25 February 2016

Two reports caught my eye this week. First was the Amnesty International Report on Human Rights in New Zealand, and the second was the report of the Family Violence Review Committee on the state of domestic violence in New Zealand.

Amnesty International was critical of a number of aspects of human rights in New Zealand, particularly around the numbers and treatment of refugees, and also relating to aspects of our surveillance policies, in particular the “full take” approach we apparently adopt with regard to Pacific states.

The Family Violence Review Committee report highlighted the unacceptably high level of domestic violence in New Zealand, and called for all relevant government and non-government agencies to work more effectively and collaboratively towards its resolution.

While at first glance these reports may appear to have little in common there is a link between them. It relates to the vexed question of information-sharing. On the one hand, according to Amnesty International, we are insufficiently discriminating when it comes to gathering (and presumably sharing) intelligence information on our Pacific neighbours. Debate about the scope and implications of "“full take” information gathering policies has led the United States to modify its approach in the last couple of years, with Congress placing new restrictions on such practices, even if the FBI is now trying to subvert those in its current bullying of Apple over access to encrypted mobile phone data.

On the other hand, the Family Violence Review Committee report calls for greater co-operation between agencies, including more information-sharing. And this is the point of connection between the two reports.

There is a strong case for better information-sharing between agencies, when it is in the individual citizen’s interests. There is an arguable case for information-sharing when it might assist the identification of at-risk families, or aid the investigation and prevention of crime. (The jury is still out on where the boundary-line is to be drawn in these cases, between the mechanisms to be adopted, and the rights of the individual protected.) But there is no case at all on human rights and individual privacy grounds for any continuation of “full take” data-collection and information-sharing, especially when that involves data collected about other countries.

People expect governments to share information between agencies when it is in their individual interests, but they also expect governments to treat such information with due care, and to never forget that they are but the custodians of an individual’s information. It is never the government’s information, but is always that of the individual citizen, and must be respected as such. It goes without saying that it should only be used for the purposes for which it was gathered.

One way of resolving this inherent conflict might be to do what happens in Estonia. There, citizens have the right to see at any time who has been accessing their personal data. If that access is deemed inappropriate, strict criminal penalties apply. As a consequence, there have been extremely few privacy breaches. Maybe, we should be looking to implement such a protection here?     

 

 

 

18 February 2016

One of the more pointless but recurring debates, no matter which government is in office, relates to the level of spending on the public health system.

Currently, Labour says there have been $1.7 billion of health cutbacks over the last five years, which National counters by pointing out that health spending has gone up by $4 billion over the same time. Ah yes, says Labour, but it should have gone up by at least $5.7 billion, so the difference represents the effective cutback that has taken place.

It is all quite pointless. The focus should be on the performance and productivity of the health sector, and the overall impact that is having on the health status of New Zealanders.

On that basis, performance against the Ministry of Health’s targets tells a good story, according to the latest results. Overall, although the performance does vary from DHB to DHB, stays in emergency departments are shorter; there is generally improved access to elective surgery, and faster access to cancer treatment; immunisation rates are rising; more smokers are quitting; more people are having regular heart and diabetes checks; and, children’s oral health is improving.

In international terms, we rate ahead of France, Canada and the United States, but behind Britain, Australia, and Germany, according to a 2013 study on healthcare outcomes by the Commonwealth Fund. So, while we have a good healthcare system, there is obviously room for ongoing improvement, which brings us back to the issue of funding. The same study showed we have the lowest level of per capita spending on health of the eleven countries surveyed, even though our overall performance rates much higher. The productivity of our health professionals is clearly better than most.

This year, the government will spend just under $16 billion on the public health system, around 10% of GDP, compared to just over 7% in 2000, and around 8.5% when it took office.

Now, one thing anyone who studies health spending and services knows only too well is that the demand for services is insatiable, and that any government, no matter how prosperous the times, will be engaged in some form or other of rationing to meet the budget.

Which is where service improvements, efficiency gains, better use of technology, and new forms of clinical practice come in. A recent telecommunications and technology study has estimated that more video-conferencing between doctors, patients and specialists will not only reduce the need for emergency room visits, hospital admissions and the long-term prescription of often costly medicines, thus providing better, faster and more convenient care for patients, but also has the potential to save about $6 billion in current health costs, releasing funds which could then be ploughed back into currently expensive areas of health care, like, for example, the cost of new medicines (like Keytruda?).

