Within sixteen months New Zealand will have its next General Election. Prime Minister John Key will be seeking to equal Keith Holyoake’s record of four straight election victories. Opposition Leader Andrew Little’s goal will be more modest – he will be seeking to break the mould of his three predecessors and just win an election.

As always, the election will be as much a referendum on the government’s performance, as it will be a statement of how New Zealanders see themselves in the world of the time. A confident outlook will more than likely secure the return of the government of the day – a less certain or even negative outlook will obviously favour the Opposition. So the backdrop against which the election occurs will be as important as the domestic circumstances of the country at the time.

International events such as Brexit, the rise of Donald Trump, and mounting anxiety about terrorism and the insidious linkage of that to migrant and refugee policy are conspiring to portray a very unsettled and insecure world. And that, in turn, is leading to the rise of an “Up You” approach to politics from many voters who feel increasingly disenfranchised. Those whose jobs have been affected by the technology revolution and globalisation; those whose lack of tertiary education in the 1960s and 1970s has left them unequipped for today’s rapidly changing economic environment; and those who fear the social and economic security of their retirement will be threatened by society’s changing mix, all see politicians and governments as the cause of their anxieties, and are increasingly intolerant of politics, as they have known it, to do any good by them.

It is no surprise therefore that in such an environment the rise of non-politicians – like Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, or even on the left Bernie Sanders – appeals. Their simple solutions, seldom based on facts or evidence, are far more appealing when contrasted with politicians and governments offering measured, considered programmes that are now seen as ponderous and increasingly out of touch. The irony is that the age of instant communications and dramatic changes that has left these people feeling so disempowered, has at the same time led them to embrace instant solutions to the problems they perceive around them.

The question for New Zealand in the lead-up to next year’s election is how far that international mood of fear will have permeated our society, and what its impact might be here by the time we come to vote. Already, the racists and the xenophobes are lining up to pedal their messages of hate and division, but again ironically, they have been around here for so long, with so little success, it is a wonder anyone bothers to take them seriously. Prime Minister Key’s challenges as he contemplates 2017 are how he presents his government as still the government for the times, and how he deals with the seas of extremism starting to swirl around him. A superficial analysis might conclude that his task is an uphill one.

However, that ignores a couple of significant factors that might work in his favour. Last week, in Britain, the former Liberal Democrat leader, Paddy Ashdown, announced the formation, in the wake of Brexit, of a new cross-party group, More United, to fight across all political parties the extremism and intolerance now emerging in British politics. By all accounts, its message of supporting policies and MPs that are moderately progressive has been well received by people feeling the time has come to pull back from the brink of the abyss many felt they have been hurtling towards. An early sign, perhaps, that the tide is turning?

A second point is that by the time we go to the polls next year Trumpism will have either triumphed or been vanquished. If it has triumphed, then the message of progressive moderation may well likely be an attractive antidote around the world for what may be happening in the United States by then. If Trump has been defeated, then the same appeal is likely, but perhaps more in the mould of the “Never Again” mood that swept the western democracies at the end of World War II.

John Key is no historian, so will not necessarily be influenced by what has gone before him, but he is an astute observer of the human condition, with a sharp sense of political smell. His instincts would be strongly opposed to following the path of extremism, unlike some of his colleagues who would follow whatever path was available, so long as it led to National staying in power. So, the extent to which John Key is prepared to offer himself as the antidote to extremism, in the mould of the progressive moderate, is likely to determine whether he becomes the modern Holyoake.

After all, he too was a progressive moderate, long before the term was coined. That was why he won four elections.  

            

  

 

 

 

 

New Zealand is generally well regarded in the international community. That is probably one of the biggest things going for former Prime Minister Helen Clark (aside for the moment from her considerable and formidable personal skills and talents) in her bid to become the next United Nations’ Secretary-General. She comes from a country which is one of the oldest continuous Parliament democracies in the world, with a commitment to international co-operation (the role wartime Prime Minister Peter Fraser played in the formation of the United Nations is still widely recognised) and a reputation for speaking out (the Kirk Government’s stand against French nuclear testing in the Pacific and David Lange’s anti-nuclearism are legend). Even today, Prime Minister John Key is developing a reputation as a leader who speaks up in international meetings for the interests of small nations and the protection of human rights generally. If Helen Clark’s bid is successful, as all New Zealanders hope, our country will be justifiably proud to see our national values recognised on the world stage.

