The Guardian has written a good editorial about the role of parliament in holding the government and its Ministers to account. I would hope that our parliament sees its role in a similar vein.

The Office of the Ombudsmen is in “crisis”, says the Chief Ombudsman. Beverley Wakem says the public watchdog has a bulging backlog of cases because it lacks investigators, with underpaid staff leaving and in some cases literally being worked to death.

Saying this in such a public forum will not be something that the Chief Ombudsmen took lightly. Anyone who knows Beverley Wakem will know that it will not be grandstanding. This is a crisis- and it is one that really matters for all New Zealanders who care about the accountability of their government. Ms Wakem also told the Committee

The office, she said, was “sinking under the weight of the complaint burden. I’d say we are in crisis”. The public would suffer as a result from delays in handling complaints. “At the end of the day that isn’t acceptable. Justice delayed is justice denied and people are already distressed when they approach the office.”

And that is the nub of this. The Ombudsmen’s office plays a critical role in holding the government and its agencies to account. Its not just OIA requests, its also whistle-blowing on wrong-doing, conduct of insitutions that detain people such as prisons, refugee centres etc as well as our responsibilities under the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. They are essential to make our democracy function properly, whoever the government of the day is.

I have had numerous dealings with the Ombudsmen’s Office, and it is something that in the past you could simply not hide from. When I worked for Helen Clark we had a significant dispute over the release of material related to the so-called Corngate saga. The Ombudsmen’s Office was relentless in ensuring that the vast majority of the material was released. As an opposition politician I have taken a number of complaints to them. I have one that is still outstanding from May last year. We are anxious for them to take a look at the absurd deletions from the briefings to incoming Ministers this year. There are a number of cases relating to Christchurch pending as well.

This is not some backroom bureaucratic agency that can be shrunk in the name of public sector efficiency. The word Ombudsmen derives from a Norse word meaning representative. This is the agency that is the representative of the people charged with keeping government honest on all our behalf. It is an essential part of our democractic infrastructure, and the current government must finding funding to allow it to operate properly. At the moment they are starving it of funds, and that means they are not been hold to account to the degree they should be. If they do not move to resolve this crisis then they will lay themselves open to the accusation that this is a deliberate tactic to reduce their accountability.

At a time when the government is under scruitiny for its dodgy behaviour in being part of breaching electoral broadcasting law and for having the Prime Minister’s Electorate Chair on NZ on Air and involving himself in programming decisions this is a further black mark on their ability to play by the rules. This office must receive the support it needs- it is no exaggeration to say our democracy relies on it.

He starts off by stating the obvious – that the next Labour government must focus again on employment – but then denies the right of members of the Labour Party to have policy ideas on how do do some things better and to discuss them.

He doesn’t like the idea that I suggest it is worth thinking about the tax benefit interface as we develop policy. And that every now and again I link to speeches and articles that have a different approach.

He suggests a conspiracy with John Pagani who I haven’t seen for nearly a month and haven’t had a conversation with for three.

And he suggests that Labour MPs should only be allowed to have one post a week. Channelling Whaleoil.

Well I’ve got news for Zetetic – people in Hutt South elected me and they didn’t do it with the expectation that a person who prefers to be anonymous would dictate what I say and how often.

Birgitta is an advocate for more direct democracy and some of her views are quite radical. I think they’re worth thinking about and discussing. I think the way we practice politics needs to change. I’ve never made a secret of that. It’s threatening to politicians and the parliamentary structures. But while there’s a lot of good in our existing structures, and most MPs work damn hard and are committed to what they do, there’s also a lot of bullshit that goes on.

People know that. I agree that MPs need more direct accountability. The review of MMP will no doubt throw up a few ideas. Constitutional change is inevitable in New Zealand. It’s a matter of when.

Having a real debate about how we could improve our democracy for New Zealand’s sake is surely a good thing.

Here’s a start. Birgitta wrote this piece in The Guardian in November 2011

The Dutch minister of internal affairs said at a speech during free press day this year: “Law-making is like a sausage, no one really wants to know what is put in it.” He was referring to how expensive the Freedom of Information Act is, and was suggesting that journalists shouldn’t really be asking for so much governmental information. His words exposed one of the core problems in our democracies: too many people don’t care what goes into the sausage, not even the so-called law-makers, the parliamentarians.

If the 99% want to reclaim our power, our societies, we have to start somewhere. An important first step is to sever the ties between the corporations and the state by making the process of lawmaking more transparent and accessible for everyone who cares to know or contribute. We have to know what is in that law sausage; the monopoly of the corporate lobbyist has to end – especially when it comes to laws regulating banking and the internet.

The Icelandic nation only consists 311,000 souls, so we have a relatively small bureaucratic body and can move quicker then in most countries. Many have seen Iceland as the ideal country for experimentation for new solutions in an era of transformation. I agree.

