liberation

NZ Politics Daily: 29 February

Along with John Key’s ‘state house kid’ background, National has made much of Paula Bennett’s experience as a solo mum in the 80s and 90s. While these experiences can be used to show that National hasn’t lost touch with the struggles of ordinary New Zealanders, it can sometimes be a liability – especially when they are seen to deny people the same advantages they received from the state. Bennett has been forced to respond to claims she is a ‘bloody hypocrite’ by Mana Party leader Hone Harawira who pointed to a quote from Bennett in the Herald in 2008 relating how she had to give up part time work while on the DPB because she was ‘exhausted’ – see: Amelia Romanos’ Bennett rejects 'hypocrite' claims. The obvious comparison is with the requirement announced on Monday that DPB recipients will be forced to seek part and full-time work. Bennett was also able to buy a house thanks to a cheap state loan, which are no longer available and, of course, was able to study while on the DPB thanks to the Training Incentive Allowance that she herself cut last term.

 

John Key is also being criticised for saying there are plenty of jobs available. Keith Ng looks at the figures in his blogpost 195,508 people can't be that lazy and concludes ‘If John Key has found all the jobs, 195,508 people would like to know’. See also Tova O’Brien’s Beneficiaries to Govt: Show us the jobs.

There are editorials today in the Press, Dominion Post and Herald that give cautious support to the welfare reforms. But they all conclude that their success really depends on the availability of jobs. Brian Rudman asks Is this policy or just punishment?. 

The rising cost of local body rates in recent years is attracting central government attention, as outlined in a comprehensive article by Jane Clifton: Tackling our rising rates. There seems to be consensus that the increases well above inflation are a problem but, as you might expect, the finger of blame is being pointed both ways – at local councils themselves and at the requirements forced on them by central government. Clifton’s article is supplemented by this week’s Listener editorial, Rethinking local government.

 

Eliminating the regional council layer of local government and further amalgamations look to be likely outcomes, something that former Waitakere mayor Bob Harvey enthusiastically endorses, particularly for Wellington – see: Super-city? Absolutely. 

The local authority under most pressure at the moment is, of course, Christchurch and John McCrone has a must-read backgrounder (see: Double acts in the city) on how the council became the dysfunctional organisation many residents see it as. McCrone goes back over previous Mayoral-CEO partnerships and identifies the reforms made by ‘change manager’ Lesley McTurk as Chief Executive in 2003 when Parker’s predecessor Garry Moore was mayor. The result was a more hierarchical organisation with an exodus of experienced managers to be replaced by a smaller number of close-knit senior managers. The number of councillors was halved and their involvement in council operations was severely restricted. This will all sound familiar because it closely follows the restructuring that many government departments had already been through. McTurk came to Christchurch from the health sector and currently heads up Housing New Zealand, which is in the process of cutting back community based offices. (McCrone has written another important article – CEO convinced city needs him). 

Of course it’s one thing to do it to others, but quite another to have it done to yourself, as Bob Parker is finding out in Christchurch. He expresses concern over the loss of control by the Council to the Government  – see Jarrod Booker’s State control of rebuild scary, says mayor. 

Andrew Geddis has an extensive and recommended blog post (see: On exactitude in democracy) on what will surely become the main issue of the MMP review: the 5% threshold and associated ‘electorate lifeline’. Geddis argues for abolishing the lifeline, and reducing the threshold to 2.5%. He cautions against reducing the threshold further, saying that one-person parties can complicate stable government formation and struggle to operate effectively in Parliament. 

 

The other electoral issue of great interest is the very low turnout at the last election, and today Martyn Bradbury makes the case for reforms, specifically increasing lowering the voting age, giving prisoners back the vote, making it easier for people to enroll and making election day more of a celebration of democracy – see: The Universal Suffrage Project 2014. 

Labour MP Phil Twyford dares to tread where his leader won’t go so far, by calling on Auckland Mayor Len Brown to take decisive action to resolve the Ports of Auckland dispute – see his Red Alert blog post, The mayor, the port, and the wharfies. Mfat scores an own-goal with revelations they are planning to spend nearly $1 million upgrading an indoor swimming pool for embassy staff in Tokyo – see: $1m for embassy pool, despite MFAT job cuts.

Other important articles today include Bryan Gould’s Austerity proven as wrong answer to recession, the Taranaki Daily News editorial An inconvenient truth: We need protesters, Tim Dare’s Why we need public healthcare, Mike Coleman’s Red-zoners stressed to breaking point, and the NZ Law Commission’s blog post, Who are the news media?.

Finally, Stuff reports on UMR research that shows ‘politically left-wing people outnumbered those to the firm right - 44 per cent and 35 per cent respectively with 18 per cent in the centre, but those on the right were more strongly associated with happiness’ – see: What makes Kiwis happy? [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily] 

 

The revival of local government politics

Local government politics is becoming a sexy topic again. In the last couple of years there has been a renewed focus on the importance of local governance, especially with the creation of the Auckland supercity, rising local government debts, and now the rebuild of Christchurch (and the associated focus on the performance of the council, mayor and CEO). [Continue reading my DScene newspaper column below]

NZ Politics Daily: 28 February

The political reaction to National’s welfare reform measures has been more interesting than the announcement itself – see: Kate Chapman and Andrea Vance’s Welfare changes just the start. The Government revealed little that hadn’t already been flagged during the election campaign and although the policy won’t enhance John Key’s ‘nice guy’ image, there is always political mileage in ‘getting tough’ on beneficiaries – especially solo Mums and youth. This is exactly why Labour’s response has been muted – with Jacinda Ardern being pushed up front rather than David Shearer. More importantly it’s likely that Labour itself will soon take aim at welfare. John Armstrong seems to have inside information that Shearer will be delivering a major positioning speech in little over two weeks that may ‘flag the most significant reorientation of Labour thinking since the party kissed goodbye to Sir Roger Douglas’. Indications are that welfare reform will be a significant part of the speech – see: Shearer quite right to be taking his time. 

 

 

In contrast to Labour, there’s been no hesitation from the Greens, New Zealand First and Mana leaders – they’ve all directly attacked the reforms – see: Welfare reform 'beneficiary bashing' and Welfare changes 'keep the poor in their place' – Peters. The common theme of all the critiques is that forcing beneficiaries to find work when unemployment is already high, and getting worse, is futile and punitive. Sue Bradford, speaking on behalf of Auckland Action Against Poverty says the policies are about the labour market in general: ‘And really what it's all about is trying to drive down the cost of labour by harassing vulnerable sole parents and young people. Are they going to be queuing up for the jobs at Affco and the Ports of Auckland? I mean really’ – see: TVNZ’s Welfare reforms just harassment – Bradford. Gordon Campbell also has a very good analysis that makes some obvious points: the cost of benefits is always high and unaffordable when there are few jobs, and over two thirds of DPB recipients receive the benefit for less than four years – see Campbell’s article On yesterday’s welfare reform announcements. 

 

Tracy Watkins sees the announcement as evidence of a sense of urgency in National’s second term, saying that the next round of public sector reforms will involve contracting out services and involve ‘massive and fundamental change’ – see: Pace of fundamental reforms clicks up a few gears. Conspicuous by their silence is the Maori Party who will have to make a decision on whether to support their coalition partner when the legislation comes before Parliament.

 

Anthony Hubbard wrote in the Sunday Star Times at the weekend that Labour should be riding high given National’s fumbling management of issues this year, but has failed to take advantage. He has suggestions for which election policies Labour should dump but notes that making major cuts to its Working for Families policies, would make Labour seem more ‘moderate, less desperate to please the proletariat. But it would hurt the children of the poor.’

 

Labour has formally launched an election review and has called upon ‘critical friends’ to assist and take submissions for a report in July – see: Claire Trevett's Labour calls advisers to assist with review. This is more an internal, organisational review rather than on policy direction, but as Jake Quinn points out in Thoughts on Labour’s review there are some important issues particularly the processes that decide who gets to be a Labour MP. He advocates for candidates with stronger community connections rather than the typical ‘leader’s office staffer or unknown Auckland or Wellington union organiser’. Another Labour insider, Robert Winter, agrees the review is needed but expresses concern that the political result will be ‘a repackaged Blairism’, and that the current leadership is ‘safely centrist, and the rest of the caucus displays little capacity for radical thinking and debate’ – see: Labour reviews itself. Similarly, in his Press column Sitting Ducks? Chris Trotter has a good assessment of where Shearer is at and picks a move back to the centre to a ‘responsible and moderate Labour Party’ that will shore up support on the left by virtue of increased support in the polls.

 

Mike Moore has come under attack from both sides of the parliamentary benches, with Hone Harawira and Tariana Turia attacking him for attending a World Trade reception hosted by tobacco company Philip Morris and other oil, pharmaceutical and retail giants. While the sponsors list looks toxic to any New Zealand political audience, it’s pretty standard fare for any US political gathering. Harawira called for Moore to be sacked as US ambassador, particularly as New Zealand has a legislated aim to make the country smoke free by 2025 – see: Hayden Donnell’s Ambassador to US 'should be sacked'.

 

In other articles of note, Karl du Fresne weighs in on the Paul Holmes Waitangi Day controversy saying that Outrage a tactic to shut down debate, Andrea Vance notes that National has realised it can’t fight on too many fronts and has put the changes to the legal aid system on hold (Collins' olive branch), Chris Trotter takes the Sensible Sentencing Trust to task for their support of the ‘Christie’s Law’ campaign to tighten bail conditions (see: Keeping Justice's Blindfold In Place), while Scott Yorke parodies the political one-upmanship which so often characterises political debates around sentencing all over the world (see: Right Thinking: Frank's Law), and Adam Bennett reports on the latest in the Crafar farm saga – see: Maori mount legal challenge to Crafar decision. 

 

 

NZ Politics Daily: 27 February

Have we seen the end of Mr Nice Guy? The number of voters who say they’d like to have a beer or bbq with John Key might soon plummet, as the Government appears to be getting into the hard decisions early in its second term. According to John Armstrong, ‘National seems unaware of how hard-edged it is starting to look with its noticeable drift to the right. The contrast with the soft pragmatism of its first term is starting to become pronounced’. In his column, Ministers risk seeming uncaring as jobs culled, Armstrong writes that public sector reform looks likely to start having a real impact on frontline services – despite Government promises – particularly with possible layoffs of nursing staff at district health boards. He warns that the Government is still to reveal the extent  of contracting out of public services to the private sector, and says it may have a hard job selling that to voters. Tracy Watkins agrees and says even though changes to date have been done far more carefully than in the 1990s, real savings  – particularly in the big budget health sector – will mean job losses in the thousands – see: Public service cuts get deeper. 

 

 

Labour’s deputy leader – and ex-Mfat staffer – Grant Robertson also pushes these points in a Red Alert blog post, MFAT- Privatisation and the end of diplomacy. Robertson lays it on fairly thick, suggesting that the Mfat restructuring is essentially ‘a large exercise in privatisation’ and saying that ‘a pretty much unfettered free market model is to be unleashed at MFAT’. He concludes that ‘This second term National government is going to make the 90s restructuring look like child’s play’. Robertson could be right of course, but Labour and the opponents of restructuring need to remember the fable of the ‘Boy who cried wolf’. 

 

Today’s announcement of welfare changes will no doubt play well to National’s core audience but these changes won’t help the immediate return to surplus, as they will actually incur additional costs in the short term. What won’t go down well with National’s core support – particularly amongst small to medium sized business owners – is the possibility of a significant rise in workplace insurance levies. This is on the cards if, as Danya Levy reports, the Government decides to remove ACC from covering work injuries – see: Fears on ACC work injury cover. Levy also reports that ACC could be corporatised, turning it into a SOE that pays taxes and dividends – which would be a radical and significant reform. All these possibilities would be fraught with danger for the Government.

 

Those wanting to retain ACC as the sole public provider of work injury cover point out that not only would premiums increase, or entitlements would be reduced, but that the profits would overwhelmingly go to Australian-owned private insurance companies. The biggest problem that opposition parties may face is choosing which stick to start beating the Government with.

