labour.org.nz | Facebook | Twitter | Red Alert Radio

Red Alert

I made a mistake

Posted by on May 23rd, 2013

There’s been comment online about my previous post focusing on why I highlighted one thing and not others.

I subsequently updated the post and highlighted a few other things that I think are worthy of discussion. But  I agree with the commenters who say they are confused.

This has had the result of the discussion being about what I do or don’t support and not about the list itself which was the intention. There are some items on the list which I think could do with discussion. And which I didn’t want to highlight because they would need a separate post (which I am likely to now do eg on parallel importing)

That is my mistake. Yes I said it. I should have either highlighted things I thought were particularly frightening or not highlighted anything.

I think it’s a given that in the world of social media we don’t always get it right. Some of us make more mistakes than others. Once you make yourself available in the environment, especially if you are a publicly elected figure, you are immediately open to criticism, ridicule and sometimes fierce opposition and support.

I remain committed to the medium But it is getting tougher. I see it as engagement not broadcasting. But you have to take the good with the bad and I agree you should own up and say you either made a mistake or that  you could have expressed things better. In a conversation in the physical environment, that then gives you the opportunity to continue the conversation and hopefully move on.

Shall we continue the conversation?

Tags:
Filed under: Uncategorized
8 Comments

The right wing agenda

Posted by on May 22nd, 2013

*Update to post. It’s fair enough that the comments are focussing on why I’m not support this or that. I highlighted and bolded one issue that I could definitely support. I didn’t highlight others that I thought needed discussion because I didn’t outright support them. But have subsequently done so. I do however think the discussion should be about the impact of the agenda and not about what I think.

On the 4 April, in the great stone-and-glass National Gallery of Victoria in Melbourne, luminaries descended to celebrate the 70th Anniversary of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), Australia’s leading free-market think-tank.

Tickets to the gala dinner cost a minimum of AU$500 (£340) per head, and an auction to raise funds for the IPA featured prizes including a guided tour of the Reagan Ranch in California and a behind the scenes Fox News “experience” in New York City, including a meeting with host Bill O’Reilly . Among the speakers were Rupert Murdoch, journalist Andrew Bolt, billionaire mining magnate Gina Rinehart, and a man named Tony Abbott, Leader of the Opposition.

Tony Abbott, Gina Rinehart and Rupert Murdoch took turns sharing the stage. Andrew Bolt (a conservative columnist for the Melbourne Herald Sun) was MC. By accounts, Abbott praised his fellow key-note speakers, especially Murdoch, and promised the crowd a “big yes” to many of the think tank’s list of 75 policies to radically transform Australia.

It is worth remembering that Tony Abbott and his conservative Liberal Party, David Cameron and the UK Conservatives and John Key and the National Party are all advised by the PR gurus Crosby Textor.

It’s also important to note that this dinner and the following ideas were the brain children of a right wing think tank. But it’s no coincidence that these three men and their parties share much of the following agenda. I wonder how many of these ideas (which have relevance here) will find their way into National’s agenda if they win another government term? I have marked the  ideas which I think have merit.

  • Means-test Medicare
  • Eliminate family tax benefits
  • Abandon the paid parental leave scheme
  • Abolish the Baby Bonus
  • Abolish the First Home Owners’ Grant
  • Repeal plain packaging for cigarettes and rule it out for all other products, including alcohol and fast food
  • Repeal the alcopops tax
  • Reject proposals for compulsory food and alcohol labelling
  • Repeal the Fair Work Act
  • Allow individuals and employers to negotiate directly terms of employment that suit them
  • Introduce a single rate of income tax
  • Return income taxing powers to the states
  • Cut company tax to 25 per cent
  • Cease subsidising the car industry
  • Abolish the Foreign Investment Review Board
  • Abolish the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
  • Abolish the Office for Film and Literature Classification
  • End local content requirements for Australian television stations
  • Break up the ABC and put out to tender each individual function
  • Devolve environmental approvals for major projects to the states
  • End mandatory disclosures on political donations
  • End all corporate welfare and subsidies by closing the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
  • Immediately halt construction of the National Broadband Network and  privatise any sections that have already been built
  • Privatise Australia Post, Medibank and SBS
  • Halve the size of the Coalition front bench from 32 to 16
  • Reduce the size of the public service from current levels of more than 260,000 to at least the 2001 low of 212,784
  • Slash top public servant salaries
  • Force government agencies to put all of their spending online in a searchable database
  • Repeal the carbon tax, and don’t replace it (if it is replaced by another costly scheme, most of the benefits will be undone).
  • Abolish the Department of Climate Change
  • Abolish the Clean Energy Fund and repeal the renewable energy target
  • Withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol
  • Repeal the mining tax
  • Privatise the CSIRO and the Snowy-Hydro Scheme
  • Abolish the Commonwealth Grants Commission
  • Introduce fee competition to Australian universities
  • Means test tertiary student loans
  • Repeal the National Curriculum
  • Introduce competing private secondary school curricula
  • Reintroduce voluntary student unionism at universities
  • Introduce a voucher scheme for secondary schools
  • Abolish the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)
  • Eliminate ‘balance’ laws for radio and television broadcasters
  • Abolish television spectrum licensing and devolve spectrum management to the common law
  • Eliminate media ownership restrictions
  • Cease funding the Australia Network
  • Rule out government-supported or mandated internet censorship
  • End public funding to political parties
  • Introduce voluntary voting
  • End media blackout in final days of election campaigns
  • Formalise a one-in, one-out approach to regulatory reduction
  • Legislate a cap on government spending and tax as a % of GDP
  • Legislate a balanced budget amendment which limits the size of budget deficits and the period the government can be in deficit
  • Allow people to opt out of superannuation in exchange for promising to forgo any government income support in retirement
  • Encourage independent contracting by overturning new regulations designed to punish contractors
  • End all hidden protectionist measures, such as preferences for local manufacturers in government tendering
  • Remove all tariff and non-tariff barriers to international trade
  • Remove anti-dumping laws
  • Deregulate the parallel importation of books
  • End preferences for Industry Super Funds in workplace laws
  • Privatise the Australian Institute of Sport
  • Rule out federal funding for 2018 Commonwealth Games
  • End all public subsidies to sport and the arts
  • Eliminate the National Preventative Health Agency
  • End all government funded ‘Nanny State’ advertising
  • De-fund Harmony Day and close the Office for Youth
  • Repeal Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act
  • Allow the Northern Territory to become a state
  • Introduce a special economic zone for northern Australia including:
    a) Lower personal income tax for residents
    b) Significantly expanded 457 Visa programs for workers
    c) Encourage the construction of dams.
Tags: , , , ,
Filed under: #ownourfuture, Australia, politics
13 Comments

“Arguably” Bulls**t

Posted by on May 22nd, 2013

Apparently, according to a six line news brief on page seven of the New Zealand Herald today, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security’s report into the possible unlawful spying on New Zealanders has cleared the GCSB of any illegality. That’s it, nothing to see here, move on everyone.

