Red Alert

Archive for the ‘democracy’ Category

US cutting earmarks

Posted by Trevor Mallard on March 11th, 2010

There is a long term US Congress approach where money for pet projects and donors’ companies is tied to spending bills. It is called earmarking. It is wrong.  And it looks like its days are numbered.

But it is at least a more transparent approach than our government as outlined in the Hollow Men.

And amongst others I have been guilty of focusing on Bill English’s role in leaking the emails and other documents rather than on the substance. After the housing scandal he is no longer relevant.  Time for a reread I think.


A tale of two interviews

Posted by Phil Twyford on March 9th, 2010

Last night Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide appeared on Close Up to answer questions from host Mark Sainsbury about the super city, and claims on the front page of yesterday’s Herald that Hide’s CCOs lack transparency and accountability.

The interview was a big disappointment. Mark Sainsbury failed to ask the hard questions and repeatedly gave Hide an opportunity to spin his lines. Have a look at it here.  (The interview kicks in about halfway through the item.)

In contrast, John Campbell also recorded an interview with Hide on the same subject yesterday.  I am not sure that it actually went to air but you can watch it on the TV3 website. Campbell doesn’t let Hide off the hook.

What do you think?


ORIGIN Greek demokratia, from demos ‘the people’ + -kratia ‘power, rule’

Posted by Phil Twyford on March 8th, 2010

I have been shocked by how many of the Government’s members don’t seem to think there is anything strange about handing over government of our nation’s largest city to a whole lot of hand-picked business appointees.

The Herald is shocked too. As are most of the mayors, the Chamber of Commerce, and the overwhelming majority of the public who turned up to speak to the select committee on the third bill.

National and ACT are so imbued with neoliberalism they are quite happy to throw out our tradition of representative democracy, and replace it with a corporate governance model. That’s what they are doing. They are wrapping 90% of Council operations up into commercial entities with their own boards of directors and CEOs.  These commercial entities can meet in secret and won’t have to publish agendas, minutes, or subject themselves to members of the public asking pesky questions. And that is the whole point of it, keep the people and their elected representatives out of it.

Transport, the waterfront, water, economic development, investments and regional facilities are all due to be corporatised so they can be managed behind a veil of commercial secrecy.

One private sector group at the select committee last week defended the proposal to structure transport into one of these commercial entities by saying this would avoid transport issues being “politicised”. He meant that people and politicians would no longer be able to argue publicly about priorities and what should be done.

I am not against the commercial model in all cases. There is a place for it, as there is for the State Owned Enterprise in central government. But this Government is going way too far, applying the commercial model to the vast majority of Council operations. Not a shred of comparative analysis is available to demonstrate they have considered different organisational models or applied some criteria to guide this decision making.

What is more, they are cutting the number of elected representatives for the region in half.  I know the anti-politician crowd will celebrate that, but seriously, it will be all but impossible for 20 councillors to be accessible and give meaningful democratic representation to 1.4 million Aucklanders.

Add to that the heavy centralisation of power in the super council, leaving local boards with little in the way of real power, a far cry from the capable empowered local councils that the Royal Commission recommended.

It is a gutting of our democracy. Centralise power, take it away from communities and the city’s periphery and put it in the hands of a small number of politicians who will be remote from the people. Hand over administration of the city’s assets and services to council-owned companies, leaving the politicians to draft annual statements of corporate intent.

It all fits the contemporary neo-liberal fad for commercial governance. Small hand-picked boards in the privacy of boardrooms can make decisions efficiently. Democracy on the other hand is messy, time consuming and sometimes inefficient. There is always a balance to be struck but Aucklanders are now waking up to the fact that this Government is imposing an extremist unbalanced model.

The Government and the cheerleaders of this blighted project are forgetting some essential lessons about liberal democracy in the modern era. That the vote was a concession to contain the tensions generated by market capitalism; society and economy might be unfair but at least we can all vote Governments in and out. That the rulers rule because the ballot box allows the people to give their consent. That it is far from perfect but no one has come up with a better system yet.

ARC chairman Mike Lee put it well last week at the select committee when he described the third super city bill as Rogerpolitics. Rogernomics was the transformation of the economy in the interests of the few, now National and ACT are using the super city to do the same thing to Auckland local government.


