Editorials 5 April 2010
April 5th, 2010 at 3:00 pm by David FarrarThe Herald focuses on the SFO:
Helen Clark’s Government threatened to abolish the SFO and merge its functions with a police unit.
Having survived that, the SFO is now facing a renewed barrage of criticism and an overhaul that seems likely to comprehensively change its mode of operation.
Judith Collins, the Minister Responsible for the SFO, has talked of rebuilding “its capabilities after years of political neglect”. …
The upshot appears to be that five senior staff with more than 70 years of fraud investigation experience among them, including Gib Beattie, the present assistant director, are unlikely to reapply for new roles.
All have been involved in high-profile cases, including, most recently, that of ASB Bank fraudster Stephen Versalko. If they depart, the SFO will lose a huge fund of institutional knowledge.
It will surely face a greater struggle to combine with other regulators to ensure the “speedier, united response to cases of suspected fraud” demanded by Ms Collins.
Too much of the criticism of the SFO has been over the top. It should not be the whipping boy for the finance-company debacle and nor should it be restructured in such a way that valuable experience is driven away.
If a wiser approach is not adopted, white-collar criminals will be the only winners.
In the end, the SFO will be judged on its results.
The Press calls for goodwill on the foreshore & seabed issue:
In recent New Zealand political and social history, few issues have been as divisive as the foreshore and seabed. This controversial debate was triggered by the Court of Appeal ruling in the 2003 Ngati Apa legal action, which suggested that in some narrow cases iwi might be able to convert customary title into freehold title.
For the then-Labour Government, this raised the spectre that Maori could end up controlling sections of the coastline and limiting public access. Labour over-reacted by passing legislation that placed the foreshore and seabed in Crown ownership, albeit with a process for recognising customary rights, and this triggered the formation of the Maori Party.
Now, National has offered an olive branch to iwi and the Maori Party. It is, inevitably, a compromise solution but, with goodwill on all sides, it does have the potential to heal the lingering sore that has been the foreshore and seabed issue.
People should not be surprised that most Iwi will say they want more, than what is in the proposed solution. To some degrees, this is like any other commercial negotiation. You never have one party say “Oh well actually I think we have enough money/resource, so we won’t try and get any more”. Of course you do.
But this tension is not the only reason why the Maori Party has been circumspect in its reaction to National’s foreshore and seabed proposal. Maori leaders will want to be seen as pushing for the maximum concessions possible.
The party will be acutely conscious that within its ranks are those who would agree with its MP Hone Harawira’s view that Maori should have full ownership, rather than just customary title.
And that is a view some may have. But that is not what the Court of Appeal ruled. In fact, it is a million miles from what the Court of Appeal said.
But this would be totally unacceptable to National, and Prime Minister John Key has delivered a blunt warning that if he cannot forge a consensus around his party’s proposal, then the status quo will prevail.
Given that the Maori Party was originally formed to get rid of the hated foreshore and seabed legislation, the chance to achieve this and to get customary title through the courts is one which, while not ideal for all iwi, should still be firmly grasped.
And so far, there does seem to be goodwill.
The Dominion Post looks at Labour’s plans for Wellington City Council:
The Labour Party has announced it will relaunch itself into local body politics, and put up a slate of council candidates as well as, perhaps, someone for mayor.
So Labour want to take over the Council. I’m tempted to joke that at least it makes it easy to know who not to vote for, but in fact I don’t vote purely on ideological lines for local bodies. I regard (for example) that Ray Ahipene-Mercer does a good job as a Councillor, and he is left of centre. Celia Stephanie Cook also does a reasonable job, and she is Green.
Does Wellington want local body politics to return to tribal affiliations? Would that be good for the city?
The answer is “maybe”. Having a stance thrashed out at caucus meetings – which MPs hold regularly – before council meetings might mean that the fractious debate that so marks Wellington City Council disappears. Arguments would happen within the caucus instead.
That might improve the council’s public reputation.
On the other hand, councillors who represent a political party would be subject to the party whip – that is, be forced to toe the party line – or risk being dropped from the party ticket at the next election.
The same might be true, of course, of those who rely on Sir Robert’s patronage when or if they stand in October.
Party politics have their place. That might be around a council table. But cleaving to rigid ideologies is no substitute for considered thought, which is what ratepayers vote councillors into office to provide – especially when Wellington’s future is at stake in a post-Auckland super-city environment.
The over-riding concern of any councillor must surely be what is best for the city they have the honour to represent.
That is not possible for Labour Councillors. I agree a ticket can sometimes be of value, to get a coherent agenda through. But tickets are best as groupings of like minded people, but not as a party that bans Councillors from voting against the majority.
