Credit when it's due

Lindsay Mitchell and I will likely not see eye to eye on many things but I understand that she's a conviction politican and so I understand her dismay at reading an ACT MP suggest the Bill of Rights be amended to accommodate his pet project; discredited, knee-jerk law-n-order crappola.

The three-strikes law's (and its variations) been around an age. As I've commented before, it's clap-trap disguised as giving voice to victims. I don't know Lindsay's views on this element of ACT policy but I do know that she's not afraid to call bullshit even on her own party - even if they turn on her for doing so.

Having it both ways

The media are keen on the prospect of a common border between NZ and Australia. The focus is on passenger access and this makes sense if NZ wants to grab a larger share of the tourism dollars expanded by Australians. Enabling them to check-in and clear customs just the once will represent a real benefit and could shift business - particularly from the domestic market where suddenly a trip to Queenstown is both cheaper, quicker and now less fussy than a trip to Perth and Brisvegas.

If, as seems clear, this is the main objective it makes sense but what of the risks?

NZers enjoy a priviledged position in Australia. We've no need to become permanent residents to work and access most benefits. This means it's a pretty simple matter to up-sticks are relocate. As noted in an earlier post, Key has to balance his goals in tourism with the accountabilities he took on pre-election; the promise to reduce the loss of skilled labour trans-Tasman!

When's he going to do that and how?

Andrew Little's election

I'm pleased that Andrew Little's taken on the Labour presidency. He's always struck me as an incredibly thoughtful and reasonable man, able to be a fierce advocate without being unpleasant or hectoring. His leadership of the EPMU has been characterised by a very constructive engagement with business leaders around shared goals; productive, profitable and sustainable industry. Mike Williams departure ought not be with a sigh of relief. He took over in difficult circumstances when the loved and admired Michael Hirschfeld died suddenly. Much has been made of some of Mike's errors, but they never numbered as many as his successes and the party's in great shape by any measure.

An ambitious man in Australia

Key's honeymoon continues despite tough times in New Zealand but I wonder what happened to the fire from the election campaign? Remember John wandering around empty stadia lamenting that our biggest export was talent? What about the billboards that promised an end to all those teary farewells? That was all going to change wasn't it? John will claim time's moved on, that the global crisis has shifted the goal posts. But shouldn't that mean people are more, not less likely to return to NZ? Probably you can argue it either way.

The promise to stop Kiwis leaving was ridiculous, the crisis always overstated and the solutions hollow. National's policy, such as it was, focused principally on importing people not on stopping departures. So should Key now be held to account for the continued net flow of Permanent and Longterm Departures to Australia for instance? Yes, but that won't change anything much.

Oddly though, when interviewed this morning on Australia radio (not available online unfortunately), Key made no mention of his concern that New Zealand will soon be denuded of talent. He focused instead on the challenges in the Pacific, on the financial crisis and easing travel between the countries. All valid and reasonable. He, in fact, acquitted himself well, but I wonder what he'll say to the parents who're still taking their kids to the airport? Perhaps he's arranged for them to join him on his Hercules flight home to be literally parachuted into struggling communities en route to Wellington?

The false reality of an election is over. The practical challenge of delivering on the over-blown promise needs attention. What solutions does National have really? When the trans-Tasman super portability kicks in, there may well be some additional movement back to NZ but it won't be great as too many people have lost too much equity and must now rebuild before they can retire.

It's no surprise then that David Farrar has written just the one post about migration since the election (that compares with four in the month or two before it). I can't help but recall Bolger's sage advice against stirring up race-relations during the 1990 election; he's reported to have said "sure it might help us win the election, but what will we do when we show up on Monday to govern?"

Blackout

One of the most vexing issues in public policy is the impact of technology on our lives. Whether it's surveillance, stem-cell research or property rights, near constant innovation and ever increasing access means policy and regulation are always going to lag behind consumer practice. I'm anything but expert, I'm possibly a little careless in fact. I keep a watching eye the legal ranglings around file sharing and also net filtering but that's about it.

