Just Left

#NetHui South

So I am in Dunedin at the university for NetHuiSouth — a conference that is part of InternetNZ's effort to bring multi-stakeholder Internet governance out to the provinces.

There's a strong focus on rural and provincial issues, as well as the traditional issues concerning the global governance of the Internet. The looming WCIT summit, where the International Telecommunications Union (set up two centuries ago) will try and get its grubby little hands on the Internet, will be a key issue of concern. I am also expecting reports back from the global Internet Governance Forum, held in Baku last month.

It's so everyday that for most of us it is easy to forget just how revolutionary the Internet is. A private sector, collaborative, open infrastructure lets people innovate without permission. It lets anyone publish their views, discover any fact, share their joys or sorrow, make money or spend it, and connect with whoever they want.

Keeping it that way is important. Some states want to shut down this field of freedom. They are wrong, but they will make the attempt now and again in future. Keeping the 'net open is the vital response all of us can take - and we can help do it at events like NetHui.

If you can't get to Dunedin, you can find live streams on the website at Nethui.org.nz. This is NOT a conference — the participants do more talking than the keynotes or the organisers. It's a good way to do things. Poke your nose in, and check it out.

 

Posted with Blogsy

The Government Administration Ctte and #MarriageEquality

I said my piece this morning before the Select Committee hearing submissions on Louisa Wall's Marriage Equality legislation.

I started with a story about my brother's wedding and reception, a hot balmy beautiful day in November 2005. The feedback from relatives there about how sad it was that I wouldn't be getting married - and from other relatives that 'oh well, there is always a civil union right?'

(Separate but equal has a long lineage but not in New Zealand. It belongs in the past.)

Moved on then to do a thought experiment - I asked MPs against to consider two possible scenarios.

What if they lived in a world where most people were in same-sex relationships and the law supported those, but not different-sex relationships? How would they feel?

Alternatively, what if they themselves fell in love with someone of the same gender, but found that the State denied them access to a critical social, family and community institution like marriage?

After that I just reiterated the points in my written submission and awaited questions.

The only one came from Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, who asked me (I think) what would happen to future growth of the population if everyone was in same-sex relationships. I explained to him that this was not ever likely to happen. He got confused. So did I.

I love that in our democracy, you can face up to Parliament, have a say, be treated with respect (or at least, in this case, bemusement) and do your part to make the world a better place.

#MarriageEquality is going to happen next year. Can't wait.

Conference 2012

In many ways, the Labour Party conference last weekend was a triumph. A set of issues mean it doesn't feel like that right now, but in the longer term it will be seen that way.

Why?

I work in the Internet arena. It's decentralised. Hierarchy doesn't matter much. Ideas rise or fall on their merits. People's views are treated with respect, and everyone can have a say.

It is those aspects of the Internet revolution - how it works and how it changes us - that keep me interested in it - and in politics.

The 'net is changing society. Along with the '68 revolution and the era of the babyboomers, and the massive liberalisation they brought about, New Zealand has much less time for authoritarian leaders than it used to. Collaboration, working together, the demise of hierarchy and bossy management, all these changes are real. Wider choice and respect for our voice - as consumers and as citizens - is part of New Zealand's reality today.

Yet the two main political parties have remained stuck in the past. Labour and National are caught in the old ways of doing things. A small elite at the top in charge; the rest of us there as servants to carry out the wishes of the elite - pawns, all too often, in a game of thrones.

This weekend just gone, Labour started to catch up with New Zealand.

Important reforms gave party members a say on leadership choice and on policy direction. The ability to campaign properly in an MMP environment was enhanced.

Most important was the attitude in the conference. I don't mean the hysterical fringes, or the debate that turned into a proxy for other issues. I mean the broad consensus of what the tone was and what people thought they were doing.

Delegates, by and large, carried through fundamental reforms mostly unanimously. From David Shearer and Grant Robertson, Moira Coatsworth and Tim Barnett, through regions and sectors to electorates and branches and members individually, the door that was opened by last December's leadership hustings and — more emphatically — by changes in New Zealand society, wrought a new settlement in the NZLP.

I know that because of the overlay of leadership debate, the changes we made don't grab attention. But I also know those changes were overdue, are irreversible, and that most of the debate had *nothing to do* with the 'contemporary anxieties' Andrew Little referred to. Anxieties, I might add, that were substantially lessened by the content and delivery of David's leaders speech on Sunday.

The changes we made this weekend are big, and they clash head on with the culture of the Parliamentary Labour Party. That part of Labour is very accustomed to being in charge, on its own terms. The shock to the system this weekend will have been severe for some MPs and for some party grandees.