Young voters demand more two-way communication

Posted by Clare Curran on March 7th, 2010

Now this is very interesting. And right up Labour’s alley (sounds better when you say it than when you write it).

A  UK Hansard Society report – Parliament 2020: visioning the future Parliament – asking first-time voters, parliamentarians and parliament officials about their visions for a future Parliament found that all groups wanted to see Parliament using new technologies to more actively engage with citizens.

The top priorities for all three groups (first-time voters, parliamentary officials and MPs and Peers) were:

  • Greater use of new technologies
  • Interactive communication

The main concern of MPs and Peers was the modernisation of procedures in Parliament, and while parliamentary officials, MPs and Peers prioritised access to information, first-time voters prioritised:

  • Education and outreach
  • Transparency and accountability
  • Diversity of representatives

In the wake of the recent expenses scandals, this report follows a sea-change in British politics where the whole political system is now subject to a level of interest and scrutiny not seen before and this includes the inner workings of Parliament.

The recommendations were that Parliament:

  • modernise an institution that is steeped in tradition but sometimes constrained by its own history and culture;
  • provide information in more understandable and usable formats;
  • harness the potential of new technologies; and
  • better engage the public, particularly about how they can influence the legislative process.

Leaving aside the negative cynical stuff about politicians, this is heartening in that such a survey is conducted, that it may be taken seriously, and that people are articulating what they want: open-ness and transparency.

PS: In case you don’t know, Peers are Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount, and Baron. Not sure why they got asked (PPS: that’s meant to be a joke)


Hide blatantly misleads on local boards

Posted by Phil Twyford on March 5th, 2010

The Government must know they are pushing the super city up hill in the face of an increasingly sceptical public and news media. This morning’s Herald declares:

The way it is shaping up, the single mayor and council will be a puppet show, purely for democratic appearances, while the real decisions are made by people the public has not elected and will never see. It cannot stand.

The Herald was talking about what it calls the Orwellian-named Council Controlled Organisations, but the issue of local boards is just as troubling to the Government right now, with widespread suspicion that the boards will be paper tigers. A good indicator is the level of  Government spin.

Rodney Hide and his associate minister of local government John Carter are going around town saying their local boards will have the power to “make by-laws”, when they have specifically ruled out the local boards having any rule-making powers.

Have a listen to Hide on BFM’s The Wire yesterday. Breathtaking spin. And select committee chair John Carter has been trying to pull the wool over the eyes of submitters all week with this line about local boards being able to make by-laws.

The sad truth of the Hide super city model is that the local boards can only advocate to the Super Council for a by-law, and lobby them to pass it, just like any other lobby group in Auckland can. In fact, the government banned the local boards from having any regulatory powers in their second super city bill passed last year.

The Super Council is only allowed to delegate certain non-regulatory powers to local boards in areas like parks and libraries, except where a coordinated approach outweighs the benefits of a local decision, except where decision making would be more effective if integrated with other Council decisions, and except where the impact of a decision goes beyond the local board area.

You could drive a truck through all those exceptions. Does anyone really think the new Council will willingly delegate powers downwards to local boards?

Rodney  Hide can spin all he likes about how local boards “are key to encouraging Aucklanders to become more actively engaged” but that won’t happen if the government leaves local boards as toothless talkshops.


The proper role of an MP

Posted by Phil Twyford on March 3rd, 2010

I think Key, Hide & Co are beginning to feel the heat. After a week and a half of submissions on the third super city bill it is clear Aucklanders are as opposed to this assault on democracy as they were when the Nats did their last impression of listening to the public halfway through last year.

But when the Herald gets stuck into them. And all the mayors. And the Employers and Manufacturers Association. And the Chamber of Commerce. Surely it gets a little harder to write off the critics as rent-a-mob? Perhaps not. Rodney Hide was on the radio this morning criticising yesterday’s rally outside the select committee hearings which was attended by Labour and Green MPs, and calling the 150 Aucklanders who protested ’sad’.

They are sad alright but not in the sense Hide means. They are really sad about what this Government is doing to our democracy.

Hide accused me of politicising the select committee process by organising the rally. He is joined by ACT supporter Michael Bassett, himself a former Minister of Local Government, who has written about all this, kindly sending me a copy, in which he says it is a constitutional outrage that an MP on the select committee should be taking part in a public protest outside the committee’s hearings. He is also unhappy with the Herald’s coverage.

