TDB Video: The Daily Blog Breakfast Club, Live from Verona Cafe on K-Rd, Auckland – a weekly current affairs show with TDB Editor Martyn Bradbury. This week AUT Associate Professor Dr Wayne Hope and former leader of the Internet Party, Laila Harre.
This Week:
Ruth Harley gave a fascinating speech at the Screen Producers and Distributors (SPADA) Conference in Wellington last Friday. Having held senior roles at Screen Australia, NZ on Air, NZ Film Commission and similar bodies, she’s probably best placed to compare Australia and NZ’s television drama industries.
“The Australian industry has a clear philosophy underpinning it… there is total acceptance of the importance of local identity in television and its central role in expressing Australian identity.”
“We (NZ) do not have the same level of political support as the Australian industry. Public Broadcasting… we seem to have completely lost this argument with TVNZ’s mandate being more about yield than quality or culture. It is a tragedy for the development of the industry, for diversity of content for audiences as well as for civics”
Later she recommends regulation to promote healthier markets and better programmes for viewers. It’s a speech that Bomber would be proud of.
“Local content regulation (by this I mean quota and the expenditure levy on the pay channels) is central to the success of the Australian tv industry. In NZ we lost that argument. I remember back in 1989 believing that the changes in the television landscape such as spectrum becoming a commodity rather than being a scarce resource and the vision of multi-channelling meant that quota as an instrument was a dinosaur. I was wrong. We were all wrong. In the meantime the Australian industry fought a trenchant battle in the GATS negotiations that saw their quota protected. It has proved resilient and the Australians have a robust commercial market for cultural drama as a result.”
Yes that’s right. When Bolger signed the GATS agreement we lost the right to have a NZ content quota on TV or for music on radio. Thanks guys.
This speech is an acknowledgment that NZ needs a levy on pay-tv, content quotas and a better funding model than NZ on Air.
“I think an argument could be made that we the NZ screen industry gave up too easily in 1989 when the BCNZ was restructured and the current regime was put in place. We accepted the rhetoric of the funder/provider/policy maker split and the cultural debate was subsequently lost under the prevailing ideology of commerce and populist television. We lost our moral compass in the process and as a result we do not have an authentic cultural case to make to government.”
What’s stopping NZ exporting great NZ dramas set in NZ, starring NZers with NZ accents? We should be exporting television drama to the rest of the English-speaking world. We should be promoting our scenery, our tourism, our talented actors, writers, directors, composers etc. We should be making more programmes here and employing the many creative Kiwis around the country.
The problem is the way we fund TV in this country. NZ on Air is failing to create a healthy market for ideas and programmes. It is no coincidence that after 25 years no other country has adopted this failed funding model.
Ruth Harley suggests we ‘activate the rest button’. In its upcoming creative funding review, I hope the Government takes her advice and moves back to funding a stand alone TV channel – the model that has succeeded in Denmark, UK, Canada, Ireland, Japan, Germany and Australia.
Myles Thomas is Chief Executive of the Coalition for Better Broadcasting
.
.
A media report on Massey University’s annual New Zealand quote of the year caught my attention. Amongst the memorable quotes was one by former Labour Leader, David Cunliffe. The media story reported the quote,
* “I’m sorry for being a man” – Former Labour leader David Cunliffe
As most folk should be aware, that is not quite what Cunliffe said. In fact, those six words are a dishonest, simplistic mis-representation of what he actually stated.
On 4 July, as Cunliffe addressed a Women’s Refuge forum in Auckland, he actually said,
“Can I begin by saying I’m sorry.
I don’t often say it. I’m sorry for being a man right now, because family and sexual violence is perpetrated overwhelmingly by men against women and children.
“So the first message to the men out there is: wake up, stand up and man up and stop this bullshit!”
The degree of mis-representation by the MSM is best illustrated by the Otago Daily Times story at the time. Whilst Cunliffe’s statement was reported in full, the headline was still inaccurate,
As we know, the MSM made a ‘feast’ of this story – but for all the wrong reasons. Cunliffe’s statement was shortened to six words and the actual social problem of vicious beatings, maimings, and deaths of predominantly children and women at the hands of their menfolk – was submerged.
Meme-creator, Francis Owen, summed up the lunacy of the situation in his now-famous image (see below), where he condemns the media for their behaviour,
“David Cunliffe stood up on the issue of social violence. The media portray it as a gaff… ffs”
In case anyone is in doubt, the facts are straight forward enough;
• In 2013, there were 95,080 family violence investigations by NZ Police. There were 59,137 family violence investigations where at least one child aged 0-16 years was linked to these investigations.
• In 2013, 3,803 applications were made for protection orders: – 2705 (91%) were made by women and 207 (7%) by men – 2638 (90%) of respondents were men and 252 (9%) women.2
• In 2013, there were 6749 recorded male assaults female offences and 5025 recorded offences for breaching a protection order.
• In 2012/13, Women’s Refuges affiliated to the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges received 81,720 crisis calls. 7,642 women accessed advocacy services in the community. 2,940 women and children stayed in safe houses.
• In 2013, NZ Police recorded 11 homicides by an intimate partner. 7 of the victims were women and 4 were men.
• In 2013, NZ Police recorded 10 homicides of children and young people under 20 by a family member.
• In 2012, 52 children under 16 years of age were hospitalised for an assault perpetrated by a family member.
Source: NZ Family Violence Clearinghouse Data Summaries Snapshot, June 2014 (PDF, 183 KB)
Despite the mayhem in so many homes, the MSM thought it more “news worthy” to treat Cunliffe’s comments with mirth and derision. The bashings and deaths of women and children was relegated, or not mentioned at all.
To be honest, I am no longer surprised at the MSM. The corporatisation and corruption of news means we are less informed than ever. Superficiality, trivia, mis-reporting – rubbish packaged as sensational headlines – but rubbish nevertheless.
