tag:typepad.com,2003:weblog-362440 2012-01-27T16:58:37+13:00 by Bryce Edwards TypePad tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d83451d75d69e20168e628149b970c 2012-01-27T16:58:37+13:00 2012-01-27T16:59:56+13:00

Now that the Government has approved the Shanghai Pengxin bid for the Crafar farms it will be hoping this sensitive issue drops off the radar. But with a potential legal review by Michael Fay, and both David Shearer and Winston Peters sensing political capital to be made, it’s likely to drag on. Pattrick Smellie (Transparency set to increase for OIO) argues that the Crafar farm and the Dotcom residency issues are linked because ‘Migrants and foreign investors are perennial hot button issues both here and everywhere’. He also gives some background about why the Overseas Investment Office has taken so long to assess the bid, suggesting that the agency is not configured properly for the task. The Government will have to stick to its line that the Pengxin bid met all legal criteria and that sentiment about selling land to foreign owners should not be taken into account – see: Audrey Young’s No part for public opinion in China farm sale – Key. John Hartevelt says that John Key has brought the controversy on himself with his ‘tenants in own land’ rhetoric, and now fails to be able to explain why his effective support for the sale to Pengxin is not hypocritical – see: Sun always shines in the land of Key. This is particularly ironic as taxpayers (in the form of Landcorp) will indeed be the tenants, and the new owners are backed by cheap credit from the Chinese Government, who appear to have no qualms about actively supporting acquisition of assets. Winston Peters, for whom the sale is bread and butter politics, has launched into John Key calling him ‘weak kneed’ - see John Hartevelt’s Accusations of 'weak-kneed leadership' on Crafar. National has been at pains to point out that Labour approved hundreds of thousands of hectares of land sales to foreign buyers during their government. To avoid falling into the same rhetorical trap as John Key in future, David Shearer will have to come up with some hard policy changes. Scott Yorke starts this discussion in his blog post, Buying Our Land. Shearer’s backing of Michael Fay’s bid is undermined by the widespread cynicism from across the political spectrum about Fay’s use of patriotic appeal to secure the farms at a cut price – see: Cameron Slater’s Draped in the flag of sanctimony and No Right Turn’s The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. There is a fair bit of amazement that the Government has shifted so quickly from it’s optimistic fiscal forecast prior to the election to its much more downbeat projection. And, yes, it’s only been eight weeks since John Key was on the campaign trail suggesting that National might even be able to beat it’s own promise of a return to surplus by a full year – see: Audrey Young’s PM lowers odds on reaching surplus. Key says that sticking to the target for surplus by 2014-15 was important for New Zealand's credibility with international markets but Jean-Pierre de Raad of the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, says the opposite: ‘2015 is no longer credible without drastic action’ and that ‘A new, credible target to return to surplus would need to be set to appease financial markets’. de Raad’s No easy option to balance Government's books is a fiscal must-read. He also reviews the Government’s options for dealing with the deficit, and suggests that attempts to cut spending will be very tough, and that there will now be even further pressure for public sector and welfare reform. So why has the Government’s forecast changed so quickly and ‘what’s happened to the sunny optimism of our PM?’. Labour’s Grant Robertson suggests that we’ve all been taken for a ride: ‘the PM is not campaigning any more, he is in office’ – see: The Sad State of Key’s Nation. Danyl Mclauchlan is also fairly cynical in his blog post, Nobody could have predicted . . . Tim Watkin’s Pay rises in the Garden (city) of good & evil argues against the demand that Christchurch politicians bury their differences in the name of ‘unity’, suggesting it’s better to debate out the important differences rather than sweep them under the carpet. He’s scathing about Tony Maryatt’s huge pay rise, cleverly likening it to ‘the captain of that cruise ship in Italy getting off before the last passenger’. The idea that Maryatt might now forego his pay increase only if the elected politicians bury their differences is rightfully criticised: ‘Who the jiggetty does Maryatt think he is? He's a servant of the council, not its nanny or conscience’. Further background on the complaints against Maryatt can be found in TVNZ’s Chch Council meet as pay row escalates. Related to this, Joshua Drummond (That fantastic, superior breed) has a satirical look at how under-appreciated the modern Council CEO is, given their amazing abilities. Also, Cameron Slater raises an excellent solution to Christchurch’s political row in his blog post, The case for recall. Slater’s idea is actually a very important one in democratic political theory, and his proposal should be considered in this year’s review of the electoral system. The rebuild of the Labour Party is still being discussed widely. Today Claire Trevett (Labour MPs use caucus retreat to refine attack plan) reports that Labour has decided its ministerial debating targets: ‘Anne Tolley and Jonathan Coleman can expect to come under some pressure this time round’. On the more trivial but interesting point, she also reports that David Cunliffe’s new beard is here to stay. But significantly, in his column, Labour yet to have its Kodak moment, Chris Trotter discusses the Labour Party’s political branding and raises very good questions about what the party now stands for in the public’s eyes. Finally, there are two other important political items today. The Dominion Post’s editorial, Is the Fonterra worm about to turn? provides further background and context to the Government’s proposal for dairy industry regulation. The Dom Post suggests that it should be no surprise that a National Government wants to ‘revisit a business that prefers its virtual monopoly’ that was created by the last Labour Government. And Matthew Backhouse’s NZ slips out of top 10 for freedom in the media is a must-read. The teapot tapes and other potentially authoritarian issues have shown the media’s vulnerability in this country. New Zealand’s Media Freedom Committee chairman Tim Murphy is reported as saying that ‘erosions to media freedoms were creeping and incremental, and the public did not generally realise until there was "a reminder like this"’. [Read more below]

liberation http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2012/01/nz-politics-daily-27-january.html tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d83451d75d69e20168e6192835970c 2012-01-26T17:05:32+13:00 2012-01-26T17:05:32+13:00

