Just Left

Two negotiations, one target: the Internet & our brighter future

This month two important negotiations happen that could affect anyone who uses the Internet.

In Auckland, there is a negotiating round for the Trans Pacific Partnership, a managed economic and trade pact that includes an intellectual property chapter that has to be seen to be believed: that branch of Hollywood known as the US Trade Rep has pushed for things like outlawing parallel importing, and even trying to create property rights in data on the Internet while it is in transit. (Barking crazy stuff, really.)

Half a world away in Dubai, a centuries-old UN organ called the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is looking at a 1988 treaty for review, with some member states seeking to impose old phone network charging models on the Internet, or legitimacy for snooping on their citizens, or (if you believe the most critical accounts) trying to take coordination of Internet numbering and naming off the private sector and into the hands of governments.

Yawn, so what, you're possibly thinking.

Think again.

The old industries that have been damaged by the rise of the Internet use every means at their disposal to fight back.

Big movies, big music, big telcos, Big Brother: they all hate the changes that the Internet has brought about. They don't like their revenue disappearing. They don't like the fact anyone can publish and distribute their views online to a global audience. They raise fierce claims of piracy and damage.

It's all nonsense, of course. There are more movies, more music, more news sites, more opinion and commentary, more shared expression than has ever happened before. The conditions the old Bigs claim will destroy their industries have done the opposite - even for the Bigs that complain about them.

So why do some governments react in favour of the bigs and the olds, ignoring their citizens interests? Set aside the wishes of repressive regimes to get their sticky fingers on the 'net...

It's a problem as old as economics. When someone has a pile of money they will fight hard to protect it, and by definition they usually have the ability to fight that fight. The NZ experience of this is farmers demanding huge subsidies in the 70s, or the cheap power demands of the aluminium smelter, or rental home owners' aversion to capital taxes.

What would happen if these twin attacks succeed? Easy: more costs for Internet users. Less available content. Less privacy. Less innovation.

It's the open nature of the Internet that people in my line of work have been fighting for. The Internet as it is and should be is a platform founded on ideals of freedom. People follow the protocols and can develop any services they want. Email. World Wide Web. Torrents. Voice. These allow low cost high speed sharing and service all over the globe. Online travel; maps; social media; on and on it goes.

An Internet built on the values of some of the negotiators in the TPP and the ITU would never have taken off. It would not work. The free and open exchange many of us take for granted would not be here today.

New Zealand is on the side of the angels in this so far, in the ITU reliably. The TPP is harder: what if the choice is to trade off the Internet (say through crazy copyright and patent reforms) to get more beef and dairy access?

For me that's obvious: we wouldn't sign, simple as that. Others think we would have to. The cabinet is full of farmers. The temptation to back the old economy, which for all its faults does provide us with an income today, is obvious. Strangling the new economy would be easy in the short term, for there isn't much of it to fight back.

I'd be horrified if that happened, because we are hitting the physical limits of our old economy. There is only so much grass we can grow, coal we can mine, milk we can churn, trees we can chop. There aren't any comparable limits to our imaginations or creativity.

If we want a high wage, clean economy, it won't come from the old. It will come from the new.

That's why these two negotiations matter, so keep your eyes and ears open.

 

Posted with Blogsy

Housing for all

100,000 new affordable houses. Backed up by a clear workable plan for achieving it, and an ideological shift to embrace the possibility of the government as a practical force for change. All eloquently set out in David Shearer's excellent speech to Party conference (which you can find here, including fact sheets!).

This is a seismic change in New Zealand politics. It is part of Labour's evolution into an organisational and political force for change based on — and proud of — social democratic values: fairness, freedom and solidarity.

The whole direction of change is as I described in my previous post. Labour is becoming more open, more democratic, more relevant to the day to day challenges New Zealnders face — and the hopes we all share for the country's future.

So having a large number of new houses built at an affordable price point is a real prize for people. It will change the chances people have to get into home ownership.