The concerns expressed by expert commentators, such as Russell Brown, about changes to New Zealand's copyright laws have recently refocused my attention. Russell makes the critical point that a balance between creators' and users' rights must be struck but that achieving this requires sensible dialogue on both parts. I remember when the parrallel importing legislation was rushed through the NZ Parliament (circa March 1999) some of these issues were bought up but only resolved with respect to enforcable trade agreements.

Parliament needs to guide the courts, the pace of techological innovation must surely mean existing laws will not be fit for purpose. But it seems to me that copyright holders are looking for a quick fix to staunch the loss of business rather than adapting to the fundamental shift in patterns of consumption.

Per head of population, Australian consumers reputedly illegally download more television content than any other country (I've read this in the MSM but can't now find a reference). This must infuriate broadcasters who pay big money to rush series from overseas - House and CSI for example. Without giving too much away, some earlier frustration I had about Nine's scheduling of the Sopranos sent me towards torrent sites.

All this is by way of explaining my support for the the Internet Blackout N.Z. I recommend following the developments here and here.

Wellingtonhive comes full circle

In a few of my more combative moments, I rebuked the Wellingtonhive for one or other indiscretions only to have them dismiss my criticisms as the irrelevant musings of a smalltime blogger (my words, not there's). Fair enough.

The irony now is that dearjohn, the Hive's apparent successor, has experienced a predictable decline in readership. Whereas once the Hive's author(s) tracked their ascent up Tumeke's ratings, now Charles Finny advises dearjohn is being "reviewed". I enjoyed Finny's postings on many issues. Clearly expert in trade and related matters, his observations were a good insight into the thinking of a senior and influential advocate for NZ businesses. I didn't enjoy the more shrill and partisan posts and I said as such.

There's an important space in the blogosphere for informed and independent comment. Ideally, it's separate from the inherent compromises of media ownership and perhaps also from membership. Perhaps Charles will continue to comment in the 'sphere even if dearjohn is discontinued?

Lockwood's bloody good...

I'm listening to Parliament for the first time since the election. Lockwood's got lots of praise from many sources for his performance as Speaker. I'll add mine. He's clear, he's consistent and he's focused on Ministers acquitting themselves properly to the public. Excellent. I'd've thought he'd struggle since he's never been a particularly strong performer, I was wrong.

I've got a mixed history with Lockwood. I once said he was gutless for refusing to meet with 100 students who were literally sitting arms and legs folded (which I don't resile from). On the other side of the ledger, I've also publicly credited him for elements of tertiary reform in the mid-'90s.

I hope he's able to continue this approach and that the Parliament supports him.

What Paula Bennett needs

... is a pair of ear muffs.

I don't imagine that Bennett will, for one second, consider taking advice from the commentators at Farrar site or from Cactus Kate herself. Parenting's bloody hard without having to worry about the press or wannabes.

As for Holmes's comments, well he probably means well and has some experience to call on however he could at least have made his comments in private. Surely he'd realise public speculation and debate doesn't help. Moreover, what works for one kid might not work for another.

My recollections of Paula from student politics are pretty limited - I was leaving as she was entering (I think), but she struck me as a smart woman who'd seen enough life to navigate it herself. I'm sure she'll manage without the 'advice' from David's regulars and Kate.

'Happy' Waitangi Day

I'd lost track of this, a little, until I saw others' blogs (particularly the handmirror's Waitangi Wahine summary). It's odd thinking about Waitangi Day from Australia. 355,000 Kiwis are here and there are a number of Waitangi events, but I'm not involved.

The angst associated with Waitangi Day is frequently commented on. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. Contrast it with Australia Day celebrations which are increasingly jingoistic, perhaps it's ok that we have mixed feelings about the nation's awkward early years? There's some that think this is bad for us. I understand, but don't agree, their perspective. An uncomplicated celebration would be nice, but can it be possible while many issues remain unresolved? If you feel no responsibility, direct or indirect, then I understand the protests seem like an unecessary distraction.