My first response is that it is rich beyond belief for Hide to accuse anyone else of politicising the super city process. Hello Rodney? Aren’t you the guy who denied Aucklanders a referendum on the super city? Who invited them to make submissions on Maori representation when your threat to resign had already convinced John Key to drop Maori seats as an option? Who rammed the first two bills through under urgency? Who gets the power under this third bill to hand pick the directors of the powerful commercial structures who will run 90% of Council operations?

Secondly, I have always considered it an MP’s job to fight for what the people want. The select committee is not a court, and I am not a judge. When a Government blocks its ears to the public, I think it is perfectly in order for MPs and citizens to take up the right to peaceful protest.

What do you think?

Click this next link to see Michael Bassett’s comments in full.

(more…)


The future of our ports

Posted by Phil Twyford on March 1st, 2010

Today at the select committee hearing public submissions on the third super city bill, we had the mayors and ARC chairman Mike Lee in. There were some great submissions and useful debate. In amongst it all I took the opportunity to ask several of them their view of the provision in the bill which repeals the requirement for a binding ballot of Aucklanders before the Ports of Auckland can be sold off.

Mike Lee, Bob Harvey, Andrew Williams and Len Brown all gave unambiguous answers that the binding ballot requirement should stay.

I didn’t however get a straight answer out of John Banks after three attempts. In reply to my first two attempts he said how opposed he was to asset sales but steadfastly avoided my specific question. On my third attempt he just looked away.


Would a New Lynn happen under super city?

Posted by Phil Twyford on March 1st, 2010

It was speeches and a cooked breakfast at the New Lynn RSA this morning to celebrate the first passenger train to go through the New Lynn rail trench. A carriage load of politicians, ARTA and Kiwirail officials, mayors, local Westies, transport activists, Waitakere City councillors and staff picked up the 5.44am from Henderson and were greeted by a brass band on the flash new New Lynn platform quarter of an hour later.

There is much to celebrate. The New Lynn town centre redevelopment, of which the rail trench and station are the vital first phase, is a half billion dollar investment in urban renewal. It is the latest centrepiece of Auckland’s rail modernisation and just the kind of ambitious place shaping the city desperately needs. Big hats off to Mayor Bob Harvey and Waitakere City, my colleague New Lynn MP David Cunliffe and many others for making it happen.

But would something like the New Lynn project happen under the kind of ultra-centralised super city this Government is putting in place?

Large capable local councils with significant powers as recommended by the Royal Commission might have been able to exercise some of the place shaping leadership demonstrated by Waitakere City as it has carved out identity and jobs in a once-neglected part of Auckland’s outer suburbs. But the toothless local boards planned by the Government won’t have anything like that kind of clout. See this morning’s Herald for stories on reaction to Friday’s announcement on the powers of the boards.

And will Waitakere’s two councillors out of 20 on the new super council be able to muster enough political will to get the city to focus on much needed projects out West?

Not sure. But I do think that centralising power in the hands of a mayor and only 20 councillors, delegating huge authority to unelected corporate entities, and giving local boards the power to choose the colour of the carpet in the library is unbalanced and won’t be sustainable.


Time to stand up

Posted by Phil Twyford on February 27th, 2010

Sick to death of National and ACT’s Frankenstein vision for Auckland?

Tired of their fake listening campaigns, and bogus assurances they are going to ‘put the local back into local democracy’?

Join the protest outside the select committee hearings this Tuesday lunchtime.  Let Key, Hide & Co know that Aucklanders deserve and demand better.

12 – 2pm  Tuesday 2 March   Quality Hotel Barrycourt, 20 Gladstone Road, Parnell

If you care about:
* the corporatisation of our local democracy
* the loss of local voice
* moves to make it easier to sell the Ports of Auckland and other assets
* unfair boundaries and inadequate representation
* undermining protections for the Waitakere Ranges
* tokenistic representation for Maori
* the rushed and undemocratic process the Government is using to push the super city through
…then join this lunchtime rally and show the Government Aucklanders won’t take the super city lying down.

Spread the word – send this facebook link to all your friends.

All political parties, groups, individuals welcome to attend. The rally will be peaceful and orderly.


