The TPPA - why I oppose it.

Tomorrow the TPPA (Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement) will be signed in Auckland by the twelve participartory countries, maybe at Sky City... or maybe that's just a diversionary distination to waylay the protester, and I am pretty bloody pissed off about it.

Why?

Well first of all it has not even been through our parliament for debate, as the full and final text really only became available once the last parliamentary year finished.  Before that it was all leaks and conjectures about what the TPPA contained.  But those leaks and conjectures were a worry... and not too far from the truth as it turns out.

A couple of nights ago, I asked on a page operated by NZEI if there was an organised group attending the march in Auckland tomorrow.  I wanted to be with like minded friends to participate. 

One of the responses was this:   Is there a depth of understanding about the TPPA ??? What about advantages?

And I responded with this:

Tariff reductions are a great advantage. Opening up new markets is a great advantage. 

But this is why I don't support the TPPA:

• It was negotiated in secret. Unlike previous FTAs, there was no bipartisan consultation with other political parties, no consultation with Tangata Whenua and little consultation with our own business leaders and academics. 

• The Treaty of Waitangi is not mentioned in it. This is a defining piece of NZ law. There is precedence for it to be included. It was part of the FTA Phil Goff negotiated with China.
• Unlike Australia or Singapore or a few other nations, we have no rights to invoke protections as to who can come in and buy land and houses from overseas. Even implementing something as simple as requiring a foreigner to build a new home rather than buy an existing house would not be allowed. 
• The increased lengths of patents on biomedications and the like will blow our health budget out of the water and continue delays and denials of access to the best treatments for people suffering from health conditions. 
• Copyright law changes will makes books more expensive - not great for public libraries and schools and the like.
• The fact that when our government wants to change a law, they will have to allow foreign nationals and corporates to make submissions. Stop and think about how that will likely have a negative effect on environmental or employment law for example. If you think I'm not realistic, did you know the company that runs Auckland's trains, Veolia, has sued Egypt for raising the minimum wage? Now think about how Peter Jackson and Warner Bros has already influenced employment law for actors and film workers in NZ.
• Tim Groser promised us a gold plated deal and that he wouldn't bow down to continued tariffs and restrictions on our dairy trade. Then he made us eat dead rats over that, and American and Canadian dairy farmers breathed a Collective sigh of relief when Groser rolled over. The benefits to the dairy industry are minimal, as they are over all. Tufts University predicts without the TPPA NZ would have a 46% increase in GPD by 2030; with it the increase would be 47% - consequently, business wise, the TPPA is negligible. 
• And this is the complete deal breaker for me: the impact on our quality public education system in NZ. Let's say a company from the US arrives called XYZ Ed. They can demand that the NZ government give them money to set up a charter school in NZ. Despite the fact that where they set it up doesn't need a new school. With our tax payer dollars. And we all know NZ charter schools aren't subjected to the scrutiny that state schools are. And why? Because the TPPA allows it. Singapore's negotiators didn't agree to that one and had it written out of their part of the agreement. 

Which then begs the question: what bloody use was Tim Groser as a negotiator? 

 

The fish hooks are too many!

 

And finally let me put it this way, if I offered you a chicken sandwich made with fresh bread and fresh cooked chicken with a lovely chutney but laced with rat poison, would you take it and eat it? Because that's what the TPPA effectively is.

 

Another contributor also added this in support:

 

When our government signed up to the Treaty of Waitangi Act in 1975 we accepted three fundamental principles of the Treaty: Partnership, Protection and Participation. (The Act doesn't actually say that but that it is how it is interpreted and implemented in the public service.) 

The TPPA hardly embodies these: no Maori have been partners in the negotiation; there are severe concerns that our assets and sovereignty will not be protected; and there has been no participation in what has been an entirely secret set of dealing and wheeling. smile emoticon

If we value the Treaty of Waitangi, we need to value it every day of the year. It seems to me that John Key has ignored it 364 days of the year and then wants to be valued and honoured on the one day that is Waitangi Day. 

Sorry - that doesn't wash with me.

 

So tomorrow I intend to march with thousands of other New Zealanders because I simply do not believe that this deal is in the best interests of New Zealand and its people long term in its current format.

 

Like Andrew Little said last week, I support Free Trade but I do not support our sovereignty being pulled from under us and I believe that the best deal for New Zealand is not in the TPPA.

 

I like the fact that Labour waited for the full text to be available before making a declaration on its TPPA stand.  It is what Andrew Little said they would do - read the text and talk to experts and get advice and then make a decision about how it met Labour's stated five bottom lines it released in mid 2015..

 

I respect that the Greens and New Zealand First made the decision long before seeing the text.  Fletcher Tabuteau, an economics lecturer in his former life, was able to clearly show how the numbers just do not stack up greatly for New Zealand under the TPPA during the Auckland Town Hall meeting last week.  Metiria Turei was able to show the impacts on sovereignty, workers, the environment and many other things Kiwis value.

 

Marama Fox from the Maori Party also demonstrated how the TPPA will impact on the Treaty of Waitangi and how that breaches the needs of Maori and continues to make Maori victims of colonisation.  Of course, Maori will not be the only indigenous people of the countries participating to be affected, but Maori are unique due to the recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand law in 1975.

 

Lori Wallach pointed out at the Town Hall meeting that the TPPA in its current form would not make it through Congress in the US.  Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans support it.  The Republicans view clauses in it to be even weaker than what George W Bush managed to negotiate in his FTAs when it comes to the environment.  In fact, here is a tweet published by Elizabeth Warren's Official twitter account today.  Elizabeth Warren is a Democrat Senator from Massachusetts and an academic of commercial and bankruptcy law, formerly of Harvard University.

 

And when you look at this tweet in the context of those before an after, it speaks volumes about the position that Congress is taking.

 

There have been protests in Malaysia in regards to losing control of their economy, the impacts on small and medium sized business and the costs of medicine under the TPPA in Malaysia. Other countries in South America have also had protests against the TPPA and the Pacific Island countries, who relied on New Zealand to protect and promote their interests, are not happy with the outcome.  The lead negotiator from Japan has had to resign his positions after corruption and bribery allegations have been made against him.