My advice to people feeling like that is simple: calm down.

Like anyone else, I know Labour needs strong leadership, and that divisions and splits help the Nats and hurt us. That should go without saying. That won't change with a more Democratic party, unless the party decides it does not want to win elections.

What is going to change is the 'on their own terms' part of the leadership equation. Members - including the whole leadership - have decided that power is to be shared. Caucus dominance will always be real, but the previous absolute right of the Parliamentary wing to make all the key decisions for all of us is now a part of the past.

It's a positive thing. The chatter on the conference floor wasn't *against* anyone: it was *for* the ideal of a more open, more pluralist, more vigorous Labour Party. Anyone who feels attacked by what happened, in that sense, needs to reflect and to deal with the change.

That's the sharp end of democratisation. That is what happened on the weekend. That is what Labour people should celebrate. That is what we are all going to need to come to terms with.

If we fail to, then we are in for a rocky road. The wide support for reform should — must — translate into wide support for its implementation, to unify the party and the movement around the new politics that found its voice this weekend.

The alternative doesn't bear thinking about.

I don't want to say a lot about what has happened since. My focus is on making those policy reforms work, and contributing to the management job we now have in pulling Labour together again.

One thing is for sure: we changed the game last weekend. In the long run, Labour will be the stronger for it.

My marriage equality submission

If you're interested...

Submission

to the Government Administration Committee

on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill 2012


Dear Committee members,

Introduction

1. This personal submission is from Jordan Carter, 34 year old Canadian-born New Zealander living in Wellington.

2. I wish to appear before the Committee in support of this submission, if time can be found for this to be done. My contact details are provided separately.

General position

3. I support the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, and I recommend the Bill be referred back to the House with the Committee’s support for its speedy passage.

4. In the law, marriage is a component of the civil rights of New Zealanders. It, along with some issues related to the care of children, represents the only clear discrimination remaining in New Zealand law against people who are not heterosexual.

5. Civil marriage is an issue of rights, and of the law. While a wide range of religious traditions have an interest in various forms of marriage, their responsibilities are to their faith. Parliament’s responsibility is to uphold the rights of New Zealanders. Accordingly, religious arguments should not sway this Committee on this matter.

6. There is no legitimate argument to deny equal access to civil marriage to same-sex couples, just as there would be no legitimate argument to prohibit marriages between people of different ethnic groups, or between different-sex couples who are infertile.

7. All such arguments belong to past eras. None should guide New Zealand’s policy in 2012 and beyond.

8. The fight against homophobia, of which this legislation forms part, is the same as the fight against racism and sexism. In our country in this decade, all forms of bigotry should be met with the same response: a celebration of diversity, and a principled commitment to equality for all.

9. Civil unions are separate but not-quite-equal. They are an honourable institution but they are not the same as marriage equality. Only access to the same institution accords the same recognition, the same honour and the same respect to all.

10. By endorsing this legislation, Parliament will send a signal to everyone, but particularly to (and about) all of us who are not heterosexual: that our lives, our loves, our hopes and dreams are of the same character and legitimacy as those of all other New Zealanders.

11. That is a message worth sending. Please support this Bill, and send it.

12. I broadly support the submissions by New Zealand Rainbow Labour and by the Campaign for Marriage Equality.

Specific comments

13. The Bill achieves its objective by ensuring that marriage is made equal. I do not have any amendments to suggest.

14. I note comments by some members of the public that there is uncertainty as to whether this amendment would oblige members of some religious organisations to perform marriages to which they may be opposed.

15. It seems unlikely to me that this is the case, as outlined in great depth in other more lawyerly submissions.

16. I would not strongly object if the Committee chose to recommend inclusion of language that clarified this matter beyond doubt, but think that the matter is clear without such clarification.

Conclusion

17. Parliament should take this opportunity to send a message that all New Zealanders are equal. It should support this Bill.

18. I recommend the Committee commend this Bill to the House.

Yours sincerely

Jordan Carter

Changing Labour this weekend

Labour's annual conference meets in Auckland this weekend. It's the most important conference in a generation. Changes are on the table that will fundamentally change Labour, bringing it closer to the public and making it fit to lead New Zealand again.

Stepping back from the day to day rush (and the chitter chatter about leadership issues, which is wildly overblown), Labour has taken the past few months to consider its structure and the way it organises. It hasn't been an internally focused review, though the outcomes being debated this weekend are focused on what Labour does.

The focus has been: how do we build a party that is better connected with the community? How do we organise and campaign better with MMP? How do we change from an industrial age hierarchy into a less centralised, more democratic structure?

These are the right questions for Labour to ask, and the answers the review has come up with are broadly right too.

New Zealanders have no patience these days for political parties or governments that claim to know it all. People no longer accept that Wellington Knows Best (if ever they did). Pushing decisions downwards and outwards to communities and to local democracy has been an important part of politics now for years.

That's why we brought in elected DHBs. That's why we extended the remit of local government. That's why an earlier Labour government brought in Tomorrow's Schools. People know what they need and what they want, and the central State doesn't always have to make those calls for them.

Labour's internal structures have not kept up, and nor has its culture. We can all cite examples in the 2000s and before when Labour left an impression of knowing best. The whole "Nanny State" thing could never have emerged without some substance behind it, after all.

Why does this matter?

There are two fundamentals in a political party. One is leadership selection and the other is decisions around policy. Together, those affect strategy, electoral appeal and relevance, political success and eventually, access to power.

This weekend's debate will include the chance for Conference to massively widen the constituency that selects Labour's leader: from 30-50 MPs to tens of thousands of members of the Party and affiliated trade unions.

That is as it should be. People who want to lead should have to demonstrate that they can win support from a cross-section of the public. I am damn sure that the Labour Party membership and members of our affiliated unions are a more diverse and representative cross-section of New Zealand than the Labour caucus is. The new process will require people to show they can win support from that broader constituency before they become leader.

It's a much needed reform, and will bring Labour in NZ into line with almost all other social democratic parties around the world. The ALP will remain the only organisation with backroom boys making these sorts of calls. They are welcome to that splendid isolation.

I am confident Conference will adopt this change. It is brave but necessary change.

There's a similar reform proposed on policymaking. There will be a wider mandate for policy: a Platform (the first ever draft of which is online here) would structure the party's manifesto and election policies. All policy would have to be consistent with the Platform and could only depart from it for a reason (e.g. a coalition negotiation) and with a supermajority of the party's Policy Council (a mix of MPs and activists) in agreement.

To draft, debate and adopt the Platform will involve hundreds of people across the party's branches and regions and sectors. It will involve reaching out to industry, to community groups, to advocacy organisations in every sphere of public life.

Once it is adopted by the Conference, it will be a standing framework that gives people a clear sense of what Labour stands for, and how it will govern. It will shift the right to make fundamental decisions about the party's direction and approach from the Parliamentary wing alone, into the whole organisation.

Both these reforms cut to the heart of what it means to be a modern political party. They acknowledge that not all wisdom resides at the centre. They celebrate the diverse perspectives and ideas that come from really listening to the community, and debating (sometimes with great passion!) the big picture of what Labour stands for and what Labour will deliver.

They are about making Labour the party that is most relevant to the country's future.

Look at our opponents and see the difference. National party members have no real say in policy. It's left to the Board (of seven) and the Cabinet. National tramples on local democracy whenever it can - look at the tragedy of Christchurch and the theft of water resources being given a stamp of legitimacy in Canterbury. Look at the efforts to take community representation away from Polytechs and Universities. Look at the efforts to wind back the powers and responsibilities of local government.

At precisely the moment that New Zealand's government and politics needs to be humble about its own abilities, and respectful of the ideas that the public can bring to the table, the National Party is going the wrong way.

There are other important changes on the table, and you can read the full list here. The overall package is a far-reaching set of reforms. Once we deal with candidate selection next year, a full overhaul will have been done, based on grassroots debate, international comparison and hard-headed analysis of what we need to change.

Labour's got it right. That is why this conference is important. We need to change our party if we are to win a mandate to change the country.

I've been writing about this for a while. It's part of the necessary process I identified in 2010 on this blog - of "turning ourselves inside out":

As we say "this is what we are hearing, what do you think?", we also have to invite people in to join with us and help shape what we are doing next. We have to use the best technology there is to do it, as well as the traditional means of face to face and direct mail politics. We need to be the party that people see as grassroots based, and where they know that if they want to raise an issue or a concern, it will filter through to what our policy is and what our politicians are saying and thinking.

Changing a political party is slow work, but we are heading in the right direction. The historic decisions we make this weekend - the most important changes to our party for a generation - will show just how serious we are. By themselves these changes won't achieve nirvana, but what they do do is this: they give Labour the foundation on which to build a winning campaign in 2014.

Changing Labour so we can change New Zealand, and see this country live up to its promise. That's what Labour is for.