Just Left

2011, 2012

What a year.  Earthquakes, elections, dictators, financial turbulence, the end of one job, a lagging thesis, and new beginnings to come in 2012.

I haven't got anything profound to say about the year just been or the year to come, other than to thank all of you who I know for your time, your ideas, your participation in this community on these islands or this planet.

It's been a good one and next year's looking better.  I'll finish my thesis at last; I'll be starting a new job of some description; we'll be making some progress in changing Labour; Wellington will keep being Wellington; and I scent a holiday somewhere hot in July/August.

I hope you are getting a holiday, and that you use it to do something different.  I know I am.

Peace to you and yours.

Comments back

I forgot to put comments off moderation, wondered why I couldn't see them - have approved!

Do we need to change Labour? Yes.

In the wake of a heavy defeat and the election of a brilliant new leadership team, it would be very tempting for Labour to say:

"We have fixed the problem. New team, global crisis and the political cycle will see us through."

That would be a temptation similar to a drowning person in cold water deciding drowning isn't that bad after all.

It's not easy to face the problems we have, but the first step to fixing them is acknowledging them.

Here's my short list for starters, of a few problems we really need to face.

• a record low vote, lowest since the 1920s
• low and static membership in the past three years
• over centralisation of control over policy and strategy, with too little power for members
• an inward focused 'divide the pie' approach by too many party units
• a cultural acceptance of low to no organisation in too many places, and a related culture of federalism divided between electorates rather than a sense of a nation-wide, cooperating organisation
• too much belief that our connections with a wide range of Kiwis are strong, when they are weak
• a sense that we 'own' the voters that went to the greens and nzf, and that they are bound to return to us
• a perception among some parts of the electorate that we are out of touch with their hopes and dreams
• a structure that incentivises our inward focus

It's a long list to which I am sure you can add things, friend or foe.

Some of these are substantive problems that are hard to fix.

Some are perception problems that can be sorted out more easily.

All need tackling to get us on track to what should be our ambition: the party that is open to most Kiwis, and that a regular 45%+ can vote for.

Cosmetic change can't get us there.

That's why we need big change, based on our values, to build a modern political party (not an NGO, not a corporation) that can draw the currents of a diverse electoral coalition together, win elections, and work in communities to change New Zealand for the better.

The status quo, even with the best leadership in generations, can't get us there.

So — it's time to shake things up.

A further reshuffle reflection

I've been mulling on the blog already on the scale of the task Labour faces in returning to government.

An important part of that is actually building a solid policy agenda. 

While our agenda coming into this year's election was comprehensive, it didn't get everything right, and it was not well communicated -- many people simply didn't know what our policy was in some key areas, something that we have to take primary responsibility for.

I don't know how David Shearer will operate the caucus, whether there will be a tight five approach, a functioning Shadow Cabinet, teams based around main portfolios, or opposition-by- caucus, and in a sense it doesn't worry me too much which way he chooses to go.

If we take "clean, green and clever" as a nice abbreviation for the thrust of the agenda that Shearer wants to build, then there is a brilliant team at the top. 

His own interest in the research and science area; Grant's skills in policymaking and control of Environment and Tertiary Ed and Skills; Parker's interest in economic development as a key component of finance; Ardern's likely focus on getting people into work as part of Social Development; and Cunliffe's thinking on how to actually change the business environment to try and stimulate growth...... they all add up to a nice package of skills, interests and abilities.

That bodes well for an actual focus on something (anything!!), as opposed to our last three years of wandering from headline to headline. It's one of quite a lot of reasons I like what Shearer's putting into place for Labour.

Quick thoughts on the new Labour front bench

A few very brief reflections on the announcement of Labour's new front bench:

• Environment finally takes the precedence it deserves with the extraordinarly capable Grant Robertson taking it on at #2
• David Shearer keeps his interest in the new economy with Science and Innovation
• Jacinda Ardern and David Parker get to shine in big portfolios with plenty of substance
• David Cunliffe has a role shadowing Steven Joyce, which will give him ample opportunity to help change Labour's fortunes following his defeat in the leadership race
• Lianne Dalziel picks up Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, which I suspect is a testament to the wide reading, thinking and talking she has been doing in the area since 22 February
• Nanaia Mahuta takes over Education from her Waikato colleague Sue Moroney and thus faces her first outing in a real meaty policy portfolio

I genuinely think this is a good line up: a range of experienced and fresh faces, some novel and useful portfolio combinations, and a good binding together of the caucus team following the leadership race.