Being ‘tenants in our own land’ was a good campaigning line for John Key last year, but he may get sick of being quoted on it very soon. It seems that appeals to xenophobia and patriotism are now increasingly used as an electoral tool by all shades of politicians. David Shearer is just the latest to play that card in the chase for popularity. Certainly Duncan Garner praises David Shearer for taking the Government to task over a ‘sensitive and politically difficult’ issue (see: Crafar farms must stay in NZ hands – Shearer), but being seen to support Michael Fay buying up strategic assets may not be the fresh look for Labour that Shearer is after. With the final decision on the Shanghai Pengxin bid for the Crafar farms looking imminent, there is plenty of debate on the political implications. John Hartevelt has a good summary of the possible outcomes – see: Crunch time in Crafar farms saga. In an earlier article Hartevelt says the Government has no real choice but to accept the Chinese offer if it meets the OIO criteria, as it has made a big deal of beefing up the regulations and the whole Crafar saga has dragged on far too long – see: What to do with the Crafar Farms?. It’s a no brainer according to David Farrar and Fran O’Sullivan. Farrar makes the point that if the Chinese bid was rejected and Michael Fay was successful, he could turn around in a few months and sell the farms one by one overseas pocketing the $40 million they would have saved on their lower bid – see: The Fay strategy. As Fran O’Sullivan pointed out yesterday, Michael Fay has long used patriotic sentiment to enhance his business dealings with government: ‘It's all part of the carefully orchestrated "patriotic" campaign that Fay is spearheading to wrest the ownership of the Crafar farms his way. But it will be interesting to see whether Fay - who spent a good deal of time out of New Zealand as a tax exile in Switzerland - still carries the sway he used to enjoy with previous Governments.’ John Pagani has an alternative solution – the publicly owned Landcorp is already managing the farms and could purchase the assets itself – see: Keep the Crafar farms in NZ hands. Pagani makes the point that the reason that New Zealand has to sell land is part of a vicious circle of foreign investment that sees far more profits flow offshore than flow back. The Pagani proposal would actually be an excellent fit for Labour, tapping public concern on foreign ownership of land and it’s policy of public ownership of strategic assets. According to John Hartevelt, he Chinese bid appears to be dependent on Landcorp managing the farms, and the state owned company has the power to at least create an opportunity to bid themselves by scuppering the Chinese proposal. Today has seen the latest installment of the Teapot Tapes saga – with the online release of a rogue audio version of the recording. You can listen to the recording here. Fairfax has confirmed the authenticity of the recording, and suggests that its release has been planned ‘to coincide with Key's first major speech of the year in Auckland this morning’. Key’s actual speech has confirmed that the public already suspected: that his government is going to struggle to return its finances to surplus by 2014-15 – see: Govt plans for return to surplus on a knife edge. Related to this, Brian Fallow reports on a Treasury analysis showing that there doesn’t seem to be any real gain to be made by taxpayers with National’s partial privatisation plans. He says ‘It’s a lot of trouble just to ensure some New Zealanders own more of these enterprises, while the rest own less’ – see: SOE sale solution in search of a problem. In other news, the remnants of the Auckland Occupy protest have been evicted from Aotea Square this morning – see: Twenty arrests as Occupy tents removed. TV3 has footage of the chaotic scenes. Finally, David Farrar has blogged the third installment of his series analysing split voting at the 2011 election – see: National candidates picking up Green voters. You can find the first two posts here and here. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

liberation http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2012/01/nz-politics-daily-26-january.html tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d83451d75d69e201676108973f970b 2012-01-25T17:36:19+13:00 2012-01-25T17:39:14+13:00

With Labour and Federated Farmers siding with Fonterra against a National government and the Greens, the issue of regulation of the dairy industry clearly cuts across traditional political lines. The Government is claiming that its proposed regulation is important for New Zealand consumers (see: RNZ: PM says changes to Fonterra legislation necessary), but John Key himself admits that there’s no guarantee that it will have any effect, for example, on the price of milk in New Zealand – see: Key rejects farmers' milk concerns. The Government’s dairy industry proposals – as well as Fonterra’s reactions – are summarized in Sally Rae’s article Fonterra frothing at milk shake-up. A major objection seems to be that the regulations will directly advantage mostly foreign-owned companies. Both the lower price and additional milk Fonterra will be forced to provide these companies will end up offshore rather than in the fridges of New Zealand consumers. The fundamental issue is that Fonterra is a legal monopoly, dominating an economy where the free market is supposed to rule. There are very good reasons for keeping New Zealand’s dairy industry unified, as any comparison with the structure and performance of the other agricultural sectors shows. Monopolies however, need to be regulated and so Fonterra has to accept regulation as part of the deal. If the Government was going to use regulation to reduce the price of milk in New Zealand, then it could have taken a much more direct approach, which Fonterra says they could ‘live with’. To ensure price reduction would also require some control over the cosy supermarket duopoly, which arguably has more influence over the retail price of milk than Fonterra. That is not going to happen under this government (and certainly didn’t happen under Labour). Instead, National seems determined to assist privately owned dairy companies at the expense of the locally owned cooperative. Control of the dairy industry is also the issue as the fate of the Crafar farms is about to be decided. Free market principles seem to have been put on the back burner by Michael Fay’s consortium as it takes legal action to use the overseas investment office to knock out a higher Chinese bid – see: Richard Meadows’ Crafar suitors launch legal action. David Shearer is questioning the value of any Chinese investment in the farms, tapping into public unease about us becoming ‘tenants in our own country’ – see: Shearer: No value to New Zealand in Crafar bid. Given Michael Fay’s record with New Zealand’s strategic assets, particularly Kiwi Rail, it would be interesting to see if the local bid would pass the same character and national interest tests that Shangai Pengxin is expected to meet. Fran O’Sullivan also has an intelligent analysis of the issues in Fay's challenge improper and absurd. Mr Dotcom is proving a bit of an embarrassment to the Government in more ways than one. John Banks’ relationship with him has already been under the spotlight, and now former Immigration Minister Jonathon Coleman is being challenged by Winston Peters and David Shearer for letting the Megaupload boss into New Zealand, despite knowing about his previous convictions - see Danya Levy’s Questions over Kim Dotcom's $10m investment and Derek Cheng’s Peters calls for release of Dotcom residency info. As both the Waikato Times and Taranaki Daily News editorials point out, the influence of cold hard cash on Mr Dotcom’s ability to gain residency raises questions that need to be answered about our immigration processes. With the case attracting worldwide attention and looking to drag out for a very long time (see: RNZ: Dotcom case could take years, says lawyer) our legal process will be under much scrutiny. Some interesting articles that look at the wider implications are Gordon Campbell’s On Kim Dotcom’s bail application, Tom Pullar-Strecker’s Megaupload case sends Government a message and Martyn Bradbury’s Food Bill + Megauploads + oil drilling = we are America's b*tch. Also, Theresa Clifford argues that the actions of the US and New Zealand authorities should be strongly opposed and that we should be wary of the demonization of sites such as Megaupload – see: A mega attack on internet freedom. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

liberation http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2012/01/nz-politics-daily-25-january.html tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d83451d75d69e201630006574a970d 2012-01-24T16:25:02+13:00 2012-01-24T16:38:21+13:00

As well as altering the geological faultlines, the Christchurch earthquakes appear to have shaken up the local political contours. As divisions within the Christchurch City Council become increasingly heated and bitter, the Political Scientist blog has an interesting analysis of the changing political factions – see: Communication Breakdown?. This in-depth and informed post argues that the ideological friction goes well beyond the normal left-right divide, particularly as one of the most outspoken councillors, Tim Carter, is part of a long-standing political dynasty in Canterbury (which includes former regional and local councillors and current agriculture minister David Carter). The family has extensive land and property development interests in the area. Christchurch mayor Bob Parker appears to have got offside with both the left and the right on the council. In an interesting twist, councillor Sue Wells, a long-time supporter of Parker and CEO Tony Marryatt, is now raising the possibility of commissioners replacing the entire council – see: RNZ’s Council being torn apart says Christchurch mayor. Local Government minister Nick Smith appears to be ruling that out at this stage, but whether it’s a bluff or a real possibility the ructions have David Farrar calling for resignations – see: Some or all must go. This dysfunctional nature in Canterbury extends, it seems, to the Earthquake Commission (EQC), and today’s Press editorial responds directly to criticism by the EQC – see: EQC’s public image. While acknowledging the truly massive task at house, the Press is confident their reporting of EQC and the Council represents genuine and widespread concern amongst affected residents. The annual Ratana spectacle is in full swing today, with particular interest as David Shearer makes his first visit as Labour leader. While most journalists do actually question how much political influence the Ratana church has today, everyone turns up regardless. Blogger and Maori politics specialist, Morgan Godfery is clearly skeptical, saying that ‘the year NZ First swept the Maori seats, marked the end of the Ratana Church holding the casting vote in the Maori electorates’ – see: Godfery’s Ratana fawning begins. Both Ratana communications manager Wayne Johnston and even Shearer himself acknowledge this reality – see: Kate Chapman and Danya Levy’s Shearer to woo Ratana. So why do the Ratana celebrations get taken so seriously by the media and politicians? In large part it’s more about the need for journalists to fill political columns and politicians needs to be seen on TV, than real political significance. As the first major political event (with pictures) each year, and coming after a lengthy summer news drought, it merely helps fill a vacuum and kick the political year off. It does raise the question of how much influence ethnic and religious groups have over voters in modern politics. Ratana, along with Pacifica church groups, have traditionally been seen to be able to ‘deliver’ votes to political parties, but there is little evidence that this is still actually the case. Criticism of NZ on Air continues, with Bryan Gould linking the child poverty documentary controversy with the criminal complaint over the tea tapes by the Prime Minister, warning of political censorship - see: Insidious attacks on press freedom. The controversy looks set to roll on as John Drinnan reports that the National Party office holder at the centre of it all – Stephen McElrea – is looking to be appointed Chair or Deputy Chair of the agency – see: National man eyes NZ On Air chair. However, there also appears to be a strong chance that McElrea will actually be removed entirely from the quango as a result of this minor scandal. With the death of the Stratos TV channel and the imminent demise of TVNZ7, Peter Thompson, a senior lecturer in media studies, has an innovative proposal to fund a true public service channel and increase the funding available for local production – see: Viewer choice sacrificed to commercialism. Also in the area of media and politics, Claire Trevett details a number of election year voices that were quashed by the Electoral Commission in her article Banks blocked from using Key's name. The various non-partisan groups prevented – or at least inconvenienced – from promoting their political opinions during the election campaign included The New Zealand Education Institute, the Save TVNZ 7 group, the Sensible Sentencing Trust, and the environmental group The Renewables. It’s as if the Electoral Finance Act was never abolished. Other items of interest today include James Murray’s look at the implications of the Trans-Pacific partnership, particularly as it relates to copyright and patents and the effect it may have on access to New Zealand culture and cheaper medicines - The TPP and what it could mean for you. This is very relevant in light of the massive police mobilisation on the behalf of American copyright holders, which Russell Brown addresses in The Mega Conspiracy. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

liberation http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2012/01/nz-politics-daily-24-january.html tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d83451d75d69e20168e5fc5335970c 2012-01-24T16:17:00+13:00 2012-01-24T16:20:44+13:00

The New Zealand Occupy Movement is virtually over, and its dying moments are not pretty. In Auckland today, the remnants of what was initially a large, robust political movement are being forcibly dissembled by the Police under instruction from the City Council. Rather than being a significant blow, its probably almost a relief for the original 2000 protestors. In Auckland, as elsewhere in the country, nearly every one of the original occupiers has departed the movement with feelings of frustration, boredom, or bitterness. The few that remain are quite different in their political orientation. In Auckland these stalwarts only illustrated their political impotence yesterday when they organised a mass march down Queen St, to have barely 60 people turn up – see: Marika Hill and Jessica Tasman-Jones’ March to mark 99 days of Occupy a fizzer. Meanwhile, in Wellington today the remnants of the Wellington Occupy camp are marking their 100th day, looking ‘depressed and downtrodden compared with the colourful enthusiasm of its early days’ – see: Wellington Occupiers mark 100 day. Why has the New Zealand Occupy Movement fizzled out? Over the summer break there were two very good articles that attempted to answer that – see: Charles Anderson’s Lessons learnt from leaderless protest and Chris Trotter’s Less than beloved. It seems that the movement was badly hamstrung by its aversion to both political theory and organisation – a common affliction amongst the New Zealand left. This prevented the Occupy movement from being able to clearly articulate what it stood for, what it wanted to achieve, and building a larger movement that incorporated ordinary people. Instead, the movement tended to be politically vague, almost incoherent, and not very inviting. So the protests in the four main centres ended up involving mostly marginal political activists who couldn't project any sort of positive vision for the public to grasp or even understand. Inevitably the protesters descended into petty quarrels and infighting, even though the protests always showed glimmers of much bigger issues that should have concerned the wider public. Labour Party leader David Shearer is gaining a reputation for being cautious, considered, and methodical. This approach is mercilessly parodied by the ever-perceptive Steve Braunias in his Secret Diary of David Shearer. The public will see much more of the Labour Party and it’s new leader from today but according to Audrey Young, we shouldn’t expect David Shearer to come out fighting: ‘Shearer is in no rush. He will be bold when he is good and ready to be bold.’ Young goes on to pinpoint the dilemma Labour is facing: ‘Does the party continue to promote policy on the basis of principle that may lose it votes? Or does it take a more pragmatic approach? – see: Slow and careful journey to the new-look Labour. Danyl Mclauchlan fears they will choose the latter, pointing out in his blogpost The sound of distant thunder at a picnic that ‘Shearer’s advisors are mostly Goff’s former advisors’ whose insistence on caution and tail-ending populist opinion meant that ‘for most of the last term National dominated the political agenda; there was no meaningful point of difference between the parties, not even Labour supporters knew what-the-hell Goff stood for, and he became one of the most unpopular opposition leaders in modern New Zealand politics’. A further analysis of Labour’s problems can be found in Grant Duncan’s Heads, National wins – tails, Labour loses and Labour Party activist Patrick Leyland has been running a series of reports from Labour’s Summer School on his blog, with news that there is to be a major review of Labour’s extra-parliamentary organisation but that it will be, in his opinion, much more limited than what is needed – see: The Third Way and Labour’s review. The affordability of housing in this country is once again under scrutiny with the release of the eighth annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey. Anne Gibson reports that the study shows that New Zealand has no affordable markets (defined as less than three times the average annual income). Auckland is the worst with the average house valued at 6.4 times the city’s annual average income – see: NZ houses rated 'highly unaffordable'. Gibson also reports on how unaffordable housing is impacting on Christchurch in Quake-zone double whammy. The arrest of the Megaupload boss, Kim Dotcom, is raising all sorts of political questions, mainly about why the German web entrepreneur was ever given residency here, and also why the NZ Police are so comprehensively undertaking the FBI’s work – see: Kirsty Johnston’s Dotcom's NZ residency draws flak, Adam Hollingworth’s Political questions raised over Dotcom’s residency, and Steven Cowan’s It’s Dr Evil! Finally, other interesting political items today come from Kate Chapman (Party leaders battle for crucial Ratana blessing), Robert Winter (POAL: A Question for Mayor Brown), and especially Claire Trevett (Love hearts fall foul of election watchdog). [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

liberation http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2012/01/nz-politics-daily-23-january.html tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d83451d75d69e2016760d7e01a970b 2012-01-21T00:26:53+13:00 2012-01-21T00:27:34+13:00