Except that the New Zealand Herald would have to be clairvoyant to actually make that claim, because John Key has decided that the report will not be released because its not in “New Zealand’s interest” to do so. Instead we must rely on a media release from Ian Fletcher the Director of the GCSB, who tells us that Paul Neazor has found that the actions of the GCSB were “arguably” legal. Presuambly this means they were arguably illegal as well?

The Inspector=General is meant to be our watchdog on these agencies. Frankly I couldn’t care less what John Key’s family friend thinks about the report. New Zealanders deserve to see it. It must be made public if there is any hope for New Zealanders to regain a shred of confidence in our intelligence agencies. That must be followed by a full inquiry into our intelligence agencies.

The lack of transparency around this government is now reaching crisis levels. Denying Parliament access to information about the legal consequences of the mean spirited carers legislation and the legislating away of rights of appeal, missing BORA reports and Regualtory Imapcts are the new normal under National.

Bear in mind that the Office of the Ombudsmen, the agency charged with dealing with complaints about government actions, has a backlog of thousands of cases, and is actually investigating a number of government agencies about their non-compliance with the Official Information Act. That is how bad things have gotten under National.

This government is riding roughshod over our constitutional norms and practices of good governance. This cuts to the heart of our system of democratic government. It might not rate as a nightly news story, and for people struggling to make ends meet it will be at the bottom of their list of problems. But it does matter, because transparency of government is at the heart of the social contract of our liberal democracy. Without it, government loses legitimacy. They must not, and will not, get away with this.

Filed under: Uncategorized
5 Comments

Parliament A Unique Workplace – Can Be Better

Posted by on May 21st, 2013

Have you ever noticed how some women just seem to have it all sorted? I didn’t realise how multi-talented women really were until I became a mum.

Since the birth of my third child I have appreciated my mother even more, admired other mothers tremendously and realised not only do I have a passion to make a difference in the lives of others, I want to be a good mum.

There are a number of conversations you start having by virtue of carrying out ‘mummy’ duties. Breastfeeding in public places can be as political as protesting or standing on the picket-line. Some people frown, or turn away and look a bit embarrassed and others give a reassuring smile as if to say ‘Good on You!’

Women share quite openly their experiences of Breastfeeding, when they made the choice to go back to work, how to manage illness when the whole family catches a bug, coping with the pressure of achieving work-life balance. This world of conversation can be as foreign to some people as a different language but it’s a perspective into which I have now been inducted.

The fact remains women who choose to Breastfeeding are doing so because they want their children to have the best possible start in life. And we shouldn’t assume that all  women who bottle feed didn’t try to breast-feed. It’s not easy business persevering with the right latch and getting the timing right, expressing, producing milk like a well run factory. It can be hard and I support every mum who makes the best choices she can to provide a healthy loving environment for bubs.

Returning to work is a decision that causes a whole heap of stress. If I had a dollar for every moment that I questioned myself on this single issue, there would be a tidy sum put away.

I have heard horror stories of women who returned to work with no consideration about their change in circumstances but I must say that they are the exception not the rule. New Zealand has come along way. We can chalk up many gains for women starting with the first country to give women the right to vote. Progressive change towards family friendly workplaces is considered a requirement for the modern labour market, improving productivity, overall job satisfaction and loyalty of employees.

Labour’s introduction of the Paid Parental Leave entitlement for 14 weeks sought to recognise that there is no greater job than that of being a parent. Sue Moroney’s Bill proposing to extend that leave to 26 weeks is a step in the right direction. Sadly though not surprisingly the Government is seeking to Veto the move, the fact that its on the radar of many families around the country will build momentum and it certainly ‘an idea whose time has come’.

Employers in each workplace should be encouraged to consider what level of flexibility is reasonable and achievable according to their circumstances. In Parliament, if you have the privilege of serving as an MP there are some important obligations that must be met to achieve the required outcomes of the role. But we must remember that MPs have working conditions, hours, workplaces and performance indicators that are very unique.

Our job requires a lot of travel, a high level of public interaction,   long hours sitting in Parliament, long meetings, more travel, advocacy and community work, and regular weekend obligations. The performance measures are peculiar consisting of re-election, public visibility, media profile, performance in the House and attendance in Parliament. It’s no wonder that many women get turned off by the whole scene. The whole idea of having children while serving as an MP can be even more daunting.

The short answer is that many women in our Parliament have done this in stoic fashion Ruth Richardson, Whetu Tirikatene and Katherine Rich all had their children while serving as MPs. They for me are examples that it is possible. Politics aside (for a moment) each one made progressive and subtle changes to the Parliamentary environment to accommodate their needs and those serving after them have benefitted.

My call is simple. Consideration of leave provisions for nursing mum MPs during exceptional circumstances where Members are required to sit in the House under urgency. No mum should be required to take their child to their workplace during the evening especially if they have no care provisions. They should be able to have their vote cast in a way that preserves their ability to perform a necessary duty for the role of MP without prejudicing their Party. This is a matter for Parliament to consider.

One small baby step for Parliament would send a signal to all workplaces that working mums are an asset to the workplace not a burden and if they choose to Breastfeed, then that has to be good!

Filed under: children, health, M?ori, work life balance
No Comments

The law (of NZ) according to Kafka

Posted by on May 21st, 2013

The world’s gone mad! I hear that a lot. Now I’m starting to believe it.

In our own parliament there are a series of laws being introduced (under urgency) which are not able to be properly scrutinised because the advice from officials about their impact is apparently too sensitive for us mere mortals to behold. The long term ramifications of this are not good for our rights as citizens; our privacy and our ability to trust our government.

Andrew Geddis has written eloquently about this, in particular with regard to a  law passed at the weekend which laid out the (deeply inadequate) terms upon which carers could be paid to care for severely disabled family members. The basis of the legislation  is highly questionable but the ability to debate that and any legal risks has been curtailed by the removal (or redaction) of this important official advice from the publicly released Regulatory Impact Statement (or RIS). Keith Ng at Public Address said much the same thing only in less words and in more colourful language.

There has been a growing and disturbing pattern emerging in this government to blatantly redact important information from publicly available documents. The removal of important information from a Regulatory Impact Statement reaches new heights however as it effectively nobbles the Opposition members of parliament in being able to debate and vote on the law in our parliament.

