28 November 2013

Amidst the frenzied debate about the suitability or otherwise of the untested, yet to be elected, Conservatives as a viable post-election support partner for National, one point seems to have been overlooked.

By all means focus on the absolute, genuine sciurid nuttiness of Mr Craig and his colleagues – that should be enough to scare off any sane voter – but also give some thought to the actual role of a support or coalition partner. Mr Craig’s utterances make it clear he has yet to.

Britain’s Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg summed up that role very well earlier this week when he said that Britons need to know “there’s still a party that will always shun the extremes and govern from the liberal centre.” He was, of course, referring to his Liberal Democrats, but his point has equal relevance to New Zealand.

The role of support partners in multi party governments is not to push extreme agendas, but to moderate the actions of the major party of government, lest it lurch towards an  extremism of its own. People do not vote for a support party to keep a check on the government, only to find that support party is the one needing to be kept in check. Yet, when one looks at the New Zealand scene, support party extremism is precisely what would happen with the Conservatives, and arguably, although to a lesser extent, with ACT and the Greens. (In New Zealand First’s case the record is more basic – it is just chronically, serially unreliable.)

The most common dislike voters express about our MMP system is that tails can wag dogs. So long as governments of either hue are reliant on more extreme partners, that will continue to be a valid criticism. After all, MMP was introduced to be a check on the hitherto unbridled power of the major parties in government. But because of the need, more often than not, to have to constrain unruly support partners, the two main parties have ended up potentially more powerful than ever.

As the Liberal Democrats’ New Zealand sister party, UnitedFuture has attempted to play the role Nick Clegg describes. However, while we have knocked off some of the extreme edges of various things successive Labour- and National-led governments have considered in the last decade or so, or at the very least voted against them, we have never really been in the numerical position to do so absolutely. Nor have we got the credit when we have done so – after all, stopping nuttiness is never as exciting a media story as promoting it in the first place. Or, in the even worse case of the Conservatives, actually believing it as gospel.

MMP will only work as people expected when it is the big parties that are being constrained from the centre – and not being the ones hauling in their partners from the extremes. John Key has already acknowledged he would have to reign in the extremes of the Conservatives in government – is not that completely back to front?

21 November 2013

Most of us of a certain age can remember what we were doing on 22 November 1963, the day of President Kennedy’s assassination. My own memory is especially vivid – hearing the news on the 7:00 am radio news on the Saturday morning, and going in to wake my sleeping parents, who dismissed me as having a bad dream. So, I went back to my room and waited for the next bulletin, by which time they were ready to believe me.

50 years later, President Kennedy remains one of my two enduring political heroes – by way of complete contrast, the austere, dour Eamon de Valera is the other. In virtually every way they were complete opposites. (Kennedy quipped to Ireland’s Parliament, the Dail, during his 1963 visit that had his forbears stayed in Ireland he could have been sitting that day with the TDs in the Dail, listening to de Valera, had he stayed in the United States.) Yet, between them, they possessed qualities I continue to admire and value.

Kennedy’s oratory and his ability to inspire his generation by the use and construct of his words was overpowering, as was his leadership, first during the steel crisis, and then most famously during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. His empathy, so evident in his 1963 visits to the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, and to Ireland was simply extraordinary. But above all, it was his capacity, at the height of the Cold War, to articulate a vision of freedom and hope, not just for the United States, but for the world that marks his greatness. And the tragedy of his death made him a 20^th century martyr.

De Valera, on the other hand, was the ultimate survivor, avoiding execution by the British after the 1916 Uprising (because of his American origins) to become President of Ireland in 1919 and – with many years as Prime Minister in between – to be President again until he finally retired, after a fourteen year term, blind and his 90s, in 1973, over half a century later. Whereas Kennedy’s appeal lay in his flair, charm and charisma, de Valera survived by stubbornness and sheer cunning, defeating many of his rivals and cementing the development of the modern Irish state along the way.

Both men had their foibles. Kennedy’s now notorious private life was in stark contrast to the often extremely narrow-minded approach of de Valera. While Kennedy’s flame burned brightly and quickly before being cruelly extinguished, de Valera’s flame smouldered on until the mid 1970s.

On a cold Sunday morning some 25 years ago, I stood at Kennedy’s grave at Arlington National Cemetery and reflected upon the lives of my two heroes. I recalled Kennedy’s words and mercurial brilliance, and de Valera’s absolute steadfastness and wily determination.

As we mark 50 years since Kennedy’s death this weekend, I will be thinking of the good things my two heroes contributed to their two countries and the world of their times, and I will also be remembering afresh my grumpy parents, abruptly awoken by a precocious young child on that most extraordinary Saturday morning all those years ago.

14 November 2013

This weekend’s Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka seems set to be dominated by the furore surrounding human rights abuses in that country.

