I See Red

Facebook and Samoa

My heart goes out to the families and friends who have lost loved ones in Samoa. The trajedy is almost too significant to comprehend. The mainstrem media coverage that I have seen has been sensitive and respectful.

Chris Carter's facebook updates have been particularly informative. Broad and immediate updates providing an insight that I would not have been able to gain through any other media.

Labour should keep trying for ETS "grand coalition"

There is no doubt that National's Climate Change response and ETS policy in particular is bad news for New Zealand.  It shifts the cost of pollution off the polluters and onto all New Zealanders who will be paying more taxes to subsidize polluters.  It creates little incentive for polluters to develop technological or system change to reduce emission and little incentive to plant trees.  It is therefore bad news for New Zealand's environment and our reputation in the world.

Which is why it is so important for Labour to keep trying to reach out to National to develop a "grand coalition" consensus on the ETS.  Yes that will mean both Labour and National have to compromise.  Yes National deliberately strung Labour along in bad faith.  But that doesn't mean Labour shouldn't keep putting the national interest front and centre.  Business and industry need certainty and New Zealand needs action.

The alternative is an ETS policy that changes massively from one Government to the next.  Because one thing is certain, if National maintains its current polluter subsidy policy Labour must propose much bolder initiatives for when it becomes the Government to catch us up.

Reform MMP. Don't throw baby out with the bathwater.

Is MMP perfect?  No.  But it is a proportional system that better reflects the voting preferences of the New Zealand public, creates better checks and balances on executive power, and has helped create a more diverse Parliament.

Earlier this year the Christchurch East LEC put up a remit to Labour's Region 5 conference that started to kick off the debate within the Labour Party.  That remit passed and then went to Annual Conference (you will have seen the media that surrounded that).  Lianne Dalziel spearheaded that remit and has argued strongly that Labour needs to put aside personal and party interests and enter the debate - but the debate simply can't be MMP versus another system.

I agree.  If the debate is status quo versus change, change will win.  And that change will result in a return to FPP or Supplementary Member (FPP with a winners bonus). 

Labour has to be willing to advance an argument around reforming the more unpopular aspects of MMP, rather than simply arguing for the current MMP system.  And everything should be on the table.  The size of electorates, the 5% threshold, the number of electorates versus list MPs, the provision that allows MPs who win a seat to bring other people in, the number of MPs in general, the party hopping provisions etc.

If Labour fails to do that then I fear that the New Zealand public (enticed by what will inevitably be a well funded well run campaign against MMP) will vote for change.  We don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater - we need a sensible debate around reforming some aspects of our current system. 

"front-line" and "backroom" a distinction that must go

I was disturbed to hear at a recent PSA forum in Christchurch some union organisers and others buying into National's framing of "front-line" and "backroom".  It is a false construction that the left must not propagate.  The reality is that all workers should be valued regardless.  A teacher in a classroom, a cleaner in a hospital, a receptionist in a doctors surgery, an accountant in a law firm, a sales rep in a department store, a policy analysis in a Council office, a gardener in an owner-managed small business, a fisherman on a boat, a youth worker in a community centre, etc:  all are important and all should be respected and valued for the role that they have to play within their family, our community, and our country.

People are feeling the pressures of the recession.  Workplaces around the country are suffering job cuts, extra pressure and workload on the staff left behind, full-time staff being cut to part-time, people feeling undervalued, wage freezes (i.e wage cuts), stress around potential job losses, a lack of freedom to talk about workplace issues, non-replacement on staff that leave or go on annual or sick leave, low morale, staff being bullied ("if you don't like it, leave").  The outcomes: no succession planning, apathetic staff, lower quality of work, less productivity, and increased hardship.

And it wasn't lost on the audience of this well attended forum that organisations seem to have enough to pay for consultants and high-level managers but not for the workers.  Nor was it lots on this audience that some seem to be doing quite well out of the recession, such as the $5.5 million annual package for Telecom CEO Paul Reynolds.  As one MP pointed out - there was a time in New Zealand when such a salary would have caused outrage, but we seem to be numb to it these days.   These days that MP would be accused of "envy politics" from the right for attacking such a salary.  

Phil Goff's conference intro

A new kind of politics in New Zealand

We need to build a new kind of politics in New Zealand.  A new kind of politics that builds a cross-party consensus on major areas of policy and ensures policy lasts beyond any one Government.   That is easy to say, much harder to do.  And the incentives for doing so for the existing political establishment are tiny compared with the disincentives.  

There are several areas where this is important.  Productivity, Poverty, Justice, Climate Change and Superannuation and savings.

Productivity.  The Government has recently created a "Productivity Commission".  Is improving productivity just a desire of the right?  No.  Productivity includes issues such as education, training, research and development etc.  Surely there are several things the left and right can agree on in terms of productivity and surely that should be the starting point for any discussion.  Perhaps if we had a productivity commission the "Fast Forward" package would not have been scrapped?  Unfortunately, National made a mistake in appointing Don Brash to that post - it would have been much better to appoint someone that had the confidence of both Government and Opposition.

Poverty.  If we are to have a "Productivity Commission", why not have a "Poverty Commission"?  Is it just the left who want to eliminate poverty?  No, I would hope not.  Perhaps there are several areas where Labour and National can agree in terms of eliminating poverty?  I believe we should commit to eliminate all poverty in New Zealand and ensure our policy settings (tax, welfare) are changed to ensure that happens.  That is not going to be agreed to by all parties, but I am sure there are some areas of agreement.

Justice.  Recently debate raged over Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias comment. There are clearly major challenges in this area of policy. National and Labour are never going to agree on major areas of justice policy but why not start a conversation about the areas where we do agree?  Why not create a cross-party consensus on youth offending and lower-level offending and how our justice system deals with those people and bring the media on board to agree some voluntary guidelines for reporting crime?

Climate Change.  Climate Change is another area that is too important to leave to the whim of whoever is in power.  We need some agreed targets and agreed policy that will last beyond any one Government.  It is encouraging to see the possibility of a long lasting "grand coalition" consensus on the emissions trading scheme.

Superannuation and savings.  The Labour-led Government from 1999 made major inroads in this area (the "Once Was Cullen Fund" and "Kiwisaver").  They have survived to some extent, but have also been massively undermined putting future superannuation at risk, and reducing the potential pool of investment by New Zealanders in New Zealand.  We have to stop playing politics with superannuation and come up with a model that both major parties will agree to keep and not change.  The foundations are there (Kiwisaver still exists as does the "Once Was Cullen Fund").

You can probably think of more areas where a broad cross-party consensus is desired.

Of course, there are plenty of reasons why this might not happen.  Crime and justice are big vote winners for the right and perfect wedge issues.  There are dangers for Labour in endorsing a productivity commission (particularly now that Don Brash is in charge of it).  Removing some things from the political arena could dilute party brands, reduce options in terms of political tactics and prevent broad debate and the generation of and contesting of ideas.

Having said that there is much to be gained by having (in some areas at least) a united front for the country to rally around.  But it will require some brave and bold politics from both Labour and National.

Child poverty should be eliminated in New Zealand

I am please to see Labour moving away from its former position regarding Working for Families and children of beneficiaries.  While it was defensible from the "encouraging people into work" position, the reality is that it meant more kids living in poverty.  As Annette King says in the release:  "We are not going to create a more productive economy while significant groups of children are experiencing the disadvantages highlighted by the report".

We should not tolerate child poverty (or any poverty for that matter) in our country.  I would hope to see any future Labour-led Government commit to eliminating all poverty from New Zealand and creating the policy settings to do that.

Len Brown candidacy speech: A Mayor for ALL of Auckland

My candidacy speech Shared via AddThis

Climate Change: a defining moment for our small country

New Zealand needs a Government that will be bold on Climate Change, and if it is not National, then New Zealand needs to wake up quickly and elect a Labour-Green Government.  But it must be a Labour Party  that is willing to stand up for what it believes and articulate a new way forward.

Caring about the environment is not a domain exclusive to Labour and Green voters. New Zealanders have a deep connection to the land.  There are many responsible farmers for example who respect the land and care about the treatment of their stock on that land.  My in-laws have a dairy farm in Kaikoura as do many of their relatives.  I know they care deeply about that land.  There are many conservative rural voters who care if our rivers and air are polluted; I spoke to many of them during my 2002 and 2005 campaigns in Rakaia.  And there are right-leaning liberal city voters who care whether we have clean water to drink; water was the major issue during the 2007 local government elections in Christchurch.

But there is also a fear of what action on the environment might mean and a belief that environmental solutions will come at an economic cost.  It is an understandable but flawed 20th century way of looking at our 21st century economy and environment.

We have known for some time that our environment (dirty air and water) has a huge impact on our physical health.  But there is a dawning realisation that our economy is intrinsically tied up with our environment, both in terms of our ability to continue to rely on it into the future (sustainability), and our environmental reputation overseas in terms of our exports.

And there should be a dawning realisation that our economy can prosper and our country become a better place by focusing on improving our environment - as Obama is demonstrating in America by investing in Green jobs and Green technology.

New Zealand is uniquely placed to be at the forefront of creating a strong economy by enhancing rather than sacrificing its environment.

The smallness of our thinking is currently preventing us from reaching out to where we need to be.  A new generation, both left and right, must make it a priority to overcome this challenge and make it a defining moment for our small country at the bottom of the world.

A deep connection to that land is what unites Maori and Non-Maori New Zealanders.  It is a fundamental component of our national identity.  Now must be the time for us to take the bold steps to reshape our economy and improve our environment.

"Private Schools" not "Independent Schools"

Maybe I'm a bit behind the times, but I first noticed the use of the term "Independent Schools" at a public forum on Adult and Community Education a few weeks back in Christchurch.  It was a well attended meeting with around 500 members of the public attending and some powerful speeches from the Principal of Papanui High Denis Pyatt, one of the best Labour MP speeches I've heard (from Maryan Street), and some great moments from CLASS President Maryke Fordyce.  

Fordyce answered the claims about "priorisation" brilliantly by pointing out that ACE had survived numerous Governments, a Great Depression and two world wars.

