18 September 2013

The visit to parliament this week by Dunedin leaders to push for the retention of the Invermay agricultural research centre in Otago raises the wider issue of what is now referred to as localism in some quarters.

The problem is that while everyone seems in favour of decentralisation, devolution, regional development, or call it what you like, the reality is that since the early 1990s successive governments, beginning with National’s local government reforms in 1991, have centralised more and more activity at the expense of local communities.  (I was the last Minister of Regional Development, and I surrendered that portfolio in 1990!)

So perhaps it is little wonder that there seems to be not much interest in the forthcoming local body elections, and mounting cynicism that regional government is even worth it anymore.

And, all that will do over time is add to a growing sense of individual and collective frustration and disempowerment. In time, that will affect the quality of local government, and lead to more Invermay type situations occurring.

UnitedFuture is strongly committed to the localist agenda. One size does not fit all in this regard. But this does not mean local and regional government malfeasance and failed performance is tolerable.

So what needs to change is the pervasive view that New Zealand is the same from one end to the other. We are not – we are a series of diverse regional communities, with differing capabilities and experiences. We need, both from a government perspective and a community and wider economic development focus, to be enabling those communities to take more responsibility for their own actions and priorities, with central government in a supporting, not dictating, role.

That means central and local government working together in a new partnership of equals to achieve regional potential, and welding that together into the overall national interest. It means flattening out the top down approach of the last couple of decades, and recognising that both central and local government have equally important but quite distinct role to play.

It may be too late to inspire more interest in this year’s local elections, but such an approach over time has the capacity to invigorate our regions, and stop the need for delegations like the Dunedin one to make the time honoured trudge to Parliament in often vain attempts to save regional ventures like Invermay.

11 September 2013

The cat is out of the bag.

Let the Greens anywhere near government, and the value of your house – your biggest single investment – will be reduced by deliberate government action.

The message to hundreds of thousands of mortgaged couples and families is stark. The Greens want to bring down the value of your investment, and decry your efforts to pay off your mortgage, and build up a nest egg.

And the fact they are now running a mile from the policy shows even they realise what a slap in the face it is to hard working middle New Zealand.

But it is too late. They are already proposing to bring in more taxes – including a capital gains tax – and to tilt the playing field further against the people who work the hardest and get the least in return. With Labour likely to lurch leftward under whoever its new leader will be, middle New Zealand will not be able to look in that direction for relief.

It is all a good reminder of the fact that unlike politicians the vast of majority of New Zealanders do not live an ideology. While politicians may pride themselves on being left or right, most people do not live in such a straightjacket. Their views are tailored by their circumstances, and they look to politicians who reflect their values.

So the Labour leadership procession of increasingly quirky promises (regulating supermarkets and rent controls just for Christchurch come to mind) strikes no chord, nor offers much hope.

The Greens attacking the values of the people that make the country tick, and Labour bouncing aimlessly from one bright idea to the next do not connect with the aspirations of the mainstream of our country that just wants to get on with things, without the government getting too much in their way.

For them, their priorities are their families, their work, their home, their children’s future, their security, and the hope they will be able to live a comfortably.

Attacking those foundations as the Greens have done this week puts them very much on edge.

Middle New Zealand does not want politicians who shatter their version of the Kiwi dream.

4 September 2013

The looming death of Learning Media has many lamenting the potential demise of the School Journal – one of the great cradles of New Zealand’s literary talent, and a staple of education for generations.

I certainly remember many hours spent in the school library reading back copies of the Journal, as will many New Zealanders.

Nostalgia is important in shaping our national values and character, but it does not pay the bills. In today’s competitive publishing environment, it was virtually inevitable that Learning Media’s fate would come to this. But that should not mean the consequential death of the School Journal, and nor should it be allowed to happen.

This situation highlights an ongoing challenge modern governments face in ensuring the effective modern provision of established services. The fact that different delivery methods are required should not mean that those services are simply abandoned or cancelled, because times have changed.

While resuscitating Learning Media seems impractical, the opportunity now exists for the government to enter into a new partnership with a commercial publisher for the ongoing publication of the School Journal in either hard copy or electronic form, to ensure its survival.

Yet too often debates about these types of issues degenerate into patch protection issues, from which no-one wins. The bottom line is simple: we want the School Journal to continue (no-one seems to be questioning its value) and we need to find the best way of doing that.

This is a managerial not a political issue, and will be not be resolved by chest-puffing and grandstanding, but by a simple focus on securing the best way forward for the School Journal so it can continue to enrich, delight and inspire generations of school children into the future.

30 August 2013

Syria is the world’s current international pariah. And the drums of war are beating once more.

The apparently regime sanctioned poison gas attacks on Syrian citizens are despicable, callous and indefensible. They offend all our humanitarian principles. No-one seriously contests that.

The question, though, is what to do about it. International order provides a mechanism through the United Nations and the Security Council for considered, deliberative and globally co-ordinated responses to such outrages. The problem occurs when the UN’s measured approach gives way to paralysis or indecision, or when powerful international member states and their allies become impatient and for wider geopolitical reasons decide they can stand by no longer.

That is what happened with the ill-fated Anglo-American response to Iraq in 2003, which New Zealand prudently stood aside from. It was the right decision then, and would be the right decision today in respect of Syria.

While the major powers seem to be paying diplomatic lip service to the lessons of Iraq and the need for due process, there is the gnawing fear of the inevitability of some form of unilateral military action against Syria. The significant build-up of naval forces in the Mediterranean, and the deployment of British bombers to a Cyprus staging post provide the tell-tale signs.

