The Muldoon era provoked withering confidence in the New Zealand Government, and led the Labour Party to campaign in both 1981 and 1984 on a commitment to review our electoral system. Winning in 1984, the Fourth Labour Government kept their election promise, and set up a Royal Commission on the Electoral System in early 1985.

The Royal Commission recommended New Zealand switch to the German-style MMP system. However, despite remaining at the forefront of subsequent election campaigns, little action was taken on the recommendation. By the early 1990s when the National Government finally agreed to hold an indicative referendum, the public had endured ‘elective dictatorship’ not only under both Muldoon and the blitzkrieg structural adjustments of the Fourth Labour Government, but also under the Bolger administration, whose first term was characterised by a raft of broken election promises.

While only 55 per cent of voters took part in this first indicative referendum, 85 per cent of those voted for change, with MMP emerging as the preferred system. Labour leader Mike Moore commented at the time: “The people didn’t speak on Saturday. They screamed.”

The second, binding referendum was held in conjunction with the 1993 general election, and following a bitter campaign, the election saw an 85 per cent turnout, with MMP narrowly emerging as the favoured system for future elections.

Despite the ‘politics-free zone’ mandated by the Rugby World Cup, the lead-up to the November 26 referendum is likely to be characterized by an equally bitter campaign.
The arguments for and against MMP were fleshed out in the previous issue of Salient. However, the referendum asks two questions of voters and while last week’s discussion might help you to determine whether you think we should retain MMP or not, the second question offers four alternatives to choose between whether or not you think MMP should be replaced.

First Past The Post

Under FPP, voters choose only between candidates for their own electorate. The benefit of this is that all MPs are directly accountable to a geographic community, and represent their interests in Parliament.
Third parties, who enjoy even distribution of support across geographical constituencies, but lack majority support in any particular electorate are thus under-represented. This was clearly evident in the 1981 election where the Social Credit Party won over 20 per cent of the popular vote, but only saw a 2.2 per cent share of the seats in Parliament.
Moreover, because candidates are elected by a plurality, this can lead to discrepancies in resulting representation from the major parties. Indeed, again in 1981 the National Party won the election having been rewarded with 51.1 percent of the seats in Parliament, for 38.8 percent of the vote, while the Labour Party who had received over four thousand more votes than National, was disproportionately awarded only 46.7 per cent of the seats.

Thus, while the FPP system makes for strong and efficient government in that a single party usually has majority control of Parliament, the legitimacy of the government is undermined as the ruling party may only enjoy minority support. More concerning is an electoral system that results in majority Government under the Westminster model’s fusion of the executive and the legislature. With no effective checks on executive power, this led to a situation whereby Muldoon recognized he could dream up a policy in the morning, draw it up in the afternoon, and have it passed into law that evening. A return to FPP with no alternative checks and balances would see the same result.

Finally, FPP leads to seriously disproportionate representation from a demographic standpoint. As Dr Jon Johansson points out, since 1996 MMP has indisputably led to a far more representative Parliament. “In our last FPP parliament only seven of its members were Maori and some 22 per cent females. After the 2008 election 14.75 per cent of parliament’s members are Maori, and women, for the second consecutive election, represent 32 per cent of House members—not a perfect fit with our demographics, but considerable progress.”

Preferential Voting

Preferential voting (PV), otherwise known as the Alternative-Vote (AV), is the system currently used to elect the Australia House of Representatives. Voters rank candidates in order of preference, rather than just voting for one. If no candidate receives a majority of the vote, the candidate with the least number of first preferences is eliminated, and the votes for that candidate are redistributed according to the voter’s second preference, until one candidate emerges with a majority.

The system is seen as fairer than the FPP system, because even though Parliament is still elected wholly via constituencies, the issue around wasted votes is largely rectified. However, while somewhat ameliorating the level of distortion that sees a party awarded a disproportionate number of seats in Parliament relative to their share of the popular vote under the FPP system, under PV this would endure, albeit to a lesser degree. Of course, the focus solely on electorate representation that would mean that minor party representation would be minimal. For example, despite currently being the third-largest party in Parliament, The Greens as they stand would fail to gain any representation under PV.

Supplementary Member

Supplementary Member (SM) is a semi-proportional system. The system works much the same way as MMP, but with significantly less proportionate results. Ninety seats are contestable via single member constituencies as in FPP, and the remaining thirty would be elected via party lists.

Professors Stephen Levine and Nigel Roberts have analysed election data, and have determined that based on the last five elections, SM would have see a disproportionality of 9.54 per cent. This figure is much closer to the 13.56 per cent that would have resulted under FPP than it is to the very proportional MMP system, which has a disproportionality index of only 2.98 per cent across those elections. Thus, despite being marketed as a middle-ground system, the disproportionality of SM puts it much closer to the majoritarian FPP system.

The key problem with the system, is that despite retaining a level of proportionality, the overwhelming electorate-focus of SM is likely to sideline most minor parties, running the risk of seeing a single-party majority, or a solitary minor party that wags the dog to a far greater extent than any of the current minor parties do.

Single Transferable Vote

The Single Transferable Vote (STV) offers the best alternative to MMP in terms of proportionality, although it can still only be defined as semi-proportional. Under STV, a candidate must achieve an established quota of votes to be elected. Candidates are eliminated sequentially and their votes are transferred to other candidates, with the candidate eliminated at each stage generally being the one with the fewest current votes.

While the STV system does see minor party representation, it’s preferential nature means it remains less proportional than MMP. Furthermore, under STV, each electorate has more than one MP. A key flaw in this is that the system sees candidates from the same party competing for votes, and as such, personal interests can undermine the stability and cohesion of political parties. Nevertheless, STV is the most preferable option after MMP, in terms of retaining a check on executive power.

Strategy in 2011

It’s should be obvious by now that I am a staunch advocate for retaining MMP, and for those of us committed to MMP, it is important to consider a strategic vote in the referendum.

At present, opposition to MMP is split into two camps: older voters who reminisce over the ‘good old days’ of FPP, and those who champion SM. Those who vote to retain MMP would be best served by a vote for STV out of the four alternatives. With opinion split between FPP and SM among those voting for change, even if change is narrowly favoured, if all those who support MMP choose STV, then that option could potentially beat out the far less proportional FPP and SM options. Therefore, in a second binding referendum where MMP was pitted against STV, it would at least be a proportional system versus a (slightly less) proportional system, meaning that the benefits of MMP would not be lost with change. Moreover, if STV was the alternative, the concerns of the anti-MMP crowd wouldn’t be addressed anyway, and their campaign would likely wither.

Whether or not your support MMP or one of the alternative options, the referendum on the electoral system is the most important decision New Zealanders have faced in 18 years. Even if you’re entirely ambivalent toward the General Election result, which already seems a foregone conclusion, every eligible student on this campus should research the electoral system options, make a decision and vote in 2011 referendum.

However, rather than following Russell Norman’s cue in focusing on economic strategy, Brash instead turned his focus towards something that not even the Greens are prepared to discuss this year, demonstrating his lack of political instinct by blundering his way into the cannabis debate.

The move was plainly one made in desperation. Having taken the ACT leadership with optimistic projections of taking 15 per cent of the party vote, the Brash-led incarnation has consistently polled around 2 per cent; a figure that without the lifeline thrown to them in Epsom by National, would see the flailing Party delivered into the jaws of oblivion.
Then, after releasing the party list with its conspicuous third-place vacancy, deputy leader John Boscawen announces he’s out, apparently “to spend more time with his family”; time with whom he was willing to sacrifice just over a month ago when he accepted a place on the list.

So, there’s a deputy leader who has presumably seen the figures, done the maths, and fled; a consequent additional vacant spot at number two to accompany number three; and a Party that retains not one of its current MPs.

So Brash turns to weed.

To be sure, Brash clearly stated his intention when he took the leadership reins, to move ACT back towards its founding principles, of which individual freedom is paramount. Decriminalisation of cannabis, while reeking of populism, is certainly indicative of Brash pursuing that agenda. However, when such a policy comes out of the blue as it has, and is so at odds with Rodney Hide’s ‘tough on law and order’ approach that has come to define the ACT Party, one can only conclude that Brash momentarily forgot there was an election looming.

The fact is, ACT’s support isn’t based primarily in libertarian thought, at least as far as social policy is concerned. ACT the brand appealed to socially conservative and economic liberal right-wingers, and in this election at least, was best poised to siphon off that section of the National vote who felt the Government hadn’t gone far enough on the economy, law-and-order, and to a lesser extent, race.

And then there’s the fact that Brash failed to reveal his plans to John Banks; the manifestation of the leader’s only chance of getting back into Parliament this November. Banks, a strong social conservative and a more instinctual politician, was quick to repudiate the proposal realising that Epsom won’t buy into any policy that is ‘soft on drugs’ despite the arguments to be made for decriminalisation. The result has been an inconsistency in message that indicates ACT 2011 2.0 continues to be characterised by the same factionalism as the current parliamentary cohort.

There’s not one benefit to be had from Brash’s announcement. The Epsom crowd now see Brash as a supporter of decriminalisation. On the flipside, the libertarian crowd also won’t be fooled into believing that ACT would actually advocate decriminalisation in Parliament, especially an ACT Party with John Banks in it.

Is it all over then? There’s little chance in reviving the party under Brash now, and more than likely the way forward is now for Banks to roll Brash. Two leadership transitions in a year would be damaging for any party, but Banks still has the profile to win Epsom, and will be aided by that dirty little deal with National. Either way, ACT seems to be effectively finished. Banks is National in all but name and will no doubt fall in line with the rest of that party’s faithful.

The upshot is of course that New Zealand politics may now finally find itself entirely free of that intellectually bankrupt neoliberal septuagenarian cohort.

Although he succeeded in ending the awarding of British Honours in New Zealand in 1996, and firmly advocated replacing the Privy Council as the country’s highest appellate Court—successfully executed by the subsequent Clark Government—17 years later Mrs Windsor remains the symbolic head of state.

Writing in the 1940s, the foundation Professor of Political Science at Victoria, Leslie Lipson observed of New Zealand’s political culture: “abstractions, theories, ideals—these are of little account or interest unless they can be immediately applied. Utility is the national yardstick.” The cultural pragmatism Lipson recognised endures, and goes a long way towards explaining why Bolger’s push for full and final independence remains unfulfilled. The question persists: Why, when New Zealand is already a de-facto republic, do we need to officially cut ties with the monarchy?

With the Government having initiated a review of our constitution, it is with deference to the aforementioned cultural reality that I advocate the prospect of a ‘soft’ republic.
The soft republic approach would see New Zealand’s system of government move to a parliamentary republic, with the current hereditary head-of-state replaced with a New Zealander chosen by New Zealanders, whether by direct election, or the more likely option of parliamentary appointment. Under the parliamentary republic model, this new head-of-state would retain the same powers, functions and responsibilities of the current Governor-General, but would symbolically reflect New Zealand, rather than Mother England.

As Victoria University law lecturer, Dean Knight argues, under this system we would have a head-of-state who retains the valued ceremonial and community functions of the current Governor-General, but would better represent and reflect the values of multi-cultural Aotearoa, and that’s the crux of the argument.

“The Royal Family do not represent us. They represent something different, and whether they be pop-stars, or champions of goodness, they lack the essential Kiwiness. While the office of the Governor-General has evolved to manifest many of these Kiwi values, there is a limit to which it can continue to evolve when it is a subordinate role anchored abroad in London.”

Often submitted as an obstacle to achieving full independence by way of its essence as an agreement between iwi and hapu on one side and Queen Victoria on the other, the Treaty of Waitangi need not be an insurmountable hurdle. As it stands, the New Zealand Executive has long assumed responsibility for meeting Treaty obligations (to varying degrees, of course). Essentially, a soft republic would retain the status quo, with the transition to a republic, initiated largely independent of wider constitutional reform.

Of course, an optimistic—or less-soft—view of the potential surrounding republicanism, is that it would allow, and facilitate a wider debate resolving the future role and place of the Treaty. This, as part of, and along side, the codification of New Zealand’s Constitution, would be a more ambitious approach to be sure, but an approach that would benefit the nation as a whole.

Assuredly, advocates of republicanism are unlikely to be beneficiaries of the current constitutional review. Bill English, while accepting that the panel will review the republican debate, has explicitly stated that the Government “is not advancing the prospect of a republic.” This is hardly surprising when the current Prime Minister seems to hold an unusual affinity for the monarchy, working to strengthen the old symbolic ties to the extent that he reintroduced knighthoods to the New Zealand Honours system.

However, the republican question is shrouded in inevitability—something even Mr Key will admit, even if he’s happy to leave it for the Sixth Labour Government to address. As Victoria’s Dr. Jon Johansson argues, “It’s a natural rite of passage that our history has inexorably been leading us towards.

“Britain, the old ‘Mother Country’ (for fewer and fewer of us), abandoned us several decades ago, to better put its own house in order (or at least to pursue its own perceived self-interest, which didn’t include providing continued guaranteed access for our protein-based products), so it is time we simply acknowledged this reality and did the same.”

Developing skills in reading, writing and mathematics are essential for a child’s success as they progress beyond Year 8, and in many cases, into tertiary education. Providing teachers, and in particular parents, with an indication of where a child is at, consistent with the subsequent expectations of secondary schools and tertiary institutions, logically allows specific gaps to be filled and problem-areas to be ironed out in each child.

However, in 2009, following passage of the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill, academics from Auckland, Waikato and Otago Universities wrote an open letter to the Minister of Education entitled ‘Warning about the new National Standards system’. At least one of the authors—Auckland University’s Professor John Hattie—was an initial supporter of the idea. The Prime Minister has said it was Professor Hattie who introduced the idea of a standards-based system to him in the first place.
In the letter, while the intended goals behind the program were resoundingly affirmed, the authors outlined that the “flaws in the new system are so serious that full implementation of the intended National Standards system…is likely to be unsuccessful.”

Those flaws include:
• A lack of focus on progress, and the wrongful assumption that children are ‘failing’ if they do not meet the National Standards. With this is an associated concern that this assumption of ‘failing’ can become self-fulfilling, turning children off education rather than helping them to achieve higher;
• The distortion and impoverishment of “the culture of teaching and learning and assessment within schools”, leading to a limited and far less stimulating primary experience, as evidenced by the international experience of the public reporting of national testing; and
• That the descriptions and examples of the standards are so vague as to be ineffective in many cases.

Of course, this discussion has been thrashed out time and again throughout National’s first term in office, but I raise it here once more in the wake of Labour’s announcement that they would ditch National Standards in all primary schools if elected this year.

In its place, Labour’s Education spokesperson, Sue Moroney has outlined that the Party would institute a new set of assessment tools according to the following five-point plan, which would:

• Determine the curriculum level a child is achieving;
• Show a child’s rate of progress between reports over the course of a year;
• Identify children not achieving within curriculum levels;
• Decide and report the next learning steps; and
• Report information in plain language to parents at least twice a year.

This is a plan that, on the face of it, is essentially aimed at achieving the exact same ends, and appears to address the concerns above.
Of course, what this all comes back to is that National Standards—a good idea at its inception—has been just one victim of National’s prolific use of urgency this term. The National Government pushed through 17 laws in its first two years without allowing public submissions, compared with the four or five in each of the previous Labour Government’s terms.

Arguably, had National Standards been subject to the consultation process that they deserved, the primary sector might have been faced with a policy that addressed the outlined concerns, and would have been welcomed with overwhelming support, rather than being plagued by the overwhelming opposition that has ensued.
It’s great that Moroney has made an attempt to initiate debate over the scheme as people evaluate the Government’s performance. It’s clear, regardless of whether tweedle dum or tweedle dee win this year’s election, that National Standards as it stands is in dire need of review; a review complete with the consultation process it should have been afforded in the first place, and a review resulting in a system—whether continuing under the ‘National Standards’ tag, or some other less tainted moniker—that has the backing of those who have to implement them.

Even though some complain of complacency, National are clearly onto a winning formula at this point, and as the old adage goes, ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. Despite that, there are a couple of elements to the rankings that warrant analysis.

Current National list MP Tau Henare is the big loser on the list, dropping from 26 to 40. Granted the drop is likely not enough to see the incumbent turfed out, but is a pretty clear indication from Key and the Party hacks that they’re less than impressed with his performance over the past three years. As Key hinted, “there’s a message there”, although at the same time the Prime Minister said he wouldn’t be drawn into “performance discussions” with the media.

The other significant drop is likely to have more profound consequences for its unlucky recipient. Paul Quinn, dropping to a rank of 56, now relies on National capturing approximately 48 per cent of the Party Vote to secure a seat in the next Parliament. That just might happen, but with iPredict currently forecasting slightly less (47.1 per cent), it might be time for Mr Quinn to update the old CV quick smart.

Speaker Lockwood Smith, on the other hand, has jumped from twelfth to third place, a consequence of his vacating the seat of Rodney due to the constraints he faces in his role as Speaker. Another apparent winner, new candidate Paul Goldsmith, was awarded number 39 to guarantee him backdoor entry after he agreed to stand in the (relatively) safe Act electorate: Epsom.

The two real surprises come with Auckland University lecturer Jian Yang and Pastor Alfred Ngaro at 35 and 36 respectively; neither of whom we’ve heard anything about until now, and selections that reflect an effort to ensure ethnic diversity in the National caucus. The former is a particularly important selection in maintaining National’s links with the Chinese community following Pansy Wong’s exit late last year.

As David Farrar extrapolates, National is doing fairly well in the ethnicity stakes. “At 48%, National would have seven MPs of Maori descent, which would be 12 per cent of Caucus. This is equal to adult Maori population, which is 12 per cent of the country. There would also be two Pacific MPs and three Asian MPs.”

While they might be succeeding in achieving ethnic diversity, gender diversity continues to lag; a problem that has always, and clearly continues to plague National. Female candidates comprise only one-quarter of the Party’s list, despite the fact the fairer sex make up more than 50 per cent of the country’s population.

The New Zealand Herald has reported that Key has been explicit in wanting to see more women represented under the National banner, and even though a number of current women MPs have been promoted, including Paula Bennett (up to 14 from 41), Hekia Parata (18 from 36), and Amy Adams (28 from 52), only two of the top ten positions are occupied by female candidates: Judith Collins (7), and Anne Tolley (8), with only a further three rounding out the top 20.

By comparison, alongside Annette King as Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, the opposition have three further women represented in their top 10, and a total of eight in their top 20.

Perhaps it’s not such a surprise. For, at the same time as the Party releases a list that largely maintains National’s inherent male conservatism, the Prime Minister is promoting a change to our electoral system, despite the fact that MMP has seen the percentage of woman in Parliament rise from 14.4 per cent at the beginning of 1990s to 33.6 per cent in 2010. The Supplementary Member alternative Key advocates will not help the cause; more than likely turning back the clock instead.

Therefore, for all the rhetoric, Key and the National Party must start actively approaching and pushing woman candidates to stand in safe National seats thus pushing up the Party’s gender diversity. Granted, it wouldn’t have made a difference in this election, but with any drop in popularity for the Party leader among female constituents, National could be looking down a very different barrel in 2014.

Despite the imminence of the election however, Labour continue to languish in doldrums. The latest Herald-DigiPoll survey has the opposition party at its lowest levels of support so far this term (31.5 per cent), with a Fairfax Media-Research International poll recording a far more significant slip to 25.7 per cent. Unsurprisingly the cracks in the Labour façade are beginning to widen.

In a thinly veiled acceptance of the near-impossibility of defeating National, Goff suggested it would take something along the lines of “Ruth Richardson running the finance portfolio” to bring down the Key Government in 2011.

Moreover, while bemoaning that “people aren’t focused on the issues”, Goff has had to once again reassert to media, with uncharacteristic irritability, that he will indeed be leading Labour into the next election.

“I’m the leader of the Labour Party. I’ll be taking the Labour Party into the next election. You all know that. It’s about time people stop flogging that dead horse and just accept the fact.”

The media’s inquiries derived from a leak that Phil Goff had offered to step down at a meeting with his front bench. Although as the NZ Herald’s Audrey Young has explained, apparently it wasn’t so much a case of fatigued concession.Rather, Goff had asserted that if anyone on the front bench had concerns with his leadership they should speak up.
It’s clear that most, if not all the front bench accept the inevitability of a National victory in November, and those who harbour leadership ambitions are already working to position themselves for a post-election leadership contest. As John Armstrong argues, “The only motive for the leak would be to undermine Goff before the election campaign to ensure he loses.”

In an interview on The Nation, Shane Jones, who has been clear about his own aspirations, appeared to level the blame squarely with Labour’s finance spokesperson, David Cunliffe, pointing out that perhaps Cunliffe isn’t anything like the team player he professes to be.

Denying the leak, Goff has asserted there is a price to pay for such behaviour: “Everybody in caucus knows that there is a rule of confidentiality. Somebody broke that rule. His name was Chris Carter, and he was expelled immediately.”

However, I suspect that if the leak were found to have come from Cunliffe and Goff tried to eject him from the Shadow Cabinet, Labour would be looking down the barrel of a situation reminiscent of the Lange-Douglas power struggle of 1988-89, where Lange impelled Roger Douglas to resign his ministerial positions, only to have the Labour caucus subsequently vote to return the Finance Minister to Cabinet.

As such, even with the Carter-saga warning, Goff will no doubt see any concerns over caucus disloyalty swept under the rug this time around.

Meanwhile, way across on the other side of the political spectrum, ACT are also in a state of stagnation, despite some media interest surrounding the release of the ACT Party list, with its mysteriously unnamed third-place holder. Former ACT Party president Catherine Isaac is tipped to have had the seat held for her, but meanwhile, the lack of surety has come off as amateurish.

More confusingly, sitting MP Hilary Calvert has been left off the list, which features only seven names from the 2008 list. Calvert has accepted this with an air of nonchalance—uncommon for an ACT Party MP—and a show of loyalty ACT doesn’t deserve, especially considering it was Calvert’s vote that clinched the leadership for Brash.
Of course, based on current polls, even Brash doesn’t look like he’s going to cut it. With the party’s continuing abysmal performance, John Banks would be ACT’s sole MP post-Election, and only if he wins Epsom. Even in the party’s electoral stronghold, surely voters are starting to question the party’s validity, looking instead toward National.

We can only hope.

Then there was the subsequent announcement from international credit ratings agency Standard & Poors (S&P), reducing the credit rating of the world’s largest economy from AAA to AA+. Furthermore, accompanying the credit downgrade, the US has been put on a negative outlook, increasing the likelihood of further downgrades.

As the old adage goes: When America sneezes, the world catches a cold.

So, where does this leave New Zealand, and more specifically, the Government?

In the wake of the NZ sharemarket plummeting to an 11-month low last Monday, both John Key, and his Minister of Finance Bill English are stressing the country is well placed to weather this kind of economic storm. The same international credit rating agency that downgraded the US, isn’t so sure though.

S&P have identified NZ’s balance sheet as continuing to bear “the scars of the recent downturn,” recognising that the country is significantly vulnerable in the wake of the current strife in the financial markets.

This is primarily because NZ’s reliance on foreign debt means the country might find it hard to roll over current debt, and that the country could face further weakening demand for exports. This of course, is a strain that has been felt for weeks now, as a result of the high value of the New Zealand Dollar that had reached above 88 US cents before dropping back again last week.

S&P already put NZ on a negative outlook at the end of last year, warning of a potential downgrade in the country’s credit rating. If this were to happen, the cost of borrowing would increase across the economy, severely hindering economic recovery. The fact Bill English has managed to stave this off, despite the $380 million a week the Government was borrowing until recently, is a credit to his economic management, and there’s the crux.

This election will be fought and won on one platform only. To borrow Bill Clinton’s laboured catch phrase from the 1992 US Presidential Election: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Voters will reward in November that party who they deem most fit to manage the country’s economy. Global economic events notwithstanding, one might expect, therefore, that National would be punished for pulling the economy into a deficit, which by the Government’s current projections, won’t be dealt with until 2015.

But, as political journalist Ian Llewellyn explains, “The problem for National’s opponents is that most voters don’t seem to hold them responsible for the economic conditions, and polls indicate that (people think) National are better managers, even if they don’t entirely agree with their prescription.”

People trust Bill English. They trust John Key, and the success the Prime Minister has had in labelling Labour as the party of ‘tax and spend’, has only served to strengthen voter loyalty.

That’s not to say Labour doesn’t have any good ideas. The proposal of a capital gains tax is long overdue, and is an eventual inevitability in NZ. It’s just that the voters don’t find Goff & Co. to be a credible option in terms of economic management in 2011.

One of the most noteworthy political effects of the current market woes has been on National’s controversial asset sales policy. The state of the international financial markets has helped Phil Goff gain some traction on his opposition to the proposal. As he points out, assets can only be sold once, and the prospect of selling them in a depressed market simply adds further flaws to the proposal.

However, while Key has admitted there may be a delay of a few months, the Government’s plans are still firmly on the table. If Key gets the mandate in November through a return to power, 49 per cent of Mighty Power River, Meridian, Genesis Energy and Solid Energy will be up for grabs.

Further consequences of the international turmoil will no doubt trickle down over the next few weeks and months, and while it will be interesting to note the effects on the domestic political situation, don’t hold your breath for any reversal in the polls. *

Since first being broadcast in 1984, televised leaders’ debates have become a central fixture of election campaigns in New Zealand. With the introduction of MMP in 1996, and consistent with a key premise behind the electoral system, there have generally been efforts to represent a multiplicity of views in these influential affairs. Until 2008.

To be sure, there are undeniable benefits from having Goff and Key debate one another exclusively. As David Farrar over at Kiwiblog points out, this gives the two leaders the opportunity to explain themselves thoroughly, and respond to the opposing leader’s assertions, creating a real ‘debate’. The all-inclusive debates, by contrast, can turn into trivial affairs characterised by populist soundbites rather than policy clarification and discussion. However, there were always going to be one-on-one debates regardless, so the point is redundant.

