Work and leisure

Commenting on today's good news about unemployment, JustLeft says:

Now the challenge should be: how do we get our labour force participation rate up to Scandinavian levels of around 80% of the working age population, compared with the current 66.7%?

But why on earth would we want to do that? We work to live, we do not live to work.

Labour force participation is in many ways a negative statistic, in that it directly represents the tradeoff between work and leisure. High labour force participation comes directly at the expense of doing something else. And to the extent that people would rather be doing something else (whether it is raising kids or writing a book), that is a Bad Thing.

I have no doubt that most people prefer to work (for a certain value of "work"); we all need something to do with our lives, ideally something enjoyable and meaningful (or at least not too crap). But simply pursuing a high participation rate without pausing to think what it means is putting the cart before the horse. Instead, we should be trying to ensure that everybody who wants a job can get one, and that those jobs pay well enough for people to follow their other preferences as well. The aim is to enable people to lead the lives they want, not to force them into shitty work so that politicians can crow about "good" economic statistics.

Identity Bill

The Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill passed its first reading last week. The bill will make a number of changes to the Citizenship and Passports Acts, some of which are sensible and justifiable - tilting the balance so that people with serious criminal convictions will not generally get citizenship; fixing a loophole which had deprived some Tokelauans of their New Zealand citizenship - and some of which aren't. The provisions of greatest concern are those extending the length of time people must be resident in New Zealand before becoming eligible for citizenship, and allowing the government to refuse or cancel passports on security grounds.

The first strikes at the heart of what this country is all about, and shifts us from being an open, generous and welcoming nation to one with a fortress mentality based on distrust. It seems to be driven primarily by the Australians, who are worried that "undesirables" (meaning non-whites) can use New Zealand as a "back door" to Australia by the cunning ruse of becoming New Zealanders. It's mean-spirited and tells immigrants "we don't want you". Is this really the way we want to be advertising New Zealand to the world?

The second provision relating to passports is more concerning. While it has been tightened significantly (the Minister can now only cancel or deny a passport if a person intends to commit a terrorist act, WMD proliferation, or unlawful activity causing devastating economic damage to New Zealand for commercial gain), it is still a gross violation of the presumption of innocence and effectively punishment on the basis of suspicion. As I've said before, suspicion is not enough; if the government wants to take people's passports away, they should have to go to court and get a judge to OK it.

While it is not presently part of the bill, the government also plans to move an amendment (after the select committee process, to prevent public scrutiny) removing the automatic right of citizenship by birth. Their "justification" for this is that a handful of people apparently come here specifically to give birth so that their children are New Zealand citizens (hence pregnancy tests for Tongans). Again, this is a matter of who we are as a country - and I don't think its worth undermining our fundamental values of inclusiveness for a tiny "problem" like this. If people want to come all that way so their kids can be part of our family, then let them.

If you feel strongly about any of this, then you can make a submission on the bill. Twenty copies, by Friday, 10th September, to:

Michele Charleton
Government Administration Committee Secretariat
Parliament Buildings
Wellington

(No postage required)

If you need help with a submission, there's an online guide here.

Follow up

A US Senator is following up on yesterday's news about the Oregon National Guard being ordered to return prisoners to their torturers. Apparently, he thinks that the US Army are in Iraq to prevent torture, not to assist it...

Let them in

Terry Dunleavy calls for Samoans to be granted visa-free entry to New Zealand. I agree. Samoa is as much a part of our family now as Australia, and we should recognise that.

Unfortunately, it seems that the Prime Minister disaggrees, citing concerns about overstayers. Needless to say, if we had visa-free entry, there wouldn't be any overstayers (by definition).

Responses

I contacted the Minister of Foreign Affairs' office for comment on whether the government's policy towards Iraq would be changing in response to that regime's use of torture, but was told that they have no comment to make as the Minister is out of the country. Instead, I was told to check MFAT's website. And right there at the top of their overview on human rights is this:

New Zealand is strongly committed to the protection and promotion of international human rights, as embodied in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and in the key human rights treaties.

