29 January 2015

As the world commemorated the 70^th anniversary this week of the liberation of Auschwitz death camp, the Beehive’s flag fluttered at half-mast in tribute to the late King of Saudi Arabia, where women have no rights, beheadings are frequent and journalists and bloggers are whipped. A northern Maori leader warned that burqas would not be welcome at Waitangi celebrations next week and Winston Peters made his first racist statement of 2015.

The incongruent juxtaposition of these events is stunning. While Auschwitz stands forever shamefully head and shoulders above all other symbols of human intolerance and brutality, and while all memorial services in New Zealand and around the world were right to proclaim we must never let such events happen again, the above examples show we still have a long way to go in the tolerance stakes.

Yet the lessons of history are obvious. Take South Africa, for example. Our “bridge building” approach of the 1950s-70s did not work in changing the attitudes of the apartheid regime, and if anything reinforced its intransigence. It took the isolation and sporting and economic boycotts of the 1980s to free Nelson Mandela and usher in the development of the rainbow nation we know today.

Similarly with repressive states like Saudi Arabia. Lowering flags to commemorate the late King, or sending an incredibly high-powered delegation like President Obama has to pay homage to the new monarch merely reinforce the form and structure of the regime and its repressive practices. And, in their own way, incidents like banning burqas or racist statements by shallow politicians reinforce the prejudice that discrimination is more or less acceptable, provided your target is unpopular to start with, and you do not go too far.

Now one might have expected the loftily titled “state of the nation” speeches by our two major political leaders to have made at least some passing comment about these matters. But, not unexpectedly, both were silent in favour of the mundane. One was a speech about housing, the other a trip down memory lane. Neither had the gravitas or substance to justify the “state of the nation” title.

The grief and emotion that has accompanied the Auschwitz events reinforces the reality that human beings are more than just mechanistic, uncaring robots. Attitudes, feelings and what we quaintly call values are the true and important shapers of our destinies. Maybe that was the point behind Eleanor Catton’s forthright comments in India. While not agreeing with the particular sentiments she expressed – although she had every right to do so, without abuse – I have some sympathy with her underlying message that nation states ought to stand for something, and are more than just collections of people all furiously getting on with their own lives, like bees in a hive.

Yet our indifference to the incongruent events around us suggests that is exactly what we are doing. And perhaps, more seriously, that no-one really cares too much. It may well be an expression of the complacency the long hot summer is inducing, or a very successful political management strategy. Either way, it cannot last.

             

 

 

 

22 January 2015

Two acts of political crassness marked the holiday break.

The first was the befittingly silly comment from Ron Mark about putting shots across the bows of foreign fishing vessels illegally poaching toothfish in the southern ocean.

The second was Nick Smith’s speech to his Nelson constituents. This was no mere putting of shots across the bows of the Resource Management Act, but the launching of a full-scale assault.

National has long had the RMA in its sights. Even before it passed the Act in 1991 elements in National (notably then Local Government Minister Warren Cooper smarting over restrictions imposed on developing his motel complex in Queenstown) have been opposed to requiring development to be undertaken in an environmentally sustainable way. But, to date, wiser heads have usually prevailed.

Initially, that seemed to be likely outcome this time around, with National appearing to have taken aboard the criticism its 2014-14 reform attempts received. The Prime Minister spoke of “moderate and pragmatic” reforms – usually code for watering down the more extreme enthusiasms of some of his colleagues – but all that seemed to fly out the window this week. (One charitable, but probably far-fetched, interpretation of Dr Smith’s speech is that it is an elaborately Machiavellian attempt to prove to his more gung-ho colleagues just how difficult carpet-bombing the RMA will be in practice, and is really a carefully disguised plea for moderation. As Churchill once observed in a similar situation, if that is the case, it is a very effective disguise!)

All of which is a huge pity. National’s blunderbuss attempts to obliterate the RMA, egged on by ACT which fears National is not going far enough, are obscuring the vast areas of agreement for change across the political spectrum, upon which a responsible package of change could be developed.

