parliament Edition.

Yet many of these same people will act with alarm if National attempts to restart a more radical right wing agenda. They will be dismayed when their kids are dismissed from their job without reason after 90 days. How long before the reality of change sinks in?

As they say on TV, move that bus!

Coverage of election 2008

2008-11-09T22:27:00.003+13:00

Rather than do my usual long rant on the aftermath of Election 2008, I will attempt to break down my impressions and expectations into a series of posts. These will include general impressions and an attempt to analyse the underlying issues. I will also look at the fortunes of each of the parties in turn, and the possible implications for their future.

I will also look at the prospects for rebuilding the left, and the relation of the left to the centre party known as Labour.

TV3 debate

2008-11-04T07:30:00.000+13:00

I found the TV3 debate fairly dull. I agreed with one of the commentators, I believe it was Jane Clifton, who wondered if both leaders had been trained by their media minders to be just plain dull and avoid talking about policy.

Overall I would call it a minor points victory for Helen Clark, but the debate was so dull is unlikely to have much impact on the wider campaign. I think Clark did well given that the tenor, questions and underlying assumptions behind the debate were framed against her. Like Audrey Young, I think there were occasions where host John Campbell did not give Clark a fair go to respond.

That said, the weakness in Clark's performance tonight was the same issue that has plagued the 08 Labour campaign - being too negative. Campbell gave her plenty of opportunities to talk about new policy initiatives - yet she failed to mention the promise of a universal student allowance once. Clark fluffed the chance for a strong closing statement by closing on Key, although I think Key/Campbell cut her off again here too.

While some Labour activists hope the 'Mary' ad will turn things around - I doubt it. To my mind, Labour would gain more votes if they toned down the frequency of the negative ads and ran the CTU videos on TV instead!

Proportional representation and right wing whinging

2008-11-04T00:05:00.000+13:00

The Herald on Sunday editorial calling for the election to produce a 'clear mandate' is nothing more than right wing winging about the demise of first-past-the-post and the inability of their National party friends to gain the support of more than 50% of New Zealanders for their policies.

The Herald questions whether Labour would have a legitimate claim to power in the case where Labour gets less votes than National, but Labour forms a government with support from a number of smaller parties. They claim a government formed by Labour, Greens, Progressives and the Maori party would be running "counter to the plainly expressed view of the people"

This position is simply constitutionally illiterate, as NoRightTurn has pointed out. A government needs to demonstrate that it carries a majority in the House on confidence and supply. What matters is winning the numbers on a confidence vote - it does not matter how those numbers are made up.

Of course, National and their supporters do not actually believe the largest party in parliament has an automatic 'moral right' to be the government. As my friend Peter T pointed out on Friday night - if this was the case Don Brash should have conceded on election night 2005. Labour won a greater share of the party votes than National. While I think Brash made a mistake not acknowledging that Clark was in a better position to form a Government in 2005, he was still entitled to conduct discussions to find out whether a government led by him would enjoy the support of the house.

Now in the event National do win more party votes than Labour on Saturday, one can respond to Tories demands for an immediate concession with a simple question. Did Brash offer his immediate concession to Clark in the case where Don saw a slim chance of a National led Government? No? Well if thats the case, don't expect a concession from Helen either.

CTU Video: National win election 2008 part 2

2008-10-29T22:11:00.003+13:00

Latest campaign video from the Council of Trade Unions. Helps if you are a fan of Lord of the Rings...

Part one of National win election 2008 is here.

Fonterra Baby Milk scandal: Reaction in the Philippines

2008-10-14T13:10:00.000+13:00

While the Fonterra baby milk scandal was big news in New Zealand, I did not appreciate its global significance until I saw the following in a 7-11 in Manilla, Philippines.

Yesterday New Zealand newspapers reported that three Fonterra products have been removed from the Philippine market by the Philippines Bureau of Food and Drugs. This includes Anchor Warm flavoured-milk products - Mango Magic, Orange Chill and Strawberry Spin - which the bureau said were not produced in New Zealand. The reason for the removal is to allow the products to be tested.

I can imagine some in New Zealand will see this as an overreaction. From here in the Philippines I sense it is not. People are genuinely concerned, if not a little worried. When people hear I am from New Zealand the issue often comes up in conversation.

Newspapers like the Philippine Daily Enquirer have been running half page advertisements with the results of the testing, listing the products found with melanin and the products that are safe.

When asked about the issue by the locals, I am not defending Fonterra, even if the rural sector millionaires would think it should be my patriotic duty. Perhaps if they had shown more care and attention about the welfare of their tiny Chinese customers, such as monitoring their subsidiaries more closely, their millions would not be at stake. It also would have helped if Fonterra had come clean about the issue earlier, even if China was not willing to fully co-operate.

Possible lack of bloggage

2008-10-06T17:04:00.003+13:00

Tonight I am getting on a plane to the Philippines. Officially its a work trip, but I have extended my stay in order to meet some more of the locals and see a bit of the country. Looking forward to travelling again. Last night I began to remember all my quirky backpacker travelling tips, learnt while on the road in Europe a few years ago.

I hope to do some travel related writing while I am there, but I do not know how much time I am going to have with access to a net connection. I will let you know when I am back :)

Where is Labour's big idea?

2008-10-04T20:06:00.007+13:00

In recent discussions with friends I am often left wondering when Labour will announce their 'big idea' for the election campaign. A big idea is seen as essential to their election chances.

Did Michael Cullen's tax cuts in April leave no money for big ideas? Perhaps, to give Michael some credit, this formed the reason for Cullen's reluctance to give in to tax cuts in the first place. Could tax cuts end up costing Labour the election?

