28 August 2014

Amidst the sideshows in danger of enveloping the election campaign, the issue of child poverty stands out as one of the most important matters facing the country and which deserves strong attention.

Most political parties seem to recognise this and have developed their own responses to dealing with it.

UnitedFuture’s position is clear cut. We say every child not only deserves the best start in life, but also deserves the love and attention of both parents, wherever possible, no matter what their circumstances are. The family unit, however structured, is therefore a vital component in the life and development of a child, and every child has a family to provide the nurturing and support they need. But, sadly, children have no choice over whom their parents are, or the circumstances of their upbringing. So an important part of addressing the issue of child poverty has to be about strengthening and empowering parents and families to be the best that they can be.

At one – albeit important – level, it is vital to ensure that families and their children have good access to opportunity: jobs, income support measures like our Income Sharing plan, good social services and access to quality early childhood education. UnitedFuture supports all of those things but recognises that of themselves, no matter how generous the programmes or the support mechanisms, they will not be enough in all cases to ensure every child has the opportunities to be the best they can be.

And that brings us back to the critical role of parenting. Parents are arguably the most important but most overlooked group in our society. They receive precious little training or support for their role (buy a new dishwasher and it comes with more information and back-up services than any new parent receives) and even when parents do ask for help, they are the ones considered to have a “problem” that needs resolving.

Very few parents, if any, wilfully set out to fail as parents or to let their children down, so we need to be investing much more in supporting and encouraging parents as they carry out their role. That is arguably the area of greatest single focus in ensuring that every child grows up in a decent and loving environment and then gets access to all the things they need to live happy and contented lives.

My major concern about some aspects of the child poverty debate is that parents are being left out of the loop. Of course, there are economic issues to be addressed, and I am not arguing against those, but the focus has to be as much on promoting good parenting as it is on supporting children.

United Future is the original family party. We championed family issues long before it was fashionable to do so. And we have achieved much for families over the last decade or so. The best way we can support our children today is to support our families, something we will continue to do with vigour.       

 

 

21 August 2014

I have been amazed by the reaction to UnitedFuture’s release of an on-line election Manifesto, and our ongoing Policy of the Day announcements.

Reactions have ranged from the abysmally ignorant (“I didn’t realise UnitedFuture stood for anything and actually had any firm policies”) to the incredulous (“What are you doing releasing policies at this stage of the electoral cycle?”) and the cynical (“You’re only doing this to try to win votes”).

Funny, I know, but I thought elections were a time to focus on policy, what the various parties stand for, and how they can implement their plans. Voters then make a considered judgement on what they think is in theirs and the country’s best interests and vote accordingly. But that must just be the political scientist in me, focusing on the theory of electoral politics rather than its current practice.

At least, judging by the direction of our election campaign to date, one could be forgiven for concluding that election campaigns are no longer about policy, but who can throw the most and slimiest mud at their political opponents. It matters not whether we are talking about the highly dubious conduct of seedy right-wing bloggers, or populist politicians preaching a hateful message of racism and bigotry. The campaign has degenerated to sleaze over substance.

The media are caught up this swirl too – almost unwittingly. At one level, they have to report all this drivel because it is news, but, at another, they will be keeping a wary eye on where all this might be heading. We were aghast at the British phone-hacking revelations and the subsequent High Court trials of prominent editors and journalists. The upshot was the Leveson Inquiry and stricter rules for press regulation, which gnaw at the very notion of a free press, and an open society.

We could not have imagined this sort of happening here but recent events could lead to pressure for the same sort of over-reaction and for calls to regulate – somehow – the blogosphere. They certainly raise the vexed question of email security and the protection of the privacy of communications, which are much bigger and more international issues.

But, back on the election trail, voters are much more interested in policies and performance, the likely shape of governing arrangements, and what the parties have to offer. These after all, are the things that ensure jobs and opportunity, not the parade of salacious gossip.

So, UnitedFuture, at least, will continue to do the now apparently quaint thing of promoting policy, and focusing on the issues of concern to New Zealand families. That, after all, is what elections are really all about. 

 

 

13 August 2014

This is shaping up as a very unusual election indeed.