That is where the real debate about the future funding of our health services should be focused, rather than continuing the tired old games of “National says, Labour says”.  

  

   

  

 

 

 

 

11 February 2016

I agree with the Labour Party on the TPP.

Well, some of what it is saying anyway. Actually, to be more accurate, some of what Andrew Little is saying, because everyone else in his Caucus seems to be trying to cover all sides of the argument, all of the time.

No, I agree with Andrew Little when he says it would be crazy for New Zealand to pull out of the TPP once it takes effect. He is absolutely right.

Over the summer period, I took the opportunity to listen quietly to what real New Zealanders, not the vocal protestors, were saying. Their message is mixed. They hear the government’s story about the trade opportunities arising from the TPP, and while, on balance, they are a little sceptical, they tend to see that as positive. They do worry about sovereignty issues, but note that every agreement we have signed up to, including membership of the United Nations under Peter Fraser and the World Health Organisation, has involved sovereignty issues, and there has never been a problem. In any case, they tend to accept the view that New Zealand will make its own mind up if any clashes arise.

Some have seen it as ironic that when it came to issues like sending troops to Iraq, New Zealand did not do so, because there was no United Nations mandate in place, and we believed in collective action, and the Labour government of the time was insisting – correctly in my view – on there being such a mandate as a condition of its participation. Others have wanted to know how come it was acceptable for New Zealand to take Australia to the World Trade Organisation over its restrictions on our apple exports, but not acceptable for similar provisions to apply here.

A lot of scorn has been heaped upon academics like Jane Kelsey for their role in the debate. Part of that seems to me to be the narrow anti-intellectual bias of some New Zealanders, which is a pity, but I did hear one comment to the effect that never has someone said so much, for so little impact! (It is fun what one hears when sitting quietly in a café.)

People quite like Andrew Little’s line that we are a country built on free trade. They snigger a bit though at the verbal gymnastics that have seen him go through saying that on the one hand, while saying he opposes TPP on the other, but would not stop it if he won office.

But the common point all the discussions I have heard seemed to end up on was what happens if the TPP proceeds, and New Zealand is not part of it. How does that help our exporters, and what will it do to the cost of imports? The xeonophobes – who certainly do not like the TPP – splutter that not being part of it might make even us more reliant on China.

To me, it all sounds a little like the 1980s restructuring. No-one at the time particularly liked it, but most people knew in their heart of hearts that it had to happen. The then Labour government got grudging support for staying the course. Only when it flip-flopped, did it lose public goodwill. That is the lesson for the current government on the TPP. Stay the course, capitalise on the hard yards already made, and lock in the benefits. After all, as Andrew Little has made very clear, the TPP is here to stay. 

 

 

 

28 January 2016

There used to be a State opening of Parliament every year, complete with a Speech from the Throne setting out the government’s agenda. That was followed by a full Address-in-Reply Debate, where most MPs spoke, on what was said or not said, as the case may be.

Nowadays, we have an annual Prime Minister’s Statement. Even that has changed over the years. Today, the actual Statement is merely tabled; the Parliamentary debate is quite truncated and highly politicised. Rather than being a formal presentation and consideration of the government’s agenda for the year ahead, it has descended to the depths of being no more than the opening round of the year’s political boxing match.

It is preceded – in the best of the emerging traditions of what passes to be sporting competition today – with the preliminary skirmishes. This farce is euphemistically and overly grandiosely referred as the state of the nation addresses. With rare exceptions (the Auckland rail funding announcement and the Greens’ election policy costing ideas, for example) these speeches are increasingly like the strutting bellowing of boxers at the weigh-in, or a pre-Big Bash team rant. Because of the ritual chest-thumping and knuckle dragging behaviour they display, they actually add nothing to political debate.  Sadly, for many New Zealanders they are no more than the signal that the holidays are over, the politicians are back, so it is time to switch off and carry on with their own lives for the year ahead.

There is a place for passion, outrage and anger in politics. It should be rare and dignified, and never feigned, befitting a major issue of the day. Unfortunately, the competition for attention and the presence of some addled egos means that virtually every issue is now treated that way. All that means is that a moderately interested (at best) public sees this cant for what it is, and becomes more cynical and turned-off from what it perceives to be these contrived, insincere performances.