The Disability Bill was the third Bill introduced into the House within a week which removed large tracts of critical information and advice from the Regulatory Impact Statement. I say “critical information and advice”, but we can only assume it was important and critical because we simply don’t know, as it has been removed from the public eye.

The passing of these laws are therefore unable to occur with the full knowledge of their impact on our supposedly democratic and open society.

The first was a Bill which allows the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB)  to assist the SIS, Police and Defence Force to spy on New Zealand citizens and residents, as long as it has the approval of the Prime Minister of the day.  Its Regulatory Impact Statement doesn’t even pretend to contain any real analysis of the risks for human rights, free speech and individual privacy. It boldly says there has been no consultation with the public. The hearings on this bill are very short and will be heard by a special select committee of party leaders. The likelihood is remote of all party leaders being available to hear submissions and then pay the required attention  to ensure good law-making about such an important and controversial matter in such a short time.

The second (which is linked to the first) is the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill which allow the GCSB and the Government extraordinary powers to intervene in a Telco network; from how it is designed, to how it operates in NZ. Should you be charged, then some evidence against you may be too secret (for you) to even hear. This Bill has two Regulatory Impact Statements: here and here. Both are heavily redacted.

In particular, look at page 9 of the  New Framework for network security which sets out the risks of the legislation: Unfortunately, the public is not allowed to know what most of those risks are because they are withheld. The period during which the public can provide submissions has been shortened from six weeks to five. We are now in week two. I urge everyone with an interest in our telecommunications frameworks and in robust democracy to submit.

It’s stranger than fiction. And immensely disturbing for our so-called Open Nation. Consider this:

In Franz Kafka’s The Trial; a man is arrested and prosecuted by a remote, inaccessible authority, with the nature of his crime revealed to neither him nor the reader.

His guilt is assumed, the bureaucracy running it (the remote inaccessible authority) is vast with many levels, and everything is secret, from the charge, to the rules of the court, to the authority behind the courts – even the identity of the judges at the higher levels.

Under the passing of these two laws, this could be our new reality. How did we get to this place? And what are we going to do about it?

 

Tags: , , , ,
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, comms & IT, democracy
7 Comments

Gutting fisheries

Posted by on May 20th, 2013

The Blackjack Budget has been a huge disappointment for ordinary families.

It’s also an assault on the fisheries industry and the communities who rely on growing high value sustainable fisheries for their jobs, including iwi and Māori.

In almost every category National has wiped its hands of fisheries. It’s like climate change – the Government’s backwards ideologies mean they can’t face the scientific facts, so they just block their ears and abolish the scientific programmes.

Let’s look at what National has cut in fisheries, and why:

  1. Operational Advice on Sustainability and Management Controls in Fisheries. This means Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy won’t receive the best scientific advice when he’s revising fishing quotas,
  2. Fisheries Policy Advice. This cut reduces officials’ ability to build partnerships with fishing interests, and limits the Minister from having to face the consequences of his cuts at the coalface,
  3. Aquaculture. There’s a huge cut here, and it means the high-value aquaculture industries have been disregarded by the Government,
  4. Adverse Climatic Events. This is so Nathan Guy can ignore the acidification of our oceans,
  5. Sustainable Farming Fund. Basically, National just doesn’t care about the environment.

The list goes on and on and on.

Yet again the Blackjack Budget has shown the gaping chasm between Labour and the governing parties.

Labour stands for a clean, green, clever and prosperous future. National and their luddite mates stand for a future that is dumb, dirty, desperate – and gutted.

David Cunliffe is Labour’s Fisheries Spokesperson.

Filed under: Budget 2013, Fisheries, Primary Industries
1 Comment

Here we go again West Auckland

Posted by on May 19th, 2013

In my time in Parliament I have always been given such humbling support by the people of New Lynn and West Auckland, and every day I do my best to live up to their hopes and expectations.

Nothing – absolutely nothing – tested the trust which West Auckland people have placed in me more than the aerial spraying programme in the early 2000s to eliminate the painted apple moth outbreak. It had to be done. The economic destruction of doing nothing would have hurt all my constituents in the end.

But what was necessary was also hugely disruptive for the community in my electorate. And ever since I have worked to improve New Zealand’s biosecurity protections so my constitutents might never have to live through that again.

Unfortunately in 2008 the National Party became the Government. National think they know the price of everything – but they certainly know the value of nothing. And under John Key we have seen cut after cut after cut in our biosecurity protections.

Last year, yet again, West Aucklanders bore the brunt of a biosecurity breach. My constituents were going about their lawful business at the Avondale markets when biosecurity officers turned up apparently in hazmat suits to confiscate their fresh fruit. It was the feared Queensland Fruit Fly – and it got through the border after National cut biosecurity and customs.

So it’s almost beyond comprehension that John Key, Bill English and National have made another $6.2 million of cuts to biosecurity risk management in the Blackjack Budget.

They’ve also cut biosecurity policy advice. If Nathan Guy just doesn’t want to hear about coming threats then he simply shouldn’t be the Minister in charge.

These latest cuts to biosecurity are an attack on the community in my New Lynn electorate. And next year, when Labour returns to power, this irresponsible approach will not stand.

Filed under: Biosecurity, Budget 2013
1 Comment

$1.5 billion – for what?

Posted by on May 18th, 2013

Earlier this month Cabinet gave Revenue Minister Peter Dunne and the IRD $1 billion of your money to buy a new computer – and another $500 million just in case the Minister burned through your first billion too quickly.

The announcement was astonishingly vague.

Almost immediately we in the Labour Party located an independent review of the computer plan. In a document released to me under the Official Information Act we learned how KPMG reported:

We do not believe the timeline presented… is achievable. A programme of this complexity, where scoping and articulation of long-list options, a robust options assessment (critical for Treasury support) and the programme’s design (i.e. ordering of tranches and projects) have not yet occurred.

Now that John Key and Bill English have bought down their Blackjack Budget we can see KPMG were too diplomatic.

Here’s how the official Budget Economic and Fiscal Update (BEFU) 2013 (p64) defines the project:

Revenue – Transformation and Technology Renewal (Changed)

The Government is exploring options that will fundamentally change the way IRD manages its processes and data. Any changes could have material costs to implement (with capital and operating implications) and/or impact tax revenue collections. The Government is currently considering a programme business case and is yet to finalise the scope of the programme.

Unbelievable.

The National Government have committed $1.5 billion of your dollars to a project which hasn’t been fully considered and which isn’t even properly scoped. For $1.5 billion you could have two thousand experienced nurses providing essential care in our hospitals for 12 whole years!

