A bit of a break

I’ll be having a bit of break from my usual blogging over the next week or so. I have other commitments. I may get a chance to do a bit if I can fit it in.

I’m sure the Internet will manage without me for a while.

Green candidate to contest Dunedin mayoralty?

I’ve heard from a number of sources that the Green Party is going to stand (or endorse) a candidate for the Dunedin mayoralty in this year’s local body elections. The 25th of May has been mentioned.

And at a public event this week a name was openly mentioned – Aaron Hawkins. This isn’t a big surprise, Hawkins stood for mayor and council in 2010 – see Mayoral Profile: Aaron Hawkins.

On Tuesday Hawkins posted an openly political attack on current mayor Dave Cull at The Daily Blog - Dunedin’s Mayor Our Very Own Karma Chameleon.

It’s interesting that Greens are becoming more openly active in local body politics. In the past political parties have not been a popular feature in local body elections so this is a risk for Greens.

In Dunedin financial management, council debt and escalating rates are are big issues. Greens are making a major play on financial policies in national politics, and are struggling to be seen as credible. Voters were happy to tolerate some controversial Green environmental policies, but there is more wariness about what has been seen as a fringe party suggesting extreme economic policies.

If Hawkins stands as a Green candidate that obviously positions him politically. Normanomics may be something any Green candidate may have trouble defending beyond the Green faithful.

His last election profile says:

How would you describe your politics?

Environmentally responsible and, if anything on a spectrum, probably centre-left.

Who have you voted for nationally?

I voted for [Dunedin North MP] Pete Hodgson, I think, in the last three elections and for the Green Party.

Probably not centre-left. Maybe he has become more Green in the last two and a half years.

Hawkins doesn’t seem to be very active on Facebook.

He is more active on Twitter, where he has obvious Green connections and is noticeably anti National. His twitter profile:

@MrAaronHawkins

Music & Opinions for @RadioOne91FM, Words for @RipItUpNZ,@TheDailyBlogNZ@InsidersDunedin, D Scene, [Your Publication Here]

If he does stand for mayor as a Green candidate we’ll hear a lot more about him and from him. It will certainly guarantee a hard fought and interesting mayoral campaign. It’s good for democracy to have a range of candidates.

Hawkins will have to improve substantially on his 2010 result (he’s likely to do that).

Candidate Affiliation First Preference
Votes  %
Dave Cull Greater Dunedin 21,757 48.60
Peter Chin Independent 14,084 31.46
Lee Vandervis 5,917 13.22
Aaron Hawkins Independent 1,527 3.41
Olivier Lequeux 1,164 2.60
Kevin Dwyer 197 0.44
Jimmy Knowles 124 0.28
Informal votes 57
Turnout 45,218 52.34

He was closer in the councillor vote – see Dunedin local elections, 2010

Greens are well supported in Dunedin in National elections, and there is a significant Green activist base in the city. If co-leader Metiria Turei helps in the campaign that will ensure more attention.

It’s risky for Greens to delve into political territory that other parties have kept a distance from.

But it will certainly add interest to the local body elections in Dunedin.

(As posted on Your Dunedin)

Oddly satirical

I just had a weird satirical experience.

I read this at The Civilian: Labour proposes repeal of National Government

And straight afterwards read this: What Rough Beast? The Political Meaning of Aaron Gilmore’s Fall

Another MMP lesson

Graeme Edgeler teaches Danyl Mclauchlin about MMP on Twitter:

Danyl: It’s pretty questionable that ACT, Mana or United Future are ‘in Parliament’ in any way other than as a funding rort

Graeme: They all got enough party vote support to earn a seat. Why shouldn’t they have one?

Danyl: Because other parties received the same level of party vote and aren’t in there. They’re just electorate MPs.

Graeme: Well, your solution is to give all parties that earn enough votes for an MP to get one.

Rob Hosking: This is bad why?

Graeme: It would not be bad at all.

Graeme has posted an excellent explanation of the current situation with the MMP review – On Consensus

He summarises:

The recommendations of the MMP Review would have the effect of decreasing diversity in Parliament, and increasing disproportionality.

I’m okay with that as a trade-off for increased equality between voters (though I would prefer to avoid this trade-off, by reducing the party vote threshold further), but some members supporting these changes seem reluctant to admit they’ll have the effect of silencing some voices.

