Bishop a bigot, film at eleven

I'm struggling to find anything intersting to say about Bishop Vercoe's bigotry. Really - a Bishop said homosexuality is "unnatural". Why is that surprising?

OTOH, trying to excuse the comments as the product of "a cultural context" is fairly stupid. Sociologically, everything has a "cultural context" - even US torture at Abu Ghraib. But that simply provides understanding, not exculpation.

And on the third hand, it does provide an excuse to quote Lyndon Hood on the idea of government legislating for Biblical morality and "family values":

the further the goals of government get from the material wellbeing of its people, the closer it gets to the gas chambers. Trying to make people behave according to particular moral standards is the spiritual equivalent of making the Trains Run on Time

Better just to stop people from physically hurting one another and leave things such as family structure or sexual preference to the memetic marketplace where it belongs.

Calling a spade a spade

A report by the UN's Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights has for the first time called a spade a spade and accused the US of committing war crimes in Iraq.

The report lays the charge in relation to two areas: the "willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment" of prisoners, and the detention of family members and destruction of the homes of suspected insurgents. And it is quite mild, saying merely that "the above-described acts might be designated as war crimes by a competent tribunal".

No shit, Sherlock.

No doubt the American bloggers will be screaming at this, but the report overall seems quite fair. It emphasises the good intentions of Coalition forces, and acknowledges that the US is taking steps to prosecute those involved. It is more aimed at ensuring that such crimes never happen again, "addressing the legacy of brutal authoritarian rule", and establishing a proper human rights framework for Iraq, than with specifically calling the US to account. And there's plenty of caveats like this:

At the same time, it has to be recognized that the Iraqi people have been relieved of the massive, systematic and institutionalized violations of human rights that took place under the preceding regime, and that they now have the prospect of arranging for their own democratic governance under the rule of law and in the spirit of international human rights norms.

So, really, I don't think the US has anything to complain about.

Those who are interested can read the full report here:

Report of the High Commissioner : The Present Situation of Human Rights in Iraq [Advance unedited version]

Guess I need to make another job-ad

First, the Director of Central Intelligence.

Then, his Deputy Director of Operations.

Who's next? And do their resignations have anything to do with this?

Shouldn't I be doing something else?

As preparation for another assignment, I'm considering the ways in which Labour has retreated from the 80's and 90's "reforms" since being elected. Not economicly, but with regard to the organisation and management of the public service.

A few of the examples I can think of:

• (Re)-amalgamation: in the 80's and 90's we were very keen on single-purpose organisations, and on separating policy advice from service delivery. And so we split everything up. Labour has reversed this - recombining WINZ and the old social policy ministry into the Ministry of Social Development, reuniting Ministry of Health and the Health Funding Authority, and combining several related ministries into the Ministry of Economic Development.
• Bringing SOEs back under control: The SOE model was supposed to keep state-operated businesses at arm's-length from the government to prevent political interference. But this may have gone too far, and resulted in both a loss of capability and in SOE's acting contrary to the purpose for which they're constituted. An example of the first is the electricity industry - corporatisation has allowed long-term planning for New Zealand's energy needs to fall through the cracks, meaning that our electricity market does not guarantee security of supply or even of delivery - hence the Electricity Commission. An example of the latter is the TVNZ Charter, designed to turn TVNZ back into a state broadcaster rather than a bunch of corporate whores.
• Capacity building: It became apparent in the late 90's that the emphasis on "outputs" and "key result areas" was leading to management by checklist. This resulted in a long-term loss of capability in the public service - stuff that wasn't on the checklist simply didn't get done, and staff and units that weren't immediately and obviously useful were dumped. It also led to a "silo mentality" among managers - they looked only at their narrow function (as defined by their checklists), and anything else wasn't their job. This led to the debacle of the 1999 election, when the Department of the Courts refused to make its staff available to assist, despite it being one of their responsibilities in the past.