Perhaps an historical example will help illustrate my point. Many have wondered why Winston Churchill was voted out of office so soon after leading Britain through World War Two. Part of the answer lies in the significant policy progress UK Labour made while part of the wartime coalition government. In the eyes of the British people Labour's ideas became more mainstream during this period, leading to the election of the progressive Attlee government in 1945.

Will Labour's tax cuts give encouragement for people to vote for National's irresponsible borrowing for bigger tax cuts? Me-too-ism could have a cost. I actually hope I am wrong here.

What if Labour had announced a plan to significantly improve public heath, education or housing affordability? Would this have quarantined the call for tax cuts to the struggling folk of Remuera? The new BMW would have had to wait.

In terms of big ideas - how about a housing affordability measure on the scale of the State Advances Scheme? While I do not entirely buy the argument that housing affordability measures will necessarily increase prices, perhaps the recent fall in house prices presents an opportune time to help young New Zealanders into their first home. Not only will the working class of South Auckland love such a policy, it could also ease the fears of middle class property owners who fear the paper value of their major asset will decline further.

The decline of the left in America

2008-10-04T18:47:00.005+13:00

It was great to wake up this morning to hear Jim Flynn on National radio discussing his latest book. Listeners should be aware that Mr Flynn has a good sense of humour and sometimes delves in impish irony.

Emertius Professor of Political Studies at the University of Otago, Flynn new book is called "Where have all the liberals gone? Race, class and ideals in America". He summarised some of his findings in an article in the NZ Herald yesterday.

"Does American liberalism have a future? The question has a simple answer: not as long as liberals allow their opponents to define political reality. Right-wing dominance of American politics is easy to understand: popularise a hysterical image of a dangerous world; devote surplus government revenue to ensure "national security"; thus evade a debate about domestic priorities that you might lose; thus leave a vacuum to be filled by trivia such as prayer and gay marriage. "

"It is hard to tell whether American liberals have lost their voice because they lack courage or because they half believe in the same picture of reality. That they have forfeited their tradition of social reform is shown by the paucity of their hopes for an Obama victory."

Some of this analysis could also be applied to the Labour party here, particularly Goff's proposal to "ban" gangs" and Labour's draconian anti-terror legislation. In New Zealand the vacuum was filled with the so called 'debate' over the so called anti-smaking bill. If Labour lack the will and/or perhaps the money for big social reforms the centre-left may struggle to maintain the Treasury benches in November. I will return to this issue in my next post.

I was pleasantly surprised to hear US Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee Joe Biden say during the debate last night that he believes the 2008 American election is the most important since 1932. Prior to Franklin D Roosevelt's inauguration in March 1933, 32 out of the 48 states had closed their banks. I hope very much the Democrats are looking to resusitate Roosevelt - the current economic situation is making a new New Deal look like America's only hope right now.

National MP runs down protester with a motor vehicle

2008-09-20T12:29:00.000+12:00

:John Hayes the National MP for Wairapara thinks it ok to use a motor vehicle to run a local man off the road. (Hat tip newzblog)

"Local activist James Sleep was today exercising his democratic right to protest when he was approached by an entourage of 4WDs carrying Wairapara MP John Hayes and John Key. Sleep attempted to get out of the way however he soon found himself being propelled backwards by the force of Hayes’ car. The car continued to accelerate for 20 metres until bystanders forced him to stop. Sleep described the incident as frightening and thought he was going to be run over. When the car stopped Sleep was aggressively tackled onto the ground by a male escorting Hayes."

Sleep has laid complaints of assault and careless driving with the police. Good on him. James has written about the incident here.

Perhaps it is relevant to quote the contribution of John Hayes to the debate over the section 59 bill.

"...Labour camp and in the Greens, is undermining the social fabric of our country. They are passing this bill on the back of having undermined every teacher and every policeman in this country. Two weeks ago, at the Golden Shears in Masterton, a couple of young kids were sitting on the bonnet of a car, causing trouble and abusing old people. Someone said to them: “Listen, boys. Naff off!” It was not me doing the telling; I witnessed this. “You can’t tell us that, mister. You can’t do that,” the boys said. The guy said he was going to get the police. “They can’t do anything either,” he was told. That is why we have so many children out of control in Masterton and elsewhere in the small towns of the Wairarapa. It is because this Labour Government has pulled the rug of authority from every institution in this country, whether schoolteachers, police officers, or, now, parents."

Clearly Hayes believes he should use the bonnet of his car to maintain the 'rug of authority'. Isn't it an irony how many times those that bemoan the breakdown the the rule of law often find themselves on the wrong side of it?

Worse of all, National leader John Key appeared to endorse the actions of his blunderbus MP by attempting to make jokes about the incident. "Mr Key said he would like to borrow the protester to take home, as he made a lot of noise and could be used in the early morning and on dusk to scare ducks from landing on his pool.". If Key endorses running down protesters with motor vehicles, perhaps he could ask Hayes and his 4x4 to come and shoo the ducks away for him?

Mullings on pay equity

2008-09-17T21:46:00.005+12:00

During the Inagural Suffrage Eve Debate I will be particularly interested in the debate over approaches to employment law.

In 2004 Dr Judy McGregor from the Human Rights Commission wrote an interesting submission on the proposed Employment Relations Law Reform Bill
"While there is not a consensus, most commentators, including the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, believe that New Zealand has not complied with its international obligations in relation to pay equity since 1990 when the short-lived Employment Equity Act (1990) was repealed. This omission is one element in the comprehensive legislative and policy framework needed to give effect to pay and employment equity. "

The Employment Equity Act, championed by Helen Clark, only had a short life. The removal of awards under the Employment Contracts Act effectively invalidated any positive impact the legislation may have had. Jobs that were traditionally dominated by female workers continue to be paid less than comparable jobs traditionally dominated by men.