If they believe it is worth it, they should have the courage to say it.

Explaining MMP to Russel Norman

Yesterday National said that no changes would be made as a result of the MMP review because of party consensus.

Russel Norman complained on Twitter:

There was never going to be unanimity on MMP review as the Act and Dunne turkeys wont vote for an early xmas.

Referendum supported MMP. Electoral Commission inde review recc removing coat-tailing and reducing threshold to 4%. Nats want gerrymander

Legal/political guru Graeme Edgeler responded:

And you want a less representative parliament and a higher wasted vote. All in the Game.

Norman didn’t get that:

How does lowering the threshold produce a less representative parliament? It’s the opposite!

Edgeler explained:

Removing the one seat rule will increase disproportionality by more than lowering threshold to 4% will decrease it.

Norman seemed more interested in getting what suited him and the Greens, not better proportionality:

That was the Electoral Commission recc.Do you think we should oppose it?

Edgeler went on:

I think you should take account of it when reaching your view, based on what the Greens think is important.

If what the Greens think is important is proportionality, you should oppose it.

If the Greens think proportionality is properly sacrificed to gain greater equality between voters that support it.

But if you support removing the one-seat rule, you should say that you are happy for there to be a less proportional system.

No response to that from Norman.

The Greens were no better than any of the other parties – they wanted proportionality that suited them but opposed proportionality that favoured other parties.

That approach is why no consensus could be reached.

Getting political parties to choose the most proportional most representative democratic system is a bit like, using Norman’s metaphor, allowing turkeys to decide on a Christmas menu.

There was never going to be unanimity on MMP review as…

…all parties had selfish interests. I really think that Norman was not aware of this. This is a major flaw in Green thinking, they seem to convince themselves that what they believe is the best option, the most democratic, the best policy. They are blind to their own biases.

Maori Party supports Feed the Kids but doesn’t?

It seems that the Maori Party would vote for Mana’s “Feed the Kids” bill. Felix Marwick has tweeted:

@felixmarwick

Re food in schools. Maori Party says it will support Harawira Bill. I’m unsure how keen they are though.

He links to an audio clip of Tariana Turia who says:

Well I think we need to build whanau capacity to take care of their own. I’m really not a supporter of people outside of the family feeding the children.

That’s a contrast to Hone Harawira’s preference for the state taking responsibility for feeding children in schools. This morning he said on Firstline:

It’s time for the Government to provide for every child.

Mana’s bill was due to have it’s first vote in parliament today and was expected to not have enough votes. Harawira has just had the bill deferred and will be now introduced in July, to give him more time to try and get sufficient support.

In the meantime National is expected to announce more food in school measures in tomorrows budget.

An alternate view on social lending

Grendel at Kiwiblog has commented in response to Jacinda Ardern’s comments as posted in Ardern clarifies on Social Lending.

Pete, i can tell you a couple of truths as someone who regularly advises people with budgeting and debt issues. i have experience of over 10 years of doing this, not some handwringing politician out to make a name for herself.

1. the people she is targetting do not care about interest rates etc, what they care about is, will you give me the money and do i think i can make the payments.

2. The loan sharks she is referring to are her way of bitchily talking about payday loans, pawn shops etc. they are not loan sharks (whatever the hell one actually is), they are legal businesses who have disclosure requirements, have to ensure the clients can pay back the money, and take a lot of risk in their business which is mostly unsecured lending, which is why they have high interest rates. these companies never seek out the client, the borrower always calls them begging for money. these companies are also covered by a stack of existing regulation. Do i like the idea of this kind of finance? no, but they are useful for some people and would not be used otherwise.

3. you can legislate all manner of disclosure of fees, payments etc and most of these people will not read it, they are looking for the bit to sign so they can get the cash. if they want $3000 and you say it will be $40 a week to pay back, thats all they care about. interest rates, terms, fees etc, which will all be overly well highlighted, will be ignored.

4. budgeting only works when people want to do it, and you have skilled people providing the advice. if you make it a mandatory part of getting tax payer secured finance (which is what she is on about), then these people will do the bare minimum to get the money and then bugger off. in the end it will end up another pointless part of winz where we pay people to pretend to do work that benefits noone.

