Monthly Archives: Jul 2018

Winston Peters ignites flag debate

Posted on by
Reply

Acting Prime Minister Winston Peters has reignited the flag debate, two years after a national referendum rejected the idea of a new flag. The restarting of the flag debate came after he called on Australia for reasons I am not yet clear on, to change their own flag – imagine that, a(n acting) New Zealand Prime Minister telling Australia to change its flag – because New Zealand had apparently had its flag longer and the Australians had merely copied us.

I actually support changing the flag. There is however a simple reason why I refused to support the referendum in 2016 – it was too sudden for many New Zealanders and raised a bright red flag: why now? What was the then Prime Minister John Key trying to hide or divert our attention from? It just all seemed suspicious.

But also, this is the flag that thousands of New Zealanders fought and died for. This is the flag that my Grandmother’s brother Lance Corporal Eric Dennis Green died for. Whilst the wartime generation is still alive, this is not the time to change that flag.

However, the correct procedures I believe were followed for having a flag referendum. The referendum was to happen in two stages:

  1. Ask whether the public want a flag change or not – this would be a simple YES/NO referendum. It would be binding, meaning whatever outcome would have to be respected and acted on by the Government
  2. ASSUMING the answer is YES, then ask from the two most popular designs, which flag should be our new one

None of the designs in the 2015 competition, or the two that were shortlisted should New Zealand have said yes, were inspiring in the least. In fact Red Fern looked more like a corporate logo than anything else.

I have had thoughts about what a flag could look like. One idea that I have had would be the outline of a Kea (nestor notabilis), New Zealand’s cheeky and inquisitive alpine parrot whose behavioural characteristics I think nicely sum up how New Zealanders aspire to be – social, inquisitive about the world around them and perhaps a tad cheeky.

It will however have to happen at an appropriate time. The earliest such occasion that I can think of would be the death of Queen Elizabeth II, our reigning sovereign. At that point it would be appropriate to go through the full rigarmole – seeing if the people of New Zealand wish to set about overhauling the constitutional arrangements, changing the flag, and then adhering to their wishes, whatever they may be.

So, the day of a new flag is coming. It was a premature dawn on the idea in 2016 and New Zealanders knew and understood it then. But that dawn is coming – it just might be another several years.

 

 

John Key rich to attack Labour Government on economy

Posted on by
Reply

Former Prime Minister John Key has attacked the Labour-led Government of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, saying that it is poorly prepared for a worsening economic climate.

Mr Key was speaking at the National Party Convention when he made the comments about the Labour-led coalition Government. On Saturday night he had hosted former Australian Prime Minister John Howard on stage at a private dinner where Mr Howard had talked about the Australian and New Zealand economies and lamented that New Zealand was letting its economy, which he said was one of the strongest in the world, go to waste under Labour.

This is rather rich coming from a former investment banker who, despite having serious challenges to deal with in his tenure, was left a $10 billion surplus by the out going Helen Clark Government. During the time Mr Key and his successor Bill English were in office, the poverty gap continued to widen, incomes in many professions were stagnant and the funding to key social services that would have helped less fortunate people was relentlessly attacked. Nor was a big effort made to improve the research and development sector, either in terms of funding, or the programme of research priorities.

But it is not dreadfully surprising. National and Labour have long been flip sides of the same coin and it is true that Ms Clark did not help the situation by signing a Free Trade Agreement with China. Ms Clark’s Government came to power in part on the promise of a – to quote her Treasurer Dr Michael Cullen – a “knowledge economy”, which I as first time voter naively assumed meant that sciences would have a major boost and we would be a research and technology development hub.

Apparently not.

But now a new Government is in office. It obviously has a different set of priorities, and this Government is definitely refreshing in terms of its approach to social policies that will make it possible for more lower income people to contribute to the economy. The increase of the minimum wage to $16.50/hr, the top up programme that has seen the Government provide a heating allowance, will be most welcome.

Just yesterday, I alluded to an alternative economy that could be developed. I saw none of this being attempted by Mr Key as Prime Minister of Mr Bridges as Minister of Energy and Resources and later Minister of Transport.

It will be interesting to see if Labour now seizes the chance to do something bold and brave instead of a narrow tunnel vision of minor economic adjustments here and there. Or will they sign more questionable trade agreements that do not necessarily put New Zealand first?

An alternative economy?

Posted on by
Reply

If one has read the print media, online media or watched the television news of late, they will have seen the stories about economic gloom. The stories about trade wars being started by the United States President Donald Trump, the increasingly messy state of Brexit and so forth all raise potential “red flags”. So, what about potential “green flags” with regards to economic development?

For awhile now I have been convinced that as long as National or Labour are in office, conventional, almost tunnel vision like economics will be the serving of the day. Bland, boring, and potentially missing significant opportunities to develop a more sustainable economy without causing job losses.

I have a vision of a quite different economic direction to the one that the politicians of the last two generations have insisted on steering New Zealand through. It stems from an understanding that the current reliance on tourism, agriculture and niche industries is not sustainable. New Zealand might look relatively calm in a stormy international sea, but it ignores the fact that we are quite vulnerable for several reasons (among others):

  1. Our exports rely too heavily on a few major industries
  2. An all in trade war would be damaging for everyone and New Zealand would not be exempt
  3. Customers overseas are becoming socially conscious and starting to research the history of what their countries are importing to make sure nothing detrimental such as animal abuse, slave labour or environmental negligence was involved

New Zealand has vast opportunities before it to develop green industries, but also to smarten up existing ones as well as completely new ones. A few examples:

  • Developing mineral recycling plants to retrieve and make reusable the gold, silver, copper, etc from Waste Electrical Equipment and Electronics (W.E.E.E. – also and hereafter known as e-waste)
  • Develop medicinal cannabis products for dispensation – public support for medicinal cannabis is now very high
  • A potential biofuel stream exists, from which we could be investigating alternatives to Unleaded 91 and diesel – several years ago Kiwi Rail did a trial with a biodiesel blend; using strands of the waste stream such as cooking fat and fuel waste, green waste and so forth

Obviously feasibility studies will need to be conducted to ascertain what will work and what will not. The relevant industry groups such as Federated Farmers, Automobile Association will need to be consulted on proposals that are relevant to them. Assessments of their economic viability will need to be carried out should any of these ideas or others not listed be found to be possible in New Zealand.

With these ideas come potential challenges. Little groundwork has been done on where Waste to Energy plants could fit in the overall New Zealand energy scene. Likewise with biofuel, a failure to tackle it in 9 years of the National Government means we are about 15-20 years behind European nations such as Denmark, the United Kingdom and others. It is also true that industry figures will need to be won over and resistance is inevitable in some quarters. But all potentially visionary ideas have to start somewhere, somehow.

With regards to cannabis reform and the associated socio-economic benefits, New Zealand politicians are inching towards medicinal cannabis. There seems to be an aversion to simply getting on with developing the appropriate legal framework. This would also give known cannabis growers something legitimate to do instead of supporting the black market, something that is already starting to happen in the East Cape area.

And then there is taxation. When I was in New Zealand First at one of the Annual Conventions I attended there was a debate during policy remits about whether a Spahn tax could be employed, possibly in place of one of the existing taxes. I also noted last year when doing research for my Graduate Diploma from the Open Polytechnic, the existence of Pigouvian taxes. Would, rather than – or to complement an emissions trading scheme – a Pigouvian tax on carbon emissions be some sort of disincentive to pollute? Whilst not being an economist, and freely admitting that it is possible that none of them will work, simply knowing that such taxes exist makes me wonder if anyone has investigated their suitability in a New Zealand context.

Does economic policy really need to live within the narrow confines of raising and lowering income taxes, increasing G.S.T. every so often and continuing to try to develop industries that are nearing their peak in New Zealand? Not necessarily.

Tit-for-Tat politics do no favours

Posted on by
Reply

It is something all politicians are probably guilty of at some point in their career. In their attempt to either score political points or establish their name as a productive elected official, one might propose an amendment to legislation before the House of Representatives. The amendment is rejected possibly simply because it came from the Opposition, possibly because it came out after due process had been followed.

The proponent of the amendment is bitter, grumpy and perhaps feeling short changed. In retaliation for their attempt at a constructive amendment being shot down, they change their vote in an attempt to kill the legislation entirely. In doing so, they shoot down an opportunity to show that they are a good sport and try to understand why it was rejected and do better the next time such an opportunity arises.

The sad fact of the matter is that tit-for-tat politics are really just petulant stupidity. No one wins from politicians throwing hissy fits in Parliament – whether it is in a speech, at a Select Committee or in terms of how they vote.

Thus, National’s decision to yank its support for the Green Party’s medicinal cannabis bill, only to then come up with a near identical version is particularly galling. It essentially says that there was nothing wrong with the Green Party version other than to say that it was the GREEN PARTY that came up with it in the first place. Furthering the petulance, National have rejected the warnings from the Ministry of Health that their Bill will not significantly improve the availability of medicinal cannabis products.

Another example can be found in the National Party attacks on the Government for their fiscal policy. Afraid that their own fiscal management, which saw significant debt accrued – admittedly through testing times including the back end of the Global Financial Crisis, and two hugely costly earthquakes – was under attack, National have seized every opportunity to try to present the Labour-Green fiscal rules agreement as a failure and a joke, despite the spending falling within the limits agreed to and monetary inflow continuing to exceed spending. As Stuff reporter Tracy Watkins notes there is a fine line before highlighting failing policies and deliberately talking down the economy.

It is not just the Opposition parties that do it. Sometimes the Government parties can be equally dismissive. But right now that is not happening. It is the Opposition, struggling as it is to get used to the fact that petulant behaviour instead of quietly dropping an unwinnable argument does not get one very far.

Domestic Violence Bill passes; National misses point

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday the support available for people suffering from domestic violence took a giant leap forward. Green Member of Parliament Jan Logie’s Bill of Parliament to allow people suffering domestic violence to take up to 10 days off work with pay, means that people in the throes of an abusive relationship are able to take time off work to get their lives back in order.

I congratulate Ms Logie on her Bill of Parliament, the Domestic Violence: Victims Protection Bill, which passed through on its third reading with a vote of 63 (Labour, New Zealand First and the Greens supported it ) – 57 (National and A.C.T. opposed it). It improves and/or introduces a number of protections for people suffering the effects of domestic violence. They include:

  • Making it illegal to discriminate against victims of domestic violence
  • Employers must allow up to 10 days of paid leave that is separate from annual leave or sick leave

National Member of Parliament Mark Mitchell said National had withdrawn its support for the Bill of Parliament. He cited the additional costs put on employers and said that it would do nothing to stop domestic violence. Whilst opposing the Bill National M.P.’s insisted that they agree with the spirit in which the Bill was written.

Mr Mitchell misses the point and his claims are probably not quite true. There will be people – maybe not a huge number – who will be able to use it as a circuit breaker. For them those 10 days might critical time in which they can end a relationship, get into a safe house and make contact with the Police.

But it will go one step further. Employees coming from a stable domestic life are more likely to be effective and productive workers. So while employers will pay up to 10 days leave for someone suffering domestic violence, if it leads to them having more secure and stable domestic circumstances then in the longer term it will hopefully lead to improved workplace performance.

So, let us welcome what will now become an Act of Parliament that makes the tortuous path that victims of domestic violence must follow hopefully a bit less treacherous.