Just Left

Blue Cossacks at the Door

National's 1975 election campaign infamously used the image of the Dancing Cossack to suggest a Labour plot to engineer a communist takeover through compulsory superannuation. More generally it positioned Labour as the command and control party that wanted to have everything run from a centralised politburo.

As we all know Labour lost that election (to the hands-off economic liberal Muldoon), so commie-takeover-crisis averted. However in certain sectors of community governance we are seeing a new kind of cossak emerge - the blue cossack. Across Auckland governance, the health sector, and the polytechnic sector, the Fifth National government is advancing the firm hand of the state across institutions that have previously operated within a statutory framework, but have been governed largely by their constituent communities.

This post focusses on the Polytechnic sector, which I have some knowlege of as a CTU representative on the Council of Manukau Institute of Technology (MIT). These comments represent my own views, and are not necessarily those of MIT.

The independence of Polytechnic governing Councils are facing an extraordinary attack through the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. The Bill has some useful features (including provision for a Tertiary High School at MIT and beefed up intervention powers for institutions in trouble), but through its changes to the composition of governing councils it will cut polytechnics off from the communities that they are supposed to serve and give Ministerial control of Polytechnic governance. Of great concern is that these proposed changes apply exclusively to Polytechnics and not other Tertiary Institutions, and that they run counter to the government’s stated principles for the sector.

There is a broad acceptance that New Zealand’s tertiary institutions need to have strong links with the communities they serve. In the case of Polytechnics, this is particularly important. As the main providers of vocational training and entry level tertiary qualifications, Polytechnics need to have a high level of engagement with employers, the workforce, and other groups within their constituent communities. This isn’t just about warm fuzzies, it’s about Institutions actually being linked in enough to meet the educational needs of their communities to respond to opportunities and challenges as they arise.

For these reasons the governing Councils of tertiary institutions have, to date, been given the ability to constitute themselves in a way that is reflective of their communities. At Manukau Institute of Technology for example, the governing Council contains, in addition to the statutory positions of a Business NZ Rep, a CTU Rep, and Ministerial Representatives, positions representing local secondary school principals, the City Council, staff, Maori, and the University of Auckland. MIT has chosen a Council with this composition to meet its strategic goals, and the needs of the community. For instance, we have a significant strategic relationships with Manukau City that is coming to fruition through a new City Centre campus - so having a direct governance link with the City on the Council has made a lot of sense. At other Institutions the mix is different to align with their communities and objectives.

The government’s proposed changes will remove the ability for Polytechnics to be governed by Councils that are representative of their communities and will instead give the Minister of Tertiary Education effective control of governing Councils. Council size will be reduced from between twelve and twenty, down to just eight. Four of the eight will be appointed directly by the Minister, who will also be given the power to appoint and sack Council Chairs and Deputy Chairs (these positions are currently elected directly by Councils). The other four will be the CEO, a student rep, an academic board rep, and one community rep. While most Ministerial appointments to Councils will no doubt be dutiful and capable people, these changes decisively shift the balance on governing Councils from community representatives to political appointees.

This change to the composition of Councils means that they do start to resemble corporate boards rather than the governing bodies of public educational institutions. A number of other proposed changes underscore this point. The absence of any staff representatives removes an important voice from strategic decision making, while the removal of the restriction from serving on more than one Council, and a new ability to indefinitely re-appoint Ministerial representatives suggests the establishment of a class of semi-professional government appointees who can carry out the Ministers bidding across a range of Institutions. While this possibility remains unproven, the shift in focus from community representation to Ministerial control is clear.

These specific concerns to one side, an obvious question to arise out of the proposed reforms is why just polytechnics? The government’s policy statement declares that the changes are designed to “improve the governance capability and effectiveness of Polytechnic Councils”. One has to question why the government does not want to “improve the capability and effectiveness” of other tertiary institutions such as Universities and Wananga. Could it possibly be that they fear the strong political influence of these entities and that the Polytechnics are an easier first up target?

Finally, it is appropriate to question the mandate that the government has for pursuing these changes. While the Minister claims that “The sector has told me that governance is unwieldy at the moment”, there has been no formal consultation with Councils prior to the Bill making its appearance. Nor did the government signal any intention to review governance arrangements in its pre-election manifesto. Indeed, National’s Tertiary Education policy makes the following statement: “We favour a high-trust funding environment, with tertiary education institutions that work to clear, simple rules with minimal but effective oversight from government”, while lambasting the previous government for “heavy-handed centrally driven control”.