All around the world today people bemoan the lack of interest or engagement in the political process. Some are even suggesting direct action is likely to be more effective political involvement than following democracy. The challenge for all of is to develop new and better forms of public engagement than are currently the case. Politics as usual, in this country and elsewhere, will no longer work.

History’s great leaders have been those who have transcended the superficiality of their times to connect directly with people about the enduring issues that matter – personal and family security, access to opportunity, the protection  of their rights and dignity, and the chance to live a good life.

That remains the challenge today. Everything else is extraneous. While it is naïve to think there can ever be full trust in the political process (it is after all a robust contest of ideas and values, where some win and others lose) there needs to be greater alignment of the public’s aspirations and the politicians’ focus. After all, the ultimate handbrake on reckless politicians and government is an educated and informed public holding them to account. As more formal political processes reduce, the handbrake is similarly loosened. To overcome this, and thereby restore a modicum of trust, the reinvigoration of education about citizenship (or what used to be called civics) would be a welcome step towards a more civilised, substantive and responsible form of political engagement than the loud, populist, shouting sports channel approach we have currently. 

  

 

  

 

 

 

 

21 January 2016

Welcome to 2016! May the year ahead fulfil your dreams and aspirations.

2016 has begun with New Zealand continuing to tiptoe – always seemingly reluctantly and certainly gingerly – around the issues of its identity and future.

The upcoming vote on the flag is the obvious current example. Changing our national ensign to represent something more in tune with contemporary New Zealand should have been a no-brainer, but, if the opinion polls are correct, such a result seems unlikely at this stage. Then we will be stuck with the current drab flag for another century or so, and the government will probably conclude that the lack of enthusiasm for even this modest change shows no public appetite for wider constitutional change, so that will also fall off the agenda, and we will remain in our national rut.

While the flag is but a symbol, the debate about its future is important. It should be an opportunity to engage all New Zealanders in discussing our values as a nation. In particular, it is important for young New Zealanders, many of whom will be too young to vote in the referendum, but will have to live with its outcome far longer than those of us who will be voting and making the decision. What do they think? What are our obligations to them when we vote? Surely the vote on the flag should be more than just the selfish expression of those who are older?

Of course, the ultimate objective of any constitutional reform project has to be the establishment of an independent New Zealand republic within the Commonwealth. In the meantime, there are other steps we ought to be considering as well. Changing the flag is but the first of these.

Amongst the others is the oath of allegiance. This has caused controversy in recent years because the current oath makes no reference to the Treaty of Waitangi. But it also continues to require allegiance to the Queen, which becomes more and more absurd as each year goes by. Surely a more logical solution would be to amend the oath to one of loyalty to the people and laws of New Zealand?

At the same time, we could look to replacing other antiquated British symbols with a few more relevant to contemporary New Zealand. For example, the Queen’s Birthday observance could be abolished in favour of a Matariki Day holiday, to serve as a possible National Day as well. The offensive Guy Fawkes Day could be replaced by Parihaka Day to honour the tradition of passive resistance New Zealanders have shown in many different settings over the years.

All these debates will be opportunities for the young people who are New Zealand’s future to have their say about the type of country they seek. In our role, as custodians of the present for the future, it will be our challenge to give them that opportunity.

A 2016 that embraces these ideas could be an exciting and significant year for New Zealand. But a year that continues to ignore them, will be no more than just one more – like last year and so many more before it. The years of almost, but not quite, and opportunities lost.

      

  

 

 

 

 

10 December 2015

So, according to the Security Intelligence Service, increasing numbers of young New Zealand women are off to Syria to become what have been called “jihadi brides.” Well, actually, there are not that many. Of the thousands of foreign fighters in Syria, and assumed to be fighting for ISIL, it is understood that less than a dozen may be from New Zealand. Unless the so-called “jihadi brides” are marrying non-New Zealanders involved in the campaign, the actual numbers are very small, probably insignificantly so, indeed.

Therefore, why raise this spectre of alarm? One reason might be that, small as it is, the number has grown, and is consequently, in a time of increased international tension, worth noting. Possible, but unlikely. After all, whatever way you look at it, the numbers are still very low. And also, there has been no change in New Zealand’s terrorism alert status in the last year to account for it.