This was a "middle NZ" audience and the National MPs, Nicky Wagner and Aaron Gilmore, went down like a cup of cold sick.  The lines supplied to Nicky Wagner and Aaron Gilmore about "pixies printing money", and "prioritisation" just didn't cut the mustard when the Government had just increased funding to private schools by $35 million.  

For some reason (beyond my comprehension) Nicky Wagner decided that she would put forward the case for private schools, but instead of calling them "private schools", she kept calling them "independent schools".  A framing that clearly didn't impress the audience who shouted out "private" every time she used the word "independent".

But clearly it is part of the right-wing song sheet.  Because tonight, in a very interesting piece on National's $35 million increase in funding to Private Schools on Campbell Live, those on the right used the term "independent schools" several times (particularly Heather Roy, but also the Headmaster of Kings College, Bradley Fenner and the "Independent Schools NZ" Director Deborah James.

It seems some people don't have to share the burden of the recession like others do and need a bit of a hand out from the Government to help them get by.

Bryce Edwards on the current state of the left

Bruce Edwards has a thoughtful analysis of the current state of the left in New Zealand in 2009.  Some very interesting observations.  Some lessons include the importance of the left developing "Yes" campaigns (what we stand for, rather than against), but also the importance of debate on the economy becoming much more central to what the left in New Zealand stands for.  To generate that debate will require the left to question the status quo, generate debate and conversation and propose positive alternatives.  That will require boldness.

In my view climate change and the environment is an economic question as much (perhaps more so?) as an environmental question.  Cleaning up our environment, meeting our international climate change commitments, creating healthy environments and people, maintaining our clean green reputation etc, will require us to transform our economy.  The question is, what will that transformation look like?  I'm not sure what it will look like but I do know that it will require some "yes" campaigns.

Goff on sending NZ troops in Afghanistan

Guyon Espiner: poor analysis of what Labour should be doing

No Right Turn has a good critique of Guyon Espiner's latest blog post "on the road to nowhere".  I have no problem with people criticising Labour (or any other party) when it is justified, relevant, and has a good analysis backing it.

But Espiner's piece basically boils down to "the opposition should stop opposing".  Climate Change is one of the defining issues of our time.  Labour cares about the environment, our international reputation, and had a vision of being a nation that is carbon neutral.  You don't go from that to endorsing or being silent on a lackluster 10% reduction target.  To do so would be far more damaging that opposing the 10% reduction.  And what bothers me isn't so much Goff and Labour being criticised, but that a journalist thinks that Labour should be silent (or support) National's disastrous position.    

No Right Turn writes:

More generally, at its heart politics is about disagreement (and disagreement about ends, rather than simply means). People have different interests, and not all of those interests can be reconciled. Where they can't be, and there is competition over resources or a decision to be made, politics happens. I would expect a leading political journalist to understand and work to convey the basic facts of what he is reporting on. Instead, by seeking to cast disagreement as fundamentally illegitimate, he is trying to erase those facts (and that disagreement). And that does not make our democracy strong.

Hear hear.  

Wouldn't a more interesting piece have talked about how climate change is one of the defining issues of our time and one of the major points of difference between Labour and National.  While Phil Goff and Labour struggle to find relevance, Climate Change and a "new green deal" could be one of the issues that Labour champions over the next 2 years.  Climate Change could be the issue that helps Phil Goff build an MMP relationship with the Greens and Maori Party who both have major concerns about our environment.

And on Afghanistan, couldn't the piece have talked about the risks to Phil Goff and Labour (looks strange because Labour sent the SAS into Afghanistan 3 times), but also the opportunities (New Zealand being strongly independent in its foreign policy and how the peace sentiment is stronger than the war sentiment and how while sending the SAS troops to Afghanistan now might seem like a small issue, in 2 years time it could be a major one)?   Didn't Barack Obama oppose the Iraq war at a time when 80% of the US supported it, yet that same war later became one of the key reasons why he won the Democratic primary and is now the President of the United States?

There was so much there to build an interesting piece with some strong analysis.  Instead we got "Labour should stop opposing".  

NB: There is something to be said for agreeing with the Government on some things (when that issue is supported by both sides, when it is in the national interest etc).  And Labour has been doing that in some areas.  Opposition for the sake of opposition isn't particular useful.  But these two issues certainly don't belong anywhere near that category.

I agree with Bill English on housing

It isn't often that I say this, but I agree 100% with Bill English on housing and what it tells us about our economy. 

“In the long run the economy needs to shift away from spending and borrowing on housing to more exporting. The signs at the moment are that it’s not making the shift that we would want to see, so we need to look at whether there’s any policy mix that might make the right shift.”

We must re-orient our economy away from investment housing, consumption of overseas goods, and spending more than we earn.  We must become an economy that invests in innovation, production, and exporting, and a country that saves (both Government and individuals).

That requires creating the right policy settings (incentives and disincentives).  And that requires a Government that plays an active role in shaping our country in the interests of the wider public good and not simply leaving it to the market.

But can Bill convince his colleagues?

Not yours to sell

Phil Twyford has made an excellent video to promote Labour's campaign: Not Yours To Sell.