- Wikipedia reckons the Tran-Tasman Travel arrangement – which lets NZers and Australians move travel freely between countries and creates an open labour market between us – dates back to 1973.
- Which has been incredibly useful to New Zealand. It’s kept our unemployment artificially low, especially in the 2000s during Australia’s mining boom.
- Back in ’73 the countries were fairly comparable; there was something of a relationship between equals. Forty years later Australia is a lot wealthier than New Zealand and it perceives itself as regional super-power. To reflect the power imbalance they seem to be gradually re-litigating the TTTA to reflect that inequality. Back in 2001 they created a special ‘non protected’ category of residency visa for NZers in Australia that excluded them from accessing social support like benefits and student loans.
- Now they have a criminal deportation policy that repatriates resident visa holders with criminal records, which is fair enough, I suppose, but because of the visa status of New Zealanders in Australia it means they’re rounding up people who have lived in Australia for most of their lives and shipping them back here.
- The NZ government absolutely hates this policy (so I’m told), but it is popular in Australia and the government there has no reason or inclination to change it.
- Which is interesting because two of the things the press gallery likes to celebrate about John Key is that he’s a ‘dealmaker’ and that he’s good at building relationships with international players. But if he’s made one single good deal in the seven years he’s been Prime Minister then I am not aware of it. He IS good at building relationships with people like the new Australian PM, which the gallery reckons are very valuable, but so far none of these relationships have actually been worth anything whatsoever.
- So it’s not Key’s fault that the Australian’s have implemented this policy; but he is Prime Minister during a time in which our relationship with our closest ally is deteriorating further, and he gets to wear that. That’s why the opposition are gleefully attacking him over his inability to reverse the policy or intervene on Christmas Island.
- Like Rob Salmond, the first thing I thought of when Key accused Labour and the Greens of ‘backing rapists’ etc was Lynton Crosby’s ‘dead cat’ technique for changing the conversation. The motivation was probably Kelvin Davis going on Morning Report yesterday and calling Key ‘weak’ for his failure to stand up for New Zealanders. Rather than have the line repeated on the TV news Key decided to project strength in the House by abusing the opposition. Now instead of calling Key ‘weak’ the opposition are complaining about him being mean to them. Goal achieved.
- People on twitter who saw it all unfold in Question Time have been angry about the way the gallery reported the story. I get that. But Key’s team is really, really good at exploiting the systemic flaws of the press gallery to shape the political narrative. Stunts like this are difficult for them to cover because the stunt only happens because of the way the gallery will cover it. To truly explain what had happened and why journalists would have to say something like, ‘The Prime Minister said this because he knew that we would say that he said it.’
- Here’s an example. Mid-way through Key’s performance he yelled ‘Labour can back child molesterers (sic) and murderers, I’m backing New Zealanders.’ The line doesn’t make any sense in the context of the debate, because – as Key has pointed out – the detainees on Christmas Island are New Zealand citizens who can come back to New Zealand whenever they want, and Labour are arguing for their right to stay in Australia. But the line was great theatre so it made the news on both TV stations where it no doubt sounded pretty good to the majority of viewers who don’t know the details of the issue. The only reason Key said something so non-nonsensical is because he knew the gallery TV journalists would play the line without analysing its non-sensicality.
- The print columnists could write about this stuff though, and explain what’s going on. People like Gordon Campbell and Matthew Hooton do. I’m not sure why the newspaper columnists don’t – maybe they’re so much a part of the process they don’t see it? So much of contemporary politics is political communications; pundits who pretend that it isn’t, and that they’re impartial observers calling it from outside the system, are basically irrelevant.
- Things aren’t all bad though. TV3’s Patrick Gower read from a list supplied to him by Key’s office numerating the number of murderers and child molesters, etc, that they claim are on Christmas Island. The list didn’t stack up for an instant and my twitter feed became a flood of outrage. TVNZ was almost certainly given the list too – their audience is many times larger than TV3’s – but they didn’t cover it, presumably because they knew they were being played. So there is some judgement going on, sometimes.
November 11, 2015
November 9, 2015
- I think Labour will be very pleased with their coverage over the weekend. Little’s speech seems to have gone down well. The bits of it I saw on the news didn’t connect with me, but perhaps I’m not the target market? Anyway, it all went smoothly which is a contrast to the Cunliffe years (year?) when everything was always a mess.
- I’m not upset to see them abandon their Capital Gains Tax policy. When they’re in government they can simply modify National’s half-baked CGT to make it more comprehensive.