Iceland’s experience is fairly extreme. But their response to crisis has some lessons for us all.

I like the analogy of the sausage. Especially given it’s summer and we’re all eating a few no doubt

In the last term of parliament, Red Alert was a bit of an experiment in how NZ Labour politicians could communicate directly with the public and have some honest conversations about policy, issues of the day and expound our thoughts in general.

It was a bit ad hoc, which was largely a strength as the blog is pretty widely acknowledged as being real and honest. The voices on Red Alert are MPs. They aren’t paid staff. That should continue.

However, there’s always room for improvement and here’s a few preliminary thoughts from me. I welcome your constructive  input.

I’ve been given a new portfolio called Open Government, perhaps a first for any major political party as a formal portfolio. I’ve been doing a bit of research  and will write a piece in the next couple of weeks about the portfolio, its importance and what it can achieve. It’s unusual to have an opposition portfolio which doesn’t match up to a Government Ministry.  It should be noted that the National Government is most unlikely to actively promote open government, despite Bill English doing some good work in pushing for more open data in the public sector. Red Alert will be a vehicle for demonstrating how a Labour Government would promote Open Government.

Red Alert is no longer an experiment. It’s now part of the fabric of political discourse in this country. It may have also changed things a bit. I’d like to see Red Alert and Labour’s strong presence generally in social media become more focussed. As I see it our purpose is two-fold.

First, to continue to engage in direct conversation with New Zealanders about our thoughts and ideas. Second, for the medium to be a tool to build campaigns.

I’d like to see us concentrate more on the second. It will require more effort to work collaboratively across the political spectrum with those we can work with. It requires building more skills. And tolerance of differences.

However, there are some challenges. The biggest, as I see it, is  those who would deliberately use underhand and hostile tactics  to undermine attempts to demonstrate open-ness and a different way of engaging with New Zealanders. Red Alert’s tolerance will not extend to them.

Honest debate and disagreement is one thing. It’s an important part of democracy. Personal attacks, abuse and pack behaviours designed to destroy new voices and new ideas and a different way of engaging are another.

Red Alert is a vehicle for Labour’s caucus to communicate directly with New Zealanders. We know and welcome the scrutiny and sometimes criticism from the mainstream media. We also welcome the engagement with bloggers and commentators in the new media environment provided by the internet.

I believe that there should be consistency with new media  in the rules and protocols applied to mainstream media. Red Alert is just one of those new mediums. We are not journalists. Nor should we ever presume to be. But we have responsibilities in how we communicate. And we can show an example.

The voices on Red Alert are of elected politicians. People who believe that the only way to make change happen is to make it happen. I believe that that if politicians are seen to do things differently, then New Zealanders can begin to have more faith in us.

It’s worth considering that around a third of eligible New Zealanders didn’t vote in the last election. For any party. That’s something we should all be grappling with.

Steven Young, former president of NZ Chinese Association commented in his Facebook on November 3, 2011 that:

“Raymond Huo’s opened armed welcome to his new Parliamentary colleague across the house comes dangerously close to identifying the Chinese here as sojourners in residence with Confucian characteristics.”

Other commentators on Facebook went further, in reply to Mr Young’s statement, one commentator said (SIC):

“If I’d known at the time that the second marker for my Honours dissertation was pro-death penalty and anti-gay marriage, I might not have put in that image of that statue of Liberty/goddess of Democracy dominatrix licking her giant ice cream cone.”

Another commentator echoed Mr Young’s view by saying (SIC):

“These overseas chinese migrants who are getting into NZ govt seats, have no bloody idea of nzchinesefullstop, its all themselves and they have there own agenda!”

The confession from me I guess was that I did say something very positive about National candidate and now MP-elect Dr Jian Yang, who – like me – is from the mainland China.

Those relatively new Chinese migrants (who arrived in the early 2000s) made up 71% of the NZ Chinese community which are different in many ways from New Zealand’s 5th or 6th generation of Chinese settlers like Mr Young and the other two commentators.

The early Chinese settlers came to NZ under harsh conditions (consider the racially discriminatory Poll Tax legislation). But they proved to be role models in the long process of accommodation, acculturation and assimilation and eventually became successful Kiwi-Chinese.

They paved the way, in many aspects, for future arrivals including Dr Yang and myself. Sadly and inevitably, it appears to be a gap between those modern ‘sojourners’ (who “have no bloody idea of nzchinesefullstop”) and the “local Chinese” (like Mr Young and the two commentators). How to bring the two together is a question and a mission.

National’s selection of Dr Yang was a careful and reasoned one. Not only has he got the required calibre (to be fair to his Chinese competitors within National Party I won’t comment further), he also positioned himself well in serving the wider community as a conduit between Chinese and the wider community.

His sympathetic position to capital punishment and his anti-gay marriage stance (according to article by Derek Cheng in the NZ Herald, November 2, 2011) largely reflects his background and view of those newly migrated Kiwi-Chinese he represents.

It is worth pursuing whether they became National supporters because they share the same values of the party or are just following a trend but that is beyond the scope of this article. Their collective characteristics, culture and mentality are however something new, if not unknown, to this country.

We as candidates from different political spectrums disagree on many policies but do share a sense of obligation in helping Kiwi Chinese integrate.

My personal view is that it is wrong for a Chinese migrant to come to NZ but end up only sticking to “Chinatown”, literally or in a cultural sense, and only eat Chinese and read/speak Chinese and mingle with Chinese people. Why bother to come to New Zealand if it is the case?

In that sense their being a “sojourner” is not welcome here.

Regarding immigration, I agree to what DPF said on Kiwiblog (22 Nov 2011) that it “should be colour-blind. Individuals should be assessed against criteria such as education, skills, wealth and ability to settle and assimilate in New Zealand.” Ability to settle is one of the determinant factors for such assessment.

Rome was of course not built overnight. It takes time to adapt, appreciate and integrate. Therefore Dr Yang and I being ethnic MPs (should I make it this time) are working towards the same goals. They will not become sojourners if they regard themselves as part of New Zealand, share the responsibility and contributing towards a brighter future.

It is equally important for ethnic candidates to lead by example that campaigning is about debating the policy, not about personality. For ethnic communities it is more important to have a clean and positive campaign (I will blog on this separately). That way we will encourage ethnic community members – with many of whom coming from a non-democratic regime – to participate in our democracy and our nation building process.

Not a flash PR video. Just a couple of real pollies telling you how we want things to be. The Labour way.

For three years, Labour has done its best to do things differently and try different ways to bring politics and people closer together.

Red Alert is an example of that. Phil Goff took his caucus out to regional New Zealand to reconnect with New Zealanders. Most Labour MPs regularly use social media tools to build stronger relationships with people.

Today, Labour released its first Open Government policy. It’s a first for New Zealand because it was developed out of an open policy making process involving New Zealanders.

In 2010 Labour trialled OpenLabourNZ, a new way of Labour engaging with communities to seek their input by using new technologies and methods to increase participation drawing on similar processes used in Australia, the US and the UK. This policy is the distilled outcome of OpenLabourNZ.

It commits to producing a comprehensive “Open Government Charter”, based on a set of principles developed by Labour MPs in consultation with members of the public. It’s an important start.

People deserve to know the democratic process around parliamentary law making is sound. Hence, transparency of political offices is the core principle in the Open Government policy.

We believe New Zealanders understand a balance must be struck between transparency and accountability, on the one hand, and the need for the provision of “free and frank advice” to guide effective government and to protect the security and commercially sensitive aspects of advice.

But increasing people?s trust in the political process can only be guaranteed by ensuring a more open government. We believe that wherever possible; open is best.

Today I released our Open Government Policy in Wellington with my colleague Grant Robertson, who has supported me and helped with its development. Many of my colleagues have been actively involved in taking this policy through to fruition today. I thank them. It’s a big step for Labour.

It’s the start of a change in the way government and politics is conducted. I think for the better.

Yesterday, at an NZIIA seminar at Victoria University, I released our Foreign Affairs policy. MurrayMcCully had given the opening speech and every country or region he mentioned was couched in terms of our Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with them, an emerging FTA with them, the desirability of an FTA or other bilateral economic agreement with them and how well we were doing because of them.

Don’t get me wrong – I am a great supporter of FTAs as long as we don’t concede our sovereignty and they can be negotiated in a more open way which engages the non-government sector as well. But for Labour, Foreign Affairs is also about peace, security, conflict resolution, disarmament, multilateralism, human rights, climate change, environmental protection and restoration, disaster relief, good governance and democratic representation, and most importantly, people to people exchanges and relationships.

Without a viable and secure planet, all the global supply chains you can think of count for nothing.

Our independent foreign policy is a source of great pride for us. It has been most enhanced in our history by great Labour Prime Ministers: Peter Fraser, Norman Kirk, David Lange and Helen Clark. We will build on that tradition.

We will bring human rights and a commitment to multilateral international decision-making back to the fore again. They have been languishing on the back burner under the National government.

Have a look at the policy – comments are welcomed.

Oh – and for those who wonder why there is no mention of Afghanistan – that is simply because our position on that is well known, has been well reported and has been the same since late 2005. In case you have missed it (!) : Labour would not have sent the fourth rotation of SAS troops back to Afghanistan. The SAS should no longer be deployed there. A Labour government will bring them home. We will progressively withdraw our Provincial Reconstruction Team as well, in an exit strategy worked out in consultation with other forces with whom we are working in Bamyan. The fight can only be won in Afghanistan if the government there wins the hearts and minds of the people. That hasn’t happened. Time to come home.