Ordinary people in New Zealand are doing it hard. Ordinary people are worried about the lack of jobs, and how to put food on the table for their kids.

Too many ordinary people can’t dream of having a new computer in 2013. But Peter Dunne gets $1.5 billion for his, and he doesn’t even know which one he wants.

Or maybe the Minister with the casting vote in the shabby casino deal will blow the lot on ‘scope defining’ exercises. Either way it’s ordinary families who will foot the bill under National.

David Cunliffe is Labour’s Revenue Spokesperson.

Filed under: Budget 2013, economy, Revenue
3 Comments

National’s war on Auckland: a report from the front

Posted by on May 17th, 2013

I woke today to hear Auckland deputy mayor Penny Hulse declare on Morning Report the housing accord between the Government and Auckland was in danger, and Auckland Council would not ratify the accord until certain matters had been sorted out.

Crikey, it didn’t take long for the centrepiece of the National Government’s Budget to start unravelling.

Was it poor political management? Did Ministers English and Smith really think Auckland Council would not be annoyed by the Goverment sneaking into the Bill extra powers to override the Council in direct contradiction of its agreement announced only a week earlier in a grip and grin session at Hobsonville involving Key, Smith and Brown?

Or was it all about getting a few hairy chested headlines the day after the Budget with the Government getting tough on housing affordability? And tough on Auckland Council as a useful proxy? Bill English told his post-Budget breakfast he wasn’t going to let 20 planners  in the Auckland Council planning department wreck the economy!

In any case, the Government has just bought itself a couple of months of uncertainty and controversy over its flagship housing policy. Auckland Council, with Len Brown’s inexhaustible supply of good will, has shown itself to be remarkably patient and wily when it comes to dealing with the long list of mostly South Island ministers sent to deal with it: Gerry Brownlee, Amy Adams, Nick Smith, and now Bill English. (Except Bill English is from Karori.)

This is a high stakes tactic for the Government. If they provoke Auckland Council enough the Council could walk away from the Accord. The Government would then have to choose between backing off and losing face, or using its new powers to override Auckland Council and impose its own planning rules.

I suspect that would not go down well with Aucklanders who tend to view central government Wellington as a foreign country which should as much as possible be kept at bay.  Imposing martial law on Auckland Council’s urban planning would be unpopular to say the least.

National are already offside with Aucklanders on transport (the most recent Herald poll had support for the City Rail Link at 63%). Gerry Brownlee’s impersonation of a human roadblock has left the city distinctly unamused. Even National’s traditional allies like the Employers and Manufacturers Association, and the Chamber of Commerce, have deserted it on this issue.

Over-riding Auckland Council’s planning laws would be up there with the suspension of Environment Canterbury and Gerry Brownlee’s post-quake wartime powers in the great pantheon of this National Government’s power hungry dealings with local councils.

National clearly thinks local government is a convenient punching bag. And I have no doubt councils around the country are watching this latest stoush with alarm. The housing accords bill sets up a legal framework that allows these powers to be used anywhere in the country.

It will be really interesting to watch how this slow motion punch up plays out. The super city reforms created something new and different. The Auckland Council, representing one-third of the country’s population and bigger than Fonterra and Telecom combined, is not like a council. It is more like an Australian state government.

And with mayoral and council elections in October, a stoush with the National Government may be just what Len Brown needs to guarantee re-election. (Maurice Williamson by the way has gone very quiet on his mayoral plans. I suspect there is an inverse relation between the amount of time the Government spends fighting Auckland Council and Maurice’s poll numbers.)

Given the constitutional supremacy of Parliament, the National Government could bludgeon Auckland Council into  submission if it wanted to. But is that an outcome, with all the likely consequences, National really wants, given that in relatively short time it is going to need the votes of  Aucklanders?

Labour voted for the Bill at first reading for two reasons: the housing affordability crisis demands a response and while it is inadequate, it is at least something.  The accord cherry picks from the draft Unitary Plan. Opening up greenfields land and fast tracking consenting gives no guarantee that any affordable housing will be built.

We also felt that if the Government and Auckland Council spent six weeks hammering out an agreement on this issue then it at least deserved scrutiny at select committee.  If Auckland Council decide not to ratify the accord that is going to make select committee hearings very interesting.

I think I might put up an amendment to the Bill giving Auckland Council the power to override the National Government if it can’t get what it wants and introduce a Capital Gains Tax in Auckland. Excluding the family home of course.

Tags: , , , , ,
Filed under: Auckland, housing, local government
15 Comments

All that Glitters is Not Gold

Posted by on May 17th, 2013

After the hurly-burly of Budget Day died down yesterday evening I turned my attention to the Arts, Culture and Heritage aspects of the Budget. Expectantly, I looked for the media statement from the Minister Chris Finlayson extolling his government’s commitment to our cultural sector. But it was nowhere to be found. A look at the Vote Arts Culture and Heritage papers, and it was clear why. Cuts to public broadcasting, regional museums, MCH and more.

My tweet about this discovery led Chris Finlayson to respond to me that I was “tragic” because I did not realise that this was “a golden age for the Arts in New Zealand“. The reaction on Twitter soon made clear that not many people shared the Minister’s golden glow.

To be clear, the role of the Minister or the government in the lustre of any particular time for the Arts is only partial. Artists themselves will define that. It is certainly true that there is terrific creative content being produced all over the country. What the Minister has to answer for is the extent to which the government is supporting, promoting and developing that.

If we are looking for a “golden age” in that regard, Helen Clark’s cultural recovery package of the early 2000s stands out. After a decade of declining investment in the arts and culture, an $86 million jolt breathed new life into CNZ, film, music, heritage preservation and more. Michael Volkering has argued that the package was only one part of her cultural legacy that also stretched to our military heritage, pushing creative industries and regional arts.

I am not trying to make out everything was perfect in the time of the Clark government. But it did represent an injection of pride in ourselves as a nation, and of the place of the Arts in New Zealand. The Prime Minister was the Minister for Arts and that status meant something.

Chris Finlayson deserves credit for his personal contribution to various artistic endeavours, and for continuing much of the good work of the Clark government. But where he lets himself down is in his dismissal of Clark’s legacy and his vainglorious attempts to cast himself as the saviour of the Arts.

As we stand today, there are number of significant issues that require urgent attention. One issue that is raised with me often is the difficulty for artists in working with key government cultural agencies. For example, the changes made to Creative New Zealand funding over recent years by the Minister have led to a cumbersome and confused process. In sectors such as theatre there is strain, threats of court action and people simply walking away. Overall, there is an absence of regional and local understanding in funding decisions. Meanwhile legislation to reform Creative New Zealand sits moribund on the Parliamentary Order Paper.

