The search for truth in the wake of the publication of the book, Hit and Run, has been simply excruciating.

The authors’ initial statement was absolute. Innocent citizens had been killed in Afghanistan as a result of an attack by New Zealand SAS forces. Equally emphatic was the response from the Defence Force – the attacks never happened. Then came the first modification – they never took place in either of the two locations the authors claimed. And now, there is the authors’ admission that while they had the village right, they had the wrong locations within it. Both the authors and the Defence Force have been engaging in a very painstaking dance on the head of a pin. And the public is still none the wiser as to what did or did not happen.

Along the way, there have been the reported misgivings at the time of the then Minister of Defence and the apparent comments of anonymous members of the SAS. The Chief of Defence says he has seen video footage of the incident, but at the same time says he has read only the executive summary of the report prepared into the incident, which he also says did not happen.

It is extremely confusing and more than a little Gilbertian. Despite all the disclosures since the publication of Hit and Run, the public still has no clear picture of what did or did not take place.

Over the years, the SAS has built up a highly deserved reputation, based on its skills, professionalism and integrity. It is extremely well regarded. Indeed, it is no coincidence that most recent Chiefs of Defence have come from an SAS background. As a consequence, the reputation of the New Zealand Defence Force has also been high, particularly in the areas of post conflict reconstruction and peacekeeping for which it has become renowned. Our military are not the sort of people who in the normal course of events would become involved in war crimes or militarily improper action.

All of which makes the seeming reluctance to hold some form of inquiry into what did or did not happen all the more puzzling to understand, especially given the variability of the accounts now emerging. The only thing we know for certain is that something happened, somewhere, sometime. Beyond that, the rest is speculation. It is reminiscent of Churchill’s comment on truth and rumour, “a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”

If the Defence Force is confident of its account of events, what does it have to fear from an inquiry? For their part, the book’s authors say they would welcome an inquiry, but they have no credible option but to say that. In the context of the wider security debate, the government has often pedalled the trite and simplistic mantra, “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” to justify wider intrusion. Well, now the boot is on the other foot, and the question can properly be asked in respect of its position on an inquiry. What does it  have to hide? What does it fear?

Well, maybe, there is another aspect to this which we are all missing. What if the Defence Force’s rebuttal is correct as far as it goes, and the SAS was not involved in the attacks, and the video footage also confirms that, but also shows that another force, the Americans, were more explicitly involved than has been indicated to date? Does New Zealand want to be the source of exposing that right now, given the unpredictability of the current administration? So is that the real reason why there is such official coolness on the idea of an inquiry to clear the name of the SAS?

Yes, that is just supposition. But to paraphrase Churchill, while truth is fossicking around in the dark looking for its trousers, rumour and speculation take hold. And in today’s world of instant communication that quickly becomes the new unshakeable truth. Alternative facts some might call them. Surely all the more reason why an inquiry is needed – and pretty soon now.

  
  

 

          

     

  

 

 

 

 

A constant in politics over the last couple of decades has been the National Party’s dislike and distrust of local communities making their own decisions about their own futures. National really does believe the Beehive knows best, despite a lot of obvious evidence to the contrary.

In recent years, this prejudice has manifest itself in many different areas (for example, debates about local health services and/or the location and number of local schools in places like Christchurch come to mind) but the most obvious and constant area has been that of environmental and resource management. The current debate about the future of the Resource Management Act needs to be seen in this light. National is determined to resist any attempt by regional communities to have any real say in major planning and environmental decisions that affect them.

A consistent pattern of central government intervention in local decisions has emerged in recent years. (National had been suspect in this area in previous times with the famous allegation that its paring back of the role of Regional Councils in resource management in the early 1990s was driven more by the prejudice of the then Local Government Minister against the way his local Council has treated a motel development application he had been involved in, than sound principle.) One of the first actions National took during its current term of office was to remove the power of general competence that had been previously delegated to local government, ostensibly on the grounds of preventing local government becoming too profligate in the expenditure of ratepayers’ money, but really more about stifling the capacity of Councils to act independently.

