Refugee quota: What should NZ do?

UPDATED: Some facts about previous refugee intake was incorrect which has been corrected.

There are serious allegations that Prime Minister Tony Abbott of Australia may have authorized payment to people smugglers to turn back a boat headed towards us. Our own Prime Minister could not shine any light on the issue as per usual saying he didn't know and nor did he ask his counter-part. The refugee crisis exists worldwide and countries are being condemned for their inaction. So what should New Zealand do?

In New Zealand the refugee quota is 750 per year and the Greens are calling for that to be increased to 1,000. This should be welcome news for the left except for one little glitch. Last year and the year before, for example we met the quota. But the 4 years prior to that we did not meet the 750 quota. This begs the question - what is the point of increasing the refugee quota if we aren't even going to meet the existing quota?

According to Radio NZ, the government reviews its refugee quota every three years and the next review is slated for next year. However, Budget 2015/15 shows that that the government has already cut spending on refuges for the coming financial year. Essentially the government hasn't even allocated funds for the current level of refugees let alone increased refugees. At this point the government could easily give into the Greens and just raise the quota. Over at Curia, DPF is probably already polling the issue. But it won't make much material difference if we never actually meet the quota and fund it adequately.

Climate change refugees might be a looming issue and we as a country haven't decided how we will deal with that. It is time we adequately funded Immigration NZ to meet the existing refugee quota. Let's all agree that we aren't going to meet this illusive budget surplus and even if we did what is the cost of that surplus? Human lives perishing at sea or in the hands of people smugglers. Can we live with that?

In Plain Language: TPP

The TPP is a complicated trade agreement between 12 countries in the Asia-Pacific region. In my opinion which is shared by many, the US is involved in this trade agreement to elbow out China's growing influence in the region. New Zealand already has a free trade agreement with China so from our perspective we just want to be open for business globally.

Much has been written about this agreement based on leaked documents because the text is not publicly available. I am sympathetic to the idea that it is difficult to conduct negotiations on such a level by making everything available. For instance, I myself worked briefly on Treaty negotiations and I know that it would be impossible if every step was constantly made public. However, and this is a big however, this agreement can be detrimental to Kiwis day to day lives with significant impact on our health system. It has been suggested that the agreement could lead to large pharmaceutical firms with powers to increase prices of drugs and limit access to cheaper generic drugs. The corporate control of public health should be extremely concerning to all New Zealanders. 

What is fast track authority and why is it important?

Currently President Obama is seeking fast track authority from the US Congress which will allow him to pass the final version of the agreement with a simple majority and no amendments (this is very crucial for its success). This part of the legislation also includes a thing called the "Trade Adjustment Assistance" or TAA which is a program that will help workers in America who lose their jobs as a result of trade deals. Democrats are largely against this and that's why they have been voting down the fast track authority. 

Experts believe that democrats would vote for the fast track authority on its own but for that to happen, the legislation would have to go back to committee and be separated. But this is also a problem because President Obama said he would veto fast track authority if it does not include the TAA. But could he change his mind to push forward the deal?

UPDATE: It looks like maybe Obama will not veto a bill that is solely fast track authority. See this article from the Hill.

Why should we care about the TPP? 

Noam Chomsky calls the TPP a neoliberal assult to maximize promit and domination which will lower wages and increase insecurity. The New York Times also notes the unlikely agreement between Republicans and Obama on the TPP calling it  little more than enhanced corporation power branded as free trade. The TPP agreement goes well beyond trade and there's virtually no input on it through any democratic institutions because nobody is allowed to know what is in the text. We should not sleep soundly at night just because the TPP is facing roadblocks in the US. Their objections are different to ours and they are only looking out for their own economy. We should also be worried about our own and we should not rely on the US Congress to stop the TPP. We need to write to our MPs and register our own objections in our own voice. 

Blogging moratorium lifted!

I am back!

Masters – check.

