Politicians and Their Principles of Convenience

Consenting Donkeys

New Zealand has extremely restrictive marriage laws.  Schedule 2 of the Marriage Act is devoted to proscribing marriage between all kinds of people.

Schedule 2
Prohibited degrees of marriage

Schedule 2: replaced, on 19 August 2013, by section 8 of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013 (2013 No 20).

(1) A person may not marry the person’s—

• (a) grandparent:

• (b) parent:

• (c) child:

• (d) grandchild:

• (e) sibling:

• (f) parent’s sibling:

• (g) sibling’s child:

• (h) grandparent’s spouse or civil union partner:

• (i) parent’s spouse or civil union partner:

• (j) spouse’s or civil union partner’s parent:

• (k) spouse’s or civil union partner’s grandparent:

• (l) spouse’s or civil union partner’s child:

• (m) child’s spouse or civil union partner:

• (n) grandchild’s spouse or civil union partner:

• (o) spouse’s or civil union partner’s grandchild.

(2) The prohibited degrees of marriage apply whether the relationships described are by the whole blood or by the half blood.

(3) In this schedule, spouse and civil union partner include a former spouse or former civil union partner, whether alive or deceased, and whether the marriage or civil union was terminated by death, dissolution, or otherwise.

What might we say about this?
Well, in the first place we should reconsider the arguments put forward by those who successfully changed the law of marriage to include homosexuals as being able to be “married”.  This introduced what some commentators have aptly called the Homosexual Mirage Law.  The arguments in favour of the Mirage were two.

Firstly, a libertarian argument: what consenting adults wish to do was their own business.  If two adult men or women desire and consent to be married, their sovereign and free choices should not be thwarted by the state, but respected and acceded to by the law.  Homosexual “marriage” was thus proposed as a fundamental human right. The second argument was “love”.  If two people loved each other, such affection and attachment cannot be legitimately thwarted.

If one were to take those two arguments seriously, then all the remaining prohibited marriages listed in Schedule 2 of the Marriage Act above should have gone as well.  That they should have remained represents craven cowardice on the part of the Members of Parliament who campaigned and speechified so passionately about the homosexual mirage.  Either these people were genuine, or they were deeply hypocritical, and the arguments being put forward to advance homosexual “marriage” were empty lies and  nefarious pretexts.  Which is it?  Clearly the homosexual “marriage” protagonists were not genuine.

How can we tell?  A new face has appeared on the political scene.  Dr Jamie Whyte, former Cambridge philosophy lecturer, has become leader of the libertarian leaning, Act Party.  Dr Whyte has said he cannot see any principial or philosophical objection to a brother and sister, as consenting adults, being married.  Dr Whyte advances the same arguments and justifications as were employed to justify homosexual “marriage” in New Zealand.

Overnight, so many rats were jumping the ship as to make the sea distinctly puce.  First rat overboard was the Prime Minister, John Key.

“I think it’s pretty silly actually”, Mr Key told reporters this afternoon.  “There’s no place for incest, it’s a ridiculous kind of statement. On the other side of the coin if I could offer him [Dr Whyte] and a few others a bit of advice, the New Zealand public are interested in hearing about the issues that matter. We are focused on the economy and law and order, health and education and really drifting off into these kind of stupid statements isn’t going to take anybody anywhere.” [NZ Herald]

Well, let’s see now.  Is this the same Mr Key who, when homosexual “marriage” was first proposed twelve months ago, vowed that he would support the bill through all stages of Parliament, which vow he kept.   Apparently, back then, he reckoned that New Zealanders were really, really keen on this.  Back then it was an issue that “really mattered”.  The NZ public were (apparently) engaged and transfixed on getting homosexuals “married”, and that’s why Key pushed it so strongly.

But not allowing a brother and sister to be married?  Well, no–that’s incest, and for that there’s no place.  What a perfectly circular argument.  The dictionary defines incest as:  “the crime of sexual intercourse, cohabitation, or marriage between persons within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity wherein marriage is legally forbidden.”  [Emphasis, ours.] But the whole issue is whether it ought to be legally forbidden, in which case it would not be incest, by definition.  Whose guilty of making a silly statement now?  If two people love each other and are consenting adults and happen to be brother and sister, it should not be regarded as illegal and, therefore, incest, surely–in just the same way two homosexuals can now be legally recognised as “married”.

A rat which jumped ship just behind the Prime Minister was Labour MP, Phil Goff who, when Justice Minister looked at the issue of ensuring the “rights” of brothers and sisters “in love”.

Labour MP Phil Goff said the possibility of decriminalising incest between consenting adults was raised by officials when he was Justice Minister in 2005.  “We did look at that, that was put up to me by officials and we said no we didn’t think that was in any way going to be acceptable to New Zealand society and it had certain risks involved.  “It’s not simply the old thing about congenital disorders but it’s also about the protection of life within a family and I thought that was a factor you had to take into account and it was a lot better to maintain the laws and to not make that change so we didn’t take it further.”

But, of course, Mr Goff voted fiercely and with great alacrity for Homosexual Mirage.  In his statement above, and implied in Mr Key’s as well, is the real truth.  It’s all about public support and votes.  Before us is the politician of our age:  “Behold, these are my principles, and they are for sale to the highest number of bidders”.  Even arguments and principles based on human rights–apparently–and on liberty, and freedom, and justice, etc. etc. etc.  If there ain’t enough votes in it, I’m not selling.  If there are, watch me run like a rabid dog to the hustings and the Parliament.

We believe Dr Jamie Whyte is wrong on this matter.  But at least he has some integrity.  At least he is acting consistently with his stated principles.  As for the ratpack, the grandiose arguments they so pompously advanced to justify and support homosexual “marriage” were mere hypocritical, fatuous bagatelle.  In reality, the rest are all amoral and unprincipled–as proven beyond reasonable doubt by their reluctance to acknowledge the equally compelling “rights” of a brother and sister to marry, along with a father and daughter, and a donkey–provided the latter consents, of course.

Cringeworthy Remarks

Dumb

The New Zealand Prime Minister has been asked to chair the negotiations over a Pacific free-trade agreement which will be a side-bar to the upcoming APEC meeting.  President Obama has sent his apologies, due to the “government shutdown” in the United States.  APEC will have to do without him. 

This is quite a public honour for Prime Minister Key.  However, he let himself down when he was asked for his opinion on the present US political imbroglio.

Firstly, he compared Obama’s presence at such international meetings to fizz.  We kid you not.  This from Audrey Young, at the NZ Herald:

Mr Key told the Herald he was disappointed that Mr Obama had had to cancel his trip to the Apec summit in Bali because of the US Government shutdown.  “At one level, he just adds a lot of fizz to the show.”

We know that Key was just trying to be his normal, low-key, jovial Everyman.   We also know he was trying to convey the glamour which Obama brings to international gatherings.  He meant it as a compliment. 

But when Obama’s ratings currently stand at just 41% approval in the US, we can imagine that a large number of US voters would see Key’s statement about fizz in a more pejorative light.  Comments like Obama being, “all fizz and no pop” spring to mind.  The cynics will sarcastically point out that a responsible President, when the core powers of the US government are at an impasse, will negotiate in good faith–something Obama appears unable to do–so they know all about Obama’s fizz.  Lot’s of hot air, little else.  “Might as well go to OPEC,” they will likely be saying.  “He’s not doing any good here.” 

More to our embarrassment here in New Zealand, however, is Key’s apparent ignorance of the US Constitution and the structure of its Republic.  He apparently makes the mistake most folk do down under.  They think the US President is like our own office of Prime Minister, which effectively controls both the executive and the legislative branches of government.  Here is Key’s ignorant assessment:

But he agreed that Mr Obama was being held to ransom and that he should not give in to renegotiate a policy he had been re-elected on.  “You can’t really give in because if he gives in, he is firstly giving in on a policy for which he campaigned, won the election and [was] re-elected.  “He’s got a point, hasn’t he, that he is being held to ransom.”

Except that in 2010 and 2012 congressmen and senators were likewise elected on platforms supported by their electorates.  They won the popular franchise.  They were voted in because they promised to get rid of “Obamacare”.  They have obligations to the people they represent, just as Obama has obligations.  When they differ–that is, when the office of the president is committed to a certain policy and the House of Representatives is committed to opposing that policy and both alike are representing their constituencies, the doctrine of the separation of powers requires negotiation between the branches of government to secure a compromise.  It’s what “checks and balances” are all about.  Moreover, the Constitution of the US gives the power of the purse not to the Executive branch, nor to the Courts, nor to the Senate, but to the House of Representatives alone. 

So, no, John.  Sorry.  The President is not being held to ransom at all.  He is obligated to follow the procedures and processes implied in a constitutional system of checks and balances–as the vast majority of his predecessors always had done, but which, for some reason, President Obama signally fails to grasp, or, if he sees it, stubbornly refuses to imitate.  He thus casts himself either as an ignorant or a radical.  

To Obama’s gauche behaviour, Kay has added the exposure his own ignorance about the structure of government in the US, which is an embarrassment to us all.  Far better to follow the normal convention of not commenting upon the domestic political circumstances of other nations.  Usually, Key is most circumspect when it comes to that. 