When Environment Canterbury (the Canterbury Regional Council) refused to play ball with central government over the allocation of waters rights for dairy intensification on the Canterbury Plains, the government stepped in and dumped the Council in 2010, and it will not be until 2019 that full local democracy is due to be restored. (Shades of Bainimarama in Fiji?) And then there is the notorious section 360 of National’s current Bill to change (hardly reform) the Resource Management Act which gives the Minister for the Environment a virtual power of override on just about everything. A few weeks ago, once more consistent with the bulldozer approach to local autonomy, National declared that henceforth all decisions about the application of the 1080 poison  would be made nationally, and no longer at a local level. The apparent justification was that a national decision making process would allow for much greater consistency and certainty, which, while plausible at a superficial level, belies the real reason. National could not simply afford the risk of rural and provincial communities (still its heartland support base) making their own decisions against the application of 1080, and contrary to stated government policy. Most recently, National has confirmed what it has been threatening for some years that, if any region (Hawkes Bay is the immediate example) declares itself to be GE free and markets its produce internationally as GE free, the government will step in to stop them doing so.

There is a strong case for amending and updating a number of the processes of the Resource Management Act, with every party in Parliament agrees with, and which could have been achieved relatively easily about four years ago had National chosen to go down that path. The simple reason National’s plans have faltered to date is because of its wider history in this area, and a deep concern that, based on its past, its real agenda goes way beyond having effective resource management law and is much more about controlling the scope and practice of regional government.

They say that leopards do not change their spots. In this case, the spots on the leopard are far more striking than usual. It would take a mighty change of heart on National’s part to satisfy the concerns about its real agenda. Only a naïve optimist or a fool would dare think this may happen.  

        

 

     

  

 

 

 

 

From the mid 1980s until the late 1990s the one certainty about superannuation policy in New Zealand was its uncertainty. Every government played around with it, to the detriment not just of superannuitants of the time, but also of those approaching retirement and hoping to be able to plan their futures with some certainty. National promised to repeal Labour’s infamous 1984 surcharge, only to replace it with something just as draconian in 1991. That was gradually watered down during the 1990s, and a multiparty accord established, which Labour then walked out of when it had succeeded in taking superannuation off the political agenda and Labour found it no longer had a weapon to beat the government with. Then National reduced the relativity of the rate of superannuation to the average ordinary-time wage, which was subsequently overturned by Labour and the current formula arrived at. A period of superannuation peace and stability was to ensue for about fifteen years.

It has to be said that none of us who were involved in superannuation politics of the time covered ourselves with any glory and that at least one generation of New Zealanders was given no reason to trust politicians on superannuation policy. It is probably true that Sir Robert Muldoon’s overly-generous 1975 election bribe of 60% of the average wage at age 60, developed as a simple reaction to the Kirk Government’s much more complicated contributory 1974 scheme which would have taken until 2014 to reach full maturity, was to blame for all this, but that was of little consolation at the time, or now. Superannuitants simply felt betrayed.

Over the last 15 years, a measure of stability has returned, and retirees, near-retirees and their families have been able to plan their futures with a measure of certainty. All of which raises interesting questions about National’s surprise announcement this week, that as a response to the ageing population, it plans to shift the age of entitlement from 65 to 67 between the years  2037 and 2040, affecting everyone born after the start of 1974. In an eerie throwback that suggests we could be about to get on the superannuation merry-go-round all over again, Labour now finds it convenient to renege on the raising the age policy it promoted at the last two elections.

It could be said that National has learned a lesson from the past with the long time-frame it has for the changes it is now proposing , although those affected, now in their early 40s and younger, may see it differently, having just paid off their student loans, and now raising their young families and meeting the mortgage costs. They probably will not feel downright betrayed as their grandparents did in the 1980s and 1990s, but they most likely will feel somewhat cheated.

The bigger risk is that National’s signalled intent – that is all it is at this stage, with eight general elections due before it takes effect in 2040 – sets off a further round superannuation uncertainty, the last thing anyone wants or deserves. And that raises the wider question about whether age adjustments are the best way to manage future superannuation policy. While it is true people are living – and working – longer, it is also true that the advent of Kiwisaver in 2007 has enabled many people to build up large retirement nest eggs, making them less reliant on New Zealand Superannuation in the future. At the same time, the focus now comes on the demographics of those with short lives post about 60, and how poorly they are catered for at present, In short, despite having paid their taxes all their lives, there are many who die worn out and exhausted before ever reaching 65, or shortly thereafter. And they get no, or very little,  superannuation.