Local boards get to choose colour of carpet

Posted by Phil Twyford on February 26th, 2010

John Trust Me Carter has been reassuring angry Aucklanders since the middle of last year that the Government is going to give real powers to local boards. There are many undemocratic aspects of the Government’s super city agenda but for my money this is the one that people care most about. And if it is not sorted out, it is the thing that will do the Nats most damage across the Auckland electorates.

Mr Carter has been at it again this week at the select committee, repeatedly assuring submitters the boards will get real powers and inviting them to hear a briefing from officials this afternoon on the Government’s plans for board powers.

We’ve just had the briefing. Newsflash: Local boards will get to choose the colour of the carpet at the local library but will have precious little else in the way of real powers.  Actually to be fair, they will also have the power to shift park furniture around and allocate the graffiti clean up budget.

The Government has failed again to deliver on its promise to empower local boards in the Auckland super city.

Key, Hide and Co are turning Auckland democracy upside down. Local boards elected by local citizens wont be able to pass a by-law. And yet, the new transport and water corporate structures whose initial directors are appointed by Rodney Hide will be able to make by-laws independently of the elected Council.

The boards wont have any regulatory powers at all, not even the power to regulate dogs, brothels, and liquor licensing that Rodney Hide promised in April last year.

On any issue that matters the boards will have only the power to talk among themselves, and beg the Super Council to do something.

They will be able only to “propose” local by laws to the super council, and “give input” to regional by laws and plans. They won’t be able to hire staff, own property or have any legal status.

They won’t be able to move a bus stop or paint a yellow line on the side of the road. These things and the great majority of the Auckland Council’s operations will be handled by powerful corporate entities that operate completely independently of local boards.

What is left: libraries, local parks and facilities? Officials told the select committee that libraries and facilities will be run on a regional basis, but local boards can have input into things like design and fit out. In other words they get to choose the carpet.  Welcome to the new face of local democracy.


With respect, John Armstrong

Posted by Clare Curran on February 21st, 2010

John Armstrong’s piece in the NZ Herald yesterday (and ODT) is thought-provoking and well written (as usual).

However, there’s a central premise to his argument which I take issue with. Serious issue.

National and Labour differ strongly on the importance of, and the role of  public services. National is about cutting costs. Labour is essentially about the best possible services. Costs are important. But they’re not our starting point.

John I just don’t believe you are an apologist for the National Government’s drive for less government and less tax = a better society, because the private sector will better deliver better services for all of us. it simply wont. Not all of us.

In his piece, John describes something called “The Quiet Revolution” in the delivery of public services. Driven by the National Government. Essentially, a “Treasury-powered drive for the public service to lift its game and improve the quality of the public service”.

He also talks about a culture change within the public service. Sounds ok so far. A culture change is certainly needed. And I’m sure that many (if not most) within the public sector would agree. It’s the “what to” which really matters.

Then he describes a worldwide trend which sees political parties of varying hues examing how to deliver higher quality services at lower cost.

I get the lower cost bit, when it comes to the National Government. But higher quality services? Only if you pay. And not through your taxes. Because, remember, they’re being cut.

So. If you can afford to pay for better services, you’ll get them, maybe. If you can’t, then it’s your own fault for not earning more. There certainly wont be more services to go around.

John then goes on to say:

Driving this are changing public attitudes about the role of the state and the coming fiscal crunch from soaring health and other costs associated with the ageing of baby-boomers.

Politicians are now responding to rising public expectations that state entities justify their existence.

The result is a power shift from the state to its citizenry.

John. There’s no doubt that there’s a discussion happening about the importance of government and the public sector becoming more open and transparent.

Within National that could easily become a justification to eradicate what they describe as waste (jobs) and transfer many previously state-funded prgrammes to the voluntary sector (ie get the community to fund them if they’re so important).

Within Labour, it’s much more about what open and transparent government might mean. Allowing people (everywhere) to intelligently participate in policy formulation.  Relinquishing some control within the public sector. Making important decisions about the role of technology in driving innovation and saving money in delivering higher quality services.

Ensuring a strong commitment to NZ creative content in maintaining and continuing to forge our country’s identity and sense of place.

And one last bit that simply does not gel.

John seems to think that Labour and National are on the same page in the need for a shift in thinking on the public sector. Well I’d say yes there needs to be a shift. But the direction is different.  We don’t think the same. Not about public services.