When All Blacks coach, Steve Hansen was asked to comment upon the thuggery of prop Ben Franks, who stiff-armed the neck of a Springbok’s opponent over the weekend, his laconic adjective was, “Dumb.”   Maybe we should employ Hansen as a political commentator when he retires as the All Blacks’ coach.  He will have no dearth of topics and subjects.

To Explain is to Lose

Empty Slogans

We have commented previously upon the galactically stupid “marketing” line: “100% Pure New Zealand”. It’s deceptive and misleading.  It is a rod for our own back.  But help is at hand.  The Prime Minister, John Key who is also Tourism Minister has gravely informed us that this slogan is marketing spin.  It’s not to be taken seriously.  Thanks for clearing that up, Mr Key. 

On Saturday, Prime Minister John Key, who is also tourism minister, told a National Party conference the slogan was not meant to be taken literally.(Stuff)

In the interests of clarity, and for the avoidance of doubt, we believe that this slogan is irresponsible and inadequate.  It needs further clarification.

This is a Slogan–Not to be Taken Literally

With this necessary clarification, we are more than happy to see “100% Pure New Zealand” retained.  But then it loses everything, does it not?  Which is the very point we are making.  The slogan only has traction and power if it is believed to be largely (if not entirely) true.  Which is to say that the slogan is deceptive and misleading. 

Righteous Espionage

Trust, But Thoroughly Verify

It’s looking as though the NZ government will get its amendments to spying legislation through the Parliament and into law.  There is continued opposition to the bill, despite substantial changes and amendments being made.  This continued opposition has begged a question: what changes to the bill would satisfy the remaining opponents?  The answer seems to be: nix spying completely.  In this view, espionage is wrong, period. 

This totaliter aliter opposition has two forms: a semi-strong form, and a strong form.  The semi-strong form makes a divide between spying on citizens and spying on non-citizens.  Spying on citizens is always wrong–in this view.  The strong form opposition has it that all spying period, regardless of the object, is wrong.  Neither the semi-strong or strong forms of opposition make much sense. 

In reality we have domestic spying going on all the time.  All forms of police surveillance constitute a form of spying.  Some require a judicial warrant.  Some don’t.
  When a police car goes down a street and observes an unruly crowd and the car parks up and watches what transpires, it is a form of spying–on citizens, no less.  Likewise, all undercover policing is a form of espionage.

It is axiomatic that even as we have criminals and would-be criminals in our midst, so we have those beyond our borders who would render harm to our people.  Knowing who they are and what they are likely to be up to, in order to protect and defend is essential.  It is an intrinsic and ethical duty of civil government.   This renders espionage an essential duty of state policing. 

The issue is not espionage per se, but the terms and conditions under which it takes place.  New Zealand’s tacit constitution has a separation of powers: parliament versus the executive; judiciary versus the executive,  the people versus the government, and so forth.  The appropriate controls over spying need to be set in law and they need to draw upon separate powers to provide sufficient checks, balances, and protections.  If that is the case, then we have no principial objections to espionage.   But, pre-meditated, planned espionage activities ought to have judicial oversight and warrant–to confirm that the activity is lawful.  Not capturing and storing unwarranted information upon citizens is an essential limitation, and so forth.  Judicial reviews of the overall spying “programme” are also necessary and a useful check and balance.  Reporting to a parliamentary committee according to the terms set forth by parliament is also a helpful check.  Sunlight is always the best disinfectant.   The bottom line is that no one governing power should implicitly trust the others.  All men are evil, and if left to their own devices, the evil of men will eventually predominate.

“Never trust the bastards” is a good maxim in these matters.  If men are allowed to arrogate power in secret they will do it.  Those that profess they won’t definitely should not be trusted.  Truly honourable men will insist upon limitations and checks and balances to, and scrutiny of, their powers.  

We need to be reminded that prior to our current Prime Minister, we were served by one Helen Clark.  Clark’s Jacobinish regimen was characterised by a general disregard for our tacit constitution and an ambition to make radical changes to the way our democracy is constituted for partisan political motives–as in trying (and failing) to ram through taxpayer funding of political parties. (Her own party, NZ Labour had run out of money due to declining membership.)  She was also alleged to have leaked privileged information to news media anonymously in order to get people she opposed dismissed.  It does not bear imagining what Clark would have done with an intelligence service empowered to spy on any or all New Zealanders without checks and balances.  The current Prime Minister appears naive and unaware of the risks.  He is a cheery, “hail, well met” kind of fellow.  Neither Clark nor Key–nor any other Prime Minister deserves our trust in such matters.  It has to be a “trust but thoroughly verify” regime if our liberties are to be properly protected.

It is disappointing that our current opposition political parties (NZ Labour, Greens) have failed to play a responsible role in the present spying legislation changes.  They could have had a very constructive role on behalf of us all, but they chose not to, intent on scoring partisan political points.  This amounts to a gross dereliction of duty and responsibility.  As it has turned out, we have had to rely on the contribution of one sole independent MP–Peter Dunne who negotiated some crucial amendments to the legislation.  Labour, the Greens and other blow-hearts such as Winston Peters have failed in their responsibilities and are beneath contempt in this matter.

Christians believe in original sin.  We believe in total depravity.  We believe in government instituted by, and responsible to God.  Therefore, we respect government, whilst being deeply sceptical of those who hold office. Power does actually corrupt.  It energises the latent corruption present in us all.  “Respect our government, but distrust our governors” is a thoroughly Christian maxim–all the more so, when secrecy and espionage are on the table. 

More on That Spying Legislation

Immolating Trust

The NZ Prime Minister, John Key has got the matter of amendments to espionage legislation dead wrong.  Key’s initial approach these legislative changes he was proposing is that they were relatively minor tweaks to remove vagueness and uncertainty of the current law.  That might have worked, and one could extend to him the benefit of the doubt on the matter. 

Then came Edward Snowden and the revelations about the US espionage establishment routinely spying on its own citizens via electronic media interception–contrary to law.  It has also transpired that it has been routinely spying on supposed allies.  New Zealand is linked into the US espionage establishment and works with it, in an operational arrangement called “Five Eyes”.  Is New Zealand similarly involved?

Suddenly the issue has ratcheted up substantially.
  It is now moot–in the sense that we do not know–how must electronic eavesdropping the NZ espionage establishment routinely conducts on New Zealanders.  We do not know whether they collect “meta-data” without warrants.  We do not know how much spying we do on our own citizens on behalf of the other Five Eyes nations (US, UK, Canada, and Australia).  We do not know what protections and bright-line law is in place to prevent such things occurring.  Legal experts have told us there are none.

Recall that the US law did not exclude meta-data from the spying prohibition upon its own citizens, so the US government went ahead, without legal authorisation or specific Congressional oversight.  It turns out that meta-data–names, addresses, times, dates of electronic communication–is all you need to store permanently to get access to the actual content of communication, since most electronic data is never actually destroyed.  It can be re-captured, re-created.  At least that’s what Mr Snowden is saying:

On how long data is kept by the NSA, Mr. Snowden said full text data “ages very quickly, within a few days.” If an analyst flags certain data, it is kept longer, but other material is deleted.  For metadata — gathered by the NSA’s Prism program — the communications are “stored forever.” Metadata on telephone calls identify who calls whom, when, where and for how long.  “Most of the metadata are more valuable than the contents of the communications, since in most cases the contents can be recovered if you have the metadata,” Mr. Snowden said.

So, suddenly we want to be assured that the NZ authorities are not involved in a similar duplicity and  subversion of the clear intent of the law here.  Not unreasonable, one would have thought.  As Herald columnist, Audrey Young has it:

Key is progressing the bill as if the world had never heard of Edward Snowden, Prism or metadata.  People are worried about metadata and Key has not addressed those concerns.

Quite rightly, the Prime Minister has said he wants bi-partisan support for the law changes.  But to say it, and to work at achieving it are two different things.  To be huffy and snidely suggest that the Labour Leader, David Shearer is disingenuous because he “has not picked up the phone” is not good enough.  Key has a phone too.  He should be working this assiduously, if indeed he genuinely wants bi-partisan support.

The Law Society has come out against the Bill.  So have tech experts and Internet service providers.  Now the Human Rights Commission has come out against the Bill.  None of these are politically motivated.  There is smoke here–and where there is smoke it’s not unreasonable to suspect a fire.

Key is starting to show signs of being corrupted by power.  Hardly unusual.  But utterly wrong, nonetheless.  Here is Key just six short years ago–in fine fettle and with convictions and instincts that made him prime ministerial material.

Here in New Zealand we often take our democratic freedoms for granted. We think they will always be there. We have a Bill of Rights which is supposed to protect our right to freedom of expression. What on earth could go wrong?  I have a different view. I believe what Thomas Jefferson said – that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. There are times when we have to stand up for our rights, and the rights of our neighbours and friends, and indeed the rights of people we totally disagree with, or else these rights will begin to erode away.

I agree with these sentiments, absolutely. New Zealanders must stand up for their democratic rights when they are threatened, or they’ll lose them.

