TVNZ make a mockumentary of their own decline

So, for a 50th Anniversary of television broadcasting in New Zealand, TVNZ did a mock celebrity game show with heavily forced product placement.

It would be nice to think this was a spoof, but sadly TVNZ could not have done a better demonstration of what is wrong with our publicly owned broadcaster if they tried.

The programme could have been so much more - they had a treasure trove of New Zealand cultural history at their fingertips. A means to show how TVNZ has not only been a camera lens, but involved in New Zealand life itself. Dig out clips of those old programmes no one has seen for years, even if people don't know what it is they can still laugh at the haircuts.

It was like TVNZ went to Te Papa only to read the trashy magazines in the waiting area. They really sold themselves short.

The answer to this disaster may be in the demographics. The only ratings that matter are the eyes attached to the 18 to 35 year olds - the olds don't really count. Hopefully the ratings are senstive enough to pick up the large number of TVs that went off before the first half hour was up - mine certainly did.

TVNZ did use a few clips from old shows and news broadcasts, but they were so short one could have blinked and missed them. Perhaps the advertisers were worried the public might remember what real public broadcasting looked like....

Well might I just scrape into the 18 to 35 age bracket, yet I remember TVNZ when it was a real public broadcaster.
---
To make matters worse, Tumeke reports the Minister of Broadcasting Johnathan Coleman ordered TVNZ to deliver a new channel exclusively on the Sky pay TV platform, thereby undermining investment in TVNZ's own Freeview platform. "It is hardly conceivable that a more tragic and self-destructive present could be opened on such an anniversary. To use the Head of Digital's own assessment it will mean a "slow suicide" of the TVNZ digital channels (whose charter funding is set to run out in a few years). Great news for the SKY shareholders and another concocted reason to sell off the state broadcaster, so we can see why the National government did it."

Against the Current also suggests John Key's government is readying TVNZ for sale.

Big Business wants First Past the Post to Privatise

Last Saturday the NZ Herald published a column by deputy editor Fran O'Sullivan which revealed that Cabinet was to begin discussions on a public referendum on Mixed Member Proportional(MMP) this week. O'Sullivan makes it clear she supports First Past the Post as an electoral system, if in a runoff against MMP.

O'Sullivan also stated a referendum on MMP is "clearly unfinished business for many Kiwis". Its interesting she used Roger Douglas' turn of phase here, as when she mentions Kiwis she means the section of the business community who genuinely believe the country should be run for their benefit foremost, and ask the rest of us to believe in the trickle down theory. O'Sullivan concludes:
"Fighting the next election on an electoral system - even First Past the Post - which gave more power to the major party to implement sensible policies would do more to even the gap with Australia than endless horsetrading."

Horsetrading, in this context means that annoying thing called democracy - ie the thing we did not have when the Labour Government of 1984-1990 and National Government of 1990-96 used cabinet majorities to push through far right neo-liberal 'reforms'. Funnily enough the gap with Australia became significantly wider in these twelve years. Not that the new right would ever be intellectually honest enough to admit it might have been a combination of their chosen polices and the method of their execution.

In a later interview with Larry Williams on NewsTalk ZB (hat tip Frog), O'Sullivan described what she meant by 'sensible policies', explaining what MMP had stopped for the last decade or so.
"…various single issue or smaller parties will be able to point to wins they have had through [their] influence on the major parties that happens to be in power. But there are also some big things that aren’t happening – there are things from a business perspective. No-one can talk about privatisation… "

So there you have it - the sponger side of business community wants a return to First Past the Post in order to restart the privatisation agenda. The business community do not believe they can convince over 50% of New Zealanders to adopt their chosen policies based on a system where votes are of equal value.

In 1993 the Anti-MMP campaign was headed by Telecom Chairman Peter Shirtcliffe who bankrolled the misnamed Campaign for Better Government (CBG) along with other big business backers. I really hope some of the 1993 advertising is replayed and replayed - as it will completely do in Shirtcliffe's crediability. In 1993 CBG warned MMP would put our future at risk alongside the chorus of crying babies - yes really - see here. Now it can be seen for the scaremongering nonsense it is, as well as a dummy run for the National party's Hollow Men campaign of 2005.

Fran O'Sullivan quickly responded to Frog's post. She clarified that she only became aware of the forthcoming cabinet discussions following a question raised by a participant at business breakfast meet in Auckland. In second comment O'Sullivan said:
"To clarify – Personally I favour either FPP or STV – I do not like a system where the party vote delivers half the MPs. Would prefer to tick a candidate."

Yet there is only one system that will deliver the 'unfinished business' of privatisation that Fran champions above - a rotten borough system* known as First Past the Post. This impression is also reinforced by Fran's endorsement of Shirtcliffe's timetable for a referendum - a single referendum held in 2010, and applied at the 2011 election. O'Sullivan says "Frankly, Key should adopt Shirtcliffe's timetable. If past polling is anything to go by, many Kiwis would vote MMP down if given the chance". Clearly Shirtcliffe can't wait, and sees an opportunity to remove MMP by doing it quickly - this was also the strategy of Roger Douglas to avoid the interference of democracy.

That said, on this occasion I am prepared to give Fran the benefit of the doubt. I note she sometimes uses her columns to channel the views of others, and sometimes this can give the strong impression these are the views she also supports. Yet if Fran was being a complete partisan hack it is likely she would have downplayed the reemergence of Peter Shirtcliffe and not raised the "fundamental issue of fairness" raised by the differing treatment of Act and NZFirst at the last election, where Act remained in parliament despite receiving around 10,000 less votes than NZ First.

I would suggest people look at the campaign to keep meaningful proportional representation in New Zealand as a long game. Having journalists write stories about 'the other side' can at times be useful, as well as adding to the debate in a useful way. If Fran found out more about who was funding the anti-MMP campaign - this would be worth a few hail Mary's would it not?

* I am defining rotten borough in this context to mean any system where a vote is not necessarily of near equal worth. John Key's preferred option of Supplementary member is just a rotten borough with a thin layer of icing designed to cover up the rottenness.

PS: Fran in case I have your attention I would appreciate it if the next time you wrote one of your fawning columns about the 'benefits' of free trade with the USA you would also mention the potential costs. This comes from a solid source, the US Trade Representative's publication 'Foreign Trade Barriers', but the majority of pro-free trade business journalists either don't know, or perhaps more likely don't want to know such a document exists - if the risk is Kiwis paying more for their medications surely the public deserve better than journalists who stick their fingers in their ears and chant 'see no evil'.