Cooperative Government: A New Approach

Posted by Grant Robertson on February 19th, 2010

One of the things that concerns me the most as a politician is the sense of alientation of individuals and communities about important decisions that affect them. I am a firm believer in representative democracy, and I acknowledge that people do not necessarily want to be constantly consulted about every decision. However I think we as a country, over a very long time, have drifted to the point that a large number of people feel totally disconnected from politics and politicians and how decisions are made about their communities. I also believe that there is an important role for the community in the development and delivery of the services they receive.

These issues are not confined to New Zealand of course. In the UK there have been some very interesting developments at a local level to encourage much greater participation by communities. The latest of these is a proposal to make the Lambeth Council in London a ‘John Lewis Council’. John Lewis was businessman in the early 20th century who developed a business model based on a co-operative approach and profit sharing with employees.

In Lambeth they are looking at a co-operative council with residents helping to runs services, and the possibility of financial involvement further down the line. Some of the key initiatives being considered are

- An “active citizens’ dividend” offering a council tax rebate to those involved in community organisations or mutuals that take responsibility for services.
- Allowing service users and local residents to vote on turning local services such as local primary schools, Sure Start centres and youth clubs into citizen-led mutuals.
- Offering tenants more control of their housing estates by setting them up as co-operatives.
- Setting up “micro-mutuals” for people to use their personalised budgets for care service users.

It will be interesting to see how this develops. The approach is not without its pitfalls, and the capacity of local communities to take on decision making and delivery roles needs to be handled with care. The Labour led Council is keen to differentiate what they are doing from the Tory run Council in Barnet, that has been dubbed, the EasyCouncil because they are using the model of budget airlines, whereby they offer a basic service, with additional services on offer for purchase. The Leader of the Labour Council puts it this way

But while Barnet have come up with a plan to pare back what services they offer, we don’t want to. Instead we’re looking at a different settlement that will move the boundaries of who does what, getting users involved in putting together the services they want. Mutual and co-operative values will be our compass. We’ll give the voters a clear choice – cuts if you vote Tory but with us, not only fewer cuts, but also positive side- effects around community cohesion.”

I think it is entirely possible to have a level of devolution of control and decision making without it being about an ideological crusade about smaller government and cutting services. I will be watching closely to see how this develops.


Damage control on Boag affair

Posted by Phil Twyford on February 19th, 2010

Hide and Ford

Local Government Minister Rodney Hide with Auckland Transition Agency chairman Mark Ford

The Auckland Transition Agency has swung into damage control. The Herald this morning reports Michelle Boag has been pulled from any recruitment of executive positions for the Super City.

With their decision the ATA is effectively saying their Minister was wrong. One day earlier in Parliament Rodney Hide sounded perfectly happy with Michelle Boag’s role in recruiting super city executives while being an adviser to John Banks’ mayoral campaign. He lined up with the ATA, Boag and Banks in declaring he could see no conflict of interest.

And yet all the facts were available to him: Michelle Boag’s public statements, and the tender documents released to me the day before by the ATA under the Official Information Act.

Bear in mind Boag was specifically tasked with recruiting the new super council’s chief spin doctor who was to have been appointed by March and would have been working for the duration of the mayoral campaign – the same mayoral campaign in which Boag is a campaign adviser to John Banks.

In question time Hide seemed to think it sufficient the ATA had selected the bid by Boag’s company Momentum because it was the best “in terms of quality, process, and lowest cost structure”, and he was “not responsible for what Michelle Boag does in her spare time”.

He said he was not concerned Michelle Boag’s recruitment company, Momentum, may have misled the Auckland Transition Agency when it stated in its business proposal it had no conflicts of interest to declare.

He said he saw no reason to order an investigation into the affair.

My question for the Minister: Does he stand by his statements?

My question for Aucklanders: Is this man fit to be in charge of setting up the super city?

P.S. Rodney Hide posted a comment on Red Alert last weekend in response to my post on the risk to the Waitakere Ranges posed by his latest super city bill. Rodney, if you are reading this, your comments would be most welcome on this issue.

For background on this issue, see Heather McCracken’s original story in the Herald on Sunday, my Red Alert posts from Sunday and Wednesday, Thursday’s Herald story by Derek Cheng, the transcript from question time, and the video.