All of which makes the one great blind spot in our foreign policy that much harder to tolerate and understand. New Zealand’s 1972 decision to recognise the People’s Republic of China was hailed at the time as in the vein of the independence our foreign policy has become noted for. We were again forging a new path others may wish to have followed, but sadly, as the years have gone by, that independent streak has first weakened, then frayed, and now virtually disappeared altogether. As we have become closer to China economically and politically, our policy approach has simply become more timid and craven. When the Lange Government’s anti-nuclear policy was at its peak, international commentators used to describe New Zealand as the mouse that roared. Now, they could just as accurately describe us as the mouse that scuttled for cover.

Our foreign policy now has a desperate air to it. It is no longer about trying to secure our trading future, or playing our part in the Commonwealth and wider international community. No, New Zealand’s foreign policy today is all about not upsetting China. Even though we have a free trade agreement with China, and generally good political relations, we dare not use those links to speak out about issues of concern. Despite our laudable opposition to the use of the death penalty worldwide, we suddenly become mute when it comes to China, one of the most judicially murderous nations on earth. We pointedly state no view on China’s increasing incursions into the Pacific and its building of artificial islands in the South China Sea to extend its national frontiers. Only once international adjudication has ruled against China do we meekly state that maybe China should respect international law. Even this week, there have been reports that we are unwilling to do too much about reportedly inferior Chinese steel fabrications being used in local projects because China has apparently threatened retaliation against Fonterra and other exporters if we complain.

Now, of course China is a much bigger and more powerful nation than New Zealand, and of course, the relationship with China is far more important to New Zealand, than the other way around. As a consequence, there are those who argue it is a case of “beggars cannot be choosers” and we cannot expect China to play the game any other way. They were the same voices who said we could not take France to the World Court and expect to win as we did in the 1970s; or that we could not challenge United States’ nuclear defence policy and expect no retaliations, when we did so in the 1980s with little impact on trade and a temporary political frostiness which began to thaw from the time of Prime Minister Bolger in the early 1990s.

The sad thing is that these voices of timidity represent the policy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Their cringing pathological fear of doing anything to upset China is not only weak and cowardly – it is downright humiliating and utterly embarrassing. It is time for New Zealand to grow some backbone when it comes to its relationship with the still dictatorial, authoritarian China.            

 

 

 

 

There has been much comment recently that we have entered a “post truth” era of politics, where politicians not only no longer tell the truth, but worse, have given up any pretence of doing so. According to this line of argument, what matters most with voters is the impression that a politician’s comment leaves, rather than its substance.

The most striking example the commentators quote comes from the recent Brexit campaign, where “leave” campaigners claimed that Britain’s membership of the EU was costing British taxpayers £350 million a week, which could be better spent on health and social services if Britain left Europe. In fact, the claim was quite untrue, but its simplicity struck a chord with disenfranchised voters. Similar claims are made in respect of the recent Australian election where it is argued that misleading texts from Labor sources about the future of Medicare under the Turnbull Government swung many voters in marginal seats. The Trump campaign in the United States offers similar examples as well – from the wall to keep Mexicans out, to the ban on Muslim immigration. The point is that, on any rational assessment, none of these things are either true or achievable, but in the “post truth” environment that is an almost immaterial consideration.

New Zealand politicians are learning the lesson, sadly it seems, if the current housing debate is anything to go by. A complex and difficult social problem with many levels to it is being reduced to inane, empty slogans (just build 100,000 “more bloody houses” to quote the elegant language of the rather crude Leader of the Opposition) without any regard to how all that might be achieved. To one political party, the housing problem is all the fault of the Auckland Council and the Resource Management Act, which resonates with its developer audience; to another, it is all because of immigration, which plays well with its xenophobic audience; and to another, the blame lies with property speculators, as that suits its style of envy politics. The common point is that not one more young family is being housed as a result of these positions. But, the political spin-masters would argue that is a secondary consideration to getting the parties’ respective brands across.

Oh really? The starting point surely has to be that there is a housing problem at present. We know about the Auckland situation, as that is the most obvious manifestation, but right across New Zealand young families are finding it difficult to finance themselves into a first home because of restrictive bank lending policies. There is also a shortage of available rental accommodation, and social agencies are reporting more and more genuinely homeless people.

These are difficult times for liberal, centrist parties like UnitedFuture because the “post truth” approach to politics shows little tolerance for reasoned and well-considered responses. Yet, in the interests of future generations, there are practical steps we should be taking to make progress on the housing front. We need a more inclusive approach through a Housing Summit, bringing together central and local government, the building industry, the Reserve Bank and the trading banks, and social housing providers to develop a comprehensive, integrated plan which all sectors can buy into and implement in a properly co-ordinated way. It is all very well, for example, to propose building more affordable homes if the banks are not prepared to lend to young families to buy them, as is the case at present. (In that regard, UnitedFuture has proposed allowing families to capitalise their Working for Families payments on an annual basis to help bridge the deposit gap or assist with mortgage repayments.)