 

In the meantime the partial privatisation policy is still providing the opposition parties with plenty of ammunition according to the NBR’s Michael Coote (see: Privatisation goes into panic mode), who describes the management of the process as going ‘from disastrous to catastrophic by the week’. He says the Section 9 controversy could allow Maori corporate interests to hamstring the partially privatised companies for years to come. He also points to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which could provide another avenue for Maori to enforce Treaty rights and leverage special treatment in the allocation of shares.

 

The Government is still keeping at arms length from the Ports of Auckland dispute, which is getting increasingly bitter and entrenched. CEO Tony Gibson is openly attacking the union, with allegations of vandalism (see Matthew Dearnaley’s Strike-hit port claims mess hall vandalized) and threats to sue them over alleged blacklisting (see RNZ’s Port considers legal action over 'blacklist threat'). The ability to prevent foreign ships docking at the port has always been the key weapon of the wharfies, and that’s why the Maritime Union is confident of their ability to win this industrial dispute – international solidarity with the workers will be much stronger than the muscle of the bosses. This is why the Ports of Auckland will be very keen to sue if it can be proven that the Maritime Union actively organised such economic sanctions against shipping companies or the port.

 

New Zealand’s industrial relations look set for the most turbulent period in some years – see: Thousands set for week of industrial action. This is especially the case with the news that over 700 Affco workers are facing an indefinite lockout on Wednesday, and 1500 caregivers and nurses in rest homes are about to go on strike (see: Matt McCarten’s Get in behind our Kiwi battlers on the picket lines).

 

Affco is owned by the Talleys Group, which has a record of being very confrontational with unions. Green Party industrial relations spokesperson Denise Roche says that Affco ‘could not be trusted to negotiate a collective contract in good faith’ – see: TVNZ: Union calls for mediation ahead of indefinite lockout. As with the ports dispute, the Affco issue seems to be less about money and pay and more about security of work and casualisation.

 

David Shearer’s leadership style is again under scrutiny as his attempt to reinforce his ‘non-politician’ status comes up against the expectation that as Leader of the Opposition he will publicly hold the Government to account. Shearer’s response is 'You don't wear your guns on the outside' – see Michele Hewitson’s David Shearer interview. Apart from revealing that Shearer once voted National, the interview reveals little about the new leader, but that’s interesting in itself. 

 

Tracy Watkins reports that Shearer has been preparing a series of speeches setting out his vision for the country but wants to distance himself from the adversarial politics of the past – see: Shearer not buying into 'gotcha' politics. However, Shearer has taken a clear stand on the Crafar farms and asset sales issues and continues to attack the Government over them – see: Shearer comes out fighting over image and SOE sales. But Danyl Mclauchlan at The Dim-Post wonders why Shearer doesn’t take the public lead from ex-leader Phil Goff on issues like Mfat restructuring – see: Dry powder

 

For those interested in issues of inequality (and the environment), the must-read item for the day is Brian Leyland’s The only way is full steam ahead. Leyland makes the case for the necessity of both economic growth and technological innovation in order improve not just the interest of society as a whole, but to reduce inequality and protect the environment. 

 

The other important items of the day are: Steve Braunias’ very funny Secret Diary Of Murray McCully, Bernard Hickey’s Power of printing money, Sarah Harvey and Imogen Neale’s Parents prop up schools to tune of $250m, Derek Cheng’s Strip Graham of knighthood: victim, Charles Anderson’s How the mighty fall from grace, and John Armstrong’s Weakened watchdog makes democracy weaker. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily] 

 

NZ Politics Daily: 24 February

‘Cutting the fat out of Mfat’ will be an easy political sales job for the National Government. Job cuts and radical restructures are normally anathema to voters. In this case, despite Labour, NZ First and the Greens all rallying against the proposals, National should be able to convince the public that this is ‘bureaucracy-busting’; bringing an archaic department into the modern age. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is very much part of the Establishment in New Zealand, and therefore it has escaped much of the restructuring and downsizing that the rest of New Zealand society has endured over the last three decades. As Audrey Young puts it, Mfat’s been ‘untouchable’. For the details of the proposed reforms see Derek Cheng’s Ministry to lose fifth of staff in radical cuts. 

 

 

The strongest critique of the Mfat proposals, so far, has come from a Kiwipolitico blog post, In an age of increased international interdependence, NZ shrinks diplomatically. This argues that ‘market zealots of the National razor gang want to cut all perceived public sector fat regardless of consequence’ – which will lead to New Zealand having less sway in an increasingly globally interdependent world, less ability to avoid ‘military entanglements’, and ultimately more costs as a result. Another potentially controversial aspect to the Mfat restructuring is the proposal to axe the Maori Policy Unit in the ministry – see: MFAT proposes scrapping Maori policy unit. 

 

 

 

Not all commenters are opposed. Stephen Franks points out that this week’s Economist magazine says that New Zealand has as many diplomats as India (‘the world’s second-most-populous country’). Tim Selwyn is also not a fan of the ministry and argues that the diplomats ‘had it coming’ - see: MFatigue. David Farrar also usefully canvasses the Mfat proposals in Restructuring the first deep cut. 

 

Related to the Mfat changes, the leaked Murray McCully emails are still in the news – especially because of what they reveal about the Government’s orientation to China – see Patrick Gower’s Leaked emails 'not terribly embarrassing' – Key. 

 

The changes to Mfat are part of a broader public service restructuring programme, and Audrey Young has explained why bigger changes are coming – see: English to public sector: Better services, same money. National is planning significant changes in other sectors too – Brian Fallow reports that National’s welfare reforms will ‘be under way in the next few months – see: Surplus by 2015 'still in sight' and Andrea Vance reports on Major courts overhaul proposed. 

 

The Government’s perceived backdown on the issue of including ‘Section 9’ Treaty commitments in the asset sales legislation is a major victory for the Maori Party – see: Claire Trevett’s Walkout still on cards over asset sales. Electorally, it will allow the party to justify its relevance and involvement in government. However, the Maori Party has in fact compromised, and now accept that Treaty obligations ‘only bind the Crown, and not the 49% of private investors’ – see: Private shareholders now OK with Maori Party. For a substantial critique of the compromise, see Joshua Hitchcock’s Much Ado About Nothing? on his Maori Law and Politics blog. Hitchcock argues that Maori have lost a huge opportunity to ensure better protection of Maori interests, and that ‘Section 9 is essentially meaningless in the day-to-day operations of a State-Owned Enterprise’. 

 

Also on the broader topic of asset sales, see Chris Trotter’s Political damage certain over National's privatisation plans, and Robert Patman’s Asset sales plan linked to international trends.

 

Other important items today include Tim Watkin’s On the matter of coming 2nd and yet winning, Matthew Dearnaley’s Port workers' 3 week strike: 'Nothing to lose', and John Drinnan’s Finn and co race to rescue Kiwi radio. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily] 

 

NZ Politics Daily: 23 February

The major restructure of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs looks to be this Government’s most significant reform in the core public service during this parliamentary term. Little wonder there is considerable interest, not only in the content, but the timing and source of Murray McCully’s email leaks. John Hartevelt reports that the source was unlikely to be a Russian computer hacker, but rather ‘appear to have been stolen and leaked from within New Zealand – possibly by a disaffected staff member’ – see: McCully email thief could be Kiwi. Meanwhile, the No Right Turn blog questions why Ministers like McCully are using private email accounts and suggests that there should be some investigation to see if Ministers are trying to hide official emails from scrutiny under the Official Information Act – see: There is no escape from the OIA.

 

 

The Government’s first term promise that public sector cuts wouldn’t be at the expense of frontline staff is looking shaky as the Waikato DHB confirmed that frontline jobs could go as they struggle to save $20 million next year – see John Hartevelt’s Frontline health jobs on the line as cuts bite. 

 

Danya Levy reports that the plan to re-introduce competition into the workplace accident insurance is proving difficult, mainly because private insurers may have difficulty making it profitable. Levy says ACC Minister Judith Collins is trying to distance herself from a paper by the former minister Nick Smith which proposed forcing ACC to include a profit margin in it’s charges so that private companies can compete – see: Delays in privatising ACC work account. Such a move would undermine the basic credibility of the ACC and the wider state sector reforms that are supposed to deliver lower costs and greater efficiencies.

 

With the Government focusing on state sector reform, it’s useful to have the latest issue of Policy Quarterly released today by Victoria University of Wellington’s Institute of Policy Studies. You can download the entire issue as a PDF, or look at some particularly relevant PDF articles from it, such as 'You Say You Want a Revolution'... The Next Stage of Public Sector Reform in New Zealand, and Managing for Efficiency: Lessons from United Kingdom's Efficiency Agenda 2004-2010. 

 

With a huge amount being written lately on poverty and inequality in New Zealand, the Business Roundtable puts the case that there is actually no poverty in New Zealand – see: Talking about Poverty. Using the absolute international benchmark of $2 a day and pointing to growing obesity amongst the poor as evidence that hunger is not really a problem. As is often the case, the difference between relative and absolute measures of deprivation seems to have both sides of the debate talking past each other.

 

Also on the topic of inequality, the latest issue of Policy Quarterly has two important academic PDF articles: The Effect on Household Income of Government Taxation and Expenditure in 1988, 1998, 2007 and 2010, and Evidence-based Evaluation: Working for Families.

 

Issues about foreign investment as well as ethnicity provide very interesting items today. Danyl Mclauchlan responds to Brian Rudman’s column yesterday to ask if opposition to the Shanghai Pengxin bid to purchase the Crafar farms is really based on xenophobia or racism – see: Opposition to Crafer sale: alternative theory. And Emma Beer’s Flag war erupts reports about Maori Wellington City Councilor, Ray Ahipene-Mercer, speaking out against the unilateral decision of Mayor Celia Wade-Brown to fly the Tino Tangatiratanga flag from the Town Hall on Waitangi Day, saying it does not represent all Maori.

 

In other political items well worth reading today include: Claire Trevett’s Shearer missing some big targets, David Farrar’s The one-seat threshold, Kate Chapman’s Treaty obligations to stay in SOE sales law, Max Harris’ State-Owned Enterprises Reform: A Wrong Turn for New Zealand, and Brian Fallow’s NZ faces big calls over climate pledge. 

 

Finally, political commentator Chris Trotter is currently on a week-long guest visit to the University of Otago where he’s participating in a number of public forums. As part of this, tomorrow at midday I will be interviewing Trotter on campus – and you can watch this live-streamed at www.bit.ly/ruN37y or enter the discussion and put your questions to Chris Trotter using the Twitter hashtag of #nzpoliticschat. For more on this, see my blog post, What would you like to ask Chris Trotter?. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily] 

 

What would you like to ask Chris Trotter?

I’m interviewing Chris Trotter tomorrow (Friday, 24 February) at 12pm as part of University of Otago NZ Politics Chat – which you can watch live-streamed at www.bit.ly/ruN37y In the blog post below, I detail the sort of things I’m intending to discuss with Chris Trotter. In particular, I’m keen to discuss his opinion and analysis of the state of the political left in New Zealand in 2012, and what he thinks is the way forward. But what would you like me to ask him? [Read more below]

 

 

NZ Politics Daily: 22 February

Phil Goff may be justified in feeling a bit unlucky. As James Henderson points out, Labour relentlessly campaigned on asset sales and economic sovereignty during the election, and now it seems to be having real impact on National and John Key’s popularity – three months too late – see: Crowd-sourcin’: asset sales question. While National should have expected to have to defend the asset sales policy, it has been blindsided by the Crafar Farms controversy. John Hartevelt, in his article More complex questions on Crafar, outlines the choices the Government faces, and none of them look particularly appealing. He says ‘Politics, the law and economics have collided spectacularly and with each passing day the Key Government is suffering’. With the rival bidders openly attacking each others’ credibility in the media (see: TVNZ’s Pengxin slams Fay's 'phantom' Crafar bid and Adam Bennett’s Fay consortium challenges rival Crafar bidder's know-how) and the Michael Fay consortium already pursuing further legal action, Fran O’Sullivan says that the Crafar farms saga set to run and run. 

