A Slight Improvement: Our Report Card On The Government - Murray Horton You won’t normally read much about Parliamentary politics in Watchdog. Economics yes, but not the political stuff that so consumes the transnational corporate media. Why? Because in a country that leads the world in having become corporatised, privatised and transnationalised, we’d rather deal with the organ grinder, not the monkey. However, the election of the first non-National government in a decade gives us an opportunity to have an exception to our rule, and have a look at how the Labour/Alliance government is shaping up. There was no surprise in the actual election result. Voters had already showed their feelings by a major swing to the Centre Left in the 1998 local body elections - the Alliance and Labour did well in all major cities; Christchurch 2021 gained almost total control of the Christchurch City Council (and I bet the Tories are extremely relieved that the rapist, Dr Morgan Fahey, did not win the mayoralty, otherwise they’d have to be trooping out to the prison to hold Council meetings); Sukhi Turner was re-elected Mayor of Dunedin with an increased majority; Papakura District Council, the darling of the Business Roundtable and the Rogernauts, saw the complete defeat of councillors who had taken it down the path of deregulation, user pays, and selling assets. The lesson in this for the laissez faire zealots is that democracy can be dangerous to their health. The 1999 general election confirmed this trend. Indeed, voters had been trying to get this result since the 1990 election – broken promises and betrayals, by the likes of Jim Bolger and Winston Peters, had thwarted their clearly expressed will. Since the Rogernomics coup of 1984 (the TV series glorifying Roger Douglas was laughingly titled "Revolution". I must have missed the popular uprising of huge crowds marching in the streets demanding Rogernomics), New Zealand has been the economic and political laboratory for the most extreme laissez faire capitalism on offer anywhere in the world. Which, needless to say, has not worked. The "gain" has definitely not been worth the pain. The true believers, the Khmer Rouge of capitalism, are screaming out for more. But the vast majority of New Zealanders are stuck in a nightmare from which we’ve been desperately trying to awaken. Maybe The 70s Weren’t So Bad The 1999 election result offered the first chance in 15 years to reverse some of this. The Labour/Alliance government, backed by the Greens, came to power with a policy of replacing market forces with a hands on approach to the economy. Specifics include raising taxes for those earning over $60,000 p.a., repealing the Employment Contracts Act (ECA), renationalising the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), stopping the sale of State-owned assets, ending the competitive model for tertiary education and bulk funding for schools, reintroducing income-related rents for State house tenants, and increasing National Superannuation and the minimum wage (which affects me). The biggest amount ever of public money has been promised to the arts. National, ACT and the ideologues of the business and political New Right have denounced it as a throwback to the "Leftwing, interventionist" 1970s (it’s no secret that Jim Anderton, the Deputy Prime Minister, is a big 70s fan, regarding the 1972-75 Kirk/Rowling Labour government as the most recent Leftwing one in NZ history. Visit Jim’s office in his Wigram electorate, in Christchurch, and you’ll see that his collection of photos of Labour leaders, on the walls, ends with Norm Kirk and Bill Rowling). But Labour’s front bench, including the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, and Treasurer, Dr Michael Cullen, are veterans of the 1984-90 Rogernomics Labour government. There is one good thing about that front bench – it doesn’t include Mike Moore. Our "loss" is the World Trade Organisation’s gain, where he is having a disaster as its Director General at a time when the tide is turning against "inevitable" globalisation. Otherwise he would now be New Zealand’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Jim Sutton, who is that Minister, is nothing to write home about, but anyone’s better than Mad Mike. The Labour/Alliance coalition has plenty of internal tensions on economic matters. Laila Harre, one of the Alliance’s four Ministers, showing that she fully intends to exercise the two parties’ novel Coalition Agreement for Ministers to publicly disagree, has urged the Government to wash its hands of "the monetarist experiment. That is the most serious issue facing us over the next few years. And I’m absolutely convinced that the Labour Party are going to have to wake