Moreover, multi-party debate is crucial in the era of MMP, where the post-Election landscape is characterised by coalition deals forged between the victorious dominant party, and generally like-minded minor parties. It therefore follows logically that voters should be able to make their decision based not only on the policies of that dominant party, but also on the policies of potential support parties, which bar a few exceptions, are relatively predictable in their affiliations.
“A spit in the eye of democracy,” is how Victoria University’s Steven Price—an adjunct lecturer in media law—put it in a discussion of the 2008 decision.
In a political environment no longer (entirely) monopolised by National and Labour, the voting public should have the opportunity to compare Key with Brash, with Dunne, and with Tariana Turia. Likewise, the public should be able to witness Brash and Turia facing off to see how that dynamic’s working out for them.
On the other side of the equation, the voters should be able to evaluate the dynamic between Goff and Norman/Turei and Goff and Harawira. Goff and Turia would be a particularly fascinating one, helping voters to determine whether Helen Clark’s departure from Labour means that Turia’s animosity over the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed legislation has now been laid to rest.

Voters might have also gained clarity in whether there is any actual potential of a deal being struck between the Greens and National, as suggested earlier in the year.

In an election accompanied by a referendum on our electoral system, this is a move that undermines both the purpose and effectiveness of MMP in highlighting and encouraging the continuing dominance of the two major parties. Accordingly, for someone who purports to support MMP, Goff’s complicity in the decision is astonishing.

Goff should have refused to take Key’s bait. Had Goff stuck with the planned debate, Key would have been forced back to the table. A non-appearance when Goff was appearing simply wouldn’t be an option for the Prime Minister. As Green co-leader Russell Norman argued, “John Key would look like an idiot if Phil Goff and everyone turned up to the debate and John Key didn’t.”

Finally, if this announcement reveals anything about potential outcomes for the election itself, it’s simply that Goff’s decision has just deepened Labour’s grave by another foot, as alluded to in the No Right Turn blog last week:

“Both leaders have reasons to favour this arrangement—Key because he looks good next to Goff, and Goff because he’s a moron who doesn’t understand that he looks bad next to Key.”

Bad move indeed.

Rather than campaigning against Banks, Goldsmith has announced he will campaign for the ‘party vote’, while encouraging National-leaning voters to give their ‘electorate vote’ to Banks.

It’s win-win for Goldsmith. He might have been convinced to fall on his sword in Epsom, but a predicted decent list placing means he will likely be returned to Parliament anyway, albeit through the ‘back door’.

A cynic might see this horse-trading in Epsom as efforts by Brash and Key to undermine MMP by exploiting two of the system’s deficiencies—(1) the one-seat rule that allows a Party to gain proportional representation without reaching the five per cent threshold, and (2) the ability of candidates rejected by the electorate to utilise the ‘back-door’, entering Parliament via the list. The irony is, of course, that Brash’s preferred electoral method—Supplementary Member (SM)—would see the party he leads obliterated.

To be sure, it wouldn’t be the first time suicidal tactics have been used against the country’s democratic institutions. In 1950, Sid Holland’s National Government abolished New Zealand’s upper house, the Legislative Council, by stacking it with National members—the so-called ‘suicide squad’—who immediately dissolved the body, voting themselves into unemployment.

Of course the difference here is that if voters do opt for SM in two consecutive referendums, by the time a government is elected by that system in 2017, Dear Old Don will no doubt be relaxing in retirement with all those other septuagenarian and octogenarian proponents of laissez-faire.

The deal makes perfect sense from National’s point of view. Due to the aforementioned peculiarity in the current MMP system, if Act wins an electorate seat, the five per cent threshold is foregone, and in addition to the winning candidate, Act would be rewarded with seats in Parliament proportional to its share of the party vote. Even at their current abysmal polling levels, Act would pull in at least two or three candidates alongside Banks; not least of all Party leader Brash, dependant on entry via the list because of voters’ growing aversion to the ex-National leader. This compared to the one MP National would gain from winning the seat makes it a matter of simple arithmetic.

There have been claims from Brash that Act won’t necessarily join a National-led coalition after November 26, potentially opting to support the Government from the cross-benches rather than take ministerial portfolios. But this defies logic; it is near impossible to believe Don Brash would settle for any less power than he could possibly achieve in any post-election deal.

The case of Epsom doesn’t explain National’s decision to turn voters toward United Future leader Peter Dunne in Ohariu though. On the latest Fairfax Media-Research International poll, United Future are heading toward the same result as 2008, meaning again, only Dunne would be represented in Parliament. At this point however, Dunne looks a surer bet than National candidate Katrina Shanks, and with reports of Party polling indicating strong support for Labour candidate Charles Chauvel, National have concluded that it’s safe to put their eggs in the Dunne basket, especially considering Dunne is renowned for towing whatever line will keep him in Government.

In addition to speculation about Labour’s own deals being made with the Greens—particularly in Dunne’s Ohariu electorate with Gareth Hughes opting to focus on the party vote—there exists the potential for Labour to derail the National-Act agreement in Epsom. The New Zealand Herald’s Brian Rudman recalls how at the closing stages of the 2005 campaign, Helen Clark urged campaigners in Epsom to encourage voters to give their electorate vote to National to derail Act. Certainly, the same tactic in 2011 won’t exactly endear voters towards Labour, but in a true-Blue seat, the sinking of Banks and Act could be worth the minor damage.

Of course, there are numerous deals being done, explanation of which would be beyond the space limited to this column, but rest assured, Ohariu and particularly Epsom, will be particularly interesting contests to watch as we gear up for November’s election.

It is important because it is the first sign that the Labour Party might be gearing up to play an effective role in contesting November’s election, as well as tabling a long-overdue policy debate.

Of course, last week’s TVNZ Colmar Brunton poll that showed support for Labour had dropped to a ten-year low at just 27 per cent doesn’t appear to reflect a positive response for the proposed CGT. But, as Goff correctly pointed out, the poll shouldn’t be taken as a judgment on the CGT: “It’s too early on in the piece.”

To be sure, the polling data—or some sections of it—could actually give Labour some confidence in their new policy. The poll registered 43 per cent in favour of a CGT, with 49 per cent against. Admittedly this isn’t anything near the support needed, but it is certainly an adequate showing for a policy that remains to be convincingly sold to voters.

Furthermore, polling that pits the CGT against asset sales sees support increase dramatically, and it is this dichotomous debate on which this year’s election will no doubt be fought. Which is the lesser of two evils? Or, put another way, which party’s policy do the voters dislike less?

New Zealand is an anomaly in that we don’t already have a CGT. Economists from the OECD, the IMF and from Treasury have been calling on successive NZ administrations to introduce such a tax, and many academics, analysts and commentators are welcoming the debate.

The key argument for a CGT is that without it, there is an incentive for investors to funnel their money towards speculative investments—primarily housing—which is unproductive for the economy. A CGT, it is argued, would direct this investment toward export-oriented industries, which would actually benefit the country as a whole.

Furthermore, in the short-term, Labour have illustr-ated that their proposed 15 per cent CGT would allow for the introduction of a tax-free first $5000 of earnings, the removal of GST on fresh fruit and vegetables (which is becoming more relevant with current inflationary pressures), and a significant increase in research and development spending. And Labour’s good news doesn’t appear to end there.

In making the policy as palatable as possible, the tax has been set at an indisputably low rate—lower than the income tax for anyone earning over $14,000—with numerous exceptions ranging from the family home, to many of those Cantabrians affected by the Christchurch earthquakes.
A CGT does have significant credibility, and despite being a tax, if Labour can sell it to the electorate, while continuing to set it against National’s plan for asset sales, we could be in for a closer result in November’s election than has long been anticipated.

The technocratic element of the proposed CGT will be a barrier Labour needs to contend with in convincing the electorate. Scoop’s Gordon Campbell has set out clearly in the following (lengthy) argument how it should be sold, and it is worth quoting in full:

Do you continue to vote for a programme that (a) consists of income tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich (b) exempts their speculative activities from tax almost entirely, while taxing your wages (c) cuts back social services and (d) sells high earning state energy companies to make up the shortfall…? Or do you keep the assets (and reap the dividends and strategic planning benefits involved) and treat the income earned from speculation and capital gain in the same way that you treat the income earned from wages? Who’s the freeloader here, and who is intent on defending the freeloader?

Of course it’s going to be a push to appeal to the rational side of a voting population who have an emotional attachment to housing, but if Labour can do anything to take the focus of the election away from a Key vs. Goff question of personality, this is the ticket. *

Before hanging up, Sharma comm-ented to someone in his Delhi office concerning Espiner: “He’s a very rude fellow.”

There are few who would hold the opinion that the topic should not have been raised though. Surely, human rights promotion should be at the forefront of all NZ’s international relations.

Why then, has there been such a lack of focus on those practises in India that would seem abhorrent if allowed to occur in our own country, especially from Labour and the Greens?

To be sure, Greens co-leader Dr. Norman raised the issue of child labour in general, commenting that “trade deals give new, special rights to multi-national companies so they can sue us, but don’t give rights to kids who are stuck in a factory somewhere.” Besides this, the Greens have been conspicuously quiet on the deal.

Labour’s only interjection came from Clare Curran, who raised concerns over “labour outsourcing,” but was quickly reprimanded by the Party machine. Phil Goff is a strong supporter of an FTA with India.

The reasoning is simple. As Trade Minister Tim Grosser has pointed out, we can achieve much more by engaging cooperatively with these countries while pursuing singular issues through other avenues such as through International Labour Organisation conventions.

India already has laws forbidding child labour, and although the problem is persistent, as with the country’s poverty, these issues are gradually being tackle—mammoth undertakings in a country with India’s population.

The proposed FTA has significant benefits for NZ, with Key the right leader to secure the deal. Having spent much of his professional life in the banking world, he is well placed to connect and negotiate with India’s billionaires, as well as the Indian Government, working to secure deals that will benefit particularly NZ agriculture for years to come.

Since signing an FTA with China, for example, dairy exports from NZ have increased fourfold, and certainly we can expect the same sort of figures in a deal with India.

Moreover, the potential benefits from an agreement between the two countries in other industries are exciting to say the least. We’re already seeing the benefits to tourism from Bollywood filming in NZ, with more than 30,000 Indians visiting NZ since 2004, and this could grow exponentially with the deal.
Moreover, to Key’s credit, he didn’t completely shut his eyes to India’s less desirable attributes. He was faced with India’s crippling poverty, albeit through the windows of his motorcade, and he acknowledged the issues of terrorism and raised nuclear disarmament with Indian Prime Minister, Dr. Singh.
However, in the face of these recognitions, some of the key discussions from the visit should be somewhat disconcerting to New Zealanders.
An agreement on closer defence ties was one of the big surprises from the visit, including suggestions from Key that NZ could send a frigate to help quell piracy in India’s oceans.

But, in complete contrast to NZ, India is a country that is armed with nuclear weapons, and is one of few nations not party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Furthermore, tightening defence ties in the face of India’s ongoing conflict with Pakistan should surely be raising eyebrows here at home.
But, TV3’s Patrick Gower puts it like this: “We have to nail these (FTA) deals. You have to swallow a couple of dead rats on the way. India’s nuclear arsenal is one. Child labour is another. We’ve done this before with China so it shouldn’t taste so bad.”

What we need to ask ourselves is whether an FTA is worth undermining independence in international relations. We stood fast under Lange under US pressure to have the nuclear-powered USS Buchanan visit NZ shores in 1985. Surely, it would make sense to apply similarly staunch objections in our dealings with the more recent nuclear-mad countries of the world?

There was plenty of ammunition in the Budget, that perhaps should be referred to as ‘bland’, as opposed to its adopted descriptor, ‘zero’. However, Key’s competence for parliamentary theatrics took the wind out of Labour’s sail who were left simply brandishing and awkwardly pointing at the document, completely drowned out by the roar across the House.

Goff did do significantly better at Labour’s annual congress, finally revealing that perhaps Labour has a little more guts than it has exhibited in the past two-and-a-half years. But again, the fact that the media have been left with more questions than answers about Labour’s proposals have meant that the Goff ’s congress glory has been once again, quickly stripped back.

Labour face a huge challenge leading into this election, constrained by what the New Zealand Herald’s John Armstrong has aptly named, “a fiscal straightjacket.” For the party generally associated with habitual spending, Goff is in a positionwhere he needs constantly reiterate that a Labour Government will not push the country further into debt. Fiscal neutrality was thus central to the big policy announcements of the congress.

First and foremost, Goff has announced Labour intend to reintroduce the tax credit for research and development (R&D) spending, that National scrapped after gaining power in 2008. It is slightly less, than the Clark Government’s 15% tax credit, at 12.5%—a sign of the times— but has been roundly welcomed by the business community as more beneficial than the scheme currently in place under National.

The tax credit doesn’t come cheap though, and the farming community will have to pick up the $800 million price tag. Perfectly timed with the criticism directed at farmers for being evasive on tax, Goff has announced that Labour will introduce the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) on the agricultural sector from 2013, two years earlier than planned, which he says will ensure farmers are paying their “fair share”.

To be sure, as traditionally National voters, farmers are an easy target. This will certainly be one of the easier trade-offs Goff will advocate this year. But, it is a sound plan, and reflects a longer-term perspective on developing growth than can be found Bill English’s latest Budget. Moreover, Goff has managed to cleverly play the environmental card simultaneously.

Key still got his sound bite though, claiming that Labour’s plan would see increases in the price of the “staples of the New Zealand diet”. Goff has made good strides at refuting this, backed by advice from Fonterra Chief Executive Andrew Ferrier, who assures that international markets set prices for dairy. However, as Andrea Vance argues, the policy is far from clear at this point. “Will the tax credits extend to foreign companies? How is Labour planning to cap them? What will the carbon price be for the ETS proposals?”

Also killing two birds was Annette King’s proposal of a Children’s Ministry at a cost of $4.5 million, to be paid for by scrapping (Labour’s) Families Commission saving $7 million. King has not only jumped headfirst into the debate around NZ’s distressing child health and safety record, but has simultaneously freed up cash for other areas of spending. Of course, whether what children need is more bureaucracy is another question entirely.

Goff ’s other big policy announcement at the congress was the introduction of a $15 minimum wage. Of course, an increase in the minimum wage hits employers rather than the Government, so is an easy promise for Goff. However, as Key was quick to point out, it creates the potential for job losses, which the Department of Labour predicts could be approximately 6000 at a $15 minimum wage. Whether this is true is debatable, and certainly it’s a solid line for Labour to follow in an election that should be fought on the cost of living.

Labour isn’t expected to release it’s full fiscal framework for at least a month yet, and only time will tell whether their alternatives are truly viable. More will have to be done around comprehensive details however, if the opposition really want to get some momentum behind them.

Of course at this point I haven’t seen the Budget. Deadlines dictate that I can’t. However, despite the fact that everything will have been clarified by the time this magazine is sitting in baskets around Victoria’s campuses, I do think it is safe to say that it’s unlikely to have been anything radical.

While there are indications that some on his front bench may lean further to the right, Key is no radical. He’s a centre-right man through and through, and to expect anything extreme from this Government is delusional. This is especially the case when ACT are too busy trying to reform into something coherent to concern themselves with trying to apply the radical neoliberal pen to this Budget’s pages.

It can (and should) be argued that in facing a record deficit, the Government needed to produce a Budget that puts in place recognisable incentives for savings and investment to help improve the competitiveness of the export sector, while reducing the national debt. Two Budgets’ experience tells us that this won’t happen.

I am by no means advocating the kind of extremism the ACT-pact would like to see undertaken. If implemented in its entirety, the recommendations in Dr Brash’s 2025 Taskforce would likely destroy this country. But, by the same token, the piecemeal nature of Key Government Budgets continue to be similarly ineffective, although significantly more palatable and less dangerous.

Notably, Budget 2011’s delivery has been as tried and true as the Government’s economic policy over the past three years. Key started with the ‘doom and gloom’, confirming that the KiwiSaver Member Tax Credit was up for cuts. On top of that it was made abundantly clear that the shears were out for Working For Families and the student-loan scheme as well.

By taking the edge off the negatives through some early drip-feeding, Key likes to leave the ‘good stuff’ until Budget day in a bid to effectively take the wind out of the opposition’s sails. We saw this last year with the early indications that a GST rise was on the cards. Then, of course, the full scale of the tax-switch was clarified on Budget day with the Government lowering income taxes to offset the rise in GST (with differing levels of satisfaction depending on one’s tax bracket). This move essentially negated the negative impact of the rise in GST on National’s political capital.

This year, the swing toward the positive started well before Budget day too, with Key and friends indicating that the Budget would forecast strong growth in both wages and jobs over the next two years.

Moreover, economists at ANZ helped out, predicting that on the back of strong commodity prices and with a boost from the Canterbury rebuild, New Zealand could return to surplus within three years.

These predictions have been questioned though, most critically by Bernard Hickey, who points to the discrepancies in economic forecasting from 2008. “In May 2008 Treasury forecast growth rates for the next three years of 1.5%, 2.3% and 3.2%. Instead we got -1.1%, -0.4% and -0.1%.” Hickey doesn’t lay the blame solely at Treasury’s feet either, arguing that there has been a failure in economic forecasting in general in New Zealand.

To be sure, the Canterbury earthquakes have a lot to answer for in these growth figures, but it’s not the earthquakes alone constraining growth and Hickey definitely has a point when he outlines, “that’s why we should all take this Thursday’s growth forecasts and John Key’s smiling confidence with a grain of salt.”

Of course, there’s an election in November, and this kind of Budget is likely to deliver National at least one more term in Government. What’s dubious is whether it will actually deliver the forecasted and (much-needed) economic growth

All the while, Goff and the Labour Party have focused their efforts on centring media attention on hypocrisy in Key’s spending—think BMWs and bodyguards, which a New Zealand Herald editorial referred to as “the trappings of office”. Agree or disagree, in effect this constitutes a miniscule proportion of Government spending. As a result, one might be forgiven for having missed any pre-Budget discussion (up until now), and it really is astounding that the Opposition has not focused on the bigger picture.

Of course, there has been much Budget-related rhetoric making the rounds for months now, most visibly by Don Brash before the race card found its way back to the top of the pack. To be sure, across the entire spectrum, there have been concerns raised over the $250 million, then $300 million, and now $380 million the Government is borrowing every week, with the blame being assigned to different parties depending on who is vocalising concern at any particular time.

Largely owing to the two Canterbury earthquakes New Zealand is facing the prospect of a ‘zero-budget’, with just $800 million in reprioritised funding to go primarily to front-line healthcare and education services.

This Government has a huge operating deficit, totalling $10.16 billion in the nine months ending March 31. This is significantly worse than the deficit forecast in December, and while this is largely due to earthquake-related costs, it also indicates a failure in predicting the country’s economic recovery.

There were the short-lived fears that Bill English’s third Budget could match that of Ruth Richardson’s 1991 Mother-of-all-Budgets, although these were quickly put to rest; Key again assuring in a pre-Budget speech at a Fujitsu-Business New Zealand luncheon last week, that this will not be a ‘slash and burn’ Budget.

So, what is up for cuts?

By all accounts, it appears the predominant focus of this week’s Budget will be on cutting spending to three of Labour’s crowning achievements: KiwiSaver, Working For Families and the interest-free student loan scheme. Key has argued that these three schemes are totally unaffordable at a combined cost to the country of almost $5 billion a year. Notably, he also made sure to put in a knee into Labour, outlining how the programmes were introduced, and were only ever viable as a result of “a debt and consumption-driven bubble.”
Of these three schemes, undoubtedly the changes to KiwiSaver and of course the student loan scheme are of most concern to students.

KiwiSaver has been incredibly successful. With 1.67 million people signed up, the scheme has exceeded all initial expectations. Unfortunately, the success of the program could be the cause of its downfall. While the $1000 kick-start for new KiwiSaver members will remain in place, the Member Tax Credit (MTC) is on the chopping block. Key has indicated that the MTC—a brilliant incentive for long-term savings worth $1042 annually to members—will be subject to a significant cut.

With the reduction or removal of this incentive, responsible for much of the popularity of the scheme, it logically follows that many will now refuse to join KiwiSaver, and signed-up members may choose to opt out of the scheme. In the long term this is going to primarily affect low and middle-income earners who don’t necessarily have the capacity to save independently, creating real problems down the track when those people hit retirement. Furthermore, reducing or removing KiwiSaver incentives potentially puts the first nail in the scheme’s coffin, meaning that Key’s assertion that the changes are to “ensure (its) survival”, is laughable.

Another way of looking at this, as the New Zealand Herald’s David Chaplin writes, is that the National Government is simply implementing an under-handing “tax increase”. More transparent adjustments to the tax system are most likely completely off the table this year however; and this is what will probably be the biggest deficiency in the upcoming Budget.

Some might remember, in last year’s Budget, the Government’s stated intentions were to incentivise savings and investment by introducing a fiscally neutral tax-switch that would give Kiwis more in their pockets whilst simultaneously discouraging consumption.

Of course, while New Zealand could do with a fair whack of increased business investment, the Government’s failure to implement a capital gains tax, recommended both by the Tax Working Group and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), has done little more than encourage speculative investment in housing, which has little societal benefit. At the same time, those stuck on the country’s lower economic rungs have in reality faced a significantly larger increase in their weekly food bill relatively to their tax-cuts.

On the student loan front, current students and graduates can breathe a sigh of relief that the interest-free element of the student-loan scheme is safe for now. Like Budget 2010, cuts are likely to be seen around the edges, primarily through further restrictions of access to student loans.

From the 2010 Budget, requirements were instituted requiring students to pass more than 50 per cent of full-time course over a two-year period, in order to be allowed to continue borrowing. Moreover, the government placed a ‘lifetime limit’ on access to student loans—a limit of seven years for an undergraduate degree. Most controversially, the fees around borrowing increased in an attempt to pull more money out of the scheme without removing with the politically dangerous ‘interest free’ element—a move the Greens’ Gareth Hughes referred to at the time as “charging interest by stealth”.

As Tertiary Education Minister, Steven Joyce has indicated, Budget 2011 is likely to institute further restrictions, most notably making it more difficult for over-55s to get a student loan. The Government’s approach is understandable, but at the same time is fairly problematic. While the incentives around success instituted in the 2010 Budget justly targeted those taking advantage of and consequently undermining the scheme, restricting the older workforce from up-skilling just as we enter a period in which the average retirement age is likely to rise significantly is a puzzlingly short-term solution to combating student debt.

In addition to this, Joyce has indicated that the Government intends to take a more aggressive approach to ensuring debt is repaid by graduates living overseas. As Key pointed out in his pre-Budget address, for every hundred dollars invested in the student loan scheme, taxpayers can expect to only get $55 back. Overseas graduates are responsible for a significant portion of the remaining $45. Victoria’s own Professor Sir Paul Callaghan has taken an interesting approach with this, tugging at the nationalist heart-strings of expat graduates to repay their student loan debt to help pay for the earthquake recovery. Whether the Government or Sir Callaghan’s approach will actually work, remains to be seen.
KiwiSaver and student loans, are just two of the schemes that will find themselves in the crosshairs of the Budget this year, and it’s clear there is more than a little controversy on the table. This is what makes Labour’s lack of any real criticism to the likely contents of the Budget so disconcerting.

Sure, it could be argued that Key is doing Labour’s work for them. Cuts should be damaging to any government, almost by definition, and our Teflon-coated Prime Minister is taking a huge punt in attacking these programmes. However, if the polls are anything to go by, Key has got significant room to manoeuvre, and to his credit, it appears that none of these cuts will take effect unless National is re-elected in November.

On the opposition benches, Labour should be actively highlighting that along with the Government’s plans to partially privatise state assets, these cuts to important social spending programmes are a short-term fix with very long-term consequences that could significantly undermine many New Zealanders’ futures.

Further to this, and perhaps more importantly, Labour needs to focus attention on the inequalities caused, and inefficacious nature of Key’s incomplete tax switch. The bulk of New Zealand voters face a significantly higher cost of living than they did a year ago, without a corresponding increase in quality of life. If Labour can’t make this a central argument leading up to the election, they don’t deserve to be returned to Government.

It once again highlights Harawira’s dissatisfaction with the Maori Party’s performance in coalition with National. Certainly, Harawira’s new Mana Party will no doubt provide significant competition for the Maori vote. This will be the case whether Harawira runs candidates against the Maori Party or not. To be sure, outside of Te Tai Tokerau, the Mana Party is likely to be solely reliant on the party vote anyway.

While a swing in the party vote will hurt the Maori Party, the real ‘victims’ are Labour and the Greens, who both rely on the party vote significantly more. With the Mana Party shaping up to be only partially “Treaty-based”, its radical-leftist agenda manifested in the involvement of Matt McCarten will no doubt pilfer valuable votes from Labour. However, Mana will probably affect the Greens the most, following that party’s move toward the centre, as exemplified by the absence of anyone with a background in worker or trade union issues at the top of their draft list.

At the other end of the political spectrum, it looks as though ACT might finally be rejuvenated into a functioning party, with a consolidated caucus under the leadership of Don Brash. As ACT grows to be a perceptibly effective player, the party will no doubt look to effect some real influence over National.

National haven’t put New Zealand through the huge economic reforms many on the right would like to see. Sure, Finance Minister Bill English adjusted the tax system to be consistent with a centre-right approach, but key Labour achievements such as KiwiSaver, Working For Families, and the interest-free student loan scheme have remained in place. Of course, the upcoming Budget will undoubtedly tinker with at least two of those three, but largely this National Government seems to be following the kind of consolidation strategy that has characterised so many National administrations over the years.

While National tends to prefer these kinds of incremental changes in the economy, Brash is a firm advocate of furthering the neoliberal agenda thrust upon New Zealand in the mid-1980s. Let’s face it, considering that (once again) Roger Douglas is leaving politics at the election, Brash truly is a perfect replacement: a septuagenarian throwback heralding an ideology that has long suffered from intellectual bankruptcy. What is most important here is that while a rejuvenated ACT will likely siphon off those voters who might have given National an absolute majority in November, a National-led Government is going to be able to get away with significantly more in the long-term in coalition with ACT.

Brash isn’t Hide. He will make waves in government, primarily pushing the agenda outlined in the reports from his 2025 Task Force, as well as his strong belief in ‘One Law For All’. In terms of economic policy, Brash’s extremist position will allow Key, and, more importantly, the National front bench, to advance those unpopular policies that pander to the right, like asset sales, while dodging the repercussions by deflecting any criticism to coalition obligations with the ACT Party.

