Public Address - Hard News (Home)

The Finance Campaign | Nov 13, 2007 09:44

It's not so long ago that the New Zealand Herald didn't do campaigning journalism. Acting on the assumption that they were in charge of the "paper of record", the Herald's editors kept things stately and somnolent.

The paper began to wake up with a change of management in the 1990s. It embarked on the odd campaign. This was a good thing. The passive transcription of fact isn't the sole work of journalism, and newspapers and their readers can both be enlivened by the taking up of a cause.

But yesterday's rallying cry -- the front-page editorial headed 'Democracy under attack', the impressionist image of a woman in a gag -- was in a number of ways quite odd.

For a start, the news story (under the headline Democracy under attack from Government Bill, lest anyone be in danger of missing the message) that provided the platform for the editorial wasn't exactly a prizewinner. (I should note that Audrey Young has, in previous stories, made a lot of the running on this issue, so this isn't a dig at her.)

It reported that Labour, New Zealand First and the Greens "could" have done a "backroom deal" that would exempt government departments from the provisions of the Electoral Finance Act, to be "pushed through Parliament" this month. "Suggestions" of such immunity, if borne out, "would give powerful ammunition to the bill's opponents."

Ahem. We all know that the Electoral Finance Bill has been a debacle in the drafting -- bad enough to end the Cabinet career of former Justice Minister Mark Burton, who was dumped last month. But wouldn't it be prudent to wait a week day or two and actually find out what changes have been made to it (although it seems certain that restrictions on anonymous donations will be included -- as they should have been all along) , rather than go up to 11 out of 10 about what you think might happen?

It's tempting to suppose that the editors were a little concerned that their thunder might be stolen. Yesterday and today, the Herald has quoted the Human Rights Commission's scathing submission on the bill, and reported that the commission has called for the bill to be scrapped altogether

The HRC submission is concerned, rightly, with the over-reaching definitions of election advertising and regulation of third parties, and wants the bill either rewritten from scratch or significantly altered to meet its concerns (it suggests alterations). Among other things, it wants a much tighter definition of what constitutes election advertising.

Even the Law Society, which did call for the bill to be scrapped, told the select committee that it "endorses the objectives in the bill. We accept that internationally there are precedents for restrictions on electoral advertising. There should be transparency as far as donations and third party activity are concerned. However, this bill does not achieve the right balance between these restrictions and requirements, and the objective of the promotion of participation by the public in parliamentary democracy."

Remarkably, the Herald, insofar as its stance is explained in the editorial, does not endorse the objectives of the bill. It sees no problem in very wealthy individuals being able to anonymously pursue their interests by funnelling millions of dollars through secret party trusts that are opaque to the public. And for the spending of that money on electioneering to be open slather apart from the three months presently deemed to be the official election campaign.

This seems an odd stance for a self-styled champion of democracy, and it is far beyond the positions held by the National Party, David Farrar or Rodney Hide (who recently made the meritorious suggestion that the government should work with the Human Rights Commission on changes to the bill).

The Herald's argument for such a position is essentially pulled out of its editorial ass:

Parties have different advantages. If National has more well-heeled donors, Labour probably has the more committed and articulate foot soldiers.

There are a few other flaws in the argument: the editorial rails against the $60,000 spending cap on individual third-party campaigns, while the news story confidently speculates that the final cap will actually be twice that. Both pieces strive to give the impression that opposition to the bill has been near-universal. In fact, about two thirds of the submissions could be construed (whether they explicitly say so or not) as being emphatically opposed to the bill. This sounds a lot: but remember, submissions against the Civil Unions Bill ran at more than 90%.

I'm more inclined to trust Steven Price and Graeme Edgeler's work on behalf of the Coalition for Open Government, and to believe that the bill needed amendment (among other things, COG recommended dispensing with the clumsy registration requirement for small third-party campaigners) but serves an important purpose in guarding against elections being won with the largest wallets.

There was a whiff of desperation in the paper's follow-up story online yesterday afternoon: it declared that "public opinion has swung behind the Herald's call for the Electoral Finance Bill to be scrapped", using its "Your Say" forum as a yardstick, and declaring "that the campaign has won the support today of National leader John Key, who reiterated a pledge to scrap the law if his party leads the next Government, and New Zealand Broadcasting School lecturer Paul Norris."

That last one is more than a little disingenuous. At no point did Norris endorse the principles of the Herald's "Attack on Democracy" campaign: he merely backed the paper's right to advocate with a front-page editorial.

As do I. But that's not the same thing as being won over by a campaign that is as long on invective as it is short on measured thinking. If this bill were to be dumped, there would be no prospect of another one being passed in time for next year's campaign. I don't think that's a good result.