There is little disagreement that some of the RMA’s processes are cumbersome and outmoded, and a break on responsible development, and a solid Parliamentary majority could be deftly and quickly assembled for a package of measures to address these. That has not changed since National first began its latest RMA assault in 2013, and it is a genuine mystery why it has not taken the opportunity to build such a majority before now. After all, if the “crisis” is as pressing as National keeps saying, its all or nothing approach seems a very curious way to proceed.

For the record, UnitedFuture’s position is clear and unchanging. We are prepared to work with National and other parties – like the Maori Party and possibly even Labour if Andrew Little’s initial comments mean anything – on changes to streamline the processes of the RMA to make them more responsive and efficient, and not an unnecessary impediment to responsible development. But we will not support any changes to the principles of the RMA that have the effect of weakening the environmental protections it enshrines. The RMA is not just one piece of the development jigsaw as its critics would wish, but the fundamental backdrop. That principle must remain inviolate.

From my perspective, the door is ajar for further discussion, but I get the sense that National is now less inclined to that, having tucked away the ACT vote to secure its majority. Suggestions I have heard this week that National will only talk to support partners if it can be certain in advance that it will get their agreement reinforce that view.

That was this week. The Prime Minister returns next week and it will be interesting to see if “moderate and pragmatic” returns to the RMA agenda as a consequence. For the sake of the environment and future generations, I hope so.       

  

 

 

 

 

17 December 2014

We are in that slide towards the Festive Season where everyone suddenly becomes nice to each other, where the year’s problems no longer seem as grim or pressing, and where we start to think about our plans and hopes for next year. Christmas always seems to usher in a brief period of optimism, which is usually dashed once we return to work.

This year, there seems to be a sense that the woes of the Global Financial Crisis are now well and truly behind us and that there is more hope of some prosperity gains in the future. But how sustainable are those? Some of the international signs are not as encouraging as they might first appear, as a quick survey of a few other economies shows.

In Ireland, similar in size and type to New Zealand, but one more savagely ravaged by the GFC, growth is forecast to lift to about 3.5% this year. But that improvement has hardly led to dancing in the streets. The government is facing a bitter battle over its water pricing plan, and President Michael D. Higgins recently told a Chinese audience that Ireland’s modern economic history has been “poverty, illusory affluence, and poverty.”

In Britain, where growth is hovering around 3%, Prime Minister David Cameron, facing an uncertain election in May and the rise of myopic xenophobia in the form of UKIP, is arguably even more despondent, pointing to “red warning lights flashing on the dashboard of the global economy”. In the United States, despite his foreign policy failures and racial discord at home, President Obama appears more optimistic although still rather cautious, commenting that with growth at 3.9% the US is “primed for steady, more sustained economic growth.” In Australia, the Abbott government’s recovery hopes have been knocked by the Budget deficit blowing out to more than $40 billion. And in the “rockstar” (a term we do not hear any more) New Zealand economy the prospect of a Budget surplus seems to have receded, and Mr English restrains himself to saying our growth rate (similar to the US) means that we are “on track for solid growth.”

Sadly, all of this means we are not out of the economic woods yet and that prudent fiscal management and restraint will remain the order of the day for some time to come. Magic bullets will again be in short supply under the Christmas tree, but in comparative terms, the performance of the New Zealand economy does give cause for a little more optimism next year, as Mr English’s comments appear to imply. So, there is scope for some cheer over the Christmas barbies after all, even if economic Nirvana is still a little while off.

On that warily optimistic note, Dunne Speaks takes its leave for 2014. I will be back in 2015 after a few weeks break. In the meantime, my best wishes to all of you for a peaceful and happy Christmas with those that are nearest and dearest to you, and my hope that 2015 will enable you to achieve your hopes and dreams. Merry Christmas!        

4 December 2014

The relationship between politicians and the media has been the subject of a lot of recent speculation. Often symbiotic, occasionally incestuous, it is always a good topic for rumour and gossip. Perhaps the real extent to which politicians are in the media thrall will be shown next week when Parliament wraps up its business for the year, conveniently just in time to enable politicians to attend the annual Press Gallery Christmas Party. (Has Whaleoil been invited?)

For the first time in many years I will not be there. Instead, I will be at an information-sharing exercise of another hue – the first meeting of the D5 in London. Now, while most will know about the G20 and will have followed its recent meeting in Brisbane, probably few (if any) will have heard of the D5.

