Category: Uncategorised

We have local elections coming up here and there are some striking differences from the UK, as well as similarities. There are actually three elections in this region; for Tasman District Council mayor,  Tasman District Council councillors, and for the Local District Health Board members.

The main differences:

• The geography is enormous.
• Voting is [almost] entirely by post.
• Clearer understanding of council/board responsibilities.
• Candidates run as individuals, not under any party banner.

And the similarities:

• Mayor (Council Leader) is a full time post. Others part time.
• Similar ratio of applicants to posts.
• Limited knowledge of candidates amongst voters.

The geography is striking by UK standards. For comparison Tendring District Council (Clacton, Frinton and surrounds) covers 340 square kilometres and 140,000 people. Tasman District covers 10,000 square kilometres and 47,000 people. The Health Board, including three districts, covers 227,000 square kilometres and 145,000 people. Those zeros on the square kilometre figures here are not typos. The Health Board area here really does cover about the same number of people as Tendring District Council, but over an area nearly 1,000 times as large, or twice the size of Wales.

Possibly as a result of the geography voting is entirely by post. Papers were received in this household a week ago and the voting closes in a fortnight. You can vote in person, up to the closing date, but this is primarily for people who do not get their postal voting papers for some reason. There are concerns here, as in the UK, about fraudulent perversion of postal votes, though the long term solution here is seen as electronic voting. “Real Me”, a single point of eContact with NZ government already exists.

The relatively simple governance structure, in Tasman District, of [just] local council and central government makes it relatively clear what the responsibilities are. There is a Motueka town council, but its powers are minimal. The Health Board covers; hospitals, primary care and pharmacy. The District Council covers; planning and recreational facilities as well as water, sewage and roads. Schools are run nationally. That has to be better than the dogs breakfast of; European [currently], national, county, district, mayoral layers of government, plus the confusion between hospitals and local government of care of the elderly, plus the [increasing] range of different schools (Grammar, free, academy, faith, comprehensive . . .). I think it is fair to say that the electorate here are much clearer than in the UK, over what the people they elect are going to be responsible for. In most other parts of New Zealand there is Regional Council above the District.

The numbers of candidates / positions for each election are:

• Tasman Mayor – 3 candidates for one position.
• Tasman Councillors – 5 candidates for the three Motueka seats on Tasman District Council.
• Health Board – 15 candidates for 7 positions.

This compares with the six candidates for two positions in the ward when I was elected as a local councillor in Clacton. There are similar rumblings here about the quality of some candidates, but it seems than in NZ as in the UK there is an adequate supply of adequate candidates for the system to work effectively. That may be helped in NZ by Councillors receiving NZ$38,000 pa (c £20,000 pa), compared to £5,000 in the UK. Each  district decides its own voting format, which means here that the Health Board uses Single Transferable Vote (STV) and the Council (Mayor and Councillors) uses First Past The Post.

And then we come to some familiar problems. The candidates a simply not well known. Voters do get an official list of candidates, including a short statement from each. And they run as individuals. No party affiliation to guide the voter here. Despite this turnout for local elections here is around 50%, compared to 35%-40% in the UK (for elections not coinciding with a national election).

The lack of knowledge seems to arise from a lack of media coverage of how these locally elected politicians are performing, which is strikingly similar to the UK. And, by and large, that reflects the general lack on interest amongst residents. Some issues raise the political pulse; TPIP, mineral extraction in national parks, but not many. Clearly it is that much easier in the internet age to do some research into the different candidates; though inevitably people do ask people they know, who they regard as more informed. That is not necessarily a bad thing as at least their vote is “informed”, when some votes in the UK might be criticised for being cast after consulting little more than their prejudices. The turnout does seem to indicate that more voters feel able and interested to vote than in the UK.

Is there anything the UK might learn from Tasman Council, about local elections. Maybe that clarity over responsibilities does facilitate effective democracy.

 

Dame Susan Devoy recently launched a campaign to encourage New Zealander’s to identify and talk about racist incidents in New Zealand, as a way of ensuring that New Zealand remains a beacon of racial tolerance. You can read her open letter here.

As an incomer to New Zealand the lack of any racial tension is certainly something that you notice. The two main racial types are European and Maori, and the country is genuinely bi-cultural. There is an ongoing process of restitution to Maori communities over breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi (1840) by European, essentially British, settlers. Elsewhere in the world I am sure such a process would be controversial. In New Zealand it commands, as far as I am aware, universal support.

The letter does not mention “migrants” or “immigration”. However, the press conference to launch the campaign seems to have developed a life of its own. I cannot find a verbatim transcript or video of the event, but many newspapers report that Dame Susan said, amongst other things, the New Zealand “must not become as racist as Australia”! She also aid that “she did not want migrants being blamed for every issue and problem”. Maybe these outrageous comments are simply designed to raise the profile of the campaign launch.

However, it would be very sad if Dame Susan really was confusing concerns over immigration with racism. Clearly immigrants will sometimes come from a different racial type. However, if UK residents object to immigration, that relates to pressure on low-skilled jobs, education, healthcare, housing and social services; with no distinction as to whether the migrant is Nordic, Germanic, Latin, Slavic or indeed Eskimo.