Ironically, the response to the Herald's poll on the question "Is New Zealand becoming a less free and democratic country?" -- linked to in a fit of overkill from the editorial and the news stories -- suggested that the public wasn't quite as frenzied as the editors. By late afternoon, about three quarters of the 7000-odd respondents to the poll were saying "No."

Update: The poll was hacked and the young man involved says he's very sorry ...

---

A little entertainment news: people in this town are paying to go out and see live music. On Thursday night, both the Veils and Liam Finn sold out their shows, and the Electric Confectionaires packed 'em in to their abum launch at the Dogs' Bollix. On Saturday, I managed to solve my quandrary by seeing both the Phoenix Foundation's second night at Galatos (they're at the top of their game - languid and assured even when they're rockin' out), skipping their encore and getting over to the King's Arms to catch the last half dozen shows of Garageland's comeback gig, including a remarkable singalong by hundreds of punters for 'Fingerpops' -- it was a happy room.

I also discovered that not only will Jed Town be playing support fr John Cale on Thursday, he will be doing so with a backing band composed of … the Mint Chicks!

Also, it's just been announced that Sonic Youth bring their Don't Look Back show -- a complete recital of 1988 Daydream Nation album, plus more, to the Bruce Mason centreon Feb 16 next year.

And one more brilliant thing. Bill Direen will be touring with the new Builders lineup before he heads back to France, as follows:

Arc Cafe, Dunedin. Friday 23rd November 2007.

The Penguin Club, Oamaru, Saturday 24th November 2007.

Al's Bar, Christchurch. Sunday 25th November 2007.

Mussell Inn, Takaka. Monday 26th November 2007.

Mighty Mighty, Wellington. Wednesday 28th November2007.

Ward Lane, Hamilton, Thursday 29th November2007.

The Masonic, Devonport, Auckland. Friday 30th November 2007.

Otis Mace is tour support (they're joined by Matthew Bannister for the Hamilton show) and Bill will play a solo set before being joined onstage by the Builders. Choice.

(90 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!

Tapped out and meanwhile ... | Nov 09, 2007 09:39

I'm glad that the 12 won't be charged under the Terrorism Suppression Act. I'm glad that Howard Broad has indicated some process of conciliation with the people of Ruatoki is underway. I'm glad I live in a country where the senior non-political law official can call a law anointed by almost the whole Parliament "incoherent". And I'm glad my tip on the Solicitor General's announcement yesterday morning panned out.

I'm not so glad that the police may well have contrived to render a great deal of evidence on matters that appear of legitimate public concern unusable, to the extent that most of us will never be able to decide for ourselves what actually happened. And not so and that people whose real connection to those matters may be tenuous have had their lives irrevocably changed.

Apart from that, I'm tapped out and in dander of repeating myself. But we have plenty of discussion going on here.

Meanwhile, over on Humans, Hilary Stace has a thoughtful and well-informed post about the was-Janet-Frame-on the-spectrum story.

I saw The Veils play last night at a very, very full King's Arms. They're a passionate band with passionate fans. Earlier in the day, I interviewed Finn Andrews, and that will be on Public Address radio at 5pm tomorrow on Radio Live.

As will Henry Chellow of the Pt Chevalier Ignite Charitable Trust, which was formed by a group of locals who are mad as hell about their Telecom broadband and aren't going to take it any more. They're now discussing service for our neighbourhood via a variety of technologies with a number of potential providers. They're hopeful what they do will serve as a model for other communities. If you live in the Chev, you may wish to complete their online internet service survey.

Congratulations to Phillippa Stevenson and Rural Network for making the Online Journalism Review. And thanks for the shout-out!

A teenaged Jim Morrison in a film that was not strange at the time but seems very strange now.

Power's Line's John Hinderaker is the runaway winner in the Washington Monthly's inaugural Golden Wingnut Award, with a post that began:

It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.

And no, he wasn't being ironic.

I'm delighted to see the announcement of the support act for John Cale next week: Jed-I, aka Jed Town. What a nicely left-field choice.

In the nearer gig-going future, I'm torn between Saturday night's competing offerings of Garageland (King's Arms) and the Phoenix Foundation, but the Phoenixes might just get me, because I am completely won over by the song 'The Bleaching Sun' on their new album, Happy Ending, which contains an iconic New Zealand in both verse …

Your heart is cold
Like a box of beer
And I just can't cope
With you my dear

And chorus:

Under the bleaching sun
Out on the washing line
Hanging from our thumbs
Until we get us dry

I love that, and Leo doesn't love me singing it. Speaking of the boy, he has compiled some Friday video goodness for you.