Elections are usually the opportunity to debate the future direction of the country and where alternative governments might lead it. This election, at least based on the evidence of the phony-campaign to date, seems to be an almost policy-free zone. What policies have been announced have been either a reiteration of what has been released already, or so bold and grandiose to defy the reality of being implementable, leaving the suspicion that their real purpose has been as a rallying call to shore up the wavering party faithful.

The lure of the dog-whistle seems to have been more important – the use of selective comment to persuade voters that a particular party is on their side. That is why New Zealand First is playing the race card so blatantly. In the just ended Parliament one or two of its MPs frequently looked and sounded like misplaced members of the Ku Klux Klan, and now that appeal to the extreme red-neck portion of the electorate has been legitimised through the racist overtones of the party’s campaign launch last weekend. And the Conservatives, long suspected to be really “hang ‘em and birch ‘em” proponents on law and order have reinforced that sentiment by the recruitment of Sensible Sentencing’s leader as a candidate.

In their own ways, the two main parties are also blowing the dog-whistle. National’s emphasis on protecting the fledgling Budget surplus is as much about sending signals of its reliability and credibility as an economic manager, as it is about enhancing the reputation of the Minister of Finance. Labour’s apparent willingness to appear looser with the purse strings serves the dual purpose of sending the signal it is more warm and caring, but not as fiscally irresponsible as the Greens, who, if they do well enough, will be tapping on Labour’s shoulder for the role of lead party of the left.

While this is all good fun, especially for the salivating commentariat who love to analyse and re-analyse such signs to the point of extinction, it is not doing much to inform voters of what the parties really stand for, or what new ideas they might be ready to spring upon an unsuspecting electorate a little way down the track.

In previous elections the party manifesto has fulfilled this role. In 1987, there was shock and horror when Labour did not release its manifesto to the public until a week after it had been safely re-elected. Nowadays, the same shock and horror seems reserved for the suggestion that a party might actually have a detailed manifesto at all!

For its part, UnitedFuture has never been too worried about the political norm. A few years ago, we campaigned on the central role of families, at a time when all our advice was that to do so would be divisive, because families came in so many shapes and forms. Now, every party prides itself on being family friendly. In 2004, we argued that the foreshore and seabed was public domain that should be vested in all New Zealanders. No, that could never be, the other parties said – yet that was precisely the solution the present government adopted in 2010, to general public approval.

Well, we are about to break the mould again. Early next week we will release a detailed on-line manifesto which every voter will have access to, as they consider their voting options. Maybe, that will be another case of being first to set a new trend!    

    

  

 

 

 

 

8 August 2014

There has been a lot of commentary in recent weeks about so-called electorate deals – where one party gives a nod and a wink to its supporters to caste an electorate vote for another party’s candidate to boost its chances of being able to form a post-election governing arrangement.

A couple of things need to be remembered about these situations. First and most important, they are merely indications of a party’s preference, in the same way that a newspaper editorial might indicate support for a party or candidate, or a lobby group might encourage its supporters to vote a particular way. They are all just indications – part of the rich tapestry of information voters are entitled to have when shaping their voting decision – and therefore do not in any way compromise the integrity of the electoral process. The voter, in the secrecy of the polling booth, still has the ultimate, utterly secret say. As it should be.

The second point is that most people – apart from perhaps the most die-hard of supporters – want to caste an informed vote, and, if possible, their vote to count. A common question at every election discussion relates to possible post-election combinations, and which parties can and will be able to work with each other. And it is only logical that parties and their supporters will seek to maximise their opportunities in such circumstances. Voters have a right to know likely combinations and how they can be achieved before they go to vote. To suggest otherwise is to suggest elections should be some sort of lottery, a national entertainment game of blind man’s buff, or pinning the tail on the donkey.

Having said all of that, I am surprised at one election deal that has not been done, and which seems unlikely to be done. That is the particular case of the Te Tai Tokerau electorate. For differing reasons it is surely in the interests of both the Labour Party and the Māori Party to be rid of Mana and Hone Harawira. Yet the inability of both to work together to achieve this by doing their best to ensure Labour’s Kelvin Davis is elected is both extraordinary and dumbfounding.

To some extent, Labour has been hoist by its own hypocritical petard of professed opposition to such deals – because they do not benefit from them in the main – but the Māori Party’s opposition is much more difficult to understand. It is unlikely to win the seat in its own right, and the Mana Party is already proving to be a long-term threat. The incentives for bringing about Mana’s defeat in Te Tai Tokerau (and therefore its likely removal altogether from Parliament) must surely be overwhelming. But its apparent failure to want to take this opportunity to deal with that, is at best extremely puzzling and potentially self-destructive.

After all, as Disraeli famously once said, “A successful politician learns early on that when he sees a back, he must either slap it or stab it – his mistake is to ignore it.”          

  

 

 

 

 

31 July 2014

This week’s stoush over the Fish and Game Council points to a deeper challenge confronting the Government as it contemplates a third term in office.

There is no doubt of this Government’s commitment to boosting economic development, but that is increasingly running up against the dual brick walls of environmental law and mounting public anxiety about environmental values being traded off for economic advantage.

Last year’s skirmish over the Resource Management Act should have been a salutary lesson. Remember the hype of the National Party’s Conference announcement then of a bold, new housing plan, based on streamlining the principles and operation of the Resource Management Act, to speed up development. It ran into immediate difficulties when the Government discovered that while there was near universal support for improving the processes of the Resource Management Act, neither UnitedFuture nor the Māori Party would support any changes to, or weakening of its principles. Curiously, rather than compromise, and proceed with those areas where it could get support, the Government adopted an “all or nothing” approach and quietly shelved its plans for another day.

That pattern has continued in other areas over recent months. Independent Boards of Inquiry reports have dealt crippling if not fatal blows to the Ruataniwha Dam in Hawkes Bay and the flyover around Wellington’s Basin Reserve. A clear picture is emerging: the trade-off between big projects and the environment is erring increasingly on the side of the environment, leaving the Government’s plans to streamline environmental law looking more and more out of step with public expectation.

It is against this backdrop that the role of a statutory body like Fish and Game assumes fresh significance. In pursuit of its mandate, Fish and Game has been taking an increasingly strident line against issues which impinge on deteriorating water quality in our lakes and rivers. The most obvious of these practices is dairy intensification, which brings the debate strongly back to the Government’s economic development agenda and explains its obvious sensitivity on the matter.

But here is where a reality check is needed. Recent developments make it clear public tolerance for the “environment is nice, but the economy is nicer” argument is evaporating and pressure will mount for a stronger line to be drawn in the future. Ironically, the one thing stopping that from happening more suddenly and starkly is the Green Party, whose zealotry and intolerance on those issues scares off many voters who might otherwise be sympathetic to the cause.

What did or did not go on between the Conservation Minister and the people at the Fish and Game meeting is really just fish and chip paper.

Far more important is the challenge to National to understand that while there is general support for its commitment to economic development and boosting living standards – as the polls strongly show – that support is conditioned by a strong sense of environmental protectionism. Striking the right balance is not something National has yet shown itself to have a clear grasp upon.

That is where support parties like UnitedFuture, who do understand the limits and constraints, have an important role to play in the next Government to ensure we have progress, matched by environmental responsibility and sustainability.      

    

  

 

 

 

 

24 July 2014

The ruckus over a National MP’s spending and a critical performance review of the Parliamentary Service highlight two unsatisfactory aspects of the way we currently run Parliament.

Spending by MPs has always been a vexed question and control over it has never been satisfactorily resolved. The approach to date, typified by the widely-hailed but actually fundamentally flawed report of former Auditor-General Kevin Brady, has been to treat MPs as just another branch of the public service and apply broadly the same types of rules and controls to their spending. (What is about retired senior public servants, who seem to have an inbuilt resentment of MPs? Henry failed like Brady in exactly the same way.) Under this approach, the focus has been to empower the Parliamentary Service to exercise greater control and accountability, but this has essentially failed.

The current approach is also constitutionally suspect. Parliament is elected to oversee and hold to account the executive branch of government for its conduct and performance, and is in turn, held to account by the public every three years for its stewardship. Yet the mentality of the Brady approach, which has been the prevailing norm of recent years, has actually turned that on its head. Parliament and Members of Parliament are now in so many ways subservient to rules devised by anonymous risk-averse bureaucrats, who like to see every situation as being able to be fitted in one or another set of neat boxes. (There are also strong shades of this blind rigidity in the way the Electoral Commission chooses to administer electoral law.)

However, there is a simple and fair solution available – make MPs fully accountable to the public in the first instance, and not the bureaucracy, by bulk-funding them for their office and related expenditure and requiring them to publish annual accounts of their expenditure (as Ministers are obliged to do already). Under this model, the bureaucrats’ role will become the proper one of assisting and advising elected representatives, not controlling them. Control and accountability will return to the people of New Zealand to be exercised through the ballot box.

Yes, but will this ever happen? Sadly, probably not, I suspect. And the reason is simple and selfish. The last thing National and Labour want is for their MPs to have more individual control of their own spending, because that could make them more independent of the collective, and loosen party discipline. Just imagine what a recalcitrant MP could in such circumstances! Remember the fuss whenever an MP leaves a party and takes their funding with them. Having MPs exercise that type of independence while staying in the Caucus is just too difficult to contemplate, so the fallback becomes the current unsatisfactory externally imposed rules.

So, an accepted unsatisfactory situation looks set to continue. Bureaucrats whom no-one voted for will continue to try to impose arbitrary and unworkable rules on their political masters, who will continue to devise ways to thwart them. And every now and then, there will be a stupid MP who gets caught, and further damages the standing and credibility of all MPs as a consequence.

Good copy while it lasts, it may well be, but it is certainly not good governance.  

            

  

 

 

 

 

17 July 2014

Joining the dots together to reveal a mystery shape was a popular childhood game. The continuing Dotcom evidence saga has shown elements of this game again this week.

The facts in this case are few, but relatively clear. Dotcom was granted residency in New Zealand in 2010 against the initial advice of the SIS which subsequently changed its mind. At the time he was being pursued by the US authorities on a variety of internet related charges and agencies like the FBI were seeking his deportation to face trial in the United States. In early 2012, there was a botched raid on his home involving the Police and the SIS, as a result of which Dotcom and some associates were temporarily imprisoned. The political fallout has continued ever since and the case to extradite Dotcom to the United States has still to be resolved by the New Zealand Courts.

Beyond these facts, the world of supposition and dot-joining starts to apply. For example, given the major interest of the US film studios in extraditing Dotcom and presumably silencing him, was the visit of Warner Brothers executives to New Zealand about the time his residency was being considered purely coincidental and related solely to the fate of the Hobbit movies? Or was it a smokescreen for the opportunity to apply pressure over the Dotcom case? Was the deal around the Hobbit movies struck on the basis that the New Zealand Courts would fall into line over the extradition case? (If so, it demonstrated an incredible naivety about the independence of our judiciary.) And why was Dotcom so keen to become a New Zealand resident, if, as he now says, it was just a ruse to make his eventual extradition that much easier to achieve?

A few things have become a little clearer as the saga has unfolded. First, the intelligence agencies do not believe Dotcom should be here, whatever the circumstances, although they do not quantify whether and how his presence here might be a risk to our national security. Second, the handling of the Dotcom case has been inept at virtually all levels, with the exception of the Courts who have demonstrated admirable independence. Third, politicians generally have been constantly at sixes and sevens on the issue, and it is genuinely difficult to know what there is to know, and who knew what of that and when, and does it really matter anyway.

So what does it all mean? Presumably, if the New Zealand Government had substantial, subsequently provided, information that Dotcom was not a fit and proper person to be a resident, it would have cancelled his residence status and deported him. It has not done that, so it can be reasonably assumed no such information exists. Which brings us back to the Americans.

If the scenario that the United States wanted New Zealand to grant Dotcom residence because it would make his deportation easier is true, then it shows either a woeful misunderstanding of how our judicial processes work, or an incredibly overbearing attitude that, the niceties of the law notwithstanding, New Zealand would “find a way” to deport him. It also begs the question of why an astute man like Dotcom would put his head in that noose in the first place.

Sadly, a far more likely explanation is that this is another case of New Zealand suffering from “small country syndrome” – spooked by a controversial international mogul seeking residence here; panicked by the intervention of the FBI and desperate to show we could foot it with the “big boys”, leading to general cock-up and confusion, with much egg on face all round.

Unless I am missing something and there are yet more unjoined dots to be found and connected.