In introducing this Bill, the Minister has strayed from the government’s own stated principles and is seeking to control Polytechnics from the Beehive in an unprecedented and dangerous way. Polytechnic Councils need to represent the communities they serve, rather than aping a corporate model that is inappropriate for public educational institutions.

Submissions on the Bill close at the end of September - if you have an interest in our tertiary education system I urge you to get writing!

Michael Wood

My Wish List

Here I am. Principessa. A female voice on Just Left. May there be many more after me.

I am going to post the occasional as and when the mood takes.

I am extremely Labour. But, as an individual I also reserve the right to wish that my party would lurch more to the left at times. I choose to pull to the left from inside the organisation.

 

To kickstart things:

 

Here is my “In an Ideal world and if we could afford it Policy Wish List for Labour and for NZ”:

-A progressive prison system focussed entirely on appropriate well-resourced rehab.

-Primary Health Care- more of it, better resourced.

-A rethink of our mental health system so it is community care focussed rather than unwellness and hospital focussed.

-A free to it’s users, publicly owned, public transport system. 

-No barriers to education for anyone, for any reason.

-Climate Conciousness!

-$15 minimum wage. (One day…)

-Affordable dental health care for all.

-52 weeks paid parental leave.

-The real amount on benefits raised by $50 per week.

Just to name a few… What’s on your wish list?

‘Tis the season

It is that time of year again. The time when people launch into their annual rants about Easter trading. ‘Boohoo I can’t buy a latte’. ‘Boohoo I can’t go to the supermarket’. ‘Boohoo I can’t buy a yucca for my conservatory’. Cry me a river.

 

They dress it up as caring for the choices of workers. They should be able to earn extra money if they choose. They dress it up as inconsistent. A garden centre can open here but not there. This store can open but that one can’t. But I doubt it’s really about any of that. It is frustration that me me me can’t get what I want.

 

It’s a few days a year. Every other day you can have your rampant capitalist juggernaut. But just for a couple of days at Easter, a manager can’t say to a worker “we need you tomorrow and if you don’t work there’ll be no overtime for you on the next roster” or “if you don’t work tomorrow we can’t open, we’ll lose money and we’ll have to make you redundant” or “you are working tomorrow or else.” – all real life examples from my travels as a union official.

 

For a couple of days a year workers, apart from those defined as essential, get guaranteed time with their families. Those who really really really want to work just have to take an enforced break from pursuit of the almighty dollar for a couple of days. Perhaps their families will at least appreciate seeing them for a change. For a couple of days a year you can do without your eggs benedict. Don’t worry, Ponsonby Road will still be there after Easter. It will not be swallowed up by a chain reaction induced vortex spawned by widespread credit card neglect.

 

If a little inconsistency is really what gets people’s knickers in a knot, I’ll tell you what we can do – not let anyone open. The vast bulk of tourists come from countries that observe days of religious significance a lot more fastidiously than we do. Not to mention those who come from places where everything shuts down for siesta every single day after lunch. Our liberal labour laws must seem very strange to them.

 

How to Approach Auckland

Labour is taking the right approach to the Royal Commission report on Auckland governance – namely, the inhalation of a deep breath, and the opening of our ears to the views of Auckland now that there is a concrete proposal to cogitate on. Having accepted the need for change, having set up the Royal Commission to determine the scope and nature of that change, and having recently lost office, it would have been unwise for Labour to have jumped in all opposition-y having just digested the Executive Summary, let alone the full 800 page report.

Unsurprisingly, there are aspects of the proposal that appeal, and some that don’t. The rationalisation of services that on any sensible basis should be run regionally is good, as is the establishment of new regional fora such as the Social Issues Board which will bring central and local players together to co-ordinate social policy in the region. Mandated Maori representation is a bold step that will bring a tangata-whenua voice to the regional table where it has been sorely lacking.

As to the super-structure of the city itself (namely the abolishment of the existing territorial authorities and regional council, and their replacement with one council for the whole region governed by a directly elected mayor), any sane and attuned person would have to say that the time for debate on this is over. The government will accept this aspect of the report and there ain’t no going backward.

Instead of fighting over that dead duck, the left needs to align our core values with emerging community sentiment in Auckland and look at aspects of the proposal that can and should be changed. In line with this I would like to see us building a coalition of support for change in three key areas:

1)    Changing the “at-large” voting system
Ten of the super-city’s twenty three councilors will be elected under a region wide “at large” vote. No Right Turn persuasively points out that this method of election inevitably leads to the concentration of power in the hands of the organised few. The new structure must be seen to be democratically mandated, and in a country that has accepted proportional representation as the fairest method of electing our parliament, at large voting seems a bizarre and un-democratic step. We should campaign strongly for either the region wide election to be run under either an appropriate proportional representation system, or to have the ten regionally elected members absorbed back into the wards.

2)    Anti-privatisation
Matt McCarten points out that the right have been assiduously peddling their privatisation agenda in the press recently, focusing in the first instance on Ports of Auckland. There can be no doubt that those who wish to see Auckland’s publicly owned assets hocked off to private interests, will see this re-organisation as a golden opportunity. Labour and the left should campaign vigorously to categorise all other significant regional assets alongside water services, which are identified in the Royal Commission report as needing to be protected in public ownership. This is unlikely to succeed, but at the least should put the new council on notice that a fire-sale of Auckland’s assets will not be tolerated.

3)    Improved Local Representation
There is a real (and surprisingly bi-partisan) sentiment building that the proposed structure does not take sufficient account of the need for good local representation. Frankly I think there is a lot of bullshit being bandied around about how good it is now (seriously – ask your neighbour to name the people on your community board), but that isn’t an excuse for trying to make it more meaningful under the new structure.* My preferred option for dealing with this, under the broad parameters of the Royal Commission report, would be to seriously beef up the pay and resourcing that goes to the local councils that sit under the super-city. In each sub-city this would mean that you essentially get the same number of local councilors that you have now, shorn of some of the bigger picture responsibilities that are shot up to the super-city council, and focused full time on service delivery and advocacy in their local patch.
Naturally, some better proposals to bridge the representation deficit may emerge from the region and Labour would be wise to listen to these.

By focusing on these issues and not getting caught up in a debate about aspects of the proposal that are a fait-accompli, Labour and the left can emerge as a relevant force in the debate about Auckland’s future, and help to cement together the progressive interests that need to come together to fight regional elections next year. More on what’s needed in that area later.

* Please note this is no comment on the dedication and skills of sitting Community Board memebrs, it is more an issue of resourcing and structure.

Prisons: Yes, It is Ideological

In the current debate about private management of prisons, it has been all too easy for protagonists on both sides to level the accusation that the other mob are being “ideological”. Indeed, so common has it become for this easy insult to be bandied about in public policy debates in New Zealand, that we ought to set up our own version of Godwin’s Law to make people think a little harder about what they are actually saying.

Because of course what you are saying when you call someone ideological is that they have “ideas that form the basis of a political or economic theory”. Wiki goes a little further, stating that: “Implicitly every political tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought”. In other words, anyone who has a set of beliefs about how we ought to go about things is an ideologue. Anyone reading this with a lobotomy? No, good – then you too are virtually by definition an ideologue.

And if, based on your view of the world, you have a position about whether or not our prisons should be managed publicly or privately, then you are being ideological. Provided that you are open to an ongoing critical examination of your views, there is nothing wrong with that in this writer’s view.*

To the issue itself then; why in principle (or ideologically), should our prisons be kept within the public domain?

Principally it is a question of the use of coercive force in our society. Developed societies have advanced beyond living in a wild state of nature in which we need to be fearful of what someone else may do to us, primarily because we have made a compact to let one another be, and ceded any rights to use force against one another to the state, subject to democratic governance and oversight. This compact is deeply ingrained – what would your reaction be if some bloke from down the road tried to pull your car over, and attempted to make you answer questions? Chances are you’d just ignore them, or if you’re a little more the alpha way, tell them where to go. But for most of us, a cop car with lights flashing will prompt an instant and unquestioning response – pull over and co-operate. Without that acceptance that the state, and the state only, has the power of coercion over us, how would we actually function as a society?

Prisons of course form a core part of the coercive apparatus of the state. In societies that reject the death penalty, they actually represent the apogee of the state’s coercive powers. Shifting the management of prisons out of the hands of the state and into the hands of a private contractor, whose primary interest in the enterprise is profit, fundamentally breaches the compact. If in principle (we’re not talking legalities here) it’s OK for the state to opt out of the deal and allow private enterprise to bid for the right to use coercive force, then why not individuals? If I have the means and the motivation, why shouldn’t I feel free to invite tenders to hunt down and detain the bastards who nicked my park-bench, or the cow in the 4WD who cut me off yesterday?

These of course are extreme examples to make a point, but the fact is that prison privatisation picks away at an extremely important social compact. Human decency and dignity demand that when it is exercised, coercive force only be exercised collectively, through the organ of the state. The other way is the law of the jungle.

* An examination of the facts of private v. public prison management re-assure me that the ideological perspectives expressed here are also the ones that deliver the best measurable outcomes. See Tapu Misa (for the facts and figures on how prison privatisation hasn't delivered) and No Right Turn (for a human rights critique on the current proposals).

Pay Equity Faxathon

Pay equity is just one of those things that National likes to have a go at when they come into office, a ceremonial peeing on the lamp-post to prove that labour market intervention to level the playing field is just not cool anymore.

They did it in 1990,abolishing the Employment Equity Act as one of their first acts in government, and now State Services Minister Tony Ryall has canned two important investigations into pay equity in the public sector, arguing weakly that pay equity can't be afforded during a time of economic recession.

The Handmirror has full coverage of the issue, and best of all is organising a collective action for this Friday (International Women's Day) to let Mr Ryall know just what New Zealanders think about his party's ongoing commitment to inequality in the workplace.

So go to the Handmirror and get faxing!

Time is at the heart of Social Democracy

I've been reading recent pieces by Chris Trotter, Bryce Edwards and Pablo, all of whom are talking in different ways about the social strains and changes that neo-liberalism has wrought on the country.

In essence, they are differently recognising that time is at the heart of progressive project. That freeing people as much as possible from the need to generate market income, gives them time to spend with their families and friends, doing voluntary work, relaxing, having fun and enjoying life.

This is a politics for the 21st century. The biggest complaint people have on many issues is that they are simply too busy - not enough hours in the day. Our economic life has truly taken over, in the search for efficiency and endlessly growing material production and GDP.

The consequences are obvious: societies which consume more from the environment than can be sustained, and people who are tired, stressed, angry and actually at some small level, in a state of rage. 

Neo-liberalism is at the core of this for several reasons. It constantly demands more, and demands it from you, based on its individualist basis. It tells you gratification and success only comes from your individual achievements. It has no respect for community or social relations, and denies that anything can actually be achieved by people working together unless they are mediating that cooperation through the market. Its commercialisation of basic human relationships means that a society governed by it is simply not aimed at human satisfaction: humans are meant to satisfy the economy instead.

So we have a tired, stressed society where people want more of the one thing that is finite and is a zero sum game: time.

Labour should put that dilemma at the heart of its programme at the 2011 election. We should raise our voices to being the party that deals with the competing needs of economy and society/family/people for more time to enjoy life by coming out on the side of time, people, family.

That is far easier said than done. It combines well and sort of sits within the "sustainability" mantra of the last Labour government, but goes beyond it several ways.

More time living and less time working may over a period mean that the hard calls on sustainability are more easily managed, but to achieve them is hard.

What kind of economic policy can help deliver more time to people?

• A stronger minimum code in the sense of 40 hrs work followed by tough penal rates - say time and a half after 40 hours and double time after 44 hours
• Consequential focus on productivity and effectiveness in firms and businesses so as to deal with less labour time available for a given output  
• Another week's annual leave, and maybe a few winter public holidays (which we sorely need!) 
• A right to sabbaticals say after five years in the workforce - needs some detail but allowing people to take six months off every five years would be great

What are some of the social policies? 

• Increasing paid parental leave - say to eighteen months between the parents to share as they see fit.
• Perhaps, a more relaxed approach to "unemployment" benefits - the constant nagging of active labour market policies to get into work is generally good, but a less intense approach to this might help.
• Lower costs for tertiary education, which would drive students into less part time work and more part time thinking. 
• Demarketising of some social services (e.g. make health actually free at point of use, maybe experiment with free public transport, abolish school fees ("donations"), etc). 

You begin to get the idea. A worker, family friendly focus would be a revolution in our politics and it would be something that people could actually buy into.

It would however mean giving up the strong emotional attachment that most people in politics - including in the Labour Party - have to the liberal economic policies that have dominated the past twenty years. That would be far from a simple set of discussions and arguments to have, but very interesting.

Perhaps more challengingly, it would need to come along a major renovation and expansion of the Labour Party's organisational structure. The party is actually too small and doesn't make good enough use of modern communications and organising techniques to be able to survive the media and establishment onslaught such a turn in policy would take.

Perhaps most challengingly of all, it would require a rebuild of relationships with the forces on the left who currently regard the Labour Party with what might generously be described as "derision" and perhaps more accurately as fear, loathing and doubt. And not only on the left, but among Maori too.

Just a small workplan. But at the heart of it, a politics that deals with the most important thing we have: time to live our lives and be free to do what we like.

Minimum Wage Increase a Victory and a Warning

To shrill reaction Jordan has already commented on the government’s decision to increase the minimum wage by 50c per hour. Without covering the territory he has already traversed, there are two important observations we can draw from this decision.

The first is that the broad left has won an important victory, and shown that this government, for reasons that are currently being debated on Jordan’s thread, is extraordinarily susceptible to pressure on key areas of economic policy. Without mass rallies of the kind that were needed to bring down National’s first 90 Day Bill, a coalition of Labour and the Greens, unions, community groups, and centre-left commentators ran a consistent campaign over about a month that tipped the Nats over from announcing a minimum wage freeze to the small increase that eventuated.

Given that it is widely known that Kate Wilkinson initially proposed a freeze (against her departments advice), and what we know about the ideological inclinations of many sitting around the cabinet table, plus the ham-fisted deferral of the actual decision, the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that the government was forced to re-think Wilkinson’s proposal in light of the public pressure that was generated.

For the left this is good news. Some of National’s agenda can be halted or slowed when co-ordinated pressure is applied. Importantly this means that there is a clear incentive for the broad coalition of interests that make up the left to organise around protecting the gains of the fifth Labour government. Labour and the Greens, unions, and others can win some important battles if we co-ordinate our efforts

Secondly the willingness of the government to give in on the issue, while a good thing, suggests a chilling willingness to put conviction to one side and do just enough to keep dissension from bubbling over - even when doing so means throwing rancid butter bombs at your allies.

Jordan’s post below covers this aspect of the issue in more detail and I won’t butt in on the debate about the motives of this arch-pragmatism here. The more interesting question for me is how Labour responds because Jordan is right, for whatever reason, this is a very different (and far more flexible) tory beast we are dealing with.

Education: Carrot or [celery] stick?

Last week I posted on the merits of various approaches to lifting educational achievement in New Zealand schools. Some of the important factors I identified were those one does not automatically associate with education, such as diet.

Today, the Minister of Education announced that the previous government's attempts to ensure children eat healthy food at school will be abandoned.

Words can barely describe how bone headed this decision is.

National made a big deal during the election of promising that our kids would do better at school.

Humour me for a moment. Open a new browser window. Go to google. Type in these three words: 'diet' 'grades' 'school'. Hit the search button. What you will see is pages and pages of evidence that children get better grades when they eat healthy food. Now try this: Substitute the word 'grades' with the word 'behaviour'.

Better grades. Better behaviour. Less obesity and obesity related illnesses.

What am I missing? What could possibly be the down side of getting children eating healthy food?

This is like trying to make people healthier by insisting that cancer wards be allowed to sell cigarettes.

Crazy.

"He hoped recovery was between six and 12 months away..."

Well, while it's good to know that the PM is a wishin' and a hopin' that things work out, the question now needs to be asked loudly and publicly: Just why does the government have such a strong aversion to co-ordinating its efforts and developing an integrated package to restore growth and confidence? Yesterday's SME tax announcement, totalling around $120 million per year was a case in point - fairly sensible stuff, but does anyone seriously believe that this combined with the other dribs and drabs we have been presented with will have anything like the impact that is required? Presumably Kevin Rudd wouldn't.

John Armstrong has a theory in today's Herald:

"Key has adopted a "rolling-maul" approach to recession which has the Government deliberately staggering its response with an ongoing series of announcements."

In other words, the political response is determined by a communications strategy - a series of small to medium sized announcements over the course of the year allow the govenment to always have something recent to point to as evidence of their lightening-like reflexes.

The problem with that, aside from its elevation of political expediency over and above you know, serving New Zealand's interests diligently, is two-fold:

1) It totally under-estimates the urgency with which decisive action is required. Governments the world over are recognising that the erosion of consumer and business confidence is so serious at this point that the state needs to step in to provide the cash and the direction to prevent things from spiralling ever deeper (let alone return to growth anytime soon). Here, we have the news that unemployment has just spiked by 11% in the December 08 quarter. Some tax breaks this week, a jobs summit next week, and announcements on major infra-structure spending later in the year(!!) will just not do the job.

2) It leads to un-coordinated policy making. Witness Key yesterday muttering about spending up on home insulation after recently jettisoning the Labour/Green home insulation plan for no good reason, the pathetic spectical of the cabinet being unable to fit a discussion about delivering a purchasing power lift through a minimum wage increase on its agenda, and the transport minister talking big on infrastructure, and then unhinging one of the biggest such projects on the books.

When co-ordination and a plan is required, we get a comms strategy. Keep hoping John...