Key is now burning through the trust of the electorate he built with speeches such as the one quoted above faster than a brushfire in the MacKenzie Basin at high summer.  

 

Dangerous Times

Where the Real Threats Lie

Several days ago we called attention to our own backyard example of state oppression of one of our citizens.  Mr Dotcom had fallen foul of US authorities because he represents competition for some very powerful US communications and media interests.  Big Hollywood players appealed to the US Vice-President who then concluded that Dotcom was a national security threat. What was a civil dispute suddenly morphed into a threat to national security–a kind of terrorism. 

Within a nano-second big monied interests (donors to politicians) were able to parley protecting private commercial interests into protecting national security.  Dotcom was spied upon, and New Zealand intelligence services became immediate willing parties to the illegal activity (due to our intelligence alliances with the US).  One small problem: the New Zealand intelligence agencies broke New Zealand law. 

Now the New Zealand government wants to change the law under urgency so that extensive spying can take place on any citizen at any time without judicial warrant.
  In other words what was formerly illegal would now be legal.  All in the name of national security.  We are sure that if passed the law will be manipulated to oppress anyone who steps out of line eventually, even as has happened already with Doctom.  Chris Barton writes on this pressing matter in the NZ Herald:

Dotcom claims a specific New Zealand example. “From the Court of Appeal we have seen the documents that confirm that the GCSB has inputted into Prism – the system that the US is currently getting heat for – my email address, my mobile number, my IP address and they received back from the US-based spy cloud all the information that the Five Eyes had gathered on me.”

There are two problems with this situation. One is that our laws specifically state that the GCSB is not supposed to spy on New Zealand citizens. The second is that Dotcom may be a lot of things, but it really is a stretch beyond reason to call someone charged with secondary or contributory copyright infringement a terrorist or a threat to national security. In his submission on the proposed GCSB Bill, Dotcom says what he and his colleagues have endured over the last 18 months represents “an extreme present day example of what can happen when Government and intelligence agencies misuse or misunderstand their powers“.

As the Kitteridge Report shows, the GCSB has been freely gathering metadata involving New Zealanders without a warrant for some considerable time because it assumed metadata was “not a ‘communication’ for the purposes of the prohibition expressed in section 14 of the GCSB Act.” Kitteridge points out that assumption was wrong and metadata would indeed “be likely to constitute a ‘communication’.”

The government response to all this is to pass new legislation under urgency to make such illegal activity – spying on all New Zealanders – legal. The Law Society is among many groups which are not impressed. “The Bill empowers the GCSB to spy on New Zealand citizens and residents, and to provide intelligence product to other government agencies in respect of those persons, in a way not previously contemplated and that is inconsistent with the rights to freedom of expression and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) and with privacy interests recognised by New Zealand law.”

Tech Liberty also raises disquiet: “We are particularly concerned with the Bill’s silence on the GCSB’s existing practice of collecting and analysing metadata.“

Another also not impressed is Dotcom’s co-accused Matias Ortman, who told the Meagabreakfast audience: “As a German I’m very aware of German history. In the 1930s there were similar tendencies by the German government.”

Perhaps what’s most insidious about this extraordinary loss of freedom and encroachment on privacy is the public acceptance of the need for a ubiquitous watchtower’s gaze. Our part in accepting such a state of permanent visibility under Prism’s all-seeing, metadata eye is that we accept its control. We are compliant.  In such a world, where mass surveillance is the norm, we the inmates don’t know when we are being watched, but we do know we can be singled out for inspection at any time. Under the promise of protection we surrender privacy.

Once given up, it’s a freedom we may never get back.

If the despised Helen Clark had proposed what Prime Minister John Key is currently pushing, shrieks of outrage would have been heard from the Cape to the Bluff, and rightly so.  But because “Honest John” is pushing it, the people are somnolent and supine.  Until the day that Helen Clark Mark II arises and then we will see Leviathan reborn. 

Imagine what would have happened to the Exclusive Brethren (who had published some pamphlets critical of Clark and the Green Party) if Clark had at the time the powers that Key is now grasping after?  Those parodied in Parliament as the “chinless scarf wearers” would have become threats to  national security more quickly than it takes to say “Prime Minister”. 

Legitimate Concerns

John Key, Smiling Leviathan

New Zealand is in the middle of its own public controversy over government snooping into the affairs of private citizens.  It would probably have been a storm-in-a-teacup affair were it not for the Snowden expose of US, British, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand world-wide electronic surveillance causing so much disquiet in the United States.

But New Zealanders can now conceive of the risks in a concrete manner.  It has moved from the potential to the actual.  With the NZ government trying to amend the  the Government Communication and Security Bureau (“GCSB”) spy agency law to plug some loopholes right at this moment, the spotlight has been switched on.  Will the GCSB end up doing what the US spy agencies have been doing–which is collecting digital data on its own citizens containing their private messages–with no probable cause whatsoever?

At the outset, let us be clear.  On this matter we simply do not trust our Prime Minister, John Key.
  His perspective is far too naive and superficial.  His “trust us, we know what we are doing” demeanour, coupled with his inability to enunciate principled safeguards and checks and balances to a horrible overreach of state powers offer little comfort to citizens.  We are right to be deeply suspicious of the proposed legislation because we believe that on this matter Key is way out of his competence zone and the Bill as currently drafted has been written by the security agencies themselves.

Key has approached this with the same superficial, light-hearted pragmatism that has governed so much of his Prime Ministerial tenure.  He is a non-ideological kind of guy.  He is a common-sense politician.  Whilst on a whole bunch of issues this may stand him in good stead, when it comes to fundamental issues like the power and authority of the state over its citizens he is way out of his depth.

He showed this on the matter of the anti-smacking legislation.  He reduced so many families to uncertainty, doubt, indecision and fear by supporting ill-crafted legislation that made smacking a child for the purposes of training and discipling a crime, and at the same time declared that the police would exercise discretion in the application of their powers.  Well, the NZ police have been pretty restrained (so far), but not so the other government agencies, such as Child Youth and Family which, emboldened by the legislation,  have ripped far too many decent families apart on the smallest of pretexts.  Key never saw this coming, and he probably does not care.  It’s not a biggie, after all. 

And now the same Prime Minister is telling us we have nothing to worry about.  He simply is not trustworthy on this matter.

The way the proposed legislation is structured, the police, the Security Intelligence Service and other investigative agencies–including information requests from the United States, Canada, Australia and the UK–would need to go through a warranting process, proving probable cause before the GCSB could be commissioned to spy upon particular New Zealand citizens.  In other words, the GCSB would be simply an “order taker”.  But–and here is the big but–in order to undertake such tasks the GCSB would need to create the data infrastructure and data storage capability in order to carry out such commissions on behalf of other agencies when they arise.   

In the United States the snooping agencies have hoovered up all the data, analyzed it, then, “wink and nod”, sidled up to the relevant investigative agency such as the FBI and “suggested” that they might like to get a warrant to investigate Joe Blow, after the fact.  This makes a mockery of the warranting check-and-balance.

Moreover, there is something creepy and overtly dangerous about a government actually capturing and storing every electronic communication of every citizen, “just in case”.  Imagine thirty years ago the outcry were the government of the day to have had (and be exercising) the capability to copy every letter you sent in the mail and store them in a vast secret library just in case they wish to investigate you some time in the future.  That is precisely what appears to be happening now with respect to private phone and internet communications–at least in the United States–and if there, no doubt here, since New Zealand is obligated to participate in the US spying activities with respect to its our own citizens.  

When the NZ Law Society is objecting strongly to the proposed laws it is time for every citizen to sit up and take notice.  This from the NZ Herald:

The Law Society has made a stinging attack on proposed law changes governing the GCSB spy agency, saying they effectively transform it from a foreign intelligence agency to a domestic one without any justification being given. . . . The Law Society submission, written by Rodney Harrison, QC, says: “It is difficult to identify the pressing and substantial concerns that the bill purports to remedy or address.” . . . .

He says the bill effectively transforms the GCSB from a foreign intelligence-gathering agency into an additional domestic spy agency.  “It seems that the underlying objective of the legislation is to give the GCSB powers it lacked previously: the power to conduct surveillance on New Zealand citizens and residents. No explanation or justification for the conferral of this power is given.”

We need law with clear constraints as to what the New Zealand Government is forbidden to do, not “positive” law about  what is may do if it chooses.  Until we see such overt, bright line constraints put upon the Government in this matter, we will not be at all supportive.  And if the Government is unwilling or unable to put those legislative constraints in place, then our worst suspicions will be warranted.

Nor will we be supportive of a hidden dungeon of data intercepted from citizens going about their lawful activities.  At the very least the dungeon would need to be subject to the Freedom of Information Act, so that each citizen could query and not only obtain what intercepted data the government were holding on taht citizen but also a statement of specific probable cause as to why the government is holding this information about that individual.

A government which is either unwilling or unable to bind itself to such constraints is to be rightly mistrusted and feared.

Postscript:  Australia is starting to back-pedal.  We hope this creates even greater pressure on New Zealand.

