Column

So due to deadline issues at Canta, this column won’t run until a few weeks after I write it. That means i can’t really talk about any current issues, since they’ll be out of date by the time you all read this. So I thought this might be a nice time to stop and have a look at a couple of the cooler events in politics recently, and the people who have made them possible. Thus I present:

Politicians who don’t get credit for it, but for some reason or another are totally bad ass.

Awesome Politician Number 1: Michael Cullen

For all the resentment towards him for his perceived frugalness with tax cuts, Cullen is one of the most capable and talented MP’s in parliament.

He is also a scary, scary man.

If you’ve never seen him in full on attack mode in Parliament, you’re missing out. He’s funny, cruel, well informed, intelligent and let’s be honest, John Key looks like he’s afraid of him.

And well he should be.

A party leader has to try and remain aloof in a way, so as not to be perceived as threatening by voters, where as the deputy is the person who attacks the opposition. Tearing down your opponent is a vital part of politics, and any good deputy leader needs to be able to put the heat on in Parliament. Cullen is fantastic at this.

Watching John Key wither under Cullen’s accusations of flip flops, double talk and lies has been one of the most perverse joys in politics recently.

When you combine his ability in the debating chamber with a great mind for policy, a reasoned approach to economics and his reliability as a competent minister, it’s easy to see why Labour Mp’s have said the entire party would fall apart without Cullen. That’s why so much of National’s energy has gone into trying to paint Cullen as old and out of touch. They know that Cullen is one of the best weapons in Labour’s war chest.

Awesome Politician Number 2: Bill English

You might have noticed I have a lot of respect for deputy leaders. This is because essentially the deputy is the one who has to do the hard messy work. They have almost as much responsibility as the party leader, but never really get as much credit as they deserve. Take Bill English for example

Watching English adapt to his role of deputy has been very interesting. For a man who once led National, and makes no secret of his burning desire to be Prime Minister one day, it can’t have been easy for him to take up the role of second fiddle to John Key.

Yet English as been a great deputy for Key. He’s just as good an attack dog for Key as Cullen is for Clark (His speech’s on the Electoral Finance Act were especially riveting) he’s on top of any issue he’s given. He always appears well informed, and has a good mind for policy.

More importantly than that, he brings a real sincerity to the role. It offsets Key well. Key never really appears to believe in what he’s saying, which makes it so easy for Labour to accuse him of just telling people what they want to hear. With English, you don’t get this problem. English is a guy who believes devoutly in the compassionate conservatism he campaigns for. When English’s supporters vote for him, they know he really will try to do what he say’s he’ll do. Labour has gone with the “slippery” attack lines on both Key and Don Brash. They never really tried it with English and it’s probably because it wouldn’t have worked.

Brash was an ACT member masquerading as a centrist, Key looks like he’ll do anything for votes. But English, English is a true believer. Someone like that is infinitely valuable to a party. John Key simply could not have a better deputy this year than Bill English.

Unless those rumours about English having something to do with the leaking of Brash’s emails turn out to be true. ..

I’m inclined not to believe he did it, just because I really don’t believe any one person could be that devious. The human body can only contain so much devious.

Awesome Politician Number 3: Shane Jones

If you haven’t heard of Shane Jones, he’s a relatively new MP for Labour. A big, blustering guy from Northland, Jones is a rising star in the Labour Caucus. Many in the party consider him a sure pick to lead the party one day. Every position he’s been given he has preformed well in, he’s an incredible orator (many consider him the successor to David Lange in that regards) and he’s also hilariously self assured.

When the story about John Key’s “We Would Love to See Wages Drop” gaffe broke, Jones issued a press release challenging Key to come up to Northland and in front of the poor workers of Northland, defend his comment in a debate against Jones.

Now you have to understand, there’s NO way that Key would accept this. The leader’s of major political partys do not engage in town hall debates with the Junior MP’s of other party’s For Jones to suggest Key would actually do so was absurd, especially on so embarrassing an issue as that one. Attacking the leader of the major partys is traditionally a job for high ranking MP’s.

But for the most part, up until recently, Labour’s high ranking MPs have done a terrible job handling John Key.

By challenging Key to the debate Jones was in effect saying “You know what John, I don’t care how easy a ride everyone else is giving you. I think you’re a scumbag, and if you dare take me on, I’ll prove it.”

The awesome thing is, if Key had accepted the debate, Jones probably would have torn him apart.

Awesome Politician Number 4: Gerry Brownlee

I will love this guy forever for one reason: a story I read somewhere about what Brownlee got caught doing in parliament. A journalist was in parliament one day, during a really boring select committee meeting, one of the driest and least interesting parts of the parliamentary process. The journalist was looking around, and saw that Brownlee was also bored, and was doodling on his page. The journalist looked in to see what Brownlee was drawing, and saw that he had written “National” in big block letters, and was in the middle of deciding which of his blue pens he would use to colour the letters in.

That’s right, when Gerry Brownlee is bored, he doodles his party’s logo. Now THAT is commitment to the team.

So there you have it, 4 MPs who have proven themselves cool beyond all imagining, and deserve your recognition for it.

Oops

Apologies for issues with the lay out of the blog so far, will all be fixed in future. That’s what I get for writing most of my work in Word.

John Boscawen

Below is the FULL interview with anti EFA campaigner John Boscawen, a longer version of the interview that ran in Canta (and showed up in annotated form on Newzblog, thats right, you thought I didn’t know!) Due to annoying format issues, it will be in “list of questions” then “list of answers” form. Enjoy!

Ps

WordPress turned all my number 8’s into smiley face’s wearing sunglasses and trying to look cool. I decided to keep it for the absurdity. I have an odd sense of humour. So enjoy hardline political commentary, interupted by the bastard child of Pacman and The Fonze.

 ____________________

1) Why did you oppose the electoral finance act?
2) Are you happy with how the campaign went?
3) Do you believe that campaign finance reform was necessary at the
time the EFA was drafted? If so, what form would you have liked to see the reforms
take?
 4) Did you support abolishment of anonymous donations, and if so
why/why not? Is it democratic for people not to know the backers of the politicians they are voting for?5) Along the same lines, did you accept secret donations towards your
campaign?

