thedailyblog--2020-11-22--Prerequisite: The Government Must Want Change

Research NZ reports this week that New Zealanders have a 90 % level of confidence in our democratic system .
This is higher than other comparable countries – 66 % confidence in Australia , 55 % in the United Kingdom , and only 23 % in the United States .
The survey also showed that New Zealanders support a change in the Parliamentary term , from three years to four .
Research NZ were prompted to ask New Zealanders their views on the length of the Parliamentary term after it arose during the election Leaders ’ Debates , and both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change .
However , there are dubious grounds for change to a four-year term .
It won ’ t necessarily lead to more efficient or better policy making .
It ’ s not the length of the electoral term that is stopping the delivery of change – or even incremental steps on the inevitably long path to ‘ transformation ’ ; it ’ s political timidity , a perceived voter constraint , the business limits to the ‘ art of the possible ’ .
With a Capital Gains Tax , inaction is due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ .
With the refusal to increase benefits , the hold-up is because progress takes time – ‘ it takes more than a week , a month or a term ’ .
But as the Child Poverty Action Group ’ s Janet McAllister says , in ‘ Ardern tells us to be patient on benefit levels .
But we ’ ve been patient long enough ’ , Labour have already had a term to deliver their transformational child poverty promises , “ so what are they waiting for ?
” When even the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a generation is so paralysed , a longer Parliamentary term might prolong a delay to the change needed to respond to social and economic crisis even further .
Indeed , at this rate , no Parliamentary term will be long enough .
More than 60 NGOs , public service providers , unions and others , signed the open letter to Jacinda Ardern asking for an increase to core benefits before Christmas .
Without irony , while earning $ 471,000 per annum as Prime Minister , Jacinda said that benefits had already been raised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a ‘ substantial increase ’ , with the indication that was politically sufficient , even if objectively , economically , and as a matter of survival and decency , it clearly is not .
In her article , McAllister says core beneficiary entitlements are below the poverty line , tipping people into the severest poverty .
An additional 70,000 children are at risk of poverty due to Covid-19 on current policy settings , with the worst poverty aggravated by benefit levels and housing costs .
Benefit levels are within Government control .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the previous $ 25 increase was enough for now , was directly followed by announcements of extended small business Covid-19 support .
There is extra money for business but not for the unemployed worker , or single parent struggling to house and clothe and feed their kids .
Bryce Edwards reflects that the Government ’ s move to the middle class has seen it become distanced from its earlier redistributive agenda .
The new Parliament reflects the nation ’ s ethnic , cultural , gender and gender orientation diversity well , but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make substantive change .
Dylan Asafo says trading on the rhetoric of kindness and unity while betraying the diverse , marginalised groups who are most often the victims of settler-colonial politics , is actually a form of exploitation and social and psychological violence .
Both the cause ( Government inaction ) and effect ( a betrayal , leading to increased poverty ) will be denied by Labour Party devotees .
Last week , Minister of Oceans and Fisheries , David Parker was among other MPs receiving a Greenpeace petition with 50,000 signatures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trawling .
Bottom trawling does terrible damage to the sea floor ( among other things ) , and New Zealand companies not only conduct this indiscriminate practice legally , but illegally too .
Parker seemed to rule out reform , indicating no mandate and no serious enthusiasm for change .
He said banning bottom trawling was not something Labour had taken to the election .
However , the list of things that Labour hadn ’ t taken to the election is a long one , and if that ’ s the criteria for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we may well feel like giving in already .
On the other hand , new Tourism Minister Stuart Nash ’ s ‘ visionary ’ idea for the future of New Zealand tourism , while more advanced than anything that came from Kelvin Davis in the last year , to focus on ‘ high value ’ tourists and to ban vans without toilets , seemed like an ill-thought out , elitist brain-fart .
Banning unserviced vans won ’ t stop people shitting on the side of the road .
With years of travelling around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet to see the legendary , alleged mountains of faeces and toilet paper , or how they can be ascribed to those in vans without toilets .
Has the Minister never seen where even the vans with toilets , keep them ?
( Under the bed , tucked under the kitchen units in the back of the van ) , and has he never travelled around the country to actually see how easy it is to get caught short given the dearth of public toilets for any traveller , in this country ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ t something that Labour took to the election , and judging by the mood of the nation in response to his grand plan , I don ’ t think the Government has much of a public mandate either .
Wouldn ’ t you think cleaning up cow shit from rivers was a higher priority .
Or even dealing with child poverty for the Government , if not for the Tourism Minister ?
Will we spend the next three years being denied action on the things that matter because Labour hadn ’ t taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
But also seeing things that don ’ t matter elevated to importance , like a longer Parliamentary term , or a freedom camping van ban when tourism operators are crying out for more custom ?
The political agenda is a crowded space with issues jostling for attention .
With house prices rising faster than pay rates , with poverty increasing in direct inverse correlation , structural fixes are important .
Tinkering around the edges , “ hints ” of slightly more money for first home buyers , will do nothing to correct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reforms to expedite urban development are a property investor ’ s dream but will not deliver new houses quickly , or necessarily make them ‘ affordable ’ when benefits and wages are so low .
Problems with inequality and homelessness will surely take more than a week or a month , and sometimes more than a Parliamentary term .
Indeed , Governments and Oppositions of red and of blue , have come and gone while these problems have been in the making .
The long , unmitigated neo-liberal experiment in New Zealand dates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jacinda Ardern was a toddler .
Now as Prime Minister she will be realising that twitter posts while in Opposition criticising Governmental inaction , are easy to make , but real change may be hard .
What ’ s the optimum Parliamentary term to achieve substantive change ?
How many Labour-led Governments does it take ?
What are the right economic conditions ?
What are the right policy settings ?
Do we rely on the trickle down from business support to improve worker ’ s status and pay , or do we support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t like to be alone too much because it gives her too much time to think .
She might allow herself some more time alone over the Christmas break , to recalibrate her vision for the country on reflection of her more reactive governing in the face of Covid-19 and other crises .
Because the critical element in effecting a fairer society , with less poverty and environmental destruction , is that the Government must want to change .

Research NZ reports this week that New Zealanders have a 90% level of confidence in our democratic system. This is higher than other comparable countries – 66% confidence in Australia, 55% in the United Kingdom, and only 23% in the United States. The survey also showed that New Zealanders support a change in the Parliamentary term, from three years to four.
Research NZ were prompted to ask New Zealanders their views on the length of the Parliamentary term after it arose during the election Leaders’ Debates, and both Jacinda Ardern and Judith Collins supported a change.
However, there are dubious grounds for change to a four-year term. It won’t necessarily lead to more efficient or better policy making. It’s not the length of the electoral term that is stopping the delivery of change – or even incremental steps on the inevitably long path to ‘transformation’; it’s political timidity, a perceived voter constraint, the business limits to the ‘art of the possible’. With a Capital Gains Tax, inaction is due to ‘no support from the public’. With the refusal to increase benefits, the hold-up is because progress takes time – ‘it takes more than a week, a month or a term’.
But as the Child Poverty Action Group’s Janet McAllister says, in ‘Ardern tells us to be patient on benefit levels. But we’ve been patient long enough’, Labour have already had a term to deliver their transformational child poverty promises, “so what are they waiting for?” When even the most popular and supposedly progressive government in a generation is so paralysed, a longer Parliamentary term might prolong a delay to the change needed to respond to social and economic crisis even further. Indeed, at this rate, no Parliamentary term will be long enough.
More than 60 NGOs, public service providers, unions and others, signed the open letter to Jacinda Ardern asking for an increase to core benefits before Christmas. Without irony, while earning $471,000 per annum as Prime Minister, Jacinda said that benefits had already been raised $25 a week, citing that as a ‘substantial increase’, with the indication that was politically sufficient, even if objectively, economically, and as a matter of survival and decency, it clearly is not. In her article, McAllister says core beneficiary entitlements are below the poverty line, tipping people into the severest poverty. An additional 70,000 children are at risk of poverty due to Covid-19 on current policy settings, with the worst poverty aggravated by benefit levels and housing costs. Benefit levels are within Government control.
But the news item where Jacinda said the previous $25 increase was enough for now, was directly followed by announcements of extended small business Covid-19 support. There is extra money for business but not for the unemployed worker, or single parent struggling to house and clothe and feed their kids. Bryce Edwards reflects that the Government’s move to the middle class has seen it become distanced from its earlier redistributive agenda. The new Parliament reflects the nation’s ethnic, cultural, gender and gender orientation diversity well, but it has become too comfortable and socially conservative to make substantive change. Dylan Asafo says trading on the rhetoric of kindness and unity while betraying the diverse, marginalised groups who are most often the victims of settler-colonial politics, is actually a form of exploitation and social and psychological violence. Both the cause (Government inaction) and effect (a betrayal, leading to increased poverty) will be denied by Labour Party devotees.
Last week, Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, David Parker was among other MPs receiving a Greenpeace petition with 50,000 signatures calling for a ban on ocean bottom trawling. Bottom trawling does terrible damage to the sea floor (among other things), and New Zealand companies not only conduct this indiscriminate practice legally, but illegally too. Parker seemed to rule out reform, indicating no mandate and no serious enthusiasm for change. He said banning bottom trawling was not something Labour had taken to the election. However, the list of things that Labour hadn’t taken to the election is a long one, and if that’s the criteria for deciding whether progress will be made, we may well feel like giving in already.
On the other hand, new Tourism Minister Stuart Nash’s ‘visionary’ idea for the future of New Zealand tourism, while more advanced than anything that came from Kelvin Davis in the last year, to focus on ‘high value’ tourists and to ban vans without toilets, seemed like an ill-thought out, elitist brain-fart. Banning unserviced vans won’t stop people shitting on the side of the road. With years of travelling around New Zealand by van, I am yet to see the legendary, alleged mountains of faeces and toilet paper, or how they can be ascribed to those in vans without toilets. Has the Minister never seen where even the vans with toilets, keep them? (Under the bed, tucked under the kitchen units in the back of the van), and has he never travelled around the country to actually see how easy it is to get caught short given the dearth of public toilets for any traveller, in this country? But banning vans without toilets wasn’t something that Labour took to the election, and judging by the mood of the nation in response to his grand plan, I don’t think the Government has much of a public mandate either. Wouldn’t you think cleaning up cow shit from rivers was a higher priority. Or even dealing with child poverty for the Government, if not for the Tourism Minister?
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Will we spend the next three years being denied action on the things that matter because Labour hadn’t taken them as explicit policy to the election? But also seeing things that don’t matter elevated to importance, like a longer Parliamentary term, or a freedom camping van ban when tourism operators are crying out for more custom? The political agenda is a crowded space with issues jostling for attention. With house prices rising faster than pay rates, with poverty increasing in direct inverse correlation, structural fixes are important. Tinkering around the edges, “hints” of slightly more money for first home buyers, will do nothing to correct a housing market gone mad. RMA reforms to expedite urban development are a property investor’s dream but will not deliver new houses quickly, or necessarily make them ‘affordable’ when benefits and wages are so low.
Problems with inequality and homelessness will surely take more than a week or a month, and sometimes more than a Parliamentary term. Indeed, Governments and Oppositions of red and of blue, have come and gone while these problems have been in the making. The long, unmitigated neo-liberal experiment in New Zealand dates back to the Labour Government from when Jacinda Ardern was a toddler. Now as Prime Minister she will be realising that twitter posts while in Opposition criticising Governmental inaction, are easy to make, but real change may be hard.
What’s the optimum Parliamentary term to achieve substantive change? How many Labour-led Governments does it take? What are the right economic conditions? What are the right policy settings? Do we rely on the trickle down from business support to improve worker’s status and pay, or do we support people themselves?
Jacinda Ardern said she doesn’t like to be alone too much because it gives her too much time to think. She might allow herself some more time alone over the Christmas break, to recalibrate her vision for the country on reflection of her more reactive governing in the face of Covid-19 and other crises. Because the critical element in effecting a fairer society, with less poverty and environmental destruction, is that the Government must want to change.


thedailyblog--2020-11-22--Dr Liz Gordon: Making progress on justice

I want to begin by acknowledging the immense work that Andrew Little did as Minister of Justice over the past three years , considering and beginning the immense amount of work needed to reform the justice system .
I expect , and hope , that new Minster Kris Faafoi will continue those reforms apace – no slowing down , no looking back .
With various elections around the world , and the surging Covid situation , I have not written about justice reforms for a while ( gosh , it has been months ! )
, so I decided it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my avid readers society will attest , supporting the overthrow of the current justice system , in favour some thing more positive , passionate and life-enhancing , is at the centre of my heart and mind .
The Waitangi Tribunal is currently considering whether to hear a claim ( WAI 3008 ) against the 2013 Bail Amendment Act , which caused a very large increase in the number of people , mainly Māori , held in our prisons prior to being put on trial .
This process is known as ‘ remand ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : a person is arrested for a crime .
They spend a night or two in police cells , get some advice , appear in court and ( usually ) make a plea and are remanded ‘ in custody ’ or ‘ on bail ’ until their case can be heard .
Christie Marceau was murdered by her stalker ex-friend who had a very severe mental illness yet was allowed out on bail .
It was a serious and fatal error .
The resulting moral panic led to the 2013 Act , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have to be held on remand .
The injustice here is that , with long delays in trials , people are held for months and years to such an extent that more than half of remand prisoners never spend a day as a sentenced prisoner , but are released on ‘ time served ’ .
Hundreds of remand people are also found not guilty yet have their lives ruined , jobs lost , families split up etc as a result of being held before trial in prison .
Many people turn to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 40 % of those currently in prison are on remand .
The growth in pre-trial detention has particularly increased further the number of Māori in the prison system .
The burden falls disproportionately on Māori and also on women , whose numbers have been increasing while sentenced numbers go down .
The remand population is the primary driver of the increase in prison numbers over the past few years .
Without high remand figures , prison numbers would be reducing across the board .
It is a sign of tinpot dictatorships when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ substantially .
Remand is much worse than a sentenced term of imprisonment .
Remand prisoners can ’ t be put on work or therapeutic programmes for legal reasons .
They are mainly just held , until the court system eventually comes around to giving them a trial .
So the claim WAI 3008 argues that the 2013 Act is unfair and unjust , the burden falls mainly on Māori , the justice effects are harsh and unforgiving , prison itself can be violent and is always alienating , and the cost to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so-called ‘ kaupapa ’ claims currently in front of the Waitangi Tribunal .
These are huge , multilateral claims based on broad policies areas , such as the kaupapa health inquiry ( WAI 2575 ) .
The list of the 13 kaupapa inquiries can be found on the internet .
Justice is number 12 on that list of 13 and has not yet commenced .
This means that it might be a decade before the Waitangi Tribunal begins to examine the claim that the Crown has breached the Treaty of Waitangi by making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heavily and unjustly on Māori .
At the heart of this claim is the pattern of everyday unfairness , bias and discrimination that Māori face .
The claim that the 2013 Act has breached the Treaty in and of itself has the potential to allow the tribunal to examine some of the core issues facing Māori in the justice system without having to wait for the hearing of the larger claim , and to consider , urgently and within a contained framework , one of the largest injustices that still impact on Māori @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leading the claim is a young criminology graduate at Victoria University , who was herself held for a over a year on remand in prison , Awatea Mita .
Many others are supporting the claim for a separate hearing , and under urgency .
I hope the hearing goes ahead .
In the meantime , there are many other reform issues in justice that the new minister can work on .
There is the opportunity in this term of government to turn the juggernaut of a punitive and vindictive justice system around , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a happy and peaceful society .
I wish the new Minister good luck , and don ’ t forget to eat your greens and take your vitamins , as sustained energy will be needed .
Dr Liz Gordon is a researcher and a barrister , with interests in destroying neo-liberalism in all its forms and moving towards a socially just society .
She usually blogs on justice , social welfare and education topics .