However, and despite my ancestors arriving towards the end of the Land Wars, I still think of myself as having benefited from what are now understood as unconscionable acts. This too, however, draws a negative response; should we judge the actions of the then colonial powers by today's standards? I've not resolved this for myself, but don't know that I need to in order to justify a process of reconciliation and restitution? I see the latter as being justified by the Treaty of Waitangi.

Where will it end? When will it end? How will we know? Though I understand the limitations of the deficit model for approaching these questions, I still think it's reasonable to set benchmarks about educational attainment, labour market participation, infant mortality, incidence of diabetes, access to housing etc. By these measures alone, we've not honoured the Treaty.

Someone may accuse me of having Pakeha guilt. I don't accept this. I might be a hopeless Liberal, but I remain inspired by the idea New Zealand might become a leading bicultural society (the merits of this, compared with multi-culturalism, I'll leave for another time). And here's the real risk of deficit thinking; what will I lose in a bicultural society should be replaced by what will I gain? Perhaps a great first start is expanding teaching Te Reo Maori as Grant Robertson, and many others, have proposed.

History is written by the victors

The tide has turned in almost every economy, NZ's perhaps more so because of its dependence on a narrow range of commodity exports and its small domestic economy. The reversal will not wipe away the gains of the last decade, but employment, trade and overall productivity are in decline as has been thoroughly commented on. Does this, however, justify the broad claims made in the Speech from the Throne? That the last decade was merely a wasted opportunity? Clearly not, the rhetoric is overblown, particularly for regally-endorsed speech. Nevertheless, Key's win gives him the right to script such events just like Clark's did in '99, 2002 and '05 (however I'd argue none of Clark's speeches included commentary comparable with Key's, not even the '99 speech).

It's a bit pointless to rate Key's speech. Save for the significant ommission of plans to urgently remove protections from an estimated 100,000 workers, it contains no real surprises. The focus is predictably on first stablising the economy then growing it. Laudable goals, almost apolitical absent the details. What specific plans the speech does contain are really no more detailed than the various pre-election announcements; for this reason alone I think it's a poor effort.

The policy prescription outlined is as othordox as it could be - perhaps too much so for ACT. Reducing personal tax rates, investing in infrastructure development, deregulation (particularly in Industrial Relations and resource management) and various vague trade goals. I note the absence of any mention of migration - what ever happened to John's ambitious plans to bring kiwis home? Silent.

Paul Keating famously observed (circa 1996) that when you change the government, you change the country. By the end of the year, this will at least be true for 100,000 workers. Merry Christmas.

Vale Mike Minogue

Mike Minogue has died at age 85.

As I understand it, he was one of the two National MPs that threatened to cross the floor to support Prebble's anti-nuclear Members Bill Mr Minogue was a regular and vocal critic of Muldoon whose persistent dissent thus precipitating no doubt contributed to the calling of the '84 snap election. I know little about Minogue but I have read All Honourable Men: Inside The Muldoon Cabinet 1975-84 in which Hugh Templeton tells of the near total control exercised by the then PM (this google extract includes discussion of Minogue's role). It would have been tough being a Liberal in that caustic environment.

History rightly records Marilyn Waring's role as the critical vote in Caucus, with Mr Minogue's passing he is being appropriately recognised too.

Update: I've been a little frustrated at being unable to verify whether or not Mike Minogue crossed the floor to support Prebble's anti-nuclear bill in 1983. NZ's online Hansard records don't go back beyond 2000.

I've checked the half dozen books I have on this period in NZ's political history (sadly I don't have Gustafson's various publications) but haven't found anything definitive and have had to resort to Google. Fortunately, Google turned up this source (Masters thesis from Otago University Doctoral student, Andreas Rietzig) which includes the following paragraph confirming that Minogue did in fact cross the floor (thanks also to Poneke for his piece on Minogue which also said he'd crossed the floor).