6) As a member of the Business Roundtable, a group whose members were major secret donors to National’s 2005 election campaign (Which the left blames
for the necessity of the EFA) How do you defend yourself and your campaign against those that say you are simply trying to keep the loopholes in the law exploited by National in 2005 open, for your own ends? Do you think such accusations have hurt your credibility?

(An example of such criticism is a press release from Green Co-leader Russel Norman, on the subject of your links to the Business Roundtable where he said:

“if you want to know why you should support campaign finance reform, look at the people who are behind the attacks on the Electoral Finance Bill.”)7) Related to the above question, what did you think of the criticism
leveled
against other Anti EFA campaigns because of their financial backing eg. The
Talley’s being a major contributor to Tim Shadbolt’s Campaign, or Don Brash
donating to The Free Speech Coalition?
Do you believe National will repeal the EFA if elected?
9) Do you have plans for future opposition to the EFA?
10) What effect do you think the EFA will have on this year’s election
results?
 

1) I opposed the Electoral Finance Bill because I believed its original
proposals were clearly undemocratic, went to the heart of freedom of
speech issues in New Zealand and were inconsistent with the Bill of
Rights Act 1990. I believe the Act as finally passed on 19 December
still restricts the ability of New Zealanders to speak out either for or
against a political party in election year.I modeled my campaign on the submissions and objections of our Human
Rights Commission.

In passing the Act parliament ignored key submissions from both the
Human Rights Commission and the Electoral Commission. These
organizations are independent of government and exist to protect the
rights of ordinary New Zealanders. Parliament ultimately passed a law that
has major constitutional significance and in doing so ignored key
submissions from these two bodies.

I based my campaign on the opposition of the Human Rights Commission.

Specifically the key submissions parliament ignored included (a)the length
of time the restrictions should be in place ,and (b) the maximum amount that
can be spent by either an individual or group opposing the government.

In its 9 September submission on the EFB the Human Rights Commission stated
in para 10.2 ..” The Electoral Finance Bill unduly limits the rights of all
New Zealanders to participate in the electoral process. The Commission
therefore considers that the Bill is inherently flawed and should be
withdrawn”

In para 10.5 it concluded…”The bill in its current form represents a
dramatic assault on two fundamental rights that New Zealanders cherish,
freedom of expression and the right of informed citizens to participate in
the election process”.

The Commission stated that if the Bill was not to be withdrawn it would
require substantial redrafting and listed a number of changes that “at the
very least” would need to be made to it.

These changes included a regulatory period of three months.

Parliament went onto pass a law which provided a regulatory period from 1
January….effectively one electoral period in three against the advice and
recommendation of the Human Rights Commission

Secondly the independent Electoral Commission, which acted as advisors to
the Select Committee actually tried to calculate the cost of an effective
third party campaign. They calculated to be effective a third party would
need to spend around $250,000 to $300,000 and recommended this as a limit.
The Human Rights Commission endorsed this suggestion.

In setting a $120,000 limit and a full year regulatory period parliament has
ignored these two important bodies.

Finally let me say, that one only has to read the submission of the Human
Rights Commission to campaign against the EFB. It is hard to imagine amore
damming submission in opposition by the HRC.

[ Hayden if you have not already done so you should read the HRC submission
of 9 September, or a s a minimum the conclusions in section 10. I will
separately email you a copy]

2. Obviously no. The Act was passed and it was the objective of my
campaign to have parliament listen to and follow the recommendations of
the Human Rights Commission.

Having said that, I believe there was a far greater awareness of the
issues by the middle of December when the Act was passed, than there was
at the beginning of November when I started my campaign.

3) Yes, I am happy to support campaign finance reform. However, it is
not generally understood that the bill as introduced on 27 July
contained few, if any, provisions for the reform of political party
fundraising. The proposals in the original bill related entirely to
third parties, and not political parties. As such, there was nothing in
the original bill for submitters to comment on. Changes to the
rules for funding of political parties were discussed in secret by the
select committee after the public had finished giving its written and
oral submissions. The public only became aware of the proposals once the
bill was reported back to parliament on 19 November.

I attended a specially convened meeting of the Justice and Electoral
Committee on 18 October in Wellington to hear the oral submission of the
Human Rights Commission. The Commission was represented by the Chief
Commissioner Rosslyn Noonan and Commissioner Dr Judy McGregor. (The
Commissioners had been unable to meet the select committee during their
regular meetings in September and a special meeting was called to hear the
evidence of the HRC).

At that meeting Rosslyn Noonan stated:

“Given the fundamental importance of the democratic rights of New Zealanders
contained in the proposed legislation. The Commission’s preference is, and
remains, that the proposed legislation, the bill, is withdrawn and redrafted
to take into account the very substantial and indepth submissions of the
over 600 submitters to the select committee.

If it is not to be withdrawn, and rewritten, the Commission’s view that it
is essential that any changes be subject to the widest public scrutiny to
ensure the credibility and legitimacy of whatever electoral law reform
emerges”.

One of the things I was not happy about was the fact that parliament ignored
the Commission’s call for a further round of public submissions after many
changes had been made. Had this been done, the public would have had an
opportunity to comment on the proposed regime for financing of political
parties. It didn’t.

4) I think it is important to understand the distinction between “anonymous”
donations” and “undisclosed” donations. An anonymous donation is one made
to a political party or third party where the recipient does not know who
made the donation. An undisclosed donation is one where the recipient knows
who made the donation but there is no obligation in law to disclose who the
donor is. I don’t support the abolition of either anonymous donations or
undisclosed donations to either political parties or third parties but I am
happy for there to be limits on them. I have no fixed view on what these
limits should be.

It is important to understand my campaign did not focus on the issue of
anonymous donations to political parties.

My campaign was based on the submission of the Human Rights Commission. As
the proposals to limit anonymous donations were only announced on 19
November the Human Rights Commission ( and indeed every other New Zealander)
did not have an opportunity to comment on these proposals. My campaign was
based on the limits to free speech contained in the bill.