The D5 is a grouping of five nations (no, not Five Eyes!) – Britain, New Zealand, Korea, Estonia and Israel – considered amongst the most advanced in the provision of on-line government services. Its establishment is a British Government initiative, and next week will be the first time the five nations have met together. New Zealand is well placed to play its part in this grouping – it is already government policy here to be achieving 70% of New Zealanders’ most common interactions with government on-line by 2017, and we are keen to both share our experiences and learn from others.     

According to the United Nations E-Government Survey released in July 2014, New Zealand already shows “an exemplary commitment to the provision of transactional services” and is ranked 9^th in the world, up significantly from just a couple of years ago. We are especially well regarded for the work we have done on cloud computing and the use of the creative commons licence for open data.

All of this, of course, will excite the geeks – who know what it means – but it has little immediate resonance with the average citizen. And that is the challenge of digital transformation. It cannot just be about system upgrades, but it has to demonstrate a positive, specific and noticeable benefit to the individual to be sustainable. One such demonstration in the New Zealand context is that we have just renewed the 300,000^th passport on-line. That percentage of on-line renewals is rising steadily, with the time involved dropping dramatically to just 2-3 days.

The government’s Better Public Services strategy is about achieving similar types of results across the board. The establishment of the D5 provides an opportunity for countries of like mind to share experiences and learn from each other. It promises to become an extremely valuable forum.

Information sharing of a different type is the stock-in trade of the Press Gallery Christmas Party, which is why I regret not being there to hear all the latest passing gossip. But the work of the D5 is likely to be more enduring, lasting well beyond the next newspaper headline, or television news bulletin, and therefore of far more benefit to our citizens.    

   

  

 

 

 

 

26 November 2014

I have thought for many years that the State Services Commission was redundant and should be abolished.

I felt that in these days of more autonomy for departmental chief executives the oversight role of the SSC was no longer necessary, and that the responsibility should rest with individual chief executives.

Recent events have forced me to change that view. Ironically, the utter ineptitude of the SSC’s handling of the Sutton case has been the reason. Here was a case of serious misconduct by a chief executive – which did require external intervention – which was so mishandled by the SSC as to draw attention to the need for it to be seriously reformed.

It should start at the top. The State Services Commissioner has performed very poorly in this instance, and should be replaced. A more vibrant, independent leadership, not politically beholden to the government of the day is needed to oversee reshaping the SSC to become a more performance improvement and professional standards monitor of government agencies and their chief executives, rather than the defender of the status quo and protector of the government’s perceived interests it seems to be at present.

In the same vein, the role of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet merits review. Too often, the DPMC has been seen as a protective mirror image of the SSC, each bolstering and supporting the other, rather than independent agencies carrying out separate functions. The attendance and performance of the DPMC chief executive at the infamous Sutton press conference highlights the point. Worse, however unfounded, is the implication of a very cosy arrangement between CERA, the SSC and DPMC, and Mr Sutton to resolve his situation in a way that minimised embarrassment, with no apparent regard for the victim(s) involved. DPMC should never forget that its role is to provide the Prime Minister of the day with the best possible advice and information on current issues, but not to act, as increasingly appears the case, as some sort of political praetorian guard.

State sector reform since the 1980s has been allegedly about promoting greater transparency and accountability. In the light of the Sutton case, a justifiable argument can be mounted that those principles have been well and truly cast aside, at least by central agencies. Serving the public interest appears to have given way to keeping the ship of state on a smooth course. That is the job of politicians, not public servants, and when they start to confuse the roles, it is time they were moved on.        

The only good to emerge from the Sutton case is to learn from all the bad practices it contains. The failings of Mr Sutton, the SSC and the DPMC are now obvious and need to be addressed. Beyond that lies the wider issue of the reform of the key agencies themselves.

But the biggest issue – and the one still unspoken of – is the impact on the victim(s) in both this case, and the many other potential cases continuing undetected across the public sector.

Now, that would be a task a fit for purpose SSC could really focus its attention upon.

   

  

 

 

 

 

18 November 2014

The case of Phillip John Smith has raised many questions which are now the subject of a number of inquiries so it is therefore imprudent to be commenting too specifically about it before these have been completed. However, it does raise broader issues regarding individual privacy in age of increasingly joined-up government.  