We are living up to that statement over Timor; it's time we lived up to it in Iraq. Our active support and assistance of a regime which uses torture is grossly incompatible with our values and with ordinary human decency. The government should communicate its utter disgust to the Iraqi government, and we should withdraw our troops immediately. Otherwise our country's reputation - and its soul - will be tarnished for good.

Fuck Iraq, part II

Those appalled at my strong reaction to Iraq's reinstatement of the death penalty, and who think that we should continue to support the Iraqi regime, may want to consider this story about what goes on in the "new Iraq" (stolen from Daily Kos):

The national guardsman peering through the long-range scope of his rifle was startled by what he saw unfolding in the walled compound below.

From his post several stories above ground level, he watched as men in plainclothes beat blindfolded and bound prisoners in the enclosed grounds of the Iraqi Interior Ministry.

He immediately radioed for help. Soon after, a team of Oregon Army National Guard soldiers swept into the yard and found dozens of Iraqi detainees who said they had been beaten, starved and deprived of water for three days.

In a nearby building, the soldiers counted dozens more prisoners and what appeared to be torture devices -- metal rods, rubber hoses, electrical wires and bottles of chemicals. Many of the Iraqis, including one identified as a 14-year-old boy, had fresh welts and bruises across their back and legs.

The soldiers disarmed the Iraqi jailers, moved the prisoners into the shade, released their handcuffs and administered first aid. Lt. Col. Daniel Hendrickson of Albany, Ore., the highest ranking American at the scene, radioed for instructions.

But in a move that frustrated and infuriated the guardsmen, Hendrickson's superior officers told him to return the prisoners to their abusers and immediately withdraw. It was June 29 -- Iraq's first official day as a sovereign country since the U.S.-led invasion.

They may also want to look at what we are supporting:

There are more pictures here if you can stomach them.

The new boss is the same as the old boss; We are now supporting torturers and murderers. Is that what our country stands for now?

The worm turns

An Iraqi judge has issued arrest warrants for Ahmed and Salem Chalabi.

Former IGC member Ahmed Chalabi is wanted on "financial charges", including counterfeiting. I guess old habits die hard. His nephew, Salem Chalabi, is wanted for organising the murder of a political rival.

I guess the US should have been a little more careful about the pawns they picked...

Fuck Iraq

Iraq has restored the death penalty for murder, drug dealing, and "endangering national security".

Fuck them. A country which institutionalises murder is not worth risking a single New Zealander's life. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs should make our disgust absolutely clear, and also make it clear that once our soldiers have left in a month, there will be no further assistance unless there is significant progress on this front.

Coalitions and MMP

I watched Jeanette Fitzsimmons being interviewed on Agenda yesterday morning, and one thing I was struck by was how much of the conversation around relations with other parties was based on the idea of a formal coalition between the Greens and Labour. Frankly, I'm not sure that this is the MMP paradigm anymore. At the moment, we have a minority government supported by another party on confidence and supply, but without an automatic majority on legislation. Looking at the polls, either major party would need the support of at least three others to gain a majority, which means that the current situation is likely to continue and become more pronounced. Which is a good thing, because it means that legislation will require a far broader consensus to pass, and therefore be moderated somewhat. At the moment Labour can pick and choose, meaning they can effectively pass whatever they want (they just have to go to the right party). But if they need the agreement of multiple parties across a broad range of the political spectrum, the result is likely to be acceptable to far more of the electorate.

In this situation, minor parties don't just have to work with the larger parties, but also with each other. The result is likely to be loose agreements aimed at influencing the government's broad policy direction and gaining consultation rights in exchange for confidence and supply. The real power will come from the consultation process over legislation, and the ability to threaten a veto. While formal coalition is still possible, it has to be acceptable to other minor parties, who may be wary of one of their number gaining increased influence. At the same time, it will also be less meaningful - when other people have a veto on legislation, who has control of the policy development process matters a lot less. One thing that is certain is that a formal coalition agreement of the sort seen in 1996 simply will not be possible. Labour and the Greens could agree to work towards certain goals, but unless those goals are acceptable to the other minor parties, they won't make any real progress.

I'm not sure whether this will be a long-term trend or not. But it certainly looks like being the reality for the next Parliament, and both our parties and political reporters should adapt to it.