up to the size of the threat to our sovereignty. At the rate we are going in terms of our national debt and our balance of payments deficit…we are at risk of becoming a cot case. In the end that is going to be the test of this Government – whether they are prepared to move in a new direction and wash their hands of the monetarist experiment, which at this moment they continue to savour" (Press, 16/12/99). This sort of talk does not go down well with the unreconstructed Dr Cullen, who has crossed swords with Jim Anderton, during the election campaign, and in Government, about economic policy. Anderton’s place in any incoming Labour/Alliance government was the 1999 pre-election worry for the market. The market was reassured that the reliable Dr Cullen would keep a firm rein on the satanic Jim (but now they’re not so sure about Cullen. Even he might be a bit too Lefty for them). The Alliance’s four ministers, including Anderton, are being kept well away from key spending portfolios (Jim has been allowed to proceed with his pet projects - the creation of a New Zealand-owned and operated People’s Bank, using State-owned New Zealand Post to resurrect the former Post Office Savings Bank, which was destroyed by the 1980s Labour government; and being allocated $100 million for regional development). Cullen plans no changes to Tory cornerstones, such as the Reserve Bank Act and its 0-3% inflation range. Labour’s leadership is firmly committed to globalisation, liberal foreign investment, free trade, etc., so we shouldn’t get our hopes up. They have talked only of preserving what little is left, but have no plans of reclaiming any of the billions of dollars worth of NZ assets flogged off in the past 15 years (with the sole exception of the ACC). For example, Steve Maharey, the Social Welfare Minister, said: "Globalisation is here to stay and people have to come to grips with it" (Press, 10/7/00). And indeed, after their six months honeymoon was over, midway through 2000, Labour panicked when confronted by determined opposition from Big Business, and promised to revisit key policies, such as the Employment Relations Bill (which will replace the ECA). As for Alliance policies, such as employer-funded parental leave, Labour dumped them, publicly attacked its junior coalition partner, and publicly derided Alliance Ministers, such as Matt Robson and Phillida Bunkle. Labour/Alliance came to power with its gimmicky "credit card" of promises (borrowed from Tony Blair and his laughable Third Way). I must give praise where praise is due – the Government has actually carried out several of those promises, and betrayed none of them – yet. Carrying out (any) election promises is, in itself, a notable point of difference with previous National and Labour governments. Positive Achievements The Government promised to rectify some of what CAFCA calls the indirect effects of "making the New Zealand economy attractive to foreign investment" and has made some long overdue, positive moves. It has:
The several billion dollars of extra social spending announced in the 2000 Budget are very welcome, but they represent a very small catch up after a decade and a half of deliberate social neglect and degradation of the State sector. An awful lot more remains to be done. Labour won’t buy into the Alliance’s considerably more far reaching policies, such as a commitment to scrap student loans (not just the interest on them) and work towards free tertiary education. Alliance policies on paid parental leave, funded by the employers, have been blocked. The Government has increased the tax rate for those earning over $60,000 (but, speaking to a Hong Kong business audience, in April 2000, Dr Cullen hinted that the Government would like to cut the company tax rate, when it could afford to). The Government’s showpiece law was going to be the repeal of the Employment Contracts Act and its replacement by a not very radical Employment Relations Act. This ran into an extremely predictable wall of Big Business opposition, along with an orchestrated hysteria about a drop in "business confidence" (put Viagra in the champagne, chaps) and Labour backed off, for a rethink. New Zealand workers are still waiting for this hated law, Bill Birch’s "gift" to the nation, to be scrapped. "The present posturing by Big Business in opposition to clearly signalled Government policies, which have a strong mandate, proves that it regards democracy as a fine theory – as long as it remains a theory only. It demonstrates the fundamental antagonism between capitalism and democracy. What’s free about the free market? "We congratulate the Government on its policy moves so far, timid as they have been, to go some small way to repair the ravages