Politicians of all stripes ought to be accountable for their actions. “Post truth” politics and the focus on slogans ahead of policy simply removes meaningful accountability. “Post truth” politicians are not leaders – they are mere charlatans strutting every stage and saying things they hope are popular and newsworthy, without any regard to practicality.

Simple solutions, bold ideas, call them what you like, rarely work, as history shows. Often, shattered societies are left to pick up the pieces. Unfortunately, the way the major parties are playing the housing debate shows every sign New Zealand is heading down that path. It is not something future generations will thank us for.  

        

   

  

 

 

 

 

Thirty years ago this week, by 49 votes to 44, Parliament passed the Homosexual Law Reform Bill into law. I was proud then and now to have been one of those MPs who voted for the Bill throughout its passage through Parliament, and was therefore delighted to join former colleagues and supporters of the Bill once more at Parliament this week to celebrate the occasion.

It is hard to imagine now how vile the debate had been over the preceding few months that the Bill was before Parliament. While it is inevitable that important issues like this will occasion strong feelings in the minds of supporters and opponents alike, the debate around this Bill was so vehement and extreme that it comes to mind as though it were yesterday. Certainly, some of the things said during those debates and the actions undertaken in the main by opponents of the Bill would not be tolerated in today’s society. The debate we had a few years ago about marriage equality was no less intense, and views no less divided, but its tone and content were more courteous and substantial in the main than 30 years ago. So, arguably at least, our society has come a long way since then. That is definitely true in terms of the ills forecast for society by those who opposed the bill, as none of them have come to pass.

However, I am less certain we can be entirely confident our capacity to handle with sensitivity controversial social issues has fundamentally improved. A couple of weeks ago I wrote in this column how disappointed I was that the Government’s review of the refugee quota had produced such a parsimonious outcome. I have been amazed subsequently at the vehemence of the small minority of negative responses I have received. While I respect absolutely people’s right to hold and promote a different opinion, the level of personal abuse and vitriol has been a genuine surprise, even for a politician who has seen it all in the last 32 years. Similarly, and on a somewhat lesser scale, the response on my social media pages last week after I rather foolishly posted a hoax message that had been sent to me in apparent good faith was positively feral and utterly disgraceful. Now, I do not mind for myself – I simply block anybody who sends me a personally abusive or insulting message – and, contrary to my critics’ assertions, I am generally pretty thick-skinned. But I am concerned that nastiness and rudeness in social intercourse are becoming far more common and accepted by default. Yet when we see them expressed in other countries – the insults that have been reportedly directed at migrants in Britain since the Brexit vote, for example – we recoil, genuinely aghast.

Perhaps all this is symptomatic of a wider social malaise. We often hear reports of bullying in schools, or the harassment of various social groups, although we have thus far been spared the extremes of religious intolerance that have seen Muslims prevented from wearing their traditional garb in allegedly civilised European societies. However, I have no doubt that such a call would find its share of supporters and political expression in certain quarters of New Zealand. Societies have always been vulnerable to the anger of the marginalised poor; today, it seems to be a more a case of those feeling socially marginalised or left behind by change causing discontent.

All these swirling currents place a huge pressure on the liberal centre of politics today. For so long seen as the bastion of reason and tolerance, those of us in the liberal centre now risk being isolated and vilified as naïve and out of touch. Yet, events like the 30^th anniversary of homosexual law reform make it very clear that the liberal centre’s greatest challenges now are to be the new bulwark against the intolerance that is emerging, however and wherever it is presented, and to provide a rallying point for those of similar views, feeling uneasy or intimidated by what they see developing around them. I supported the Homosexual Law Reform Bill in 1986 in the full knowledge of the potential political backlash. That never happened, and is a salient inspiration now that standing up for tolerance and against bigotry and oppression is, in the long term, still the right thing to do.                 

 

 

A Labour Party Bill to establish 26 weeks paid parental leave (which UnitedFuture was pleased to back) has been supported by a majority of MPs at all stages, but the Minister of Finance has used a rare power of financial veto to prevent its becoming law.