National Front Condemnation Two-Faced

According to the Dominion Post, the National Front have condemned the attack on Jewish graves at Makara. But at the same time, their leader is talking of a Jewish "conspiracy" on an internet hate forum.

News of the attack was posted to the "Stormfront" forum. One participant immediately speculated that it was a "hate hoax" and "of Jewish origin". The National Front's leader, Kyle Chapman, posting under the name of "NZTrooper", immediately replied:

Yep, they get the media from one attack, then they think "this works", so they do more themselves.

The National Front is being entirely two-faced on this matter, issuing a condemnation for public consumption while continuing to spread hate among its members.

Speaking out

In my post below on hate speech, I said that if the government doesn't like racial hatred, then they should speak out against it. And that's exactly what they're doing over the vandalism of Jewish graves at Makara cemetary. Chris Carter is seeking a formal Parliamentary condemnation of anti-Semitism, and Michael Cullen, Keith Locke and Peter Dunne have all denounced it.

By contrast, the National Front's Kyle Chapman seems to be implying that this is a "hate hoax", done by Jews to get sympathy and media attention. What a prick.

I feel another submission coming on...

Parliament's Government administration committee is holding an inquiry into whether we need further legislation against hate speech. I don't think we do. We already have laws against incitement, and strong laws against discrimination, and those are enough.

The same arguments expressed in my post on holocaust-denier David Irving apply here. Restricting hate-speech lends credibility to the haters, by allowing them to claim that we are afraid of them, and allowing them to cast themselves as the aggrieved and oppressed party. It deprives us of the ability to challenge and defeat their views, and instead allows them to fester in the shadows. The answer to undesirable speech is more speech, not less. Those who dislike speech or publications vilifying certain groups should speak out in their defence, not use the law to punish unwelcome opinions.

Restrictions are simply unjustifiable on liberal grounds. According to Mill's law,

the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection

An opinion has to cause actual, concrete harm in order to be suppressed. Simply making people feel bad does not meet this standard. Incitement to immediate violence can be banned, as can harassment, and hate speech is good evidence when proving discrimination. But villifying a group, saying that they are evil, ungodly, unnatural or conspiring to take over the world is not sufficient. It is offensive, but giving offence is not harm. It inspires hatred, but there is no right not to be hated.

A free and democratic society is one that does not tell its citizens what opinions they are allowed to hold. If the government is concerned about hate speech, then government ministers should speak out against it. But they should not ban people simply from expressing an opinion, no matter how vile and unjustified.

Censure

Haami Piripi has been censured by the Maori Language Commission, but it's not good enough for National who say that it is an insufficient punishment for a "blatant breach of the rules".

Unfortunately, as I've said earlier, the usual rules governing public servants don't apply to Mr Piripi (nor, as far as I can tell, did they apply to Don Brash when he was campaigning around the country for right-wing economic policiy while Governor of the Reserve Bank). He works for a Crown Entity, not a core government department, and therefore is not bound to public service neutrality.

Those rules are currently in the process of being changed to allow the State Services Commisioner to lay down codes of conduct governing Crown Entities, but they haven't been changed yet. Under the circumstances, without a clear policy forbidding Mr Piripi's actions, a censure is probably the best that can be done without inviting an immediate personal grievance suit.

But hey, why should Gerry Brownlee let the facts get in the way of things?

Smears and retractions

The Amokura Panoho saga just gets worse. The government's initial response to the storm was to resort to smear tactics, with Trevor Mallard alleging that Panoho misused Labour Departmnent equipment and tried to recruit staff. He was forced to swiftly retract. And now this morning, John Tamihere has likewise retracted his claim that Ms Panoho campaigned for the party on government time, after the Secretary of Labour went on the record as saying that he accepted Ms Panoho's word that that was not the case.

Unfortunately, despite the government's retraction of its attempted smears, Ms Panoho is still out of a job, and apparently considering legal action.

I'm not sure if she'd be able to make a case for constructive dismissal, and because she resigned there's little chance of her getting her job back, but she has a strong moral case. The government has acted like the mafia, using public service neutrality as the instrument of a vendetta to intimidate and punish those who "betray" it. That stinks.

Public servants should not be treated like this. The flip side of public service neutrality is that the government is supposed to do its utmost to protect public servants from politically inspired claims. And yet here it is government ministers that are making them.