Resuming blogging – check (will ease into it).

Over at Dimpost, DM says “neoliberalism is dead.” Good riddance I say. But you cut off the head of one monster and another one appears. Well this particular monster has been around for a while - silently gaining power in the background waiting for its time in the limelight. The politics of populism has always been around but never have politicians been able to master corporate interest to be served by wielding public opinion. One would have thought that after the 2009 GFC we would have reined in corporate interests in a big way and for a while we tried but I think it’s safe to say that we largely failed. The Koch Brothers in the US have announced they will donate $1 billion to the 2016 Presidential Elections for the Republican candidate. That’s an extraordinary amount of money. Yet, Americans seem largely ambivalent to this. Over in New Zealand, no one can deny the influence of corporate interests over the current government. Whether Warner Bros or SkyCity, we are willing to let our representatives pass legislation that only favours them because we think somehow it will favour us. Maybe it will. But I’m not convinced.

Budget 2015 has largely been an accounting exercise as Bill English desperately tries to build his surplus legacy. Overshadowed by the extremely popular Prime Minister, you can’t blame the guy for wanting to achieve something tangible even though it makes little fiscal sense. Cuts here and additions there does not make for good governance but I don’t think that’s factored into re-election.

Re-election.

One of my professors told me that it is the number one goal of politicians and the only way for the public or businesses to achieve anything is to exploit that. Businesses have resources that the public doesn’t so it’s much harder for us to exploit their re-election goals. But we hold the vote. Thankfully despite being “people”, corporations do not vote. But we have done an extremely poor job of voting for our own interests or the interests of our fellow humans. Left voters particularly have to justify their votes when their side loses which makes very little sense to me. None of us should have to justify our votes. Politicians, on the other hand, are required to justify their position and decisions but these days they have no interest in answering our questions. Whether Question Time or Post-Cab Press Conference, our beloved Prime Minister is all too comfortable letting his impressive poll numbers do the talking.

I just finished a Master’s in Public Affairs and despite the inspiring words from all the speeches, I feel slightly deflated about the future. I worry that the current economic and political decisions will leave us worse off in the long term. Expanding prison population, decreased access to quality education, decreasing access to preventative health, looming climate change problems, erosion of civil rights, growing inequality among other policy issues have left me troubled. Neoliberalism maybe dead but self-interest of the few dictating the lives of all is alive and well.

Watch this space as I try to find some solutions. 

Election and Labour reckons...

Around the 2012 US Presidential Elections (while I was working in the Labour Leader’s Office), I took a holiday to the United States. Somehow I found myself at a debate watch party for the first debate between Romney and Obama in Denver (where the first debate was being held, which Obama bombed) with a bunch of youngish Republicans. One guy asked me, “So you work for the Labour Party in New Zealand – that’s the equivalent of being a Democrat right?” My response was, “Well actually, the ‘right wing’ party in our country is arguably more left wing than the Democrats here, and I work for our ‘left wing’ party, which is too right wing for me.” He was confused and I think he definitely thought I was more dangerous than a communist.

What this story shows is “the left” and “the right” is pretty arbitrary. It makes a difference which country you are in, what the political climate is, what the economic climate is, and at what point and time you are speaking. There’s been much discussion about National’s lurch to the right to increase support after their 2002 showing and the need for Labour to do the same. People have all sorts of ideas about “what Labour should do”. A friend of mine told me that Labour needed to focus more on “the economy”. When I pressed him harder as to what he means by “the economy”, he didn’t seem to have an answer. So let’s make one thing clear:

• Poverty and income inequality IS a product of the so-called “economy”.
• Housing crisis IS a product of the “economy”.
• Inability to access adequate healthcare IS a product of the “economy”.
• Inability to access higher education of choice IS a product of the “economy”.
• Employment opportunities limited to part-time or low-wage IS a product of the “economy”.
• Climate change effects are a direct result of actions taken in the name of the “economy”.
• The privatization of law enforcement and access to the justice is an “economic” decision.
• Even mass surveillance is presented as necessary to protection our “economic” interests.

There are many more but in essence, the difference between public good and the protection of private interests is ALWAYS about the economy. The question is, whether a government should engage in the former or the latter? I see no evidence that National won because of “the economy”. I do however, believe that they have successfully presented themselves as good managers of “the economy” and that’s what won them the election. They didn’t need to have a policy; not having a policy WAS their policy. Perhaps we as a nation no longer believe that Government should intervene in “the economy” because all of the things I have mentioned above are not associated with “the economy”.

Let’s go back to the story I told you at the beginning of this post. You might be wondering, if Labour doesn’t reflect your political views, then why would you work for them? I not only worked for them but I’ve also voted for them – party and electorate. I have also voted for other parties and candidates from other parties. I’m not a member of the Labour Party and I don’t feel I have to always vote for them. BUT, and this is a big but (not butt), I am generally a pragmatic person. After I left Labour, I worked in the public service of NZ under a National government – it wasn’t the end of the world for me. If I were to talk one of those compass tests, I would bet that it would tell me to vote Greens or Maori Party. Because I put a lot of emphasis on environmental and indigenous issues. I also care a lot about civil rights and social justice so Labour would be up there too. But truthfully as much as I love Greens policy, I don’t see them mastering enough support of the nation to be running this country so when I do/did vote for them it is usually tactical.

The way that Labour MPs behaved last week was absolutely despicable. They essentially told all Labour voters that they were lying this whole time. That they didn’t support their leader and that they didn’t support the policies they campaigned on. That the entire campaign was a self-interested endeavor to get Ministerial positions. It was wholly unprofessional. (This obviously doesn’t apply to the MPs who managed to keep their mouth shut.)

The fact that:

1. They obviously knew that Labour would lose the election and did not have a post-election messaging strategy is a failure of the leadership.
2. David Cunliffe didn’t manage to unite the caucus and garner their support is also a failure of his leadership.
3. Labour and Greens weren’t presented as an alternative government is a failure of both parties. (Note: I said parties not leadership)
4. Labour isn’t united internally is not going to change just by changing leadership.
5. The failure is being attributed to identity politics or far left policy is insulting to those who have supported Labour for addressing those very issues.

As it stands, I have no one to vote for in 2017. Greens election results is troubling to me. It is also interesting to me that their ‘failures’ haven’t been translated to a leadership failure whereas Labour’s ‘failure’ has. The Labour caucus is deeply divided and the actions of some of the MPs on Sunday morning also left me troubled. That they couldn’t stand behind their leader after his pretty impressive debate showing and a campaign that was extremely volatile was disappointing to me. Labour MPs should take responsibility for their policy position collectively. It isn’t like David Cunliffe held a gun to their head. I know for a fact that this so called “lurch to the left” is not just a DC position.  I say “so-called” because it really isn’t a lurch to the left. Labour’s policy positions are a reflection of where the government has been – ie largely a response to this Government’s policies. National have cherry picked when they go left and when they go right and on issues they have gone slightly to the left has inevitably forced Labour to mimic that movement.

I am not going to presume to know the answer. I don’t know the answer. Those who presume to know the answer are kidding themselves. But any answer, I believe, should be based on reflection and evidence. Show me the data and not just your frustrated outbursts. The next three years will be interesting. Some believe we have already handed National their fourth term. Those people ought to be proven wrong. I myself am going to think some more. There will be posts here and elsewhere but for the sake of my degree I will be off Twitter for a tiny little bit. 

My final thought is that the Labour Caucus should consider having open dialogue with each other and coming to some kind of understanding of support and compassion for each other’s position. There are a lot of personalities and points of views, which is good. But their anger and denigration of each other not only hurts the party but is costing the country. 

A sexy three-step guide to voting

1. Ignore policy: Yes, everyone wants to assert their superiority complex by talking about policy and the economy but really what’s the point? You know what Labour stands for broadly and you know what National stands for broadly. That hasn’t changed and it aint gonna change anytime soon. If a party all of a sudden has a big idea, then maybe we could focus on that. Asset sales – that was National’s big idea. Except they did it in the 90s, so whatever. Capital Gains Tax – that’s Labour’s big idea – pretty much a no-brainer given our housing market. National would implement it if it hadn’t backed itself into a stupid corner by virtue of John Key. Whether you are a single issue voter or a multi policy stud, I say you go with your gut but don’t vote on an empty stomach. Hangry voting is like hangry grocery shopping. But let’s be honest here, you are not going to look at party manifestos, you aren’t going to go watch interviews and Parlmentary speeches, you aren’t going to make a pro-con list. You are going to go with what you have heard and seen while browsing Stuff.co.nz at work. And that is ok. It’s ok to vote National because you think John Key is a swell guy. It’s ok to vote Labour because David Cunliffe’s Harvard education appeals to your sapiosexuality (might be a real word). It’s ok to vote Greens because you think Metiria is really cool. It’s ok to vote Internet-Mana because they are a flash new toy and you are curious. It’s ok to vote ACT because you pride yourself on being a heartless libertarian. It’s ok to vote CrayCons (Colin Craig's Conservative Party) because you like hitting children. Wait… that’s not ok. Nope. Not ok at all. I don’t know why anyone would vote for them. Seriously.

2. Strategery: That’s not a real word. That’s a G W Bush word. But I like that word a lot. Anyway, moving on. We live in a MMP world. We have to break ourselves free from the prudish FPP outlook on our electoral life and embrace the free-spirit world of MMP. You no longer have to subscribe to the monoga-vote (also not a real word) but you have the freedom to biga-vote (not a real word, but should be). Two votes! At the same time! Sexy! Think about what you are trying to get out of your vote. In some electorates, it will be a straightforward two ticks. But in some places, you could get adventurous. Consider it. Think about the boring voters in Cluth-Southland and their lack of choices. Election after election, it's the same two ticks. Boooooring. If you are on the social conservative or ‘libertarian’ side you have to think about whether or not you should give your party vote to the CrayCons (Colin Craig’s Conservative Party) or ACT. Will Epsom get David Seymour in? Will the CrayCons get to the 5% threshold? It’s anyone’s guess really. Trust the polls? It almost feels like Game Theory here. What will the other prisoners do? If you are on the left, you may have to consider voting for a National candidate in a place like Epsom. Scary. But strategery. What is the end game here for you?

3. Have fun: Whether you go to the polls on election day or you choose advance voting – have fun. Take your kids. Take your friends. Get a coffee. You are exercising your democratic right that many people in this world still don’t have. There are people who literally risk being beat up as they go to the polls.  Even if you subscribe to that school of thought that says “your vote doesn’t count” – who cares? It might count, it might not but you have a teeny tiny role to play in choosing who governs this country. Make it fun. You don’t have to vote National or Labour – there are all these other parties unlike the United States where people have to choose between 'really horrible' and 'kind of bad' candidates. The government makes laws that govern every aspect of your life. You might as well try to put in some constraints. Tick those circles! We may end up with 9 political parties in the 51st Parliament - SUCH FUN! 

Something is rotten in the state of New Zealand

So while I was sleeping Nicky Hager’s book was launched in Wellington today. While you were sleeping I had to write down my thoughts. I did not expect it to be a sequel to the Hollow Men but so it was. I guess the proverbial “Fool me once…” is in order. I won’t get to read this book for a long time and I expect most of the book will be traversed in detail in the next few weeks by those who do. Once thing that was very evident to me from the preface and the information that is out there is that now we know why Judith Collins was never sacked.  If "the machine" was engaging in this level of unethical behavior just to win elections can you imagine the kind of dirt they have on each other? It is well known that WO and Judith Collins are close, I hate to think what they have over John Key that makes him so powerless when it comes to her. Some of the excerpts are truly frightening to me.

"the prime minister’s office used its knowledge of secret SIS documents to tip off Slater" from website.

I was working for the Labour Leader’s Office during and leading up to the 2011 election. This is extraordinary! Surely this needs independent investigation because it is a major breach. I'm not even sure that we will ever know the extent of the abuse. It is well known that political operatives in the Beehive go out of their way to make sure their actions are not OIA-able. But I don’t see how the investigation could happen while John Key is still PM. I would not have confidence in any such investigation! This alone means that he can no longer stay. 

“They include persistent attacks on Labour Party politicians, attacks that consciously set out to distract, wear down or demoralise them rather than trying to debate issues or win a political argument…”

Well that tactic certainly worked during the 2011 election. I remember that very well because I worked through those days for Labour. 

"how our defences as a society (news media, electoral laws and so on) are inadequate to protect the public."

This right here terrifies me the most. We misplaced our faith in the idea that New Zealand is the least corrupted country. We were fooled by the beauty and the simplicity of our small nation in the thinking that nothing bad ever happens here. Time and time again we are proven wrong but our faith in our own goodness means that people who do want to take advantage can and do take that advantage. Some practical solutions: OIA needs urgent reform, political donations need to be far more transparent, our law enforcement agencies needs to reigned in, and we need to restore civil service neutrality. Everything to me right now reeks of undue influence and abuse of power. 

I’ve been referred to as a hack (because I worked for Labour). It is well established that I sit on the left of the political spectrum. Despite never been a member of any political party and despite having multiple combinations of the two ticks in the last three elections I will always be seen as Labour. An yet this book gives me no joy. No solace. I feel no glee. Hager says:

"This is a technique originally from US republican politics...."

How can anything borrowed from US Republicans be good for New Zealand? Have we as a nation not been watching the destruction of political goodwill in America precisely because of these kind of tactics? The apathy, the anger, the misinformed choices? Do we want that as a country? It is clear to me that our politicians don’t really care about good governance. They are motivated by power and wielding that power for personal gain. Finally this –

“Journalists have suspected these activities but the evidence has been hard to find.”

Well I guess it didn’t come up when John Roughan was writing that biography. It didn’t come up when they were actively spreading rumours about Labour Party donations. It didn’t come up when they had to actively denyusing Government agencies to find out how they knew how many times Winston visited Kim Dotcom. I guess none of that really required thorough investigation because if you were a journalist – would you really think a political party would go this far? In this day and age? This many years after Watergate? Spying on the opposition? Why would you risk your professional reputation wondering if such a scale of underhanded activities was occurring?

If there is anything I take away from this – it is “constant vigilance”. More to come I'm sure... 

Epsom - Not a dirty deal - a tactical opportunity for the left.

“Dirty deal!” exclaims Patrick Gower or as he is known in the political circles “Paddy”. Paddy doesn’t like the Epsom deal or the Ohariu deal. He calls them dirty and assumes we all hold them to the same contempt as he does. We don’t. “Coat-tailing” or an attempt to work the electoral system to leverage otherwise wasted votes is not dirty. In fact it is quite legal. As legal as the Cabinet Club. What is dirty is not the deal nor the club, it is the lack of transparency associated with both. In an ideal world the corporate money in politics would be restricted and we would all vote on policy (and there would be unicorns delivering ice cream every Monday).  That is not how the real world works. I don’t have a problem with electoral deals because I think votes get wasted even more without them because of the threshold. But, even if the threshold were lowered,  there would be some votes that would be wasted, although not nearly as much as they were under FPP. The only time it makes sense to waste the electoral vote are under these circumstances:

1. There is a clear winner and that clear winner (National or Labour candidate) will most definitely win so you vote for someone you like.
2. There is a clear winner and you really really despise them so you make a statement and vote for anyone but them.

Other than those circumstances, I don’t see why anyone would waste their vote by voting for someone who clearly is not going to win. Electorate votes do not determine the number of MPs in Parliament so unless one has a huge vested interest in their local MP representation, why would anyone care about the electorate MP? In my experience those who do, still do not understand MMP properly. (That's a whole different post)

So let’s take a look at what’s happening in Epsom. If you are on the ‘broad New Zealand right’, you might vote for David Seymour because John Key said so. You might be a National supporter and if National needs David Seymour, you give them David Seymour.  Or you think National is too left wing and you like ACT policies, so you will vote for him and hope other likeminded people elsewhere in the country will give their Party vote to ACT so maybe another ACT MP will get in to wield some real legislative influence. Although, even lone John Banks has managed to change the landscape of our education policy so maybe even one is enough. Maybe next term David Seymour focuses on the flat tax? Or maybe Maori seats gets abolished. If you are on the right and you vote for David Seymour, you have absolutely no reason to feel dirty. You are helping the party you like implement the policies you want to see. Paddy does not get to vote-shame you. 

But what happens if you are on the ‘broad New Zealand left’. Who do you vote for? Unless one of the above two applies to you, tactically it makes sense for you to vote for National candidate Paul Goldsmith. Your party vote goes to the party you want to see in government or at least a "left government".  You don’t like National’s policies but ACT policies are even worse and you know that National presents itself as the sane alternative by positioning ACT as “extreme”. In the end ACT is out, National would be in anyway and everyone is happy. 

So what’s the problem? Here’s the problem with the current situation: 

1. John Key never actually says “Vote for David Seymour”. In fact apparently he will be voting for Paul Goldsmith.  One the other hand Paul Goldsmith is in the awkward position to tell people to vote for David Seymour for no explicit reason. What? Why?
2. Labour and Greens never say “give your electoral vote to Paul Goldsmith if you want to keep ACT out”. What? Why?

We are not stupid. We are the ones that vote. We should get to vote for whoever we bloody well please for whatever bloody reason. Political parties aren’t pulling the wool over our eyes unless they are doing the two things that I just mentioned. That is the problem. Lay out reasons. Make a case. We’ll do the voting thank you. And Paddy – seriously if this is the biggest political grind you have, you’re doing the profession of journalism a huge disservice. Your focus should be on transparency and access to information. Denial of that right is what’s contrary to democratic principle. Electorate deals actually help some votes be better counted (or counted at all).

Epsom is a hot mess but there is one truth - if ACT comes back into Parliament because of Epsom, the blame lies squarely on Labour and Greens voters in that electorate.

On 2011 numbers, if the Labour and Greens voters had given their electorate votes to the National candidate (and a lot of people did) instead of their own candidates than we wouldn't have to deal with ACT right now.  

On these 2011 numbers, I'm blaming Lab/Greens voters if ACT are back in Parliament. BANKS 15,835 GOLDSMITH 13,574 HAY 2,160 PARKER 3,751
— Lamia (@LI_politico) August 9, 2014

As pointed out by this extremely succinct and perfect tweet - the left needs to see it as a vote against National and ACT rather than a vote for Goldsmith. Unless those two points I mentioned in the very beginning applies to you, there is absolutely zero reason you should be voting for the Labour or Greens candidate.

@CateOwen ...esp if you think of it not as voting *for* Goldsmith but *against* ACT, ACT-Nat machinations, and a 3rd Key term. #trickyfecta
— Jolisa Gracewood (@nzdodo) August 10, 2014

There is no reason for ACT to be in the 51st Parliament and if they are, John Key is the last person who should be blamed. In fact what John Key is doing is giving the left one last opportunity to kill off ACT. That is the *hint hint* *nudge nudge* message the left should be getting should there be another cup of tea.