That should hardly be a surprise. Such issues are the norm for CHOGMs. Over the years, meetings have been dominated by the domestic situation in one member country or another – Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Nigeria, Fiji, and in earlier times South Africa and Uganda, come to mind. Crises within a member state at CHOGM time seem to have become the norm.  Indeed, even the student CHOGM held in Wellington at Parliament each year factors into its programme a session dealing with a simulated crisis in one member country or another!

The Commonwealth has long since ceased to be the cosy club of the British Empire it once was. It is now far more diverse and diffuse – 53 independent nations in a loose and free association, but with increasingly little in common. It is certainly not a trade or economic bloc (the WTO and the G20 have long since taken on that role, and the days of Imperial Preferences are well gone); nor is it a political or strategic powerhouse like NATO. It is certainly not an alternative to the United Nations.  While the Queen might like to wistfully refer to the Commonwealth “family” that is really bygone era stuff, which no-one takes all that seriously. Today’s Commonwealth is not so much a family as a loose and free association of states, with interests in development in the sharing of cultures, and the promotion of development and education, the essentially liberal preconditions for “democratic’ societies.  It is that quaint vagueness that gives the modern Commonwealth its strength and purpose.

Of course, none of that justifies the rogue behaviour of individual member states from time to time. In such circumstances, the Commonwealth club’s best reaction is to shame the offender to the extent that in most cases the miscreant gets the message and stays at home, either in defiance or a sulk. And the chaps at CHOGM hope they get the message and tidy up their act so that they can be welcomed back next time. And often they do.

Where things are a little different this time, though, is that the host is the problem. This is new territory which member states seem uncertain about how they should handle. Some (like club stalwarts Canada and India) are just staying home, others like New Zealand are going and planning to confront the issue head on. Either way, the danger is that diplomatic and political niceties will mean that nothing actually changes and Sri Lanka’s nominal leadership of the Commonwealth will carry on.

And if Sri Lanka does not “get the hint”, then the occasional “Wither the Commonwealth?” debate might gather more steam. That would be a pity – for all its idiosyncrasy, the Commonwealth remains a valuable international organisation that serves its members well.

7 November 2013

Karl Marx once said famously that the thing to learn from history is that people do not.

That certainly seems to be the case with the Police when it comes to dealing with sexual abuse matters. During 2006-07 we had the trials of former Police officers on historical rape charges, which led to the highly critical Bazley Report in 2007. As a consequence, we were led to believe that the Police had ‘turned the corner”, not just in terms of their own culture, but also in how they dealt with sexual abuse cases generally.

And we were inclined to believe that, more or less. Until early this week, at least, and the ghastly Roastbusters revelations. Now it appears that the Police had received at least four complaints about this gang as early as 2011, but had done very little about them.

How could this be? Especially after the Bazley Report? No doubt these thoughts are all racing through the Police Commissioner’s mind as he faces one of the most feared events known to humankind – a dressing down from his Minister Judith Collins!

RadioLive hosts Willie Jackson and John Tamihere provided the answers in their disgraceful interview with one of the young women involved. The ridicule and scorn they heaped upon her is symptomatic of the way the Police and wider society still deal with sexual abuse claims, particularly from women. Remember the recent comments by Sir Bob Jones on the two young German tourists?

Too many men still have a remarkably patronising attitude towards women – perhaps borne of their own insecurity and feelings of in adequacy. They still see women as wily temptresses, leading poor males on, who then complain when things go too far, or when they do not go far enough. Either way, it is their fault, and they are either making things up, or being vindictive, so their complaints are discounted accordingly. The Police and the wider community are no different in their attitudes in hat respect.

Well, it is time for those men to get a life. Until their awkward, unacceptable, ambivalent attitude towards inappropriate sexual behaviour against women is widely and consistently denounced for the degrading abuse it is, nothing much will change, sadly.

That is where we all have a responsibility to act.

31 October 2013

A sure sign of looming danger is when a politician opines the eerie words, “I’ve been thinking.” It is usually a warning some new crackpot idea is about to be unleashed, or hobby horse indulged. In fact, politicians’ “thinking” lies at the heart of many of the problems we face today.

Now, of course there are exceptions to every rule. There have been occasions when politicians’ thinking has led to profound positive social and economic change, or times when the lofty aspirations outlined by a politician have inspired a nation or a generation. (Nelson Mandela’s struggle against apartheid is the obvious contemporary example.) But generally speaking these occasions are the exception rather than the rule.

So, against that background, and with a fair measure of trepidation, let me share some of my current thinking about a contentious issue.

Just over a couple of months ago, the Psychoactive Substances Act of which I was the principal architect was implemented. It provides for the first time for a regulated market for the sale and supply of psychoactive substances, based on the level of risk they pose to the user. It is attracting interest from around the globe, as an innovative solution to an international problem, and, after a few not unanticipated teething problems, seems to be settling down quite well.