- Bomber was at the conference! He wrote:One of the challenges facing the Labour Party is the ability to sell a united opposition, this Conference has shown how difficult that approach will be.Beyond all the nice words in public about the Greens and NZ First there are private mutterings. At this Conference, Labour were going to tell New Zealand who their preferred political partners would be so that there is no confusion about what form of coalition government could be formed post the election, but those plans of transparency were put on hold when the Greens and NZ First refused to agree to that announcement.
Inside NZ First, the Ron Mark faction who are closer to National than Labour don’t want to commit and within the Greens, James Shaw doesn’t want to lose the strategic edge he’s created by working with National.
- I don’t know about New Zealand First but I checked with the Greens and no such approach or proposal was made to them. I guess Labour are still seething about the Red Peak thing and prevailed upon Bomber to write this. It’s not true.
- It’ll be interesting to see what Little decides to do in Mt Roskill when Goff almost-inevitably wins the Auckland mayoralty next year. A high-profile win in an Auckland by-election is pretty much the best thing that could happen for him. But he’s not a local, and if National ran a strong local candidate and defeated Little in a long-term Labour seat a few months before election year then that would be a catastrophe. Labour seems to be a culturally risk-averse party so I’m guessing he won’t stand.
November 6, 2015
During a political debate on Easter trading hours this week, Ron Mark objected to comments Ms Lee made and said, “I want to go on to the other comments of Melissa Lee… from Korea, as Wikipedia says.”
“And Melissa Lee told the House in her rather condescending manner, which she’s becoming renowned for, that we need to grow up in New Zealand – well, I’ve got a short message: if you don’t like New Zealand, go back to Korea.
I’ve talked about the comms strategy behind this before. Political operatives call it ‘closing the circuit’ and we see it all the time in New Zealand politics. You say something contentious – usually bigoted – that you know a group of voters you’re appealing too will like; the targets of your comment or their political allies object, the media covers the story because of the conflict and the ‘debate’ about whether the comments were offensive or racist or whatever, and the bigot gets coverage and (they hope) a boost in the polls.
The backdrop to all of this is that New Zealand First seems to have picked up as many soft Labour voters as they’re going to get, they’ve picked up a lot of the Conservative Party voters and now they’re targeting older white provincial National voters. So drawing attention to the fact that National has a Korean migrant as an MP is a very astute political tactic for Ron Mark, because this is a demographic of people that are often hostile to Asian migrants.
National has backed their MP and condemned Mark’s comments, but that’s exactly what he wanted them to do. It would be nice to think there’s a way to condemn racist attacks in a way that doesn’t play into the racist’s hands and give them exactly what they want.
November 3, 2015
The New Zealand navy has issued an invitation to the United States to join in the navy’s 75th birthday celebrations next year, potentially ending the 30-year freeze on military ship visits here.
However, sources said while an invitation had been issued, it was not yet clear that a ship would visit. It could be some other “asset” from the US Navy.
New Zealand’s nuclear free policy, enacted in 1985, bans nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed ships from entering ports here. The law change saw New Zealand suspended from membership of the three-power Anzus alliance with the US and Australia.
While the law requires the prime minister to confirm, to his satisfaction, that any ships are not nuclear armed or powered, it has in practice always required the US to drop their “neither confirm nor deny policy”.
The US has made it clear surface vessels are not nuclear armed, and it will be easy to ascertain from public records whether it is nuclear powered.
I don’t know how this will play out. I do know that our diplomatic and military elites will be ecstatic about the prospect of US naval visits. They have an obsession with rebuilding our strategic alliance with the US so we can join them on their various military adventures that borders on the pathological.
Which is weird, to me, because when you think of US military policy over the last half century it is mostly a series of catastrophic blunders. The propensity to make terrible mistakes which kill countless people and have dire long-term geopolitical consequences is pretty much the last quality you want in an ally. But that doesn’t seem to trouble the great minds at our defence or foreign ministries.
November 2, 2015
New Zealand Twitter was a pretty toxic place over the weekend. There was a sustained confrontation between a well-known print journalist and a bunch of left-wing online activists. I don’t really know the journalist and I’ve met and liked a bunch of the activists just fine, but my sympathies were with the journalist. And the longer it went on and the more I thought about what was happening the more uncomfortable I felt about it all. Because when a large group of people mock and harass an individual over a sustained period of time it isn’t really a confrontation, or a debate, and it certainly isn’t activism. And when the target got upset, and the activists began to gloat about him unravelling and losing it, and doubled-down on their attacks, it made it pretty clear that what was happening was simple old-fashioned bullying.