I'd love to say something about all of them, but haven't time at the moment.

Labour's Lineup - 19 December 2011

Labour's new lineup:

	MP	Portfolios
1	David Shearer	Leader Security Intelligence Service Science and Innovation
2	Grant Robertson	Deputy Leader Environment Tertiary Education, Skills and Training
3	David Parker	Finance
4	Jacinda Ardern	Social Development
5	David Cunliffe	Economic Development Associate Finance
6	Clayton Cosgrove	SOEs Commerce Small Business Trade Negotiations Associate Finance
7	Shane Jones	Regional Development Associate Finance Economic Development (Māori) Fisheries
8	Nanaia Mahuta	Education Associate Māori Affairs (Social)
9	Maryan Street	Health Disarmament and Arms Control Associate Foreign Affairs
10	Su’a William Sio	Employment Pacific Island Affairs Inter-Faith Dialogue Associate Foreign Affairs
11	Phil Twyford	Transport Auckland Issues Associate Environment
12	Trevor Mallard	Shadow Leader of the House Associate Finance America’s Cup
13	Charles Chauvel	Justice (incl Courts and Corrections) Attorney General Arts, Culture and Heritage
14	Lianne Dalziel	Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Civil Defence and Emergency Management Earthquake Commission Consumer Rights and Standards Associate Justice
15	Chris Hipkins	Senior Whip State Services Associate Education
16	Phil Goff	Foreign Affairs and Trade
17	Annette King	Housing Local Government
18	Darien Fenton	Junior Whip Labour Immigration
19	Damien O’Connor	Primary Industries Food Safety
20	Clare Curran	Communications and Information Technology Broadcasting Open Government Disability Issues
	Ruth Dyson	Conservation Senior Citizens Internal Affairs
	Parekura Horomia	Māori Affairs Treaty Negotiations
	Sue Moroney	Early Childhood Education Womens  Affairs
	Moana Mackey	Energy Climate Change
	Iain Lees-Galloway	Defence Transport Safety Veterans Affairs Associate Health (Alcohol and Drugs)
	Raymond Huo	Building and Construction Statistics Land Information
	Rajen Prasad	Ethnic Affairs Associate Social Development
	Kris Faafoi	Police Customs Associate Health
	Louisa Wall	Sport and Recreation Community and Voluntary Sector
	David Clark	Revenue Associate Tertiary Education
	Andrew Little	ACC
	Rino Tirikatene	Tourism
	Megan Woods	Youth Affairs Associate Science & Innovation
	Ross Robertson	Nominee for Assistant Speaker Racing Associate Disarmament (Small Arms)

 

 

Next Steps for this blog

I'm thinking about what comes next for this blog, and so I'd like to ask you, readers, what you think.

Just Left has been around in one form or another since April 2004.  My enthusiasm for writing has waxed and waned, and different roles have meant different abilities to blog or not.

What do you like or dislike about Just Left - the topics, the writing style and tone, etc?

My initial thinking is to write about a broader range of topics and to dial back the political side of things, but I won't make any decisions before the start of 2012.

I think I'll try to keep writing though: the format forces you into being brief and thinking arguments through, which is always good for keeping you on your toes.

Eager for your thoughts/suggestions.

Labour's new team: #teamShearer #teamRobertson

Labour's new leader is David Shearer, and the new Deputy is Grant Robertson.

Congratulations to both is the first word.  As I've said in my two previous posts, they are facing a very big job to take Labour to a win in 2014.

It isn't only up to them: it is also up to every other member of the Labour Party now to get in behind the new team.

The combo is an exciting one, and the fact that two people who weren't MPs when we left government in 2008 shows how determined Labour is to change and reconnect with the country.

I've been at three of the members' meetings and while all the candidates were impressive, the thing that Shearer did was learn, fast, on the job.  Nobody should underestimate this man. While his back story is awesome, that's not the point: the point is it's HIS back story, and he made the choices and the decisions that grew it.

As he warms up into the role I am looking forward to seeing how the perceptions of our party and our movement change.  David starts afresh for us.  He will need to bind together the caucus and the party and use those talents he has to get people to see us all afresh together.  A big responsibility -- but I am confident he's up to it.

To the deputy: I always wanted to see Grant in the 2IC role because of his massive organising ability, political smarts and ability to relate to everyone.  He will do a great job. He'll be the perfect foil for David and I'm looking forward to working with him and with both of them.

Those who didn't get elected: David and Nanaia have formidable things to give the Labour movement yet, and are part of the mix of talents we need to win in 2014. When the choice goes against you and the jobs you want are not the ones you have, it stings. But I am confident that both will play a part of what comes next, as equally confident as I am that had David and Grant not got the jobs they have, they would have done the same.

Now to the reshuffle!

A huge job; learning from the Nats - #labourleader

This post canvasses the huge job facing Labour's next leadership, and learns a few lessons from National's recent history.

 

A huge job.

It's hard to get your head around the scale of the task the next leadership team in the Labour Party faces.

At the core of the job is to create and communicate an alternative to recession economics as preached by Key and English, and to build a hopeful narrative of change and growth to counterpoint the fear/debt mix deployed so effectively by National this year.

They need to work out the ways to get that across to people who do or might vote Labour, and to maintain those messages and narratives for the whole three years, to create a climate where people want to change.

Doing the hard grunt analysis and policy work, and getting the message right, requires smart thinking and broad engagement with what's happening locally and globally. It requires great research and insight.  Fantastic political judgement, and a ruthless determination to apply our values to today, not yesterday.

The new team will need to do and talk about politics sufficiently differently that the little sparkle of interest created by the current leadership race in Labour's future carries on into the new year, and builds new membership and activism in the Party.

They need to work with the New Zealand Council see through a successful programme of reform that improves Labour's ability to organise.  That requires members/supporters and money to drive more voter contact and voter persuasion.  The reform programme also needs to improve the role of members in the party, and improve candidate selection.

They need to fend off the political depradations of NZ First to the right, and the Greens to the left; animate and energise Labour's base; and then reach out and be open to securing the votes of middle of the road voters who chose to stay with National.

They will need to pull every single Labour MP into roles they are well suited to, as spokespeople, organisers, and supporters of change throughout the Labour Party.

It's one hell of a job. 

Of all these things, I think the most important is the first one. If we don't have a credible programme of reform that can actually make people better off, then we won't be able to build the politics around it to win.

And, to be frank, it'll not be much worth winning if all we do is continue to make life worse for most people, which is exactly what National's policy framework of failure is going to do in 2011-2014.

 

Learning from the Nats.

There's the other angle too, to learn from our opponents.

Think about how Key got to where he is today.

With his attractive back story, he entered Parliament in 2002 and was finance spokesman in time to really take on (and in some ways beat) Cullen during the 2005 campaign. 

While he was doing that, the National Party organisation was restructuring itself into a far more effective body, with improved internal governance and so on.

A leader who could motivate the base was in place, leading to a sharply higher vote in 2005 and massive flows of money and membership. 

Simultaneously, despite Brash's inclinations, National was ditching the far right policies of the late 1990s and starting to talk about issues that mattered to voters.

Then Key took over in 2006, moderated further, ran a relatively unified caucus on top of a well-resourced party, and took on Clark at the end of a long Labour government as a fresh and positive face flying into dark and stormy times.

The point I suppose I am making is that the successful thing about Key isn't only his back story.  That helped voters listen to him and still does.  But he is a success because of all the other things - successful reform, big well resourced party, ideas in touch with the times.

That is why I said in my last post that we need to change, and change big time.  It's why I said there is no silver bullet in a particular leader.

We remain lucky that in the Davids, we have people who can do many of these things. I refuse to choose between them, because my voice does not count in the choice.

I'll keep posting thoughts about what I think the task is that we face, because the task does not change, regardless of who our leader is.

That task is hard stuff, and we'll all need to work together to make it happen.

Charter Schools aren't the solution

I don't know if any of the people who voted for National thought they'd get a failed experiment on the educational opportunities available to poorer kids in New Zealand, but they have.

My friend Stef has written a brilliant post about this, at http://traintheteacher.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/charter-schools-and-loser-students/

Here's a snippet. Go read the post. It's important. You'll find it stimulating.

I did. I know that "Oh" that Stef talks about.

