Jeanette Fitzsimons

Am sad to hear about the sudden death of Jeanette Fitzsimons. I really respected her fierce but quiet intelligence. When sitting though televised leaders debates during election campaigns, for me, Jeanette was regularly the only voice of sanity and reason. When Jeanette spoke you usually learnt something, but that rarely came accross as the intention.

I have been recently thinking and reading up on the role of intellectuals in New Zealand culture, and the anti-intellectual attitudes they often face. Jeanette is an interesting example of a public intellectual in New Zealand. In some ways her humble, quiet manner allowed her to be intellectual when others would have been shot down over the same issue.

Its also interesting many of the tributes make reference to her work on the farm and using a chainsaw just the previous day - sure that was part of who she was - but the fact this has been highlighted probably also tells us something about how New Zealand continues to value the practical and directly empirical other the intellectual and theoretical.

For a few of us at least, the muddy gumboots are an irrelevance to her thoughtfulness, quiet wisdom and insight.

Could you table a punched card in parliament?

During Question Time in Parliament today, Green MP Sue Kedgley asked how the Government could possibly reduce alcohol related harm while it continues to allow the liquor industry to spend $73 million a year promoting alcohol. To support her question Kedgley sought to table a CD containing recent television advertisements for liquor.

The Speaker, Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith, promptly refused permission to table the CD, and became quite ratty with MPs who were having trouble understanding his ruling. He later clarified that he was using a very narrow definition of 'document', that being that a document is a piece of paper (Hat tip NRT)

"Mr SPEAKER: The Standing Orders provide for the tabling of documents, not for the tabling of CDs. If members want CDs tabled, they will need to change the Standing Orders."

When documents are tabled in the house, copies of each are put in every wooden in-tray in the parliamentary complex, unless you ask the messengers not to.

Last night on TV1 there was a documentary about the cruel people who keep big cats as pets, and the sad tales of owners killed and maimed when their big puddy cats suddenly revert to being wild animals, and surprise surprise, attack them. No doubt there would be some people who would like the idea that a lion could be tabled in parliament, with a live copy of the lion then appearing in every office in-tray. So it is is probably fair that documents to be tabled in parliament should be restricted to things that can be easily reproduced (hmm so can lions, but it takes a while).

But in the digital age there is no reason why 'documents' should be restricted to paper. A CD can be easily reproduced. It also should be relevant that a definition of 'document' that includes digital formats is already part of the law. Take the definition of document in the Official Information Act for example.

"document means a document in any form; and includes—
(a) any writing on any material:
(b) any information recorded or stored by means of any tape-recorder, computer, or other device; and any material subsequently derived from information so recorded or stored:
(c) any label, marking, or other writing that identifies or describes any thing of which it forms part, or to which it is attached by any means:
(d) any book, map, plan, graph, or drawing:
(e) any photograph, film, negative, tape, or other device in which 1 or more visual images are embodied so as to be capable (with or without the aid of some other equipment) of being reproduced"

That got me thinking about how the speakers ruling today could be further tested. If one printed out one of the ads on the CD as a printout of binary code, would the Speaker have to accept it on the basis the document happened to be on paper? Ok, maybe it would be better to use hexadecimal to save trees.

Then I thought of a better test. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, before floppy discs or CDs were invented, computers relied on punched cards to input information. These were pieces of stiff paper that represented digital information by the presence or absence of holes in the paper at predefined positions.



This would be a good test of the Speaker's ruling as it is a document made of paper, but happens to represent information digitally.

If the Speaker said no to punched cards, I would then try a document written in braille, which essentially is a similar concept to a punched card. Now if the speaker refuses a document printed in braille, this could make it difficult for a blind person to be a member of parliament.

Am I attempting to trifle with the speaker? Yes, of course :)

Lockwood Smith is normally a good speaker, and deserves some credit for improving the quality of questions and answers at during Question Time. That said, the times I have listened to Parliament this week Lockwood has appeared grumpier than usual. I don't think Lockwood's ruling that a document must be on paper does his office any credit, and I think that is unfortunate. I hope the Speaker 'reflects' on his ruling once again.

Peter Dunne can't even get his unpleasant political facts straight

Tumeke tears Peter Dunne to shreds in an amusing post fisking Dunny's mean spirited attack on Jeanette Fitzsimons and his delusions that United Future have been a more effective party than the Greens.

Peter Dunne: First, no member of the Greens has ever held office as a Minister in a government. That sets them apart from every other small party that has emerged under MMP. The Alliance, ACT, New Zealand First, the Maori Party and UnitedFuture have all had Ministers in government, able to push through key aspects of their respective parties’ policies. In contrast, Jeanette’s self-confessed Parliamentary career highlight was chairing the Local Government Select Committee. The usual hallmark of political success is being part of a government, and on that basis the Greens have been our most unsuccessful small party under MMP.

Tumeke: "And why have they not been in government? Because Peter Dunne in particular has kept them out by refusing to sit alongside them if they were ministers. He preferred being a minister with Winston Peters, even when his shameless deceptions and rorts were on full display in the final year of the last Labour government."

Check out the NZ Herald from 2005 - where he reiterated his demand that the Greens not be part of any formal coalition. The same article recalls Dunne's bizarre attack on the media on election night.

It is a shame Labour went along with Dunny and Winston Peters unjustified demands to exclude the Greens from Government. In 2002 Labour could have formed a Government with the Greens, but the Labour party leadership chose to go with United Future instead. In 2005 two Green MPs were appointed as Government spokespeople for Energy Efficiency and the Buy Kiwi Made Campaign. Was there much effective difference between these 'spokespeople' positions and the minor ministerial portfolio outside cabinet held by Dunne? In effect, not a lot. Being a minister was more of vanity project for Peter in any case.

Given his previous statements about the Greens, Dunne wondered aloud whether to attend Green co-leader Rod Donald's funeral in 2005. He ended up going, and ignored repeated requests from Dean Peter Beck to turn his cellphone off. His cellphone rang during the service.

Dunne's majority in his electorate has been disappearing for the past four elections, so hopefully in 2011 we will see the end of another of Roger Douglas' friends from the Forth Labour Government.

Kia kaha Sue, we will miss you

On Friday Green MP Sue Bradford announced her retirement from Parliament. While she expressed a little regret she that she would not have the opportunity to change things for the better as Minister of Social Development or Minister of Housing, I hope Sue leaves Parliament with her head held high.

Some ministers manage to go through their entire ministerial career without even passing one significant bill. Some even manage to pass no laws at all. Yet Bradford as a backbench MP, introduced three private members bills in one parliamentary term, and succeeded in having all three passed into law. Bradford proved you didn't have to be a minister to get things done.

A significantly greater number of 16 and 17 year old workers will now be paid adult rates for an adult job, following Sue's bill that sought to remove youth rates. The bill as passed got very close to achieving its goal, despite significant opposition from senior Labour party ministers. Again, thanks to Sue, mothers in prison will now be able to keep their babies with them for up to 2 years.

Her most controversial and significant achievement is the Child Discipline Act which removed the defence of 'reasonable force'. Child abusers were using this defence in court as an excuse for excessive violence towards their kids. In the future I suspect many will look back at this debate in bewilderment and wonder how on earth a small number of small minded (so called christian) conservatives were so successful in hijacking the debate over the 'anti-smacking' bill. Bradford's opponents were never challenged on their wider agenda - promoting a narrow view of family values where the wider community has no say in the education and development of the value systems of children (this aids indoctrination).

In an interview with Katherine Ryan on Nine to Noon on Friday, I thought Sue identified a key insight about this debate. Radio NZ only keep interviews on their website for a week, so I retyped Sue's words as I thought they deserved more than being wiped off the internet after only a week. When asked how being on the front line of the debate over Section 59 bill had affected her Bradford said:

"I have no regrets, I am really honoured that I was able to play the role in this very deep controversy."

"It has hurt me and saddened me. I think what has affected me most, when I think back on again quite recently, is the violent minds and natures of some of the people who are so keen to retain the legal right to assault their kids as part of bringing them up, that that kind of psychological violence is then directed at people like me who are the champion of the other side."

Bradford confirmed she had received death threats and "really nasty emails". She also expressed some dismay that:

"(In) our country, so many people are so fundamentally violent in the way they see the world; and the way this reflects on how they view their children as property. Anything I've done to be able to help to begin to shift that culture seeing our children as property, seeing our children as worth less than us adults to see our children as less than human in some way that we should be able to legally hit whack them etc as part of bringing them up. I just hope we continue to change that culture."

It is an irony that in the same day Bradford spoke these words, the right wing of the blogosphere went out of their way to demonstrate their accuracy. Just take one look at Whale Oil or the comments on Kiwiblog to see violent minds at work. That said, its good to see both Farrar and Whale Oil have spoken out against the death threats.

While Bradford was talking about the controversy over the Child Discipline Bill, I could not help but think her words are also relevant to the issue of Palestine. In defending the right of the Israeli state to make indiscriminate and disproportionate war on Palestinian civilians, there are indeed some who appear to direct psychological violence against those who dare to question the motives behind Israel's actions, and highlight the daily injustice metered out to the Palestinian population. Responding with an accusation of 'anti-Semitism' in this context is nothing more than the actions of a psychological bully who in practice is cheapening the cause of genuine cases of anti-Semitism in this world.

PS: I would have posted this in the weekend but for losing the first version of this post thanks to a computer crash, arrghh!

Silence from Labour on ministerial housing is a mistake

It is most unfortunate the Labour opposition have made the decision to join National's conspiracy of silence over the out-of-town housing allowances issue. Even if Labour had some dirty laundry themselves, it is more important to speak out and differentiate themselves clearly from National, who being in Government would normally take most of the rap.

Instead, Labour look like they are out of touch. When they have reluctantly commented on the issue they have appeared nervous and indecisive.

If Phil Goff was a better opposition leader he would have gained the initiative by immediately demanding an inquiry into the issue, freely admitting there may have been some Labour 'mistakes'. At the same time he could have barraged Key with suggestions on how to do things better. Good use of parliamentary questions and Trevor Mallard may have uncovered information that put ministers under more pressure.

Instead Goff let John Key gain some of the initiative with his soft as Teflon 'review'. Through their actions the right encourage cynicism toward politicians - it just so happens a electorate with less expectations of politicians usually suits their agenda. So in their silence, have Labour helped the right undermine faith in democracy?

Unfortunately, a 'plague on both your houses' has been a common theme this week - in more ways than one.

As for the Greens, IMHO they had nothing to worry about regarding the Green Futures Superannuation Scheme - the fact they have been more open about their arrangements for years should provide enough political cover.

There are reasonable and necessary expenses for being an out-of-Wellington MP. Its only the profit seeking rorts that need to stop.

I was working in Parliament in 2001 when National and Act's campaign against Hobbs and Bunkle was in full swing. It went far beyond just raising issues - it was the right of New Zealand politics at their most nasty, personal and vindictive. I remember thinking at the time there soon must come a point where the public would start feeling sorry for Hobbs and Bunkle - it really was that bad.

Richard Prebble was particularly obnoxious - it might be a small mercy, but the end of his second political career can be traced to his involvement in the Hobbs and Bunkle bashing. Speculation about his replacement as Act leader started soon after the 2002 election.

The memories of that National and Act campaign were a key motivation behind my posts this week.

Not that I am suggesting Labour and the Greens should now run a similar campaign - instead its more important to remind the public how nasty the Nats can be, as well as highlighting their obvious hypocrisy. How easy would it be right now to paint the Nats and Roger Douglas as greedy out of touch bullies? Unfortunately the opposition are failing to be an effective opposition right now.

Many of the National MPs who were frothing at the mouth in 2001 are now claiming, on questionable grounds, higher out-of-town allowances than Bunkle or Hobbs - it just beggars belief.

Musing on Mt Albert poll

A poll out tonight shows Labour's David Shearer will win the Mt Albert by-election easily.

The TV One poll had Shearer coasting at 59%. National's disaster of a candidate Melissa Lee could only manage 21% support. She is in real danger of being relegated to third place in the contest, with the Greens Russel Norman at her heels on 15%.

TV One also polled on the party vote in the electorate (even though there is no such thing in a by-election). Jordan Carter finds good news here too - compared to the 2008 election result Labour have gained 6% additional party vote support in the electorate- this essentially puts numbers on the damage Melissa Lee has done to John Key's government.

Now that we can safely assume Labour are going to win. Labour and the left could make this an even sweeter victory if Russel Norman beats Melissa Lee - in this case I really hope some Labour supporters consider voting tactically for the Green.

With a 38% margin - could David shout Russel 8% and then share a drink over a really bad night for the National Government?

Of course the Labour leadership will be pushing for the highest vote possible for Labour. Most of the time this will also be in the interests of party members - but not always. In 2005 many Labour party activists were understandably dismayed when the senior leadership of their party, given the choice, formed a government with Winston Peters and Peter Dunne and excluded the Greens.

Labour and the Greens winning both first and second place in this by-election is in the interests of both parties. Not only will Labour retain the seat, a credible showing by the Greens will help build momentum and credibility for an alternative Government in 2011. The next election may be a while away yet, but Labour would be wise to give the Greens a few lilly pads forward, at little cost to itself, in order that the overall position of the centre-left is strengthened.
-
PS: Haven't been posting recently as I have been in Aussie over the past two weeks. Hope to make a couple of roo related posts later in the week.

Report from Mt Albert Byelection: The Transport Forum

Just got back from a fiery Mt Albert Transport Forum, where the Mt Albert by election candidates faced over 100 people crammed into small lecture theatre at Unitech.

The meeting had a fantastic atmosphere - it was as good as the famous Aro Street election meetings in Wellington.

The fact that National announced their preferred option for Waterview only a few hours before the meeting gave it greater urgency and passion. To many locals, not only had politics arrived at the front door of their house, politics threatened to take their house completely.

National candidate Melissa Lee spoke first. Her opening words were a demand for water. She describes Waterview as 'a difficult issue' and said she felt for those in the 365 houses that would be lost due to the project. Really - is this the same woman who threatened many more houses with her 'above ground for me' proposal earlier this week. Attempted to make some noises about integrated ticketing and improving public transport. Lee also attempted some nasty dog whistle politics when she said a lot of burglaries were [the result of] people coming from South Auckland.

A comrade of mine, Lynda Boyd put it like this - "A meeting full of passionate Waterview residents who don't want to lose their houses and community, and a national candidate who needs to do her homework and learn a bit more about how to be respectful towards the general public". Similarly, on National Radio on Monday Laila Harre thought Lee's appearance on Q&A on Sunday demonstrated a "rather shrill and almost slightly nasty streak in terms of her communication towards David Shearer and people don't like that sort of stuff and won't respond well to it".

Act candidate John Boscawen spoke next. Act handed out their own a leaflet with an alternative route for Waterview. This only sought to confuse many locals who were worried this was the official plan. Yet on their map Act mislabeled Unitech as AUT University. The whole room roared with laughter when this was pointed out.

To be fair to John, his best moment came when he questioned a commitment to integrated ticketing just given by Lee. He pointed out National opposed a transport amendment bill to enable integrated ticketing in the last parliament, while Act supported it. Good point John.

Labour candidate David Shearer spoke about how Mt Albert needs an MP that will stand up for communities. He also said this community was about to be destroyed. He still backed the completion of the motorway, but only the tunnel option that was previously proposed by Labour. In his most memorable line, David Shearer said "If this motorway was being built for Paritai Drive or Remuera, we wouldn't be having this meeting"

Work is not expected to get underway until 2011, which also happens to be an election year. Shearer promised Labour would revisit the project if they became the government.

Green party co-leader Russell Norman started with a few slogans about the debate being between a green future and a grey past. Thankfully he soon dispensed with the slogans and used his sound knowledge of transport issues to directly address residents questions in a way that wasn't matched by the other candidates. He cited NZTA figures to show the Waterview motorway will be congested on the day it opens in 2015.

He talked about the Michael Joseph Savage memorial on Bastion Point and what that meant to people, and compared this with the Skytower - a syringe that is 'acts as a memorial to the Rogernomes'. It struck a nerve - a young woman with an Act party rosette responded with a single finger salute.

Norman made a strong case for prioritising public transport. For the same money that was going to be ploughed into Waterview, Auckland could have both the Avondale to Southdown rail link, and a rail line to the airport. He said he was not against the tunnel in the future, however he wanted the public transport investment to happen first. In 10 years time he suspected the Waterview connection would not be needed, particularly given the expected rise in the cost of oil.

Libertarianz candidate Julian Pistorius was predictable - let the market decide everything. He believed it was not up to the government to decide where to build roads. Property rights were sacrosanct - roads could only be built where people were willing to sell their properties. Its fair to say Pistorius was not taken particularly seriously by the audience - his manner was a bit arrogant at times, such in the way he claimed the other candidates 'don't know what they are talking about'. Perhaps Pistorius' only function was to make the Act members uncomfortable at the enthusiasm of their candidate for running roadshot over the 'property rights' of residents losing their homes. A few Act members left early.

Act candidate John Boscawen said the Waterview project should have been completed 15 years ago. Norman said the only reason there is not a surface motorway through this community is because this community had risen up to stop it. He promised to help the community fight the proposed motorway, saying we need money, experts and lawyers. He thought many lawyers would work pro-bono as the proposal was so stupid. He also saw a role for civil disobedience and protests outside the offices of Auckland National MPs.

At the conclusion of the debate, someone bought up the issue of Melissa Lee's alleged use of taxpayers money to enable a National party political video. There were loud chants of 'pay it back' from the Labour crowd at the back, a little piece of utu as 'pay it back' was the favourite of National party hacks following Labour's alleged overspending during the 2005 election. The added presence of Boscawen could well have made it sweeter.

The back of the room was a sea of large National and Labour party placards. No doubt they were there for the TV, but they did nothing to gain the votes of the locals who complained they could not see past.

Most that I spoke to afterward thought Norman won the debate. I should point out none of these people were Green party members. As for the audience, Norman gained by far the most applause for both his opening and closing statement.

Perhaps Shearer was second - another friend of mine accurately described his performance as Green-lite. I have tried to be fair to the candidates here - but Melissa Lee is clearly not the candidate the National party hoped she would be.

Update: Radio NZ is reporting Lee said people drove to the electorate from South Auckland, and that the new motorway extension could divert some of that traffic and criminals from Mt Albert. This and Not PC's comments confirm Lee made similar comments more than once - I wrote down her comment about burglaries at the time. On Newstalk ZB this morning she claimed 'I didn't actually say South Auckland' - oh yes you did - and the Radio NZ audio proves it. Given she said it more than once it will not be credible for National party spinmisters to claim it was a one off gaff. Later on Radio NZ she apologised to South Auckland people who were offended by her comments. Not PC seems to agree that Russell Norman won the debate and was the most well informed candidate - even if he disagrees with what Norman said.

Should the Greens weaken their policies to gain greater political support?

Pablo over at KiwiPolitico has an interesting post looking at whether the Greens should consider "a more nuanced and less ideologically rigid, but no less idealist in principle, approach to New Zealand’s foreign affairs". While I do not agree with his general thesis, I believe Pablo has identified some of the tension points that may arise if the Greens ever become part of a Government.

I posted the following as a comment over at Kiwi Politico.

The problem with the idea that the Greens should moderate their politics in order to become more of a mainstream party is that I can’t think of examples where such a strategy has been successful. I also don’t think it takes into account the impact of MMP and the need for parties to maintain a distinct political brand.

Reading your post I could not help but think of the fate of the German Greens, who watered down their foreign policy stance, particularly with Joschka Fischer serving as Foreign Minister. While their 2002 result was slightly higher than 1999, they also lost a lot of their core support. This hardly demonstrates that softening their policy stance will gain the NZ greens significantly greater political support.

A similar story could be told about efforts of Anderton and his cronies to weaken the policies of the Alliance between 1999 and 2002. Their strategy can now be judged, as it describes the policy direction of the Progressives - its ended up with Jim as a single MP.

I also fear you are following the business press when you equate opposition to open economies and current free trade agreements with ‘a generic opposition to trade’. Given the evidence of the many nasties contained in ‘free trade’ agreements, its reasonable to oppose this model while advocating for reform of multilateral institutions and considering trade within a wider economic strategy that considers economic development and the environment. Equating this with opposing trade full stop is a straw man argument aiming to shut down opposition to the free trade agenda. I should clarify that I do not wish to imply you are doing this personally - its more a comment on the free trade proponents who don’t even want to admit there might be negatives to a particular trade deal.

I also agree with what Rich had to say in the comments.

The Winniebox and the Serious Fraud Office

GWith the announcement by the Serious Fraud Office of an investigation into donations made to his NZ First party the position of Winston Peters as Foreign Affairs minister is fast becoming untenable.

The smartest thing for Peters to do now would be to stand down. He could use the opportunity to claim he is doing it for all sorts of important sounding reasons other than saving his own skin, such as maintaining confidence in the government, a sacrifice for the good of the nation. Peters gets an opportunity to grandstand, an opportunity to clearly state his belief in his own innocence, and his expectation of coming back as a minister as soon as this nonsense is cleared up.

Peters would also be free of any sort of collective cabinet responsibility for the election campaign, which being Winston could bring some advantages.

Sadly, it appears that Winston Peters is simply too arrogant to take the most pragmatic political course of action.

But if Peter's won't go, Helen Clark must suspend him. She has suspended her own ministers for less, in fact David Parker stood down over a whole lot less. If Peters remains a minister while the SFO investigate, it will be difficult to avoid the perception that ministerial standards have dropped to levels not seen since the end of the Shipley administration. That perception has the potential to cause problems not only with the public, but inside the Labour caucus, as any MPs disciplined by Clark will wonder why Peters is being treated so leniently. Many may start to question Clark's judgement, and perhaps even Clark herself.

This Labour-led government is not in free fall - yet. I still rate their chances of remaining on the Treasury benches around 50/50. Despite the National party leading in the polls, they can not lead the Government unless their vote plus their allies adds up to 50% - and that has been a struggle for National all year.

In the case that Peters remains a minister and Labour lose the election, perhaps some people will cast their mind back to the post election negotiations in 2005 when Labour cast off the Greens in favour of NZ First and United Future. In doing so, did Clark write her own political death warrant three years later?

The more hopeful scenario is that Labour scrape home in 2008, and the numbers force the Labour leadership to form a government with the Greens as the primary support partner. In the same way that some people credited the Alliance with rejuvenating the Labour party in 1999, perhaps the Greens can do the same thing for Labour in 2008. One hopes Labour and their supporters can be grateful.

Go Go Go Child Povery Action Group, Boo Labour

There was some good news on the box tonight. The Human Rights Review Tribunal has begun to hear the case bought against the Government by the Child Poverty Action Group that the Working for Families programme discriminates against the children of beneficiaries.

The case centres around the the In-Work tax credit, worth around $60 a week. The Labour-led Government excluded beneficiaries from being eligible for this payment. CPAG say this is illegal discrimination because it is Government assistance given only to a select group. 220,000 children from beneficiary families currently miss out.

The Working for Families policy assumes that parents use the money to help with the costs of raising families. How can it be fair that children of beneficiaries are denied $60 a week on the basis of the source of their parents income? Are the Labour party seeking to encourage a new pester power, as in Mummy why don't you get a job? How can it be fair that families lose the $60 a week when a parent has the misfortune to be made redundant?

Prime Minister Helen Clark attempts to defend Labour's policy by claiming Working for Families has lifted 130 thousand families out of poverty. Even though Working for Families has improved the lives of many families, New Zealand's child poverty figures would suggest Clark's claim is somewhat of an exaggeration. Particularly when the Working for Families policy deliberately excluded the very poorest - beneficiary families. Clark also claims "[s]ince the in-work payment came in for the first time we've got the numbers on domestic purposes benefit going down, thats a great thing because it means we have more children seeing their parents going to work everyday to earn a living." Now Helen, can you please tell me how this is the fault of the children?

This and other comments made at the time by of the introduction of Working for Families make it clear that a key policy objective of Working for Families was to increase the difference between the incomes of those on a benefit and those in (low) paid work. The same policy principle underlay Ruth Richardson's 'Mother of All Budgets' in 1991, where Ruth Richardson slashed benefits. Despite making many complaints about these cuts in opposition, Labour have never made any real effort to restore benefit levels in 9 years of Government. Labour ensured beneficiaries did not get any benefit from the tax cuts announced in the Budget, which will only make the situation worse.

The Government's own Ministry of Social Development now say beneficiaries are now worse off now than they were under National in the 1990s. With such a record Labour do not deserve the support of beneficiaries, but neither do National as they have said they are happy with benefit levels as they are now. In contrast, the Greens have given consistent support to beneficiaries in Parliament, despite a great many beneficiaries continuing to support Labour out of habit.

In her recent speech on the 2008 Budget Green MP Sue Bradford said
"..,Dr Cullen certainly has a different understanding of labour history in this country than I do. I had thought that the first Labour Government under Michael Joseph Savage swept to power in 1935 as a result of the mass unemployment and poverty suffered through six years of the Great Depression. It was unemployed workers together with their comrades still in work who helped create and drive the great things Labour did in those early days, including taking the first steps towards getting a decent welfare system into place, and I see this generation of Labour’s approach to beneficiaries as a real betrayal of that proud history."

By excluding beneficiaries, Working for Families becomes an effective subsidy to underpaying employers. While many on the right such as Labour and National promote the virtues of a free market economy, they want to ensure the right of employers to offer underpaid jobs as a forced sale. If workers want higher wages, they should support CPAG's case against the Government, as giving low paid workers the choice to tell underpaying employers to go to hell is one way to ensure wages in New Zealand are lifted for all.

PS: It is an irony that my very first post on this blog, now four years and a few days ago, I criticised Labour for making cynical use of the Bill of Rights Act to justify a cut in student allowances, at the same time they were defending the continued discrimination of parental income tests on the basis of age on the grounds it would cost them too much money to do otherwise.

Labour vote with National to pass Terrorism Suppression Bill

Today sees the Committee stages of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill.

This amendment bill has an uncanny resemblance to the first reading of the Terrorism Suppression Act* as introduced by Phil Goff in May 2001.

In response to public concerns the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee put some safeguards on the use of the legislation. This included putting in place a High Court review of terrorist designations every three years. It also put in an additional clause to the terrorist financing provisions, ensuring that it was not a crime to collect funds "for the purpose of advocating democratic government or the protection of human rights".

I understand Green MP Keith Locke and Alliance MP Matt Robson played a key role in advocating for these changes.

These and other safeguards are being removed under the new amendment bill. When the government puts up legislation to remove provisions that were put in place following public submissions, its a pretty clear signal they have little interest in hearing what the public have to say about the issue.

While Parliament does have the right to amend legislation, its significant that it was a Labour dominated government who passed the original legislation. Could it be a coincidence that in 2002 Labour were in a government dependent on the Alliance and the Greens for their majority. They now are paired up with NZ First and United Future.

Now Labour are joining with their right wing mates and the National party to pass the Terrorism Suppression Bill in a form remarkably similar to as originally proposed by Phil Goff in 2001.

Keith Locke has suggested some progressive amendments in a supplementary order paper, but Labour are likely to vote these all down (hat tip NoRightTurn).

For those who wish to maintain a government with a progressive agenda, this is a good example of why Labour are only fair weather friends. Reliable progress towards a progressive agenda is more likely to happen by supporting minor parties to Labour's left - not Labour itself. And as an added bonus, Labour might be a little less arrogant.

* At the time the bill was known as the Terrorism (Bombings and Financing Bill)

Podger pays model to encourage healthy food in schools

Sometimes I think the Green party seriously overestimate the electoral value of Sue Kedgely. Particularly when she is banning chips.

To be frank I have always found Kedgley's approach to issues rather shallow. This issue is no exception.

And why on earth is the Labour party, behind in the polls, going along with this nonsense of banning so called 'unhealthy' foods from schools? Perhaps Labour don't mind this particular 'Green' policy as it does not challenge their carbon filed neoliberal economic model. Perhaps Labour are giving the Greens some credit for this because they suspect the move will be unpopular. Yes, they really are that mean to the Greens.

Sure, kids like chips. But I can think of another good reason why kids tend to buy unhealthy food - a lot of it is mass produced, thus making it cheaper.

A Red approach to this issue would look at why so many families cannot afford to give their children regular healthy meals. Why do so many children go to school hungry? Provide free school meals, fill the bellies, and the kids will have less need for the tuck shop. I would also get rid of the Coke/Pepsi vending machines, particularly where the multinationals give schools backhanders for erecting these Tardis shaped advertising vehicles.

I would of thought a more Green approach to this issue would be to adopt the 'podger pays' principle. Inflate the prices of the 'unhealthy' food, and use the surplus to subsidise the sandwiches.

Of course the kids will jump to fence to visit the chipper down the road - but the Kedgley inspired food bans make this a certainty. But at least under the podger pays model, the podgers are unlikely to want the exercise, and thus are more likely to participate in the tuck shop carcinogen trading system.

Russel Norman new Green co-leader

Russel Norman has been elected as the new Green party co-leader.

Green party co-leadership on Agenda

Yesterday morning I watched the Agenda special on the Green party co-leadership election.

Agenda presenter Lisa Owen clearly had not hosted many panel debates before - she looked nervous and unsure of herself at times. The clearest example of this was right at the end, when she called for final closing statements from all the candidates, and then only gave Mike Ward a go before she ended the programme!

The candidates Nandor Tanczos, Russel Norman, Dave Clendon and Mike Ward faced questions from the presenter, an audience of Green party members and phone-in questions from members of the public.

Perhaps the format was wrong, but all four candidates seemed to emphaise what they had in common, rather than the qualities and inclinations they would bring as co-leader. So many of the candidates answers came across as simple platitudes or restatements of Green party policy.

The phone-in callers appeared to be a bunch of single issue nutters, unlikely ever to support the Greens, who seemed to use the program's to land some cheap political points against the party. First we heard from Mike the Climate Change denier, and then another guy who attempted to make tenuous link between getting compensation for Agent Orange/Nuclear Test Veterans and a free trade agreement with the US. I though Nandor answered the latter question well, sympathising with the plight of the veterans and making a comparison of their plight with sawmill workers suffering 'hugely' from dioxin poisoning. Instead of the phone in circus, it would have been better to have questions from a panel of sympathetic commentators, like Chris Trotter and Keith Rankin.

Given that I have heard Russel Norman would like to place more of an emphasis on social justice I was a little disappointed he did not differentiate himself a great deal on this point, other than give a ringing endorsement of the work of Sue Bradford. Generally lefties want to hear more than just simple statements that social justice and ecological wisdom are innately 'connected' - they want proof. Despite the tax free band present Green party tax policy - tax shifting (which Norman endorses) - would still have a regressive effect unless tax rates were made way more progressive. It would be good to see Russel to follow Sue's lead and promote a Universal Basic Income alongside a more progressive tax policy to pay for it. If Norman wants to gain more support from the left it will not be enough for the policy to stand still.

This was the first I had seen of Dave Clendon, and he seemed to go ok. My spies tell me Dave has more 'centrist' inclinations, so I was pleased to see him rule out a coalition with National under his leadership. Perhaps Dave is the candidate for conservatively minded Greens who have concerns about Nandor's 'image'?

Mike Ward was awful. He seemed to have more to say than anyone else, but at times he came across as hectoring and dominated too many of the questions. How he managed to get into the top 10 of the Green Party List in 2002 I do not know. I heard a reliable rumour he was demoted below Catherine Delahunty - a non MP- in the first draft of the Greens 2005 list - and he should have stayed there. I have noticed that some MPs after they leave Parliament never get over the loss of status - lets face it they get three years of being treated like a VIP. I even came up with a name for this affliction. Mike Ward standing for the co-leadership appears to me to be a bad case of 'MP-a-lit-us'.

If I was forced to name a 'winner' of the debate I would call it for Nandor. He answered questions with an easy and relaxed manner and got some good points in. But so he should, given that he has had many more opportunities to be in front of the cameras than the other candidates. That said, I would expect some media training would be on the cards for whoever won the co-leadership.

This is not to say I endorse Nandor's strategy of moving the Greens towards the centre, and dissociating the Greens away from being a 'left-wing' party. Greens who say such things appear to be wanting to separate the ecological and the economic, at the same time they say they are 'interconnected'. They can't have it both ways. In my experience many of these types do think of social justice considerations, but think of them in a secondary fashion. If the Greens are to be 'less left wing' this means some of their policies will be closer to those of National or Labour - they risk the big parties only allowing the Greens to be a mere environmental clip on.

If the Greens avoid identifying free market capitalism as the key driver in environmental destruction (which it is), the level of analysis becomes shallow indeed. As a friend of mine put it "a good left critical analysis of our public health system is more than simply an inquiry into obesity and banning McDonald's happy meals."

I do find it a bit of an irony that Nandor appears to be targeting some of the conservative 'middle class' who are unlikely to support him on account of the dreds and the dope. I personally do not have a problem with either, but I suspect the petty middle class constituency who do not like to think of themselves as 'left wing' do. Lets face it, we are talking about image in both cases.

I noticed Nandor had his hair tied up for the Agenda debate!

While some on the left are predicting Russel Norman will win the co-leadership, I am not so sure. As the postal vote will be conducted under an STV system, it is likely Nandor will pick up more of the second and third preferences of those who cast their first vote for Ward or Clendon.

Roger Report goes on the parliamentary record

I am currently mildly chuffed to discover that Sue Bradford put the Roger Award on the Parliamentary record on Wednesday night, in the debate on the Westpac Bank Bill.

In the prestigious Roger Awards for the worst transnational operating in New Zealand, the 2006 award went jointly to Westpac and the Bank of New Zealand. The judges' report and supporting documents make sobering reading. [strictly speaking it was the 2005 award]

I wrote the Roger Report, one of the supporting documents :)

One of the key reasons for the 'win' of the BNZ and Westpac in 2005 was the appalling way the banks treated their own employees. Sue covers this ground well.

I was especially pleased to see that Sue picked up on my point about the highly partisan nature of the so called 'economic commentary' offered freely to the media by the banks.

"Finally NZ Westpac customers of all political persuasions have to put up with the highly partisan and ideological comments of Westpac Chief Economist, Brendon O'Donovan. For all intents and purposes Mr O'Donovan acts as the economic cheerleader for the National Party and is a constant critic of the economic policies of Labour, the Greens or any other of the Government support parties. There was blatant politicking from Mr O'Donovan prior to the last election. To give one example, Mr O'Donovan attacked Labour and Green's student loan policies pre the election, and was subsequently forced to admit that some of the estimates that he was using to cost the scheme were extreme. "

I do not necessarily have a problem with the banks having their views, but I do see a problem when they attempt to portray the comments made by their 'economists' as non-partisan and "independent of any other bank interest" when they so obviously are not. They, and the media reporting their comments need to be more transparent when it comes to disclosing the bank's conflicts of interest. In the 1980s it was more common for journalists to ask academic economists to comment on economic issues - now we only ever seem to hear the whining of the banks when Alan Bollard increases the official cash rate. The banks are whining because they will be "selling" fewer mortgages.

Today ANZ National pleaded guility to 45 charges for breaching the Fair Trading Act, for failing to disclose the existence of hidden fees charged when customers made overseas currency transactions on their credit cards. The BNZ and Westpac are also facing similar charges, so hopefully ANZ National will not be the only bank to be fined in the region of $1.125 million and forced to repay their customers over $10 million in refunds.

As far as I know, this is the first time something that I wrote has indirectly ended up in Hansard. Of course there was the odd speech I wrote while a Parliamentary Researcher for Alliance MPs, but that shouldn't really count in the same way.

Unfortunately when I went to check the Hansard Advances I found the days on line only go up to the 28th of March - a mere one day short. I want to find out if the Roger Report was tabled in the house! Will be checking tomorrow!

Usher of the Black Rod

On the day Rod Donald should have been sworn in for his fourth term as a MP, it is some irony that the Governor General has announced the retirement of an honourary officer of his household, Colonel William (Bill) Nathan.

His title? Usher of the Black Rod!

The position originates in the House of Lords of the British Parliament. In a Parliament where there is an upper house, the Usher of the Black Rod has a similar role in the upper house to that of the Serjeant-at-Arms in the lower house.

While we got rid of our upper house (The Legislative Council) in 1950, the Black Rod continues to summon MPs to the chamber for the 'Speech from the Throne'. The black rod was due for a whack this very week.

As part of the ritual, as Black Rod approaches the doors to the chamber of the House of Commons to make his summons, they are closed in his face. Black Rod then strikes three times with his staff, and in reply to the challenge "Who is there?" answers "Black Rod". He is then admitted and issues the summons of the monarch to attend. This ritual is derived from the attempt by Charles I of England to arrest five members in 1642, in what was seen as a breach of privilege, though strictly the King was entitled to enter the chamber. After that incident, the House of Commons has maintained its right to question the right of the monarch's representative to enter their chamber, though bar him from entering with lawful authority they cannot do.

I suspect Rod would have enjoyed this coincidence and thought it was pretty funny :)

I am sure Parliament will find a more appropriate way to recognise Rod Donald's contribution.

Categories: New Zealand, Politics, Parliament, Rod Donald,

Rod Donald

It was an absolute shock to hear of the death of Green party co-leader Rod Donald on the car radio this afternoon. It is the sort of news you just don't believe what you are hearing.

As someone who lost a close family member (my father) very suddenly a little under two years ago, my heart goes out to Rod's partner Nicola, their three daughters and my Green friends. It is such a surreal experience to lose somebody like this. Its a real emotional rollercoaster, but eventually the ride smoothes out and you are left with happy memories :) Aroha and *hugs*!

As the spokesperson for the electoral reform coalition in the early 1990s Rod played a key role in advocating for the change to the MMP electoral system. I also respected Rod's work on trade issues, as he provided a worthwhile perspective on the negative impact of so called 'free trade' deals. Rod bought a healthy dose of pragmatism to such debates - at times he seemed to be one of the few MPs to actually care about the trade deficit (Have current Labour MPs ever heard of a guy called Keynes?). On these issues, the loss of Rod Donald is a loss to the New Zealand Parliament.

I very much hope other MPs will take up the mantle and warn of the potential costs involved in any proposed free trade agreement - for democracy to work we need to hear both sides of the argument.

Question time is going to be bizarre

As ministers outside cabinet, Winston Peters as Minister of Foreign Affairs and Peter Dunne as Minister of Revenue will answer oral questions on behalf of the government.

Peters now expects to ask supplementary questions of other ministers, while serving as a minister himself. So we could have the bizarre sight of Peters defending the foreign affairs record of the government, only to be followed by Peters later asking a question to the Minister of the Environment attacking New Zealand's commitment to the Kyoto Protocol. I would imagine New Zealanders will end up being a touch confused, as will the ambassadorial staff of the various embassies when they are asked to summarise the position of the New Zealand government on issues of interest to their home governments.

Until I took another glance at the Parliamentary Standing Orders I had not thought it was possible for a minister to ask questions of other ministers. But the section entitled "Questions to Ministers and Members" does not seem to prohibit this, given that ministers are also members of parliament. I can imagine that Margaret Wilson, the likely candidate for Speaker, will have to make a fair few interesting rulings in the first few sitting days of the new parliament.

As Green MPs have been appointed as Government spokespeople on energy efficiency/solar panels and the Buy Kiwi Made campaigns will this mean they will also answer oral questions on behalf of the government? I assume standing order 370 would apply.

370: Questions may be put to a member (not being a Minister or the Speaker) relating to any bill, motion or public matter connected with the business of the House, of which the member has charge.

The first few days of Parliament are going to be interesting indeed!

A friendly warning to the Greens from a former Alliance parliamentary researcher

With the prospect of the Greens going into formal coalition with Labour after the election, Frogblog has been reassuring David Farrar the pressures of government will not lead to the Greens splitting like NZ First or the Alliance.

"“The point is: yes, there are differences in positions on particular policy areas, but there are processes available, which have been built up over the past three years, that allow our two parties to come to a compromise position and, if that's not possible, to respectfully agree to disagree and allow Labour to look elsewhere in the House for support."

The real issue here is not that such a mechanism exists in the cabinet manual, but how often it should be used.

On going into Government in 1999 most Alliance activists thought the agree to disagree clause meant that the Alliance would vote with the Labour party on any measure that moved towards Alliance policy, and vote against things that went against our policy.

While this might have been a touch idealistic, it is how most Alliance activists understood the 'agree to disagree' clause. When I look back, this issue was actually at the heart of most of the disagreements between the activists and the party leadership.

While the inclusion of the 'agree to disagree' clause in 1999 may have made it look like Labour appreciated the need for each party to maintain its own identity, in reality Labour comes from a first past the post culture where 'cabinet collective responsibility'’ is to be strictly maintained. In retrospect, this should not have been a surprise, as it was entirely in Labour'’s political interests to do so.

This can be seen from the wording of the 1999 Coalition Agreement.

"The coalition government will operate within the convention of collective cabinet responsibility, subject to the provisions of this agreement, and the expectation is that cabinet decisions will be taken by consensus."

"“There may be public differentiation between the parties in speech and vote which will not be regarded as being in breach of the convention. Such issues are expected to be infrequent and the parties recognise that dealing with them openly and responsibly is critical to the credibility of the coalition. Differentiation on such issues will not detract from the overall acceptance that the two parties are taking joint responsibility for the actions of the government."

Unfortunately, it appears the Green Co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons has also swallowed the line that party differentiation is to be "infrequent", a line I strongly suspect comes directly from a pre-election chit chat with Aunty Helen herself.

"Well the Cabinet Manual now has a clause that allows partners to agree to disagree and even to vote separately. I think that's got to be used with great caution and very sparingly, but I think it is a good safeguard for those rare cases where it's too important just to compromise."

Given my experience working in Parliament while the Alliance unravelled, Jeanette'’s words filled me with both alarm and sadness. Green activists need to ask their leadership how often they expect the 'agree to disagree provisions' to be used. I can't stress this enough. That said, Frogblog does provide some examples of how these provisions might apply to some obvious policy difference between Labour and the Greens.

Rod has made clear that Green MPs would argue against a free-trade deal in Cabinet and if they lost that argument, they would say so in public using the agree to disagree provision in the Cabinet manual. This would be neither anything new or particularly surprising. The Alliance did this over the Singapore free-trade deal, and Labour would easily be able to get support from across the other side of the House.

I think most observers of the 1999-2002 Government were surprised the Alliance did not officially differentiate more often than it did. Jim was the key problem here, but that is a post in itself. What I do think the Alliance proved was that differentiation could occur between coalition partners and this was not a threat to government stability or cohesion. In fact, when the Alliance did vote a different way to Labour it wasn't much of a big deal.

And that my friends, is the second part of the problem. Writing press releases for Alliance MPs in Government was an eternal balancing act. Generally what would happen is that I would draft something a bit too critical of Labour, and it would get toned down by the MPs! But when the differences between parties are put in a way that is too "“respectful"” (to use FrogBlog'’s word) often the media simply do not want to know.

While the need of the media for apparent "conflict" is most at fault here, I do think the Greens do deserve a "respectful" bollocking for a media strategy that I believe aimed to minimise the prominence of Labour's junior coalition partner. There seemed to be a consistent pattern - every time the Greens approved of something they would "congratulate the Labour-led Government" or simply the "Government" (though they do recognise Laila on PPL), whereas if it was something to be criticised often their press release would refer to the "Labour/Alliance Government". While I appreciate the Greens are entitled to act as a separate party, with their own interests, it would have been nice to see some greater understanding of the position of the Alliance in Government, even if it was soley inspired by 'there for the grace of God go I'. I'm sorry, but the press releases and speeches from the Greens continually stating that the Labour/Alliance government had signed up to the Singapore Free Trade Agreement, without any qualifications regarding the Alliance position, pissed me off. (some examples)

Now I am not blaming the Greens for what happened to the Alliance - only pointing out some of the difficulties we had attempting to preserve an independent message. Perhaps when some group claims the Labour/Green government is a sellout on GE they will understand...

I agree with Jeanette that it was not always clear to supporters of the Alliance when Alliance MPs had put up a fight on an issue in cabinet and lost. But Aunty Helen's ideas about collective responsibility put our MPs in a real bind. Jeanette goes on to say that she believes there is "“nothing in Cabinet solidarity or the Cabinet Manual that prevents you from going to the public when an issue's being debated and saying, look this is our view, we argued it all the way through in Cabinet, we didn't have the numbers, we lost."

But according to my reading of the cabinet manual, ministers in a coalition government are required to show "“careful judgment when referring to party policy that differs from government policy". It states that "“a Minister'’s support and responsibility for the collective government position must always be clear". There is only one single exception to this - the "“agree to disagree" clause in the cabinet manual.

3.23 Coalition governments may decide to establish "agree to disagree" processes, which may allow Ministers to maintain, in public, different party positions on particular issues or policies. Once the final outcome of any "agree to disagree" issue or policy has been determined (either at the Cabinet level or through some other agreed process), Ministers must implement the resulting decision or legislation, regardless of their position throughout the decision making process.
3.24 "Agree to disagree" processes may only be used in relation to different party positions. Any public dissociation from Cabinet decisions by individual Ministers outside the agreed processes is unacceptable.