The Secretary of Labour is right - Ms Panoho has acted honourably throught this whole affair. Sadly, the same cannot be said of the government.

Update: Those coming from Hard News may want to check out my two previous posts on this issue: Tony Soprano would be proud and political neutrality.

"A safe, humane and professional detention operation"

That's how the US describes its Carribean gulag at Guantanamo Bay. The Red Cross, however, begs to differ:

Repeated abuses allegedly suffered by three British prisoners at the hands of US interrogators and guards in the Guantánamo Bay detention camp in Cuba could amount to war crimes, the Red Cross said yesterday.

The organisation, which maintains a rigidly neutral stance in public, took the unusual step of voicing its concerns in uncompromising language after the former detainees, known as the Tipton Three, revealed that they had been beaten, shackled, photographed naked and in one incident questioned at gunpoint while in US custody.

Once upon a time they were the people who criticised other nations over human rights; now they've sunk to the torturer's level. It's a far bigger victory for terrorism than destroying any number of skycrapers - and the Americans have done it to themselves.

Another victory for gay marriage

In Washington state:

A Washington state court Wednesday ruled today same-sex couples must be allowed to marry.

King County Superior Court Judge William Downing said that the state Constitution guarantees basic rights to lesbian and gay people -- and that those rights are violated by a state law prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying

It will go all the way to the state Supreme Court, but this is an important first step.

New Fisk

Saddam’s cameraman is still haunted by images of war

Interesting reading

Dr Paul Dalziel: The Treaty of Waitangi and Dr Don Brash

Fighting all the way

Flag-burner Paul Hopkinson and friends have plead "not guilty" to disorderly behaviour charges stemming from their latest flag-burning exercise.

Good. The charges stem purely from flag-burning, something the High Court has already found to be protected under the Bill of Rights Act 1990. Laying a different charge is simply an effort by the police to get around the court's judgement. Hopkinson should fight this all the way.

Political Neutrality

There's been more shit flying around this morning over the resignation of Amokura Panoho, with more people noticing the apparent double standard. There's a long list of MPS - Pita Paraone, Parekura Horomia, Mita Ririnui, Mahara Okeroa - who have stood for election and held their jobs throughout. Presumably they just didn't walk into the candidacy on nomination day, and played some role in party organisation beforehand. Likewise, Ms Panoho stood for election in 1999 as a candidate for Mauri Pacific (Tau Henare's doomed party) and it was not a problem (though again, she had to take leave during the campaign). So what makes this case different?

The simple answer is a complaint. And that's where the whole thing really starts to smell, because that complaint has clear elements of both self-interest and revenge. The complaint was laid by proxies for John Tamihere, who coincidently represents the same electorate that Ms Panoho was active in, and who is looking to be facing a brutal battle with the party she is supporting for control of the seat. Then there's the revenge factor - it is clear that some in Labour are annoyed at the formation of the Maori Party, and are pulling out all the stops in an effort to crush it. This apparantly extends to attempting to ruin the careers of public servants.

The rule for public servants is that they must be politically neutral - but this isn't just a matter of fact, but of perception. And therefore its clear that complaints make a difference. Parekura Horomia was higher up the ladder than Ms Panoho, yet his activity in the Labour Party was not a problem because nobody complained.

The problem is that Labour aren't the only people who can play this game. Supporters of the Maori Party are no doubt making a list and checking it twice before making their own complaints - and standing ready to contact the media if any are dismissed, because there's no better story than a double standard. And the result of this will be to make the lives of public servants utter hell.

Despite the requirement for political neutrality, public servants also have a right to political participation. How this interacts with the job is very much a matter for judgement, and is resolved through discussion with management and ultimately in the conscience of individual public servants. Ms Panoho displayed enormous professionalism when she chose to resign rather than fight an obvious political beat-up; she put the interests of the public service before her own. Other public servants make even greater sacrifices (the new State Services Commisioner, Mark Prebble, has reportedly sacrificed his relationship with his own brother (former ACT leader Richard Prebble) in the pursuit of perceived neutrality). We should not be rewarding them by turning the public service into a political battleground.