(44 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!

The Demon E-Word | Nov 08, 2007 10:22

The drive-by criticisms of certain conservative columnists notwithstanding, the New Zealand Curriculum project seems to me to be a model of modern education practice: initially and perhaps most notably in its consultation process. You can go back through that on the thoughtfully archived project website.

A wide range of potential stakeholders in education were consulted: students, teachers, parents, expert and community groups and employers and busiiness leaders. It's that last one that the Quality Public Education Coalition has a problem with:

In a statement headed Curriculum blighted with "entrepreneurial" vision, QPEC spokesman John Minto declared:

We are deeply concerned the term "entrepreneurial" has been included in the new school curriculum despite large numbers of submissions on the draft curriculum called for its exclusion. (The present curriculum refers to the generic term "enterprising" while the new curriculum talks about "enterprising and entrepreneurial")

This is a first in New Zealand and is a serious retrograde step.

It represents the power of the business lobby which has mounted a well-resourced attempt to skew the curriculum to reflect narrow capitalist values. Business New Zealand welcomes the curriculum and it's easy to see why.

Entrepreneurial has a specific meaning which is running a business to make a profit. This is included in the curriculum but such things as the running of co-operatives, credit unions, trustee banks, profit sharing or trade unions are excluded.

This is the second time this week I've had cause to mention Minto but I'm really not trying to have a go at him: I'm just staggered by the bitter nature of this response. It seems to have less to with the quality of education than with a narrow, exclusionary ideology.

"Entrepreneurial" appears once in the new curriculum document: in the phrase "Enterprising and entrepreneurial" in the Vision section of the document; which also proposes that students should be "Contributors to the well-being of New Zealand – social, cultural, economic, and environmental," "Positive in their own identity," "Members of communities", "International citizens" and more.

The QPEC is not the only party to get in a tizzy about the E-word. Leonard Benade of St Paul's College, in a conference presentation for the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia, held that it "serves to illustrate the shift from social consensus politics to neoliberal, 'new Right' politics in the late 1980s and into the 1990s."

Really? Taken in the context of the overwhelming expression in the curriculum of values relating to community, participation and citizenship (and the re-inclusion of a central place for The Treaty), that seems an extraordinary claim.

As I understand it, the relevant part of the curriculum is oriented around skills in understanding costs and risks -- beginning with looking at the implications of keeping a pet.

I don't think the curriculum does necessarily exclude non-profit initiatives like those listed in Minto's statement -- indeed, I think skills in operating such initiatives are not mutually exclusive to a sense of enterprise. But I do take a wider view of the meaning of entrepreneurialism. I defined it in Information Entrepreneurs, a paper for a Friends of the Turnbull Library conference, as "the novel combination of resources that results in an increase in wealth". The paper doesn't mention money at all, but it is about what individual enterprise has to offer the community of ideas.

Minto sees it differently:

Almost a third of our children grow up in poverty and a large proportion will take up low-paid, part-time jobs for much of their working lives. They need to question and think critically about the economic alternatives to the failure of New Zealand's economy to work well for people aside from small numbers of wealthy entrepreneurs.

But is the curriculum, through the solitary inclusion of the E-word, teaching our children to become exploiters? Not unless you think they shouldn't ever aspire to having and pursuing their own ideas; or have a plumbing business, a web design company, a market stall, or a company called Dawn Raid Entertainment. And in seeking to demonise it, that is effectively what its critics are saying.

PS: Staying, if somewhat creepily, with the theme of schools, material created by the teenaged Finnish school murderer Pekka-Eric Auvinen is no longer available via his YouTube channel, but it can be downloaded as a torrent file including video, pictures and documents. It's a chilling but fascinating glimpse into the mind of a kid who really didn't have a sense of community. There's also a cached version of the YouTube page.

(177 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!

Dopamine psychosis and other great nights out | Nov 06, 2007 11:45

The Weekend Herald's story on the crazily loose distribution of new party pill substances is alarming but, it appears to me, valid. What I can find on the substance reckoned to be in the Neuro Blast pills being sold by the London Underground company -- a chemical called Diphenyl Prolinol -- suggests to me that their sale and the unsupervised "trial" of (possibly) something else by the same company is grossly irresponsible.

The police interest is in demonstrating that Diphenyl Prolinol can be considered an analogue of Pipradrol, which was first synthesised in the 1950s for use in treating obesity (and is still rarely used to treat senile dementia) and was added as a prescription drug by Medsafe in February, as part of harmonisation with Australian schedules, and is thus illegal to sell over the counter.

But its possible prescription status isn't really the issue here. The following are excerpts from a thread on Blue Light discussing Diphenyl Prolinol under the name diphenyl-2-pyrrolidinyl-methanol.

I have tried this one a while ago. hated every minute of it and wanted it to just stop. It was very much like taking a hell of a lot of Ritalin …

Well, I'm in search of a theory to explain observed facts then: D2PM seems to be capable of bringing on dopamine psychosis faster than most other dopaminergic substances I've researched …

I'm quite certain the stuff is capable of causing psychosis with stunning rapidity, given high + frequent + extended dosing (a combined situation that most will never encounter, but worthy of note anyway) …

OK, so for those DUMB enough (yes) to try & get this entertainment value from D2PM, here's a brief guideline: First off, NEVER have more than a gram around if you're gonna do this... unless the idea of being in a straitjacket & padded room for a long time appeals to you. Better yet, limit your easy access to 1/2 gram …

(C) You must obey once the DPH is in control, as you'll have no other choice. I mean it pretty literally, give up immediately and accept the fact you're gonna use until it's gone. Otherwise you will be "door-matted" by this drug, whipped into chemical defeat, in a state of amazement and humility. Not a pleasant form of ego-loss, I must say. And finally, (D) if you feel yourself going into dopamine psychosis (pretty easy to tell), IMMEDIATELY toss what you have left down the toilet. Or you will go straight into psychosis & stay in for as long as 2+ days/nights. If it happens, it will most likely be toward the end of the gram, or ~48 hours rolling, whichever comes first …

Enjoy, kiddies . Better yet, take the above as a warning and find something more enjoyable to use in the traditional sense. You probably won't die, but you had better like EXTREME thrill-seeking to attempt the above. Now that my memories are distant it seems it was almost fun, but the subsequent crash (without psychosis) was sheer HELL that lasted the better part of a week …

I way overdid it the other day (a dose of 100mg to 150mg) and didn't notice ANY peripheral side effects. I did have a gurgling stomach all night and sweated a lot, but otherwise I felt great physically. Mentally however, I had severe anxiety and was sloppy and stupid like I was drunk. At one point I had a psychotic break and I'm still recovering from the paranoia.

The Wikipedia entry for Diphenyl Prolinol is scarcely more encouraging:

Precautions to take might include limiting access and watching closely for symptoms of addiction, such as loss of control over dosage or difficulty stopping use once it has started.

Are we getting the picture here? This is about the worst profile for a legally available recreational stimulant I can imagine.

My view remains similar to that of Matt Bowden: you're not going to stop people taking recreational stimulants by simply making them illegal -- we know that. And, rather than letting cowboys like these London Underground idiots run so-called "trials" with dangerous chemicals, it might just be better to swallow hard and pursue a proper approval process for chemicals that have no therapeutic value apart from enhancing a night out.

Anyway, on another note entirely: I wasn't sure about 'It's a Better Way With Labour', Chris Knox's theme tune for the 2008 Labour campaign, the first time I heard it. Then I listened to it again and now I can't get the damn thing out of my head. It really is very catchy indeed. I think it's going to work for them.

And, having dwelt on the scuffling and screaming to the left of Labour during the party conference, it seems only fair to note Michael Cullen's rollicking speech on social justice at the same conference. If you want to know the key messages for 08, they're all in there. I gather the delegates emerged fizzing from that session.

(119 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!

Scuffling and screaming on The Left | Nov 04, 2007 12:56

Which was the greatest irony? That Len Richards, the Labour delegate who took a swing with a megaphone was, until last year co-leader of the Alliance? That he last week published a statement unequivocally condemning both the Ruatoki raids and the Terrorism Suppression Act?

Or that his partner, and fellow Labour delegate, Jill Ovens, was a prime mover in the Council of Trade Unions' recent resolution calling for the repeal of the Terrorism Suppression Act, as an unacceptable constraint on free speech?

The protestors wouldn't let Ovens be heard when she came out to talk to them, even though an organiser handed her a megaphone. They were too infatuated with their own chanting -- "Lies! Lies! Lies!" -- to actually listen.

She gave up, only for Richards to pick up the megaphone, demanding to know why she wasn't getting a hearing, and beginning a screaming match, principally with a fellow unionist, Jared Phillips: "You've destroyed the Left!" shouted Richards, clearly losing his temper.

Phillips and a woman (who I presume was John Minto's partner, Bronwyn Davies) advanced on Richards, and Phillips made several grabs for the megaphone (fair enough: it did belong to the protesters) before Richards, in a moment of madness, lunged and swung the megaphone at Phillips before retreating.

That was a bloody dangerous thing to do: he could have seriously hurt someone. Fortunately, the video footage suggests that Phillips fended off the swing and wasn't struck square in the face.

It was still unacceptable. Richards' five-minutes-old party membership should be in question now -- it'd be good riddance, given the damage he's done -- and he has only himself to blame if the police do decide to prosecute for assault.

Why didn't they apprehend him then and there? In the One News video, captured from the police vantage point, the incident is swift, and Richards retires. The fact that the police agreed to investigate once they'd seen the TV3 pictures suggests that they didn't fully grasp what had happened at the time.

The guy who grappled with Richards on his way out (and right in front of the police) was arrested, perhaps unfairly: although his contact with Richards might have counted as assault on another day.

Indeed, on another day, a great deal of what went on would have been grounds for arrest. If, in a night on the town, you or I had physically jostled policemen, repeatedly screamed obscenities in their faces and, in one case, spat in a policeman's face, we'd certainly be spending a night in the cells.

When you look at the extended TV3 video (and I'm loving the fact that they've been posting wild footage like this), the most striking impression is of the restraint of the police on the scene. I don't think I'd be able to maintain that kind of composure through two hours in the face of people who, in some cases, looked plain hysterical.

There are several priceless moments. One is when the police dutifully play the game and pick up and move one of the people in Guantanamo costume -- and a cop carefully puts him down and gives him a gentle pat on the back.

In the other, an unseen party with a megaphone shouts "the police are trying to provoke something! The police are trying to provoke something!" -- while protesters, some of them losing the plot, swear and shout and try and hurl their friends at the police line.

In yet another, one protester, his megaphone propped on the shoulder of a rather patient constable, gamely chants "this is what a police state looks like!". No it isn't, you self-dramatising twit.

One can only imagine how loudly the organisers would have complained had the police behaved towards them the way the protesters behaved towards the police. Officers will have been, of course, under instructions to show restraint. And we should be glad they did. It looks like it wouldn't have taken much for things to get badly out of hand.

The voice of reason surfaced briefly in the subsequent Indymedia thread:

It would be nice if people actually took a deep breath on all sides and ease up. Right now there are people in and out of jail, accused of crimes by the state that could result in a long time in jail. It's time for the New Zealand Left to start thinking, smarten up, and building bridges. And it's time to stop the sort of nonsense that occurred around the megaphone today.

We owe it to ourselves, to our friends, and our futures.

And was swiftly slapped down:

that is precisely what would NOT be nice. that is about theee weakest thing done right now, the opposite is what is called for, dramatically. Why aren't there major traffic jams yet? (very effectice activism), why aren't there some serious punches being thrown back? because they speak one language, violence, and when you (Aotearoans) learn to speak it, they (filthy british pigs) will then listen

John Minto has had a lot to say these past two weeks. He has argued pretty convincingly that, in the case of the four of the 17 arrested who definitely won't be charged with terrorism offences, the police don't have any admissible evidence for any charges at all.

But perhaps now is the time for him to exercise some responsibility for his own side. In a press release under the pompous title Police express regret for their provocative action at Labour Party Conference protest, and with his name at the bottom, Global Peace and Justice Aotearoa explained its action thus:

The protest called for the repeal of the Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002 and its various off-shoots which have resulted in drastically increased powers of surveillance for the police and Security Intelligence Service as well as big increases in resourcing.

Last week, Len Richards wrote this in a blog post which was also carried on Scoop:

The first question that arises is; did the police act judiciously in their 'invasion' of the Tuhoe country, given the past history of the Maori of that area? The second question is; are draconian anti-terror laws that could potentially outlaw hitherto legitimate political activities necessary to deal with such a threat, whether real or perceived?

The answer to both questions must be a resounding; No!

Can Minto really consider that, and what Ovens did with the CTU resolution -- and bear in mind the call for violence in the Indymedia thread, and the people there screeching about "class traitors" -- and not wonder if things have gone badly wrong?

The Sunday papers aren't full of compelling questions about the Terrorism Suppression Act and its more troubling amendment bill. They're full of trade unionists who wholly agree on the alleged aims of the protest scuffling and screaming at each other like idiots. Is the political right having a laugh? You bet. They're passing the popcorn.

PS: I'm with Audrey Young. Why the change of policy from Helen Clark on commenting on the police operation? She can't meaningfully interfere with the operation, so why comment? The police cases can stand or fall on their own merits, and she really should STFU.

PPS: I've done some research on the Weekend Herald's story about the next-generation party pills, and I can barely comprehend the conduct of the company that was distributing those substances. But more on that tomorrow ...

(255 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!