Kiwiblog

Claire Browning at Pundit pulls no punches:

Shame on Labour spokesperson Chris Carter and partisan blog The Standard for using anti-whaling diplomacy for short-term political gain

Never has the right-wing sobriquet “The Stranded” seemed more appropriate.

I am truly loathe to diss a friendly fellow blog, and I apologise for it already. But they asked for it. It stems from this hysterical politicisation of New Zealand’s IWC negotiating stance, here and here, by The Standard blogger Eddie, which even one of their own readers characterised as “partisan hackery”. “I’m not sure what I think of this [wrote Neil] but using it as an excuse for more partisan hackery is tedious”. That didn’t stop Labour spokesperson Chris Carter wading in:

And then:

Even more offensive than Eddie’s posts was colleague Marty G’s comments, excoriating anyone who might disagree on the comments thread, evidently mistaking ad hominem for wit: “I don’t give a crap about Palmer … have you suffered a head injury? … follow the link in the post, genius” … and so on.

Claire concludes:

Using dead whales as pawns in a political game is no less sickening than their original butchery. Carter says the Labour Party stands for their conservation. What I take from the past two day’s performance is that it stands for ill advised unnuanced politicking, over substantive hard policy choices.

John Armstrong also looks at the diplomatic proposal:

Has New Zealand sold out to Japan by backing a compromise proposal before the International Whaling Commission which would reopen the door to commercial slaughter of whales, albeit in limited numbers?

The answer is an emphatic “no”. If John Key and his Foreign Minister, Murray McCully, should plead guilty to any charge, it is to one of being realistic.

The one-dimensional “you are either with us or against us” nature of the debate between the pro- and anti-whaling brigades leaves little room for the subtlety and nuance of diplomacy which – despite the hairy chest-beating of Australia’s Rudd Government – is the only viable means of reducing the ever-increasing number of whales being harpooned in the southern oceans.

Even the merest hint of concession to the Japanese had the Government this week labelled as “pro-whaling” by Labour. That is absurd. It is equally absurd to paint the Government’s caution compared with Australia’s bellicosity as evidence National does not give a toss about the environment.

Were that true then Sir Geoffrey Palmer – someone with a passion for preserving the environment and the expertise in international law to make it happen in this case – would by now have presumably resigned as New Zealand’s Commissioner to the International Whaling Commission.

And what has happened under the present stand off:

The status quo on whaling is no longer tenable. Japan’s ships continue to steam through the huge loophole which permits whales to be killed for “scientific” purposes. The number of whales slaughtered each year for science has risen steadily from 300 in 1990 to an expected 3000 this year.

Australia’s threat to take Japan to the International Court of Justice might make people feel a lot better about those figures. It will not save one whale. It could in fact endanger many more.

It would be years before the court made a judgment. If Australia were to lose its case on the legality of whaling, it could be open slather on the species.

The only thing Australia is likely to achieve is wrecking any consensus on the plan to allow commercial whaling for a 10-year period, but with big cuts in the numbers killed each year,

This plan would buy time for the commission while restoring some control over the numbers killed – something it is powerless to do with regard to scientific whaling . …

With an election later this year, narrowing opinion polls plus a manifesto commitment to go to the international court, Kevin Rudd is having severe problems with digestion. His tough talk should be seen for what it really is – utter expedience, making New Zealand’s stance look principled in comparison.

d

Claire Browning at Pundit has what appears to be an exclusive scoop:

Last month, here on Pundit, I speculated that all was not well between the Greens and the government. Former co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons did not wish to comment then, but now she’s speaking out. The Greens have concluded that the energy efficiency and conservation part of the relationship is unsustainable, she and Gerry Brownlee cannot work together, and energy efficiency and conservation should, therefore, be deleted from the National-Greens memorandum of understanding (MOU).

I’m not sure who to blame (Browning points strongly to process failures within National but yet to hear if they have a different view on it) but regard it as unfortunate that the formalised co-operation won’t continue in this area. I thought the MOU was a well intentioned initiative, saying we disagree on most things but will work together on some areas we do agree.

As far as I can tell Claire’s exclusive has yet to be reported in the traditional media, so people are seeing it online first.

Tim Watkin at Pundit looks at what to expect:

First, Maori will be wanting a single, national settlement, but one that can be negotiated hapu-by-hapu. It’s extended family units rather than whole iwi that have the strongest connections to this or that part of the coastline; that’s where the legal relationship should be defined.

I think Tim missed a not before “a single, national settlement.

A hapu based approach is sensible, as under the common law, you have to show customary use.

Next, there’s little chance of Maori winning simple fee title – at this stage at least – over the foreshore and seabed they say has belonged to them since humans first arrived on these islands. But then most Maori aren’t demanding that. Maori ‘ownership’ will be restricted to guardianship; they won’t be able to sell or buy the land. It will be held in some form of customary title that is inalienable.

And there was very little chance of a court granting simple fee title. One reason Labour did not need to panic and legislate.

How might they do that? One idea that I’m told has been part of negotiations – and I’ve had this from several sources – is ‘tipuna title’ (tipuna meaning ancestor). That is, the foreshore and seabed in question would be ‘owned’ not by anyone living, but by a hapu’s primary ancestor. That way it can never be sold. However it’s also been suggested to me that National may have ultimately poured cold water on the concept.

That could be interesting. Some may say this is all just symbolism – but symbolism can be incredibly important.

For one Maori friend I spoke to a few months ago spoke with real feeling about the relationship he and his family have had with an estuary for more than 600 years; they just want that relationship to continue. They would never sell. Indeed, rather than sell, they may exploit and develop. As I wrote a few months back, it’ll be interesting to see how the government deals with the issue of commercial development of these natural resources.

Commercial use is part of what drives this. Who gets to farm for mussels etc?

Which suggests that one of the most surprising things to stem from this ‘repeal’ could be just how little the law actually changes. While fundamental new interpretations will be needed, everyone involved will be keen to ensure as little political and legislative upheaval as possible.

It is possible the law changes will not be mammoth. But there is a difference between a law change negotiated in good faith between two parties, and a law change unilaterally announced three days after a court case has been lost by the Govt.

MacDoctor has an excellent response to the analysis done on Pundit over the $9 billion fiscal stimulus. Tim Watkin on Pundit says most of the stimulus is “old money” not new.

MacDoctor reponds:

Tim gets understandably offended by the fact that fully half of the fiscal stimulus is new spending already earmarked by Labour, including, amusingly enough, the purchase of Kiwirail.

I should point out that Tim’s problem is due to the fact that he is interpreting the words Fiscal Stimulus in the very socialist fashion used by Rudd, Brown and Obama – all died-in-the-wool Tax-and-Spend socialists. Fiscal Stimulus in this sense of the word means “Invent large sums of money from nowhere, then spend it like there’s no tomorrow”.

Bill’s answer is straight from Treasury – who are about as socialist as Roger Douglas. To them, Fiscal Stimulus means “amount of extra money being put into the economy” – nothing more, nothing less. Labour’s committed spending counts towards a fiscal stimulus just as much as National’s new spending. This is normal accounting practice and is not some strange plot by National to impress the media.

There is a big difference between “spending” and “stimulus”.

Tim’s objection to the inclusion of Labour’s extra spending appears to rest on the groounds that it occurred well before the economic crisis. This is meaningless in terms of the stimulatory effect it will have on the economy. Had it not been for the economic crisis and fact that New Zealand was moving in to a recession, Labour’s spending may well have kept inflation above the 5% mark, so stimulatory was it. The economy does not care where the spending was approved by Labour or National, it will still react to it in definable ways.

Tim also seems to object to the inclusion of spending on schools and roads on the understanding that these were already approved by Labour, but just moved forward. It seems to have escaped him that that is exactly what is required – an increase in current expenditure rather than later spending. Almost certainly, Labour would be doing the same thing, if it was still in power.

Those from the left want “extra” spending because that is what the left believe in – higher taxes and more government spending. But that is not the only way to increase the fiscal stimulus and bringing spending foward is, as MD says, an excelletn way to do that.

We are going to face a horrendous deficit and debt problem for at least a decade. If the Government is playing smart by having a large stimulus, without incurring ongoing expenditure that we have to borrow to pay for, good on it.

Having said all that, there is a fundamental mistaken assumption that Tim and the guys at Tumeke! and the Standard have made. It has also been made by the media and by Messrs. Rudd, Obama and Brown. It is the assumption that it is the amount of money being spent that is important. This is entirely false. It is actually how and where the money is spent that is vital.

Rudd has injected money directly into peoples pockets. This is a very popular move, but one that provides only a very short lived stimulus. Obama has huge swathes of useless “pork” in his package. Brown appears obsessed with owning banks.

Key, on the other hand, is spending frugally and carefully in the places he thinks he will do the most good for the economy in the long run. He has little money to play with (thanks, in large part, to Labour) and is making the best use of it he can. Arguing about the actual size of the stimulus is like arguing about the colour of the bus that is about to run you down.

I can only say I agree,

The Herald backs Clark and Key in agreeing to debates between the two of them only:

They need make no apology for that. Theirs are the only parties capable of forming a government. Far from undermining MMP, their joint decision is perfectly in line with the way MMP has developed in this country. After 12 years, the voting system has not produced a three- or four-party contest as it did in Germany, the only close model.

There, the two smaller parties each attract around 10 per cent of the vote and can claim significant places on the stage at each election. The most successful of our smaller parties have half that support and it becomes harder to argue that they should be included in televised debates while others should not. …

National and Labour have a legitimate shared interest in minimising third-party influence. They are under no obligation to let minnows enjoy their limelight. They obviously see their prospects best served by a simple two-sided debate. The rest will no doubt get a separate televised forum for their contest.

And there is a debate on TV One on 27 October between the six minor parliamentary parties.

Meanwhile Pundit has a copy of the letter sent to Clark and Key from TVNZ and TV3 jointly:

A joint letter from news chiefs at TV3 and TVNZ last Monday pleaded with both Helen Clark and John Key not to turn their backs on multi-party debates, insisting they were of “fundamental importance in an MMP environment”.

I have said I think there should be one debate with all eight leaders. I would have four debates – two head to heads, one with all eight and one with only the minors.

But I do think people over-state MMP as the reason for including the minors. Social Credit has twice as many MPs as Jim Anderton, yet Bruce Beetham never got invited to the debates.

But talking of debates, the Alliance is complaining the CTU has refused to allow them to attend a Meet the Parties meeting in Christchurch:

Alliance Party Canterbury Convenor Quentin Findlay says the the local Council of Trade Unions leadership has locked the Alliance out of the debate.

He says Alliance members would be picketing the venue and would accept a last minute invitation to speak.

“All we are asking is for a chance to speak. No special treatment, we just to want to talk to the workers.”

Mr Findlay says the Alliance is a strongly pro-worker party that strongly supports the Union movement, and had not taken the decision to go public lightly.