CTU to push for $15 minimum wage.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4241207a6160.html

The CTU believes that the minimum wage should be set at 2/3 of the average wage from the previous year.

The Labour-led Government, whom some of the CTU's constituent unions belong to, should embrace this proposal - and aim to implement it at the 2/3 rate by the end of 2011 if they are re-elected next year.

Assuming that the minimum wage will rise to $12 p.h. at the end of the year - this movement to $15 represents a similar step to the rise from 2005 to 2008.

It is a 20% pay rise for the lowest-paid workers, who if single and without children - a constituency left behind by Working for Families according to the National Party, would be boosted from $360.96 to $451.20 per week (pro rata) - a boost of $91.24 per week over three years.

Fiji lifts Public Emergency Regulation -

Cmdr. Bainimarama has approved the RFMF's Military Council's decision not to extend the Public Emergency Regulation - which was reimposed on September 6 in light of comments by ousted PM Laisenia Qarase which were interpreted as potentially destabilising for the country.

This in itself is a baby step towards returning to democracy, as it just returns the situation to where it was prior to the 6th of September. However, the interim government has made other important steps as well:

* The Census Bureau is in the final stages of preparing for the Census that is expected to undertaken in late 2007/early 2008.

* Reducing public expenditure through small austerity measures, and working through the Fiji Islands Commission Against Corruption - has removed public officials who long have been working for their own benefit.

* The establishment of a Council for Better Relations in Fiji - in lieu of an elected parliament - has improved consultation - but will cannot and should not serve analagous to an elected parliament.

Now the interim government should move to remove some of the more draconian restrictions that remain in Fiji - including the suspension of the Great Council of Chiefs, and encourage criticism of government ministries being seen not deliver the mandate of the President Ratu Josefa Illolio.

Whether Commodore Bainimarama likes it or not, the interim government (hopefully sooner rather than later) will have a successor democratic government - and that the reasons for removing the Qarase government will come under scrutiny. It is important for the interim PM to reestablish the international communities trust, by for example, pledging in private not to reinstitute the PER.

With regard to the court case proceeding against the dismissal of the Qarase government, Bainimarama will not lose or gain supporters domestically if he moves to abrogate the constitute the constitution if either defeat in the court case or the mandate of the interim government is under threat - it remains a small step further provided it is brief - and results in the reinstitution of a very similiar constitution promulgated by Sitiveni Rabuka in 1997.

If the stay of the interim government remains short, i.e. within 3 or 4 months of the date set by the EU (March 2009), and his leadership delivers an end the divisive racial politics promulgated by his predecessor, history is likely to look back kindly on his administration.

Ahmed Zaoui Free!

Finally, this man has been set free from the claws of the Fist, who would seek to return him to Algeria to face a show trial and certain execution. It is a great injustice that it has taken so long to prove that he is not a security threat.

Whatever you think of Mr. Zaoui, his religion, and his politics - they are not relevant to prevent a man seeking to settle in New Zealand.

Opponents, have stated that the government should intervene, to avoid risking being seen as a "soft touch", "any bloody foreigner bludging off the taxpayer" etc.

Whatever happened to justice and fair process? Those people advocating the aforementioned views obviously only find democracy and liberty convenient as principles when it suits them. I would be ashamed to have their votes if I was a politician.
The government has no right to interfere in the legal process of immigration, lest it be accused of racism and favouritism.

Mr. Zaoui was never a threat to this country, and those who say he should go should think about leaving themselves. Your views are far more threatening to NZ's liberal democratic system of government than Mr. Zaoui's - who is an educated man, and a campaigner for democratic change in military ruled Algeria.

By cancelling popular elections it was set to lose in 1990, the Algerian government turned the Islamic Salvation Front from a political party into armed resistance, and greatly contributed to the rise of Islamic extremism in North Africa. Mr. Zaoui is simply an opponent of military dictatorship, and when the effort to oust the illegal regime failed, he decided to seek a new life in NZ, so that he and his family could get on with their lives.

A poll conducted on Stuff.co.nz asked voters whether he should be allowed to stay in New Zealand; the reading at 3pm was 31% for, 66% against. This poll only demonstrates an anti-Islamic xenophobic tendency among a select group of voters, who aspire to government, rather than any hint of illegality. In fact, if a poll was conducted on any random innocent Islamic man, it is likely that this theory will be confirmed. If Mr. Zaoui was a white Zimbabwean farmer, convicted in absentia for attempting to destabilise the government, perhaps a minor official in Ian Smith's apartheid-style regime, how many of those now calling for deportation of Mr. Zaoui would change their tune?

TV3 Poll 9-9-07

Interesting results:

National 47%
Labour 37%
Greens 7%
NZ First 3.2%
Maori 1.8%
Act 1.5%
United Future 0.1%
(n.b. assuming that JAP is also 0.1% - not listed)

That transfers into
National 60
Act 2 (Heather Roy will be happy with this result)
United Future 1
Govt. of 63 seats.