...

Would our futures have been improved if the best and brightest among us got shipped off to a shiny charter school?

I don’t know.

But I do know that if you have a system which not only tolerates but encourages the idea of winner and loser schools the natural corollary is that you must also tolerate loser students. For the kids who are told that they are somehow less worthy a person by virtue of which school they attend that really sucks. Believe me the kids in the so-called failing schools know when they’ve been given up on not just by their local community but society as a whole.

And when a society treats whole communities as dumping grounds for problems associated with poverty it is little wonder that schools and teachers serving them are often viewed as lesser quality. Quite frankly I don’t blame parents for wanting to do something, anything really, to get their kids out of dodge.

But what exactly are they running away from? Is it really a bad schooling or is it about ensuring their children have sufficient cultural capital to gain entrance into the middle class?

...

The problem is that we have is a tail of 20% of students who are under achieving and I’m willing to wager a steak and cheese pie that this tail is found largely in the schools serving our poorest communities.

But poverty isn’t destiny right?

When kids come to school hungry they won’t learn as effectively as the kids who don’t.

When kids are taking extra time off school because they are contracting preventable diseases they won’t learn as effectively as the kids who don’t.

When kids are in unstable living in overcrowded and at times unpredictable living situations they won’t learn as effectively as kids who don’t.

The ‘Poverty Is Not Destiny’ (or ‘Demography Is Not Destiny’ if you like alliteration) crowd that will soon pop up will imply that these issues are not very relevant since they are out of the teacher’s control.  They will say that teachers who speak out against the regime about to be implemented are lazy and seek to shift blame away from their performance.  I’d say that they are worse since they deny the importance that poverty has on student performance.

More importantly why is New Zealand trashing the idea that our education system should guarantee a child, whether they are rich or poor, can rock up to any school in this country and get a great education taught by highly qualified teachers? A kid’s life chances shouldn’t come down to whether their parents happen to not have capital, cultural or otherwise, to choose the ‘right’ school for their kids.

Refounding Labour #1 - #labourleader

In the wake of Labour's most serious election defeat since the 1920s, a comprehensive and critical re-examination of almost all of what Labour's politics is about is an absolute necessity for our party.

On the table must be our policy, our campaigning, our organisation from branch to national level, our candidate selection, our structure, our communications, our tone, the way the parliamentary party works, what the staff do in the party and in parliament, and on it goes.

There was a bit of reflexive back patting after election day.  I'm not too worried about that, but the time for that is now past.

The scale of what we need to do justifies the same name the UK Labour Party has chosen for its post-election work: Refounding Labour.

We don't need to just review or reform our party: we need to refound the party and the movement.

The only thing not up for debate as far as I am concerned are our social democratic values: our commitment to fairness and equality for all. That is what Labour does and always will stand for. 

But as revisionists have always said, it is our constant job to apply our values to the world as it is, not as it was -- or as we wish it was.

We have to start with acknowledging what happened to us on 26 November.

We got hammered. 

There are no two ways about it. 

The result is worse than in 1996, which should have been impossible given that that result followed the three-way split of the 1980s Labour Party.

It is a comprehensive rejection of Labour as a party fit to lead the government. 

I know it as a candidate.  There was none of the anger of 2008 directed at us. Instead there was simply indifference. People were sure we weren't ready for the job.  Second time in a row.

We must face that defeat, own it as an organisation, acknowledge it, and be ready to take some hard choices about how to refound our party and our movement to win.

It's that big a deal.  A positive and upbeat four week campaign does not erase the fact of failure, and nor must it be allowed to disguise how far we have fallen and how much work we have to do.

First and most profoundly, Labour has to work out again what electorate it wishes to appeal to.  Who are the 50-60% of New Zealanders we want to have open to voting for us, from which we can draw 40-50% of the vote at general elections?

Secondly, we need with hard data and through open and engaged listening, to work out why it is that so many of those groups who used to be open to us are not now listening, and just don't care what we stand for or say.

Third, we need to build a policy agenda for 2014 that responds to what New Zealand needs for the 2010s, 2020s and beyond, to what Kiwis want for their country, and that gives effect to Labour's values.

Fourth, we need the organisation on the ground all around New Zealand to be able to talk about our hopes and dreams for these islands with our country, and to listen to what they have to say. 

(It is not good enough that there are many electorates where the Labour Party is basically absent.  It is even worse that in some electorates where we do have organisation, it's out of touch and unable to run decent campaigns - and that includes some seats we actually hold!)

Fifth, we need the leadership to pull all this off.

I'm the Secretary of Labour's policy council and have learned a lot of lessons about what worked in the past three years.  I've been on NZ Council, the party's governing board, since 2004.

I've learned a lot about the party, but have an overwhelming impression that, to be frank, and despite the hard work of many, we are miles behind where we need to be.

Some things have worked but far more has not.  This is not the time for a status quo response. This is not the time for "business as usual".  It's not the time for the same old approaches that have led us to an historic defeat -- and that have led us to let down New Zealand.

I don't know who can do that leadership job for us.  I like David Shearer.  I find David Cunliffe brilliant to work with. I think both men would be capable leaders of Labour, with different strengths and weaknesses brought to the job.

I haven't made up my mind which of the two I would prefer to see in the job.  The astonishingly open process now happening of interviews and hustings meetings around the Labour Party are going to be a very good test.

By the time of Caucus on 13 December, I'm sure I'll have made up my mind about who I want in the job, and I will let my local MP know.  I don't have a vote and whoever gets elected will have my respect, and my support.

But what I do know is this.

One leader or another is not the solution to Labour's problems.

A fundamental acknowledgement that we have a major job to rebuild our party and our movement, and to reconnect with voters who we have clearly lost touch with, is the start.

Leaders can help or hurt with that, but we are in the fortunate position of having two front runners who both would help. 

We have to say it clearly: NO leader can do what needs to be done on their own.

It requires every single one of us in the Labour Party to stand up, to do things differently. 

We all have to share our ideas and hopes for change, and to be determined that whoever is in the top job, we work together to put our values into place by leading a government after 2014.

I'll do another blog next week with some more concrete thoughts on what needs to change.

I hope this makes it clear that I'm looking forward to being part of it.

Tick Labour Twice on Saturday #voteNZ

I've already cast my ballots: for Labour, for Grant Robertson and for MMP.

It's pretty simple really.

Labour's the only party which will tackle the economic problems that are holding us back; that will act to end child poverty; that will bring about a fairer and more equal society.  The other small parties of the Left share many of our views but are never in a position to lead and to act.  Labour is.

Labour is also the only party that can save our assets.

Grant in Wellington Central is a no brainer.  He is a great local MP, he will win the seat, and he is an important part of the future of the Labour Party.

MMP is also pretty simple.  I don't believe only ten thousand swing voters in each of ten marginal seats should decide who governs New Zealand: everyone's vote should count equally, and representation in Parliament should depend on support around the country.  MMP delivers that.

Whatever you do, make sure you vote, today or tomorrow.

I'll do a bit of a response to the results on Sunday sometime.

The only important #teacupgate point

If we aren't careful, the next couple of days will be a distraction from the real choice facing the country.

The reason the Herald on Sunday should print a transcript between the two Johns is because the public needs to know whether any policy business was transacted.

ACT wants to sell all of New Zealand's SOEs.

With National dipping below elective dictatorship levels of support, they will need a support partner.

They didn't tell the truth about the GST rise which has always been part of the ACT agenda (to move tax off the wealthy and onto the poorest).

There is no reason to believe assurances to the contrary this time on state asset sales.

With National's panicked release of an empty list of 120 sound bites today, the absence of an economic plan by the incumbent government is now proved.

ACT would be ever so happy to fill the vacuum.

So — the issue is what was said. Let's focus on that.

National's obvious desire to pump bellows at the smoke in order to hide the fire shows there might be something embarrassing there.

I doubt it's more than that. I await being proved right or wrong.

In the meantime, let's stay focused on the defining issue of the campaign: whether National/ACT, Key/Brash sell out New Zealand's future, or whether with Labour and the Greens we all own it for ourselves.

First week and big picture

With a hiss and a roar the first week is done and here are some quick reflections from me:

1. Labour is setting the agenda. The talk is about the economy, taxes, fair wages and whether or not state assets should be sold. That's what we wanted to be talking about.

2. Phil Goff is performing very well. When someone has a long and strong track record as a minister, you wonder how they will go in the front of things. I could not be happier with how Phil has stepped up, and commentators have noticed it too.

3. The emerging choice is quite stark. On economic, environment and social policies, Labour is setting out a bold agenda for change. National is setting out a timid agenda to continue New Zealand's failing status quo.

I've been doing long days in Wellington on a range of campaign projects as well as talking with punters. The vibe is ok, but then it is Wellington which is a little bit lefter than the rest of the country. Labour's campaign is working well internally and fundraising is going ok too, despite the mountain we have to climb politically.

20 days more hard slog. Putting our case for how New Zealand needs to change to everyone we can.

Keep a sharp eye on the polls in the next two weeks.

I'll try and blog more too.

Favourite policies out so far for me — broadcasting, and EQC, and still the transformational capital gains tax we did in July.

Today's environment launch has gone well too.

And so we roll on... Continuing to set the agenda and see a curiously flat-footed set of opponents spend their time on our ground.

Work and Wages: more of both thanks, to #ownourfuture

Should we close the wage gap with Australia a bit?

Would organising the world of work a little bit more similarly to the way Australia does, to help with that task?

My answer to both questions is yes, which is why I was pleased with our release today of Labour's Work and Wages policy.

Ever since the 1980s, New Zealand workers have seen wages lower than they should have done.  The radical reforms of Rogernomics weren't the issue so much as the massive stripping away of labour market deregulation.

Instead of dealing with a sclerotic system of compulsory union membership by sorting things out, political parties of the right conspired with employers to remove almost every protection Kiwi workers have, other than the barest minima of procedural fairness.

The result, partly of this and partly of other anti-fairness policies, is a hollowed out labour market with poverty wages at the bottom, and stagnant incomes in the middle, with the rich running away with the loot, pardon the phrase.

Those people have had a dream run.  The basic attack on collective bargaining embodied in the ECA was not fully turned around by the Employment Relations Act.  The voices of the powerful made sure that Act could never be as effective as it should have been.

So today, aside from other important and welcome minimum code improvements like better minimum wages, we announced a new form of employment agreement that can join individual and collective agreements: Industry Standard Agreements.

These offer industries with some baseline collective bargaining going on, the chance to extend core norms for minimum conditions across the whole industry.  It's like customising the minimum code for a particular industry, depending on its ability to pay and other circumstances.

It's a great idea.  It avoids the pitfalls of compulsory membership of trade unions, but strengthens the impact of collective bargaining none the less.

Watch for the people who complain about it.  They will form into two camps.  They'll be motivated apologists for, or attack dogs of, the political Right.  Or, they will be representatives of employer and industry groups who have enjoyed a long period of free-loading on the shoulders of people who work hard and pay their taxes.

Neither should be given much attention on an objective basis, but the voices of the rich and the powerful are always amplified loudly - especially when someone challenges their assumed privileges (in this case, the privilege to under-pay people).

By moving towards the more regulated Australian labour market, we will see relatively higher wages in New Zealand than we otherwise would.

National is pledging further weakening of labour laws.  That would feed through into lower wages, greater inequality, and the top end pocketing the lot -- precisely what has happened every time it's been tried, no matter where.

Decent wages are a good thing for the people earning them, and for the companies who employ too.  They focus management minds on lifting productivity.  They honour the efforts people make in the work place.

There's only one hitch: it won't happen on its own. 

To make things better, you've got to vote for change, and that means a change to a Labour-led government.

The centre-right's policy is the opposite.  Lower wages and vulnerable work is their ambition. That is what National and ACT stand for.

The choice is up to you.

Labour's policy on Information and Comms Technology

Another policy release this morning from our ICT spokesperson Clare Curran.  You can find the details at http://www.ownourfuture.co.nz/communications-and-ict

Labour's big picture in ICT has always been a well-rounded one.  You saw in the 2000s that our Digital Strategies didn't just focus on connections, but on the ability of people to use them, and for there to be relevant Kiwi content for people to access through ICT.

This policy expands on that approach, and tackles digital divides in some useful ways. For instance, out of the scarce cash that Labour's tight fiscal framework will allow, there is some more money for Computers in Homes and for the Computer Clubhouse. 

There are some critically important but arguably quite wonky specifics too:  we'd finally converge New Zealand's telco and broadcasting regulation under one agency, bring all the government machinery on ICT into one Ministry, and work to make rural and provincial broadband better by expanding the remit of the ultra-fast broadband project so that, over time, more people get it.

I only have one regret really about the whole broadband sector. If National had carried on with Labour's Broadband Investment Fund approach to roll out fibre, there'd be quite a lot of it out there today. Instead we got a three-year delay, and now in November 2011 we are back to where we were in November 2008, except that New Zealand is spending a lot more cash to do only a little bit more rollout.

That said, most of the other things we suggest in our policy are about common sense, knitting ICT into the every day of communities, schools, businesses and people's homes -- as it is for many people today.

The theme of inclusion matters.  If we want to build a New Zealand where we own our own future, broadband and ICT use can't just be used by those who are most familiar with them, and can't only be accessible to those with cash.

Liberal foundations: equality is at the core of our politics

I joined the Labour Party when I was at university mainly because I wanted to see the main left party in New Zealand start to unpick the damage of the neo-liberal revolution (that it, unfortunately, had started).

I didn't really know the party's views on gay issues, but generally speaking as I worked my way into the organisation, I didn't have any problems being an out gay man. Like in any large organisation you meet the odd homophobe, which I've always found quite shocking, but they are few and far between.

When a political party is founded on equality between people, as Labour is, people expect certain things to flow.  They expect the policy of that party to give effect to that principle, and to advance it in office.  They expect the representatives of that party, inside and outside Parliament, to honour and uphold that principle in all that they say, and all that they do.

Throughout all I've done in politics, that's been at the foundation of my involvement. It's why I bother to do anything political: the principle of equality.

Being gay gives that principle a special resonance, becaues it is in the area of sexuality that some of the most needless and painful inequalities remain.

A gay couple, joined together in love for their lives, cannot get married.

If they are in a civil union, that couple can't adopt kids.

These and all remaining areas of law need to be changed, based on a simple fundamental premise: we are all equal. We are all human beings who are deserving of the same rights and privileges as every other citizen. 

Gay people are not separate-but-equal. We won't put up with that and neither should anyone else who proclaims inequality to be something they fight against.

Law is only one part of it, but it's an important part, because the law is the established consensus and code of our society and its values.  Just as racism in law would be abhorrent to me, just as sexism would be, so discrimination based on sexual orientation is.

The signals sent by any discrimination are that those who are on the receiving end of it are less than fully human -- less than deserving of an equal measure of dignity and respect in their inherent humanity than other people of a different race, or gender, or sexuality.

Such attitudes belong with the dinosaurs. They are an offensive part of the past, and they have no place in New Zealand's politics.

But it isn't just about the law.  There are a whole host of other signals sent and institutions in which values are embedded which need to change. 

Schools are not safe enough for young people -- particularly young queer people.

Vicious attacks still see young people -- and not so young people -- injured and killed.

Homophobia in sport and in public culture still make too-common appearances.

These things create a climate that is reinforced by the discrimination codified in our law: a climate where some of us are less equal than others.  Where it's OK to pick on us or belittle us or insult us, because we just aren't as good as the rest.

Where it's OK to wish we would just keep quiet about these issues, and where "making a fuss" is sometimes seen as more of a problem than the hate it is designed to call out, expose and diminish.

A very brave set of men and women have stood up to and challenged such thinking over the past decades, and from their work a great deal of progress has come.  The Labour Party is a part of that tradition, but it is not all of it.  Many of our current and past MPs though have been at the forefront of helping things change, and that is something that will continue.

I wish that Labour was perfect on these issues, but of course it isn't. Not all of the Labour Party has comprehensively come to grips with what equality means.

Sometimes that shows through in Parliamentary debate, though that place is so odd and strange and stuck in the past that this surprises me less than it should. Labour MPs in Parliament are there to uphold equality.  Sexist, racist or homophobic remarks are never ok, and never excusable.

Sometimes it shows through in a desire to keep civil rights issues in the background, because doing so is politically simpler. That doesn't help change attitudes.  It might let you get some legal changes through but it doesn't confront and end the hate and fear that motivate the attitudes that liberalism seeks to change.

My point of view is pretty simple and, I suppose, unsophisticated.

Human rights are not negotiable, and their equal and universal application is a principle of which the Labour party and the labour movement are and ought to be proud.

Labour's 2011 Rainbow policy embodies these things, but because it is the product of a collective process, it doesn't express them as I do.  It touches the right areas: legal equality, the respect agenda, and so on.  For that I am very pleased.

What I want next is to see a Labour-led government implementing those things: driving respect, implementing equality.  I am 100% confident our partners to the left won't have any concerns with us so doing.  I do not fundamentally believe our opponents on the right do either, though I have no confidence they would restrain themselves from politically convenient attacks on Labour in office driving this agenda.

Human rights are about human lives.  Every day we remain a country with inequality in the law and with discrimination on the street, people suffer from it. 

Whether it's the stress of living in the closet; or the constant need to "come out" because of the default assumption of straightness (and the associated wondering how people will react); or the fear induced by intolerant and unsafe environments in schools or workplaces; or the physical fear and injury caused by assaults and worse; or the tragic cases of suicide where people could not handle the lack of acceptance they found in their lives; or whether it is the cold blooded ending of people's lives due to homophobic murder.

All of these things in various ways are the consequence of inequality.

Inequality that it is time to end.

And so alongside the urgent need to set New Zealand on the path to a sustainable and people-friendly economic approach to the world, I am proud to be a liberal in the Labour Party, and to support policies that will help to make life better for people like me, and for everyone who believes that we are, actually, all equal.

Will the #occupation movements fly in New Zealand?

My short answer is: they might if their organisers focused on mobilising the 99% instead of the 1%.

The protests, growing out of #occupywallstreet, seek to critique a global capitalist class whose negligence gave us the Global Financial Crisis, and who are smirking at us from behind their tinted windows as our taxes pay for their debts.

In New Zealand these problems are less acute, so the momentum for change is accordingly less. We have suffered less than many other places, incompetent government notwithstanding.

But you can't fight the global elite 1% by mobilising the protest-friendly 1% of Kiwis.

Real change will only happen when the 99% organise to make it.

Which comes back to my point. I remember my first student protest. Before it became intoxicating, it was deeply off putting.

People were loud and angry and shouty. There were socialist worker posters. The demo was calling for workers to occupy the factories while students should occupy the campuses and thus Revolution would emerge, or something.

It was a high hurdle to join. It was exclusive. It made no effort to get most people on board. Nobody joined it from the footpath. It felt like a dangerous place, not a safe one.

Now I haven't been down to OccupyQueenSt but from the sound of the march earlier today, and comments on twitter, I fear the environment may be similar.

I'm an armchair critic. Maybe I should be out trying to achieve this. But I have another commitment (the general election) and so instead I offer an observation and a question.

What would it take to build a movement for change that genuinely excited and involved New Zealanders?

One that was culturally relevant, inclusive, open and welcoming?

If the #occupy movement thinks about that and pulls it off, well the #changegonnacome....

Policy galore rolling out for #ownourfuture

I'm pleased with how the policies that Labour has released so far have been received.

We had the earlier releases of our tax package allowing us to avoid state asset sales, our Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Plan, and our plans on Youth Skills and Employment.

More recently has seen the release of parts of how we'll progress the Equality agenda, with our Women's Policy, our Interfaith policy, and our Rainbow policy all in circulation.

In other areas we've put out our ideas on Tertiary Education, dealing to "National's Standards" in schooling, and even some ideas on sports and recreation.

We also released our policy on Police and Corrections, which I like because its focused on two things that are important: quick response to so-called petty crime (how anyone thinks a burglary is petty is beyond me, having suffered a few as a child, but anyhow), and making sure prisons are about rehab not academies for crime.  The devotion of some precious money to making sure all one-person police stations become two-person ones is good too.

Aged care policy was released at the end of September, following the select committee inquiry into how to improve the situation for older New Zealanders.

And a final one that I went to the launch of was our policy on overseas development, which you can find here.

All our policy is available at www.ownourfuture.co.nz.  There'll be new policy out on a very frequent basis between now and election day.  Some very interesting ones coming out next week...

 

I wonder...

We have had a double downgrade of our credit rating, because there's no plan for growing our investments & our savings for the future.

We have oceans of red ink in the public accounts, because of unaffordable tax cuts to the people who need it the least.

We see ongoing attacks on the capacity of the core public sector to do it's job.

Will people choose more of this approach?