Another example is the freeze on funding for public broadcasting is taking its toll. (This Budget funding actually drops by $3 million). New Zealand On Air has managed to fund some terrific programmes in the last few years, but budgets simply can not keep pace. Radio New Zealand in particular is struggling, and seems set to be commercialised in some way by a new Chief Executive. Public television is all but non-existent. Overall the government does not seem to see the importance of public broadcasting nor realise its significance to our cultural identity.

Despite the undoubted success of film and music, both sectors struggle to sustain artists beyond an elite few. New strategies are required for the new world of technology and distribution, but leadership and inspiration are lacking.

Now is the time for Minister Finlayson to show that leadership and inspiration. That is how a Minister can contribute to a golden age, otherwise it’s simply fool’s gold.

Filed under: Arts and Culture
5 Comments

Privacy Bill to be Debated

Posted by on May 16th, 2013

Today, my Bill to give more tools to the Privacy Commissioner to deal with privacy breaches was drawn from the members’ ballot.
The Bill gives the Privacy Commissioner the ability to undertake investigations into agencies and require them to become compliant with the Act.
Currently the Privacy Commissioner can only act on complaints from individuals – the Bill would allow her to instigate investigations and require information-handling audits.
It is timely, given the huge number of embarrasing privacy breaches happening under this Government.
From ACC to EQC, through to the deliberate privacy breaches committed by Minister Paula Bennett against two sole parents, the breaching of New Zealanders’ private information has been rife under National.
If they are serious are about addressing these issues, then they will support this Bill, as will other Parties across our Parliament.
Having had three bills drawn out of the ballot in the last 12 months, I’m keen to get to the races to see if I can pull off other trifectas!
Now, for my next bill….

Filed under: ACC, justice, members' bills, privacy, Uncategorized
2 Comments

When David beat Goliath

Posted by on May 13th, 2013

In Opposition most days are a battle.  Every now and then there’s a victory which makes it all worthwhile. It might be a constituent’s battle against inequality and injustice in our system. Or it might be a moment when there is a shift in industry direction which you just know will have a positive, even profound impact.

Last Thursday such a moment occurred. It was a David and Goliath moment for New Zealand and it’s worth celebrating.

In the hub-bub of the week’s emotional tributes to (our) Pakekura Horomia, the blinding spotlight on (their) Aaron Gilmore, David Shearer’s framing of the Budget as being one “for the boardroom, not the smoko room” and the introduction under urgency of two draconian and frightening pieces of spy legislation which will reverberate on our justice system and our telco industry, there was a relatively under-reported but likely momentous outcome to a three year battle to protect New Zealand’s burgeoning software industry. An outcome which will protect an important export industry for New Zealand’s economic future.

This is no small victory. It is, in effect, a signal to the world that New Zealand is a good place to grow a software business. And in time it may stimulate our tertiary education and training sector to wake up and realise what potential we have for significant growth in the weightless economy and in weightless exports.

But what a journey it has been. One which has pitted the might of the multinational software companies led by Microsoft and IBM  and the bloated patent attorney sector against New Zealand’s innovators who united (90% +) to oppose what they saw as one of the biggest threats to their future.

The National Government, blind to the local economic potential, and despite a unanimous select committee recommendation, sided with the multinationals and the out-dated advice from MFAT.

Thankfully they were over-ruled. Thanks must go firstly to the plucky ICT sector, led by Paul Matthews at the NZ Institute of IT Professionals and the software  innovators who formed an industry group called NZ Rise to push the case for software innovation in New Zealand. Internet NZ, and the NZ Open Source Society too.

Thanks should also go to Peter Dunne, who, under our MMP system essentially had the casting vote which forced the government into revising its position.

And to the Greens, who consistently backed the local industry and Labour position, NZ First, the Māori Party and Hone Harawera and Brendon Horan. This was a moment when every vote counted.

Dunne’s vote forced Craig Foss into the embarrassing position of having to re-write and re submit an amendment unravelling the position he had in-advisedly and belatedly pushed due to pressure from the multinationals.

His back down last Thursday now allows the Bill to pass with likely support from most parties and giving our local Kiwi innovators the opportunity to innovate, build new software without the threat of patent suits from big companies which could stifle them or threaten them and pay them off.

If New Zealand is to build an economic future based on our thinking power, then our creativity must be allowed to flourish.

I knew that. The industry knew that. Labour backed me for three years on this issue. Finally it has paid off.

There is a real story to tell about this Bill. One that has seen very big foreign companies place sustained pressure on New Zealand to influence its domestic laws. And lose. This is good news.

Three years ago, the Commerce Select Committee undertook a much needed review of New Zealand’s patent laws which hadn’t been looked at since 1953. A substantial review which considered and recommended modernisation to an important plank of our intellectual property regime ranging from inventions to medicines, traditional knowledge and indigenous plants and animals to software programs.

The Bill sought to modernise and simplify the procedures for obtaining a patent and that our patent regime would not inhibit innovation or discourage technology growth and exports.

The Commerce Select Committee, strongly led by former Commerce Minister Lianne Dalziel (with my keen input) considered these issues carefully and heard numerous submissions. We sent officials back several times to reconsider particular issues and provide international comparisons.

This is what we concluded:

Under the Patents Act 1953 computer programs can be patented in New Zealand provided they produce a commercially useful effect.3 Open source, or free, software has grown in popularity since the 1980s. Protecting software by patenting is inconsistent with the open source model, and its proponents oppose it. A number of submitters argued that there is no “inventive step” in software development, as “new” software invariably builds on existing software. They felt that computer software should be excluded from patent protection as software patents can stifle innovation and competition, and can be granted for trivial or existing techniques. In general we accept this position.

While the bill would provide adequate incentives for innovation, however, we are aware of New Zealand companies who have invested in a significant number of software-related inventions, involving embedded software.4 We sought advice on the approach taken in other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and the United States, and whether legislation that would enable “embedded software” to be patentable might be practicable. After careful consideration we concluded that developing a clear and definitive distinction between embedded and other types of software is not a simple matter; and that, for the sake of clarity, a simple approach would be best. We received advice that our recommendation to include computer programs among the inventions that may not be patented would be unlikely to prevent the granting of patents for inventions involving embedded software.

We recommend that the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand develop guidelines for inventions containing embedded software.

We knew that this recommendation was ground-breaking, but the select committee felt assured that we had looked carefully at the issues and reached the right conclusions.

There are varying views on what happened next. No doubt some will disagree but here’s my view, most of which is backed by evidence.

When the Select Committee reported back to the House in 2010, the big software multinationals (via the patent attorney companies which submitted on the Bill) either under-estimated the grasp that the committee would have of these issues, or were caught napping.

There was an immediate and sustained round of lobbying of government Ministers. As I understand it, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade became involved.

The Commerce Minister at the time was Simon Power. When the legislation sat on the table and wasn’t moved to the next reading for months (and then more than a year) Labour began to ask questions in select committee hearings and even in the House about the reason for the delay. Power publicly confirmed on two occasions that the select committee’s position would stand. This gave hope to the local industry that the legislation proceeding as was intended but still it sat in parliament. But I wasn’t convinced and repeatedly warned that the industry should remain vigilant.

Simon Power announced his resignation in March 2011 and left parliament that October. The Bill went into abeyance. The new Minister Craig Foss had no grasp on the underlying issues and was ripe for the capture of the foreign software lobby and the influence of MFAT.

Sure enough, in August last year, as the Bill finally returned to the House, Foss introduced a last minute amendment which contradicted the will of the select committee and allowed software patents under the guise of this phrase:

“… prevents anything from being an invention for the purposes of this Act only to the extent that a patent or an application relates to a computer program as such“

The two words “as such” tacked on at the end are precisely the same as those that are found in Article 52 of the European Patent Convention that also excludes software patents, BUT which has allowed lawyers to obtain thousands of software patents in the EU on the grounds that they weren’t software patents “as such“. In other words, legal speak for allowing something to occur which doesn’t appear to be allowed.

Craig Foss had given in to patent lawyers and multinational software players and sought to impose a software patents system on our IT sector. He over-rode the advice of the Commerce Select Committee that patenting software would smother innovation.

It caused an uproar in our innovative IT industry, that knew it would be stifled by constant threats of law suits from multinationals. My personal view is that he didn’t understand what he’d done. Fortunately, we have a local industry with legal minds and guts which recognised the critical importance that this seemingly small law change could make to our local industry.

Interestingly, I spent a month in the US in October last year where the debate about excluding software from being patented is growing. People should be aware that a huge legal industry has grown around patent software wars and that banning software patents would significantly affect the litigious community. I’d rather back growth in weightless exports and jobs for our kids vs an industry based on litigation any day!

Why should lawyers profit from running cases which ultimately stifle new innovators inventing the next software programme?

The clamour in New Zealand opposing the Craig Foss amendment grew late last year. I put up a counter amendment which was backed by the industry A petition by the local Kiwi software industry gathered more than 1200 signatures from software developers in just a few weeks.

Again the legislation stalled. Some media began to take an interest the wider backdrop of the influence of foreign companies on New Zealand’s domestic law and economic interests began to gain some traction.

It has taken more than 8 months, but finally a compromise has been reached. I understand that more than one Government Minister was required to sign off on SOP 237. Importantly, it is backed by the Kiwi software industry and to my mind that is what counts.

It’s extraordinary that it’s taken so long and is a strong indication that the National Government has not understood the importance of:

1.      The growing importance of software to development of the NZ economy

2.      How intellectual property laws can be used as a tool to stifle innovation (and shouldn’t be)

For those who watch intellectual property issues and their impact on our economy, pay attention. The law excluding software from patentability can apply to other sectors such as pharmaceuticals and other types of IP such as copyright.

Perhaps the penny may drop as we move along the path towards an outcome on the Trade Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) and the absolute importance of the intellectual property regime being negotiated in New Zealand’s interests.

Our software industry now has a future. Let’s keep our eye on the ball.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: #ownourfuture
14 Comments

Time to clean up the burning pit, Minister!

Posted by on May 10th, 2013

For the last month or two, residents of the new Wigram Skies suburb in Christchurch have been suffering from toxic smoke blowing across them. It has been coming from a fire in the nearby recycling pit caused by the spontaneous combustion of some medium-density fibreboard. You can see what they have been putting up with in this picture. No wonder 150 of them came to a public meeting called by MP Megan Woods, in whose electorate that new suburb has developed.

The toxicity comes from burning formaldehyde. The Medical Officer of Health says that there is no long term health risk posed by the smoke and fumes. That is a good thing. But it is still unpleasant, irritates the nose and eyes, stinks and is an air pollution issue. I visited it with Megan recently and even on a still day I could smell it in the air the moment I got out of the car. Now it seems the fire has collapsed and is able to be put out. It has been too hot for firefighters to get near until recently.

The question shifts now to what to do about it and how do we prevent something like this happening again. The site needs to be cleaned up and taken over by the Ministry for the Environment. Residents have legitimate questions about the environmental impact on the local area and the pollution threat to water resources given the fact that the Owaka pit is right on top of an aquifer. If we still had a democratically elected Environment Canterbury body, something might have been done or planned by now. But we don’t. This is a major pollutant and the Minister for the Environment, Amy Adams, should take it over as a pressing concern for these people.

Oh, and by the way – the pit is in Amy Adams’ electorate……

Filed under: environment, health, water
1 Comment

Media freedom an “endangered species” in NZ

Posted by on May 9th, 2013

Last Friday was International Press Freedom Day. To mark the occasion, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance which represents journalists in New Zealand and Australia, produced a publication on media freedom. I was asked to submit a contribution. Here it is:

The fundamental role of the news media is simply to report fair and balanced information to citizens. In doing so the news media acts as a ‘watchdog’ or power check, protecting the rights and interests of citizens. While factors such as entertainment undeniably hold some importance to the news media, it is the watchdog function of the news media that is fundamental to the workings of a democracy.

The democratic functions of the media to educate and inform citizens, and to act as a power check to the state has been overridden by content that is focussed on producing profit.

Democratic functions have therefore fallen on the shoulders of public service broadcasters.

In New Zealand, a shrinking media environment, under-resourced watchdogs such as the Ombudsman, the Office of the Auditor General and the Privacy Commission and an unrelenting move away from the notion of public media to commercial media in the broadcasting environment has eroded our ability to uphold these fundamental principles.

The ability of the print media to withstand the pressure of the online environment shows the power of disruptive technology on a business model which is rapidly becoming stressed and replaced with news being gathered online. The big question for our print media is how to make that pay. A discussion on this would require another whole piece, but contributes to an environment in which instability and restructuring are the norm and the craft of “good journalism” is under high stress.

A 2010 report by the UK media academic Chris Hanretty ranked New Zealand’s TVNZ as 19/36 for perceived independence. Australia’s ABC was ranked 5th and the BBC 6th.

Since then the situation has significantly deteriorated. Our only (small) public television broadcaster TVNZ7 was axed by the conservative National Government in 2012. The state owned broadcaster TVNZ  had its public service charter removed in 2011 and has been forced to become fully commercial.

New Zealand is now the only country in the OECD (bar Mexico) which does not fund a public television broadcaster.

Our public service radio broadcaster Radio NZ has had its funding frozen for more than three years. It has become lonely and increasingly isolated as the beacon of media freedom in a commercialised and cynical media environment.

The past four years has seen the steady decline in the news media’s effectiveness to report fair and balanced information on news and current events. Government policy has created a media environment in which the news media cannot function efficiently, increasingly leaving citizens in the dark about decisions that affect their everyday lives.

Market pressures force the news media to focus on ‘infotainment’ or the sensational in order to keep costs low and profits high. This has led to an environment where reporting standards continue to slip leaving significant events and decisions with little or no coverage.

Government policies have also included a deal between TVNZ and Sky TV (Igloo) which essentially maintained Sky TV’s monopoly of the pay TV market, and the failure to reserve spectrum for public service broadcasting after the digital switch over.

The Government’s support of commercial media and continual disregard for public service content can also be seen in the recent funding decisions of NZ on Air (NZoA) which acts as the Government’s broadcasting funding mechanism, supporting locally produced free to air content across all broadcasting mediums. NZoA’s annual statement of intent must be approved by the broadcasting Minister and Government, which means the Government of the day has a direct influence on it.

Recent NZoA funding decisions certainly reflect the Government’s priorities and ethos regarding the media. TVNZ 2’s reality television show NZ’s Got Talent recently received $1.6 million, and while the show arguably does show young New Zealand talent it is certainly questionable whether the commercially-attractive formulaic programme should have been considered for arts and culture funding.

Despite public concern, NZoA recently announced that it would spend another $1.6 million to fund TV3’s The X Factor NZ, another talent show based on a similar format. Rather than producing cultural content that genuinely would not be produced without funding, NZoA has continued to support major broadcasters through the funding of commercially viable content.

NZoA has based its funding decisions on dividing funds equally between major broadcasters rather than in the interests of the public. Whilst these foreign formatted reality television shows have received $3.2 million out of the tax payer’s pocket running on prime television at peak times attracting advertising dollars, local current affairs shows and unique locally conceived drama and factual shows are nearly at the brink of extinction.

These decisions made by NZoA reflect the Government’s stance on a free, fair, and balanced media. NZoA funding is only one example among many in the Government’s support of commercial broadcasters at the cost of citizens.

TVNZ has recently replaced its log running current affairs nightly programme Close Up with 7 Sharp which can at best be described as infotainment rather than investigative journalism, and fair and balanced information.

Perhaps the most bizarre event recently in the New Zealand media is pay-TV provider Sky TV announcement that it will air a public service channel. Beginning in February Sky TV is airing Face TV, a public service channel dedicated to screening local and international news and current affairs.

Whilst some could argue that this is an instance of the market filling a gap, this argument is deeply flawed as the channel is behind Sky TV’s pay TV wall and therefore is not accessible to all New Zealanders. This move by Sky TV reflects that New Zealanders not only need but also but want public service content, and signals the Government’s blatant disregard of non-commercial broadcasting in New Zealand.

The New Zealand media truly is in dire straits. Government policy and direction has created a media and political environment that is simply unable to provide the information that citizens need to make informed decisions leaving dominant powers unquestioned and unchecked. The rights and interests of the citizen are no longer protected. This boils down to whether democratic processes can work without an effective and efficient news media. Perhaps ironically, if the news media had been functioning properly these issues may have already been addressed.

Tags:
Filed under: media
4 Comments

Shane Jones on NZ Power and Labour’s purpose

Posted by on May 9th, 2013

 

Tags: ,
Filed under: Energy, regulation
6 Comments

What’s half a billion between the Government’s friends?

Posted by on May 8th, 2013

Half a billion dollars. $500 million dollars. It’s an almost unimaginable amount of money to an ordinary person.

Half a billion is almost a third of Police’s annual budget. It’s more than DOC’s entire funding.

It’s a year’s wages for 4,150 experienced nurses and 4,150 experienced secondary school teachers as well.

It’s $113 for every man, woman and child in New Zealand.

And it’s the amount National promised Peter Dunne last week for potential overruns in his “upgrade” of IRD’s computer system.

Yes, you read that correctly. I’m not talking about the known project costs – National has committed $1 billion for those.

The extra half a billion is just in case Mr Dunne blows through the first billion without getting the job done. It’s a shadowy “slush fund” equal to half the basic worked-out cost of the project.

And let’s be frank – the Revenue Minister’s reputation for basic maths hasn’t been strong of late. This year Dunne’s had to back down on reckless new taxes on car parks and iPads and laptops and cellphones, because Labour proved he hadn’t done his sums.

But what do the experts think? Well accountants KPMG reviewed Mr Dunne’s project at the end of last year and there appear to be real issues with the way it has been set up.

Here’s what KPMG said:

“We do not believe the timeline presented… is achievable. A programme of this complexity, where scoping and articulation of long-list options, a robust options assessment (critical for Treasury support) and the programme’s design (i.e. ordering of tranches and projects) have not yet occurred.”

Now Labour does agree the IRD’s FIRST mainframe is not fit for the internet age. IRD started as a revenue collecting department, but now it has responsibilities in KiwiSaver, child support and student loans.

But surely a project of this magnitude needs to be planned better than “give or take half a billion”? Especially after this Government’s total botch-up with Novopay.

It all beggars belief really, just as National and Peter Dunne will beggar New Zealand until they’re given the boot at the next election.

Filed under: Economic Development, economy, Revenue
4 Comments

“The fact is that a lot of bad things happen to people at work in NZ”

Posted by on May 5th, 2013

That’s a direct quote from the report of the hard hitting and comprehensive Independent Taskforce on Health and Safety, which was released last week.

And here’s another :

Labour market liberalisation in the 1980s and 1990s resulted in a sustained fall in union membership and growth in casual, part-time and short-term employment relationships. This has had enduring implications for the capacity of workers and representatives to engage with employers in managing workplace hazards, and presents ongoing challenges for the regulatory framework. It is likely that this factor influenced omissions from the HSE Act, including the failure to establish a tripartite body and to set obligations requiring employers to have formal worker-participation systems.

The Independent Taskforce members (made up of business, community and union representatives) have done an excellent job. Their report is very challenging, not least for the government, who say they will respond in June.

The report calls for tripartite involvement in the new health and safety agency and proper recognition of the role of unions and worker participation.  It says there needs to be stronger rights for workers who raise health and safety concerns and protection for vulnerable workers, including new workers and those in precarious work.

