Kiwiblog

Michael Field at Stuff reports:

Samoans who claim they are poor are lazy, Samoan Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sailele says.

In a comment on the government website Savali, Tuilaepa says having no food, water, clothes, a home or access to medical treatment was poverty.

There was no poverty in Samoa. 

“Every Samoan has claim to land. There are plenty of mangoes, pawpaws, bananas and breadfruit falling off and rotting on the ground, plenty of fish in the sea,” he said.

“The problem is too many people are coming into town and loathing around. They are lazy and do not want to go back to their village to work the land. They should stay in their village where their lands are and develop it.”

Tuilaepa says that some Samoans think that not having car, a TV or a European house is poverty.

“Those are luxuries. Having none of those is certainly not poverty.”

Maybe the PM of Samoa should have been appointed to the Welfare Working Group!

In NZ, we have an almost-secret ballot. Generally no one knows who you vote for, but there is a way of finding out, if a court ordered it.

Each ballot paper has a serial number on it. On the matching “butt” is recorded the page and line number from the printed electoral roll of the voter it was issued to. And if one has the printed roll for that election, then it reveals the name of the voter.

These records are all kept securely, and only if a court orders it, are votes revealed. This will generally only be for cases of double voting or if votes are disqualified.

Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn blogs about how there have been concerns in Samoa about the secrecy of theur ballot. Their chief electoral officer gave this example of why one might want to find out how someone voted:

[Tanuvasa] described a scenario where a court may order the Electoral office to find out who a person has voted for. “A candidate can go to court and say he has lost a fortune because people have said they have voted for me and I have given them money over the years. The candidate assumes that the people did not vote for him.

“How can you trace something like that that is so devastating on a person [candidate], the court can then order us to look into the votes in the presence of officials.”

I/S points out what this example is:

Yes, that’s right: Samoa’s chief electoral official thinks its acceptable and legal to examine ballot papers to see if corrupt candidates are getting what they pay for when they illegally bribe voters

That’s a stunningly bad statement for anyone to make, let alone the chief electoral official.

The Dom Post reports:

The Samoan prime minister is defending his country’s response to the devastating tsunami, denying claims of aid relief rorts and saying international relief is reaching disaster victims.

Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi said yesterday that Samoan media had fabricated stories of corruption and aid diversion, including claims that some aid parcels were being sold off in local shops.

“Our media will print any story that anybody comes up with, and it is one of my contentions that our media should have come and analysed, followed up, the truth of these allegations,” he told Radio NZ.

But Porirua Deputy Mayor Litea Ah Hoi, who returned from Samoa on Saturday, said she had no doubt aid was being mismanaged by the government.

I always recommend that if people wish to assist victims of an overseas disaster, they donate to the Red Cross, for four reasons:

1. The NZ Red Cross will pass onto the International Red Cross every cent donated towards a specific disaster. There is no deductions for marketing, admin, political lobbying or the like. In fact not even the cost of the telegraphic transfer is taken out of the appeal funds.
2. The International Red Cross also does not deduct a cent for its own administration. The IRC (actually several bodies) funds it administration directly from grants from parties to the Geneva Conventions, foundations and member red cross societies. So every dollar earmarked for an appeal, is actually spent directly on field operations.
3. The Red Cross has presence in 186 countries – basically every country on Earth. This means it doesn’t generally hand money over to Governments to spend, but they spend it themselves  through the local Red Cross (or Crescent) Society. This reduces corruption immensely. It also tends to mean a little money can go a long way, as the local red cross society tends to have extensive volunteer networks.
4. The Red Cross doesn’t discriminate as to whom it helps. It doesn’t do politics. It doesn’t try to convert people to a religion. It doesn’t also operate as a left-wing lobby group.  The seven fundamental principles are why they are sometimes the only group allowed into war zones etc.

There are many good charities out there (Save the Children Fund is also excellent) and they generally all do good work. But for me, when there is an international disaster I always donate to the Red Cross.

Before I get into this substance of this, I want to say a couple of things. The first is that I have known Chris Carter for around 15 years, think he has a great sense of humour and has been an effective MP. In fact it isn’t a great secret that I was hoping he would beat Brian Neeson when they both stood for Waipareira in 1996 as I found Neeson just far too conservative for me (and note Neeson in 2002 broke his written pledge to not stand against a National candidate by standing as an Independent in 2002 when he failed to be reselected).

