I See Red

Bryce Edwards on the current state of the left

Bruce Edwards has a thoughtful analysis of the current state of the left in New Zealand in 2009.  Some very interesting observations.  Some lessons include the importance of the left developing "Yes" campaigns (what we stand for, rather than against), but also the importance of debate on the economy becoming much more central to what the left in New Zealand stands for.  To generate that debate will require the left to question the status quo, generate debate and conversation and propose positive alternatives.  That will require boldness.

In my view climate change and the environment is an economic question as much (perhaps more so?) as an environmental question.  Cleaning up our environment, meeting our international climate change commitments, creating healthy environments and people, maintaining our clean green reputation etc, will require us to transform our economy.  The question is, what will that transformation look like?  I'm not sure what it will look like but I do know that it will require some "yes" campaigns.

Swearing allegience to the Queen

Back in 2006 in a post titled "Elizabeth is not one of us" I wrote that I would find it very distasteful to have to swear allegiance to the Queen and that I would much prefer to swear allegiance to the people of New Zealand.  I now find myself in the position of having to do just that.  I'm soon to be sworn in as a JP.  I'm still baffled about why we didn't provide an alternative when the Oaths and Affirmations were reviewed a few years back (well, actually I do, a fear about backlash from traditionalist NZ). 

We are a republic!  Our Governor General is our President in all but name.  So when those who are anti-republic say 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' they are right in a way.  The system we have is pretty good.  Parliament in NZ is supreme.  The Executive, which the Prime Minister chairs, runs the country if they have the support of a majority of Parliament which the people of New Zealand (over 18) elect.  The Government-General role is a symbolic, constitutional role - and importantly non-partisan.  A figure of unity. 

The only change we need to make is rename the Governor General as a President and change the current appointment process (currently cabinet decides who the GG will be).   Instead  we should have a 3/4 majority of Parliament select who that will be (as opposed to politicising the role by having it elected).

So that deals with two of the big arguments against becoming a republic 1) people not wanting a politicised President, and 2) 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' in regards to our constitutional arrangements.  The third argument against is those who 3) don't want our historic link with Britain severed.  And that is the real area of debate.  For some that represents 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it', while for others, like me, you can't get much for broke than someone who is not one of us being our head of state.  A modern, confident New Zealand would reject a system based on putting birth ahead of merit.

Join the Republic movement.

Elizabeth is not one of us

The Sunday Start Times has an editorial on the Monarchy.  If I'm ever elected to Parliament, I'm happy to lead on this cause!  I've said before on this blog that I would find it very distasteful having to swear allegiance to the Queen.  I want to swear allegiance to the people of New Zealand.

Hat tip: Kiwiblog.

Her death marks another huge difference between the two cultures. The Maori Queen was genuinely close to her people. The Pakeha Queen is not. The Queen of New Zealand is an absentee sovereign whose continued role in our affairs is absurd, even grotesque. She represents inherited power and privilege, gross inequality and the provocations of primogeniture and the silver spoon. She represents a class system that is alien to New Zealand's deepest expressed values if not necessarily to the reality of our increasingly stratified society.

Dame Te Ata never lived in a splendour of palaces as Elizabeth does. While Te Ata continually toured the Tainui marae in the annual round of the poukai, the Pakeha Queen visits her colony once in a blue moon. Tainui at least can fairly claim that Te Ata was one of them. Elizabeth is not one of us.

Because Te Ata's is a purely Maori institution, Pakeha do not need to take any position about its future. They do, however, need to decide the future of their own monarch. Only inertia and a kind of ossified sentimentality prevent us from doing so - and the lack of a courageous politician to lead the charge. In the meantime, the Pakeha monarchy will continue to die by degrees, through a slow decay of sentiment and a growing realisation that British aristocrats have no place in our constitution.

 

Another Poll

There was another TV3 poll last night. 

Should NZ change its flag? 44% said yes, 52% said no.

Should NZ stay a Monarchy?  55% said yes, 38% said no.

They didn't give any other breakdown, like age, but I assume that those under 40 would be much more strongly in favour of changing the flag and becoming a republic than those over 60.   I'm looking forward to when these issues gain serious momentum.

NZ - a case of mistaken identity

I was going through some of my old stuff and found a couple of my old speeches from High School.  They are about 6-8 years old I guess (from around 1997-9) and I think we've moved a long way since I gave these speeches.  Local music content was about 6% at that time - it's about 20% now. 

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.  Who are ya?  What are ya?  What does it mean to you to be a New Zealander?  Does it matter?   And probably the most important question of all, who among us is sure of the words of Rule Britannia or the Star Spangled Banner?  Ladies and Gentlemen: New Zealand: a case of mistaken identity.