I’m waiting for Simon Bridges to admit his labour law amendments, announced just a few days before are incompatible with the recommendations of the Health and Safety Taskforce.  The government’s proposed changes to labour law essentially rebadge the Employment Contract Act changes from last century and they will exacerbate the problems identified by the Taskforce. They are even as petty as cutting rest and meal breaks and letting an employer decide if and when they can be taken.  How does that help health and safety?

It’s time to join the dots Simon.

Workers’ rights and health and safety at work go hand in hand. We all agree our workplace death and injury toll is a disgrace.

Please don’t make it worse.

 

Tags: ,
Filed under: Health and Safety, Work and Wages, workers rights
11 Comments

Nicky Hager: Uncomfortable truths, NZ foreign policy in the ‘war on terror’

Posted by on May 4th, 2013

Author and investigative journalist Nicky Hager delivered this year’s Capt Jack Lyon Memorial Lecture. He draws on his book Other People’s Wars, telling the story of New Zealand’s involvement in the war in Afghanistan over the decade of the ‘war on terror’.  As I say in my introduction, I think it is a cautionary tale for any future Labour-led government with a progressive, independent foreign policy. I am proud of the determination shown by Helen Clark and the Fifth Labour Government to keep New Zealand out of the invasion of Iraq. Nicky marshals some persuasive evidence that the military and intelligence establishment saw the ‘war on terror’ as an opportunity to work their way back into close operational engagement with our former ANZUS allies and worked assiduously to make this happen, in a way that at times undermined the Government’s foreign policy position.

Here’s Nicky Hager delivering the fifth Capt Jack Lyon Memorial Lecture.

On behalf of the North Shore committee of the Labour Party thanks to Nicky for adding to the Jack Lyon tradition; and thanks also to all the volunteers who made this year’s event a success: Frances; Michelle, Heather and the kitchen team; Syd for the PA, Kane for recording the speech; as well as Mark, and Danielle at Paradigm for the programme.

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: journalism, peace, war
2 Comments

Goodbye Chief

Posted by on May 4th, 2013

As a humble Kiwi Chinese, I initially felt I was not senior enough to write this kind of article to remember the Hon Parekura Horomia, our matua. But I am privileged enough to remember him as a mentor and a friend who had played a brief but important role in my entering into politics and becoming a member of the Labour whanau.

One evening in the early 2008, I was invited to Parliament’s celebration of Chinese New Year. My job was to translate for Prime Minister Helen Clark. The Labour-led Government initiated the celebration in Parliament and this has so far become an annual event. My other mission was to get my nomination form completed.

The form was almost filled out one year earlier in 2007 where I was nominated as a list candidate for the 2008 general election. Being Labour’s first Chinese-born candidate (who’s from the mainland China), this was far more than a normal nomination form. I had the minister for ethnic affairs as my “proposer” and the Prime Minister and four other senior ministers as “seconder”: For any first-time nominee, those big names meant a lot!

Could not remember whose idea it was but my supporters and I felt so strongly that we wanted to get this form completed in the presence of our matua. We are deeply grateful for the opportunity to settle and live in New Zealand and we are deeply grateful to the Tangata whenua.

So immediately after the celebration I rushed to the Executive Wing. I rushed through the endless doors in Beehive trying to get hold of Parekura, the Minister for Maori Affairs. I nearly gave up because I must leave then to catch the last flight back to Auckland. All of sudden and out of nowhere, here came the giant Parekura! He barely knew me at that time but I must have presented myself well in the short space of one of two minutes. He laughed and spoke in his iconic humorous tone: “Ohkey boy, I’ll sign it for you”.

I subsequently sought permission from the General Secretary Mike Smith to keep the original form and submitted instead a certified copy. I cherished the nomination form then and will cherish it more now.

For a humble Chinese person who made New Zealand home, to have someone like Parekura witness my nomination form was more than being symbolic. We are deeply grateful to the Tangata whenua and Parekura was and will forever be our matua.

Since I’ve become an MP, we bumped into each other in the long corridors in Parliament from time to time. Each time he greeted me with a friendly “chief”. He even regarded me as one of his “browny bros” and supported me.

He’s our true chief. His wisdom, passion and humour are a guiding light for me and for us. 

 

Filed under: asian, ethnic, Labour Party
No Comments

Parekura Horomia- our friend, our chief

Posted by on April 29th, 2013

Today we lost our dear friend and colleague Parekura Horomia. All of us in the Labour whanau are feeling his passing very deeply. We think tonight of his whanau, especially his boys and his moko. I will remember his generous spirit, total commitment to his people and to Labour and his wicked sense of humour. Miss you, chief.

David Shearer and Moira Coatsworth paid tribute on our behalf tonight.

Kua hinga he totara i te wao nui a Tane
A totara has fallen in the forest of Tane.

Labour Leader David Shearer says he and his colleagues are devastated at the loss of Labour MP, the Honourable Parekura Horomia, “our matua”.

“We send our love and thoughts to his whanau, especially his sons and his mokopuna, and to all the others whose lives he has touched.

“New Zealand has lost a truly great Maori leader.

“Parekura devoted his life to championing Maori aspiration and achievement. Before entering politics he was a leader in work and community employment schemes on the East Coast. He took his grassroots knowledge through to leadership within the public sector, in roles in community employment and Maori development.

“As an MP and Minister he worked tirelessly to support the achievements of his people and of Maori across New Zealand.

“Under his guidance Maori well-being improved, employment increased and opportunities in education flourished. He also oversaw the establishment of Maori Television and expansion of iwi radio.

“As a politician there were few who could match Parekura’s knowledge of Maori issues. At every marae and town in this country Parekura was welcomed as a leader and a friend. He was respected across New Zealand and across political lines.

“His wisdom, passion and humour were a guiding light for Labour, and I will miss him and his advice tremendously.

“His loyalty to Labour and to our values of inclusion, fairness and solidarity was absolute. He stood strong for the people of Ikaroa-Rawhiti and for the rights of all Maori.

“We have lost a man of immense mana, a man of conviction and of compassion. We celebrate his contribution to Aotearoa-New Zealand, and we mourn the loss of a great leader.

“The Labour whānau is heart-broken today,” David Shearer said.

Moira Coatsworth, Labour Party President said: “Parekura, our Labour matua and Vice President, will leave a huge gap. He was loved and respected throughout New Zealand after a lifetime of service fighting hard for a better life for all. Within Labour he inspired dedication and much affection and he worked tirelessly for our movement.”

Filed under: Uncategorized
3 Comments

« Older Entries