‘How big is my politics’ asks The Political Scientist blog in an insightful post focusing on David Shearer’s comments about the Christchurch recovery and rebuild. Shearer’s approach to issues to date appears to be based on ‘bi-partisan’ solutions. De-politicisation is generally seen as good if it reduces petty points scoring, but this blog says Shearer takes it too far, mistakenly believing ‘that all that is needed to solve most controversial and significant issues is a good sit down, chin-wag and get together - see: Shearer on ‘How big is my politics?’. The debate over Labour’s Red Alert blog continues, and today Scott Yorke has a very funny post that pokes fun at Clare Curran and Trevor Mallards’ obsession with David Farrar – see: Red Alert: The Best Is Yet To David Farrar. Meanwhile, David Farrar refutes claims by Clare Curran that he has attacked and undermined Red Alert, pointing out that Labour activists and supporters have been the most vocal critics recently – see Farrar’s post: Red Alert. Claire Trevett in the Herald looks at large donations to political parties for the election campaign – particularly union donations to the Labour Party, including $18,500 from the Maritime Union which represents workers at the Ports of Auckland. While Labour received over $120,000 from unions, National received over $490,000, mostly from corporates. Full details of all political donations won’t be available until May - see: Wharf-row union among big donors to Labour. The Maritime Union looks set to play one of its trump cards in the Ports of Auckland dispute, with TVNZ reporting a meeting with the International Transport Workers Federation to organise international support if the Ports of Auckland follow through with their contracting-out proposal – see: International concern grows over Ports of Auckland dispute. While employment law prevents other workers taking action within New Zealand to support the union, most of the 400,000 ITF members in more than 200 major ports around the world don’t have the same restrictions. Saving a few dollars per container as it’s loaded in Auckland might not seem like such a bargain if it remains stuck on a ship in some foreign port. Asked by Mike Hosking if the ITF can actually have any influence, ITF President Paddy Crumlin’s response was ‘we’ll test our arm, put it that way’ – listen here. Brian Edwards wholeheartedly supports a ‘nanny ban’ on smoking in public spaces in Auckland, and Amelia Wade reports that he is not alone. An Otago University study has directly linked smoking and binge drinking, showing that smokers are almost three times more likely be hazardous drinkers. Associate Professor Nick Wilson also accuses the Government of merely tinkering with alcohol laws saying that taxpayers are landed with the costs while alcohol and tobacco industries take the profits – see: Dave Williams’ Hit booze in smoking battle: experts and Govt 'pathetically weak' on booze: expert. The Government may also face criticism that it is pandering to SkyCity casino as it negotiates concessions in return for the company building a $350 million convention centre in Auckland. John Hartevelt reports that SkyCity has asked for a thousand extra pokie machines and relaxation of rules around promotion of gambling, which has the Problem Gambling Foundation concerned – see: Minister, casino play cards close to chest on pokies and convention centre. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

liberation http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2012/01/nz-politics-daily-20-january.html tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d83451d75d69e20162ffcf9aca970d 2012-01-19T15:09:46+13:00 2012-01-19T15:13:06+13:00

There is a fascinating spat going on in Christchurch between the Earthquake Commission and The Press. The EQC briefed its staff in an effort to try to control comments to the media and warn them about The Press’ coverage, and reporter Ben Heather in particular. You can read the Press’ version of it in EQC bosses point finger at Press and download the original internal EQC presentation PDF here. As some commenters on the Press website have noted, the reporters will probably see the attack as a backhanded compliment rather than something to worry about. Interestingly, the EQC was far more favourable about other media that were more sympathetic in their coverage, particularly TVNZ’s Close Up. The controversy over NZ On Air political interference is timely, given plans to overhaul the regulation of media to try and cope with the massive growth of the internet as a news source. Andrew Geddis has a comprehensive post in which he speculates that the reason NZOA might have reacted the way it did was self-interested concern that its own budget might be cut by a vengeful National Government, unimpressed by its funding of an 'unhelpful' documentary prior to the election. In a lengthy post, Geddis points out the difficulty of deciding which publicly funded programmes are politically sensitive and shouldn’t be screened during an election campaign – see: Because politics is the LAST thing you need to see at election time!. Similarly TV3’s James Murray puts forward his view in NZ On Air - don't avoid the issue. Today’s Dominion Post editorial argues that controversial political content should be made and screened during election campaigns. The editorial makes an important point about the overhaul of media regulation - specifically that any system that relies on government oversight and funding is inherently susceptible to political interference – see: Slings and arrows of a single regulator. The Herald editorial asks whether the documentary should have been funded and screened at all if it was politically partisan – see: NZ On Air shoots itself in the foot. Such criteria would probably ensure that most of the great documentaries of the past 20 years could never have been publicly funded. Rightwing libertarian blogger Not PC has a simple solution for those not wanting political interference: ‘take their funding out of the political trough’. He’s obviously not a fan of public broadcasting – see: He who has the gold makes the rules. Simon Collins reports that the Maritime Union and the CTU are launching a public campaign to build support across Auckland for the port workers – see: Unions call on public to rally against port plans. This seems to contradict the excuses being made for Labour not taking sides in the dispute. Labour has been making muted noises, the latest of which sees Phil Twyford focus almost exclusively on potential privatisation rather than the industrial dispute. Also, surprisingly Labour is publicly supporting rationalisation of the number of ports. The party must be hoping this gets resolved soon as it is hard to see them maintaining the current stance as both sides ramp up their campaigns to win public support. Greg Presland, who is the Auckland Regional Chairperson of the Labour Party and blogs at Waitakere News, says that Labour should be ‘braver’, and that it’s time for them to condemn what is an attempt to deunionise the site – see: Which side are you on? But the must-read item on the Labour Party today comes from Gordon Campbell who says it’s Time for Shearer to take the lead. Campbell also discusses this in his interview today on Radio NZ – listen here. Other items of note today include David Farrar’s breakdown of the changes to Parliamentary funding as a result of the election. Political parties have come to rely on this taxpayer funding and, being exempt from the Official Information Act, it is effectively removed from public scrutiny, unlike almost all other public expenditure. Also, Amelia Wade and Wayne Thompson report that Auckland Health chiefs are seeking a ban on smoking in all public outdoor areas in the city – see: Ban smoking across Auckland: health chiefs. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

liberation http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2012/01/there-is-a-fascinating-spat-going-on-in-christchurch-between-the-earthquake-commission-and-the-press-the-eqc-briefed-its-sta.html tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d83451d75d69e2016760b73383970b 2012-01-18T16:58:24+13:00 2012-01-18T17:07:25+13:00