  Labour has made a lot of noise about "rebuilding the public service", and has thrown money at "capacity building": funding some things simply so they exist. They've also encouraged a "whole of government approach" (a fancy word for what Sesame Street called "co-operation") to ensure that messes like the 1999 election never happen again.

• Restoring the public service ethos: Once upon a time, public servants were actually public servants: anonymous politically neutral professionals who were there to serve the public rather than themselves. The "reforms" undermined that traditional public service ethic and replaced it with corporate values. Selfishness, short-term thinking and corporate excess became common. And so we got Christine Rankin, golden handshakes, and excessive "team building" exercises at exclusive hideaways.

  Labour has tried to stamp this out and restore proper public service values. They ditched Rankin, convened a "State Sector Standards board" to examine the question, directed departments and Crown Entities to end excessive management payouts, and had the State Services Commissioner lay down the law. And it seems to be working. OTOH, this sort of thing takes a generation to rebuild, whereas it takes only a few quick years to destroy.

If anybody has any other good examples, I'd love to hear them.

Risky

The Greens have decided not to stand any electorate candidates next election.

It's a risky strategy, but one that makes clear the stakes. If you want a solid Green voice in Parliament, you'll have to give them your party vote.

There's also the question of whether electorate candidates are a worthwhile expenditure of resources for a small party anyway. The Greens have only ever won one electorate seat - Coromandel - and they lost it soon afterwards (and to National, at that). Fighting locally costs money for little obvious return, and may split votes from allied candidates (though MMP complicates this). And OTOH, contesting a few well-chosen electorates may be worthwhile, and could raise the party's profile.

It's an icky problem, one that ACT has been wrestling with as well, and I guess we won't know whether the gambit pays off until election night.

The more interesting news is that the Greens may finally be accepting that they've lost on GE, and are willing to cut a deal with Labour in the future. Maybe the threat of Don Brash sharpened their minds a bit...

Help Wanted

Why we have public services

Further to the below, Jordan Carter has a good post on the subject of "what % of GDP should we spend?", which lays out the consequences of shrinking relative government spending. The overall conclusion?

There is a really clear link and a really obvious point to be made: you get what you pay for. If people want a lower tax ratio, then they will have to accept one of two things:

* poorer quality public services; or
* privatisation of some public services.

There are no two ways around it, and it is on this ground that the next election will be fought.

Obviously, I'm for decent, well-funded public services. As I point out in this post, generous public services are neccessary for people's freedom to be meaningful. If we want everyone to be able to pursue their individual vision of the good, then we have to insulate them from risk - the risks of being born poor, falling ill, or being crippled in an accident, for example. And we do this by providing publicly funded health, education and welfare systems. That way, everyone gets a decent start in life, and there is a certain level beneath which you cannot fall. It's called giving people a "fair go" - something which this country is renowned for.

Those who want to shrink public services do not want to give everyone a fair go. And that is why we should oppose them.

"Land of the free"

A university student mounted a protest outside a US Armed Forces Recruiting Centre in Boston, dressed as a hooded Iraqi prisoner and standing on a box... and got arrested. The charge? Making a hoax bomb threat. People might have thought he was a terrorist, you see.

Yet another example of the way the "war on terror" is undermining the very freedoms it is supposedly being fought to protect.

Update: Boston IndyMedia seems to have died under the load after being linked by Kos. I've mirrored the photo, and the stories are cached here and here.

Demanding a say

The new Iraqi government is demanding a say on the UN resolution which will legally end the occupation.

This will probably weaken the US/UK position even further. The occupation and handover are supposed to be for the benefit of the Iraqi people - so if the Iraqi representatives are not happy with the new resolution, it's a good reason for other Security Council members to vote "no".

Needless to say, I find this vastly amusing...

