Red Alert

The Precariat

Posted by Darien Fenton on February 4th, 2012

The term “precariat”, although not new, has become more visible in recent months as a result of a book, The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class, by Guy Standing, Professor of Economic Security at the University of Bath.

Standing asserts that the precariat are a newly emerging social class, in part created by globlaised trends towards creating a flexible workforce that has resulted in a growing number of people across the world living and working precariously, usually in a series of short-term jobs, without recourse to stable occupational identities, stable social protection or protective regulations relevant to them.

This is not just a matter of having insecure employment, of being in jobs of limited duration and with minimal labour protection, although all this is widespread. It is being in a status that offers no sense of career, no sense of secure occupational identity and few, if any, entitlements to the state and enterprise benefits that several generations of those who saw themselves as belonging to the industrial proletariat or the salariat had come to expect as their due……….

So, according to Standing the social ladder of today looks something like this:

  • Elite: the absurdly rich global citizens, the transnational capitalist class, global power elite, fewer than the 1%;
  • Salariat: those still in stable, full-time employment, pensions, paid holidays, employer-provided benefits often subsidised by the state;
  • Proficians: or “professional technicians”, those who have skills they can market as professional consultants, freelancers, etc and who might actually enjoy moving around, from job to job;
  • Working class: as in the traditional working class for whom the welfare state and employment law was built but whose ranks have been decimated;
  • Precariat
  • Unemployed and Socially marginalised

Standing describes the precariat as “primitive rebels” – people who know what they are against, but are not sure what they are for.  But, nevertheless, a class in the making, approaching a consciousness of common vulnerability and therefore the “new dangerous class”.

The precariat is not a class-for-itself, partly because it is at war with itself. One group in it may blame another for its vulnerability and indignity. A temporary low-wage worker may be induced to see the ‘welfare scrounger’ as obtaining more, unfairly and at his or her expense. A long-term resident of a low-income urban area will easily be led to see incoming migrants as taking better jobs and leaping to head the queue for benefits. Tensions within the precariat are setting people against each other, preventing them from recognising that the social and economic structure is producing their common set of vulnerabilities.

Ring any bells?

This video will give you a good idea of Standing’s thesis and then you can decide if the book is worth reading.  I think it is.


From social partners to bit players

Posted by Darien Fenton on February 3rd, 2012

The emphasis of the Department of Labour Briefing to Incoming Ministers has significantly changed in 2011.

In the 2008 Briefing,  the Social Partners (Business NZ and Council of Trade Unions) were referred to frequently. Not now.

The notion of social partnership and tripartism is one that our government initially signed up to.  The Jobs Summit, early in John Key’s new government was an example.  Kate Wilkinson, Minister of Labour described this in her speech to the International Labour Organisation in 2009, saying  :

….”We are setting out a credible road to economic recovery, so we can emerge stronger from the recession than we went into it. ….. In this, we’ve taken an inclusive, tripartite approach, recognising that the problems arising from the current situation affect all New Zealanders. In late February, our Prime Minister, the Honourable John Key, hosted a national Jobs Summit which saw unions, business and Government united by a common desire to do as much as possible to keep New Zealanders in work during this recession….”

The 2008 BIM described the purpose of the portfolio as  :

  • productive, rewarding, and safe employment relationships, including bargaining, mediation and dispute resolution
  • setting, communicating, promoting, inspecting, and (where necessary) enforcing minimum standards of health and safety, and employment conditions
  • raising the value and quality of work, by promoting good practice and positive change in workplace cultures and practices
  • cooperation and interaction with other interested parties – including industries, sectors, and regions – in collaboration with social partners (Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions)
  • ensuring New Zealand both benefits from, and contributes to, international labour standards and fora.

But the slimmed down description of the role of the Labour portfolio in the 2011 BIM says the focus of the Minister and the Department is ensuring :

  • the labour market regulatory system is effective
  • employers and employees understand their rights and comply with their obligations
  • workplaces follow effective and sustainable employment relations and health and safety practices
  • New Zealand benefits from, and contributes to, international labour standards and forums.

Businesses are mentioned 43 times. Unions are mentioned once. Social partnership is over, it seems.

And significantly, there’s no mention of low pay, of addressing the ever-growing wage gap with Australia and the issues for self-employed and vulnerable contractors. All are workers trying to make a living and have the right to expect more from their government.