When TV3 chose to broadcast a documentary about poverty just four days before last year’s general election, it must have known it was being controversial. Such heavily political documentaries are rare in New Zealand, and it’s not surprising to find that there’s been a backlash from those who feel the programme may have influenced voting behaviour. The question of whether this is a good or bad thing is now being debated thanks to Tom Frewen’s uncovering of the behind the scenes story – see his item: NZ on Air Spooked by Political Interference. Frewen reveals that the state broadcasting funding agency NZ On Air was very displeased with TV3’s timing and it’s now investigating how it might prevent the political programmes it funds from being screened during elections. The political response to this has been very strong, and is best covered in Claire Trevett’s item NZ on Air to stop docos in election lead-up. The agency’s moves are labeled as ‘heavy-handed’, ‘worrying’, and ‘censorship’. Attention is also being focused on the fact that the state agency includes political appointees, such as John Key’s electorate secretary, Stephen McElrea. Hence NZ On Air, which worried about its reputation for political impartiality being tarnished by its funding for the Inside Child Poverty programme by Bryan Bruce, is now ironically being accused of being National Party cronies. The debate about preventing the media from broadcasting political items during an election campaign is an important one. In many ways it’s a re-run of the same issues about freedom of speech, democracy discourse, and state regulation of politics that we saw during the fight over the Electoral Finance Act in 2007. Only this time around, the (generally leftwing) proponents of state intervention and regulation of political discourse appear to have swapped sides and are now arguing for a more lassez faire approach. Clare Curran, for example, sums up a sensible position on the issue in her statement that ‘Surely it's a good thing that during an election campaign for there to be robust political discussion about issues’ – see: RNZ’s Film maker angered at NZOA pre-election move. So rather than having less political programmes during the election, perhaps we actually need a lot more. This is a point well made in Tim Watkin’s very good blog post, NZ on Air gets it back-to-front on political docos. In general, Curran and other critics of NZ On Air’s intentions – such as Steven Price, The Standard, and Martyn Bradbury, are making very good and principled critiques of the proposals from NZ On Air. But you have to wonder if those same principled arguments would be made if the tables were turned, and TV3 had broadcast a documentary about, say, ‘welfare dependency’ a few days before the election. There can be little doubt that the Bryan Bruce poverty documentary – which should be seen as a welcome addition to electoral debate – was heavily political. This is a point well made in Karl du Fresne’s most recent blog post on the matter. Also worth reading are David Farrar’s defence of NZ On Air and John Pagani’s call for the ‘political cronies’ in the agency to be sacked. For a humourous – but insightful – take on the topic, see Denis Welch’s Loose talk. David Shearer has finally broken his silence over the Ports of Auckland industrial dispute, only to say that the Labour Party intends to remain silent. Essentially Shearer has chosen to re-adopt Labour’s infamous 1951 political position of being ‘neither for nor against the watersiders’. Similarly, one of Labour’s industrial spokespeople, Darien Fenton, continues to insist that her party is not taking a side in the class struggle on the wharves, but nonetheless elaborates on her concerns in a very carefully worded Red Alert blog post Labour and the POA. No Right Turn is less than impressed with Labour’s neutrality – see: Useless. Adam Bennett usefully reports on Shearer’s stance, along with that of other political parties in Big parties keep distance in port dispute. Other important items on the dispute are by Jenny Keown (Auckland wharfies find friends on city's boards) and Brian Rudman (The big issue behind port dispute). Finally, other good items today include Fran O’Sullivan’s Shearer needs a slicker response on oil, Simon Collins’ Rich or poor? Poverty trap set at birth, study reveals in which it is shown New Zealand has very low social mobility, Ben Heather’s Red-zoners 'bullied' in Govt buyout, and Vernon Small’s Labour cuts staff numbers – which explains that Labour’s parliamentary state funding has been reduced ‘from $3.5m before the election to about $2.8m now’ leading to a downsizing in the number of spindoctors employed, and details are provided about other staff changes. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

liberation http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2012/01/nz-politics-daily-18-january.html tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d83451d75d69e2016760a7b730970b 2012-01-17T15:28:02+13:00 2012-01-18T16:52:11+13:00

David Shearer has officially resurfaced from his holiday break today only to face a blistering critique from leftwing commentator Chris Trotter in the form of An Open Letter to David Shearer. Trotter excoriates the new Labour leader for his attempt to stay neutral in the Ports of Auckland industrial dispute, suggesting that Shearer and his party are just as ‘guilty’ as the employers in the bitter class struggle on the waterfront front. But more than this, Trotter questions whether the Labour Party has simply become ‘an alternative set of political managers’ to National, without any real principles, but rather positions ‘dictated by opinion polls and focus-groups’. Trotter is not alone – leftwing commentator, Denis Welch, has launched another strong attack, accusing the party of being cowardly in Lying low. Not all politicians are so reluctant to take sides in the dispute however, and Jenny Keown has a very interesting report on the twenty-eight Auckland Council local board members who are throwing their support behind the striking workers – see: Auckland board members weigh in on port dispute Meanwhile, the port workers have announced further industrial action, the CTU is escalating its involvement, and the Maritime Union’s ties to the International Transport Workers Federation are now being referred to, which raises the prospect of other ports around the world refusing to unload cargo from the Ports of Auckland – see: Port says strike strengthens resolve. Although David Shearer has been assumed to be on holiday until now, Audrey Young’s report, Time on the board has Shearer raring to go reveals that the leader returned to work at Parliament last week and is organising quietly to re-orientate and rebuild the party. John Hartevelt also reports on the ‘in-depth thinking’ that has been going on in Labour over the break and gives his opinion on the future of Red Alert, pondering the peculiar ‘staccato style’ that Clare Curran and Trevor Mallard employ in their posts – see: A new year's resolution for Labour? Colin James’ ODT column today is superb – see: Why inequalities have come back into politics. It outlines how issues of unequal wealth and income are becoming politicised on a significant scale, and that this is reflected in not only the global Occupy movement, but also amongst the Establishment and the political right. He forecasts that the politics of inequality ‘will be this year's most serious political show’. Further signs that issues around mining and drilling will play an important part in domestic politics can be seen in a number of items today. Most interestingly, Phil O’Reilly (of BusinessNZ) makes a good case for an open debate on the issues in his Herald opinion piece, Let’s talk about using our resources. Clearly the energy and extractive industry is preparing itself for the political struggle, as can be seen in TVNZ’s report, Oil industry to fight harder with new CEO, new budget. More details of the reality of oil prospects on the East Coast are to be found in Matthew Backhouse’s East Coast not 'the Texas of the south' - NZ oil expert. And the Labour Party signals its opposition to such developments in TV3’s NZ future not as 'Texas of the South' – Labour. The politics of the earthquake rebuild continue to be battled out in Christchurch, especially with the Eastside of Christchurch continuing to be neglected. Related to this, there is a protest planned outside the City Council office for 1 February – which is explained in Steven Cowan’s blog post, Somewhere over the rainbow. A Press editorial picks up on the problems too, but suggests a more moderate solution – see: Reach out to the East. Finally, Matthew Grocott of the Manawatu Standard provides a critical update on what’s happening on university campuses this year following on from voluntary student membership legislation (Students the losers in new legislation) and Radio NZ covers the operations of iPredict (listen here). [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

liberation http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2012/01/david-shearer-has-officially-resurfaced-from-his-holiday-break-today-only-to-face-a-blistering-critique-from-leftwing-com.html tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d83451d75d69e20168e59a97bf970c 2012-01-16T17:23:16+13:00 2012-01-16T17:29:09+13:00