Honesty and Political Integrity

Sustainable Democracies

Politics and integrity are two words not often found in the same sentence.  In fact, “political integrity” is usually considered an oxymoron.  The current New Zealand prime minister, John Key has his own particular version of political integrity which he has practised more or less consistently since he was first became prime minister in 2008.  His version is that resepective policies on the big, controversial issues should be put before the electorate by all parties.  When a party achieves a majority vote and can coalesce with minor parties to achieve a governing majority, it has an electoral mandate to carry out the policies which were deemed controversial, and over which the election was fought.  It is a case of what the electorate decided by majority vote, so we will do. 

The opposite has also been practised in New Zealand.
  This version is, say anything you like to the voter to gain his support; once in government, however, you can forget election promises and do as you wish.  This latter approach has generated over the years enormous cynicism and loathing of politicians.  It has reasonably led to the widespread belief that politicians are venal, self-serving, and implicitly corrupt. 

We much prefer Key’s version of political integrity, despite its implicit weaknesses and flaws.  If democracy is to survive it must have governments run by people with publicly evident integrity and honesty.  In other words, the same ethics that govern human activity in the neighbourhood, business, employment relations, families and the community in general must apply to governments and politicians.  If they do not, over time democracy will produce successively corrupt governments, the country will eventually become ungovernable, and the resulting breakdown will mean an end to democratic rule.  Winston Churchill’s dictum that democracy was by far and above the best of all other alternative forms of government has a suppressed premise: democracy can only survive if it operates in an atmosphere of political integrity. Without it a nation ends up where Greece and Italy are today. 

Key’s version of political integrity requires that elections be regarded as contractually binding between successful parties and the people.  Election commitments are not just empty promises, but contractual obligations. 

Some examples of Key’s ethical frame in this regard include his electoral commitment that whilst he remained prime minister he would not alter the terms and conditions of New Zealand Superannuation (a stupid commitment, but maintained consistently by him).  Another was his commitment to the electorate that the government would not sell any state assets during its first term and seek a mandate to do so at the next election, and only upon achieving that mandate would proceed to divest state assets to reduce debt.  Once again, he has carried this through faithfully and with integrity–even though it has been fiscally expensive. 

Just how important such commitments are to his modus operandi as prime minister were revealed recently by NZ Herald columnist, Fran O’Sullivan.  The issue in point was Key’s dealings with the board of the government’s coal company, Solid Energy.  The board wanted to grow the company and were looking to invest in other commercial energy opportunities.  But it needed new equity in order to do so.  The government, being fiscally restrained and paying down debt as fast as it could, refused to participate.  Whereupon Solid Energy’s chairman, John Palmer canvassed investment from other international energy companies. 

Key went on to say Palmer’s private view was that the Government should sell Solid Energy or allow substantial individual companies to take stakes.  “The problem with that, as I explained to him on numerous occasions, is that we campaigned on not selling SOEs unless we had a mandate. “As explained in 2011, we weren’t going to have trade sales and foreign partners and, as I explained to him on numerous occasions, when we decided to do any capital injection it will be through the mixed ownership model in which we will be putting New Zealanders first.

“He had a view they would partner up with individual companies. And in a purely commercial world that may be a logical thing to do. But we don’t live in that world, we live in a world where we make political guarantees to the New Zealand public and we honour them.”

There is Key’s doctrine of political integrity at work.  But it comes at a cost.  At the same time, the Key Government was pressuring Solid Energy and all other SOE’s to increase their dividend flow to the government (due to the need for the more revenue to reduce debt, or at least stop it from ballooning out worse than it had), Solid Energy was provoked into borrowing to expand business.  Eventually the world coal price collapsed, leading to Solid Energy being on the hook for $380 million dollars to its bankers and facing bankruptcy.  The Crown will now have to bail them out, although Key is insisting that the bankers take a haircut as well (which seems right, since SOE’s are not crown guaranteed).

Everyone of Key’s contractual electoral commitments has come at a cost–which is to say that nothing is costless in the real world.  But given that, we believe that his style of political integrity has much to commend it.  It no doubt contributes to his current high popularity and the grudging respect that a good deal of the electorate has for him, even whilst disagreeing with him over particular issues and policies. 

The alternative is too odious to contemplate.  But notorious exponents of electoral dishonesty remain.  Here are two alternatives, both expounding their particular version of electoral “integrity”.  The issue is what opposition parties would do if elected, since they oppose the current sale of another SOE–Mighty River Power.  Here is Winston Peters, a thoroughly disreputable, dishonest politician:

Mr Peters said he would be happy for a Government of which he was a part to borrow or to use the superannuation fund to buy back shares at no more than cost.  Mr Peters said his NZ First party was renowned for going into negotiations “knowing what we want and getting what we want”.

“Borrowing money would make economic sense because the returns would make that totally feasible, but there are other resources,” he said.  “You’ve got the superannuation fund, KiwiSaver or a number of avenues or options you could exercise.”

Out of one side of his mouth he says, we would do such and such, but out of the other we can recite a  long track record of proving that anything is up for grabs in coalition negotiations and firm commitments made during an election can be wiped out once negotiations start, without a second thought.  Remember, this is the man who emphatically announced to the electorate during a political campaign that he was not interested in the “baubles of office” only to enter into coalition negotiations with the Labour Party and to accept the post of Foreign Minister.  Needless to say, Peters ended up that particular episode with the whiffs of scandal and corruption swirling around him. 

Another version is Labour Party leader, David Shearer.  With respect to renationalising Mighty River Power, we read his vacuous position:

Mr Shearer said, “We won’t rule it out but we won’t rule it in either.” Labour would not be able to make any commitment on it before an election.

This is the Shearer version of political integrity: trust us.  We will know what we are doing.  Of course the electorate will not buy that, so in the next election campaign he will likely have to make a “firm” commitment one way or the other but his commitment will not be binding were he to lead a new government. 

We will see whether Key’s version of political integrity will become a long standing fixture in democratic government in New Zealand or it will be an aberration amidst a long legacy of dishonesty and political legerdemain.

Letter From New Zealand (About NZ)

FranO’Sullivan Writes a Speech for the PM

Who owns what: for an answer, start here

By Fran O’Sullivan

NZ Herald

Saturday Sep 15, 2012

Mr Speaker, I rise today in this House to introduce legislation to vest all natural resources – water, geothermal steam, airwaves, aquifers and, for the avoidance of doubt, all minerals, ironsands, magma, rare earth deposits, coal, lignite, methane and uranium in this country and the exclusive economic zone that surrounds our shores – in a new Crown entity representing the combined interests of all the people of New Zealand.

Mr Speaker, my Government considers natural resources like water, geothermal steam, and the aquifers that underpin our rich agricultural plains to be public goods that are part of the common wealth of all New Zealanders.

For the avoidance of doubt – and I know many in this Parliament today will regard this as fanciful – the legislation will also extinguish any “rights and interests” that Maori might claim now and into the future to the commercial use of solar power, the wind, the tides, the navigational properties of the stars and the moon. This will also include the magma and lava flows which have enriched our soils over the centuries and will do so again in coming volcanic explosions.

My Government will establish Resources New Zealand as a new Crown entity where natural resources will be vested. The Government – at this stage does not assert ownership to all these resources. Some are already in the public domain. But by vesting natural resources in this entity, the Government retains the ability to go about its commercial business in the interests of all New Zealanders but at the same time preserve the flexibility to negotiate on a case-by-case basis with individual iwi and hapu to resolve historical claims where they are proven to stand up.

This is why my Government’s offer to negotiate in good faith with the representative tribes which have interests in particular waterways that drive our magnificent hydro-electric schemes still stands despite the sweeping statement by the Maori King that “we have always owned the water!”

This legislation I am introducing today also recognises the concept of the taniwha as important to Maori but explicitly extinguishes any so-called rights and interests that are claimed to have evolved from this.  But I reject wholeheartedly the notion that any such claims – if proven – should be settled by way of allocations of shares in the state-owned enterprises that we intend to partially privatise: Mighty River Power, Genesis Energy, Meridian and Solid Energy. There are other ways of settling any claims – if proven – including co-management of waterways.

Mr Speaker, there are some in this House that believe the global financial crisis is over. They do not understand that the United States has embarked on a third wave of quantitative easing – or printing money. I have strong concerns that the US is at the edge of a financial cliff. I am also concerned that China – the powerhouse of our neighbourhood – is having to embark on another multi-billion-dollar infrastructure spend to keep domestic growth moving. And that our nearest neighbour, Australia, is slowing down.  That slowdown is also affecting New Zealand as the wave of redundancies in export-sighted industries continues.

Mr Speaker, these are the issues that cry out for the burning attention of my Government.  But I am disappointed that trifling and vexatious claims are now being advanced at the very time we wish to deal with the major water issue. 

For the avoidance of doubt, let me say my Government will strongly resist the claim filed by Ngapuhi seeking commercial rights over the wind. 

Mr Speaker, New Zealand is an island nation surrounded by a vast coastline. It is subject to the strong winds which circle the globe. The wind is not something that can be captured, bottled or bagged, and sold. The wind – rather like the tides which cause our seas to rise and fall – is simply the bulk movement of air. It can power wind turbines. It can also help propel aircraft.