 

And in response to detractors of Dr Jane Kelsey, New Zealand's foremost knowledgeable academic on the TPPA and Auckland University professor, it is her job as an academic to investigate such deals and put them under the microscope, to put them up for rigorous debate.  She knows New Zealand law by the back of her hand.  And Dr Kelsey is not alone, as many of her fellow academics have contributed to the analysis of what the TPPA would mean to New Zealand.

 

Even Tufts University in Massachusetts USA has cast shade on some of the claims to emerge from the TPPA.  Their analysis proves that the propaganda being put about by our National led government is folly and fantasy.  Click here for one such analysis.

 

In my view, Tim Groser failed to meet the standard as a negotiator and a protector of New Zealand's best interests.  John Key has failed to meet the standard of being the Prime Minister of New Zealand by failing to protect the best interests of the New Zealand people, its businesses and economy.

 

If you are wanting to find out more for yourself to help you form your own view, here are some links to some vital information:

• For a link to the full TPPA text released by MFAT on January 26 2016 click here.  It is interesting to note that the Spanish and French versions were only released yesterday, February 2 2016.
• For the official government propaganda... opps.... cough, cough.... official analysis of the benefits of the TPPA, click here.
• To view the full Auckland Town Hall meeting held on Tuesday 26 January 2016, click here.
• And to view the academic analysis of the TPPA, click here for links to each one.
• Government silent over TPPA threat to public education – NZEI  -  by Save Our Schools NZ
• The dangers of TPPA to the New Zealand school system  -  by Save Our Schools NZ
• Paul Goulter: TPP puts profit ahead of quality education  -  Paul Goulter is the NZEI National Secretary and pretty much everything I've heard Paul say about GERM (Global Education Reform Movement) has come to pass in one form or another.
• And, in a late edit, a video from NZ Stop TPPA's Facebook page that simply explains about the TPPA.

The dignity of life and death - an uncomfortable conversation

On Monday I found out my companion of nearly thirteen years had chronic renal failure.  Murray had been acting strangely for a while and his breath had been foul.  But when he refused to eat at the weekend and hid away I knew it was time to seek professional help.  And it wasn't good news.  Murray's numbers were at a level that the professional who saw him said there was very little they could do.

Why couldn't they do anything?

Because we don't offer kidney dialysis or transplants to cats in New Zealand.

Murray McFlurray

As Murray's "mummy" I had to make that decision we all dread making.  Whether or not to do the kind thing and put him down, or to let him suffer because you can't imagine life without him.

Like I said, Murray had gone off his food at the weekend and had hid himself away.  When he doesn't jump on the bench and raid the scrap bin for chicken bones or seek out the butter that has been accidentally left on the bench, then I know he, a chronic bench walker, is not at all well.

So I made the decision to put my loyal, loving friend down.  And even though Murray is a cat, my heart is full of sorrow.

I know what it is like to lose a human loved one too.  I've lost grandparents and much loved aunties and uncles.  I've lost a most beloved cousin who died far too young and in a way I wouldn't wish anyone to suffer from.  I've lost friends and students.  I've seen people die of old age, which isn't always a kind way to die.  I've seen people die from agonising cancers.  I've seen people die from accidents that have shattered the lives of the people left behind.  Grief is a soul destroying demon that carves an ugly path in our lives at various points.

But as hard as it was to make the decision to put Murray down, to let him die with dignity and not suffer, I don't envy watching any human go through the agony of a long, drawn out death because we do not have the ability to be as kind to ourselves as humans as we are to animals in regards to dying with dignity.

I didn't want to see my cat Murray suffer, but all to often we see or hear about those who are suffering from agonising deaths.  I don't remember my father's father dying, and I have only small memories of his brother dying, but cancer wasn't a kind death.  My mother nursed her father in law while she was a new mum, and my aunty cared for my uncle.  These deaths took months, their bodies eaten away by the cruelty of cancer.

Just two years ago I watched my "aunty" (my mother's best friend) die of a cancer she only found out about just weeks before her passing.  The doctors had thought that pain that had crippled her for months was due to osteoporosis in her hips and back.  While it was only a matter of a few short weeks from diagnosis to passing, she had been suffering for months with a cancer that is usually only detected during surgery (as it was this time) or after death.

Recently my last grandparent passed away.  At 91 Gran had lived a long and good life, but the last few years with dementia were difficult for her and the wider family.  I had come to terms in November that she would soon pass, but she held out till Christmas.  On Christmas Eve she went down hill and family sat with her for the next eleven days until her body finally gave out.  Her children and the rest home staff endeavoured to give her as much comfort as possible and dignity - but how much dignity is there when you are in pain and unable to control your bodily functions?

But to me the worst dimension to this discussion would be if you were diagnosed with a condition that you knew had no known cure and would result in your own death in a premature and painful way, or worse, incapacitate and trap you in your body, but in the meantime your dignity and independence would be eroded step by step, leaving you reliant on someone else for all the cares you would need daily.

While euthanasia is illegal in New Zealand, as patients we are able to make decisions to decline treatment to shorten our own lives and have written advance directives, such as Do Not Resuscitate, for medical personnel.  These are pathways that a patient must choose, before one gets to that point.  This link to the Hospice NZ statement on hospice care and assisted dying is able to clarify the current views in New Zealand.  But what happens to those incapable of making that decision due to stroke or an accident that incapacitates ones ability to communicate?

The Te Ara site has this to say about euthanasia in New Zealand:

Arguments for euthanasia

Those in favour of voluntary euthanasia argue for the right of individuals to die with dignity and argue that the person concerned is best able to assess their quality of life and make decisions about whether they want to go on living.

Arguments against euthanasia

Objections to euthanasia are that it devalues life and undermines human dignity. Some believe that it also breaks religious laws. The New Zealand Medical Association considers that voluntary euthanasia is illegal and unethical, but supports patients' right to pain relief. It argues that the proper provision of such relief, even when it may hasten the death of the patient, is not unethical.

(from Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand page:  Euthanasia - Death and dying, 18/4/15)

We have two high profile cases in New Zealand of assisted euthanasia which have resulted in court cases:

Lesley Martin

Lesley Martin received nationwide media coverage over the trial of the attempted murder of her mother. In her 2002 book To Die Like A Dog she revealed that she killed her mother due to the pain that she was suffering and was arrested shortly after its release. Martin was given a 15-month sentence of which she served seven and a half months. Ms Martin has since retired from euthanasia reform activism and dissolved Dignity New Zealand.