Also it drives me crazy that some people are unable to comment on any issue about a gay MP, without making some dig about his sexual orientation. People really need to get over it. And Chris has had a longer relationship with his partner than most married couples, let alone divorced ones.

Now I blogged on Sunday:

I’ve been musing about whether to post on this topic, because I think Chris Carter was acting with good motives in flying to Samoa, but nevertheless I do question the appropriateness of it.

I don’t think it is the job of the Opposition Foreign Affairs Spokesperson to fly into foreign disasters, any more than it is the job of the Opposition Police Spokesperson to fly into fatal crime scenes, or the Opposition Health Spokesperson to fly into quarantine areas.

Three times I stressed I was not questioning Chris’s motives in going to Samoa, just his judgement on appropriateness. And I still stand by that. I think the motives were honourable.

I got flak from Russell Brown at Public Address and The Standard for my post. The Standard said (and Russell agreed):

In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, Winne Laban headed to Samoa to assist her family there. Carter went as her support person, the two are close I understand. He did not go there to be Labour Foreign Affairs spokesperson.

Now I don’t know anyone at all who thinks or has said Winnie going there was inappropriate. And going as a support person for Winnie would be entirely uncontroversial. One could quibble whether it is a good use of parliamentary funding to have an MP go as a support person, rather than say a family member, but I don’t think that is an issue.

This has not been disaster tourism by Carter

I have never used the term disaster tourism, and would not. In fact the blogger I recall using the term is No Right Term who used the label against John Key.

But sadly for The Standard and Russell, Chris Carter himself shoots down their defence f him that he was there solely as Winnie’s support person. Chris blogged:

What a great posting from Winnie. I am so glad she agreed to go with me to Samoa. She was not only a wonderful travelling companion, but her understanding of the appropriate cultural approach and her Samoan language skills meant we could engage with those affected by this terrible natural disaster in the most sensitive ways.

This makes it very clear Chris was going regardless of Winnie going. Later on he says Winnie asked him to go, but that be referring to the specific flight they caught.

It was clear to us that Winnie as Labour’s spokesperson for Pacific Island Affairs, and me as our Foreign Affairs Spokesperson, needed to be there, on the ground, supporting the victims and listening to their plight.

And here Chris makes very clear he was there not just as Winnie’s support person, but as the Foreign Affairs Spokesperson.

And with respect I disagree that rushing into a foreign disaster should be the job of the opposition foreign affairs spokesperson, just as I don’t expect the opposition health spokesperson to rush to medical emergencies.

It was important for Samoans and holidaying Kiwis to know that the Labour Party cared about the disaster and was quick off the mark to demonstrate its concern.

And here Chris says it was about showing the Labour Party cared. Now by his own words that raises the issue of appropriateness. Should the Greens have flown over also to show they cared? I think what was needed is to show New Zealand cared, regardless of political affiliation. And that is the job of the Government – whether that be National or Labour at the time.

It is an important role of the Opposition in a Parliamentary democracy to challenge, push and where appropriate support the actions of the government of the day. It is a legitimate role for Opposition MPs to provide a different voice and often alternatives to government policy or action, whether it be in domestic affairs such as Education, Health, Housing or Welfare, or dealing with issues concerning Employers, Workers, Unions, in International Relations/Foreign Affairs, and even in disaster relief.

That’s our job!

It was immediately obvious to us that what Samoa urgently needed was doctors, nurses, immediate food, fresh water supplies and medical equipment.

Now I absolutely agree Opposition MPs should and must hold the Government to account. But I do not accept that means it is appropriate for the foreign affairs spokesperson to fly into a foreign disaster, any more than you expect the opposition Police spokesperson to fly to the scene of an armed siege so they can comment on whether or not they think the Government or Police handled the siege well.

An Opposition spokesperson can critique the Government’s response to a foreign disaster by reports from the dozens of media at the scene, by talking to non-media on the ground, by asking MFAT (through the Minister) for a briefing etc etc. I’ve never before known an opposition spokesperson to assert they need to fly to the scene. And as I said in my original blog, Helen Clark would I am sure have ferociously denounced a National MP doing the same.