If Ngapuhi wish to assert a commercial right, it is a simple matter to erect a wind turbine or windmill on their own land.  But for the avoidance of doubt, my Government will also vest the wind within Resources New Zealand. I expect this will result in widespread mirth.  Carried to its logical extreme this could result in Ngapuhi claiming rights to the wind long past our shores and causing the air to move elsewhere – even the United States or South America.

It has also been reported that Ngati Kahungunu iwi has said it will lodge a claim over New Zealand’s second-largest aquifer. It is reported that Ngati Kahungunu claims the rights and interests in the waters of “their” aquifer had never been lawfully extinguished.

For the avoidance of doubt I should make clear my Government is seeking advice as to whether – in subsequent legislation – those “rights and interests” should simply be extinguished. Some will say this is a step towards the nationalisation of this resource. And indeed this is something I am giving serious consideration to, along with the wind, the stars, the moon, magma, sunlight and even the internet.

Mr Speaker, it is also notable that Winston Peters – who is also part-Maori – has suggested that all New Zealanders pretend to be Maori to get special privileges under the law.  I have to say that as the son of recent immigrant parents, Mr Peters’ suggestion has some appeal.  But as Prime Minister of New Zealand I must stand above my personal interests.

What I am asking this House for is the ability to vest natural resources in a Crown-managed entity while my Government – and subsequent Governments – take the necessary time to negotiate with individual Maori tribes on proven claims. We envisage this will take many decades to settle. But in the meantime Governments will be free to get on with the business of governing New Zealand in all our interests.

Anything else is an abrogation of the Government’s responsibilities.

It’s the nationalisation both implicit and explicit in this piece that offends the sensibilities of those who believe in private property.  But there are precedents for initial nationalisation of resources, followed by a devolved sell-down to private owners.  That’s a pragmatic and practical way forward we could endorse wholeheartedly.  

Another Education Anathema

Educrats Show Their Slips

A fresh brouhaha has broken out over government schools in New Zealand.  The Prime Minister, John Key in his inimitable political style informed the nation in an off the cuff remark that he thought school league tables was not a bad idea.  Government schools would be ranked from best to worst according to how their pupils scored on national standards testing in reading, writing, and maths.

That casual, informally delivered comment generated a predictable carpet bombing fire-storm from every educational union.  This in itself is a very strange situation.

Discretionary Justice

Whimsically  Destroying  Families

In New Zealand it is a criminal offence to smack one’s child.  Well maybe.  Our Prime Minister, John Key in one of his most feckless moments once announced that “good parents” who smacked their children would not be prosecuted.  In other words, the police and the courts would, despite the law, show discretion and leniency to good, mainstream, decent Kiwi parents. 

Except that, by definition, any parent who smacked cannot be a good, decent, mainstream Kiwi parent.  They are committing a crime.  Mr Key “promised” that if such good, decent parents ended up being prosecuted, he would change the law.  Again, Mr Key–whilst being no-doubt genuine in his “decent bloke” kind of way–meant well, but was and continues to be remarkably naive. 

He apparently has little comprehension of what pre-dates a criminal conviction:
  one is first suspected to be a criminal, then one’s children are forcibly removed by state agencies responsible to no-one but themselves, then one is arrested, arraigned and prosecuted, and then one is either discharged or convicted–but by that time severe damage to parents and children will have been done.  If convicted, a lengthy appeal process is ahead, provided one is able to pursue it.  Even if there is final vindication, the suffering inflicted is beyond imagination. 

We expect that Key’s folly and naivety on this vital matter will end up being his enduring legacy to the country.  It has already caused irreparable harm to many Kiwi parents. 

Here is the latest case to hit the headlines:

A  mum’s “considered decision” to strap her son led to an assault conviction, and a judge told her that thinking about it first made it worse than if she’d done it in anger.  The woman and her partner, both South Island teachers, were convicted after they strapped their 8-year-old son, over his pyjamas, with a belt in January last year.

But after taking their case all the way to the Court of Appeal, they were discharged without conviction.  Anti-smacking law critics say the case is an example of good parents being criminalised, contrary to assurances from politicians when the law came in.

Named H and G in court papers to protect their son, the pair told the Sunday Star-Times the boy had a history of behavioural difficulties, had seen psychiatrists, and the family had approached Child Youth and Family. When he was discovered for a second time doing “something that put another child’s health at risk”, they said it was the “straw that broke the camel’s back”.

“I felt like I had gone down all the right channels. He did it again. I thought what else can I do to try to get him to realise it’s not acceptable behaviour?” H said. She asked her partner to give the boy the strap that night. “We talked to our son so he knew why. We needed him to know it wasn’t OK.”

A CYF worker was told a few weeks later, and police were notified. They interviewed H, who was told it was “highly unlikely” the case would go to court. But police went to the school a few days later and she and her partner were charged that night. H said they pleaded guilty and applied for discharges without conviction to avoid putting the boy through a trial.

Judge Tony Zohrab denied the applications, saying “the fact it was a considered decision to assault him” was an aggravating factor. They both lost their jobs because of the convictions, and the boy was sent to live with other family.H said the decision was “backwards”. “The judge almost said if you had done it in anger, it would have been better.”

They appealed, and her partner got a discharge without conviction in the High Court, but her offending was deemed worse because she had told police she had used a wooden spoon on the boy in the past.  H then went to the Court of Appeal, where the judges said they had “considerable sympathy” for her. Justices O’Regan, Arnold and Randerson said H was dealing with a child with identifiable behavioural problems, and an incident any parent would have found challenging to deal with.   “She had sought appropriate expert assistance with the child, and had utilised a range of non-physical measures to address behaviour. . . .

The judges ruled Zohrab had erred in “overstating the gravity of the offending”, and the consequences – particularly losing their jobs – were out of proportion.  H said she was overjoyed at being discharged after “a year-and-a-half of hell”. She said when the anti-smacking law was introduced she thought it would stop people from abusing their children. “I didn’t for a second think I would get criminalised.”

Family First director Bob McCroskie said the case showed the law “coming home to roost”. “This mother has had her career damaged, lost income and faced legal fees, and it’s caused irreparable damage to the family. She was honest, asked for help, went to professionals who never came running with assistance – but were quick to prosecute. The warning to all good parents from this is to be careful what they admit.”

Police criminal investigations national manager Detective Superintendent Rod Drew said a review of smacking investigation figures showed discretion was being used.   “It’s a matter of degree. Generally speaking, the use of a weapon to hit a child is unacceptable. The law allowed reasonable force to be used, but “reasonable” was not defined.”

[Hat Tip: Zen Tiger at NZ Conservative, who  lampoons the enlightened Judge Zohrab who, in the initial conviction, implied that unreasoned, irrational discipline with an implement would be better than careful, reasoned, calm, self-controlled discipline.] 

A Connecticut Victorian in Trans-Pacific Partnership

“Free” Trade is What I Say It Is

Regular readers of this blog will be aware that they are at a strongly free-trade site.  Our position rests on three main arguments.  The first is principial.  State barriers to free trade (tariffs, quotas, subsidies) represent an indirect assault upon the property of others.  They are theft by other means.  They are a form of soft-redistribution of wealth from many to the favoured some. 

The second is more pragmatic.  State trade barriers distort price signals making the market inefficient–and, therefore, wasteful. 

The third argument is political.
  State trade barriers inevitably represent a government favouring some group or special interest at the expense of others.  Inevitably, in a democracy, this translates into bribery in order to gain support at the ballot box.  In time, the body politic becomes infested with the toxin of corruption.

The United States has had tariffs, quotas, and subsidies for well over half a century.  We are, therefore, not surprised that the rank odour of corruption permeates the corridors of  the federal government, regardless of which administration is in power. 

New Zealand is one of the most open economies in the world–although we still have plenty of petty tariffs to get rid of.  The Customs department is still far too busy levying tariff invoices for our liking.  But, compared to the United States our trade is much more free.  This stands us in great stead when we are negotiating free trade agreements with Asian and Middle Eastern countries.  But not so the United States and Europe.

It’s no surprise, then, that New Zealand got “talked down to” by the US ambassador recently.  We are currently amidst negotiations with the US over a free trade agreement within a broader multi-lateral negotiation amongst a number of countries referred to as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.  This is how the ambassador was reported in Stuff:

Earlier, US ambassador to New Zealand David Huebner said he believed New Zealand should look at the greater good that could come from a “21st century” trade deal – including greater investment, migration and intellectual property links – rather than focusing narrowly on “19th century” concerns such as tariffs, subsidies and quotas.

The rhetoric from New Zealand’s third-largest trading partner puts the heat on the government negotiating team to make some headway before the US loses interest.

So, New Zealand is still in the nineteenth century, huffing and puffing over those oh-so-yesterday tariffs, subsidies, and quotas.  Yes, well, we are a primary producing country dominated by agriculture–which is one of our greatest commercial strengths.  The US, due to the political corruption arising out of levying the very same tariffs, subsidies, and quotas has become beholden to farmer lobbies.  A flippant “that’s yesterday’s issue” from the ambassador is a gratuitous slur against New Zealand.  It is also an egregious obfuscating of the now perpetual US trade barriers, intractable due to political corruption. 