I wonder what the NZ version would say

Posted by Clare Curran on February 15th, 2010

On 12 Feb, the White House released this statement:

The White House Blog
eRead the Economic Report of the President
Posted by Dan Pfeiffer on February 12, 2010 at 12:20 PM EST

Yesterday the White House released the annual Economic Report of the President – a detailed analysis of actions taken by the Administration to address our Nation’s economic challenges over the past year and the President’s plans to rebuild and rebalance our economy for the future.

As part of White House’s commitment to make government more accessible, the Economic Report of the President is now available as an eBook for your Amazon Kindle, Barnes & Noble nook, Sony Reader and a number of other devices. We are always looking for ways to bring people closer to their government through new technology.

The 2010 Report includes an overview by the President of the Administration’s economic policies and goals, a 300-page analysis of the Administration’s first year and over 100 pages of key economic statistics. Now the 2010 Report isn’t just more convenient, it’s also more environmentally friendly.

The full report is available for download as a free eBook through WhiteHouse.gov or through Amazon, Barnes & Noble or the Sony Reader store.

Dan Pfeiffer is White House Communications Director

This is a good thing to do. Making more information available. Bringing government and people closer.

There’s some heartening signs that this Government is interested in making more data available to people. But in a case like this, the quality of the data is as important as the fact that it’s being released.

If the National Government were to release something like this right now (15 months after the election) what would it say? Not much!


Credit where it is due

Posted by Chris Hipkins on February 10th, 2010

Yesterday I blogged about John Key not answering a bunch of written parliamentary questions that I had put to him before Christmas. Well, that obviously rang a few bells over in Key’s office because the answers were hand-delivered to my office yesterday afternoon. Credit where it is due, Key has fronted up, and from a quick scan, it looks like he has given pretty comprehensive answers to most of my questions. I’ll read through them over the next few days and blog further, but in the meantime, kudos to Key for fronting up.


Will Key ever answer questions?

Posted by Chris Hipkins on February 9th, 2010

Parliament resumes today after the summer recess. Hopefully that will prompt John Key to finally stump up with answers to the Written Parliamentary Questions I put to him before Christmas. I asked him 67 questions late last year. In all cases he said he couldn’t give me an answer within the 6 days required by the written questions system, but he assured me I’d get the information as soon as possible.

It’s now 8 weeks since I asked the questions, but alas no answers have arrived. The questions were legitimate questions asking him to account for the spending of his ministers at a time when they were telling us all to tighten our belts.

We saw last year that National Ministers do not practice what they preach on fiscal responsibility and the public deserves to know what they are spending, e.g. the Bill English rort to finance his family home and the last minute changes to let ministers use self-drive cars meant to help them serve their electorates in Wellington.

Labour answered these types of questions when asked by a National Opposition so what is Key hiding?

Here is a quick summary of the topics that I asked Key about:

  • Pay rises for staff working in Ministerial offices (remember other public servants have a wage freeze)
  • Use of VIP cars during National’s first year in office
  • Refurbishment costs for ministerial offices
  • Spending on gifts, beer, wine and spirits by ministers
  • Purchase of self-drive vehicles and related issues
  • Issues relating to Key’s changes to ministerial housing allowances

John Key talks a lot about transparency and accountability but it is all talk. The reality is neither he nor his ministers think that the rules that apply to others apply to them. Key’s ongoing refusal to answer basic written parliamentary questions just proves that.


Transparency and accountability

Posted by Chris Hipkins on February 5th, 2010

Nathan Guy wins the inaugural “Richard Worth award for transparency and accountability”. Much like his predecessor, Guy has consistently demonstrated a high level of skill in ducking questions and providing as little information about his ministerial activities as possible.

Late last year I poked a bit of fun at his expense when he answered my written parliamentary question about his priorities over the next 6 months by saying he needed more time to come up with an answer. He’s finally answered that one, even if it amounts to little more than a cut and paste from DIA’s Statement of Intent.

However, when asked any questions about briefings that he has received from DIA or his official engagements, he simply dismisses them saying they aren’t specific enough. It doesn’t seem to be a problem for his more senior colleagues, who regularly answer written questions listing the reports/briefings they have received.

Guy’s predecessor confirmed that the DIA has a database recording all the briefings he gets, so it would simply be a matter of extracting the relevant data, a job that would take no more than a couple of minutes. Why is he so reluctant to be open and transparent about what he is working on?