I had a thought that horrified me a little today. Without going and ferreting out the figures, I would not be surprised if the significant increases in the minimum wage since 1999 have had a small positive impact on pay equity, as the lower wage bands flattened out to the new minimum. So to measure progress towards pay equity issue by itself, and to see the wonderous 'market' [cough][cough] at work it would make sense to exclude all minimum wages from the comparison. Not that I am immediately sure how to achieve this of course :)

In 2007 female full-time workers earned 14% less than men. The gender pay gap was 13% in the 2006 survey, and 16% in 2005.

This entails that if progress towards pay equity is to be achieved, we need to see greater progress further up the income scale. Given that the gender pay gap has now been with us for as long as women have been working, I doubt its going to be sorted by employers and employees negotiating among themselves. Pay equity will only be achieved as part of a more structured approach to employment relations, involving specific pay equity enabling legislation, ongoing research and a culture more conducive to collective bargaining.

The Hand Mirror host a debate tomorrow

2008-09-17T20:19:00.004+12:00

WHAT: The Inaugural Suffrage Eve Debate, featuring women standing for Parliament, political discussion, and cupcakes
WHEN: Thursday 18th September, 7.30pm
WHERE: Lecture Theatre ENG3402, School of Engineering, University of Auckland, 20 Symonds St
WHO: Four female candidates discussing whether centre-left or centre-right approaches are better for women, one each from Labour, National, Act and the Alliance (see below for more info), and organised by the bloggers at The Hand Mirror, with the graceful assistance of AUSA.

Speaking to the proposition "That Eve Should Vote Centre-Left":
- Anjum Rahman, Labour list candidate and blogger
- Sarita Divis, Alliance candidate for Auckland Central

Speaking to the proposition "That Eve should vote centre-right":
- Nikki Kaye, National candidate for Auckland Central
- Lyn Murphy, Act list candidate

For those on facebook the event details are also here. The Hand Mirror also have a facebook group for the Readers and Writers of the Hand Mirror.

Disappointing TV3 coverage of the Winniebox inquiry

2008-09-10T22:09:00.009+12:00

Rather disappointed with TV3 coverage of the Peters issue tonight. Despite promising extended coverage of Winston's appearance before the privileges committee many times throughout the 6pm news bulletin, with a hint of going until 8pm, coverage was curtailed half an hour early.

Worse of all, they missed the question time.

I suspect a TV3 network executive screamed at people 'This is boring, get it off!'. But were TV3 really expecting Peters to be anything but an arrogant, overly legalistic pompous a***? Did they really expect him to come up with significant evidence in his defense, other than 'I will tell you tomorrow?' Surely if he had evidence he would have used it by now? While some journalists attempted to build up the hype by claiming there was a small chance Peters would stun the select committee into finding his innocence, given the way most have behaved over this issue I doubt this outcome was expected either.

In their appearances before the select committee both Winston Foreign Minister Peters, and Owen I have a university building named after me Glenn have made it clear they think the world of themselves. For those who do not follow the precise details of who said what to whom, when and where, I suspect the overall impression of this week will be the clash of two over sized egos. People will also remember Winston getting the sack after being evasive with the truth.

Apparently Helen Clark also watched the hearing on TV3 - I can't imagine she was impressed with the coverage or her foreign minister.

Helen Clark is widely expected to remove Peter's ministerial warrant tomorrow. In some forms of coalition government one option may have been to appoint another NZ First MP to act as foreign minister, maintaining the current balance between the parties. I think it says a lot about NZ First that they do not have another MP who could credibly take over Winston's portfolios, even for a few short weeks. Former minister Brian Donnelly would have been the only one worth even considering, but he left to become High Commissioner to the Cook Islands in February 2008. Sadly Donnelly had to resign his position of High Commissioner in August due to ill health. There may be a few in NZ First - assuming there are people who look beyond the Winston personality cult - quietly wishing Brian was still in Parliament. As it has turned out, Brian could not have timed his exit better.

Does National party strategy come from the CityRats?

2008-09-05T23:25:00.005+12:00

Chris Trotter poses an interesting question. Did the success of the Citizens and Ratepayers Campaign in the last Auckland local body elections provide a 'dry run' for the general election campaign of National led by John Key? Is the same strategy at work?

"Like Banksie, Key is promising that he and his followers have changed. That they’re no longer the flinty-faced mob they used to be under Don Brash. Oh dear me no, they have turned over a new leaf, and become kinder, gentler tories: National-Lite. Also, like Banksie and his C&R strategists, the Nats are relying on the voters’ rapidly waning affection for the incumbent left-wing adminstration to carry them into power without having to first undergo too much in the way of intense media scrutiny.

Could this explain the Opposition’s extreme reluctance to talk about too much policy detail? In case somebody ends up disagreeing - i.e. attracting attention and making news? Is Key hoping to take down Helen Clark’s government in the same way that Banksie took down Dick Hubbard’s - by default?"

Trotter believes the Left opened the way for the CityRats to win in an environment where there was little public scrutiny of their ideas or what they stood for. I largely agree with Trotter's analysis here. I would also note that a compliant media was also a factor.

This suggests a Labour party general election campaign based around 'keeping National out' is less likely to succeed than a campaign based on big ideas (like interest free student loans). Announcing progressive policy is more likely to force the Nats to talk about policy in a way they wish to avoid. Act's Roger Douglas may have this effect too. Labour would not need to run the negative message, as National and Act will scare the horses all by themselves, just like Maurice Williamson did with his $50 a week estimate of road tolls.

I posted the following as a comment in response to Chris' post - I thought I might as well note it here too.

Another related issue is the failure of the centre-left/left to come up with a credible electable candidate for the Auckland Mayoralty for as long as I can remember. While Hubbard won in 2004, he ran a dreadful campaign in 2007. Hubbard’s politics are centrist at best - I am sure many voted for him because he was on the left of Banks, which is not saying much. In 2001 there was the fracas created by the Labour wing of City Vision endorsing a failed National party cabinet minister who also ran a dreadful campaign, and lost badly.

Could we please have a centre-left candidate at the next mayoral elections who people of the left actually want to vote for? A candidate who can generate some enthusiasm around local body issues and encourages a greater turnout?

Will Peters survive the election?

2008-09-02T00:11:00.010+12:00

With the political career of Winston Peters now hanging by a thread, many are asking whether NZ First will survive this election. Yet in NZ First's case I believe a focus on the chance of the party regaining 5% or more of the party vote underestimates the regional nature of NZ First support.

Last month a poll showed Winston Peters 20% behind National candidate Simon Bridges for the Tauranga electorate. It is likely that Tauranga is now Bridges to lose, and Peters has no chance of regaining his old seat. That said, with NZ First running at around 3% in polls at the time most political pundits gave Peters a chance of making a comeback given Winston's fearsome campaigning skills. The same poll had NZ First on 6% support in the party vote contest - under half the 13.3% party vote percentage gained in Tauranga in 2005.

Shifting the focus entirely onto the national party vote misses something important about the nature of NZ First's support base - it has long had strong regional characteristics. This means the standings of candidates in electorate races in their previous area of strength will have a stronger correlation with their likely party vote than a party with support spread relatively evenly throughout New Zealand.

In a blog post prior to the 2005 election, I looked at NZ First's support base, making use of a useful post by Poster Child* that listed the top 10 electorates by party vote for each party. I summarised the situation based on the 2002 results:

NZ First support appears to be focused around the top of the North Island. In fact, most of these electorates are right next to each other - the Peters disease must be airborne! From Northland to the North, to Taranaki-King Country and Rotorua in the south, an iron passes over an Italian suit, and people fall for it. Thankfully, Auckland city appears to have greater immunity.

I thought it would be interesting to repeat the exercise using the 2005 results. Once again I was spared from having to trawl through all the election results thanks to DPFs election summary from 2005.

Using a map showing electorate boundaries from the Electoral Commission, I shaded in NZ First top 15 electorates in terms of the party vote. NZ First top electorate of Tauranga (then Bay of Plenty) is black, with lightening shades of grey used to illustrate lower levels of support. I can't say the shades of grey used have a scientific relationship to the levels of party vote - the graphic only aims to be indicative.

While Te Tai Tokerau was NZ First's 12th top electorate, I didn't include it as layered shading would have looked confusing - the outline of Te Tai Tokerau is roughly similar to that of Northland in any case.

Once again, the pattern is similar to 2002 with most of the the dark grey electorates surrounding Tauranga. A Winston bomb with a prevailing wind, with Auckland in a fallout shelter.

This suggests that polling in individual electorates, for both the party and the electorate vote is going to be more significant for NZ First than other parties. The survival of NZ First could well be determined by the levels of support in Tauranga, Bay of Plenty, Northland and Coromandel.

Some may wonder why I am so hard on Winston when we both have sceptical views towards the neo-liberal free trade agenda and the current Reserve Bank Act. Quite simply because NZ First possess limited credibility to be an effective advocate on these issues. While Peters may have campaigned on the left in 1996, he was a neo-liberal poodle as Treasurer between 1996 and 1998 - the supposed walkout over Wellington airport may have been an attempt to cover this up. While Peters may be right to strongly criticise Max Bradford's electricity reforms in 2008 - the fact is that NZ First joined National to vote in favour of these changes in 1998.

At the same time Peters was criticising big business, it has been revealed that he was taking large donations from Bob Jones. NZ First opposition to state funding of political parties now makes sense. As Murray Horton says Winston may talk the talk, but he fails to walk the walk.

So I hope NZ First is dog tucker this election. I hope for some political renewal where other parties take up issues such as fair trade and reform of monetary policy, and leave all the wink wink Asian bashing and public harassment of legitimate refugees such as Ahmed Zaoui in the political wilderness where they belong.

NZ First 2005 Top 15 Electorates by Party Vote Percentage

Tauranga 13.3%
Bay of Plenty 12.0%
Northland 10.2%
Coromandel 10.1%
Rotorua 9.2%
Whangarei 9.0%
Wairarapa 8.9%
Piako 8.9%
Port Waikato 8.4%
Rodney 8.1%
Taranaki-King Country 8.1%
Te Tai Tokerau 7.9%
Taupo 7.8%
Hamilton West 7.5%
Rangitikei 7.4%

* A blog that is no longer with us - I wish Poster Child was still with us Bren, if you have started another blog in another guise please say hi :)

PS: DPF I could not find the link to your analysis - if there is one I am happy to add it.
PPS: For some reason blogger made this post before I had finished writing it. I am sure I only clicked 'save as draft' but found it had been published this morning. Be interested to know if anyone else has had similar issues with blogger. If the post seemed to be incomplete earlier - it was!

The Winniebox and the Serious Fraud Office

2008-08-28T23:43:00.006+12:00

GWith the announcement by the Serious Fraud Office of an investigation into donations made to his NZ First party the position of Winston Peters as Foreign Affairs minister is fast becoming untenable.