I’m looking forward to hearing Kate Wilkinson’s explanation on her annual trip to Geneva this year.


Why Ryall’s Health Targets Are Wrong

Posted by Iain Lees-Galloway on February 3rd, 2012

Labour, along with many people working in healthcare, has been saying for a long time that National’s health targets are narrow and simplistic, short sighted and lack enough focus on the looming problems for the health sector.

Yesterday, the Health Ministry’s briefing to the incoming minsterwas published. The ministry identified the priorities it thinks the government should be focused on:

  • Preventing cancer, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and chronic respiratory diseases which make up 80% of the disease burden of the total population.
  • Improving mental health outcomes.
  • Adressing the long term health conditions facing our ageing population including the increaseing incidence of dementia.

Compare that with National’s targets:

  • Faster transit through Emergency Departments
  • More elective surgery
  • Shorter waiting time for cancer treatment
  • More immunisations
  • Better help for smokers to quit
  • Better cardiovascular services

The two sets of prioities do cross over on getting smokers to quit and cardiovascular services although these are the weakest measures in the government’s set. National’s cancer target is for treatment, not prevention and beyond that, the ministry’s prioirites don’t get a look in.

No one is saying that the things the government identifies as priorities are not good, worthy things that we want to see happen in our health system. The problem is that when this narrow focus is combined with reduced funding in real terms, all the other things that the ministry says need to be addressed now before they get out of hand aren’t getting the attention they need.


Minister of Education sending Mixed messages

Posted by Nanaia Mahuta on February 3rd, 2012

BIM reports released yesterday gave a snapshot of where Government officials were at with National’s policy programme of action.

Interestingly in the Education portfolio, the Treasury report was more informative about planned intentions then the Education BIM itself. A suggestion to increase class sizes ignores previous evidence and experience which shows that benefits to students learning will be marginal at best.

The Ministry of Education BIM states that:

“Central to improving student achievement is the quality of the learning environment and the interaction between a student and teacher that takes place within that environment. Highly effective teaching makes the biggest difference to student achievement within the education system. First and foremost good teachers acknowledge the language, culture, and identity of a student and utilise that to support student learning. They establish respectful relationships with parents, families and whānau, and create learning opportunities for the student that match well to the student’s current capability and interests. They have high expectations for every student, provide high quality feedback to students and clear pathways to enable learning to progress. They use assessment both to track progress and chart future learning.
Our recent synthesis of research evidence has also underlined the importance of professional leadership. The evidence from the schooling sector is that leaders make their greatest contribution through planning, co-ordinating, and evaluating teaching and the curriculum and through promoting and participating in teacher learning and development. At present, professional leaders undertake a range of educational and administrative tasks.
Leaders also play an important role in creating a school culture that supports positive and respectful relationships between students and teachers and amongst students. New Zealand students report relatively high levels of bullying behaviour which can impede both successful learning and some of the social outcomes sought from schooling. Successful leaders create environments and learning that counter these issues.”

All this suggests that good quality teachers and focussed leadership will propel success in learning. So why does the Minister delete the part of the BIM which suggests increased class sizes.

NZPPTA were clear to point out that larger classes will increase stress on teachers – the Minister would do well to visit kiwi classrooms and hear first hand the types of pressures our teachers are dealing with on a daily basis.

There is a fundamental difference between the National Governments approach to education and a Labour approach. We believe that investment in a good quality public education system is our opportunity to give everyone the tools to contribute to the future of our great country. A high performing economy requires a highly skilled population – for everyone. In the New Zealand context recognition of culture, language and identity will form strong pillars for educational success and opportunity.

If the Government is determined to create more attention on cost saving measures in the public education system and drive expectation around achievement, they may be softening the entry of Charter Schools as a more plausible alternative…just saying.


Is Amy Adams’ work programme a state secret?

Posted by Clare Curran on February 2nd, 2012

I’ve been looking forward to taking on Amy Adams, the new Minister of ICT. I’ve been impressed by her no- nonsense approach to things and her obvious intellect.

I was hoping for an opponent on the other side of the House who would grasp that technology had the capacity to transform our economy. I wasn’t holding out a lot of hope that she’d take seriously the importance of the social objectives of providing more access to technology, other than to pay lipservice, which is pretty much what Steven Joyce did.