5. budgeting and clearing debt is hard work, most people want a miracle that does not change their lifestyle one bit. sadly the majority of the people i have advised give up once they realise they will need to can sky, cut back on smoking, lotto, takeaways etc.

jacinda has never lived in the real world, has no idea how most people live and think, and will have had less contact with people in the scenarios she thinks she is an expert on than me, yet she thinks she has the skills and knowledge to talk about finance and borrowing habits? she earns $160K a year for this waste of time.

Harsh but some good points, I hope Jacinda takes them on board. Good social programmes are difficult to put together. Different points of view should aid the development of policy.

There is more discussion on this amongst other general debate at Kiwiblog from here.

Ardern clarifies on Social Lending

I may have been unfair to Jacinda Ardern yesterday when I posted on a Radio NZ news report on her proposal for social lending – see Ardern proposes interest free loans – to those who can’t afford repayments?

On reflection this didn’t add up, so I asked Ardern for clarification on what she intended. She has replied:

These are low and sometimes no interest loans for families who otherwise cannot access mainstream lending products and are likely candidates for loan sharks, which as you know, have very high interest rates.

The loans are usually in the vicinity of $1500-$3000 and are accompanied by budget advice support to ensure there is a capacity to pay back the loan. The proof that it works well is in the Australian model, where default rates are well under the international tolerance for mainstream lending products.

This is not an answer to low incomes- that too must be addressed, but it is a way we can ensure that families avoid debt that exacerbates their issues.

That makes more sense. If it is done well with adequate assessment of ability to repay plus budget advice it would obviously be far better than people who can ill afford it getting encumbered with the exorbitant interest rates of loan sharks.

This is actually something that may be able to be started at least without legislation if banks can be encouraged to partner with existing budget services. That would be a worthwhile project for an opposition party MP, working on something positive instead of the more usual opposing of Government.

Addressing family violence

On Q + A yesterday Susan Wood interviews former Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier on family violence.

Boshier talked of three things he things he thinks need focussing on to address family violence:

  1. Attitudinal change
    “We’ve managed to do this with drink-driving.  We’ve managed to do it with smoking.  We can do it with family violence, and we’ve seen some top rugby players beginning to come out and acknowledge”.
  2. Give women options
    The second thing is we’ve got to give women other options.  We’ve got to enable them to feel that there is something that they can do and somewhere they can go.
  3. Men being accountable
    “We’re beginning to see it more and more, men being accountable, talking, acknowledging and making change.  And we have seen  men who have been violent in the past who have come out and said, I no longer want to be violent, so were beginning to get men talking about it”.

Conclusion:

SUSAN WOOD: Do you think we will get there?  Do you think we will get there in a generation or two with domestic violence?

PETER We will make change.  Look, the fact that I’m here today speaking about this – this wouldn’t have happened 20 years ago.  And the fact that so many mayors, people are our ambassadors- John Key, Len Brown, Ruben Wiki, the famous rugby league player, are ambassadors, this wouldn’t have happened years ago.  I’m ever the optimist.

We need more optimists like Peter.

Men are not the only perpetrators of violent behaviour, but they are more violent and can be more physically damaging.

But it needs to be said that some women are also violent. And many women are non-physically abusive.

In probably the majority of cases both partners contribute to violence, by their attitudes, by their actions and by their inactions.

We need more work on attitudes, more and better options, and being accountable.

And we need to learn to understand each other better.

Videos:

Full transcript:

SUSAN WOOD INTERVIEWS PETER BOSHIER

SUSAN A very good morning to you.

JUDGE PETER BOSHIER – Former Principal Family Court Judge
 Good morning.

SUSAN This campaign is about men speaking to other men.  Is there any evidence that men are listening – that there is less family violence?

Advertisement

PETER  Well, I think what were doing is beginning to talk about it much more.  Unfortunately, only about 20% of family violence ever surfaces.  Theres an enormous, enormous amount that hasnt been talked about, so one of the real-
 
SUSAN How did you get that number?  Thats a huge amount we are not talking about.

PETER It is.  It is a huge amount.  Well, people are often unwilling to seek help.  They feel locked in, they feel unable to share it, so one of the real purposes of White Ribbon is to flush it out and to get people talking about it.