The smartest thing for Peters to do now would be to stand down. He could use the opportunity to claim he is doing it for all sorts of important sounding reasons other than saving his own skin, such as maintaining confidence in the government, a sacrifice for the good of the nation. Peters gets an opportunity to grandstand, an opportunity to clearly state his belief in his own innocence, and his expectation of coming back as a minister as soon as this nonsense is cleared up.

Peters would also be free of any sort of collective cabinet responsibility for the election campaign, which being Winston could bring some advantages.

Sadly, it appears that Winston Peters is simply too arrogant to take the most pragmatic political course of action.

But if Peter's won't go, Helen Clark must suspend him. She has suspended her own ministers for less, in fact David Parker stood down over a whole lot less. If Peters remains a minister while the SFO investigate, it will be difficult to avoid the perception that ministerial standards have dropped to levels not seen since the end of the Shipley administration. That perception has the potential to cause problems not only with the public, but inside the Labour caucus, as any MPs disciplined by Clark will wonder why Peters is being treated so leniently. Many may start to question Clark's judgement, and perhaps even Clark herself.

This Labour-led government is not in free fall - yet. I still rate their chances of remaining on the Treasury benches around 50/50. Despite the National party leading in the polls, they can not lead the Government unless their vote plus their allies adds up to 50% - and that has been a struggle for National all year.

In the case that Peters remains a minister and Labour lose the election, perhaps some people will cast their mind back to the post election negotiations in 2005 when Labour cast off the Greens in favour of NZ First and United Future. In doing so, did Clark write her own political death warrant three years later?

The more hopeful scenario is that Labour scrape home in 2008, and the numbers force the Labour leadership to form a government with the Greens as the primary support partner. In the same way that some people credited the Alliance with rejuvenating the Labour party in 1999, perhaps the Greens can do the same thing for Labour in 2008. One hopes Labour and their supporters can be grateful.

Merkel's mistake promising NATO to Georgia

2008-08-19T00:06:00.007+12:00

It is unfortunate that German Chancellor Angela Merkel raised the stakes in the Georgian crisis by reaffirming Georgia's hopes of joining NATO. This can only be regarded as a provocation by Moscow. According to news reports tonight the Russians are beginning to withdraw their forces from undisputed Georgian territory, yet Merkel's words have the potential to slow the pullout and extend the crisis.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel assured Saakashvili in Tbilisi that NATO remained ready to give membership to the ex-Soviet republic, as promised at a NATO summit in April, despite the conflict with Russia. "Georgia will become a member of NATO if it wants to -- and it does want to," Merkel said on Sunday."

This is an unfortunate chance of stance. Earlier this year Germany led European resistance to plans, pushed by the US to put Georgia on a track to Nato membership.

NATO is nothing more than a relic of the cold war that ought to be disbanded. Its continued existence, particularly as it continues to grow to the East, is a threat to world and European peace. In February 2003 Nato faced a crisis when France and Belgium vetoed the timing of protective measures for Turkey - actions that were seen to assist an invasion of Iraq those Governments did not support. Nato is also involved in American plans to resusitate Reagan's 'Star Wars' plans for a 'missile defence shield' in Europe - moves that threaten the creation of another arms race.

While I have great sympathy for Georgian and South Ossettian civilians caught up in this tank filled powerplay, I have absolutely no sympathy for the Government of Mikheil Saakashvili, who provoked this crisis by invading the disputed South Ossetia region. Making proclamations about territorial integrity and being a UN friendly country have a hollow ring coming from a Government who enthusiastically supported the war in Iraq.

Perhaps Russia could invite Cuba and Venezuela to join the Collective Security Treaty Organisation.

Of course Russia is not blameless over the current crisis. That said, David Hearst makes a very good point when he suggests the response of the West to the Georgian crisis should be mindful of the political forces within Russia the West wishes to encourage. Opposing the extension of NATO is "not appeasement, nor even realpolitik, nor even an abandonment of democratic principles. On the contrary every time events follow the mindset of the hawks in the Kremlin, Russia's dwindling band of democrats gets smaller still and the possibility of regime change in Moscow is set back another generation. The surest way of keeping the hawks in the Kremlin is to keep advancing eastwards. Its a recipe for war, which Europe has no will to fight."

Olympics opening featured blue screen of death

2008-08-14T00:27:00.002+12:00

Heh. Rather amused that the Blue Screen of Death (BSOD) made an appearance at the opening ceremony of the Olympics.

This is the error screen that pops up on Windows computers giving you no option but to reboot your computer.

This might be the most prominent sighting of the BSOD yet, projected onto a stadium wall at an event watched by 15% of the world's population.

There was one saving grace though. Microsoft founder and near monopoly profiteer Bill Gates has been spotted at a number of Olympic events, so there is a good chance he was at the opening ceremony. I imagine Bill Gates would have recognised the BSOD immediately.

Labour is complicit in National's work-for-the-dole madness

2008-07-22T01:15:00.006+12:00

The Standard highlights the likely implications of National welfare spokesperson inviting an Australian work-for-dole 'provider' to visit New Zealand. National plans to give them business by introducing work for the dole if it becomes the Government.

While Collins adopts the key approach of 'deny deny deny', Mission Australia's chief executive is keen to cross the Tasman.

Steve Pierson at the Standard is right when he describes work-for-the-dole as a nice sounding slogan that does not work in practice. In adopting such a policy "National is following ideology, rather than doing what makes sense."

But there is a problem with this analysis. The fact is that Labour adopted significant assumptions of the underlying ideology behind work-for-the-dole when they passed the Social Security Amendment Act. I have blogged on similar issues before. As Louise Humpage and Susan St John point out this amendment changed the fundamental purpose of the Social Security Act.