of 15 years of Rogernomics and the wholesale giveaway of the country to transnational corporations. These plunderers must have seen New Zealand as the $2 Shop of the South Pacific… "Stick to your guns, it was what you were elected to do. And, Big Business, butt out. Nobody elected you. If you want to be involved in subverting and overthrowing democratic governments, go to Fiji..." (CAFCA press statement; 2/6/00; "Fiji Without The Gun: Who Elected You, Big Business?"). Stopping The Sealord Sale The Government has made some promising moves on foreign control, CAFCA’s core concern. It made the renationalisation of ACC a top priority, to the intense displeasure of Big Business. This was a promise that has been kept, and kept as a top priority, prising the grubby mitts of the insurance transnationals off this treasure chest. Elsewhere in this issue you’ll find a detailed report on the Government’s surprisingly positive response to CAFCA’s call for a Select Committee Inquiry into, and the seizure of, the New Zealand assets of Indonesia’s Suharto family and their cronies. That campaign still has quite a way to go before anything tangible happens, though. The Government came to power on a very welcome policy of no more selling of State assets. There is, however, no commitment to renationalise any of those sold (with the sole exception of ACC). For example, it is holding an Inquiry into Telecommunications, but Telecom’s sale and foreign ownership is not on the agenda (see elsewhere in this issue for CAFCA’s submission to the Telecommunications Inquiry. Ed.). These inquiries are falling into a pattern – leading businessman, Hugh Fletcher, is conducting the Telecommunications one, which has come out with limp draft recommendations. The Electricity Industry Inquiry was conducted by David Caygill, former Minister of Finance and Deputy PM in the 1984-90 Rogernaut government (see Watchdog 93, April 2000, for CAFCA’s submission to that. Ed.). Surprise, surprise, Caygill endorsed the electricity "reforms" of National’s Max Bradford, except for an infinitesimal amount of tinkering. What about Government moves involving our old mates, the Overseas Investment Commission (OIC)? Well, there have been a couple of rejections so far of foreign investment applications, involving minor land deals. But, far more significantly, in 2000, the Government prohibited the sale of Brierley’s stake in Sealord to foreign fishing companies. It is committed to the "New Zealandisation" of the fishing industry; it stopped any offshore sale as "not being in the national interest"; and revoked the power delegated to the Overseas Investment Commission by the National government (in its dying days in office) for the OIC to administer the Fisheries Act as it relates to foreign companies. From CAFCA’s point of view, stopping Brierley’s stake in Sealord from being flogged off overseas is the most decisive thing this Government has done so far. Using the Official Information Act, we have secured a great pile of papers on the subject from the OIC. What’s in them is an article in itself and will have to wait for another time. In brief, the papers (heavily censored, to remove any clue that might identify any of the debarred foreign bidders) show how the OIC fought tooth and nail for each and every one of them, saying that they were all eminently suitable to buy the Brierley’s stake. The OIC went out of its way to counter several submissions from the Ministry of Fisheries that specific bidders and/or the people controlling them were not of "good character", as required by law (all reasons why have been deleted, so we can only guess). The submissions from the objectors (NZ fishing companies ran a high profile and very effective campaign against the proposed sale) are covered in handwritten comments (presumably from OIC officials) saying things like: "This is the ‘no foreigners ever’ argument, which we should ignore" (our paraphrasing. Ed.). In one letter to the Treasurer, and Ministers of Land Information, and Fisheries, the OIC said: "Your public pronouncements have left us in an impossible situation. Our ongoing processing of applications is placed in jeopardy because, unless this issue is resolved in Court, public confidence in our decisions is eroded" (10/5/00). We weren’t aware that the public had any confidence in OIC decisions. To its great credit, the Government ignored the OIC advice and stopped the sale. The (heavily censored) letter from the Treasurer and the Minister of Fisheries to the OIC said: "We recognise that it has been an explicit or implicit policy of successive governments to support the New Zealandisation of the fishing industry. That certainly is the policy of this Government. While we accept that