NiuZila: Land of full fat milk and welfare money

Last year 33 of the 51 house members of the Hawaiian House of Representatives voted in favour of a bill that would create same-sex civil unions in the state.  However, on Friday last week, the House leadership postponed the bill indefinitely after a large campaign by many conservative Christian groups to have the proposed law stopped.

The bill would have granted homosexual partners all the legal benefits of marriage, except the name itself, and would have made Hawaii the sixth state with a similar law.  As many of you would know, Civil Unions were successfully made into law in 2004 here in Niu Sila/New Zealand - something I supported back then, and still support now.  Six years on, the world hasn’t ended, the sky hasn’t fallen through, and any moral decay already existing in society hasn’t increased since many New Zealanders have taken on Civil Unions.  In fact, life has gone on as normal.

I think the Hawaiian legislature, and the conservative Christians who opposed the bill, are wrong. 

Firstly, Civil Unions are not marriages, although I wouldn’t have a problem with marriage for same-sex couples either.  So on one hand, the ‘institution’ of marriage is protected if same-sex couples can only have Civil Unions.  However, on the other hand, why should the State deny same-sex couples the right to be married?  Anything less, even by name, seems discriminatory.  I know many of our people are quite conservative when it comes to this topic, and would retort that marriage is between a man and a woman, made before God - “It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”

But such an argument leads me to my second point.  The separation of Church and State.  The State should not have a preference of religion.  Secular States cannot be biased to one religion especially in an increasingly diverse population.  Therefore we can’t or shouldn’t use our own personal morals and impose it on everyone else.

And thirdly, as I mentioned above, same-sex couples being married doesn’t hurt anyone, unless you have your own prejudices or bigoted views.  If Aunties Tom and Dom from down the road decided to get married/have a Civil Union, how does that change anything for you?  Do they suddenly smell really bad?  Do they impinge on your right to walk down the road?  Do they hurt your eyesight now they are in union of some kind?

At my old job there were a couple of openly gay men.  To be honest, I initially was disgusted.  They were loud and flamboyant, always wanting to know everybody’s news.  But during my time there, they were the most understanding of people, and very loyal friends to not only myself, but everyone else too.  I’m not saying every gay person is flamboyant or loyal, but my initial feeling of unease was unfounded and to this day we have good friendships, just like the many other friendships I have made over the years.  I realised they are normal people. 

Soon after the passing of the law in 2004, the couple had a Civil Union.  And guess what?  We are still friends.  Nothing changed in our friendship, in our interaction, in their attitudes to others.

At the societal level, why must we deny normal the right to be in union of some sort afforded to other normal people?  On the theological level, let God be the sole judge on ALL of us for ALL our actions, including how we treat same-sex couples.

The recession is over!  Yeah right…

One of the responsibilities of a Niu Sila/New Zealand Government being voted in by the public, is for that Government to look at the bigger picture - to make policies, plan for the future, implement changes - things the average Sione and Sina have little power to do themselves.  Yet this Government, with a Palemia/Prime Minister who was a former market speculator, has had a hands off approach to the economy.  That right wing mantra: the market will correct itself.

Little comfort for the nearly 3000 people who lined up last week, to apply for only 150 jobs at a new supermarket opening in Manukau, Aukilani Saute/South Auckland.  It’s an amazing illustration of how people are desperate, and not just a few, but heaps of people!  The majority were Maori and Pacific Islanders.  But there were also Indians, Asians, Palagi/Pakeha/European, people from across Aukilani/Auckland.

What’s the Government’s response?  Do nothing.  Well that’s not totally true.  They appointed a Tax Working Group made up of rich Palagi males to recommend how to make the tax system more efficient.  Their recommendations?  Tax cuts for the rich, increase the goods and services tax (GST) which will affect the poor the most. 

Again I’m being unfair on my representations on the Government.  The Tax Working Group also suggested a capital gains tax which would be like most western nations, where land and property owners would be taxed for the appreciation in value of their land/property.  Of course that would be too bold a step for the Government to make in Niu Sila/New Zealand, a country obsessed with owning houses as their nest egg.  There’s no incentive to put savings into industries that create innovation, further capital, and more jobs.

So when the public see the Government reject the extreme recommendations of the Tax Working Group (such as the capital gains tax), it would make a GST rise and tax cuts for the rich look more palatable for the public to digest.

Meanwhile, 3000 people await to hear the outcome of their job interviews/applications.  For these people it’s about putting bread on the table, paying the bills to keep a roof over their heads, and getting from week to week.  While those entrusted to look at the bigger picture seem to also be looking out for the rich only.

UPDATE:  The Government announced it will raise the minimum wage by… wait for it… it’s a whopper… it will be raised by “25 CENTS!”  That’s right folks.  Meanwhile the struggling Minister of Education, Anne Tolley, will be spending $26 million on propaganda to charm the education sector of her unpopular National Standards policy! Hmmm….

It’s been an interesting political year for Labour. After losing the elections, former leader Helen Clark appeared to have saved the party from internal squabbling by immediately stepping down, allowing for the new leadership to step in. However, this new leadership: Phil Goff and Annette King, have struggled to make traction with the voting public.

This is in contrast to the ruling Government. There’s no denying that the current National Government is popular, if the regular polls are anything to go by. While there have been hiccups along the way, National has stayed ahead. More specifically, Palemia/Prime Minister John Key is very popular. With this backdrop, it must be very fustrating for the Labour leadership seeing that no matter what they do, or how hard they try, nothings happening for them.

Because of this, the Labour leadership has apparently been asking itself some hard questions, as they should. However, the answers the leadership have come up with, I’m not so sure on. A lot of commentators, including some in the Labour ranks, have decided the electoral defeat for Labour was a rejection by the Niu Sila public, of the progressive/social liberal movement. Apparently, the Niu Sila public had become more conservative, and if Labour were to gain support, it would need to contest for that conservative support from National.

Goff has always been from the “right” of the Labour party, and there are quite a few traditional Marxists, such as commentator Chris Trotter. Along with strategist Pagani, there has been a slow movement from the Labour leadership towards laying down the platform in which Labour will preach from in 2010 going into election year. Earlier rants this year by Trevor Mallard were early warning signs of things to come. And recently Goff made a speech entitled “Nationhood”, further building on that platform.

While the speech had some very good points, regarding the role of the Maori Party in coalition with the National Government, some of the wording was clearly catering for the conservative/red neck voters, such as “grievance industry” and “birthright to the beaches” populist slogans. Now Goff and his leadership/strategists are not stupid, and know they are engaging important substantial political and philosophical issues (ie identity politics vs class politics), they are also taking the opportunity to grab the superficial political points from the conservative/red neck vote at the same time.

Unfortunately, I think they will lose using either or both strategies. Political point scoring from the conservative/red neck vote can only get you so far on the left. While Trotter believes there are more social conservatives than social liberals on the left, I think that’s all too simplistic a view. I think I am sociall conservative in many ways. I am a Christian, but I am also Samoan. I have a tertiary education and currently hold a professional occupation, but my background is from a working class family. I have some socially conservative values, but I have some strong convictions against neo-liberal economic theories. And thus, this is the reality of post-modernism. There are many more layers to an onion, than just class or identity.

And so this is the basis of social liberalism/progressivism. Whether we are male/female, hetero/homosexual, indigenous/immigrant, religious/atheist, the social liberal/progressivism strives for a society that is inclusive of all peoples, where there is an equality amongst all irrespective of background.

For Trotter, he believes there must be a point where the left must decide that one of those identities must take precedence over other identities. For Trotter, and the Labour leadership, that is the proleteriat. The class warfare is the paramount battle to be fought. Identity politics, including Maori/indigenous politics is a distraction to that paramount battle. I believe he is wrong.

It is because of the broad Church of social liberalism/progressivism, that the left finds it’s strength. Unity through diversity. Unfortunately for Trotter and Co, they are banging the drums of divisiveness on the left. It seems as though the beat they are banging too includes: you’re either with us or against us. That might win some votes from the conservatives, but it will alienate so many more on the left. Furthermore, many of the social conservatives on the left, are in fact Maori or Pacific Island. Those on the left that disliked the “anti-smacking” law and civil union legislation were Polynesian. The working class proletariats are again, people of Polynesian back ground. Therefore it kinda only leaves the true red neck Pakeha voters to which Goff will appeal to the most.

But there is an important question that needs to be asked of identity politics. As a Samoan, I can associate myself with the struggle of our fellow Polynesian cousins, the Maori. With a similar worldview, but also our shared experience with colonialism, the struggle to have an indigenous outlook may not grate with Euro-centric theories such as Marxism, but also against aspects of liberalism. Some indigenous academics have often called human rights (a product of liberalism) as another form of colonisation. Not because there is an outright opposition to human rights, but because the authors of mainstream human rights come from a Euro-centric point of view, such as centering around the rights of the ‘individual’. From a communal culture such as Polynesian societies, this form of human rights does not fit well. And so these issues will need to be resolved, but that in no way means one must choose one identity over another.

Identity politics (along with Marxism/class struggle and environmentalism etc) are here to stay. The Maori Party is likely to be around for a while, and therefore so is identity politics.

Ok, that’s my political spiel for a while hehehe. So many more exciting things to post up about soon…

Apologies, I haven’t written in a while.  I must admit I’ve been pretty busy of late, but everytime I think about writing a blog entry, there’s something in me that made me pause and think ‘maybe another time’.  It’s not that there wasn’t things to write about.  It just seemed like it was the same things I could write about.  It almost felt like I was in a boat going nowhere.  Plenty to see, but the same things to see.

The source of this directionless feeling, I believe comes from my current view of the Niu Sila / New Zealand political arena.  Despite plenty of things to see and plenty of things are happening in the political world, it all seems the same.  I guess this is illustrated in the political polls (except the most recent ones), where despite all the hiccups, this National Government is still pulling in big numbers.  Deputy Prime Minister, Bill English, is currently claiming $40,000 a year from taxpayers to live in his own house, while he preaches to everyone else to tighten their belts.  Yet not a dent in the Governments ratings.

Is society so apathetic?  Or is the Left no doing it right?  What is the Right doing so right?  This feeling of futility has been an albatross around the necks of those on the Left.  No matter what you do, everything stays the same.

This is further illustrated in the recent resignation of Green Party MP, Sue Bradford.

Sue Bradford was a tireless worker for the marginalised in society.  Her background before entering politics was hard-edged, class-based, street-level activism.  As a politician, she was one of the most well-liked, because she was able to work across party lines. 

Sue Bradford is also one of the most successful MPs with the unique distinction of seeing three Members’ Bills passed into law in the last Parliament.  Respectively, they lifted the youth minimum wage to adult rates, extended the length of time some mothers in prison can keep their babies with them, and amended s59 of the Crimes Act so that children receive the same legal protection from assault as adults

The Green Party launched into the MMP setting with a radical political brand that embraced, naturally, environmental issues, but also blends of eco-religious activism (rastafarian, Nandor Tanczos) and eco-socialism (Sue Bradford and Keith Locke).  The new Green party was the new Left.  It appealed to younger voters, such as myself, because it crossed so many more boundaries than the orthodox bigger political parties. 

As a child of the 80’s, we all knew about the bombing of Greenpeace’s ship, Rainbow Warrior in Niu Sila, by French terrorists.  Although, only the decade before, the effects of the anti-Springbok Tour, the Maori Land March etc, were still raw by the 1980s.  We grew up being conscious of environmental and social issues, whether they were local or global.  The early Greens appreciated this and work towards creating a political vehicle.

The former co-leader, the late Rod Donald, understood this dynamic and knew how important it was to politically manage all aspects of the new Green Party.  Without the social background, the environmentalist would not have as strong/militant a movement.  Without the environmentalism, the social activists would be a far fringe of the Labour Party.  But unfortunately Rod Donald’s sudden death changed the direction of the Greens.

The Green Party constitution requires a male and a female co-leader.  Replacing Rod Donald, was Russel Norman.  Russel has been involved with politics all of his adult life, studying politics and working within the party heirarchy.  Jeanette Fitzsimons was replaced by Metiria Turei, beating Sue Bradford.  Metiria Turei is a bright young lawyer and former president of the Maori Lawyers Association.  Replacing Sue Bradford is Dave Clendon, “a sustainable business advisor who is of Ngapuhi/Te Roroa and Pakeha heritage”.

And so it appears as though the Greens have clearly made a marker in the political landscape, going for the middle class environmental vote.  Perhaps the replacements, young educated MPs are the products of the world people such as Sue Bradford and Keith Locke fought for back in the 1970s and 80s?  Yet as a consequence, the new Greens by their very own make up, have changed the direction of the Party for the foreseeable future.

This leads me to the feeling that despite all the hard work that social activists, such as Sue Bradford, have done, everything stays the same.  Of course it’s not that bad, but the loss of Sue Bradford, and others to come, signal a failure to recognise there was so much more that could yet to have been done.

Despite all the hard work that people on the left, social activists, Labour party individuals, community groups, at the end of the day, everything stays the same.

I know, I know, this is all defeatist talk, but the Left really needs to get it’s act together…

It’s early days yet, but so far there are only two candidates for the soon to be new position as Mayor of the soon to new Aukilani / Auckland Super City:  John Banks and Len Brown.

John Banks is the candidate for the right.  Len Brown is the candidate for the left.  Despite this they are both running as independants.  Currently Banks is Mayor of the Auckland City Council, while Brown is the Mayor of the southern city, Manukau City Council. 

I like Len Brown.  He is a lawyer who has practiced in Aukilani Saute for many years.  He has been an advocate for workers rights.  He is a staunch supporter of Maori rights (including in this current campaign, demanding Maori guaranteed seats in the council).  But he is also approachable and human.  There’s a youtube clip of him dancing at Life Church in Manurewa not long ago.  He’s not ashamed to bust a move infront of a church youth group.

He is more a unifying candidate than Banks.

But I don’t want to keep my hopes up until all hands are played.  Coz I have a niggly feeling some other leftie is going to put their hand up and split the vote.  I hope my feelings are wrong.  The last thing we need is a divided voting bloc. 

Conservatives by nature are mostly a homogeneous group, giving Banks a much more solidified and reliable voting base.  On the other hand, the left is diverse and complicated, ranging from indigenous rights groups, feminists, trade unionist, minority rights groups, migrant groups, working class groups, environmentalists, to civil libertarians.

But Brown is on the winning side.  Well, the side that will eventually win.  This isn’t a one-eyed biased observation, but demographics show the fastest growing groups in Niu Sila, especially in Aukilani, are young non-Palagi’s.  Aukilani has a growing diversity.  With this diversity there is a need for unity.  I hope Brown is that person.

After watching that youtube clip, Len Brown might not be Samoan ‘brown’ but his dance moves certainly show’s a different shade of brown!

On an unrelated topic, other than name, there was a recent billboard in affluent (Palagi dominated) Parnell which stated “At least our brownie won’t eat your dog”.  It was an advertisement for controversial pizza company, Hells Pizza’s new gluten free brownies.  The message was referring to the recent news of the Tongan man in Mangere who killed his dog and was about to eat it fresh out of the umu behind his house before the SPCA intervened.

Now Hell’s Pizza thrives on publicity and have played some pretty bad media stunts to get that publicity, even if it’s bad publicity. 

I’ve already posted by humorous take on the ‘almost’ dog meal, so I wasn’t really offended with that aspect of the billboard.   In fact at first I thought it was quite witty, but as always there’s a historical context to language. “Our brownies” has so many racial connotations that the fact it was posted in a white area, you’ve got to question at the least the impression such an advert could have let alone any pre-conceived discriminatory idea’s the marketers may have harboured.

But at the end of the day, that’s all I want to say, coz the more we harp on about it, the more free ‘bad’ publicity the Pizza company gets.

There are three recent Government policies and proposals that have been released in the last couple of days that illustrates what this new Government is all about.

1. Kiwisport programme. 

“Kiwisport delivers on the Government’s promise to put money directly into the frontline to help more New Zealand children participate in organised sport,” Palemia / Prime Minister John Key said.

But Niu Sila / New Zealand’s poorest high schools will lose thousands of dollars each year because of this Government policy billed as helping more children to play sport.  Principal Peter Gall said Papatoetoe High School’s funding for sports staff would fall from $41,000 to $33,000 because the new money was not linked to a school’s decile rating.  “It seems that we’re robbing the poor to pay the rich,” said Mr Gall, who is also president of the Secondary Principals Association.

It’s amazing that not only are the poorest in our society (including many Pacific peoples) are losing out, but this drive to get kids active seems a bit contradictory of the Government scrapping earlier this year the new law which stopped schools selling junk food!  On top of this the Government announced earlier this year they were pumping $60 million odd into private schools while gutting out funding for poorer schools, special needs facilities, adult education and night schools.  This doesn’t look like getting kids active, but more about moving more money towards the rich schools.

2. ACC changes

ACC (Government accident compensation scheme) changes by the Government mean from November 16 visiting the physio will cost patients at least $10-20 each time, now that the ACC has decided to cut costs.  Dr Smith said since the service became free, the number of clients in higher socio-economic areas using the service had “occurred disproportionately”.

But Jonathan Warren, president of the New Zealand Society of Physiotherapists, says the move is “short sighted” and will end up costing the Government more money.  “These changes mean that some people who need treatment will not be able to afford it. If a patient doesn’t get early treatment for an injury, recovery can take much longer and their health may suffer in the long run,” Mr Warren said. “In some cases a simple problem, untreated, can lead to permanent disability … Untreated injuries will end up costing the Government much more in health and social dollars.”  A provision for those with lower incomes was argued by the society, Mr Warren said, but was unsuccessful.

Once again the changes in ACC will affect the poorest people in society.  Usually those that need the free service the most are those that can’t afford it, and are proned to injury due to their occupation (manual labour, construction).  While $10-$20 a visit may sound cheap, if you need to visit every week over 6 months, that’s a lot of money especially when you’re already trying to make ends meet.  As said above, more pacific people who can’t afford the visits will not go at all, leaving injuries untreated and causing more cost in the long run to our health system.

3. GST increases

Currently here in Niu Sila we pay 12.5% of goods and services in GST (goods and Services Tax).  A working group panel reviewing the tax system said lifting GST to 15 per cent would raise an extra $2.1 billion a year. That would rise to $6.2 billion if the tax was set at 20 per cent.  Raising the rate of GST could increase the economy’s efficiency if it was used to shift the mix of taxes away from income tax the group says.  “Increasing the rate could impact on lower-income or vulnerable households, especially in the short run,” the panel said.

Progressive tax systems mean those that earn more, pay more taxes.  This is based on one of the notions that a regressive system such as a flat tax rate would harm those on lower income than those on higher incomes.  Increasing GST is the same in that although everyone will be paying 15% on goods and services, those on a lower income have less discretionary funds to absorb that increase.

Once again, this proposed change will affect the poor and benefit the rich.  Robbing the poor to pay the rich.

I was driving with my dad through Matautu, Apia a few years back, and we went through the popular swimming spot, Taumeasina.  My dad said he remembered the tide used to be a few metres out to sea, yet now the waves are crashing into the roots of several niu / coconut trees.  He also pointed out to an island in the harbour where there used to be a few trees growing, but now it’s submerged with just shells and what appears to be tree stumps.  Was this global warming in action?

In the last couple of years it appeared as if the political world was finally getting their act together to tackle the issue of global warming.  Yet recent events around the world has shown either the instability of the political will against economic interests and their forces at play, or the big publicity stunt and winning of brownie points with the nations’ citizenry by appearing to be doing something, but in reality they were never going to do anything.

A few days ago, Niu Sila / New Zealand had announced a 10-20% reduction in greenhouse emissions (the Green Party argued for 40%), after scrapping the emissions trading scheme set up by the last government.  Today, the Australian Senate voted down the Australian Government’s climate policy, forcing it to try again in November to have its legislation passed.  This same scene is being unravelled in the political classes all around the world.  Where there once was what appeared to be a unified global will to tackling the issue, there is disagreement and compromise at national levels debunking any hope of any true attempt to resolve the climate issue.

I’m not an expert in the area but what many of the deniers and sceptics of global warming always try to say, is that the science is not settled.  They are partially true, because science is never an exact instrument.  But that doesn’t mean society doesn’t act on scientic basis and theories.  In fact that’s exactly what we do.  Our civilisation is built on scientific theories.  But these theories are largely accepted by the scientific community as norms but never 100% perfect truths.  Evolution took a while to gain acceptance, but today many other technological advances have been based on the evolution theory.  It’s not an 100% accurate theory, but the scientific community have largely accepted it. 

And so, the scientific community has come to the conclusion (although not 100%) that global warming is an accepted theory.  It is up to the political classes whether they accept and act on the scientific community’s conclusion, as they have done many times over throughout history, or is there some other overriding barrier for the political classes to take action?

That barrier is the economic interests that will suffer (ie loss of profit) under political changes to deal with global warming.  Read the newspapers and you will see the business elite, whether it’s the business round table, multi-national conglomerates or farmers federation, trying to convince the public that it will hit us all in the pocket (ie they’ll lose their profits).  That’s a self-serving interest which contrasts starkly with the scientific community’s motives.  What self interest is there for the scientific community to broadly agree that global warming is an accepted theory?  Pursuit of the truth.

Opponents call the scientists and those that agree alarmists.  They claim the alarmists have a vested interest in the new green economy that politicians ‘were’ willing to legislate.  They say millions will be wasted on a big hoax (like the Y2K bug that never eventuated), that it’s all just a lot of hot air.  Some even claim global warming will be good for us!  In Niu Sila the sceptics argue the weather will alter to make it more productive for farming and agriculture.  They also say, the Earth has gone through ice ages and global warming many times before.

That’s true, but the change happened over hundreds and thousands of years.  We are now talking about climate change created by human activity over only 150-200 years.  The Earth will adapt, animals evolve (well some will die off and other eventually evolve), environs change, new life cycles and ecosystems will be created.  But will humans be able to adapt as fast?  We took generations to evolve.  Can we evolve fast enough once the climate changes?

Back at Taumeasina, I wasn’t sure if it was global warming, as I had read in a science paper I took at Uni that there is a lot of natural submerging of land around Samoa as it was along a volcanic fault line.  However, what many of the scientific research I did read about on global warming in the Pacific, did say, was low lying islands like Tuvalu, Kilipati / Kiribati and To’elau / Tokelau (where the highest point is only a couple of metres high) will one day be wiped off the face of the earth as the sea levels rise. 

Countless papers have been published reporting the world’s glaciers, the northern ice sheets are melting, and great chunks of Antartica’s shelves are breaking away.  And this ice is not being replaced, further accelerating the melting and breaking up of these fresh water reservoirs into the world’s oceans.

With this added water volume, scientists have said places such as Tuvalu will need to be relocate their peoples, most likely becoming the world’s first climate change refugees.  I’ve seen a documentary where Tuvaluan’s have bought an island in Fiti / Fiji, as a possible new homeland, whereas Niu Sila has already offered to relocate Tuvaluans into Niu Sila.  But the sad fact will be the disappearance of Tuvalu who emit’s a pittance of greenhouse gases compared to the industrialised and developing world.

Samoa is a little bit more fortunate as it is an archipelago of volcanic mountains.  But the cost of adjusting to a new climate will not be cheap for an already struggling nation.  Again, it is those who pollute the least who will bear a lot more of the burden than others.

Are the political classes of the world willing to make a fundamental shift in our civilisation based on scientific evidence?  Or will they cower to the economic interests and think only about the now, and not the future?  Because all I see at the moment is a lot of hot air.