The following year, Richard Prebble launched his third attempt to make New Zealand nuclear-free. On 12 June 1984, Prebble introduced the Nuclear Free New Zealand Bill. This time, also Prebble’s bill called for the exclusion of nuclear-powered ships from New Zealand. As Prebble explained, the bill ‘prohibits the entry of nuclear powered ships and nuclear weapons into New Zealand and further prohibits the building of nuclear reactors within New Zealand.’ Prebble almost succeeded to introduce this bill because National Party MP Marilyn Waring threatened Prime Minister Muldoon to cross the floor and vote for Prebble’s bill against her own party caucus.

As a result, National Party MPs prevented Waring from speaking in Parliament that day by raising numerous points of order until Waring’s time to speak had expired. On the following day, Prebble’s bill was defeated by 40 to 39 votes just like Beetham’s bill one year earlier. Nevertheless, Waring did vote for the bill together with her colleague Mike Minogue. Prebble’s bill was only defeated because two alienated Labour MPs had voted with the government. Since National had a majority of only one person in Parliament, Waring’s decision seriously called Muldoon’s leadership into question. Consequently, Muldoon announced on 14 June 1984 that he would call a snap election because he could no longer rely on Marilyn Waring’s support and could not govern effectively anymore.
[emphasis added]

Forever late to the party: Bronagh Key

I despise the Herald, the Herald on Sunday particularly. Sunday papers are almost always rubbish in New Zealand and in Australia. And so rather than explore any number of meaningful and interesting lines of analysis on the new PM, the HoS has instead examined Bronagh Key's dress sense. What this says about their editorial capacity or readership is up to you but I'm with NRT, the handmirror and even DPF in calling bullshit.

More self congratulatory clap-trap

The Hive's back, well only to indulge in a bit of frankly, wanky, self-congratulation.

Expect more of this kind of told-you-so stuff from elements of the blogosphere. These authors cling to historical grievances in a way that reminds me of petty teenage rivalries.

What's odd about this piece however, is that it's not about trade, a subject on which the Hive's principal author is clearly expert, but rather on political prognostications - a subject the Hive's principal author ought to know to avoid.

Missed the last Labour PM

By the time I got to Wellington, Labour PMs simply weren't about (and it's not like they were in short supply in the '90s). They'd in fact been gone a few years, some rather begrudgingly so, meaning I had to content myself with seeing them in Opposition only. Fortunately, and despite their defeat, some of senior members of the 4th Labour government remained remarkably effective.

I have a clear recollection of Lange interjecting on a question to the Minister for Police. The Minister was rattled but coped, several of his colleagues however, were clearly disturbed. It wasn't a portfolio-related fear. It was simply the prospect that, were it them taking a question, they knew no possible preparation could fully offset the risk of Lange coming in over the walls. Forgive me the machismo, but I think this is a part of Parliamentary discourse too much undervalued.

It's a dimension of politics that'll challenge Key. He's simply not a great performer in Parliament. He's far from hopeless, but his best performances are very much set pieces. This is fine when you're challenging a government (and can reherse your attack in advance), but the dynamic of being a government is an entirely different proposition. Thinking on your feet, reconciling the days events back to policy statements, knowing when a Minister is at risk and when to simply divert attention - these are skills only really learnt after many years in Parliament. The times ahead are tough and Phil Goff, one of the most experienced members in the House, will combine the necessary scrutiny of Key's government with the need to differentiate himself from elements of Clark's.

I watched Clark leaving Parliament and thought her send-off entirely appropriate. I note others thought it OTT. I simply disagree and I'd've been there if I was able (and can always be expected to spring the water-works). I quite like and respect Craig Ranapia, he's a fantastic writer. It's also good for the blogosphere that a clearly bright and considered commentator exists on the right of the political spectrum - there's not many - but Craig's got this one completely wrong. For all the fawning editorials of Key and the realisation of his boyhood ambitions, Clark just achieved what few NZ PMs have - a stable and successful government for nine years - that's entirely worthy of recognition.

Swam over

QueenBee has announced the demise of the Hive. Like others, I'm sorry it's gone. I enjoyed the insights on trade and related matters, presumably authored by the principal writer.