Labour has specific rules on local body elections.
- Rule 87 bans party members from standing as Independents if Labour contests the election
- Rule 91 requires candidates to sign a pledge that they will vote in line with the Caucus for that local body
So be aware, if you vote for a Labour candidate, you are voting for candidates who are forbidden freedom of opinion on any issue that comes before Council.
The ODT focuses on land in Africa and New Zealand:
During the past two or three years, as many as 20 million hectares of African land, an area equivalent to all the arable farming land in France and worth about $US20 billion-$US30 billion, have been acquired by countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and China.
These vast tracts have been either bought or leased to grow staple crops, or biofuels, which are then repatriated, says a 2009 Economist magazine article. …
It is partly against this background that attempts to buy up large parcels of New Zealand land should be considered.
The latest such move came to light on Wednesday when it was reported that a company, Southern Pastures, registered in Auckland, is seeking $500 million from local and offshore investors either to buy outright or controlling shares in farming concerns thoughout the southern hemisphere, but with a bias towards New Zealand. …
Leadership is required, and care needed, to devise policy on how New Zealand will play its part in the food supply chain over the next several decades.
On the one hand, the country requires inward investment to develop further aspects of food production infrastructure; on the other, once the land is gone, it is gone forever.
Measurable gains from such sales will need to be demonstrably substantial and long-lasting before they can be permitted.
If we ban Chinese firms from investing in NZ farms, then we can’t complain if China bans Fonterra from investing in Chinese dairy operations.
April 5th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
If we ban Chinese firms from investing in NZ farms, then we can’t complain if China bans Fonterra from investing in Chinese dairy operations.
************************
True, but we must remember that there is more going on here than mere business.
The Great Game did not end with the Entente Cordiale in 1904, the players changed, thats all.
Vote:April 5th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
“…once the land is gone, it is gone forever.”
Really? Where to, pray tell?
Vote:April 5th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Oh please! Go try and buy any assets in China. Even Fontersa struggles with that yet you are suggesting that the Chinese should just waltz in and buy up? Really.
Vote:A bit more thought please.
April 5th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
I’m normally in favour of foreign investment, but this just goes against the grain and is so wrong on many levels.
The Chinese aren’t buying these farms to raise NZ’s living standards or improve the environment. It is simply a business transaction that in 20 years they can walk away from with NZ worse off for the experience.
Although some NZ farmers can be rogues and cause environmental issues, this will be nothing compared to what Chinese businessmen will do.
Who cares if Fonterra can’t get into China. They aren’t the only people that have started to drink milk. Sell it to India.
Vote:April 5th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Southern Raider (1215) Says:
April 5th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
***********************
What China is up to is far more than business, its about power.
Vote:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/defence/news/article.cfm?c_id=32&objectid=10636357
There is a reason why people suspect China of trying to be ze next Kaisers Germany. On the bright side the quality control on their warships, especially their submarines (a real worry on their nuc boats) is still rubbish.
April 5th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
The way China swooped like a vulture as soon as the GFC struck, making “offers you can’t refuse” for large and mineral-rich tracts of Australia so as to cut Australian firms (and Australian workers and shareholders) out of the picture entirely leaves me in no doubt as to what they’re about.
While countries like NZ and Australia see another country in trouble and think “What aid can we give?” the Chinese are much more single-minded; another’s weakness is an opportunity to strengthen its grip on that part of the world. Fortunately Peter Costello had squirrelled enough away to allow Australia to be able to say “no thanks”, much to China’s chagrin… so it went and arrested a batch of Rio Tinto executives, gave them a closed court “trial” and has just sentenced them to ten years.
——————-
Ah, “Crusher” Collins… there should be some sort of political almanac devoted to her hilarity. I suspect this phrase will now pass into colloqualism.
“You still sleeping with your mistress then?”
Vote:“Nah, I managed to rebuild the capabilities of my marriage.”
“Yeah, so you’re back together and your relationship is stromnger than ever then?”
“Nah, she divorced me, took the house, the car and the business and left me with the teenagers.”
April 5th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Isn’t foreign investment always business? How exactly would this be any different?
Vote:April 5th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
And I am advised that if you vote C & R in Auckland, they have the same rule. They operate a caucus and you cannot disagree.
It’s not Labour nor National that’s the issue. It’s whether you should be allowed to vote using your own intelligence.
[DPF: I know C&R caucus, but I was not aware of candidates being obliged to always follow the Caucus majority]
Vote:April 5th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
China out of all major countries seems most to disregard paying for other people’s IP when it decides it wants it. Recall the kiwifruit genetics that went East in the 70′s/80′s.