 

The must-read item today about foreign investment is Brian Rudman’s Foreign buyers a modern reality, in which he bemoans the ‘Xenophobia poisoning debate over overseas ownership’, and says that both National and Labour are pandering to such irrationalism despite their support for the free trade treaty with China. Clearly, Rudman hints, many New Zealanders suffer from a dispiriting racism on this issue. 

 

 

Although technically a separate matter, the asset sales are linked with foreign investment in the public mind, even more so when the issue of potential overseas purchase of the partially privatised companies has to be faced. TV3’s Reid Research Poll clearly shows the Government is not winning the argument. 62% disagree with the policy – slightly higher than a poll on the same topic a year ago – see: Duncan Garner’s Poll shows asset sales unpopular.  It doesn’t seem as if more debate will rescue the Government. Only 4 out of 200 people supported the policy at a public debate in Dunedin last night (down from 6 at the beginning of the meeting, and one of them was a National MP) – see: David Loughrey’s NZ asset sales prove debatable. State Owned Enterprises Minister Tony Ryall says it will take a couple more years for people to be convinced of the benefits. That’s cutting it fine for the next election and may be based more on wishful thinking than on any realistic assessment of the politics. 

 

Opponents of the policy are taking a targeted approach to stop the sales. The policy only has a one-seat margin in the House, and they are picking Peter Dunne as the weak link. The Standard has details of a ‘citizens select committee’ in Ohariu, designed to put pressure on Dunne, with rallies, public meetings, oral submissions and a final report to be presented to Parliament – see: Asset sales: No Dunne deal. 

 

Even if Dunne retires at the next election, he may be wary of his final political legacy being the MP who allowed prime public assets to be privatised against overwhelming public opinion. Dunne did campaign on supporting the policy and signed up to it in his coalition agreement, but with the ground constantly shifting under the policy, National will have to be careful they don’t give him cause to do an about-face. That will be particularly true if so-called ‘Mum and Dad investors’ look likely to end up at the back of the queue behind institutional and overseas investors.

 

Yesterday Gareth Morgan and Geoff Simmons criticised attacks on foreign chartered fishing vessels, who have been accused of treating their workers like slaves as they fish in New Zealand waters. Morgan and Simmons argued the difficulty in differentiating between these boats and foreign factories around the world in which similar conditions apply. A commenter on the article yesterday pointed out that many of the vessels are chartered and run under the New Zealand flag and so should come under direct oversight even if they are outside our 12 mile limit. The Ministerial report on the issue is due on Friday but a report by American journalist Benjamin Skinner may have a more immediate impact as it has prompted US retail giants Walmart and Safeway to investigate their New Zealand fish supply chain – see: Hana Garrett-Walker’s NZ fish investigated after report into labour on boats in Kiwi waters. It would be a sad commentary on the fishing industry if only commercial pressure was able to achieve improvement rather than the well documented and researched investigations clearly showing horrific employment practices. The Waikato Times criticises fishing companies who say the fish would remain uncaught without the low wages, pointing out that there are many industries who could claim they need an exemption for the same reason and that it is ‘not negotiable’ – see: Tackling seafaring slavery.

 

The MFAT restructure together with the curious case of Murray McCully’s email leaks (see: Patrick Gower’s MP’s email hacked for military secrets) raises a number of questions. Audrey Young provides very good overall coverage of the issue in MP gives insider tips on diplomatic cuts. The most critical coverage comes from freelance investigative journalist Keith Ng in his Public Address blog post, Secret military lulz. He raises doubts that the email leaks are coming from foreign sources, as does Danyl Mclauchlin. Both posts speculate that the hacking may have occurred at a local level, perhaps by insiders. For complete details of the leaks to date, see the blog post by The Jackal, entitled Murray McCully's leaked emails. 

 

 

The restructure of MFAT appears to be substantial – see Tracy Watkins and Kate Chapman’s Foreign Affairs ministry jobs face chop. In the article, former diplomat Terence O'Brien says the agency shouldn’t face the same sort of restructure that other government departments have been through, and that ‘Diplomacy is not like business and, what is more, it is a profession’. Meanwhile Defence Force restructuring, according to a report by Hank Schouten, means that Defence staff eye leaving as morale falls. 

 

In other interesting reads today, Morgan Godfery writes about Shane Jones’ attack on iwi leaders in his blog post, Wedge politics and Maori, Eric Crampton appraises the idea of asset sales in Christchurch (Idiotic? Perhaps not), and a new book on union history is reviewed (Unions in Common Cause: The New Zealand Federation of Labour 1937-88). Finally, for those of you who like to know who is sitting next to who in the debating chamber, you can now download an up-to-date seating plan of the House here (PDF). [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily] 

 

NZ Politics Daily: 21 February

The Opposition benches of Parliament will be the scene of the most important and interesting political repositioning and re-alignments this year. The embattled Labour Party is at the centre of this flux, and it has the biggest job to do. Today’s Dominion Post editorial (Shearer needs more than a catchy slogan) identifies the party’s problem when it states that the new leader’s existing vision ‘is so platitudinous as to be almost meaningless’. The editorial goes on to say that ‘Shearer is yet to give any meaningful indication of what he stands for, what his aspirations for New Zealand are and what he would do differently from Prime Minister John Key to achieve them. Mr Shearer is in danger of wasting the honeymoon traditionally enjoyed by new party leaders’. 

 

In the Otago Daily Times, Colin James describes Labour’s problems as being its increasing disconnect from voters he identifies as the ‘beleaguered middle’: ‘Labour has over the past 40 years become the party of the margins: the very-low-paid, Polynesian commoners, the disabled, gays, feminists’. Meanwhile, James says that the party’s activist base lies within the middle class. He recommends ‘a deep rethink of policy and organisation’ – see: Labour's task: out of the margins, into the middle. 

 

But it’s Labour’s relationship with other opposition parties that is most interesting at the moment – see Claire Trevett’s Shearer looks for potential allies in unlikely places. Trevett says that ‘David Shearer has begun wooing potential coalition partners - including dinner with NZ First leader Winston Peters and calling an end to the Cold Shoulder War with Mana leader Hone Harawira’. It’s the Greens that Labour may need to work hardest on, especially in light of that party’s more aggressive and confident showing in recent months. 

 

The Greens’ new approach is the subject of John Armstrong’s column today – see: Greens need to get in the Opposition swim, or sink. Armstrong says the Greens are aware that in order to stay afloat and prosper, ‘they must be much better at basic Opposition politics. That means being more hard-edged, taking advantage of new Labour leader David Shearer’s relative inexperience, and keeping a high media profile.’ On issues such as foreign investment and state asset sales the party is in a better position than Labour to capitalise on voter discontent with National. This all means, Armstrong says, that Labour needs ‘to grasp that the political landscape had changed’. He points out that Metiria Turei’s ‘provocative, yet important, scene-setting speech’ contained some ‘posturing’ but an important message: ‘Labour could no longer afford to adopt a ‘‘take it or leave it’’ attitude towards the Greens’. 

 

This fraught Labour-Green relationship is also dealt with intelligently in Tim Watkin’s blog post, Greens growth: The political maths of the centre-left, in which he argues that the two parties ‘need to figure out a new way of growing the centre-left bloc without tearing each other to pieces’. Labour insider Robert Winter also blogs on this topic – see: Enter the Greens?: goading Labour?. 

 

A hint of a potential new direction for Labour can be seen in Shane Jones’ attack on Maori tribal leaders yesterday – see: TVNZ’s Jones tells tribal leaders to 'salvage' children. Jones says that ‘iwi leaders should spend less time "dreaming of ways to profit" from sales of state-owned assets and more time on salvaging the children of their tribes’. Such a foray into ethnicity and politics is significantly more sophisticated and coherent than Paul Holmes recent outburst, but it will also resonate strongly with some of Labour’s lost voters.

 

Meanwhile, the responses to Paul Holmes keep coming, with Rawiri Taonui labeling Holmes A cheeky Pakeha. Taonui commends Holmes for coming out with his controversial column, as ‘Only in the open can reason and compassion overcome such views’. In his rebuttal, Taonui makes two particularly interesting points: that ‘the major beneficiaries of the "Treaty industry" have been Pakeha who make up 98 per cent of professional researchers, and the majority of legal teams acting for the Crown and Maori’ and that the ‘Treaty settlements which now total $1.3 billion are less than the $1.77 billion paid to compensate mainly Pakeha investors in South Canterbury Finance’. Another response, from Richard Swainson, writing in the Waikato Times, challenges Holmes view that Anzac Day would be better replacement for Waitangi Day as the country’s national day, saying that this day is ‘not as unproblematic an occasion as it may first seem.  Gallipoli was not a "great effort for international freedom". It was a misconceived, meaningless bloodbath in which the exceptionally brave died for next to nothing’ – see: There's no perfect day to celebrate NZ's nationhood. 

 

Part of the Labour Party’s rebuilding will involve identifying with the growing concern about issues of economic inequality. Today’s major items on this relate to the nexus between health and inequality – see: Hayley Hannan’s Disease figures a national 'embarrassment' and Isaac Davison’s Wealth gap linked to rise in infections. Also in relation to this, Chris Nobbs argues that growing inequality in New Zealand is a response to the wider neoliberal economic reforms in this country, of which asset sales are one important element – see: A promise that failed. 

 

But the most important item on inequality this week is Ruth Laugesen’s lengthy Listener magazine analysis of the ‘reasons for soaring executive salaries, and how they feed inequality’. In The Overpaid executive, Laugesen surveys the growing global concern about high corporate pay, but suggests that the mood in New Zealand is (so far) relatively muted on this issue, and ‘there is no government mood for action on corporate pay’. Not only does the article deliver an array of information on the pay disparities in our economy, but it also provides an interesting insight into Bill English’s orientation to the question of economic inequality. 

 

New Zealand looks set to see a good old-fashioned class struggle on the wharves, with the Maritime Union about to commence a major publicity campaign followed by a two-week strike – see Jenny Keown’s CTU president backs support campaign. A particularly useful article by Greg Ninness (Mayor demands monopoly rent) clearly outlines why the rate of profit demanded by the Auckland City Council is unrealistic and how some powerful players in the Auckland business sector think the POAL and Auckland mayor Len Brown's approach is wrong. Two weeks of striking might only be the start. With the company proceeding with re-structuring they could move to lockout and then make all the union members redundant. Brown is under mounting pressure from his own supporters – especially the Labour Party and union movement – who appear to be increasingly angry with him.

 

The importance of the issue of foreign investment and farm sales is underlined by TV3’s latest political polling that shows 76% of New Zealanders agree with the Call for land sale clampdown. Meanwhile, the rival Michael Fay-iwi bid gets a bit more complicated with the news that a group of South Waikato Ngati Rereahu Maori ‘with links to a bid for 16 Crafar dairy farms’ have started occupying two of the Crafar farms – see: Adam Bennett’s Maori group sets up camp at Crafar farms. For more on this, see: Iwi protesters occupy for-sale Crafar farm. Gordon Campbell’s latest blog post also deals with the Crafar farms sale – see: On comparing the Crafar Farms court ruling with the China/NZ Free Trade Agreement. 

 

Other important political items today include Sam Sachdeva’s Marryatt will exit if lacking support, Gareth Morgan and Geoff Simmons’ Outrage at foreign fishing fleet hypocritical, and John Drinnan’s Concerns over secret deal to cut NZ radio content. And finally, Paul Norris makes the case that Sky could save public service TV. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily] 

 

NZ Politics Daily - 20 February 2012

A more hard-nosed Green Party is in evidence at the moment. After the party’s impressive success in the general election – bringing in 14 MPs (7 of whom are new) – the leadership is riding a wave of confidence (or ‘arrogance’ according to some commentators). The party is flexing its political muscle and appears more serious, relevant and effective than ever before. Together with Winston Peters, the Greens are leading much of the political debate in opposition to the National Government. Whereas the party once appeared shy of success and humble about any achievements, the leadership is now talking about growing its vote and being an ‘equal’ of the Labour Party. In particular, co-leader Metiria Turei has warned other parties to treat the Greens with respect – see TVNZ’s Green Party won't be anyone's little brother and John Hartevelt’s Greens refuse to play political little sibling.