It isn't a panacea. It isn't Labour's complete housing policy and wasn't intended to be. But it offers a whole stack of positives:

• More houses at a more affordable price, esp. in Auckland
• A more sustainable building industry with more jobs
• Higher skills and productivity in that industry due to higher, more stable demand
• A higher level of building --> economies of scale --> lower per unit costs for everyone including private construction
• Hopefully lower costs for existing property, having a wider effect across the whole housing market

It's hard to see downsides, and the best thing about such a practical, workable policy is that there is no way National can copy it. Their ideology forbids it, their supporters hate it, their principles oppose it and they and their proxies will lie and spin any way they can to try and oppose it.

Posted with Blogsy

#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

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

Should your ISP have to hold your hand?

In the security session at the Australian Internet Governance Forum this morning (see www.igf.org.au for info), an interesting dilemma about security responses by ISPs came up.

There is the prospect that ISPs could use a range of more or less reliable technologies (from deep packet inspection to usage metering) to identify users whose accounts are creating a threat -- for instance, compromised computers being part of a botnet attack.

The dilemma is, should they?

It's easy to see an upside from such a step. If you were compromised, or thought to be, your computer could be put inside a walled garden (off the open Internet) so you see a website identifying the problem and suggesting remedial responses. Since most people have no idea about computers this would respond to a key problem -- user ignorance.

What about downsides?

Do we want ISPs monitoring all use of their networks and obliged to act based on what they find?

What about privacy?

Would ISPs be found liable if they failed?

Would security by hackers just leap ahead?

Good arguments were put either way.

I have long had the view that ISPs are, and should remain, simple conduits to the Internet. They should have no content role. They are not copyright police, security police, good taste police, gambling tsars or any of that. They just provide the connection, and are only responsible for doing that. (Unless you buy more services of course.)

Doesn't solve the security problem -- but keeps ISP sticky beaks at bay, and minimises the cost of ISP operations, to the benefit of us all.

What is your view?

Political Leadership and #MarriageEquality

Change is a tough thing sometimes.

This post is about political change, its history in New Zealand, and why Labour MPs need to grasp the nettle and support Marriage Equality, as a core part of Labour's vision for a country where everybody belongs.

Political parties and movements that are progressive secure change by changing people's minds about issues. They do not ride with the grain of current opinion in those issues where change is demanded: they challenge it, they confront and cajole and persuade, and change people's minds.

New Zealand has a long history of such persuasion. It's a give and take process between movements and the broader electorate. You have the debate, you shift a bit more towards where the public are, and they have shifted a ways in your direction too. You keep pushing, and keep shifting opinion.

That's how the welfare state was founded. Labour's vision for the Social Security Act in 1938 would have been impossible in 1928. It was the experience of the Depression, and the constant campaigning by Labour party politicians and activists all around the country, that changed the public's view. From villages in the south Waikato to hamlets in central Otago to mining towns on the West Coast to Queen Street: Labour made the case and changed views.

Change always happens that way.

Look at the attitudes of Pakeha New Zealand towards Pacific migrants that were exposed by the ugly campaign Rob Muldoon ran in 1975. Dawn raids, attacks on overstayers, blatant racism and fearmongering about interracial marriage, crime, jobs and more were all exposed.

Today such views are held by many fewer people.

Politicians and campaigners made the case for equality and justice and inclusion, and those views have spread. New Zealand today takes great pride in Pacific communities and the diversity they bring to the country, and the links back to the Pacific Islands that they represent. I do not believe there would be many, if any, New Zealanders around today who have a fundamental problem with Pacific migrants and the Pacific communities of this country.

Those campaigns were underpinned by the core values the Labour Party stands for: the moral and legal equality of all people, a respect for and celebration of diversity, a championing of the personal freedoms we all need to thrive and flourish, and an abiding sense of fairness that said it simply did not make sense to treat people from the Pacific as second class citizens in our own country.

Of course, Pacific peoples are only one example. The direction has been consistent for women (suffrage onwards), for Maori, for people with disabilities and for homosexuals.

The direction is the direction of justice for all. It isn't perfect: there is still sexism and racism and homophobia and colonialism and fear of those who are different. But we have made this country a better place through the exercise of values, argued for and expressed through a democratic system.

In every one of these cases, the message has been profound. It has been a message of love. It has been a message of respect. It has said to people:

"You too are one of us. We share our fears, our hopes, our dreams. Come into our house. Be with us. Together we are one."