But while there was a measure of international consensus that the despotic Hussein regime in Iraq had to go, WMDs or not, it is not the same with Syria. There are significant differences within and between the Europeans, for example, meaning any concerted military action against Syria is likely to domestically and internationally divisive and destabilising, especially if it is unsuccessful, and the Assad regime just carries on.

New Zealand is not a military player in these machinations, but it can be a pillar of common sense. We were right over Iraq in 2003. Buoyed by that, we should be in the vanguard of urging diplomatic intervention through the UN and the Arab League, rather than tacitly endorsing the increasing slide to military confrontation.

26 August 2013

Today I launched a Government discussion paper on UnitedFuture’s flagship FlexiSuper plan.

Under FlexiSuper, people have a choice of taking a reduced rate of superannuation from the age of 60, or a higher rate if they decide to wait until they are up to 70 before picking it up. The basic age of entitlement remains 65, and no change is planned for the rate of superannuation.

FlexiSuper offers a number of advantages. For Māori, Pasifika and other groups with shorter post retirement life spans it offers some dignity in their last years. For those who might wish to work longer, they can look forward to a greater nest egg when they retire and pick up an increased rate of superannuation after 65. For everyone, it offers greater choice in retirement income planning.

And it also lets both National and Labour off their respective superannuation high horses. National can continue to hold to its policy of not increasing the age of entitlement beyond 65, knowing that people will choose for themselves when they pick up superannuation at either an enhanced or discounted rate. Labour can get itself off the hook it got onto by pledging an increase to 67 (which was interpreted by many of its working class voters as meaning they were being told they had work for two years longer) by also letting people choose for themselves.

The discussion paper is open for public comment until 11 October. Then the government will decide what action it may wish to take about FlexiSuper. So the next few weeks are an opportunity for all New Zealanders to have their say, and I encourage them to do so.

The current proposal does not include making Kiwisaver compulsory, but that is another long standing UnitedFuture policy we would like to see action upon.

The combination of FlexiSuper and compulsory Kiwisaver is an attractive package that would go a long way to restoring stability in the perennial superannuation debate.   

You can view a copy of the discussion paper at www.unitedfuture.org.nz

 

15 August 2013

Today UnitedFuture will be formally Gazetted once more as a registered political party – just under ten weeks after it was deregistered at its own request by the Electoral Commission.

The entire saga has thrown up a number of absurdities which need to be tidied up to stop our electoral system falling into complete disrepute. And I am preparing a Member’s Bill to do just that.

First, it was UnitedFuture, not the Electoral Commission, that raised the issue of the difficulty we were having verifying the status of some of our members. Had we just signed the annual statutory declaration that we had 500 financial members the Electoral Commission would have been none the wiser because it has no power to check the accuracy of a party’s declaration. So we were deregistered for being honest, which is quite absurd. Therefore, my Bill will require the Electoral Commission to formally audit the membership of all registered parties once every three years to ensure they do in fact have a minimum of 500 financial members, and are not just saying so in the sure knowledge they will not be checked up on.

The next absurdity was the Electoral Commission’s archaic insistence that we produce 500 individually signed declarations and its refusal to accept on-line memberships. That is totally out of step with today’s reality so my amendment will ensure on-line memberships will be treated as valid for registration purposes, and will make the Commission subject to the provisions of the Electronic Transactions Act, something it is currently specifically exempted from.

Third, I am proposing that where a party that has been registered for at least two elections is deregistered it will be able to lodge a re-registration application within 90 days, without being treated as a new party. The Electoral Commission kept telling us that UnitedFuture was clearly not a new party – having been around for nearly 20 years – but under its internal rules (not the Electoral Act incidentally) it claimed it had no option but to treat us a new party. This is clearly a nonsense – a party cannot be both an established party, yet treated as new party, at the same time.

I will be releasing my Bill shortly, and then submitting it to the ballot for Members’ Bills. At the same time, I will be talking with the Justice Minister and the Prime Minister, both of whom have expressed interest in my proposals, to see if my changes can be fitted in to the government’s own forthcoming Electoral Act Amendment Bill.

8 August 2013

This week I am not going to write about the GCSB, the Henry inquiry, the breach of a journalist’s privacy, or stolen emails – I am saving all that for the novel!

Rather, I want to concentrate on our tarnished green reputation. From Fonterra to rivers not safe to swim in, the image of environmentally pristine New Zealand is taking a hammering. We are apparently not quite as pure after all, as we have deluded ourselves to believe. It would appear our green values have been hijacked by the far left of politics, with substance replaced by causes and slogans, so no-one takes care for the environment seriously any more.

The Greens’ attacks on business, and stands against sustainable development have led many middle of the road people, who still care nonetheless, to run a mile from such issues, because they now see them as too polarising and extreme. Meanwhile, rivers are degraded and poor environmental practices allowed to survive by default. But concern about the environment should not be just the prerogative of the young, the idealistic, or the socialist.

Middle New Zealand keenly wants to play its part, but has had enough of its values and concerns being sneered at and derided for not being pure enough. The net result has been their apathy. And degraded rivers, polluted beaches and now Fonterra’s crisis have been the consequence.

It is time to build a new environmental consensus around the concepts of balance and sustainability on which the Resource Management Act is based. An environment where the renowned New Zealand values of enjoying the great outdoors – respecting nature – are back in play. One where development is seen as necessary for sustainable growth, and not a dirty word. And an environment where we all care enough to want to leave something positive for future generations to enjoy.

This is not about politics or ideology – it is far more important than that. It is about the future we want for ourselves and our children. And because of that it is about all of us – not just the well-meaning activists using the issue to push a wider agenda of political and social change.

In short, it is time to stop the games and the pandering to sectional interests, and reclaim the environmental high grounds by focusing anew on what fits best with the lifestyle those of us who call these islands home want to enjoy.