NZ Politics Daily - 28 February (liberation)

‘The Christchurch earthquake will have massive repercussions throughout New Zealand politics. It will change the political course of 2011’ – that’s the opening statement of Mark Blackham’s monthly political report for the clients of Senate Communication Counsel. In an insightful analysis of those political ramifications, Blackham looks at the likely impact on the government’s operations, the likely delays to projects, the impact on this year’s budget, and how the ‘earthquake is likely to dominate the election campaign’ – he even suggests that the Marine and Coastal Area Bill might even get shelved as a result. The performance of the political leaders during the crisis is also surveyed, with John Key and Phil Goff not always passing the political test for crisis politics. [Continue reading more about this and other highlights of NZ Politics Daily below]

Christchurch earthquake – changing the political course of 2011

Blackham’s monthly Cognito report is worth quoting at length. First it deals with how the Christchurch tumult is spreading to politics:

It is very likely that most of the work of Parliament and many government departments will focus on Christchurch. Cabinet, caucus and departmental workstreams and legislation will be suspended and even dropped. Already we have seen the cancellation of the Census, a Cabinet portfolio rejig, and concern about imminent drain on EQC. We think it is possible that Parliament may not resume for some weeks. Even when it does resume, politicians will be exceedingly careful about the legislation they choose. Does National or the electorate really have the stomach for the Marine and Coastal Area Bill right now?

The report then ponders what the new political environment might mean for the clients of Senate Communication Counsel:

• Delays to projects, funding proposals and progress of much legislation are certain.

• The current Budget plans are likely to be heavily impacted; either to accommodate more debt, or continue debt reduction by reducing other expenditure more than planned.

• The earthquake is likely to dominate the election campaign. If anyone was considering using the election for leverage over totally new issues, they ought to reconsider.

Under a section entitled ‘Disaster politics’, the report then suggests that in contrast to the heroism on display amongst the citizenry, many of the politicians have been bystanders in the event, sometimes they’ve acting improperly in giving out false information, sometimes their speeches have been misplaced, and many have resorted to just tweeting or taking photos:

Modern politicians are more comfortable doing tours of aftermath, not hands-on action. The superb organisation and resourcing of public agencies meant Key may have thought he only had one role: wandering about consoling victims. In this he symbolised the helplessness of the rest of the nation. We discuss below how leaders actually have far more options open to them in a crisis that can give a nation action and hope. Key got himself tangled in the understandable confusion of the first 12 hours. His comment that 65 people were dead was taken as an announcement because it had the imprimatur of the Prime Minister. 48 hours later he gave what was in its written form an attempt at an evocative leadership speech about Christchurch being rebuilt. The tragedy was still unfolding, so that ought to have been the speech for next month. Bill English, by contrast, took a formal, thorough and confidence-inspiring early role with the media. Phil Goff embraced the role of bystander, apparently walking back to the city to take photos of the carnage and tweet links to them. Politicians are often not far removed from “ambulance chasing”, but until now they have refrained from taking photos. The Greens acted in that unique community-by-technology way of theirs,retweeting missing person requests and offering homestays via websites. Other politicians tweeted heart-felt best wishes, and spoke in Parliament of the way great tragedies bring people together. They looked powerless, dwarfed by the magnitude and the effort of people at the front-line, when the nation’s chips were really down. A UK study about political responses to disasters between 1890 and 2005 concluded that: “A state’s incapacity to respond adequately to a disaster can create a temporary power vacuum, and potentially a watershed moment in historical trajectories.” The test for politicians in natural disasters is their relevance to the community. In the past, leaders of nations have met this test by joining the front line of natural disasters; stacking sandbags against rising rivers, handing out food and water, or being part of on-ground decision-making. Taking photos, passing on faulty and irrelevant information about a death tally, or tweeting best wishes, does not pass the test.

In the Herald, John Armstrong adds that, ‘this is also the biggest test of resolve and organisation National has faced in government since the 1951 waterfront strike. It could even be argued National is grappling with New Zealand's biggest peace-time crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

It is certainly the biggest challenge to confront Key during his tenure as Prime Minister’ – see: Handling of quake Govt’s ultimate test.

It will be how the National Government handles this crisis, Armstrong says, that will determine this year’s election result:

It has long been the case that this year's general election is one for a reasonably competent National Party Government to lose, rather than the generally uninspiring Labour Party to win. The Christchurch earthquake has confirmed the veracity of that statement. The enormity of what has happened to Christchurch has effectively turned Election Day into Judgment Day. And judgment will be made largely on one criterion - the adequacy of National's response to the quake. Its handling of what promises to be a lengthy aftermath to New Zealand's darkest day will be the measure of its competence, plain and simple.

Armstrong also comments on the ‘politics free zone’ that has been in place since Tuesday: ‘Since 12.51pm on Tuesday afternoon, normal politics have been in abeyance. There was no appetite for that this week - even among its more hardnosed practitioners. Parliament sat only briefly - and then only to express solidarity with the people of Christchurch’.

Christchurch’s tragic misfortunate is also Labour’s political misfortune, says Armstrong:

Notably, for the third time in six months, Labour's efforts to gain traction had come to a grinding halt, the other occasions being the first Christchurch earthquake last September and the Pike River mine explosion. John Key was starting to sweat a bit over those now notorious BMWs. A dreadful tragedy has got him off the hook. It might be crass to say he was lucky, but that's politics. Likewise, it was Phil Goff's constant bad luck to be marginalised once more until the necessary interval has passed in terms of showing respect for the dead. The present political hiatus benefits only one person - the Prime Minister. Key has been omnipresent, if not omnipotent. He has used the advantage of incumbency to maximum effect in terms of being in the public eye and hogging the media. But he needs to do so. He faces a huge task. However, resurrecting Christchurch's economy from the forlorn-looking piles of bricks and fallen masonry strewn across the city could pay National a handsome electoral dividend - perhaps even enough seats to rule on its own

The voting behavior of Cantabrians is also brought into the picture:

Contrary to reputation, the city is not the solid Labour territory it once was. National may hold only one of the city's six electorate seats. Crucially, however, National secured a higher party vote than Labour in those seats - around 89,000 to 79,000. The former figure represents about 8.5 per cent of National's nationwide party vote - a not insubstantial amount…. National's fate may hinge on what is happening in the suburbs. Tumbling house prices, the damage to prized personal assets, the damage to infrastructure and the high possibility of losing one's job may fuel an exodus from the city.

Writing on the TV3 website, Patrick Gower blogs that the Quake means Key and National can win election outright. He says that the disaster ‘changes everything’, and now a ‘unique swirl of political events is emerging’ which could lead to the MMP "Holy Grail" of getting over 50% of the vote and hence being able to govern alone. (Incidentally, Armstrong reports that National has already committed itself to try and run a governing arrangement with support parties, even if able to govern alone).

Gower argues that although the ‘politics free zone’ is still in operation, the earthquake is going to have a huge impact on the upcoming election campaign:

But the quake will come to dominate the political arena and it’s important to analyse how our politicians deal with it and what it means. Because this election is now about the "two E's" - Earthquake and Economy. Lefties aren't going to like this analysis. But it goes like this. Key was extraordinarily popular to start with. The quake is a national crisis that brings about the effects of "war-time"-style stable leadership - and the platform for Key to do it. Add to the mix that the Opposition leaders and parties are weak in comparison and will not be viewed by the public as having the strength and stability required. And if Key and National get it right the ultimate reward of unbridled power could be theirs. It won't be easy. Getting over 50 percent hasn't happened since 1951. That was National, in another peacetime crisis - the Watersiders dispute.

According to Gower, this tragedy has come at an opportune time for Key and National:

His popularity had even dropped a bit from the last poll, a bump put down to the high visibility of the Pike River tragedy which reinforces just what disasters can do. Anything that was even slightly chipping away at that - mincing on the catwalk and giving ever-changing stories about the BMW's have been swept to one side by the earthquake. There'll be a political hiatus lasting who knows how long, a month maybe more - and that only benefits Key. Key is now a crisis-Prime Minister. That's how he'll be judged. And, as the year wears on, if New Zealanders are looking for stability - at this stage only "National outright" can provide that.

And the occurrence of the Rugby World Cup also feeds nicely into the mix for the Government:

Post-quake, the election after the World Cup now looks like perfect timing…. As long as the organisation went well, the World Cup was always going to be a galvanising experience. With touches of a political hiatus and positive exposure that again can only benefit the incumbent Key. Now the World Cup will be more galvanising than ever. Key can again tap into that. One thing we know about Key he has a knack for good timing. What better way to start an election campaign for Key than with a Christchurch rebuild underway and holding up the Webb Ellis with his fellow Cantabs Richie McCaw and Dan Carter?

In a parallel, but compatible analysis, Jake Quinn blogs on the question of 'What does this mean for our political process and in particular what does it mean for the Left's chances in election 2011?' He predicts bad things for the parties of the left:

Even when considering coalition partners (or the blocs of ideologically connected parties), the Left needed an acute electoral event, in their favour, to put them in a position to form a government after this year’s election. Unfortunately the acute event occurred, but not one that is likely to harm the current government’s popularity or raise that of the oppositions. On the contrary, pending Hurricane Katrina-esk ineptitude in the government’s response to the earthquake, support will likely solidify behind the current government. This will be helped by solid rescue and response coordination by the authorities, which by most accounts seems to have been the case so far. The government will also be helped by the tight relationship between Christchurch’s simply superb orator of a Mayor Bob Parker and the Prime Minister, who will support each other, feed off each other’s public performances (staying on, and coordinating, key message) and avoid the potential for muck-raking you could have imagined had last year’s Christchurch mayoral elections had a different result. So, all in all, the side-lining of politics while the government deals with the earthquake recovery (and with a hearty lead in the polls behind it) means the likelihood of a Left bloc victory in 2011 has been reduced as a result of this national disaster.

The economics of the earthquake are still being heavily discussed in the media. Audrey Young reports that the prime minister has ‘said the rebuilding of Christchurch could take between five and 10 years and would cost more than $14 billion’. Treasury is apparently ‘doing detailed work on the implications of the earthquake and options for funding recovery’, but at this stage the Government is keenest to increase Earthquake Commission levies rather than impose a temporary disaster tax. Key is quoted as explaining the preference: ‘The main reason our initial thinking is for an increase in the EQC levy as opposed to an additional levy is because we already have in place that provisioning system, which Australia doesn't’. Therefore, the current levies could triple from an average $60 a year to $180. See: Christchurch earthquake: Damage could treble commission levies.

Brian Gaynor has an article that provides detail on the history and nature of the Earthquake Commission – see: Quake wake up call for disaster insurer. He says that Christchurch disaster is ‘a major blow to the Earthquake Commission and its ability to insure future natural disasters’. Not everything is covered by the EC, however – only residential property. The Christchurch City Council is insured through Civic Assurance, an insurance company owned by all of New Zealand’s local government authorities. According to Greg Ninness, the council will be receiving ‘this country's biggest-ever insurance payout to a single policyholder’, ‘expected to be for hundreds of millions of dollars, eclipsing an estimated $150 million payout from the September earthquake’ – see: NZ’s biggest insurance claim ever.

A different sort of debate about ‘earthquake economics’ has been initiated by Canterbury University economics lecturer and blogger, Eric Crampton (who’s own home has become inhabitable). Crampton has been applying public choice theory to the crisis on the ground in Christchurch, with two very interesting posts on his Offsetting Behavour blog: Double petrol prices. Do it now and In defense of price gouging. The contrary argument has been taken up by Keith Ng on the Public Address blog community – see: On Price Gouging. Ng actually seems to sum up Crampton’s public choice position quite succinctly:

The people supporting price gouging in Christchurch are not evil. They come from the same starting point that I do: We have more demand than we have supply – how do we decide who gets it and who misses out? The overriding goal is to get resources to those who need it the most. If someone along the line makes a profit from it, that’s beside the point. Fairness and equity doesn’t fill up your petrol tank. Without price gouging, we still ration, but on a crude first-come-first-served basis. This does nothing to direct resources to those who need it the most. It comes down to chance and your ability to wait. It’s a wasteful, punishing system – people lose hours waiting in line, when they could be doing something useful, which is a very real cost to everyone.

Ng, argues in the contrast that price gouging would make things worse by making ‘people feel insecure’. He also points out that on the ground in Christchurch, ‘Many people have acted in complete defiance of economic self-interest, and as a result, housing, labour, transport, equipment, all kinds of goods have been given to people who most need it’. But interestingly, Ng notes that he has some sympathy for the public choice theory: ‘I haven’t quite made up my mind about builders gouging though. The “extraordinary goodwill” argument is weaker, since things will be back to normal (well, the new normal) in the timeframe in which they’ll be working; the allocative efficiency arguments are stronger, since prices really would encourage builders to move to Christchurch in a useful timeframe.’

The policy consequences of the earthquake could be considerable. Fran O’Sullivan in particular makes the case for ‘disaster politics’ to follow on from the quake – see: Key should not hesitate to seek nation’s help to finance rebuild. Sounding like a case study from Naomi Klein’s book, Shock Doctrine, O’Sullivan argues ‘This is the opportune time for him to review the extent of his Government's tax-cuts, which are being funded through borrowing and not healthy surpluses, and the extent of the interest-free student loans and Working for Families tax credits bequeathed by the previous Government’. In response, the No Right Turn blog says that ‘Fran O'Sullivan is using the Christchurch earthquake as an excuse for cuts and privatisation. In the present context, it looks suspiciously like the shock doctrine - cynically using a disaster to impose policies which people never voted for and would reject if given a democratic choice’ – see: The Shock Doctrine already.

There is a danger that the rebuild will be carried out in a mediocre and parsimonious manner according to Rod Oram writing in the Sunday Star Times: Rebuild the right way. Oram hopes that ‘we'll learn from the huge loss of lives in Christchurch and the massive cost of rebuilding’ and therefore ‘invest boldly and fully for the long term, rather than hoping we can make do’. If not, Christchurch will dwindle: ‘The city will wither away, a shadow of its former self as New Orleans has become after Hurricane Katrina’. Unfortunately, ‘judging by New Zealand history – Napier excluded – we'll race to build a cheap, rather shoddy centre that's barely fit for the short-term. We'll tell ourselves we can't afford to do better’. It’s time to realize, Oram says, that we currently see earthquake proofing as a cost rather than an investment, and that ‘We tell ourselves we're among the best in the world when it comes to earthquake resilience…. That, though, is delusional’.

The World Socialist Website (WSWS) has another leftwing critique of the management of the crisis in Christchurch – see: Death toll rises to 145 in New Zealand earthquake. The generosity of the citizenry is contrasted with the alleged austerity of the government:

Ordinary people have already donated millions to help victims of the quake. Christchurch students have organised an army of 15,000 volunteers to help people in need and to clear thousands of tonnes of silt from residential areas. The government’s relief efforts, however, are completely inadequate. In a press statement yesterday Prime Minister John Key declared: “New Zealand stands shoulder to shoulder with you [Christchurch residents] ... and the government is behind you 100 percent of the way.” In reality, the government has little concern for the vast majority of earthquake victims. While New Zealand’s corporate media has focused its attention almost entirely on the recovery efforts in the city centre, many in suburban Christchurch have spent days without receiving any outside help. Mayor Bob Parker confirmed this morning that just over 4,000 house calls had been made to inspect properties and check on residents—in a city with well over 100,000 houses.

The WSWS say that ‘Many poor, disabled and elderly people, unable to leave the city or access welfare centres, have been neglected’ – although much of the evidence for this seems to be anedoctal:

Perry Tainui, a mental health professional at Kakakura Health Services, told the Australian newspaper that “he had not been able to find all of his clients since the quake and was concerned that some of the city’s poorest people were being overlooked in the recovery.”…. This was echoed by Tony Hall, a resident of Eureka Street in working-class Aranui, a northern-eastern Christchurch suburb, who told the Australian that while power had been restored to more affluent areas such as Merivale, the mainly state-owned housing district had been “forgotten”. Eureka Street had been flooded with silt but its residents received no assistance. “It is like we don’t even exist,” Hall said.

The WSWS also draws attention to the draconian nature of how Christchurch is now being governed:

The conservative National Party government has granted itself sweeping powers by imposing a nation-wide state of emergency. Its priority has been to maintain “law and order” and to prop up the interests of big business. It has poured hundreds of army personnel and police officers into Christchurch, including 324 police officers from Australia. Much of the central city remains cordoned off and the council has imposed a 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew.

In a more humourous vein, Imperator Fish blog tackles a satirical take on the type of rightwing commentator who celebrates the cancellation of the 2011 census but laments the collectivism breaking out amongst the Christchurch public:

The end of the census may be something worth celebrating, but there's nothing else joyous about events in Christchurch. So many have lost their lives or their homes. I watch the news on the TV and see communities coming together, pooling resources, helping neighbours out and sharing everything they have. People helping strangers. Do you know what it makes me realise? The Communists have won. The market just isn't working properly in Christchurch. In a time of shortage and want people should be hoarding, and then holding out for extortionate prices. Water is a precious commodity, but instead of making a killing on selling it to the desperate and needy, they're giving the stuff away. It just doesn't make any economic sense. Let me tell you that if there's ever a disaster up my neck of the woods you'd better have a wallet full of cash if you expect help from me. My bush fortress has a well, and a bunker with enough tinned food to last for five years. I may be willing to share my little stash with you, but for a price. So cough up, or stay away. And don't push me, because if you think the world would mourn another dead socialist you are surely mistaken.

For more, see: Right Thinking: Finally Some Good Out Of The Quake.

Welfare reform – heartless proposals in a time of solidarity?

In Sunday Star Times, Anthony Hubbard contrasts the collectivist humanism on show in Christchurch with the publishing of the Welfare Working Group’s report – see: Thrown together. He starts by saying, ‘It's a mysterious thing, this sudden solidarity. It's more than just nationalism, because foreigners gave and got the same favours as fellow citizens’ and he goes onto even congratulate the politicians: ‘Politicians feel the same solidarity and know they must express it. We need them to mirror our grief and channel it into hope. John Key has mostly done this well, and so has Bob Parker’. Then he points out that ‘On the same day as the earthquake, the welfare working group issued its plan for a new social welfare system’, and ends with a barb: ‘The earthquake brought us together and reminded us of our natural solidarity. It reminded us of the virtues and even necessity of altruism and sympathy. You will find no such vision in this narrow, pinched, and divisive document’.

An even stronger critique was published in the Herald today, by columnist Tapu Misa – see: Beneficiaries easy target for cattle prod. Misa’s cutting opening is worth quoting in full:

A friend suggests I throw reason out the door the next time I'm arguing with my husband, and just use this line: "I'm not saying it's your fault. I'm just saying I'm blaming you." Maybe the Welfare Working Group has been reading the same website as my friend. Its final report is underpinned by the same message: We're not saying it's your fault you can't get a job. We're just saying you're a malingering freeloader who's not trying hard enough. So I'm not saying the group is heartless, I'm just saying that some of its proposals lack a heartbeat.

Hone Harawira’s next move

Matt McCarten mentions in his Herald on Sunday column that he ‘was involved in negotiating the settlement in Hone Harawira's departure from the Maori Party’, which makes his pronouncement that Harawira ‘will form a new party to contest the next election’ especially reliable. (Notably, the iPredict contract for a New Left Party being launched has jumped considerably in just a week: from about 20% to 50%).

McCarten’s analysis of the impact of a Harawira-led party on the election campaign is particularly interesting:

A Labour Party strategist lamented to me that now Harawira was gone the Maori Party was in National's pocket forever. This scenario was echoed by a senior National official, who gloated they had lanced the boil of Harawira and the Maori Party was now their long-term, docile and trouble-free coalition partner. We should always be careful what we wish for. We just might get it. But it may not be what we thought it was. The expulsion of Harawira may well be John Key's Achilles' heel - one that takes him down in November. Let me explain. Harawira now has a safe seat and will be returned in November. For the rest of the year he will run a campaign against the seabed and foreshore changes. But more threatening to the status quo is that he will run parallel campaigns against low wages, so-called welfare reform, mining, GST and privatisation. These issues will mobilise support among Maori and non-Maori working class. You can say what you like about Harawira, but no one doubts his sincerity when it comes to fighting for the poor. This is a constituency screaming out for a staunch champion. In Harawira they'll get one. Harawira will target these voters for their party list vote.

This could be very bad for the Maori Party and National:

The Maori Party, on the other hand, needs to win back its four current electorate seats to be relevant. On current polling, Pita Sharples in Tamaki Makarau and Rahui Katene in Te Tai Tonga are goners and the party won't get any party list seats. The likely outcome is them hanging on to just two seats. I suspect Harawira's new party will get one to three seats from his party list in addition to his own. As a consequence, even if the Maori Party leadership stuck with National after the election they would be neutralised by Harawira if he got other MPs in with him. Hell would freeze over before Harawira went with National. But if that's disastrous for National, it gets worse. That's because for Sharples and Katene to keep their seats, they will need Harawira to ask his supporters to vote for them. What's the price of that? The Maori Party endorsing Harawira's party list? Meeting together after election day to agree on a joint negotiation with either National or Labour? Imagine this scenario: the Maori Party is able to keep its four seats and Harawira picks up 2.5 per cent, as well as his own seat. That makes seven seats in all - two more than they had at the last election. Given that the Maori seats will overwhelmingly support Labour on the party vote, it's quite possible all seven MPs will back a Labour-led government as part of a joint negotiation strategy.

The rest of McCarten’s excellent column, 'Harawira expulsion may be Key’s undoing', is here.

Today’s Otago Daily Times editorial also focuses on these issues – see: New perspective on Maori seats. The ODT says that ‘Harawira now has the opportunity and, some would say, the duty to become the public voice of those he considers are suffering from "the economic and social disparities". Also: ‘Where exactly Mr Harawira might find a constituency for a party of his own is difficult to discern, but with a strong power-base in Te Tai Tokerau and his connections to the populous Nga Puhi tribe, he could also look for wider political support from among Auckland's urban Maori and Pacific Island voters’.

Harawira is pretty good at getting publicity, and on Sunday, he was in the papers for saying that ‘Maori people who hold office with white parties are basically ignored’ – see: Maori MPs just pawns, says Hone. Labour’s Shane Jones replied by labelling Harawira a ‘political hoodlum’, while the Green Party’s Metiria Turei agreed with Harawira but was quick to add that her party was an exception to his argument, and it applied more to National and Labour.

----------------------------------------

In additional to these highlights, below are the internet links to all the NZ politics material from the last 24 hours that are either informative, insightful, interesting or influential.

Earthquake

Cognito: February 2011 (Tumult spreads to politics; Disaster politics)

John Armstrong (NZH): Handling of quake Govt’s ultimate test

Patrick Gower (TV3): Quake means Key and National can win election outright

Fran O’Sullivan (NZH): Key should not hesitate to seek nation’s help to finance rebuild

Rod Oram (SST): Rebuild the right way

John Harteveld (SST): Challenges ahead unlike any others

Audrey Young (NZH): Christchurch earthquake: Damage could treble commission levies

Audrey Young (NZH): Labour urges use of Earthquake reserves

Rob Stock (Sunday Star Times): EQC holds funds for two more quakes

NZH Editorial: Leadership and communication keys in recovery

Stuff: Parker rises to lead a city of ruins