there is no necessary and direct linkage between foreign shareholding in New Zealand fish quota and the New Zealandisation of either fishing or fish processing, it is clear to us that past and present Government policy nonetheless implies that the relevant property rights should ordinarily be held by New Zealand interests. This view is reinforced by the particular circumstances of this case. The amount of fish quota that is being offered for sale is large, amounting to a half share in approximately 23% of New Zealand’s total fish quota. In addition, the composition of that quota, with its emphasis on hoki, makes the matter of ownership particularly relevant to the national interest. In these circumstances we have decided to apply a substantial and robust national interest test to all applications… "…The substantive reason for our disagreement with your general recommendations was that we were evaluating the applications in the context of Government policy and applying a different standard of national interest than you had been instructed to under s(9)(2) of the Overseas Investment Act and the letters of delegation that you were operating under…" (8/5/00). The Prime Minister tried to soften the blow by saying that the Government is not completely opposed to foreign investment in Sealord, saying that a foreign company could buy up to a 25% stake, for which it wouldn’t require OIC approval. (Of course, the fact is that Brierley’s continues to hold a 50% stake, and Brierley’s is an Asian company, with the major owner being a consortium that includes Suharto’s oldest crony). Helen Clark compared the situation to the Government’s earlier approval of Singapore Airlines taking a 25% stake in Air New Zealand (another Brierley’s company). The Government approved that because of Singapore Airlines’ good reputation and the benefits it would bring to Air New Zealand as a "very good cornerstone" shareholder (Press, 12/5/00; "PM softens on foreign investment"). "… we congratulate the Government for prohibiting the sale of Brierley’s stake in Sealord to foreign fishing companies… Unfortunately, the Government has not followed these very worthy and sensible principles in dealing with the sale of part of Brierley’s stake in Air New Zealand (its B Class shares), allowing it to be sold to Singapore Airlines. Our flag carrier airline is equally worthy of "New Zealandisation"; its sale overseas equally worthy of being deemed not in the national interest. "We remind Deputy Prime Minister, Jim Anderton, what he said about Air New Zealand, before the 1999 general election: he stated that the airline should be renamed "Air Asia", saying that it has lost the moral right to call itself the national flag carrier (Press, 27/10/99). Does he still hold that view now? If so, then what is he doing about it. "’National interest’ used to be a central criterion for approving or rejecting applications from foreign investors. National’s amendments to the Overseas Investment Act, in the 1990s, removed it in any meaningful form. "We urge this Government to restore "national interest" as the central principle of any laws dealing with foreign investment. Further we urge the Government to adopt the laudable principle of New Zealandisation to the rest of the economy. That would definitely be in the national interest" (CAFCA press statement; 10/5/00; "Govt Congratulated For Stopping Sealord Sale Overseas. Now New Zealandise The Rest Of The Economy As Being In The National Interest"). Tightening Up The ‘National Interest’ Criteria Dr Cullen has said that he wants the OIC to pay more attention to the "national interest" criteria in assessing applications from foreign investors, and indeed he has cited Crown Law Office advice that the previous Government’s instructions to the OIC to approve everything may not have been legal, specifically because those instructions were to approve all applications "unless good reason exists to refuse them" (Dominion, 31/5/00; "Foreign investment under scrutiny"). Both the Crown Law Office and the Government believed that those instructions may not have met the presumption of neutrality set out in the Overseas Investment Act. The present instructions are that the OIC approach each application with an open mind (sic) and without presumptions either for or against. Cullen said: "This is in the nature of a technical adjustment. New Zealand will still have one of the most open foreign investment regimes in the world" (ibid). Now that’s something to be proud of, isn’t it? Senior Alliance Ministers, namely Jim Anderton and Sandra Lee, have been working to have the "national interest" criteria tightened up. For a start, by implementing the restrictions on overseas ownership of farmland and foreshore property that were passed under the National/New Zealand First coalition, but never activated because the necessary Order in Council has never been issued to implement the 1998 Overseas Investment Amendment Act. These restrictions would require farmland to be offered on the open market before being sold overseas and impose a stronger national interest test for farmland. They would also reduce the threshold at which the national interest criteria apply to foreshore sales, from 0.4 hectares to 0.2 ha. The OIC said that this could mean that it would take longer to process applications, and might need more resources for a heavier workload. Even these piddling changes alarmed "the market". Don Turkington, the managing director of Cavill White Securities, said: "New Zealand is perceived as a friendly environment for overseas investors, with investment lightly regulated and Commission approval a mere formality. Emphasising the national interest criteria can only detract from that perception" (New Zealand Herald, 1/6/00; Äustralia uses feared criteria"). "…We congratulate Dr Cullen for stating that he wants the OIC to pay more attention to the ‘national interest’ criteria in assessing applications from foreign investors. But he needs to go a whole lot further than that. We urge the Government to restore ‘national interest’ as the central principle of all laws dealing with foreign investment. "Dr Cullen has said (Press, 2/6/00): ‘We haven’t changed the Overseas Investment Act’. Well, they should – fast and hard. Starting with repealing the disgraceful decision by National, in its very last days in office, to increase the threshold required for OIC approval of foreign takeovers, from $10 million to an astronomical $50 million. Should the Commission be replaced by a monkey with a rubber stamp?…" (CAFCA press statement, 2/6/00; "Fiji Without The Gun. Who Elected You, Big Business?" Putting Tranz Rail Under The Microscope And the Government has ordered a Ministerial Inquiry into the truly appalling safety record of American-owned Tranz Rail, after the deaths of five of its workers in seven months. "…The annual Roger Award For The Worst Transnational Corporation In New Zealand has been held since 1997. Tranz Rail won it in 1997, and was a runner up in 1998 and 1999. In every case, its dreadful safety record was the reason. The judges for the 1997 award said: ‘The critical factor in choosing Tranz Rail was the calculated, callous attitude it has shown to the people it has injured and the families who have lost their loved ones through its negligence and workplace practices…The judges believe Tranz Rail has abdicated its moral responsibility by putting profits before people’. The 1998 judges gave it a Continuity Award for ‘the company’s persistent failure to address its appalling safety record’. And the 1999 judges gave it another Continuity Award ‘because its persistent failure to maintain the safety of its rolling stock has continued to put its customers and workers at risk of crippling injury and death…Tranz Rail’s record is a national scandal…’ "Pretty consistent condemnation for three consecutive years from judges that have included, among others, Dunedin’s Mayor, Sukhi Turner. And always because of its (un)safety record. How many more rail workers have to die, as a result of staff cuts, the reduction in maintenance and safety procedures and the drive for profits to be exported to the US? The Ministerial Inquiry needs to do more than look into the safety record of this transnational recidivist offender (which is compiling an unenviable record in the courts). The 1997 Roger Award judges said: ‘We trust that control of New Zealand’s rail system will revert to responsible, accountable, local hands’. "The time has come for the Government to nullify that 1993 sale of our rail system. Tranz Rail’s roll-call of dead and injured workers alone is reason to take it back. We need a publicly owned rail system committed to service and safety. We don’t need an American-owned corporate criminal with blood on its hands" (CAFCA press statement, 12/5/00; Tranz Rail Kills. Govt Must Act Against This Transnational Recidivist"). "This Government Welcomes Foreign Investment" But Labour’s front bench is still very much pro-foreign investment, pro-globalisation. As already mentioned, in the dying days of the National government, the threshold required for OIC consent was increased from $10 million to $50 million. Which means that an awful lot of corporate takeovers and purchases of buildings will no longer be recorded by the OIC. CAFCA wrote to all Alliance and Green MPs immediately after the election, to urge them to get the new Government to roll back that threshold (even $10 million is too high; the one before that was $2m). Nothing has been done. Indeed Cullen, and Anderton (unfortunately) have been hinting at introducing "facilitations" to assist "smart" foreign investors. As part of his charm offensive, after Big Business’ hostile reaction to a whole range of policies, and in the aftermath of the banning of the sale of Brierley’s stake in Sealord to foreign owners, Dr Cullen told the Wellington Chamber of Commerce: "The Government is prepared to be more pragmatic in attracting major potential investors in New Zealand…Don’t do this country harm. This Government welcomes foreign investment" (Evening Post, 17/6/00; "Govt extends hand to foreign investors" & Press, 17/6/00; "Cullen hits back at Budget critics"). But he has refused to spell out what form that "pragmatism" might take. Anderton has suggested that there could be straight out cash grants to firms prepared to invest specific sums or create a set number of jobs or invest in priority, underdeveloped regions. Cullen is believed to be looking at assisting local governments to attract foreign investment projects. Cash grants to TNCs, tax breaks, subsidies, whatever, are very regressive moves from a "Centre Left" government. What’s the next bright idea – export processing zones? Free Trade Policy: We’re On The Road To Singapore Let’s look at what this Government has done, and not done, in relation to free trade. It has called for greater reciprocity from NZ’s trading partners on tariff reduction, and wants a closer examination of the pros and cons of tariff cutting. In 2000, the Government confirmed the freeze on textile and shoe tariffs, at present levels, for five years. There is no commitment to keeping or increasing tariffs. As for the threatened producer boards - in 1999, just months before the election, National passed legislation stripping the Dairy, Kiwifruit and Apple and Pear Boards of their governing legislation (but allowed them to retain their single-desk selling function). National planned to corporatise the latter two; the dairy industry planned a mega co-op incorporating most of the nine processing companies and the Dairy Board. This new dairy corporation, which was due to come into existence in 2000, would have been NZ’s biggest company – and highly vulnerable to foreign takeover. The proposed merger collapsed, in 2000; and Jim Sutton, the Minister of Agriculture, has removed the threat of compulsory deregulation hanging over the dairy industry. The Government has also axed a producer boards razor gang, opting to work with the boards without threatening their unilateral deregulation. The boards did not mourn the demise of this hatchet group of officials. Wool Board chairman, Bruce Munro, said: "We were going down a path where I believe we had farmers onside and their process interfered with that because it was ideologically driven. The arguments revolved around public good and voting levels. They had such a narrow view of what constitutes public good it would have been impossible to operate. The pressure coming off will be useful and it will give farmers the ability to determine what they want, rather than a group of officials pushing a barrow" (Press, 20/1/00). The Government has slightly slowed this "liberalisation" process but definitely not stopped, let alone reversed, it. Labour’s approach to Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and the whole "free trade" bandwagon differs from National only by degree – it supports things like environmental and labour rights being protected by the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Jim Sutton, the Minister for Trade Negotiations, has described opponents of free trade as "having rocks in their heads". Labour is pushing hard for a new free trade agreement with Singapore, continuing National’s initiative. This proposed agreement has been described by NZ’s former chief negotiator at the 1990s General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Uruguay Round, as a "Trojan horse for the real negotiating end game: a possible new trade bloc encompassing all of South East Asia and Australia and New Zealand" (Tim Groser, head of the Asia 2000 Foundation, address to NZ Institute for Policy Studies, 15/3/00; "Beyond CER: new trade options for NZ"). New Zealand is pressing on with exploratory negotiations for just such a South East Asian free trade zone – extraordinarily, it has retained Bill Birch as its negotiator. Shipley launched initiatives for free trade pacts involving the US and Chile – Labour is pushing on with talks for this "P5" agreement, bringing together NZ, Australia, the US, Chile and Singapore. The Alliance does not share Labour’s enthusiasm for free trade and globalisation; this could be the first major point of difference between the coalition partners. And, of course, we already have Closer Economic Relations (CER) with Australia, which is being relentlessly extended into more and more areas. In 1999, it was used by National to further liberalise NZ’s foreign investment laws. Left unchecked, CER will reduce Aotearoa to a second Tasmania: poor, ignored and backward islands off the Australian mainland. When the former Australian Prime Minister, Paul Keating, came to Wellington in 1993, he spoke of his wish for a trans-Tasman unity "that stops only at the point of becoming one country". In 1999, senior National Minister, Sir Douglas Graham, called for NZ to join Australia; in 2000, the Government has announced a wide ranging Inquiry into the trans-Tasman relationship, including the extension of CER and the possible creation of a common currency, the proposed "Anzac dollar" (ACT and various other ideologues are calling for New Zealand to adopt not the Australian dollar, but the good old American greenback, joining various Third World countries which have done so). Ironically, Labour has already learned, the hard way, the limits imposed by trade agreements signed by National. The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) stymies its promise to introduce an NZ quota system in radio and TV broadcasting; GATS endangers Labour’s Industrial Development Policy; the WTO and CER severely constrain promises on genetically engineered food. Business As Usual For Spies The Government has been disappointing on other issues of interest to CAFCA. Although it cancelled the order to buy F16 fighter planes from the US, and has re-oriented the NZ military towards international peacekeeping (as in East Timor), it has staunchly kept the covert intelligence relationship with the US and Britain, exemplified by the satellite interception spybase at Waihopai. The 2000 Budget increased the amount of taxpayers money given to the Government Communications Bureau (GCSB - which runs Waihopai) and the Security Intelligence Service (SIS - which was caught breaking into the Christchurch home of our colleague, Aziz Choudry. See the article elsewhere in this issue about David Small’s successful damages claim against the Police, arising from that 1996 break-in). CAFCA was one of the many groups that opposed the two 1990s SIS Amendment Acts and the creation of the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC). The ISC is, most deliberately, not a Parliamentary Select Committee. It is a committee of Government, having nominal oversight of the SIS and GCSB. Created by the 1996 SIS Amendment Act, it is always chaired by the Prime Minister, who is also always the Minister in Charge of the SIS (and the GCSB, although there is no such port-folio). The PM picks two members; the Leader of the Opposition sits on it, and also picks one member. The Labour/Alliance coalition contains MPs and Ministers who have previously strongly opposed the SIS and the whole demimonde of spy agencies. So it was with interest that we awaited the new appointments to the ISC. Clark picked Michael Cullen; Alliance leader, Jim Anderton, is on by dint of being Deputy PM. Jenny Shipley picked ACT leader, Richard Prebble. So four parties are on the Committee (Labour, Alliance, National, ACT), but funnily enough no room was found for the Greens, an Opposition party broadly supporting the Government, and the party most committed to closing Waihopai, abolishing the GCSB, and putting the boot into the SIS. Not to mention getting rid of the ISC itself. The Alliance and Anderton found themselves in a cleft stick. They had voted against the two 1990s SIS Amendment Acts and against the creation of the ISC. They had been trenchant critics of the SIS (and, to a lesser extent, of the GCSB and Waihopai). Yet here was Jim going onto the ISC and, even more ironic, being Acting Minister in Charge of the SIS in Clark’s absences. He publicly reconciled this by saying that he still opposed the SIS but would serve on the Committee because he couldn’t ignore the reality of being Deputy Leader in a Government committed to the SIS and the ISC, and because he would be officially responsible for the SIS on a regular basis. Rod Donald, Green co-leader (and a former Alliance MP) missed no opportunity to skewer Jim over this. To his credit, Anderton did try to do something about it. In February 2000, he proclaimed himself in favour of a full Parliamentary Select Committee, made up of MPs from all parties, to oversee the SIS, complete with public hearings. This got short shrift from Helen Clark (Labour had unanimously voted with National in favour of those two 1990s SIS Amendment Acts). She, and Labour, are fully committed to the ISC and its "oversight". New Zealand First leader, Winston Peters (himself a former Acting SIS Minister from his 1990s glory days), backed Clark: "You can’t have any old person on the committee" (Press, 21/2/00; "Call for more access to SIS information"). But it’s an issue with the potential to divide the Coalition (the Coalition Agreement does allow them to publicly disagree). In March, an obscure Bill governing radiocommunications caused Labour and the Alliance to vote against each other for the first time. The Bill gave the SIS power to intercept foreign cellphone and radio communications – the Alliance and Greens voted against it; Labour turned to National, ACT and New Zealand First to get it through. The debate turned nasty, with Jenny Shipley declaring: "He (Anderton) is an unfit person to ever sit on the (ISC). He is an unfit person to ever hold the warrant as Acting Minister for the SIS" (Press, 30/3/00; "Govt split over SIS interception powers"). Green MP, Keith Locke, put up a Private Member’s Bill – the Intelligence and Security Committee Act Repeal Bill 2000 – and had it survive the ballot process (for Private Members’ Bills) and proceed to debate. The Bill would have scrubbed the ISC and had its functions taken over by a proper Select Committee. Labour, of course, was dead set against it. The Bill was killed, in May 2000, by 103 votes to 16. To its credit, the Alliance joined the Greens in voting for the Bill. New Government, business as usual as far as "our" spy agencies are concerned. CAFCA’s Political Lobbying CAFCA does not have a long track record of being a political lobbyist. Primarily, because it has not been our style, and because, as a Christchurch-based group, we are away from the Parliamentary circus. However, recognising the significance of the first change of government in a decade, and seeing some scope for progress with the Alliance in government and the Greens in Parliament, we have devoted some attention to lobbying since the 1999 election. We have written to Labour, Alliance and Green MPs on various issues; I went to Wellington to brief the Greens caucus; Bill Rosenberg went to Vogel House to brief the Alliance caucus. Bill and I have had meetings with Labour and Alliance MPs. We have offered a CAFCA speaker to all Christchurch Alliance and Green branches – so far, Bill has spoken to the Ilam Alliance and a northern South Island Divisional Meeting of the Democrats. More speaking engagements are in line, with both the Alliance and Greens. Bill’s biggest coup is to have been invited to be a guest speaker at the Alliance’s 2000 national conference, in Wellington, this October. Some meetings have been purely informal – I spent a weekend with Alliance Minister, Phillida Bunkle and her partner, Alliance economist, John Lepper, plus Green MP, Sue Bradford, in the splendid old West Coast pub, Formerly The Blackball Hilton, where we were all featured speakers at the annual May Day knees up. We believe that talking to, and building links with, the parties’ grassroots (and that includes Labour – we’re working on that) are just as important, if not more important, than building links with Ministers, MPs and Parliamentary staff. Winning the MMP battle was a great victory over the politicians and Big Business who bitterly opposed it - but we have to realise that MMP simply delivers a more representative Parliament; it doesn’t choose a government, let alone provide any different sort of government. Politicians do still hold some power over the transnationals - but only if they choose to exercise it. If they can’t or won’t do so (and the defeated Multilateral Agreement on Investment - MAI - was definitely aimed at stopping any politicians who might be thinking of doing so), then we shouldn’t waste time with them. We have to do it ourselves. Our side has started winning some battles in recent years – the MAI was killed; the WTO’s Millennium Round was brought to a screeching halt in Seattle; globalisation is being fought, in the streets and in the battleground of public opinion, around the world; here in New Zealand, the Rogernauts are the ones being rogered for a change. So we are optimistic, but not foolishly so. Yes, we have a new Government. But, in all but pretty minor details, it has the same policies on unrestricted foreign investment and free trade as its predecessors of the past 15 years. Some politicians now give us a more sympathetic hearing than in the past; we will make the most of that. But our priority is, as always, at the grassroots, not in Parliament, and our emphasis is, as always, with the organ grinder, not the monkey. Foreign Control Watchdog, P O Box 2258, Christchurch, New Zealand/Aotearoa. December 1999. Email |
 Return
to Watchdog 94 Index |
 |