The ambassador might not think of it this way, but the continued protection of US farmers in that country does indeed wed the United States to (now) thoroughly debunked Victorian economics–and the attendant corruption that inevitably goes with it.

Of course we want a 21st century trade deal–like the one we have with, ummmm China–you know, that emerging global economic power to which the United States is now deeply indebted.  OK, cheap shot–but no doubt y’all get the point.  In some ways the Peoples Republic of China is far more the “land of the free” than the United States. 

Decades ago the US tried to bully New Zealand into backing down on its “nuclear free” policy.  It soured relationships for years.  Kiwis don’t like to be condescended to, nor bullied.  For our own part, we have never agreed with our own luddite anti-nuclear stance, but neither have we had much sympathy for the condescending, big brother attitude of the United States. 

The US was a late entrant to the Trans-Pacific Partnership.  Probably they have never been serious about the negotiations.  We are aware that Obama has expressed vehement anti-free trade sentiments in the past; moreover, the Senate and the Congress are up to their eyeballs in parochial agricultural special-interest-corruption. 

For our money we would regard the early exit of the US from negotiations with equanimity.  To capitulate on these kinds of issues would represent a kind of economic treason–a real selling off of the national family silver.  So we are heartened by the reported comments of our Prime Minister on the matter:

Prime Minister John Key says the timeframe of concluding the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement is important but not as important to New Zealand as getting a high-quality deal. . . .

“In the end a deal that doesn’t include agriculture and a deal that doesn’t have access for New Zealand’s great products in that area from beef to dairy is unacceptable,” he said.  “That is specifically because in the end we are not going to weaken future negotiations we have by signing up to something we have that is substandard and there would be nothing in it for New Zealand.”

Principled Assassination

“Good on ya’, Bro'”

Passing into the folklore of Western civilization is the heroic attempt by some, including the Desert Fox, to assassinate Adolf Hitler.  They failed.  But we have honoured their moral judgment and their courage.  All of which serves to prove that assassination, when attempted for right reasons and true moral principles, can be a worthy deed.

When John Key was first elected Prime Minister of New Zealand we were told his nickname was Smiling Assassin–earned from his time as an international currency trader with Merrill Lynch.  Three years have passed and and it is time to reassess the moniker.  We can testify to lots of smiling.  That much is true.  But not much assassination.  Definitely not true.

His predecessor, Helen Clark gave every indication that when it came to the “sense of humour” department she was a shingle short.
  But when it came to assassination she was prodigious and prolific, ruthless and quick.  Cross her once, and you had better make a will.  Cross her twice and you could write your own obituary.  Three times, and you would be dead before you finished reading it.  We suspect in part this was due due to Clark’s pique or spite.  John Key has neither.  He often shows himself as the kind of guy who takes a shot across the chops, grins, says, “Good one, bro’ “, whilst inviting his assailant to have another crack.

But one thing Clark had in spades was a steely commitment to an ideology that motivated much of what she did.  That is why the Labour Party now is in the doldrums.  Clark’s management style had much to do with command and control by ideological compatible allies.  She stacked the Labour Party with them and reshaped the Labour Party so that it became a cadre of its leadership–a top-down, ideologically rigorous, command and control fiefdom.  The subsequent problems are twofold: firstly, it could not survive Clark’s departure; secondly, Clark’s ideology was offensive and extreme to the lights of most New Zealanders.  Consequently, the Labour Party remains today a “gaggle of gays and self-serving unionists”–ideologically pure, but so out of touch with the public it risks becoming permanently irrelevant.

Clark’s ideological purity, however, has left another lasting legacy.  She also stacked every government department and every quango she could with people after her own image.  These people now fly below the political radar screen but continue to have an inordinate influence over the country.  Political correctness remains alive and well as a result.  Key, for whom ideology is a foreign idea, neither notices nor cares.  He appears not see it because he does not think in ideological categories.

As a result, he is doing the country a grave disservice.  Take the Human Rights Commission, for example.  This from Stuff:

Golliwog wrapping paper has appeared on the shelves of a popular chain store.  Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres said the paper, retailing for $2 at Look Sharp stores, was likely to cause offence.

“I would prefer if they withdrew products like that from sale,” he said. “Often in New Zealand we don’t realise what a controversial history they have in other countries.”

Controversy in other countries should control what a business sells to its customers in New Zealand.  Helen Clark continues to influence us from the political graveyard.  Because she made appointments based on ideology, her world-view continues to be imposed on us all.  The State continues to be our nanny.  We are continually lectured on how to dress, think, act, and behave correctly by the lights of a self-appointed elite who want to make the world in their own image.  We are smothered with their “good advice”.

How we long for some good old fashioned assassinations.  If you do it at the right time, for the right reasons it can be a very salutary thing–or so history would appear to tell us.  John Key has lived up to the smiling “bit” of his nickname.  How we wish the “assassin” part had proved true, at least a bit.  A big ideological clean-out is desperately needed in New Zealand.  But there’s the rub.  Key, being apolitical and non-ideological, is just not likely to see it. 

It would be salutary to have all those smothering government agencies that exist for the sole purpose of making us better people to be staffed by cheery, happy chaps in the image of the Prime Minister.  Having the Human Rights Commission led by people whose habitual response was, “Good on ya’ bro’.  Have another crack,” would be a breath of much needed free air.

Humble Pie

John Armstrong Faces Reality

We have blogged recently on the absurd media-induced brouhaha over Prime Minister John Key’s private conversation secretly recorded.  The media, smelling sensation, circled like sharks.  Gone completely was any commitment to the law, to ethics, to morality.  The media overnight showed their dark, smelly side.

The self-important provocateurs proclaimed that the “scandal” would change the election outcome; a real contest was suddenly before us; the media had uncovered some dirt.  Meanwhile the police served search warrants upon the media.  Suddenly everyone involved on the media side became very tight-lipped and circumspect, except for the cacophany of demands from them for John Key to release the tape “in the public interest”  Sadly for them, the public was not interested.  It smelt a dirty rat. 

Leading Herald political correspondent, John Armstrong, initially a cheerleader for his colleagues, now starts to eat the inevitable humble pie.  He acknowledges there has been a complete disconnect between the media and the people.  Not surprising, since the media are the most arrogant and elitist amongst us.

 Public clearly backs PM’s claim to the right to privacy but his refusal to let teapot tapes be released shows him as just as inconsistent as any other politician.  For John Key, this has been the best of weeks and the worst of weeks.  It has been the best because public opinion has clearly swung in behind him in his quest to defend his right to privacy.  There is a strong and widespread feeling that the Prime Minister’s conversation with John Banks should not have been taped without the pair’s permission.

Many people see this as so fundamental, the argument stops then and there for them. Such is this feeling, National’s support could conceivably start rising again, sweeping Key to an emphatic victory next Saturday.  There has been little fuss about his lodging a complaint with the police. To the contrary, many will see that decision as a positive measure of how tough and determined he can be. It is about leadership – and leadership matters in election campaigns.

Armstrong goes on to tut-tut about Key doing the wrong thing, losing control of the debate, showing he is just one more politician ducking and diving the hard questions, etc.  Blah, blah, blah. 

“Hello, kettle “, says the pot.

Credibility in Tatters

Cooked Books In Pustule Stew

Well, we always knew this was going to happen: Labour’s cooking the fiscal books again.  Challenged to provide costings for its election spending promises, it has eventually delivered–voodoo numbers. (Disclosure: we remain sceptical of the Government’s numbers as well as being over egged when it comes to returning the Crown’s books to surplus in the declared time frame.  But at least the Government’s numbers would have had Treasury and Inland Revenue scrutiny.)

Let’s put the finger on Labour’s pustules:

Firstly, there is a matter of borrowing more ($4bn–as acknowledged by Labour itself) only to return to fiscal surplus earlier (2016-17).  How does that come about?  A new tax–a capital gains tax–is touted to raise truckloads of new revenue.  By year 10 of the tax, Labour claims that it would be raising $2.27bn per annum.  Yet this tax would be full of exceptions (already announced), carve outs and would apparently not face any avoidance actions.  How reliable is the number?  Pie in the sky.  No serious work has been done on the structure, application, or cost of administering such a complex tax.  Voodoo economics.  Yet–and let’s never forget this–the debt increase which it will need to fund will be very, very real.  Nothing voodoo when it comes to the debt. 

Secondly, Labour is also promising tax cuts.  Yup.  So, let’s get the legerdemain clearly before our eyes: higher borrowing, and huge tax cuts (both fiscally real), offset by a new wonder tax that will raise billions because Labour says so, and much higher spending.  How big are the tax cuts?  Labour’s tax cuts are a new tax threshold, lower GST, and a Research and Development tax credit.  These tax cuts are apparently bigger than all new spending announced to date, to be funded by new borrowing.  So borrowing will have to fund not only new spending, but huge tax cuts as well.  Yah gotta be dreamin’, mate.

Thirdly, the economic gurus in Labour (Cunliffe, Parker) apparently made a slight calculation error representing about half a billion dollars.  Labour has made a “big thing” about National’s plans to sell up to half of selected State Owned Enterprises.  Labour has argued that this would mean halving the dividend received from these companies.  True enough.  But then it completely overstated the dividend and built this into its fiscal projections.

Here is the problem: the overstatement represents a schoolboy error.  It indicates that Labour has not done any serious work on its “Show me the money” figures. 

According to the NZ Herald,

Labour’s figures show it expects to receive ordinary and special dividends from the SOEs of just over $845 million in the next financial year, rising to $1.2 billion four years later. . . . But Labour drew its figures from Treasury numbers released two weeks ago for interest revenue and dividends for state-owned enterprises. Through a spokesman, Finance Minister Bill English said those figures referred to total interest and dividends received by all SOEs including Kiwibank.
A Treasury spokesman said was the case, and the figures used by Labour were “not the same as disposable income available for the Government to spend on its priorities”. (Emphasis, ours)

Government owned companies receive interest and dividends from their commercial operations.  Kiwibank, being a bank, gets lots of interest payments.  Some of this gets paid across to the Crown once profits are calculated; the rest is retained by the companies to fund their commercial operations, depreciation, etc.  Labour stupidly used the gross figure, not the actual dividend payments to the  Crown.  That amounts to a $400m per annum error.  Either Cunliffe and Parker are ignorant, or they are deliberately obfuscating. 

Finally, Labour wants to borrow to invest in superannuation funds.  It wants to treat this as fiscally neutral.  You borrow, then invest in a big fund investing in shares and bonds and property, pay interest on the debt, and hope that the earnings from the investment will not only pay the interest cost, but will eventually enable you to pay back the borrowings.  So, this debt should not be counted in government borrowing figures.

As John Key said,

. . . that was the same as saying “if you have a mortgage against your home, that [debt] doesn’t count and the day you buy the house, you should book the profits of what you think you might be able to sell the house for some time in the never-never”.

Smoke and mirrors.  The kind that rating agencies see through in a nano-second.  How did Cunliffe defend that charge?

Mr Cunliffe said it was “absolutely appropriate” to calculate net Crown debt including the Super Fund assets, “as they always were under the last Government”.

Precisely.  We cooked the books back then, so its OK to keep on cooking them today.  

Any voter who trusts these guys as honest brokers deserves all that will come down the pike if and when they are voted back into government.

Tall Poppy Envy Hits Labour

Bright Dead Alien Eyes

Further to our piece yesterday on the warped and envy-ridden socialism of Tapu Misa, we reproduce excerpts from a piece by Chris Trotter, posted on his blog Bowalley Road.

Trotter is a Norm-Kirk style Fabian socialist.  We suspect this piece was provoked by the slander of the Mad Butcher, Sir Peter Leitch by Labour MP, Darien Fenton.  Leitch is an iconic working class hero–a Kiwi battler who made a fortune the hard way and has endeared himself to the public through his works of charity and kindness.  Fenton did not like the way Leitch was “public mates” with the Tory Prime Minister, John Key.  She apparently saw it as a sell-out by Leitch to the propertied, monied classes.  She slammed Leitch on her Twitter account.

Well, a veritable hissy fit erupted
amongst the Chattering Classes and the Commentariat–largely out of fear of what the traditional Labour supporters (who regard Leitch as a decent bloke) would think.  Fenton eventually provided a retraction of sorts, only to have another Labour MP, Louisa Wall double down and repeat the sentiment of the original slur.

None of this is worth any air time.  But Trotter’s recent column on what Labour has become is worth considering.  It explains why Labour is having such a hard time gaining any electoral traction and why National is so far ahead in the polls.  It illustrates the divide between the blokes who traditionally vote labour and the chardonnay socialist elites who currently dominate the parliamentary Labour Party. 

YOU STILL DON’T GET IT, do you Labour? You don’t understand, even now, what National’s done to you? Well, let me tell you. They have transformed you into auslander – foreigners, aliens, exiles in your own country. You’ve been excluded from the ranks of “the people”. You’ve been pushed outside the circle, beyond the Pale. You no longer belong among “us” – you belong with “them”.

And you’ve no one to blame but yourselves. . . .

He then goes on to explain how the working class, Labour stalwarts hung in there while Labour put the country through immense pain of deregulating and deconstructing the socialist state–which had been largely constructed by National (irony of ironies).  He continues:

“If Labour is asking us to make all these sacrifices,” they told themselves, “then they must be necessary. Because, when all is said and done, Labour is flesh of our flesh, and bone of our bone. Labour is on our side – and only wants what’s best for us.”

But they were wrong. The people who were running the Labour Party were no longer flesh of their flesh and bone of their bone. They were different. They subscribed to different values. They were managers and professionals – people in charge.

Trotter then returns to a favourite theme of his recent years: the Labour Party has become elitist.  They became New Labour, the new masters. 

And they no longer regarded working people as the salt of the earth; or the beating heart of the nation; or the people who, in their collective bosom, kept safe the Holy Grail of socialism and a better future. Labour’s new masters looked at their electoral base and saw only rednecks, homophobes and child-beaters.

Families still mired in a working-class existence were, in the judgement of Labour’s new generation of leaders, dysfunctional failures. They were no longer members to be heeded, or even clients to be satisfied. In a bizarre and belittling transformation, they’d become Labour’s patients; suitable cases for treatment.

The English poet, C.K. Chesterton, had the measure of these new masters:

They have given us into the hand of new unhappy lords,

Lords without anger and honour, who dare not carry their swords.

They fight us by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes;

And they look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies.

And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs,

Their doors are shut in the evening; and they know no songs.

Trotter than describes how, in his view, National have exploited this elitism.  Actually, he attributes far too much nous and cunning to the National Party than is warranted, in our view.  But it sure makes for a good story.. . .

John Key preached a new message to the New Zealand working-class: a Kiwi variation of Barack Obama’s “Yes We Can”.

Key’s message was simple: “It doesn’t matter where you were born, or what you parents did: you can and should aspire to a better life. National has no intention of molly-coddling you. Unlike Labour, we don’t regard you as suitable cases for treatment – but as sovereign individuals. What does that mean? It means you must take responsibility for your failures, but, equally, you have the right to enjoy the full fruits of your successes. National isn’t offering to carry you – you’re not children. But, we are offering to clear away all unnecessary obstacles from your path. Labour needs you as weak and pathetic victims; desperate for, and dependent on, the state’s largesse. National says: ‘Stand up. Be strong. Make your own future!’”

Would that National had made that case.  They have not.  But maybe Trotter is thinking that this message is somewhat subtle and subliminal, but powerful and effective nonetheless. 

It was a potent message. Because Key was offering working-class Kiwis nothing less than the opportunity to stand alongside National’s rich and powerful supporters and be counted among the “real” New Zealanders. These are the New Zealanders who don’t rely on other people’s taxes to pay their bills. The New Zealanders who try, fail, try again – and succeed. The New Zealanders who believe that with guts and determination they, and just about anybody, can and will – “make it”

If you believed in these things, then you could stand among John’s people. If you didn’t – you couldn’t.

If you rejected the values of rugged individualism. If you placed your faith in the largesse of the state. If you looked upon the labour and laughter of ordinary people with “cold dead alien eyes”, and regarded them as “suitable cases for treatment”, then you weren’t one of “us”, you were one of “them”. Something odd. Something foreign. Something unconnected. Something incapable of attracting more than 30 percent of the popular vote. Something from somewhere else.

Auslander.

Don’t worry, Chris.  Within two years National will be back to its normal arrogant worst, with the offensive “We are better people than them (Labour) and we are born to rule,” attitude that is so offensive to ordinary Kiwi blokes.  It is an open question, though, whether Labour will have been able to shed its elitism–can it ever now escape the clutches of elite unionists and homosexuals and feminists?  Time will tell. 

>Not Bad

>A Career After Politics?

New Zealand Prime Minister, John Key shot an unscripted, impromptu dialogue with Australian comedian Peter Flaherty, who was in character as Shaun Wayne.

It’s not too bad. It is hard to imagine any Prime Minister within living memory of being able to pull something like this off. According to Stuff,

The unscripted seven-minute video was shot during Napier’s Art Deco Weekend last month as part of a $100,000 campaign to market the city to tourists from the east coast of Australia. . . .

Napier Mayor Barbara Arnott and her staff were delighted with the video but worried that, after Mr Key saw it, he would not approve its release.

After he gave the go-ahead, Mrs Arnott said: “It was wonderful that the prime minister understood very well what we were trying to do. He entered the spirit of things wholeheartedly.

“Peter Flaherty is a very intelligent comic – you have to be intelligent to play a dumb character that well.”

The council hopes the video will go viral on social networks, backing up a big tourism campaign in Australian media.

>Panic

>The Governor Has Blinked

Stagflation it is. It seems that New Zealand is headed for the worst economic outcome. The Reserve Bank has reduced the official rate by half a percentage point. It has done so, said the Governor, as an “insurance” measure. According to the NZ Herald:

Reserve Bank Governor Alan Bollard has cut the official cash rate half a percentage point to 2.5 per cent in what he termed an “insurance measure” to stave off a severe downturn in the wake of the 6.3 magnitude Christchurch earthquake.