5) I did not receive any secret donations. I received financial
contributions from over 100 people to the costs of the campaign. I know the
names all the people who supported me financially. I am very grateful to
them and in fact if anyone else would like to make a contribution to the
costs of the ongoing campaign they may do so by sending a cheque to the
Freedom of Speech Trust at Box 42-267, Orakei, Auckland. Any support would
be greatly appreciated.

You may also be interested to know that the cost of my campaign was
approximately $200,000 and I received donations of approximately $50,000.
As such the total cost to myself of the campaign was approximately $150,000.
You can see therefore that any one contribution other than my own was not
significant.

I am however planning to continue my campaign throughout this year
and will be trying to broaden my financial support.

6) My membership of the Business Roundtable has no relevance whatsoever
to the campaign I ran, in the same way that my membership of the Rotary Club
of Downtown Auckland and the Auckland Philharmonia Foundation also has no
relevance. I disclosed my involvement with each of these organizations in
my written submissions to the select committee.

I was invited to join the Business Roundtable in June of last year
and have been to only one of the two meetings they have held since.

Once again it is important to stress that the issue of restrictions on
political funding was only introduced on 19 November, well after I had made
my submission on the bill and subsequently started my campaign.

You have asked me how I “defend myself” against those who say I’m
simply trying to keep the loopholes in the law open. The simple answer is I
am not. My motivation is to speak out for the democratic rights of all New
Zealanders. I believe organizations such as the Human Rights Commission and
the Electoral Commission exist to protect us all. I have only tried to
promote their views.

I suppose it is only natural that Russel Norman would try and
discredit me. I think in doing so he does a grave disservice to not only
his own members but New Zealanders generally. Neither Rosslyn Noonan, Dr
Judy McGregor or Dr Helena Catt of the Electoral Commission are members of
the Business Roundtable nor are they members of Act ( another common
criticism I attracted). The issue of free speech concerns all New
Zealanders, not just Act members.

7) I can’t comment on the motivations of Talley’s or Don Brash. To the
extent they are concerned with restrictions on free speech I would imagine
they are similar to mine.

John Key has given a commitment to repeal the Electoral Finance Act
if he is elected later this year. I have no reason to believe he will not
honour this commitment if he is able to. Obviously that will depend on
whether he secures an absolute outright majority (which is probably
unlikely) or has coalition partners have a similar stance.

9) I have plans to run a nationwide campaign for the repeal of the
Electoral Finance Act. I am working on a plan involving marches, protests
and demonstrations throughout New Zealand this year. The first of these
occurred at the Green Party’s “Picnic for the Planet” on Waiheke Island in
January and there was a silent protest in the public gallery of parliament
last week. The first protest march this year will be held in Auckland on
Sunday afternoon 9 March. I will be also organising at least two marches in
Christchurch, the first within the next two months and the second closer to
the election.

10) I hope the effect of my campaign is to create greater awareness of
the provisions of the Electoral Finance Act and in particular to those
provisions that are contrary to the submissions of the Human Rights
Commission and the Electoral Commission.

Finally Haydn you should also be aware that I , and others , have commenced
legal proceedings against the Attorney General. Under the Bill of Rights Act
1990 the AG is required to notify parliament when any act is introduced to
parliament which is “inconsistent” with the BOR. We argue that the EFB when
it was introduced was inconsistent with the right to freedom of speech and
that the AG should have notified parliament of this on 27 July. He did not.
Instead he appears to have relied on a legal opinion form the Crown Law
Office that the EFB was not inconsistent with the BOR- a legal opinion that
the Human Rights commission and the NZ law Society clearly disagree with.

An amended statement of claim was filed in the high court in Wellington at
the end of January.

Interview With Don Brash

Below is an interview with Don Brash running in next week’s Canta.

_______________________-

Answers to questions from Canta

1. How does the job of the leader of a political party change during election year? Does it become harder?

I don’t think there is a significant change! These days, the leader of a political party is in virtually permanent campaign mode – constantly trying to build support for his (or her) party, and constantly trying to ensure that all members of the caucus are “on message”.

There are some additional – and onerous – responsibilities for the party during an election year, especially since the passage of the Electoral Finance Act late last year. That legislation imposes extremely demanding standards on all political parties (and indeed, on any of the public wishing to campaign on a political issue), with the penalties for making a mistake quite severe, but in a well-functioning party the leader of the party should not have to get directly involved in that process himself.

2. What extra work does it involve?

More of the same! I thought I was cramming about as much into the week as it was possible to do during 2004 (the year before the election), but found that I was wrong: it was possible to cram even more into the week!

Leading a major political party is something which takes 16 hours a day, seven days a week, during non-election years, but demands even more during election years. I worked pretty hard as Governor of the Reserve Bank, and when my wife (who had worked for several years in the Cabinet Office) warned me that I would work harder than I had ever worked in my life when I became leader of the National Party, I didn’t believe her. She was right.

In the election campaign itself, which I suspect has already begun for John Key, the leader will be giving anything between three and six speeches a day, some of them major policy announcements, some of them of less significance – and of course conducting media interviews several times a day also. If the party is working effectively, the leader should not have to worry about coordinating the campaigning activities of all the other candidates, but that won’t always be the case.

3. What was difficult for you personally during the 2005 election campaign?

Several things. First, I often found myself defending the US invasion of Iraq because the National Party had decided that that was the right thing to have done before I became leader. I failed to voice my disagreement with that position when the caucus discussed the issue, so felt I had no option but to defend the position. But I felt very uncomfortable about that. I lived in the US for five years, and admire many aspects of the American way of life. But my life would have been much easier during the campaign if I could have distanced myself from the invasion.

1

Second, through my own careless use of language, I allowed my relationship with the Exclusive Brethren to become totally misrepresented by the media as something significant and sinister – it was neither!

Third, at one crucial part of the campaign, when I had organised a major media event to highlight the personal pain many New Zealand parents were feeling as their adult children disappeared over the Tasman, the message was totally gazzumped by questions from the media about how I felt about the fact that one National Party candidate had referred to his testicles. That irritated the hell out of me!

