Joe Hendren

My Surface James Balao article is now online

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why we need an Onehunga to Airport bus service

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009 Bruce Jesson Lecture: Robert Wade on Wednesday

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama gets Nobbled with Nobels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has increased the stakes again.

40 years of Monty Python and an anacdote from Idle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kia kaha Sue, we will miss you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why capitalism fails

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Open Country Cheese locks out workers seeking a union agreement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big Business wants First Past the Post to Privatise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Film Archive says Happy Birthday to Vanguard Films

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

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

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

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

I reviewed Sedition here.

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

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

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

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

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

Another world is possible

Left party make big gains in German elections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greedy hypocrisy of Telecom bosses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Telecom Alternative Annual Report now available

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

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

Telecom Alternative Annual Report 2009

Performance highlights:

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

Employee relations:

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

Customer service:

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

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

Silence from Labour on ministerial housing is a mistake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The same goes for McCully too.

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

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

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

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

National's hypocritical bunkle over housing allowances

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Currently AFK

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

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

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

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

See ya soon.

Turn the Beehive into a Prison - Collins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bain evidence: hearing what you want to hear

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Musing on Mt Albert poll

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mt Albert candidates debate on Wednesday

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

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

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

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

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

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

Free market electricity ripoff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cake stall for redundant LWR workers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report from Mt Albert Byelection: The Transport Forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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