It is impossible, I think, to overstate the importance of that reality.

Our country is the country it is today because love has trumped fear in all of these stories.

Today, in a legal sense, we are near the end of that progression for equality for LGBT+ New Zealanders. Civil Unions were a step along the way, and they were important. They came only 18 years after homosexuality itself was decriminalised. But they are not the answer.

It all comes back to love and respect. Does our community include all of us? Or are we, those of us who are gay, to be told that we are second class citizens?

My own view is of course on the side of justice and equality. It would be regardless of the fact I am gay. To me, the struggles for fairness and equality are all linked. I take seriously the notion, expressed among other places in the Bible, that we are each other's keepers.

To me, the fight to end sexism and racism is the same as the fight to end homophobia.

It's the same as the fight against fear of those with disabilities.

It's about making the case that WE ARE ALL EQUAL. Not the same: we are gloriously diverse. But equal.

Equally worthy of respect and honour.

Equally worthy of the justice of the land being ours in the law.

Equally open to love.

Equally deserving to be treated as fully human.

These values are what unites the Labour Party and the Labour movement.

It is why a blokey as hell tradesman from Te Atatu, a Samoan minister in Mangere, a shearer in Te Awamutu, a lecturer in Dunedin and a nurse in Christchurch are all on the same side, why people like that all vote for Labour.

They know, and I know, that the promise of a better land and a better future requires us all to be on each other's side, fighting against those who would tell us we don't belong, don't deserve a fair go.

Labour MPs know in their hearts the values their party is founded on. They know that parts of their communities are on a journey to finding those values congenial. They know that some people will be opposed to Marriage Equality, just as some are opposed to Equal Pay for Equal Work, and some are opposed to migration to these islands.

They know they have, in their role, a special responsibility: to bend their energies to the widest possible spread of those Labour values that make New Zealand better for everyone.

So I expect Labour MPs to be out there talking about this issue, and making the case in favour of equality, and explaining to all why it's just a part of a bigger picture:

Building a country where we all belong.

That's what Labour is for. That's what leadership is about: making a difference and bringing about a better future.

A Super question - your view?

So the super debate is heating up. I have a question for you:

Does economic growth solve our Superannuation dilemma?

I've heard arguments both ways: the wages link seems to militate towards seeing it as a problem; the cost of healthcare always gets a bit sidelined; we don't actually know with great certainty the demographic future.

What do you think?

On the #tppa - The Context

I've been thinking about the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (common twitter hashtag #tppa) for a while due to my professional interest in what is happening in international Intellectual Property Law.

This post sets out some of the bigger picture as I see it, and will be followed by a further post about the potential impact of the agreement, and then probably a final post on the implications for Labour's trade policy.

It's slightly heavy going. The takeaway point? Be concerned, and find out more.

What is the #tppa anyway?

The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement is a "comprehensive" plurilateral agreement (i.e. between multiple countries), being negotiated between some Latin American, North American, Australasian and East Asian states (Viet Nam, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Peru, Chile, the United States, Australia and New Zealand).

It is important to understand first that the TPPA is NOT A TRADE AGREEMENT. It will be called that a lot in the media, but that isn't its purpose. It goes "behind the border" and deals with a huge range of things that are about building comprehensive common standards and platforms in a huge range of areas - electronic commerce, investor-state dispute resolution, telecommunications, banking, services, intellectual property. These are all above and beyond the "trade" related aspects of the agreement.

The timetable is that the negotiators are aiming to finalise an agreement towards the end of this year, around the date of the U.S. Presidential election.

The TPPA builds on an existing agreement, known if memory serves as the P4, though it is in fact being negotiated from the ground up.

Japan, Canada and Mexico have all expressed an interest in joining the agreement, interest which has not so far been reciprocated by the negotiating parties.  The total two-way trade value between the United States and the eight other countries is around $440bn a year, making the value of the agreement reasonably small in the scheme of U.S. and global trade.

So that is what it is. In thinking about it, there are three bits of context to keep in mind with this agreement:

• the geo-strategic situation,
• the nature of globalisation and trade agreements, and
• the future prospects of New Zealand's economy.

Geo-strategic situation: is it all about China?