4. What do you expect will be the hardest thing for the leaders to deal with in this election year?

Almost certainly the economy. Well before the election, it will be obvious that the economy is growing very slowly, if it is growing at all – the result of a sharp downturn in the housing market (and the effect that will have on consumer spending) and the hugely damaging effect which the very high exchange rate over the last couple of years has had on almost all those involved in exporting (with the obvious exception of the dairy industry). This slowdown will inevitably have the effect of sharply reducing the government’s budget surplus, posing a significant challenge to all parties keen to shower the electorate with promises of bigger spending and reduced taxation. Voters should vote for the political party which takes that changed situation into account in their campaign promises, but history can’t make anybody terribly sanguine that that will happen!

5. How much of an impact do you think greater experience has on a campaign? Did you feel disadvantaged in 2005 since it was your first campaign?

I think that having several campaigns under your belt must undoubtedly have some benefits. I recall thinking before each of the Leaders’ Debates on TV that having several such debates behind one must be a considerable advantage. But looking back on the 2005 campaign, it would be hard to argue that the fact that that was my first campaign was a major drawback. In 2005 the National Party came back from its worst result in its 70 year history in 2002 to its best result since the First Past the Post election of 1990 (in terms of share of the vote) – and indeed within a whisker of being able to form a government. That’s not a result I feel ashamed of.

6. Are there any issues on the election agenda this year that you think will have a greater impact on this election than the last, and if so why?

I think there will be two issues on the election agenda this year which were there to only a minor extent in 2005.

First, and most obviously, the economy. Partly this will be about the “slowdown”, or possibly even, by the time of the election, the recession. People hurting from the fall in the value of their houses will be feeling scared and/or angry. The collapse of highly-leveraged property investments, such as Blue Chip, will be hurting those who

2

thought they had saved something for their retirement. Jobs will be getting harder to get.

And many more people will have woken up to the fact that the New Zealand economy has not been performing nearly as well as the Australian economy over the last eight or nine years – in fact, since Labour came to office. It is hard to draw attention to this situation when home-owners are enjoying the warm feeling created by rising house prices. But more and more people are now becoming aware of the gap which has emerged between average after-tax incomes in Australia and those in New Zealand – a 20% gap in 1999 (unchanged on the situation 15 years earlier), and a gap of at least 35% today. Voters will be demanding to know what major political parties are going to do about that, and party leaders had better have convincing answers!

Second, I believe that health will be a bigger issue this year than in 2005 – or at least, hospitals will be a bigger issue. The Labour Government has enormously increased government spending on health in recent years but the benefit of that is, for most people, very difficult to see. People are still waiting for long periods to get hospital treatment, and government is clearly failing to meet the expectations of a great many people when it comes to expensive drugs, such as Herceptin for the treatment of certain kinds of breast cancer. What the Labour Government has done is greatly increase spending by providing subsidised primary health care for everybody – whether or not they really needed that subsidy – and by greatly increasing the number of health sector bureaucrats. That may or may not be popular in the short term, but it certainly does little or nothing to deal with waiting lists!

7. There’s been a lot of talk of a strong downturn in the economy. What effect do you think this will have on the term in government of whoever wins the election? Is there anything a government could do to help the ailing economy?

As indicated in my answers above, I think there is indeed a real risk of a fairly sharp downturn in the economy. And sadly, the government doesn’t have many options for dealing with that in the short-term.

It was inevitable that the housing bubble would burst eventually, and in fact the bursting of that bubble, though extremely painful for some people, has some positive side effects: it will eventually make buying a house more affordable for those who don’t now own a home, and it might finally drive a nail through the dopey idea that buying a house with a large amount of borrowed money is somehow a riskless investment. That in turn might result in more of our national savings finding their way into more directly productive investments. The downturn should also result in a drop-off in inflationary pressures, so that the Reserve Bank will in due course be able to reduce interest rates, with benefit to the export sectors as the exchange rate retreats from current elevated levels.

If the new government tries to stimulate the economy through aggressive increases in government spending or sharp reductions in taxation, the Reserve Bank would almost inevitably be obliged to maintain interest rates at a higher level than would otherwise be the case, given that such fiscal stimulus would prolong current inflationary pressures.

3

What voters should be demanding to know of the new government – and indeed demanding of politicians during the election campaign – is what they will do to reverse the chronic under-performance of the New Zealand economy over the last eight years, under-performance which has seen productivity (production per person employed) growing at less than half the rate achieved during the nineties during this Government’s term of office. Since it is growth in productivity which ultimately determines living standards, there is no earthly point in governments talking about reducing the flow of New Zealanders across the Tasman to take advantage of much higher after-tax wages and salaries there unless they also have a clear plan of how they are going to raise productivity growth.

I don’t want to pretend that raising productivity growth is easy, or something which can be achieved overnight. It involves a whole lot of things, such as improving roading infrastructure in our major cities, sorting out the problems and delays caused by the way local governments and many members of the public are using and abusing the Resource Management Act, making it easier and less costly for employers to dismiss unsatisfactory employees, restraining the relentless growth of the public sector, removing obstacles to research and development (particularly in the agricultural sector), and creating a tax system which rewards investment and enterprise. Not all of these things would initially bring wild applause from voters, but without them any talk about narrowing the gap between New Zealand and Australian incomes is wishful thinking – and deceitful.

Unpublished Article

This hasn’t been published anywhere else. This article is me trying my hand at some different structures, styles of writing etc. Doing things I’m not usually comfortable with. The anecdote in the article is mostly true (my wording was no doubt less snappy and concise, I’m way cooler in print) but any way, a special treat for those who actually read this blog.

___________________________________

There are a lot of things I wish I could get excited about, but I can’t.

A guy walks up to me in the street the other day, all bright eyes and slack jaw. He hands me a pamphlet and says he’d like to tell me about the happiness I could find through his own personal saviour, Jesus Christ.

I looked at him a while, then replied

“Why? What’s in it for you?”

He took a few seconds to process, then muttered something about how his religion holds that evangelism is the key to salvation

“Well then, your salvation depends entirely on if I let you talk to me doesn’t it? Jesus isn’t the one that saves you, I am. Man, I don’t know, that’s a bit too much responsibility for me. I don’t know if I can handle that kind of pressure.”

So I walked off, leaving this poor guy gawking after me, still trying to figure out if I was serious or just fucking with him.

For the record, I was fucking with him.