Old chestnuts and hard questions

David Farrar trots out the old chestnut of "tax-cuts equals higher government revenue" to defend a shrinking of government. Sigh. As I said to KiwiPundit months ago, you can prove anything with the miracle of compound interest. Meanwhile, in the comments, Jordan Carter asks the hard question: what would David cut or privatise? Tertiary education? Schools? Hospitals? Superannuation? Or benefits?

At the moment, core government spending (excluding SOE activities) is around 32% of GDP - and it's not enough to provide the public services that we want. Reducing it to 20%, as David advocates, will require not just cuts, but the elimination of some or all of these services. A gradual reduction, by refusing to grow the tax base with the economy, will result in a death by neglect and starvation rather than an active killing off of government services - but it will be a death just the same.

Now, the right can argue till the cows come home that providing health, education and welfare is not the proper role of government, and that these services should be provided by the private sector for private profit, but it's fairly clear the electorate doesn't agree. The social consensus in New Zealand is that these are core functions of government, and that a government that fails to adequetely provide in these areas is a failure. New Zealanders do not want a nightwatchman state; we want one that actually does something.

Charming

It's fairly clear from his post that NZPundit is in favour of being allowed to beat his children. But that's not the only thing he's in favour of:

Frankly I think there's a few adult women who could do with a decent husband administered spanking when they let their irrationality and emotionalism run amok, although I appreciate I'm probably in a minority on that concession to societal improvement.

Yes, he's in favour of wife-beating as well. Charming.

False hope

The Herald has done a poll showing that a majority of New Zealanders would favour relaxing our ban on nuclear propulsion and replacing it with a "Danish"-style policy. Russell Brown raises an interesting point though - National is misrepresenting the Danish situation entirely. Nuclear-powered vessels don't visit Danish waters because the Americans are politely bowing to Danish wishes; they don't visit because the Americans are unwilling to turn over design information which would allow the Danes to assess whether the visit was safe.

But more importantly, even a policy ban represents a false hope, because nuclear propulsion is not the real issue. The Americans have always been free to send a conventionally powered warship to visit New Zealand; the reason they haven't is because of the requirement under the law that the Prime Minister be satisfied that the vessel is not carrying nuclear weapons. In the 80's they had their "neither confirm or deny policy" - they couldn't tell us if we asked because that would compromise security. What National is sweeping under the carpet is that, despite Bush I's end-of-Cold-War announcement that tactical nuclear weapons would no longer be deployed on US vessels, the policy remains in place. Which is why we haven't had any visits since 1991 - all New Zealand Prime Ministers have taken the law as saying that they should at least ask, and to the US, asking is a problem.

Which suggests that the ban on propulsion won't be the only thing to change with National. If they want any US vessel to visit, they'll have to do one of either two things: accept "neither-confirm-nor-deny", rather than treating it with the contempt it deserves, or adopt a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Either would make a mockery both of the law and our status as a nation.

Premature handover

Well, that's interesting. After forcing the UN to pick their candidate for both Prime Minister and President, the IGC promptly turned power over to the intirim government and dissolved itself. The "handover" has effectively happened four weeks early, making the diplomatic dance at the UN fairly academic. By making this move for themselves, the Iraqis have signalled that they will decide their relationship with the occupiers - not the UN, and not the US. And to kick things off, they're already demanding real power in their own country.

Somehow, I feel that this isn't quite what the Americans had in mind. The Independent is calling it "the day the stooges bit back", and it seems appropriate...

As for how much they can bite, it's an interesting question. 138,000 trigger-happy soldiers gives the US a practical veto on the interim government's activities. But OTOH, overthrowing the regime they've worked so hard to install would destroy what few shreds of credibility they have left. This gives the interim government a very long leash, and we'll probably see quite a bit of independence from them - maybe even the reversal of the US's economic "reforms" (designed to benefit American investors) and the cancellation of some of the more egregiously exploitative reconstruction contracts (ditto).

Here's another thought: having smashed the country into rubble and spent the reconstruction money on mercenaries and sweetheart deals for American companies, will the US now see this as an opportunity to walk away financially? "The occupation is officially over, so you're on your own"? It will be interesting to see if they live up to their obligations in Iraq - or abandon them.

Stating the obvious

Otago University researchers have discovered that beating your children is bad for them:

Smacking young children not only causes anti-social behaviour, but impairs academic achievement, according to a research review from Otago University.

Physical punishment of children has often been cited by children's rights advocates as a catalyst for bad behaviour in later life.

But the new study, from the university's Children's Issues Centre, said smacking was also associated with poor academic achievement, low IQ, inferior performance in standard tests and poor adjustment to the school environment.

Researchers surveyed more than 300 peer-reviewed articles, published at home and abroad in their investigation.

The Greens are right: This is a vindication those who have campaigned for the repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act. The government should take the opportunity to admit its mistake and change the law. Sadly, though, they're not doing it.

Meanwhile, I can hear the conservative family-values crowd screaming from here. And they're going through the usual checklist they follow whenever they want to deny inconvenient facts. NZPundit is already starting the "not peer-reviewed" line (which shows that he understands neither peer-review, the academic process in general, or the idea of a literature-survey), and Christian Heritage has "questioned its quality" on the basis that someone, somewhere, once said that smacking might not be bad. Can an allegation of communism be far behind?

What's next?

One of the hallmarks of the Labour government is that they have been mean - or as they like to say, "prudent" - with government spending. They've run large nominal surpluses every year, and funnelled excess cash primarily into debt repayment and the superannuation scheme. While this hasn't given them many big policy announcements (the "working for families" package is the biggest single project so far), they have delivered significant affordable progress in many areas. But a side-effect of this is that, having put so much into the social dividend this budget, the government's hands are effectively tied for the next few years (at least if they want to continue being prudent; a future government could always stop those extra debt repayments or even borrow more - and interestingly enough, National is talking about doing exactly that while promising tax cuts. Party of fiscal responsibility indeed...)

In his budget speech, Michael Cullen talked about limiting new spending to about $1.6 billion a year for each of the next three years. After which, if things go well, we'll again be in a position to throw some more cash around. Which raises an interesting question: what's next?

There are lots of options here - lots of government departments which need serious re-investment after being starved of cash during the 80's and 90's, and lots of other things we'd like to do. Properly funding the police so they can investigate burglaries again would be a start. Or ensuring that schools are adequately funded so they don't have to choose between teachers and maintenance. And reducing or removing the crippling burden of student debt is obviously high on my agenda. But there's something which trumps all of that: health.

If there's one thing for which New Zealanders can be said to be happy to pay their taxes, it's health. We want a decent, functioning health system. We want to be able to see a doctor when we need to, without having to take out a loan to do it, and we want to be able to get treatment for common conditions sometime before we die of old age. And at the moment, thanks to a decade of cost-cutting, restructuring, and attempted privatisation, we're not getting it. In the papers every day we're seeing the same stories: inadequate facilities, cuts to services, growing waiting lists, people suffering for years because they lack the points to get a simple operation. It is long past time to fix this.

The government should start looking ahead, now on how best to fix the health system. It should establish a task force to review the entire structure, with an eye to seeing what else is needed. It should avoid restructuring - excessive restructuring is one of the reasons we're in this mess - and should instead focus on the question of resources. What do we need to spend and where do we need to spend it in order to get the health care we need?

It should deliver a few of the highest priority changes as new spending over the next few years. But the ultimate aim should be a massive injection of funds when it becomes affordable in three years time - to do for health what they've just done for working families.

And the bonus for the government? It would send a strong message to voters that they are looking at the serious problems and are planning more than just tinkering around the edges and incremental progress. It would allow them to establish a vital point of difference between them and National: a commitment to well-funded, effective government services. And it would give them the perfect slogan for next year's election: "re-elect Labour to fix health".

Must read

The full text of Eating Media Lunch's interview with Robert Fisk. There's a lot more there than was broadcast, so read it all.

