Tonga: Embarassment and Victory

Well, that's rather embarassing, isn't it? The strike has in fact been settled, with the government acceding completely to the striker's demands. I guess they felt that if it was money or power, they'd give up the money. Unfortunately for them, this has not dampened people's desire for democracy, and Tuesday's march on the palace will still go ahead. The marchers plan to present a constitution to the King which would make the government more accountable to the people - a move reportedly described by the New Zealand High Commissioner as a "revolution". again, we just have to hope they succeed, and that the monarchy bows to public pressure rather than try and cling to power by force.

Tonga: its now about democracy

It's official: the Tongan civil servants strike is now about democracy. On Friday night, the Tongan government caved and offered the strikers everything they wanted: backdated payrises of 60, 70, or 80 percent, no retaliation, and a suspension of the general salary review. The strikers refused. And on Tuesday, they're marching on the palace.

This could be crunch day, the day when Tonga's corrupt kleptocracy either recognises that their choose do the former.

Busy

Bloggage will be light over the next few days, as I'll be in Auckland and have only limited access to the internet. I honestly don't know how I'll survive...

Brash on the wero

A reader sent me this transcript of Don Brash talking with Mike Yardley on Newstalk ZB on Thursday morning. I think this speaks for itself on how Brash feels about Maori culture and its place in public life:

PRESENTER: What about the haka before an All Black rugby test? Is it a good look?

BRASH: I'm very comfortable and relaxed about that. I'm more relaxed about that than I am about some of the official welcomes that foreign visitors get. They must wonder what kind of country they get when the only official welcome they have is? is a Maori New Zealander jumping around half naked. I mean, I think there is a place for Maori culture but why is it that we always use a semi-naked male, sometimes quite pale-skinned Maori, leaping around in, you know, mock battle?

PRESENTER: So next time Her Majesty comes to see the dominion, if you are prime minister, will you spare her a powhiri?

BRASH: I think, as I say, there is a place for powhiri. I guess what I'm really saying is we surely need some other ways of greeting visitors?
[interrupted]

PRESENTER: Like how?

BRASH: ?only powhiri. Well, I mean, European culture has got lots of traditional ways of welcoming visitors. A powhiri is a particularly Maori way of doing it?

PRESENTER: Yeah.

BRASH: ?and there certainly is a place for that.

PRESENTER: But what would you do instead? A handshake or what?

BRASH: I think in many cases a handshake or a? an honour guard or something is all that's appropriate.

Like the haka, the wero is one of those things that make New Zealand unique, and I think it has similar widespread public acceptance. And Brash wants to get rid of it?

America in a nutshell

With all the coverage of the aftermath of Katrina on TV, the fact that those left behind are poor, elderly, sick, and mostly black ought to have escaped no-one's attention. Why is this the case? Via Kevin Drum, it seems that no-one planned for their evacuation:

Brian Wolshon, an engineering professor at Louisiana State University who served as a consultant on the state's evacuation plan, said little attention was paid to moving out New Orleans's "low-mobility" population — the elderly, the infirm and the poor without cars or other means of fleeing the city, about 100,000 people.

At disaster planning meetings, he said, "the answer was often silence."

Then, having abandoned New Orleans' weakest citizens to their fate, government officials are now turning around and saying they "chose" not to leave. People in wheelchairs, people who could not afford cars or other transport, and people too old to travel all "chose" to stay behind - despite the choice of leaving not really being available.

This is America in a nutshell: a society which systematically screws its weakest members and then blames them for their predicament.

More tactical voting

ACT has thrown its support behind National's Bob Clarkson in Tauranga in an effort to unseat Winston Peters. This is good for two reasons: firstly, it increases the chances of Winston being de-seated, which will be a tremendous blow to his ego; and secondly, it gives ACT absolutely no grounds to complain if the left does the same thing to him in Epsom.

Another leaked email

AN APPLICATION FOR MAINSTREAM MEMBERSHIP

Dear Dr Brash,

I am a Maori woman and I am really concerned that I may not qualify for 'mainstream' membership. I honestly don't think that I can be like you -- pale and male -- but I could be suffering from an inferiority complex, an inferior education, or an inferior mirror.

Could you please send out an application form that outlines the key criteria necessary for eligibility? At this point in time there has been much innuendo about the topic, but you and your deputy seem to possess the specifics...

Read the rest here.

Energy: more wind

Hawkes Bay Wind Farms has been granted resource consent for their 225 MW development at Te Pohue. That's 366 MW of wind farms consented so far this year - over twice our annual demand growth, and all being met without adding to our carbon emissions.

The Palmerston North City Council has also announced a deal with Mighty River Power to develop a 120 - 150 MW windfarm behind Massey University. Unfortunately, the site is a council-owned reserve currently occupied by native bush, which would have to be clearfelled to make room for the turbines. While I support wind power, I don't support that kind of environmental vandalism, and will probably be submitting against the project.