I'd previously criticised QueenBee, however, for a growing inconsistency evident in many of the posts. While claiming to be bipartisan, QueenBee was too often in the company of hacks like Hooton and Whaleoil to be credible. Moreover, QueenBee seemed deaf to her own admonitions of kiwiblogblog.

QueenBee claims the Hive was established in opposition to the Electoral Finance Act and signs off by saying:

In sum there has, we believe, been a fundamental shift in New Zealand politics. The Hive, we believe, played a roll in achieving this shift.

I wonder then, will QueenBee now reveal her identity or is her bold opposition to the Electoral Finance Act limited to anonymous criticisms?

More taxes than wombats

... so says Ken Henry, federal Treasury Secretary.

In today Australian Financial Review, offline, Henry notes that there's 125 different taxes, more than the paltry number of protected northern hairy-nosed wombats, 115.

Too often NZ commentators elide over the complexities of federalism in preference for trite statements claiming Australian's have higher wages (true at least at the upper-end, but probably not in the middle) and lower taxes (next to impossible to know).

Typically, these commentaries focus only on direct income taxes to make out the advantages of working in Australia compared with New Zealand. This obscures, however, the myriad of taxes that occur outside of your pay-packet (as well as some, such as compulsory superannuation and the income-contingent health levy, that are additional to Pay As You Go). For instance, stamp duties and land taxes are major contributors to states' revenue and a significant impost on individuals in addition to income tax.

Henry observes:

An excessive level of complexity wastes resources. It diverts resources from
more valuable uses; many high-achieving tax agents could be school teachers.

The fact is that the Australian tax system is incomparably more complex than New Zealand's. Consider for instance that most salary and wage earners in New Zealand need not even file a tax return, no such exemption exists in Australia (most people have tax agents to do the work for them). Add to this the inummerable GST exemptions and it's impossible to know just how much tax any one individual pays. Makes you wonder about the $6.2 billion bailout to the car industry.

Disapprovalists

I first remember Rosemary McLeod from my youth. She was a cartoonist and columnist for the Listener. My mother, a nascent femisist, also had a book of her collected writings. She was clearly a significant thinker, commentor and agitator for women's rights. She seemed to be able to address serious matters frankly and with humour.

Later, McLeod became a more angry voice, primarily for the Dominion. In my student politics days, she wrote a very critical piece on comments I'd made about marriages of convenience. Shortland St stars Nick and Rachel entered a marriage of convenience to obtain student allowances and I'd commented that these marriages (they did in fact exist) were "a rational response to an irrational situation". McLeod was incensed. I was selfish, naive, a thief etc etc etc. It was a slightly unhinged response.

Today McLeod gives us her judgment on Helen Clark. There's some direct praise, but it is overshadowed by comments about her marriage, her dress-sense, her academic career and her failure to have kids. It's a good piece of writing however, because it almost obscures McLeod's envy. Clark, unlike McLeod, was in the game, not sitting on the sidelines barking disapproval.

This has been what I've realised about McLeod. She disapproves. Disapproves of sexism, of course, but disapproves also of a woman who's succeeded in politics. Rather than celebrating the achievements of Clark's government, McLeod concentrates her attention on developing a catalogue of her disapprovals. This list includes a disapproval of the newly elected Member for Wellington Central because he's gay and had the audacity to pinch his partner's backside. Grant Robertson's is at the beginning of what will certainly be a successful and influential career. He'll face far sterner criticism that McLeod's. I doubt for a minute he'll be distracted by her latest gripe.

I tell my youngest to be wary of the disapprovalists. The usually insecure, rigid thinkers who need everyone to follow simple stereotypes to make themselves feel good. Fortunately for now, they are kids who are seduced by appeal of conformity, but McLeod proves they can and do grow into adults.

Goff assumes the leadership

I've not had a lot to do with Phil Goff though I've long admired him as a political operator. He was opposition justice spokesman when I was at the Ministry of Justice; he caused us a lot of grief. He was consistent and focused. Our Minister, the sauve and confident Doug Graham, was wary; Goff clearly had both a strategy and the ability to effectively implement it.