The veto is a provision that has been available to governments since 1996 to override costly Opposition proposals that may have more than a “minor impact” on the government’s budget. It was put in place when MMP was introduced to prevent minor parties or temporary coalitions of parties being able to come together to effectively “blow the budget” through passing expensive measures (either in terms of new spending or revenue reductions) contrary to the policies of the government of the day.

In this instance, the Minister of Finance used the veto because he considered the alleged cost of Labour’s Bill – reportedly according to his estimate an extra $280,000,000 (or a mere 0.004%) of the government’s projected total expenditure this year – will have more than a “minor impact”. But the Minister was subsequently forced to admit to Parliament that his figure was wrong – the actual cost net of tax is a fraction of that, just $70,000,000, the merest 0.0009% of the $77,400,000,000 the government is expecting to spend this year.

So is a 0.0009% adjustment to the government’s operating budget more than a “minor impact”, or not? To most reasonable people the answer would surely be no. At the time the veto procedure was established, no dollar amount was set, being left for the government of the day to determine according to the circumstances of the time. But it was anticipated that the veto would be used sparingly and reasonably. While both National and Labour in government have applied the veto on a number of occasions, the application of it to an entire Bill, as happened now, is a first and raises its own set of questions.

At one level, no-one can be all that surprised. Since the Bill was introduced over a year ago National has said repeatedly it would veto it, if and when it came up for its final reading, because they considered it too expensive. As the figures, even the erroneous figure of $280,000,000, now show, that is an unlikely claim. It lacks all credibility completely when the correct figure of $70,000,000 is considered.

So why?

Possibly it was a simple case of political petulance. National did not want to be seen as giving Labour a win on this issue. Unlikely though, as National are not usually that small-minded, and in any case, if they thought Labour were on to a winner, they could have easily stolen their ground in this year’s Budget, the way they did last year when they lifted benefit rates for the first time in over 40 years.

Maybe it was because National are planning something similar in next year’s election Budget? Quite possible, but the problem is that the Budget will be just a few months before the election and there would be no time to put an extended scheme in place before then.

More likely, it was a calculated assessment by National’s leaders that, despite the perceived public sentiment in favour of the Bill, extending paid parental leave is just not that important an issue for their voter base, and that tax cuts (which could be in  place before the election – just) are more attractive. Time will tell on that, but as a supporter of the Bill (in fact, UnitedFuture thinks 26 weeks does not go far enough – we favour a phased in move to 52 weeks) I have to concede that the clamour of public support this time around was not that obvious, compared to that for a similar Labour Bill in the last Parliament. National sources already say that the veto issue has had no detrimental impact on their own internal polling. So, did National just do enough when it increased paid parental leave to 18 weeks a couple of years ago?

Whatever the reason, this issue has exposed some very important questions about the use of the veto and what constitutes a “minor impact”. The government’s use of the veto failed the reasonable test in this instance.

Its use needs to remain rare and reasonable to prevent untoward situations occurring, but in a multiparty environment the veto cannot be allowed to lapse into a government default option every time a passing majority of MPs combine on an important matter of policy which it opposes. National would be wise to put the veto back in the cupboard for a while.            

  

 

 

 

 

Liberal, modern societies pride themselves on what they perceive to be a genuine sense of tolerance towards diversity. Every Mayor welcoming new citizens and every politician feeling in an expansive mood likes to wax eloquently about the different strands that make up our society, and how much the better we all are for what they have to offer. It is just like one big happy family on a giant scale.

The truth is somewhat different, and more harsh and brutal. Below the veneer of tolerance lies a very nasty streak in all our societies, which comes quickly to the fore when aroused. The horrific, mindless slayings of around 50 young people in Orlando, Florida this week, and the debate festering in many countries, including New Zealand, about refugees and migrants sadly bring this nasty streak to prominence. In Orlando, the facts that the people murdered belonged to the gay and lesbian community and the killer’s parents came from Afghanistan were quickly propelled into the public mind as possible explanations of the horrendous act. Here, the government’s decision to increase the annual refugee quota for the first time in 30 years by a miserly figure of just 250 people quickly degenerated into a row about immigration and the numbers and origins of people coming here, and, in what is really polite code for bigotry, whether they would fit into our society. Britain’s great referendum about the European Union seems likely to be decided not on the basis of what is best economically and socially for the British peoples, but rather on the basis of keeping Eastern European migrants out.

The veneer of liberal tolerance has been replaced by the unacceptable face of ignorant bigotry in each instance. Populist politicians everywhere have seen obvious social itches which they are now scratching with raw, crude enthusiasm. And as a result, the world is becoming a less comfortable place.