Science policy

Labour has released its research, science, and technology policy. It's a geeky subject, I know, and pretty much irrelevant compared to the bigger issues, but its one I find interesting anyway.

The key problem faced by the science sector is the funding model. At present, research funding is contestable, allocated on a "winner take all" basis with a five-year lifespan. This was intended to produce higher standards through competition. Instead, it has led to career uncertainty and an erosion of New Zealand's science capability. Scientists essentially live hand to mouth, having to constantly worry about the next funding round and what will happen if their projects are not renewed. Research teams whose bids are unsuccessful tend to disappear; their members cannot sit around twiddling their thumbs for five years waiting for another chance, and neither can they easily switch the focus of their knowledge to another area (given the high degree of specialisation and the need to remain current, it is like starting again from scratch). Instead, they tend to either take early retirement, or move overseas, eroding both New Zealand's pool of knowledge and the very competition the funding model relies upon in order to work.

Labour's policy recognises this, with a move to longer-term, higher-value funding for proven research teams. Competitive grants will remain, but they will not be the sole source of funding. This will give scientists the stability needed to focus on their research, without the constant need to scan job openings in Australia. There's also an attempt to encourage more people to pursue science as a career, with more scholarships and the possibility of 5-year career establishment grants to help new researchers get started. Unfortunately, the problem in this area has really been a lack of jobs at the other end of the PhD, and while the new funding model may help that, the scope for employment is still highly restricted - meaning that people will still spurn science as a career.

Tonga: it's not over yet

Yesterday saw significant progress in the Tongan civil servants strike, with the Princess Regent leading a Cabinet delegation to the strikers to promise that their demand for an interim pay rise while negotiations continued would be met. However, the deal was rejected, with strikers wanting further guarantees that they would not face retribution if they returned to work. And they can afford to wait: the recent trip to Auckland by strike representatives reportedly resulted in New Zealand unions donating $100,000 to support the strike. That sort of money goes a long way in Tonga, and will allow the strikers to outlast the government.

(BTW, if you'd like to directly support the strikers, email Marga Moa for details of a bank account to throw money into. If you're in Auckland, you can also show your support in the march on Saturday)

The strikers have also made explicit their demand for democracy, calling for a fully elected Parliament and Cabinet. A cynic would say that that is why the present (unelected) Cabinet - which has repeatedly claimed that the government cannot afford even an interim pay rise - was suddenly willing to give in - because if there were free and fair elections, it would be them who was out of a job...

New Fisk

In Iraq, a man-made disaster

Changing the colour of the kangaroo

The US is reforming the kangaroo courts it uses at Guantanamo, allowing defendants to hear more of the evidence against them and having the presiding officer fill a role closer to that of a judge in an ordinary courtroom. However, the military commissions will still fail to meet basic standards of justice: defendants will still be tried on secret evidence, be judged by a jury whose impartiality and independence fail to pass the laugh test, and have no effective right of appeal. The kangaroo court will remain a kangaroo court; all the US is doing here is changing the colour of the kangaroo...

Nazis endorse Winston

Remember the old joke site a few elections ago about how Winston Peters was a Nazi? Well, it seems our local Nazi-wannabes - the New Zealand National Front - agree. They've endorsed both New Zealand First and the newly formed Direct Democracy Party in the election.

Needless to say, I think this is an excellent reason not to vote for either party.

Update: More here.

Cui bono?

Who benefits from National's tax cut package? In the coments to Anita's post on tax cuts and social (in)equality, Genius made the astounding claim that National's tax cuts "disproportionatly benefit the poor" by

[giving] quite a high % tax cut to low income earners and a negligible one to very high income earners 9and a continum inbetween).

Anita has done the numbers on this, and even a cursory look at them shows that this is not the case, no matter which way you look at it:

Considering the relative decrease in tax, someone has to earn over $165,000 to get less benefit from National's tax cuts than someone earning $35,000, and over $180,000 to do worse than someone on $15,000. In terms of the relative change in take-home pay, the difference is even more stark: someone has to earn $335,000 to do worse than someone on $35,000, or $475,000 to do worse than someone earning $15,000. And of course in absolute terms, those on higher incomes win out hands down.

National's tax cuts do not disproportionately benefit the poor. Instead, the disproportionately benefit exactly the people you'd expect: National's rich backers.

What it's all about

What's this election all about? Steve Maharey hits the nail on the head in his election blog today, when he responds to someone who asks why, with record low unemployment and good economic growth, there is really any debate:

Well there is a debate. And to understand why it is still going on we need to understand who is driving it. The kind of country we are seeing emerge now where everyone is beginning to get a share of the prosperity and opportunity on offer is not what they want.

They fought long and hard in the 80s and 90s to create a country where the privileged could gain more privilege. They argued that what was good for them was good for the country. It was not. For most New Zealanders the period of restructuring was extremely difficult. They paid a heavy price for changes that made a few people very rich.