The Green’s new approach means they are no longer a party of ‘amateurs or hippies’, but of hard-nosed strategists who operate more like a traditional political party - in particular seeking out voters in the middle of the political spectrum. This new strategy saw the party’s electoral support jump from 6.7% in 2008 to 11.1% in 2011 – a result which endorsed Turei and Russel Norman’s highly pragmatic and professionalised approach. So we can now expect that direction to continue.

Nonetheless, the Greens have sounded more like their former selves lately with vocal criticism of the Government, and populist attempts to court nationalist support over opposition to foreign investment. Metiria Turei’s speech at the weekend was a strident attack on National – see: Turei lashes out at John Key and National 'cronyism at its worst': Greens. This is a smart political strategy whereby the Greens are attempting to benefit from National’s array of vulnerabilities by packaging them into a narrative that proclaims ‘Aotearoa is up for sale’. The Greens talk about the Government not only selling ‘our assets’, but also ‘our farms’ to the Chinese Government, and ‘our laws to the highest bidder’ (such as SkyCity). Expect more of this narrative from the Greens and other opposition parties. However, despite this antagonism towards National, the Greens say they are still willing to work ‘constructively’ with them. They are also willing to give the Government some sort of legitimacy by signing up to another ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ and refuse to rule-out joining a National coalition government after the next election.

The biggest social policy issue at the moment seems to be housing. Bernard Hickey has written a must-read opinion piece on this: Govt eyes blind to housing crisis. Gordon Campbell also laments the Government’s unwillingness to comprehend and deal with a growing national housing crisis, especially ‘Auckland’s shortage of affordable housing’ which he says ‘is set to get worse, not better’ – see: On the government’s inertia on housing needs. Also today, Simon Collins draws attention to the fact that Housing New Zealand has axed ‘a service which has worked with other agencies to find private rental homes for people who can’t get state houses’ – see: Housing NZ axes home rental help. This decision reinforces that Housing NZ is ‘ending all its social services and would concentrate on its ‘‘core function’’ of managing state houses.’ Part of the reason housing is in the public spotlight at the moment is the protest in the Auckland suburb of Glen Innes over the weekend – see: TVNZ’s State house tenants vow to fight eviction. In response, John Key has reiterated National’s line that State houses not 'for life'.

Paul Holmes continues to draw flak for his column about Waitangi Day – most notably in a condemning Herald on Sunday editorial: It's not always all about you, Paul. The paper labels Holmes’ column an ‘ignorant and reactionary rant’, and says it ‘was not responsible, intelligent journalism, but inflammatory rhetoric.The latest outburst also smacked of an abuse of his position. A spittle-flecked rant from go to whoa, it did not attempt to mount any semblance of a coherent argument’. Rachel Stewart in the Taranaki Daily News is also appalled – see: Sent hard left by Holmes' racist rant. And added to that, a number of prominent Maori intellectuals have come out against Holmes, questioning his ability to host TVNZ’s Q+A programme: Anger at Holmes' Waitangi remarks.

Also on the issue of ethnicity, both Denis Welch and David Farrar have called out the media for their inaccurate wording on the issue of the Crafar farm sales – see: Welch’s Honkies, listen up and Farrar’s Who is the buyer and the seller? Their complaint is that – just as Paul Holmes crudely lumped all Maori together in his critique of Maori nationalist protesters – journalists keep talking about ‘the Chinese’ buying New Zealand farms. For more on the Crafar farms debacle, see John Armstrong’s Not-so public process backfires in Crafar case.

The National Government is also likely to receive some heat for Mediaworks’ decision to stop playing 100% New Zealand music on its beleaguered radio station Kiwi FM – see: Abby Gillies and Matthew Theunissen’s Kiwi FM not so kiwi anymore. As the NBR points out (MediaWorks keeps $300,000 as Kiwi FM goes international), the ‘previous government granted the station free FM frequencies in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, on the proviso that it would use the spectrum to promote local music’. There is a suggestion that National should now be putting Mediaworks’ three Kiwi FM frequencies up for tender.

Other important political items today include Duncan Garner’s report on the latest opinion poll: Poll shows declining faith in John Key, Patrick Leyland’s response: More good news for Labour…, and Danyl Mclauchlin’s blog post, Haruspicy in which he discusses where each parliamentary party is going. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily] 

 

NZ Politics Daily: 17 February

Is the High Court’s overturn of the Government’s decision on the Crafar farm sale National’s equivalent of the 2003 Court of Appeal's foreshore and seabed ruling for Labour? Politically there are many similarities. Both judicial rulings were ‘bombshells’ and appeared to have ‘come out of nowhere’. Like the 2003 foreshore decision, this ruling could have significant ongoing political ramifications, produce a no-win situation for the government, and give political opponents huge opportunities to either ‘stand up for principles’ or simply to ‘grandstand’. That’s certainly the sense you get from reading Tim Watkin’s excellent blog post on the politics of the issue (see: No more garage sale NZ: the politics), as well as in the comments following the blog post (where this question of parallels with the foreshore issue is raised). Certainly, National is in a bind, and will be tempted to give into public opinion by now rejecting the Shanghai bid. Although Watkin thinks this is unlikely, it’s still possible and would ‘close off a very wide avenue of attack for opposition parties in the 2014 campaign’ – just like the 2004 Seabed and Foreshore legislation did for Labour. National is particularly vulnerable, Watkin says, because the public may end up conflating the unpopular foreign investment decision with the equally unpopular asset sales programme, leading to a very strong narrative of ‘all National does in government is hock off things that matter to us, like our farms and state assets’. 

 

 

The complexity of the whole OIO decision and its overturn is considerable, and elements can easily be overlooked. In understanding Justice Miller’s ruling, the best metaphor seems to be the one of the ‘level playing field’, with the idea that previously the Overseas Investment Act was interpreted as giving foreign investors a level playing field on which to invest, while the judge has proclaimed that, no, the playing field should be tilted against the foreigners with them needing to prove that their investment would produce an even better outcome than a local purchaser. This is all outlined in another must-read post by Tim Watkin on the issue – see: How the Crafar Farms 'set aside' ups the ante. 

The question now, is which political party will launch the 2012 equivalent of Don Brash’s Orewa speech, picking up on the economic nationalism and xenophobia building amongst voters? This would normally be Winston Peters’ meat and drink but the Green Party may actually be best placed to benefit from National’s problems with foreign investment and privatisation.’ The Greens are currently leading the campaign on these issues, and they are doing very well at now painting a picture of the Government yielding to pressure from the Chinese Government. Greens’ leader Russel Norman points to a meeting by Chinese political consul Cheng Lei and the Overseas Investment Office – see: Andrea Vance’s Greens: Crafar approval politically motivated. This is one area where John Key could be seen to be vulnerable, particularly with his government’s apparent willingness to cut commercial deals with Warner Brothers studio, Mediaworks, and SkyCity casinos. The perception that the Government is willing to change or bend the rules to suit large commercial interests is not an endearing one to voters. 

Meanwhile, the ruling to set aside the Crafar farms decision has seen Michael Fay raise the stakes by promising to match or better the Chinese bid on a number of promises (except, of course, the purchase price) – see: Tracy Watkins’ Fay group would meet Chinese undertakings. 

 

Treasury released its growth forecast yesterday, which unsurprisingly, is deteriorating. In the House, Bill English made the surprising statement that the $5-7 billion estimate for asset sale proceeds was ‘just a guess. It’s just some numbers’ – see: Duncan Garner’s Government admits to guessing asset sale profits. John Armstrong says this was an ‘astonishingly naive admission by the Finance Minister’, although he points out it may signal an unwillingness to set price expectations to potential buyers – see: Asset sell-off ‘guesswork’ keeps the buyers guessing. However, with a clearly unpopular policy that relies on a one-vote majority in Parliament, such statements won’t help with the political management. Even more so as the forecast also revealed that the loss of profits and dividends from the sale will be greater than the savings and interest from the reduction in debt.

 

Trevor Mallard’s foray into ticket scalping continues to make headlines, and the saga could turn out to be the final nail in his political coffin. Mallard has gained a reputation inside of the party for creating more harm than good for Labour, and the latest embarrassment might prove to be decisive. Certainly Gordon Campbell has launched a must-read scathing attack on ‘the saga of Trevor and the Traded Tickets’ – see: On asset sales and the Mallard ticket saga. Campbell says that Mallard’s maneuvering ‘should be taught in classrooms, as a textbook example of why politicians are held in such contempt’ and he likens Mallard’s actions to that of disgraced former MP Pansy Wong who resigned over what were arguably similar actions. Campbell says that the lesson that young voters can take from the episode is that ‘Labour are a party who’ll screw you over ticket prices for any music gig, any chance they get’, and he equally blames leader David Shearer for the poor handling of the mini-scandal. Similarly, David Farrar makes the good point that although ‘the amount of profit made at $276 is fairly trifling’, as Tuku Morgan found out with his $89 underpants, the public can often relate better to a small amount, than to issues with amounts in the millions.’ Farrar says it’s a bad look and showed a lack of judgement, particularly from such an experienced MP – see: Mallard's tickets: it's not a good look.

 

Finally, here are a few additional important items for today: Jane Clifton’s Maori Party Cinderella-ises itself, Amelia Romanos’ Radio NZ chair puts up little fight for funds, TVNZ’s 'Broken promise' claim as frontline Defence jobs slashed, Matthew Dearnaley’s Next wharf strike could last 14 days, John Drinnan’s Where does TVNZ stand on Holmes tirade?, and Chris Trotter’s Holmes' attack on Waitangi Day unjustified. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily] 

 

NZ Politics Daily - 16 February 2011

The National Government is seriously out of sync with public opinion on foreign investment, and suddenly this issue has the potential to do lasting damage to John Key’s administration. Yesterday’s ‘bombshell’ from the High Court, which scraps the Government’s decision to allow the Crafar farm sale to the Shanghai Pengxin group is a nightmare for National. This controversial issue, more than any other, appears to be resonating with the public, allowing electoral capital to be made by Labour, NZ First and the Greens, all of whom are riding (and promoting) a wave of economic nationalist sentiment that won’t be easily tamed by John Key. The must-read analysis today on the political dimension of the Crafar farms deal is John Armstrong’s Crafar - a rout of huge proportions. Armstrong argues that although National has already incurred political damage, it thought the worst was over.  He says no-one saw the High Court decision coming and National now finds itself damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t if it proceeds with the sale should the next OIO decision be the same as the last.

 

The High Court decision has implications for future foreign investment, and today’s Herald’s editorial, Crafar ruling shows need for clarity calls for the Government to enact legislation to provide greater clarity about the rules – see also: John Hartevelt and Tracy Watkins’s Crafar setback may force law change. But as Armstrong says, Key will be reluctant to do this, as it will prolong the controversy and create further opportunity for his opponents to campaign against the government on an unpopular issue.

Patrick Gower points out that Justice Miller may have given John Key ‘an escape route’. Gower says ‘if the new OIO decision goes the other way, and the Crafar farms stay in New Zealand hands Key avoids the unpopular sale. And Key will have done nothing but followed the law as he has done all along’ - see: Crafar bombshell rocks Key Government. In the original decision National made a virtue of accepting the recommendation of the OIO, so if the OIO once again recommends accepting the Chinese bid, it is hard to see how National could rationalise a change of position a few weeks later, as politically tempting as it may be. For further important items on the issue, see Gordon Campbell’s piece On the Crafar Ruling, and the New Asset Sales Shortfall, Bernard Hickey’s Crafar decision - an overspending addiction intervention and Danya Levy’s China 'will see Crafar ruling as racist'.

The likelihood of a Government backdown is also increasing over the SOE partial privatisation programme. In particular, National is probably destined to yield to the Maori Party on Section 9, by retaining it or something similar. The latest hint of this can be seen in Tony Ryall’s comments to the Wellington consultation hui on the issue – see Claire Trevett’s Govt 'gets the message' on Treaty clause. This would be a major and much-needed victory for the Maori Party, giving credence to their claim that ‘being at the table’ will benefit Maori and it would also take some of the wind out of the Mana Party’s challenge to it.

National is also talking publicly about the possibility it will sell off less than a full 49% stake in the SOEs destined for the sales block – see RNZ’s Govt may sell less than 49% in State assets – English. Of course the Government has always said that the sales would involve a ‘maximum’ of 49% of the shares, although as RNZ points out, ‘the target of $5 - $7 billion from the floats was contingent on the Government selling up to 49% of the companies’.

The decision by TVNZ not to give David Shearer a regular Breakfast TV slot will lend momentum to the idea that Labour’s new leader isn’t exactly setting the world on fire. TVNZ says that Shearer does not have an automatic right to appear on the show and will have to earn a spot by actually making news. Rather than being a ‘political broadcasting controversy’, the decision by TVNZ actually confirms their long-running procedure. Nonetheless, it raises questions about whether the media should treat party leaders differently in their coverage.

With the National Government under attack on a number of fronts, Labour blogger Scott Yorke says the Labour Party is doing what it always does – scoring ‘own goals’ – see: I'm Happy To Help. Yorke writes in response to news that Trevor Mallard has been scalping tickets from his electorate office on Trade Me – see Jody O’Callaghan’s Mallard sells festival tickets online at profit. He ends his blog post with offering to help his party ‘draft a private member’s bill to ban Trevor Mallard from the internet’.

Other important items for today are Brian Fallow’s Tackling the wage gap a tricky exercise which looks at the issue of increased income inequality from an economically analytical point of view and Vernon Small’s Memo to McCully: be more careful in future.  [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily] 

 

NZ Politics Daily: 15 February

There’s an old saying in politics that you don’t ask a question unless you already know the answer. The Government has been asking Maori about its asset sales programme, and it’s unlikely that the answer being given is the one National wanted to hear. TVNZ’s Te Karere has released a poll of 1000 Maori voters showing 88% oppose the Government’s privatisation plans, and 70% don’t think John Key provides good leadership on Maori issues. Also unsurprising was the 56% who didn’t actually know whether new Labour leader David Shearer provides good leadership on Maori issues – see: Poll shows strong Maori opposition to asset sales. All of this shows why the Maori Party is almost daily seeking to distance itself from Government policies.

 

Stephen Franks has an interesting perspective on Section 9 of the SOE Act, as his law firm was involved at the time. He says that the section was ‘a simple expedient, a fleeting appeasement expected to get the government through an awkwardness’, and it was the courts who subsequently gave it meaning and teeth – see: Section 9 of the SOE Act – what Parliament thought it meant. British officials, however, probably said the same, at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi.

 

The Herald has given MP Hone Harawira – who knows a thing or two about protests at Waitangi – a right of reply to the provocative Paul Holmes column, which Harawira says was ‘mean, nasty and uncaring’. Harawira’s response is articulate and considered, and makes a straightforward case as to why Maori still feel the need to protest at Waitangi 172 years on – see: Paul Holmes, Maori have plenty to protest.

 

Despite being one of the longest serving MPs, Lockwood Smith has shown a lack of political nous and management over the provision of electronic note taking for deaf Greens MP Mojo Mathers. As Amelia Romanos reports, Smith was forced to publicly defend his decision not to directly fund the $20,000-30,000 required, proclaiming that although he was sympathetic, he was bound by funding rules. His complaint that the Greens have politicised the issue is naive. Quite apart from the fact that the issue directly involves a Member of Parliament, disability access and services has long been a political issue. 

 

Inevitably fingers were pointed at other expenditure from the same budget that taxpayers might regard as less of a priority, including 13,000 for a South American jaunt that included Smith and $8000 on parties – see: Andrea Vance and Danya Levy’s Speaker refuses extra cash for deaf MP. In another opinion piece, Vance also tells Smith to Get on with it, and makes the point that ‘Remember, this is the same Speaker who fought tooth and nail for MPs to hang on to their perks - he should show the same determination to fix this mess quickly’.

 

However, David Farrar defends the Speaker (Hours for Mathers) pointing out that the Greens collectively have a hugely increased allocation of parliamentary staff hours and funding this year, which they could use to cover the service. He makes the point that the Speaker doesn’t have the power to give extra funding to individual MPs and says the Greens did a ‘hatchet job’ on the Speaker.

 

Danya Levy reports that the Greens deny they are politicking, and say that the note-taking service they’ve requested should be part of the infrastructure of Parliament just as Maori language and sign language are. The service would also eventually lead to the captioning of Parliament television, benefitting 700,000 hearing impaired people around New Zealand – see: Greens: No politicking over Mojo money. Forcing an MP with a disability to use their normal funding allocation to overcome their disability was always going to lead to claims of discrimination being leveled at Smith. And with Parliament in session last week and Mathers becoming an MP nearly three months ago Tova O’Brien asks ‘given Mr Smith has known about this for so long, why has it not been resolved?’ – see: Parliament speaker taken too long to address deaf MP.  It isn’t a particularly good fit with National’s current championing of increased efficiency and technology in the delivery of government services. But the real partisan winner out of the furore is probably, once again, Winston Peters who has been the sharpest player, coming in to bat for an MP from another party.

 

The court trial over the Urewera terrorism raids will be one of the most heavily political stories for the next few months and Victoria Robinson and Ian Steward cover yesterday’s proceedings very well with their story, Urewera Four trial: Boys to be star witnesses. But don’t expect too much analysis of the story in the media (or even the blogosphere) due to sub judice rules prohibiting discussion of ‘anything other than the facts’ (Scott Yorke – On The Urewera Trial). 

 

Discussing National’s political involvement with New Zealand On Air, John Armstrong wonders why Labour, having sought for so long to land some direct hits on John Key, doesn’t seem to know when it has actually scored: ‘Labour (finally) is making headway on something of real concern.  So why isn’t the party giving more priority to Curran’s questions? Yesterday she was bottom of the list. She deserves better’ – see: Curran makes new man squirm over NZ On Air job.

 

The Earthquake Commission is receiving a lot of scrutiny at the moment, and one of the best accounts is by Christchurch author Amanda Cropp (who is about to release a quake book) and says that she is ‘suffering from FEC (Frustration with the Earthquake Commission), a condition reaching epidemic proportions in Christchurch’ – see: Banging heads against EQC wall. 

 

Finally, two other items of interest: Fran O'Sullivan details changes in the merger of the Business Roundtable and the NZ Institute (CEOs to be key part of new think tank), and Charlie Gates reports on the Ministry of Social Development and Housing NZ taking two individuals to court in a claim that ‘the pair were concealing a "marriage-type relationship" and falsely claiming benefits’ – see: Woman felt sex life was on trial. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily] 

 

NZ Politics Daily: 14 February

When is a proportional electoral system not proportional? The current 5% threshold limits true proportionality in our system, and issues relating to proportionality might well be key in the just-launched Electoral Commission public consultation phase of the required MMP review. Although Amelia Romanos has described the review as ‘MMP nit-picking’, there’s no doubt that the decisions made will directly determine which parties are in government in the future. This is particularly true with the threshold – as well as the exemption from the threshold for parties that win an electorate seat. 

 

Kicking off the debate, David Farrar canvasses the options and details how various thresholds would have affected minor parties in recent elections. Farrar himself seems to favour the original Royal Commission recommendation of 4% - see: What should the MMP threshold be?. Electoral law expert Andrew Geddis tends towards 2.5% (or three MPs), believing this would ensure that we weren’t electing ‘one-man bands’ – see: It's time to put up or shut up.

 

Meanwhile, those recently arguing in favour of abolishing the 5% threshold altogether include Danyl Mclauchlan at the Dim Post, No Right Turn, and myself. One of MMP’s main attractions was, and is, that each vote is supposed to count. But, as Mclauchlan points out, those who voted for the Conservative Party in November, ended up with no representation in Parliament, while Act, who got 33,000 votes less, ended up with ministerial roles. He also makes the point that smaller parties have not generally wielded disproportionate power under MMP and actually struggle to survive. See: Danyl Mclauchlan’s MMP Review, No Right Turn’s Against the threshold, and my Undemocratic 5pc threshold at fault, not MMP.

 

Bob Parker’s leadership of Christchurch has now been called into question by Fran O’Sullivan, who believes that his use-by date has passed and that the Quake city needs firmer leadership. She says ‘tough choices do have to be made’, and although she does not discuss asset sales directly, James Henderson at The Standard says O’Sullivan is using ‘firmer leadership’ as code for a slash and sell programme in Christchurch – see: The circling vultures. Similarly, Marta Steeman reports that Christchurch’s airport and power company Orion are seen as very attractive investments ‘if circumstances forced the hand of the city council’ – see: Quake city assets set to be popular.

 

There is a must-read article in the Press newspaper by Ann Brower who is a senior lecturer in public policy at Lincoln University – see: 'Manifold sins' cost 12 lives. Brower was the sole survivor of 13 people crushed by a Colombo St building last February. She has found the Royal Commission hearings on the building collapse disturbing as they have revealed numerous bureaucratic failures to protect people from what is clearly public danger before the February quake. Her article is an indictment of not only the building owner, who failed to protect the public, but also of central and local government who govern by ‘privatising profits and socialisng risks’, which in this case ended in 12 preventable deaths. Fellow Christchurch academic Eric Crampton responds that although the building in question wasn’t on the heritage register, heritage requirements generally may be stopping building owners from making their buildings safe or demolishing them if that can’t be done – see: In praise of liability.

 

Will Harvie has a suggested chat-sheet for engineers talking to building owners trying to cut corners on building safety inspections – see: Christchurch let down by engineers. This is timely advice, as Marc Greenhill reports that building owners and the Christchurch council may also be held to account by the families of Chinese citizens killed in the CTV collapse – see: City council issued building permit for flawed design. Also, Vernon Small has a very good analysis of the options facing the EQC, whose reserves have been wiped out by the Canterbury quakes – see: Shake-up heading in EQC's direction.

 

While John Key promotes the idea that smartphones and Google can replace public servants without reduction in services, Audrey Young lays out the numbers in Public service faces more job losses and mergers, showing National has reduced its cap on staff in the core public service to 36,475 and that additional operational spending will be lucky to cover population growth and inflation. In his blog post, Come clean on the public service cuts Mr Key, Duncan Garner says that while there are no doubt more efficiency gains to be made, the target of saving $1 billion by 2014/15 is the real driver.

 

Finally, coming hard on the heels of the Paul Holmes controversy, the Herald has published another provocative opinion piece –  this time about ‘Treatifarians’, entitled Treaty exaltation has gone too far. But unlike Holmes’ crude and intemperate piece, this column by lecturer in Film Studies at Massey University, Brian McDonnell, is recommended reading as it makes some sophisticated arguments including the line that the Treaty ‘has become inadequate for the real task of improving Maori standards of living.’ [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily] 

 

NZ Politics Daily: 13 February

New Zealand often appears to be bursting to have a national conversation and debate about issues of ethnicity and politics. The response to Paul Holmes’ latest opinion piece (Waitangi Day a complete waste certainly suggests this. As the Herald notes, Holmes’ column hit a nerve, and the flood of positive and negative responses obviously reflect peoples strong feelings about Waitangi Day. However Holmes’ column has generated extensive criticism, particularly for the way it paints all Maori with same brush – such as when he says, ‘never mind the hopeless failure of Maori to educate their children and stop them bashing their babies’.

 

Maori politics specialist Morgan Godfery says the column is the ‘vilest’ he has ever seen and ‘undeniably racist’ (see – Holmes: morally repugnant and deeply racist), while Scott Hamilton says on his Reading the Maps blog that Maori might pause before taking child-rearing advice from Holmes, given that he ‘helped bring up that model of scholarship and sobriety Millie Elder-Holmes’ – see: Lazy Maoris and idle words. Others have expressed similar views to Holmes about Waitangi Day – albeit with more sophistication, see: Sean Plunket’s National day should be celebratory, not rudely divisive and John Roughan’s Treaty principle cuts both ways.

Nonetheless, in his own limited and distorted way, Holmes raises important points and an arguably legitimate perspective. Rather than clamping down on such opinions, New Zealand desperately needs an expanded debate about ethnicity and politics. So far this year, ‘race relations’ are dominating politics, so more debate should be welcomed – but hopefully the kind that generates more light than heat.

Is John Key losing his enthusiasm for the top job? That’s the question raised by John Armstrong in a must-read column: Grim reality has taken its toll on cheerful Key. And although Key is still apparently our sexiest politician (see: TVNZ’s Sex appeal sways voters' choices), his appeal in general is on the wane – see: Prime Minister John Key wins hearts if not minds.

 

 

Declining enthusiasm for Key is almost certainly related to the growing pessimism of New Zealanders in general, coming down from the highs of the Rugby World Cup – see: Andrea Vance’s Rugby joy short-lived, nation pessimistic. And it seems that it’s the economy (stupid!) that is weighing on Kiwi’s minds as they now rate it as more important an issue than at any time in the past 20 years – see: Vance’s: State of economy top of Kiwis' concerns. However in the very long term, New Zealand has a bright future according to global bank HSBC - see: TVNZ: NZ tipped to be developed world's 'top performer' but it will be the Chinese, Indians and Brazilians who will be global economic leaders.

Labour’s relationship with other Opposition parties is examined by the Dominion Post’s Tracy Watkins in Old dog won’t let go of the bone (not currently online). She says that Shearer shouldn’t try and ‘out-mongrel’ Winston Peters – rather that is a job for his front bench. Watkins says the Whanau Ora policy is an obvious target for the Opposition but that Labour will ‘tread warily’ on the issue, particularly given that many of Labour’s Maori supporters gave their electorate vote to the Maori Party. Meanwhile, for the second time in a week David Cunliffe has staked out political territory that appears to be to the left of his erstwhile rival David Shearer (as far as one can tell) – see Cunliffe’s Red Alert post, A Big Ask.

 

Labour is now calling for further electoral finance reform, particularly the way breaches are dealt with – see: Claire Trevett’s Speed up electoral law breach process: Robertson. As David Farrar points out, it has always been a low priority for the police. Despite the confusion over the rules, Tapa Misa applauds the Electoral Commission drawing the line over the RadioLive show, pointing to the blurring of lines between media, corporations and politicians in the US – see: Blurred lines are making a joke of election spending. Also on the issue of the RadioLive decision, Graeme Edgeler blogs that It’s (almost) never that simple. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily] 

 

NZ Politics Daily: 10 February

MPs can often be heard complaining about the amount of travel they do, but figures released yesterday show their enthusiasm for travel greatly increased during the run up to November’s election. Parliamentary travel budgets are a resource that parties can easily exploit for electioneering, and the latest figures are very revealing – see: Claire Trevett’s $1.24m spike in MPs' travel costs and Andrea Vance’s MPs' travel bills leap during election. Both journalists point to the significant increase in spending during the period that coincided with the last two months of the election campaign. According to Trevett’s calculations, ‘domestic travel and accommodation costs of MPs and ministers totalled $3.7 million from October to December – 51 per cent higher than for the same quarter in 2010’. The upshot is that politicians were out madly campaigning and using public funds to do so.

 

Is this a legitimate use of taxpayer money? Vance suggests not, citing the prohibition from Parliament’s Speaker on ‘using their taxpayer-funded travel perk for electioneering’. She also quotes ex-Labour leader Phil Goff, who says that it’s difficult to separate legitimate parliamentary activity from electioneering. While this is true - to some extent - such arguments do not justify the incredibly lax rules on MP use of public funds, nor the exemption that the politicians have given themselves from the Official Information Act, which means the public isn’t allowed to see the detail about how the funds are spent.

As I argued back in 2006 in the Herald, this all amounts to an unhealthy system of subsidised political activity – see: Backdoor funding affects democracy.  It’s not commonly known that millions of dollars of parliamentary funding is the main source of income for parliamentary political parties on which they have come to rely for their partisan electoral activities.

Police investigation of John Key’s RadioLive show is also occupying the attention of politicos, even though the details of the case are relatively difficult to comprehend – see, for example, RadioLive in gun, PM ducks censure. The best overall coverage of the issue is from legal expert Graeme Edgeler, who very clearly explains the main points, while arguing why RadioLive’s breach of the law might not be deemed serious.

 

Labour and Winston Peters, however, disagree about the seriousness and are having a field day. But there seems to be a contradiction in Labour’s position – do they regard the RadioLive show as illegal in itself or is their main complaint that Phil Goff wasn’t invited to host his own show? And though Winston Peters is calling for further scrutiny of John Key by the police, David Farrar points out that Peters was guilty of the same offence in 2008 – see: Will anyone call him on his hypocrisy?

The Electoral Commission has also found another breach of law – see: TVNZ election day coverage referred to police. Although the Commission has provided very little detail of the case, it seems that TV1’s 6pm news on election day included a live-cross to a reporter who said something that might have influenced voting behaviour prior to the close of the polling booths at 7pm.

In Christchurch the politics behind the recent spate of name-calling are emerging, namely the question of where the Council will find the $1 billion it needs for its infrastructure rebuild. Radio NZ reports that Deputy Mayor Ngaire Button says asset sales will have to be considered – see: Asset sales on the agenda in Christchurch. Today’s Press editorial (not currently online) points out that, although dividends in the next three years will be much reduced, ratepayers have benefited greatly from ownership of the local power company Orion, Lyttelton Port and Christchurch Airport. Although Gerry Brownlee rejects suggestions that CERA is trying to dictate to the Council, John Hartevelt reports that the Minister is publicly expressing his disapproval about power price rises, rates increases and increased borrowing – see: Brownlee turns up heat on council over rebuild.

 

National may be having second thoughts about its Treaty consultation roadshow over the asset sales. If the aim was to placate Maori or to identify a compromise position, the results so far can only be seen as a failure. Instead the hui have provided a daily platform for protest and the strong public impression that Maori are opposed, not only to removing the Treaty obligations, but to the entire asset sales programme – see Laurel Stowell’s Anger boils over at hui on asset sales.

David Beatson says that Pakeha as well as Maori should read the consultation document for the hui, as it shows the ‘Mum and Dad investors’ who were supposed to be the main target of the sell-off, may well be at the back of the queue – see: Where are Mum and Dad’s shares? He says the paper also shows the 10% share cap may not apply to some corporate entities who hold shares on behalf of others and that while the Crown may retain 51% ownership, the proposal appears to give away all other rights of control that it currently enjoys under the SOE Act.

 

Gordon Campbell has a lengthy and thought-provoking analysis of New Zealand’s precarious economic position in the world – see: Why State Capitalism Is Beating The Free Market. He quotes extensively from a recent article in The Economist that reports state-led market economies such as China, Russia and Brazil are ‘fast becoming a global rival to the old models of liberal, free market capitalism.’ He points out that New Zealand’s economic infrastructure was built with heavy state involvement and that the rapid change of strategy in the 1980s has, by most measures, failed to deliver.

Finally, in a promising development, there is some deeper analysis of unemployment figures with journalists looking beyond the headlines about unemployment dropping. In this case, the detail shows that the actual number of hours worked has decreased and that new job growth has been of the part-time, casualised variety – see: James Weir’s Jobs rise at expense of fulltimers. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily] 

 

NZ Politics Daily: 9 February

Politicisation of the airwaves is causing the Prime Minister difficulties on two fronts today. First, Tom Frewen, who deserves a lot of credit for his work in this area, has revealed the extent to which John Key’s electorate chairperson and NZ On Air member Stephen McElrea selected the topics for taxpayer funded documentaries. Of particular interest is a proposed documentary on Whanau Ora, the flagship policy of National’s coalition partner – see: Frewen’s NZoA Board Members Commission Political Docos. In response, Labour’s Broadcasting spokesperson Clare Curran has called for McElrea go – see: Call for McElrea to resign from NZ On Air. 

 

The issue is pretty serious, particularly at a time when the last remnants of non-commercial public television are about to be cut from the airwaves. There is a strong argument that traditional independent and non-commercial public service television has been replaced with taxpayer subsidised commercial content that is subject to direct political manipulation. 

The other broadcasting controversy involves Key more directly, as his RadioLive broadcast last year has been referred by the Electoral Commission to the police for possible prosecution (although it is actually RadioLive who may be liable for a fine of up to $100,000.) It is, at best, an unwanted distraction for Key and, at worst, will reinforce Opposition claims that National gets preferential political treatment from corporates in return for favourable government policy. At the time of the broadcast the Government had just made a loan to RadioLive’s parent company.

Electoral law expert Andrew Geddis has had a quick look at the decision and says its far from certain that a prosecution will actually happen, but it raises some interesting points. Was the Prime Minister complicit in any breach of law, and should the value of the broadcast have been declared as a donation? He also points out that RadioLive had plenty of warning about potential problems they might run into with the broadcast – see: You can't put Key on the radio....

For the second time in recent history, a New Zealand Prime Minister’s electioneering has been referred to the police. This latest infringement shows the state’s regulation of political activity is still ambiguous and problematic. Obviously the rules are unclear and National did not solve the problem when it replaced the Electoral Finance Act.

Over on the Opposition benches Claire Trevett (The question that stings like a bee) and John Armstrong (Brazen Peters back with vengeance) both have articles today highlighting Winston Peters’ early dominance in the debating chamber. Meanwhile Vernon Small asks Does David Shearer want to be Tony Blair?. Small says that Shearer and his advisors are wary of making too many promises and straying too far from the path of fiscal responsibility, but says ‘It would be good to see just one stake in the ground’ from Labour’s new leader. In contrast, Adam Bennett reports on David Cunliffe's views on the economy which are much more political and ideological in nature than Shearers – see: Cunliffe says no more deregulation.

Today’s Herald editorial strikes a surprisingly conciliatory note over resolving the Treaty obligations issue. It says National should not push through the legislation against the Maori Party just because it has a one vote majority without them. As the consultation hui continue, there appears to be some division of opinion amongst Maori as to whether preferential access to the privatised shares would be enough to placate iwi. Radio New Zealand reports Roger Pikia, the chief executive of Te Arawa Group Holdings Limited as saying that while Maori might be keen to invest, the Treaty obligations must be sorted first. 

Bob Parker seems to be running out of friends fast, with Local Government minister Gerry Brownlee labeling him ‘a clown’ for claiming that CERA could force them to raise rates and sell assets to pay for the reconstruction. Although Brownlee later apologised for the comment, he joins many councillors, media and thousands of ratepayers in expressing frustration with Parker’s management. Underlying the name calling is a serious issue about who can make the important decisions in Christchurch. Steven Cowan says Brownlee is right in that CERA cannot force up rates, but says it can force asset sales – see: Gerry calls Bob a ‘clown’.

NZ Politics Daily: 8 February

Asset sales provided Labour with a big juicy target for the first day of Parliament, but it was Winston Peters hitting the mark yesterday. Peters is back where he’s at his best – in Parliament, in Opposition, and attacking the Government over special initiatives directed at Maori. John Armstrong says that Peters used his one question in the House yesterday to hand out ‘free lessons on how to be effective on the opposition benches’ while Shearer’s attack on Key was swatted away easily – see: Master gives the apprentice a lesson in opposition tactics.

Like any cunning predator, Peters knows to single out the weakest in the herd and he focused on the Maori Party and their flagship Whanau Ora policy, which he knows will play well to his target audience. Peters built his political career on precisely these types of issues and he can sniff out a political scandal from a mile away. In Whanau Ora 'a waste of money' John Hartevelt reports that the details of the whanau renunion grant were publicised in an official report, there for anyone to see, but only Peters saw the political potential. He will hope that his instincts are shared by his own crop of newbie MPs. Joanne Carroll reports that Tracy Martin took to the hurly burly of opposition immediately and could be a potential successor – see: Peters' new kid plunges into fray.

Peters declared the Maori Party ‘Missing in Action’ yesterday when their three MPs failed to turn up. On the one hand the no-show was surely intended as a very public snub to National. On the other, it was a wasted opportunity for them to front-foot the debate, and their absence may reflect a lack of confidence to defend their position, particularly as Whanau Ora was under attack.

In contrast to the NZ First leader, David Shearer barely made an impact on the first day. He appears to be determined to ‘play the long game’ rather than seek headlines at every opportunity. It’s an unusual political strategy and his extremely cautious and considered approach is not the type of Opposition leadership we are used to. It makes him vulnerable to being overshadowed by Peters, Norman and Harawira (and even his own Labour colleagues) who will compete to be the ‘unofficial Leader of the Opposition’.

Outside the debating chamber David Shearer showed his vulnerability when answering questions about Maori ownership of water in New Zealand. Unlike the Prime Minister – who clearly articulated a line in favour of common ownership that will resonate with the vast majority of New Zealanders – Shearer equivocated. This is typical of his generally cautious approach, but it might also reflect divisions within Labour. Either way, Shearer looked like he was dithering, vague, and uncertain.

Although John Key didn’t seem phased by Labour’s asset sales attacks in Parliament, the Greens raised an issue that could be the next problem for the partial privatisation plan. Alex Tarrant reports that the Government has received legal advice on if it can restrict foreign purchasing of the shares but has refused to release it to date.

The Treaty obligations issue is far from being resolved and it now appears, as many suspected, that it may be used by the Maori Party as leverage for iwi to be given substantial shares in the partially privatised companies, as Tracy Watkins reports in Give us a share of SOEs, say Maori. This is probably not the ‘elegant solution’ John Key has in mind. Not only would it blow a large hole in the Government’s accounts, it would be politically toxic to National’s core support base. If that is the bottom line price for the Maori Party remaining in coalition, then John Key will almost certainly call their bluff.

Meanwhile the first of nine consultation hui start today in Rotorua and Hamilton. The Standard feels that Mana, Greens and NZ First are proving more effective than Labour on the asset sales issue and calls for Labour to build a broad coalition in opposition to the sales. It fears, however, that the Treaty dimension will scare off Labour strategists trying to win back conservative pakeha voters – see: Time for an anti-asset sales coalition.

Chris Trotter agrees, taking a broader historical view in A New Alliance To Reclaim Aotearoa. He directly compares the alienation of Maori land and resources in the 19th century, with the ‘recolonisation’ of New Zealand by foreign corporates and points to the Mana Party as a starting point for a ‘natural alliance of non-elite Maori and Pakeha.’

The obituaries are still being written for public service television in New Zealand, with Russell Brown taking up the issue at Public Address and on Media7 this week, one of the programmes facing the axe – see: Television and the Public Good. William Mace gives a detailed analysis of the demise of Stratos TV and the refusal of New Zealand On Air to invest in pure public service programming – see: Civic value content lost in action.

Simon Collins’ excellent series on inequality in Auckland continues today with an analysis of housing, showing that home ownership has fallen 16% since 1986. Collins points to tax advantages in 1992 for investors which meant they were willing to pay $25,000 more for a house than an owner-occupier – see: More become tenants in own city. Ownership peaked in 1986 which was the last year that families could capitalise their family benefit to pay for a deposit on a first home – see: One path to owning home gone forever. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

 

 

NZ Politics Daily: 7 February

Having talked up the possibility of conflict at Waitangi for a week, commentators can’t seem to agree whether the outcome was violent and abusive or the usual ritualised dissent. Although Waitangi Day itself was very peaceful and cordial, the day before was far noisier. Stuff reports that tensions were highest when 200 protestors marched towards the flagpole to raise the Tino Rangatiratanga flag, but a symbolic protest action was negotiated and this allowed the protest to end peacefully – see: Waitangi flagpole protest ends quietly. In the end it seems there was a lot of noise, some name calling and a bit of pushing and shoving. John Key left without speaking after being drowned out by protestors, who were in possession of megaphones whereas Key was not. While some present would have been annoyed or offended, it seemed pretty tame compared to political protests around the world and even previous Waitangi Day protests.

 

Part of the Waitangi ritual is the post-protest angst, particularly as the day is the nearest thing we have to a commemoration of nationhood. Richard Long and Morgan Godfery have had enough, with Long describing it as an ‘annual farce’ and calling for a separate national day – see Long’s Farce and friction no way for NZ to celebrate. Godfery says that some of the protest behaviour - particularly the name calling - was appalling, and declares that ‘the protest generation is over’ – see Godfery’s On the farcical scenes at Waitangi and the possibility of NZ Day.

There are plenty who say we should take it all in our stride and even celebrate the protests as part of our democratic traditions. The best of these are Tim Watkin’s Happy Waitangi Day (and why protest is good for us), Jessica Mutch’s Protests are part of Waitangi and Matt McCarten’s Huffing and puffing all part of Waitangi saga.

The main cause of tension this year was the friction over the Treaty and asset sales. The Maori Party is continuing to exert pressure on National and encouraging others to take legal action – see: Flavell calls for Iwi to go to Court on Section 9. Peter Wilson at TV3 says the Maori Party has been forced into this ‘breathtaking overreaction’ for political survival – see: Maori Party's vulnerability exposed. Duncan Garner agrees and says that it’s clear that Sharples and Turia are not going to split from the Government but are in a no-win situation and appear to be ‘winding down the clock on their party’ – see: Garner’s blog post, Why the Maori Party is dying. The Maori Party desperately need a win on this, although they will have to be careful not to build up expectations that they can’t deliver on. If the end result is simply a better deal for iwi corporates wanting to buy shares then the party will leave itself wide open for attack.

Nanaia Mahuta at Red Alert illustrates the complexity of the issue, using the example of water consents for the Waikato River and existing agreements regarding the Huntly power station – see: No Room for Dithering on Treaty of Waitangi. It’s not just Maori groups who are nervous. As the ODT reports, other river users such as irrigators are nervous as to how the sales may affect their water rights in future – see: Elizabeth Soal’s opinion piece Downstream effects serious.

Gordon Campbell wonders why the Treaty obligations have become such a problem when New Zealand has been requiring Treaty compliance from foreign investors under WTO rules for nearly 20 years. He fears that any reduction of the obligations for the asset sales programme may have to be offered to future foreign investors as well – see: On the Maori response to the SOE asset sales.

John Armstrong reports that the Section 9 controversy may only be the start of National’s problems with the asset sales – see: Private hands will steer mixed-model assets. He says that National sold the policy as if nothing would change except some minority share holding but that, in fact, state control of the new entities will be ‘a myth’. When the public discovers the fundamental change, Armstrong says National will find it difficult to rebut claims it was always their intention to sell the assets completely.

Amidst all the claims of xenophobia, racism and treachery over land sales to foreigners, Susan Edmunds has a balanced and thoughtful article on the issue - see: Land grab: All white by us. For more on this see Fran O’Sullivan’s Xenophobia over Crafar sale galling and Stuff’s Who is really buying New Zealand?

Finally, Simon Collins has a good series on inequality in Auckland, using both personal stories and in-depth analysis to examine this issue from different angles. Yesterday he dealt with the widening wealth gap (see: Mind the widening gap ... a tale of two cities) and today he looks at tax and benefits, particularly in comparison to Australia (see: Divided Auckland: NZ tax on rich among lowest in the world). [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

 

NZ Politics Daily: 3 February

Treasury is the dinner party guest who has an opinion on everything, whether they’re asked for it or not. Incoming governments receive briefing papers from government departments, and though Treasury’s advice was mostly predictable, some has been met with an awkward silence from the Government. Recommending adoption of the Labour Party’s superannuation policy to raise the retirement age, as Audrey Young reports (Govt must address Super issue – Treasury), won’t endear them to John Key, especially as he has explicitly rejected any rise while he is prime minister. Treasury also promotes changes to taxation on capital investment, which are broadly in line with Labour’s capital gains tax policy. 

The advice that has received the most vocal response is its advocacy of increasing class sizes – see Andrea Vance’s Experts, MPs blast Treasury's advice on schools. NZEI, PPTA and Labour all question Treasury’s educational expertise, and it’s pretty clear that the advice is driven by a desire to save money. For polemical views of the advice, you can read Eric Crampton’s very enthusiastic endorsement of the recommendations – see: Treasury! and The Standard’s Treasury advocates own disbandment. The Standard says that a government looking to cut public sector costs should start at Treasury itself, which has had a 15% funding boost over the past two years, unlike nearly all other government departments, and also points out their recent economic forecasts have been fairly wide of the mark. 

Heading into Waitangi weekend, issues of ethnicity and Maori politics dominate political news and analysis. Rawiri Taonui argues that if New Zealanders are going to become ‘tenants in our own country’ due to farms sales, then ‘Maori would make good landlords’ – see: Letting Maori share is best for NZ. He makes the case that the Government should and could have rejected the Shanghai Pengxin bid to purchase the Crafar farms. He cites numerous statements from National ministers about new regulations that would allow them to ‘overrule the Overseas Investment Office recommendation for any number of reasons’ – particularly that of ‘concerns about ‘‘the undue aggregation of farmland by foreign investors’’.’ Specifically, Taonui points to ‘regulation 28 (i) can prevent ‘‘a single overseas person’’ controlling significant interests’. Furthermore, Taonui says that the Crafar farms should have been sold to the iwi-Michael Fay consortium on the basis that ‘Article 205 allows the Government to override the agreement when necessity dictates ‘‘favourable treatment to Maori’’ in fulfilment of ‘‘obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi’’.

Similarly, Tahu Potiki’s Press column today, Iwi keen but cautious on buying a slice of SOEs argues in favour of ‘Maori or iwi owning a slice of New Zealand infrastructure assets’. He gives three reasons that iwi should become part owners of the SOEs: 1) it would be ‘a natural extension of the Treaty-driven restorative process’, giving ‘a more equal partnership with the Crown’, 2) those assets ‘are perceived as very sound, intergenerational companies that make reliable returns’, and 3) ‘it further anchors iwi into an important stakeholder position within the community at large’. 

Xenophobia in New Zealand is intelligently analysed in a lengthy guest post on liberation by John Moore – see: Leftwing Xenophobia in New Zealand. Moore argues that the nationalist rhetoric used by Labour and Green politicians about the Crafar farm sale has nothing to do with progressive politics and everything to do with crude foreigner bashing, which the political left has a sordid history of championing in this country. Chris Trotter’s column today explains why he supports the Crafar farm sale to Shanghai Pengxin – see: Our hands were tied over the Crafar farms sale. Trotter levels a charge of ‘rank hypocrisy and populist opportunism’ at Labour and David Shearer for their campaign against foreign investment. 

The direction David Shearer is taking the Labour Party is becoming clearer as the new leader tours the country and gives some revealing interviews to the media. Ruth Laugesen writes up the most significant of these in the latest Listener magazine (The Man in the middle; not currently online). We learn that Shearer believes that Labour needs to focus on being much more ‘fiscally responsible’ and credible on economic matters (he says Labour was seen in the election as too loose with its spending promises), he hints that his thinking on welfare reform involves a greater stress on reciprocal responsibility for beneficiaries, and that he is open to withdrawing support for the extension of Working for Families to beneficiaries. Notably, there appears to be a reconsideration of the power dynamics within Labour, with an examination of the influence of ‘identity politics’ and union affiliates in candidate selection. There’s a lengthy discussion of the power of unions within Labour, with Shearer professing the need for ‘the union card vote to go’. Some of these issues are also apparent in Allison Rudd’s Labour leader on a mission to 're-engage', especially Shearer’s desire to shift Labour further away from being seen as a party for workers.

