Broken records

Sigh - yet another visiting American politician saying that we should "re-evaluate" (meaning drop) our anti-nuclear policy. Why? Because

"[a]s of now, North Korea has the capability of launching missiles with nuclear warheads which can reach many cities along the West Coast of the United States. If these missiles can ... target San Francisco and Los Angeles, they can just as easily reach the cities of Auckland and Wellington."

Which is entirely true - but its difficult to see how having other people's nukes here would help one iota in stopping them.

Sedition by Example XII: Walter Nash

Leader of the Opposition Walter Nash, speaking on the Police Offences Amendment Bill, 30th November, 1951:

Let me mention a personal experience, one which has often been twisted by members of the National party... I went overseas in 1920 - that was before I was in Parliament - for the purpose of obtaining agencies from various publishing organizations. I succeeded in obtaining the agency for several large publishers and I brought back with me specimen books. On the return jouney I travelled as far as Australia on the "Sutherlandshire," and when the vessel called in at Adelaide or Melbourne - I forget which - I went into the Socialist book shop run by a Mr. Andrade, who said to me, "You are in the Labour party, are you not, Mr. Nash? Could you sell some of our pamphlets?" I said, "I do not know, but I will have a look at them. Put some of them up," so he packed a parcel of twenty or twenty-four. I took the parcel and placed it in the case that I had the other samples in. I did not see what was in the parcel.

When I arrived at Wellington I was met at the wharf by Detective Lewis, who had been sent to meet me because I was on the national executive of the Labour party and had been to a conference in Geneva of what was called the Second International. The detective said to me, "Have you got anything in the nature of literature with you?" I said, "Yes, I have several cases of it." The detective then went through the cases and he picked out the parcel I had picked up in Australia. I told him what the parcel was and how it came into the case. He said, "Can I open it?" I said that he could, and he opened the parcel in my presence and then asked if he could take it away. I said that he could, and six weeks later I received a summons to appear at Court on a charge of importing seditious literature...

What happened next was reported by the Dominion of 1st March, 1921 (as read into the record later in the same debate):

Walter Nash was charged in the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning before Mr F. K. Hunt, S.M., with bringing into New Zealand a document entitled 'The Communist Programme of the World Revolution,' which encouraged violence and lawlessness. He was also charged with bringing into New Zealand a pamphlet, 'To the I.W.W., a Special Message from the Communist International, Moscow,' which indicated and encouraged, advised or advocated violence. Mr. Macassey, for the Crown, in opening, stated the information was laid under War Regulations which prohibited the introduction and circulation of Bolshevik literature, and quoted the regulations bearing on the matter. The defendant was a publisher's agent, and made a trip abroad last year in the interests of his business. He returned to New Zealand via Australia on 4 January, and was interviewed by Detective-Sergeant Lewis, who secured the documents.

The Magistrate described the material in question as being "as dangerous to the body politic as typhoid germs deliberately placed in a city reservoir", but accepted that it was not a serious case, as there had been no real intent to distribute. Nash was fined five pounds, plus costs. He later discovered that the forbidden works were present in the Parliamentary Library - but of course, they weren't "dangerous" there.

(Sources: Walter Nash, by Keith Sinclair, Auckland University Press, 1976; New Zealand Parliamentary Debates, 296 (1951), p1221 - 1229).

Strikes all round

Bus drivers striking in Auckland, factory workers striking in Petone and Auckland, cleaners striking in Palmerston North. Do you think they're serious about getting their fair share...?

Another case of electoral fraud

It's a familiar story by now. There's an election, and the governing party doesn't want to take any chances. So, they fix it - in this case, by setting up a "vote-rigging factory" to abuse the newly introduced postal ballot system. The result was described as "massive, systematic and organised fraud" which "would disgrace a banana republic".

But what's really surprising is that this didn't happen in some Central Asian despotism or benighted African tyanny; it happened in the UK. Birmingham, to be precise. Six Labour concillors didn't want to take any chances about their election in recent local body elections, and so fixed the vote. Yesterday, the fixed election was overturned, and a new poll ordered - but the judge also harshly criticised the UK's postal ballot system as being "hopelessly insecure". Naturally, it will be being used in the UK's upcoming general election. Hopefully it will be subjected to a little more scrutiny this time...