Sean Davison

In a similar case professor Sean Davison wrote his memoirs in the book Before We Say Goodbye published in 2009, documenting final days of his mothers life in 2006.  A leaked copy of an early manuscript of the book revealed that he offered his mother a dose of morphine to help end her life. He was initially charged with attempted murder in 2011, but later pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of inciting and procuring suicide. He was sentenced to five months home detention.

(from Wikipedia page: Euthanasia in New Zealand, 18/4/15).

The closest an assisted death piece of legislation has come to being passed in New Zealand was a bill called Death with Dignity in 2003 introduced by then New Zealand First deputy leader Peter Brown.  It was defeated by three votes, with one other abstaining and two not voting.  (How MPs voted on the Death with Dignity Bill, NZ Herald 31/7/03). 

It is interesting to note that in 2003 John Key voted for the Bill, but today will not entertain even a conversation about this topic.

And the conversation has gone dead.  Maryan Street from Labour had a bill put forward in 2012 called End of Life Choice Bill.  In this article from Stuff published 12/8/12, Euthanasia bill close to MP's heart, Ms Street discussed the impact of seeing her mother and sister dying from a terminal illness and pain and suffering.  But in September 2013, Ms Street withdrew the Bill from the Members Ballot as there were only two more days of debating members bills before parliament closed for 2013 and she was concerned it would become an election football in 2014 and not get the proper attention (Voluntary euthanasia bill withdrawn, Stuff 26/9/13).

With Maryan Street failing to win an electorate seat or get in on the list in the 2014, the chalice was passed to Iain Lees-Galloway to champion this thorny topic.  Andrew Little said, upon his election as Labour party leader, that this bill was not a priority for Labour at this time, and Mr Lees-Galloway has been asked to put the topic at the very back of the stove.

And so no conversation will happen.

Personally I am conflicted on this.  I do not like to see people suffer and linger unnecessarily, so if it is enacted there will have to be tight controls and parameters.  I can also see the opportunity for the abuse of such a law and the ethical dilemmas that will erupt and divide society and increased issues with elder abuse in particular.

And while I don't know which way to leap on this, I believe this is a discussion we need to have as a country.  We need to have it because other countries have had to have this conversation already and have taken action.  We have to have this conversation because we have people dying a death no one would wish on their worse enemy let alone a loved one.

So which politician, which political party, will have the guts to bring this conversation to life again?

To not have a full and frank discussion on this topic is to fail the standard for those who suffer.

Why the Meat Workers deserve your attention right now.

Yesterday I went to learn about what our local meat workers are facing at a meeting held by the Meatworkers Union in Ngaruawahia. As you can see above, Andrew Little was there too. And Grant Robertson and Nanaia Mahuta.  Sue Moroney was there earlier. They were there to support a new movement called "Jobs That Count" that will tell the meat worker's stories.

The Affco workers at Horotiu had their collective agreement expire in December 2013. As of December 2014, as a new agreement had not been reached, all the Affco employees went onto individual employment agreements that were the same as their collective. But if you get a job there as of Monday 9th March, due to the last lot of amendments to the Labour laws by the Nats, which went live on Friday 6th March, your individual employment agreement won't be the same as the rest of the workers. 

We also heard of the tactics used by managers at various sites to block unions and workers becoming unionised.  Union organisers are often not allowed on site to meet workers.   Workers are also dropped after 90 days because they've joined the union or are called to the office and intimidated if they want to join the union.  Misdemeanours are collected to fire workers.  Most of this amounts to workplace bullying.  Some union organisers have held onto union membership forms for two years waiting for a worker to get passed 90 days of employment before presenting the forms to ensure that workers still have a job!

Despite numerous court proceeding taken by the union against practices such as above being used by Talleys and Affco, they continue to flout laws about union representation and other employment laws.

That agreement was hard fought for after a lockout by Affco/Talleys three years ago.  The workers were on strike and consequently locked out for three months.  That's a long time with no pay.  Other unions got together and raised $250,000 to see those workers through the time when their money ran out.

Since their last agreement expired in December 2013, there have been ten days of negotiations.  Nothing new was brought to the table until the tenth day by the employers.  These new demands are not necessarily to the benefit of the workers either.

Unfortunately, Talleys has a history of being a difficult employer.  So the pressure needs to be applied to them to meet the law.  During the lockout, that pressure came from the Meat Workers Union, other unions, politicians and from consumers.

On Thursday night, Andrew Little addressed Labour supporters in Hamilton.  He told a story about when he was with the EMPU how they worked together with Fonterra to increase productivity and maintenance of the plant which also had great outcomes for the workers.  Fonterra gained massive advantages from this process, and it goes to show great things happen for business and workers when the business works constructively with unions representing their workers.

Which makes you wonder why corporations are so anti-union....

With the bargaining rules changed there are implications for all workers in New Zealand.  Under the new rules an employer can deem that negotiations have ceased at any point and take the negotiations to mediation or arbitration.  The power lies with the employer and good faith may walk quickly out the door.

What is happening to the meat workers union has implications for all unions and workers in New Zealand. They are about to test the changes to bargaining that went live on Friday.  For other workers, like teachers and nurses, who have their collectives up for renegotiation this year, what happens to the meat workers is vital and needs to be followed closely.  And that is why, as an NZEI member, I attended.

So what can you do?

Firstly, as a union member, be informed about your industries issues and know what the union is doing and how you can help.  Every little bit counts.  Be informed about the issues for other industries and follow what their unions are doing.

Secondly, send Talleys a message about how to treat their workers and Affco workers by not buying any Talleys products.  Talleys sell frozen vegetables, seafood, dairy products like ice cream and meat - keep buying the meat to support the meat workers, but send Talleys a message about how their treat their workers and Affco workers by not purchasing their vegetables, seafood and ice cream.

And finally, google (or click here) Jobs That Count or find them on Facebook.  If you are a meat worker, share your story.  If you aren't, send them a message of support.  And follow the events and issues as they unfold.

And that's my arm on the left in the top photo. 

Why rushing legislation isn't democratic and doesn't meet the standard.

The proposed changes to our Security Act needs close and robust scrutiny.  Unfortunately, our government does not share that view, so much so that it only allowed one day for submissions on the proposed Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill, and is also being very brief with the periods to submit submissions and consult in other legislation regarding national security.

The government's rational is that we have a clear and present threat due to the rise of ISIS is Syria and Iraq, we need to be in line with other governments (specially the USA) and with New Zealand co-hosting the Cricket World Cup with Australia this summer we have the potential for terrorist acts to take place

Chris Finlayson - like other National ministers - does not think consulting with the New Zealand public is important. However, I will give him this, he is honest in his distain for consulting New Zealanders.  Other ministers from National will fudge their way through consultation, talk the talk of a person who will listen to all sides and then completely ignore the majority and common sense anyway.

Because we all know Hekia Parata just barges ahead with changes despite consulting which shows 90+% of responders and research opposing her initiatives.  The fact that Charter Schools have been implemented and that she is pushing through the establishment of EDUCANZ and IES on top of National Standards, which all have been opposed by the education sector, academics, research, common sense and even parents (all of which make up the voting public) is testimony of how National does something despite it being a bad idea.

What disappoints me most is this is an obvious attempt to by-pass parliamentary and democratic processes.  National has been very good at doing this in the last few years.  They push through legislation with minimal consultation and using urgency more than what anyone should be comfortable.  But the above quote from a speech Russel Norman gave on the 26 of November at the Rod Donald Memorial, speaks of how our democracy is being so easily eroded by our 'friendly' Prime Minister and his ministerial colleagues.

The passing of this Bill and the others in the same stable are bound to contribute to a paranoid society.  Think about what life was like after 9/11, the London Underground bombings in 2005, France's legislation to ban the burqa.....

I was in London when 9/11 happened.  I lived in Willesden Green/Dollis Hill on the Metropolitan Line in north-west London at the time.  It was an area where not many English people live.  It had a high population of immigrants, particularly from Muslim countries, and also from the Caribbean, as well as an awful lot of Irish, Aussies, Kiwis and Saffas (South Africans) with the odd Canadian, Israeli and Swede thrown in - well, at least in our house.  I worked in schools with children who came from families who did not speak English as a second language and with girls who wore head scarves.  And the day of 9/11, as I watched it all unfold on TV after a call from Israel to my flat mate, I ate Halal chicken from Sam's Chicken around the corner from our house (it cost two pound for a combo and I was broke).

In the weeks following 9/11 people were nervous.  I kept getting texts from back in New Zealand along the lines of the following:

Don't go on the Underground on Tuesday.  A friend's son was on a bus in London sitting beside a Middle Eastern man.  When he got off the bus he had left his wallet behind.  My friend's son chased after him to return it, and when he did, the man was so grateful he warned him not to used the Underground on Tuesday because there will be an attack.

This went on for months.  It also didn't help that with Diwali and Guy Fawkes so close together and occurring at the same time the US was invading Afghanistan, any fireworks had us thinking that we were about to be blown up at any stage.

I also saw people verbally attack people of Middle Eastern extraction.  My Saffa flatmate came home one day telling us of a verbal attack he did.  After some stern discussion, I think I managed to inform him that he'd verbally attacked a Sikh man - nothing to do with 9/11.

And now we have evidence of this in New Zealand with young women and girls being verbally abused by other members of the public and even other religious communities such as the Jewish and Buddhist communities have expressed alarm at this legislation and how the public perceives them due to the current climate.  (Muslim communities facing a 'backlash' over law, 28 November 2014, Stuff).

My point here is that we became paranoid for a period of time due to the circumstances.  During that time a number of restrictions were put on to the public in many countries to tighten up security.  For example, in November 2001 I travelled by plane from London to Dublin to watch the All Blacks play  Ireland.  I had my make-up case as a piece of carry on luggage, as I had had in all the flights I'd taken prior to 9/11.  Security asked if I had nail scissors in there, which I did.  I had to remove them and put them in my checked luggage in case I planned to hijack the plane with them.  Prior to 9/11, nail scissors were not considered a threat, but now they are.

So prior to the rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq (and wherever else), the fact that we may have disaffected people in New Zealand that are sympathetic to the cause of a rebel organisation like ISIS was not a concern to our government.  If it was, they would have considered similar legislation long ago and given it due process.  After all, there was Al Qaida around after all and we have had evidence of people running off to join them.  And how does this affect those New Zealanders who choose to fight for the French Foreign Legion?

It really is a spit in the face for all the New Zealanders who fought in the Spannish Civil War in the 1930s, or other similar events.  Because under this legislation they would have broken New Zealand law.

Really, what would be good is if our government, and other governments from around the world did, is look at why these people are so disaffected and want to run off to be cannon fodder for organisations like ISIS or Al Qaida before it.  What makes these people susceptible to falling for their PR/propaganda?  What is their education, home life, qualifications, employment status?  Are there patterns?

We were awarded co-hosting of the Cricket World Cup for 2015 in 2006.  So our governments since have had ample time to consider security issues and required legislation.  We held the Rugby World Cup, a junior women's world event for soccer/football and the world cup for the under 21 rugby teams as well as numerous other events.... any one of these could have been a target for a disaffected wannabe terrorist, yet we have had no events. 

Michelle Boag's assertion on TV1's Q&A on Sunday 30 November about cricket events in the sub-Asian continent being cancelled due to potential terrorism threats and the fact that Muslim countries play cricket and increase the risk of a terrorist event was scare mongering at best, but racist and offensive to New Zealand's Muslim and Asian communities.

Quite frankly this pattern of our own government to shoot from the hip and pass crap laws in reaction to events and ideology without proper consultation and research or trials is well below the standard.  The lack of standards this government displays erodes our democracy. 

Russel Norman and Metiria Turei from the Greens have stood up and said so.  I was heartened to hear Andrew Little say earlier this week that his SIS briefing did not back up the rush that this legislation is being pushed with.  He has indicated that Labour will not take it at face value and will look closer into it before deciding its position on supporting it or not.

Political scientist, Bronwyn Hayward, made similar statements about the process of parliamentary law being distorted by this government and how extreme their law changes are compared to the UK, Canada and Australia, who are not rushing through similar law, but are debating it (unlike Michelle Boag's comments that it was being put through without question in the UK).  These tweets from 30 November 2014 say a lot:

Chris Finlayson is also our Attorney General.  His job is to ensure that all the laws of our land are upheld and everyone gets a fair go under the eyes of the law.  His comments about the government not needing six months of chit chat undermine his position as Attorney General as he is not upholding how laws are brought into being; he is not upholding parliamentary process; he is not upholding democracy.

So, in my opinion, Chris Finlayson fails the standard.

And here is something to leave you thinking about this further I just found from 28 November 2014:

Labour Leadership - Here We Go Again...

Labour, the other Saturday, plunged to its lowest place in the polls in its nearly 100 year history.  Some polls had warned that Labour was slipping in the polls in the weeks leading up to the election, but internal polling had indicated higher numbers, and the door knocking and phone calling had also indicated positive responses to people supporting and voting Labour. 

 

Combined with National slipping bit by bit in the polls following the Dirty Politics book release and Judith Collins' inappropriate behaviour being fully exposed, how buoyant the Greens had been in the polls and the fact that New Zealand First's policies and people seemed to lean more towards the left than the right, I was confident that the election would be on a knife edge.  I honestly thought a clear winning team would not be evident on the night.

 

Oh how wrong I was, and many others.

 

With National winning 41 electorate seats and 48% of the party vote to get an extra 20 List MPs, it meant they had 61 MPs out of 120.  John Key also moved in the next few days to make doubly sure he had the House in his grasp by opening discussions with his "friends" from the last six years: the Mäori Party, United Future and ACT (who shouldn't be there - but that is another discussion).

 

 

Meanwhile, predictably, Labour was tearing itself apart.  Just like in November 2011, the leader was blamed.  David Cunliffe was vilified for his speech at the end of election night (the one where he celebrated the work of all the party volunteers and supporters - and right that he did, because we worked bloody hard) and his lack of resignation on the spot.  As someone pointed out on Twitter recently, did Helen Clark's election night resignation set the benchmark for the losing leader?

 

 

In the days that followed, Cunliffe was continually criticised for his blaming Kim Dotcom for the failure of the left to thrive, for blaming the Dirty Politics book for sucking up tv air time, for not taking responsibility for his role in Labour plunging to a new low, for not resigning, for gagging his MPs....

 

Then there was the various Labour MPs speaking to the media about why they thought Labour had gone down in the polls and what they think should happen next.  Followed by the 7.5 hour horror caucus meeting on Tuesday and the angst and hair pulling since then, the membership of Labour became even more concerned and, just like within the caucus, people have started aligning themselves with their preferred leader, including several Facebook pages that support David Cunliffe in continuing his leadership of Labour.

 

 

 

And then there were the bloggers, journalists and media commentators who weighed in with accurate comments and the crazy off the mark comments too.

 

 

 

On Saturday, David Cunliffe resigned his leadership, taking responsibility for the election loss, and then nominated himself for the leadership vote.  Grant Robertson also put his name back into the hat.  David Shearer had indicated that early last week that he was considering a bid, but as he has been in New York at the UN with Murray McCully the last few days, this has yet to materialise at the time of writing this blog. 

 

 

 

Other names that have been thrown about include Kelvin Davis (who ruled himself out - including to me in a tweet), Jacinda Ardern and Andrew Little (who are playing that coolly, particularly as Little has to wait for the confirmed election results on October 4th to know he really is the 5th list MP for Labour) and, strangely, Stuart Nash (who, while he has run a great campaign to win Napier back, was helped by the fact that Garth McVicar split the vote on the right when he ran for the Conservatives and a new National candidate).

 

 

I note that the commentators and journalists have not aimed similar vitriol at the Greens or NZ First for their performance on Election Day.  Neither of those parties reached their predicted percentage of the votes, in fact the Greens have one less MP than they had in the last parliament.  And I'm not the only one to notice....

 

 

After David Cunliffe announced his intentions on Saturday, Sue Moroney posted this on Facebook:

 

 

I had been wondering Sue's point of view since Tuesday's caucus meeting where she resigned as Chief Whip (which she explained in another post she had done so to concentrate on her portfolio areas).  Consequently I was very pleased to see the above post.  I believe that people become MPs because, apart from their desire to enter politics and serve the country, it is the people behind them, the party members, who do the hard yakka to get that MP into parliament. If you do not recognise those who help you and feed back to them then the relationships you develop during the campaign will not exist for the following campaign.

 

Below is my response to Sue on Facebook:

 

I personally think that DC will have learnt a lot over the last year and that experience of learning on the job is irreplaceable.

It took Helen Clark & co 6 years to win the Treasury Benches after she became leader and she had some big hurdles and an election loss. It took her time to build her relationships as leader and with NZ.

This stuff doesn't happen overnight.

One of the reasons I joined Labour was the ability of the membership to have a say in who leads the party. So I'm pleased that DC and Grant are honouring the process set down by the party rules.

But after that process is over, the factions need to dissolve and the backstabbing needs to end. And not just in caucus.  I've been appalled to see it in the organisation/backroom side of the party too. And what is worse is that it is incredibly obvious, so obvious that people like Patrick Gower and Mike Hosking and Duncan Garner and Paul Henry have had a feeding frenzy on it.

The caustic culture of factions and backstabbing throughout the party must cease. That's why we lost.

 

I then re-posted this to my own Facebook status, because I am tired of the factions destabilising Labour and undermining the hard work put in by the party members and supporters.