But as I walked off I couldn’t help but wonder if I had just blown my one shot at salvation. Even if I hadn’t, I had just done an undeniably shitty thing to the poor guy. Here he was, trying to share the thing that mattered more than anything else in the world to him, his beliefs. And here I was, fucking with his head.

Why had I taken the time to do that? Why hadn’t I simply said “No Thanks” or “No thanks, I’m Roman Catholic”, a sure fire way to scare off any protestant (it’s been 500 years, but deep down they’re all still worried we’re looking to burn them at the stake).

So why couldn’t I just have done that?

I don’t know.  It could be because the pamphlet he handed me had the logo of Living Water’s Ministries on it. An organisation that denies evolution, holds the bible to be literally true, and wants such beliefs taught in schools. The same Living Water’s Ministry whose founder went on National Television and bragged he could prove the existence of God in a pure scientific debate. When someone took him up on his offer, he proceeded to read from the Ten Commandments, and tell everyone in the audience they were going to hell. Not exactly as crushing an intellectual argument as he had promised.

So maybe I was a dick to the poor evangelist in the street because I didn’t agree with what he was trying to get me to buy into.

Of course if I told you that was actually the reason, I’d be lying. Like I said, I’m Roman Catholic (and a pretty lacklustre one at that), what right do I have to criticise what anyone believes? I regularly sit in church listening to the representative of an organisation that knowingly protected child molesters.

No, if I’m being honest (and I do try to be) the reason I took the time to fuck with this guy is that I knew he was peddling a lie.

The lie wasn’t the religion he believed in, the god he worshiped or how he thought life was created. The lie was that he could walk up to me in the street one day and offer me a fix all solution to life’s problems. The idea that it was that simple.

The answer to all of your problems isn’t going to be handed to you in a pamphlet on the street one day. Nothing can be fixed that easy, but we like to think it can. We all seem to want to believe that real positive change is easy, so easy that someone else will figure it out for us.

This desire is exploited all the time in politics. Someone will be hyped up as the answer to all of society’s problems. The spin doctors will tell us that our votes can buy us a candidate that will change the world, fix our problems, pave a new and better way forward for us all. We all then get excited, we believing we’ve just been handed the solution.

Which brings us to Barack Obama.

God, people really love this guy don’t they? Journalist’s admit it’s hard to stay objective when covering him, women faint at his rallies like he’s Elvis and it’s 1956. Over 500,000 people have run a Google search involving the words “Obama” and “Messiah”.  

How can he possibly live up to all that?

Still, people do sincerely believe that Obama will bring hope, change and a better life for us all. I look at the growing mess in Iraq, the looming US recession, the (oft ignored) spectre of climate change, the genocide in Darfur, the failing American Health Care system and the drug problems in urban ghettos. I look at all these things and can’t help but think they are far beyond the ability of any one man, no matter how eloquent, to fix.

Just like anyone else, if Obama wins, he’ll do some good, he’ll do some bad. Some will love him, others will hate him. He will not part the clouds, he will not save the world. He’s not a messiah, he is a politician.  And as a politician, despite all his hype, Obama has his flaws.

His proposed troop withdrawal from Iraq could well lead to genocide between Sunni’s and Shia’s. The troop surge, unpopular as it might be, has proven to be the type of effective counter insurgency strategy America was missing in Vietnam. When it comes to the economy, he’s essentially a tax and spend democrat, not really the type of guy you want in charge when you’re faced with a failing economy. As a legislator, he’s inexperienced and it shows in his compromised and vague healthcare policy.

The cult of personality that has erupted around Obama has been so interesting to watch. In many ways it is a positive thing. It’s great to watch young people become passionate about a politician, it’s great to see so many people demand an alternative to the excesses of the Bush years.

However, when so much of Obama’s support seems to come from people caught up in the emotion around him, it worries me. The President of The United States is the most powerful person alive. That makes it a role that needs to be guarded closely.

Decisions on who fills that role should be based on reason, not based on the lie that one wonderful person can come along and fix all of our problems.

There are powerful and convincing arguments for why Obama should be the next President. It’s sad that instead of hearing them, all we seem to get is hype.

 

    

Column Week 4

This just came out in Canta today, and you get to read it, lucky thing!

Ooooooooh boy, it’s been a tough few days for John Key.Where mere weeks ago he was looking like a Prime Minister in waiting, recent events have seen him take his first big hits of the election campaign. Clark, Cullen and the rest of Labour seem to have finally found a strategy that works for them, one that should resonate with voters and one that draws a clear line in the political sand.  Key on the other hand has looked lost, outclassed, indecisive and totally unfit to lead a country. For almost the first time since the campaign started, Key is on the back foot. 

It all started with the announcement the Government would be intervening to stop a Canadian Pension Fund from buying a 40% stake in Auckland International Airport. The move was a dangerous one for the Government. Firstly a Government that intervenes in the middle of an already negotiated business deal is never going to be a popular one with investors. There was a real danger the move would hurt overseas business confidence in New Zealand as a good place for investment. After all who is going to invest in New Zealand if they are worried the Government is going to change the rules halfway through the game? Secondly it was a move that reeked of political opportunism. The Government was down in the polls, so they needed a really big move to claw back some ground. There was every possibility the move would be shrugged off by voters as just another election bribe by a desperate government, much like the response to the Government’s promised tax cuts. All it would take was a couple of strong attacks from Key, and the public could have turned against the policy. Unfortunately for National, Key’s response to the asset sale was anything but strong.

Key’s appeal has always been his ability to unite Nationals core right wing voting base with the more moderate voters. These moderates tend to be the people in the political centre, who used to vote for Labour, but have been impressed by moves such as accepting the anti-nuclear policy, the promise of tax cuts, and accepting interest free student loans. However many of these voters are turned off when National starts leaning to the right. They oppose privatisation, bulk funding, asset sales and benefit cuts. Key has done a very good job of keeping these sort of issues off the table. He has hoped he can keep National’s unpopular free market policies out of the public eye for long enough, he could take the election simply by telling people what they wanted to hear.

When the Government suggested reporters go and ask Key’s opinion on the Airport intervention, they were forcing Key for the first time to tackle these issues head on. And clearly he wasn’t ready to do so.When asked for his opinion, Key was trapped. As a former investment banker, Key is a strong believer in the free market, he instinctively hates the idea of Government intervention, especially on this scale. Yet he knows he needs to keep opinions like that out of the public eye, he can’t let himself be seen as another Brash, another Richardson. So Key did just what Labour always said he would do when forced to make a hard choice: he flip-flopped. He gave a different answer from one day to the next. 

For Labour, this is just what they needed. Clark takes a strong and decisive move, saving a vital piece of New Zealand infrastructure from being asset stripped, while Key stammers, trying to find a way to spin the issue. One looks like a leader, the other looks like a lost puppy. And there was more to come.

Late last year, Key got caught on tape by a Journalist from Northland newspaper “The Bay Report” responding to a question about the wage gap between New Zealand and Australia. In his response he said that “We’d love to see Wages Drop.”

Naturally when Labour found out Key had said this, they hammered him in Parliament with it. Key had campaigned hard on getting New Zealand wages up to compete with Australia’s. But here he was telling someone the complete opposite. According to Labour, Key was caught in a lie, but who was he lying to? The Public or the Business community?

National went into damage control on the issue almost immediately, but somehow with out their usual level of organisation. Key came up with no less than three separate excuses, ranging from “I never said that” (The recording shows he did) to “I don’t remember saying that” (The recording shows he did) to “I was talking about Australian Wages” (The recording shows he wasn’t).

Now does Key want New Zealander’s poorer? Almost certainly not. Chances are it was just a slip of the tongue, he probably meant to say wages rise or something along those lines. After all, this is a man who said he wanted to lead a Labour Government. It was probably an innocent mistake.

Problem is, instead of saying that, Key tried to make excuses, and when that didn’t work, he went a step further. It is at the time of writing unclear what exactly happened but someone from the National party (possibly Key himself) leaned on APN management, who own the Bay Report, the newspaper Key was quoted in. APN caved and issued a “clarification” saying that they apologise if the original article gave the impression that Key wanted wages to drop.

That’s right, they apologised if Key saying he wanted wages to drop made it seem like he wanted wages to drop. Sigh.

The issue is still developing, but at this stage it looks like a journalist caught Key saying something embarrassing, reported it truthfully and accurately, and Key tried to intimidate the paper into changing its story. There’s no other way to spin that. That’s interfering with the freedom of the press, and that is unforgivable. Perhaps that’s why a number of APN journalists issued a letter of complaint to management. 

So yes, it’s been a rough few weeks for Key. Labour is forcing him into a position he doesn’t want to be in, he’s been caught tampering with the media, and trying to intimidate journalists. As it stands, Key is in trouble, his credibility has taken a hit. He can’t attack the Government’s airport decision for being an attempt to grab votes when he himself said National is only keeping interest free student loans because they lost the last election. He can’t attack Helen Clark for being authoritarian when he tampers with the freedom of the press.

Luckily, Key is a fast learner, he had a similar bad week last year, with gaffes over healthcare and the Iraq War. He dealt with it well, going to ground, staying out of the public eye to let the issues calm down, then coming back strong with strong policy announcements of Youth Crime and his “Heartland Tour” that did much to endear him to voters.

In election year however, Key doesn’t have the luxury of hoping it all blows over. Key has to find a way to counter Labour’s new populist strategy, and minimise the damage from the Bay Report scandal. If he can’t he’s going to keep taking these big hits, and that’s nothing but good news for a Government that needs every win it can get.

If Key wants to be Prime Minister, he really is going to have to earn it.       

Week 3

There have been few laws in recent memory that have been met with as intense opposition as the recently passed Electoral Finance Act. The New Zealand Herald called it “a threat to democracy”, John Key said  it would be the epitaph of the Labour Government, The Human Rights Commission said the first draft of the Act was a “dramatic assault on fundamental rights that New Zealanders cherish”. Those who support the Act say it is a vital move to protect New Zealand democracy from rich interests who want to subvert democratic process for their own ends.  The debate around the Electoral Finance Act has been fierce, it has been heated, and on the whole it has completely and utterly failed to address a major issue facing New Zealand Democracy.

To understand how the uproar over the Act misses the point, we have to look at its origins. Essentially (Although National will NEVER want to admit it, or even talk about it) the Electoral Finance Act is a result of the publication of “The Hollow Men” by investigative journalist Nicky Hager (Who you might remember wrote the “Seeds of Distrust” book that caused major headaches for Labour in 2002). For those of you who don’t know what the book is about, in the lead in to the 2005 election campaign, members of The National Party who were unhappy with the direction the party was heading in under Don Brash leaked (or so Hager claims) private emails between Brash and his campaign team. This emails wound up in Hager’s hands, and he turned them into a book. The book was an absolute disaster for Brash, in fact many credit it with forcing him to resign.

The emails in “The Hollow Men” showed a number of seriously undemocratic actions by National. These ranged from cooperating with religious group the Exclusive Brethren to run an illegal million dollar attack campaign on the Greens, to conspiring to circumvent donation limits, to outright lying to the public. John Key was able to escape much of the negative publicity around the book, by claiming he had never read the incriminating email from the Brethren that Hager had found in his inbox. Brash however was not so lucky, as he (or someone in his office) had forwarded the email on to other members of National.

With the publication of Hager’s book, all National’s dodgy dealings came to light. The Government, determined to plug the loopholes in the law that National had exploited, set about reforming the way election campaigns were financed.

Criticism of the Act has been intense (Read the interview with John Boscawen in last week’s Canta for an example). In essence however the argument against the Act goes like this: Spending Money in support of a political candidate is free speech, to limit spending is to limit speech. It’s a very simplified argument, but most critiques of the act have that same theme at the core. A private citizen should have the right to spend their own money in any way they choose. If buying an ad in The New Zealand Herald urging people to change the government is how they choose to spend it, it’s no business of the Governments.

The counter argument to this is that spending money should not count  as speech. If it does, it hardly seems fair that those privileged enough to have a lot of money should thus get more speech than the poor. That violates every principle of political equality that is so essential to proper democracy. The Exclusive Brethren does not have the right to more speech than any other New Zealander, and no amount of money should change this.