‘It isn’t bullying’, the activists would reply. ‘What’s happening is that twitter is a place where marginalised people: trans people, people of colour, the working class, finally have a voice. This journalist – and YOU, Danyl, are straight white middle-class men and you can’t handle the fact that you don’t control the narrative any more. So you’re attempting to silence these marginalised voices by accusing them of bullying and smearing them with names like ‘The Twitterati.’
I’m not indifferent to that argument. I get the idea that my gender and ethnicity give me privilege, and that it can be confronting when this is challenged. But, like I said, I know or know of many of these people and exactly none of them are transexuals or people of colour or working class. They’re heterosexual middle-class white folk and they’ve expropriated the struggle and language of identity politics to give themselves a status of victimhood that they don’t deserve, so they can justify behaviour they’d be horrified by if they saw it in their children.
‘But,’ the activists will probably say next, ‘Women and trans-women and people of colour [etc] are subject to far worse harassment. Why don’t you condemn that and not this?’ Well, (1) I have, and I challenge and/or block people I see engaging in that kind of behavior online, (2) most of the instigators of the Twitterati – or whatever you want to call them are straight white men, so – again – they don’t get to expropriate the persecution of women or other minorities, and (3) the abhorrent behavior of racists or misogynists doesn’t justify progressive activists imitating them.
I’m a massive hypocrite, of course – I’ve been guilty of exactly this type of online bullying, although I like to flatter myself that I’ve never taken part in anything quite this nasty. Maybe that’s the reason I’m offended – it’s a shock to see something ugly and recognise yourself in it. So this was a wake-up for me. I’ve blocked most of the so-called ‘Twitterati’ – they’ve been at this sort of thing for ages, and they’re having too much fun to change just because I write something critical about them. But mostly I’m going to try and change my own behaviour online. No more punching down, or sideways; engage with ideas instead of attacking individuals; don’t participate in pile-ons.
When you’re online its all-too-easy to get wrapped up in the righteousness of your convictions and use it to justify acting like an asshole. And progressives should challenge the narrative, and confront the privileged, like journalists (or me). And they should speak out against things that offend them (although twitter is now in such a constant state of outrage, often about trivial nonsense I feel that this is a very low value form of activism). But if you’re attacking an individual, not their ideas, and you’re doing so en-masse, repeatedly, and they’re clearly distressed about it you’ve left activism way behind, and you’re an ordinary nasty old bully.
October 28, 2015
I’ve been looking at the photographs of Key with the All-Blacks that’ve been all over social and mainstream media and wondering if any other ‘iconic’ New Zealanders have ever been co-opted for a political party’s propaganda to the degree that Richie McCaw has? There were strong links between Peter Jackson and the Labour government during the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but Jackson won fairly staggering commercial gains out of that relationship. Did Edmund Hilary get turned into a political commodity back in the 1950s and 60s?
October 27, 2015
QuoteUnquote has an overview of the latest Wintec Press Club’s (notorious) luncheon featuring Mihingarangi Forbes and Annabelle Lee as guest speakers:
Forbes and Lee’s main topic was the series of programmes they made about the finances of the Kohanga Reo National Trust Board, starting with A Question of Trust (September 2013).That turned out to be “a release valve for frustration”, with many viewers asking for investigation into all sorts of Maori organisations.Both women send their children to kohanga reo, so know the organisation at ground level. Lee described it as “endless working bees and fundraisers” in contrast with what happens at the top.After the next story, Feathering the Nest (October 2013), they received threats, Native Affairs was banned from Turangawaewae, people booked to come on the show “unbooked” themselves. “How dare these girls challenge their rangatira?” was the reaction from the usual male suspects: Derek Fox, Willie Jackson, John Tamihere, Dale Husband. “We’re female, we’re younger than them.” Fancy that, old blokes being sexist.Both said how much they appreciated the support they’d had from the mainstream media, singling out the Herald’s David Fisher and especially TV3’s Tova O’Brien who would ask questions on their behalf when the kohanga reo people wouldn’t let them in to a press conference.Forbes said that Maori Television wouldn’t show the final programme: “Yeah, and that’s basically why I quit.”At the end, Steve Braunias said, “The elephant in the room is Maori TV. Man up and tell us – what the fuck happened?”Forbes replied that after Julian Wilcox was replaced by Paora Maxwell, “I didn’t want to be there any more. I hated it.”