Now, here is where I have been thinking. Although the Psychoactive Substances Act was intended to deal with that issue only, and not to have wider application, it does occur to me that, if after a period of time, it is shown to be working effectively, it could well become the model by which narcotic drugs, currently controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act, are regulated for the future. The yardstick of level of risk – based on sound pharmacological and toxicological evidence – would become the determinant of availability, not public sentiment or prejudice.

I am not suggesting a revolution, but simply observing that the regulatory regime introduced for psychoactive substances could well have wider application and that we should not be averse to that possibility. After all, most experts now concede the so-called “war” on drugs has failed, and new initiatives are required.

So, is this another crackpot idea from a politician with time on his hands to be “thinking’? Or is an idea with merit worth considering further?

You be the judge.

24 October 2013

Many years ago, when I was a Labour MP, there used to be a weekly debate in Caucus about the theme for the week. If it was a quiet week, or one the government would rather forget, the default theme was always splits and divisions in the Opposition.

I do not know whether Labour still operates that way (it is over 19 years since I left the Labour Caucus) or whether National does likewise, but it seems that the news media certainly do.

Last week was proceeding quietly enough, with all the focus on the Auckland Mayoral circus, until John Banks’ resignation after being committed for trial on electoral fraud charges. A media feeding frenzy quickly developed (reminiscent of David Lange’s reef fish) about the government’s consequent apparent instability. One commentator referred to the government as “as stable as a blancmange”; another had me packed off to Canberra as High Commissioner, despite my having no interest in the job at all; and, they all had John Key throwing out a desperate lifeline to Colin Craig to be his saviour.

Amidst all the panic, a couple of small but significant facts were overlooked. The government still has a 64-57 majority on confidence and supply measures in the House; and there is over a year to run before the next election. A lot can change in that time. After all, as they keep reminding us in other circumstances, a week is a long time in politics, as Len Brown was discovering. So today’s drama is tomorrow’s fish and chips wrapping.

Now I am not criticising the Press Gallery. Theirs is a thankless job, at the best of times, trying to report coherently on events that often just happen, in an environment where cock-up beats conspiracy every time, and where the wonderful irrationality of humankind is frequently demonstrated. So, their attempts to spice up dull and turgid times are perfectly understandable, but it is a pity when in their enthusiasm for a fresh angle a few basic facts get lost.

Whatever happens to Mr Banks, the government will retain its majority and stability and will go on to at least the next election. There will be inevitably be more alarums and excursions along the way to be reported with breathless excitement, and splits and divisions will continue to be the default debate when the going gets quiet.

Just as our weather patterns are predictable anticyclones from the west, pushed away by depressions from the south, all within a few days, our political weather is follows the same pattern – big highs chased away by the lows. But at the end of it all, the worst day in Government still far outstrips the very best day in Opposition.

Enjoy the coming long weekend – Christmas is less than nine weeks away!

17 October 2013

In the 1980s the Wellington retailer Alan Martin of L.V. Martin & Son became a cult figure for his idiosyncratic television advertisements where he proclaimed, “it’s the putting right that counts”. The slogan became part of the national lexicon and a byword for after sales service.

In 1995 when the United Party was formed cartoonist Tom Scott lampooned the hurried circumstances of the party’s launch with the line,” it’s the getting it about right that counts”.

I thought of that line again last week when Mark Lundy was released on bail pending a new trial for the murder of his wife and daughter. His case follows in the footsteps of David Bain, Arthur Alan Thomas and a few others over the last 40 years. The common thread has been that each of the original convictions was found to be unsafe in some way or other. To date, in each case, subsequent processes have led to either their acquittal or the quashing of the original convictions. It remains to be seen whether Mark Lundy will join that list.

In each case, the “getting it about right” approach to justice has been the problem. Too often, the innocent till proven guilty maxim that supposedly underpins our justice system has given way to the lesser and far more unreliable “they probably did it” approach. While that fits well with our national pragmatism and is probably likely to be right more often than not, it is still a fundamentally haphazard and far too casual way to dispense justice, especially in serious cases.

Unfortunately, and probably more worrying, that approach also influences the ways crimes and other misdemeanours are now investigated by the Police and others. Instead of painstakingly and impartially investigating all aspects of a case from the ground up, New Zealand’s approach is increasingly focused on finding someone responsible, or more likely than not to be responsible. That is based on a sifting sand approach of shaking the issue to see who can be eliminated, and then building a case, often no more than strongly circumstantial, around them in such a way to convince a Court of guilt. The pursuit of truth and justice are often the first casualties. Finding someone on whom the crime can be “pinned” is a far more immediate focus and satisfies the public that the investigators have done their job properly.

But while that remains our focus and while those who gather the evidence remain responsible for prosecuting the cases, situations like the Lundy case and others will continue to occur.  That may satisfy the public pressure for crimes to be solved, but the pursuit of justice will be the casualty. Getting it “about right” in these circumstances definitely does not count!