But surely, an institution as prestigious as Massey would not have continued the media-driven charade of mis-quoting Cunliffe?
I checked.
The following screenshot reveals how Massey portrayed Cunliffe’s comments;
.
.
Not exactly very honest, I thought. And more so when the Voting Form invites readers to “vote as many times as you like“.
Is this how Massey University views academic integrity? Mis-representation of a public figure’s speech and encouraging multiple voting?!
Evidently Dr Heather Kavan, who has sponsored the “Quote of the Year”, does not view domestic violence as a serious problem. According to her, it’s little more than a “gaffe“;
“There has been a trend this year towards large numbers of insults and gaffes. If there was any soaring rhetoric during the election, no one seems to have remembered it.”
Perhaps Dr Kavan has been lucky. She obviously has never had a fist in her face; been sexually assaulted by a partner; or had to escape to a Refuge in fear of her life.
If you’re going to quote David Cunliffe, shouldn’t you be using the quote in it’s entirety, instead of selectively taking six words out of context?
Cunliffe’s full statement was;
“I don’t often say it. I’m sorry for being a man right now, because family and sexual violence is perpetrated overwhelmingly by men against women and children.”
Not only does the whole statement give new meaning to Cunliffe’s speech, but it raises the question as to why a critical social problem has been so trivilised by the media – and now by your University.
Because it strikes me as outrageous that whilst we expect the MSM (mainstream media) to mis-quote and sensationalise simply to sell advertising – one expects a University to be better acquainted with the notion of truthfulness.
If Universities are going to follow the MSM in promoting mis-quotes simply because they achieve social currency, and enter the realm of urban myth, then what else will Universities sacrifice for convenience?
If you’re going to quote, please do it accurately. Or not at all.
.
There is only one reason why domestic violence is still a blight on our society. Only one reason why men, women, and children continue to be affected by this violence; because those with voices and influence in our society treat it as a joke.
David Cunliffe took the the problem head-on.
He was ridiculed for his efforts.
And now a University perpetuates the trivialisation of the beating and killing of women and children.
There are times when I’m ashamed to be a New Zealander.
.
References
NZN News: Cunliffe’s man apology up for best quote
Otago Daily Times: ‘I’m sorry for being a man’ – Cunliffe
NZ Family Violence Clearinghouse: Data Summaries Snapshot, June 2014
Massey University: Vote for 2014 Quote of the Year
Massey University: Vote for 2014 Quote of the Year (Voting List)
Previous related blogposts
When the mainstream media go feral: the descent into sheer farce, according to Tova O’Brien
The Mendacities of Mr Key #6: When apologising to a victim of violence is not considered “serious”
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
It is widely believed that people should save for their retirement, and some people believe that such saving – voluntary or compulsory – could or should be ‘instead of’ rather than ‘as well as’ a ‘pay-as-you-go’ tax-funded scheme such as New Zealand Superannuation.
Many people are concerned about the financial sustainability of New Zealand Superannuation (eg Patrick Nolan: Baby Boomers could drive us bust, NZ Herald 2 Dec 2014). This concern tends to be a kind of reverse alchemy; imagining we will not have enough money to sustain our future elderly, as if money were stored wealth much like squirrels’ acorns, though (unlike acorns) miraculously subject to compound interest. The popular fiction is that with saved money (rather than taxed money) we can all live in a comfortable retirement, and without saved money we must live very modestly in retirement.
It is economic sustainability that matters, not the accumulation of money. Money is a circulating medium; not a resource. Will we have the resources to produce sufficient goods and services to allow both the over 65s and the under 65s to live in an appropriate level of future comfort? The potential for economic unsustainability is at least as great a problem – probably a greater problem – if we rely on savings schemes rather than a tax-funded scheme to provide goods and services to our over 65s in 2030.
The only general argument in favour of retirement savings schemes would be that real GDP per person (essentially productivity) would be higher in 2030 than it would be in the absence of retirement savings schemes. But retirement saving schemes raise other issues: inequality within the retirement cohort, inequality between the retirement cohort and working-age households, debt overhang, and inflation.
The inequality that most affects prevailing living standards is spending inequality (inequality of enjoyment), and not income inequality (inequality of entitlement). While both concepts of inequality matter, I have noted (in my previous posting) that, at present, spending inequality is less than income inequality. Consumer debt is the equalising factor. An important distinction here is between purposeful and purposeless saving. Purposeful saving is saving with the intent of spending later (saving for a sunny day). Purposeless saving is saving that savers have no plan to spend (saving for a rainy day); it serves more as a form of insurance than as an intent to defer enjoyment of goods and services.
Inequality within the retirement cohort in 2030.
If we save purposefully for retirement then spending these savings will accentuate pre-retirement inequalities. Counterbalancing this is New Zealand Superannuation, benefits relating to publicly funded health care, and rest home subsidies. Thus the extent of inequality of living standards within the retirement cohort will be closely related to the ratio of spending funded by retirement savings to spending funded by taxation.
We must also be aware that the financial assets that we call retirement savings represent the debts of other people. When a 55-year-old saves in 2015 and redeems her saving in 2030, she becomes a creditor. The corresponding debtor(s) have the obligation to service that debt by relinquishing the requisite amount of goods and services in 2030 in the form of debt redemption or new saving.
We should note that many retired people in 2030 will also have purposeless savings. Their receiving of New Zealand Superannuation is unlikely to make them consume more in retirement than they otherwise would. Purposeless savings create financial imbalances that, unchecked, lead to financial crises; that is another issue however. Unspent New Zealand Superannuation paid to these people does not add to the economic burden faced by society as a whole.