"[T]he Social Security Amendment Bill wipes away any notion that our social security system is about ensuring everyone can participate as citizens. Instead, it makes getting people into a job, any job, the fundamental duty of citizenship. This principle is baldly stated “Work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being”.

Even worse, the new Act allows for pre-benefit activity to be completed before a person can even apply for an Unemployment Benefit. So thanks to Labour, National will not even have to change the law to bring in work-for-the-dole, they can just pass a regulation to require registration for make-work schemes as part of 'pre-benefit' activity.

It is an irony that the right make so much of the 'excess' jobs offered by NZ Rail prior to corporatisation in the 1980s, when these jobs where of far more value to society than the neo-liberal work-for-the dole schemes, of the late 1990s, and of the early 1930s. In his book 'The Slump' historian Tony Simpson described how this philosophy and practice failed to address the demands of the depression.

"By and large it reflected the 19th century viewpoint that anything for nothing would be instantly exploited by the unscrupulous and feckless poor. The circumstances of giving must be unpleasant as possible and it must never amount to more than the lowest wage available otherwise it will encourage sloth."

The 1930 Unemployment Act provided for a sustenance payment of 21 shillings a week to unemployed men, with an additional 17s and 6p for a wife, and 4 shillings per child (even though working women contributed, they were not eligible). This was financed by a poll tax - in effect it was a compulsory insurance scheme.

"These rates were never paid. Instead, the unemployed were referred to local authorities, which were instructed to provide work and granted subsidies from taxation with which to pay the workers involved. A stern instruction accompanied this scheme. No one was to be given payment unless they actually reported for work. This led to ludicrous, even scandalous, situations where local authorities scrambled to create work which was clearly unnecessary or even useless (such as shifting sandhills from place to place)."

If local authorities could not create work payment was withheld. Despite this example being from the 1930s it still demonstrates the weaknesses of a work-for-the-dole policy, and how it can lead to further retrenchment. The work involved is either going to replace genuine jobs or it is not. If not, this can only mean sandhills. If a government (or a private provider) is inclined to cut 'benefit' costs further, restricting the amount of 'work' available becomes a very handy way to do this.

Its not just the Social Security Amendment Act. Consider Sue Braford's analysis of Steve Maharey's 'Jobs Jolt' policy from 2004.

"In this context, for those people who are living in poverty, on wages and benefits which aren’t enough to sustain a remotely decent standard of living, the ‘Jobs Jolt’ means little more than increased harassment by the State in a situation where there are still far from enough jobs to go around....This is why I view the ‘Jobs Jolt’ and the thinking behind it as intrinsically right wing, fundamentally unjust from a social equity perspective, and a clear signal that Labour is far keener on picking up votes from the beneficiary-bashing part of the political spectrum than it is from low income workers, unemployed people and beneficiaries, and those who support their right to jobs and a living wage.... Overall, I sense that the Government’s lurch to the Right on welfare as epitomised by the ‘Jobs Jolt’ is a product of their lack of any cohesive ideology or coherent thinking about solutions to structural unemployment, endemic poverty, a failed, fractured welfare system and an entrenched and increasing gap between rich and poor in Aotearoa New Zealand. "

In other words, the circumstances of giving must be unpleasant. If the Nats introduce work-for-the-dole it will be a logical extension of Labour's own policy, or perhaps lack of one. If Labour had wished to vanquish work-for-the-dole to the historical dustbin it belongs, perhaps it should have made more effort to challenge the neo-Victorian attitudes underlying the ideology of work-for-the-dole.

In 1938 Labour's proposed Social Security Bill was the centrepiece of its election campaign. The National party called it 'applied lunacy', a bribe and a cheat. Labour not only won a majority, it won a majority of the votes cast - a first in New Zealand history.

Note: Made a small edit when I established Mission Australia are technically a charity rather than a private company. That will teach me for blogging too late at night. If National devolves welfare delivery to the charities sector it will like going back to a pre-1930s situation!

Price Waterhouse Coopers oppose measures aimed to cut tax avoidance

2008-07-15T01:39:00.003+12:00

I came across an opinion piece from the Dominion Post on Friday where multinational tax advisors Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) attempt to start a scare campaign about the Government introducing a capital gains tax.

The article is headed 'Capital gains tax lifts its ugly head'. All that is lifting its ugly head here is the spectre of tax advisors complaining they will be less able to help their wealthy clients avoid paying their fair share of tax.

Is the government proposing to introduce a comprehensive capital gains tax? Sadly no. Ugly? Well assuming such a tax included an exemption for the family home, it is only ugly for the well off who have taken advantage of the lighter taxation on property investments, and have driven first home buyers out of the market as a result. It is a shame Labour didn't close this complete rort when it raised the top tax rate to 39c in the dollar in 1999.

Between 1989 and 2005 the residential property market provided investors and owners with a tax free gain of 319%*.

Despite PWC attempts to scaremonger, all that is happening is that the Government is tightening the rules around existing tax law that makes investments in housing for the purpose of making a capital gain taxable. So the Government is seeking to remove the loopholes that PWC and its clients love so much. It is not a new tax. As Michael Cullen explains:
"Associated persons: ... The definitions are used extensively in the Income Tax Act, primarily in an anti-avoidance capacity to counter transactions that are not conducted at arm’s length and therefore have the potential to undermine the intent of the law. ....There are a number of major weaknesses in the current definitions, particularly in the definition relating to land sales. That definition contains some major gaps which allow land dealers, developers and builders to circumvent the land sale tax rules by operating through closely connected entities. Parliament’s clear intent in 1973, when it enacted the current land sale tax rules, was that land dealers, developers and builders would be generally taxed on all gains on property sold within ten years of acquisition, and they could not claim to hold non-taxable investment portfolios."

PWC's Chris Leatham says
"In our view, the changes will not be well received. Land dealers, developers and builders have previously been allowed to structure their affairs to avoid tainting of rental properties so that they are not placed at a disadvantage to other taxpayers."

The New Zealand tax system generally taxes property investments with a lighter touch than other forms of investment. The whole point of removing such obvious loopholes in tax law is to ensure particular taxpayers are not disadvantaged over others. Why are PWR defending such loopholes I wonder?

Opponents of capital gains taxes often make unsubstantiated claims about how unpopular a capital gains tax could be - just because they don't like it. I think views are changing. Many economic commentators, including many on the right, now support capital gains taxes because they can see New Zealand would benefit from more money being invested in companies rather than sitting in bricks and mortar. A capital gains tax introduced in a declining or flat housing market would have limited immediate impact, but it would help to slow the next housing boom that will eventually happen. Then there are the growing numbers of twentysomethings and thirtysomethings, now on good incomes, who are becoming more and more aware of how the baby boom generation have shut them out of the housing market by speculating for tax free gains on the housing market. Bernard Hickey is really onto something when he identified "The generation that New Zealand Inc failed"

If it was up to me I would introduce a comprehensive capital gains tax (with an exemption for the family home) and direct the proceeds towards affordable housing initiatives. Ironically, a declining or flat housing market can make the structural issues easier to address.

Returning to Leatham's little opinion piece, one could be mistaken for thinking that the Dominion Post are now running free advertising features for Price Waterhouse Coopers.
"The new rules will apply only to property purchases from April 1, 2009 onward (or, in the case of builders, to property improvements made after that date). This gives you the opportunity to talk to your accountant to understand the impact of the changes."

As for their views on the taxation of housing investments - their vested interests are plain to see.

* Source: Sunday Star Times (17/6/07), "The Rent Trap"

test post

2008-06-26T09:22:00.002+12:00

Is blogger publishing correctly?

Drinking Liberally Auckland and Auckervegas

2008-06-26T00:10:00.003+12:00

"Like politics? Like drinking? If you answered yes to both these questions then join us for Drinking Liberally, a monthly event aimed at building ties among left-leaning people."

Drinking Liberally is a worldwide progressive network and is being launched in Auckland early next month. Two or three events have already been held in Wellington.

WHAT: Drinking Liberally Auckland City LAUNCH!
WHEN: 7.30pm, Wed 2nd July
WHERE: London Bar, cnr Wellesley & Queen Sts (opposite Civic)
SPEAKER : David Slack, of Public Address, National Radio, and several books

If you are in Wellington, Drinking Liberally meets on the first and third Thursday of the month at the Southern Cross on Abel Smith Street.

Lynn from the Standard made up a great graphic to help promote Drinking Liberally Auckland. I hope he will forgive me, but I could not help but wonder what the following would look like..

Not that I am a drunken litterbug - its only a thought crime citizen!

Is anybody else a little concerned that a key symbol of Auckland is a casino that looks like a hypodermic needle? In saying this I am not critiquing Lynn's choice of graphic at all - its more of a reflection on the symbols chosen to represent New Zealand's largest city. A choice, I might add, of an elite. With the addition of the bottle, the sky tower can now represent gambling, drugs and grog, all in one package.

And a short walk from a park named after a wealthy beer baron.

Obama should put Hillary on the Supreme Court

2008-06-22T21:44:00.007+12:00

Listening to National Radio early this morning I did enjoy the suggestion made by Jon Johansson that a President Obama should appoint Hilary Clinton to the Supreme Court. As Johansson points out this would mean all of Hilary's conservative detractors would have to put up with Hillary for as long as she lives!

Looking into this idea a little further, I found the American Family News Network made a compelling case for Hillary, even if they might not have meant to. A so-called "pro-family legal expert", Mat Staver hopes the the potential legacy of Clinton is something conservative voters will consider.

"That legacy will likely be whether or not we have abortion for the rest of our lives or whether we restore the sanctity of human life," he explains. "Whether we continue to have [traditional] marriage ... [w]hat kind of security, what kind of family values and religious freedom are we going to have in the next couple of generations," lists the attorney.

The American Taliban have spoken. Many people reading the above will take it as an ringing endorsement of a Clinton candidacy.

While Clinton does not have any judicial experience (she is a lawyer), non judges have been appointed to the Supreme Court before. In 1952 California Governor Earl Warren entered the court. He later became one of the highest regarded Chief Justices, playing a key role in the Brown vs Board of Education case in 1954 that ordered an end to school segregation.

Of course Obama can't simply appoint her - he needs to become President and a Justice needs to die. Perhaps he could appoint her Attorney General (or a similar role) in the meantime, which would give a clear hint of where she might be heading, and avoid any perceptions of the Clintons running the Obama White House.

Given a Republican majority on the Supreme Court voted on party lines to appoint George W Bush to the Presidency in 2000, the Republicans can not credibly complain about politicisation of the Supreme Court. In fact, Hillary would bring welcome balance to the currently conservative bench.

Go Go Go Child Povery Action Group, Boo Labour

2008-06-03T23:49:00.005+12:00

There was some good news on the box tonight. The Human Rights Review Tribunal has begun to hear the case bought against the Government by the Child Poverty Action Group that the Working for Families programme discriminates against the children of beneficiaries.