A big difference in recent years has been the nature of populism. Populist politics used to be about demagogic politicians legitimising in their utterances their society’s deepest prejudices, and gaining political traction as a consequence. Today, however, populism has a more sinister overtone. In a less tolerant world than before, populism is more and more the flame applied to the powder keg. Prejudice and intolerance simply breed more of the same.

Whatever the perversions that led the Orlando killer to carry out his grisly acts, the sad reality is that they are an encouragement to retaliation – especially in a society where the preservation of the constitutional right to bear arms prevails, meaning guns are everywhere, and violence is virtually impossible to control. In Europe, including Britain, the mounting tide of prejudice against migrants of all types has already produced major terrorist reactions, and more are likely. The seeds of dissension and intolerance now being planted and tilled in our country will most certainly not lead to positive outcomes.

Liberal democracies worth their salt cannot stand idly by and allow this wilful polarisation to take hold. Political leaders of decent values need to become more vocal in calling out intolerance and bigotry for the cancer they are, no matter how big or small the incidence, no matter how distorted the populism. Playing to the public’s most latent prejudices the way the populists do is in reality no more than the ultimate form of social bullying – see the world my way if you know what is good for you.

But the one good thing about bullies is that their basic weakness of character and overall vacuity means they implode when challenged. So challenging and exposing bigotry for the fraud it is remains society’s best safeguard against the horrific acts of brutality and oppression the world has been forced to witness in recent years.        

   

  

 

 

 

 

Earlier this week, in my capacity as Minister of Internal Affairs responsible for the delivery of on-line government services, I hosted officials from the D5 group of countries at a planning meeting in Wellington. Now, most people will not have heard of the D5, or know anything about it, but it is arguably one of the most important international groupings New Zealand could be part of at the start of the 21^st century.

The D5 was established just under two years ago and comprises the five most digitally advanced governments in the world. Its make-up, which will surprise, is Britain, New Zealand, Korea, Israel and Estonia. Estonia, the small Baltic state of just 1.3 million people, is probably the most digitally advanced country on earth. Once it became independent of the former Soviet Union in the early 1990s, Estonia focused immediately on developing a digitally based society and economy, with breathtaking results. Britain and New Zealand are on a similar plane of moving steadily towards providing more and more government services on-line – in New Zealand we are on track to achieving 70% of the ten most common transactions people have with government being carried out on-line by 2017. For Israel and Korea the driver has been different – national security considerations have been the dominant factors for obvious reasons.

Many New Zealanders, I suspect, would be very surprised to learn how advanced we are by international standards and of the leading role we are playing in this space. We tend to take for granted our already high uptakes of digital services – that over 80% of tax returns are completed on-line (the comparable figure in Estonia is 96%); that around 50% of passport renewals are done on-line and that about 85% of births are now registered on-line, to name a few. More and more government services are now being provided on-line, and, just as we have become accustomed to doing our banking, paying our household bills and a range of other activities on-line, at a time and a place of our convenience and choice, so too has it become with government services. And the driver is the individual: more and more people are demanding the provision of services on-line, and the government machine is running harder than ever, just to keep up. And so it should.

The D5 partnership offers not just the opportunity to improve the delivery of on-line government services in New Zealand, but also for greater co-operation and partnership with the other member states. The next level is equally important – the opportunities this type of partnership can provide for our individual IT industries to partner and work together are immense and should not be overlooked.

At the same time, however, we must remain acutely aware that all this is premised on the provision of personal information and a high degree of trust from individuals that their data so provided is secure and will not be misused. So an equally strong thrust of the D5’s work will be to ensure that there are strong personal privacy laws and protections in place for our citizens, and that cybersecurity generally is taken extremely seriously. In Estonia, for example, every citizen has the right at any time to see who or which agency has been accessing their data, and to take action if that is considered to be improper. We already acknowledge cybersecurity as an important element of our overall IT strategy, but we should also look at personal privacy protection like Estonia’s.

And we also have to ensure that the range of services we are providing on-line is purposeful and valuable to citizens. In this context, a mechanism like Britain’s Social Value Act, passed in 2012, becomes important. It requires public bodies to consider how the services they provide contribute to economic, social and environmental well-being. In other words, are services effective and providing a wider benefit to the community as a whole? This lines up fairly well with the some of the thinking behind the government’s developing social investment model, and deserves further consideration.

The D5 meeting in Wellington this week may have passed quietly and without notice, but the work we are involved in through this partnership will have a most profound impact on all our lives in the future, and we have every reason to be proud of the innovative New Zealand role is playing here.