No doubt, it’s these kinds of games that put many voters off MMP. Many voters find disturbing the extreme nature of these radical parties and the perceived influence they wield. However, this is what a democracy is all about, and the existence of strong ideologically driven parties on the left and the right should be celebrated.

It provides voters with real choice and will no doubt boost voter turnout on Election Day. While Labour is languishing in the doldrums, and National is treating victory as a given, the existence of these parties on the extremes give voters some real choice. Because MMP affords these parties representation, dissatisfaction with centrist paths is indicated throughout the political term.

Informally dubbed the ‘Skynet Law’—after New Plymouth MP Jonathan Young’s awkward comparison of the Internet to Skynet, the artificial intelligence network in the Terminator movies—the new law imposes a number of measures to deter file-sharing of copy
righted materials.

Set to come into force on September 1, the ‘Skynet Law’ sets into place a ‘three-strikes’ regime, using one of the current Government’s two most adored phrases, (the other being ‘step-change’). Copyright owners can inform Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that copyright has been breached, and the ISPs subsequently send warnings out to customers. After three notices without action from the user, a claim can be made to the Copyright Tribunal who has the power to impose a penalty of up to $15,000 on the user.

If, after two years, the Commerce Minister decides that the law is ineffective as it stands, ‘termination’ (a six month suspension), can be initiated through the activation of an Order-In-Council. Under the subsequent tougher regime, cases would be referred to the District Court who could enforce the six-month suspensions.

Interestingly, the ‘Skynet Law’ won broad support across Parliament with only the Greens alongside independents Chris Carter and Hone Harawira voting against the bill. Support came despite general misunderstandings throughout the House, about what file sharing actually entails.

The previous Labour Government has passed similar legislation, but their much-resented ‘Section 92a’ law was repealed by the current National Government following significant protest over the heavy-handedness and dubious efficacy of the law. Labour MP Clare Curran has insisted that her party’s support comes simply to facilitate a compromise in the replacement legislation that saw the aforementioned Order-In-Council provision included, in the face of the “Government’s bottom line…to have termination in the Bill.”

The ‘Skynet Law’ is admittedly remarkably better than Labour’s previous failure, but whether it is work-able remains questionable.

Stuff.co.nz’s Andrea Vance has highlighted a number of issues, concerning the problems surrounding shared Internet accounts, and the fact that in general, people aren’t limited to one Internet connection. “Finding ways of dodging the punishment is not too hard to imagine from someone who has managed to ignore all the warnings and avoid paying a $15,000 fine.”

Furthermore, it’s arguable that with the centrality of the Internet to the functioning of today’s society, termination seems like an extreme punishment for copyright infringement.

The other key issue raised through the passage of the ‘Skynet Law’, goes to process.

Ironically, its passing came on the same day that Labour MP Grant Robertson and right-wing blogger David Farrar united in protest over the Government’s consistent reversion to the use of urgency.

Urgency allows the Government to extend the sitting hours of Parliament in order to see a higher volume of legislation passed, as well as enabling the Government to bypass important parts of the legislative process. While urgency is sometimes warranted, the current National Government is using the measure excessively. In its first two years, 17 laws have been pushed through without public consultation, compared with the four or five bills in each term of the previous Labour government.

Interestingly, the ‘Skynet Law’ was thoroughly analyzed by the Select Committee, but having waited for a second reading since November, the bill was suddenly rushed through the second reading, Committee of the Whole House, and third reading in one sitting, completely undermining what had until then, been the transparent progression of a controversial piece of legislation.

Recognizing the role urgency plays, but concerned with its overuse, Robertson has suggested that a 75 percent vote in Parliament should be required before the Select Committee stage can be missed.

It’s unlikely such a provision will be instituted in the near future however, and no doubt the confidence of the current Government will continue to see these consistent subversions of democratic process.

This marks a change from 2008 when the Greens clearly ruled out the prospect of confidence and supply with National. Following that election, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding, which has seen the Greens work together with National in a few areas including the ‘Warm Up New Zealand’ home insulation scheme, the national cycleway and a pilot programme aimed at introducing better mechanisms for pest control in native forests.

As co-leader Russel Norman has clarified, “based on current National party policy positions it is extremely unlikely that we could support a National-led government on confidence and supply”. But importantly, they haven’t ruled it out this time.

So, why not? Let’s face it. Even if Rodney Hide fails to win Epsom, and the ACT Party fall short of the five per cent threshold, National are highly unlikely to have to turn to the left for support. To be sure, with the current state of the far right, reformed ACT voters will have undoubtedly turned their support to National, strengthening the Party’s grip on power, which will only increase the potential of the first majority one-party government in New Zealand since the introduction of MMP.

2011 holds important opportunities for the Greens. The Party have an incredibly solid support base on the left, and while the possibility of a ‘New Left’ party somewhat endangers that, the fact Goff has ruled out working with Harawira means that the threat is incredibly restricted. As such, the Greens are in a relatively safe position now, and they can really work the centre, poaching votes from both Labour and National.

The voters in question are those John Hartevelt describes as “relatively well-off, well-educated, politically savvy voters in the big urban centres.” While it might seem more realistic to expect that the Greens will to make their biggest gains at the expense of Labour, there are likely to be significant swaths of the urban middle-class who, having voted for National in 2008, now find the Party’s policies surrounding state-owned assets, or the proposals in the recently leaked energy strategy, reprehensible.

Assuming Goff and Labour continue to be viewed as a relatively pathetic alternative, it is quite conceivable these voters could turn to the Green Party in a bid to send a clear
message to National. This is where the leaving the door ajar to the slightest of possibilities of a confidence and supply agreement is a politically very wise move, especially with the option of abstention on confidence and supply allowing National to govern, and forcing certain Green issues onto the agenda.

With regard to the Greens’ draft Party list also released last week, NZ Herald columnist Matt McCarten raises some alarming points those on the left should be taking note of. Specifically, that there are two huge gaps in representation at the top of the list: one geographical and one ideological.

Firstly, the only Aucklander in the top ten candidates is David Clendon ranked at ninth, and as McCarten points out, “on current polling, the Greens would get eight MPs. Based on its draft list rankings four would come from the South Island; three from Wellington; and one from the Coromandel. This is electoral suicide. If the Green Party shows disregard for Auckland voters, they in turn will desert the Greens and, frankly, there is a real risk none of their candidates will be reelected.” This completely undermines any bid for the urban middle-class and needs to be rectified in the Party’s final list.

McCarten’s second point ties in with the “anti-worker” 90-day trial period introduced at the beginning of this month. Interestingly, not one of the top ten candidates on the Green Party list has a background in “worker or trade union issues”. This move, at least superficially, appears to indicate the Party are distancing themselves from a definable socialist agenda.

Perhaps therefore, the Greens are painting themselves with at least a slight tinge of blue looking ahead?

The Hughes affair has been well documented in the media and I’m not going to rehash it once again here, but it’s safe to say Goff’s handling of the situation was woeful and illustrates that he lacks the competence to lead Labour to an election victory. Of course, there is that inevitable question of whether anyone in the Labour caucus could at this point.
There have been reports that a David Parker-led coup is on the cards. Scoop’s Selwyn Manning reported, “Maryan Street and Ruth Dyson are representing a cabal that is seeking support for David Parker to replace Goff. And rumours that Helen Clark and her strong-arm strategist Heather Simpson have been consulted appear to have some substance.”
Similarly, in the National Business Review, Matthew Hooten quoted an unnamed source who revealed, “David Parker, Maryan Street and Ruth Dyson—with the approval of the New York office (aka Clark)—are gathering numbers to see what can be done.”

Whether or not such a coup could be successful, there are serious doubts over whether Parker could lead Labour to victory. To be sure, he sits comfortably to the left of Goff on economic policy, and considering Goff’s enthusiasm for the neo-liberal policies of the mid-1980s, a Parker-led Labour might have significantly more credibility in that respect. Unfortunately, Parker doesn’t yet have the profile to slot comfortably into a leadership role, and as such it would be highly unlikely he could attract enough support by November to ensure success.

My pick, up until mid-last year, would have been the incredibly talented and entirely likeable Shane Jones, and I think the way in which the ex-minister dealt with the situation when his taxpayer-funded blue-movie transgressions came to light, proves he is adept at reading and reacting to scandal. It may be a distant memory for most at this point, but unfortunately the public embarrassment remains recent enough to be damaging to Labour’s prospects at this point in the election cycle.

Then you’ve got the likes of David Cunliffe, who suffers from the same lack of profile as Parker. There’s Trevor Mallard, who despite being a brilliant politician, would likely enjoy even less public support than Goff. Or you could turn to David Shearer or Grant Robertson, both of whom are potential leadership material, but remain far too ‘wet behind the ears’ to stand any real chance of leading the party out of opposition in this round.

Regardless of the lack of an obvious viable candidate, Garner suggests the Labour caucus needs to choose someone, gather support and “present Goff with a done deal on Tuesday” when the Labour caucus meets, and I tend to agree. While a leadership change so close to an election will ensure a huge uphill battle for the stricken party, surely it’s better than wallowing in the shadow of an unpopular leader who has now proven himself to be a liability.

Unfortunately, while they may not be as candid about it as they were in the Botany by-election, I think it’s safe to say Labour have all but thrown in the towel this round. Goff will lead Labour until the November election at which point he will be rolled, and someone else will lead the party through three more years on the opposition benches.

Despite warnings from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that the government’s Budget deficit is likely to hit nine per cent of GDP, or $18 billion in the current 2010-11 year, the earthquake’s hit on the country will now see borrowing increased rather than reduced.

In addition to this, the spending cuts are likely to be huge. Essentially, the Government is looking at a zero Budget. There will be $600 to $800 million freed up for health and education, but this will only be financed through cuts elsewhere. As such, comparisons have been made to Ruth Richardson’s 1991 ‘Mother of All Budgets’, although as John Armstrong points out, insofar as there are unlikely to be “radical and sweeping policy changes”, Bill English’s third Budget is unlikely to resemble Richardson’s in reality.
Key has assured that there “will not be a savage attack on one particular thing” with regard to cuts, so in order to free up the kind of capital the government needs, there is likely to be a significant cutback in services across the board.

It’s almost a given that Working For Families payments for high-earners will be axed, with $250 million in saving likely, depending at what rate the cuts kick in. KiwiSaver is the other big one—the unforeseen success of the programme is costing the Government $1.02 billion annually in subsidies, and will be analysed thoroughly.

Tariana Turia’s Whanau Ora programme, underfunded from its inception, is unlikely to see any increased allocation of funding, and could potentially see reductions, continuing to render it completely ineffectual. The ACT Party will be similarly disappointed, with talk that funding for the 2025 taskforce is also likely to be sacrificed.

Obviously, of most interest to students will be how the Government is planning to pull money from the Student Loan scheme. There has been speculation that National might use the opportunity to cut the Labour government’s interest-free deal, although Key’s comments indicate that it is more likely the programme will see further restrictions on application for loans, following those introduced in the 2010 Budget.

Among all of this, there seems to be a general acceptance that an austere budget is necessary. Two earthquakes have created some exceptional circumstances. However, the Government’s approach remains political, and it’s interesting to note that taxation is conveniently lacking from the agenda.

Firstly, Key has ruled out a levy like the one introduced by his Australian counterpart Julia Gillard, following the disastrous Queensland floods. Despite general public positivity towards the proposal, Key claims that such a levy is likely to adversely affect economic recovery across the rest of New Zealand.

It’s more likely however, that the levy is simply not politically viable, as it risks undermining the Government’s introduction of income tax cuts last year. There won’t be another re-jig of income tax, and Key has also ruled out introducing a capital gains tax, or land tax, both of which have been recommended by Tax Working Group who engineered last year’s tax switch, as well as the IMF in their recent report.

Pundit’s Rob Salmond therefore makes a sound argument outlining that “we are seeing National jump ideologically to the right. It looks like John Key is losing influence over hard-line ministers who want to cut government spending regardless of circumstance, and is listening less and less to his more fiscally moderate colleagues, such as Simon Power.”
National has a lot of political capital behind them at the moment, and it seems plausible that the Government can pull off an ideologically driven attack on spending in an election year. It’s still a big punt though, and the ball is now in Labour’s court to produce a more appealing, but still credible proposal.

There has long been speculation of a New Left party headed by Harawira, and former Green MP Sue Bradford. However, Harawira’s revelation that any new party led by the former Maori Party MP would be Maori-focused; a “more Left-wing Maori Party”, seems to pour cold water over the likelihood of the two coalescing around a common Leftist agenda. Bradford has already commented, “It’s not the sort of broadly-based, Left party that a lot of people including myself would like to see.”

Despite the narrow focus, the idea of such a Left-wing Maori party enjoys significant support. A Native Affairs/Baseline poll found that nearly a third of Maori-roll voters would vote for a party led by Harawira, which could cost the Maori Party dearly. Matt McCarten has told of Labour’s lament that with the departure of Harawira, the Maori Party is now “in National’s pocket forever”—an alliance which appears antithetical to the desires of most Maori voters. Perhaps it is this perception of the future of the Maori Party that explains why polling indicates neither Pita Sharples nor Rahui Katene will retain their seats in November, reducing the Party’s presence to just two MPs.

Of course, Harawira has promised his former colleagues that he will not stand candidates against them, so long as they don’t run a candidate against him in Te Tai Tokerau. If these promises are kept, a Harawira-led party would therefore be reliant upon list seats, and considering Maori Party voters have overwhelmingly awarded Labour their Party Vote in the past, perhaps it is Labour who stand to lose.
This might explain Phil Goff’s remarks that he would not form Government with a Harawira-led party, a thinly veiled attempt to discourage the mass exodus of traditional-Labour voters. On the other had, Goff might be forced to eat his words if Harawira is successful, as this party could be Labour’s only chance at gaining power in November. It will certainly be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Meanwhile, there are similarly interesting developments on the Right.

Perhaps highlighting how little of a threat the Labour Party poses in the upcoming election, it was the National Party who found themselves repeatedly in the crosshairs at the recent ACT Party conference.

Both ex-National leader Don Brash and ACT’s deputy leader John Boscawen criticised National’s handling of the economy, with the former accusing the National cabinet of making “irresponsible decisions”, and the latter suggesting that the time for the “slower and incremental approach” had passed, and Key should be looking towards “the big bang approach that Sir Roger (Douglas) did in the 1980s.”
Brash also played the race card that was so effective in his now infamous address at the Orewa Rotary Club in 2004, giving a scathing criticism of the National Party, opining, “Sometimes I think the Government cannot see other races but Maori.”

ACT Leader Rodney Hide also put the elbow in to his coalition partners, bemoaning National’s backing down on the idea of mining conservation land, and promising that ACT would use any leverage awarded to the Party on election night to reverse National’s position.
Of course, whether there will be any leverage at all is up for debate.

ACT only enjoy their seats in Parliament currently, thanks to Hide’s 2008 success in Epsom and there are questions over whether Epsom will stick with the battered leader in November. In-Party fighting, scandal surrounding Hide’s taxpayer-funded overseas travel with his then-girlfriend, and the embarrassing circumstances surrounding MP David Garratt’s resignation have left Hide and ACT with a disconcerting record.

With the speculation surrounding the prospect of Brash or John Banks leading a far-right Reform Party, and questions over whether or not National will run a viable candidate in Epsom, Hide cannot work on the assumption that the centre-right will return ACT to Parliament simply on the basis that voters will reject the idea of a straight National-Maori Party coalition. It is quite conceivable that the future of ACT can only be secured with the resignation of Hide.

While the septuagenarian Roger Douglas is well past his use-by date, and Mapp’s age puts him outside of any real possibility of leadership contention, Power’s resignation is a little harder to fathom, especially considering the promising future Parliament seemed to hold for National’s fourth-placed MP.

Power’s seemingly premature departure is a move not without precedent though. A friend and colleague of Power’s, Katherine Rich quit politics at the 2008 election despite sitting fairly high in the parliamentary caucus. Perhaps, as David Farrar points out, Power is following a trend that sees some of these younger politicians putting in 12-15 years before pursuing other ambitions, loath to follow the sort of path that has seen the likes of Phil Goff slogging away in public office for 30 years.

Or perhaps, Gordon Campbell’s cynical argument is more applicable: that the minister’s departure is simply “proof that Parliament is such a toxic environment that any sane person would (or should) be constantly weighing the possible rewards, against the day to day costs.”

The Prime Minister said Power’s announcement left him “stunned and flabbergasted”, opining that the departing would have made “a fine Prime Minister”. With a little consideration however, and it’s not so difficult to understand the decision. What were Power’s leadership prospects? National are clear favourites running into this election, which will give Key another term at the helm. However, as the New Zealand Herald’s John Armstrong points out, if National failed to win a third term in 2014 and the party were subsequently in opposition for two terms, Power, as a potential party leader would be waiting until at least 2020 before assuming the role of Prime Minister. Furthermore, the scenario would only play out if he remained uneclipsed by any as-yet-unknown National MPs with leadership ambitions—remember John Key was only a member of the National Party for four years before becoming leader of the opposition in 2006.

There appears to be little doubt that Power can be taken at his word in his decision to move on. As he has outlined, “I had a three-year plan which we’d decided to execute once we came into Government and it had always been my plan to do that and then to exit.” Power was given the portfolios he wanted to address from the outset, and with undeniable determination and competency, it seems Power has addressed what he intended to address. Now it’s time for the 41-year-old to move on to the next stage in his career, a move Key himself has similarly indicated he intends to make if by some miracle National don’t prevail in November.
So where does that leave National?

Power and Mapp’s resignations creates a space at the top of the National caucus for a potential leader who might resonate with the public as well as Key does (in the highly unlikely situation of his own premature departure). They also provide the opportunity for Key to reshuffle his cabinet and inject some younger blood. Predictions for a replacement for Power’s Justice portfolio have included the likes of current Police Minister Judith Collins, Attorney-General Chris Finlayson or Simon Bridges. Sure, Collins is ideologically close enough to Power to continue his work in the portfolio, but by elevating Bridges to the position, National can communicate to voters a desire to remain fresh and relevant.

All things considered, Power’s resignation is undeniably a huge loss for the Government, and we can only hope that Key doesn’t undermine Power’s work like he did with Rich’s education portfolio when he appointed it to the loathsome Anne Tolley.

J

ust hours before the recent devastating Christchurch earthquake, the Welfare Working Group (WWG) released its final report, which looked set to dominate the domestic news agenda for at least that week. Of course, the earthquake ended up hijacking the agenda, and apart from a few opinion posts here and there, the media never really had the opportunity to flesh this one out, and understandably so.

The predictions were of recommend-ations for an overhaul of the New Zealand welfare system not seen since the days of Ruth Richardson, and the report certainly delivered in many respects. It addresses what it terms an “unacceptably high” welfare bill, and contains 43 recommendations for reform across its 180 pages.

The key recommendation calls for a single Jobseeker Support payment, to be administered by a new crown agency entitled Employment and Support New Zealand, which would replace all existing benefits. Effectively, this shunts all beneficiaries onto a fixed rate (the dole), with extras for those entitled to sickness and disability, sole parenthood etc., added as supplementary payments to the fixed rate. Potentially, this could facilitate a better-functioning system, able to identify and help the vulnerable, while encouraging those who can, back into work.
Some of the recommendations further into the report are a little more eyebrow-raising though. The standout proposal, which found its way into the media shortly before the release of the report, concerns itself with changing the age limits of children for work-testing their mothers. Currently, the DPB work-tests mothers when a child turns six, and the group recommends that age should drop to three—the same age that the 20 free hours of childcare kicks in. Unsurprisingly, John Key has indicated that this is a recommendation the government is likely to support.

However, Key stopped short of supporting the bewildering further recommendation, that this age limit be reduced to 14 weeks if a mother had a second child while still collecting her benefit—a move that the WWG says is aimed at removing the incentive for beneficiaries to have additional children. Notably, this is the only recommendation that was not unanimously endorsed by the WWG, and it’s pretty clear that Key has effectively ruled this out, commenting “Personally I feel a bit queasy about that, and so would New Zealanders.”
Furthermore, the WWG argue that if their 14-week policy failed, the Government should consider other “financial disincentives”, including the removal of any increase in financial assistance for parents who have a further child while on welfare. This alongside the wider recommendations of penalties for beneficiaries who fail to seek work, and fail or refuse employer drug-tests, are unlikely to do little more than deprive children for the sins of their parents. To be sure, the group do call for “additional monitoring” in these cases, but as with any bureaucratic system, it’s inevitable a few, if not many will fall between the cracks.

The other most striking recommen-dation, namely the proposal to give parents on welfare access to “long-acting, reversible” contraception, is another that will no doubt be dismissed by the Government. While I don’t buy into Sue Bradford’s warnings of “the beginnings of a eugenics policy worthy of Nazi Germany”, the proposal does skirt dangerously close to the edges of social engineering, and as such it clearly won’t, or at least shouldn’t, be a palatable option for National to sign onto, especially in an election year.
Ultimately, it is this ability to cherry-pick from these recommendations that is really important to remember. Key is highly unlikely to make significant changes while the country is still in recession. That would simply be political suicide. When the WWG was set up, it was expected New Zealand would be emerging from the recession, and the Government would be concentrating on getting people back into work. But, with a price tag that could reach well above $250 million annually to facilitate this reform, and with relatively few jobs for beneficiaries to fill in the current economic climate, much of the overall proposal is redundant.

To be sure, National will inevitably tinker with the system here and there, but if anything, the WWG report will simply make this seem moderate in the face of many of these recommendations.

Finally John Key seems to be looking to satisfy those on the right, after two years of carefully treading water in the centre. The announcement that National intends to partially privatise up to 49-percent of state-owned power companies is a potentially risky move for Key—a so-called ‘third rail’ in politics, but with an election looming in which National are clear favourites, it’s probably not an unwise time to unveil the intent.

While undeniably transparent, Key’s attitude around the policy is decidedly less honourable, with the announcement that if elected, it would be “unlikely” that a National-led Government would not go ahead with privatization plans, and that not even marching in the streets would change the policy. It will be interesting to see if the public call his bluff on this though, with recent opinion polls finding only 30% in favour of the plan.

Phil Goff revealed a similarly contro-versial policy in his State of the Nation address, advocating a tax free zone on the first $5000 of earnings. Opinion polls illustrate this to be equally as unpopular, meaning that once again Goff has failed to land any effective blows on his opponent. The policy seems to have been interpreted more as a case of tinkering for tinkering’s sake, with voters questioning where money would come from to support such a policy.

This underscores the mounting problems Goff faces leading up to this election. An experienced politician having spent three decades in Parliament, Goff somehow fails to resonate with the New Zealand public. He continues to hover around 6% in popularity rating compared to Key, who comfortably sits in the mid-to-high 40s. Goff really needs to take some huge gambles this year, and push policies that are likely to appeal to those voters Labour lost to National in the 2008 election.

Key has also presented another significant challenge for Goff in his announcement that a vote for New Zealand First would be a vote for a Labour-led Government. By ruling out a coalition with Winston Peters, Key has sent a clear message to National voters, who might have been considering a tactical vote to pull National towards the centre. Goff simply can’t follow suit and rule out a coalition with Peters, as such a coalition is most likely Labour’s only chance of assuming power. Key’s announcement is brilliant politicking, as in addition to kneecapping NZ First, the hit could potentially recruit for National or Labour voters who are averse to any Government with Peters in Cabinet.

NZ First isn’t the only minor party that faces problems either. After the ACT Party’s ructions last year, the party is still on shaky ground, and if National decide to stand someone of any worth in Epsom, it’s highly likely there may not be an ACT Party in Parliament next year. There definitely won’t be a Roger Douglas after revelations he intends to retire (again) at the General Election.

The Maori Party also obviously faces problems with the saga concerning its MP Hone Harawira. The ongoing drama threatens to destabilise the Party, especially as he seems to be the only Member who is actually addressing the issues that concern most Maori.

The Greens seem safe, although they lose the long-serving peace and human rights advocate Keith Locke at the election. While their position in Parliament appears to be safe, I don’t see them making huge gains on their share of the vote. There’s only a certain sector of the population who will tolerate co-leader Russell Norman’s ridiculous protests; the latest, his ludicrous veto disallowing the Australian Prime-Minister Julia Gillard the opportunity to address a formal session of Parliament.

All this aside, as the old adage says: ‘a week is a long time in politics’, and as such, the stage that has been set will undeniably change significantly as November 26 draws closer and closer.

Watch this space.

Lyrics such as ‘While you’re going around trying to keep people out of hell, I’m going around trying to keep the hell out of people’, suitably reflects the biting critique on religion, that is the central theme in hip-hop provocateur Sage Francis’s latest album Li(f)e. As the self-described indie-rap artist comments, “The driving force behind creating the album was to explore the lies of our lives. I find that a lot of that originates with religion, so it made me think about religion, about where it comes from and the reasoning behind it. I wouldn’t say it is a super-obvious, it’s more of an underlying them but it’s there and it is part of everything else that I talk about.”

He continues, adding that the lyrics “could be considered political, but it isn’t politics. It’s the stuff in our lives. It’s what I think about because it is around me at all time, so it finds its way into my art, it finds its way into my lyrics, and I address it. It’s just me exploring my condition, my situation and my circumstance, and communicating the human condition. That’s really what I feel I do best with my music.”

From a sonic perspective, the eclectic nature of the musical accompaniment on Li(f)e, makes for an incredibly compelling listen, sometimes complementing, and sometime juxtaposed against the emotion of the lyrics. Collaborations with the likes of ex-Grandaddy front man Jason Lytle, Chris Walla of Death Cab For Cutie, and members of Sparklehorse have resulted in a truly eclectic and perhaps slightly unexpected masterpiece. Francis explains, “When we went into making this record, the concept behind the album was me working with all sorts of musicians because we basically wanted to have a totally fresh and new sound. I wanted to do something that could initially be seen as bizarre, but to actually do it well enough that people would adapt to it, and be like ‘Oh wow, I see that this works and it’s cool’. I didn’t really have any particular sound or style of music I was looking for though.”