Interestingly, the cabinet manual contains no assumption the "“agree to disagree"” processes ought to be used "“sparingly" or "“infrequently"”. I believe this indicates the way forward. If the Greens go into government I hope they push Labour on this issue, as this would represent a real gain for the progressive movement for the future, as well as increasing the Greens own chances of survival.

Helen may make a big thing of how rare it is for a Westminster Parliament to have an "agree to disagree"” clause, but this is really a red herring. The old conventions of a 'Westminster Parliament' ought to have been chucked out with First Past the Post. We should redesign our conventions using more relevant comparisons, such as European countries with long histories of stable coalition governments elected under proportional representation.

MMP may not survive if New Zealand'’s third attempt at a coalition government once again leads to the rapid and near fatal decline of the smaller coalition partner. This greatly worries me. If MMP does survive, coalition governments may become very rare indeed. New Zealand's cabinet processes need to be reviewed once again, to ensure they fit with the new parliamentary system. We did not vote for proportional representation in 1993 only to have a first past the post style government installed through outdated cabinet conventions.

I hope the Greens do take this as a friendly and well meant warning - I am happy to share my thoughts before the election after all :)

Blackball election meeting (West Coast Tasman)

On Thursday I spoke at my first candidate meeting. Best of all the meeting was at (Formerly) The Blackball Hilton on the West Coast, a proud historical home of the left. I drove over to Blackball for the meeting on Thursday, stayed at the Hilton overnight and had a good stroll around the town the next day.

Following a yummy dinner, kindly provided by Jane of the Hilton for the candidates, the debate got going just after 7.30pm. Each candidate got a 5 minute introduction followed by question time where each candidate got 1 minute to answer questions from the audience.

Apart from me, the line-up consisted of.

Richard Davies (Green): Bloody nice guy. Would pick him to be on the 'social justice' side of the Greens. Said he still had a lot of time for the Alliance and he admired our tax policy. He told me it was good to have someone to the left of him there as it made him look more moderate! (I took that in the kind way it was intended). I felt we were able to back each other up on a number of issues, often approaching the questions in different ways. If missed a point in an answer, or ran out of time I was often relieved to see Richard make up for it :)

Kevin Gill (Act): Despite only being 22 on the Act list Kevin has his own new looking Act bus with his name and photo all over it. In contrast, the Alliance candidate (me) arrived in a $750 car, borrowed from a mate. Kevin's initial 5 minute speech was a little unusual. Kind of reminiscent of your odd uncle telling jokes at a wedding. I thought got his points across better during question time. When I first arrived and introduced to the other candidates as the Alliance person, he made some quip about me only getting 1 minute to speak. I quickly quipped back that Kevin didn't need any dinner, as the 'market will provide!' :)

Damien O'Connor (Labour, sitting MP): An assured speaker, Damien delivered a very 'MP in Government' speech. Talked about what Labour had achieved with ERA and renationalising ACC, among other things. A local gave Damien a hard time about schools, as he felt Damien had done little to prevent the closure of many local schools (this was the big local issue).

Derek Blight (Christian Heritage): An interesting mix. I found Derek friendly and chatty and I was genuinely impressed with his enthusiasm for restorative justice and how it fitted into his work in Hokitika. I would normally associate CHP with the lock em up brigade, so meeting Derek was a welcome surprise. Of course he was a social conservative, stating CHP would repeal the Civil Unions Act and giving the obligatory 'abortion is murder' speech near the end.

Milton Osborne (United Future/ Outdoor) Seemed to be one of the Outdoor Recreation crew. Wanted to ban 1080 - prompting a question from the audience about what the UFO party would replace it with. Gave Peter's talk about UFO making MMP work and the need for one of the big parties to form a coalition with a smaller party. Don't remember him mentioning 'common sense' once!

Chris Auchinvole (National): At first sight Chris reminded me of English comic Harry Enfield and I had difficulty shaking off that image all night! His opening speech attempted to paint tax as the key issue in the election. A couple of people in the audience asked why rich people gained more from National's tax policy, gaining with those on the highest incomes getting $92 extra per week. Chris resisted from conceding this point, and argued that more people would gain tax relief under National than under Labour. I thought Chris would have done better to acknowledge rich people would gain more, as it was blindingly obvious, and this may have allowed him to make his point about 'more people gaining' in a more convincing way.

My opening was a bit of ramble following a few rough notes. I talked about despite the fact we were being told the economy was doing well, many people continued to miss out. Made a call for a minimum wage of $15, introduced our tax policy, and explained how 75% of people would pay less tax under the Alliance. Arriving with a large stack of Alliance tabloids, people seemed to enjoy my quip that the Alliance stood for free health, free education and a free newspaper! I also talked about what the Alliance had achieved in government, and made a strong call for public ownership and control of electricity, rail etc.

As I expected I was more comfortable at question time. Very happy to get a question on globalisation/free trade where I outlined the opposition of the Alliance to the current WTO/World Bank agenda as this has only led to the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer across the world. I think I surprised a few people by rattling off the most recent trade deficit figures, including the now massive $2 billion deficit with China, pointing out that despite the hype trade liberalisation was leading to an explosion of imports and this could have negative impacts on our economy.

My answer to the last question on school closures was very well received. I pointed out there was a bigger issue here, which went back to tomorrow schools which made administration of schools more businesslike, and that treasury was largely responsible for this agenda (hehe dig at treasury felt good). I said that some right wingers even celebrated the fact that businesses closed down when they talked about creative destruction. Labour were also making schools more businesslike by encouraging them to recruit foreign fee paying students, creating their own funding stream. I reminded people that every time they hear the words 'bulk funding', 'school choice' in this election, these were moves to make schools even more like businesses, and these policies would lead to more closures. I would have liked to flesh the argument a little more, but answers to questions were strictly limited one tiny minute.

Quite a few people told me I did well (including some of the other candidates).

Following the debate I got into some interesting discussions with a couple of people. A member of the Rail and Maritime Union questioned my contention that the Government should have bought back the entire railways instead of giving the operations to Toll until 2070. He actually confirmed my fear that track upgrades continue to be mostly of the band aid variety, like they have been for the past 15 years, instead of the major upgrades that are needed. I also talked with a woman about the management of schools and the possible implications of bulk funding. While I suspect we may have had different views, I felt we both appreciated each others strong interest in education issues. I suggested she check out the QPEC website.

Overall the debate was a lot of fun, made more enjoyable by the friendly nature of the other candidates and an audience dominated by lefties!