 Deciding if spending money really does count as speech is an important decision to make. It is a question that we as a democracy need to decide on. However, it is far from the most important issue in The Hollow Men. The book raises an issue more important than the Brethren, more important than the lies, more important than if Key read the email or not. The fact that Don Brash became the leader of the National Party in the first place, and that he did so almost entirely due to his rich mates.

There is a scene described in the Hollow Men, where the National Party leadership meets to decide if Don Brash will take over from Bill English as leader.  The party is trailing in the polls, coming off one of its worst election defeats ever. More importantly however, the party is in financial trouble, with many of the rich backers it relies on threatening to pull out. In the days before the meeting, one message has been relayed the party leadership over and over: “No Brash, No Money”. If the Hollow Men is true (and this part of the book has never been disputed by National) the decision to make Brash leader was made not because he was the best man for the job, or because the members of the National Party wanted him to lead, or even because they believed he could win the election. The decision was made because National had no choice but to bow to the desires of people like Peter Shirtecliffe and Diane Foreman, in exchange for the money they needed to run a campaign.

That fact is a violation of everything a New Zealand Democracy is supposed to be about. A small group of people were able to hold one of the great democratic institutions of our nation hostage, because they had money. It is the implications of this that need to be addressed. Put simply, a way must be found to ensure this never happens again. A good way of doing this would be to increase the level of public funding given to political parties, allowing them to act independently of their donors. This however, is a very unpopular idea with many people, and rightly so. No one likes the idea of politicians spending someone else’s hard earned money in an attempt to get elected. But perhaps, that scenario is better than the alternative, an endless parade of controversies like the Hollow Men, or the Owen Glen disaster.

Any discussions over public funding of political parties will be hard ones, but it is vital that we have them. It’s an issue that needs to be seriously debated in the media, in parliament, over the dinner tables of New Zealand.  The fact that it isn’t is a lost opportunity for us all to make some important decisions about the type of political system we want in New Zealand. It could well turn out to be a terrible idea, but it’s one we need to be giving grater time teo considering.  

Column Week 2

With much chest-beating and celebration, lobby group Family First have announced they are closing in on the 300,000 signatures needed on a petition to force a referendum on the Government’s decision to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act. If the referendum goes ahead, it will be of no help to the already struggling Labour Government. For them, the controversy around the “Anti-Smacking Law” has been a damaging one. If National does win the election this year, it could well be that looking back we see the decision to repeal Section 59 as the moment where it all went wrong for Helen Clark.

Section 59 allowed “reasonable force” to be used as a legal defence in cases where parents were being prosecuted for harming their children. Sue Bradford, an MP for the Greens, put forth the idea of amending the law to remove that defence. According to her, the reason the amendment was needed was a number of high profile cases where what was clearly child abuse (e.g. beating a child with a riding crop) was not able to be punished by the courts, as it was within the limits of reasonable force.  Bradford introduced the bill into parliament, determined to correct what she saw as a gaping hole in our nation’s laws against child abuse.

 Helen Clark, looking at New Zealand’s disgracefully high rates of child abuse, decided she could not sit on the sidelines and do nothing. She decided that Labour would back Bradford’s bill.She has been paying for that decision ever since.

The bill was enormously controversial. Debate raged in the media, with opponents of the bill coining the sound bite friendly name “The Anti-Smacking Law”. To the bill’s critics, it was classic nanny-state government. The state was poking its nose in the business of hardworking parents, removing a vital tool for controlling their children, and in doing so making criminals out of good people. Helen Clark was labelled a control freak. After all, what business did a woman with no children have telling others how to raise their kids?

Labour and the Greens insisted that the term “Anti-Smacking” was misleading, the bill wasn’t about smacking, it was about removing a defence that let child abusers walk free.  Parents didn’t have to worry that a light smack on the hand would see them locked up next to Graham Burton.  The public didn’t really seem to believe this, and Labour took a big hit in the polls, but worse was yet to come.

John Key, sensing the public’s fears about the bill, offered National’s support to the Government if a clause could be added to the amendment promising that the police would not prosecute “inconsequential” smacking. This covered any smacking that did not use an instrument, and did not leave any marks on the child. This act of compromise was pivotal in Key establishing himself as a moderate in the eyes of the public.

 It was also a politician’s dream story. Here was the Clark government, arrogant after years in power, busy-bodying into everyday kiwi’s lives. Then along comes Key, the voice of reason. Here to save parents from intrusive government. So much of Key’s unprecedentedly high polling as preferred Prime Minister can be credited to the impression he made in the public’s mind with his compromise on smacking.  Key’s amended version of the s59 amendment passed 113 votes to 3, with only the ACT party opposing.  Section 59 was gone, and along with it the defence of reasonable force.But for Clark, the damage had been done.

It had been Key, not Clark, who had responded to the public’s fears about the Bill. Suddenly, National’s attacks on her for being “out of touch with the people who put Labour in power” had a lot more weight to them. The “Intrusive Government” narrative had been set in the Media, and it was this angle that defined much of the media’s coverage of the Electoral Finance Act.

Clark’s leadership has been Labour’s strong point ever since she took over. Before she seized command of the party, they had been disorganised, fractured and still reeling from the major divisions created by the economic reforms of the 1980’s. Helen Clark changed all that. Under her, Labour was united and disciplined. Just the type of people you want running a country.

 In 2005, National knew just how much of Labour’s success hinged on Clark’s leadership. In Nicky Hager’s “The Hollow Men”, emails leaked from National’s campaign team discuss how urgent it was that they portray Clark as a control freak, turning her tight management of the party into something more sinister in the minds of voters.

However, that avenue of attack didn’t work in 2005. There was no major event to convince the electorate that Clark was anything other than supremely organised and capable. When Clark began to be attacked by the electorate for trying to control their lives by banning smacking, you could almost hear National’s campaign team cackle with glee. This time, they had her.

So, when the repeal of Section 59 passed, Clark’s strong leadership turned into a weakness, and John Key successfully branded himself as a common-sense centrist.

