seriously Green

The case for media reform in New Zealand

2011-11-02T17:00:00.001+13:00

In 2008 I wrote a blog titled 'A Complacent Duocracy'. It was about the two dominant television networks, and the two major political parties, colluding to hold a leaders debate involving only the leaders of the National and Labour parties.

Three years later, we see the same thing happening again. Does the election coverage in 2011 look or feel like New Zealand has a free and fearless media, defending the public right to know, holding current and political leaders to account, and engaging the citizens in debates about the important issues of the day? Hardly.

It looks and feels a great deal more like the cosy and corrupt relationship that was exposed in Great Britain recently, between a too-powerful media and both major political parties. The phone hacking scandal showed, with resounding clarity, that the mainstream media's precious 'right to know' was being systematically abused by greedy press barons to provide prurient and invasive stories that would distract its audiences from thinking or caring about how they might best exercise their democratic rights.

The more important and revealing matters, which came to light as a result that scandal, were the close relationships between media executives and Britain's political leaders. But that story has been rapidly and quietly buried.

In New Zealand, there was a little media hand-wringing about how we should resist any calls for greater regulation of the media in response to the British scandal, because freedom of the press is a Good Thing and it should not be compromised. Meanwhile, the government quietly replaced the chair of the Radio New Zealand board with a chair who had previously been a National Party prime minister's press secretary, and appointed various other party hacks and fellow-travellers to the remaining board positions.

The National government has also removed any responsibility for TVNZ to serve the public good; it will cease funding TVNZ7; and it has provided a sweetheart deal worth $48 million to the privately-owned MediaWorks radio network which apparently did not think to make a balance sheet provision to maintain possession of its core asset: the radio frequencies it bought at bargain basement prices 20 years earlier.

The previous Labour governments' record was not significantly better; from 1999 to 2008 it had nine years in power to ensure that New Zealand could have a genuine public broadcaster, and a media system that could, and would, put the public interest first. But it failed to achieve anything of the sort. The TVNZ Charter was a weak, self-contradictory and ineffective gesture, and there were various failures of leadership and governance - Ian Fraser's failings as CEO of TVNZ being the prime example.

The only saving graces, in this period, were the establishment of Maori Television service, which provides a genuine public broadcasting service for a nation-wide audience, and the expansion of independent regional broadcasting services in the main centres.

* * *

In 2007/08 I convened the policy working group that drew up the Green Party's broadcasting policy. I was reasonably satisfied with that effort, but I now think it needs to be reviewed and strengthened. The media's failings in the 2011 election coverage and analysis are too many and too important to be ignored.

The key problem is the structure of media ownership and cross-ownership in New Zealand. Our media is owned by only a few companies. All are foreign-owned. Each has too much market power, and in some markets and outright monopoly. Bill Rosenberg at CAFCA and more recently the Journalism, Media and Democracy Research Centre at AUT University, have been keeping tabs on the situation:

"Four companies, all overseas owned, dominate the New Zealand news media. There is a near duopoly in two of the three main media – print and radio – a monopoly in pay television, and only three significant competitors in free-to-air television including the state-owned channels." (Rosenberg, 2008).

I won't explain, in this post, how New Zealand got into this situation. For a detailed explanation you could refer to my Master of Public Policy thesis (1999).

Democracy is best served by a free, competitive, responsive and responsible media. This will tend to ensure that:

There is effective competition in the "market for ideas";
That the media uses its agenda-setting influence to draw public attention to matters of importance;
That public information is freely available to all citizens; and
That citizens are engaged in public discourse and debate about issues of social, economic and political importance.

The delivery of these outcomes is a "public good" of exactly the same importance as the existence of a national defence force, an effective police force, and the court system. While an individual citizen might not utilise these publicly-provided services, we all collectively 'consume' (or benefit from) their existence.

The problem with New Zealand's commercial model is that our media:

has freedom, but without responsibility;
is commercial, but not competitive*
is responsive to the private interests of advertisers and shareholders - but not responsible for serving the public interest of its audiences.

* The New Zealand media industry is characterised by 'Monopolistic Competition', tending toward natural monopoly. That means there are a few firms, each producing multiple products, often containing the same substance although with different branding. In media markets that means there are many channels, giving the appearance of competition, but masking a sameness of content.

These problems cannot be fixed by a regulatory approach, because that might limit press freedom - and the cure should not be worse than the disease.

But there are a number of 'structural' solutions that can be implemented if New Zealand is to have an effective democracy:

Breaking up media monopolies, and reducing cross-media ownership, to ensure a more competitive 'market for ideas' in the New Zealand media.
Establishing a public broadcasting institution that is fully, and effectively, independent of government control (or even influence), and with a legally enforceable mandate to serve the public interest to the best of its ability.
Reviewing the rules that allocate the right to broadcast, to ensure that the right comes with a responsibility to serve the public interest, and that the right will be revoked if the responsibility is not met.
Allowing for responsible self-regulation of the media, by the media; but with a firm legislative 'back-stop' to ensure that self-regulation does not equate to a lack of regulation.

* * *

Why is this so important?

It's not just because the Green Party, and all the 'minor' parties have been shut out of the leaders' debates. It is because New Zealand faces a perilous and uncertain future, and the current government appears not to be conscious of the issues, let alone trying to solve them. It can get away with this, because the citizens of New Zealand are woefully uninformed.

Jared Diamond, author of “Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed”, posits four reasons why societies, and even whole civilisations, have failed and collapsed. It is to do with failures of social (or group) decision-making:

First of all, a group may fail to anticipate a problem before the problem actually arrives.
Secondly, when the problem arrives, the group may fail to perceive the problem.
Then, after they perceive the problem, they may fail even to try to solve the problem.
Finally, they may try to solve it but may fail in their attempts to do so.

The first two steps along the path to failure involve a lack of information. The second two flow from a poor political decision-making and ability to solve the problem. And the lack of ability to solve a problem arises often because it is left too late.

The media are an essential component of the 'group decision making' process that constitutes a modern democratic state. And New Zealand faces a number of profound threats to our future well-being, which the democratic group decision-making process urgently needs to deal with.

One of these is the fact that global oil supply has peaked, prices are rising and will continue to rise inexorably, and our economy is extremely dependent on cheap oil. Yet we have a government that believes a multi-billion dollar road-building programme will support economic development. The New Zealand media is apparently so deeply involved in the oil economy that the issue of this government's palpable stupidity is not on the agenda for discussion in the 2011 election. Our media are not Independent and Courageous Critics of the Status Quo.

Another is the moral dilemma of Climate Change. How can we continue to heat the planet, to provide for the excessive material consumption of current generations, but at the risk of creating an unimaginable holocaust for those who will follow? The New Zealand media has bought into the narrative supplied by the Merchants of Doubt, and treats climate change as debateable and incomplete science. Our media are not Seekers After, and Tellers of, the Truth.

And of course the growing social and economic inequality within New Zealand is the true mark of disgrace for our media. In a well-informed democracy the level of inequality, and the causes of it, would be front page news and leading every bulletin. The people of New Zealand have a right to know that they are being treated like farm animals (and mis-treated at that), by the wealthy elites that control our economy. Our media are certainly not Defenders of the Peoples' Right to Know.

