Rather than give my opinion today, I thought I would share a video clip recorded by Stuff, which is about children who have been placed with Child Youth and Family Services. This video is about three former C.Y.F. children – now young adults – who met with Minister of Social Development Anne Tolley, who is in the process of overhauling the much criticized department charged with looking after children from troubled backgrounds.
Have a watch and tell me what you think.
When 2016 started, the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, despite the increasingly large and well organized protests occurring, seemed to be a sure bet. The T.P.P.A. was ceremonially signed in Auckland against the backdrop of rallies involving thousands of people and – notably – increasing numbers of politicians from across the centre-left part of the political spectrum. In the six months since a train advancing steadily down the tracks looks like it has been derailed.
How, and what does it mean for New Zealand?
Before I go any further I should state that I have been opposed to this so called Free Trade Agreement from the start. I have been opposed for several reasons:
So, what has happened to derail the T.P.P.A.?
First and foremost, in the United States there has been a significant change of political tone on the subject. As a result of a surprisingly strong showing from Bernie Sanders, the Independent who became a Democrat to take on Hillary Clinton in the contest for the Democratic nomination, Mrs Clinton has been forced to change her rhetoric from being pro-T.P.P.A. to being against it lest Mr Sanders rip her supporter base from under her. Although Mrs Clinton has a dubious record on keeping promises in terms of political commitments and may yet back track on her word, it would be ammunition for her most potent rival Donald Trump. Funnily enough Mr Trump is also anti-T.P.P.A. and if elected President, he said it will not proceed point blank.
The reasons for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton being anti-T.P.P.A. are vastly different. Mrs Clinton most likely changed her stance because it was politically convienient, or her campaign to become Democratic nominee might have lost crucial support and become imperiled. Her connections to banks are well known and only in the last year or so when it became obvious that she was going to contest the nomination, and ultimately the Presidency, has there been any significant effort to put distance between her and her corporate influences. Mr Trump’s decision not to support the Trans Pacific Partnership may stem from a desire to “make America great again”, presumably by cutting some of his and America’s corporate ties, as corporates and banks have had a large amount of input into the writing of the text.
But the T.P.P.A. still has its backers in the U.S. Senators such as Mitch McConnell and Congressman Paul Ryan are in open support of the T.P.P.A. Mr McConnell is Senate Majority Leader in the Republican controlled House, and Mr Ryan was the running mate for Mitt Romney in 2012.
Then there are other challenges. Several nations are going to have elections in the next year or two including New Zealand. As history does not favour fourth term peace time Governments here, the probability of the T.P.P.A. getting a cold shoulder are higher than they were at the last election.
And if the Trans Pacific Partnership is not dead, it should be.
Over the last five years of watching international politics, I cannot help but note the rise of nationalism as a force. It might be ultranationalism coming out in countries like France, England and Germany as a result of decades of failure to plan for and integrate large numbers of immigrants. Or it could be the revival of centrist politics as people not wanting to go hard right or hard left look for an alternative from increasingly tired mainstream parties. Whatever the case, nationalism is on the move as a force and it is going to affect New Zealand, so let us have a look at how and why.
In the last year or so, nationalist rhetoric from political parties around the western world suggests that people have tired of “the establishment” politicians who in their eyes do not seem to be advancing their needs, whilst at the same time undermining their rights. Although only a couple of countries have truly nationalist parties, the far right (and far left in a few causes)parties have begun to surge in the polls as the crisis caused by decades of not planning for immigration, begin to take their toll.
The very nature of a nationalist party is to promote the needs of the native population first and foremost. Rhetoric will involve sloganeering such as “Put ______ (insert nation name) and _______ (people of the nation)first”. In many nations it will involve more overt displays of nationalism, such as more flags showing, people wearing clothes with nationalist messages or giving preference to businesses that are local. Debates may become more heated as people pointing out their nations strengths – economic, social, political and so forth start to give voice to their opinions.
Unfortunately, nationalism can have a really ugly side to it, most frequently expressed in xenophobic, bigotted or otherwise outright intolerant attitudes and behaviours towards minorities. Such behaviours can include negative comments about skin colour, nationality and religion through to attacks on homes and businesses operated by people of particular minorities. Their social view is often highly aggressive, including deporting people not born in that country, vigilante style justice and people being able to use lethal force to defend themselves. Usually these types also see nothing wrong with putting down other nations and deliberately ignoring certain sections of history.
I think nationalism can be broken down into two strains:
Few cannot notice the nationalist tone of Donald Trump, saying he wants to make America great again. His rhetoric has largely been hard, with promises to build a wall on the Mexican border and make Mexico pay for it; block Muslim immigration from countries that sponsor terrorism. His supporters have been just as overt – wearing t-shirts proclaiming “Make America great again”and sometimes showing intolerance of others. This is leaning toward hard nationalist in standpoint, which I describe later.
However, New Zealanders will well know that there is a nationalist party here called New Zealand First. Its leader Winston Peters, a former National Party Member of Parliament and Minister of the Crown in the Bolger/Shipley and Clark Governments formed the party on 18 July 1993. From its inception to this very day it has had as its first and foremost principle “To put New Zealanders and New Zealand first”. Although the party has certainly at times during its first stint in Parliament been linked to nonsensical comments by Members of Parliament about “too many Asians” or “that Somali taxi driver”, if one looks at the ethnic diversity of its Parliamentarians that case certainly does not exist now. It could be classed more as a soft nationalist party.