So much for Tamihere

I think its safe to conclude that John Tamihere's chances of returning to Cabinet after the election have now dropped to nil. In a party where Cabinet membership depends on a popular vote, pissing off your colleagues by calling them "smarmy" and "a tosser" (not to mention displaying blatant homophobia and sexism) is not a way to get ahead. Which means the rest of Tamihere's political career is likely to be spent on the sidelines, with the other embittered failures in Labour's "boy's club". Assuming he even holds his seat against the challenge from Pita Sharples...

Sedition by Example: A correction

I have a correction to make relating to my most recent post in the "Sedition by Example" series. On checking the court judgement in the case (Kelman v Browne, [1940] NZLR 941), I have discovered that he was not prosecuted for sedition, but subversion under the Public Safety Emergency Regulations of 1940. While there is some overlap - statements "intended or likely to cause disaffection to His Majesty" are considered subversive, just as "exciting disaffection" is considered seditious, Kelman was not charged under this section. Instead he was prosecuted as calling government Ministers cannibals and murderers was "intended or likely to cause undue alarm to the public", and because the final line - "Mothers! Would you entrust your son's life to these people?" - was "intended... to cause unlawful resistance... to military training or service". The Supreme Court found for Kelman on the first argument, ruling that defamation was not per se subversive, but against him on the second. So, still a crock, but a different one.

I've avoided using the great WWII conscientious objectors (such as Ormond Burton and A C Barrington) as examples for precisely this reason. But despite my efforts, it seems I was caught out by the sloppy language used in my source. Obviously, I will be more careful in the future.

Maori representation

Big News has a few thoughts on Maori in Parliament. He notes that MMP has led to far greater representation for Maori, primarily due to list selection. He continues:

[g]iven that parties can put promising candidates high on the party list, one argument - although not convincing - is that we no longer need Maori seats to provide Maori representation. Maori representation could be up to list selection, rather than Maori seats.

The problem is that some parties - notably National - seem uninterested in ensuring Maori representation through their lists. At the same time they are actively advocating the abolition of the Maori seats - sending the message that they are actively hostile to the idea of Maori being represented in Parliament. Unfortunately, National are not the sharpest tools in the shed when it comes to voting - they've only just figured out that under MMP it's the party vote that matters, and have yet to figure out that systematically pissing off large segments of the electorate (Maori and women, for a start) means that they will be unable to form a government - and it doesn't look like they're really thought this through. In 1986, the Royal Commission on the Electoral System argued in favour of a common roll because it would

provide Maori electors with a more effective vote and with the assurance that all MPs and not just Maori MPs were in some degree accountable to Maori electors. As a result, all MPs would be forced to compete for Maori votes at election time, and the political parties would therefore be under some pressure to give greater attention to Maori interests and concerns in the development of policy and to pursue those interests more vigorously while in office. They would also be under some pressure to offer Maori as candidates, to service Maori constituents in ways that met their expectations, and to target Maori electors in their canvassing and other electio neering processes.

It also noted that, if they were organised in the same way as black voters in the US were, a common roll would allow Maori voters to exercise far greater power. The upshot for National is that abolishing the Maori seats would force them to start catering to Maori voters or face punishment in the electorates in the same way as they are being punished in the party vote. Is that really what they want?

That said, I don't think squicking National is a good reason to get rid of the Maori seats. More important is the fact that since the Maori option was made voluntary, Maori voters have voted with their feet and chosen to be represented this way - despite the fact that it reduces their electorate voting power. Their wishes I think should be respected.

Getting my life back

Over the past few months, you may have noticed a change at No Right Turn. I've had other demands on my time, and this has led to a decline in both the quantity and quality of posts here. This may have been unsatisfactory to you, and it has been deeply unsatisfactory to me, leading to a great deal of frustration and anguish over not being able to devote the time and effort that this blog deserves.

When something ceases to be enjoyable and starts being a burden, it's time to stop. So, as of tomorrow, I'm getting my life back. Which means that I'll have more time to devote to the things I really enjoy - like blogging.

(You didn't think I'd give this up, did you...?)

It may take a week or two to ramp back up, as I reacquaint myself with information sources I've left by the wayside due to insufficient time, and dig out various bits of paper I've been meaning to comment on, but hopefully soon No Right Turn will be back to the sort of blog it was in October - November last year, rather than the pale imitation it has become.

Cullen on Brash

Michael Cullen's address to the Labour Party Congress:

The official authorised biography of Dr Brash portrays a seriously strange and out of touch person. From the old pyjamas to the vacuuming of the concrete floor to the frozen corned beef and the whole air of slightly deranged hermetic retreat from the real world this is the oddest politician we have had on offer in New Zealand for a long time. In the end he appears to be a cross between Mr Magoo and Dr Strangelove. One can almost see him riding the nuclear bomb down to the ground yelling "gone by lunchtime."

As the Herald points out, there's some other barbed comments in there as well...

New Fisk

The US forces, like the Crusaders before them, are prisoners in their own fortresses

"Hands off our assets"

The Sunday Star-Times has an interesting article in their business section today (sadly not online) on public attitudes to asset sales. According to a poll they commissioned last month, 79% of all New Zealanders opose further sales of state-owned assets. But what's interesting is that while there's a wide split between Labour and National supporters, sales are still opposed by an overwhelming 71% of National Party voters. That's a fairly broad cross-party consensus, and one which the current National leadership should be paying attention to. Unfortunately, though, they still seem wedded to asset sales, with John Key promising partial privatisations of Solid Energy, Genesis, Mighty River and Meridian to ensure that those profit streams currently enjoyed by the public are diverted to private pockets. I guess loyalty to business interests trumps loyalty to their own supporters...

Also interesting are Chris Trotter's comments. He declares that asset sales have joined the nuclear free policy as a "third rail" issue where attempting to move away from the status quo is politically fatal. He also suggests that many New Zealanders would back a political party with a credible plan to buy back core infrastructure assets in transportation (TranzRail - now Toll), electricity (Contact Energy and Trustpower), and communications (Telecom). The problem with this unfortunately is that the promise of a buy-back will simply result in a boost in price; such buy-backs probably need to be opportunistic (as with Air New Zealand), and then the opportunities may not arise. But its still perhaps something left-wing parties could be making a lot more noise about...

Clearing the decks

The British government is expected to drop plans for ID cards and a ban on inciting religious hatred as it clears the decks for the election. There's no doubt this is a victory, but before anyone gets too excited, they are still planning on removing the ban on double jeopardy and hearsay evidence. Not to mention lobbying or canvassing for votes. Even dropping the headline sections, the Blair government's "justice" policy is still highly regressive... but this is what happens when you allow justice policy to be dictated by a bidding war between politicians over who can be "tougher", more vicious, and more vindictive.

As for the election itself, given his outright deceit over Iraq, its one Blair deserves to lose. But the Tories aren't any better, and their utter collapse and infighting looks set to guarantee New Labour another term. But what rescues this from being a boring contest are the numerous public campaigns to punish Labour over Iraq. There's a lot of anger out there - sadly reflected in the number of people refusing to enrol - and the are numerous attempts to harness it to send Blair a message. There's also an effort to put the boot in to the Tories while they're down. It will be interesting to see how well these efforts work, and whether they can be duplicated elsewhere.

Deadlines

Helen Clark is reportedly seeking "finality" over the Treaty and wants to set a deadline for lodging historical Treaty claims. As I've said before, I think this is a mistake. The Treaty settlements process is primarily about justice, and sometimes if we want to get it right, it takes time. Setting an arbitrary date after which no claims will be accepted runs contrary to this purpose, and is inviting future governments to use it as a bureucratic excuse to deny justice (as was transparently the goal of ACT's "by next tuesday" policy last election).

This does not mean I am opposed to final settlement, or to having a timescale in mind by which that settlement should (all going well) be complete. But above all, I want it done properly. Otherwise, as with the government's foreshore and seabed legislation, it will simply come back to haunt us.

And it goes without saying that if Helen Clark wants Treaty claims settled quickly, she should start by properly resourcing the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Waitangi Tribunal so they can meet the expected increase in caseload. Without that, then this policy is just so much hot air.

New kiwi blog

Via Span: Dunedin election blog, by Victor Billot. He's running for the Alliance against Pete Hodgson in Dunedin North. Given the size of Hodgson's majority, I don't think he has a hope in hell, but the aim has to be to whip up the party vote anyway.

Limiting Parliamentary Sovereignty

A point which I did not make in my post on executive, judiciary, and the Treaty, but which the Holden Republic reminds me of:

an end to Parliamentary sovereignty is about asserting everyone's rights, not simply Maori

(Emphasis added)

This is not just about limiting the power of Parliament to violate the Treaty, but limiting the power of Parliament to violate human rights in general. And at a time when the government seems increasingly hostile to such fundamentals as due process and the presumption of innocence, this is looking like an increasingly good idea.

Cadogan on the republic debate

I'll second the Holden Republic in recommending that people read the section on the republic debate in the latest issue of Upton Online. Upton republishes a talk to the Dunedin Rotary Club on the topic, given by Bernard Cadogan, a student at Oxford. After praising New Zealand's democracy (one quite unusual in that, rather than attempting to circumscribe popular power in order to prevent "mob rule", it trusts the people). Cadogan goes on to argue for popular "ownership" of the constitutional debate. It's our constitution, and so we should take a lively interest in it. This is a proposition I endorese wholeheartedly.

Looking at the recent One News special on whether Prince Charles should become king of New Zealand, Cadogan concludes that the monarchists won the debate and that republicans "have to improve their game". The republican speakers "failed to give a coherent view of the Treaty in a New Zealand Republic" and "failed to define what a New Zealand Republic would really be like". This stems from - allowing monarchists to use the idea of an American-style executive presidency as a straw-man. And he's probably right. At the moment the republican movement is relatively unfocused - it knows very well what it is against - the monarchy - but not what it is for. If we want to actually make the change, we are going to have to answer that question.

For my part, I'm in favour of a Swedish-style republic which dispenses with a head-of-state entirely; this I think would fit well with our post-MMP emphasis on consensual Parliamentary politics. But I can certainly live with the "twink republic" of Keith Locke's Head of State Referenda Bill. And while I am in favour of strengthening the Bill of Rights Act to make it a greater check on Parliamentary power, we do not need to change everything all at once. And it may in fact be tactically better to try and keep the two issues seperate, so as to avoid people rejecting one because they cannot stand the other.

New Fisk

Further signs of Lebanon’s political decay in wake of Hariri killing

"Moral leadership"

Via Hard News: Former Christian Heritage Party leader Graham Capill today plead guilty to charges of sexually assaulting a young girl. I guess that shows the quality of "moral leadership" exercised by our local fundamentalist Christians.

Executive, judiciary, and the Treaty

The Herald continues its series on the relationship between the executive and the judiciary this morning, with a pair of articles from constitutional lawyer Mai Chen and Green MP Nandor Tanczos. In the first, Chen argues that despite the progress made under MMP, there is still real public concern about the executive's unbridled power and a desire to subject it to further checks and balances. This will, she thinks, lead to a supreme constitution to redistribute that power. In the second, Tanczos points out that the dispute isn't so much about who rules - unelected judges or elected politicians - but in how they rule. The common thread of both is that the courts exist to uphold the rule of law, and have an essential role as (in Tanczos' words) "a basic protection for ordinary people against the arbitrary power of the state".

Another common thread is the Treaty. Chen, being mostly concerned with the politics of constitutional change points out that such change will require a painful discussion on the exact status of that document, and that

a significant minority of New Zealanders, mostly Maori, will argue that any supreme constitution will lack legitimacy if it excludes references to the treaty.

Tanczos gives a concrete example of exactly this sort of thinking:

The legitimacy of the parliamentary system has its origin not in the democratic mandate but in a genuine social contract. It was the Treaty of Waitangi, an agreement between two sovereign peoples, that provided the basis for Pakeha settlement and government in this country.

It scarcely seems conceivable that the foundation of constitutional legitimacy can act as no enforceable constraint on Parliament. Yet the one thing the foreshore and seabed legislation showed most clearly was the lack of any real constitutional protection for Maori. It was a modern-day confiscation, breaching the Treaty of Waitangi, overturning common-law rights, and enacted in the face of enormous opposition.

That does not mean that the Treaty must be enacted as supreme law (as I've argued elsewhere, it's a little thin for that), but that some moves will have to be made to ensure that future governments conform to its principles. And in the current political climate, where at least three right-wing parties seem intent on just tearing it up and throwing it in the constitutional dustbin, that seems unlikely.

Banned

Margaret Wilson has banned TV3's cameras from Parliament for a week as revenge for showing images of David Benson-Pope in his role as Minister of forty winks. Which I think illustrates more than ever why the standing orders banning such filming have to go. Our ability to hold our politicians accountable for their actions depends on our being able to know what those actions actually are; punishing media organisations which show MPs in a less-than-flattering light is an explicit attempt to prevent this. If we value our democracy, we must stand up for the media's right to show our elected representatives as they actually are, rather than as they would prefer us to see them.

If you'd like to express your disapproval of this decision, then please email the Speaker and let her know. Presumably that's not against the Standing Orders... yet.