In addition, significant numbers of people in the retirement cohort will be working fulltime or parttime, or will be in receipt of private capital income such as rents, company dividends, and interest. Many will have implicit rental income on account of owning their own homes. And many will sell assets, meaning that much of their spending will be funded by the purchasers of those assets. These people may not need to have a fund of retirement savings to draw on. Their New Zealand Superannuation will largely go unspent (it will become purposeless savings), and will not represent an economic burden to others.
Inequality in 2030 between the retirement cohort and the rest of the population.
The central issue about retirement finance is the ratio of spending by those aged over 65 to the spending of those aged under 65. While substantial taxes will be paid by both age groups, we are presuming that (and especially with universal New Zealand Superannuation in place) that the proportion of taxes paid by the under 65s will be greater in 2030 than it will be in 2015. We also presume that the proportion of tax-funded entitlements payable to those over 65 will be higher in 2030 than it will be in 2015.
These presumptions are not as certain as we imagine. We base them on the supposition that people will live longer, and that they will be facing significant health issues while they are living longer. An alternative scenario is that, while people will be healthier for longer they will not be unhealthier for longer. And, while they remain healthy they will continue to contribute to the economy, though not necessarily through paid work. So the tax ratios mentioned only represent part of the economic story.
The wider issue is the balance between tax-funded entitlements and debt-funded entitlements. Saving creates debt-funded entitlements which, as we have noted, are more unequal than tax-funded entitlements.
When people over-65 collectively spend their savings in 2030, that means people under 65 must forego spending; they must save. However the over 65s’ spending is funded, the people aged under 65 must forego consumption to accommodate the increased consumption of people over 65. Foregone consumption in 2030 by the under 65s may mean either higher future taxes or higher future savings.
The argument that New Zealand Superannuation is unsustainable is really an argument that younger people in 2030 should forego consumption more through saving and less through paying taxes. Which of these sacrifices – more saving or more tax – will be better for, say Generation Y (born in the 1980s)?
The familiar social contract is that each working generation concedes taxes to fund the retired generation, and that the following generations in turn will pay taxes to fund them in retirement. The variant contract is that each working generation saves today to fund most of the retirees’ spending, and in turn relies upon the following generations to save to fund them as they spend their savings.
The variant contract based on debt exchanges (saving) is flawed because some people will save and some cannot or (‘free riders’?) will not. The option of compulsory saving is economically equivalent to taxation, though more unequal in retirement because the retirement benefits reflect prior inequalities. (Of course the taxation system also may be abused by free-riders; otherwise known as tax avoiders.)
Overall, because of the inequalities and obligations of debt-funding, the total burden of Gen Y tomorrowwill be greater the more the Baby Boomer (1946-55) and Jones (1956-65) generations save today. The best way to minimise the future economic burdens of Gen X and Gen Y would actually be to discourage retirement saving today while retaining a strong universal tax-funded retirement income. Under this scenario the Boomers and Joneses would live more modestly (and more equally) in retirement in 2030, leaving more consumer goods and services for Gen X and Gen Y and Gen Z (and their families) to enjoy.
Debt Overhang
Tax funded spending equality is much more efficient than debt-funded spending equality. (‘Equality’ here means equalisation of spending relative to pre-tax incomes.) Since the 1980s, the liberal capitalist world has shifted substantially from tax-funded intergenerational support to debt-funded support; that’s probably the greatest untold story of our age, the number one legacy of neoliberalism.
The calls to further limit tax-funded means of intergenerational support do nothing to address the demographic issue that we face in the 2030s. Rather the switch to debt-funded retirement – retirement spending funded by selling the debts that retired people own – will accentuate the problem by creating more inequality within the retirement generation. Rather, reduced tax-funding will substantially boost demand for financial services, and it will boost the demand for welfare bureaucrats whose job is to separate the qualifying retired poor from those expected to largely fend for themselves.
We already have a substantial problem of intergenerational debt. Generations Y and X are the most indebted ever. If we require Joneses to save more today, then they will be joining with the Xers who are already contracted to save in the form of debt servicing. The present decade’s growing savings glut will be compounded, and an economic crisis in 2030 beyond the scale of the Great Depression becomes even more likely.
Inflation or Deflation?
The 2030s are shaping up as a clash of global economic crises. We may just be lucky and have the two crises cancel each other out (just as anthropogenic global warming may be being offset this decade by acooler sun).
First, it is not clear that we truly have global demographic imbalances this decade, or even will have such imbalances in the 2020s. Economic opportunities in the 2020s will not be in the parts of the world where our young mostly are. So we can expect the next 10-15 years to be the decade (or so) of the denizens; people (such as New Zealanders in Australia) living in other countries who are integral to the economies in which they work, but having no citizenship rights in those countries.
However I believe that China will tip the balance. In the 2030s the age imbalance in China will have global consequences. So I think it is safe to say that the 2030s will be a decade with an unusually high proportion of elderly people in the world.
If it were not for our global demographic imbalances, we could be heading for an economic crisis around 2030 that would dwarf the Great Depression of the 1930s. The debt overhang will be huge, and people with credit balances will be largely afraid to spend. This would become, like the early 1930s, a period of quite substantial deflation, and that would accentuate the financial imbalances. (It was in the 1930s that Irving Fisher published his debt-deflation theory of depressions; Fisher was an optimist who believed that massive quantitative easing of money could easily reverse deflation.) This would represent a gridlocked demand-constrained global economy. (See my posting Constraining Credibility.)
If it were not for our huge and growing financial imbalances, we would be looking at a one-off inflationary crisis centred on the 2030s. Combining normal spending by working-age people with the spending of the world’s retirement savings funds, aggregate demand would shoot through the roof to unsustainable levels, creating a classical crisis of scarcity. This would represent a gridlocked supply-constrained global economy.