Debates about the environment and mining are likely to play a prominent role in New Zealand politics in 2012. Despite National’s political mismanagement of - and eventual back down over - its proposal to allow significant new mining on conservation land in 2010, this year the Government is likely to aggressively pursue the growth of a larger extractive industry. This is reflected in three important recent items: Neil Reid’s NZ 'likely Texas of the south', Adam Bennett’s Government plans to make mineral exploration easier, and the Sunday Star Times’ editorial NZ’s too poor to stop the search for oil (which is not currently available online). You can also listen to Mike Hosking discuss the ‘billions of barrels’ of oil off the East Coast with GNS Science's Chris Uruski here. The reported potential for those ‘billions of barrels’ will no doubt reignite public debate about the extractive industry. On the one hand there is its potential for creating wealth, employment, and economic growth. But opponents are quick to identify environmental concerns, and also question where the wealth from increased drilling and mining is likely to end up. In line with this, TVNZ has a report questioning whether the state is currently receiving enough money from those mining on Department of Conservation land – see: DOC income for conservation land under scrutiny. Apparently, the 78 mining companies using conservation land are together paying DOC less than a million dollars a year for the privilege. The Ports of Auckland dispute continues to dominate New Zealand politics. The Herald has attempted to provide a balanced overview and analysis in its Sunday editorial, Cool heads needed at the port. Also in the Herald, Matt McCarten demands that Ports CEO Tony Gibson be sacked, and suggests that Len Brown is being naive or disingenuous in his role in the dispute – see: It's time to step up, Mr Mayor. For a more rightwing analysis of the dispute, see two other items: Brian Gaynor’s Port's viability hinges on dispute outcome and John Roughan’s Port makes its own case for sale. The Green’s new leftwing MP, Denise Roche, has broken her party’s silence on the issue in her Frogblog post, Ports of Auckland’s agenda: Casualisation, union-busting and privatization. Rather than a strong endorsement of the port workers however, her post concentrates on Green concerns about the environmental angle, privatisation and local democracy. Labour partisans have been defending their party’s neglect of the issue. Rob Carr argues that ‘given the level of media attention already given to these strikes public support from Labour is not needed… Labour should save its press releases for when strikes are getting ignored’. John Pagani also offers up a defence of Labour’s silence (Ports and the unprincipled politics of fudge) which, according to Danyl Mclauchlan, can be summed up as: ‘Labour cannot speak up for workers because it loves them so much’. Danyl Mclauchlan also puts forward the most convincing explanation so far for Labour’s absence from the dispute – see his Dim-Post blog post, Whereof one cannot market research, one must keep silent. Essentially it seems that Labour does not want to risk losing support by speaking out in favour of the wharfies without reassurance from their trusty focus groups and polling companies. (Incidentally, Mclauchlan was interviewed this morning on RNZ about economic growth – listen here). Related to Mclauchlan’s arguments about Labour’s reliance on market research, Brian Edwards has detailed some Random thoughts on why Labour did so poorly in the election. After outlining a number of factors in the defeat, Brian Edwards points at Labour’s overreliance on focus groups to determine its political programme. This was especially the case, Edwards says, with Labour’s ‘serious misjudgement’ in making its campaign centre on its opposition to state asset sales. While many of those in focus groups might well have signalled unhappiness with asset sales, such ‘opposition will be intellectual rather than visceral, almost a case of what they think they ought to believe as good Kiwis, rather than something they feel in their guts or would change their vote for’. But apparently within Labour, ‘questioning the reliability of focus group information is seen as akin to heresy’. Elsewhere in the news, Fran O’Sullivan says It's time to make Rena owners responsible, labelling the Government’s approach to seeking costs ‘pussy-footed’. Clio Francis reports that Occupy Wellington protesters may be ousted as the Wellington City Council seeks a legal avenue for their eviction. The Council argues that a ‘stream of complaints’ along with the fact that the site is now a magnet for the homeless and mentally ill has spurred the decision. Law Commission president Sir Grant Hammond has incurred the ire of Gerry Brownlee over his criticism of the 65 bills yet to be dealt with by Parliament – see: RNZ’s Number of bills sitting on Parliament's books criticized. Lincoln Tan reports on allegations that Chinese chefs, brought to New Zealand as part of our free trade agreement with China, are being paid as little as $8 an hour, under threat of losing their visas – see: Union says immigrants forced to accept pay below minimum wage. Finally, Tony Wall profiles a Whangarei teenager who has taken a personal role in the fight against child poverty in New Zealand – see: Teen becomes leading voice on child poverty. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

liberation http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2012/01/nz-politics-daily-16-january.html tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d83451d75d69e20162ff7a8a4c970d 2012-01-13T15:41:23+13:00 2012-01-13T17:36:08+13:00

With the Maritime union expecting to be locked out soon there are increasing calls for Labour to take a stand at the Ports of Auckland. The most passionate being from Chris Trotter, who compares the situation to the major 1913 and 1951 waterside disputes. He says the defeat of the Maritime Union would enable a sustained attack on unions and workers across the country and that the left must rally to defend the port workers, even preparing to occupy the wharves: ‘Makes more sense than sitting in a pup-tent in Auckland’s Aotea Square’ – see: Chris Trotter: The Auckland Ports Dispute: An Injury To All. Another must-read item on the issue comes from David Farrar see: The great port stand-off. In this Herald column Farrar says ‘The stakes are high for both sides. The losing side will be humiliated and powerless’. He also hints that when David Shearer does take a stand on the issue, it may not be one the unions will like. Farrar also strongly advises David Shearer to stay out of the ports dispute and his blog post, Don’t do it David, although, given Farrar’s relationship with National, this will be seen by many on the left as a sign that Shearer should jump in boots and all. As far as Cameron Slater is concerned, Labour and the Maritime Union are already far too close. Slater sets off in his usual style to prove this in The cozy relationship between Labour and MUNZ. It’s clear things are going to get worse before they get better at the Ports of Auckland. As Bernard Orsman reports (see 'Miles apart' after port talks collapse) yesterday’s mediation failed to bring the dispute any closer to resolution. A draft report from the Productivity Commission advocating privatisation and further restrictions on transport unions is being cited as evidence to support the ports company’s claim that change is needed (although Auckland is rated ahead of other local body owned ports such as Wellington) – see: Tim Hunter’s Partly float air and sea ports, says commission. The Paganis have taken a stereoscopic approach to advising Labour, with former Labour candidate Josie Pagani saying the policy she had to push at the election was ‘miserable’ and not aspirational enough. She particularly targets the extension of the Working for Families tax credit to beneficiaries as undermining Labour’s appeal to ‘working’ voters - see: Workers lose faith in party with glum message. Both Danyl Mclauchlan and Chris Trotter respond to the Paganis. Trotter says that John Pagani has taken the wrong lessons from Maggie Thatcher and that her political success came from her willingness to engage and take up a fight, rather than indulging in ‘compromising ideological u-turns’ – see: Facing Fearful Odds: A Reply To John Pagani. Danyl Mclauchlan at The Dim-Post focuses on the ‘growing the pie’ cliche used by both Josie Pagani and David Shearer, saying it is Act Party rhetoric and that over the past 30 years the extra pie has been consumed by ‘a small number of high net worth individuals’ – see: Mmmmm. Pie. Brian Gould responds to a recent Martin Robinson column that argued inequality is inevitable and necessary. Gould, who as a leadership contender for the British Labour Party in 1992, is a keen observer of ‘Third Way’ politics and makes the case that even the wealthy end up worse off in a divided and unequal society - see: Blind faith in market robs nation of its full potential. In other articles, Denis Welch may have coined a new term in Quakewash, calling for the Government to come clean on the future of the Christchurch CBD. Tim Watkin has a very reasoned and balanced article on Brian Tamaki’s Destiny Town plans (see: Brian Tamaki goes to Destiny Town. Wanna come?) - an issue which will grow given Pita Sharples’ very accommodating stance towards public funding for the project (see - Laura McQuillan’s Major govt funding could go to Destiny). Finally, there are some worthwhile recent articles that are not available online – but available in the PDF attached. The January-February edition of Metro magazine contains three very good political pieces. Simon Wilson’s editorial Nice guys finish first explains that the key ingredient to political leadership at the moment is ‘niceness’, and he predicts that the crunch issue in New Zealand politics in 2012 will be child poverty. Sean Plunket’s column, The other secret tape, humorously outlines the coalition negotiation conversation that might have taken place between John Key and John Banks. And David Slack’s has a very funny and clever satirical Captain’s log - David Shearer, new leader of the Labour Party, in which the new Labour leader takes the caucus on a futile teambuilding exercise to an aid camp in Somalia. But the best political item from the last week probably comes from Anthony Hubbard, who writes in the Sunday Star Times on the shallowness of democracy in New Zealand politics (Door closed on open democracy). Hubbard argues for more genuine participation amongst citizens – not only in the way the country is run, but also in our workplaces. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

liberation http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2012/01/nz-politics-daily-13-january.html tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d83451d75d69e20168e562276c970c 2012-01-12T16:27:07+13:00 2012-01-12T16:31:04+13:00

The Labour Party's silence on the Ports of Auckland dispute is getting louder. That’s what political and media commentator Denis Welch argues in a blog post that excoriates Labour for failing to show support for the workers, and suggests that the party are re-running its 1951 waterfront line of being ‘neither for nor against the watersiders’ (Neither um nor ah). The insightful and cleverly written missive from Welch goes on to express concern that Labour’s rebuilding and redirection under David Shearer is akin to Richard Pearse’s doomed convertiplane: ‘Never mind that most of the electorate no longer has any idea what Labour stands for: party strategists are convinced that with Kiwi ingenuity, No 8 wire and lashings of aviation glue they can design a convertiparty capable of soaring into the political firmament. Unlike the old model, this baby will fly!’ According to Welch, Labour’s ‘fiendishly cunning plan’ is to create a political party that will be ‘all things to all people’. Of course, a century ago Pearse was able to beaver away in his workshop with only the occasional snooping neighbour, but modern political parties have no such luxury. The advent of the political blog means that supporters, independents and political enemies have unprecedented opportunity to publicly comment on every facet of what parties do. This issue of political communication continues to exercise Labour, particularly with its experimental MP’s blog Red Alert which has proved problematic for the party, and which the MPs are currently reviewing - see: Re-thinking Red Alert. Trevor Mallard has bristled at suggestions on The Standard that he and Clare Curran have dominated Red Alert – often with embarrassing results – and used it to promote policies they can’t get wider support for in caucus – see: Become an MP – lose your right to comment on policy. Political blogging offers up a fascinating dilemma for parliamentary parties. On the one hand it provides a useful tool for discussing policy and gives party activists a public voice they previously didn’t have. On the other hand, the loudest voices are not necessarily those with the most to contribute. And of course it also opens policy discussions up to your political enemies, who are always quick to stir the pot – see, for example, Cathy Odgers': The Stranded Jumping The Shark. In Christchurch it seems to be a case of ‘do as I say, not as I do’, with the Government defending the decision of several of its departments to relocate outside the Christchurch CBD (at least for the medium-term). Ben Heather reports that Gerry Brownlie is dismissing criticism as political opportunism from Labour – see: Leases defy Christchurch CBD plan, Labour says. In fact, both the Central City Business Association manager Paul Lonsdale and the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce have also criticised the decision – see: Ben Heather’s Government agencies head to outskirts and RNZ’s Call for agencies to stay in Christchurch CBD. In a city where constant aftershocks are threatening confidence more than buildings, the population of Christchurch would surely have expected the Government to lead by example. Either the Government departments are acting on an unacknowledged reality, which the Government hasn’t been honest enough to admit, or they are failing in their basic duty to lead the recovery where pure market forces will fail. Elsewhere of interest, Vernon Small reveals some details about the cost of judicial travel (Millions spent on travel for judges and spouses), Bernard Orsman provides the latest update on the waterfront industrial dispute (Port begins moves to lay off workers), leftwing blogger Scott Yorke playfully says he’s Looking Forward To That Blogging Money), and TV3’s James Murray blogs about yesterday’s article from Keith Ng, praising his innovative ‘Givealittle’ funding scheme for his freelance journalism (Keith Ng succeeds with a new form of 'user pays'). Finally, to complement yesterday’s reviews of 2011, there are a raft of political predictions for this year – among the best are Gordon Campbell’s Mr Right or just a rebound fling?, the Fairfax team’s 20 political predictions for 2012, The Standard’s The political year ahead, and particularly Claire Robinson’s My political media picks for 2012. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

liberation http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2012/01/nz-politics-daily-12-january.html tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d83451d75d69e20168e55466f8970c 2012-01-11T17:03:58+13:00 2012-01-11T17:05:38+13:00