“I feel like what I wanted to do was challenge myself as a writer, because I knew that I would be able to work my lyrics over different soundscapes, whether it was a boom-bap beat, or anything vaguely hip-hop loop related. I would be able to make it work and I felt like it would also push my song writing if I were given that opportunity. So, we reached out to various musicians and bands to see if they would provide me with music that was natural to them. We didn’t want them to give me stuff that they thought was good for hip-hop, because once people do that it becomes more contrived, and sounds false.”

Francis mentions that working with ANTI-, a label who have been responsible for releasing albums from the likes of Tom Waits, Bettye LaVette and Grinderman among many others, essentially allowed him access to a huge range of musicians. “Andy Kaulkin who runs Anti has a lot of contacts in the music world, so he was able to reach out to all different types of musicians, from all different genres, and he basically championed me to them. He actually explained the kind of hip-hop that I do, and explained to them the path we were travelling down, and asked them if they wanted to join us. That’s how we got people to come along for the ride.”

As one might expect, the process was by no means a simple one. As Francis points out, “We received hundreds of demos – it was a lot to go through. It was a lot of music and a lot of the stuff I admittedly couldn’t do anything with, so I kind of pushed those to the side and focused on the ones I could do stuff with.”

“It was a two-year process, because it was a lot to go through, and it was very expensive. But in the long run, we definitely came out with a record that sounded totally unique and different from anything that came before it, so that was the goal and I’m happy about that.”

While the feedback has largely been positive, Francis does concede, “some people in the more traditional hip-hop world immediately rejected it”, but that is something he expected from the very beginning of the creative process. “I’ve heard the naysayers, and I’ve heard the yaysayers, but I would have been surprised if it had been one and not the other.”

“For me personally, to do something that I felt I was challenged by, and rewarded by – that was my goal. I’m just happy people didn’t collectively think that it sucked.”

OUT NOW: SAGE FRANCIS – LI(F)E

Years of ministerial credit card statements were thrown into the limelight in July and August, resulting in the demotion of a number of ministers, and a saga around one in particular.

Please step forward… Mr Chris Carter.

Carter was expelled from the Labour caucus for his embarrassing actions following a botched reaction to the credit card scandal, which culminated in an attempt to initiate a leadership coup within the party. After taking a lengthy break, he has returned to Parliament to continue to serve his Te Atatu electorate. Interestingly enough, despite being expelled by the party, Carter remains Labour’s sole candidate for Te
Atatu at this point, although Labour leader Phil Goff has assured party supporters that Carter won’t hold the official Labour nomination. Carter has revealed plans that reach beyond a career in Parliament though. Last week, the MP announced he would author a book about the last Labour government, which is expected to be released around the time of next year’s election campaign.

Speaking of post-politics plans, it is also interesting to note that former Act identity thief David Garrett has applied to the Law Society for a barrister’s practising certificate. The audacity of this man who 1) stole a dead baby’s identity, 2) kept an assault conviction secret from a judge who consequently granted him name suppression, and 3) lied to police, is palpable. Three strikes indeed.

There is yet to be any announcement on a decision from the Law Society, although in their weekly newsletter, they have announced his application will be processed “as soon as possible”.

Elsewhere in the world, following former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s resignation in the wake of Labour’s defeat at the polls earlier this year, the Labour party has finally elected a new leader. Ed Miliband won the position in somewhat of an upset, taking the position out from under his older brother—shadow foreign secretary David Miliband. The older Miliband had long been the favourite for the top job within
Labour, and despite a showing of public support for his younger brother, he has since made the
decision to step away from frontline politics, refusing to serve in his brother’s shadow cabinet.

From the other side of the house, the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition partners have remained true to their pledge to put the electoral system to a vote, despite the lack of any real change the Alternative Vote system is likely to offer. However, there have been recent concerns surrounding the wording of the referendum question. The original draft asked: “Do you want the United Kingdom to adopt the ‘alternative vote’ system instead of the current ‘first past the post’ system for electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons?”, but the UK Electoral Commission has asserted that tests have revealed that the question is “too hard…particularly for those with lower levels of education or literacy.”

They have instead proposed the wording: “At present, the UK uses the ‘first past the post’ system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the ‘alternative vote’ system be used instead?” Unfortunately there has been little corresponding discussion on the scope of the referendum. Regardless, it will be interesting for voters in New Zealand to see which way British voters swing, with the referendum on our own electoral system coming up at the end of next year.

Another column earlier this year discussed the strategic reason behind the alleged North Korean attack on the South Korean naval vessel, Cheonan. There was speculation that the attack was designed to shore up hard-line support for current leader Kim Jong-il’s youngest son, Kim Jong-un. Over the past two weeks, it has become apparent that Kim Jong-un is indeed being prepped for leadership. In his late 20s, he has rocketed from a political nobody to one of the most significant figures in North Korea. Appointed as a four-star military general, a party conference then legitimised his standing as Kim Jong-il’s successor. He has also been made Vice Chairman of the Workers’ Party Central Military Commission and a member of the party’s Central Committee. The real importance of this is that academics have speculated that the sudden promotion reflects that the current leader may be in worse health than previously thought. As a result, the world could see the ascension of a new leader in the rogue state within the next year, bringing with him numerous new opportunities and challenges alike.

Next year is also going to be a huge year at home. Whether Chris Carter will continue to serve in Te Atatu or not, New Zealanders have the opportunity to review the current National government’s first term at the end of next year. 2011’s election is especially important due to the referendum reviewing MMP, which will be tagged along with the election. Salient will obviously be providing a thorough account of the whats, whens, whys and whos, so keep an eye on the magazine next year, and make an informed choice on who you want to lead the country, and the way in which those leaders will be elected in the future.

The acronyms VSM (voluntary student membership) and CSM (compulsory student membership) have filled the pages of Salient throughout 2010, with analysis of the pros and cons, as well as the possible and intended repercussions of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill that is currently working its way through Parliament. In case you have been living under a rock for the majority of the year, here is a brief explanation: Roger Douglas’ member’s bill, now sponsored by Heather Roy, essentially aims to remove the right for a student body to decide whether it should be compulsory or voluntary for students to join their institution’s students’ association. The bill would make joining a students’ association entirely voluntary.

As reported by Salient last week, the Education and Science Select Committee recently recommended the bill be passed into law, with a few amendments. This recommendation came in the face of an overwhelming 4837 submissions, of which 98 per cent were opposed to the bill. While the proposed legislation’s passage is by no means guaranteed, the select committee report, as well as indications from the National Party that they will support the Act Party bill, points toward the end of CSM in all likelihood.

The report

The Education and Science Committee report has recommended that the legislation provides that neither current nor prospective students at tertiary institutions be required to become a member of that institution’s students’ association. Moreover, it outlines that the legislation should “prohibit a person from exerting undue influence on any student or prospective student to become or remain a member of a students’ association, cease to become a member of a students’ association, or not become a member of a students’ association.” The report also recommends a complaints procedure to be instituted to deal with such undue influence.

The committee’s report also attempts to deal with the problem of freeloaders: students who take advantage of the services provided by a students’ association without paying fees. The recommendation outlines that “a person who is not a member of a students’ association may not be required to pay a representation fee to the association for any services that the association provides generally to the institution’s student body.” But, this does not prevent a students’ association from “either charging a person who is not a member of the association for the provision of a specific service to that person, at that person’s request; or being contracted by an institution or any other person to provide services to students of an institutions.”

The Committee has set 1 January 2012 as the commencement date for the legislation, in order to “give students’ associations about a year to prepare for the change to voluntary student membership”.

Gareth Hughes, one of the members of the committee, and tertiary spokesperson for the Greens, joined Labour in dissenting from the majority opinion. The report outlines that he could “see no justification for this legislation and agrees with the majority of submitters that the likely outcomes will be damaging to the tertiary education sector”.

In an interview with Salient, Hughes points out that there were a couple of key factors behind the select committee’s recommendation that the bill be passed, despite the overwhelming opposition. Firstly, he speculates that “the message was coming from [Tertiary Education Minister] Steven Joyce’s office, and for the National party, it is just really convenient to weaken students’ voice. They’ve been the thorn in the side of the Government for all the negative things they have done over the past couple of years, as well as under the past Labour government, and it is a way of disenfranchising students’ voice.”

In addition to this, Hughes comments, “the Whitireia corruption scandal happened at the worst possible time”. Police are investigating the Whitireia Independent Students’ Association, where $1 million of the association’s funds are largely unaccounted for. While students at Whitireia are not required to join the students’ association, the system is set up so it is difficult for a student not to be a member. Hughes adds, “I think the members of the committee heard really compelling and strong evidence from all the submitters, and I think they were changing their mind over the course of the submissions, but that [Whitireia scandal] happened when [the National] caucus was considering what to do on the bill.”

Hughes also mentions that the Education and Science Committee was heading towards recommending a system that largely supported the status quo with some minor adjustments, “but unfortunately, the National party have thrown it out.”

“The thing to stress is that what we have at the moment is a compromise, which gives students the right to choose. Some universities have gone VSM, like Waikato and Auckland and some have gone back to CSM, like Waikato. But, it is up to students to choose. What we found was that there is a vast degree of interpretation on the opt-on provisions. Some make it easier, and advertise and promote the ability to opt-out, and some don’t. Some allow donations to go back to a charity of the students’ choice versus a charity of the students’ association’s choice. So that could have all been cleaned up and made explicit. At the moment there is freedom of association and this is consistent with human rights, it could just be a little it clearer for students. But, what the National party has done is gone the hard ideological right-wing route. They won’t let Roger Douglas in cabinet, but they’ll let him pass laws.”

Summing up his reflections, Hughes comments, “I think this is just a good opportunity for the National party to do what they want to do, and that is to weaken student unions, remove students voice and disenfranchise their democratic role. And, it’s convenient because they can blame it on their right-wing coalition partner. But I believe that this is what they wanted.”

Where to from here?

While the legislation still has to pass through two further readings in Parliament, it is likely that the legislation will see passage through the House. In a show of absolute determination, VUWSA President Max Hardy has said that the “focus at the moment remains with defeating the bill. We’re trying to convince National that they don’t want to support this kind of ideological Act party attempt at destroying student representation on campuses. Because that is our focus, we’re not therefore focused on contingencies, on what we would do under VSM.”

Regardless, Hardy concedes that while their primary focus remains with defeating the bill, “it would be irresponsible not to start thinking about what VUWSA will look like under VSM.” As a result, VUWSA are in the middle of considering a number of different international VSM models, as well as engaging in negotiations with the university. While refusing to offer any indication of what VUWSA might look like in a VSM environment, Hardy assures that “any final decision will be put to students either by referendum, or by a general meeting of VUWSA. It will obviously be a democratic decision, because it is about how your students’ association will be structured in the future.”

From the perspective of opposition within Parliament, Hughes comments that he intends to “introduce some amendments to make the bill a bit more palatable. I am investigating extending the time limit for when it comes into effect and I am investigating whether we can bring back a referendum.”

He continues pointing out that a referendum would be an appropriate vehicle, simply because of “the irony of the bill. In the name of student choice, and freedom of association, the septuagenarian Roger Douglas is telling students how they must organise themselves. I want to give students the opportunity to vote on which system works for them.”

The needle and the damage done

While the possible effects of the bill have been well documented, Hughes points out that from his perspective “the really big worry is that student assets are going to get sold. This is what happened to Waikato. They flogged off assets that had been built up over decades, and this is going to happen all across the country. This is going to be the major outcome.

“In some cases, a hundred years of student diligence; of putting away a small amount of money and purchasing some assets is all going to go, which is a massive tragedy. So then, what most student unions are going to have to do to survive is reduce their fees to zero, and then sign a contract agreement with the institution like the situation at Auckland University. In their submission, they basically say that they survive in spite of VSM, and not because of it. They are really under the thumb of the institution and the institution can do what ever they want. So, (under VSM) the independence of student associations isn’t going to continue, because they are going to be under the thumb of institutions.”

Hughes continues: “The way students prioritise services versus the institutions can be totally different.
We are going to see controversial services scrapped. Some universities give crime updates on campus. Some do sexual risk audits of campuses—looking at where the dangerous areas are. Some students’ associations do a performance ranking on lecturers. None of that stuff is going to happen because it’s not in the institutions interest.”

Hardy’s concerns are related. Specifically, he sees the bill as the end of accountable student representation,
“which is important and one of the reasons why Victoria University and VUWSA opposed the bill.” He says that the lack of “direct student scrutiny”, and fewer volunteer hours means that the amount of money charged for the services VUWSA currently provides is likely to steadily increase.

Most importantly, Hardy believes it is essential that there are “people looking out for the best interests of
the students first and foremost, and not just the best interests of the institution. The bill really doesn’t achieve anything for the students. All it does is remove the ability of students to have a say in what services are provided on campus, what sort of education they receive at university, and where their money goes.”

This is in part because Labour is predicting that the GST increase will boost inflation more than National have accounted for, especially if retailers raise their prices by more than the 2.5 per cent increase. Q+A’s Guyon Espiner used the example of one cleaning company that is increasing its prices from $75 to $80, representing a significantly higher 7 per cent increase.

The key problem is that GST is a regressive tax—that is, a tax that takes a smaller percentage of income as income rises. Or put another way, a tax that disproportionately hits the poor. Simply put, this is because the poor have to spend their whole income to survive. Thus, every dollar they earn, they spend and get hit with an extra 2.5 per cent of tax, and any extra inflation associated with the increase. Those at the other end of the spectrum, on the other hand, can cut back on luxuries and can save. This means that they have relative control over how much tax they pay, by controlling how much they consume, and are therefore the people who actually reap any tangible benefits of an income tax cut.

There are potential benefits for society that can’t be ignored though. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), has simulated this tax switch, and has concluded that higher savings rates, higher investment, higher employment growth and higher real wage growth are a plausible result. Professor Robert Buckle, chair of the Tax Working Group outlined this in an interview with Salient earlier this year: “Those who are unemployed will benefit by stronger employment growth, (and) those on salary and wages will benefit from higher labour productivity and real wage growth.” However, in the very words of Finance Minister, Bill English, “this is about some short-term pain and long-term gain.”

So, the tax has been implemented, and for better or for worse, New Zealanders are going to have to adjust. Labour has floored another option though. While it was discussed back in May, when the tax switch was revealed, Labour has now committed to a promise that, if elected, they will completely remove GST from fresh fruit and vegetables. Despite all the hoopla surrounding the logistics of this, it is a relatively simple proposal with the key word being ‘fresh’, and the system has been proven to work in Australia.

The benefits are once again heavily contested, with Labour leader Phil Goff asserting that “a typical family of two adults, an adolescent and a five-year-old spends at least $42 a week on fruit and vegetables. They will save about $6 a week, or $300-$400 a year.” English on the other hand, refutes this, claiming that the proposal would only save the average New Zealander $1 a week, and would be much lower for lower income families.

Still, New Zealand’s standing in the world’s obesity rankings surely makes this an avenue worth pursuing. The Economist magazine recently revealed that New Zealand is one of the most obese nations in the world, and when one takes into account the health costs in combating this epidemic, the tax lost from GST on fruit and vegetables is of little consequence.

The sheer amount of times the National party has referred to the $250 million New Zealand is borrowing each week to stay “afloat”, might lead one to assume that they were, in fact, an opposition party. Regardless of the effects of the recession, doesn’t that figure at least somewhat reflect their performance in government? Yet English has pulled it out once again to assert that Labour’s proposed policy would further increase the public debt. However, if the incentives play out the way Labour foresees, the long-term benefits of healthier diets could quite conceivably see the drop in tax revenue offset by a health budget that is less strained in fighting obesity.

Further to this, there were a number of options National left off the table in their tax switch that would more than make up for tax-free fruit and veg. Options like a capital gains tax, which was recommended by the Tax Working Group, could offset the loss of GST, and would simultaneously see a fairer tax system with the regressive GST being offset by a capital gains tax aimed at the wealthy.

According to the latest Colmar Brunton/One News poll, the National party currently enjoys 49 per cent support, while Labour are polling significantly less at 35 per cent. With a Labour victory in 2011 hard for even the party’s most optimistic supporters to rely on, New Zealand might be waiting a long time for such a policy to see any real debate.

Singapore

In order to get to South East Asia, our itinerary took us from the Gold Coast to Melbourne, to Canberra and then back to Melbourne, and then on to Perth before finally heading to Singapore for the first show. Anyone who knows the geography of Australia will realise this is somewhat ridiculous. Partly due to an attempt to sort out work visas for Indonesia at the last minute (which explains the trip to Canberra), this was simply taking advantage of flights that were half the price, despite taking us twice the distance. Needless to say, it was somewhat of a relief after 40 hours of planes and airports to reach our first real destination.

Singapore is a vegan’s paradise—if you know where to look. A wonderful array of mock meats in rice and noodle dishes that ooze with Asian flavours, and easily the cheapest vegan catering in the world meant I was in culinary heaven, and I think I spent most of our 48 hours in Singapore waiting for the next meal. The Chinese vegan food was only outmatched by its Indian equivalent.

When you catch the subway to Little India in Singapore, you emerge from the station, and it seems as though you have actually somehow transported to India itself. We spent a good few hours wandering around the area getting a feel for it—eating, perusing the shops and watching the people. Little India itself could quite conceivably allow for a number of days of exploring, but as for most of trip, the logistics of touring saw our time constrained. 48 hours really isn’t enough to explore Singapore, and I would take the opportunity to travel back in an instant to further explore this cultural melting pot.

Surabaya/Sidoarjo, Indonesia

Having played Singapore, Manila in the Philippines, and Bali, we were now headed to East Java for a run of shows. The drive from Bali to Surabaya in East Java has to be one of the worst van trips in seven years of playing in bands and touring. The 400-kilometre drive took just over 12 hours, fighting with some of the worst traffic on the worst roads we had ever dealt with. If I have any advice for travelling through Indonesia, it is quite simply not to bother with the roads.

Surabaya was cool though. Indonesia’s second largest city isn’t exactly aimed at tourists, but since our Indonesian promoter was based there, we were shown the sights and had a good time seeing the place. Probably the most incredible thing was seeing the Lapindo mudflow. Indonesia is a country that has seen its fair share of natural disasters, and Surabaya is no exception. On the outskirts of the city, there is an area surrounded by a wall of earth. When one climbs the wall, it looks as though there is simply a lake, but we were quickly informed that the whole area used to be populated until this volcanic mudflow started to gush out of the earth. All the Indonesian government has managed to do is simply move the thousands who lived there—many of whom live on the outskirts, with no livelihood now—and build these embankments to hold back the mud, which continues to flow until this day.

Of course by this time, a week and a half into the tour, the inevitable South East Asian stomach bug had invaded half of us and unfortunately both Kurt and I spent that day in the van more worried about where the next toilet was than anything else. After a day of sightseeing in which we saw the inside of many cubicles complete with their squat toilets and a frightening lack of toilet paper, it was time to hit the road for another hour to play in the small satellite city of Sidoarjo.

Sidoarjo was quite simply the best show on the tour, and it deserves a mention. We were headlining a festival of 39 bands, which ran from nine in the morning until ten at night. This wasn’t an ordinary festival though. In true Indonesian fashion, the organisers had paid off the cops to stay away from an empty parking lot, and a couple of amps, some drums and a vocal P.A. were set-up on the ground in one corner. By the time we turned up, the place was heaving with people.

There is no way we should have been headlining, because Indonesia has some truly impressive bands. A fantastic mixture of punk, rock, ska and reggae bands took the stage one after another and the crowd absolutely loved it. Mingling through the audience, we were continuously pulled in to dance with the locals, and were offered numerous swigs of whatever was being used as alcohol that evening. Needless to say, these offers were turned down due to our abdominal situations. Playing in Sidoarjo was equally as just as simply being at the show. The crowd, which was largely made up of street-kids, made us feel entirely at home and the show was easily one of the best we had ever played as a band.

One further thing about Sidoarjo—Not OK is not a band well acquainted with the ‘back-stage area’. But on this occasion, as with many of the South East Asia shows, we were treated to such a space. Outside, and behind a gate, with an open sewer running down the side, was the allocated area in Sidoarjo, which became a whole lot more interesting when one of the audience members walked back to tie his monkey up in relative safety while he took off to watch the show. Needless to say, this monkey found itself the centre of attention for the better part of an hour. Despite the moral objections incited by the very sight of a chained-up wild animal, it was still pretty cool to hang out with a monkey!

Kota Kinabalu/Kuching, Boreno Malaysia

Borneo’s inclusion on the itinerary was something we hadn’t expected when we started booking the tour, and needless to say, it was a region we were looking forward to exploring. Despite only having three days across two cities, and fighting an unshakable bout of diarrhoea, we really did try to make the most of Borneo.

In Kota Kinabalu, at the northern end of the island, it was all about the beach. A full day of wallowing in calm and temperate waters, and sleeping under palm trees might not seem like the best use of a short amount of time, but after three weeks of cities and their associated pollution, this trip to the beach was probably the greatest thing Borneo could have offered us. Kota Kinabalu does exude a laid back, island atmosphere and it was an incredibly juxtaposed relaxation against the hustle and bustle of the rest of our South East Asia experience.

With Kota Kinabalu taking care of the beach, when we hit Kuching in the south, it was all about the jungle. Again, time wasn’t on our side, so we didn’t get to penetrate the jungle as much as we would have liked, but the visit we had was still definitely well worth it. Unfortunately no more monkeys, but you can’t win ‘em all right?!

Like everywhere else on this trip, we only got a glimpse of Borneo, but the idea of further exploring more of it’s beaches and jungle means it will definitely be a feature in future travel.

All in all, it’s difficult to give a sense of what South East Asia can really offer, but seeing it through the eyes of the locals was a truly unique experience. We played to some of the craziest audiences, met some fantastic people, and saw the insides of too many planes, buses, trains, taxis and vans to recount. Most importantly though, travel through South East Asia’s punk rock nether regions opened up another whole world to the band. The feeling is best summed up by Justin’s comments in an interview with The Groove Guide earlier this year.

“The music gives us a chance to travel and we try to do as much as we can. There is no better way to make friends for life. It breaks down all the barriers, and we came back home as different people. We saw how people in those parts of the world live and it made us realise we’re sitting pretty at their expense. Years of pillaging by past and present empires has left those countries with nothing to build upon. Why the locals treated us so well is beyond me.”

On Wednesday 15 September approximately 1500 secondary school teachers marched on parliament in protest over pay and working conditions. As a panellist on TV One’s Q+A programme, Coddington accused these teachers of being hypocrites—forcing kids to be well-behaved within classrooms, but then undermining that with their protest action. The comparison is simply laughable.

On the same programme, Guyon Espiner interviewed Education Minister Anne Tolley, and many of the figures she threw around were decidedly misleading. In particular she said that secondary school teachers earned an average pay packet of $70,000 per year, which she thought was a “pretty good wage in today’s economy”. That figure, rather than being the average wage teachers earn, is actually the possible average one teacher might earn over their career. This includes all possible extras, including those who take up management positions within their schools. The Post-Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) responded that at many schools the basic salary is capped at $69,000, with the average salary starting at just $37,000.

In the interests of full disclosure, it is important to state that my partner is in fact a teacher, albeit in the private sector, and as such, these accusations by Coddington and Tolley I find particularly infuriating at a personal level. Attachments aside, the issues around pay and conditions in the education sector are significant. As Espiner pointed out, Tolley herself, in a speech to the PPTA in September last year, said, “as teachers, you have a most important job, second only to parenting”. Unfortunately, her comments in the interview, and her refusal to negotiate further, don’t reflect this.

The PPTA is asking the government for a four per cent pay increase, and negotiations at the time of writing have seen the government offer just 1.5 per cent this year, with a further one per cent to follow next year. Tolley has argued that a four per cent pay rise is simply not viable in today’s economic climate, especially when the country is borrowing $250 million every week just to “stay afloat”. Teachers have reason to be sceptical of these claims, especially when they see a whopping $1.7 billion being invested into South Canterbury Finance. A four per cent pay increase for teachers, on the other hand, would cost the government significantly less at $200 million.

It’s not all about the money either. Teachers also hold valid concerns about ballooning class sizes, the safety of both teachers and students within the classroom and school grounds, the lack of investment in professional development, and the unfair working hours of part-time teachers. As Peter Beyer, an English teacher at Otahuhu College told The Dominion Post, “it’s our children that are at risk and we’re marching for them first. The government will say we’re greedy, we’re after money, but we asked for very little money—we asked for a realistic settlement—and we’re marching mainly for the students and for the conditions we work in.”

The size of classes is really the key problem here. In a bid to individualise learning in senior classes, junior classes have had to bear the brunt of the lack of resources. The size of these classes is driven up considerably—in a time in students’ development when disengagement first starts to kick in—rendering the individualised learning in the senior classes somewhat redundant.

Furthermore, the high workload generated by these large classes is a huge burden on teachers, and creates an environment that is less than desirable. One teacher told The Dominion Post that due to having to deal with a class of 37 students, “I used to pray every day that there would be some kids away because we’d have to go out and borrow chairs and borrow desks. I mean that’s just ludicrous.”

Once again, New Zealand needs to reevaluate its priorities. The government is following a prescription typical of a centre-right government and judging by the polls, they’re not too far off the mark. But between cutting back significantly on funding in Early Childhood Education in the 2010 Budget and refusing to adequately deal with a post-primary sector that is pushed to its limits, this government runs the risk of severely undermining the future of our most important resource: people.

No doubt this will be of particular interest to graduates of Victoria’s Bachelor of Education programme who might be questioning what they’ve got themselves into.

At the end of last month, Simon Sweetman, a writer and reviewer for the Dominion Post, North & South and TV One’s Good Morning, attacked New Zealand On Air (NZOA) in a blog entitled ‘The joke that is NZ On Air funding’. Sweetman specifically raised concerns about the huge amounts of money being allocated to fund commercially viable New Zealand music, and the lack of spread of that money.

It is undeniable that NZOA, among other organisations, has fundamentally increased the appeal of New Zealand music in the mainstream, and helped foster a number of New Zealand’s most well-known musicians. As Scott Muir, a lecturer in ‘Music Industry’, from Otago University points out, “we have moved over the years from little or no notice being taken of New Zealand music to a point where our music is now an acknowledged part of the overall cultural fabric. We now have an established music commission and bodies such as Independent Music New Zealand (IMNZ) and the Music Managers’ Forum (MMF), who also work to grow New Zealand music both culturally and economically.”