I consider myself to be a bit of a nationalist, but I am definitely of the second type. The hard nationalist strain I believe can be very damaging and nations should take steps to address soci0-economic issues and their causes before circumstances reach a point where discontent may be expressed as violence. As a soft nationalist I certainly believe that the needs of New Zealand and New Zealanders should be put first, but New Zealand has legal and moral obligations to the international community and the upholding of those over the decades has improved our standing immensely. Finding a balance between their needs and the needs of the international community is something all nations need to do, but some do it much better than others.
With an election next year, it will be interesting to see how New Zealand First shapes up. But before then the hard nationalist bombast of Donald Trump will grate on our ears. He might not be the last.
As a kid I loved to watch my parents blowing up balloons for parties. I always wondered each time I saw one getting blown up how big the balloon would get before it popped. Now as housing prices in some parts of New Zealand reach inane levels, more and more people get squeezed out of the market and the Opposition hammering the Government to act – it has, but not in the way that is needed – I wonder how much bigger the housing price balloon will get before it pops.
According to economist Shamubeel Eaqub, housing prices now are in “ponzi territory”. Inflated well beyond what the market can cope with in the long term, Mr Eaqub believes that if Auckland housing prices correct, there will be a rough landing. Mr Eaqub notes that people power is on the rise and that in New Zealand housing will become – I believe it already is – the most painful point of social contention.
Whilst Mr Eaqub does not specify how people power will impact on housing prices, nationalist rhetoric about Governments needing to put their citizens and nation first and foremost may intone that non-citizens will be made less able to participate in a nations housing market. He also does not allude to whether or not this is a good or bad thing, though he will have noted that New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has long been calling for sustainable immigration. Large numbers of people are investing in New Zealand housing, without being citizens or permanent residents.
Mr Eaqub does rightfully note that the hot spot is Auckland where residents are finding it too expensive to live. Rents eat up most of a weeks wages and unless significantly well off, buying a property is all but impossible. The land in a driveway between two commercial properties, which amounted to only about 188m² was alone worth $1.15 million. In another case a dingy old villa that was in need of seriously heavy maintenance with no care for the garden was worth $3.2 million.
Yet, there are members of A.C.T. and National who believe that that is just “the market at work”. They claim to find bizarre, and illogical the idea that the market is overheated and that those who are making the claims are Labour and Green members. They might be right on the second count, but when well known economists like Mr Eaqub are sounding alarm bells, perhaps those Labour and Green party members are not so far off the mark after all.
And as for the answer to the problem? Perhaps the correction, rather than an uncontrolled bumpy landing, would be best served by requiring prospective buyers to hold New Zealand permanent residency or citizenship before buying. Since there won’t be an end to people applying for permanent residency or citizenship, it won’t be like the tap controlling the flow of investment gets turned off as the Government and its allies are claiming. The difference will be that more of the investment will be from New Zealanders.
As it should have always been in the first place.
Towards the end of the London 2012 Summer Olympics, the Womens shot put gold medal competition was held. There was New Zealand Valerie Adams, who had lifted gold in the Beijing 2008 Summer Olympics and who seemed to be a virtual shoo in for defending her gold medal. Belarussian shot putter Nazheda Ostapchuk had other ideas. But were they proper?
No. Right from the start there looked to be something wrong with Nazheda Ostapchuk. From her behaviour during the medal ceremony to her performances, to her physical appearance. It was obvious something was not quite right.
Alas, she was using Metenolone. This is a banned substance that among other things increases bone structure in terms of density. Ms Ostapchuk was banned and made to hand her medal back to the Olympic Committee. It is a sad indictment on sport that Ms Ostapchuk is far from being alone. Lance Armstrong went on to win the Tour de France on numerous occasions only for it to be found out that he was a systemic drugs cheat. After being stripped of all of his titles and wrecking the lives of several people along the way, American sprinter Marion Jones did jail time after being stung in a drugs racket for not one, but multiple offences.
In New Zealand we have been very fortunate. No athletes have been stripped of medals or given bans because of illegal substances in their system. New Zealand athletes at the Olympics are headed by a competent Olympic Committee that is well regarded overseas.
Sadly I cannot say the same for other nations. Most recently I heard for the first time that Russia has a state sponsored doping scheme for athletes. Whilst Russian athletes are often suspected of being cheats, there are also many athletes who play clean and hard and bring great credit to their country – why should they and their clean performing rivals in other countries suffer the legal consequences because a few of their countrymen have no morals?
How sad. Sport is supposed to be the bastion of humanity’s fittest and finest athletes, not cheats who have degraded themselves, their people and flag by taking substances that artificially alter their performance. What is it saying to young people who are learning right from wrong/fairness from cheating that this is happening. Moreover the fact that one of the biggest participants in the Olympics has a state funded doping programme suggests that a much bigger problem exists than just the athletes who participate. But political tensions and rhetoric are so high and being fanned by dirty geopolitical machinations that any attempt at holding the Russian Government responsible will be seen as an anti-Russian agenda however much it might be true.
How much more damage does sport have to suffer before as a way of life and leisure it comes together and says enough is enough?