It is the lucky few from that era who are driving the debate...

That's what this election is about: who benefits from our economy, who shares the fruits of economic growth - the few, or the many. Labour (and the rest of the left) are on the side of the many. National is on the side of the few - and judging by who benefits from their tax cuts, the very few indeed.

No arms race at our place

Via Resistantsoy: Te Papa will be hosting a conference for New Zealand's arms industry (yes, we have one) on the 18th and 19th of October. Peace Action Wellington objects to this, and today is their phone-in day. If you don't like the idea of our local weapons industry peddling their wares in "our place", then please let Te Papa know. The numbers to call are:

Phone:
04 381 7000 (general enquiries)
04 381 7272 (functions team)
04 381 7108 (senior management)

Fax:
04 381 7070

Alternatively, you can email the Te Papa management team here.

The future of the Maori seats

The Maori Party has released its policy for the Maori seats, calling for them to be retained until there is "a broader and more meaningful process of constitutional change" or Maori choose to abolish them through a "tangata whenua referendum". It's not a bad idea, but it ignores one important fact: we already have such a referenda on a regular basis, by way of the Maori Option. Every five years, as part of the process of redrawing electoral boundaries, Maori are given the opportunity to decide whether they want to be on the Maori or general roll. Now that the number of Maori seats has been allowed to change with the size of the Maori electorate (rather than being fixed at four in an effort to ghettoise and disenfranchise Maori), Maori have voted with their feet, and the number of Maori seats has risen with every redrawing of boundaries since. I'd call that solid evidence that Maori want to retain the seats, despite their disadvantages.

Does that mean they should be retained? I'd argue yes. They are seen as a symbol of Maori mana and participation, a sign of the Treaty partnership. And under MMP, they make no real difference. The makeup of Parliament is determined by the party vote, and electorates simply shuffle the faces. Yes, the Maori seats may allow a party to avoid the threshhold, or even lead to an overhang - but so can any other electorate or group of electorates. This is the price we pay for a mixed-member system, and preventing it would require moving to a list-only system and doing away with electorates entirely. I should also note that we have accepted threshhold-avoidance and overhangs in the past from general seats with nary a raised eyebrow. No-one responded to Winston Peters or Jim Anderton's seats to be abolished because their election brought other MPs into Parliament with them, no-one called for Ohariu-Belmont to be abolished because it produced an overhang, and no-one is calling for Epsom to be abolished because ACT may be able to escape oblivion by winning it. I guess it's different though when the voters in question are Maori.

The "moral obligation to lie" in action

National's credibility over its policy direction has again been called into question with the leak of an Insurance Council memo showing that National had agreed to keep some of the details of its ACC policy secret from the public:

The details of the policy have been deliberately kept out of the announcement after consultation with the Insurance Council.

What details? According to the memo's author, things like

"how far the privatisation would go, whether you would have an independent disputes tribunal, what role the ACC would take, whether there would be a Crown entity player like last time ... what your timeframe would be"

Those are pretty important details, and ones National should be being upfront with. But there's an obvious reason for their secrecy: the New Zealand public would react badly to their real plans. Privatisation is as popular as leprosy, and faced with that, National has simply chosen to lie (while making sure that the prime beneficiaries of the policy - insurance companies - are kept well informed). It's a fine example of the belief in a moral obligation to lie in action, and shows precisely why we cannot trust National.

BMR index

Posts relating to the Department of Corrections Behaviour Management Regime:

• 30/09/2020 And still paying for it.
  
• 24/10/2019 Still paying for the BMR.
  
• 29/08/2005 BMR: counting the cost of mismanagement.
  
• 01/08/2005 BMR: No way to run a prison system.
  
• 07/02/2005 Accountability.
  
• 25/01/2005 Not even considered
  
• 16/10/2004 Answers on the BMR.
  
• 04/09/2004 Paying the bill

(This is an index page so I have a central location to point to in future).

Orwellian Flailing

Don Brash doesn't interview well when he's pulled away from his prepared lines, does he? This afternoon, Scoop's Alastair Thompson used the opportunity of a National party press conference to ask Brash a few questions about those leaked emails and the advice received from Roger Kerr. You can listen to the resulting verbal flailing here, or watch here.

Brash falls back on the old line of "it's a distraction" - just as he did when his credibility was called into question over his position on Iraq. But the scariest bit is his response to being informed that children in schools were being taught that the Treaty was a partnership between Maori and Pakeha: that it is "not a view which we hold" and that "of course" they would be instructing the Ministry of Education to change the curriculum to remove such information. He's not just trying to remove the Treaty from law, but expunge it from public consciousness altogether. This isn't just Prendergastian - it's practically Orwellian...

In the end, after more questions about the leaks and who was responsible, he had to be rescued by a flunky - which seems to be happening with disturbing regularity.

Update: Full transcript here.