Taking politics seriously

One of my correspondents has informed me of an American student going home for the primaries in order to "vote out Bush". Laudable, but is there an actual need to go home? New Zealand allows its citizens to vote whereever they are in the world, provided they can reach an embassy to collect papers or cast their ballot; doesn't the US do the same?

The other shoe drops

OK, so maybe Lyndon Hood was right after all: having stirred up fear over an impending power crisis, Transpower is now demanding amendments to the RMA and fast-track authority to ensure it can upgrade the grid in time - and threatening "US-style" blackouts if it doesn't get its way.

(That's an interesting turn of phrase, BTW, since the chief cause of the California blackouts was power companies gaming the system and artificially creating shortages to reap windfall profits - but I digress)

My initial reaction is one of anger. Transpower is an SOE; it exists to do a job. Rather than doing it, they've decided to sit on their arses and act as a shill for business. They need to be brought back into line. The Shareholding Minister should be calling board members into his office and asking them to explain why they've let this happen, why Transpower didn't ensure that the network was upgraded to meet rising demand (which they knew about, because they'd modelled it), and what steps they have personally taken to ensure that Transpower fulfilled its primary purpose of operating, maintaining and upgrading an efficient national grid. And then, he should fire some of them. Transpower has suffered a gross failure of management, and the board is ultimately responsible. They should pay for it.

Unfortunately, while that would be satisfying, it wouldn't fix the problem - because it is inherent in the SOE model itself. What we are seeing here is the effect both of market imperatives and of the corporatisation of what was once a public service. As long as Transpower makes its decisions based solely on the market, and as long as it thinks of itself essentially as a large corporation constituted to make profits for its owners, rather than as a vital piece of publicly-owned infrastructure, then we are going to have problems. The only way to fix them is to bring Transpower back under closer control of the state.

Look at the roads. Like the national grid, they're a vital piece of infrastructure on which people (and the economy) depend. Yet they're not run as an SOE. Instead we have centralised funding and planning to ensure that the network goes everywhere we want it to go and carries the traffic we need it to. It's not perfect - just look at Auckland - but the system generally works and is at least certain of its purpose: to build, maintain and upgrade the road net for the benefit of the people of New Zealand. This is how we should run the national grid - not as an SOE, but as a Crown Entity with a charter which lays out very clearly its purpose. This does not rule out making a profit - it should obviously charge power companies enough to recover its costs - but the chief concern should be running the infrastructure, not trying to maximise returns.

"Terrorists"

Apologists for Abu Ghraib make a great point of referring to all Iraqi prisoners as "terrorists", as if that justifies what happens to them. In this they're following the line set by the occupation spokesman, Brigadier Kimmitt, who says things like "people are in Abu Ghraib for a reason". Unfortunately, according to a secret US Army report leaked to the New York Times, that "reason" is often simply showing dislike for the invaders:

General Ryder, the army's provost marshal, reported that some Iraqis had been held for months for nothing more than expressing "displeasure or ill will" towards the US occupying forces.

And some of these people were then tortured by interrogators who refused to believe they didn't know anything.

Despite what the Americans think, disliking them is not terrorism (or if it is, then it strips the word of all meaning). Imprisoning and torturing people for that is resurrecting the "crime" of lese majeste. Americans fought a revolution to be free of that kind of tyranny; is it any wonder that Iraqis are doing the same?

Why should we increase government revenue and expenditure as GDP grows? The answer is right there on the front of my local rag: Palmerston North Hospital's emergency department is too small to cope, and due to a lack of resources within the hospital acts mainly as "a gateway to keep people out ... rather than as a front door to let them in."

This is just one example, but a common one. Our public services were run down during the 90's, and (despite some tinkering by Labour) still require substantial reinvestment to recover. We should give it to them. Rather than giving away additional revenues as tax cuts to the rich, the government should take the opportunity to rebuild our public services, for the benefit of all New Zealanders.