But I was pretty appalled today to receive the incoming briefing document from the Ministry of Economic Development to the new Minsiter, which sets out all the major policy issues that lie ahead and provides a list of the pending decisions and actions over the next six months.

Great tracts of the former (policy issues) were removed from the document under the Official Information Act.

When it came to the decision and actions required over the next six months, there was a gaping two page  hole in the document.

VOTE COMMUNICATIONS: BRIEFING FOR THE INCOMING MINISTER 2011

MED1245438 Page 22 of 34

MED1284612

PENDING DECISIONS OR ACTIONS REQUIRED IN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS

[Withheld under sections 9(2)(f)(iv) and 9(2)(g)(i) of the Official Information Act 1982]

blank blank blank………

I’ve talked to a few industry people about this today. It’s unprecedented I think. Highly unusual and you’ve got to ask what on earth is so secretive about Minister Adams’ workplan and pending decisions that they all need to be kept secret?

Remember this is taxpayers money that funds Vote Communications. The signs are not good that the taxpayers will get the opportunity to scrutinise how their needs are best being met.

The intro by MED to the briefing reveals that the three big issues are these:

  • The roll-out of the Ultra Fast Broadband and Rural Broadband initiatives
  • The free-up of 4G wireless frequencies
  • Cross sector ICT initiatives in the public service

What can be so sensitive about these issues that the discussion and debate around decision-making can’t be held in public.

The previous Minister Steven Joyce maintained an arrogant and unresponsive approach to the public, and now it appears that Amy Adams may do the same.

When you make something secret you should have a good reason.  The public must be reassured that decisions being made by this Minister are not favouring commercial interests over the public good.

Hopefully an OIA will shine some sunlight on this.


Section 9 debacle: The real story

Posted by Grant Robertson on February 2nd, 2012

From the New Zealand Herald this morning the real story of the government’s intentions around the treaty clause and asset sales. It seems a draft version of the consultation document was accidentally put on-line.

It showed the Government’s original intention was not to include any Treaty clause at all in the new legislation covering the mixed-ownership model. On Tuesday morning, a sentence was deleted which said the Government was yet to form a final view “but, on balance, favours no Treaty clause”.

Not sounding much like an ‘elegant’ way through as the PM suggested. More like an awkward bulldozer. No wonder the Maori Party were so angry. And in terms of why, well, you heard it here first folks.

The draft also revealed that the main “harm” the Government considered would come from using section 9 was that it would put off institutional investors. It said those investors would not understand it, which would “create uncertainty and have a negative effect on investment in the companies”.

That’s right, follow the money.

And more generally the government’s claims about still having control over the assets are further undermined by another deleted paragraph.

The draft document shows other politically sensitive paragraphs were also deleted at the last minute – including references to the limited powers ministers would have over mixed-ownership-model companies, despite the Government’s majority shareholding, and the aim of the policy being to run them as private firms.

This is privatisation, pure and simple. Core infrastructure assets built up over generations by New Zealanders, currently owned by all New Zealanders are no longer going to be there for us. The handling of the Treaty clause has been a debacle but none of this should shift attention from the real process here- the loss to all of us of our assets.


Deregulation and Leaky Buildings

Posted by Raymond Huo on February 1st, 2012

For most Kiwis the pedagogically sounding term “Chicago School of Economics” may not mean anything. However, that particular school of thought – believed to be an old mantra of right wing politics (particularly the Act Party in the NZ context) – is blamed as one of the main reasons the western world is in the doldrums.

Worse, Chicago School of Economics which advocates unfettered free market and less government intervention, came under attack in the wake of the financial crisis we currently experiencing. It has also been blamed for growing income inequality in Europe and the United States.

Unfettered free market leads to deregulation which, in the New Zealand context, caused various problems.

New Zealand taxpayers have paid a very high price for deregulation in a range of sectors, and, the financial sector aside, the building sector would be leading the way. I wonder whether people have actually made the connection between deregulation and things like leaky buildings.


Why Rudman is wrong

Posted by Phil Twyford on February 1st, 2012

It is pretty unusual for me to disagree with Brian Rudman, the thinking man’s curmudgeon. But today he accuses Labour of wrapping ourselves in the flag over the sale of the Crafar farms. Brian you have crossed the line, and provoked my first Red Alert post of 2012!