 

In August last year I wrote a post called Leadership.... a tale of two leaders: Helen Clark & David Shearer.  In that post I wrote the following:

 

Whoever does have the X-Factor to win the race to being the Labour leader will need to have and do the following in my opinion:

• unite the party - Labour doesn't need to be squabbling amongst themselves for the next year; we need them to show that they can beat John Key and National at their own game.
• be able to do a sound bite with confidence for the 6 o'clock news - it's all about looks in this game.
• be a good debater in the house - put John Key, Steven Joyce, Judith Collins and the rest back in their box please!!
• keep your friends close and your enemies closer - keep your enemies very busy in key jobs so they don't have time to mischief make.  It worked for Helen Clark, and maybe that's why Steven Joyce has so many ministerial responsibilities (just throwing that out there in case JK and Joyce aren't as close as everyone says).
• keep close tabs on what everyone is doing - Helen did, that way she minimised surprises and everyone kept on top of things.
• put out good policy (especially dumping National Standards and getting rid of Charter Schools) and back it throughout the party - you need to show that you can be the next government.
• connect to the New Zealand public at many levels - get out there and meet the people and be involved in as many events as possible.  Shearer did do this, but it has to also mesh with how people see you on the tv fronting issues.
• everytime National does something dumb, use it - honestly, National has had some right regular stuff ups in the last year, but no hay has been made while the sun shines for Labour when these stuff ups happen.  You should be all over those stuff ups like shit on a blanket (to be blunt).
• watch that doco about Helen and learn from her example of how to stick to it, unite the party, and get the public onside.  Pay particular attention to the part about when there was almost a coup against her before the 1999 election.
• meet the standard of being a leader - we need you to do your job because this is a democracy.

Now I believe that David Cunliffe did some of the above (did he read my blog per chance?) such as doing some great sound bites for the 6 o'çlock news, keeping his enemies close (he kept all the leading stirrers in his top 10), getting manygreat policies out there (especially in education, health, housing and the economy), there was better targeting of National stuff ups and some stern debate in the House by David and others (some delegated to various members of caucus, like Hipkins going after Parata and Robertson on Collins), David and been very visible in the public eye at many events of great variety in the last year.... and I saw David take command in the pre-election debates with John Key.

Yes, there were some stuff ups to, like the anonymous donations to a trust and not being able to fully articulate the Capital Gains Tax details (have you seen the Labour 2014 manifesto?  It's so big!), but that is part of learning.  John Key has many brain fades and "forgets" far too many things to make me comfortable at the end of the day, yet his caucus is NOT publicly mauling him for his failings, and the media is so busy focused on David's minor stuff ups they are not taking Key to task on his stuff ups.

Then there were the media beat ups like the letter David Cunliffe wrote for Donghua Liu in 2003 (do you remember every letter/correspondence you wrote in 2003?), the "apology" at the Women's Refuge symposium (at which Paula Bennett spent the whole time others were speaking playing on her phone) and various other minor incidents during which the media called for Cunliffe to resign.

Which other leader of a political party has had so many media commentators calling on them to resign in one year?  When you think about all the stuff ups John Key has made and have so far been revealed, why isn't he on a permanent holiday in Hawaii right now?

Quite frankly, who would want to be the leader of the Labour party right now knowing that you would be constantly harassed and vilified by the New Zealand media on a daily basis?

And why is this happening?  Well it is obvious that some MPs have not been loyal, and I have to conclude that some party members at various levels and possibly some staffers have also not been loyal.

I said above from my post last year that the new leader would have to unite the party and stop the squabbling.  Well clearly that was one area in which David Cunliffe has not made much progress.  But I believe he can not shoulder all the blame.  The party president, Moira Coatsworth, and the Labour Council should be held responsible for this as well.  They have the ability to censure MPs and could have ensured some were turfed out of contention as electorate candidate for unsavoury behaviour (why do you think 15 MPs 'retired' from National this year?).  But we did not see this happening.  Each MP should also be aware of the party rules and be conscious of the fact that leaky ships do not reach their destinations.

With my own eyes this year I have seen some of the behind the scenes at electorate and regional level of the Labour party.  The jockeying and attempted deal making and backstabbing has left a sour taste in my mouth.  Some candidates were caustic and juvenile in their dealings with certain sectors of the party which meant that some sectors were then very non-supportive of those candidates and sometimes this spilled out into the public arena.  Some potential candidates were treated poorly, and others behaved like spoiled brats when they did not get what they wanted.

We are all human and we will make mistakes in the heat of the moment, but it is how you behave and present yourself after the fact that makes a difference.  And some people did not present themselves in the best light at all.

Leadership for me has been a huge issue in the last 15 months.  It is only when you are led by a less than desirable leader that you realise how lucky you have been previously and what the qualities of a good or great leader really are.  I've been involved in a lot of discussions and collected a number of quotes and memes that speak to me about leadership.  So here I will share some:

On Sunday I came across a guest blog for The Daily Blog on the Labour leadership issue by Anjum Rahman, Loyalty, Leadership and the Labour Party.  Anjum was on the Labour list for the 2014 election.  She is an accountant and a community leader in Hamilton, especially supporting ethnic and immigration issues, but has interests across the broader Hamilton community.  This piece which Anjum wrote stood out to me in particular:

But he (David Cunliffe) was always going to struggle with a caucus he hadn’t won over, and who weren’t prepared to accept the wishes of the membership.  And more than that, there are divisions in the Party that run a lot deeper than the Caucus leadership issue....

So, when there is a disconnect between caucus and membership, there really is only one solution.  Caucus must abide by the wishes of the membership in good faith.  That’s a pretty reasonable request, especially given the membership are the ones who put in so much work on the ground to run campaigns and to keep the Party machinery going, as well as providing significant financial support through fundraising and personal donations.

Caucus members who are unwilling to respect the vote of the membership should seriously reconsider their positions within the Party and as MPs.  For those who are electorate MPs, if they think their electorates voted them in regardless of their being a Labour candidate, let them test that theory by running as an independent in a by-election.  Because frankly, if they are not willing to work positively with the elected leader, then they are a liability to the Party.

The same applies to those in elected positions within the Party hierarchy.  If they aren’t prepared to support the elected leader, then it’s time to step aside.  The Party needs a governing council that is prepared to back its leader and to discipline MPs who have failed to act in the best interests of the Party, particularly those who openly or through leaks, use the media to damage the leadership.

I think Anjum has summed up the feeling of the membership when she wrote this post on Saturday.  Kiaora Anjum for writing a piece so thoughtful and succinct.

It is time for the Labour Party to meet the standard when it comes to leadership and following the wishes of the membership.  Failure to meet that standard will mean another devastating loss to National in 2017, and that would be catastrophic for too many people.

Election 2014: What Labour is doing in Taranaki-King Country.

As we head into the election, each political party is releasing policy, putting up hoardings, mobilising their volunteers (or paying circular deliveries if you are Colin Craig) to deliver pamphlets, and politicians are out kissing babies.

I live in the Taranaki-King Country electorate.  It's a dark blue electorate.  You could put a gorilla up as the National candidate and no one would bat an eye lid and vote it in as the National MP for Taranaki-King Country.

Shane Ardern has been the MP for Taranaki-King Country (TKC) since 1998.  The only thing he has ever done of great notice was drive a tractor up the steps of Parliament in 2003 to protest again the proposed "Fart Tax" that was being proposed to counter the greenhouse gases created when a cow farts.  It was a memorable stunt.

After that, however, nothing Shane Ardern has done is even worthy of putting in a Wikipedia site.

In fact, as a constituent, from September 2012 until April 2014 I tried to get Shane Ardern to meet with the Waipa Branch of NZEI, teachers and support staff, people who are his constituents.  He refused, point blank, to meet us.

So when he announced in early December 2013 that he would retire from politics at the 2014 election to spend more time with his family and on the farm, I was extremely pleased, ecstatic.  As it was my birthday that week I took it as a birthday present from the gods.

And Labour in TKC has been invigorated by the fact that there is no incumbent MP standing in the electorate. 

Late last year the call went out for a meeting to be held, and in late February a meeting was held, potential candidates put up their hands, and in late March a candidate was selected by ballot.  Penny Gaylor, a district councillor from Otaki on the Kapiti Council and active Labour party member, was voted as the candidate.  Then a Labour Electorate Committee (LEC) was formed in April, those members attended the Region 3 List Selection Day in May, and by June the campaign was in full force.

Penny Gaylor after the votes were counted for who would be the Labour candidate for Taranaki-King Country in the 2014 election.

The LEC has been very active in getting Penny Gaylor's name out in the community and she has been spending considerable time visiting people and organisations in Te Awamutu, Raglan, Kawhia, Otorohanga, Te Kuiti and Inglewood.  She has also attended events in New Plymouth with Andrew Little and attended a meeting in Taumarunui recently in order to raise the profile of Labour and the party policies as well as making herself known in the TKC electorate and beyond.

Some time in May we vaguely heard of a candidate for National being selected.  A farmer, female.  And then we heard of a Green candidate.  And then earlier this month a candidate from the Internet-Mana party.  So currently we know of four candidates duking it out for TKC.

 

Penny has been supported by some senior MPs in getting the Labour campaign started and promoting local issues that Labour is strongly concerned about.  One of the first MPs to visit was Annette King (Rongotai MP and Health spokesperson) along with List MP Sue Moroney (Chief Whip, Hamilton West candidate and Social Development spokesperson).  That day they visited a local kindy in Te Awamutu, Plunket and discussed the impact of the Matariki birthing unit being closed by the DHB with midwives and other community members.



Annette King, Penny Gaylor and Sue Moroney discussing issues at the Plunket rooms with parents, community leaders and health professionals of Te Awamutu.

Penny has also be actively visiting people in a number of communities, door knocking and has also done some phone canvasing.

Penny has visited Raglan Area School and other businesses in Raglan with List MP Moana Mackay (Environment, Climate Change and Science spokesperson) and Waikato-Hauraki MP Nanaia Mahuta (Maori Affairs and Treaty of Waitangi spokesperson) in May....

 

Penny Gaylor and Nanaia Mahuta and the team at the recycling company they visited.

Nanaia Mahuta, Moana Mackay and Penny at Raglan Harbour.

 

...she has done some canvasing and door knocking in Stratford with Whanganui candidate Hamish McDuall....

 

Penny Gaylor and Hamish McDuall in Stratford.

 

 

....attended the Fieldays with David Cunliffe (Labour leader, New Lynn MP and spokesperson for Regional Development and the SIS), Sue Moroney and Cliff Allen (Hamilton East candidate) on the Thursday and again on the Friday with Damien O'Connor (West Coast MP and Primary Industries, Fisheries, Food Safety and Biosecurity spokesman) and Cliff Allen....

 

David Cunliffe helps Penny out with some "adverstising".

Sue Moroney, David Cunliffe and Penny Gaylor with some Rhode Street School students at the Fieldays.

 

....a meeting (among others) with young people strongly involved in politics in New Plymouth with Andrew Little (List MP, candidate for New Plymouth and Justice and Labour spokesperson)...

 

Andrew Little and Penny Gaylor at the Youth in Politics meeting in New Plymouth.

 

...and just this last week, on Monday, Maryan Street (List MP, candidate for Nelson, spokesperson for Tertiary Education and State Sector) came and visited Otorohanga's Wintec campus and spoke with Grey Power in Te Kuiti.

 

Maryan Street and Penny Gaylor with some Wintec staff in Otorohanga.

 

And the next day, David Shearer (Mt Albert MP and spokesperson for Foreign Affairs and Energy) and Chris Hipkins (Rimutaka MP and spokesperson for Education and Forestry) arrived in Te Awamutu and met with Penny Gaylor, the local Labour party faithful and Dean Taylor from the Te Awamutu Courier before heading down to Otorohanga for a tour of the Otorohanga Timber Company, a meeting with The Lines Company, dinner with more local Labour party faithful and a public meeting at the Otorohanga Rugby Club.

 

Chris Hipkins, Penny Gaylor and David Shearer outside of Churchills in Te Awamuti.

Steve Wilshier explaining how the OTC adds value to timber products before exporting them overseas and also supplying the New Zealand market.

Brent Norris (TLC CEO), David Shearer, Chris Hipkins and Penny Gaylor after a healthy discussion on electricity supply.

Penny Gaylor, David Shearer and Chris Hipkins taking questions from the audience at the public meeting at the Otorohanga Rugby Club.

 

 

 

People were very interested in the education policy that Labour had released the previous week, and were also very keen to hear about Labour's ideas in the energy portfolio, particularly to do with electricity.  Also discussed was the rehabilitation of offenders in prisons through teaching them to read, write and do maths; forestry exports and jobs; housing; tourism, railways/transport and dairying.