There are two parts to what is called national identity. Firstly it’s the way we see ourselves as a nation and secondly it’s the way other people see us as a nation.  Why is it important?  Because without being New Zealanders – what are we?  Our ‘identity’ influences our whole way of being, our social behaviour and attitudes; it determined how we live today, and how we will live tomorrow.

Ok, if part of an identity is the way we see ourselves as a nation what is our perception of ourselves?  We all see ourselves as a sporting nation.  We take pride in ourselves as “the underdogs”, the little guys with a fighting spirit, successful against the odds.  Rural people see themselves as down to earth, the backbone of the country.  Urban dwellers see themselves as sophisticates, sipping on lattés and Sauvignon Blanc; the café culture.

Alright, what about the other aspect of our national identity, the way other people see us.  Internationally we are seen as a clean green country.  We are known for adventure tourism, especially Queenstown, the adventure capital of the world.  In many places we are still known as the country with 3 million people and 60 million sheep, a land of opportunities.  Is this an accurate reflection of our New Zealand today?

Let’s examine it more closely.  Firstly, it’s clear that NZ doesn’t have a ‘single’ identity.  We are an uneasy mix of Maori vs Pakeha, country people vs city people and so on.  People in adventure tourism portray us in one way; business people portray us in another.

No’one in NZ is really certain what being a Kiwi means anymore. 

What is the reality of our National identity?

Clean and green?  Perhaps.  But other nations are starting to see NZ as the Liberia of Genetically modified food – a testing ground – tainting the clean green image to the extent that we may lose it and along with it, the market for our food exports.

A rugby nation?  In a way.  The Highlanders vs the Crusaders in the final of the Super 12 is fantastic.  But commercialisation of sport has lead to a decrease in the number of people who actually play rugby, and sport in general.  Less than 10% of our nation plays rugby.  What about the other 90%?  They are couch potatoes.  We love sport – we’ll sit at home and watch it on Sky all day!

We love our TVs don’t we.  Turn it on and what do you see?  The most popular programmes are Friends, Coronation Street, The Simpson’s, and Water rats.  Anyone who admits to watching Shortland Street is put down. The tall poppy syndrome is alive and well.

What is there of New Zealand on our TV? Excellent documentaries, so what did we do?  We sold the companies that make them overseas.  Free to air sport on TV today is delayed coverage only. 

New Zealand has one of the lowest levels of local content on TV and radio in the world.  Instead we have American, English, and Australian imports?  Why?  Because the bean counters are more interested in making a profit to their overseas owners and important programmes are ‘cheap, cheerful and trivial’ to quote David Beatson.

Local drama and children’s programming are declining at an alarming rate.  NZ kids need to see NZ stories and faces, our own accents and idiom – surely that is what a NZ identity is about.  Where is NZ in NZ today?  Where is the Kiwi in Aotearoa?

But don’t worry there is an answer to all this doom and gloom. 

Firstly, NZ needs to have at least a 10% local content of NZ music and programmes and how do we get that?  We demand it!  We need to support any government which abolishes destructive parallel importing and reintroduces protection for local radio and TV.

Secondly, we must stop selling our family silver – allowing our country and identity to be sold off for short term gain.

Lastly, we keep saying that we’re really lucky to be living here, looking at Kosovo, or East Timor, or whatever the latest world crisis is.  We’ll let’s do something about it.  Let’s make our country good and great – God Defend New Zealand.

A referendum (with a twist) on Nuclear Free New Zealand

Here is a blog post to ponder over the summer break...

New Zealand’s nuclear policy was one of the interesting issues of the 2005 General Election (and keeps popping up as a topical issue – see Don Brash’s discussion on the issue on Agenda, and this news item).

During the election National’s position was never really clear. Did they want to get rid of our nuclear free status or didn’t they? Lockwood Smith apparently asked for US help to convince the New Zealand public it was time to allow nuclear powered ships into New Zealand ports. Don Brash apparently told US Senators New Zealand’s Nuclear Free Policy would be “Gone by lunchtime”. Various National MPs spent the 2005 Election Campaign promoting Nuclear power in New Zealand (they wouldn’t want the power plant in their backyard/electorate I’m sure). Yet in the last televised leader’s debate Don Brash said that National was committed to keeping New Zealand nuclear free until such time as New Zealanders decided it was time for the policy to be abandoned.

So do National support the policy or not?  It’s a bit of a cop-out to simply say we’ll do what the New Zealand public wants without actually taking a position.

Labour made it clear that it is committed to keeping New Zealand nuclear free. The policy is an important part of our identity as New Zealanders. It reflects our courage at taking independent and principled stands on issues and our willingness to oppose the world’s only superpower when it is right and moral to do so. The policy also reflects our unique clean green image that helps promote ourselves to the world as a place worth visiting and helps sell our products (particular dairy) overseas.

I have no doubt that many National MPs and members actually want to get rid of the policy, and like Act would get rid of it in a flash (no pun intended) if they could. The 2004 National Party conference passed two remits against the nuclear free policy.  One remit was focused on scrapping the ban on nuclear propelled ships in our ports so that New Zealand could rejoin ANZUS and the other remits was an amendment that would allow safe nuclear technologies (i.e nuclear power) to be used in New Zealand. National wants to improve our relationship with the US in order to improve our chances of getting a free trade deal. 

National wants us to tighten our defence and military relationship with the US and rejoin ANZUS to help New Zealand’s security. They also think getting rid of the policy makes sense in terms of science, in terms of risk analysis, in terms of the realities of the kind of ships that the US would be sending to New Zealand.

I disagree with those views, but the above are genuine positions to hold. It would be nice if National was upfront with their views so we could actually debate them.

But they can’t be up front, because too many New Zealanders support New Zealand’s nuclear free policy. New Zealanders, like Labour , see the policy as an integral part of who and what we are as New Zealanders. Jim Bolger understood that. He knew (or at least National’s internal polling demonstrated) that in 1990 if the nuclear free policy was up for debate, National would have lost. Which is why Jim Bolger made the very clear political move of taking it off the agenda. He did so by saying that under National the nuclear free legislation won’t be changed this election, the next election, or the election after that.

I actually agree with National that the New Zealand public should have their say on the nuclear issue. But I think National is asking the wrong question. We shouldn’t be asking should we get rid of New Zealand’s nuclear free legislation? We should be asking how we make New Zealand’s nuclear free legislation endure in the long term.

I support the Government sponsoring a non-binding referendum on the nuclear free issue to be held at the same time as our next election (probably 2008). The question being “Should New Zealand entrench the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987”. And I’d like to see whatever government emerges from that election passing such legislation. And I’d like all the political parties to adopt that position as policy going into the 2008 election.

A referendum could be announced in 2007 (the 20th year anniversary of the policy) along with other initiatives such as a commemorative 20cent coin. A referendum would answer the question, do New Zealanders hold our Nuclear Free policy as an integral part of who and what we are as New Zealanders. And it would allow the next government, if the answer to that question is yes, to entrench the legislation in law. It would also expose the National Party. They would have to adopt a position. Either support, or oppose.

NB: I realize that few pieces of legislation are entrenched (most around the constitutional conventions). But just because general legislation isn’t currently entrenched doesn’t mean we should abandon the idea. Why not entrench legislation that is fundamental to New Zealand values?

Colin James - identity and the challenges ahead

Colin James gave a very interesting lecture the other night called "After the Treaty: a new fiction".  He talks about belonging, the growth of the Maori middle-class and the potential impact of that, and the growing influence on the majority of Maori and Pacific culture.  He says this will "profoundly unsettle many people, particularly older people".  He suggests there is a great deal of cultural insecurity ahead of us.

He goes on to talk about what makes a nation.  He talks about an 'idea' another way of saying ' a New Zealand way' as Helen Clark put it in the speech from the Throne.  He talks about the challenge that the growing influence of China and India will have on New Zealand in terms of science, trade, and people and ideas.  James suggests this will impact on our cultural insecurity.

He talks about 3 'facts'. 

Firstly, New Zealand's unique society's bicultural nature.

Bicultural here is not a subset of multicultural but an issue of power and of belonging. Many people think they can wish or ideologise it away, that if they change a few dozen acts of Parliament they can return us to a golden age when taniwha didn't get in the way of roads and sacred Maori places were a matter for private contemplation, not public respect. But too much has changed. And the cultural intermix now under way which I talked about earlier is embedding that change. One indicator is the number of National party people, including some in high places, who feel the party's election race policy was wrong or inappropriate or unworkable.

James's second fact is the Treaty of Waitangi: "It has become, for better and for worse, part of the national consciousness. It cannot be wished into thin air".

James's third fact is  the majority. 

Neo-romantic notions about a partner-state that gives article 2 of the Treaty the same weight as article 1 run into a majority brick wall. The Foreshore and Seabed Act made that bluntly clear. The Treaty cannot dismantle the majority and it cannot disaggregate the unitary state. In any case many who have Maori ethnicity choose the majority. We are not two absolutely separate peoples.... So I think we can say the second Treaty period is within a decade or two of its end.

He then asks what can make a nation, if not the Treaty.  He calls for an enduring 'fiction'.  "If so, it must be a fiction to which the great majority, preferably all, the people subscribe and draw spiritual nourishment from."

A very interesting lecture indeed.  I think Colin James puts before us, as political activists of the next generation, a very big challenge.  I think Labour is best positioned out of all the political parties to deal with the challenge he puts before us, partly because we recognise the 'three facts'  and their implication.

Jim Bolger and Identity

This is the final post on my “Historical perspective” series. A lot of my posts have been (and will continue to be I guess) attacked from people on the right. And yet, is what I’m arguing really that far removed from what Jim Bolger (one of National’s most successful leaders) was saying 10 years ago?

Identity

Several events have helped shape the values of modern New Zealand. The Vietnam War, the ’81 Rubgy Tour, the debate on being nuclear free, economic reform of the ‘80s and ‘90s and the ongoing march of technology. Each in its own way plus many others have helped determine the values we draw on a we look out to the future. The final element of who we are will be found in the manner in which we present ourselves to the world.

The Population Conference; People-Communities-Growth; Thursday 13 November 1997

Fifty years ago, in entirely different circumstances and after the then look at our population trends, we moved to significantly change our constitutional structure to more completely reflect an independent nation. Fifty years on as we again look at ourselves, at our people, at our region of the world, it is appropriate to ask should we not move to have a New Zealanders as Head of Sate of New Zealand? As is well known, my answer to that question is yes.  Others are less certain and worry about when is the right time.  There is an important debate because deep down it is about who we are. It is not about being against the past or present but about what is right for the future.

The Population Conference; People-Communities-Growth; Thursday 13 November 1997

At another level we can engender new respect and understanding for the nation’s history.  We can protect our rich heritage, promote our unique culture, cherish our diversity instead of being torn asunder by it, and more closely define the rights which every New Zealand citizen should enjoy… New Zealand has an unparalleled opportunity to present the face of a modern, forward-looking, humanitarian nation to the world.

Central North Island Divisional Conference, NZ National Party; Knowing Who we Are; Friday 9 May 1997.

We must encourage the development of strong communities because only by doing that will be reduce the sense of isolation many feel in today’s fast moving world.  Our goal must be to bring warmth into our communities again.  To achieve this will require that we are open to new and perhaps radical approaches; to understand the New Zealand of tomorrow.

Central North Island Divisional Conference, NZ National Party; Knowing Who we Are; Friday 9 May 1997.

Jim Bolger and Immigration

I was just having coffee and Jim Bolger was at the table next to me, so I thought I'd post my second historical perspective piece.   Here is a section of a speech Jim Bolger gave where he expressed his views on immigration and the growing diversity of New Zealand:

A unifying factor among all New Zealanders is a migrant history - from when the first Waka beached on theses shores to today's new arrivals - there is a common thread of people looking for a better life free of prejudice and hardship. 

Indeed, earlier this year, Parliament welcomed to its ranks our first Asian-New Zealand MP, Pansy Wong; we are proud of her.  We also have three MPs with Pacific Island heritage.

They equally confirm the growing diversity of New Zealands population.

The Population Conference; People-Communities-Growth; Thursday 13 November 1997

No Home to Go Back To

This is an article I wrote for the Ashburton Guardian back in July 2004, but I thought it was worth posting some highlights:

Issues surrounding race and the Treaty of Waitangi touch on the past, the present and future.  They involve young and old, Maori, Pakeha, New Zealand European and all other ethnic mixes in New Zealand.  They cover rich and poor, working and non working people.  They often generate highly emotive and passionate debate because they are about who we are as Kiwis and where we're going as a nation.

They are also, all too often, the source of frustration.  Many of us feel ill-equipped to debate the issues, whether it is because we feel shut out and that our point of view won't be taken on board, or because we don't know all that much about what is being discussed.  We feel that we might be made to look silly by people who talk about these issues more than us.

and

One of the important moments in this debate was a statement by Tariana Turia.  She said that Pakeha New Zealanders have a home to go back to and Maori New Zealanders don't. 

For me, Tariana Turia was wrong.  Her statement defies and denies 164 years of history, and several generations of kiwis who have lived, worked and raised their families in New Zealand.  I don't have a home to go back to - I'm a Kiwi and New Zealand is my home.  Nobody has the right to deny that without attacking the very basis of who I am.

When I went to Hungary, Paris and London this year for an international conference, some of those places felt more familiar than others.  But they were not 'home' - the culture, the people and the landscape were all alien to me.  The people and the culture was not the South Pacific New Zealand that I call home.