No. Our media are, severally and collectively, responsible for eroding and undermining both the ideals and the practice of democracy in New Zealand.

If I am elected to parliament I will be pursuing an agenda of media reform with vigour and determination. Because we, as a people, urgently need the media to do its job, and do it properly. Because our future depends on it.

No Environment > No Economy

2011-10-16T13:00:00.001+13:00

The Rena shipwreck is a reminder of our dependence on the environment.

There are already indications of how much the economy of Tauranga will suffer this summer, because of oil washing up on the beaches.

But this is only a local, and relatively small-scale, example of a much broader problem. In June 2010, Russel Norman set out the Green Party's challenge, and its agenda, going into the 2011 General Election:

"I'm asking for your help to lead New Zealand in a new direction.

Our challenge is this: We must join the economy to the environment in the minds of all New Zealanders. We need to show them how a healthy economy relies on a healthy environment.

The National Government tells New Zealanders something different. John Key says it's a trade off - he says we must balance more GDP growth against more environmental decline. In effect he says we can have clean and green, or economic success.

(but) We say clean and green is the basis of our economic success. No environment, no economy.

Clean and green: If we keep it real, we'll all be better off"

No Environment, No Economy: we are actually living beyond our means, environmentally and economically. Relying on non-renewable resources for continued economic growth is precisely the same mistake as relying on debt to support consumption. But the National/ACT party government seems to think that both ideas are good.

New Zealand desperately needs a new direction in economic policy. One that treats caring for the environment, and caring for people, as the basis for future economic security. It needs smart green economic ideas, that the Green Party will deliver.

ACT: going by the Board?

2011-10-06T12:05:00.004+13:00

Audrey Young, in the Herald today, says Don Brash may soon face a boardroom coup.

Don, planking.

The ACT Party's board may well be considering Brash's role. When Audrey says he has fallen well short of gaining the 15% support he promised, it is an extraordinary understatement. The wikipedia site that summarises all New Zealand election poll results shows ACT consistently below 2% support for months now (and rarely above 2% since 2008).

But doesn't the ACT Party board risk more by changing leadership now? Such a move will only make the party itself look increasingly desperate in its efforts to avoid its demise.

None of its five existing MPs are standing again. That tells us something.

I would love to see a poll that tells us whether Epsom would vote for John Banks. I'd love that because I assume the ACT party has been polling in Epsom. If the results were positive ACT would have leaked them to the media. But there has been a conspicuous absence of such leaks: a veil of silence has been drawn over ACT's Epsom campaign.

Or is that a Shroud? Perhaps the current ACT MPs have seen those polling results and have chosen to make the most graceful exit they could.

NB: Exactly such a poll was published in the NZ Herald, two days after this post was published.

* * *

A change of leadership this close to the election is not merely a symptom of ACT's problems. The governance and the philosophy of the party is the root cause of its ills.

I occasionally feel frustrated by the decision-making process within the Greens. But my party's commitment to internal democracy has been the key to its consistent, and persistent, presence in New Zealand politics over the past 21 years. So my feelings of frustration are always dissolved by my confidence in, and appreciation for, the value of our principles and governance processes.

I think our polling results show that voters increasingly have a sense of confidence in the Greens as a party that behaves consistently and stands by its principles. They might know little about what the Greens Party's "consensus" decision-making process and what that involves, but they can see we make orderly and astute leadership changes, which strengthen the party over time, leading to our evolution and growth as a political force.

The same cannot be said for the ACT Party. Its membership has abrogated decision-making to a powerful Board, which makes rapid tactical decisions. But there is an arbitrary, somewhat desperate, and sometimes almost random quality to those decisions.

And therein lies a profound truth about the difference between the democratic and corporate models of governance. The establishment, maintenance and development of a good society, based on a strong economic model, is not even remotely the same thing as managing a business in the market for FMCG (fast moving consumer goods), or most other products.

Voters know this, intuitively, in their hearts and minds. Some can be persuaded otherwise, for a short period of time, and a few can believe otherwise; but only by a sustained act of faith or blind adherence to ideology.

Most people; those who trust their own common sense, their instincts, and their intellects, can see the difference.

But this does not include, apparently, the members of the ACT Party or its board. And that is why it is wilting and quite probably dying.

Epsom: Vote your hope, not your fear

2011-09-27T21:26:00.004+13:00

People have asked me whether they need to vote strategically in Epsom this year. And that question isn't coming from people who normally vote Green or Labour: even those who might normally vote National don't want the ACT Party back in parliament.

My answer is simple: put your electorate vote to the candidate you think would best represent Epsom in parliament. Vote for what you hope for and want; not against what you fear or don't want.

My advice is given from the heart. But it is also relies on a strategic analysis technique, which I used on the Toward 2060 project at Manukau City Council last year.

In Epsom's case, the scenario matrix has three dimensions:

National needs, or doesn't need, ACT as a coalition partner
Act wins, or loses, Epsom
Act gets less than, or more than, 5% of the party vote

These dimensions generate eight scenarios, in a "cube" matrix, which can be labelled from A to H. Scenarios A to D are shown in the front layer of the cube, E to H are in the second layer:

On current polling, ACT is likely to get less than 5% of the Party vote, therefore Scenarios A to D are those that need to be considered most carefully:

Scenarios A and B:
ACT loses Epsom, and will be out of parliament altogether. I think these are the most likely scenarios, based on the feedback I am getting from Epsom voters while I have been campaigning and door-knocking for the past 6 weeks:

Epsom voted for Rodney Hide in 2008, not for ACT. Rodney ran a very vigorous electorate campaign, and people are saying they voted for him, because of his energy and enthusiasm - not because he was leader of the ACT Party.
Right wing voters are organising a voting bloc to keep ACT out of parliament. They think Don Brash's brand of divisive politics is a toxic influence on National. They don't want him in coalition and definitely not at the Cabinet table.

Scenario C:
If National can govern alone, they will. ACT on less than 5% would mean that Brash and Banks sit out the three-year term drawing a salary and trying to draw attention to themselves. Which, it has to be said, they are very capable of doing; but much of the media attention has been the morbid fascination of watching a dysfunctional party in its death throes.
If National needs coalition partners to govern, ACT will be their last choice. John Key won't want a former leader of the National party making demands of him and taking the shine off his leadership.

Scenario D:
If National must have ACT to form a coalition, it will. But again, John Key will be very unwilling to give Brash a place in the spotlight. He will balance ACT's demands against those of other coalition partners, and will try to isolate or ring-fence Brash as much as possible.
Brash, of course, will be pushy and extremely annoying.

Scenarios E to H:
What if ACT were to get more than 5%? If that were likely, then there would be no reason to vote strategically in Epsom. But for the sake of completeness, we should take a look at the other four scenarios.

Scenarios E and G:
These are the same outcome: if National can govern without ACT in coalition it will. The ACT Party, not in coalition with National but over 5%, becomes part of the opposition on National's right-wing flank. This could push National to more extreme policies, but my view is that this would be politically unsustainable, hastening National's eventual exit from government.

Scenarios F and H:
These are much the same as scenarios C and D, and for the same reasons. If National needs ACT as a major coalition partner then John Key will have a real problem on his hands: he will have to give Brash a substantial portfolio, and National is likely to suffer the electoral consequences in 2014.

In summary
Of the eight possible scenarios, four could produce an ACT/National coalition. In every case the National Party will be placed in an awkward position, because Don Brash will not be the energetic and willing partner that Rodney Hide was.

Of the two likely scenarios (A and C; according to the polls at the time of writing), if ACT wins Epsom it will not be part of a coalition government with National. It will sit on the cross benches doing very little. It is even possible that ACT, winning Epsom but with a very small party vote, would consist only of John Banks; put into Epsom as a patsy to win Don Brash a place in parliament, sitting alone and without a useful role.

So for the Epsom voter, concerned about voting strategically to keep ACT out of parliament, there is little to fear. ACT is polling low because it is clearly not wanted by New Zealanders, and it is not needed by the National Party because it is polling so well.

Epsom voters should, instead of using their electorate vote strategically from fear of ACT's influence in government, look at the field of candidates and vote for the one whom they think would best represent them in parliament.

And, if voters care to go to the Towards 2060 site and use the tools there to think strategically about the future of New Zealand, then I expect they might also conclude that they will Party Vote Green in 2011!

Rugby Rules? Not OK.

2011-09-14T12:58:00.003+12:00

A Fascine is a bundle of sticks bound together so that the bundle is more difficult to break than the individual sticks. The word expresses the idea behind the political and economic theory of Fascism. And also describes why a pack of Rugby forwards binds together, going into a scrum.

Fascist tendencies were displayed this week by the Rugby World Cup minister, Murray McCully, according to Brian Rudman in the New Zealand Herald. The accusation may be exaggerated, but there is more than a grain of truth in it, and that should be very concerning to all New Zealanders.

This appears in the Wikipedia entry on Fascism, and it nicely describes the economic theory of the Rugby World Cup:

Fascist economics supports the existence of private property, the existence of a market economy and the use of the profit motive, however state directed, as they reject laissez-faire.

And what is the Rugby World Cup, economically speaking, if not state-directed capitalism? How else could we describe the National Infrastructure Plan; John Key's involvement in the Sky City deal; the "Hobbit Act"; or indeed the Rugby World Cup Empowering Act, which gave Murray McCully such sweeping powers?

More worrying, I hope, for the National party own members, is that the ideas of fascism and fascist economics profoundly contradict the National party's own Vision and Values.

Perhaps this is what we should expect from a Prime Minister with long experience in the money markets and little understanding of history and politics. But I think we ought to reflect on whether what we expect from John Key is what new Zealand actually needs, or wants.

After the Rugby World Cup we get to make that decision. But now is the time to start considering it.

Election 2011: the Spiral of Silence

2011-09-12T19:32:00.000+12:00

With the beginning of the Rugby World Cup, New Zealand's 2011 general election has effectively been erased from public discussion by the New Zealand media.

The Spiral of Silence is a theory about how public opinion is formed: it was developed as an explanation of Hitler's rise to power in Germany during the 1930's. A person or group of people assert an idea or a message and others who, although they may disagree, tend to keep their own opinion to themselves. If the message goes uncontested or unchallenged, it can become accepted as the norm - what "we" all think.

I think the RWC is great: a 6-week long party for our rugby-playing friends, which we can be proud to host. But let's keep it in context.

The RWC should be treated as what it is: fun and games. It should not be allowed to become 'bread and circuses', designed to distract public attention from the serious political issues of the day and the responsibilities of citizenship.

I hope the media will take its responsibilities seriously in the lead up to the 2011 general election; to inform and educate, as well as to entertain us.

Size matters

2011-06-06T20:27:00.002+12:00

The Green Party's political positioning remit has had a bit of attention from the disgruntled left, since it was announced on Sunday (5 June 2011). I have also had my friends in business tell me that continuing to align ourselves with Labour will, and should, keep us out of the government benches in the next parliament.

I was there, for the long debate in a working group that went to nearly midnight on Saturday. The responses from both left and right indicate that we need to change the whole debate about the Greens' political positioning - both within and outside the party. Because the way we are doing it now leads down the path into this essentially meaningless discussion.

The Green Party has a very strong consensus on the first part of the party positioning statement: the part that describes us as an independent party with a distinct vision. And while we are prepared to work with either of the two "big" parties, we also stand in opposition to them both: the Greens understand that human progress, now and in the future, depends on the ability to use and to share ecological resources sustainably. The other parties don't - they still think progress means 'growth' in the production and consumption of material goods.

The discussion went on long into the night on Saturday because we were debating the conditions in which the Greens might enter into a confidence and supply agreement, to form a government with either of the two 'big' parties. The original remit was framed in terms of policy alignment alone. But policy alignment is insufficient as a decision criterion, for a two reasons.

First, personality and performance are important: in particular the Labour Party's lack of personality, and the National Party's appalling track record in government. In considering a coalition agreement with either, we'd have to deal with Labour's unpopularity and National's arrogance. Neither appeal.

Second, and more importantly, there is the problem of size. For a small party, entering a coalition agreement brings with it the risk of being absorbed, side-lined, or compromised - as we have seen with other minor parties and as we are seeing now with the Maori and Act parties.

The Green Party has had its fingers burnt with Labour, and now adopts the very sensible position of entering into support agreements, or memoranda of understanding, and perhaps also restraint agreements. These are mechanisms that allow the Greens to have influence on policy outcomes without being tainted by close association with any unpalatable actions of a major party.

But what would we do if we had a larger share of the party vote, and therefore a strong mandate from the electorate form a coalition government?

How 'large' would that mandate have to be, in order for us to form a coalition with one or the other? I think these are the questions the Green should ask themselves, and answer, in the round of political positioning debates leading up to the 2014 election.

I imagine that, if we had framed the issue in these terms, the political positioning statement we thrashed out this weekend would have been quite different. In essence,

We would have considered being the minor partner in a Labour-led government, provided that we were allocated certain key ministerial portfolios (my pick: energy, transport, local government, economic development, education or health, and associate portfolios in social development and finance).
But to form a coalition with National, we would need to have been the coalition leader, and we would have required the ability to select Ministers from among the moderates, liberals and blue/greens in the National Party caucus - and allocate appropriate portfolios to them.

That sort of talk seems like a stretch at the moment. But the Green Party is in the ascendant, and I look forward to the day when our political positioning debate is framed in such terms.

In effect, the debate about the remit had little to do with ideological debate about "left vs right" (although many participants in the debate probably thought it did).

To my mind, the debate was about an aspirational divide: between members who want the Green party to one day participate in governing New Zealand, and those who think we are, and should remain, merely a group of protesters who use parliament as a platform.

I am clearly and confidently aligned with the former group. In the next parliament we may well remain a party of opposition. But we must increasingly regard ourselves, and learn to position ourselves, as a government-in-waiting.

Tweedledum vs Tweedledee: Act is National's "mini me"

2011-05-30T20:58:00.006+12:00

With the announcement today that Aaron Bhatnagaar intends to stand as the National Party candidate for Espom, it is increasingly difficult to regard Act as an independent political party.

The Epsom campaign looks increasingly like a brand management exercise, and a ploy to manipulate MMP to ensure National gets more than its share of MPs in parliament.

Look at it this way: Act is now led by an ex-National Party leader; it's bellwether candidate in Epsom is an ex-National Party MP and Cabinet Minister, and the current member for Epsom is a National Party Cabinet Minister in all but name.

So where does the National Party stop and Act Party begin? In truth, there is no difference: National is sold as a family-friendly product, for domestic consumption, and Act is the commercial-grade version: but beneath the labels, it is nearly the same product. The main difference is that the Act Party now includes the National Party's rejects and has-beens.

John Banks, talking on Morning Report today, gave the game away: he crowed that Epsom voters would only get one MP if they voted for the National candidate - but four or five if they voted for him. Apparently he thinks the Epsom voter can't tell the difference between voting for a National or Act MP.

And maybe that's because there is no difference. If Act wins in Epsom this year the National Party will do more than govern with the support of another party. It will effectively govern with more than its fair share of MPs, undermining the proportionality of parliament.

And this tells us something important about the upcoming MMP referendum: no voting system is perfect, and it is very hard to stop the political establishment from twisting the rules to its own advantage.

And the solution to that problem is not to change our current voting system, but to throw out the current government.

David Hay - Green Party candidate for Epsom 2011

The Politics of Change

2011-05-23T15:53:00.001+12:00

This is my favourite Green Party slogan: Neither Left nor Right but out in Front.

In this post I discuss what it means to be “out in front”. I argue that:

There is a new dimension to the political spectrum, which defines the Green Party's point of difference from both National and Labour;
Going into the 2011 general election, it is the Green Party’s willingness and ability to effectively lead change that should define our political positioning, and
In order to lead change effectively, the Green Party must first change itself.

While Jared Diamond was preparing to write “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed” he discussed some of his ideas on the edge.org website, under the title “Why Do Some Societies Make Disastrous Decisions (while others succeed)?”

Diamond identifies four factors in group decision making that lead a society to fail:
1. First of all, a group may fail to anticipate a problem before the problem actually arrives.
2. Secondly, when the problem arrives, the group may fail to perceive the problem.
3. Then, after they perceive the problem, they may fail even to try to solve the problem.
4. Finally, they may try to solve it but may fail in their attempts to do so.

Over the course of human history, these have been failures to meet the challenges of depleting resources such as fertile soils, fresh water, and energy.

Last year I was doing some work for Manukau City Council, on futures thinking. I applied Jared Diamond's four factors to the "four-room apartment" model of change. The four “rooms” represent four psychological states involved in the typical human response to change: contentment, denial, confusion, and inspiration. Success (or failure) in adapting to change is a matter of dealing with the condition of being in each of the four “rooms”, and successfully moving between them.

Taking a lead from Jared Diamond, I wanted to focus on the factors that bring about successful change. So I worked through the model, changing the language and concepts as appropriate, and came up with the one that appears in the picture below.

This is how it works:

We start at the top left corner, in a state of contentment, but without complacency or ignorance. When a potential problem becomes evident, we can anticipate the problem before it arrives.
Being aware of the problem, we accept responsibility and resolve to deal with it. Taking responsibility is the precise opposite of being in a state of denial, and its attendant anger, blaming, and self-excusing.
Because we have accepted responsibility, we are willing to discover solutions. In the original four-room apartment model, this room is labelled confusion, chaos or conflict, but seen in a positive sense can equally be a state of creativity, innovation and “flow”. The key to success here is obtaining really good information and then making good decisions.
Having identified successful solutions, we implement them with determination, commitment and discipline.

This model provides a useful way of re-drawing the political spectrum, in terms of the process of change that the world is currently undergoing (or failing to undergo). The four-room apartment model can be “unfolded” in a way that re-defines where New Zealand’s major political parties stand, in terms of their willingness and ability to deal with the looming ecological, economic and social crises of the 21st century.

And it looks something like this:

This political spectrum shows what it means to be “out in front”. The Greens are not only more advanced through the cycle of change than other parties, but we promote a positive model of change that could ultimately succeed.

The other parties are less far advanced, and are practicing a model of change that will ultimately fail:
The ACT party is clearly stuck in ignorance and denial.

The National Party is quite aware of the looming problems, but accepts minimal responsibility for them. It is less ignorant than ACT, but still solidly in denial, and unable to develop effective and creative solutions.
The Labour Party is slightly better: it accepts the problems but it cannot deal with them effectively, because it is confused about the solutions (e.g. adopting an ETS instead of a Carbon Tax).
The Maori Party is on a positive path for change: the concept of kaitiakitanga is embedded in its kaupapa, so it accepts responsibility. But doesn't yet have workable policy solutions.

Now to return to the slogan “neither left nor right but out in front”. Being “in front” actually does mean being “left” in two senses:

First, our acceptance that we live in a world constrained by limited resources is followed by a commitment that the those resources will be justly shared in three ways:
1). within our own society,
2). between developed and developing nations, and
3). between current and future generations.

Second, being “left” also describes the Green approach to managing change. The Green Party's mission is to bring about a transformational change in New Zealand: rejecting unsustainable growth and inequality, and implementing our vision of a sustainable and just society. But creating an ecologically sustainable economy will require change and dislocation on a massive scale. The transformation that we are seeking will make the major economic upheavals of my generation – the era of Thatcherism, Reaganomics and Rogernomics – pale by comparison. Our commitment to social justice means people will be treated fairly and well throughout the transition period, which they were not during those right-wing transformations.

We have to acknowledge that the transformational change can be profoundly unsettling and uncomfortable. When major changes are wrought in our social or economic framework, they will inevitably cause dislocation and conflict. The majority of people will benefit from the change we intend, but many others will lose out – and typically many of the latter will be those who benefit from the economic status quo.

If the Green Party is to succeed in its mission, the members need to think carefully about how change occurs, what brings about change, how people respond to it, and how we will go about it when we are in government.

But first, perhaps we have to ask how the Green Party might have to change, in order to effectively lead change.

David Hay - Green Party candidate for Epsom 2011
Originally published in Te Awa, the quarterly members' magazine of the Green Party, November 2010

John "Crafar" Key

2011-05-08T20:32:00.002+12:00

I expect this government will be remembered as the "Crafar Farms" of New Zealand economic history. This government is all about corporate and investor welfare:

It is propping up member companies of the NZ Council for Infrastructure Development
providing the modern equivalent of the Muldoon government's Supplementary Minimum Prices by letting the agricultural sector off its share of Kyoto obligations
aiming to sell state-owned assets, to will provide a virtually risk-free investment haven for private shareholders, who will enjoy monopoly profits with state-backed risk protection

There is no economic justification for these initiatives, in the sense that they would improve the economy or provide a better life for all New Zealanders. They are designed to increase the wealth of the already wealthy - at any cost.

Under John Key's stewardship, New Zealand is increasingly and relentlessly resembling George Orwell's Animal Farm. The National Party and its supporters are milking ordinary wage-earning taxpayers, without concern for the welfare of the "herd".

Environmentally and economically John Key resembles nobody so much as Alan Crafar, of Crafar Farms, the notorious poster boy for dirty dairying and unconcern for animal welfare.

http://www.greens.org.nz/ecards/keep-it-kiwi-e-card

Ha Ha. Can't you take a joke? (Green Voices)

2010-10-17T07:52:00.004+13:00

The state-owned broadcaster employs a failed National Party candidate as a breakfast host, who then interviews a National Party prime minister, and they agree on air that a previous leader of an opposition political party will not be considered for the position as New Zealand's head of state. .. (more>>)

Who Holds the Media to Account? (GreenVoices)

2010-08-09T19:00:00.000+12:00

It's good to see the Minister of Broadcasting asking questions about TVNZ boss Rick Ellis's credit card spending. After weeks of 'revelations' about the use of credit cards and expense claims by Members of Parliament and Mayors, finally the spotlight has been turned on the media itself... (more>>)

A "radically serious" Green Party

2010-06-09T13:42:00.006+12:00

The Green Party is coming of age: it is rapidly changing from an coalition of "seriously radical" activists, to a "radically serious" political party.

The punditry has had much to say about the Green Party, surrounding the 2010 Annual General Meeting at Queens Birthday weekend (also the party's 20th birthday).

Prior to the conference John Hartevelt, in the Dominion Post, focused on the departure of Sue Bradford and a perceived lack of "x-factor and activism in the party. John Armstrong, in the Herald, said the party was now a "Paler shade of Green". Colin James's column in the Press said the party was "still trying to win political influence.

That tone has changed following the conference, and the co-leaders' two outstanding speeches. Metiria Turei took on the National Government with her focus on the Greens "Minding the Gaps" initiative, and pinged Labour for lacking the political courage to talk about a capital gains tax. Russel Norman took on the government with the message " No environment, no economy ", while also giving Labour a serve for investing in "clean green branding PR" but failing to make it real.

The message from the party's leadership is this: the Green Party is ready, willing, and able to challenge the status quo and take its place as the third major party in New Zealand politics. That message came through crisp and clear, at least to the editorial cartoonist in the Herald.

This is where Colin James misread the Greens: the party's objective is not merely to win political influence; now it must seek the mandate to govern. Sue Bradford's departure symbolises this transformation: her staunch activism was an asset for the party while it was establishing itself, but it was too much for the mainstream Kiwi voter whose trust and confidence the Party needs to earn. The party may be a 'paler shade of Green', but that lighter shade will be more appealing to the electorate.

There is still a long and difficult road ahead for the Greens. It currently lacks the resources and the membership to run effective electorate campaigns, and it will never govern while it remains a "list only" party. The key to future success will be growing the party membership, which currently is only a few thousand. To lead a government the Greens will need tens of thousands of members, and many more financial supporters and volunteers.

Some of the Party's "seriously radical" members may not willingly make the transition, as the Greens increasingly present the "radically serious" image that will appeal to a greater range of voters and attract a broader membership. The party that wants to change the world, must first learn to change itself.

The BP spill: a drop in the ocean

2010-05-31T09:57:00.009+12:00

I don't want to diminish the extent of the terrible environmental crisis that has been caused by the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster. But consider this: the estimated 70,000 barrels of oil per day that is flowing into the Gulf of Mexico is a mere 0.08% of humanity's global daily extraction of liquid fossil fuels from the earth's crust.

Currently we extract and consume 86,000,000 barrels of liquid fuels every day. The carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and other toxic substances released into the biosphere by burning that much oil is contributing to an environmental catastrophe on a scale that makes the BP spill pale into insignificance. And that's only liquid fuels: it doesn't take into account the combustion of coal and natural gas.

There are four aspects of this environmental disaster that allow us to ignore, deny or discount its effects, in comparison to the BP spill:

The gases we release by burning fossil fuels are mostly invisible. We can't see how they affect our environment; we can't see the damage that is done; there are no horrifying pictures on the evening news, so the problem isn't manifested in our collective awareness.
The atmosphere diffuses gasses more rapidly and effectively than the currents in the Gulf of Mexico disperse an oil slick. If greenhouse gases and other air pollutants accumulated in the atmosphere as rapidly, and dispersed very slowly, we would be much more aware of the problem; our rates of respiratory disease, asthma, shortness of breath or even suffocation would provide direct and personal evidence of the problem.
There is a time-lag between cause and effect that means we tend to ignore or discount the long-term problem of greenhouse gasses, which will fall mostly on future generations. The oil slick is immediately visible, and have seen the impacts on foreshores and beaches within a few days; because the destruction is evident very quickly the problem is very much "in our faces" and difficult to ignore.
The worst consequences of global warming will fall on poor people of colour in distant lands, but this oil spill that is happening to "us": the white-skinned and wealthy citizens of the western world, represented in this case by the United States of America.

So yes, the Deep Water Horizon oil spill is a terrible disaster. But compared to humanity's wider use and abuse of Earth's fossil fuel resources it is, in fact, merely a "drop in the ocean". It's a pity we can't see that as clearly.

Kiwibank in Plain English

2010-05-30T11:22:00.008+12:00

Thanks to the Sunday Star-time for publishing this precious example of PR double-speak today: "(the government's) position on asset sales is very clear: there will be no asset sales in this term of parliament... If that position were to change, the government would say so and campaign on it at the next election."

Ha ha ha. Very droll. Unfortunately that came from the spokesperson for a Minister of Finance who apparently can't put two and two together when it comes to Kiwibank. So let's "do the math" for him.

New Zealand's balance of payments is made up of two parts: one is trade in Goods and Services (real stuff that we make and sell), the other is Income and Current Transfers (debt and profits that go to overseas firms).

In the September quarter of 2009, our balance of payments was in surplus for the first time in 20 years. The main change in our position was a decrease in the deficit on Income and Transfer. As reported in the New Zealand Herald, that was caused by the "$1.4b of company tax transactions in the banking sector brought into account during the quarter."

What that means, in plain English, is that the four big Australian-owned banks were successfully prosecuted by the Inland Revenue Department, and had to pay back $2.2 Billion they owed for rorting our tax system. Those repayments fell due in the September quarter, and for a brief period the value of our exports exceeded the value of our imports. Nothing new in that - it has been going on for years.

So, for the benefit of our Mr English, let's put two and two together: New Zealand's current account deficit is largely due to the household debt that New Zealanders owe; a great deal of it to four Australian-owned banks (ANZ, ASB, BNZ, and Westpac), which have have all actively sought to undermine our tax base.

One of the ways in which we could improve New Zealand's economic performance is by repatriating our household debt - by transferring it to New Zealand owned banks - and particularly to a bank which, because the government is its owner, will always pay its fair and proper share of tax.

A Longer Conversation

2010-05-02T13:53:00.009+12:00

I began reading the report of the Ministerial Review Panel on the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 last week for work - and I finished reading it for pleasure. It is not often that a formal report is so eloquently presented; setting out the issues and arguments carefully, thoroughly and concisely.I was particularly taken with the comment on page 142:

"The overwhelming weight of opposition to the legislation from all quarters should have given the government pause. Both Māori and non-Māori who spoke to us repeatedly stated that there should have been a “longer conversation” at the time, as had been advocated by the Waitangi Tribunal in early 2004. We agree, and also believe that there should be a suitably lengthy conversation this time around,..."

It is a great pity that the National government recently issued a Consultation Document and gave only one month for feedback, and a great shame that it now proposes to pursue only one option - with the threat of retaining the reviled 2004 Act if that option is not accepted.

Moving forward with certainty and clarity on this issue will take time. There are profound differences between Maori and Pakeha concepts of ownership, management and access to natural resources. Resolving these differences in a way that can accommodate (or even synthesise) both world views could take years or even decades. Any "quick fix" solution will always be unsatisfactory.

But what should be done with the foreshore and seabed to allow that Longer Conversation to take place, given that the 2004 Act needs to be urgently repealed?

One of my colleagues proposed a solution that has not yet been explored: the Foreshore and Seabed could be declared a reserve under the Reserves Act 1977. This might be a "National Reserve" (section 13) or a new classification specially for the Foreshore and Seabed.

This would allow the crown to vest ownership and management of the reserve in a Trust Board, representing a Treaty partnership between Crown and Maori. The trust board could manage the reserve in accordance with a reserve management plan (section 41), and could grant leasehold interests of up to 33 years duration, etc. This would overcome the problem that started off this whole saga: "the foreshore and seabed issue started with Marlborough District Council’s refusal to give Ngāti Apa a mussel-farming licence to farm in their traditional rohe."

I think most New Zealanders, including most Maori, would see this as an acceptable interim solution. The idea of a reserve, held in trust for the people of Aotearoa; to preserve public access and the protect the ecosystem, would fit with both Maori and Pakeha views of how the foreshore and seabed should be managed. And it would allow time for the longer conversation needed to resolve the issue.

A Ray of Hope - and a wake up call for the Greens

2010-04-12T09:19:00.004+12:00

The inaugural conference of the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases was held over the weekend - to resounding silence from the New Zealand media.

Peter Cimino Cole, writing in the Mahurangi Magazine, correctly I think, sees this initiative as a good news story for New Zealand. It is a sign that this National government recognises the need to act on climate change, and is prepared to take meaningful action. Peter also gives the Greens a slap for "playing politics" on the issue, and I think he's right to do so, on two counts.

First, because the Greens ought to nurture the fragile shoots of John Key's initiative. The National government may be generally hopeless on environmental issues, but that doesn't apply to individuals in the National Party. Some members, past and present, really do understand what's going on with the world; Simon Upton was one of them, and Nikki Kaye may have potential. John Key is evidently an intelligent person, capable of seeing the bigger picture, despite his generally lacklustre caucus. The Greens ought to publicly acknowledge and encourage him.

Second, because the Greens, if they intend to be in government, and eventually to lead a government, need to appeal to a broader constituency - including conservative and rural voters. A "can do" attitude and a cooperative approach sit well with most New Zealanders. At the moment, the National government under John Key is exemplifying both and, whether you like the results or not, it is working for them.

Neither Catching Up, nor Catching On

2010-03-26T18:01:00.005+13:00

The goal of "catching up with Australia" is a repeat of the conservative response to the crises of the 1970s and 1980s, and will prove to be equally disastrous.

Back then, the policy consisted of a combination of protectionism, as our overseas markets were transformed by Britain's entry to the EU, and Think Big infrastructure investments in response to the oil shocks.

John Key was apparently very surprised at Copenhagen, by the positive response to his proposal for investment in research on low-emission farming. This shows that he and the National party have not 'caught on': the international community is moving rapidly to deal with the challenge of climate change. Perhaps not quickly enough, but the momentum is gathering. According to the latest research in 2008 the US investment in renewable energy ($US16 billion) amounted to more than the entirety of New Zealand's GDP.

While this is going on, the National government's watered-down Emissions Trading Scheme let farmers off the hook on carbon credits. Essentially providing them with them Supplementary Minimum (carbon) Prices - a form of protectionism for an industry that urgently needs to adapt to changing realities in our global markets.

The National government's programme for building "Roads of National Significance" is the modern equivalent of the Think Big projects, which in the 1970's threw the New Zealand economy into a period of long, deep, indebtedness. One of the Think Big projects was ahead of its time: the electrification of the Main Trunk railway line, for instance. Others were disastrous for our energy future and for the climate - the Motonui Synfuels plant for instance - aiming to increase New Zealand's energy independence, but not its reliance on fossil fuels.

So the New Zealand government is furiously investing in road-building, at a time when the future of private motor transport is uncertain, to say the least. In Britain, the government is just now catching on to the idea that Peak Oil is a real issue, which will require significant intervention.

The goal of 'catching up with Australia' is as absurd as it is impossible (we don't have a vast quantity of mineral wealth to dig up and send to China). What New Zealand desperately needs is a government that 'catches on' to the idea that the world is rapidly changing - and that sustainability, not growth, is now the benchmark of success.

Copenhagen - a "Dialogue of the Deaf"

2009-12-21T13:22:00.013+13:00

In 2008 Shell Oil published Energy Scenarios to 2050, setting out two plausible pathways by which humanity will navigate the 21st century. Here is part of the worst-case scenario:

"The focus on maintaining economic growth, especially in emerging economies, leaves the climate change agenda largely disregarded. Despite increasing protests by campaigners, alarm fatigue afflicts the general public. International discussion on climate change becomes bogged down in an ideological "dialogue of the deaf" between the conflicting positions of rich, industrialised countries versus poorer developing natons - a paralysis that allows emissions of atmospheric CO2 to grow relentlessly.

"The emerging economic pressures of energy supply and demand tensions make
it even more difficult for politicians to act until they are forced to, despite their ongoing rhetoric of concern. Addressing climate change is perceived as an additional economic pressure and, given the type of response required, nobody is prepared to risk being the first to act."

And on it goes: a prescient summary of the talks that took place the following year in Copenhagen.

Shell Oil is not exactly a green-friendly organisation, but it is renowned for its scenario development - correctly predicting and responding proactively to the oil supply shocks of the 1970's - so it is worthwhile heeding the more optimistic scenario, which starts off like this:

"While international bodies argue over what environmental policies should be and which policies are feasible, and many national governments worry about energy security, new coalitions emerge to take action. Some bring together companies from different industries with a common interest. Others involve coalitions of cities and regions, which begin to take their destinies in their own hands and create their own blueprints for their energy futures. Individuals effectively begin to delegate responsibility for the complexitites of the energy system to a broader range of institutions besides national governments. Cash, votes and legitimacy reward the successful...
"In the early part of the 21st century, progressive cities across the globe share good practices in efficient infrastructure development, congestion management and integrated heat and power supply. A number of cities invest in green energy as sources for their own needs... The success of individual intiatives boosts the political credentials of mayors and local authorities, creating incentives for national and international leaders to follow suit. National and local efforts begin to align with and amplify each other, and this progressively changes the character of international debate."

This is both realistic and hopeful. The local government elections in 2010 are an opportunity for the people of New Zealand to do the right thing; to take a lead where national political leadership has failed.

Perhaps the Green Party should consider this carefully. It does have the option of bowing out of parliament altogether, to reconfigure itself around local electoral campaigns and start fighting for the future of our planet entirely at grassroots level. And if the current government instigates a referendum on the electoral system that destroys the proportionality of parliament - as it clearly wishes to do - then a purely local focus might in fact be be the Greens' best strategy.

Racism, actually

2009-10-18T22:17:00.003+13:00

The government's decision to over-ride the Maori Television bid for the free-to-air rights for the Rugby World Cup is racism, plain and simple: racism and nothing else.

This is a young television channel, trying to build profile and audience numbers. It has undergone its growing pains, settled down, sharpened up, and now presents as a highly professional and polished programme. Now it wants to show the pakeha majority what it has to offer. So, in an audacious commercial maneuver, it out-bid the two dominant channels for the free-to-air rights. This was smart, sharp, competitive behavior from a broadcaster that has a real mission to deliver value to its audience.

Unsurprisingly, the two major players lept into the fray, with TV3 claiming that Maori TV wouldn't reach sufficient audience numbers. On the basis of that specious argument, the Government first offered to subsidise the state-owned "majority culture" channel sufficient funding to put in a counter-offer, then brokered a three-way compromise. But why?

Because this government don't want middle New Zealand tuning in to a Maori television channel, that's why. They can't bear the thought that Maori TV might show us something better than the pathetic crap served up on TV1, 2 and 3 every night of the week. They can't permit the mainstream culture to appreciate and enjoy the minority indigenous culture. And that's just racism - no other word for it.

Why the "peak oil" debate is irrelevant

2009-10-12T09:43:00.005+13:00

Basically, because we're already up sh** creek without a paddle.

The UK Energy Research Centre has just published a very good meta-analysis of the “peak oil” debate: as authoritative and complete as anything I’ve read on the subject. Take-home messages are:

The debate over exactly when humanity will reach "peak oil" is irrelevant: the difference between even the most pessimistic and optimistic claims is just 15 to 20 years
No matter what new oil fields we discover, global oil production will start declining in 2030 at the very latest.
20 years isn't long enough for governments to prepare well-thought-out policies that would tackle the economic chaos likely to occur when oil production begins to decline

This is an emergency situation, and should be treated as such.

Reported in the New Scientist

Full report (200 pages), plus exec summary, press release and technical background papers, on the UKERC site.

Unreality TV

2009-10-09T08:35:00.007+13:00

Good on you John Drinnan, for taking TVNZ to task in the Herald today.

In an astounding act of insensitivity, a TVNZ journalist introduced the parents of missing toddler Aisling Symes to Australian "psychic" Deb Webber. It is no coincidence that TVNZ screens "Sensing Murder" on TV2; a series loosley based on Webber's exploits.

This is what New Zealand's "public" broadcaster has come to: treating the pain, fear and suffering of real people as a means for promoting a programme based on supsertition and fakery, in order to obtain commercial advantage.

The National government should remove the TVNZ charter altogether. It should finally strip away that thin, thin, veil of false integrity and respectability and confront the people of New Zealand with the truth about our state-owned television channels: they are not, in any sense, supposed to serve the public interest.

This incident demonstrates that the true purpose of commercial television in New Zealander is to is to treat us - our lives, our hopes, dreams and fears, our language, culture and political leadership - as raw material for a television drama designed only to sell advertising for profit.

And when we truly understand that, perhaps we might start to demand real change.

Arohanui Sue Bradford

2009-09-25T12:04:00.001+12:00

It is sad to see Sue Bradford step down from parliament, although it was probably inevitable.
Sue's courage is undeniable. She stepped up to the challenge of defending the weak, the vulnerable and the minorities in our community, in a way that has not been attempted - and has not succeeded - since Fran Wilde introduced and defended the Homosexual Law Reform Act (1986).
Perhaps it is inevitable that, like Fran Wilde, Sue's parliamentary career is likely to be remembered for a single piece of legislation.
But although this was not Sue's only achievement, but it is one that we can all be proud of - and one that far, far, too many of New Zealand's children will be grateful for.

Time is ticking out

2009-09-24T10:26:00.001+12:00

Unintentional poetry, from an AUT student essay on the meaning of sustainability:

Time is ticking out while we maintain
abusing plentiful gifts of living in an industrialized society
covering our carbon footprint with eco friendly logos
for the peace of our mind

The Age of Steven

2009-08-28T17:26:00.006+12:00

Steven Joyce, Minister of Transport, is New Zealand's poster boy for "The Age of Stupid".

As the Oil Age draws to a close, and at a time when humanity needs to radically reduce its carbon emissions, the National Party and its Minister of Transport decide this is the best time to spend up large on State Highways. That's so stupid it makes me sick.

The last time National showed such stupidity was in 1991, when it slashed unemployment benefits in Ruth Richardson's "mother of all budgets". That decision removed the stabilising effect of income transfers during a recession, throwing the economy into a tail-spin; and it consigned a generation of children from low-income families to a life of poverty.

And now, here we go again: the next 10 - 20 years are probably our last hope, and our last chance, to start building the infrastructure we need for a successful low-carbon future. But Steven Joyce has lost that opportunity for us.

That's stupid, Steven, stupid.

Peak Oil alarm bells ringing

2009-08-24T17:56:00.006+12:00

Official understanding of the "Peak Oil" issue has been steadily changing; previously it had been considered to be something a conspiracy theory, promoted by fringe groups and persons of a "green" political persuasion.

Over the past few months, however, the issue has clearly become a mainstream concern.

The International Energy Agency (OECD supported, 28 contributing member countries including New Zealand) has significantly shifted its position. Its Chief Executive, delivering a summation of the IEA report World Energy Outlook 2008, on 8 December 2008 at the UN Climate Change Conference in Poznan, said (in his own words):

Current energy trends are patently unsustainable.
The era of cheap oil is over.
To avoid "abrupt and irreversible" climate change we need a major decarbonisation of the world's energy system.
Present economic worries do not excuse back-tracking or delays in taking action to address energy and climate change challenges.
Economic stimulus packages provide an excellent opportunity to see greener, more sustainable growth in the energy sector.

The Energy Information Administration (US Government Dept of Energy) followed suit May 27, 2009. Acting Administrator Howard Gruenspecht, speaking at the IEO2009 press conference for the release of the report International Energy Outlook 2009, said (again, in his own words):

The current economic downturn is dampening near-term world energy demand growth.
The IEO2009 reference case reflects a return to higher oil prices as economies recover from the current recession and demand for oil returns. Prices rise to $130 per barrel (real 2007 dollars per barrel) in 2030.
Unconventional sources, primarily from non-OPEC sources, provide nearly half of the growth in global liquids supply between 2006 and 2030 in the reference case.
Renewables are the fastest-growing energy source in the IEO2009 reference case, but fossil fuels still provide over 80% of marketed energy in 2030.
Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are projected to rise from 29 billion metric tons in 2006 to 40 billion metric tons in 2030 under current laws and policies. (emphasis added)
Economic growth and oil prices, which can be significantly impacted by above-the-ground factors, are two major sources of uncertainly in all energy projections.

In short, the two most authoritative energy agencies for the western world are both acknowledging that peak oil is a reality. Both acknowledge that there's a three-way connection between oil price/supply, economic growth/development, and carbon emissions/climate change:

Both are projecting long-term increases in oil price.
Both acknowledge that oil prices will constrain global economic growth.
Both acknowledge that continued oil consumption on a "business as usual" basis will lead to dangerous increases in carbon emissions and irreversible climate change.

Both are ringing the alarm bells - but who is listening?