So if Chr ris had gone purely to support Winnie, I would have no criticism. But The Standard clearly invented that as a defence, to have Chris himself contradict it. And I think it is legitimate to have a debate on whether that is the correct role of an opposition spokesperson. Again, I have never criticised the good motives in going, but it is fair to question judgement.

Now Chris also made the TV3 news last night about the fact the published figures showing his spending on international travel over six months to be $83,000 was wrong, and in fact it was $131,000.

Now many will condemn him on that lavel of spending, but I do think people should not rush to judgement until all the facts are known.

I’ve had friends travel with Ministers in the past, and they get back absolutely knackered. One mate(ess) got back from a trip to UK and Netherlands for a week, and apologised for no souvenirs. She had worked from 7 am to 10 pm from when they land to when they took off apart from a two hour break one afternoon which she spent sleeping.

Many Ministers (and staff) do have punishing schedules on their trips. I suggest that the fairest thing would be for the itineraries for the travel in question to be released, so people can judge the value for the $131,000. Duncan Garner blogs that he has asked the Cabinet Office for the travel reports but for some reason this will take at least another week.

I’ve been musing about whether to post on this topic, because I think Chris Carter was acting with good motives in flying to Samoa, but nevertheless I do question the appropriateness of it.

I don’t think it is the job of the Opposition Foreign Affairs Spokesperson to fly into foreign disasters, any more than it is the job of the Opposition Police Spokesperson to fly into fatal crime scenes, or the Opposition Health Spokesperson to fly into quarantine areas.

Sometimes (not always) it is appropriate for Government Ministers to do so, because they are decision makers and a first hand view can help with that, plus they do represent the Government.

The other “reason” I have heard is so he can report back to the Government on what needs to be done. Well the MFAT staff at the NZ Embassy tend to have that in their job descriptions, and they report back with comprehensive reports, not Twitter updates.

Now again I am sure Chris was acting with good motivations in going over, and like many others Kiwis there, are helping where they can with the relief effort (I hear many tourists are staying on to help with the cleanup which is great).

But I am imagining what Helen Clark would have said if a the then National Foreign Affairs Spokesperson had flown into a foreign disaster in the Pacific, started meeting with the Samoan Prime Minister, announcing he would report back to the Government on what is needed, criticising NZ’s response and twittering about how things were so bad for some New Zealanders there he’s had to give away his spare t-shirt. I suspect Miss Clark would have been very vocal with her views.

Chris is perhaps somewhat fortunate that John Key is not Helen Clark. Now again, I think Chris’ motives were to be of assistance, but he perhaps should have considered how things would be perceived, and how appropriate it was.

UPDATE: The Herald on Sunday editorial touches on this also:

The spectacle of Labour MP Chris Carter slyly attempting to make political capital out of the disaster by telling the Government how it should respond was slightly distasteful. Badly co-ordinated aid initiatives at a time like this can be more hindrance than help and the disaster relief organisations on the ground will have been in no doubt about our Government’s readiness to assist where and when that assistance will be most effective.

40 dead was bad enough, but the death toll in Samoa, and to a degree Tonga,  is now thought to be 100.

Around 15,000 are homeless, at least temporarily.

Samoa has a population of 179,000 so if this was NZ it is would be the equivalent of around 2,410 dead and 360,000 needing shelter.

You can donate online to the NZ Red Cross appeal here.

From Murray.

Sadly while no bad effects in NZ, many Samoan New Zealanders will have lost loved ones, with 39 dead in Samoa.

AAP reports:

Tuilaepa Sailele, prime minister of Samoa, has launched an unprecedented attack on his Fijian counterpart, Frank Bainimarama, claiming the military man has no plans to relinquish the leadership.

“I strongly believe that Bainimarama has no intention of relinquishing power and returning Fiji to democratic government,” Tuilaepa told the New Zealand Fairfax newspapers on Tuesday.

“Therefore, that’s a clear indication that Bainimarama has no intention whatsoever of holding general elections and returning his country to democratic rule.”

He also said the commodore was “stealing public money” by appointing himself as finance minister and paying himself F$200,000 (NZ$213,000) in unclaimed leave.

The Samoan leader mocked Bainimarama’s “ridiculous” full military garb and the need for an army, saying “perhaps Bainimarama fears a combined canoe attack from Tuvalu and Kiribati,” its closest neighbours.

Wow, that is pretty stinging.

I have considerable sympathy for the purported goaals of the Commodore – a non racial constitution, a census, democratic elections. However the problem is he does indeed seem to have no intention of ever holding elections. If he wants sanctions to be lfited, he needs to spell out a time-frame and commit to it.

There has been a lot of debate about a Massey University study by Greg Clydesdale into Pacific Island achievement and immigration. The Dom Post reports on the study.

The Herald also reports on the backlash from “political correctness bullies”. It has been condemned by Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres, despite admitting he had not read it. The same goes for Labour MP Su’a WIlliam Sio who calls the paper disturbing despite also not having read the study.

Now I haven’t read the report myself (but have asked for a copy so I can comment later in more detail), but will make the assertion that there is nothing new about the fact that in areas of education, employment and crime etc Pacific Islanders do not perform as well as the rest of the population. This is not generally disputed.

But what is vital is that one does not just see the hundreds of thousands of Pacific Islanders in NZ just as part of a group. The majority of Pacific Islanders make a positive contribution to New Zealand.

Now how does this tie into immigration policy? Should there be some discrimination against Pacific Islanders because on average they do not achieve as well as other NZers? Absolutely not. I am a strong supporter of a colour blind and country blind immigration policy. We should have objective criteria which intending migrants should meet, and I don’t care if they come from China, the UK or Tonga.

But here is the problem, or the challenge. We actually have specific quotas for immigrants from the Pacific. Now there are public policy reasons for this which I will touch on later, but the fact these quotas exist is why the issue of under-achievement as a group is legitimate to look at.

If we had a truly colour blind and country blind immigration policy where individuals are all treated the same, then the nationality of the applicant should be irrelevant. Every applicant should be treated as an individual, not as a member of a “group”.

But as I said, we do have some specific quotas for Pacific Islanders where applications are decided by random ballot. As far as I can tell they are a Samoan quota of 1,100 a year, a Kiribati quota of 75, Tuvalu 75, Fiji 250  and Tonga 250 for a total of 1,750.

There may be family members on top of that as permanent and long-term arrivals in the last year from Samoa was 1,482 and 773 for Tonga. But that may be family reunifications or other factors.

Now as I said above there are some public policy reasons for having special PI quotas – certainly in the case of Samoa. In 1982 the Privy Council ruled all Samoans are entitled to NZ citizenship. The Government passed the Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 to over-turn that ruling and restrict citizenship to those already lawfully in NZ. As “compensation” for doing so a Samoan quota was agreed to as part of a Treaty of Friendship. We are morally bound to keep our word under that Treaty.

The other Pacific quotas can be justified on public policy grounds also – as the “big brother” to the South Pacific, it is argued we should help out our small neighbours, and we do with most aid going there, and also the special immigration quotas.

The issue is though, that because these special country quotas exist, it is legitimate to debate the impact of immigration from those countries. I do not believe it is particularly valid to question the impact of immigration from China (for example) because no-one from China gets in purely because they are Chinese. They get in because they have met the same objective test as everyone else in the world wanting to come here. Well that, or they were mates with Taito Philip Field.

Now as I said there are valid public policy reasons to have special quotas for Samoa (beyond doubt – that is an obligation) and other Pacific countries. This Wikipedia article lists the large number of Samoan NZers who are “notable” for their contribution, and NZ should in my opinion do its bit to help our Pacific neighbours.

But the existence of those special quotas means it is legitimate to look at issues such as under-achievement in employment, education and crime for migrants from those countries. A sensible debate can be held on whether the quotas are set at the right level. Even in the case of Samoa the quota of 1,100 is a maximum and applicants still need to meet other criteria like having a job offer. The Government relaxed those criteria in 2004 as not enough applicants were being accepted. It is in no way racist or wrong to debate whether or not that was a good idea, and whether the level of quotas is too high, too low or about right.