 If Family First can indeed force a citizen’s referendum on Section 59, it will mean that when New Zealand votes at the end of the year, they will also be voting on whether to bring back Section 59. There is almost no chance the electorate will bring back the reasonable force defence. Cases like Nia Glassie or have convinced New Zealand that it really is time to get serious about child abuse. Allowing abusers to hide behind reasonable force isn’t the way to do that. Still, if there is a referendum, it will mean more campaigns against the Government, more accusations of Nanny State interference, more attacks on Clark for trying to control New Zealanders.

 It means that no matter how hard they try to escape it, Labour will fight this next election with the controversy over Section 59 constantly on the public mind. For a Government trying to live down controversies like the Owen Glenn debacle and the unpopular Electoral Finance Act, this is the last thing they needed.Clark has said her decision to back Bradford was made because she simply could not bear the thought of having a chance to help victims of abuse and failing to act. Presumably, she knew it was a risky decision.  If repealing S59 does prove to be a politically fatal mistake, would Clark still think the risk was worth it? 

It would be tragic if after a successful career in politics, and all the dishonesty, back stabbing , doublespeak and hypocrisy that go with it, it was a genuinely selfless act that  turned out to be Clark’s downfall. How cautionary a tale for the honest politician.

Welcome

   

Its election year.

 There wasn’t really any other way to introduce this column. You see, this column is about politics. And for politicians, this year is all about the election. The leaders of our political parties will jet around the country, doing their best to convince you that they, and only they, are the best people for the job of government (they will also try and convince you that everyone else is corrupt, stupid, power mad, and that if you vote for anyone else, the country will go to hell. But that’s all part of the fun)

Yes, It’s campaign time, and both sides are preparing for a fight.

In one corner we have the Helen Clark led Labour government, a battle hardened war horse of an administration. One that might finally be showing its age; bogged down by scandal and marred in controversy over legislation such as the Electoral Finance Act and the so called (By those opposed to it) Anti-Smacking Amendment. They continually trail the opposition by at least ten whole percentage points in some polls but they have promised this year they will be on the attack, providing strong policy, and “getting on with the business of government” and showing New Zealand that after all this time, they still have the best vision to guide our country,

In the other corner we have the John Key led National Party, riding a tidal wave of momentum, and year looking unbeatable in the polls. After previous leadership disasters they are finally rallied around a strong, capable leader. A leader who in just over a year has transformed National’s image, abandoning unpopular policies such as their opposition to New Zealand’s anti-nuclear stance. Under the bastion of John Key, National is a party reborn and revitalised. They are polling highly, some polls showing them with enough support to govern alone, free of the messy compromise of MMP coalition.

Yet they too have their problems, just like Labour can’t seem to shake the image they are wearing thin of ideas, National and especially their leader appear a little too slick, a little too ready to do or say anything to get into power. In an afternoon panel on National Radio last week, media commentator Dr. Brian Edwards described John Key’s politics as “bland and innocuous … a shallow man who’d likely dry up in a puddle.” Combine that with a number of high profile flip flops by John Key, the stain “The Hollow Men” left on the party’s image, and a lack of concrete policy and National seems to have a real problem with voter trust.

So who’s going to be running the country this time next year?

Honestly, it’s up in the air at this stage. Which, in my humble opinion, will make this whole year a lot more fun.

There’s so many unanswered questions in politics at the moment. Can Key keep up his momentum? Can Clark fight her way back? What role will the minor parties have in the election? Does National have ANY viable coalition partners if it doesn’t win enough votes to govern alone? Will we finally get tax cuts? If so, how big, and will they just be for the rich? Will National try anything dodgy like they did last election? (Not that John Key knew about any of it of course, he never opened the emails) Will Trevor Mallard fall ass backwards into another embarrassing scandal. Will anybody actually vote for the new “Christian” kiwiparty (as they are calling themselves this week), Is Jim Anderton still alive?

Questions like those are why Canta has this column. This year every week, I’ll be ranting about something else from the world of politics. From privatisation to republicanism. From campaign finance to bail laws. I’ll be your life raft in the muddy water of politics.

So yeah, that’s the “Fill the first column with hype for the rest of the year” stuff out of the way. Now for some actual political discussion, and one of the bigger recent developments has been the decision by National to adopt Labours interest free student loan policy.  The policy was a big success for Labour at the last election and by promising to keep them, National has neutered it as a vote winner for Labour this time around.

However, by eliminating another point of difference between his party and the government, Key is taking a risk. If his strategy is to take all the governments popular policies, he runs the risk of being seen as “Labour Lite”. This makes it very hard for him to stand up in Parliament and claim the Government is out of ideas, when he is acknowledging the success of Labour’s policies by appropriating them for National.

 Key’s strategy from his very first speech as leader has been to move National towards policy areas traditionally dominated by the left, in the hopes of broadening National’s appeal. Whether it’s his new concern for climate change, the reversal of the opposition to the anti-nuclear legislation, or caring for New Zealand’s “underclass”, Key has set up shop in Labour’s backyard. It’s a smart strategy when running against a Government with the long lasting popularity of Labour.

The risk for Key is that if voters are simply voting to support Labours Policies, why wouldn’t they just remain voting Labour?  Key has been so far able to keep the focus on two big differences between the parties.

The first of these has been the personality of the government members. National has launched quite brutal attacks on the characters of people like Trevor Mallard and Helen Clark. The plan seems to be that if voters are going to vote to keep the policies, maybe they will want to change the faces.

The second major area of difference National has been focusing on is Labours reluctance to give tax cuts. This has been a very successful line of attack for them, but it’s one Labour might have finally overcome. With the recent announcement from Michael Cullen that Labour will finally be rolling out the Cuts, we see the two parties positions moving even closer towards together.

By doing so, are Labour cutting off Key’s best line of attack? Or are they simply playing into his hands?

We’ll find out in November

Hello world!

Welcome to the blog of Hayden Munro, bitter underpaid hack in training. Here can be found all my work for Canta, including my weekly column, as well as assorted interviews, features and anything else I churn out. You are encouraged to validate my existance, and stroke my needy ego my commenting, arguing, and generally tearing my articles apart. Below is my first column for Canta this year

PS

Look Mum, I’m on the internet, I’m famous!