I want to begin by acknowledging the immense work that Andrew Little did as Minister of Justice over the past three years, considering and beginning the immense amount of work needed to reform the justice system. I expect, and hope, that new Minster Kris Faafoi will continue those reforms apace – no slowing down, no looking back.
With various elections around the world, and the surging Covid situation, I have not written about justice reforms for a while (gosh, it has been months!), so I decided it was time. As both members of my avid readers society will attest, supporting the overthrow of the current justice system, in favour some thing more positive, passionate and life-enhancing, is at the centre of my heart and mind.
The Waitangi Tribunal is currently considering whether to hear a claim (WAI 3008) against the 2013 Bail Amendment Act, which caused a very large increase in the number of people, mainly Māori, held in our prisons prior to being put on trial. This process is known as ‘remand’. How it goes is as follows: a person is arrested for a crime. They spend a night or two in police cells, get some advice, appear in court and (usually) make a plea and are remanded ‘in custody’ or ‘on bail’ until their case can be heard.
Christie Marceau was murdered by her stalker ex-friend who had a very severe mental illness yet was allowed out on bail. It was a serious and fatal error. The resulting moral panic led to the 2013 Act, which massively expanded the number of people that would have to be held on remand.
The injustice here is that, with long delays in trials, people are held for months and years to such an extent that more than half of remand prisoners never spend a day as a sentenced prisoner, but are released on ‘time served’.
Hundreds of remand people are also found not guilty yet have their lives ruined, jobs lost, families split up etc as a result of being held before trial in prison. Many people turn to gang membership while on remand.
Around 40% of those currently in prison are on remand. The growth in pre-trial detention has particularly increased further the number of Māori in the prison system. The burden falls disproportionately on Māori and also on women, whose numbers have been increasing while sentenced numbers go down.
The remand population is the primary driver of the increase in prison numbers over the past few years. Without high remand figures, prison numbers would be reducing across the board.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
It is a sign of tinpot dictatorships when the numbers of people held without trial increase substantially. Remand is much worse than a sentenced term of imprisonment. Remand prisoners can’t be put on work or therapeutic programmes for legal reasons. They are mainly just held, until the court system eventually comes around to giving them a trial.
So the claim WAI 3008 argues that the 2013 Act is unfair and unjust, the burden falls mainly on Māori, the justice effects are harsh and unforgiving, prison itself can be violent and is always alienating, and the cost to the public is high.
There are many so-called ‘kaupapa’ claims currently in front of the Waitangi Tribunal. These are huge, multilateral claims based on broad policies areas, such as the kaupapa health inquiry (WAI 2575). The list of the 13 kaupapa inquiries can be found on the internet. Justice is number 12 on that list of 13 and has not yet commenced.
This means that it might be a decade before the Waitangi Tribunal begins to examine the claim that the Crown has breached the Treaty of Waitangi by making the burden of the justice system fall heavily and unjustly on Māori. At the heart of this claim is the pattern of everyday unfairness, bias and discrimination that Māori face.
The claim that the 2013 Act has breached the Treaty in and of itself has the potential to allow the tribunal to examine some of the core issues facing Māori in the justice system without having to wait for the hearing of the larger claim, and to consider, urgently and within a contained framework, one of the largest injustices that still impact on Māori in the justice system.
The person leading the claim is a young criminology graduate at Victoria University, who was herself held for a over a year on remand in prison, Awatea Mita. Many others are supporting the claim for a separate hearing, and under urgency. I hope the hearing goes ahead.
In the meantime, there are many other reform issues in justice that the new minister can work on. There is the opportunity in this term of government to turn the juggernaut of a punitive and vindictive justice system around, and find new measures of justice for a happy and peaceful society. I wish the new Minister good luck, and don’t forget to eat your greens and take your vitamins, as sustained energy will be needed.
Dr Liz Gordon is a researcher and a barrister, with interests in destroying neo-liberalism in all its forms and moving towards a socially just society. She usually blogs on justice, social welfare and education topics.


thedailyblog--2020-11-23--30 years of neoliberalism has failed the poor – so why is Labour continuing it?

As a leading Labour politician , Michael Cullen has been a huge influence on social policies , some widely lauded like KiwiSaver but the most controversial being Working for Families ( WFF ) .
The deficiencies of WFF are apparent in this recession as families who become poor enough to qualify for welfare benefit also suffer a significant cut in WFF for their children .
It is timely to review the history of this discriminatory policy and the role Labour has played in perpetuating the worst of child poverty .
The problem started 30 years ago .
Since the late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wedded to patriarchal free market economic models that don ’ t have a place for the work involved in reproduction or nurturing healthy children .
In the happy free-market family , children appear instantaneously .
They are magically taken care of leaving no excuse for mothers to be out of the paid workforce , except the lucky few whose workforce attachment allows 6 months of taxpayer funded , Paid Parent Leave .
The 1991 Mother of all budgets set the tone for what followed from National and eventually also from Labour too .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to become inured to the neoliberal reforms of the 1990s and to tolerate , and then extend a ‘ deserving ’ and ‘ underserving ’ approach to the financial support of children .
I remember the deep shock of hearing Jenny Shipley announce prior to the 1991 budget that struggling sole parents and married couples with children would have $ 27 a week carved out of their meagre benefits .
Child poverty rates soared , food banks proliferated , along with an explosion in preventable and often deadly contagious diseases and overcrowding in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide some remedy , Bill Birch gave tax cuts to middle and upper New Zealanders and significantly upped the weekly targeted child payment ( called Family Support ) by $ 20 a child , providing some much needed inflation catch up .
BUT this is where the ideology took hold : $ 15 of this payment was denied to the poorest children .
This $ 15 carve off , ( the Child Tax Credit ) went only to those ‘ deserving ’ families who were deemed to be “ independent from the state.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ say about this package ?
He called it “ a simplistic tangle of bigotry and ignorance … barely disguised attack on beneficiaries … mean spirited , ill thought through and punitive … unholy product of National ’ s deeply held view that everyone on a benefit is a bludger and Treasury ’ s new right agenda … based on highly questionable incentives arguments.
” Hansard is illuminating .
What a lot of righteous indignation !
From Annette King- “ it makes me sick….it isolates beneficiaries from other families- treats them like lepers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ differently- what is different about a beneficiary child ?
Does that child look different when she or he goes to school ?
Yes , that child probably does look different because of the circumstances of the family—But also the government wants everyone to know that he or she is different.
” Phil Goff wanted to know why this “ miserable government does practically nothing for the quarter of a million children who are the most disadvantaged in our community .
Let us recognise that this package deliberately , cold-bloodedly and calculatedly discriminates against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own are not at work.
” Michael Cullen ranted still further against the CTC with his own quirky turn of phrase “ At least the strange , 19th century minds opposite are not putting those children back up the chimneys , but they are saying that the kids should be used to force other people back up the chimneys .
Children are children are children—no matter who their parents are .
To draw distinctions between what the State says should go to low-income families on the basis of the source of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that income is obscene.
” He promised that “ Labour will make sure that all low to middle income families get the full benefit of the full assistance available.
” But sadly that was not to be in spite of our child poverty rate being one of the worst in the developed world .
After that crumb of an increase of $ 5 a child a week in 1996 , children in families on benefits had to wait until 2005 for a further few crumbs .
Under Labour ’ s 2005 WFF , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Credit ) was increased .
But the government took the opportunity to reduce core benefits : a sole parent with two children got $ 40 Family Support extra but lost $ 22 in core benefit .
In 2006 , the CTC was renamed the In Work Tax Credit ( IWTC ) , increased to $ 60 a week for 1-3 children with extra for larger families , and made even more discriminatory by requiring fixed hours of paid work as well as being off benefit .
The terminology disguised its child-related status and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raising children .
Then , in an astonishing capitulation to neoliberalism , in 2007 Labour enshrined the centrality of paid work into a new purposes and principles section of the Social Security Act .
Rather than lifting the poorest children out of poverty by incentivising paid work , WFF acted to deepen their poverty and exclusion .
More generous and more complex support was indeed available , but only for ‘ deserving ’ children of ‘ working parents ’ driving an even bigger gap between families on benefit income and those who were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the IWTC failed as a work incentive and today around 170,000 of the poorest children continue to suffer this discrimination losing a much needed $ 72.50 or more a week just because their parents need state support in troubled times .
It is time for Labour to rediscover the passion it had in 1996 and reverse this abominable child poverty policy .

As a leading Labour politician, Michael Cullen has been a huge influence on social policies, some widely lauded like KiwiSaver but the most controversial being Working for Families (WFF).
The deficiencies of WFF are apparent in this recession as families who become poor enough to qualify for welfare benefit also suffer a significant cut in WFF for their children. It is timely to review the history of this discriminatory policy and the role Labour has played in perpetuating the worst of child poverty.
The problem started 30 years ago. Since the late 1980s New Zealand governments have been enthusiastically wedded to patriarchal free market economic models that don’t have a place for the work involved in reproduction or nurturing healthy children. In the happy free-market family, children appear instantaneously. They are magically taken care of leaving no excuse for mothers to be out of the paid workforce, except the lucky few whose workforce attachment allows 6 months of taxpayer funded, Paid Parent Leave.
The 1991 Mother of all budgets set the tone for what followed from National and eventually also from Labour too. But it took some time for Labour to become inured to the neoliberal reforms of the 1990s and to tolerate, and then extend a ‘deserving’ and ‘underserving’ approach to the financial support of children.
I remember the deep shock of hearing Jenny Shipley announce prior to the 1991 budget that struggling sole parents and married couples with children would have $27 a week carved out of their meagre benefits. Child poverty rates soared, food banks proliferated, along with an explosion in preventable and often deadly contagious diseases and overcrowding in substandard housing.
In 1996, to provide some remedy, Bill Birch gave tax cuts to middle and upper New Zealanders and significantly upped the weekly targeted child payment (called Family Support) by $20 a child, providing some much needed inflation catch up. BUT this is where the ideology took hold: $15 of this payment was denied to the poorest children. This $15 carve off, (the Child Tax Credit) went only to those ‘deserving’ families who were deemed to be “independent from the state.”
What did Michael Cullen have to say about this package? He called it “a simplistic tangle of bigotry and ignorance … barely disguised attack on beneficiaries … mean spirited, ill thought through and punitive … unholy product of National’s deeply held view that everyone on a benefit is a bludger and Treasury’s new right agenda … based on highly questionable incentives arguments.”
Hansard is illuminating. What a lot of righteous indignation! From Annette King- “it makes me sick….it isolates beneficiaries from other families- treats them like lepers and worst of all it treats their children differently- what is different about a beneficiary child? Does that child look different when she or he goes to school? Yes, that child probably does look different because of the circumstances of the family—But also the government wants everyone to know that he or she is different.”
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Phil Goff wanted to know why this “miserable government does practically nothing for the quarter of a million children who are the most disadvantaged in our community. Let us recognise that this package deliberately, cold-bloodedly and calculatedly discriminates against those people who through no fault of their own are not at work.”
Michael Cullen ranted still further against the CTC with his own quirky turn of phrase “At least the strange, 19th century minds opposite are not putting those children back up the chimneys, but they are saying that the kids should be used to force other people back up the chimneys. Children are children are children—no matter who their parents are. To draw distinctions between what the State says should go to low-income families on the basis of the source of that income rather than on the level of that income is obscene.”
He promised that “Labour will make sure that all low to middle income families get the full benefit of the full assistance available.”
But sadly that was not to be in spite of our child poverty rate being one of the worst in the developed world. After that crumb of an increase of $5 a child a week in 1996, children in families on benefits had to wait until 2005 for a further few crumbs.
Under Labour’s 2005 WFF, Family Support (now called Family Tax Credit) was increased. But the government took the opportunity to reduce core benefits: a sole parent with two children got $40 Family Support extra but lost $22 in core benefit.
In 2006, the CTC was renamed the In Work Tax Credit (IWTC), increased to $60 a week for 1-3 children with extra for larger families, and made even more discriminatory by requiring fixed hours of paid work as well as being off benefit. The terminology disguised its child-related status and rendered invisible the important unpaid work of raising children.
Then, in an astonishing capitulation to neoliberalism, in 2007 Labour enshrined the centrality of paid work into a new purposes and principles section of the Social Security Act.
Rather than lifting the poorest children out of poverty by incentivising paid work, WFF acted to deepen their poverty and exclusion. More generous and more complex support was indeed available, but only for ‘deserving’ children of ‘working parents’ driving an even bigger gap between families on benefit income and those who were not.
Subsequent evaluation by Treasury showed the IWTC failed as a work incentive and today around 170,000 of the poorest children continue to suffer this discrimination losing a much needed $72.50 or more a week just because their parents need state support in troubled times.
It is time for Labour to rediscover the passion it had in 1996 and reverse this abominable child poverty policy.


thedailyblog--2020-11-23--“Goodfellas”: The Neoliberal National Party Shows Its Ugly Face

ABOUT THE ONLY thing the National Party has got going for it at the moment is the Labour Party .
National ’ s AGM , held in Wellington over the weekend , achieved worse than nothing .
It proved conclusively that the political structures created by the post-2002 constitution are impervious to National Party membership pressure .
It showed New Zealand how far the party ’ s talent pool has shrunk since John Key vacated the leadership in 2016 .
Worst of all , in the speech of National ’ s President , Peter Goodfellow , New Zealanders got to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the party has trapped itself .
Were it not for the similarly delusional mindset evident in the leadership of the Labour Party , National could expect to remain out of power for at least the next 6-9 years .
When Judy Kirk and Steven Joyce set about re-writing the National Party constitution in the aftermath of the disastrous 2002 General Election – when National attracted just 20.9 percent of the Party Vote – the resulting document betrayed the extent to which the political imperatives of neoliberalism had superseded those which drove the party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then , the urgent need was to create a mass political party to match the formidable strength of the Labour Party .
The political historian , Barry Gustafson , quotes Tom Wilkes , one of the National Party ’ s most important ‘ founding fathers ’ , describing Labour as “ numerically and financially … the greatest political organisation that has ever existed in the history of [ New Zealand ] .
” In Gustafson ’ s own words : “ National needed to match it with an effective but more democratic mass-based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ selection and play a major role in shaping policy.
” Even the right-wing parliamentarians and former army officers driving the merger of the United and Reform parties – predecessors of the National Party – understood that a mass organisation could not be built on anything other than a constitution which guaranteed a large measure of democratic participation and control to the rank-and-file membership .
Eighty years on , however , the neoliberal concept of “ governance ” elevated the concepts of professionalism and organisational efficiency well above those of the often chaotic and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Kirk and Joyce did their best to transform National from a political party into a political corporation – complete with a Board-of-Directors .
At the time , even Blind Freddy could see than the latter was bound to become self-selecting and self-perpetuating oligarchy .
It is interesting to speculate as to why the Electoral Commission approved the Kirk-Joyce constitution .
The Electoral Act requires all registered political parties to have recognisably democratic rules .
No genuine democrat could possibly mistake the National Party ’ s constitutional arrangements as the basis for anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were provisions that permitted members to cast votes , but the core democratic principle : full accountability of those at the top to those at the bottom ; was almost entirely absent .
Clearly , the Commission is not prepared to call to account any political party that might one day be in a position to have it abolished !
Alternatively , its members , like Kirk and Joyce , may also be of the view that “ good governance ” should always trump democratic accountability .
Certainly , there was no concession @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A reasonable National Party member might have anticipated that a president who led his party to the second-worst defeat in its history would feel obliged to fall upon his sword in recognition of the scale of his failure .
Such a member would have been disappointed .
Under National ’ s old constitution , the membership might have responded to Goodfellow ’ s failure by voting him out of office .
But , under the Kirk-Joyce constitution , that sort of root-and-branch change is no longer an option .
Power flows down , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 2020 .
Presidential patronage takes precedence over presidential proficiency .
No National Party members with parliamentary ambitions are going to put themselves off-side with the Board .
It is precisely this unwillingness to take risks – this enforced sycophancy – that explains why it has become so hard to attract persons of principle and courage to National ’ s ranks .
When the only behaviour that counts is the sort of behaviour that wins the Board of Directors backing at candidate selection meetings , then it should come as no surprise that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no longer seem to make it in the National Party .
That Key was selected under the rules of the old National Party constitution – as were Bill English , Don Brash and Judith Collins – is surely no accident .
Likewise , that Simon Bridges and Todd Muller were selected under its neoliberal replacement !
At the heart of the neoliberal mindset , now seemingly unchallengeable in the National Party , is the belief that capitalism and democracy are essentially incompatible .
Democracy begets more democracy .
“ Certain inalienable rights ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discerning additional inalienable rights .
If allowed to develop unchecked , democratic institutions will , eventually , arrive at the gates of private property and private profit and demand admittance .
Hence the neoliberal obsession with “ governance ” : which is more truthfully rendered as “ democracy on a tight leash ” , or , even more truthfully , “ decision-making that – at all costs – protects capitalism ” .
Goodfellow ’ s speech to the AGM fairly reeked with this antagonism towards any political leader and/or political institution failing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National ’ s world , the rights of private property and private profit must always take precedence over every other consideration : even the health of the population ; even in the face of a deadly virus and a global pandemic .
Jacinda Ardern ’ s clear and uncompromising decision to put the interests of her fellow citizens ahead of the interests of the individuals and corporations Goodfellow is so good at extracting donations from , earned her his own , and to a degree little short of repellent , his party ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he dressed it up in euphemistic language like “ celebrity politics ” and “ temporary tyranny ” , but what he meant was : “ You broke the rules .
You put people ahead of profits .
You have identified both yourself and your party as unfit to manage a modern capitalist economy.
” The tragedy , of course , is that Ardern half-pie agrees with him .
With Covid-19 stamped-out ( for the meantime ) and the need to act instinctively no longer in evidence , the Prime Minister has reverted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of her generation : neoliberalism .
Led by her head , Ardern ’ s path forward is practically indistinguishable from that which National would have followed had it , by some miracle , ended up commanding a majority of the seats in Parliament .
Led by her head , the Prime Minister , like her party , subscribes to the notion of “ good governance ” .
Why else is she refusing to take the steps necessary to address New Zealand ’ s rapidly worsening housing crisis ?
Presumably , because that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interests of the homeless – not property investors .
Presumably , because that would require those at the top of our society being accountable to those at the bottom .
But , most of all , because it would require Jacinda to do what “ Jacinda ” does best : respond to a crisis by following the urgings of her heart .

ABOUT THE ONLY thing the National Party has got going for it at the moment is the Labour Party. National’s AGM, held in Wellington over the weekend, achieved worse than nothing. It proved conclusively that the political structures created by the post-2002 constitution are impervious to National Party membership pressure. It showed New Zealand how far the party’s talent pool has shrunk since John Key vacated the leadership in 2016. Worst of all, in the speech of National’s President, Peter Goodfellow, New Zealanders got to hear the vile neoliberal narrative in which the party has trapped itself. Were it not for the similarly delusional mindset evident in the leadership of the Labour Party, National could expect to remain out of power for at least the next 6-9 years.
When Judy Kirk and Steven Joyce set about re-writing the National Party constitution in the aftermath of the disastrous 2002 General Election – when National attracted just 20.9 percent of the Party Vote – the resulting document betrayed the extent to which the political imperatives of neoliberalism had superseded those which drove the party’s formation in 1936.
Back then, the urgent need was to create a mass political party to match the formidable strength of the Labour Party. The political historian, Barry Gustafson, quotes Tom Wilkes, one of the National Party’s most important ‘founding fathers’, describing Labour as “numerically and financially … the greatest political organisation that has ever existed in the history of [New Zealand].” In Gustafson’s own words: “National needed to match it with an effective but more democratic mass-based party, whose members would control candidate selection and play a major role in shaping policy.”
Even the right-wing parliamentarians and former army officers driving the merger of the United and Reform parties – predecessors of the National Party – understood that a mass organisation could not be built on anything other than a constitution which guaranteed a large measure of democratic participation and control to the rank-and-file membership.
Eighty years on, however, the neoliberal concept of “governance” elevated the concepts of professionalism and organisational efficiency well above those of the often chaotic and unpredictable outcomes associated with democracy. Accordingly, Kirk and Joyce did their best to transform National from a political party into a political corporation – complete with a Board-of-Directors. At the time, even Blind Freddy could see than the latter was bound to become self-selecting and self-perpetuating oligarchy.
It is interesting to speculate as to why the Electoral Commission approved the Kirk-Joyce constitution. The Electoral Act requires all registered political parties to have recognisably democratic rules. No genuine democrat could possibly mistake the National Party’s constitutional arrangements as the basis for anything other than oligarchy. Yes, there were provisions that permitted members to cast votes, but the core democratic principle: full accountability of those at the top to those at the bottom; was almost entirely absent. Clearly, the Commission is not prepared to call to account any political party that might one day be in a position to have it abolished! Alternatively, its members, like Kirk and Joyce, may also be of the view that “good governance” should always trump democratic accountability.
Certainly, there was no concession made to accountability by Peter Goodfellow. A reasonable National Party member might have anticipated that a president who led his party to the second-worst defeat in its history would feel obliged to fall upon his sword in recognition of the scale of his failure. Such a member would have been disappointed.
Under National’s old constitution, the membership might have responded to Goodfellow’s failure by voting him out of office. But, under the Kirk-Joyce constitution, that sort of root-and-branch change is no longer an option. Power flows down, not up, in the National Party of 2020. Presidential patronage takes precedence over presidential proficiency. No National Party members with parliamentary ambitions are going to put themselves off-side with the Board.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
It is precisely this unwillingness to take risks – this enforced sycophancy – that explains why it has become so hard to attract persons of principle and courage to National’s ranks. When the only behaviour that counts is the sort of behaviour that wins the Board of Directors backing at candidate selection meetings, then it should come as no surprise that politicians of John Key’s calibre no longer seem to make it in the National Party. That Key was selected under the rules of the old National Party constitution – as were Bill English, Don Brash and Judith Collins – is surely no accident. Likewise, that Simon Bridges and Todd Muller were selected under its neoliberal replacement!
At the heart of the neoliberal mindset, now seemingly unchallengeable in the National Party, is the belief that capitalism and democracy are essentially incompatible. Democracy begets more democracy. “Certain inalienable rights” if honoured, have a way of discerning additional inalienable rights. If allowed to develop unchecked, democratic institutions will, eventually, arrive at the gates of private property and private profit and demand admittance. Hence the neoliberal obsession with “governance”: which is more truthfully rendered as “democracy on a tight leash”, or, even more truthfully, “decision-making that – at all costs – protects capitalism”.
Goodfellow’s speech to the AGM fairly reeked with this antagonism towards any political leader and/or political institution failing to protect the interests of capitalism. In National’s world, the rights of private property and private profit must always take precedence over every other consideration: even the health of the population; even in the face of a deadly virus and a global pandemic.
Jacinda Ardern’s clear and uncompromising decision to put the interests of her fellow citizens ahead of the interests of the individuals and corporations Goodfellow is so good at extracting donations from, earned her his own, and to a degree little short of repellent, his party’s, sneering contempt. Oh yes, he dressed it up in euphemistic language like “celebrity politics” and “temporary tyranny”, but what he meant was: “You broke the rules. You put people ahead of profits. You have identified both yourself and your party as unfit to manage a modern capitalist economy.”
The tragedy, of course, is that Ardern half-pie agrees with him. With Covid-19 stamped-out (for the meantime) and the need to act instinctively no longer in evidence, the Prime Minister has reverted to the political and moral default position of her generation: neoliberalism. Led by her head, Ardern’s path forward is practically indistinguishable from that which National would have followed had it, by some miracle, ended up commanding a majority of the seats in Parliament.
Led by her head, the Prime Minister, like her party, subscribes to the notion of “good governance”. Why else is she refusing to take the steps necessary to address New Zealand’s rapidly worsening housing crisis?
Presumably, because that would involve requiring monetary policy to serve the interests of the homeless – not property investors. Presumably, because that would require those at the top of our society being accountable to those at the bottom.
But, most of all, because it would require Jacinda to do what “Jacinda” does best: respond to a crisis by following the urgings of her heart.


thedailyblog--2020-11-25--The most important must read political blog of 2020 – A Caucus Of Velvet Gloves

NEW ZEALAND now boasts one of the most diverse parliaments on the planet .
In terms of gender , ethnicity and sexuality , the governing Labour Party ’ s caucus , in particular , bears testimony to the work of many progressive politicians , over many years , to transform “ diversity ” from a pious ideological aspiration into a flesh-and-blood political fact .
Quite an achievement .
But , it is also an achievement fraught with danger .
Because , as Bryce Edwards points out in his recent Guardian article , the Labour Party ’ s diversity does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that New Zealand has a parliament – and a government – drawn overwhelmingly from the Professional-Managerial Class ( PMC ) .
The perils of this social monoculture should be obvious .
It can only raise a formidable barrier to understanding – and hence addressing – the needs of those living in the bottom half of New Zealand society .
This is not simply a problem founded on ignorance : a case of Labour not knowing what it doesn ’ t know about life in the Otaras and Flaxmeres of New Zealand .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The PMC is distinguished by the role it plays in mediating Capitalism ’ s relationship with its most injured victims .
Without the PMC army of lawyers , probation officers , social workers , health professionals , teachers , journalists and “ communications specialists ” to extinguish the fires ignited constantly by economic exploitation and social exclusion , the whole of capitalist society would soon be engulfed in flames .
The PMC is what you create when the price of relying exclusively upon police officers , judges , jailers and soldiers to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high .
It ’ s the velvet glove that Capitalism pulls on to hide and soften its iron fist .
For this subterfuge to work , however , the PMC has to believe that it knows much better than Capitalism ’ s casualties what ’ s good for them .
There is one very simple reason why a government comprised overwhelmingly of members of the PMC will find it almost impossible to understand what the bottom half of New Zealand society needs : because it is supremely confident that it already does .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” attitude been on display more clearly than in Oranga Tamariki .
A more compelling example of the PMC ’ s inability to comprehend the sheer scale of its failure is hard to imagine .
The idea that the “ lower orders ” might actually have a better grasp of what is needed to keep their children safe is simply inconceivable to the bureaucrats set in authority over them .
These people are the “ problem ” – so how could they possibly be included in the search for solutions ?
One has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harrowing Newsroom video to see the PMC at work .
The employees of Oranga Tamariki quite literally put themselves between the victim and the Police – not to protect the young Maori mother , but to do everything possible to ensure that the “ uplifting ” of her child was effected without recourse to actual force .
The PMC ’ s stock-in-trade is institutional violence .
The injuries it inflicts may be no less severe , but they are certainly more easily hidden than those caused by physical violence .
For Capitalism , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the streets .
Those Labour supporters feeling confused and distressed by the Government ’ s apparent deafness to the cries of need arising from the poorest and most exploited New Zealanders should understand that when it comes to Labour ’ s caucus that deafness is a feature , not a bug .
Alert Labour MPs to overt displays of misogyny , white supremacy , anti-Islamic prejudice and/or homophobia , and watch them spring into action .
These are injustices which Capitalism is only too happy to help progressive politicians eradicate .
Socio-economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter .
Any serious attempt to eradicate these wrongs would constitute a direct challenge to the capitalist system as a whole , and since the PMC looks upon capitalism as the most effective and efficient system for allocating resources that humankind has so far developed , undermining its operation in any serious way would be considered irrational .
While it is perfectly acceptable to help those “ doing it hard ” to respond to capitalism ’ s needs , expecting capitalism to respond to theirs ( in any meaningful way ) is politically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( the clue to its mission is in the name ! )
will organise job clubs and offer help with beneficiaries ’ CVs , but it will not pay a benefit that ensures them a secure and dignified existence .
What incentive would there be to kowtow to the boss if , secure in the knowledge that they could live easily on the unemployment benefit until a better job came along , employees felt free to tell employers where to stick their lousy jobs ?
For capitalism to work , so must the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under conditions set by the bosses – not the workers .
Employees who no longer fear the sack are capitalism ’ s worst nightmare .
The members of Labour ’ s parliamentary caucus – the largest ever – will undoubtedly bridle at the very suggestion that they belong to a class comprised of capitalism ’ s little helpers .
Many will , no doubt , wax eloquent about their working-class origins , or the years they spent on the DPB .
Not the point .
The effectiveness of the PMC is , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of its members ’ historical proximity to poverty .
Being able to say : “ I know what you ’ re going through , I ’ ve been where you are.
” , makes the PMC ’ s advice and solutions all the more credible .
After all , if these important people got up and away from the shitty world in which the poor remain trapped , then maybe they can too .
This is , of course , capitalism ’ s oldest and most persuasive narrative : from rags to riches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a benefit to a six-figure salary ) .
Except of course , the story is only ever about individual – not collective – emancipation .
Capitalism can cope with people moving from rags to riches one at a time ; but not all at once .
Celebrating identities over which we have no control ( ethnicity , gender , sexuality ) poses no threat to the institutions that keep the capitalist system on its feet .
Telling people that they have the collective power to build a new world , on new foundations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , would be delighted to hear capitalism ’ s little helpers in Labour ’ s caucus giving voice to such a dangerous idea .
I am much more likely , however , to hear them bragging about their caucus being , at last , a true reflection of New Zealand society .
And if , by that , they mean Labour ’ s team faithfully reflects the forces preventing New Zealand society from becoming a fairer and more compassionate society , then I can only agree .

NEW ZEALAND now boasts one of the most diverse parliaments on the planet. In terms of gender, ethnicity and sexuality, the governing Labour Party’s caucus, in particular, bears testimony to the work of many progressive politicians, over many years, to transform “diversity” from a pious ideological aspiration into a flesh-and-blood political fact. Quite an achievement.
But, it is also an achievement fraught with danger. Because, as Bryce Edwards points out in his recent Guardian article, the Labour Party’s diversity does not extend to class. The fact is that New Zealand has a parliament – and a government – drawn overwhelmingly from the Professional-Managerial Class (PMC). The perils of this social monoculture should be obvious. It can only raise a formidable barrier to understanding – and hence addressing – the needs of those living in the bottom half of New Zealand society.
This is not simply a problem founded on ignorance: a case of Labour not knowing what it doesn’t know about life in the Otaras and Flaxmeres of New Zealand. It’s much worse than that.
The PMC is distinguished by the role it plays in mediating Capitalism’s relationship with its most injured victims. Without the PMC army of lawyers, probation officers, social workers, health professionals, teachers, journalists and “communications specialists” to extinguish the fires ignited constantly by economic exploitation and social exclusion, the whole of capitalist society would soon be engulfed in flames.
The PMC is what you create when the price of relying exclusively upon police officers, judges, jailers and soldiers to keep the bottom half under control grows too high. It’s the velvet glove that Capitalism pulls on to hide and soften its iron fist. For this subterfuge to work, however, the PMC has to believe that it knows much better than Capitalism’s casualties what’s good for them. There is one very simple reason why a government comprised overwhelmingly of members of the PMC will find it almost impossible to understand what the bottom half of New Zealand society needs: because it is supremely confident that it already does.
Nowhere has this “we know best” attitude been on display more clearly than in Oranga Tamariki. A more compelling example of the PMC’s inability to comprehend the sheer scale of its failure is hard to imagine. The idea that the “lower orders” might actually have a better grasp of what is needed to keep their children safe is simply inconceivable to the bureaucrats set in authority over them. These people are the “problem” – so how could they possibly be included in the search for solutions?
One has only to watch Melanie Reid’s harrowing Newsroom video to see the PMC at work. The employees of Oranga Tamariki quite literally put themselves between the victim and the Police – not to protect the young Maori mother, but to do everything possible to ensure that the “uplifting” of her child was effected without recourse to actual force.
The PMC’s stock-in-trade is institutional violence. The injuries it inflicts may be no less severe, but they are certainly more easily hidden than those caused by physical violence. For Capitalism, internal bleeding is always preferable to blood on the streets.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Those Labour supporters feeling confused and distressed by the Government’s apparent deafness to the cries of need arising from the poorest and most exploited New Zealanders should understand that when it comes to Labour’s caucus that deafness is a feature, not a bug. Alert Labour MPs to overt displays of misogyny, white supremacy, anti-Islamic prejudice and/or homophobia, and watch them spring into action. These are injustices which Capitalism is only too happy to help progressive politicians eradicate. Socio-economic injustices, however, are a different matter.
Any serious attempt to eradicate these wrongs would constitute a direct challenge to the capitalist system as a whole, and since the PMC looks upon capitalism as the most effective and efficient system for allocating resources that humankind has so far developed, undermining its operation in any serious way would be considered irrational. While it is perfectly acceptable to help those “doing it hard” to respond to capitalism’s needs, expecting capitalism to respond to theirs (in any meaningful way) is politically unrealistic.
The Ministry of Social Development (the clue to its mission is in the name!) will organise job clubs and offer help with beneficiaries’ CVs, but it will not pay a benefit that ensures them a secure and dignified existence. What incentive would there be to kowtow to the boss if, secure in the knowledge that they could live easily on the unemployment benefit until a better job came along, employees felt free to tell employers where to stick their lousy jobs? For capitalism to work, so must the rest of us, at wages and under conditions set by the bosses – not the workers. Employees who no longer fear the sack are capitalism’s worst nightmare.
The members of Labour’s parliamentary caucus – the largest ever – will undoubtedly bridle at the very suggestion that they belong to a class comprised of capitalism’s little helpers. Many will, no doubt, wax eloquent about their working-class origins, or the years they spent on the DPB. Not the point. The effectiveness of the PMC is, in large measure, guaranteed by so many of its members’ historical proximity to poverty. Being able to say: “I know what you’re going through, I’ve been where you are.”, makes the PMC’s advice and solutions all the more credible. After all, if these important people got up and away from the shitty world in which the poor remain trapped, then maybe they can too.
This is, of course, capitalism’s oldest and most persuasive narrative: from rags to riches (or, at least, from a benefit to a six-figure salary). Except of course, the story is only ever about individual – not collective – emancipation. Capitalism can cope with people moving from rags to riches one at a time; but not all at once. Celebrating identities over which we have no control (ethnicity, gender, sexuality) poses no threat to the institutions that keep the capitalist system on its feet. Telling people that they have the collective power to build a new world, on new foundations, does.
I, for one, would be delighted to hear capitalism’s little helpers in Labour’s caucus giving voice to such a dangerous idea. I am much more likely, however, to hear them bragging about their caucus being, at last, a true reflection of New Zealand society. And if, by that, they mean Labour’s team faithfully reflects the forces preventing New Zealand society from becoming a fairer and more compassionate society, then I can only agree.


thedailyblog--2020-11-24--Five Eyes not the right vehicle to challenge China on human rights

It ’ s good to see New Zealand criticising China for undermining democracy in Hong Kong , but we shouldn ’ t do it via a Five Eyes statement .
It would be much more effective for New Zealand , which has a reasonably good relationship with China , to make any critical statements on its own behalf .
All Five Eyes statements are driven by the United States , which is very hostile to China .
Unlike New Zealand , which sees China as a friend , the US sees China as a “ strategic enemy ” , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US is trying to slow the growth of China as a technological superpower by banning the supply of parts to Chinese companies like Huawei .
This is economic warfare .
The US promotes the “ de-coupling ” of Western economies from China , which would be a disaster for New Zealand , given China is our biggest trading partner .
New Zealand promotes global cooperation , whereas the US practices “ America First ” .
The new US administration will have a less aggressive economic policy than Trump ’ s , but President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American corporations first , and openly try to “ contain ” China .
New Zealand ’ s interests are not served by the American-led Five Eyes , and we won ’ t have a truly independent foreign policy while we remain a member .
Surely , the aim of any human rights advocacy is to be heard by citizens of the country being criticised , and we won ’ t be heard if we just tag along with America .
We are better off making our own statements , or joining a much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United Nations as a platform .
In this blog I ’ ve made a case for the most principled and effective way to China on human rights .
But additional to that , it is in New Zealand ’ s economic self-interest not to be seen as an American lackey .
Without the Chinese market for our agricultural produce , New Zealand ’ s economy would be in very bad shape .
In trade terms New Zealand needs China much more than China needs us .
If China cut back on imports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d be in serious trouble .
There ’ s no upside to New Zealand remaining subordinate to America in military and intelligence matters .
Thirty five years ago , in 1985 , New Zealanders celebrated our independent foreign policy when the US excluded us from the three-nation ANZUS treaty over our anti-nuclear policy .
That seems to have been largely forgotten by our current government .
On Monday Jacinda Ardern invited US President-elect Joe Biden to a 50th anniversary commemoration of the same Cold War ANZUS treaty .
Rather than pursue a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government seem committed to a new Cold War alliance , the Five Eyes , this time directed at China .

It’s good to see New Zealand criticising China for undermining democracy in Hong Kong, but we shouldn’t do it via a Five Eyes statement.
It would be much more effective for New Zealand, which has a reasonably good relationship with China, to make any critical statements on its own behalf.
All Five Eyes statements are driven by the United States, which is very hostile to China.
Unlike New Zealand, which sees China as a friend, the US sees China as a “strategic enemy”, in both military and economic terms.
The US is trying to slow the growth of China as a technological superpower by banning the supply of parts to Chinese companies like Huawei. This is economic warfare.
The US promotes the “de-coupling” of Western economies from China, which would be a disaster for New Zealand, given China is our biggest trading partner.
New Zealand promotes global cooperation, whereas the US practices “America First”. The new US administration will have a less aggressive economic policy than Trump’s, but President Biden will still put the interests of American corporations first, and openly try to “contain” China.
New Zealand’s interests are not served by the American-led Five Eyes, and we won’t have a truly independent foreign policy while we remain a member.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Surely, the aim of any human rights advocacy is to be heard by citizens of the country being criticised, and we won’t be heard if we just tag along with America.
We are better off making our own statements, or joining a much larger group of countries, or using the United Nations as a platform.
In this blog I’ve made a case for the most principled and effective way to China on human rights. But additional to that, it is in New Zealand’s economic self-interest not to be seen as an American lackey. Without the Chinese market for our agricultural produce, New Zealand’s economy would be in very bad shape. In trade terms New Zealand needs China much more than China needs us. If China cut back on imports of dairy, meat and timber we’d be in serious trouble.
There’s no upside to New Zealand remaining subordinate to America in military and intelligence matters. Thirty five years ago, in 1985, New Zealanders celebrated our independent foreign policy when the US excluded us from the three-nation ANZUS treaty over our anti-nuclear policy. That seems to have been largely forgotten by our current government. On Monday Jacinda Ardern invited US President-elect Joe Biden to a 50th anniversary commemoration of the same Cold War ANZUS treaty. Rather than pursue a fully independent foreign policy, the Labour government seem committed to a new Cold War alliance, the Five Eyes, this time directed at China.


thedailyblog--2020-11-26--The Second Term (With apologies to William Butler Yeats)

The people will not hear the truth , nor trust the truth-teller ; Stories fall apart , the centre is @ @ @ @ @ narrative is loosed , but everywhere The target audience refuses to be wowed .
The @ @ @ @ @ the worst Surely some course-correction is in hand ?
Surely it ’ s time to @ @ @ @ @ hand !
Our Second Term !
Hardly are those words out Than grainy video-clips , @ @ @ @ @ Download to my device .
Images of conferences past ; Is holding a media conference @ @ @ @ @ The cellphone screen goes blank ; but now I know And stamping out the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ drafts of an historical drama Still struggling with its author to be born .

Yearning and yearning for a comforting liar
The people will not hear the truth, nor trust the truth-teller;
Stories fall apart, the centre is not real;
Mere dull geometry to gull a duller world.
Our poll-driven narrative is loosed, but everywhere
The target audience refuses to be wowed.
The best shun social-media, while the worst
Still tweet with manic imbecility.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Surely some course-correction is in hand?
Surely it’s time to take our Second Term in hand!
Our Second Term! Hardly are those words out
Than grainy video-clips, recorded in the Eighties,
Download to my device. Images of conferences past;
A shape with Jim Anderton’s body and Matt McCarten’s head;
A gaze blank and pitiless as Tova O’Brien’s
Is holding a media conference, while all around it
Reel journos of the indignant Fourth Estate.
The cellphone screen goes blank; but now I know
That declaring “They are Us”
And stamping out the coronavirus
Were just the first rough drafts of an historical drama
Still struggling with its author to be born.
Chris Trotter
2020