The case centres around the the In-Work tax credit, worth around $60 a week. The Labour-led Government excluded beneficiaries from being eligible for this payment. CPAG say this is illegal discrimination because it is Government assistance given only to a select group. 220,000 children from beneficiary families currently miss out.

The Working for Families policy assumes that parents use the money to help with the costs of raising families. How can it be fair that children of beneficiaries are denied $60 a week on the basis of the source of their parents income? Are the Labour party seeking to encourage a new pester power, as in Mummy why don't you get a job? How can it be fair that families lose the $60 a week when a parent has the misfortune to be made redundant?

Prime Minister Helen Clark attempts to defend Labour's policy by claiming Working for Families has lifted 130 thousand families out of poverty. Even though Working for Families has improved the lives of many families, New Zealand's child poverty figures would suggest Clark's claim is somewhat of an exaggeration. Particularly when the Working for Families policy deliberately excluded the very poorest - beneficiary families. Clark also claims "[s]ince the in-work payment came in for the first time we've got the numbers on domestic purposes benefit going down, thats a great thing because it means we have more children seeing their parents going to work everyday to earn a living." Now Helen, can you please tell me how this is the fault of the children?

This and other comments made at the time by of the introduction of Working for Families make it clear that a key policy objective of Working for Families was to increase the difference between the incomes of those on a benefit and those in (low) paid work. The same policy principle underlay Ruth Richardson's 'Mother of All Budgets' in 1991, where Ruth Richardson slashed benefits. Despite making many complaints about these cuts in opposition, Labour have never made any real effort to restore benefit levels in 9 years of Government. Labour ensured beneficiaries did not get any benefit from the tax cuts announced in the Budget, which will only make the situation worse.

The Government's own Ministry of Social Development now say beneficiaries are now worse off now than they were under National in the 1990s. With such a record Labour do not deserve the support of beneficiaries, but neither do National as they have said they are happy with benefit levels as they are now. In contrast, the Greens have given consistent support to beneficiaries in Parliament, despite a great many beneficiaries continuing to support Labour out of habit.

In her recent speech on the 2008 Budget Green MP Sue Bradford said
"..,Dr Cullen certainly has a different understanding of labour history in this country than I do. I had thought that the first Labour Government under Michael Joseph Savage swept to power in 1935 as a result of the mass unemployment and poverty suffered through six years of the Great Depression. It was unemployed workers together with their comrades still in work who helped create and drive the great things Labour did in those early days, including taking the first steps towards getting a decent welfare system into place, and I see this generation of Labour’s approach to beneficiaries as a real betrayal of that proud history."

By excluding beneficiaries, Working for Families becomes an effective subsidy to underpaying employers. While many on the right such as Labour and National promote the virtues of a free market economy, they want to ensure the right of employers to offer underpaid jobs as a forced sale. If workers want higher wages, they should support CPAG's case against the Government, as giving low paid workers the choice to tell underpaying employers to go to hell is one way to ensure wages in New Zealand are lifted for all.

PS: It is an irony that my very first post on this blog, now four years and a few days ago, I criticised Labour for making cynical use of the Bill of Rights Act to justify a cut in student allowances, at the same time they were defending the continued discrimination of parental income tests on the basis of age on the grounds it would cost them too much money to do otherwise.

National's u-turn on Kiwisaver should not be trusted

2008-05-27T23:05:00.005+12:00

The National party attempted to make a swift u-turn today when its Industrial Relations Spokesperson Kate Wilkinson told an employment relations forum that National would do away with the compulsory employer contributions to Kiwisaver. "The National party is not a party of compulsion".

Under pressure from her boss, John Key, Wilkinson issued a later statement claiming she had "misinterpreted the question" (yeah right). "National will release its Kiwisaver policy later this year, but suggestions that National will do away with compulsory employer contributions to the scheme are incorrect.

According to Key, Wilkinson "got it wrong", and added that National's industrial relations spokesperson is not involved in the setting of National's Kiwisaver policy. Perhaps Wilkinson was only guilty of telling National's wealthy backers what they want to hear. Perhaps this is a also a sign many National MPs are currently sharpening their hatchets, desperately looking for ways to cut government spending to fund tax cuts, following a budget that tied up most of the cash.

Despite it not being National's day, I think the media have missed something important, and have subsequently let Key off the hook with his refusal to outline any further detail about National's Kiwisaver policy.

While employers have to make contributions to their employees Kiwisaver accounts, employers also gain tax credits for doing so. These tax credits reinburse 100% of employer contributions up to a maximum of $20 a week. In situations such as the 2+2 scenario (where employees put in 2% and employers 2% to make up the 4% minimum) Kiwisaver does not end up costing employers any money more money (than paying 1%) when the tax credits are taken into consideration (for those earning less than 52,000 a year). Labour have set aside a total of $2.4 billion to compensate employers for their 'contributions' over the next four years.

National's denials come with a pungent stench of weasel. National could keep the employer contributions, but give employers greater tax breaks so a greater proportion of employer 'contributions' actually end up being effectively subsidised out of the public purse. National could pay for this by trimming the government contributions, and dangle the prospect of greater tax cuts. This would be consistent with the comments made today.

The effect of such a policy change would also deliver to National's big business backers, who prefer corporate welfare when they can get it. The 650,000 New Zealanders who belong to Kiwisaver should not take any relief from National's blundering policy announcement today. As far as Kiwisaver is concerned, the National party still refuses to answer the key questions regarding their Kiwisaver plans.

Hat tip for some of the links NoRightTurn.

No recent posts due to internet issues

2008-05-12T17:24:00.002+12:00

I haven't been able to post as much as I would like recently due to internet issues. Over the weekend my internet went from being slow to non-existent.

I hope to get it sorted soon.