Did the Auckland Council cause the current ports dispute? There is much debate around what role, if any, the council should take during the stoush but Bernard Orsman cites ports expert David Wigmore’s view that the council demand for the ports company to double its dividend from 6 to 12% over 5 years is the underlying cause of friction - see: Expert says council is behind wharf strife. This is an example of how calls for politicians to ‘stay out’ of the dispute ignore the reality that political decisions have already had an impact. John Pagani reiterates his call for politicians to keep out of industrial conflicts. Pagani’s claim that Len Brown has only encouraged the parties involved to resolve the conflict, without getting into the substance, is questionable given Brown’s comments a few days ago that work practices needed to change to achieve the double dividend target. Fran O’Sullivan criticises the mayor for having anything to say at all on the matter, pointing out that the ports company structure was set up to minimize political involvement - see: Weigh anchor and let them get on with it. As the fundamental structure of the company is being decided, it is legitimate to ask if the owners of the Ports of Auckland – i.e. the council – can and should maintain a hands-off attitude. Longtime Labour stalwart Robert Winter thinks that not only should the council be up front but that the wider implications require David Shearer and Labour to ‘step up and come out swinging on this issue.’ He sees this as ‘potentially, the defining first moment for Labour under Mr Shearer, and we look for clear leadership on what is now a matter of principle’ – see: Not just a question for Mr Brown. Where are Mr Shearer and Labour? As TVNZ reports, the dispute is now ‘very serious’ and both the union and the port company are set on increasingly risky courses of action – see: Risky for Ports to replace striking wharfies – expert. By the time it’s over, sitting on the sidelines may not be an option for anyone. A must read article today is Keith Ng’s Association of Community Retailers. Again. Ng scolds the media for having goldfish-like memories as they continue to give credibility to the Association of Community Retailers – an organization that Ng and Rory McKinnon exposed nearly two years ago as little more than a front for the tobacco industry. Run by Glenn Inwood, who also runs PR for the Japanese whalers, the ACR follows a well-established PR technique used by tobacco companies around the world. If there is a battle between PR and good journalism then this article is depressing evidence that PR is winning hands down. Over the Christmas break there were quite a few reviews of politics in 2011 – mostly pretty negative. To help get the last year in perspective you could read Tracy Watkins (), Matt McCarten (), Billie Jordan, Fran O’Sullivan and Cameron Slater. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

liberation http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2012/01/nz-politics-daily-11-january-2012.html tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d83451d75d69e20162ff4fd4a6970d 2012-01-10T15:46:25+13:00 2012-01-10T15:48:45+13:00

Len Brown may well be regretting going public about the ports dispute. He is looking like the meat in the sandwich by saying he ‘supports both sides’. With a strike in progress and the ports company indicating it will push through wholesale contracting out, Brown’s position appears to be based more on wishful thinking than on the reality of this rapidly escalating dispute – listen to Brown on RNZ’s Summer Report here. Bernard Orsman points out the contradiction between Brown’s denial that the company is planning to smash the union and collective agreement, and Ports CEO Tony Gibson saying they have already started the process of finding private contractors to replace striking workers. See: Port chief ready to replace striking union workforce. Having entered the fray, Brown politically now needs it to be resolved peaceably through negotiation. His influence with the unions is somewhat limited but, as the council is the sole owner of the ports, the management is directly accountable to the council. For a leftwing view on the dispute, see James Henderson’s What’s really going on at Ports of Auckland and his second installment. Stuff reports that the break up of the Rena may add to the disruption as there is speculation that floating containers may prevent ships entering Tauranga at night – see: Jenny Keown’s Port pushes on with redundancy plan. There’s still plenty of advice being handed out to David Shearer, especially about how he can signal a break from Labour’s past by adopting new political positions. There are increasing signs that Labour’s own version of welfare reform may be one of those. Last week Trevor Mallard recommended a Guardian article in which the British shadow welfare spokesperson Liam Byrne questioned the extent of the modern welfare state, described by Mallard as a ‘sacred cow’ – see: UK Labour rethinking welfare state. Yesterday the Dominion Post recommended the same article to David Shearer – see: Wooing workers Shearer's challenge. John Pagani has a similar recommendation, drawing inspiration from a very different British political figure – see: Why you should see the Maggie Thatcher movie. His prescription for Shearer: ‘Labour will need to be trusted to reduce public debt, reform the welfare system and reward success for families in suburbs and provincial cities and towns.’ Mike Smith from The Standard and Chris Trotter in The Press are both very suspicious of such advice. Smith argues that ensuring beneficiaries have enough to live on is entirely consistent with the policies of the first Labour Government when it introduced the modern welfare state - see: Home advice better for Shearer. Trotter argues that Shearer’s talk of ‘growing the pie’ is nothing new and actually represents the same fundamental economic policy that Clark and Cullen pursued – see: Labour's turning of the page seems to be backwards. Finally, Toby Manhire outs John Key’s cultural priorities in John Key puts NZ artists in their place, and following on from this Scott Yorke humorously speculates on future New Zealand literature awards – see: McCaw, Carter Supreme Winners At Literature Awards. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

liberation http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2012/01/nz-politics-daily-10-january.html tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d83451d75d69e201676044943e970b 2012-01-10T15:34:36+13:00 2012-01-10T15:37:10+13:00

With the Government’s asset sales programme dragging out until the next election, it gives plenty of time for analysis. David Beatson made good use of the wet holiday weather to go through the pre-Christmas news dump. In his post MOM…Show me the money! Beatson observes that the political compromises made during the election to limit foreign ownership will undermine the economic rationale originally supported by Treasury. It is going to be a very difficult balancing act for the Government to make assets sales politically saleable. The Herald on Sunday editorial focuses on the lack of guarantee on power prices for consumers (see: A long wait for cheaper power), while Bernard Hickey says that the share float price must be ‘not too hot, not too cold, but just right’ – see Floats must hit Goldilocks standard. If the price is seen as too low taxpayers will feel cheated, too high and it will fail to attract the wide-spread New Zealand-based ownership that the Government claims to want. The ‘mixed ownership model’ has also been mooted for the Ports of Auckland by C&R councillors, as the dispute drags on with further industrial action scheduled for today. Bernard Orsman reports in Mayor gives striking port union the message that Len Brown has ‘issued an ultimatum’ to the port workers about agreeing to the port company’s demand for flexibility in the interests of greater capital returns for the council. Brown may be feeling the heat applied by Cameron Slater over a $2000 donation from the Maritime Union for his 2010 mayoral election campaign – see his blog post: The best investment the maritime union ever made. Although, it has to be said, if that is the price for having the mayor of the supercity in your pocket, Brown needs to review his rate card. Matt McCarten claims that the rate of return being demanded by the port company directors is ‘insane’ given the financial position of most ports around the world. McCarten argues that the new directors of the company – of whom only one out of six has shipping experience – are there to sell the port not run it – see: Greedy wharfies' tale hides ambitions for port. Jo Moir’s Taranaki Daily News report The reality of poverty, and a subsequent blogpost by Judy Callingham (Milk and Honey off the menu) are keeping the debate on child poverty in New Zealand going. David Farrar questions the way poverty has been measured in his post: Child Poverty. Last week Tim Hazeldine wrote a good article examining the increasing wealth of the 1% and saying that the political left’s preoccupation with identity politics and welfare benefits has undermined its credibility on wealth distribution. He says it’s actually the right who should be most concerned, as capitalism has functioned best during periods where lower and middle incomes have risen – see: Staggering gains of top 1% beggars more than belief. Finally, in Which public servants get the most super? Richard Meadows has a good comparison of state servant superannuation schemes, comparing judges, MPs, police and firefighters with the other public servants. The results will not shock you. And Adam Bennett reports on yet another major Government department downsize at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade – see: Foreign Affairs set to lose about 200 jobs in revamp. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

liberation http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2012/01/nz-politics-daily-9-january.html