If the two crises come together around 2030, then huge spending by retired Boomers and Joneses may be enough to offset contracted debt repayment and precautionary saving on the part of Xers and Yers. The ‘problem’ of affluent retired Boomers may turn out to be the solution to a problem of parsimonious spending by their working-age youngers. If this is so, the less we do to resolve today’s retirement conundrum the better. Rather, we will be looking to the oldies as the consumers needed to save the world economy.
Fast food delegates prepare a solidarity message for workers in US at Unite national conference
By Mike Treen, Unite Union National Director
150 Unite Union delegates resolved to launch a campaign in the new year to end zero hour contracts in the fast food industry at their national conference December 1-2.
At their national conference Unite discussed recent cases where the existence of these type of agreements have been used against workers.
Ex-McDonald’s worker Stephanie Phillips was at work even though she had three broken ribs and a punctured lung. When the pain and discomfort got too much she asked to go home but this was refused. When a customer saw her coughing up blood and complained she was transferred to the drive through. She was only allowed to leave after 5 hours. Workers are able to be treated this way because they lack the power to assert their rights. They know that if they do speak up the managers take their revenge by cutting their hours.
Restaurant Brands which owns the KFC brand implemented a new roster last week cutting hundreds of hours from workers regular roster without consultation. Some staff have been working regular 5-6 hour shifts for many years only to have their shifts cut to three hours. Management hours have also been cut so that it will be impossible for them to run the store without themselves clocking out and working unpaid. There will be added pressure on crew to not take breaks and work unpaid as well. Again the company believes it can do this because there are no guaranteed hours for crew at KFC. Suspicion is widespread that these cost cutting measures are designed to boost profits so that the share price hits $4 and triggers a $1 million bonus for the chief executive.
Opposition party leaders including Andrew Little from Labour, Winston Peters from NZ First and Metiria Turei from the Greens spoke to the Unite conference in support of the union’s objectives.
Action Station has also swung in behind the campaign to ban zero hour contracts.
Zero tolerance for Zero hours became the message of the conference. It finished with video in solidarity with the fast food workers in the US who are planning their biggest national strike on December 4. Unite’s message was “We did it so can you – $15 and a union!”
One would imagine after banning me from Radio NZ for life, that RNZ would have felt they had self censured themselves enough for the National Party. Apparently not.
Laila Harre was due to appear on a RNZ panel discussion about the future of the Green Party, but the Green Party complained about Laila being part of the debate and she was then dumped from the panel discussion.
Radio NZ complained to the Auckland Museum in 2012 that I was part of the RNZ sponsored Late at the Museum talks because they were concerned I would be critical of them and that criticism might be broadcast on their station. A year after banning me from RNZ in 2011, they were still trying to have me removed from events they were sponsoring in 2012.
The lengths with which the establishment media work to shut down certain voices while promoting those implicated in the Dirty Politics scandal is remarkable.
Some readers of the Daily Blog will know that that I organise a research centre entitled Journalism, Media and Democracy (JMAD).
In 2011 we published our first media ownership report. Before then Bill Rosenberg documented the transnational corporate takeover of our media system during the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s. His last report in 2008 is a compilation of these developments. It is accessible via a simple author, keyword, date search.
The JMAD reports since 2011 have been compiled by Merje Myllylahti, a former London financial journalist who knows how corporate capitalism operates.
In 2011 there were four major players in the New Zealand media market; APN News and Media, Fairfax Media, Media Works and Sky. In other words four companies, all overseas owned, predominated. There was a near duopoly in print and radio, a monopoly in pay television and only three significant competitors in free-to-air television, including the state owned channels.
This was also the state of play in 2008 when Bill Rosenberg wrote his last report. The last three years though, has seen a structural shift in New Zealand media ownership and changes in the technological domain of that ownership. Globally, media corporations moved away from conglomeration toward a strategy of rationalising holdings around strong market positions in certain sectors.
Unlisted financial operators such as private equity companies grabbed media holdings as a lucrative source of revenue via acquisition or leveraged buyout. In this context those transnational media corporates that have colonised the New Zealand mediascape have themselves been colonised by listed and unlisted financial institutions.
Last years 2013 report revealed how this process occurred in the cases of Media Works, Fairfax and Sky Television. The 2014 report confirms these developments. At the same time the report observes a growing convergence between New Zealand mass media and the communications sector generally.
Companies such as Spark (formerly Telecom NZ ), started to compete head-to-head with traditional broadcasters in the on- line video and television markets. The American on-line video subscription service Netflix is entering the NZ market in 2015.
As the relevant section of this report reveals, the transnational colonisation of NZ on-line media is under way. These and other trends documented in this years JMAD report reinforce last years observation; there has been a hyper-commercialisation of the media-communication domain. The extent to which the blogosphere can stem the tide is debatable , as the `Dirty Politics` imbroglio suggests. Read this years JMAD media ownership report for further insights, you won`t be seeing it anywhere in the mainstream media.
David Robie also blogs at Café Pacific.
INTERESTING that the Indonesian news agency Antara should send one of its most senior journalists all the way from Jakarta to cover last week’s Pacific Journalism Review conference in Auckland, yet the local New Zealand media barely noticed the largest-ever local gathering of activists, media educators, journalists, documentary makers and newsmakers in one symposium.
Apart from a half-hour interview on Radio NZ’s Sunday with Max Stahl, the Timor-Leste film maker and investigative journalist world-famous for his live footage of the 1991 Santa Cruz massacre – images that ultimately led to the world’s first independence-by-video triumph some eight years later – and a couple of bulletins on RNZI, you would have hardly known the event was on.
But the conference was packed with compelling and newsworthy presentations by journalists and media educators. Topics ranged from asylum seekers to the emerging “secret state” in Australia; from climate change to the logging of “cloud forest’ on the island of Kolombangara; from post-elections Fiji to the political ecology of mining in New Caledonia.
All tremendously hard-hitting stuff and a refreshing reminder how parochial and insignificant the New Zealand media is when it comes to regional Asia-Pacific affairs.
New Zealand editors are more interested in the ISIS beheadings of Syria and Iraq than the horrendous human rights violations happening under their noses in their own Pacific “front yard”.
Ampatuan massacre
Take the 2009 Ampatuan massacre, for example, in the southern Philippines, where 58 people were killed in cold blood in an ambush of an electoral motorcade – 32 of them journalists. A candlelight vigil took place on the AUT city campus at PJR2014 to remember the victims.
Not a word in the local media.
One of the lively exchanges at the conference involved a clash of “truths” over alleged and persistent Indonesian human rights abuses in West Papua.
This was precisely why Antara’s Rahmad Nasution made the trip – to give the government spin to deflect any accusations and statements such as those made by West Papuan Media editor Nick Chesterfield, based in any “airport lounge”, and New Zealand-based Maire Leadbeater of the West Papuan Auckland Action group.
Nasution’s business card simply states “journalist” (although he is described as “chief executive” in other sources after a decade working with the agency) and he stayed in the back row of the auditorium for most of the conference. But he became instantly animated as soon as Indonesia came in for any criticism.
‘Pessimistic’ view
In one of the exchanges, Nasution condemned Chesterfield for his “very pessimistic” analysis of the Indonesian and West Papuan relationship in his paper “Overcoming media mythmaking, malignancies and dangerous conduct in West Papua reportage”.
Nasution pointed out that the new President, Joko Widodo, had singled out Papua to make his first visit to a “province’ during the election campaign: “There is a big hope in Indonesia that the new government will do its best to improve the situation there.”
“West Papua is 2000 miles from Jakarta – it is a long, long way,” replied Chesterfield. “When Jokowi surrounds himself in cabinet with unreformed human rights abusers, he has sent a message to the military as well that he is not going to challenge it.
“So – I had better be careful how I say this – but it is very much up to the way the Indonesian people hold Jokowi to his promises, and take action if he doesn’t fulfil his promises.
“I agree that Indonesian civil society is very much pro-peace in West Papua – not necessarily pro-independence – but it is certainly pro ‘Let’s sort this out, let’s have dialogue.’ This is a really positive sign [compared with] before.
Papuan right
“But at the end of the day, it is not up to the Indonesian people. It is up to the West Papuan people and their right to self-determination, and their right to organise their own media.”
Chesterfield shared the podium with two speakers from Fiji, Repúblika editor Ricardo Morris, who is also president of the Fijian Media Association, and senior journalism lecturer Shailendra Singh of the University of the South Pacific. Their insightful analyses deserved media coverage in New Zealand.
But no, the New Zealand media prefer to serve up continual myths and distortions.
Ironically, both Morris and Shailendra – and also Television New Zealand Pacific correspondent Barbara Dreaver – came in for some flak from Fijian authorities and the propaganda press (ie. the Fiji Sun). None of the criticism from Fiji Media Industry Authority chair Ashwin Raj was based on an actual reading of the speeches or observing the livestreaming feed.
Instead, he was reacting to a Pacific Media Watch headline “Fiji media still face ‘noose around neck’ challenges”. In fact, Morris was referring specifically to the “noose” around Fiji Television because of its six-monthly licence renewals. At any time, the licence could be revoked.
But let’s get real: the “noose” also applies to the whole of the Fiji media while the draconian Media Industry Development Decree remains in force. It needs to be repealed at the first available opportunity for real press freedom to return to Fiji.
ITEM ONE:
New Zealand has been ranked the second least corrupt country in the world in the 2014 rankings, according to the global NGO, Transparency International. Last year NZ topped the rankings at number one least corrupt country, tied with Denmark.
This year, Denmark nudged ahead of NZ as the world’s least corrupt country.
Australia is back in 11th place, ahead of Germany (12 equal with Iceland), and United Kingdom (14).
But after revelations in the investigative book Dirty Politics, that the New Zealand National-led Government has been involved with black operations designed to destroy its opponents and advance the reputations and opportunities of its allies… it raises questions on whether New Zealanders should be crowing about how squeaky clean its government and political representatives really are.
Certainly this is the basis of an analysis report by popular political scientist Bryce Edwards in the NZ Herald.)
Bryce Edwards evaluates how the corruption report measures how transparent government departments are, how transparent are a country’s databases, for example how open and transparent are the companies register, listing who is a director and shareholder of what. It also looks at other corruption indexes to evaluate how straight up or dodgy a country is.
But Edwards argues that the Transparency methodology does not factor specifically how politicians may use underhand and dodgy methods to ruin their opponents.
Edwards also describes other research that shows significant proportions of Kiwis believe New Zealand politicians and political parties are corrupt.
Here’s an example of his analysis:
… last year’s Global Corruption Barometre showed a very different picture of public life in New Zealand. Based on surveys of public opinion, it showed that there is a crisis of confidence in many public institutions.
The results for this country show that political parties in particular are perceived as being corrupt, along with institutions such as Parliament and the media. For example, according to the survey, 75% of New Zealanders believe that political parties are affected by corruption. 12% believe the parties are ‘extremely corrupt’. (Ref. NZ Herald.)
And Kiwis have good reason to point the bone at the politicians. In recent years we saw a former Labour Party cabinet minister Taito Phillip Field sent to prison on corruption charges. We discovered how another former Labour Party minister was using his Government credit card to watch porn in hotels he was staying at (that politician is now an Ambassador for New Zealand working in the Pacific).
Only this week the NZ Police’s former head of Northland’s organised crime unit, was sent to prison for four years after being found guilty of Methamphetamine charges.
We have seen the Prime Minister John Key justifying telling political journalists an untruth because he was in a hurry and didn’t want to be held up explaining in detail a potentially damaging revelation. And the revelations in the book Dirty Politics, and the findings of the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security’s report last week, certainly, in part, show how deep and dirty black operations based in the Prime Minister’s office had become.
So if our Aussie friends feel a little deflated at only making 11th place on the least corrupt country list… Spare a thought for your Kiwi cousins who are right up at the top on the squeaky clean rankings, but are up to their necks in the political swill.
ITEM TWO:
Auckland’s hot housing market is continuing to climb, hitting another all time high with Barfoot and Thompson real estate recording an average house sale price of $756,909 in October. That is up $20,000 on the average sale price for September.
And last month, the Bank of New Zealand’s chief economist Tony Alexander predicted the Auckland market will continue to rise with demand from purchasers originating from China expected to increase.
The BNZ gave considerable attention to trends across the ditch in Australia, where, it said, governments are clamping down on foreign investment in residential homes. Tony Alexander reasoned that with conditions becoming tougher for offshore investors to purchase property in Australia… New Zealand, and in particular, Auckland, will become the destination of choice.
The fact remains, that thousands of Auckland homes are going up in value faster than the salaries of the people who own them. Problems flow on. Inflationary pressures intensify in the real estate sector, the Reserve Bank cannot continue to take money out of the pockets of mortgagees through hiking up base interest rates as this impacts on other sectors of the domestic economy, land banking by investors in the Greater Auckland Region is locking up land that could otherwise be used for new houses, and other fertile productive greenfield land is being developed for new suburbs faster than many in the region can tolerate.
Prior to the election, opposition parties, mainly Labour, came up with a solution in part by restricting the ability of offshore investors to buy up homes and drive up prices beyond the limits of what Kiwis can afford.
But debate on solutions was stifled after the National-led Government ruled out such policies, referring to them as Xenophobic.
However, over night New Zealand’s deputy prime minister and finance minister Bill English indicated the National-led Government is reconsidering its long-held position of doing nothing to ease foreign investment in residential housing.
Bill English told the New Zealand Herald: “Apparently Australia is looking at putting in some kind of scheme, we’re open minded about whatever gives you more information.
“I’m sure if the Australians are doing it we can look at what they’re doing, we’re quite open minded about that.”
Across The Ditch broadcasts live weekly on Five AA Australia and webcasts on LiveNews.co.nz.
VERY FEW PEOPLE under the age of seventy will remember Caryl Chessman. His execution in the San Quentin gas chamber on 2 May 1960 was the occasion for an international outpouring of condemnation and disgust. The good and the great of the United States (from Aldous Huxley and Norman Mailer to the former First Lady, Eleanor Roosevelt) had appealed for clemency, but the State of California killed him anyway. Not for murder, mind, but for robbery, kidnapping and rape. The Supreme Court of the State of California had confirmed Chessman as the notorious “Red Light Bandit”. He’d managed to keep the cyanide out of the hole for 11 long years through numerous appeals and stays of execution, but California got him in the end.
The execution of Chessman unleashed a wave of popular revulsion against the death penalty in the United States. Over the course of the succeeding decade-and-a-half, state after state either abolished sentences of death altogether, or operated as if they had by commuting them to life imprisonment.
Not in the Deep South, of course, where the death penalty operated as an unacknowledged form of judicial terrorism against the black population of the old Confederacy. So extreme was the sexual psycho-pathology of the Southern Baptist male that Black American men were as frequently put to death for rape as they were for murder. The alleged “defilement” of a white woman by a black man drove Southern juries (and lynch mobs) into murderous frenzies.
With debate still raging in the lengthening shadow of Chessman’s execution, New Zealand finally rid itself of the death penalty in 1961. The legislation was made the subject of a conscience vote because in the years since 1949, when the First National Government had restored the death penalty (Labour having abolished it in 1941) a growing number of National Party members and MPs had found themselves conscientiously opposed to its retention. Interestingly, the liberal National Party Justice Minister, Ralph Hanan’s, majority for repeal included the new back-bench MP for Tamaki, Robert Muldoon.
The news media’s progressive role in the abolition of the death penalty might seem strange to a generation raised on the vicarious cruelty of reality television. Perhaps it was because journalists, as proxies for the crowds that once gathered to watch these grim events, were required to witness executions.
Only a pathological sadist could derive any pleasure from watching a defenceless man, often crying uncontrollably and begging for mercy, being frogmarched to the centre of a platform, where a canvas hood is thrust over his head, a noose tightened around his neck, and, at a signal from the Sheriff, dropped through a trap-door to his (hopefully) instant death. Seasoned reporters dreaded the execution assignment and their stories tended to be terse and generally sparing of the readers’ feelings.
There were exceptions. The relentlessly factual and highly detailed description of the February 1957 hanging of wife-murderer, Walter James Bolton, so horrified the public that it ended up being the last execution ever carried out in New Zealand.
With the end of capital punishment, however, the news media entered into a new relationship with the ill-fated “cast” of the standard homicide case.
The victims of deadly violence have always supplied reporters with sensational copy, but, in the days of the death penalty, the apprehension and conviction of the murderer naturally shifted the focus away from the dead to the one about to die. Often, the public found themselves caught up in the defence lawyers’ appeals for mercy on behalf of perpetrators who often turned out to be as much sinned against as sinning.
But when the worst that could happen to a murderer was being locked in a prison cell for a couple of decades (at most) journalists began to look elsewhere for the sort of pain and pathos that sells newspapers. The murder victims were, of course, beyond the reporter’s reach, but their family and friends were still very much alive. What’s more, the new, humane, Justice System often left the murder victim’s family and friends feeling cheated of the revenge they so desperately wished to see exacted upon the body of the person who had robbed them of their loved one.
Thus began the inexorable rise of “the victim’s family” as an unassailable source of commentary on the whys and wherefores, rights and wrongs, of contemporary crime and punishment. It was from distraught parents, heartbroken husbands and wives, and bereft children that journalists sought definitive judgements on the conduct of the accused’s trial and the appropriateness of any sentence. From the intense pain and suffering of these stricken human-beings the news media was happy to mine bitter attacks on the rights of accused persons, the leniency of judges and the manifest inadequacies of the nation’s laws.
Not surprisingly, politicians of every hue have been quick to attach themselves to the public outrage whipped up by this sort of journalism. The consequent electoral auction has seen an alarming narrowing of the crucial distance which jurists, over many centuries, have laboriously imposed between the raw grief of the victim’s family and the need for justice to be dispensed dispassionately, without fear or favour. The whole purpose of the Crown making itself the aggrieved party – as opposed to the victim’s relatives – along with the state’s insistence on being the only agency legally entitled to exact retribution for proven offences, is at risk of being forgotten.
It all raises a very uncomfortable question. Which is worse: the death penalty, or what happens to society’s understanding of justice when capital punishment is abolished?
Refusing to back sending New Zealand troops to Iraq is a welcome, ethical stance from Labour. Andrew Little made good solid points yesterday to back up this decision and he and Labour should be applauded.
The party seems to have learnt from their disastrous decision to join the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan back in 2001 and since then have been much more principled and realistic about sending our soldiers to foreign lands to fight and die for US interests.
But their support for our domestic, and, through “five eyes”, international, spy legislation has always been woeful and Labour confirmed this yesterday with support for John Key’s warrantless surveillance of New Zealanders. Labour claims major concessions from Key in return for their support for new attacks on our civil liberties but these amendments are
minor cosmetic changes to an ugly law.
Like our other spy legislation there are holes big enough to drive a bus through it sideways and as we know the spy agencies will exploit those loopholes as they always have.
Labour has never put up principled resistance to the extension of search and surveillance powers from the establishment of the Waihopai spy base in the 1980s – under Labour leader David Lange – to the plethora of legislation passed under Helen Clark which dramatically escalated the powers and resources of our external spy agency the GCSB (Government
Communications Security Bureau) and the internally focused SIS (Security Intelligence Service).
After September 11 Labour’s justification for dealing body blows to our civil liberties was the need to respond to UN requests for enhanced surveillance but that was only a tiny part of the legislation the party drove through parliament. Most of the dozen or so laws were put in place at the behest of the US as the dominant member of the “five eyes” alliance
so New Zealand would open up this country and our Pacific neighbours to US global surveillance. The US objectives in all this were neatly summed up in the Edward Snowden-leaked NSA document which gave the US objectives as “collect it all, process it all, exploit it all, partner it all, sniff it all and know it all”.
Our GCSB and SIS are now one important step closer to this US objective.
Like most of its predecessor legislation the latest SIS bill has nothing to do with New Zealand security and a whole lot more to do with New Zealand support for the “five eyes” alliance which links our GCSB and SIS to US global political and military strategies.
It’s a pity Labour has spoiled its principled stance of opposition to New Zealand troops being sent overseas by toadying to US interests here at home where we make our greatest contribution to the US empire.
David Robie also blogs at Café Pacific.
IN THE wrap-up session of the Pacific Journalism Review 20th anniversary conference at the weekend, independent film maker Alister Barry was beaming.
“I’ve never had such a tremendous reception for the film,” he admitted to Café Pacific. He was blown away by the tremendously engaged and enthusiastic response of a packed audience. Many said his climate change film Hot Air, premiered at the NZ International Film Festival in July, was inspirational.
But what needs to be done? The Vanguard Films investigation reveals in a devastating way how politicians are shackled when trying to confront such a critical global challenge as climate change. It also exposes the weaknesses of the NZ democratic system.
The lively discussion at AUT University centred on what strategies need to be followed. Some called for another documentary about climate change in the Pacific. A graduating student journalist from AUT was on hand to report the discussion.
By Emilia Mazza for the Pacific Media Centre and Pacific Scoop
Green Party MP Catherine Delahunty has called for more “rigorous documentation” on climate change in the Pacific while praising Alister Barry’s documentary Hot Air at a weekend public screening.
While describing the film about New Zealand climate change politics as “remarkable and important”, she jokingly asked if the director was going to consider making Hot Air 2 to focus on the Pacific.
“The story has moved along since the Emissions Trading Scheme,” Delahunty said, adding that the story needed to be continued.
“We need your rigorous documentation to include the Pacific.
“I feel as if the Pacific is where climate change is being felt, and most New Zealanders in their xenophobic focus on the West haven’t understood what is actually happening in their own ocean.”
Pacific Island nations were feeling first-hand the effects of climate change.
The film was screened at the PJR2014 conference “Political journalism in the Asia-Pacific” that ended at the weekend.
Climate change politics
The 90-minute documentary by Barry and Abi King-Jones takes an in-depth look at New Zealand’s history of climate change politics from 1988 to 2013.
The film, which premiered at the NZ International Film Festival earlier in the year, serves as a thoroughly researched artefact that shows, as director and producer says, “the shortcomings of social democratic process”.
Dr Chris Nash, professor of journalism at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, said many considered the Pacific as the “canary in the mine” and it was a warning to the international community.
He described the film “journalism as research” and a great note for the conference to end on in that it pulled together “in a very strong and forceful way, the themes of what it means to be a journalist in a university context – which the Pacific Media Centre exemplifies”.
Professor Nash said the quality of the work would have earned a doctorate in Australia.
He noted Barry’s earlier comment that the most expensive part of making the film was paying for access rights to archival footage.
“Independent documentary makers in Australia these days would not tend to make that sort of documentary,” he said, because of the costs involved.
A documentary like Barry’s would probably only be made with state broadcaster backing and screened on ABC’s long form current affairs programme Four Corners.
Documentary space
Professor Nash asked Barry if any equivalent to Four Corners existed in New Zealand, highlighting the issue of an increasingly commercialised media space.