I cannot help but feel it is rather sad that New Zealand should achieve global visibility over a program to combat racism, when race relations in New Zealand must be amongst the best in the world. I would also point out that Dame Susan is NOT an official of the New Zealand Government. The New Zealand Human Rights Commission, that Dame Susan sits on is an “Independent Crown Entity”.

New Zealand is indeed a wonderfully tolerant place and that is something that New Zealanders quietly get on with making a reality, with or without a news conference to launch a[nother] campaign.

This post is not just another plug for the wonder that is New Zealand. It is a suggestion about how we, in the UK, might make a greater contribution to funding conservation worldwide. What if the 0.7% of GDP that is currently a protected budget within UK government spending, was to be spent entirely on conservation?

I have just watched the third of the recent BBC series on the natural world of New Zealand.  The series may look, to anyone who has not been there, as though it should have been part funded by the New Zealand Tourist board. However, trust me, it really is that wonderful.

The genetic diversity of this planet is a precious treasure trove. The human race is morally its guardian, to preserve and enhance; not its owner, to plunder and degrade. Also, on a more prosaic, self-serving level, the genetic diversity of the planet is a gold mine of potential benefits for the human race. Think of the foods and medicines that have been developed from nature, and we have barely begun to explore the possible benefits. If you throw a 1M quadrant on the tropical forest floor, only some 1% of the species you find are already known to man. Of course the other 99% are not large, fluffy, endearing mammals. They tend to be plants, insects, worms, fungi and microbes – and we know absolutely nothing about them.

To preserve genetic diversity, and discover what those genes can actually do, requires the conservation of species, which requires the conservation of habitat. Large areas of habitat!

Developed nations have substantially degraded the natural habitat that they govern, so the most valuable habitats tend to be governed by poorer nations. And there are the oceans and poles not governed by any specific nation. Two particular problems arise with expecting poorer nations to bear the cost of the conservation effort that is required.

1 – There is no moral or intellectually coherent case to be made for denying less developed countries the habitat degrading path to development that was followed by developed nations.

2 – The wealth required for the scale of conservation effort required is [obviously] in wealthier countries rather than poorer countries.

The protection of the overseas development budget by the UK government is widely resented by UK tax payers. My suggestion here is that not only would spending 0.7% of UK GDP on conservation be a wonderful thing for the planet and future generations, but also that it could be politically popular. I for one would welcome this expenditure on conservation of habitat, species, and genetic diversity.

The NZ Department of Conservation (DOC) performs heroically, as the BBC program highlighted in the case of the Kakapo, but it is facing budget cuts as New Zealand struggles to find the funds that it considers necessary. New Zealand is indeed poorer than the UK, and “Yes” I would have some of this money going to projects in New Zealand. But also to projects in India, Africa, South America and the Pacific.

If we are going to ring fence the UK overseas development budget, surely this is how it should be spent.

 

I have just spent ten days in Germany and was very struck by the approach to immigrants. I found no interest in assessing whether Angela Merkel was right to take in so many immigrants in the last year. There is more than just interest in the integration of immigrants, there is genuine enthusiasm.

An infant teacher that I spoke to has finished the four year cycle with her class and has just received the list of names for the class she will have for the next four years. Of the 26 names, just 9 are recognisably German. Clearly names are not an infallible guide to cultural identity. To give just two examples; Mesut Özil is thoroughly German and Shoala Ameobia is Geordie through and through. However, whether the 17 non-German names, actually predominantly Muslim names, are German, Muslim or Eskimo is not the point. The point is that this teacher believes she is getting a class loaded with Muslim immigrants. And she is delighted!

She will not just be cranking the handle one more time – doing what she has done many times before. Here is a chance for her to use her skills to really benefit children who are at a particularly difficult time in their lives.

Also, she points out that it is wrong to place too much emphasis on the fact that immigrants often do not have a fluent grasp of their new host language. She is expecting that many of her new class will be struggling with their German. However, they will also be struggling with a fluent grasp of their native language. They have not been in school, possibly ever, and they have been outside their native country, possibly for years. She makes the point that not having a fluent grasp of any language undermines a child’s confidence. Educating these children presents many complex challenges – what a great opportunity!

Clearly there is a “do nothing” option when it comes to a trade deal with the EU. WTO rules would apply, which has hardly restrained China, USA, India, Brazil and many, many others from trading with the EU from outside the single market.

NOTE:- The Single Market is NOT free trade, it is the very opposite.

However, there is almost certainly a win-win for the EU and the UK if a deal can be struck. And it is good to see that New Zealand has offered to help. They have experienced trade negotiators that the UK no longer has and they have offered their services.

There are those in the EU who have stated publically that “there must be consequences” to the UK for Brexit. They wish us ill, which is in stark contrast to so many around the world outside the EU. In 1982, New Zealand lent us a frigate during the Falklands war. We had no such support from Europe: France supplied Exocets to Argentina, and Belgium refused to sell us ammunition.

With Korea, New Zealand, Australia and the USA (excluding Barak Obama) all expressing interest in arranging trade deals with the UK, than goodness we are unshackling ourselves from the EU.

So, there we have it. Against all expectations the UK has voted to leave the EU, and you will all have your views on that.

I am in the UK just now, and indeed voted “Leave”, but I have had feedback from European emigrants to New Zealand, especially German emigrants. They are not just surprised, they are upset.

There are among many who feel that for all its faults, the EU is an excellent forum for international cooperation. The challenge for the UK political leadership, extending beyond any next general election, is to show that cooperation can be enhanced by Brexit. I, for one, did not vote to leave Great Britain to live in Little Britain.

The poll last weekend, showing Leave ahead convincingly, has roused some interest over here. However, it is all rather bemused. All along the lines of “what is it that the British don’t get, about all the riches that flow from EU membership?”

The best instance I can give of this kind of thinking actually comes from an article in Der Spiegel about EU payments to projects in Cornwall. The article states [correctly] that “money from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) has been flowing into Cornwall for more than 20 years”. However, it goes on, with a sense of complete bewilderment; “But it hasn’t done the EU much good. According to opinion polls, even in the Cornwall subsidy paradise a majority will vote on June 23 in favor of leaving the EU”.

The author is not completely daft. He does acknowledge that; “The sum was anyway transferred to Brussels in the form of membership contributions. “It’s our money,” is the conclusion.” He even notes that; “When auditors recently examined the grant money flowing into the region, they arrived at a disappointing conclusion: The program has fallen short of all of its benchmarks.” Then he completely ignores these striking nuggets.

He even concludes that “In Newlyn many fishermen are likely to follow their hearts on June 23. But some might also follow their noses.” By “noses” he means money, implying that EU payments may sway their vote. Fishermen! Has he no understanding at all. Fishermen of all people. Fishermen, whose livelihood has been devastated by the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy.

I probably do not need to tell you that the UK pays more into the EU than it receives back. So, post Brexit, the UK government could continue ALL EU payments, and still have £350million a week (or whatever is your chosen number) left over.

The debate in the UK finally seems to understand that there is nothing to fear about “Project Fear”. That emperor has no clothes. Outside the UK, the debate about Brexit still has a very retro, 1970’s feel to it.

 

 

Next Monday, here in New Zealand, we celebrate the official birthday of Queen Elizabeth II with a national holiday. This happens on the first Monday of June every year.

And, New Zealand remembers the sacrifice of their armed forces with a national holiday on ANZAC Day (25th April, or following Monday if it falls on a weekend). This is principally centred on the fighting alongside the UK in both world wars.

And, New Zealand recently voted to keep the current national flag, with the Union Jack in the top left quadrant. http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/2016_flag_referendum2/

There really is a very strong affinity for the UK here.

We finally have some coverage here in New Zealand of the forthcoming EU referendum in the UK, courtesy of a Brexit special supplement in the Sunday Star Times newspaper. It contains many predictable comments from reliable sources. The CEO of the NZ German Business Association saying New Zealand businesses might have to make more use of other countries (ie Germany) as their entry route into the EU. The British High Commissioner says “the choice is between economic security and global influence on one hand, and ‘a leap in the dark’ on the other”.

However, there were some other, tantalising glimpses. The only fact in the entire piece was that 90% of New Zealand exports went to the UK in 1930. Today that figure is 2½%, and presumably a [sizeable?] chunk of that is actually destined for re-export to the EU. NZ First leader, Winston Peters, sees Brexit as a chance to “heal a rift going back to 1973”, especially as far as visas go since the UK joined the “Single Market”.

Shane Firth, Kiwi expat in the UK and part of the Vote Leave campaign says “We have a shared culture and language but we are in the foreigners’ queue”. New Zealand certainly feels like one country where a vote to leave the EU would allow a much closer relationship with the UK at every level. 

Coming to New Zealand, I have been struck by how young and energetic this country is. By “young”, I literally mean the age of the population, compared to the UK. “Remain” offers a chance to continue down the integrationist path with “old” Europe. “Leave” offers us a chance to forge a relationship with “old” Europe based on a free trade version of what we have now, plus the chance to engage with vibrant economies around the world. 

In the UK we are familiar with the phenomenon whereby the economy creates more jobs, and this number is matched almost exactly by the increase in the number of working immigrants. Unemployment remains stubbornly high. Not unreasonably, those campaigning for “Leave” in the UK’s EU membership referendum on June 23rd suggest that this is substantially down to our inability to restrict the flow of low skilled labour into the UK whilst we are members of the EU.

Here is evidence that it may take some difficult decisions to achieve that – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11635350

This article reports that “New Zealand created 120,000 new jobs in the past two years, but the number of unemployed and underemployed rose. Essentially New Zealand imported a net 123,900 people to do those jobs.”

New Zealand has complete control over its immigration policy and has a points based policy that is all but identical to the Australian system that UKIP propose to introduce in the UK, once we have left the EU.

It seems that here, as in the UK, business hates the idea of restrictions on the supply of labour that might push up wages, especially for the low skilled. And they are very effective in lobbying. So, driving down UK low skilled unemployment, after Brexit, is going to take a points based immigration policy implementation that draws howls of protest from “industry”. The fight really only starts with Brexit!