That is why UnitedFuture’s focus is on Flexisuper (the option to take a reduced rate of superannuation from the age of 60 if one wishes, or a higher rate if uptake is delayed to age 70) and compulsory Kiwisaver, rather than adjusting the basic age of entitlement from 65. That package addresses the issue of those worn out at 60, and also sends a clear signal about the value of long-term personal savings, and less reliance on the state pension. But, most importantly, it places control of retirement choices and income back in the hands of the individual, not the state. Under Flexisuper and compulsory Kiwisaver, people will be able to back their own choices and know they will not be interfered with by governments changing their minds.

The one constant in the superannuation debate of the last couple of generations has been that people have craved certainty. They opted for Muldoon’s unrealistic “too good to be true” scheme in 1975 because it was simpler and more immediate than the Kirk scheme. They berated Labour and National governments in the 1980s and 1990s for “mucking up” their retirement plans. Now, when the superannuation spectre is being raised again, many may well see it as too far in the future to get exercised about immediately. An irritant, rather than a body blow, but certainly an opportunity for people to take control of their own retirement destiny, regardless of what the state might impose.            

  

 

 

 

 

New Zealanders care strongly about their environment. That is evident from general conversations, and even the most casual perusal of the stories produced by major news outlets. Environment issues always feature prominently and usually sympathetically.

Yet New Zealanders are currently being short-changed when it comes to environmental policy. The debate over swimmable rivers water quality comes to mind. How can it be that in a country like pristine, green New Zealand (as we like to style it) we have over time allowed our waterways to become so degraded that it is now going to take at least 20 years of concerted effort to restore 90% of them to a swimmable standard? And do we really believe that housing shortages in our major cities are all the fault of our concern for the environment? 

Equally, on the other side of the ledger, environmental dogmatism, often from the Left, frequently gets in the way of progress. The “my way, or the highway” approach they are fond of simply alienates potential support for a particular cause. (A notable exception at the political level is the cross-party GLOBE group, ably chaired by the Greens’ Dr Kennedy Graham, which is working alongside the Minster for Climate Change Issues on New Zealand’s response to global climate change.) But such co-operation, sadly, remains the exception, rather than the rule. Too often, environmental issues – which should be pervasive – are reduced to the politically partisan level which means that frequently no progress is made on their resolution, lest political credit has to be shared with Opposition parties. It is remarkably and nigh irresponsibly short-sighted.

The prospect – however remote and unlikely according to every opinion poll, published and unpublished so far – of a Labour/Green coalition taking office in September has had a number of spin-off consequences. (In Ohariu, for example, early indications are that the deal between Labour and the Greens has backfired, with support galvanising around the incumbent, and many previous Green voters saying they will cross the line because of their misgivings about the Labour candidate they are now being told to vote for.) More broadly, the Labour/Greens prospect has raised questions about the future direction of environmental policy, given Labour’s likely economic profligacy (few days seem to pass without another expensive spending promise being made) and the Greens’ increasing focus on broad social agitation, at the expense of their traditional advocacy for the environment.

For the many New Zealanders with a strong interest in sound environmental policies the picture is now very depressing – and confusing.  National’s environmental shortcomings are clearly and regularly displayed – and their communication usually mis-articulated. But the Left are no better. After nearly a decade in the wilderness (more than two decades in the case of the Greens) they are so desperate for power that everything else, including environmental integrity, now pales into insignificance. Labour has no environmental vision, nor does it show any interest in what the Greens have to offer on that score. Both seem to agree that, for this election at least, more traditional social democratic issues should be the focus, to the detriment of the Greens – and the environment.

Nevertheless, there is a need for a political voice for New Zealanders passionate about their environment, but at the same time committed to policies that will stimulate sustainable economic growth to support the social infrastructure a progressive and compassionate society requires. Or to state it more simply, a political party with a clear head, matched by a soft heart.

UnitedFuture has strong credentials in this regard. Not only has it used its political influence, through its centrist position of support for orthodox economics balanced by compassionate social policy to moderate both National and Labour Governments over the last 15 years or so, it also has a strong environmental pedigree, based around its support for the retention of the principles of the Resource Management Act, and its practical policies to future proof our environment for coming generations. The likelihood that the National-led Government will be returned at the election is reason enough for UnitedFuture be strongly represented there to provide the environmental balance, and to ensure the strong environmental concerns of New Zealanders are well represented at the decision-making table. No other party can offer that prospect.