Well, it may be that New Zealand is becoming an active recruiting base for such people. Again, unlikely, and in any case, were it so, drawing attention to it would be the very worst thing to do, as it would only serve to recruit more people to the cause.

So perhaps it was just a throwaway comment, made just in passing. Whatever their many lapses, security agencies are not prone to passing throwaway comments, so that defence can be dismissed.

All of which leaves two possibilities. One is that our risk status has increased and this is a coded way of drawing public attention to it. This too is an unlikely scenario for the simple reason our official risk status has not been upgraded in the last year.

That leads to the inevitable conclusion that the comment was part of a softening-up process for the outcome of the independent review of the security services due in the first quarter of next year. After all, heightening the perception of threat would boost the case for increasing the powers of the security agencies. This is a little too obvious and we should be careful not to become too taken in by it.

But there is another, potentially more subtle aspect to this. The softening-up process may not be directed so much at the general public and the politicians, as it is to the review itself. After all, the review could recommend curbs on the way the security services operate, or even worse from their point of view, some rationalisation and reorganisation. That would be anathema to the shadowy practitioners of the craft, who since virtually forever have operated largely as a law unto themselves. But what if a tighter line was to be drawn between their activities, and those of say the Police under the Terrorism Suppression Act, for example?

Now all this I freely concede is but unsubstantiated speculation on my part, but I suspect issues like this will be focusing the minds of the spooks as they huddle furtively around their summer barbecues. They should also be topics for the rest of us to ponder as well.

On that note, Dunne Speaks takes its leave for the year. Best wishes for a happy and peaceful Christmas and a safe and prosperous 2016.

      

 

 

 

 

 

3 December 2015

The announcement that Japan intends to resume scientific whaling, as it prefers to call blatant slaughter, in the Southern Ocean this season received surprisingly scant attention last week. There were the ritualistic expressions of outrage, the perfunctory Government statement of concern, and the muted calls to dispatch a naval vessel to the region to “sort things out”, but really that was it.

But Japan’s actions deserve a far greater response than that. After all, not only are they thumbing their noses at international opinion, they are also openly defying the rulings of the International Court of Justice. Indeed, this is the contemporary equivalent of France’s arrogant actions from the 1960s onwards of testing nuclear weapons, first in the atmosphere, and then underground at Mururoa Atoll in the Pacific.

And the comparisons do not end there. In both cases, these environmental assaults occurred in our broad neighbourhood, and in both cases, it was not unreasonable to expect New Zealand to take a leading role in opposing them. We did that admirably against French nuclear testing, from the time Norman Kirk sent a New Zealand frigate, complete with a Cabinet Minister on board, to Mururoa in 1973, at the same as he sent his Attorney-General Dr Martyn Finlay to the World Court to argue successfully the legal case against the French. Our staunch approach caused France to first move to underground testing, then inspired the dastardly terrorist attack against the Rainbow Warrior, but finally forced France under Mitterand in 1996 to abandon all testing, albeit 181 tests later. Along the way, hundreds of thousands of typical New Zealanders had been inspired to join the campaign for a nuclear free Pacific, and an end to nuclear testing.

If our outrage about Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean is as serious, we will need to adopt similar tactics to defeat it. The inclement weather of the Southern Ocean makes it impractical and dangerous to encourage protest flotillas into the area, but maritime patrols by either the Navy or the Air Force are surely an option to keep the focus of international attention and scorn on the whalers. Norman Kirk described the frigate HMNZS Otago as it set sail for Mururoa as “a silent witness with the power to bring alive the concerns of the world”. A modern Naval vessel or Air Force Orion shadowing or circling the whaling fleet could provide the same inspiration today.

At the same time, New Zealand should continue its efforts in the International Court of Justice, alongside Australia and other like-minded nations to hold the Japanese to international account.

From the time Peter Fraser signed the United Nations Charter in 1945, New Zealand has been strongly committed to a rules-based international system. We have consistently and properly upheld the primacy of the international institutions we helped create, so utilising those institutions in the fight against whaling is entirely appropriate.

New Zealand and Japan have a good relationship. Through the Trans Pacific Partnership that is about to become a little closer. We should not be afraid to use that relationship, the power of the international community, and our capacity to be a “silent witness” to bring Japan to end the barbarism of whaling in the Southern Ocean.