 

The next morning, David Shearer, Chris Hipkins and Penny Gaylor also attended a public meeting in Taumarunui and discussed similar issues before Chris and David visited the Wairakei geothermal electricity generation plant. 

 

I am also adding in here the Storify of my tweets and others who responded from the public meeting held by the Labour candidate for Taupo, Jamie Strange, at the Cambridge Primary School.  David Shearer, Chris Hipkins and Sue Moroney also spoke at this meeting and Hamilton East candidate Cliff Allen and Waikato candidate Christine Greer also attended the Cambridge meeting.  At this meeting electricity was especially the hot topic, but also issues on education, social welfare, homelessness, pollution of waterways and the minimum and living wages.

 

 

 

 

Next month Penny will be hosting Grant Robertson (Wellington Central MP, Shadow Leader of the House, spokesman for Economic Development and Employment, Skills and Training)  in Te Awamutu and Annette King in Inglewood and also hopes to have several other Labour MPs visit districts in the TKC electorate.

 

 

Labour is committed to encouraging growth and development in the regions.  They want jobs and businesses in the regions that add value to products such as wood (like at the Otorohanga Timber Company), dairy, meat, wool, and many other products before they are exported.  Go to most wharf facilities and you will see raw logs being loaded onto ships to China... and then watch it come back as building materials.  Why are we exporting raw product to have it processed overseas and then import it back in to New Zealand?

 

Just in the last year in Hamilton and out in the Waikato we have seen the closure of the Huttons factory with the loss of 125 jobs, 90 jobs cut from New Zealand Post, 93 jobs cut at the Huntly East Mine, 22 jobs gone from Genesis' Huntly Power Station and an unspecified number of jobs are to go from the Genesis Call Centre in Hamilton, Metso in Matamata closed down (due to the high dollar by the way) costing 30 jobs, Thames Timber cut 70 jobs and we know there will be job losses when the Waikato DHB shuts the maternity units in Morrinsville and Te Awamutu and if National gets back in and shuts down the Ruakura Research Centre. 

 

That's 340 jobs gone, plus the unspecified amount of jobs from the Call Centre, and the Maternity and Research Centre jobs yet to be given confirmation, in the Waikato alone since August 2013. 

 

That's another thing, why would you shut down a research centre that focuses on dairy research in the middle of the best dairy country in New Zealand and move them to Christchurch????

 

There are probably many other job losses that have not been so publicly recorded.

 

www.interest.co.nz has a page called Reported job losses which they are updating monthly from a variety of sources around the country.  At the end of 2013, the tally of job losses recorded on this page was 6,390, and at the time of publishing this blog in July 2014, the 2014 tally of job losses recorded was 2,669 - and July is not a closed book yet.

 

The website also has a page covering the Recession job-loss tally of late 2008-2009.  In November/December 2008, 4,486 jobs went nationwide, 594 in the Waikato alone (but there were others classed as nationwide that could include further job losses in the Waikato that have not been specified).  From January to August 2009, plus October, 18,699 jobs disappeared (a significant number were in the state sector), and 650 jobs were lost in the greater Waikato (plus additional ones classed a nationwide).  What is interesting when you look at both pages, both time periods, is the number of jobs gone in regional New Zealand is fairly significant. 

 

And it is significant to each and every one of those communities, because for every person who loses their job, there are people, families depending on that income that no longer will be getting that income.  It affects their communities because they no longer have that money to spend at the supermarket, the local book store, the corner dairy, for the sports club fees, the school fundraisers....

 

What many people in the regions forget is that the regions do well under Labour.  The Labour led government under Clark was good for the regions.  Unemployment went down.  Farmers prospered with the structure provided by Fonterra under Labour.  Horticulture and aquaculture expanded.  Research and development that benefitted the regions was encouraged.  When someone plans the economy, it allows and encourages development throughout the country.

 

As I drive down the street in Te Awamutu, there are a number of empty stores.  Then go further south in the Taranaki-King Country... there are pockets of inspiration, but still too many empty shops, closed down factories, mills and services.  Too many people for the jobs available, and many in poorly paid employment.

 

Under National's "hands off the steering wheel" policy, we've seen companies like Metso (which built large scale mining vehicles and crusher machines and the like which were exported all over the world) close down because the high dollar made their business unsustainable.  That was a long standing business in Matamata, (originally as Tidco, then as Svedala), around since sometime in the 1970s, which was hailed in 1988 by Mike Moore as an example of a New Zealand company as an exporter on the up and up.  Just about all my life I have known someone who works at this company, family and friends, which has now withdrawn from Matamata and New Zealand.

 

 

So it was great to visit a business like Otorohanga Timber Company with Penny and Chris last week that has an extremely strong commitment to their community (Steve is well known for supporting a good cause in Otorohanga), employing local staff year round as well as local students back in town for summer from university and tech, and even young rugby and cricket players from overseas in town for the season.  This business has had to adapt to the economy, but would probably do even better out of its exports if the New Zealand dollar wasn't so high.

 

 

While, obviously because I am a teacher, I am basing my voting choices on education primarily, I am also considering other factors.  Jobs is an important factor.  If there are great jobs for people in the regions then there will be children for me to teach.  If their parents are gainfully employed, earning a quality wage, then their kids are likely to be in a warm, dry house, fed and clothed, their health needs met, and ready to learn at school.  Employed people mean that a variety of businesses in the area flourish, also employing people.  And communities become vibrant because of the businesses that are well established support local sporting and community groups and also encourage new businesses to open.  And I love to shop, so a vibrant community is good for me!!

 

 

Like David Cunliffe said, this election is about people.  It is about their hopes and dreams.  It is about being valued and respected.  Having reliable, stable employment and being paid well for the job you do gives people hope. 

 

Labour wants to bring hope back to regional New Zealand.

 

To find out more about how Labour plans to do this, click here to go to the Labour policy on Regional Development.  It gives you a broad over view of the policies and the ability to download the detailed policy.

 

So if you are in the Taranaki-King Country electorate, get out and meet your candidates (all of them) and talk to them about the policies of their parties and find out about the people that have put themselves up as candidates for you to choose as your representative in Parliament.

 

And you never know... Taranaki-King Country could become a red electorate with Penny Gaylor as MP - you just have to get out and #votepositive #ForABetterNZ!