Economic growth, already anaemic, is now expected to weaken still further as a result of the Christchurch earthquake.

But at the same time inflation is soaring. Raw material costs are up. Commodity prices are booming–already impacting food and petrol prices. The cost of living is rising sharply. 

Earlier this week, the Treasury said there were inflationary pressures throughout the global economy, and the Christchurch reconstruction was so large it would inevitably have an impact on inflation. The faster the rebuild, the greater the pressure on prices, it said.

This is what is meant by stagflation: a stagnant economy with rapidly rising prices–at the same time.

Under the stagflation syndrome, rising prices feed into the wage spiral; demands for cost-of-living wage adjustments become the norm. The currency collapses. The Reserve Bank, having got behind the inflation curve, finds itself rapidly pushing up interest rates to catch up and get inflation under control. Recession turns into depression. This is now a very real prospect for New Zealand.

Now, to be fair, this is not the view of the RB. It believes that inflation, rising because of the GST hike last year, will soon abate.

The central bank expects inflation will come back within its target band of between 1 per cent and 3 per cent once the effects of last year’s hike in consumption tax flow through, and forecasts 4.4 per cent growth in the consumer price index in the March 2011 year, slowing to a pace of 2.1 per cent in 2012 and 2.4 per cent in 2013.

It seems that it has discounted the risk of inflationary expectations starting to affect people’s economic and social behaviour. When people and business believe prices are going to be likely higher in six months time it affects their expectations, actions and behaviour. That’s when the inflation spiral sets in.

The Governor Bollard will have to rush to catch up with the risk of rampant inflation. We believe he has made a grave mistake. But that’s what happens when a Governor decides to go beyond his mandate in law and considers the Bank has a responsibility to act to maintain economic growth, rather than keep inflation within a mandated band. Sadly, he has been encouraged to think that way by the public pressure coming from the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. So much for the chimera of an independent Reserve Bank.

It would seem that the current Governor and Government now increasingly see themselves as being above the law.

If our prognosis of stagflation, followed by rapidly increasing inflation, is right, then John Key’s muddling through trying to keep everyone happy will, in hindsight, be judged to be naive, politically cowardly, and economic folly. Still, he’s a nice bloke and that’s the main thing.

>Getting the Politics Right

>Struggling out of the Great Grimpen Mire

Regular readers of this blog will know where we stand on the matter of national debt. We have argued repeatedly that New Zealand is at serious risk. We have argued that we must cut government spending and we must pay down debt through asset sales. If we do not do this now, it will be forced upon us later by the international capital markets to whom we are deeply in hock. If we refuse to face up to it and put it off, it will be far more painful and destructive when our back is against the wall and we are forced to it.

In the light of this we welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement that the government is looking to reduce spending by $300 million per annum, and conduct a partial sell down of four state owned companies: three electricity companies and a coal company. Now, we are not that excited about the spending cuts–because it is only pegging back planned new spending. It is not a real cut in spending–which would require us to address our woefully bloated entitlement payments which extend government largesse to the majority of the population. But it is a start. It is a step in the right direction. As our mother used to say, we must be thankful for small mercies.

But we wish to make three more general observations. The first is a rarely seen conviction in the Prime Minister’s words and tone. He actually is conveying conviction! This has been one of the biggest disappointments in John Key. The dominant narrative about the Prime Minister in the public square is that Key just smiles and waves at everything. He is a welter-weight. “To get along you have to go along” seems to have been his mantra. But maybe things are changing just a little. Maybe Key has the foresight to see how soon our backs will be against the wall. He is now speaking clearly and emphatically. Here are some speech extracts:

Growth over the last decade was built on all the wrong things – debt, consumption, and government spending. People borrowed heavily to buy houses and farms, property prices soared and New Zealanders felt wealthier as a result. They spent a lot on consumer goods, which led to a bubble of economic activity.

The Labour Government thought this bubble, and the tax revenue it generated, would go on forever and spent up large on permanent new spending programmes. The Government’s spending increased by more than 50 per cent in just six years. . . .

When we are borrowing $300 million a week, have an overvalued exchange rate, and face the prospect of a credit rating downgrade, the Government believes it should be spending less and therefore borrowing less. I have therefore challenged my Ministers to balance the books more quickly.

Government spending will continue to increase each year in dollar terms, but at a slower pace than the rest of the economy. Hat Tip: Kiwiblog

But, wait, there’s more! Being interviewed, he was asked about the political risks of introducing the toxic asset-sales bogey. Key said that if his new strategy cost him the election, so be it. He was resolved to do what was for the good of the nation, not further his own interests. Now that is more like it. That is what we must have in a Prime Minister if he is to be worthy of the office.

The second observation is how Key and his advisers have thought long and hard about getting the politics right. You not only have to be doing the right thing, you have to take the majority of the nation with you, so that at the very least they are willing to suspend critical judgment and let you have a go. (That’s about as sophisticated as most voters get. They have a sense of fair play. They think political leaders need a fair shot–just as long as what is being proposed is not pilloried from the get-go as monstrous.) So, the crafting of his proposals has been particularly skilful, it seems to us. Things like, the partial sell down of blue chip companies, with government retaining the majority stake–and the comparison with Air New Zealand as the successful model–effectively neuters most of the knee-jerk criticism from the outset.

Also, stating that the sell-down will release around $9 billion which would then be spent on roads, hospitals, and schools puts the opposition in a vice. As they criticise the proposals they can innocently be asked, “What, you don’t believe in more schools and hospitals?” If they retort that they certainly do, they can then be asked how they propose to pay for them, because there is certainly no money in the kitty–which would further drive home the recklessness of the Left’s “borrow and spend” mantra.

And Key’s team clearly have thought about objections and have some “take that” one-liners already thought out. For instance, immediately the critics insisted that as a result of partial privatisation, power prices would rise, Key was prepared. State ownership had not kept power prices down: under the previous administration whilst the big power companies were fully owned by the state, electricity prices rose 70 percent, he pointed out. Even Sue Chetwin of Consumer agreed Key had a valid point.

The crafting of the policy, then, appears politically astute and clever. Already the media, which previously have vented eruptions of populist nonsense over asset sales, are divided. Whilst some are trotting out, “Oooooh, the people won’t like this” others are strongly supportive–as witnessed by this NZ Herald editorial, entitled “Key Presents Powerful Case for Asset Sales”.

A third general observation is this: the level of ignorance in the Commentariate over economic matters and how economies actually work never ceases to surprise. It does not seem to grasp the basics of company law, such as what a 51 percent shareholding actually means in terms of control. It does not seem to grasp that State Owned Enterprises have had to make a profit from the outset. Further, members of the Commentariate have lamely argued that partial privatisation will lead to higher electricity prices, due to the rigours of profit making obligations. They appear to have zero understanding of the efficiencies wrought by a regime of competitive profit making. They appear to think that socially owned monopolies are more efficient. There is an abundance of analysis to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is not the case–but still, they persist in wanting to flounder in the Great Grimpen Mire.

We realise that in the grand scheme of things the intent announced by the Prime Minister is a baby step. But it is a step, and it is in the right direction. We beggars will take any crumbs we can get.

>National Showing the Arrogance of Power

>Bring Back the Honest Thieves

The National Government has demonstrated yet again that it is Helen Clark’s Labour Party in drag. It has capitulated to Labour’s machinations to restrict free speech during elections. A recent Herald editorial cuts right to the quick.

Three years after the outcry at financial restrictions on independent electoral advertising, the Labour Party has got its way. National has folded on an issue it fought from Opposition, agreeing to restrictions that differ only by degree with the spending limits legislated by the Labour Government. . . .

National has surrendered to the left’s fear of money, which is just one possible influence among many in an election. Its bipartisan fix will leave our politics poorer and preserve elections largely for the parties who have conspired to produce this disgraceful discouraging law.

Get this. John Key and the National Party promised that it would repeal the draconian Electoral Finance Law promulgated by the Labour Party and the Greens which effectively placed political parties in control of elections, excluding all others. Key promised a new electoral law that would be the product of multi-party talks and reflect a genuine consensus across all political parties. He delivered on the first part of his promise. He repealed the hated law. Then, in seeking consensus, he has effectively re-instated Labour’s law. Is this duplicity or what?

If National believed in Labour’s draconian anti-free speech, anti-democratic law to begin with it should have said so. If consensus represented agreeing with Labour’s traducing basic freedoms it should have said so. But it put a devious face to the electorate, decrying Labour’s electoral law, agreeing with us that it was a very nasty piece of work. Even Labour, after its trouncing at the last election, publicly stated that it had been wrong.

Self-interest now rules the hearts and minds of the National government. We might as well support Labour next election. At least there we got the nastiness and the damage up front. We knew where we stood. With National it greases the knife with rancid butter before it slips through the ribs to eviscerate the vital organs of the body politic. Key was once known as the “Smiling Assassin”; so he has proved to be, but the victim of his oleaginous knife is us–we, the people.

Helen Clark in contrast proved to be refreshingly up-front, candid, and honest as she grimly went about destroying the country to feather her own nest. An honest thief is preferable to an unctuous one. Key has played us as fools, and proven himself, in the process, to be a deceptive and misleading man.