Labour 47
Greens 9
Maori 4
JAP 1
Opposition of 61 seats.

What transpires here is that National has a slim majority of 2 seats. Labour is only 3 seats down on the last election results. This result will give Labour hope, according to PM Helen Clark - whose comments (and the video) can be found here. http://www.tv3.co.nz/VideoBrowseAll/PoliticsVideo/tabid/370/articleID/34332/Default.aspx#video

Nevertheless, this poll is traditionally viewed as "pro-Labour" and yet still National governs, this should be a concern for the Government, especially as the vote for its centrist support parties (many of whom's voters could never vote Labour) have flocked to John Key's National.

Instead of attacking Mr. Key, perhaps Labour could focus on consultation for new-generation policies for example, the further extention of health provision concerning dental care (NZ's rate of tooth decay is sky rocketing, especially amongst those who simply cannot afford to see a dentist), gradualistic extentions to paid parental leave, and a small shifting of tax thresholds.
This will undermine the Opposition who will be actually required to discuss policy, whether they come up with their own ideas or simply come down on the wrong side will be up to them.

Exposing Garth McVicar - Sensible Sentencing Trust

Response to the article in the Sunday Star Times 2-09-07:

Mr. McVicar has recently returned from the United States (Utah) where he viewed a different style of gaol than in present in New Zealand. Tough justice for offenders.
I don't object to this. It is important that serious criminals are made to realise the error of their ways, and that safety of the public is of higher concern than rehabilitation. And the deterrent for offending must be set high.

But jail is not about vengeance, or revenge. It is society's way of keeping troublesome individuals out of the way of the law abiding public. Ideas advocating cruel and unusual punishment such as inadequate food, clothing, or lack of hygiene, and "torture", and even the death penalty - reflect vengeance - not justice.

Mr. McVicar appeals to those who would stoop to breach fundamental human rights in order to seek to vent a vengeful wrath on criminals - and in doing so, give up the human dignity that we celebrate so. But he does not share their 'wrath', but seeks to wield their opinion as a blunt instrument against the Labour-led government, when in fact, the previous National administration enacted little or no measures in response to public demand for harsher sentencing.

As many of us know, there remains for the most part an unspoken bi-partisan convention that crimes are prosecuted according to just law, rather than a public lynching - otherwise why bother with courts? But Mr. McVicar, and the parties the Sensible Sentencing Trust specifically advertised in support of at the 2005 election: quote "Vote for parties who are tough on crime - National, Act, United Future, NZ First" that then advocated policies that broke with that convention.

Why is that important, you might ask? Sure: Either the parties were being dishonest with regard to their policies on justice, advocating this and that, but having no actual intention of carrying it out once achieving office; or, hugely increasing spending on Corrections to house all of the extra inmates, and pushing for the use of methods more commonly associated with Third World dictatorships. Does Simon Power (and the other aforementioned parties' corrections/justice spokesperson still advocate these same ideas?).

Garth McVicar had (and perhaps he still does have) a great opportunity to move the political landscape in favour of tougher (but fair to both punished and the law abiding public) sentences, but by masquerading as a legitimate pressure group when in fact his goal is only to see centre-right government in power demeans those victims whom depend on him to deliver the goals of the Sensible Sentencing Trust.

Kiwisaver.

I haven't joined yet, although I do intend to.

Reason:
1. I only work part-time, and I need all of the money I generate for personal expenses.
2. I also have a small amount of personal debt to pay off first.

However, I plan to join in November, when I am again working full-time over the University Break.

However, it would also be good if one could divert funds from Kiwisaver in the same manner as mortgage diversion for student loan repayments. While, economically, it might be a sucker punch to pay off interest-free debt, there remains a great deal of skepticism on my part that this policy will survive a change in government.

Fiji needs to return to Constitutional Govt.

It is 18 months until the date for elections under the plan agreed to by Fiji's interim government as part of an aid package with the European Union.

However, a return to democracy in Fiji, cannot mean a return to a business as usual, a status-quo-ante in which policies played a backseat to racial and religious bigotries. Democracy must mean exactly that.

So in the meantime, the interim administration should look at setting up processes that it can bequeath to an elected successor, i.e. the Commission Against Corruption is a good start, and provided it is not simply wielded as a political tool against the deposed Qarase government.

*Additionally, a Constitutional review along the lines of instituting a form of Proportional Representation as well as instituting triennial elections, thereby eliminating long periods under unpopular government elected on gerrymandered constituencies.

*The RFMF, frequented cited as an obstacle to constitutional government, needs to resign all of its bureaucratic leadership roles, be reformed from its professional-political role, and in a bid to boost Indo-Fijian participation, institute a compulsory military service 6 month stint to promote communal integration, with the proviso that in all barring military emergencies, conscripts are not involved in combat operations outside the homeland.

*Excepting the last month, the actions of then Police Commissioner Andrew Hughes was commendable, and in light of that experience, should be repeated in most senior bureaucracy positions, in the medium-term.