As a constituency MP, I am struck constantly by the number of people I see who genuinely assume that their basic information is already readily accessible by a range of government agencies. Moreover, they seem somewhat surprised – and in some cases become quite agitated (“I have already given that information to such and such a government agency”) – when asked to provide it again. They not only expect their information to have been passed on, but seem to think that is acceptable.

But, by way of contrast, people appear far more concerned at a global level about the sharing of their personal information and the implication that nothing is private any more, and that their every communication, indeed activity, is monitored in some way by an increasingly inquisitive state. And all this is occurring against a backdrop of a communications revolution which is making the capacity to obtain and share information greater day by day, and where the whole process of government is increasingly technologically driven.

This apparent contradiction has particular implications for New Zealand. We are at the forefront of nations when it comes to joined-up government services, and New Zealanders are increasingly taken with the idea of doing their business with government – like paying their taxes, or renewing their passports – on-line, and at a time of their convenience. They like the freedom new circumstances are now providing, and are pushing the government to do more in that space.

So when a case like Smith arises people properly want to know why the relevant agencies did not have access to all the relevant information at the earliest opportunity, and as a matter of course. Our lack of tolerance for Smith’s behaviour is understandable, and we have some lessons to learn from what has happened to ensure there are no repeats.

Now, a number of challenges lie within all of this. The information technology explosion has only just begun, and it would be foolish to think otherwise. Today’s challenges are likely to seem miniscule to those that lie ahead.

The potential advantages of joined-up government are great – particularly to the individual – but so too are the risks. Information sharing is the way of the future, but it needs to be balanced by ensuring that our privacy and official information legislation, and official functions like those of the Ombudsman and the Privacy Commissioner are kept fit for purpose to ensure they can effectively protect the individual from any Orwellian risks inherent in the expansion of joined-up government. The balance between information sharing to enhance people’s lives, and information sharing to control them is a fine one, demanding constant vigilance. There is, after all, now no turning back.

  

 

 

 

 

12 November 2014

“Curiouser and curiouser,” said Alice in Wonderland in 1865. “I don’t much care where – just so as I get somewhere.”

A couple of recent events remind me that nearly 150 years later, Alice’s plea still has a great deal of relevance.

Last year, as amendments were being made to legislation governing the GCSB there was a great deal of comment about the changes being made introducing a new era of transparency and accountability for the hitherto shadowy intelligence agencies. A process of regular five yearly independent reviews was established and assurances given that henceforth no New Zealanders would be spied on improperly.

Any surveillance warrants issued would have to be promptly reported to the Inspector-General of Security and so on and so forth. In short, the clear message was that the days of warrantless surveillance were over.

Or so it seemed – until last week and the proposed introduction of the 48 hour warrant free fishing expedition to allow the authorities to snoop around a person of interest for up to 48 hours without a warrant to see if more detailed surveillance was necessary. All this is not only at total variance with last year’s decisions, but is coming even before the first of the independent reviews due to get underway in the middle of next year. ISIS is the presumed pretext, but the scope of the proposal is breathtaking. It should be deferred, at least until the independent reviews of the GCSB and SIS have taken place.

In the same vein was the announcement a couple of days ago by a group of South Island Mayors that they wanted the right to control where and how any psychoactive substances approved in the future could be handled in their areas. They realised that it was difficult to ban these substances outright because their composition changed regularly, but they wanted the right to determine things locally.

That all seems realistic and reasonable. It mirrors what I have been saying for over three years about the difficulty of dealing with this issue. More importantly, it mirrors provisions written into the psychoactive substances legislation when it was going through Parliament last year – and at the specific request of local government – to allow local authorities to develop policy plans for the sale and distribution of these substances in their areas.

Yet for at least the last twelve months, Mayors have been railing against these provisions, saying they shift the burden of responsibility from central to local government and are a cop-out which will not work. And what is even more bizarre, they now say that the solution lies in their implementing the very provisions they have been so staunchly opposing, despite having called for them in the first place. Well, yes, that was why Parliament gave them the power they requested.

It all smacks of Alice’s wishful journey to somewhere – just anywhere. The destination has become secondary to the perception that someone is doing something, somewhere.

Curiouser and curiouser indeed.