Earlier still Goff was the target of my frustration at the prospect of paying what now seem entirely reasonable student fees. That said, as soon as I saw Phil up close, I developed a respect for his thoroughness, his focus, his passion and his damn good humour.

When Goff was moved back to Justice and Corrections a year or so back, I thought it was a good move; a move designed to neuter Power. Combined with King's move to Police, I hoped it would stiffle the inevitable law and order beat-up. Initially it did. In fact, even as Parliament drew to a close, Goff was easily dismissing Power's attempts to paint the government as weak. They're not. Phil Goff has run law and order throughout Labour's three terms in government. As others have frequently pointed out, the rate of offending has not skyrocketed, escapees are not swanning about the local shops and Police numbers have expanded. Still, the ravings of the Sensible Sentencing Trust have seen the revival of the crazy policies like ACTs three strikes and your out. Presumably they'd object if the three convictions were against section 59 of the Crimes Act?

QueenBee will have you believe that Goff's ascendency is a repudiation of Clark's leadership and of the left more generally. But this is based on at least two significant (and convenient) misunderstandings. First, it's a misunderstanding of Labour's policy orientation which is significantly broader than the Queen cares to recall. Secondly, it misunderstands the legacy of discipline Labour has embraced since 1996.

It's far more likely that Key should be wary of English than Goff should be wary of any other aspirant. Whereas Key can claim he delivered National government, he will have to prove he's capable of running one. Goff has no such worries.

High expectations

Key's set himself challenging goals. And, having largely got the result he wanted, it's reasonable to expect he'll deliver on them. His colleagues owe him. Unelectable for almost a decade, Key's remade National. They resemble a coherent team. Moderate. Ruling out Douglas ensures he has some wiggle room. In a few days, they'll stitch up a deal with ACT and United, they'll get warrants and announce priorities. Tax cuts, repealing the Electoral Finance Act and "renewing" various Boards appointments.

Labour will quickly select a new leadership team. With 12 (?) new members, many young, and a brief re-examination of focus, Labour will be a strong opposition. Two new members I've known for a while - Grant Robertson and Chris Hipkins - their wins are bitter-sweet.

I will return to Sydney. I would rather stay and support the party as it rebuilds but family and work will not permit it. I'm no less likely to return to NZ than I was. I find the tendency for people to declare they're staying or leaving based on an election result ridiculous. National conscription, that'd make me reconsider my commitment to a country, but not tax rates.

I'm one of the 380k+ who're in Australia. I left under Labour but not for any of the reasons Farrar and his mates bang on about. I left 'cause I wanted a change for a little while and kinda didn't come back. By Key's reckoning then, so long my circumstances keep me in Australia, his goverment is failing. That's no more credible now than it was when Lockwood released National's immigration policy.

I was impressed by Clark's concession speech. Her's is a remarkable legacy. I take her lead in celebrating the last nine years and respecting the electorate's absolute right to determine government. Key deserves his chance to lead, I have my doubts but he's got a clear mandate.

See you 'round.

Hot and hilly

Wellington remains my home. Although I left six years ago, I still feel immediately comfortable on arrival. The weather's fantastic, for the moment. I catch up with lots of friends, we go to fantastic cafes. New shops and galleries have opened. Posters for gigs are everywhere. Skin Tight is on. I saw it years ago. It was brilliant. I'll not see it this time but I'm keen to check out Fur Patrol. Julia Dean's saucy - I last them in Sydney when they opened for Pacifier... yes, then.

Out delivering leaflets for Grant Robertson, I get lost. I thought I knew Dixon St, but I'm confused and looking around Courtney Place. I recover my sense of geography but can't work out how to get into some of the flats. I push buttons and am eventually let in to deliver personalised letters.

The reaction Grant's getting is fantastic. He's the perfect candidate. Smart, connected and genuine. He's young, a new face. People clearly warm to him. I'm not surprised. I've known him for coming on 17 years. I'm happy to be helping him.

Tomorrow Rimutaka. Chris Hipkins is hosting Helen Clark.

Wellington and elections. Two of my favourite things.