However, the most important element of democracy is the people themselves. They have the responsibility to vote for candidates and party slates that are free of corruption, divisive ideology, and whole-heartedly support democracy - "none of this foreign flower stuff", and in return, the peoples of Fiji should have the right to have their freedom of expression respected by all and sundry.

In a democracy, people are governed by the government they deserve. Fijians, since 1987, have only once had a government such as that. Only under such a deserved government, can Fiji return to a positive state of peace.

Back to the Future for Fiji

Last year I conducted a research paper on Fiji for my Pacific Policy paper, in September-October, during the build-up to the Dec 6. coup-de'tat.

It was titled "Why are further coups likely in Fiji?".
It got a pretty reasonable grade (A-), and I thought people might like to read it, in hindsight of what has happened since, so I am posting it on here.

"

Introduction

“Fiji, the way the world should be[1]”.“Fiji consists of about 300 islands situated in the South Pacific, approximately between 1770 to 2414 kilometres south of the equator. The total landmass of the group is approximately 18,376 square kilometres over spread over a much larger ocean region. The two largest islands, Viti Levu and Vanua Levu make up approx 87% of this total land area.[2]”

This is the Fiji that most tourists are familiar with, a kind of tropical existence less Americanised than Hawaii, but big enough to bother doing business with, the Fiji that its rulers want you to see. But there is a Problem with Paradise.

Since independence, Fiji has been governed largely by a coalition of civil servants and the vestiges of chiefly authority, with a veneer of democracy. Until 1987, the Alliance Party had a stronghold, and since then short periods of multi-ethnic democracy have been overthrown by military elements led by ambitious individuals seeking to restore the status-quo-ante, which in time occurred.

This recurring cycle of military intervention followed by interim civilian administrations, and then the re-election of those governments has and continues to set dangerous precedents within Fijian society. In fact, a majority of Fijian population is denied access to the rule of law and due process, not to mention their right to dismiss leadership they view as corrupt or incompetent, and discard ideas that they perceive as divisive.

This paper will attempt to establish some reasoning behind the coups, historical influences, what motivated the plotters, and determine, whether, and perhaps “why, further coups are likely in Fiji.”

Impact of the Pre-Independence Eras

Pre-Contact

As a result of settlement by Polynesians and Melanesians, Fiji, as one might expect, prior to the arrival of British colonists, was congruent with many other Pacific societies, with a traditional form of government, derived from chiefly authority. Therefore, political structure of tribes/vanua is analogous to that of the Maori in New Zealand, see Fig. 1.

Fig .1 – Political Structure of the Traditional Chiefly System (Fiji)

N.B. (not available to online readers)

The chief mechanism employed to enable leaders to exercise chiefly authority was kinship. Each small group had a chief, “who had the definite right, subject to varying conditions, to make decisions on all matters affecting the groups as whole” Furthermore, in order to exercise authority effectively, a chief had to be able to satisfy requests from his people for material assistance. This is the way the chief gained prestige, superiority, and continued loyalty from his subjects.”[3]

There in fact remains a high degree support for this style of governance, perhaps in part as a response to continuing political instability within Fiji. A large proportion of the indigenous Fijian population still reside within the traditional village environment, and therefore believe a system which more formally institutionalises chiefly authority is required.

Contact to Colonial

At the time of Western contact, Fiji was divided into seven vanua: Lakeba in Lau, Cakaudrove, Macuata, and Bua in Vanua Levu; Bau, Rewa, and Verata in south-east Viti Levu ”.[4] Inter-tribal warfare over territory and other grievances was common. The arrival of Europeans also undoubtedly prompted a period of political consolidation, this was as much an opportunistic exercise in conquest, facilitated by the arrival of European technology and weaponry, than any attempt to thwart European encroachment. Much territory was brought under the control of a single vanua, Bau, whose high chief, Cakobau asserting claims of “matanitu”, once establishing pre-eminence, proclaimed himself “Tui Viti”, or King of Fiji.[5]

But by, and large there was little desire or attempts at political centralisation in this period. People still identified mainly with their vanua[6], rather than as ethnic “Fijian”.

Many indigenous Fijians still identify themselves in this way, having a stronger sense of tribal affiliation than ethnic nationality. Many Indo-Fijians, ironically for those within the Taukei movement, identify more strongly as ‘Fijian’ than their indigenous cousins do. Remembering though, that nationalism is a late construct, even in European political development, and many indigenous Fijian chiefs were largely accepting of European control as it enhanced their own ability to coerce.

Colonial Rule

Various attempts were made at establishing a centralised form of governance, based on a combination of British and indigenous law. However, it wasn’t until October 10, 1874, that Fiji was officially annexed by Britain, ostensibly for reasons of “protecting the interests of British colonists” and pre-empting “the possibility of American annexation due to the insolvency of the Tui Viti to the United States Government”[7].

As part of the agreement in which they ceded sovereignty, the chiefs obliged Britain not only to protect the interests of the colonists, but as now British subjects, protecting the ‘Fijian way of life’ was to be observed.[8] The British were happy to accept this agreement, as it allowed for the colonial administration to rest upon the strata of local government that already existed, and with that came perception of legitimacy.

It was therefore “imperative [for the colonial government] to preserve ‘ancient Fijian traditions’ against the destructive impact of the West”. However, this determination, coupled with a substantially reduced indigenous population as a result of high susceptibility to foreign disease, impacted on the ability of the European cotton and sugar plantation owners to attract labour. It was therefore decided, following the examples of Mauritius and Trinidad that indentured labourers would be imported from India, to provide a work-force, and the first group arrived in 1879. When the system ended in 1916, there were 60,000 labourers[9] who decided to stay on, mostly as small lease-hold farmers who continued to produce sugar-cane. With the indigenous Fijians remaining largely within their villages, excepting a small number of civil servants, there was little need or desire for contact between the Indo-Fijians and their indigenous counter-parts. This enabled the development of negative stereotyping, and this perception of difference was a far greater effect in promoting indigenous nationalism and unity than any other factor.

The colonial administration had therefore fostered the development of a pluralistic society, and while employing a strategy of “divide and rule” may have been practical during the colonial era, it neglected to view the consequences and lessons learnt from the independence of another British possession, Palestine.

Role of the Military Within Society

Contemporary Role

The role that military forces are expected to perform is to be the sole institution capable of legitimate coercion with society. This is one of the fundamental assertions upon which the security of all states, be they democratic or autocratic, rests.

The contemporary Westminster democratic political order, one which could be defined to be existence since the Reform Act of 1832 in the UK[10], which arguably first gave popular sovereignty under a universal franchise (women were however excluded). Since then, combining these two proviso has not preceded without difficulty, but the unwritten political convention seems to be ‘that while the military is technically under the control of the Commander in Chief/Head of State’, that ‘it would act in a subservient manner to the will of the popularly elected government’. “The role of the military is to resist aggression and to aid the civil power maintaining the peace. Thereby, modern militaries in almost every democratic nation are severely restricted from any lead role in the affairs of the nation[11]”. This arguably, is one of the most important factors in allowing democracy to exist, as it effectively puts the control of the military into the hands of the leadership of the House of Commons.

Military Government

However, perhaps unsurprisingly, this has not always proved to be the case, especially in countries in which democratic rule was one of the last requirements of the former colonial power, therefore inevitably poisoned by association. Military government has been relatively common in post-colonial societies. It is often argued that this is a legacy of colonial ‘nation’ policy, as certain groups/tribes/elites were at one time favoured and encouraged to collaborate with colonial administrators, and upon independence, these are the groups who were left in charge, and they had the most to lose from a democratic transition to a more transparent successor regime. The elites that may feel threatened by the loss, or the potential for loss of kickbacks and or privileges granted under the previous era, and perhaps also the likelihood of legal proceedings relating to either the nature of their collaboration and rule.

Even when civilian and/democratic government is eventually restored, there remains a certain unwillingness to combat the power of the military, especially in the immediate to short term. Governments remain hostage to the will of the military leadership, presenting a puppet regime, whereas the ‘real power behind the throne’ remains in the hands of the military. Threats to civilian politicians and whistleblowers are used to buy compliance. In these countries, while the military commander acts upon requests by the elected leadership, the military itself usually becomes politicised as means for last-resort[12]. Therefore, it seems that the states which are most likely to suffer in the future from some form of military intervention, are those which have a history of such occurrences.

Example: Fiji

The role of military in Fiji, however has arguably become a much more powerful instrument than 1987 coup leader Sitiveni Rabuka intended when he took power. The role in which he, and subsequent long-term FMF Commander Commodore ‘Frank’ Voreqe Bainimarama have presented themselves as playing, was as the protector of the nation. It seems that they have had little interest in ruling themselves, perhaps excluding Rabuka’s ego and its desire for prestige – preferring to leave the day to day running of the country to the various bureaucrats and other officials. But instead, they used their ability to coerce, to create a self-appointed authority, in unofficially which the role of the military commander is extended, ostensibly “to preserve national unity”, and also to unilaterally determine under which circumstances such action would be required.

This role does require an ability to maintain strict discipline in military personnel and a certain charisma in order to ensure loyalty.

Behaviour of Elites/Political Actors

Issues of contention

There are several issues which have been mentioned in the past as justifications for grievances against governments.

Democracy: The indigenous Fijians elites have long viewed the Indo-Fijian population as a destabilising influence to their control over the political sphere, as they were independent, unlike the village-based indigenous population, who would return their local chief without question. In the past, there has been rumours of an unofficial understanding about the role of Indo-Fijians within the politics of the Fijian state, in which indigenous Fijians would dominate the government and civil service, and Indo-Fijians would be paramount in the business and trade professions[13]. However, this kind of arrangement was an imposed solution rather than anything negotiated. The large number of Cabinet ministers in the 1987 Coalition and 1999 People’s Coalition government was seen as ‘a violation of this hoary provision’.

Land Reform: The indigenous population has maintained ownership over the vast majority of arable land within Fiji, yet the Indo-Fijians are those who farm it. In recent years, many farms upon which the Indo-Fijians have lived and worked, have come up for lease re-newel for the first time since independence. During the colonial era, rentals were regulated, and set at rates far below that of the market, at peppercorn rentals, so when the leases have lapsed, many indigenous owners – who own the land collectively – and view it as inalienable have either decided to take possession of the land for their own purposes, raise rentals to that many multiples of the prior arrangement, or lease the hand to developers for tourist hotel development. This has led to a huge degree of insecurity for the Indo-Fijian farmers, who have long requested that the government allow them to buy land at a fair price.

Political Communalism: These above issues, along with ethnic stereotyping that developed during the colonial era has led to division with Fiji. All of the post-1970 constitutions have reinforced that division to a degree, because of their provision for ethnically based seats. This has encouraged political parties to also adopt communalist policies, and allowed opposition parties to portray their opponents, correctly or incorrectly, as pandering to the interests of their ‘race’, for example Mahendra Chaudhry’s Labour-led administration was criticized as being too close to the interests of the Indo-Fijian farmers – Mahen was at the stage a member of the National Farmers Union[14] (dominated by Indo-Fijian lease-holders), and not being respectful to indigenous custom (antagonistic to the Great Council of Chiefs). Both the Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua (SDL) and the Nationalist Federation Party (NFP) campaign nearly exclusively along communalist lines.

Political Corruption

Since independence, the living standards of a majority of indigenous Fijians has dropped dramatically, while a wealthy few have benefited hugely from their access to possession and privilege. The Indo-Fijian population has largely maintained its standard of living, with the exception of a few individuals who through thrift and luck managed to become wealthy business owners.

The anger of indigenous Fijians, however, instead of being directed at those which have ruled them, is usually directed at the Indo-Fijian population who are viewed as living in relative comfort. They perceive the conflict ethnically in zero-sum terms, which is largely unjustified and incorrect. A certain group of indigenous Fijian elites have fostered this resentment, so that they may pick up the pieces of the Indo-Fijian businesses, and in order to perpetuate their control of the state apparatus.

The Current Difficulties

The current commander of the Fijian military, Commodore ‘Frank’ Voreqe Bainimarama was the commander of the Fijian Military during the 2000 coup. While he was not involved with the coup, he ‘could see how some of his military officers may become involved’. Ironically, the rebel military unit was the Counter-Revolutionary Warfare Unit (CRW), which was set up by Rabuka to counter future coup attempts, and was led by former British SAS commando Ilisoni Ligari[15]. After the release of the parliamentary hostages, which was negotiated by the ‘Muanikau Accord[16]’, which also included amnesty for Speight and his supporters, and a constitutional review, in return for also returning the Army’s weaponry, Speight’s supporters continued to menace parts of the capital, and when they were observed to still be in possession of Army firearms, Bainimarama ordered them arrested, and thereby invalidating the Muanikau Accord. Speight supporters were outraged, including some within the greater military, and later that year, soldiers at the Queen Elizabeth II Barracks mutinied in an attempt to assassinate the Commodore because of his ‘violation of the terms of Muanikau Accord’[17]. Several soldiers were killed, and Bainimarama was forced to escape from the barracks.

Those direct involved in the 2000 coups, and the subsequent mutiny at the QEII Barracks in Suva were charged with mutiny, sedition, and treason - most were convicted. The military leadership has been forceful in its determination to deal with those it views as a threat. The interim Prime Minister, Laisenia Qarase that the Commodore appointed in 2001 to return the country to civilian rule was re-elected in 2001, and recently in May 2006 as the head of the SDL, successor to Rabuka’s SVT which fell apart after its disastrous result in the 1999 election. His government has sought to incorporate Speight supporters, so it could run and win on a strong indigenous communal vote. In return for this, the Speight supporters now within the SDL have pushed for lenient treatment of those convicted in the 2000 coup. This process has taken the form of a Bill within the Fiji Parliament named “Reconciliation, Tolerance, and Unity Bill”[18], which is bitterly opposed by the military, which has threatened to depose Qarase’s government if it is passed. In the 2006 elections, Bainimarama explicitly backed the Fiji Labour Party, which also opposes the bill.

Conclusion/Commentary

In line with Bainimarama’s position on the “Reconciliation, Tolerance, and Unity Bill” it seems likely that there be another coup, especially the Qarase government calls his bluff and passes the bill. But Fiji itself has much wider problems than those that will be faced during the term of the current Qarase administration. It has to deal with rampant corruption with the civil sector, the downturn in the business environment following the coup in 2000, and the increasing impoverishment of its self-avowed constituency, the indigenous Fijian.

If the indigenous elite refuse to give up the power they believe they are entitled to, the result will be continued impoverishment, migration of skilled labour to other countries and a likelihood of further bloodshed. The belief that a coup is an acceptable method of changing the government in the eyes of some elites to retain a government that is sympathetic to their interests must be quashed forever. They must abandon their ideology of Taukeism and institutionalised indigenous supremacy, and view the economic development of the Fijian economy as a positive-sum game. Until that happens, Fiji will be stuck in a political morass, whether that means more coups – that is for the powers that be to decide.

---

[1] Fiji Visitors Bureau – USP Book Centre – http link.

[2] P45 – The Developmental Fijian State and the Politics of Development Discourse

[3] P47-48 – The Developmental Fijian State and the Politics of Development Discourse

[4] P47-48 – The Developmental Fijian State and the Politics of Development Discourse

[5] However, this was in name only, and largely did not carry any weight in areas outside his suzerainty - P50– The Developmental Fijian State and the Politics of Development Discourse

[6] P46– The Developmental Fijian State and the Politics of Development Discourse

[7] P52-53 – The Developmental Fijian State and the Politics of Development Discourse

[8] P54 – The Developmental Fijian State and the Politics of Development Discourse

[9] P64 – The Developmental Fijian State and the Politics of Development Discourse

[10] Search Wikipedia: “Reform Act of 1832”

[11] p45, Quoting “Ackland (1967)”, ‘Tradition, Lotu & Militarism in Fiji.’

[12] Re-appointments, dismissals and sackings, can all prompt coups.

[13] P41-42, Tradition, Lotu, & Militarism in Fiji

[14] P75 - Multiculturalism & Reconciliation in an Indulgent Republic: – Fiji After the Coups: 1987-1998.

[15] P77, Speight of Violence – Inside Fiji’s 2000 coup

[16] P204, , Speight of Violence – Inside Fiji’s 2000 coup

[17] P243, , Speight of Violence – Inside Fiji’s 2000 coup

[18] Search Wikipedia: “Reconciliation, Tolerance, and Unity Bill”

"

Blog Hiatus

I have been really busy for the past couple of weeks, and unfortunately priorities have to made - not one of them being this blog.

I am not stopping blogging, it was just a short break.
And I will be back, cap in hand, plaque on wall later on this week.

Perhaps on state funding of elections.

Civic Virtue

While I think it is perfectly healthy to a have skepticism about motives of various politicians, since their moves and actions govern our lives, the current atmosphere, by which I mean in the last 25 years, governments and politics has been viewed by New Zealander's with a certain cynicism.

Why is that people may ask, and why do we care? Simple. In Representative Democracies, the people pledge their support to a candidate (or slate of candidates within a party banner under MMP), who then cast their vote in order make decisions for the country. Representative democracy has a distinct advantage over direct democracy (which alot of people argue for), because of expediency, efficiency, and indifference. But for these advantages, people must occasionally see decisions that at the time the majority of the population may not agree with, but the people retain the right to de-elect political party slates if they choose to do so with, and given ample time and a period of reflection to reconsider.

Before the advent of MMP, New Zealand's parliamentary system was accurately described as an 'elected dictatorship' - the Muldoon quote of "having an idea while shaving in the morning, could have it [sic] drying in ink on the statute book by evening" being especially apt. And governments mostly prior to this era had not exercised powers in offense of the majority of the population. However, the Muldoon government and its successors up through until the advent of MMP used their executive's sovereignty to the fullest, pushing through projects such as the Clutha Dam, reforms such as deregulation and asset sales etc.
Because these policies were not identified, or even denied ("A Decent Society 1990" - Jim Bolger), people grew skeptical of politics and developed a certain cynicism towards government, which grew to the level of unhealthiness. Our democracy was at its weakest point during those turbulent years, because the elected representatives acted without consent on hidden agendas. MMP was portrayed as system which would limit the power of government, instutionalising a more conservative path to reform, and was brought in in 1996.

But people who had hoped that political agendas would become more visible were certainly not impressed by the 1996 coalition agreement between National and NZ First, and even more disillusioned when the Shipley government retained power even after the end of the coalition. National still ruled with its hangers on like it was a FPP government, buying its support with policies and perks.
In 1999, the era of rapid reform ended with the election of the Clark Labour government, and while the government may have underpromised and overdelivered, it has largely moved away from hidden economic agendas. But the skepticism of politicians still remains....

What can be done to rebuild and civic virtue in New Zealand?
1. There needs to be a happy medium between under and overpromising, and respectively over and under delivering.
2. Politicians and pressure groups should respect the right of individuals to express their opinion, and do their best to put out information correctly outlining their positions on controversial issues, and get rid of misinformation.
3. There ought to be a citizenship education course in schools teaching values in among others, the public good, personal responsibility, political enfranchisement - an education in society and government.
4. Political parties need to reach out beyond their current narrow confines, and remember why they were formed in the first place, what drove people to Labour or National. And the party faithful need to be a fully informed part of the process in governing their party's actions.
5. Politicians should avoid situations where they could be accused of impropriety if at all possible.

But most of all, enhance the process. All of you who read this blog would have at some stage, whether in your capacity as political activists, employee/employer, or individual, wittingly or unwittingly, will have come across simple apolitical people with problem - for example: bad teeth, combined with low incomes and high dentistry costs.

The activists need to take this issue forward: How can we alleviate this person's position. As a potential advocate, how can we influence the process of policy formation to help this person out.

The best solution for our sagging civic virtue for the apolitical to see their political parties and branches of government in action: perhaps in the earlier case of the person with bad teeth, a political activist proposing ways of fixing an unfair situation, which is then taken to the wider party as an idea, then a policy remit. With pressure and time, the idea becomes policy, and the dentristry work of the low income employee is paid by an extension of the current system of dentistry currently afforded to part-time workers and beneficiaries.
If our people can see that one individual can start a process, and we can achieve good change, then our problem of civic virtue will evapourate.

However, I must add one point. There are certain political parties who regard the public as quote "an obstacle to be overcome every three years", and tempt voters with phoney policies and feigned empathism, whilst hiding their most deeply held political held opinions from the public. The public don't want this dishonesty. Why shouldn't parties be open about what they want to do? The last thing New Zealand needs at the moment is a return to the politics of lies.

Saving for Retirement - Sorry, too busy paying off debt.

Retirement. It's not a concept people of my age frequently identify with, but over the next few years that may change, with the government introducing a subsidized super plan. People of my generation more frequently identify with debt, be that personal (credit card, overdraft, hire purchase), property mortgage, and for many: student loans. Why is this generation so indebted compared to its predecessors? Is it simply that we spend more money, or is there some other contributing factors? And, most importantly, how do we turn back the tide toward a culture of saving?

In my opinion, there are several explanations for our outrageous level of debt:

1/. Insufficent renumeration: Whether this is because of low productivity, or employer stinginess, New Zealand's real median wage has fallen far behind those paid in other OECD countries, especially Australia. This is one of the primary reasons why we have a brain drain, and a skills shortage in many sectors. In the 1950s and 60s, a whole family could exist on a median father's wage, comfortably paying off the mortgage, while the mother performed domestic duties, and yet now with both partners working, people on an average wage cannot afford to pay off a mortgage.

2/. Student debt: Students study for an tertiary education right, so they should pay for the priviledge.... However, this argument can be broken down, because it is in the interest of all New Zealander's to have better educated citizens. The government through the TEAC already invests significant resources in all students (50-66% of the cost of a university education), and yet because of the loan scheme, it does not reap the full benefit of its investment in students, because many leave to pursue debt repayment options overseas.

3/. An investment regime whereby most of NZ'ers savings outside of their own domiciles ends up in rental properties. This, along with DIY speculators has driven up the price in main centres over 50% in the last 5 years. This type of investment is not good for the economy as a whole, as it relies on imported debt to finance, making money for foreign-owned banks and investor groups, and robbing investors of their deserved returns, hence the drive to speculation.

4/. Fear - a fear that one day, a neo-liberal government could return to power in New Zealand, reintroducing policies such as means-tested pensions, and even eradication of pension entitlements except where it is a benefit for the deserving poor. So Kiwis have to build up their own investments in competition with each other, rather than in co-operation.

Posited Solutions:
1a/. Continue boosting the legal minimum wage and abolish youth rates. This would transfer more money to our youngest and most needy workers, and in the process making a job or career more attractive than a benefit. It would also allow these people to be less reliant on loans, and when in fact they were sought, would be paid off more quickly. It would also have a positive effect across the entire economy. Perhaps, also a compulsory tax-free contribution by employers of 1% of an employee's wage into the Kiwisaver scheme. The Working for Families Scheme should also be retained, as it is important that people continue to chose to have a family, as children are future workers and taxpayers.

2a/. By increasing funds to universities so that they can reduce student fees to a level whereby they become nominal, and it becomes possible again for students to work summer jobs in order to pay fees. Remove the means-testing of students that do not live at home for the student allowance. Universities should be viewed as an asset rather than a burden to the state, and funding their various programs should be their own choice, rather than by cutting costs, allowing for better planning and less wasted resources than the current approach.

3a/. Impose a capital gains tax on residential properties other than those owned or jointly owned by their occupants, including trusts and companies set up for the purposes of tax avoidance. New Zealand should become a nation of shareholders rather than landlords, as continued 'landlord'ism will return society to an era of a few "have lots", and a great many "have nones". For example, Australian private equity investors have just purchased, among other things, a controlling stake in Qantas.

4a/. Contribution to private equity groups which are prohibited from investing in residential properties is a cooperative form of investment. Middle-aged people must realise that continued property speculation is a mutually destructive battle in which all of their offspring will lose. Young people don't want to be reliant on handouts from their parents, and/or wait for proceeds from their estate.

They are a just a few ideas... Post more if you have them...

New TVNZ Promo Ad

Has anybody watched this?

http://tvnz.co.nz/ - we are one.

While it is visually please and culturally embracing, it doesn't actually convey much about TVNZ's programming future, i.e. the decision to go to digital. It is very sentimental, describing a journey of television from the past to now.

But is it what TVNZ should be advertising about, sure branding is important, but this type of advert is hardly likely to enamour viewers to stay at the TV instead of boiling the jug etc.

Suggestions and Comments.

Apart from the content itself, do people have suggestions on how this blog could be improved. I am open to design ideas for a while so that this hopefully can become an authority blog, like David Farrar, Just left and I see red.

Kiwis & "Carbon Miles"

As a country, New Zealand has made significant progress in political, social and economic, liberalisation in the last few decades, transforming us from a tired rural dominated and oriented society, to an economy more dependent on niche product and niche entertainment.

When foreign tourists comment on New Zealand, especially from Asia, Europe and North America, they have come to see the alpine and adventure attractions, not to count sheep. And we have done very well out of that. But this tourist market is at risk, along with much of our farm produce, due to the conveniently developed concept of "carbon miles", essentially meaning that buying New Zealand produce, and visiting here is bad for the planet, whereas voyages to destinations, and products created closer to home are more environmentally sound.

While it may be tempting to respond by stating that this is just a ruse covering "protectionism", we must remember who New Zealand's tourists are, either middle-aged couples essentially on a second honeymoon, young adventure and adrenaline seekers, or students on their overseas experience (whether that be prior to, after, or studying here). These people will not be persuaded to continue coming here by such a hackneyed argument. We need something better

We have been repeatedly described, by foreign observers, and even by own leaders, as a social laboratory. So in this tradition, our PM, Helen Clark and the Labour caucus have decided to make New Zealand "carbon neutral", in the hope that travellers to NZ and foreign buyers of our produce will be tempted in a further niching. But what will "carbon-neutral" mean, and how can we actually achieve it?

It will take a combination of both small and large steps to make New Zealand carbon neutral. Currently, our biggest sources of carbon emissions are animal effluent, coal-furnace power plants, and vehicle emissions.

Suggested solutions:
1/. A reduction in New Zealand's power usage. The scheme envisaged by the government and various local authorities of placing solar power units on roofs for water heating is a first step. An example of a carbon-neutral NZ would have to include people that were prepared to generate own entire power source. As minaturisation improves technology, the home will be able to use less power - compulsion of energy efficient lighting, double glazing, and interior housing and water cooler insulation.

2/. A carbon-tax rather than emissions trading. If an emissions regime comes into place, companies will be assigned arbitary limits under which emissions reductions are not required, and money paid by the worst polluters will not necessarily contribute to the further reduction of carbon. Taxes collected could be partially invested in a portfolio where technology companies therein were developing products that further reduced energy usage.

3/. Incentives for carbon-small options/Disincentives for carbon big options. Reduce vehicle ownership taxes on energy efficient cars such as the Toyota Prius and Ford Explorer; offer free public transportation for people under 18. Increase vehicle fees for SUV's and their gas-guzzling ilk, assist in re-establishing rail as a viable transportation.

4/. Big projects. We wont be able to stop climate change with half-measures. Our global problem is on a huge magnitude, and it requires a huge response. And not just in New Zealand either, for example, invest in a high-speed electrified rail network from Asia to Europe, so that less produce required transportation by ship/air and travelled smaller miles in doing so, and environmentally conscious people could travel by rail to Asia, and then on to New Zealand. Within New Zealand itself, development of an electrified high-speed rail-network between all cities.

5/. Projects like development of ethanol from corn and canola waste might be socially responsible and reduce dependency on Middle Eastern oil sources, but it is missing the point. We need to develop methods of energy usage and possibly storage that don't involve the combustion engine. If we are to source this energy from the domestic power grid, we must also take care that the energy from this grid is also created in a sustainable fashion.

6/. Nuclear power. While this is not an option within New Zealand, because of political conditions, and scale, in foreign countries, development of nuclear power may be a way to end excessive reliance on coal-fired power. But we must also remember that uranium itself is also a limited resource, and we must not simply trade one unsustainable source of power generation for another, not to mention all of the extra risks associated with nuclear power generation.

7/. Expand sustainable generation. This one is pretty self-explanatory, build more wind-powered plants, perhaps tidal current and wave turbines. Even limited further development of hydro-electric schemes may have to considered. And for what we are burning, perhaps we should be ridding the planet of our waste and rubbish before we burn virgin coal.

Your thoughts and replies are most welcome.
Parrot out.

Welcome to my blog

Hi, welcome to my blog, Parrot on Politics.

This blog is a political blog, offering comment on mainly New Zealand politics, from a level-headed perspective. Occasionally it may delve into other newsworthy areas, and what I've been up to etc.

While I will not disclose my identity at this time, I am a 24 year old student at the University of Canterbury, just about to graduate with a BA in Political Science, and I am also studying a BCom in Accounting. This may help give people an idea of where I am coming from in my posts.

Your posts are more than welcome here, this is a public blog. But keep it legal, I will not hesistate to delete posts that are either offensive to persons or spam. But I'd prefer to not have to edit this if possible.

Be back with more soon, so stay tuned.

Parrot out.