Labour is complicit in National's work-for-the-dole madness

The Standard highlights the likely implications of National welfare spokesperson inviting an Australian work-for-dole 'provider' to visit New Zealand. National plans to give them business by introducing work for the dole if it becomes the Government.

While Collins adopts the key approach of 'deny deny deny', Mission Australia's chief executive is keen to cross the Tasman.

Steve Pierson at the Standard is right when he describes work-for-the-dole as a nice sounding slogan that does not work in practice. In adopting such a policy "National is following ideology, rather than doing what makes sense."

But there is a problem with this analysis. The fact is that Labour adopted significant assumptions of the underlying ideology behind work-for-the-dole when they passed the Social Security Amendment Act. I have blogged on similar issues before. As Louise Humpage and Susan St John point out this amendment changed the fundamental purpose of the Social Security Act.

"[T]he Social Security Amendment Bill wipes away any notion that our social security system is about ensuring everyone can participate as citizens. Instead, it makes getting people into a job, any job, the fundamental duty of citizenship. This principle is baldly stated “Work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being”.

Even worse, the new Act allows for pre-benefit activity to be completed before a person can even apply for an Unemployment Benefit. So thanks to Labour, National will not even have to change the law to bring in work-for-the-dole, they can just pass a regulation to require registration for make-work schemes as part of 'pre-benefit' activity.

It is an irony that the right make so much of the 'excess' jobs offered by NZ Rail prior to corporatisation in the 1980s, when these jobs where of far more value to society than the neo-liberal work-for-the dole schemes, of the late 1990s, and of the early 1930s. In his book 'The Slump' historian Tony Simpson described how this philosophy and practice failed to address the demands of the depression.

"By and large it reflected the 19th century viewpoint that anything for nothing would be instantly exploited by the unscrupulous and feckless poor. The circumstances of giving must be unpleasant as possible and it must never amount to more than the lowest wage available otherwise it will encourage sloth."

The 1930 Unemployment Act provided for a sustenance payment of 21 shillings a week to unemployed men, with an additional 17s and 6p for a wife, and 4 shillings per child (even though working women contributed, they were not eligible). This was financed by a poll tax - in effect it was a compulsory insurance scheme.

"These rates were never paid. Instead, the unemployed were referred to local authorities, which were instructed to provide work and granted subsidies from taxation with which to pay the workers involved. A stern instruction accompanied this scheme. No one was to be given payment unless they actually reported for work. This led to ludicrous, even scandalous, situations where local authorities scrambled to create work which was clearly unnecessary or even useless (such as shifting sandhills from place to place)."

If local authorities could not create work payment was withheld. Despite this example being from the 1930s it still demonstrates the weaknesses of a work-for-the-dole policy, and how it can lead to further retrenchment. The work involved is either going to replace genuine jobs or it is not. If not, this can only mean sandhills. If a government (or a private provider) is inclined to cut 'benefit' costs further, restricting the amount of 'work' available becomes a very handy way to do this.

Its not just the Social Security Amendment Act. Consider Sue Braford's analysis of Steve Maharey's 'Jobs Jolt' policy from 2004.

"In this context, for those people who are living in poverty, on wages and benefits which aren’t enough to sustain a remotely decent standard of living, the ‘Jobs Jolt’ means little more than increased harassment by the State in a situation where there are still far from enough jobs to go around....This is why I view the ‘Jobs Jolt’ and the thinking behind it as intrinsically right wing, fundamentally unjust from a social equity perspective, and a clear signal that Labour is far keener on picking up votes from the beneficiary-bashing part of the political spectrum than it is from low income workers, unemployed people and beneficiaries, and those who support their right to jobs and a living wage.... Overall, I sense that the Government’s lurch to the Right on welfare as epitomised by the ‘Jobs Jolt’ is a product of their lack of any cohesive ideology or coherent thinking about solutions to structural unemployment, endemic poverty, a failed, fractured welfare system and an entrenched and increasing gap between rich and poor in Aotearoa New Zealand. "

In other words, the circumstances of giving must be unpleasant. If the Nats introduce work-for-the-dole it will be a logical extension of Labour's own policy, or perhaps lack of one. If Labour had wished to vanquish work-for-the-dole to the historical dustbin it belongs, perhaps it should have made more effort to challenge the neo-Victorian attitudes underlying the ideology of work-for-the-dole.

In 1938 Labour's proposed Social Security Bill was the centrepiece of its election campaign. The National party called it 'applied lunacy', a bribe and a cheat. Labour not only won a majority, it won a majority of the votes cast - a first in New Zealand history.

Note: Made a small edit when I established Mission Australia are technically a charity rather than a private company. That will teach me for blogging too late at night. If National devolves welfare delivery to the charities sector it will like going back to a pre-1930s situation!

State owned companies must act in the national interest

In the wake of the foolish decision of Air New Zealand to operate a charter flight to ferry Australian troops on their way to the war in Iraq, Fran O'Sullivan has questioned whether a publicly listed company can be expected to uphold 'national interest' considerations.

Given the status of Air New Zealand as 'national flag carrier' the actions of the airline are more likely to reflect on New Zealand than other companies. Aviation can be a boom and bust business, but it is in New Zealand's interest to ensure we always have an airline. While I do not want to see any State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) sold, it could be said that there are stronger reasons for turning Air New Zealand into an SOE, than would be the case for many existing SOEs.

The Companies Act requires directors to act in the interests of all shareholders, not just the majority owner. In the case of Air New Zealand, some would argue that, in effect, the airline has been acting more in the interests of its minority shareholders for some time. If the Government is unable to ensure that the actions of entities that it owns do no contradict with public policy objectives, the value of public ownership is diluted.

In fact the company board have been diluting the Government's shareholding for some time, by issuing more shares to be bought up by private owners on the stock exchange. The proportion of Government ownership has dropped by 82% in October 2001 to 76% now. This is nothing but privatisation by stealth.

The current issues surrounding Air New Zealand are also relevant to more open privatisation threats. Since 2005 the National party have made noises about selling partial stakes in state assets such as Solid Energy. Under such a policy it is likely that some SOEs would be turned into companies with a similar structure to Air New Zealand. The current situation with Air New Zealand, where the Companies Act places restrictions on its ability to act in the national interest is a very good demonstration of why partial privatisation is a really dumb policy.

Of course the Nats may well have designed the policy to fail in this way, in an attempt to create a situation where they can push the case for full privatisation. Its a policy that could be compared to a Trojan horse - made of wood and full of borer.

The privatisation of taxation

Given the disgraceful way in which Air New Zealand have treated their workforce this year it was with some surprise I found myself agreeing with their description of the way airports set their charges.

"A privately owned unconstrained monopoly with the statutory right to set fees as they see fit is tantamount to the privatisation of taxation."

I would like to think this is an indictment of how privatisation of strategic state assets is contrary to the long held constitutional principle that taxes should only, and can only, be levied by Parliament, but I don't think so. Sadly, I don't think they understood the full significance of what they said.

While the fuselage of the planes may be round, it is a long bow to make any comparison with a Roundhead.

Privatisation of essential services such as electricity and water are also examples of the privatisation of taxation, whether they be in private ownership or operating as State Owned Enterprises. Why are there no calls for Contact Energy to give tax cuts?

Some would argue the Reserve Bank's so called 'independent' power to raise the Official Cash Rate has a similar function to a tax. Earlier this year, Treasury and the Reserve Bank looked at economic stabilisation (read anti-inflation) measures they could use as alternatives to raising the Official Cash Rate. Interestingly, one of the reasons they cautioned against the introduction of a variable levy on mortgages was the real constitutional issues raised. These issues were also raised with the head of Charles I in 1649. Should a mortgage levy be increased by a Reserve Bank without recourse to Parliament? What say the Finance Minister implemented the levy on advice of the Reserve Bank? But this only shows the distinction between monetary and fiscal policy is a monetarist illusion. For me, the debate over the mortgage levy showed there is no such thing as an 'independent' Reserve Bank - it is an attempting to give over control of our economy to an undemocratic institution.

But back to Air New Zealand.

Some would argue their description of the airport companies could easily apply to Air New Zealand itself may times in its history. There have been many occasions where Air New Zealand and Qantas have tried to merge, only to be told there is too much danger they could become an privately owned unconstrained monopoly (merger plans usually involve privatisation). A recent code sharing arrangement with Qantas failed after concerns were raised by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

If Air New Zealand were really worried about the 'privatisation of taxation' they would be calling for the renationalisation of the airport companies. This would allow airport charges to be treated as an economic development issue concerning the operation of an essential service. This could also assist climate change policy as more fuel efficient planes could be charged less.

Air New Zealand says airlines and airports should have the ability to negotiate on a level playing field, and call in an expert to only arbitrate if they could not reach agreement. I look forward to Air New Zealand applying this same principle when they cannot reach agreement with their workers and their representatives.

The Labour-led government try and pretend they do not own Air New Zealand. But they do - and they fail to take responsibility for the disgraceful industrial tactics of their own airline. Perhaps Michael Cullen thinks this will constrain inflation. Even worse, they allow the board of Air New Zealand to issue more shares - therefore diluting the shareholding of the Government. Air New Zealand's plans to contract out airline services also amount to privatision. So its privatisation by stealth under Labour - if they did not support the actions of Air New Zealand they would have fired the company board by now.

PS: I am flying Qantas to Christchurch tomorrow. While I would normally support a New Zealand owned company I detest the way Air New Zealand have treated their workforce under the leadership of Rob Fife. While their marketing department would like me to be thinking about 'amazing journeys' all I can think of is the chilling call of 'contracting out'.

Costs of insurance for young drivers must be lowered

Jeremy at Aucklander at Large dismisses the call of the Transport Safety Minister Duynhoven for compulsory third party vehicle insurance and says it simply will not work.

Duynhoven claims requiring third party insurance for all drivers would I have an impact on the behaviour of the so called boy racers. "That very soon changes behaviour because people realise they are not in a position to drive if they have a lot of speeding tickets, a lot of vehicle offences or a vehicle which is modified with a very high premium because if they misbehave their premiums then go through the roof."

Like Jeremy I think the Minister is dreaming if he thinks the kids think 'premium' when they are burning the premium unleaded.

But unlike Jeremy would like to see all drivers required to have at least third party insurance, so long as it can be made affordable.

If many young drivers cannot afford insurance, the insurance industry needs to take some responsibility for this. Simply put, by stupidly inflating the premiums on the young, the insurance industry have told young drivers they are not wanted as customers, even if they have a clean driving record.

As a 31 year old male driving a slightly underpowered Mazda Familia station wagon I did not expect to be quoted nearly $700 for insurance*. For the crime of not requiring car insurance for the previous two years (I had been overseas) I did not qualify for any discounts. Now that I have moved to Auckland I am told my premium will nearly double in August, while I will get a 30% no claims discount, my premium it will be more than I paid in Christchurch last year. While the insurance industry may claim it is legal to insist the young pay more, there must also be a point, in terms of degree, where there is a possibility of challenging this under the Human Rights Act.

Before third party insurance could be made compulsory I believe any social democratic government worth electing should first consider intervening in the insurance market to lower premiums. The introduction of the state owned Kiwibank into the banking market has lowered fees and forced the other banks to offer banking packages for those with few beans in the beanbag.

So why not also allow Kiwibank to offer lower cost insurance packages? The only difference between the insurance offered by Kiwibank and Westpac would be the cost.

The irony is that the Government used to operate State Insurance, and this 'brand' is still in use by the private sector many years after privatisation. To my mind State Insurance, and their owners the Insurance Australia Group, continue to trade on the state's good name in false pretences - this has irked me for some years. If 'State' wasn't a commercially valuable brand they would have dropped it by now. Perhaps this also tells us New Zealanders are not as hostile to the 'state' as the far right would have us believe.

Drivers already pay a kind of insurance premium for accident injuries when they licence their vehicles, so why can't government owned insurance cover the vehicles as well? (though ACC need to be told it is not acceptable to adopt the ethics of private insurers)

I have sympathy for requiring compulsory third party insurance as I believe being hit by a driver without insurance can lead to unjust and highly costly situations, for both the person hit and the person having to pay the bill. Messy court action may be required, increasing the costs of time and money for both parties. But more often than not, an insurance company sues or threatens to sue the uninsured driver for everything they have, and then some. If premiums are simply unaffordable, and a car is the only way to get to work - an accidental swipe of a BMW can cause a person to be financially crippled for years - is that really a just outcome?

A parallel argument could be made here about the ability of those on very low wages to afford the 'premium' to be part of Kiwisaver (4% of wages). Will we see a future government blame the non savers for not having the disposable income to make contributions, and use this as an excuse to remove universal public superannuation? Will they be left financially crippled in old age?

I would also like to see more restictions placed on the lending institutions to offer easy car finance - as finance on a fast depreciating asset like a car should be subject to greater restrictions to ensure the banks and the loan sharks are not simply ripping people off. Why not teach the boy racers better saving habits?

If all drivers had complusory third party insurance this would be for the benefit of everyone - a public good - so the use of public money to fund state intervention in the insurance market could be justifed IMHO.

* The quote was from State Insurance - I found a slightly cheaper premium elsewhere.

Draining dividends from Telecom can mean you don't get broadband

While I usually do not relish schadenfreude, I did enjoy reading in today's NZ Herald about poor Jenny Gibbs who cannot get broadband in at her leafy home in Paratai Drive. Who is Jenny Gibbs? She is the former wife of Alan Gibbs - a key player in the privatisation of Telecom in 1990.

In an earlier post I explained how the current parlous state of broadband services in New Zealand can be directly attributable to the sale of Telecom to the private sector. It is not often that you see a member of the new right establishment admit they have been negatively affected by the short sighted nature of their own policies. It usually hits everyone else but them.

Why can't I feel sorry for Jenny Barbara Gibbs? Because it is highly likely she (directly or indirectly) benefited from the high levels of dividends paid out to shareholders of Telecom during the 1990s. If Telecom had paid lower dividends in favour of greater investment in infrastructure, Jenny Gibbs would now be more likely to access broadband in Paratai Drive. The shareholders of Telecom asset stripped the company for their own personal benefit. She split from Alan in 1996, and stayed in the house on Paratai Drive.

Alan Gibbs was on the board of Telecom from 1990 and a director until 1999.

Also, according to the Companies Office, Jenny Gibbs has 120,000 shares (held jointly) in TeamTalk Ltd - a company which Telecom bought a 19.9% stake in 2001. In 2003 the company bought back the Telecom shares (probably with debt) and listed itself on the stock exchange with an IPO the following year, gaining a significant premium. Her holiday home has been used for a Telecom ad - one presumes they paid her for the use of the venue.

So while Jenny Gibbs can't get broadband, she has had many opportunities to directly or indirectly financially benefit from Telecom.

That said, I must congratulate Jenny Gibbs for pointing out the glaring inconsistency between Telecom's promotion of 'super fast broadband' and the service the company actually offers most of its customers. Telecom ought to realise that when their greatest ideological supporters are having trouble believing Telecom corporate propoganda, the general public are likely to see Telecom's claims for what they are - outright lies.

Moore is Less and Less is More

News just in - Christchurch mayor Gary Moore has announced he will not seek a forth term as mayor. Good. Mayor Moore had been drifting a good distance from any recognisable centre-left direction in the last few years.

He proposed part-privatising the Lyttleton Port despite the fact this policy ran directly contrary to the public assets policy of the 2021 political grouping that he was elected under. The Keep Our Port Public campaign can take some of the credit for exposing the hypocrisy of Moore's position over the proposed port sale.

Gary's plans to close down libraries and local swimming pools spurned a great deal of opposition in the community.

He appointed Dr Lesley McTurk as city manager (CEO in newspeak). "McTurkey", as she is known in some quarters, has has sought to reorganise the council and its staff according to the tired old new-right songsheet. A large proportion of staff have left the council in the last few years, with a great deal of institutional knowledge being lost. There have been many instances of staff being treated poorly.

I really hope Tim Barnett stands for the Christchurch mayoralty - at this stage he would have my vote.

Toll have a vested interest in ending the Overlander rail service

So Toll Holdings, the Australian owned rail operator, have decided to axe yet another passenger service, the Overlander between Auckland and Wellington. This follows the chop of the night service over the same route in 2004.

At the time of the axing of the Northerner in 2004 I predicted Toll would cut more passenger services.

"More cutbacks and closures are likely, as the July deal between Toll and the Government stated there would be no new scheduled passenger operations for three years. So even if another operator decided they wished to run a service cancelled by Toll, they would be unable to do so. After three years, Toll is only required to run three return passenger services on a line to maintain its monopoly."

So by ending the Overlander service now, Toll have a year to kill off the service with no threat of the service being taken up by another operator. A new operator wanting to start a new service between Auckland and Wellington will now have to start from scratch.

So while Jeanette Fitzsimons is right to call on the Government to ensure the infrastructure for such a service is not lost, she does not appear to identify the real cause - the 2004 rail deal between Toll and senior Labour ministers.

While the 2004 deal was widely touted as 'taking back the tracks' into public ownership, the deal actually put some significant restrictions on what the Government could do with its new dilapidated 'asset'. At the same time the Government 'bought the tracks' for $2* the Australian transport multinational gained a near effective monopoly on the use of the tracks until 2070. Toll also gained a seat on the board of the track operating company, and the ability to take the Government to arbitration over track access fees and track spending plans. Negotiations over track access fees for the next year have been dragging on for months, so I would not be surprised if the end of the Overlander is part of a Toll 'hardball' negotiating strategy over track access fees.

Toll asked the Government for a subsidy for the Overlander to continue. For a private business Toll are regularly demanding public subsidies - perhaps it would be simplier if the Government just nationalised the company!

Toll have shown no interest in passenger services, apart from what they call 'high value tourist operations'. In March this year Toll cut several North Island towns from the Overlander's schedule - so it could be argued that the drop in passenger numbers was not all pure 'market forces'. It is reminicient of the stupid decision of the previous owners TranzRail to build the new Christchurch passenger railway station miles from anywhere and on no bus routes - the Southerner train service between Christchurch and Dunedin did not last long. With such a mindset, there was no incentive to keep fares competitive with other forms of transport.

And of course if private ownership had not been so darned irresponsible in failing to maintain the tracks passenger rail journeys would now be a darn sight faster and more comfortable.

Update: Many of the comments on Frog's post echo the point made above - if Toll run a rubbish service, they should not be surprised when not enough people use it.

Instead of making deals with Australian mulitnationals with dodgy employment records, the Government would have been far better to nationalise the whole railways and gain a clear start to promote its social, enironmental and transport goals, without having to make concessions to profit centric private investors.

Tags: Politics, Rail, Corporates, Toll Holdings, Privatisation

* Toll ended up getting $2 for the rail network, as a government official did not have a $1 coin in his pocket.

Indonesian Government considers buying back port from Hutchison

The Indonesian Government is considering buying back port operators PT Jakarta International Container Terminal (JICT) and PT Terminal Petikemas Surabaya (TPS) from the current foreign investors as they have failed to expand the ports as promised.

Transportation Minister Hatt Radjasa said the government has seen no progress or evidence of a serious intention on the part of the foreign investors to turn the ports into an international hub.

And who are these 'foreign investors' who have failed to deliver on their promises?

• British company P&O Ports, and;
• Hong Kong-based Hutchison Port Holdings Group

Earlier this year the Christchurch City Council, through its assets arm Christchurch City Holdings (CCHL), proposed selling Lyttelton Port to the very same Hutchison encouraged by the promises made by Hutchison to expand the port and turn it into an international hub. Where have we heard that before!

Instead, Hutchison put their own interests first,
"The buyback plan is not a nationalism gimmick. It is a fact that the foreign investors in the two ports are only making Indonesia a feeding market for their operations in Singapore," said Hatta recently at the Presidential Palace.

Thankfully CCHL and Hutchison were unable to proceed with the asset sale as CCHL failed to acquire enough of the existing Lyttelton Port Company (LPC) to enforce a compulsory takeover. This does not mean the Christchurch City Council have given up on privatising Lyttelton Port. I heard Gary Moore say during the recent public hearings on the Long Term Community Plan that the council now have 74.1% of the Port Company. This puts CCHL extremely close to the 75% mark that would allow them to change the LPC constitution, which no doubt would be used to further the privatisation agenda.

You would hope, perhaps in vain, the Jakaka example would give CCHL pause for thought.

Tags: Politics, Lyttelton, Corporates, Hutchison, Privatisation, Christchurch

KOPP campaign docks in Dunedin

The campaign to stop the sale of Lyttelton to a multinational port operator has now spread to Dunedin.

The Dunedin branch of Keep Our Port Public met yesterday. Green MP Metiria Turei and Victor Billot (Maritime Union of New Zealand and Alliance) spoke at the inaugural meeting.

The Otago Branch of KOPP aims to keep all ports in New Zealand in public ownership, and ensure both Lyttelton and Port Otago are kept out of the hands of privatisers. KOPP Otago also support the Maritime Union campaign to oppose the national push by multinationals to privatise ports.

"The issue is often portrayed as wheeling and dealing by big companies," says Victor Billot. "But the underlying and important issue is not about ports beating each other, it's about ports being operated in the public interest, in a responsible way, and that's what our campaign is about."

He says the involvement of Port Otago in purchasing an interest in the Lyttelton Port Company has created strong interest in the issue nationally. Mr Billot says the campaign will become a national one if there are any more moves to privatize ports.

"Publicly owned ports provide an excellent income to the citizens of New Zealand which is why they are such a juicy target for the 'pirate privatizers' who want to gain control."

Keep Our Port Public was formed in Christchurch in February 2006 after the business arm of the Christchurch City Council attempted to push forward a complex deal that would have seen the operational arm of the port of Lyttelton pass into majority ownership of Hong Kong based multinational port operator Hutchison. The deal is currently stalled after Port Otago purchased a block of shares in Lyttelton Port Company and Hutchison withdrew.

As Victor rightly points out, the proposed sale of the Lyttlelton Port Company is much more than just a "local issue to worry Cantabs". Hutchison also expressed an interest in the Auckland Port Company, and the draft long-term community plan of the Nelson City Council states that council ownership in the Nelson Port will be 'reviewed'. We all know what that means.

Report on KOPP meeting Chch Town Hall 10 April 2006

The Keep Our Port Public meeting in Christchurch last night went well. I estimate around 250 people attended, making it the largest public meeting I have attended in Christchurch for some time.

Sir Kerry Burke spoke as a private individual and as a member of the local body community grouping Christchurch 2021. Burke said he remained committed to the vision statement of 2021 which clearly undertakes to retain public ownership and control of strategic trading enterprises, especially the port, the airport and power utilities. Garry Moore, the man who now wants to sell the port, was also elected on a 2021 ticket. Burke said "this proposal disadvantages all citizens, no matter where they come from. I wonder whether selling off is actually the best way to deal with our assets."

Burke described the move by Christchurch City Holdings (CCHL) as clumsy and said there was no need for desperate measures, as there was no 'financial crisis' (I was a little concerned at this point Burke might attempt to justify the selloffs that occurred during the forth Labour Government which Burke was part of - thankfully he didn't)

The stand out speech of the night came from Murray Horton of the Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa. His characterisation of the recent about face of the Christchurch City Council was especially well recieved

"And it looks like there will be more to come - the Council has removed both its Red Bus Company and contracting business, City Care, from the list of strategic assets to be protected. The Mayor, Garry Moore, has swung around from being the proud Chairman of the People's Republic to being the Chairman of Christchurch Inc. run, by for and of, Big Business. Actually in honour of who is actually running the show in Tuam Street, I think it should be named the corporate Republic of McTurkey."

[cue biggest laugh of the night]

Referring of course to Lesley McTurk, the City Manager appointed by Moore who has overseen a massive clearout of experienced staff at the same time many people wonder whether McTurk is really acting as an additional and unelected City councilor.

Unfortunately I didn't hear a great deal of RMTU Secretary Wayne Butson's speech as I was busy distributing petition forms around the hall.

Trevor Hansen of the Rail and Maritime Union explained how free trade agreements were assisting the shipping companies in creating 'ports of convenience' - a system that will give large shipping companies more power to drive down wages and export profits at the expense of local communities.

A 2004 issue of Transport International describes what a "port of convenience" looks like: "Inexperienced, untrained, casual non-union labour is gradually replacing skilled unionised workforces in may ports, as terminal operators succumb to pressure from shipowners, shippers and politicians to embrace fundamentalist market ideologies. Ultimately this means the introduction of many labour cost saving policies: reducing the standard of working conditions, introducing total flexibility of working times and tasks, employing unorganised workers and flying in cheap labour from countries where trade unions are forbidden or severely restricted."

Green party MP Metiria Turei explained how the sale of local assets to overseas interests has significant negative impacts on a national scale, such as our horrendous current account deficit. Metiria also found it was shocking there had been no consultation about the proposed sale. I liked her speech - probably because it had a strong focus on the privatisation issue and maintaining public ownership of strategic assets - so it came acrosss as a real lefty speech :)

A few hours before the meeting Christchurch Labour MPs (except Dalziel) released a statement expressing "serious concerns" about the proposal of the city council to sell part of the port to Hutchison. Better late than never! KOPP spokesperson Murray Horton immediately called on the MPs to translate their opposition into Government action.

While the Press reports that no-one from CCHL or LPC attended the meeting we have since found out there was a CCHL mole in attendence, who declined to make him or herself known despite a polite request from the chair. One person owned up to being on the City Council and was welcomed.

Campaign against sale of Lyttelton Port gathers steam

The Keep Our Port Public coalition (KOPP) is holding a public meeting in Christchurch opposing the sale of Lyttelton Port Company to Hutchison, a Hong Kong based multinational corporation. The sale represents the restart of the agenda to privatise publicly owned assets, and there are good indications the sale of the port could be followed by the privatisation of the bus company and Citycare.

For some background on this issue see my earlier post here.

We already have an impressive list of speakers for the meeting, including

• Sir Kerry Burke (the current chair of Environment Canterbury but I don't think he is speaking in this capacity)
• Green MP Metiria Turei
• Maritime Union of New Zealand
• Wayne Butson, Rail and Maritime Transport Union
• Murray Horton, CAFCA

So at 7.30 pm on Monday 10 April come along to the Limes Room of the Christchurch Town Hall and stop the privatisation of our port!

An opinion piece by Murray Horton of KOPP, 'Moore's mighty sellout' was published in the Press on Friday, and Murray has already received a lot of positive feedback about the article.

Murray says the proposed port sale sets a dangerous precedent for the future of other publicly owned assets in Christchurch.
"This is the latest move by the Council ideologues who want to convert the People's Republic into Christchurch Inc. It graunches back into life a process that was stalled and discredited back in the unlamented 1990s, namely privatisation. This is the first such sale here since National forced it to sell Southpower. But this one has not been forced on it by anyone else, it is all the Council's own work. It will set off a stampede for port "restructuring and rationalisation" around the country, a process that progressed as far as corporatisation during the 1980s' Rogernomics pandemic. And it looks like there will more to come - the Council has removed both the Red Bus Company and City Care, from its list of strategic assets to be protected. It would now appear that the Mayor's policy on publicly-owned city assets is that less is definitely Moore. It sets a dangerous precedent."

A leaflet and poster advertising the meeting is currently filling up email inboxes all over the country. Once the leaflet, poster and Murray's article are available online I will post up a link. Till then I am happy to email them to interested people :)

Tags: Politics, Lyttelton, Corporates, Hutchison, Privatisation, Christchurch

Telecom should never have been privatised

Yesterday the Dominion Post published an article from Chairman of the Business Roundtable, Rod McLeod, arguing against the need for further regulation of Telecom. Yet McLeod and the Dominion Post failed to mention a blatant and obvious conflict of interest - Rod McLeod is also a Director of Telecom (hat tip DPF)

McLeod concluded, without citing any real evidence, that "New Zealand has benefited hugely by moving from a state-owned telecommunications monopoly to a competitive (sic) private industry with relatively light-handed regulation. We should keep it that way."

Bullshit. The current fracas over broadband is a direct result of the sale of Telecom by the Labour Government in 1990. While the Business Roundtable claim to be 'free marketeers' McLeod article is just yet another example of how often they run to the defence of private monopolies.

Richard Prebble sold Telecom in 1990 for $NZ4,250 million. Last year Telecom made a $NZ 1.3 billion dollar profit in 2005 alone. Even without some of the more extreme "efficiency" drives (read job losses) Telecom could have made a significant contribution to public funds over the past 16 years if it had stayed in public hands.

It would be nice if some people who support the privatisation of Telecom would actually admit that also selling the local loop was a big mistake, and it is a mistake we are still paying for. The Government could have made free local calling a condition of access to the local loop, and told Telecom that if they wished to charge for local calls they could create their own network (oh the irony). After all, Telecom did not create the local loop, it was created by at least two generations of taxpayers.

One argument that is often used in support of privatisation, especially in "capital intensive" industries, is that sometimes the private sector can provide greater investment than a Government (stop giggling..) Telecom provides a very good example of how this is often not the case. As CAFCA pointed out in their submission on the Overseas Investment Bill in 2005, since privatisation, Telecom have regularly run down their assets at the same time they gifted whopping big dividends to their overseas shareholders.
"Telecom’s overseas owners have failed to live up to the promise of making new technology available to New Zealanders. The company closed off options rather than developed new ones. Its overseas owners have sacked thousands of employees and have extracted billions from New Zealand in profits and capital, while over-charging for services (such as broadband networking to the home) which will be the backbone of the economy in the future, virtually killing others (such as ISDN) in the past, failing to develop services which are commonplace overseas until forced to, and using every possible means to keep out the competitors who would not have been necessary had it been providing a decent service.

From 1995 to 2004 it paid out more than its net earnings in dividends (reported earnings of NZ$6,464 million and dividends paid out of NZ$6,698 million), for most of that time, its capital expenditure barely covering reported depreciation. It was running down its assets. More recently it has used its cash to invest (rather unsuccessfully) in Australia rather than develop the extensive new services needed in New Zealand."

(my emphasis)

CAFCA also quote economic commentator Brian Gaynor who described the privatisation as follows (“Testing years ahead for Telecom”, NZ Herald, 26/5/01):
"The Ameritech/Bell Atlantic/Fay, Richwhite, Gibbs, Farmer syndicate walked away from Telecom with a realised capital profit of $7.2 billion. In addition, the telecommunications group paid over $4.2 billion in dividends in the 1991 to 1998 period, more than half to the consortium members.… These are extraordinary figures for a company that is supposed to be at the cutting edge of new technological developments."

No wonder Sir Michael Fay sang 'Sailing Away' - it is the perfect theme tune for a pirate.

Perhaps if people starting talking seriously about the renationalisation of the local loop Telecom might suddenly start being more reasonable. Given the fact Telecom have been ripping New Zealanders off for years, $1 ought to be adequate compensation. When the Government bought the rail tracks it actually ended up costing them $2 because an official did not have a $1 coin in his pocket. If officials are ever in the position of buying back the local loop they should ensure they have correct change - Telecom don't deserve $2.

Tags: Privatisation, New Zealand, Internet, Corporates, Telecom

PS: Why does the Microsoft Outlook dictionary refuse to recognise 'renationalisation' as a word, and suggest 'denationalisation' as an alternative? More bloody corporate newspeak!

Privatised police are a bad bad idea

When Helen Clark appointed Annette King as Minister of Police, I was reasonably relieved - as I thought she would be unable to do much damage in this portfolio.

It appears I was wrong.

King now says she is willing to discuss the introduction of private police, using private contractors to do police work.

While advocacy of part-privatisation may be surprising from a "Labour" minister, it has got to be remembered that King is on the right of Labour's caucus, and was close to Roger Douglas during the forth Labour Government.

The proposal has been slammed by Police Association President Greg O'Connor, who quite rightly points out that merely using private contractors is "not going to make things any cheaper". Any extra police are "still going to have to be paid for". Using private people is "not going to solve anything."

There could be significant issues regarding conflicts of interest, especially where 'police' could be conceivably in the pay of somebody else at the same time they are undertaking investigative work. They also might be concerned where their next pay check is coming from after they finish their current 'police' contract.

New Zealand's lax accounting requirements allow a company to appoint the same accounting firm to be both its auditor and its tax/accounting policy adviser. The auditors end up auditing their own work. While it may be claimed there are 'chinese walls' within the auditing firm to prevent information being passed within these two functions, they leave open the perception of compromise.

Now imagine the same accounting firm is employed as a police private contractor in a fraud case. Even the presence of 'the great wall of China' could not prevent perceptions they could have a vested interest in favour of finding 'not enough evidence to prosecute'

Categories: New Zealand, Politics, Privatisation, Labour, Police

Labour backtrack over Private Early Childhood Education

In the 2004 Budget Labour announced that from 2007 three and four year old children would be entitled to 20 hours a week of free education at a community-owned early childhood service.

Now Labour have backtracked, with the annoucement they will also fund 20 hours free education at privately owned early childhood centres. It needs to be asked why Labour is further embedding the privatisation of education when so many public education services continue to be underfunded.

It is a real shame Labour did not defend their original policy, as there are many clear reasons for discriminating in favour of community owned services. Community-based services cannot distribute financial gains to their members. They are usually charitable trusts, community organisations or incorporated societies. In funding such services there is a higher chance this money will be used for the benefit of the kids, instead of being misdirected into private profits and over the top capital building plans. Perhaps the real reason National and their right wing friends complained so bitterly about Labour discriminating in favour of community based services, is that the right wanted to distribute public money as financial gains to their members?

The increasing presence of large multinational chains is turning child care into a branded big business, made up of companies expected to provide returns to shareholders. The insidiously named Kidicorp is listed on the NZ stock exchange, owned by a mix of NZ and Australian interests.

There is also a clear educational rationale for favouring community-owned services over for-profit centres, as Linda Mitchell'’s NZCER research shows that community owned and run centres provide a better quality education.

While it is true there many be a shortage of community-owned centres in some areas, this is in part due to the early childhood policies of the previous National government, policies that led to the closure of manykindergartens and other not-for-profit ECE services. The 2005 Budget also provided funding to build some 55 to 65 new community-based services over the next four years, meaning that "the shortage" is far from an insurmountable problem.

The response of the NZEI Te Ria Roa to Mallard's u-turn is interesting. While they were "pleased" more children would benefit from free ECE, they also hinted that at clear differences between the community-owned and for-profit education centres.
"The 'not for profit' part of the early childhood sector has shown a commitment to providing quality education by employing qualified teachers and by implementing pay parity, With the extension of funding for free early childhood education to private centres the onus is now on them to show the same commitment to providing quality education as the community-owned centres," says NZEI Te Riu Roa National President, Colin Tarr.

It is a real irony Labour quite rightly rejects calls to introduce a voucher system into primary and secondary education, yet Mallard's latest backtrack only embeds an effective voucher system in early childhood education. The same could be said for their reluctance to restrict public funding to PTEs profiting from tertiary education.

The Bush Administration's complete contempt for democracy in Iraq

In the June 27 edition of Focus on Trade, Herbert Docena compiles the complete story on how America have implemented their neo-liberal economic designs on Iraq.

'Shock and Awe Therapy: How the US is attempting to control Iraq's oil and try open its economy" is a very impressive piece of work and while long, is well worth reading. My April 2004 article 'Hijacking of a Nation' covered similar ground - its nice to see someone else reaching similar conclusions, as well as providing some damming quotes and references :)

Even before the invasion Docena quotes documents to show that the US had "sweeping plans to remake Iraq's economy in the US image". During the bombing BP engineers were embedded with the soldiers to locate and secure the oil wells. In May 2003, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld announced the Bush administration would be installing a regime heading by personnel who "favor market systems" and "encourage moves to privatize state-owned enterprises"

The US hand the contract for "transforming" Iraq's economy to US multinational Bearing Point. The contract states "The new government will seek to open up its trade and investment linkages and put in place the institutions promoting democracy, free enterprise and reliance on a market-driven private sector as the engine of economic recovery and growth.". Docena contrasts this 'systematic plan' with the complete lack of any planning for post-war humanitarian, rehabilitation and relief operations.

US Viceroy Paul Bremer illegally changed the "existing laws in force" in Iraq, allowing foreign investors to buy up and take over Iraq's state owned enterprises and repatriate 100% of the profits and other assets at any time (Order 39). As Iam al-Khafaji, who worked with the US in the early states of he occupation but later left, attests, "Many radically new sweeping changes, for example the law on foreign investment, Iraqis were not allowed to review it. They not even given the chance to look at it before it was passed.". Other 'orders' allowed foreign banks into the country and reduced the top tax rate form 40% to a flat rate of 15%, doing away with the principle of progressive taxation.

All of these imposed 'law' changes are clear violations of international law. The Hague Regulations and the Geneva Conventions, which the US has signed up to, outlaw such law changes under occupation. Even though these 'laws' were forced on the Iraqi people before they had a chance to have a say in an election, Bremer also took steps to ensure it would be difficult for an incoming elected government to change the 'Orders' put in place by the Coalition Provisional Authority.

From the earliest days of the occupation, the US searched for Iraqis whose interests converged with that of the US. The US needed Iraqi faces 'out front' to attempt to show they were not colonizers imposing their will on the Iraqi people (yeah right!), and these Iraqis needed the US because lacking constituency and legitimacy, they have no chance of surviving in power without US protection. "What Washington wanted was Iraqis who - while willing to dabble in occasional criticism of the administration - were at the final analysis beholden to it" Middle East Historian Dilip Hiro (Hiro's book on the history of Iraq is well worth reading)

The US also planted hundreds of "advisers" in key ministries and the bureaucracy - including dozens of organisations and agencies who specialise in designing neo-liberal policies. The US also created new commissions and institutions that, according to the Wall Street Journal "effectively take away virtually all the powers once held by several ministries". Paul Bremer appointed the chiefs of the commissions to 5 year terms, which will neatly ensure the US appointees can not be replaced by an elected government.

During the January 2005 elections, the US used its usual "democracy promotion" organs (National Endowment for Democracy, The National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute(IRI)) to promote their preferred parties, mostly Allawi's and other parties inside the Iraqi Governing Council, who also dominated the interim government. A IRI survey found 55% of Iraqis did not see the interim government as representing their interests. Bremer and his cronies also made attempts to disallow "rejectionists" such as Moqtada Sadr from being candidates in the elections.

No international monitors were allowed to scrutinize the elections - so there was no way to verify if fraud took place - the world just had to trust the word of the US-installed Iraqi government.

My point at present is not whether Iraq adopts a free market capitalist or a socialised economy. Following the fall of Saddam Hussein, it should be entirely up to the Iraqi people to decide the type of economy they want and the laws that will govern it. Not only are the radical reforms imposed by the CPA in violation of international law, they have been imposed before the Iraqi people have had a chance to have a say in an election. Not only that, but it appears the US have gone to great lengths to ensure any 'elections' are anything but a fair fight.

The actions of the Bush Administration in Iraq demonstrate nothing by complete contempt for democracy.

Categories: Iraq, Antiwar, Politics, Neo-liberalism, Investment, International Law

Cullen supports Tertiary Education Savings Scheme

Questions for Oral Answer
Tuesday May 17
Michael Cullen
"I was the strongest supporter of the tertiary savings scheme."

Make sure he knows its a bad idea. Here is a press release I wrote for Liz Gordon MP while I was working in Parliament.

At least there are plenty of ways to undermine the proposed Auckland Toll roads

Via Tumeke : The NZ Herald reports that Auckland drivers without passengers could face fast lane tolls. "Drivers may have to pay tolls to join the fast lanes on costly new Auckland motorways - or earn free use by carrying at least two passengers."

Transit New Zealand Chief executive Rick van Barneveld said "reserving fast lanes for high-occupancy vehicles or those whose drivers were willing to pay would help to limit congestion by "managing" demand for travel, a legal obligation for road-builders."

This raises some interesting possibilities. If there was no charge for cars with two passengers I wonder if we would see professional 'passengers' who would mingle at either end of the bridge or motorway, offering to be a 'passenger' for less than the cost of the toll!

Better still - people who are opposed to toll roading (like me) could become 'free' passengers to ensure the whole toll collecting shenanigans was totally uneconomic. Hehehe.

The Land Transport Management Act, passed by Labour and the Greens, allows a toll road to be built only if it has strong local support and an alternative free route is available.

While it may start out with public and private roads side by side, roading companies no doubt would want to build roads where the alternative is inconvenient or via Temuka to gain 'greater market share' (aiming for a monopoly).

There is a significant danger a two tier roading system would lead to creeping privatisation, especially if a right wing government thought it could penny pinch by not maintaining/extending public roads on the grounds there is a private alternative available - provided by roading companies that just happen to be big financial supporters of said right wing government.

Under a part privatised roading system there would be fewer public roads, and it is likely the remaining public roads would not be maintained as well as they are now.

I was in London when Ken Livingstone bought in the congestion charge - and I suspect this will become a favourite example for Treasury boffins and the usual suspects who love to privatise things. But London has had a well developed public transport system for years, so when Ken says the poor use the buses he is right, but given we lack the same infrastructure here I strongly doubt the same argument could be sustained for NZ cities.

Live 8, Gates and Green Day

Rather tired at the moment. But I did stay up late last night watching Live 8.

While it was an enjoyable concert I was disappointed the TV interludes about poverty and Africa, supposedly explaining what the event was about, were not more substantial. Like the appeals for money during Live Aid, the commentary focused on large figures, emotion and sentimentality (the short film about the 'no food diet' was probably the best of the lot).

Given that Geldoff wanted this to be a political event, rather than a telethon I thought the commentary could have been a heck of a lot more political.

But even the moderate commentary was excised in some parts of the world. In the US, MTV consistently cut away from the political speeches and cut many of the songs to screen advertising. One disgusted MTV viewer - "there are more adverts than concert footage".

Most of the TV interludes reduced issues to simply quoting large (and shocking) figures and calling for something to be done. Why not give a short history of third world debt, the causes of global poverty and give some quick fire examples of why the current trade rules are unfair? But that would mean pointing the finger at the West for pushing a lot of debt onto Africa, and of encouraging exports of food _out_ of Ethiopia during the 1980s famine. It would also highlight the hypocrisy of "free" trade. None of the G8 countries developed their economies though a doctrinaire adherence to "free markets" and privatisation - so insisting that third world countries can do is an almighty bullshit pill. It also might lead people to question why they put up with the same bullshit at home.

While such a message would have been a heck of a lot more politically effective, perhaps even a tepid critique of power would have upset Geldoff's new friends, such as Blair, Brown and Bill Gates.

For me, the appearance of Gates was the most sick inducing moment of the whole shebang. Despite Live 8 not being about phillantropy, Geldoff introduced Gates as the "greatest philanthropist of our age". Yet no one mentioned he made his money as head of Microsoft, a corporate who aggressively defends its copyright, and supports extending the provisions of WTO trade agreements such as TRIPS to provide better protection for copyright holders. Yet this same agreement has been one of the key reasons why Africa could not access AIDS drugs - as it lacked the money to pay off the multinational drug companies, and TRIPS forbade them from producing cheaper generic drugs. While provisions were added to TRIPS in 2001 to allow for forms of compulsory licensing during 'national health emergencies' (such as AIDS) it is still very much a live (death!) issue - especially as some nations have been reluctant to enforce these provisions for fear of jeopardising the supply of aid and investment (and brand-named AIDS drugs) from wealthy nations.

While the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has given a lot of money to assist AIDS projects, this work, like Geldoff's, can only be a sticking plaster if it ignores the underlying power issues that lead to humanitarian disasters.

Thankfully the appearance of Green Day soon after rehabilitated Live 8 back into what is should be - a political event with lots of rock and roll. First song - American Idiot - "Well maybe I'm the faggot America. I'm not a part of a redneck agenda. Now everybody do the propaganda. And sing along in the age of paranoia.". Billy Joe reminded Berlin of the power of democracy "And remember one thing, regardless of the powers that be are, remember one thing, you're the fucking leaders, you have the power, don't let these bastards dictate the rest of the world or dictate your fucking life, allllrighhhhht!". Green Day then concluded with "We are the Champions" - a song that also doubled as a tribute to Freddie Mercury and Queen - the standout act of the original Live Aid.