I am not a geo-politics expert, but it seems to me that part of the web of conflicting ambitions about this agreement relate to whether the purpose is economic, or geo-political. U.S. policy in the Asia Pacific is at least in part about the containment of China. That has to be why China is not involved in the negotiations, at least in part.

Readers will be more across the foreign and security policy debate than me, but the important point about that context is this: to the extent that economics is the core of the agreement, the U.S. will push hard for (in particular) Intellectual Property rules, as that is the main area of potential economic gain for them. The other countries will push back. Agreement will be hard to find. If on the other hand the geo-political imperative is what is driving it, then the U.S. will be more likely to accommodate reasonable economic demands from the other countries in the agreement.

Nature of globalisation: less is best.

More globalisation isn't always better.

Dani Rodrik made an argument in a recent book "The Globalisation Paradox" (a Washington Post review is here) that I fundamentally agree with. The TPPA is an example of the constant pressure to try and go beyond freeing up global trade (which I support), and into reducing the differences between countries on a whole range of fronts that up until now have been left to national decision. His view is that globalisation would have more legitimacy, and actually deliver better, if it was in essence "thin" - focused on reducing trade barriers, but leaving democratic governments to regulate the social and cultural elements of their societies as they see fit.

This appeals to me on a number of grounds. One is practical. I think that "subsidiarity" is an awful word that hides a great concept: make decisions as close to the grassroots as you can. There isn't any problem with countries cooperating to do things they can't do by themselves: e.g. freer trade, or tackling climate change, and so on. But there isn't much point in taking things they can do for themselves (e.g. choosing the balance between the interests of creators and users in the intellectual property universe) and forcing decisions on those into complex, slow, multilateral or global forums. Governments are closer and more accountable to the public, and can change things faster.

Another is principled: I think as a matter of democratic choice that most choices SHOULD be available to governments. In trade you generally both gain, but in some of the other areas agreements like #tppa seek to regulate, there can be very one sided gains that just cost some parties a lot, to put money in the pocket of another. IP (intellectual property) is the classic example. The U.S. wants #tppa states to lengthen the copyright term. That would put more money in the hands of U.S. IP producers of old, end-of-term copyrights (like some early Disney stuff) at the expense of consumers who would, once copyright expires, be able to make free use of that content. States should choose that balance, based on what is good for their people. They should not be locked in to choices made in one context that cannot later be changed.

So I suppose my head is at a "thin" globalisation model. Free trade is broadly good. But trying to use international agreements to pick the pockets of the poorer countries is not good. Taking away government ability to choose what suits a country best isn't good either.

Next steps for New Zealand's economy - the future or the past?

The third bit of context is about what comes next for our economy. We are unusually dependent on primary industry today for our exports and our standard of living. We have a very efficient agricultural sector in economic terms.

I don't think that that represents our future. I apologise in advance for the generalisations here, but this is trying to set out some big themes.

Here's why it isn't our future. We are hitting limits. Environmental limits mainly: but also physical ones. There isn't a lot more land to use, and the rising intensity of use of existing agricultural land requires ever increasing inputs - that add to the pollution being caused. Also, our agriculture industry is quite polluting, and is resisting the imposition of simple pricing mechanisms that would force them to start down a less-polluting path.

We can make our best future as an economy by adding value through innovation. A lot of that will happen in agriculture, but it can also happen in other areas: design, music and culture, high value manufacturing, business services, electronic commerce, high value tourism etc.

Those sectors tend to be faster growing than agriculture, and importantly, they are less capital intensive than agriculture - and they create more and better jobs for a given investment than agriculture does.

One way the #tppa could fall would be to give us some limited goods market access to the U.S., say in dairy and in meat. The cost would be tougher IP laws that hurt those new economy sectors I mentioned above.

I think that would be cutting off our future. We should not sign up to an agreement that advantages the old-economy industries with relatively limited growth prospects, and puts barriers in the way of new-economy industries that represent cleaner, greener and richer jobs for people who live and work in New Zealand. We would be doubly disadvantaged: relative advantage would be with industries with a slower growth path, leaving all of us worse off; and the chances of upgrading our economy into a more high-tech and high-income zone would be lost to us.

Conclusion

So that presents three areas of context. There are others that I don't have time to cover in any depth. There might be nuance you care to share with me that I haven't thought of - I'd love to hear from you if that is the case.

My view is already probably quite obvious. I think there are major risks to New Zealand's future present in the #tppa, the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement. I'll try and get to some of those specific concerns in the next post, probably over the weekend.

Fiscal responsibility

There was a nice set of numbers in a Stuff story yesterday about net Government debt levels in the past few years:

Net core Crown debt in $NZ:
2000: $25.9b
2002: $25.3b
2005: $19.9b
2008: $10.3b
2011: $40.1b

Forecasts:
2012: $53.8b
2014: $67.8b
2016: $72.5b

These numbers show Labour's prudence in office, and National's profligacy.

Yes, there has been damage to the government's financial position through the Canterbury earthquakes and the global recession. Those are granted. But the chipping away at NZ's debt levels has also come about through wilful cuts to government revenue through tax cuts to those who need them least, only partly offset by tax rises on those who feel the pain the most.

The story contains a broader narrative about public impressions of who is responsible for the debt.

I've never understood why anyone would think it's a left wing thing to run up public debt.

The Clark governments in 1999-2008 weren't exactly National-lite, and they paid off a large volume of net debt. The Nats in the 1990s left it more or less where they found it; Labour in the 1980s and National in the 70s both lifted debt significantly.

Modern social democrats aren't interested in running unsustainable deficits. Given the New Zealand private sector's obsession with borrowing to the hilt, it is more important for the NZ Govt to be conservative fiscally than is the case for many other countries.

That is why our policy last election was a mix of tax increases and spending restraint that would have seen borrowing a little higher in the short run but lower after about four years, and for all time after that.

David Shearer has decided the policy should avoid the confusions inherent in the 2011 pledge to re-start NZ Super fund contributions while the deficit still exists. That's fine. Since National is promising surplus by 2014/15, which Labour was too, I anticipate the incoming Labour led government in 2014 will pretty quickly be looking to start the pre-funding again.

Fiscal responsibility is what we are all about -- along with a broader responsibility to society and the economy which isn't part of National's DNA.

We will on average run higher levels of government spending and tax than National, because we have different judgements about where the line should be drawn between individual and community responsibility in some areas, and because we use the State to undo the inequalities the market creates by its ordinary operation.

We will be tougher on pollution than National because we don't believe in giving some sectors a free ride that they don't deserve.

We will be more careful about preparing for the upcoming baby boomer retirement and the costs it will impose on super and health spending. Thus our painful pledge to raise the retirement age over time; thus the KiwiSaver initiative; thus the creation of the NZ Superannuation fund; thus our determination to run fiscal surpluses and pay off debt.

Two final thoughts.

First, external prospects. If the world enters a prolonged low-growth period, then Labour will have to do tough thinking. It is easy to be fiscally responsible when revenue is rising through economic growth. When it is not, tougher choices will be required -- and our take on them has to be clear well before 2014.

Second, the broader economic fight between the parties isn't on fiscal issues - it's on how to grow and develop. The wider structures that are driving poor performance in our economy - flawed tax regimes that exempt capital and incentivise non productive investment; limits on firm scale growth due to lack of access to capital; an under-regulated labour market that keeps wages low and lets firms avoid tough choices about productivity - are the actual real difference between Labour and National these days. Even in a world of low growth, doing these things better will leave New Zealanders better off.

As David Parker said in his excellent pre-Budget speech this morning: "Change nothing, and nothing changes -- but don't blame Greece!".

Telco and broadband people - help me with my thesis

I'm in the finishing stages of an MA thesis in politics. The case study is of broadband policy in New Zealand from 2000 to 2011.

Can you help me out with your view on a question?

The case study documents the rising tide of state involvement in (tele)communications - in regulatory and in investment decisions. The details are not the purpose of my ask so don't worry about that too much.

Here's the question: why was this rising tide consistently rising regardless of the political colour of the government of the day?

Ideological, interest group, voter bloc or distribution don't especially well explain...

What does is a universalist liberal view that the installation of high speed broadband is an economic imperative, an infrastructure states must guarantee access to.

What do you think? Comments fine or email me.