We need greater transparency and freedom

Posted by Clare Curran on January 26th, 2010

Transparency in trade negotiations and internet freedom have taken centre stage internationally which I believe has important implications for NZ.

The New Zealand negotiators for ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, have now said publicly that “New Zealand is calling for greater transparency in negotiations”. In December, MED held two briefings on ACTA, these slides have been made available.

ACTA is currently being negotiated in secrecy. New Zealand is participating in the discussions along with Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Morocco, Singapore, Switzerland and the United States. Red Alert posted on this before Xmas.

The NZ Herald reported in November that while the US government claims ACTA is about counterfeiting rather than major changes to copyright law, and shouldn’t be subject to public scrutiny, leaked versions of ACTA discussion papers seemed to indicate that copyright lobby organisations may have in fact turned treaty negotiations to suit their own agenda.

At the moment it seems like many of the countries are saying they’re calling for more transparency but they have to get the others to agree. The big question is, is this a tactic, to make it look as though they take it seriously, or is it real?

 The next round of ACTA negotiations kick off today in Guadalajara, Mexico today.  Transparency is on the agenda in Mexico, but it remains to be seen whether it will eventuate. It remains to be seen whether our negotiators from MED and MFAT mean it.

In the meantime, ‘Internet Freedom’ has now become a playing card in US foreign policy, in particular with regards to China and other oppressive regimes.

This has immediate implications for New Zealand, with regards to termination of people’s internet connections for copyright infringement which is included in the revised version of Section 92A of the Copyright Act and is considered by some to be included in ACTA drafts.

In her recent and significant speech on Internet Freedom, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said:

“the freedom to connect – the idea that governments should not prevent people from connecting to the internet, to websites, or to each other. The freedom to connect is like the freedom of assembly in cyber space.”

I’ve been writing quite a bit about this and thinking about the wider issue of the right of our citizens to equitably access the internet (which implies that they shouldn’t be cut off from access)

Hillary Clinton also said:

“The private sector has a shared responsibility to help safeguard free expression. And when their business dealings threaten to undermine this freedom, they need to consider what’s right, not simply the prospect of quick profits.”

 The full text of Hilary Clinton’s speech is here.

I’ll be watching how the ACTA negotiations play out.


Have Your Say on the 3rd Super City Bill

Posted by Phil Twyford on January 22nd, 2010

Labour and the Greens are running a series of public meetings across Auckland to encourage people to make parliamentary submissions on the flawed and undemocratic third super city bill.

The deadline for submissions is approaching fast (12 February) and we are concerned that the public has only been given a short time frame to make submissions on the legislation. Labour has written a submission guide to help you with the process.

The meetings will include briefings on the issues, as well as practical advice on how to prepare a submission. All are welcome and of course there will be time to discuss and debate.

Waiheke- 7.15 – 9.00pm, Thursday 28th January, Morra Hall, 115 Ocean View Rd, Waiheke, hosted by Phil Twyford, David Clendon and Jacinda Ardern
Rodney - 7.00 – 9.00pm, Tuesday 2nd February, Catholic Hall, Alnwick St, Warkworth, hosted by Darien Fenton and Rajen Prasad
Maungakiekie and East- 7.30 – 9.00pm, Tuesday 2nd February, Onehunga Community Centre, Church St, Onehunga, hosted by Phil Twyford, David Clendon, Carol Beaumont, Carmel Sepuloni and Ashraf Choudhary
North Shore- 7.00 – 9.00pm, Wednesday 3rd February, Rawene Centre, 33 Rawene Road Birkenhead, hosted by Darien Fenton and Keith Locke
Waitakere- 7.00 – 9.00pm, Wednesday 3rd February, New Lynn Community Centre – Recreation Room, Totara Avenue, New Lynn, hosted by Phil Twyford, David Clendon, David Cunliffe, Chris Carter, Lynne Pillay, and Carmel Sepuloni
Auckland Central- 6.30 – 8.30pm, Thursday 4th February, Grey Lynn Community Centre, 510 Richmond Rd, Grey Lynn, hosted by Phil Twyford, David Clendon and Jacinda Ardern
Mt Albert/Mt Roskill- 7.00 – 8.30pm, Monday 8th February, Owairaka Primary School, 113-115 Richardson Road, Mt Albert, hosted by Phil Twyford, David Clendon, David Shearer and Carmel Sepuloni