October 21, 2015
Veitchy is in the news again (this time complaining on his Facebook page, not staging a disappearance by driving off in his car and then calling every media outlet to tell them how much pain he’s in). It amazes me how this guy has contrived to put himself at the nexus of almost every contentious issue in modern New Zealand. His story touches on:
- celebrity culture
- sports culture and misogyny
- the normalisation of domestic violence
- the two tier justice system
- the toxic intersection of media and the PR industry
For people who take issue with some or all of those things, Veitchy is a weirdly perfect symbol that lets them say everything critical they want to say about these subjects. Being a symbol of many things that lots of people hate seems to conflict with Veitch’s desire to be a universally beloved celebrity and that seems to frustrate him. As a media figure he’s inclined to make his frustration public, which is great from a progressive politics point of view. These are all serious problems in New Zealand and the more attention Veitchy inadvertently draws to them with his tantrums the better.
October 19, 2015
The ink is barely dry on the TPP and New Zealand has the prospect of another giant free trade deal in the offing with the European Union taking the first steps towards an FTA with New Zealand.
It was announced early this morning that the EU Commission will seek to negotiate separate FTAs with both New Zealand and Australia as part of its trade strategy for the next four years.
The caveat is that talks will take in account “EU agricultural sensitivities.”
The announcement is the culmination of years of effort on the part of New Zealand to improve trade conditions in what is a market of 500 million consumers.
One thing we should have learned from the TPP is that we’re entering a period of diminishing returns from free trade deals. But there’s also an opportunity cost here. While all of our diplomats are trying to negotiate lower dairy tariffs to grow our economy they’re not doing anything about climate change, which is a major economic challenge that requires a diplomatic solution.
Droughts and extreme weather events are expensive things. The 2008 drought cost the country about $2.8 billion in one year (the TPPA is supposed to bring in $2 billion over ten years). To avoid entering a period of catastrophic droughts and storms we have to agree on a global reduction of carbon emissions. So that’s something need to be negotiated between states. Y’know – diplomatically. It is so, so stupid that we have all of these diplomats running around trying to eke out trivial gains from trade agreements while ignoring this massive looming crisis that is going to devastate our economy.
October 18, 2015
It is here and includes the sad news that he is stepping down because of ill health.
- Armstrong practised a kind of opinion writing that media theorists call ‘access journalism’ in which powerful people give journalists (actually mostly senior columnists) time, attention and ‘background information – ie gossip – and in exchange the columnist writes nice things about them. Armstrong enjoyed very privileged access to our senior politicians and their advisers for many years, and this gave him great prestige among other media and political elites.
- His columns generally defended powerful establishment figures and attacked and mocked their critics, and because he’s a fine writer and deftly articulated elite conventional wisdom this made him very respected in those same establishment circles. It’s not a form of journalism I admire. I think it’s the opposite of everything journalists should aspire to.
- But there seem to be guys like him in every political media environment the world over. We could have done worse than Armstrong. He did occasionally rebuke Clark and Key when their contempt for democracy and law and process became too egregious. And everyone I know who worked with him liked and respected him deeply.
- Armstrong does not seem to have been very interested in politics as it relates to government or policy or law or economics or anything that most political actors are interested in. His columns were almost exclusively about the theatre of politics, especially Question Time. Who performed well? Who had the best lines? How artfully did the Prime Minister avoid saying anything? Most journalists have some curiosity about objective truth. ‘What really happened?’ Not Armstrong. In his final column he articulates his belief that politics is a game and he enjoys seeing how it is played, which is a fair summary of his approach to the subject. Facts never had a place in his work. His view of politics is one in which substance is nothing and style is everything. The real-life consequences of ‘the game’ are irrelevant.
- This indifference to truth and enthusiastic celebration of spin and distortion is also, I think, the opposite of everything political commentary is supposed to be about. Governments have enormous resources to spin and obfuscate. Under Key this is mainly what the government does. If the press gallery isn’t there to debunk all of the propaganda and spin then it has no purpose.
- There’s no obvious replacement for Armstrong’s role in the political media ecosystem. Key prefers to communicate directly with voters through soft media outlets where his messaging is even less challenged than in Armstrong’s columns. This propaganda model is so effective his heirs will all do the same. Lying to a large number of voters more effectively is the kind of ‘playing the game’ that Armstrong has always celebrated, so I think he’d have to admire this change.