Kiwiblog

Fran O’Sullivan focuses on Muray McCully:

Cabinet Minister Murray McCully is under strict orders from his boss to do “whatever it takes” to ensure the 2011 Rugby World Cup is an outstanding success. …

The timing of the tournament couldn’t be better for New Zealand. Amid the incessant doom-and-gloom talk, it is easy to overlook the fact that in just over two years 60,000 to 70,000 visitors will likely track here for a contest that has the potential to generate more than $1 billion of economic activity and pump more than half a billion dollars into the New Zealand economy.

That is what goes with the territory of being host country for the world’s third-largest sporting contest.

It hasn’t really sunk in how big the event has become.

The RWC organisers have so far done a stirling job by opting for 13 venues that have capitalised on their pledge to the International Rugby Board to provide a “stadium of four million people”, and ensured that virtually all regions of New Zealand have an opportunity to drive extra business.

That has gone down very well.

The rapport between McCully and Groser is palpable, with either politician easily able to represent the full range of New Zealand’s interests in their meetings with other foreign or trade ministers either at home or overseas.

For instance, it was McCully who fleshed out the timetable for the recent announcement of negotiations on the bilateral trade deal with Korea during the visit of Korean Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister Yu Myung-hwan to Wellington in January.

This is a return to normality after the embarrassing charade played out under the Labour Government when its Foreign Minister, Winston Peters, sat outside the Cabinet and not only “didn’t do trade”, but reserved the right to oppose deals like the Chinese free trade agreement which did not fit with his party’s agenda.

Even worse the Foreign Minister was running large newspaper ads trying to stir up opposition to the deal, before the ink was barely dry from the PM signing it.

Both McCully and Groser favour a shake-up at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to ensure greater concentration on the relationships likely to bear greatest economic fruit for New Zealand and/or bolster the country’s presence on the world stage.

The foreign affairs establishment is already kicking back at plans to bring NZAid back within MFAT’s firmament and ensuring more of the aid is directly tied to New Zealand’s interests. McCully has not handled this issue as smoothly as he could. But overall he has made an impressive debut in his prime portfolios.

It’s good to have Fran writing on an issue other than why National should cancel the tax cuts

Various Aid NGOs have set up a campaign website, to lobby against possible changed to NZ Aid mooted by Foreign Minister Murray McCully.

Their website and campaign is called “Don’t corrupt Aid”. That is (in my opinion) a tactical blunder to use such inflammatory language. If they think that will help convince key Ministers.

But regardless of their silly title, what are the issues. There appear to be three:

1. Should the aim of NZ Aid be “poverty elimination” to “economic development”?
2. Should aid policy be independent of foreign policy?
3. Should NZ Aid remain a semi-autonomous body or be fully reintegrated back into MFAT?

Now the NGOs lobbying for their point of view are all massive recepients of funding from NZ Aid, so there is a certain amount of vested interests at work.  And not all aid NGOs are supporting the campaign – I note the Red Cross is not a participant. Anyway to the issues:

Poverty Elimination vs Economic Development

I think this issue is much ado about nothing. Both are about the same thing – helping citizens of less developed countries having a higher standard of living. You eliminate poverty through economic development. No one has ever found any other way to do it.

Murray McCully has said you could throw dollar notes out of a helicopter and call that poverty elimination. Now he never said this is what NZ Aid is doing (his critics who claim this are being dishonest) – he said the goal is too wide, as it would allow that.

So really I just see it as saying we want poverty elimination through economic development.

Some of the NGOs claim economic development will mean the money goes to wealthy elites, instead of the poor. They seem to be caught up in socialist rhetoric.

Aid Policy vs Foreign Policy

Let me let you into a secret. No matter what the Government says publicly, aid policy is always tied into a country’s foreign policy. Look at what AusAid says:

The aim of the program is to assist developing countries reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development, in line with Australia’s national interest.

Why is most of our aid money spent in the Pacific? Because that is where it most serves our national interest. If were not worried about NZ’s national interest, we would then pick the country most in need, and give them 100% of our aid budget. There is a reason we spread it around various countries and regions.

So when the campaign says aid policy should not be “corrupted” by foreign policy, it is nonsense. Every government on Earth “corrupts” their aid that way. Some may not admit it, but they all do. And frankly it is bizarre to suggest we should give money out in a way where we ignore NZ’s interests.

Should NZ Aid remain semi-autonomous?

Here is where I largely agree with the NGOs. I am open to persuasion, but it seems to me you can achive what you want (in terms of new focus) without doing a full merger back into MFAT. I suspect the costs will be significant, it will mean many staff spend all their time on structural and systems changes instead of actual Aid delivery, and may dilute focus.

NZ Aid is not fully autonomous. It’s Director is appointed by the MFAT Chief Executive, and if there are concerns about whether NZ Aid is taking into account foreign policy goals sufficiently – then that can be dealt with by way of instruction and delegations to the Director of NZ Aid.

Having said that, I am open to persuasion, and look forward to seeing what the SSC reviews say are the costs and benefits.

The Press editorial says:

Hamas said several days ago that it would not extend a ceasefire that was due to expire about now and rocket attacks on more or less defenceless Israeli towns had been stepped up considerably in the last few days. But the fact that the escalation of violence in the region had an air of inevitability about it does not make it any the less depressing.

It’s not two steps forward and one step back but 1.01 steps forward and one step back, in terms of making progress in the Middle East.

With more than 1.5 million Palestinians crammed into an area the geographical size of a small city civilian casualties would be impossible to avoid no matter how carefully targeted the raids were. The Palestinian gunmen make those casualties all the greater by placing their military units and equipment in civilian areas.

Sad but true.

Even if the casualty numbers are exaggerated for propaganda purposes, as there is little doubt they are, the air raids undoubtedly kill and injure many innocent people.

Also sad and true.

The immediate aim is to stop the missile fire from Gaza. According to Israel, hundreds of rockets had been fired into the southern areas of the country near Gaza in the last few days, adding to the thousands that have rained on to the country in the last eight years. Only one death from the missile fire has been reported recently but the fear of the residents of the towns under attack, and of the Israeli Government, is that if left to carry on unhindered the militants will acquire longer-range, more accurate weapons along with greater expertise in their deployment, leaving ever-larger areas vulnerable to random bombardment.

I find it amusing that some argue Israel should not try and stop the missile attacks, because few of them actually hit their targets. I suggest they try living in a neighbourhood where rockets explode about them every day, and then re-evaluate their stance. Also worth remembering that they are firing these rockets into territory that is not disputed (such as the West Bank, Jerusalem).

This military action will no doubt end at some point, after much death and destruction, leaving a few Israeli towns perhaps a little more secure than before but with a longer-term peace for the region as far off as ever.

And this is why I regret Israel has responded this way, even though I understand why. It does make the longer-term peace harder.

But Hamas will continue to hold sway over a more or less lawless militia-run land and will refuse even to recognise Israel’s basic right to exist. The militiamen will continue to be armed and financed by Iran, which also refuses to recognise Israel’s legitimacy in the area indeed, both the present military engagements in Gaza, and the earlier one on the radical Hizbollah militia in southern Lebanon, may be seen as part of a wider proxy war between Israel and Iran.

While Israel’s actions in the region are hardly blameless, and are often unnecessarily brutal and provocative, so long as that situation continues to prevail it is hard to see any longer-term improvement at all.

What has been nice is to see a balanced response from the new Government, instead of just blaming Israel.

New Zealand Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully describes the attacks as “a day of tragedy”.

Mr McCully says it is pointless to fingerpoint about who is responsible, or debate what is proportionate versus disproportionate response.

He has endorsed a call by the United Nations for an immediate ceasefire and says that could provide the breathing space that’s needed to broker a solution.

The ceasefire needs both sides to agree to it. That may be difficult.

Tom Scott as good as ever.

Tracy Watkins does a useful profile of Foreign Minister Murray McCully:

Mr McCully admits his new job was probably cause for a few quiet toasts within National’s ranks. “The prospect of me travelling overseas a great deal is very reassuring for many of my colleagues.”

Heh.

But the foreign affairs portfolio also represents a deliberate decision to step away. “I make no secret about the fact that I’m keen to play a role in a major portfolio and to provide less room for media speculation of a negative character about my involvement in political management issues.

“I’ve attracted a rather ordinary press on that front from time to time and the opportunity to do something substantial and stand on my own feet is something I’m really looking forward to . . . I think if you’re fortunate to have some time in Parliament, the final phases of your role should see you usefully employed and using your experience.”

Is that a hint that this could be Mr McCully’s last hurrah – and a desire to leave on a high note?

For my 2c this is largely correct. Murray has been an MP for 21 years, and I think is very keen to be known as more than just the Dark Prince. Ironically enough Winston Peters wanted the same thing – I’m confident Murray will be more sucessful!

Deborah’s column has a few things in it I can’tr resist responding to:

More puzzling than Helen Clark’s refusal to sack Peters is Key’s rush to judgment, ruling out working with NZ First before the committee’s report was tabled.

Key’s no crystal-ball gazer; he can’t know for sure NZ First won’t be back in November.

No. As he has said he would rather remain in Opposition than rely on Peters, as he can’t be trusted. It is called a principled decision. To be fair, it is also probably a recognition that such a Government would only last weeks or months anyway.

Contrast this with the National Party campaigning for convicted paedophile Peter Ellis’ innocence when he’d been found guilty by every court in the land.

How this is even relevant, I don’t know. But it is not National campaigning – it was Katherine Rich and Don Brash. But asking for a Royal Commission into the Ellis case (something I support) is not about campaigning for a paedophile – it is about campaigning for a better justice system.

Several years ago a National insider who quit the leader’s office told me if the party ever dies, trace the DNA back to McCully.

“He’s a trench fighter, and all his decisions are made according to what’s good for him. He was behind Jenny [Shipley] rolling Jim [Bolger], then he pushed Jenny over.”

This is why I responded, because I know this is false. McCully was not supporting Shipley. Far from it – he was a member of the Bolger team trying to defeat her coup. This is a matter of fact – many witnesses would testify to this.

A current National staffer says he overheard MPs discussing what they’d do about Peters if he held the balance of power after the election, and McCully expostulated; “The f***** wants my portfolio.”

This seems unlikely to me. Up until the donations scandal this year, National were actually quite keen to do a deal with NZ First. I know this, because it worried me. It was very well understood that Peters would keep Foreign Affairs and McCully was very relaxed about this state of affairs. This was common knowledge.

Peters has no-one to blame but himself. National were all set to do a deal with him if he made it back. But during the course of the last seven months, he has shown himself to be a man who can not be relied upon.

I meant to cover this earlier, and Murray McCully’s newsletter is a good reminder:

Revelations this week that NZAid has provided $121,500 of taxpayers’ tsunami relief cash for the Tamil Rehabilitation Organisation (TRO) raise serious questions about both the aid and security policies of the Clark Government. The TRO has for some time been widely regarded as a funding front for the Tamil Tigers, outlawed as a terrorist entity in most like-minded jurisdictions, but not in New Zealand. The TRO, too, has increasingly been targeted by authorities, and its operations suspended in several countries. So why is New Zealand so far out of step? …

NZAid paid over a cheque for $121,500 in tsunami relief funding to the Tamil Rehabilitation Organisation (TRO) back in 2005. But even then NZAid should have been on notice that the TRO was regarded as a fund-raising front for the Tamil Tigers terrorist activities.

In 2005, the British Charities Commission removed the TRO’s charitable status because it had “not been able to account satisfactorily for the application of funds.” On 1 October 2006, the Swiss Police arrested the TRO Secretary at the French border carrying 18 million Euros in cash, destined for the Tamil Tigers.

It’s nice we can do something for the Tamil Tigers. The spirit of giving.

From Murray McCully’s newsletter:

Lobbyists Scam Health Budget
Amongst the apparent beneficiaries of yesterday’s Budget was an outfit called the Health Research Council, originally established to award grants for valuable scientific research in the health sector. In the last financial year it received nearly $70million from the nation’s taxpayers. And yesterday Dr Cullen announced that health research would be boosted by $4 million. The Council is part of a wider portfolio of science funding totalling $550 million, accorded critical review in previous editions of this newsletter. And this week it is the turn of the Health Research Council to receive such constructive scrutiny.

Members of the Health Research Council are appointed on the advice of the Minister of Health. The primary function of the Council, according to S6 of the Health Research Council Act is “to advise the Minister on national health research policy…” So the Council is, through the Minister, responsible to Parliament and it is funded through an appropriation granted by Parliament.

Last year the Health Research Council decided to approve a grant of $701,000 to a group of researchers from the Wellington School of Medicine, a branch of Otago University, to study “policymaking to reduce smoking around children.” The fact that said group of researchers might accurately be described as anti-tobacco activists is underlined by the fact that the application discloses over $1.8 million in grants to members of the group for tobacco-related research over the previous three years.

The summary makes clear what the research will actually involve: “Smokefree policies can be expanded by government policies,” we are told. “So as to help advocates, this research aims to determine obstacles/opportunities within policy processes, for interventions appropriate to specific population groups.”

The subsequent detail makes it clear what the thrust of the research involves: “recorded face to face anonymous transcribed interviews will be conducted with at least 55 past/current politicians…” In addition to researching “policy statements, official advice and party policies,” the project will include “searches for relevant voting records and statements by politicians during the period from 1996 to the present.” All of this, a bargain at $701,000.

So it works like this: a Research Council that is being funded by Parliament to provide quality research for Parliament in the area of health science is instead spending that money researching the Members of Parliament themselves, their speeches, their advisors and their voting records. And the purpose of this exercise is not to come up with new scientific discoveries that might benefit the health sector, but, in their own words, “to help advocates.”

So taxpayers’ money that should be advancing the health of New Zealanders by funding new scientific breakthroughs is instead funding the preparation of resource material for lobbyists about the Members of Parliament who gave them the money in the first place. Which will presumably be useful because those same lobbyists will also be able to lobby for increased health science funding which can then be diverted into further lobbying. Which of course, is what our foolish Government has just done to the tune of $4 million a year. Isn’t that just the scam of the century?

So basically this was a $700,000 grant paid to anti-smoking activists for them to research on how they can be more successful activists!!

I’d like to get a grant from the Health Research Council so I can interview people on how I could be a better blogger!

There have been other examples in the past of how the Government funds lobby groups to lobby Parliament. It is quite simply wrong. Lobby groups should not be taxpayer funded for their lobbying. It is fine to be funded for other activities but it is the thin end of a corruption wedge to have the Government fund lobbying of MPs.

People may have noted over time how Labour seems to try and turn every Government opportunity into a partisan event for Labour. One disgraceful recent incident was the attempt to have a medal ceremony for bravery awards in the Labour Party Caucus room.

Murray McCully points out in today’s newsletter the Music Month launch this week:

New Zealanders are now familiar with the sense of entitlement that has become the hallmark of the Clark Labour Government.  Another little reminder of this most unlovely characteristic came this week with the launch of New Zealand Music Month.  Most would consider such an event an opportunity to celebrate the achievements of the New Zealand music industry.  But for Judith Tizard and her colleagues it was merely another opportunity to utilise taxpayers’ funds to undertake a bit of gentle marketing for the Labour Party.

The New Zealand Music Commission receives over $1million a year from the taxpayers of New Zealand.  Some of these funds, no doubt, were used to host this week’s Music Month launch event in Wellington.  And a small clue as to the political character of the event may lie in the fact that the National Party spokesman on Arts and Culture, Christopher Finlayson, was not invited to an event hosted by a taxpayer-owned body – the NZ Music Commission.  Never mind.  We are sure that Mr Finlayson as a scholarly and courtly individual will most certainly not harbour a grudge if he finds himself as Minister for this body in six months time.

Stung by her shameful exclusion from the group of prime female vocalists who entertained the Labour Party Conference (the various nicknames for which do not bear repeating in a newsletter with such a cultured readership)  Ms Tizard was apparently determined to make amends.  She climbed onto the stage to accompany musician Chris Knox (yes, the same one you would have seen performing at Labour Party conferences). And witnesses report that she would indeed have made a valuable addition to the Labour Conference quartet.

Towards the end of the Knox/Tizard number, she was apparently joined by completely non-political and dispassionate media commentator Russell Brown (yes, the same one used by state television on channel 7), at the same time as Knox could be heard by the video microphones making a disparaging remark about National MP Katherine Rich.  All in all, another day in the life of the New Zealand Music Commission branch of the Labour Party.

This is not an isolated incident. People will recall the disgraceful behaviour towards Don Brash a couple of years ago at another government funded arts event.

The Dominion Post also has an article on the launch and reports on Judith’s response upon being told she failed music quiz (to be fair I am sure I would fail it also):

“I don’t know the details, honey; I just write the policy and ask for the money.”

Indeed. And very successful at it also – the asking that is.

From last week’s McCcully newsletter:

The Government’s gimmicky “Fast Forward Fund” science announcement has placed the Election Year spotlight on the whole area of science research and development.  There will now be greater interest in the National Party’s response closer to the election.  But what a pity that more focus has not been given to ensuring that we get value for money out of the existing budget.

The word ‘science’ will no doubt conjure up pictures of pasty-looking individuals in white coats shuffling around laboratories with Bunsen burners and test tubes. But a quick look at some of the projects currently being funded out of the Science/Research budget suggests that such is not the case.

Take, for example, a $96,000 grant for a study of Boganology.  No, this is apparently not a poorly selected term for some exciting new microbial organism. It’s exactly what it sounds like: a study of bogans. That will really get our export industries humming.

Then there’s the interesting little number entitled “More than Bricks and Mortar,” a study of social networks amongst homeless people.  All of that for a modest $795,000 (no, no typographical error – $795,000 out of the SCIENCE fund).

And how about a study of “The impact of economic shocks on the well-being of New Zealanders”.  A snip at $600,000.  All to ascertain the previously unknown and obviously elusive truth that economic shocks are bad for people’s well-being.

But for studies into the blindingly obvious the prize would have to be awarded to the report “How do positive events lead to greater happiness and wellbeing?” A modest $600,000 experiment that clearly involved giving someone a $600,000 grant and checking that he or she was very very happy indeed.

There is, of course, the usual display of rampant political correctness: a $427,000 grant for a “Dictionary of Loanwords in the Maori Language Newspapers”.  A $495,000 study of “The Impact of Sound Change on the Rhythm of Maori”.  And a $955,000 study “Ecosystem Services Benefits in Terrestrial Ecosystems for Iwi”, a report that will obviously shoot New Zealand immediately to the international forefront in this critical area of scientific endeavour.

That’s right folks. This is cash out of the SCIENCE budget we are talking about here.  Cash that has been confiscated from taxpayers under the pretence of investing it in maintaining world leadership in our primary industries.  Makes you yearn for a few more test tubes and Bunsen burners, doesn’t it?

I hope the good farmers of NZ check carefully what the Fast Forward Fund will actually be spent on!