Sweetman has a point though. Using the example of Autozamm he reveals, “in 2003 the band received $10,000 under the New Artist Recording funding allocation. Since 2004 (and including one just granted this year) the band has had 11 video grants—that’s $5,000 a pop to make a video. And since 2005 the band has had three injections of $50,000 to make albums.”

So keeping in mind the important role NZOA plays in helping cultivate some of New Zealand’s top musicians, is there a need for a significant overhaul of the system in order to stop some bands receiving more than they arguably deserve?

“There is no money in poetry, but there is no poetry in money either”—Robert Graves

In a conversation with Salient, Sweetman asserts, “I personally don’t actually think that musicians deserve funding. I know this probably isn’t a popular point of view, but I think we are a little bit too soft and a little bit too kind.” Personal views aside though, he recognises that the problem with NZOA funding doesn’t lie in the existence of funding, rather “there are problems with the spread of that funding. We are just rewarding the same people over and over.”

Sweetman doesn’t appear to be alone in this opinion either. The 197 comments on the blog—as of 20 September—overwhelmingly supported Sweetman’s criticisms, and many commenters call for more accountability within the system. However, it’s difficult to encourage musicians to speak out against a system which could still potentially serve them. Who wants to cut off their nose to spite their face? Sweetman comments: “I have had quite a few musicians write to me and basically say thanks for putting that out there. They wrote to me privately so I won’t mention any names, but a lot of people in the industry did contact me to say thanks for creating a bit of a debate, and a forum. And a lot of people were actually quite vocal about their support for the angle I was pushing; that they didn’t really believe that these same bands should be able to get this money where it is almost an abuse of the system.”

Jane Wrightson, CEO of NZOA concedes that “there is a legitimate policy question over where there should be a maximum to an individual artist”, but she rejects the notion that there are musicians ‘feeding from the trough’. “There is never a problem with some musicians taking advantage. I would reject that really strongly.” Unfortunately, even if these bands don’t personally feel as though they are taking advantage of the system, evidence from examples such as Autozamm certainly doesn’t lead the public to feel enamoured with the situation.

One of the key reasons the ability to take advantage of the system exists is simply because certain bands and artists have learned the formula, so to speak. The funding criteria for both the ‘New Recording Artist Funding’, and ‘Music Video Funding’ require that ‘the submitted song must exhibit potential for commercial radio airplay’. Similarly ‘Album Funding’ requires that the artist must have ‘a track record on commercial radio’, and the ‘potential for at least four more commercial radio hits’. While it is important to recognise that there is a huge subjective element to music, Sweetman complains that “part of the problem with a lot of samey, safe, soft music that has come from this country and gets hyped up, is actually because we have got this funding system where these bands get to exist.”

“With a band like The Feelers—whilst I don’t like their music, I’ve got nothing personal against them. But there is no need for them to push anything extra or different into what they are doing because they’ve had this safe little safety net created for them where if they keep pushing out the same benign product, they’ll keep getting the advances from the record company, and that will be matched in funding. These guys make a nice, comfortable living, and they’re not actually doing that thing of pushing the role of the artist in society, and contributing in any way. They’ve got a nice cushy job that is being propped up by a soft funding model.”

This is unlikely to change, Wrightson explains. “We are at the professional end of the music spectrum, and we are unashamedly commercial and broadcast focused, so there are patches of the music world that we don’t serve, or will never serve very well. We are the first to say that. We are looking for commercial music that large amounts of New Zealanders are going to like.” Perhaps it is New Zealanders that are to blame?

“If the NZOA think the quality of the song is good, and is radio-friendly, and will be popular with an adequate sub-section of the New Zealand audience, then we will back it. We look at radio airplay. We look at album sales if we’ve invested in an album, because we take a share of that money back, but we are not in the sales business. We are in the broadcasting business.”

The internationalisation of New Zealand music

As one person commented in reply to Sweetman’s blog, the Broadcasting Act 1989, under which NZOA operates, specifically outlines a primary function “to reflect and develop New Zealand identity and culture”, and “to encourage a range of broadcasts that reflects the diverse religious and ethical beliefs of New Zealanders.” The level to which this is achieved is debatable, and there are certainly people on both sides of the fence.

Roy Shuker, an Associate Professor in Victoria University’s Media Studies Department, makes a crucial point in an article entitled ‘New Zealand popular music, government policy, and cultural identity’. In the article, he exemplifies New Zealand’s strong garage rock scene, headed by bands like The Datsuns and The D4, as well as the urban Polynesian sound of the likes of anyone from Katchafire to Nesian Mystik, to clarify what now constitutes truly New Zealand music. He comments: “It is necessary to avoid any straightforward dichotomising of the ‘local’ and the ‘foreign’, and the relationship between popular music, national identity, and cultural policy in New Zealand and, indeed, internationally. The global and the local cannot be considered binary categories, but exist in a complex interrelationship.”

The NZOA mission statement is: ‘Champion local content through skillful investment in quality New Zealand broadcasting’ and their focus is to ‘provide a diverse range of New Zealand voices, stories and perspectives to local audiences’. As a specialist in the New Zealand music industry, Scott Muir believes “that they are really not too far off the mark here in trying to achieve these aims,” and he thinks it is important that we don’t “throw the baby out with the bathwater. We are damned lucky to have funding support at all regardless of how misdirected people feel it is.”

He does concede that “part of the problem is that we are seeing a commodification of our culture, and indeed lifestyle, across the board. Those who seek to imitate their American cousins in a musical sense are, for me, not really reflecting our culture back on us. The ‘diverse range of New Zealand voices’ is what we should be seeing and hearing more of, I think.”

Matt Mollgaard, Head of Radio at AUT University explains that this commodification of musical culture results directly from the deregulation of broadcast media. “The main issue is that NZOA is required by the legislation that set it up to ‘get more New Zealand music on New Zealand radio’. As New Zealand radio is so commercial for reasons of deregulation, the only music it can fund that fulfils the requirements of the legislation is music that will compete with big overseas artists for very limited airplay spots on tightly formatted radio stations aimed at small consumer niches. Think Green Day and Elemeno P.”

Mollgaard points out that this feeds into the international role of NZOA, namely the export of New Zealand music to earn overseas money for the New Zealand economy. “This is very difficult. For every Autozamm there are 20,000 bands targeting the same audience in the United States alone. If Autozamm can get that one big song on US radio—think Steriogram and ‘Walkie Talkie Man’—they could be a significant ‘beach head band’ for New Zealand alt-pop and rock music,” he says.

“The main issue is that NZOA must operate within the most commercial radio environment in the world. They are charged with using taxpayer money to get New Zealand content on New Zealand broadcasters and to help build a sustainable music industry. The reality is that they must target the most commercial bands in New Zealand and export bands that will fit into overseas markets.

“Their job is really less about ‘culture’ and more about cutting through the commercial pap to get at least some New Zealand music on the radio and therefore allow at least some New Zealand bands to make a bit of money out of it, and hopefully develop further. It is a big ask.”

A timely review

“For 21 years I think we have done a hell of a job in music,” Wrightson notes. “I think most people in the sector will acknowledge that without NZOA, things would have been considerably different,” she says. “We have had the same piece of legislation governing us since 1989 though, and we can’t go outside it.” However, NZOA is now in the process of administering a number of reviews across its various interests. This year, former EMI New Zealand managing director Chris Caddick is in the process of completing a review of NZOA’s domestic music funding.

“I authorised Caddick to start in March/April this year. He is interviewing over a hundred people in the music, broadcast and commentating sectors, and there has been an online survey open for about three months, which just closed last week. I think we had about 650 contributions to that, which is quite enough to get a sense of what people think,” Wrightson explains.

She asserts that, despite one of the key areas of review addressing digital options, “we are unashamedly focused on radio, because that is what the Broadcasting Act says we have to do. We won’t change from that, and there is no overwhelming case for us to move from that. Do not think that radio is a dead medium, even though it is terribly fashionable to say that.”

There is overwhelming evidence that radio remains the predominant means of finding and listening to music in New Zealand. A study commissioned by NZOA, to be released shortly, is based around two questions. The first question asked, “Where do you get your daily music fix from?” 73 per cent of respondents answered ‘radio’, while only 32 per cent of respondents indicated the next most popular option, ‘My CDs/DVDs/Vinyl’. On the second question, “How do you find out about new music?”, radio rated highest again with 49 per cent. The remaining 51 per cent was distributed across 19 other options.

While refusing to speculate on exactly what the report might entail, Wrightson has outlined that the results will be presented to the NZOA Board in December, “so I would think we would have either a consultation copy, or an implementation plan out in the first quarter of next year. It depends what it is and how radical it is, it might just be tweaks, or it might be radical.”

Despite Sweetman’s objections to funding in any capacity, he hopes that the review will address some of the existing issues, and provide checks and balances. When money is allocated, he says, “proof needs to come back with what the money was spent on. An itemised account of a video shoot shouldn’t be a hard thing to account for. At the end of the day, this is money that is being given by the taxpayer, so it should be public and disclosed to everyone.”

Furthermore, Sweetman believes it is necessary to implement “some kind of a three strikes policy. The thing that got me to write that piece, the absolute fact that bugged me the most is that I don’t rate Autozamm as a representation of New Zealand music. I was surprised they were still even going. The fact that they have basically received funding every year for about ten years, or they’ve at least received nine or ten individual grants, to me that seems absolutely absurd. They are not actually getting anywhere with that. All they are managing to do is to get their mates to text radio stations at the right time, and the radio stations fill in their reports, and it comes up that they’ve had that song requested heaps so they are clearly getting heaps of radio play. So, we’d better give them more funding,” he says.

“I think, ultimately, this whole idea of radio play being the measure of whether music is good is where we get the problem, because despite any report going into the funding, it’s still going to come down to this disconnect between what is allegedly good music, and what gets radio play, and sometimes the best song in the world gets a lot of radio play, and sometimes the songs that are getting radio play are bloody terrible, but judged a success because they are getting airplay.”

Certainly, capping the number of album grants and videos is crucial. Despite the fact that it will face bitter opposition from the major labels, if they haven’t managed to build a successful self-sustaining artist after five or so videos you really have to wonder.

New Zealand is incredibly fortunate that we have, or at least had, a government which recognises the benefits in funding the art to promote New Zealand culture, and NZOA has played an instrumental role in this. However, there are a number of key flaws in the system, which one would hope will be addressed in the current review, and subsequently rectified.

Even more astonishing is many Americans’ (perhaps not unusual) reaction to this story—most notably Florida Pastor Terry Jones’s threat to burn thousands of copies of the Qur’an on the anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The media has played a significant role in failing to accurately potray the situation in New York. Their misrepresentation of the story has bolstered public outcry and the subsequent actions of extremists like Jones. It is important to set out the actual facts.

Firstly, the “Ground Zero Mosque”, as it has come to be known, is not proposed to be a mosque at all. The Cordoba Initiative was given permission by the relevant authorities in New York City to set up a community centre in the building of an old coat factory in Lower Manhattan.

Secondly, the Imam who heads the Cordoba Initiative, Feisal Abdul Rauf, has spent much of his life speaking out against radical groups such as Al Qaeda, teaching Muslims that they can worship according to the requisites of their religion, as well as co-existing with other faiths within the United States.

Thirdly, the community centre, while within the vicinity, is not actually at Ground Zero. Furthermore, there is no public recognition of a new neighbourhood called Ground Zero comprising of the blocks surrounding the site of the World Trade Centre. There has been little effort to define how far from actual Ground Zero an appropriate site might be, not to mention there is an existing mosque in the nearby area.

It is the rhetoric and specific labelling of the community centre as the “Ground Zero Mosque” by its opposition, and the subsequent tagging by the media, which has increased the salience of this issue within the consciousness of so many Americans. With President Obama speaking out in defence of the community centre, unsurprisingly the negative perception surrounding the story has had adverse effects on his administration.

Of course the recent BP oil spill and the continuing problems plaguing the US economy are the key determinants behind President Obama’s dangerously low poll ratings. However, the race and religion cards still play a significant role. A national poll conducted by the Pew Research Centre in August found that 18 per cent of all Americans believe Obama is a Muslim. Not surprisingly, these figures are predominantly comprised of individuals opposed to the current President. When one takes into account the seven per cent rise from the 11 per cent who held this belief in March 2009—despite the President’s countless assurances that he is in fact a Christian—there is a clear correlation between the perception of Obama’s religious affiliation and his popularity.

This perception is exemplified by the ignorant slogans branded across picket signs at the September 11 “Ground Zero Mosque” protests. These proclaimed “No Obama’s Mosque”, failing to recognise that the President’s refusal to condemn the construction of the community centre stems from constitutional law, rather than his personal religious affiliation.

The US Bill of Rights specifically states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, and Obama’s comments regarding the community centre back this up. “As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”

Further to this, for all the debate over where Obama’s personal religious affiliations lie, the Constitution—held in such high regard by most Americans—specifically outlines that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Of course, these words have been ignored throughout history, so despite being perhaps the most inappropriate subject of partisan debate, attacks on religion remain.

The first Catholic to ever be elected President of the United States, John F. Kennedy faced up to Protestant leaders at the Greater Houston Ministerial Association 50 years ago, where he gave a biting address on religious freedom. Kennedy told the audience that it was significant “not what kind of church I believe in—for that should be important only to me—but what kind of America I believe in.”

I think Time’s Nancy Gibb puts it best: “Obama does have a duty to speak, not about what kind of church he believes in but what kind of America… Sometimes the faith a President needs to show is faith in his own principles.” Despite evidence that suggests many Americans are centrally concerned with what higher power their President looks to, perhaps Obama has the opportunity, and even the responsibility now, to not once again clarify his religious beliefs, but to clarify his belief in the Constitution.

It was Margaret Thatcher who famously said “there is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families.” So, to what extent do we find truth in this element of Thatcherism here in New Zealand? How has the balance between New Zealander’s sense of community and individualism changed? And how has this impacted on activism in New Zealand?

Technological influences

Today’s incredible rate of technological innovation is copping a lot of flak for being one of the primary drivers in weakening communities. The Loka Institute is a non-profit research and advocacy organisation concerned with the social, political, and environmental repercussions of research, science and technology. Richard Sclove, the Institute’s Executive Director has written extensively on the impact of technology on communities. Sclove recognises that the shift in something as simple as online shopping not only ensures the decline of downtown shopping areas, it also significantly reduces the vibrancy of the cultural and communal connections that people make within those areas, similar to those made in Ralston’s pub.

Sclove argues that there are key problems surrounding the “electronic colonisation of personal time”. Time once allocated to family, friends and the community is now being spent online. Social networks such as Facebook and Twitter are a huge part of this, but Sclove points out that this “colonisation” extends to peoples’ tendency to no longer leave work at work. In addition, the flexibility allowed by the internet has seen the communities built around employment often suffer as a result of the ability to work from home.
While Dr Mike Lloyd of Victoria University’s School of Social and Cultural Studies concedes that that technology has influenced changes in how we communicate, he believes that there remains a “kind of romantic notion that people matter, local connections matter, and face-to-face connections matter”. As a result he plays down the level to which Sclove bases his concerns over a demise of tangible communities.

Dr Sandra Grey, also from Victoria’s School of Social and Cultural Studies, takes it a step further. With reference to social media in particular, she asserts that on one level, “it is about wanting to be a part of social networks”, and hence a type of community. She clarifies though that “there remains something about that, that allows you to remain one level removed from the face to face interaction”. So while online communities are certainly valid, they do present the opportunity for individuals to disassociate somewhat from opinions that, within traditional collectives, they might have worn more boldly on their proverbial sleeve.

Discouraging activism

This willingness to disassociate from one’s beliefs is perhaps exacerbated by a society that arguably looks down on activism and dissent. New Zealand does see protests from time to time—most notably in recent years, the Foreshore and Seabed Hikoi saw 25,000 people march on Parliament in 2004. But for the most part, New Zealanders seem to be wary of big public displays of dissatisfaction.

Dr Grey speculates that this might be for a number of reasons, primarily relating to New Zealander’s unique access to our leadership. “My sense is that it could be about being a small nation. We have access to parliamentary means to make changes. Perhaps not so much anymore, but we certainly did, so that sets the tone for activism.”
As in many countries, there is a certain level of discouragement from the top, and the post-2001 overuse of the word ‘terrorism’ within the global vernacular has no doubt played a role in this. Many activists talk about the fact that nearly all activism these days is seen as forms of terrorism. To be sure, there are instances where activists will take violent action against institutions, but rarely does this result in any injury or loss of life.

In her book Against Freedom: The war on terrorism in everyday New Zealand life, Wellington activist Valerie Morse comments: “It is clear that political dissent is now more perilous and more treacherous than before 11 September. Given the new counter-terrorism laws, the possibility of being not only labelled a terrorist in the media, but prosecuted as one, is a reality. By casting political dissent as terrorism, the government, its agencies, the media, and other vested interests assault our freedom of expression.”

Of course, New Zealand doesn’t have a rich activist history, largely due to the fact that the country has enjoyed a relatively strong trade union movement. That said, there is still the sense that there has been a decline in activist activity over recent decades, which one might conclude stems from the stigma now attached to it. Further to this, as Dr Grey point out, there is also a blatant hypocrisy in the attitudes of important activists of yesteryear.

“You get people like Helen Clark who was very involved with the Vietnam anti-war protests. But, when the hikoi over the foreshore and seabed hits Parliament, she calls them “wreckers and haters”. Hang on. How do we reconcile this? She believed she had a right as a young person to engage, but now she is in power, she doesn’t want people engaging?”

Constraints on activism from the student perspective

It is important to note that communal activism isn’t simply constrained by public perceptions and cultural norms. Within the student movement specifically, there are a number of significant underlying barriers to activism.

As Dr Grey comments, in the past, involvement in student movements was simply more attractive than it is today. “There were student allowances rather than student loans, year-long courses, timetabled lunchbreaks, active clubs and societies that were political as opposed to other things, and a university community that accepted this is a part of what you do. Your university education was, and should be, not just about your formal classes and your assessment. Your education is about your entire self.

“What gets squeezed out now, is being a good civic servant. The timetabling now doesn’t allow for students to get together as there is always somebody in a class. I think we often blame it on generational shifts and where people want to put their energies, and there is some truth to that, but I think we need to look at what we do as a society in terms of encouraging, making space for and teaching people, that not only should they be involved—they must be involved.”

In addition to the constraints around timetabling, the existence of huge student loan debts significantly affects peoples’ decisions. In terms of future job prospects, most students are primarily concerned with what they can do to ensure they find employment at the end of their studies. Rational thinking leads people to make pragmatic decisions about what they should be associated with. A prospective employer is going to be considerably more inclined to take on a member of the debating club than say a member of university’s Marxist community.

While it would be a stretch to suggest that student loans are a backhanded attempt by the government to ensure a lack of student dissent, the size of student loans and the desire to pay those loans off affect students’ decisions to be involved within activist movements. And of course, as has been mentioned: who wants to be involved with organisations that are so often branded with the ‘terrorist’ label?

The detriments are two-fold. As students we fail to attain the aforementioned well-rounded education and are not taught the importance of engaging at a level higher than voting. This explains to a degree the ever-increasing levels of the apathy of the youth. Perhaps more importantly though, we also miss out on many opportunities to make life-long connections with like-minded people and as such, we fail to form what could be substantial and important communities.

Sub-cultural competition

The clearest divide in New Zealand society as a whole is the media-induced perception of a bicultural Maori versus Pakeha paradigm. While Dr Lloyd explains that “there are good reasons why we have to go through that biculturalism moment before we open up multi-culturalism”, this view certainly sidelines the interests of many, if not most, New Zealanders.

Despite the automatic categorising often appropriated by the media, people do in fact have a significant number of other ‘interests’. For many activists there can occur a kind of ‘conflict of interests’ surrounding which group one believes they should associate with, and whether these groups should be looked at in terms of mutual exclusivity. Dr Grey agrees that there is somewhat of a dilemma facing many activists. She offers the example: “The women’s movement in New Zealand in the 1970s would have seen a lot of division around whether the major problem lay in not being a woman, but in being Maori.”

Despite this, Dr Grey believes this dilemma isn’t particularly significant. “You do get this competition between where the oppression lies. Is it to do with my gender? Is it to do with my ethnicity? Is it to do with my class? Is it to do with my sexuality? There are competing demands, but people do seem to naturally fall into the one that they do, depending on their ideology. If they are a primarily a feminist, they are going to focus with women’s issues.”

She does point out that there is a more important distinction to make. It refers to the increasing utilisation of consumer activism—that is, the support or boycott of a company through what one does and doesn’t decide to purchase. It is this which seems to be significantly undermining the power of the traditional sense of community in activism.

Consumerism and the importance of collectives

While the Maori-Pakeha paradigm sidelines many sub-cultural groupings in New Zealand, it has created an ‘us versus them’ scenario for Maori activists, which, despite creating somewhat of a racial divide, has been central to their success.

Dr Grey explains that consumerism as an activist activity fails to an extent because it fails to create this ‘us versus them’ scenario. There is the belief “that as consumers we are powerful, and that that is where activism should be. But, consumerism is very individualised, and doesn’t require a collective ‘us’ and ‘them’. It just requires me to choose or not to choose to buy particular products.

“I’m not saying that it is not a good thing, and I certainly don’t think people should turn away from buying fair-trade products, but that doesn’t have an ‘us’ and ‘them’. Who is the ‘them’ in that case? Some nefarious we-have-no-idea? It is very hard to tackle that thing that is global corporations.”

Further to this, she explains that the ‘us’ is also lost “because it is something that individuals act out individually. As a consumer, there might be ten other people doing the same action, but you don’t talk about it. You just do it as an individual. It is that division that I think is now more important than anything else.

“Of all of the things that we have done, it is actually denying the concept of the collective that is probably doing the most damage, as opposed to concentrating on one collective over another,” she says.

“We are collectives. For example, there are collectives of students. There is something common about the student experience whether you come from a very wealthy family or a very poor family. Once you come to being a student, there are some things that you have in common that you should be collectively considering. Of course, things will affect people varyingly, but the common experience in centrally important.”

As such, we might conclude that despite the effects of consumerism, Thatcher’s claim can be categorically denied. There is such thing as society, in the way different collectives and communities interact and engage to progress.

We are connected. We simply need to remember that, and act accordingly.

Protest, dissent and activism: A public symposium

Dramatic changes in state, society, and the economy have impacted activists seeking social justice, collective rights, and equity. At the start of the 21st century with rising inequalities in society and erosion of many of the earlier gains made by labour and social movements, it is crucial to evaluate the spaces for citizen dissent in New Zealand and Australia. This symposium centres on three core questions:

• What has activism looked like in New Zealand and Australia over the last four decades?
• What has enabled or hindered activism and protest in New Zealand and Australia?
• What spaces now exist for activists fighting for social justice, collective rights, and equity?

This symposium draws together analysis from both academics and activists on the spaces for movements seeking social justice for workers, the poor, and women in society.

Saturday October 16th
9.30am to 5pm
Victoria University of Wellington – AM106

This is a free symposium, but registration is essential.

To register email sandra.grey@vuw.ac.nz by 9 October.

Commercial banks, where ordinary folk deposited money, were covered by the insurance scheme. These banks weren’t given the opportunity to invest in high-risk ventures, ensuring that money deposited was largely safe. The insurance was simply to avoid bank-runs, a phenomenon whereby panic spreads among depositors if a bank is rumoured to be on the verge of collapse.

Investment banks, on the other hand, were institutions where people and firms could invest with the chance of higher returns, but with much greater risk. As a result of this increased risk, the Federal Deposit Insurance did not cover these deposits.

The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 removed this restriction, but did not remove the Federal Deposit Insurance. Commercial and investment banks merged, and deposits became tied up in high-risk investments. Due to the widened scope of the Federal Deposit Insurance and the hugely inflated size of these merged banks, these deposits had to be covered.

In New Zealand, the Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme (RDGS) was set up for a similar purpose. In 2008, in response to the recession, the Clark Government extended the scheme to include finance companies. This saw New Zealand follow Australia’s lead in order to deter a massive run of funds from New Zealand into Australia. The Key government has not amended the scheme and, as such, the collapse of South Canterbury Finance was protected and taxpayers have footed the $1.7 billion bill.

The key problem around the Glass-Steagall Act and the RDGS lies with incentives. The protection of ordinary peoples’ money while it is invested in the bank is a pragmatic solution to ensure banks don’t face any irrational runs—and consequently all depositors are protected. However, if individuals and firms are going to invest their money in an attempt to try to gain higher rates of interest, they must face the consequences of the higher risk associated with those investments.

By extending the RDGS to include finance companies, the New Zealand government is incentivising firms such as South Canterbury Finance to take bigger and bigger risks in the knowledge that their investors will be covered if the investments fail. Furthermore, it removes the incentive from investors themselves to ensure the company is using their money in a way appropriate to the associated returns.

It is also important to note, as Scoop columnist Gordon Campbell points out that “by some estimates, fully one third of the 35,000 investors being bailed out under the rescue package may fall into the class of speculators betting against South Canterbury Finance”. These speculators invested on the very gamble that the company would fail, which would allow them to be compensated with premium returns under the RDGS.

So while taxpayers foot the bill, investors in South Canterbury Finance get their investment back plus the interest promised to them when they signed up. Furthermore, when one takes into account that the government has extended the RDGS to cover South Canterbury Finance’s foreign investors who weren’t specifically covered by the RDGS, the government’s actions become even more of a joke.

Also, remember that this scheme has not been widely applied. So, while South Canterbury Finance’s investors get generously bailed out, investors in finance houses such as Hanover Finance are not covered by the RDGS and receive no compensation from the government.

$1.7 billion is a veritable shit-load of money. It has been reported this equates to $340 for every single New Zealander. Man, woman and child. One can only imagine what this figure is when limited to the actual New Zealanders who are taxpayers. When one takes into account that the Government have pledged only $5 million to the mayoral fund set up to rebuild quake-ravaged Christchurch, their priorities seem to be clear.

Sure, it was the Clark Government who widened the umbrella of the RDGS, but the Key government has failed to amend the scheme and protect the taxpayer. If you’re going to roll back the ‘nanny state’, it seems inherently unfair to me to simply attack those on welfare while simultaneously ‘nannying’ the wealthy. It is crucial that significant changes are made to the regulation of the financial sector in New Zealand, and around the world. If an individual or firm wants to risk their money, they should be welcome to do so. But this should come at their expense, and not at the expense of ordinary, prudent citizens.

At the time of writing, an analysis by the Sydney Morning Herald illustrated that the 150-seat Australian House of Representatives will see 72 seats held by Labor, 72 held by the Coalition, one to the Greens, and four seats to independents. The seat of Brisbane remains “too close to call”, with the latest tally of the votes marginally favouring the Liberal (Coalition) candidate, Teresa Gambaro. However, at this point, there remain 12,000 votes to count, approximately half of which are absentee and provisional ballots, which many predict will tip Brisbane towards Labor.

This is important, as it would give Labor leader, and caretaker Prime Minister Julia Gillard a significant advantage in negotiating her way back into power. Sydney Morning Herald National Editor Mark Davis explains: “The majority is 76. If Brisbane falls Labor’s way, then Julia Gillard would have 73 seats plus the new Greens MP for Melbourne, Adam Bandt (who has already indicated he will work with Labor). From this platform of 74 seats, Labor would need just two of the four independents to form government. By contrast, the Coalition would be on 72 seats and could only form government if it secured the support of all four independents.”

Despite this, Labor’s prospects are somewhat offset by the fact that polls show the majority of the three rural independent’s constituents would prefer their elected representatives supported Tony Abbott’s Coalition. A Galaxy poll revealed that only 36 per cent of the 600 voters in these electorates felt as though the trio should back Labor.

On Wednesday 25 August the three independents met with both Gillard and Abbott, outlining seven demands to help them in making their decisions in who to support to form a minority government. One of the three, Rob Oakeshott outlined that the seven demands would help them to ensure a stable government, and added, “if we can’t get that, let’s go back to the ballot box”:

• Economic advice from the Treasury and Finance secretaries, most importantly analysing the effect that election promises from both sides would have on the nation’s budget.
• Briefing from the secretaries of key departments in Government.
• Briefing from both the caretaker and shadow ministers on their plans for these departments over the next three years.
• An outline of each side’s plans to make improvements to parliamentary procedures and private members business.
• A commitment to explore “consensus options”. This would mean that more than the simple majority of 76 would be required to govern.
• A commitment from whoever the three decide to form a government with, that a full three-year term would be completed.
• A timetable for reforms on political donations, electoral advertising and donations.

There are two fundamental concessions in these seven demands. The first is related to the three-year term. In Australia, terms are not fixed, and the prime minister’s ability to decide the timing of an election is a key power. Michelle Grattan, political editor for The Age, explains that this benefits the independents in two ways. First, “it maximises their period of influence”, and second “it ensures they are not quickly held to account by their own constituents”. This is important because “by the end of three years, they would hope to be able to point to bags of benefits for their own electorates as well as to more highfalutin’ achievements”.

Both Gillard and Abbott have agreed to this first concession, promising an election will not be held before August 2013. The second key concession hasn’t been quite so easily accepted. The analysis of the costing of each sides elections promises has seen Gillard agree, however Abbott has flatly refused to concede this claiming that this amounts the “trashing of the Westminster system”.

“Our system depends on public servants being able to give free, frank and fearless advice to government,” Abbott says, “and that means the advice has got to remain confidential.” Instead, Abbott has offered the three independents an audit of the Coalition’s costing prepared by a leading firm during the election campaign.

Abbott’s failure to comply with this request has somewhat alienated him from two of three independents. Bob Katter has warned that this “makes it much more difficult for us to give [Abbott] the gong to become prime minister”. Tony Windsor has also said that “it’s not a good start at all, because when we go into this issue of stability… what we are trying to establish here is a degree of trust”.

All of this points to negotiations that are likely to be lengthy, as independents weigh up these concessions against the wishes of their constituents. Moreover, discussions will be drawn out further by the fact that these first seven demands don’t include any regional concessions, which the rural independents are sure to push for. Australia could be waiting indefinitely for a government to be formed.

Designer, publisher, consultant, and more recently, mayoral candidate Jack Yan is, not surprisingly, an extremely busy man. Born in Hong Kong in 1972, if Yan is successful in his bid to be the next mayor of Wellington, he will be one of the city’s youngest at just 38.

Immigrating to New Zealand with his parents, Yan was schooled in Wellington before attending Victoria University where he graduated with both a Bachelor of Law and a Masters of Commerce.

In 1987, Yan started his first company designing typefaces and turning them into digital fonts, filling a niche in which no other New Zealand entrepreneurs were operating at that point. He now runs three companies simultaneously; Jack Yan & Associates is a global media and communications consultancy firm; The Medinge Group is a Sweden based think tank concerned with issues surrounding branding; Lucire, Yan’s third company, is both a web-based and more recently, in-print fashion magazine.

As a mayoral candidate, Jack Yan has campaigned on a number of platforms. Most significantly, he aims to see free wifi available in the city, while focusing on creating jobs through a technology platform. Long the environmentalist, as seen through his work with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Yan promises a comprehensive environmental programme for Wellington. And, perhaps most importantly, Yan, who co-wrote a book concerning transparency in branding, assures that a council under his leadership will be significantly more transparent in its proceedings.

In this interview with Salient, Yan spoke about just one aspect of his life. Offering reflections on both his introduction to the fashion industry, and his subsequent work within the industry, Yan also offers a vision that would see fashion at the forefront in presenting Wellington to the world.

Without further ado, Mr Jack Yan…

…on his introduction to fashion.

“Strangely enough, it had actually nothing to do with fashion to begin with. In 1987, I started my own business and that was in the graphic design world. I got involved very quickly with the typesetters around town because I really love typefaces. I had the ambition to become a typeface designer, and as it turned out, I did become the first typeface designer to work on a desktop in New Zealand, to do it digitally. So, when you have that love of type at an early age you’re very aware of what is good typography, what is bad typography, how much more it costs to get good typography, and good typesetting done.

“I can’t remember what project it was at high school, but I remember picking up a copy of Studio Collections, which was an Australian fashion magazine in 1989. The typesetting in that was absolutely beautiful. You could just tell that money was lavished on this product. It was much better than Vogue et cetera. Because I was involved in the publishing world, even then—doing my own layouts and stuff, literally cut and paste; physically, scalpel and glue—I thought, what is the most glamorous way to present information? The answer is fashion.

“The fashion magazine has an aesthetic of its own, but there was no reason that aesthetic could not be shared with lesser publications, and by lesser I mean things like school magazines. I was involved with publishing school magazines to some degree back then, in the late 80s and early 90s. If you have ever looked through your old school’s magazines, they are really boring—title, columns, text and a black and white photo of the First XV. Every page was the same. I thought, there is no reason, not even cost-wise, that that aesthetic couldn’t be shifted over to the school magazine, so I started designing school magazines along those lines. It was just understanding that form of presentation.
“It was inspiration by the fashion magazine’s art direction, and that is really the reason I got into. So, it wasn’t so much a love of fashion, although I grew to love it from talking to other people in the industry and understanding that their method of creativity is quite similar to mine. Creative people do seem to have that sort of kinship, in that we do take risks and we don’t base things on some cold calculated formula. There is something inside us that drives us. We look at what the next trend is going to be, we look at the behaviour of people, and we try to translate that into something tangible. So, I shared that with a lot of fashion designers, and that is why I love, not so much fashion, but I love the creativity that goes into fashion.

“I looked at ways of pushing the aesthetics because I still to this day believe that a fashion magazine is one of the most startling, beautiful ways to present photographs and text.”

…on founding Lucire magazine.

“In the 90s, the interest thing was the world web. So, the same question arises. Web pages in 1993 were boring. It was headline, type, headline, type—you couldn’t even do columns with the initial html 1.0 specs, so again, I tried to find ways to extend what was possible with coding, to turn something into what looked like a fashion magazine. Lucire in 1997 was really an exercise in that…

“I really used fashion as a means, and as a medium to really communicate socially responsible issues. Fashion was a means to an end. It was a way to show off great art direction, and great design. I think really my passion still lies more in design more generally as a discipline, with its graphics, animations and fashion, rather than just specifically fashion. It’s a world that I really love.”

…on Lucire and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

“It’s a long story. It was about 1997 that I met this guy Chris Macrae whose dad was Norman Macrae, the deputy chief editor of The Economist. In 2001, DNA, a local Wellington firm, created a site called allaboutbranding.com, which is still going. They wanted the first set of articles to be of such a high calibre that we would set the stage for everything that followed. Chris was appointed the editor, and I was appointed one of the first contributors. The site got off the ground and was very successful.

“In 2002, I was just walking about, and went to a travel agency, just out of total inspiration, and said how much is a ticket to Stockholm. I didn’t really think about, I just loved Swedish design. There was no rhyme or reason for me to go, but I just enquired about it, got the price, and went back home. About four hours later, Chris sends me an email which says ‘how would you like to come to Sweden? We’ve got this conference on there—the chief brand offices meeting. It’s in Medinge in Sweden, come along’. How many times have you enquired about going to a place just before you get asked to go? So, I took that as I sign that I was meant to go to this. I went, and that meeting really became what is now known as The Medinge Group.

“The big topic then, right after 9/11 and the Enron collapse, was social responsibility. The feeling was Naomi Klein has attacked us, Enron has collapsed, and people think branding is defunct and irrelevant to society. Well actually, it’s not. It’s just that if it is being used for evil it is bad, if it is being used for good, it’s good. We decided to write this book called ‘Beyond Branding’, and use good for good. We came up with this thing called the ‘Brand Manifesto’, which the CEO of Medinge now calls the ‘Constitution of Medinge’. It was writing this that gave me this reputation for corporate social responsibility (CSR).

“One of the people I met as a result of having gone to Medinge, was a guy called Will Rogowski, who then worked at the UNEP. I recognised that the organisation was never going to get the word out preaching to the converted. The only way to get the word out was by aligning it with a medium that was considered ‘cool’, and we could make the environment ‘cool’. I remind you this is 2002. The deal went through the UN machinery by 2003 and then we announced it. We started promoting eco-fashion, but also showed that eco-fashion didn’t mean wearing khaki tones, and hemp, but is as good, and as fashionable, and as meritorious, and as deserving as mainstream fashion, and that has always been our bag.

“Lucire really was started to show that niche fashion is as good as mainstream fashion. You could go to somewhere like Frutti, and the design integrity of those garments was as good as what was at the top of New Zealand fashion at that time—Zambesi, Karen Walker, Trelise Cooper. They deserved coverage. Late 90s fashion media was very focused on those top labels—it was very Auckland-centric. I like to think I helped change that in my own little way. Anyway, we coordinated that promotion with the environment…

“With UNEP we had eco-fashion, but we wanted to start looking at other causes. We thought let’s look at fair trade, let’s look at other things that we can promote using the UNEP banner, and they fully got on board. It generally was brought up by social conscience, but if you look through my career it has always been about game changing. With fashion on the web, I recognised you could have an international fashion magazine coming out of New Zealand. With Lucire we’ve launched here, we’ve launched in Romania and we’ve launched in Thailand. We’ve got one more country coming up which I can announce in the next few weeks.

“Again, it is showing we can do this, you don’t have to be a French company like Elle, you don’t have to be a US company like Vogue. You can do this from New Zealand and show Wellington to the world. And it’s the same with the environment.”

…on the importance of fashion to Wellington.

“Fashion is something that is very tangible, so if you are talking about creativity, it is a very tangible sign of Wellington’s creativity. There is no reason why we can’t market Wellington to the world using our designers. Say to the world: This is what we are capable of. We are leaders in this country for creativity.

“We have had a very successful run, promoting ourselves as a tourism destination, and an event capital—not thanks to the incumbent mayor, but thanks to the incumbent’s predecessor, Mr Blumsky. It is entirely conceivable that, now that we are in a creative age rather than a leisure age, we use fashion as the poster-child for Wellington’s creativity. Sure, we can use Weta. I’d love to use Weta as well, but I think it takes Weta and the geek community, equally used with fashion, to send a picture out to the world to say: Wellington is actually a centre of creativity on this planet. I don’t think that is an arrogant thing to say, and I actually believe that we are well equipped to promote ourselves as all of those things. All we need is a creative leader who gets this industry.

“Think of Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley is known for geeks, it doesn’t have the other things that make Wellington great. It doesn’t have special effects, that is in the North Bay Area. We’re talking an hour to two-hour drive north. We are the only city in the world that has all three of these things in the one space—special effects, tech and fashion. You go to Paris, they’ve just got the fashion. You go to Milan, same thing there. There is nothing else that stands out in terms of their creative realm, so there is a lot of backing in saying this is the most creative city in the world.

“We need to capitalise on that and use fashion as a gateway. Not everyone is going to be impressed by geeks. I know that. Despite the great work they do, they are always going to appeal to the Technorati. Fashion is a lot more mainstream. It is a lot broader, certainly for females—it is a much bigger area for them to sink their teeth into. So let’s use that as a means for promoting Wellington.”

While the president has always proclaimed a tough stance on immigration, these moves have picked up steam. Last year, Sarkozy called for the Muslim burqa to be banned in public spaces. The policy has since passed by an overwhelming majority in the French National Assembly, and is now being debated in the French Senate, where it is also expected to pass.

In his most recent outburst, Sarkozy linked crime to immigration in a speech in Grenoble. This followed the death of a man of Arab origin that sparked riots and a number of death threats aimed at Grenoble police. Sarkozy says France is “suffering from 50 years of lax immigration regulation which has led to a failure of integration”. In his speech he outlined a number of measures he intends to introduce, aimed at reducing
crimes among immigrant populations.

These proposals include the reviewing of foreign-born underage offenders before they become citizens at 18, as well as the more widely reported plan to strip citizenship from immigrants who threaten the lives of police. He justified the proposals, announcing “French nationality has to be earned. You have to prove you’re worthy of it. When you shoot at police officers, you no longer have the right to call yourself French.”

Sarkozy’s measures have been slammed by critics from both ends of the political spectrum as being unworkable. Despite this, a recent opinion poll illustrated that 70 to 80 per cent of French voters actually support the measures the president has put forward. In a statement that reflects the results of the poll, Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux has been quick to dismiss these critics, claiming: “As usual Sarkozyism is out of step with the elites but in step with society.”

Hortefeux says, “When we must adapt to or confront new difficulties, we don’t hesitate to do so. We’re waging a war against insecurity. We’re on the side of the victims and we have but a sole enemy—the crooks.” Hortefeux has outlined that Sarkozy’s proposed measures would be included in bills to be debated in the French National Assembly in September.

Hortefeux has also indicated that the stripping of citizenship could be applied more broadly than in the instance announced by Sarkozy in his Grenoble speech. The Interior Minister has said these punitive measures could be applied in the instances of “female excision, human trafficking or serious acts of delinquency”.

A little over a week before his speech in Grenoble, Sarkozy had announced policies to eradicate illegal Roma
(gypsy) camps in France, saying they are “sources of trafficking, exploitation and prostitution”. His attack on the Roma people was again reactionary, following the fatal shooting of a young gypsy woman who failed to stop at a checkpoint and was subsequently shot dead, sparking riots.

The Roma in question are actually French gypsies, who have lived in the country for centuries. There are
hundreds of thousands of Roma who live in long-established French communities. Despite this, Sarkozy
directed his attack at the gypsies, who have migrated predominantly from Romania and Bulgaria in recent years. These immigrants have the right to enter France without a visa, but must attain work or residency permits in order to remain in the country for long periods of time.

300 illegal gypsy camps are to be “systematically evacuated” over the next three months, and police have since initiated this campaign. The first camp dismantled saw 100 people from the central city of Saint-Etienne dispersed, where they had been living in makeshift shelters and tents since May.

While there are undoubtedly Europe-wide issues concerning immigration policies, analysts believe Sarkozy’s actions to be motivated by an approval rating that is sliding. It has been suggested Sarkozy is implementing anti-immigration policies in order to purloin votes from the extreme-right National Front Party. This move is likely to also gain him revitalised support from the majority of heavily conservative French voters.

John Lichfield, a commentator from The Independent, says Sarkozy is continuing to make connections between crime and both legal and illegal immigrants. He alleges that these connections are “at best wilful, and at worst dishonest”.

In a recent statement, the French Socialist Party has also accused Sarkozy of “trying to distract the public’s
attention by using that old standby—provocation”.

Regardless of these criticisms, with such a high percentage of support for his recent policies, Sarkozy’s
motivations, nefarious as they may be, are likely to secure the president’s popularity. The only real chance of
impedance of these controversial policies lies with the Council of State, France’s highest administrative body,
who have indicated concerns of the unconstitutionality of Sarkozy’s policies.

The coalition between National and the Maori Party, which has endured now almost two years, is an odd relationship to say the least. The coalition deal by no means represented a sudden change of interests in the average Maori voter—for example, young Maori in particular continue to feature in disproportionate numbers in the most recent unemployment figures. This constituency is unlikely to be agitating for less government spending and lower taxes—cornerstones of the traditional National agenda.

Similarly, your average National-voting middle-class New Zealanders haven’t suddenly back flipped on their desire for a smaller government, and lower taxes. If anything, the surge in popularity following ex-National Party leader Don Brash’s ‘Nationhood’ speech in Orewa signifies that much of white “middle” New Zealand felt as though the Maori under the Labour Government had been empowered with too many rights through loose references to the Treaty of Waitangi.

So how then did this coalition come about? In a column from a July 2009 edition of The New Zealand Listener, political commentator Jane Clifton wraps it up by explaining “Labour became the No. 1 villain to much of Maoridom only because it devised and enacted the Foreshore and Seabed Act. National benefited from this by being the Maori Party’s enemy’s enemy, and therefore a strategic friend.”

From the National Party’s perspective it was also entirely strategic. With National’s two key coalition partners enjoying representation with five MPs each, the Maori Party effectively acts as a counterbalance to the ACT Party, ensuring the National Party can run a centrist agenda. It can look to the left when it needs to, and look right in alternate circumstances.

Holding the majority of seats in parliament, any relationship is undeniably going to work to the National Party’s advantage, but having said that, the Maori Party has enjoyed some policy achievements—most notably, the repeal of Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, and the institution of the Whanau Ora programme, as allocated for in the 2010 Budget.

Seabed for the whanau? For sure!

The preeminent point of contention between the Maori Party and the previous Labour Government was the Foreshore and Seabed debate that arose in 2003. It was the Foreshore and Seabed Act—passed in 2004—that ultimately led to the formation of the Maori Party. The repeal of the act has remained a central policy for the party.

The Maori Party clearly stated in their 2008 election policy that they “oppose the Crown sale or lease of the foreshore and seabed or its resources, including mining”, and the party managed to convince National to sign on to “a review of the application of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 to ascertain whether it adequately maintains and enhances mana whenua”.

In keeping with the Confidence and Supply Agreement, National has since agreed to repeal the act, which will no doubt be lauded as a huge victory for the Maori Party as it campaigns for the 2011 election. In a statement released in June this year, Maori Party co-leaders Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples announced: “We negotiated a review, we promised a repeal and to restore access to justice, and today we are proud to say we’ve achieved that. By working together with iwi leaders and the National Party we’ve been able to produce some significant advances”.

While the victory certainly is important for the Maori Party, the outcome of the revised legislation is likely to be less beneficial. In essence, is there really much difference between ‘Crown ownership’ and ‘public ownership’? Admittedly, that is an oversimplified analysis of the likely outcome of the revised agreement, but the Maori Party certainly hasn’t ‘gotten its way’ on this one. This is reflected in Hone Harawira’s comments: “Well, well, well … so it looks like we ain’t going to get what we wanted on the Foreshore and Seabed.”

Similarly, the Whanau Ora programme was only really a success in that it gained any funding at all in the 2010 Budget. Turia unsurprisingly heralded the announcement of funding for the plan as “A very significant day for Aotearoa. A day in which the government has placed its faith in families; a day in which the state invests in the potential of whanau.” Despite the brave face, Labour’s spokesperson for Maori Social Development and Employment Nanaia Mahuta was quick to point out that secretly, “Tariana Turia must feel a little short changed after the government decided to allocate a mere $33.5 million dollars a year for four years to fund Whanau Ora, $800 million dollars short of what she first expected”.

Columnist John Minto is perhaps most cynical about the whole Whanau Ora programme, predicting that in spite of its “aim to benefit struggling Maori families, National will it use to undermine state provision of social services and open the sector for the damages and ravages of privatisation. Maori will be the predominant losers”.

Does this relationship alienate Maori voters?

Maori voters have traditionally associated themselves with Labour, thus the coalition agreement has the potential to alienate them from the Maori Party. Moreover, while the Maori Party has achieved some of their policy goals, these appear to serve corporate Maori much more than the average Maori voter.

Jon Johansson, a Senior Lecturer in Victoria University’s Political Science programme, asks: “If you are a Maori voter in South Auckland in 2011, what are you going to do? Are you going to reward the Maori Party for its Foreshore and Seabed Act? How many busses does it take to get from South Auckland to a beach? Do you even go to a beach, let alone have any access to whatever benefits accrue from having customary title over that beach?”

From these questions come uncertainties over the future of the party. “Maori might give them a second chance, but the tension you see there between the Hone Harawiras, and the leadership in the party—and the trajectory they’ve taken the party—you can see that Hone reflects that core constituency that actually puts the party in there. The leadership will alienate the Maori electorate at their peril,” Johansson says.

If one looks at the history of party success in the Maori seats, after the introduction of MMP—when the Ratana-Labour deal broke up—New Zealand First claimed those seats. Labour then claimed them back, and while the advent of the Maori Party saw a few of the Maori seats won by that Party, Labour has managed to retain some, indicating that Maori voters don’t appear to have an automatic association with the Maori Party.

So, even though the Maori Party has achieved much of what they set out to do, recent unemployment figures reflect that the relationship hasn’t trickled down to benefit their core constituency. Alongside the fact that the Maori Party is already failing to secure the Maori vote entirely, life for many Maori under the National-Maori-ACT government may call into question the continued viability of the Maori Party.

Is white middle-class New Zealand similarly threatened?

“Only on a daily basis,” says Johansson.

“If you have ever been to a National Party conference, one of the things that really stands out is the absence of Tangata Whenua and other ethnic groups. It is still overwhelmingly a white middle-class party.”

Despite being riled by the media as racist, the most important effect of Brash’s ‘Nationhood’ speech at the Orewa Rotary Club was that it facilitated the spectacular rise in support for National. Brash spoke of what he saw as a “dangerous drift towards racial separatism in New Zealand… where the minority has a birthright to the upper hand”. Controversial as his opinion was, a lot of the public seemed to agree, and National’s standing was boosted significantly in the polls.

While Brash narrowly lost the 2005 election, his speech really did sow the seeds for the National Party’s reclamation of parliament in 2008. As such, Johansson points out “many National Party supporters would have been far happier if there had just been a straight out National-ACT coalition, because then they would have had a policy mix more conducive to why they voted for National”.

He does comment, however, that despite many National supporters’ clear distaste surrounding an agreement with the Maori Party, “the smarter people inside National understand that National can’t not be in that action, and for too many years it wasn’t—certainly during the Brash era”.

“Bill English understood the problem, but was in there at the wrong time to do anything about it, so Key has struck the right path for his party, and I think National Party supporters are willing to swallow a lot because they were out of power for nine years. They don’t want to return to that state anytime soon, so they realise the real politic and advantage that accrues from having that greater strategic flexibility.”

While there certainly is some support for Key’s decision to include the Maori Party in the arrangement as outlined, Johansson concedes, “There is still a certain amount of unrest about [the coalition], and you see that from time to time in the reaction to anything that Hone Harawira says.”

Harawira has recently said he would not be comfortable to see his children with Pakeha partners—such comments do little more than to widen the racial gulf in New Zealand, and simply justify the racial prejudice much of white New Zealand still so clearly holds.

One woman interviewed on TV One’s Marae programme thought it appropriate to suggest that Maori should “stay” up in Waitangi, and leave the rest of us in peace “down here”. While her ignorance borders on comical, views such as these really do illustrate that many of National’s traditional constituency clearly remains threatened by the party’s coalition partner.

Where to for the Maori Party?

Despite the problems faced by both parties, the Maori Party faces much broader issues than their coalition partners. It isn’t unrealistic to expect the Maori Party’s constituency to give the party another go in 2011, despite its relative failings. Similarly, it isn’t unlikely the party will attempt to engage in another agreement, especially with its pressing need to keep the removal of the Maori seats off the National Party’s agenda. Moreover, day after day, it becomes clearer that the Labour Party isn’t going to able to seriously contend the next election. But realistically, Labour will be revitalised, and the Maori Party will have to reevaluate its relationships, especially if it aims to keep its constituents happy.

In the 2005 election the Labour Party attempted throughout the campaign to discredit the Maori Party. They did this by associating the party with National, and to Labour’s dismay this did little more than to set into motion the cogs of partnership, which underscore the present coalition. Despite this, Johansson contends “that in many respects Pita Sharples would be happier sitting around a Labour Cabinet than a National one, and the attitudes of your average Labour politician would be more comforting to Pita Sharples than those on the National side”.

The problem lies with the Maori Party’s other leader—Tariana Turia. Turia was a member of the Labour Party before the Foreshore and Seabed legislation saw her resign in her refusal to tow the party line. Johansson believes that “the utu that she struck in 2008 surrounding the circumstances of her resignation from Labour will be ongoing, and so long as she is there, she is actually an impediment to the party.”

“You have to flip it on its head here. It suits the Maori Party at the moment to stick with National because it is getting some policy wins, but the Maori Party can only survive long-term if it can in fact go with either, and so long as Tariana is there, it is shutting off half of its equation.”

Therefore, as long as Turia remains at the helm of the Maori Party, a future Labour government will have one of two choices. They can either pander to the party’s interests in an attempt to bury the hatchet with Turia specifically, or on the other hand, and perhaps more realistically, Labour could simply do its damndest to discredit the Maori Party among its core voters, purloining all the Maori seats, consequently destroying the party.

While certain constituencies may feel threatened by the Maori Party in its relationship with National, it is the Maori Party that in the end faces the most threatening situation.

The truth is, leadership in New Zealand is almost of a presidential nature these days, with parties being elected by how much the public like and can relate to the different leaders. Look at our current Prime Minister. The ‘Tuhoe Cannibalism Joke’ is just one example of many which frame him in a Bush-esque light of the little kid playing politics. Granted, he is not quite at the level of bumbling idiocy in which Bush operated, but in the face of these eyebrow-raising blunders, and perhaps even because of them, New Zealand voters seem to identify with and like John Key. One might predict that as a result it is simply character that will see Key lead the National Party to another victory in 2011. The concentration on leadership as presented by the media on a consistent basis plays an important role in this, but it is important for New Zealanders to remember that they vote for a candidate, and a party in elections, and not a leader specifically.

This week’s column isn’t simply going to be a rant on what I do and don’t like about our country’s leaders, but since leadership is the central issue behind the fiasco surrounding Carter, it is important to note the importance of a leader’s character, despite the fact we don’t directly vote for that person. The thing is, despite a continued embarrassing performance in the polls, it has been pointed out time and time again that Phil Goff is not only the best, but probably the only man for the job in the Labour Party at present. As Scoop columnist Gordon Campbell wrote recently, “Inside caucus, (Labour Finance Spokesperson) David Cunliffe would be the only remotely viable contender, and that alarming prospect only underlines the fact that Goff is still the only option.” Beyond Cunliffe, the tossing around of names like Labour Chief Whip Darren Hughes as a further possible candidate, serves only to firmly reiterate in my mind that Goff is the man for the job. Perhaps, pre-credit card scandal, the vivacious Shane Jones might have had a chance, and I certainly still have high hopes he might find his way to that position at some point in his career.

The Labour Party as a whole doesn’t look in much better shape than its leadership. A 3 News Opinion Poll from mid June this year asked the question “If a general election was held yesterday under MMP, which political party would you have voted for with your Party Vote? That is, for the political party you most want to be represented in parliament.” The results are telling, with the Labour Party losing five seats to the National Party in the hypothetical situation.

On TV One’s Q+A programme, Paul Holmes touched on the reasons behind this poor performance in his interview with Phil Goff. Basically, it comes down to the fact that the Labour Party is relatively unknown. As Goff said in the interview, “A third of my caucus were elected in 2008 and in last year’s Mt Albert by-election, (and) Te Atatu (the expelled Carter’s electorate) gives us a chance for rejuvenation there.” Even though Goff assures that come the 2011 election this new talent will have “developed” and “strengthened”, unfamiliarity is likely to be Labour’s toughest obstacle in said election.

So where does that leave Carter? People will be familiar with the credit card scandal which saw the MP demoted. People will also be familiar with the subsequent botched leadership coup, after which, either in some form of deluded stupidity or complete arrogance, the disgraced politician has vowed to continue to serve his Te Atatu electorate. Furthermore, at the time of writing, Carter was seeking two months of “stress leave”, which is highly likely to be granted, especially after Goff admitted he believed Carter was “unwell”.

MPs are granted a leave entitlement of 14 sitting days per year, and so long as the member can convince the Speaker of the necessity, no medical certificate is required. This of course brings up all sorts of questions surrounding the hypocrisy of National’s proposal to allow employers to request a medical certificate for a single sick day for the rest of the population, but that is for another column. Because parliament only sits for three days per week, and in some weeks not at all, it is unlikely the Labour Party will be able to officially expel Carter from the party until mid September, despite the inevitability of his expulsion from the party. Thus, the New Zealand Council of the Labour Party’s meeting scheduled for 7 August, will not be able to institute any of the disciplinary action they discuss in the meeting immediately, likely dragging the party further down in the polls while the Carter scandal continues to dominate headlines.

The findings of the investigation outline that a staggering 854,000 people across 1271 government organisations and 1921 private companies are involved in counterterrorism programs. While this should surely ensure a feeling of relative safety and security for the American public, it is the inefficiencies in the fact “many security and intelligence agencies do the same work”, and the publication of approximately “50,000 intelligence reports each year—a volume so large that many are routinely ignored”, that raise concerns over the effectiveness of this colossal industry. Consequently, the authors make a convincing argument that these inefficiencies, and subsequent ineffectiveness of the industry as a whole, have actually acted in detriment to national security. They find that “lack of focus, not lack of resources, was at the heart of the Fort Hood shooting that left 13 dead, as well as the Christmas Day bomb attempt thwarted not by the thousands of analysts employed to find lone terrorists, but by an alert airline passenger who saw smoke coming from his seatmate”.

While the first part focuses on revealing size and presence, the second article in the series, released the following day, outlines the scope of privatisation within an industry that takes care of America’s “most sensitive duties”. While reports from Iraq made companies such as XE Services, formally known as Blackwater, household names due to the problems faced with holding private contractors accountable in the wake of dubious actions, it is difficult to comprehend the true magnitude of the private sector’s involvement in intelligence and security. Priest and Arkin estimate that 265,000 out of the aforementioned 854,000 with top-secret security clearances are private contractors, and that this privatisation of the industry has added to its lack of effectiveness. Private companies have responsibilities to shareholders which often results in clear conflicts of interest, and as the authors point out, because the “privatisation of national security work has been made possible by a nine-year ‘gusher’ of money, (of which the Obama administration has been equally as complicit as the preceding Bush administration), with so much money to spend, managers do not always worry about whether they are spending it effectively”. This is exemplified by the fact that studies often double up, “because no one shares information”.

In an interview with Democracy Now!, Arkin comments that “The military-industrial complex of the Eisenhower era was one that produced massive amounts of capital goods for the military—bombers, missiles, nuclear weapons, et cetera. But today’s national security establishment really values information technology more than it values weapons.”

Arkin goes on to outline that “the mega corporations which have always been powerhouses in the defence industry—Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics—they are moving more and more of their business from production to the provision of services—that is, providing staffing for government. What you see is that we are increasingly a national security establishment that is producing paper rather than producing weapons. And the question is, with the production of all that paper, whether or not we have an effective counterterrorism operation, or whether or not we’re even safer.”

Bringing it all closer to home, while the part played is small; New Zealand does fit into this narrative despite the articles’ domestic US focus. Specifically, Priest and Arkin make reference to the “Five Eyes Allies”, in the third part of their exposé. The Five Eyes Allies refers to the United Kingdom-United States of America (UKUSA) Agreement, which is a multilateral agreement in which those two countries, as well as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, share intelligence information about the entire world. Many may have been completely unaware of New Zealand’s complicity in this intelligence agreement until the series of protests at the now-infamous Waihope ‘spy base’, which most recently saw Anzac Ploughshares activists deflating one of the balloons that surround satellites with a sickle in April 2008. New Zealand’s responsibility as a part of the UKUSA Agreement is directly concerned with the Western Pacific, and listening posts at both Waihope, and at Tangimoana fulfil these duties.

I would contend that while the Anti Bases Campaign will no doubt continue to raise awareness of the existence of these listening posts in New Zealand, the Top Secret America investigation itself should act primarily as a further deterrent to New Zealanders for allowing our privacy to be compromised, especially as the Law Commission and Privacy Commission work through a substantial review of New Zealand’s privacy law.
To read the Top Secret America series in full, and explore the web presentation that accompanies the articles, head to projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/

The Caribbean nation of Haiti was rocked on Tuesday 12 January this year by a devastating 7.0 magnitude earthquake, centred just 25 kilometres west of the impoverished nation’s capital Port-au-Prince.

The quake has directly affected an estimated three million people. 230,000 died, 300,000 were injured, and one million were made homeless, according to reports by the Haitian Government—though some experts question the validity of these figures.

Television and newspaper reports worldwide were rife with images of the tragedy. Thousands upon thousands of bodies lined Haiti’s rubble-strewn streets, as a result of overwhelmed morgues. Injured survivors were receiving treatment outdoors in the searing heat, with inadequate medical supplies, due to the fact that all hospitals, as well as three Médicins Sans Frontièrs (Doctors Without Borders) facilities had been destroyed.

Unharmed survivors were sleeping on the pavement, in cars, or in makeshift structures—they refused to re-enter buildings out of fear that these remaining structures would collapse in an aftershock. Low construction standards in Haiti meant that buildings left standing had more than likely been structurally compromised in the earthquake.

The response to the disaster was swift, but considerable difficulties were faced due to the tattered state of Haiti’s infrastructure. A damaged control tower restricted the efficiency of flight operations, but it did not stop the Toussaint L’Ouverture International Airport from being used altogether. The capital’s seaport on the other hand was destroyed, rendering the harbour out of action for the initial relief efforts. Most significantly, the sheer amount of rubble littering the streets of Port-au-Prince hindered the delivery and distribution of vital aid. US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates initially ruled air drops too risky without the proper distribution structures implemented on the ground. Gates’ decision was subsequently overturned, and aid was parachuted in to desperate survivors in inaccessible parts of the devastated city.

On top of the immediate efforts made by both military and official personnel to send help and shipments of food and medical supplies, across the world states, multilateral banks and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) were quick to commit huge sums of money for emergency aid and the long-term reconstruction of Haiti. Aid contributions included US$474 million from the European Union, US$210 million from Brazil, US$131.5 million from Canada and US$100 million from the United States, among a plethora of smaller donations amounting to a staggering US$10 billion. More than six months on, however, this commendable response has largely failed to assist in Haiti’s ongoing recovery from the earthquake.

Failing Aid

On 31 March a UN Aid Conference saw $5.3 billion pledged in relief payments. The payments would be made to a World Bank fund managed by the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission (CIRH). Payments would be distributed over an 18-month period. As it currently stands, a relatively insignificant 10 per cent of those payments have actually found their way into the fund.

Further to this, only 2 per cent of the $5.3 billion has actually been spent to directly help Haiti in reconstruction. Scoop columnist Gordon Campbell points out that the problem doesn’t end with state-pledged aid either.

“Much the same thing has happened to the money donated for emergency aid by millions of people worldwide to international aid NGOs to help relieve the suffering. Reportedly, only about 25 per cent of that money has been spent.”

Dr Megan MacKenzie, a lecturer in Victoria University’s International Relations programme, speculates that there are a number of reasons for these failures in the delivery of funds. She makes particular note of the media’s role, and consequent failure, in ensuring the issues continue to remain in the public’s consciousness.

“I think the media has a role in how long people pay attention to a particular issue, and I think there was so much attention—and rightly so—when the earthquake happened. Then several weeks on, that attention shifts, in some cases justifiably, to what else is going in the world. But that attention shift also means that peoples’ attention changes, so individuals shift their attention, and governments as well. They don’t feel that urge, or don’t feel like this is the top thing to be dedicating their budget to. So I think the way certain events are portrayed in the media, and peoples’ demand for that sort of immediacy, has something to do with that.”

Dr MacKenzie continues, pointing out that in addition to the role of the media, “in some ways there is also an underestimation in how much time and resources are involved in a lot of different disasters”. She comments that this is common scenario in both post-disaster and post-conflict scenarios.

“There is often this idea that there is a year or two transition and you need an immediate reaction and then things move forward naturally, but actually, as research has shown—rebuilding institutions and rebuilding infrastructure just takes so much time and resources, so I think there is maybe a sort of incongruence between what people think is required and what actually is, in terms of resources and time required.”

Ngos and the Cirh: Acronymic Failures

It has been suggested that the CIRH and its 26 directors—13 of which are representatives of the donor nations as well as multilateral banks such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the Inter-American Development Bank—could be one of the key problems behind the failure in delivering funding, preventing reconstruction from beginning.

Naomi Klein’s book The Shock Doctrine is critical of institutions such as the IMF and World Bank. Klein explains in detail the lasting damage these institutions can have on countries that require urgent loans. Klein points out that these payments often come burdened with interest rates, and are conditional on the government in question following neoliberal economic policies. Such policies more often than not undermine the country’s ability to make a full recovery.

However, Dr MacKenzie says, “I think with Haiti, the western powers can’t really exploit much more out of the country.” She raises an important point, relating to the problems faced when these multilateral agencies head reconstruction efforts.

“The funding structure for disaster aid is really top-heavy. There is so much money going into these international agencies, but smaller organisations that have really simple projects, like clearing rubble, have a lot more difficult time getting that kind of funding, so I think any time you have an international organisation managing that amount of money, it is very difficult for a smaller organisation to identify their own priorities,” she says.

“It tends to be they will align their priorities with whatever the funding structure is. If there is a lot of funding, for example, for health vs. rubble clearing, even though the latter might be more important, they will pitch for whatever they can get funding for, so you have this system which is really common where local actors are really shaping their priorities according to what external priorities are.”

In a recent documentary, the Al Jazeera network showed that a lot of the Haitian public’s anger and frustration at the inefficiencies in the reconstruction effort is now being targeted at the international NGOs. While this could be a result of funding priorities, Dr MacKenzie explains that this frustration isn’t an uncommon occurrence in post-disaster and post-conflict zones.

“It’s not that people who work for NGOs don’t have good intentions, it’s not that there is any maliciousness—but it’s that budget timelines are not realistic. They are not realistic for how long crisis recovery takes, so you often have this situation in many different contexts where NGOs come in with these amazing ideas and they’ve got money for one year, and so in that year they aren’t able to get their feet off the ground, and then they are gone. So then another NGO comes in with a similar idea, and this is what locals see all the time,” she says.

“In the meantime, these people are coming in with SUVs, and are spending tonnes of money, and often aren’t actually listening to what locals have to say about what would work for them. Sometimes locals have really simple ideas; like that digging an irrigation canal would increase productivity for this farm by x amount. Really simple things, and then you have NGOs coming in with these elaborate plans, and not only might they not be useful, but they may not be realistic when you only have money for one year.”

While there are certainly some systemic failures in the actions of the multilateral banks, donor countries and international NGOs, perhaps the most significant barrier to reconstruction in Haiti—as suggested in a recent article by journalist Kim Ives, published in the Haitian weekly newspaper, The Haiti Liberté—comes from the other 13 members of the CIRH who represent the interests of Haiti’s elite.

Bekele Gelata, the secretary general of the International Federation of Red Cross Societies, claims that the Haitian government has not provided the open land necessary to build large numbers of storm-resistant houses—an urgent priority as the region gears up to deal with the hurricane season whose presence looms large in displaced Haitians’ collective consciousness.

Ives says that this is due to the fact “a small handful of rich families own large tracts of land in suburban Port-au-Prince which would be ideal for resettling the displaced thousands”. The representation of these elite interests in the Haitian Government, as well as the CIRH, has stopped the necessary reallocation of this land, despite the urgency of the circumstances. “Over the past 25 years, Haiti’s bourgeoisie bought up large swaths of this (land) for pennies… Now they will look to sell it for a huge profit,” Ives wrote.

The result of all this is that just a single camp has been built to date for the displaced survivors of the earthquake, “on a forbidden strip of sun-baked desert situated between Titayen and Morne Cabrit, two desolate zones”, where the homeless reside in tents that lack the capacity to resist even the least powerful of the hurricane winds that lash Haiti every year.

Aiding Failure

The issues surrounding land ownership, and the failure to relocate the hundreds of thousands who remain homeless to relative safety, are underscored by a long history of subjugation and democratic failure in Haiti. While even the briefest of accounts of Haiti’s history is far beyond the scope of this article, it is important to consider the effect of the 2004 coup d’état, which saw the removal of the democratically elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Aristide was ‘kidnapped’ by US security forces during the coup, and was sent to live in exile in South Africa where he remains to this day. While there are questions surrounding corruption and human rights abuses within the Aristide administration, he remains one of the most popular figures in Haitian politics, exemplified by regular and massive protests calling for his return. As Gordon Campbell points out, Aristide is “the only person who could mobilise the bulk of poor Haitians to believe that the earthquake reconstruction effort was being motivated by a concern for their welfare”.
Current Haitian President René Préval has revealed that Aristide and the Fanmi Lvalas Party he represents will not be permitted to run in the recently announced November election. This is despite the fact the current president was originally allied with Aristide, serving as Prime Minister under the exiled leader’s first term. Beyond the logistical nightmare, and ethical questions surrounding the organisation of an election while the nation is in chaos—especially when said election is estimated to cost upwards of US$30 million, and the election process will require the hundreds of thousands of homeless people to somehow register—there are more important questions of the perceived legitimacy of the election when the most popular candidate is excluded from running.

Ives points out “the most prominent elite representative on the CIRH is Reginald Boulos, who heads one of the Haiti bourgeoisie’s most powerful families, and backed both the 1991-94 and 2004-06 coups against Aristide”. Boulos’s influence is not restricted to the CIRH—it extends to the Préval Government itself, raising questions surrounding exactly whose interests the exclusion of Aristide from the upcoming election serves.

One might speculate that elite influence, and exclusive elections will simply ensure the elites represented on the CIRH the freedom and ability to continue to take advantage of their hold Haiti’s poor in the prolonged aftermath of desecration. This begs the question: in the event that the majority of the money pledged to Haiti’s reconstruction actually finds its way into the state’s coffers, are these funds simply aiding failure?

While it was clear that the plethora of vans equipped with loudspeakers were vehicles of some campaign, the stark difference in how the Japanese campaign, compared to our own methods, underscores the difficulty in my processing what the campaign was about. In contrast to New Zealand, where the two key campaign mediums are billboards and television, from an outside perspective the Japanese seem to have a much more intensive approach, which sees the political parties hitting the streets in person and en masse, while placing little importance on the visual advertising methods our political parties rely so heavily upon.

The aforementioned vans number in the thousands across the country and are armed with four loudspeakers apiece, which are cranked well past 11. Each van contains a team comprised of one or two speakers who are presumably the members of each political party, who for the most part speak with a fervent energy and an applaudable capacity to utter an incredible amount of words in between breaths. On top of the speakers, and probably one of the most striking aspects of the whole ordeal, are the few per team whose job it is to simply wave, in a manner that is almost mechanical, and in some instances, comical. Case in point—while exploring the back streets of Nagoya, one such van was on the move doing sweeps of the side streets, and these wavers persisted with their designated action despite their shaking hands being met only with empty sidewalks and concrete walls.

The election itself saw the ruling party, The Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), lose much of the advantage they gained in their landslide victory in the election for Japan’s House of Representatives last September. This has resulted in the DPJ-led coalition losing the majority they need within the House of Councillors to ensure legislation sees easy passage through the upper house. The House of Representatives election had been a historic one as it had seen the defeat of the centre-right Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), who have held power in Japan almost exclusively throughout the party’s 55-year existence before being defeated by the DPJ in 2009. These most recent elections were the people’s first judgment on the new DPJ-Kokumin Shinto (People’s New Party) coalition, and have illustrated resounding disappointment in the latest government’s efforts.

Originally elected on a promise to reduce the high levels of government spending in association with tax cuts to the working population, the latest election result can be somewhat attributed to Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s pre-election taboo of suggesting a possible hike in Japan’s 5 per cent consumption tax (GST); a move which might have been made under a naïve assumption that the Prime Minister was still working within a honeymoon period. After all, Kan only assumed power on 8 June, following the resignation of previous Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, who stood down after only 8 months in power.

It is this instability within leadership which has eventuated in the abysmal result for the DPJ-led coalition, and not specifically the suggestion of a hike in consumption tax, aimed at paying off the national debt while financing growing social welfare costs exacerbated by the country’s aging population.

Former Prime Minister Hatoyama began his short reign in power with a high approval rating, but suffered a rapid fall in popularity following financial scandals, and the inability to deliver on the high expectations the DPJ had created in the September 2009 House of Representatives election. Most significantly, Hatoyama reneged on his campaign promise to relocate the Futenma US Marine Corps Air Station to a less populated location than the islands of Okinawa, where they have been based since the end of World War II. The decision to retain the base at its current location was made with US President Barack Obama in the wake of the alleged North Korean attack on the South Korean naval vessel, Cheonan, but the decision was widely unpopular within Japan.

Hatoyama’s fall from power is not an anomaly however, exemplified by the fact that the current Prime Minister Kan is the country’s fifth since 2006. So, while the Japanese people have signified their dissatisfaction as illustrated by the results of the recent election, Kan still holds power and it is crucial he ensures stability within government if the DPJ hope to win a second term in the next House of Representatives elections. Superficially, Japan is incredibly successful in creating the façade of stability within its own borders, but further changes in leadership, and another change in government could see this façade permanently compromised.

Despite the huge drop in support for Rudd, two Australian surveys found in the week prior to the leadership coup, Labor was actually favoured ahead of the opposition Liberal Party, enjoying 52 per cent support compared to the Liberal’s 48 per cent. This led Sydney Morning Herald columnist Peter Hartcher to comment that “Rudd was still electable”. Former Secretary of the Labor Party Bob McCullan noted that no government who was achieving the levels of support indicated by the aforementioned polls had ever failed to stay in power this close to an election. Therefore, it is understandable that there is an air of disbelief and confusion around the Labor Party’s decision to put the proverbial knife into Rudd’s back.

The answer behind the disposal of Rudd lies in a quote from former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating: “Where goes New South Wales, so goes federal Labor.” It is this statement that really underpins the dramatic change in power seen in the Australian leadership. As Michelle Grattan, Political Editor of Melbourne newspaper The Age explains: “Polls and media campaigns, in the age of the continuous news cycle, wield disproportionate influence,” and subsequently, she refers to the “penchant of sections of the NSW Right for demanding resignations when the polls get rough”. The polls gave this faction the impetus to drive out a leader with whom they had become dissatisfied due to his “high-handed leadership style”, and their desire for a harder stance on asylum seekers, the ETS to be dumped and for Rudd to back off on the mining tax. Gillard appears to have been willing to offer the Right what they wanted.

Despite the conspiratorial nature of Gillard’s leadership takeover, and the fact that Rudd could quite conceivably have led the Australian Labor Party to victory once again, it can be conceded that the ousted Prime Minister’s replacement is a far more serious threat to Tony Abbott and Liberal Party’s chances of winning the next election. Enjoying significant popular support, being Australia’s first female Prime Minister—and thus likely to resonate with female voters—Gillard could ensure that the Labor Party is re-elected for a second term. She has the option of calling a quick election in which she might hope to sail through while in her ‘honeymoon period’, though she risks voters questioning the stability of the Labor Party due to the change in leadership. Alternatively, she can wait as long as possible, cementing her role as a leader, but in this case re-election is going to be concentrated heavily on policy rather than Gillard’s character.

The key policy challenges Gillard faces are the very policies that saw the downfall of Rudd, and as such Gillard needs to distance herself from the previous Prime Minister’s approach, while still accepting a certain level of responsibility as his deputy. On the first two policies, Gillard has indicated so far that she doesn’t intend to move from Rudd’s approach. She has argued that there is the obvious need to address Australia’s carbon emissions in the future, but has not announced the re-introduction of a replacement ETS scheme, which means it remains off the immediate agenda. Similarly, Gillard has indicated that she would not change the government’s approach on asylum seekers. She won’t be pushing for the Right’s preference for a ‘harder stance’, but at the same time, she won’t be softening the government’s current stance to immigration. This only leaves Rudd’s controversial mining super-profits tax for Gillard to really set herself apart.

An attempt at taking on the mining industry in Australia would be comparable to the New Zealand Government attempting to take on Fonterra and the Federated Farmers. The backlash has been huge, and has seen the Labor Party’s support dwindle in Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia—the key mining states, so it is no surprise Gillard has focused her efforts here. Following an announcement that she doesn’t believe the benefits of the tax can be directly associated with the government’s efforts to combat climate change, Gillard has cancelled the government’s advertising campaign supporting the tax, the first step to brokering a compromise with the miners.

It’s difficult to predict the result of the next Australian elections from here, but for Gillard, it is crucial she finds someway to seek this compromise which will resonate with advocates from both sides, as by putting all her eggs in the mining basket, retention of power is likely to hang in the balance.

This isn’t the first attack since the 1953 armistice that ended the fighting in the Korean War was signed. There have been a number of other incidents that have allegedly been orchestrated by the DPRK against South Korea, most significantly the 1983 assassination attempt on South Korean President Chun Doo-hwan at the Martyr’s Mausoleum in Myanmar (Burma), and the bombing of a Korean Air passenger jet mid-air in 1987. However, this latest attack is the most significant hostile engagement since naval skirmishes between the two countries in 1999, and has resulted in a serious reaction from the South.

South Korean President Lee Myung-bak said last week, “From now on, the Republic of (South) Korea will not tolerate any provocative act by the North and will maintain the principle of proactive deterrence. If our territorial waters, airspace or territory are violated, we will immediately exercise our right of self-defense.” Lee said, “our ultimate goal is not military confrontation”, but he found it viable to impose some measures against North Korea, including the refusal to let North Korean ships into South Korean waters, and the freezing of trade and exchange between the two countries.

True to form, the North Korean regime has been quick to threaten war on the South, claiming that “Our army and people will promptly react to any ‘punishment’ and ‘retaliation’ and to any ‘sanctions’ infringing upon our state interests with various forms of tough measures, including an all-out war.” Despite Lee’s rhetoric that the South intends to avoid military conflict—as Choi Seong-Iak, an analyst at SK Securities points out—the key to the seriousness of both sides’ threats will be tested by “what measures South Korea will take, and how North Korea will react to them”.

The United States has played a central role in South Korea’s development since the Korean War, and has unsurprisingly been quick to condemn the attack and show their support for Lee. In Beijing last week, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said “The United States fully supports President Lee’s responsible handling of the Cheonan incident, and the objective investigation that followed, which we and other international observers joined. The measures that President Lee announced in his speech are both prudent and entirely appropriate.”

Clinton commented that she was “in the midst of very intensive consultations with the Chinese Government on this issue”, which is especially important considering China’s tradition of support for the DPRK. While the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s spokesperson Ma Zhaoxu called on “all parties to exercise calmness and restraint over relevant issues of the sinking”, if hostilities increased between North and South Korea, it could be expected that China would channel its support towards communist North Korea.

Scoop columnist and comparative, international and strategic politics specialist Paul Buchanen believes that “South Korea has few options at its disposal”, and has warned “Although North Korea does not have the capability to launch a nuclear strike in spite of its efforts to build an effective nuclear arsenal, it does have ample capability to launch significant missile attacks on Seoul and other parts of South Korea as well as beyond.” As a result he believes any military response from South Korea to DPRK provocations could result in a “high-intensity conflict” that could lead to the invocation of security guarantees from the United States and China respectively.

Buchanen speculates that this attack was simply a bid to bolster support for Kim Jong-il’s hard-line son, Kim Jong-un as successor to the older Kim, in the face of the increasingly imminent death of the ‘supreme leader’. There has been much contestation around the future leadership of the DPRK between hard-liners, and soft-liners alike, and as Buchanen writes, “some intelligence analysts believe that Mr Kim authorised the attack in order to shore up hard-line support for his son”. Buchanen believes that this “could be true [as] the younger Kim has no power base outside of his father’s closest associates”.

This showing of militarist power, Buchanen argues, is a “tried and true authoritarian method of shoring up elite unity and public support” and as a result, South Korea would be best placed to respond to the North Korean attack in the subtlest way possible. By limiting the DPRK’s militaristic opportunities, South Korea may be able to ensure that Kim Jong-il is unable to stir up popular support for the regime, which, following that leader’s death, could ultimately lead to regime-change in the communist state, which relies so much on the character of its leaders.

Whatever happens in the coming days and weeks could either set the stage for the downfall of the DPRK regime, or could see the region disintegrate into armed conflict.

The actual contents and impact of the government’s annual Budget are often difficult for the average Joe to understand. We’re bombarded with information and analysis in the media. Added to this is the plethora of alternative translations and interpretations put forward by various political parties and interest groups. The 2010 Budget, with its key focus on tax reforms, is no different.

Director of Victoria University’s Institute of Policy Studies Jonathan Boston helps to clarify the Budget as a whole: “In broad terms the Budget is relatively consistent with what one would expect from a central-right government.” He explains that this is down to the “clear desire to reduce the overall level of public expenditure as a percentage of GDP over time, and in the desire to reduce tax rates, particularly on middle to high income earners”.

However, Boston is quick to comment that the current government has exercised a certain level of restraint, as many “central-right governments might well have reduced public expenditure more significantly than the current government has done”.

“Certainly by comparison with the National Government of the early- to mid-1990s, there were rather more significant changes then, to social assistance, health and education than have been signalled thus far under this government.”

Boston says that this reflects the pragmatism of New Zealand’s current politicians working in an MMP environment. This compares to the ideologically driven political behaviour that was evident in New Zealand politics in the late 1980s and early 1990s. He says that as a result of the coalition agreements that have eventuated because of MMP, “it may well be that the Maori Party exercised a restraining influence on policy in a number of areas, such as primary healthcare for example, that might have occurred otherwise”. Despite recognising that there are only a small number of elements in the Budget that are clearly positive from the Maori Party perspective, Boston believes that the Maori Party no doubt affected certain changes from behind the scenes.

Bill’s ‘fair for all’ budget

In an interview with Q+A’s Guyon Espiner following the Budget announcement, Minister of Finance Bill English said the government believed that this Budget was fair across the board. He specified that the government “paid quite a bit of attention to the various measures of fairness and equity”, and that “background papers will show that all those measures have been applied”. He believes the government has “achieved a good balance of fairness between people, lower and higher on the income scale”, but more importantly he said that the intended increases in economic growth would ensure that all New Zealanders could “get ahead”.

Across the floor, the Labour Party’s Finance Spokesman David Cunliffe has slammed the Budget not unexpectedly, saying that, “this is really an old-fashioned National party budget that rewards the few at the expense of the many”.

Cunliffe is particularly concerned about cuts to government spending over a number of sectors. He believes that “the quality public services Kiwi families depend upon—like good healthcare when illness or accidents strike, and a great school for the kids—will all come under huge pressure from the cuts to spending”.

Green Party co-leader Dr Russell Norman has also raised concerns that the Budget tax trade-offs will effectively “widen the gap between New Zealand’s haves and have-nots”.

“The tax cuts in this National, ACT and Maori Party budget will go mostly to the well-off, while raising GST hits those on low incomes disproportionately. It punishes those who already struggle to make ends meet. And the punishment falls most heavily on Maori and Pacific peoples. So this Budget will increase inequality and increase the social deficit.”

These various interpretations have been repeated time and again in both pre- and post-Budget analyses, press releases and news segments. So how does this Budget actually measure up in terms of fairness?

Boston believes that “from a static point of view, it is slightly regressive; that is to say, the distributional shifts favour to middle to high-income earners, at the expense of low-income earners. Essentially the changes are likely to increase inequality, rather than increase equality”.

However, he says it is important to recognise that from “a dynamic point of view, the changes may not be quite so regressive, and so over the medium to long run, and from a life-time earnings point of view, the changes may not be significantly regressive”.

A ‘tax swindle’?

Professor Robert Buckle, chair of the Tax Working Group who devised the changes in taxation as announced in the Budget, points out “you really have to pin down what people mean by fairness”.

In contrast to Boston, Buckle thinks that from a static perspective, “it is fairly well recognised that, for salary and wage earners, the combination of the cut in personal tax rates plus the GST increase, means that right across all income levels, people will have more disposable income after tax”. Buckle also believes that “in a dynamic sense, there are quite widespread benefits”.

Buckle says that there were a lot of “loopholes in the tax system that were advantageous to some people—particularly people who had opportunities in accumulated wealth, and could invest them into certain types of savings vehicles”. Therefore, “If the tax system had been left alone, the after tax distribution of income would have been possibly unfair. I don’t think a lot of people appreciate these kind of issues.”

This underscores what Buckle outlines were the aims of Tax Working Group, in ensuring New Zealand was facing the future with a tax system that was fair and sustainable.

“The international research, which is pretty robust, has emerged over the past twenty years as a result of quite sophisticated micro-econometric research and as a result of econometric panel estimation studies of different tax structures across different countries, and it suggests that taxing company incomes, and taxing personal incomes tends to be more damaging for growth, entrepreneurship and innovation.”

Buckle explains further: “The IMF have simulated this tax switch, very much along the lines we advocated, and it reinforces the argument that this sort of tax switch can lead to higher savings rates, higher investment, higher employment growth, and higher real wage growth. Therefore, those who are unemployed will benefit by stronger employment growth. Those on salary and wages will benefit from higher labour productivity and real wage growth, so that’s how these things come through.”

Analysing the benefits of changes in what is taxed, and with the hike in GST central in most people’s minds, Kiwiblog’s David Farrar outlined some benefits of increasing GST, illustrating that, compared to income tax, GST is easier to administer, difficult to avoid and covers a wider base.

Far beyond adhering to what Labour Party leader Phil Goff refers to as a tax swindle, the results of this tax switch could see reductions in both incentives and the distinct abilities for the wealthiest in New Zealand’s society, to avoid paying the correct tax rates relative to their earnings and overall wealth. New Zealand thus may be facing a tax system that is indeed fairer across the board.

What about education?

So what did the Budget hold in terms of funding for the tertiary sector? While the cuts in income tax and increases in GST affect every New Zealander, one would hope that the government’s commitments to tertiary education would be of particular interest to readers of this particular publication.

As reported by Salient straight after the Budget announcement, there were really no surprises. Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce outlined that “while we are committed to interest-free student loans, it is important we are fair to taxpayers and remove any perverse incentives from the scheme as it stands”.

Joyce says that in the face of the increasing costs of the student loan scheme, the government is intent on improving accountability and boosting performance within the tertiary sector.

The initiatives announced in the Budget include a focus on performance, which will require students to pass more than 50 per cent of full-time courses over a two-year period, in order to be allowed to continue borrowing. Furthermore, the government has placed a “lifetime limit” on access to student loans, outlining that there is to be a seven-year borrowing limit for an undergraduate degree.

The fees around borrowing have also increased, with the Student Loan administration fee increasing from $50 to $60, as well as the introduction of a $40 annual “account fee” to be applied at the completion of studies. It was this fee that led Green Party tertiary education spokesperson Gareth Hughes to accuse the government of trying to “charge interest by stealth”.

Addressing the costs of increasing enrolments, highlighted by Victoria University’s inability to accept further domestic admissions for the remainder of 2010, Joyce has said that “Budget 2010 will build further on last year’s record number of student places and ensure access for young people who are keen to succeed and committed to New Zealand”. However, there has been no increase in funding to cover this. The package includes ensuring 1735 additional full-time places at universities, but as Labour Party tertiary spokesperson Maryan Street explains, “These are not 1735 new students. Most of them are already in universities but being carried and funded by the universities themselves.”

Street continues, saying “This goes nowhere near meeting demand in these institutions, and certainly goes in the opposite direction from other countries like Australia, which is investing heavily in very real terms in its tertiary education institutions.”

In light of this, one might argue that the tertiary sector got dealt a fairly raw deal. However, compared to the cuts in funding for early childhood education—a sector which has been proven to offer the most bang for the buck in terms of educational effectiveness—as Boston explains, politics was on the tertiary sector’s side this round.

“The government could have decided to charge interest on student loans, if not for students currently studying, then for those who have finished their studies—but with half a million New Zealanders having student loans, that would have been very unpopular. I suspect a modest reduction of funding to early childhood education was easier than some other policy choices would have been.”

Before you complain about how unfair the lack of funding in the tertiary sector is, do keep in mind that by cutting back on the funding for early childhood education—in what is arguably children’s most crucial developmental stage—perhaps John Key is simply ensuring there will be significantly less competition for YOUR job 20 years down the track? Just saying. Maybe it ain’t so bad after all. But then again, only time will tell.

To give credit where credit is due, the catalyst for this interest in R&D was actually kicked off by an inspiring talk given by David Shearer at the fantastic New Generation Politics in Aotearoa New Zealand seminar series currently being held at Victoria University’s Stout Research Centre. Shearer is the Labour MP for Mt Albert, and the party’s spokesperson for Research, Science and Technology. In his talk he raised the notion that perhaps New Zealand could benefit by aiming to align itself more with a country like Finland, rather than trying to ‘bridge the gap’ with Australia, as advocated by the current government, led by Dr Brash’s 2025 Taskforce.

Finland is a country that, despite being on the opposite side of the world from Godzone, shares a number of characteristics with New Zealand in terms of geographical size and population. It has, however, experienced significantly higher rates of growth in GDP since its recovery from a banking crisis in the early 1990s, over the same time period compared to New Zealand.

While it is important to keep in mind Finland’s proximity to European markets and its place in the European Union, Finland’s high rates of growth can be at least partially explained by the country’s high spending on R&D.

According to Statistics New Zealand’s Research and Development in New Zealand Report released in 2008, New Zealand spent only 1.16 per cent of GDP on R&D in that year, well below the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) average of 2.26 per cent. In comparison, in the same year Finland spent a whopping 3.45 per cent of their GDP on R&D, in line with increased spending trends in the country since the 1990s. This has undoubtedly contributed to Finland’s 84 per cent rise in GDP since 1995, exemplified by the meteoric success of Finnish communications giant Nokia.

A 2006 report from New Zealand’s Ministry of Research, Science & Technology commented that despite the fact “the ratio of R&D to GDP has increased from 0.95 per cent to 1.05 per cent over the 1994 to 2004 period… even at this level, New Zealand is well below the OECD average and would need to double its R&D performance to reach the OECD average”. Furthermore, the report acknowledged that New Zealand is “well below its reference group countries” in this regard.

While it can be conceded that much of New Zealand’s R&D is based around primary production, which costs far less than aerospace, defence or automotive R&D, perhaps this country could benefit from increased spending and increased scope around R&D across the business, government and higher education sectors alike.

In light of all this, the recently announced $321 million funding package is a welcome boost for the science community. However, a number of concerns have already been raised, especially concerning the amount allocated which doesn’t come close to matching the previous Labour Government’s $630 million package. Shearer has been quick to point out that the National Government “has neglected R&D since it came to power”, and after scrapping “Labour’s R&D tax credits and $700 million Fast Forward Fund, [the government] is now playing catch up”.

Furthermore, John Key has announced that the government will cut $96 million from the science sector to fund the government’s new grants and voucher systems included as a part of the package, both of which support business R&D. This underscores what is an incredibly pro-business package, although that isn’t exactly surprising considering the government in power.

An encounter between the government’s Chief Science Advisor Peter Gluckman and Radio New Zealand’s Sean Plunket, where Gluckman commented that “our private sector spends between 25 and 30 per cent of what other comparable private sectors spend [on R&D]”, provoking Plunket to ask, “Why should the government subsidise a private sector that isn’t pulling its own weight?” This led Scoop columnist Gordon Campbell to complain that this “brand of corporate welfare is really indefensible”. Campbell further speculated that under this “misdirection of funds”, science is actually likely to suffer from the profit-enhancing, short-term nature of business-focused R&D funding.

Taking these concerns into account, while any increase in funding for R&D is a positive step, unfortunately the National Party has shown an ineptitude in realising the potential in significant and wide-ranging funding across the board, and instead of thinking progressively, New Zealand will instead be relegated to continuing to endure Dr Brash’s flogging of the 2025 horse.

As an aside, there are two more seminars being held in the aforementioned New Generation Politics in Aotearoa New Zealand series at the Stout Research Centre, and considering the quality of the seminars so far, they are really not to be missed. For more information, visit http://www.victoria.ac.nz/stout-centre/about/events/current-seminars.aspx

Finance reform passes its first reading among serious concerns.

The Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill passed its first reading in parliament, despite concerns from the Green and Maori Parties that it does not go far enough.

The bill is just one part of an extensive package of electoral reforms which also includes a bill to establish a new Electoral commission, and a bill to provide a referendum reviewing the MMP voting system.

Justice Minister Simon Power is confident the bill will “establish a regime that is fair and transparent to all groups and individuals participating in this vital element of New Zealand’s democracy”.

Power says the government would like to see the bill enacted by December, in order to provide ample time for both political parties and the public to become familiar with any changes to the electoral system.

Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei has raised concerns over the absence of any restriction on spending for third parties in elections.

“The bill will rightly limit political party spending to help provide a level playing field—it doesn’t make sense not to also limit third-party spending. The lack of a third party cap creates a massive loophole.”

Turei has announced that as a result, the Green Party opposes the bill.

She says “Our democracy should not be up for sale to the highest bidder. We don’t want to end up like the US where ridiculous amounts of money are spent in election campaigns, and lobby groups can buy influence.”

Rahui Katene, the Maori Party’s Justice Spokesperson, says she is encouraged by “the commitment of the Minister of Justice to encourage wholesale support for the reforms, to ensure greater certainty and transparency in the conduct of the electoral process”.

Katene says, however, that the issue of “unethical advertising” needs to be addressed, to combat “the appalling way in which some parties and advertisers have used Maori as negative fodder during election campaigning”.

“We must never again return to the era where politicians gamble on national identity and threaten the unity that has been so desperately sought by pitching campaigns to create unnatural divisions between Iwi vs. Kiwi.”

Having passed its first reading, the bill will now be referred to the Electoral Legislation Committee, which has been established to review both this, and the Electoral Referendum Bill.

Power welcomes “the public participation during the select committee process”.

This action, on the part of the producers of the movie, comes in the wake of The Hurt Locker’s disappointing US$16 million takings in the United States, especially considering the film’s reported $15 million cost, and the fact the film won six Academy Awards, including Best Picture. The Hurt Locker is now relegated to the position of lowest-grossing Best Picture recipient of all time.

It is in the face of these attempts at punishing file-sharers in the US that New Zealand continues to review its digital copyright law with the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill, soon to go under review by Select Committee.

Section 92a: the original proposal

The original Section 92a amendment, scrapped by Prime Minister John Key in March this year, called for a three-strikes policy, which would see violators have their internet services disconnected in the case of continued infringements. This required the cooperation of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in identifying and punishing offenders. As intellectual property expert John Katz QC explains in the May ’09 edition of Intellectual Property Journal, “Nobody who respects copyright and the creative inputs it protects could reasonably object to putting into place measures to prevent the avalanche of illegal downloads and the like, all of which impact heavily on creative industries.” However, he says “A solution such as s92A is a blunt instrument and shifts the policing from the owner of the copyright to the operator of the pipe through which the illegal activity is channeled—the (ISP) or similar utility.”

In addition to charging ISPs with policing their own customers, Katz explains that they would have also been forced to absorb any costs associated with the legislation: “The purpose of provisions such as s92A is to ensure that the problem can be laid off so that it becomes not the problem of the rights owner, but the problem of the ISP. This then means of course that the costs of compliance are those of the ISP and the costs of compliance will inevitably be passed on to ISP customers.”

This led TelstraClear, one of New Zealand’s largest ISPs, to refuse to back the disconnection of alleged file-sharers as outlined by that bill, which basically meant the law could not be effectively introduced as it required approval from all ISPs in order to see implementation, leading to its eventual retraction by the Prime Minister. Keith Davidson, then-chairman of InternetNZ, a non-profit organisation dedicated to protecting and promoting the internet in New Zealand, commented at the time: “Terminating an internet account was always a disproportionate response to copyright infringement, and to force ISPs and other organisations to be copyright judges and policemen was never an acceptable situation.”

Despite the failings of the original amendment, Matt Sumptor, a partner at the law firm Chapman Tripp and lecturer at the University of Auckland, also writing in the New Zealand Intellectual Property Journal, recognised that “The only way you can stop people ripping off works is for piracy to have predictable and unwelcome penalties for those on the wrong side of the law.

“If there is one unifying policy initiative in copyright law, it is the need to confront and address the piracy problem on the digital frontier.”

Cue Commerce Minister Simon Power and the 2010 Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill.

Section 92a: revamped

While there are a number of similarities to the original proposed legislation, Power’s bill does differ significantly in the requirements imposed upon ISPs. The new bill would see a three-notice policy, similar to the original three strikes, which Power says is to “educate and warn file-sharers that unauthorised sharing of copyright works is illegal”. Rights holders have the ability to request ISPs to issue these infringement notices to offenders; the first informing the user that infringement has occurred, and the second and third acting as repeat warnings. If an offender continues to infringe, the rights holder can then seek a penalty at the Copyright Tribunal for up to NZ$15,000, relative to the damage caused.

The bill also includes a provision that would see the suspension of internet accounts for up to six months, but it outlines that suspension will be processed by the courts in order to ensure both parties are heard, and the action will only be taken in cases of serious infringement.

The crucial difference here is that ISPs are only required to issue infringement notices due to their holding access of account holders’ personal information, removing the burden of having to negotiate process and penalties with rights holders.

While InternetNZ has stated that they welcome the bill, seeing it as a step forward, they have still raised a number of concerns, especially with regard to the suspension of accounts.

Jordan Carter, InternetNZ’s policy director, says “InternetNZ opposes account suspension as a remedy. It is both disproportionate, in that the penalty is too severe given the activity, and futile given that the public won’t put up with no net but will instead get a new account with their ISP or another.”

Carter has said that InternetNZ will argue against the account suspension provision in the select committee process, as well as suggesting “the notice system should simply be about notices going to alleged infringers, and giving them the right to reply back to the alleging rights holder”.

Furthermore, Carter believes some “technical changes” need to be made before implementation. “The definition of ‘ISP’ needs to be clarified; there are some details about how the notices process will work that could be clarified. There is also the need to clearly set out what it means to ‘suspend’ an internet account. The legislation should not create a ‘strict liability offences’ for account holders.”

The Creative Freedom Foundation has also raised concerns over the proposed punitive measures. Bronwyn Holloway-Smith, Director of the Foundation explains, “We’re strongly against internet termination as a penalty, and the lack of detail defining the scale of fines, among other things. We’ve always been opposed to the inclusion of internet termination as punishment. Due to New Zealand’s geographical isolation, the internet is a vital tool for artists to connect to the rest of the world—to organise international exhibitions, plan tours, or send movie files overseas for time-critical post-production work.”

Furthermore, Holloway-Smith questions the enormity of the proposed $15,000 fines. “We initially suggested a $1000 limit on fines but they’ve gone for $15,000 to match the Disputes Tribunal and, really, we think that’s excessive. We have no information on whether that limit will be reached for one movie or 1000 movies, so we don’t know if the fines will be reasonable.”

So… can file sharing actually be stopped?

Carter believes that “The educative side of sending notices will have an effect, and it should reduce file sharing. Many people just don’t know that it is illegal, or if they do, they assume nobody knows they are doing it. Receiving a notice will make it clear that their assumption is wrong on both counts. Overseas experience points to considerable reductions when notices begin.”

The scope of the effectiveness has to be questioned, however. In an interview with Salient earlier this year, Katz said, “Quite frankly, whatever steps are ultimately enacted I cannot see that it will bring an end to the problem of illegal file sharing. It may well help but I think the problem is too wide-spread and too enormous for there to be a truly effective 100% catch-all solution.”

Google trends appear to back this up, illustrating that while some file-sharing sites have experienced significant drops in usage, for the most part there has been a steady increase in usage trends worldwide despite the introduction of laws designed to deter users, and legal actions such as those being taken in The Hurt Locker case.

While we will have to wait and see whether legislation in New Zealand, be it the current bill or some future incarnation, will have any effect on deterring Kiwi offenders, Carter speculates that “The better response is to develop new models for the commercialisation of audio and AV content. Rights holders should be focused on making stuff available to the public in a fast, user-friendly and affordable way.”

Holloway-Smith agrees. “Many studies have shown that the primary cause of illicit file sharing is unsatisfied customers, so ultimately the business models need to change. The Hurt Locker was released in US theatres on 26 June 2009, and on DVD on 12 January 2010. However, the movie wasn’t available in New Zealand when it was nominated for the Oscars, or even when it won the Oscar. In fact, it took another month to be released to cinemas in New Zealand and we’re still waiting for the legal download.”

She adds, “Movie companies are behaving like it’s 1995, with staggered international and regional cinema releases followed by DVD/Blu-Ray releases, and months or years later legal downloads are offered, if at all. For a globally connected world that makes no sense, and so—when it comes to the hysterical claims of millions of dollars of lost sales from piracy—we’ve got to ask whether these supposed lost sales have actually occurred when these businesses fail to fulfill consumer demand.”

InternetNZ will be hosting seminars at the end of the month aimed at assisting submissions to the Select Committee. These seminars will “provide for sharing of information and enable critical analysis of the Bill”, and will be held at the Intercontinental Hotel in Wellington on 25 May, and at the Aotea Centre in Auckland on the 26 May, both running from 9am-1pm. The Creative Freedom Foundation’s website creativefreedom.org.nz will also offer a full analysis of the proposal in the coming weeks. Select Committee submissions are due on 17 June.

One could think of the campaign trail as the first half of the match, setting the scene for the second, more tantalising half which is of course, election night. This ‘second half’, which has many of us glued to television screens, builds upon the first, which commonly sees the continuation of the advances achieved in that first half, but sometimes filled with stunning comebacks and shocking upsets. Sure, there is a glaring difference in that there are more than two teams generally involved in politics, but you get the picture.

Continuing with the analogy, the recent British election was particularly exciting as it went into overtime, so to speak. The hung parliament, in which no party won a clear majority, resulted in a sort of penalty shootout, where the Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg ultimately played goalie, letting one of the parties through.

As I write this, leader of the Conservative Party David Cameron, as per Britain’s traditional conventions, has just been asked by the Queen to form a government in the wake of the resignation of the incumbent Prime Minister Gordon Brown. In his address in front of the famous black door at number 10 Downing Street, Cameron has said it is his intention to enter into a full coalition with the Liberal Democrats, with Nick Clegg filling the role of Deputy Prime Minister, entering an area of governance that the British are fairly unfamiliar with.

What makes this coalition interesting is that the Conservatives, who have been staunchly resistant to electoral change, have been forced to concede a referendum on the electoral system as a key part of the negotiations for a partnership. This referendum will likely see the British vote on whether to follow New Zealand’s example from 1993, to move away from the problematic First Past the Post (FPP) voting system towards a more representative system. Thus, the aforementioned rules of the game are set to change.

Considering the fact the Liberal Democrats won fewer than 10 per cent of the seats, despite gaining almost a quarter of the votes, it is not surprising they are using the power afforded to them by this election result to amend a system that disproportionately rewards the dominant parties by simultaneously penalising the all others.

So what are the options? In the 1993, and similarly in the planned 2011 electoral system referenda in New Zealand, the public are given a choice of not only whether to stick with the current electoral system or change to a different system, but they also are given a chance to illustrate a preference for a number of alternative voting systems. Despite New Zealand’s example, and the Liberal Democrat’s own preference for a Single Transferable Vote (STV) system, The Independent has reported that the Conservative’s final offer is “a referendum on Alternative Voting (AV), the least ambitious electoral reform”.

AV, or Instant-Runoff voting, is a system currently used to elect the Australia House of Representatives. Voters rank candidates in an order of preference, rather than just voting for one, as in the FPP system. If no candidate receives a majority of the vote, the candidate with the least number of first preferences is eliminated, and the votes for that candidate are redistributed according to the voter’s second preference, and so on and so forth. The system is seen as fairer than the FPP system, because even though the House of Parliament is still elected wholly via constituencies, the issue around wasted votes is rectified.

In 1998, the Jenkins Commission, charged with reviewing the electoral system in Britain, recommended a change to a slightly different AV+ system, which is even closer to New Zealand’s Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system. Most members of parliament are still elected via the AV system as explained above, but an additional 15–20 per cent of members would be elected via party lists based on each party’s overall performance in the popular vote, thus making the final makeup of the British Parliament more proportional. There hasn’t been a clear indication whether the option for the referendum is straight AV, or this untested AV+, although a move toward the latter is unlikely.

At the end of the day, it is essential New Zealanders analyse the problems of a less proportional system as seen in the recent UK election, because while the UK look towards progressive electoral reform, New Zealand faces the risk of regressing to a less proportional system in 2011. As Dr Jon Johansson told Salient earlier this year, “Whether tweedle dee or tweedle dum wins the 2011 election (in New Zealand), it’s far more significant in a constitutional sense, our decision on the electoral system.”