Barry said that there had been space on Maori Television for documentaries for a while but that this channel had a limited number of viewers, and audience numbers might only be as many as 10,000 to 15,000 viewers.
“There isn’t any system at the moment for films like this,” he said.
Support for the film initially came from the New Zealand Film Commission which gave Barry $5000 for development. He was knocked back when he applied for a second round of funding.
He said television station executives did not show any real interest in picking up the film for screening, citing the potential for low ratings and issues with the documentary’s length – 90 minutes – as the main factors.
“There are a few people like me who continue to try and make these type of traditional style of documentaries but, he says, we are having trouble getting to audiences.”
Several short documentaries by AUT journalism, television and screen writing students – highlights of the annual Flavourz in-house “diversity” festival – were also screened before PMC Advisory Board chair Isabella Rasch closed the three-day conference.
Emilia Mazza is a graduating Postgraduate Diploma in Communication Studies journalist at AUT.
The trailer for the climate change film Hot Air by director Alister Barry.
Labour leader backs controversial anti-terror law
Labour has confirmed it will support new foreign fighter laws after changes including a softening of a planned 48-hour warrant-free period for spies.
“We accept there is an increased threat level and new measures are needed to ensure our security agencies can rapidly respond to terrorist threats,” Labour Leader Andrew Little said after a caucus meeting discussed changes hammered out at a select committee.
“Labour has ensured that all searches on potential terrorist activity will require a warrant except in cases of urgent and extreme risk.
“Even in these circumstances, the Director of the Security and Intelligence Service will be required to immediately notify the Commissioner of Warrants and the Inspector General of Intelligence; and a warrant obtained within 24 hours, not the originally proposed 48 hours,” Little said.
It sounds like Labour are selling out on the SIS spy powers. Trying to claim 24hour warrantless spying is preferable to 48hour warrantless spying is a bit like claiming being head-butted is better than being punched. Sure one might be slightly less painful, but that’s a bloody thin silver lining you are desperately trying to describe as a tapestry..
If Labour believe that stopping the SIS from using warrantless spying on Economic and Commercial interests is a safeguard, think again. Each of those Economic and Commercial interests merely need to suggest terrorism is the threat that will damage those Economic or Commercial interests and the threshold for warrantless spying is met.
The defence that this evidence will need a warrant if the footage is to be eligible as legal evidence is a false promise. The SIS could use warrantless spying with no intention whatsoever of that footage reaching evidential thresholds if all they are after is intelligence.
With all that we now know about the GCSB and NSA sharing everything and the NSA’s ability to watch everything our SIS do, this footage would become immediately shareable with the bloody US intelligence community. Why would we open ourselves up to that?
This is the same SIS that has just been outed falsifying information to smear the Leader of the Opposition months out from an election via a far right hate speech blog. Giving them the power to break into our homes, plant spy cameras and film us without a warrant for 24hours when they have shown that they are more than happy to interfere in an election campaign is bewildering.
Labour are rolling over on this to show the Deep State and the establishment that Labour are trust worthy enough to erode civil liberties when the system demands it. Labour over compensate for the Police state because they are frightened of being perceived as liberally soft by an authority worshipping muddle Nu Zilind. The mainstream media punditry won’t allow a Labour leader to become PM if he’s going to damage their interests, Cunliffe found that out, so Little must show he’ll play ball with the Spooks and give them all the extra powers they want. Remember, Shearer met secretly with Key to try and cut a deal on the GCSB legislation, so Labour are hardly the great defenders of our civil rights as they like to pay lip service to.
To ward off the sell out label, Labour will probably throw their activist base a bone in the form of coming out and saying no troops to Iraq. That way they get to look principled as they allow the bloody SIS to break into our homes whenever they feel the need for a fishing expedition.
The irony for Little is that these powers won’t be used against bloody terrorists because there aren’t any, they will be used to spy on Unions, Maori, Environmentalists, anti-poverty campaigners, TPPA activists and other protest movements.
There is not one actual justification for ramming these new spy powers through for agencies who have been caught out abusing those powers, Key can do it because the people of NZ rallied to him and gave him an incredible mandate to do whatever the bloody hell he wants.
The question must be, how easily led are NZers? There’s been no explanation as to why we suddenly need to re-invade Iraq and help guide drone strikes that kill dozens of civilians for every one ‘terrorist’. There’s been no explanation why the SIS need to break into our homes and plant spy cameras without warrants. There’s just been a lot of Muslim bashing fear mongering and irresponsible divisiveness by the Prime Minister to spook NZers into relinquishing their rights, but no actual rational debate.
When Seven Sharp is the new bench march for public debate, that debate becomes wilful ignorance.
God defend NZ because, no other bugger is.
The reason Little was the best candidate for Labour to move forward with was because he was the only one who could reach out beyond the current Labour Party electorate and appeal to middle NZ.
Little’s current stance on broadening the definition of worker to include everyone is a clever move that gives Labour a reason to tour the country and listen to that middle NZ who are intellectually intimidated by soy lattes. Little can push National lite policy that appeals to the middle while doing his shouty angry routine in Parliament to keep the activist base cheering.
It’s very smart tactics.
With Labour killing off MANA, and the Greens moving to the centre, Left voters have no other choices in front of them but to get on board regardless.
What Little and Labour need is some issue that galvanises middle NZ without angering the left base, they need a Countdown issue that shows strong Labour values while appealing to everyone. I think that issue, if the small business owner/contractor is the target, should be a strident criticism of IRD and their penalty rates on tax for small business. If Little can articulate a new relationship to that middle, his comfort in his own skin can appeal to their anti-intellectual shoulder chips while his blunt language stands in stark contrast to Key’s dead eyed duplicity.
In Little, Labour have finally found a leader who can beat Key.