SUSAN But you’re talking to the men, and so often in these cases we are talking about, generally here, women as the victims of it, and the trouble is they are tied up.  They are tied with children; they are tied up economically, aren’t they, so often?  How do you break that?  How do you get these women to speak out?

PETER  Well, I think there are three things – three things that I would focus on for change in New Zealand.  And first of all, its attitudinal change.  We’ve managed to do this with drink-driving.  We’ve managed to do it with smoking.  We can do it with family violence, and we’ve seen some top rugby players beginning to come out and acknowledge.  The second thing is weve got to give women other options.  We’ve got to enable them to feel that there is something that they can do and somewhere they can go.

SUSAN And what are those sort of options?  I know well get to the third one, but what sort of things specifically do you need to give women?

PETER  I think there are two things.  The first is if youre in a violent relationship, you cant just go back to it once the person whos perpetrated the violence has been arrested, otherwise the thing goes round and round in circles.  And the poor children, just like the Once Were Warriors situation, are huddled, listening to their parents fighting.  So weve got to give women, first of all, somewhere to go, secondly, to empower them to make and force change.
 
SUSAN And the third point?  So weve got a chance in attitude, something for women to do, and whats your third point?

PETER Well, the third thing, and were beginning to see it more and more, is men being accountable, talking, acknowledging and making change.  And we have seen- We have seen men who have been violent in the past who have come out and said, I no longer want to be violent, so were beginning to get men talking about it.

SUSAN So they can change?  At the moment, probably a 20-week course is the best youll get.  Is it enough to get what is possibly ingrained behaviour changed?

PETER  It is not enough, and in legislation that is coming through to reform the Family Court, one of the good things about that legislation is enhanced programmes – broader, more customised.  Look, violence varies, Susan, as you probably know.  Some is contextual – it happens as a result of a marriage break-up.  Other is lethal.  We have men who are virtually pathological, and one 20-week programme isnt enough.  They may need a programme stretching over years.

SUSAN Across society- We have heard often that domestic violence is right across society.  Is that your experience?

PETER  Yes.
 
SUSAN It doesnt matter if youre a doctor in Remuera or whatever – its right across?

PETER It is, and dont forget that family violence isnt just punching and kicking.  It is often much more insidious, and the control – the psychological violence which there is out there – is just as bad as the physical.

SUSAN Do you see that?  Did you see that in your job – the psychological violence?

PETER  I listened at times to voice recordings on answerphones which women had had in the Family Court and I had access to the recordings that men had made.  Its terrible stuff.  And the other thing were beginning to see more and more is the text messaging and the use of emails.  So now everyones pretty marked – if you sent a bad text message, the chances are itll surface.  And some of the melancholic, awful, intimidating text messaging, often during the night, now is beginning to surface.

SUSAN This week, interestingly, Professor Greg Newbold from the University of Canterbury came out saying that Maori are overrepresented in many of the bad statistics in this country, as we know, sadly.  He was blaming the warrior culture and patriarchal culture of Maori for domestic violence.  Do you buy that argument?

PETER  I dont necessarily buy that argument at all.  The evidence that I have suggests that pre-colonisation many, many years ago, violence was not part of Maori culture, and thats certainly the case in the Pacific.  So I dont think its- I think its far too simplistic to say that we can blame that.
 
SUSAN Now, in a legal sense youre also advocating some changes, arent you, one being there is actually an offence of domestic violence.

PETER Yes.

SUSAN Because at the moment, you could be charged with assault, common assault, assault against a women, but it doesnt actually show if its domestic violence.

PETER  Correct.  You see, my point on this is that if you are a drink-driver, you get charged with drink-driving.  Youre branded – you are a drink-driver, and you have to be accountable for that.  But not so, and I cannot understand or fathom this- with violence, there is no offence of domestic violence.  The most that we get is male assaults female, and thats the biggest clue you get that it could be domestic.  We can and should do much better than this.

SUSAN So it would make a difference to have on someones record domestic violence?

PETER  Yes, it would.  I would like, when I see someones list of previous convictions, to be able to see that they have assaulted a woman, a partner, maybe more than one over a period of years and that its been domestic.  At the moment, I dont know.
 
SUSAN Youre also suggesting some sort of 0800 Crimestoppers, if you like, centralised place for women to go when there is a case of domestic violence.

PETER Yes.  One thing I would very much like us to promote through the Blue [White] Ribbon campaign and other things is who do you go to where you can be safe?  And women may feel fearful that Child, Youth and Family might intervene and take away the children.  They might feel fearful that the police will act in a way they dont want.  Theres got to be a safe way to talk about this.

SUSAN Youre also suggesting somewhere for men to go, like a man stop I think you called it.

PETER  Yes.

SUSAN How would that work?

PETER  Well, it does work.  Im from Gisborne, and Im proud of that fact because its one of the few places in the country thats set up a house where men can go.  One of my points is if men are violent, why should it be the women that have to leave?  I cannot see what the rationale or wisdom of that is, and so I think a place where men can go and talk about whats going on in their lives and how they might change might be a very very constructive thing.
 
SUSAN You mentioned earlier in the interview men starting to speak.  Are you seeing that more – starting to speak amongst themselves, starting to put the, I guess, peer pressure on each other in a positive way?

PETER Well, I am.  You may have heard of the White Ribbon motorbike ride, where a whole bunch of people visit 86 centres.  And one of these which I went to was just wonderful – very very empowering.  Because I think a lot of men do know – do know that theyve been violent.  They are ashamed of it.  To be able to talk about that with others who have done similarly is a way of getting out there that they need to change.

SUSAN How do you help them, though, if they do want to come out of it?  As we said, a 20-week course isnt going to do it.  A decent man whos done a bad thing – how do you get him right?

PETER  Well, we all know that there is aggression.  There is aggression on the sports field, and controlled aggression is acceptable.

SUSAN We admire it on the sports field.

PETER  We do.  But what we dont admire is the sportsman that then loses the plot, and we used to see this in the old days on rugby fields, but I suggest less so now.  In the old days, aggression was uncontrolled.  There were free-for-all punches.  Its dreadful stuff.  So what Im trying to say, through the White Ribbon campaign, and we all are, is this fact – theres a big difference between controlled aggression and violence. 
 
SUSAN Do you think we will get there?  You mentioned drink-driving as a good example.  Its a very good example, because in my youth, no one even thought about it.  These days, none of the youth I know would think of drink-driving, and there is a real social stigma on it.  But do you think we will get there in a generation or two with domestic violence?

PETER We will make change.  Look, the fact that Im here today speaking about this – this wouldnt have happened 20 years ago.  And the fact that so many mayors, people are our ambassadors- John Key, Len Brown, Ruben Wiki, the famous rugby league player, are ambassadors, this wouldnt have happened years ago.  Im ever the optimist.

SUSAN Well, good luck.

PETER  Thank you.

SUSAN Very good to talk to you.  Thank you, Peter Boshier.

Ardern proposes interest free loans – to those who can’t afford repayments?

Jacinda Ardern announced a “social lending” proposal on Twitter.

Social lending- one of the many things we need to introduce as part of child poverty battle..and that we will!

Radio NZ reports:

Labour floats social lending proposal

The Labour Party wants retail banks to begin offering low- or no-interest loans to beneficiaries and those on low incomes so they don’t have to use loan sharks.

Government legislation has been introduced to Parliament aimed at clamping down on unscrupulous lenders.

It stipulates that they can only lend money to people who can afford to make the repayments.

No one in their right mind would expect anyone to lend to people who can’t afford the repayments! Maybe only someone in their left mind.

However, Labour said on Monday the bill does not go far enough.

Social development spokesperson Jacinda Ardern says small loans of up to $3000 could be offered to those previously denied a bank loan.

Better to avoid the need for loans in the first place.

People who are denied bank loans are a higher risk category – they normally pay higher interest to cover the higher risk and higher level of defaults.

“We’re proposing a partnership between government and the private sector, predominantly our mainstream banks for instance, bringing in community organisations and collectively ensuring that those lines are available.

“Ultimately, this is asking mainstream lenders to take on corporate social responsibility really.”

If banks give interest free loans they are likely to make that up by recouping that loss in revenue from people who pay interest. In effect people with normal loans will subsidise those who are given “social” loans.

Perhaps there’s a way Labour can explain this that makes some sense. But giving low or no cost loans to higher risk borrowers will be a difficult sell.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers