why we need strong unions

thank goodness we have unions. two excellent pieces of analysis today which show how important it is to have strong voices for workers in political debate.

the CTU critiques national's just released policy to investigate competition in regards to accident insurance. of course when pushed, mr key stated that they had a firm policy to open ACC up to competition, they would just do an investigation first to ensure that private insurers wouldn't just cream off all the easy sectors and leave the difficult ones for the state.

well aside from the CTU's responses, and the concerns of the nz manipulative physiotherapists association, and the number of facts he has got clearly wrong, no-one has mentioned the fact that an investigation will require... bureaucrats!! or consultants!! listening to the morning report interview this morning with business nz's phil o'reilly and lawyer hazel armstrong, mr o'reilly responded to every concern by saying that the investigation would ensure that it wouldn't happen. sounds like it's going to be one hell of an investigation, and all on the public purse. which means, given that mr key promises to cap spending on bureacracy, someone else somewhere is going to miss out.

if that money went to private consultants, i'd like to be sure it went to consultants who would have the guts to state clearly that all those concerns couldn't be taken care of through a competitive model. because honestly, once you take into account all the issues ms armstrong raised, there would be absolutely no reason to have competition.

but given that price waterhouse, a very reputable firm, have found that our state scheme is much better than australia's privatised one, what is the point of us, the taxpayer, having to pay for a further investigation? just read the first one mr key, and give up on privatising a very successful scheme.


the second excellent piece of work was this piece by the PSA's richard wagstaff. it provides a more in-depth critique of the report by ANZ's cameron bagrie on "back-room" government spending. i just couldn't believe this:

But what about the Government's biggest expenditures, health and benefits? ANZ simply excluded them, noting "We exclude health as, to be honest, we were unsure where to classify it."

That defies all logic. Most employers would agree that having healthy, alive workers contributes to a productive New Zealand. And health happens to be the place that spending has increased the most but it, along with almost $7 billion in superannuation, is excluded entirely from the report.

the critique is purely on the quality of mr bagrie's work, but i wonder if he going to continue to complain about personal attacks, in a very clydesdalian fashion. it appears to be the fashion these days, to act the victim if your work doesn't stand up to scrutiny. mr wagstaff's work however, provides plenty of detailed information showing how meaningless the demarcation of "back-room spending" (bureaucrats if you will) really is.

another day older

have posted at the hand mirror about aging.

and although there's been a lot of negativity surrounding world youth day, i thought this was a rather nice touch. which is not to say that the protesters don't have a point, but it's just nice to hear about positive things as well.

islanders in big groups

i listened to this piece on morning report today, and couldn't believe what i was hearing. the issue is a valid one: 250 pacific island workers (presumably on temporary visas) have come to the town of seddon, with a population of only 500. of course there will be issues around pastoral care, about the newcomers fitting in with the locals, and there are very likely to be cultural clashes. that's a big number of people to fit into a small town.

the highlight was this comment from the local tavern owner:

There’s so many together in one lot, so you might get one lot down that end of the bar from a different island and another lot all lined up over here. And I think the local people feel intimidated even though they haven’t done anything. Just they’re in big groups.

i find that really difficult. what are these people suppose to do? not sit together? not go out together? i bet one of the best ways to get over that feeling of intimidation is to go and talk to these people, who would no doubt love to have some interaction and to be made to feel welcome. methinks the intimidation would not have been quite so strong had the workers come over from europe, even if they hadn't spoken english well.

then, even better, a couple who had been investigated by the department of labour for providing inadequate housing had this to say:

This sleepout had 5 beds in it. So we’re not in a 3 bedroom house with 1 bathroom trying to cater for 20 people. Very well set up and they were very happy. More than what they have at home.

ouch. while i'm not saying the accommodation was poor, i would hope that the standards provided in this country would be judged on what's acceptable here. in other words, you don't think "well they were sleeping on the ground so now they've got a foam mattress. haven't we done well". rather, you should think "what would i want for myself or for my kids or for my neighbours. is it something i could live in for several months?" and if the human decency argument doesn't move you, then the health argument might. overcrowding and poor housing standards lead to health problems, so it is in everyone's interests that decent housing is provided. as i say, the people above may have been unfairly targetted. but the attitude needs a little bit of work.

which is another issue. this lot won't qualify for free healthcare in nz, and i bet they don't get paid enough to be able to afford to pay the full costs of healthcare. not only that, but they pay their full share of nz tax, which means that they are in effect paying for our healthcare while getting none themselves. not a particularly fair position.

there were lots of other bits that didn't impress me much. but the main point is that we're bringing workers into this country to fill a shortage. it's low quality work that doesn't pay big bucks. at the very least, they deserve to be treated well and made to feel welcome.

woman v-p?

have posted at the hand mirror.

and i see that both american presidential candidates are considering a woman as their vice-president. they seem to think they need a woman candidate to win the women's vote. somehow that's more depressing than picking a woman because she's the best person for the position. i don't know. if i was an american woman voter, right now i'd just feel manipulated and totally annoyed at the whole thing.

police without arms

just a bits and pieces post today, as there are a few little things that caught my eye.

as a regular radio nz listener and sometimes panellist, i loved this response by noelle mccarthy to criticisms by bill ralston. i really enjoy radio nz, and if i'm a baby boomer, i'd have to be at the very tail end of that boom. i especially love their website, which means that i can listen to selected bits of programmes whenever i have the time. and as for aging broadcasters, well i still have plenty of time for people like kim hill, whose no-nonsense interview style cuts through any amount of media-training and pre-prepared scripts. but the hypocrisy of course is mr baby-boomer ralston himself being the one to complain!

remember a year or so back when the target programme put out this big scare about formaldehyde in children's clothing. what an uproar there was against imported clothing, a lot of which i suspect was racially motivated - those terrible asians with their lax standards! well, it turns out that the programme has been fined and ordered to apolgise because “The Broadcasting Standards Authority found that Target had misled and unnecessarily alarmed viewers in its presentation of test results of formaldehyde in clothing." somehow, i don't expect this decision will create the week-long furore that the original programme did.

funniest line of the week: "If police haven't got any arms, how can they work?" maybe they can use their legs... but on a more serious note, turangi dairy owners have decided to arm themselves with a baseball bat and a golf club. while i can understand their motivation, announcing it in the paper is a less than smart thing to do. as far as i can see, all they've done is let potential robbers know they need more deadly weapons before they come into the store. which can only increase the chances of armed robbery. the money spent on the closed-circuit cameras and the panic alarm are much more useful. and calling for the police to be armed to prevent robberies is pretty much a waste of time. in almost all cases, the culprits will have left the situation before the police arrive, no matter how quick they are.

sad to see that some employers are trying to have their cake and eat it too. they are taking the government subsidy reimbursing them for their employer contribution to kiwisaver, and at the same time are trying to penalise employees who have chosen to join the scheme by paying them less. it's pretty shameful that the government has to amend the law to prevent this from happening.

finally, national's policy on 20 hours no-longer-free early childhood education is a bit sad. what it means is that they don't guarantee that subsidies will cover cost increases, neither do they guarantee that taxpayers won't be subsidising private childcare centres to make large profits at our expense, especially through charges for those "optional extras". oh, and what julie said.

twisting the facts

i went to the funeral of dianne yates' father today. it was simple and very nice. he was a fellow who had lived to 96 years old, and was obviously missed very much. it must be really painful to lose a parent, no matter how old they are. given that he died on saturday night, it was especially poor taste for the press reports this week about the offices she now holds.

some of the remarks are particularly spiteful, giving no recognition of an MPs long service in parliament and work on select committees that would have given her a high level of expertise. she knew enough about science to secure funding for the waikato innovation park, a project which has secured another $4 million of funding (in a partnership between central government and the hamilton city council) with the help of list MP sue moroney.

i find it hard to understand why all the nastiness around dianne's positions. no-one has been nasty about positions given to former PM the rt hon jim bolger. plenty of other ex MPs must sit on government appointed boards - i'm not going to go looking for them right now. and it's not surprising. our MPs pick up skills on the job, particularly when they have been responsible for ministerial portfolios or for chairing select committees. providing advocacy for issues also helps develop expertise, and dianne certainly did a lot of work around human reproductive technology and fetal alcohol syndrome.


i have to say that i'm also less than impressed by the latest ANZ cheif economist's report on "back-room" versus "front line" spending. as i've said many times before, these economists are not independent commentators, and given they work for organisations with foreign ownership, you really have to wonder whether they have our interests at heart. they are employed to serve the bank's interests, which means increasing the bank's profits.

i see that the bank workers union, finsec, are also less than impressed:

"It is no surprise ANZ National are attacking back office jobs in the public service given they are sending a good chunk of their own back office work to Bangalore. This is another attack from our wealthiest bank on the job security of New Zealand workers," said Finsec Campaigns Director Andrew Campbell.

and it seems that the analysis is not even accurate:

"However, in Mr Bagrie's analysis, defence spending, police, corrections and courts spending is "back-office" as are school property costs, special education front line services, Work and Income front line services, Child Youth and Family front line services, and IRD call centre staff. This type of spending alone accounts for more than $6 billion or over 60 per cent of all the departmental output spending which Mr Bagrie says is back-office...

"Mr Bagrie’s analysis ignores some pretty basic facts. He talks of the growth in departmental spending and yet totally ignores the effects of the shifts of the Health Funding Authority into the Ministry of Health and the Special Education Service into the Ministry of Education.

it would be nice to see some critical media analysis of this report, but i'm not holding my breath.

mark gets low

i had such a hectic day yesterday, having to fit in an orthodontists appointment and a physiotherapists appointment back to back - for the kids, not me! - then having to get said kids across town to their religious class. by the time i was finally free of all chores at 8pm, i was exhausted hence no post.

i've posted over at the hand mirror.

in the meantime, i found this press release by nz first, by reading this lovely piece of satire by lyndon hood. it's beyond belief that mr mark is responding to the feelings of fear and victimisation within the asian community by blaming them for their predicament. it's bizarre. what on earth does purse-snatching or the murder of an auckland store-owner in a hold-up have to do with gangs importing P? i honestly could not think of a more inappropriate response if i tried.

although, mr mark may responding to the comments of mr peter low, in which case he should make that a lot clearer in his press release. just a little sympathy would not have gone amiss, but he seems to have avoided that altogether.

multiculturalism in a bicultural society

i wrote the piece below last week, and sent it off to the herald and the dom post. the dom agreed to publish it, although i haven't seen it cos we don't get that paper here in hamilton.


All political parties were out in force at the Federation of Ethnic Council's AGM last weekend. This is not surprising. Many parties have finally realised that ethnic minority communities are not only a significant bloc of voters, they are discerning voters.

Peter Dunne appeared to offer what our community most wants: recognition. His call for a "Multiculturalism Act" is aimed to please. The idea sounds very nice, but is it in our best interests? Those who do not have an in-depth knowledge of this country's history and the struggle of our indigenous peoples might believe it to be so.

Bi-culturalism is a result of the Treaty of Waitangi. The parties to that Treaty were most Maori chiefs and the Crown. Because that "crown" basically belonged to the British monarch, those of us who don't have a British heritage and aren't Moari often feel excluded from the Treaty. The injustices around colonisation and breaches of the Treaty didn't involve ethnic minority communities. We weren't here in significant enough numbers to make a difference, and often had our own injustices to deal with, such as the poll tax on Chinese New Zealanders.

This lack of connection with the Treaty is exactly what Mr Dunne was playing on in his speech over the weekend, especially using words like "privilege" in relation to Maori (shades of Dr Brash). He failed to point out that the loss of the bi-cultural model will make it much harder to "recognize the unique place that hapü, whänau and iwi have had in our country" (from United Future policy on the Treaty). Note the wording "have had", which implies Maori should no longer have that unique place once Treaty claims are settled.

Therein lies the problem. For Maori, New Zealand is the only country where there language and culture can survive and thrive. It is the only place where they can lobby the government of the day to ensure funding for Maori language television and radio, and for educational institutions that incorporate the learning of Maori culture such as kohanga reo and kura kaupapa. For the rest of us, whether our ancestry is British, Asian or Pacifica, there is another country in the world where our culture and heritage is preserved. Maori have no such back-up.

The issue then remains: how do ethnic minorities gain recognition in this beautiful land? How do we take our place along side our fellow New Zealanders and feel that we belong here? I believe we can do so within a bi-cultural framework, because we belong to "the Crown" part of the relationship. Since the Crown includes us, it needs to incorporate our needs and our issues when developing policy in any area.

Some of that work has already begun. The NZ Police are the best example. The ten-year ethnic policing strategy has resulted in zero-tolerance of race-based crimes, recruitment of ethnic liaison officers and a push to recruit more ethnic police officers. A similar strategy needs to be replicated across other sectors. Some of the groundwork is being done, such as the new curriculum which incorporates the study of a variety of cultures.

Of course more can and should be done in this area. But I'd hate to see a situation where ethnic minority communities and Maori communities are pitted against each other, and a sense of anger grows as each community feels it is missing out. That is what Mr Dunne's proposal, taken in the context of his statements on the Maori seats and Treaty issues, is setting us up for.

It doesn't have to be an either/or situation. Ethnic minority communities have nothing to lose by recognising Maori as tangata whenua, and by encouraging fair settlement of Treaty claims. Rather, we gain because it embeds New Zealand's commitment to justice and to developing an inclusive society. Embracing the bi-cultural model benefits us because it shows we understand the importance of preserving indigenous cultures and languages. Understanding the rights and aspirations of Maori by making ourselves part of the Treaty partnership will improve our sense of belonging in this land.

Ethnic minority communities are already moving in this direction. They have sought to build bridges in a variety of ways. On 8 June 2008, members of the Hindu Council visited Te Puea Marae. It was the first time many had visited a marae. When the Hamilton Mosque was built, Maori elders were asked to perform a blessing when the foundations were laid and when the building was opened.

This shows there is goodwill and a desire to develop understanding between communities. It's vitally important that we don't get diverted by politicians using the language of exclusion and playing up feelings of resentment. Yes, ethnic minorities want recognition, but not at the expense of our Maori brothers and sisters.

the asians are moving

when the asian community starts moving in big numbers, it's time to take notice. yesterday's rally in south auckland was not surprising, given my experience at the nz central indian association agm. although i wasn't in auckland this weekend, i suspect the messages coming out of that rally were exactly what i heard last month.

the 3 recent murders in south auckland have shaken the aisan community. add it to the number of burgalaries aimed at small businesses, and there is the feeling of a community under siege. but i suspect that the discontent is much wider than that.

i recall taking part in the protest against the danish cartoons published in the dominion post a few years ago. it wasn't because i was so deeply offended by the cartoons (although they were pretty cheap and nasty), nor was it because i had any problem with the paper exercising their right to print them. my reason for marching was because, in the weekend after their publication, i had to suffer 3 incidents of verbal abuse as i went about my daily business in hamilton.

my anger was directed at the anger portrayed towards me for something i hadn't even done, had no choice about and couldn't even influence. i was angry for the dom (and a couple of other papers at the time, as well as the tv networks) for bringing this issue on to our shores, resulting in the targetting of our community, without even caring about our welfare.

no to mention that the cartoons came after a long period when things had been extremely difficult for the muslim community. our mosques had been vandalised after the bombings in london; the media had been pretty harsh in its portrayal of muslims and the level of discrimination appeared to be pretty high.

so the protest, while seeming to be about the cartoons, was about so much more. it was our chance to express our frustration and to stake our place in this country. we belong here, we aren't going to be leaving, and all we ask is to be treated with respect.

i would say that saturday's protest had pretty similar undertones. there is anger at the media in it's portrayal of asians, there is anger at the discrimination asians face in getting jobs. there is anger at being continually treated as outsiders and migrants, even though many have been here for a few generations. this was an opportunity to voice that anger.

the problem i had was with the statement that the government is doing nothing to protect the asian community. it's hard to do more. over the 9 years of this labour led government, we have had:
- an almost doubling of the length of sentences for violent crimes
- a large increase in the numbers of police, including an extra 1,000 since the 2005 election (national is only promising to increase total numbers by 64)
- a zero-tolerance policy on hate-crime, which saw a woman successfully prosecuted for tipping a bottle of water on chinese women for speaking their own language on a train
- the appointment of ethnic liaison officers in the police force
- the recruitment drive to increase the numbers of ethnic police officers
- most recently, legislation to crack down on gangs has been presented, though how useful this will be, who knows

on top of that, we know that overall crime rates are decreasing, and the increase in violent crime are almost totally a result of the increase in reported domestic violence. the latter is likely to be a result of the campaign against domestic violence, with people more likely to report that this is happening.

while i can understand the frustration felt by ethnic minorities, i certainly don't think this is the answer. having vigilante groups trained in violence is not going to make the community safer, it's more likely to increase retaliatory violence and set communities up against each other. in particular, it will set up pacific island & maori communties against the asian community. that is no way to solve the problem.

a better solution would be to bring communities together, to increase interaction and understanding. it's a much more difficult road, and will take a lot longer to show positive results, but both in the short and long term, it is the best solution for us all.

gridlock

have posted at the hand mirror today, about bullying.

also getting my goat today is the truck driver's strike, apparently organised several weeks ago ie well before they knew road user charges were going to rise. i thought such a co-ordinated protest across the country was too difficult to organise in just a couple of days.

if i'm less than sympathetic to the truckies, it's because of the false premise of their complaint. maurice williamson, complaining about how hard times are for these businesses, ought to take a look around. it's hard for everyone, but the rest of us don't expect someone else to pay our share of road maintenance and new roads. it's hard for the taxi drivers, the couriers, the businesses that have to pay freight costs, for you and me who have to fill up at the pump every week. it's hard for everyone around the world, for that matter, and most of us aren't in a position to pass our costs on to "the consumer", because we are the consumer.

the upside is that maybe people will realise that we will all be much better off with fewer of these big machines on our roads. i'm just wondering what happens if an ambulance has to get through.