Free marketeers (and Rudman is not one of those) have long resorted to branding as racist anyone who opposes foreign ownership.  But I don’t buy it, and never have.

If Labour didn’t have a policy of opposition to rural land sales to foreign buyers and we opposed the Chinese bid, then yes that would look like xenophobia aimed at the Chinese. But during the last parliamentary term we adopted new policy in this area, proposing to clamp down on the sale of rural land to foreign buyers unless significant benefits to the national interest could be demonstrated. And as David Parker pointed out on Monday, we have criticised sales to German, US, Chinese and other foreign investors.

So is it xenophobic to oppose any measure that promotes the New Zealand economy and limits foreign ownership in our economy?  Is it racist of China and numerous other countries to place limits on the sale of land to foreigners in their countries? Of course not.

During the election campaign I did a talkback radio debate with National MP Jami-Lee Ross on the ethnic Indian station Humm FM. Jamie accused me of racism when I said National’s asset sales policy risked putting our most valuable SOEs in foreign hands.  Two callers responded: newly arrived Indian migrants who disagreed strongly with Mr Ross, both saying they were Kiwis and wanted the assets to stay in New Zealand ownership, and that the issue wasn’t about race at all.

Brian also seems to think that because so much of our economy is foreign-owned we may as well sell what is left:

With our banks and insurance companies and much else long sold off – $45 billion worth in the hands of Australians the last time I checked – it seems a little late in the day for Labour to espouse this particular principle.

I don’t want to sell what is left. Labour learned the lessons of the botched privatisations of the 80s and 90s. The challenge for our generation in politics is to build up New Zealand’s assets. That is why we need to make Kiwisaver universal to build our capital markets. It is why we need to build successful Kiwi firms through investing in research and development. It is why we should not be selling down our most successful state owned enterprises, nor KiwiBank. And it is why we should not be selling prime rural land to overseas buyers.


The Section 9 debacle: Follow the money

Posted by Grant Robertson on February 1st, 2012

When looking to explain the seemingly unexplainable in politics I was once advised by a long standing politician to do one thing, follow the money.

And trying to understand the unexplainable is exactly where I find myself this morning, having just watched the footage of the PMs press conference (below) from yesterday as to why Section 9 of the SOE Act is such a problem in the future arrangements for the partiallly privatised energy companies. Obviously from our point of view the whole debate is somewhat irrelevant because the assets should not be being sold at all. But there is something going on here that needs a bit more study.

To refresh our collective memory, this is what Section 9 says

Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

John Key spends a huge amount of time in the press conference trying to explain to the press gallery that the reason this clause needs to change is that the private sector can not be bound the Crown’s obligation to the Treaty. He says a couple of times that the Crown will continue its obligations, but he simply can not bind the private sector with a “general” Treaty clause.

Notice anything about Section 9? It does not say ‘Nothing in this Act shall permit a state owned enterprise to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi’. No, it only talks about the Crown. And isn’t that exactly what the PM says he is still trying to achieve?

It is very curious. As is the whole discussion the PM diverts to as to whether the Section is “symbolic” and “not relevant”. Rather than go through this, I would suggest folks just read Andrew Geddis’ take on this at Pundit.

So why the political gymnastics for a clause that actually only binds the crown anyway? Follow the money. The government is desperately trying to maximise the price for the assets it wants to hock off. It is selling into what might be the most depressed market it could ever sell into. The danger signals are all around. Anything that might look to a potential buyer like a negative will be of concern. An obligation to the Treaty will act like that for some buyers. Just as with the social responsibility obligations, which Mr Key says at the very end of the clip below he has no information as to whether it will continue. It won’t. The government is trying to maximise the sale value. Anything that impedes that is up for the chop.

An interesting Waitangi Day lies ahead.


Benefit stats still grim reading

Posted by Jacinda Ardern on February 1st, 2012

The benefit stats for both November and December were finally released yesterday. Usually we would have had them before now, but the Minister has held onto them over the summer period.

December was pretty grim. Students coming out of uni tend to contribute to a rise at this time of year, but even taking that into account, the overall picture from 2008 till now is poor. Here are the numbers:

For December:
• Main Benefits are up 4.15% from November 2011 (up 14,011 people)
• Unemployment benefits up 10.6% (up 5,481 people)

Compared with this time in 2008, there are 29,456 more people receiving an Unemployment benefit – an increase of 96.5%

The Government’s focus continues to be on welfare reform generally, but this is not just about the quality of ‘work ready’ programmes and changes to case management (where there is certainly much to be said about the government reforms) but the availability of work. I’ll be interested to see whether the Minister or indeed the government will take a second look this term at the role it can play alongside the private sector in the area of job creation, or continue to tinker around the edges.


Oram on Crafar Farms

Posted by Grant Robertson on January 31st, 2012

Rod Oram was on Nine to Noon this morning with a very interesting discussion of the Crafar Farms and the host of problems with the sale. Well worth a listen.


Techno slavery

Posted by Darien Fenton on January 31st, 2012

I missed this on Stuff, but heard it on RadioNZ today.

Workers who find themselves answering work emails on their smartphones after the end of their shifts in Brazil can now qualify for overtime under a new law.

The new legislation was approved by President Dilma Rousseff last month.

It says company emails to workers are equivalent to orders given directly to the employee.

Labour attorneys told the Folha de Sao Paulo newspaper the new law makes it possible for workers answering emails after hours to ask for overtime pay.

Judging by the vox pop comments of Brazilian workers on the RadioNZ piece, this isn’t necessarily a popular move. I can understand that. Turning off the emails after hours is a hard thing to do.  It has become such a way of life for many working people, but even more so for those who believe their job depends on it.

This issue has started to emerge in several corners of the world. In May 2011, Chicago policeman Jeffrey Allen filed a class action suit against the city, asking for unpaid overtime compensation.

In December 2011, German carmaker Volkswagen agreed to deactivate e-mails on German staff Blackberry devices out of office hours to give them a break.

German telco Deutsche Telekom and consumer goods maker Henkel have also introduced measures to curb after-hours emails to reduce the pressure on workers to be always on call.

Remember the “work life balance” stuff we used to talk about?

Am I just old-fashioned in thinking that working lives are important, but so are our families as well?


I’m here to help

Posted by Trevor Mallard on January 31st, 2012

Not sure what all the SoE Treaty Clause fuss is about.

Easily solved.

Indemnify the companies. Essentially what the act does now. Risk unchanged and stays with the crown.

If the Maori Party settle for less they are stupid.

Better still of course, abandon the sell down.


i-Predict says government support agreement to fall over

Posted by Trevor Mallard on January 31st, 2012

* Shanghai Pengxin to go unconditional on Crafar Farms by week’s end
* Mitt Romney to win the Florida Primary
* 34% chance of a Eurozone departure in 2012
* NZ Official Cash Rate to remain unchanged till September 2012
* Lianne Dalziel to run for Christchurch Mayor, as Tony Marryatt looks safe as CEO
* Labour Party to win next NZ general election
* Third Auckland kerbside waste bin expected by 2014

But more importantly 80% chance Maori confidence and supply arrangement won’t last.

Read the rest of this entry »

Filed under: ipredict

Who is Selling out Now?

Posted by Nanaia Mahuta on January 31st, 2012

As we head towards Waitangi Day a core issue for the Government is about to be tested. Pitching the Sale of State Owned Energy Companies will be fraught with subtle yet powerful undertones that will test Nationals mettle and it’s real desire to forge a long lasting relationship with Maori.

The easy route would be to complete the round of consultation hui and satisfy the Governments ‘obligation’ to consult. But, I suspect iwi and Maori are well past the box-ticking mentality.

Perhaps even some concessions that would see c.9 of the SoE Act being substituted for something ‘more meaningful’ to the current political landscape, the PM may even a propose to iwi a shareholding interest in SoEs (albeit too small to be effective).

But the Real Issue confronting all New Zealanders – Maori and Paakeha alike is that we have a vested interest in these SoEs not because of some romantic view that the State knows best, but that we must take leadership and derive the benefits from more efficient and high performing companies that deliver to us as citizens. Privatisation in itself will be a shortsighted gain with very few people benefiting – the risk being greater disparity between ‘haves and have nots’.

Waitangi Day is a time to see who walks their talk, a debate on retaining a Treaty of Waitangi clause in the SoE Act must not detract from the central issue of keeping kiwi assets in kiwi hands. Now is a time to have Maori on your side!


The sky is rising… at last some decent data emerging

Posted by Clare Curran on January 31st, 2012

Have been sent this link several times in the last few minutes.
Will post again on this issue as there’s quite a bit to discuss.

Has the internet decimated the entertainment industry or are we living in a new renaissance for both content creators and consumers…

Obama recently scuttled SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) in the US, but it’s likely another bill will emerge that gives the entertainment industry mroe control over internet distribution of material.

In NZ, the TPPA talks have highlighted increasing concern around our ability as a nation to control our own innovation and creative works and raised questions about our ability to implement our own copyright laws.

Today it appears that the traditional vested interests behind the entertainment industry have been fudging things a bit:

The Sky Is Rising!
For years now, the legacy entertainment industry has been predicting its own demise, claiming that the rise of technology, by enabling easy duplication and sharing — and thus copyright infringement — is destroying their bottom line. If left unchecked, they say, it is not only they that will suffer, but also the content creators, who will be deprived of a means to make a living. And, with artists lacking an incentive to create, no more art will be produced, starving our culture. While it seems obvious to many that this could not possibly be true, since creators and performers of artistic content existed long before the gatekeepers ever did, we’ve looked into the numbers to get an honest picture of the state of things. What we found is that not only is the sky not falling, as some would have us believe, but it appears that we’re living through an incredible period of abundance and opportunity, with more people producing more content and more money being made than ever before. As it turns out… The Sky Is Rising!

I haven’t read it fully yet, but  am relieved there is some decent data emerging at last to demonstrate the clear success of new business models which provide content via the internet quickly and at a low cost.

I hope NZ won’t get left behind


My Christmas gift to David Farrar

Posted by Raymond Huo on January 31st, 2012

Note: I wrote this on December 23 but given the Christmas holiday period was upon us I thought it was not appropriate to have it posted then. Therefore it is posted now.

Now that David Farrar is holidaying in South Africa and sending us pictures showing how big the turtles are there and how Hyenas are eating dead baby elephants. I wish to take his holiday spirit and send him this letter as my Christmas present.

His Kiwiblog is powerful and I hope this letter plays a small role in helping make his blog a bit fairer on some issues.

While on a roller-coaster over the past three weeks of being in and out of Parliament, I was told that Mr Farrar, rather indirectly, blogged on me by saying more than once that to the effect that: “It will hurt Labour. While not a huge contributor to Labour within Parliament, I understand he is a relatively large fundraiser for Labour”.

It is unfortunate that David Farrar made this sweeping comment without delving deeper into the subject.

The Chinese community, along with wider communities, is a rather large constituency. They come to MPs for help or for an answer with all sorts of different issues: immigration, corrections, law and order, resource consent, leaky building remediation work, national standards and constantly, how to grow the economy.

To be an MP serving such a large constituency with many members virtually being unable to communicate effectively (both in a linguistic and political sense) is a difficult task. Therefore the selection criteria must be harsh – if not harsher – than the process to select a ‘mainstream’ candidate. It requires skills, knowledge about both NZ and the migrant’s country of origin, and above all, integrity to provide service that reflects the quality and name of our House of Representatives.

Dr Jian Yang offered a recent example. For me, if two law degrees, one BA in linguistics and one MLitt in political communication won’t mean anything to David Farrar, then my experience as Asian Affairs Reporter for the NZ Herald followed by a stint as a successful lawyer won’t mean anything either.

Of course, my 6th book, just released, which according to critics has “influenced so many people” perhaps will not mean anything to David Farrar at all. In short, what we have achieved and what we have been doing are largely invisible to him, which perhaps encouraged him to belittle who we are and what we are.

Of course Mr Farrar would argue that he adopted a narrow definition for ‘within parliament’. But if Asian MPs across board could be assessed using each other as a bench mark it would draw a more fair and convincing conclusion.

I have no reason to believe that he has a grudge towards me. I‘m not that important, at least in his political sense. Nor do National’s ethnic MPs need his assistance given National has been riding high for the past three years.

I did organise public meetings and fundraising dinners quite successfully over the past few years, as acknowledged by David Farrar. For an opposition back-bencher I don’t have an ever-popular Prime Minister to offer smiles and photo opportunities which must have enriched National’s support as reported in the NZ Herald. This only proves the point that I am popular and have done a good job.

When the time was not with us and the trend was against us, this kind of response is regarded as a form of approval and endorsement by the constituency.

It is unfortunate that he seemed to imply that we Asian MPs are ATM machines for political parties and are token inclusions in Parliament. I hope the National Party does not have this same expectation of its Asian MPs. It is certainly not the case in Labour, where the vision of inclusive and strong communities has inspired many, including myself, to enter into politics.

New Zealand is a multi-racial country now. We need to remind ourselves of the need to make a departure from ignorance and patrionising.


Asset Sales:Treaty Clause to be ditched, what else will go?

Posted by Grant Robertson on January 31st, 2012

Wira Gardiner has taken on a lot of difficult jobs for governments of all hues, but I think hitting the road to sell ditching the Treaty of Waitangi clause from any new legislation for assets to be sold is going to be his most difficult task.

It seems the government regard the Treaty clause as it is currently contained in the State Owned Enterprises Act that covers the companies on the block will be an impediment to sale. Pesky Treaty getting in the way of National’s plan to sell off our future! The easy response from the government of course is to just get rid of it.

This is going to cause major ructions among Maori, and rightly so. Another question for the government to answer is what will happen to the “social responsibility” clause that also governs SOEs?

an organisation that exhibits a sense of social responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates and by endeavouring to accommodate or encourage these when able to do so

Will it survive in the new legislation for the assets that are being sold?

If it goes its clearer than ever that these sales are in fact privatisation. The rhetoric about the government keeping control of the assets is empty if the legislation that will govern them removes the protections that give all New Zealanders confidence that the assets are working in the best interests of the country. These will simply be private companies acting without reference to providing a social good for all of us.

These hui will be fascinating. Morgan Godfrey has already noted that support seems to be dwindling among iwi. I know for sure we will be putting pressure on National in Parliament and in the community to stop the sales. Interesting times indeed.


RBS show how mixed ownership doesn’t work

Posted by Trevor Mallard on January 31st, 2012

The Royal Bank of Scotland is getting a bit of publicity at the moment.

Royal Bank of Scotland was among the biggest fallers in the FTSE 100 on Monday, in part because of anxiety among investors about political interference following Stephen Hester’s decision to waive his near-£1m bonus.

The move sparked a debate about whether the government should step back and try to maintain the “arm’s length” management approach set up by Labour through UK Financial Investments (UKFI), or take full control of a bank in which the taxpayer already owns an 82% stake.

In New Zealand the Labour government handled Air NZ at arms length. Provincial route cuts, industrial disputes all resulted in political pressure which Cullen and Clark rejected. But not all finance Ministers are as strong, and Prime Ministers like Key take the line of least resistance trying to please as many people as the polls tell them to.

I’m not sure that these shares are as risk free as Key pretends. He should be able to see the biggest risk in the mirror as he shaves.


Paying attention

Posted by Darien Fenton on January 29th, 2012

The government has been asked to explain the inconsistency between the decision in Kim Dotcom’s residency application (which was granted) and his application to buy more than five hectares of New Zealand land (which was denied). Some might say that Jonathan Coleman should have paid more attention when  he was advised by Immigration NZ of their decision to waive the good character requirements for Mr Dotcom’s Investor Plus residency application. Others might say that alarm bells should have rung when Ministers Maurice Williamson and Simon Power overturned the decision by the OIO to enable Mr Dotcom to purchase properties in New Zealand because he didn’t meet the good character test.

John Key says it’s an “anomaly” and he’s looking into that.  Okay.

But here we see Key telling us in this video that the first time he’d heard of Kim Dotcom (who lives in John Key’s electorate) was when the Solicitor General advised him of the pending raid the night before.

However, some of his constituents, who live on the same road as Kim Dotcom say they contacted John Key’s Huapai office several times to complain about the dangerous driving of  Kim’s mates on their road and to express concerns about his residency and the OIO approval. Another neighbour of Mr Dotcom’s requested a meeting with John Key to discuss his concerns, but got absolutely nowhere. They’re a bit confused about John Key’s response.  Either their concerns weren’t passed on, or they were ignored.

I know our Prime Minister’s a busy and important man, but he also has responsibilities to his constituents and they were entitled to expect his interest.

Sometimes paying attention matters, even when you are the Prime Minister.