Also in this week’s Listener, Jane Clifton examines David Shearer’s unusual political operating style in The Long march. She says that Shearer’s very low-key approach – in which he says virtually nothing and comments on very little – is both ‘troubling some in Labour, and absolutely confounding the commentariat’. Clifton is undecided as to whether this is ‘foolish or brilliant’, but admits ‘it's refreshing to have a big political player who isn't dementedly texting, blogging and quote-mongering’.

Mike MacLeod of the Draco Foundation writes an excellent opinion piece in the ODT today entitled Christchurch symptomatic of system. He makes the case that the political problems in Christchurch are ‘representative of the local government sector as a whole’, and he calls for significant systemic and legislative change. Suddenly it seems that local government politics is sexy again – but MacLeod says this is entirely due to the pathological nature of local politics: ‘If the local government sector was a person they would be ponderous, socially-inept and morally bankrupt. They would be filthy rich and very lazy’. 

Sam Sachdeva and Rachel Young (Marryatt unsuitable for city recovery, says MP) report that Labour MP Lianne Dalziel believes the answer to Christchurch’s problems is for the CCC CEO to be sidelined by the appointment of another manager to run the council’s quake response. The article also reports that although there are increasing calls for ‘mid-term elections’ in Christchurch, there is no known precedent for these in New Zealand's history.

Elsewhere in politics today, David Farrar blogs his latest very good electoral behaviour post: Minor Parties since 1954, which carries on from other recent posts on National v Labour from the beginning and Green candidates getting Green votes. David Beatson warns about proposals to remove the prohibitions on broadcast advertising on Sundays and some public holidays – see: Who wants more State support for more “commercially attractive” TV?.

Finally, a must-read item for today: Chris Barton’s Who is speaking out on today's big issues?. This lengthy Business Herald feature examines the health of New Zealand’s public intellectual environment, and bemoans the lack of academics participating in public debate. I’m very appreciative to be included on the list of independent ‘expert analysts’. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

 

NZ Politics Daily - 2 February

The news of substantial cuts at Te Puni Kokiri is another embarrassing blow to the Maori Party. With Waitangi celebrations only a few days away, Sharples may find himself alongside John Key having to answer some awkward questions on the marae.

 

The Maori Party can’t claim that National sprang this on them. As Winston Peters points out, this is a direct result of the need to fund their other policies, particularly Whanau Ora – listen to Peters interviewed on Radio New Zealand here. The Maori Party has left itself wide open to attack by Mana for doing National’s bidding by cutting public services  – see Morgan Godfery’s Te Puni Kokiri to face cuts and so far they have very little to show for the programmes they claim will replace TPK’s work.

Despite being Minister of Maori Affairs, Pita Sharples failed to go up against Hone Harawira on TVNZ’s Close Up last night, leaving the rather hapless TPK CEO Leith Comer to front the issue. Harawira says the cuts will result in branch closures, redundancies and the removal of most the department’s current responsibilities, dubbing the result ‘The puny kokiri’- see TVNZ’s Head of Maori agency defends job cuts.

The debate around Section 9 continues today, and its significance is becoming clearer. Mai Chen argues that ‘In many ways, the rise of the Treaty and of iwi in modern New Zealand can be traced back to section 9’ and how the issue is resolved could have big implications for the role of the Treaty in future, particularly the constitutional review the Government has committed to with the Maori Party – see: Section 9: Why it matters for asset sales. Today’s Herald editorial makes the case for retaining Section 9 (Treaty tie in hardly takes shine off gilt), while the Otago Daily Times editorial outlines the case against (Treaty entanglements).

A major part of the problem for the Maori Party has been a lack of political management, particularly by Pita Sharples. RNZ’s Brent Edwards says that Sharples not only failed to keep co-leader Tariana Turia in the loop about asset sales, but also missed the significance of the issue when briefed by Bill English last week – listen to Edwards here.

The Government has released the Maori consultation paper on asset sales, but Claire Trevett found the most revealing information came from a draft accidently posted to the Treasury website yesterday. It clearly shows that the Government was initially planning to remove all references to the Treaty.  Also revealing was the change of wording about consultation with ‘iwi leaders’ to just ‘iwi’, reflecting criticsm that Government consultation with Maori is limited to a few corporate iwi figures – see: Asset sale draft plan shocker.

Foreign investment, particularly in land, continues to be debated as sales that previously would have received little public scrutiny are examined in the wake of the Crafar deal. As Patrick Gower puts it (Cameron's NZ move under fire), film-maker James Cameron, who is buying two Wairarapa farms, ‘has walked right into a 'Hollywood-meets-politics' storm’. Having made a stand on the Crafar farms, Labour now can’t afford to ignore other deals. David Parker is drawing the line at absentee owners of land – see: Alex Tarrant’s Labour OK with foreign land purchases as long as new owner lives in NZ…, but opponents argue that there is plenty of ambiguity in such a stance. David Farrar, for example, is pointing out that Labour’s official policy on foreign investment would prohibit the James Cameron purchase – see: Is Labour against this foreign purchase? Clearly, with National having taken a lot of heat over the Crafar deal, their supporters are not going to let Labour get away with selective political grandstanding.

 

Anne Tolley was a casualty of National’s ongoing feud with teachers, and it now looks like Hekia Parata’s tenure as Education Minister could be just as torrid. Prospective Act leader Catherine Isaac is overseeing the Charter Schools trial, and opposition parties, unions and academics cite this as evidence that the policy is completely ideologically driven – see Andrea Vance’s Anger at ACT link in charter schools trial. Meanwhile, John Armstrong argues that, given National and Act’s determination to implement the policy, Isaac is actually the right person for the job. He says her appointment is part of a trend for National to farm out new initiatives to task forces and working groups to strengthen private sector input and go around government departments – see: Armstrong’s Isaac best candidate for education task force.

Further incensing teacher unions and academics is the plan to compile official league tables for primary school performance. Parata claims that having the Ministry compile the league table will ensure accurate comparisons are done, but critics claim that as primary school data is un-moderated (unlike NCEA) that data will be ‘junk’ and open to manipulation – see Audrey Young’s Fight looms as Parata touts move on school ratings. But there is one league table the education sector wish the government would take more notice of, and that’s the one that shows New Zealand already gets exceptional performance for relatively low teacher salaries when compared to the rest of the OECD – see: The Dim-Post.

Finally Sam Sachdeva provides a comprehensive account of yesterday’s protest in Christchurch, including a sense of the atmosphere amongst the protestors – see: Protesters threaten rates revolt in Christchurch, while a more subjective account is given by Will Harvie in Protesting with Christchurch's elders. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

Guest blog post – John Moore: Leftwing Xenophobia in New Zealand

Internationalism and leftwing politics are often presumed to go together. So, here in New Zealand much has been made of progressive support given to international causes, including the struggle against apartheid in South Africa and opposition to nuclear weapon testing in French-controlled areas of the Pacific region. However, unfortunately when it comes to issues of economics and immigration, the New Zealand left has a rather sordid history of championing populist nationalism, xenophobia and often thinly veiled racism. In this guest blog, John Moore argues that leftwing opposition to the Chinese bid for the Crafar farms highlights how progressives in this country continue to frame their politics within a conservative economic-nationalist framework. Despite the protestations of leftists opposing the Shanghai Pengxin bid, the fact is that their nationalist rhetoric has nothing to do with progressive politics and everything to do with crude foreigner bashing. [Read more below]

 

NZ Politics Daily: 1 February

Cock-up, conspiracy, crisis or beat-up? All of these theories are being invoked to explain the Maori Party’s sudden stroppiness yesterday. Given that the new parliamentary term hasn’t even really begun yet, the threat to leave the coalition came as a surprise to most, not least to National itself.

There is good evidence for the cock-up theory, especially on National’s part, with John Armstrong saying the Government has misjudged ‘the political pressures now raining down on Turia and Sharples’. Tariana Turia’s claim that discussions with National only begun yesterday – after the story had broken – certainly point to poor coalition management. After being completely ignored in Key’s state of the nation speech it is no wonder the Maori Party is pondering the electoral price it paid to keep National in power.

Andrew Geddis criticises John Key for downplaying the significance of the Section 9 Treaty clause. Geddis makes the point that if the clause has as little meaning as Key seems to think, then it wouldn’t need to be excluded from legislation – see his blog post, If it's just a symbol, why do you care?. Rolling back the obligation for the Crown to act consistently with the Treaty would be a major backwards step according to John Pagani – see: Don't set Treaty back 25 years.

The Maori Party also cops quite a bit of criticism for not seeing it coming. Scott Yorke at Imperator Fish and Joshua Hitchcock at Maori Law and Politics both ask why the Maori Party did not sort this out in the coalition deal negotiations, as the asset sales policy was well and truly known at the time – see: Yorke’s This Should Not Have Surprised Anyone and Hitchcock’s The Strategic Stupidity of the Māori Party.

Whether by accident or design, however, many commentators feel that the Maori Party needed to be seen to stand up for its Maori constituents. Vernon Small says that the issue is mainly about the Maori Party’s political positioning and its need to ‘deny it is National’s poodle’ – see: Treaty stand-off: Maori Party defection unlikely.

Morgan Godfery speculates that it all comes down to both ineptitude and political grandstanding on the Maori Party’s part. He, like most, doubts the party would walk from government over this issue – see: Further comments on the Maori Party's threat. Certainly as Vernon Small tells it, John Key was very relaxed for a Prime Minister whose coalition was under any real threat. And Geoffrey Palmer, who knows a thing or two about the Treaty and law, thinks that any crisis will be fairly easily averted – see RNZ’s No crisis over asset sales – Palmer.

The problem may be, as David Farrar points out, threatening to walk is a tactic you can only use once or twice with any credibility and there are a lot more potential flashpoints to come in this parliamentary term – see: Asset Sales and the Treaty.

The debate over the usefulness of Labour’s Red Alert blog continues, with List MP Raymond Huo copping flak for using the blog to publish a lengthy response to a comment by David Farrar about Huo’s fundraising prowess. Red Alert’s ongoing obsession with Farrar is lampooned by Danyl Mclauchlan (Red Alert Frequency Analysis 2012) and Scott Yorke (Shock As Labour Discovers David Farrar Is Not The PM), while the Labour-friendly Standard despairs – see: Shut it down. Labour activist Robert Winter cuts to the chase in a four word post asking: ‘Better dead than read?’. 

The real must-read political item of the day is Brian Rudman’s Dotcom raid threat to sovereignty. In this, Rudman expresses his frustration with Labour politicians ‘suddenly wrapping themselves in the New Zealand flag and shouting ‘‘New Zealand assets/land for New Zealanders’’’ while ignoring a much greater threat to national sovereignty: the US becoming the worldwide internet police. Rudman refers to the arrest of New Zealand resident Kim Dotcom, saying that ‘the ownership of a handful of remote dairy farms is of much less concern to me than the thought of the world’s only super-power, dialling up the local Auckland police and deputising a mini-swat team of 70 to swoop down in helicopters in a dawn raid on a Coatesville mansion to arrest the leaders of an international internet file-sharing site that’s been getting up the noses of Hollywood film moguls’.

The next most important item of the day is Colin James’ Management Magazine column, Defining the Key government, in which James forecasts the major goals for the National Government this year: 1) revamping public services, 2) selling Mighty River Power, 3) reform of resource management laws and the labour market, 4) ‘More and faster oil and minerals exploration and exploitation’, 5) lowering benefit numbers, and 6) fostering science and innovation. Finally, Gordon Campbell delves further into the political problems in Christchurch with his blog post, On today’s protest march in Christchurch, and the latest reports suggest that about 3000 residents have joined today’s protest against the city council, and some significant demands are being made – see: Chch protest: Democracy 'broken' and Call for mid-term council election. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]