Certainly the New Zealand government is not: it is now putting in place a radically increased road-building programme as part of its solution to the international recession, and preparing to go to the Copenhagen climate change talks with a soft position on emissions targets.

The Chilling Effect

2009-08-08T13:06:00.005+12:00

There is a pattern emerging in the current government's response to criticism, and to people who express views that are contrary to their own. We have recently seen:

John Key, Prime Minister, and Simon Power, Justice Minister, criticising Dame Sian Elias, chief justice of the supreme court, for delivering a thoughtful speech on the effectiveness of the prison system (20 July);
Social Development minister Paula Bennett published the income details of two solo parents who had spoken out against the removal of an entitlement to support for tertiary education (28 July);
David Garrett, ACT party MP, telling prison guards that they would be not get jobs in a privatised prison service because they had given evidence to a select committee (30 July);
And, most recently, John Key, the Prime Minister, telling actor Keisha Castle-Hughes that she should "stick to acting" instead of speaking out on climate change issues (8 August 2009)

This is a government that uses aggressive tactics; not just to to stifle criticism of its policies, but to suppress any contribution to public debate by individuals. Clearly, this can't be coincidental. The four instances cited above occurred within less than a month, and the prime minister has participated in of them.

This begs the question whether this is a deliberate strategy, or whether the honeymoon period is over and government's true character is now revealing itself. In either case, it says something about the character and quality of this government's leadership.

The National party was elected on the basis of resentment and dissatisfaction; the Labour government had accrued sufficient black marks on its record, as any government eventually must, but it also failed to refresh and renew itself in order to dispel that perception. The National party was elected because it successfully reflected and amplified the public mood.

Now that it is in government, and with a fresh face leading it, we discover that National has no real policy agenda. Its initiatives contain nothing new; mostly they are rehashes of policies it had in the 1990's.

The world has changed, but the National party has not. The major international energy watchdogs have accepted that Peak Oil is a reality. The International Energy Agency in its World Energy Outlook 2008, and the U.S. Energy Information Agency in its International Energy Outlook 2009 has radically revised its forward price forecasts for oil. But the National Party has released a Government Policy Statement on transport funding that sinks $1 billion of new spending into highways, while slashing funding for public transport.

The world is waking up to the realisation that humanity must radically reduce its greenhouse gas emissions or suffer consequences that are almost unimaginable in scope and severity. The National government is fudging the issue; it has no strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It thinks the necessary reduction is "too expensive"; an attitude that our trading partners will almost certainly punish, and their great-grandchildren will regret.

So what can it do to deflect attention and criticism from these failings? Evidently it has set about creating a "chilling effect" on public discourse.

We must not be cowed by these tactics. The worst thing any of us can do is acquiesce, allowing a Spiral of Silence to develop. New Zealand is a democracy in which every citizen has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and expression.

Nobody should take that right away from us, nor attempt to suppress our will and ability to use it freely - least of all the Prime Minister of New Zealand.

Getting real, and getting on with it.

2008-11-06T15:54:00.004+13:00

For me, this election is about facing up to reality and dealing with it.

I was reminded by hearing professor Ralph Chapman from Victoria University, speaking National Radio last Sunday. We (the human species) need to cut greenhouse gas emissions by over 90%, by 2050, if we want to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. That's a huge challenge.

We also know the world will run out of non-renewable resources eventually. The process will take time, and the effects may be unpredictable. The global recession we are now entering is a symptom of the recent surge in oil prices. The recession has now reduced demand for oil, so the price of oil has now dropped. We face a few years, or perhaps decades, of oil price volatility and the corresponding effects on global production and demand. This will not be an easy ride for anybody.

The transition to a post-oil and low-carbon economy will be far more difficult than it needs to be, if we refuse to face up to reality and if we refuse to deal with it.

But I think we need to do more than simply treat this as a problem that has to be solved. We need to have a positive vision for the future and actively strive to create it.

The Green Party has a vision for the future based on the core values of peace, social justice, democracy, and ecological harmony - these are the four principles of our Charter.

I hope you are willing to face up to the challenges of the 21st century with a hopeful and positive vision of the future, and that you will Party Vote Green on Saturday November the 8th.

Climate Change and the Precautionary Principle

2008-10-25T17:59:00.003+13:00

Many people believe the "jury is still out" on climate change.

I disagree. However I don't disrespect this viewpoint because caution, healthy scepticism and critical thinking are all essential to the conduct of sound scientific research.

However it is worth considering how scientific evidence should be used in making public policy decisions, and this is where the "precautionary principle" becomes important.

The Precautionary Principle has a number of formulations, but they all share two elements:

A decision is required, which involves weighing the long-term consequences of action (or inaction) against the short-term costs of inaction (or action); and
Facts may be obscure, but the risks are such that the onus should lie on disproving the need for action (or inaction), rather than on the need for proving it.

A good example of the precautionary principle in action was the recent foot and mouth disease hoax on Waiheke Island. The New Zealand authorities activated their disease management response systems immediately - they did not wait until scientific evidence had been gathered, and neither should they have. Only after the threat had been disproved did they stand down the response team.

Public policy decisions often have to be made when the facts are uncertain or incomplete, but a decision must be taken anyway. In these circumstances, decision-makers then need to act on the basis of principles, rather than facts.

The evidence that climate change is happening, and that it is caused by human economic activity (particulary the use of coal, gas and oil), and that it will have extremely disruptive long-term effects, is now so strong that the precautionary principle must be applied.

A Complacent Duocracy

2008-09-27T13:09:00.005+12:00

"Prime Minister Helen Clark and National Party leader John Key have refused to share the stage with other party leaders in an election campaign TV debate." (reported in the NZ Herald, 27 September 2008).

Both TVNZ and TV3 should go ahead with all-party leaders debates - and if these two turkeys choose not to turn up then so be it. They will be exposed for their disdain for democratic politics and, I expect, rightly punished by the electorate for it.

New Zealanders are looking for a change at this election, and nothing could more clearly demonstrate the change we need: a change away from the complacent and comfortable political duopoly of the two "major" parties.

In politics, as in business, the existence of a duopoly breeds a sense of entitlement, complacency and laziness. A general election is not about deciding which will take the next turn. National Party has done little for the last nine years but wait for its turn to come around again, and it is cruising toward a win by default.

The same complacency and laziness can be seen in New Zealand's television duopoly. The dominance of TVNZ and TV3 has created a public sphere characterised by superficial reporting, trivial analysis and the cult of personality. It's easy money and doesn't require much effort.

Because of this there is frighteningly little public understanding of the issues will challenge New Zealand in the 21st century: climate change and peak oil. There is also an absence meaningful debate about the policies needed to secure New Zealand's future success.

The New Zealand public has been turned off politics because the media offers so little food for thought. The 2008 election result is likely to be based on a mood of discontent, much like the feeling of someone who has consumed too much fast food: bloated, but still unsatisfied.

This simply is not good enough: New Zealand is a democracy, not a duocracy. It is the citizens of New Zealand who have the right to decide who will govern them; not the two dominant political parties, nor the two dominant television channels.

In the 2008 election, more than at any time, New Zealand needs the media to prove the worth of the Fourth Estate; to rise above self-interest and stand up for democracy and the rights of citizens. Because the leaders of the two major parties apparently won't.