That’s what’s going to happen again.
They want the dairy technology so they can replicate it at home and do it themselves, without our involvement. And that doesn’t mean just the stainless steel design and the software controllers and the livestock genetics and the pasture and the fertiliser and a thousand other “hardware” type things, it also means the tacit knowledge: the years and years of refinement that we’ve been through in learning how best to use the hardware things to obtain maximum quality and maximum production. That’s what they want, that’s what they are after, and they will regard any price as cheap, given the potential ROI once this has been fully deployed in China.
I mean seriously, does one really believe that a private HK-based company would be doing this without Mainland knowledge, blessing and support?
Vote:April 5th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
I think you are right Reid. These are the same people who a few years ago pinched our latest and best apple varieties. They were caught and nobody said boo.
Vote:April 5th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Every country in the world has some form of restrictions in “strategic” areas and NZ could well do with protecting what is basically our most important industry farming. If Fonterra gets a bloody nose in China so be it as it is somewhat short sighted to be buying farms in China when they are buying our farms here. Look no further than our constant current account deficit and imagine what it would look like bearing in mind Crafer Farms are Fonterras biggest supplier, I would guess fonterra shareholders would rather they bought Crafer Farms rather than one in China ?
Vote:April 5th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Reid 5:48 pm,
I too agree with your analysis, Reid.
If something like this goes ahead we can pretty much say goodbye to much of our farming industry and the intellectual property behind it.
How dumb are we for even considering this.
Vote:If this industry goes, what do we realistically have left to generate export dollars, tourism? – yeah right!
April 5th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
In most first world countries the main parties contest local elections in their own name. This is more honesty than anything else. Why not in NZ or at least the main centres?
In NZ they seem to hide their identities behind names like City Vision (which means Labour in Ak and ACT in Ch) or citizens (National) or 2021 (Labour in Cant) etc.
If Wellington Labour ticket is going to call themself labour then what is the issue?
Vote:April 5th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Kris that’s precisely why I think we need to pour vast govt resources into green technology R&D in order to manufacture and export as per the Celtic Tiger Model which strategically, still works despite the specific industries changing.
Our agricultural leadership has a limited shelf-life, given that farming is a creative enterprise and the internet is capable of transferring best-practice knowledge through online communities at the speed of light and given that people have a propensity to shop-talk about valuable stuff, just because they can. Not to mention industrial espionage which is what my original post was about and which will happen, for sure.
Yes for successful ag you need the environment – climate, soil, atmosphere and you can’t replicate ours anywhere and China sure as heck can’t unless they curb their pollution. However that will come and we need to turn and face the fact the day will come when ag is no longer our engine. So what is?
The giant global demand for green technology is just beginning. AGW science depending on your mileage maybe bollocks but it is undeniably a real global political phenomena and it won’t stop or slow for the foreseeable future in that car companies will continue to produce hybrids and electricity companies will continue to invest in “renewables;” etc. Ireland (similar population to ours) became the Celtic Tiger with software and bioinformatics in the 90′s. Some argue Ireland has the EU on their backdoor and that’s the only reason why they succeeded.
They’re wrong, IMO. They succeeded because they positioned themselves to be at the forefront of a revolution through specific govt policies: e.g. they structured their education and taxation environments accordingly. We have the same opportunity now in green technology. All we have to do is grasp the tail and hold on. There is a limited window and what concerns me is, no-one in govt has yet indicated they have even seen the tail.
Vote:April 5th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
(()People should not be surprised that most Iwi will say they want more.
And so far, there does seem to be goodwill.())
All this goodwill on such a high profile divisive Maori issue the foreshore & seabed.. that really leaves the intent of the legislation much the same. Can only mean the Maori Party has made a deal with National for the greater prize. The establishment of Whanau Ora and more money and control of government funding for Maori. Leading towards the ultamite Maori Party goal of.. Maori sovereignty. We may think we are just giving Maori the toilet seat.. but we are quickly giving Maori the whole toilet in which to shit on us..
(()If we ban Chinese firms from investing in NZ farms, then we can’t complain if China bans Fonterra from investing in Chinese dairy operations.())
Then Fonterra should stop investing in China .. and concentrate on India.. Indians already own most of our milk outlets.
Vote:April 5th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
If the price of trade with China is vertical intergration then why bother.
Vote:It seems China is able to wave great wads of cash and all the politicians go weak at the Knees.
‘A Capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him with’
Show some fortitude!
April 6th, 2010 at 10:08 am
One of the world’s best known 20th century leaders once pointed out that as long as governments control (through legislation) the actions of businesses within their land who owns those businesses matters not.
I’m with him on this.
Vote: