Archive for June, 2010

NZ and China- The 5th First?

June 27th, 2010

This weekend I am attending part of the University of Otago’s Foreign Policy School that examines China’s place in the world. It is timely, and not because of the incident involving Russel Norman’s flag. China’s “ascent” as the conference title terms it, in world affairs is remarkable, seemingly inexorable and certainly vital to our future economic, strategic and security interests. Forget about the G20 for a moment, people are talking about the G2 (US and China, though some speakers today are wary of this).

MPs, and indeed all New Zealanders must have their right to protest protected. My view, though, has always been that a strategy of engagement with China is the best path for New Zealand. I do hold concerns over human rights abuses and lack of media freedom in China as elsewhere. I have been in the room when Helen Clark and Phil Goff have raised these concerns, as they should. But to really see change in these areas, and some depth to the relationship of a very small country with a very large country we have to engage- and we have to be bold.

There is instant recognition in Chinese government circles of the “four firsts” that have defined China and New Zealand’s recent relationship. The first first being supporting China’s entry to the WTO, then the first recognition of China as a market economy, followed by being the first to start free trade negotiations and finally the fourth first by finalising a free trade agreement.

When I was in Shanghai recently with the Wellington City delegation I challenged the participants at a Young Leaders Forum (thank goodness 38 is still considered young in China!) to work out what the fifth and sixth firsts will be in our relationship. We need to have the courage to move the relationship forward, as a relatively insignificant country in terms of China’s wider interests.

At the opening of the Foreign Policy School I understand Murray McCully said an FTA with Hong Kong is the fifth first. I think we need to focus on how we broaden our relationship, beyond trade. The Chinese are well aware that their rapid economic growth is straining the environment. They see the damage that it does not just to their way of life, but also their international reputation. They are doing a lot in this area, and see New Zealand as a country with much to offer in this regard.

So how about the fifth first being a comprehensive treaty level agreement on the environment and clean technology? One that explicily recognises how much China has done and the scale of the challenges they have. We already have an environmental cooperation agreement that sits alongside the FTA. This could be enhanced to develop cooperative projects on issues such as renewable energy, air quality (a massive issue in Chinese cities), freshwater management, “green” buildings and more. There is enormous opportunity around clean technology, especially in China’s rapidly growing agricultural sector. As the doctor said to Steve Austin- we have the technology. Let’s use it, and take our relationship with China to the next stage.

Save The Sevens Party and Petition Handover

June 21st, 2010

On Thursday 24th of June at The Establishment (corner Of Courtenay Place and Blair Street) at 6pm a Save The Sevens Party will be hosted by keen Sevens supporter Graham Bloxham. Further details can be found on this poster.

At the party the petition signed by more than 10,000 other people will be handed over to (hopefully) a representative of the New Zealand Rugby Union.

Thanks to everyone who signed the petition.

The Left and Economics

June 20th, 2010

My good friend Rob Salmond has written an excellent post over at Policy Progress about the importance of the political left talking about economics.

If folk on the left are to challenge the caricature that they are economic illiterates swimming against the tide, we need – all of us – to confront economic issues much more directly.

Rob is of course right.  But how has economics somehow become a dirty word to many on the left? It seems to me that the motivating drivers for the involvement of most on the left of politics are equality, fairness and social justice. In turn this seems to have meant for many that discussion focused on the direct mechanisms for achieving this through social policy. The point  of course is that economics matters for those values as much as those social policy factors.

As someone who did not study economics to any great degree I have in the past found myself put off from studying economics, partly on the basis of buying into some of the stereotypes about where many economists are coming from. But as Rob (and others in the comments on the post) points out there is some great work underway, some of which has been discussed here, such as the work of Stiglitz and Sen on genuine progress indicators or Wilkinson and Pickett’s The Spirit Level. These people’s work can not be dismissed by the right, and it must be understood by the left.

I was also interested in Jordan’s comment on Rob’s post when he asked

how can we who do have an understanding of economic policy debates and principles and the implications for our politics and our societies, make that more exciting – to the extent it’s the main focus of debate and campaigning energy inside our political movements?

I don’t know the full answer to that question, but I am sure that a part of it is talking about economics as part of the package of progressive politics, rather than in isolation.   The direct links need to be drawn between social progress, environmentally sound development and the economic ideas that underpin them.  Its no different than anything else in politics- there needs to be a vision and a believable and relevant narrative to go with it.

In any case, for those who are interested there are a number of links in Rob’s post and the comments that go with it that provide loads of references to some exciting progressive economic ideas.

“Substantial Collation and Research”

June 17th, 2010

The Official Information Act is an important part of our democracy. It used to drive me insane as a Ministerial office worker, but it is one of the key elements that ensures the accountability and transparency of government. Another key element in this process is Archives New Zealand, and the Public Records Act that oblige the retention and deposit of government records.

Its with a sense of irony then that I am currently appealing to the Ombudsmen the government’s decision to decline my OIA request for documentation around the decision to merge Archives New Zealand and the National Library into the Department of Internal Affairs. The State Services Commission (where requests to the actual agencies involved were referred) has declared that putting together papers on the proposals represents “substantial collation and research”, and has refused the request. Other stakeholders report the same response. Instead they issued a Cabinet paper and minute, and some background material that was already publicly available.

This is just not good enough. The proposal to merge Archives and Library into the DIA has serious potential constitutional consequences which have been discussed here previously. From the Cabinet papers it is clear that both the Library and the Archives had serious misgivings about the proposal, and offered other options. The public deserve to know more about the reasoning for this merger and the possible implications.

As has been reported the Official Information Act requests on Ministerial credit card bills came to some 7,000 pages and cost $50,000 to process. Such is the price of democracy and accountability you might say. But, in that context, surely the release of information about the merger of two small agencies into one large one could be managed?

As part of the OpenLabour process some people have raised with me a process whereby papers relating to a Cabinet decision are automatically released at the time of the announcement of decisions by Government or as soon as possible afterwards. This deserves consideration. Of course there will be matters that from time to time might need to be witheld under the provisions of the OIA, but I think if the default position is that papers will be released it will make for a more transparent and efficient process.

Wellington’s night in Shanghai

June 10th, 2010

Just back from the Wellington cultural and networking evening here in Shanghai, which was well attended by a mixture of expat New Zealanders and Chinese business people.  It was held in NZ Central which, apropo of my previous post,  I think is a great investment for NZ Inc.  It is a space that promotes New Zealand right in central Shanghai, and is available for business people coming to Shanghai to use as a base.

Its hard to be sure at events like this with a somewhat self-selecting audience, but there seemed to be a genuine interest in New Zealand.  While there was a lot of talk about exporting our value added products and knowledge into China in key areas such as agriculture and horticulture, there was great interest in our IT and production industries.  There are a number of production companies represented on the Wellington delegation, along with Richard Taylor from Weta, and they have all reported great progress with joint ventures in film and TV production in China.

The cultural side of the evening was brilliant, with Elena and her troupe wowing the audience.

Earlier in the day we had a youth forum at the NZ Pavilion at Expo.  One of the Chinese participants was the volunteer coordinator for the Expo. They have around 8,000 volunteers working each day on site, and around 400,000 visitors each day.  It is vast.  From what I saw the New Zealand pavilion stacks up well, and offers some unique experiences, especially in terms of the outdoor area complete with  hot pools, veggie garden and Pohutakawa.




Authorised by Grant Robertson,
160 Willis St, Wellington.

Paid for by Labour Party members and supporters.