liberation

The Treaty and Neotribal Capitalism

Elizabeth Rata of the University of Auckland has written a very good paper on The Treaty and Neotribal Capitalism. You can download the paper below. Rata examines the political-economic context of the orthodox intepretation of the Treaty of Waitangi and says that this arose from postwar economic changes and thr rise of identity politics. She offers a very different interpretation of the Treaty. She says the Treaty now plays a 'crucial role in legitimising the material and political aspirations of the neotribal elite'.

Download treaty_and_neotribal_capitalism.doc

How should New Zealand be orientating itself to the Pacific Islands?

In today’s NZ Herald, Colin James advocates NZ should intervene more in the Pacific, and do so more sophisticatedly – see The Pacific way and what it implies for our way. If not, ‘the trouble will turn up here.’ He says that the population is ‘set to explode’ in many Pacific countries over the next 20 years, and that because their economies are so depressed and unemployment so great, we should ‘expect crime and violence in these territories’ and that ‘those activities will be close to us, threatening to spill over our borders.’ He correctly points out that NZ ‘still sees jobs for Pacific men essentially as filling gaps in our workforce.’

A rather similar approach was taken by Chris Trotter last month, in his very interesting column entitled A textbook start of a revolution, dealing with the situation in Tonga – and NZ’s attempt to prop up the corrupt feudal regime. Trotter takes the reader on a fictional journey into what could happen if popular feeling against the Tongan 'establishment' intensified. Like James, Trotter suggests rebellion in the Pacific would be a bad thing for NZ and that the state has failed to protect us from its occurrence: ‘There's a revolution coming. Best not be there when it starts.’ Personally I think such a possibility is something to be encouraged rather than fear. In Trotter’s scenario, political rebellion in Tonga translates and escalates in South Auckland, where Tonga anti-Monarchy protestors are joined by Solomon Islanders, Fijians and other Pacific peoples in a 100,000 person march, which then leads to classroom occupations and factory strikes for social and political change.

New Zealand and Fiji

The military coup in Fiji has been a curious affair. It’s hard to come up with a sufficient analysis of what has happened and which government is preferable – the deposed Qarase one or the Bainimarama military one. Ultimately both should be criticised and neither supported. They both reflect rival factions of the ruling class in Fiji.

Susan St John: ‘political compromises are now more important than principle’ in public policy

Susan St John of Business School at the University of Auckland, has raised a number of questions about policy-making by the current Government, and suggests that ‘political compromises are now more important than principle’ in public policy. She writes an opinion piece in the NZ Herald, of which the opening is the most critical:

What has happened to the policy-making process in New Zealand? The facade of consultation hides the arbitrary decision-making power of the executive. Either major decisions are made without consultation, such as the student loans and Working for Families announcements pre-election, or consultation is sought, but not on the options finally adopted. The latest shock is the KiwiSaver legislation, which makes a mockery of the consultation process.

Social inequality in the US

A recent New York Times investigation shows the huge gap that has grown between rich and poor in American during the last 25 years. An examination of official income statistics, the NY Times found, showed that ‘Over all, average incomes rose 27% in real terms over the quarter-century from 1979 through 2004. But the gains were narrowly concentrated at the top and offset by losses for the bottom 60% of Americans’. In contrast to the significant gains made by the wealthiest 5%, ‘The bottom 60% of Americans, on average, made less than 95 cents in 2004 for each dollar they reported in 1979’. Even for recent years, the report found that median household income fell by 3% between 2000 and 2004.

National’s realignment on tax cuts

The National-Labour policy convergence continues, with Bill English repositioning National’s stance on tax cuts, saying that a National Government would only cut taxes ‘as and when’ it became affordable and responsible and stating that the next election would not be fought around tax cuts. The Press notes that ‘National’s realignment puts English and Cullen in virtual agreement over tax cuts’. Even Michael Cullen recognises and welcomes their policy agreement:

Bill's position now on tax cuts is extraordinarily similar to the Government's – they won't be large, they'll be incremental and they will be as they can be afforded and fiscally responsible. I welcome him aboard the bridge – Horatio has a friend

But more than that, it is actually the Government that is making the most noise about tax cuts. Revenue Minister, Peter Dunne, recently hinted that tax cuts were coming. According to the Dominion Post [url], Dunne and Michael Cullen are considering lowering the corporate tax rate to 30 cents, a move that Dunne says would cost ‘just under $2 billion a year’ and if they adjust personal rates as well, ‘the total cost of the package could climb towards $3 billion.’

Labour's climate change 'solutions'

The Government continues to fiddle while the planet burns. They've announced [url meek] that they continue to favour a market solution to the problem - the carbon emissions trading system in which companies are allocated limits to their emissions and if they exceed these they must buy credits from companies that do not.

Helen Clark has also significantly lowered the Government's ambitions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Previously she had said Labour's policy was to make NZ 'carbon neutral', but now says that this is only in terms of carbon dioxide and not agricultural emissions. Unfortunately for NZ, agricultural methane emission make up about 50% of our carbon emissions. For more on this, see John Armstrong's Reality check for PM's bold plan [url]. What was an incredibly bold ambition turns out to be rather unimpressive and arguably dishonest.

National says no major changes to employment law

John Key says that a National government would make no major changes to employment relations laws. National have been softening their labour policies for some time, but Key’s statements are highly significant in positioning the party much closer to Labour, and in correctly highlighting that Labour never actually made significant changes to Bill Birch’s ECA:

we haven’t argued for some time that we would go all the way back to the Employment Contracts Act, largely because the Employment Relations Act is 85 per cent a rewrite of the Employment Contracts Act anyway

Political animals

The Guardian has run an amusing and interesting brief that decodes the political subtext of 11 feature-length cartoons [url]. This comes about because 'Fox News anchor Neil Cavuto thinks Happy Feet, this season's blockbuster animation, contains "far-left" propaganda.'
Below is a summary of the decoding:

Act party to benefit from National’s compromises

The Act party are obviously set to be the major beneficiaries of National’s recent embrace of the centre of the political spectrum.

Rodney Hide correctly notes that ‘The debate between the two old parties is now about who should be in power not about policy.’ Elsewhere he says: ‘"There's no doubt what we've got now is a National and a Labour party that in policy terms appear identical. I'll certainly be making that point, that while the personnel are different the policies now are very much the same. That's not a criticism, I think it's just a fact.’

But while Hide is correct in his criticisms of the National-Labour consensus, his own party has been moderating its policies towards the centre for years, and increasingly stands for nothing very identifiable. Recently Hide even announced that Act would seek an alliance with the Labour Party amongst others, and that the party was not ‘rightwing’ but ‘classically liberal’, which sounds like quite a rebrand.

Ethical consumption

The idea that ethical shopping is 'going to save the world' just gets more and more popular. The Economist magazine has just run a good feature on this issue, arguing, correctly in my opinion, that 'transforming the planet requires duller disciplines, like politics'. The Economist's actual political solutions might not fit with mine - as they're narrowly based on the ballot box and trade deals - but their general point that 'no amount of fairtrade coffee will elimate poverty, and all the organic asparagus in the world will not save the planet' is basically true.

Second, the article argues, interestingly, that many of the commonly trusted methods of ethnical shopping can actually be counterproductive. For instance, organic farming requires significantly more land and resources than that produced by intensive high-tech farming, the Fairtrade system encourages overproduction and only a tiny percentage of the markup goes to the farmer, and the most significant aspect of foodmiles is not where in the world a product comes from but how you get to the supermarket to purchase it.

The future Maori-National coalition government

The Maori Party will be the kingmaker in the next Parliament, according to Matt McCarten. And the could conceivably go into a National-led government. McCarten's latest Herald column explain why the National Party is putting so much effort into improving its relations with the Maori Party, and may even support their Foreshore and Seabed Private Member's Bill.

McCarten correctly points out that Don Brash couldn't count, while John Key can. What he means by this is that National stupidly 'spent the last election smashing into Maori and cannibalising the votes of his potential coalition partners - Act and United Future. Despite a healthy National vote, it left the centre-right out of power'.

And could the Maori Party really go into a National government? McCarten no longer seems to categorise the Maori Party as being to the left of Labour. Instead, they are, like NZ First, a 'legitimate independent' party, which means they could.

Health underfunding and low pay

The District Health Boards are currently refusing to negotiate a collective agreement for low paid health workers. This has caused the Nurses Organisation and Service and Food Workers Union to deliver a petition to Parliament demanding from the Government ‘increased pay, a boost to staffing, and better training. The Nurse Organisation indicates that caregivers can expect to earn between $10.25 and $12 per hour’. Meanwhile, strangely for a so-called Labour Party leader, Helen Clark has singled out and blamed a trade union leader for the industrial action.

New regressive immigration rule changes

New Zealand First says the new immigration rule changes announced by the Labour Government are 'a step in the right direction' - which must mean they are a step in the conservative direction. According to the NoRightTurn blog the changes 'will make our immigration system more vicious, more unfair, and more arbitrary, with less oversight, less accountability, and substantially greater potential for injustice'. Amongst many regressive elements, according to NoRightTurn, the new rules include lower deportation thresholds, tightened time-limits for appeals, the ability to revoke permanent residency retrospectively, an increase in detention periods, a decrease in judicial oversight, and the Immigration Department gets to run its own jails. What's more, 'indefinite detention will be allowed where people refuse to cooperate in being deported back to torture and death'.

[political finance] National now supports electoral law reform

A consensus is firming up on campaign funding law reform because National has signaled a willingness to support curbs on third party advertising and a clampdown on anonymous donations - see National backs curbs on funding

This incredibly shift by National indicates how much change the party is undergoing under Key/English. But it is also a sign of Key and English's incredibly flexibility and ability to read the writing on the way in this regard. They probably realise that any new rules that come about will probably not change campaign finance activity that much in the end, and so it's wise for National to proactively remove the stick that they're being beaten with - especially after the Hager book.

Furthermore, National are taken the opportunity to bring their own electoral complaints to the table. Bill English says there should be a moratorium on non-essentialy government advertising in the run up to the election. This seems a perfectly sensible idea, and it's certainly true that parties in power have strongly exploited this multi-million dollar lever of power - but not just within the 90-day election campaign period that English suggests.

National also suggests stronger penalties for parties breaching spending limits - as Labour did in 2005 and was unpunished for. Again, such a proposal is sensible if you are going to have caps on spending.

The Green Party has also indicated support for restricting third party advertising, but with the unusual idea that the spending of such organisations should count against the cap of the party they are supporting. Such a law would be very complicated, fraught, and probably still rather undemocratic.

[political finance] Third party advertising

Helen Clark continues to push for restrictions or bans on advertising during general elections by non political parties - see Clark favours campaign law reform

Attempting to regulate this area is a minefield of problems - philosophically and legally. Bans are draconian and ultra-undemocratic, and there are always ways to get around restrictions on third party advertising. As the Sensible Sentencing Trust have indicated, they would simply fragment its spending among separate organisations or individuals. If you want to spend $500,000 and the limit is $50,000, then you just fragment it around 10 different people or organisations.

Latin America's 'moderate' political change

In commenting on recent election victories for the left in Latin America, the Economist magazine says that the plethora of elections has produced a vote for moderate change. This approach conflicts with many commentators of both left and right who seem to be view a 'red tide' sweeping Latin America. In the eyes of the Economist: 'the elections confirmed the ascendancy not of tub-thumping anti-American populists but of the moderate centre-left. Such candidates won in six countries, including Brazil, Chile and Peru. In another two of the bigger countries, Colombia and Mexico, the centre-right was victorious. Mr Chávez's victory and the election of Evo Morales in Bolivia were the only clear triumphs for the far left. Mr Ortega won fewer votes than at the previous election, but profited from a split in the ruling Liberal party. Mr Correa [of Ecuador] won a run-off only after he moved sharply to the centre.' Rather than jumping up and down about the red menance, the Economist there is actually 'a new consensus' in the region that 'keeps the emphasis on low inflation and open market economies along the lines of the “Washington consensus”, and adds to that activist social policies'.

UN: World's richest 1% own 40% of all wealth

A new report by a United Nations agency indicates staggering inequality in the world. The report is based upon the largest study yet of wealth distribution and 'is the first to chart wealth distribution in every country as opposed to just income'. Some 'highlights' of the report include:

• The richest 1% of adults in the world own 40% of the planet's wealth
• The richest 10% of adults in the world own 85% of the planet's wealth
• The poorest 50% of adults in the world own 1% of the planet's wealth

Where is National going?

The ideological burp of Don Brash is now over, and National is returning to its historic place as a muddle in the middle of the political spectrum, just a fraction to the right of Labour. The arrival of John Key at the helm of the National Party clearly represents a significant shift within the party away from any radical and ideological distinctiveness. Read on below: