Australian politicians can learn from New Zealand


Every so often I tune into Australian Sky News to see what is happening in Australian politics. As our closest neighbour of influence, Australia and New Zealand have close political, economic and security ties. Australian politicians have commended the strength of the relationship and M.P.’s from both countries Parliaments have sat in on sittings of the other country’s Parliament.

What New Zealand M.P.’s have learned is one thing. But what they might remember Australia for is not so much the policy making, but the prickly tortuous, apparently all consuming politicking that has made their Federal level politics almost morbidly fascinating.

New Zealand is lucky. Here at least, despite the at times menagerie like behaviour of the New Zealand Parliament, it at least works – none of the parties are engulfed by crippling indecision on what to debate next. Despite the grumblings in the National Party about the leadership of Simon Bridges, even National is not lead by a pack of senior M.P.’s who are so consumed by their own ambitions that they have forgotten who they are meant to be representing. And the Labour party rumbles of 2008-2017 all happened on the Opposition benches, and therefore had no significant impact on the day to day running of New Zealand. All have ideas of where they want to take New Zealand, and all have Members of Parliament actively working in their communities.

Not so in in Australia. The Liberal Party of Australia and its Australian National Party allies are crippled by fear of the Australian Labor Party managing to pass legislation that would have ensured medical assistance for the refugees and asylum seekers on the island Republic of Nauru.. So much so that as of yesterday they have given up any hope of passing legislation in 2018 and have gone to an early Christmas

How is it possible to govern when the governing party lives from one day to the next in fear of another coup or something happening that forces them to call an election? New Zealand, in the absence of such strife, can only wonder. It can look at how Tony Abbott, a politician whose sole mission in opposition other than to deny climate change, oppose same sex marriage and campaign for ever increasing tax cuts, was to destroy Ms Gillard’s Government, completely failed. Having led the Liberals to victory in 2013, Mr Abbott had no plans for Australia. If one follows the trail, the failures of Mr Abbott soon become those of his successor Malcolm Turnbull, whose weak leadership finds him likewise struggling. So poor was his leadership that the gains the Liberal Party made in the 2013 election almost completely disappeared in the 2016 election.

Rattled, the more ambitious began plotting against him for Australia’s top job. Peter Dutton, the toxic power hungry Minister of Home Affairs is one. Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott is another. The former Deputy Prime Minister Joyce whose affair and involvement in the dual citizenship fiasco that saw numerous politicians resign nearly cost him his job, is a third. And a fourth was Scott Morrison, the former treasurer under Mr Abbott. In October this year it came to a head, when, having failed to gain any traction as Prime Minister, was rolled by Scott Morrison, only to cause a Labor party surge in the polls.

During the three years since, the Australian Labor Party has led in every single Two Party Preferred poll that has been taken. It has never had in all that time a score of less than 51% and at times a score as high as 57%. With such support it would be able to comfortably govern on its own without any input from its Green Party friends.

It is not that the Australian Labor Party has had it easy itself. In 2007, Labor swept to power after the Liberals under John Howard lost the election. The newly elected Prime Minister Kevin Rudd lasted just a couple of years before being toppled by the ambitious Julia Gillard who narrowly survived the 2010 election and led the Labor Party until 2013 after continual infighting between the two, when Mr Rudd had a go at getting his old job back. Ms Gillard promptly retired from Parliament. Mr Rudd followed in the aftermath of the defeat to the Liberals.

But with the Parliamentary year in Australia effectively over, the Liberals will be going to summer break nervous about what the New Year will bring. Labor will be going into it with high hopes of ending an increasingly pathetic game of charades.

 

Treading the South Pacific foreign policy tight rope


Over the years New Zealand has been involved in many events on the world stage. Most for the right reasons and a few for somewhat questionable reasons. New Zealand has – depending on the Government of the day, said we have interests overseas and closer to home in the South Pacific.

When one looks at the major problems around the world, particularly in the Middle East and Europe, New Zealand is a comparatively minor player. Most of those problems are not ones worth investing our time, money or resources in. Our time, money and resources are best invested in the South Pacific, which is our proverbial back yard. And there are good reasons for doing so.

China has been expanding its interest in the South Pacific for years. It has turned a blind eye to the Frank Bainimarama regime of Fiji committing human rights abuses against Fijians. In return for such activities being ignored, South Pacific nations have permitted Chinese mining and forestry companies to set up businesses on their lands. One might ask what the problem with this is?

Simple. These island nations will not see the economic benefits. They might be employed to work on building the roads, but there is unlikely to be any sharing of the royalties taken from the business. It also remains to be seen how much tax if any that the Chinese companies will be made to pay to their Governments so they can provide basic services for their people.

It is not to say that Western companies are any better. The Ok Tedi mine where tonnes of pure copper sulphate solution was allowed to pour straight into the local river, completely destroying the ecosystem is one example of a mine project gone bad in Papua New Guinea. The company responsible was B.H.P. Billiton. Whilst litigation of the case happened and resulted in a $29 million pay out in the 1990’s the environmental, economic and social costs of the damage will take an estimated 300 years to fix.

These countries have very weak legal systems, and endemic corruption at all levels. Because of this, several South Pacific Island nations are potentially at risk of becoming failed states with governance that simply does not work properly any more. The corruption means that there is a risk that organized crime or militants linked to terrorist groups might use these nations as a back door into Australia and New Zealand.

A good example of this was Papua New Guinea’s decision to import 40 Maserati vehicles for A.P.E.C. which was held over the weekend just gone. Despite not being able to properly fund its social welfare, education or health systems, Papua New Guinea, with China’s help was able to somehow spend tens of millions of dollars on a three day talk fest that wound up being a farce.

A.P.E.C. was meant to be a summit to talk about the economic challenges facing the Asia Pacific region. Instead it became a U.S./China debating competition. The tensions rose to the point that Chinese officials barged into the Papua New Guinean Prime Ministers office and demanded changes to something that had been agreed to and only left when threatened with arrest. No joint statement was agreed to by the delegations and the other nations including New Zealand were reduced to being spectators to a super power argument.

Few of the issues on the agenda that need tackling would have been.

All nations are quite vulnerable to climate change and the outlying parts of Kiribati, Tuvalu, Niue are at risk of becoming uninhabitable in the next 50 years. Over fishing and deforestation are also likely to impact on their economies.

This is where New Zealand and Australia become very important players. As the regional powers with the means to influence the United States and China, both nations have an obligation to look after their smaller Pacific Island neighbours and act as role models in terms of how their governance should be in an ideal world. The bulk of our foreign policy effort should be in the South Pacific. New Zealand should be showing that we are their best friends.

And in terms of understanding the underlying problems, the culture and the needs of these nations, New Zealand and Australia are best placed to do so.

Mr Peters will also be well aware of the growing influence of the United States on Australia. The United States is expanding the deployment of U.S. forces in Australia, which is part of a change in doctrine that President Donald Trump’s predecessor Barak Obama instigated to counter Chinese influence in the South Pacific.

U.S. Vice President Mike Pence talked about protecting the South Pacific nations maritime and sovereign interests. I found that interesting since alongside Chinese influence, the next biggest threat to their sovereignty is environmental degradation making the smallest of them uninhabitable – something the U.S. Government of Donald Trump all but denies existing.

So, tell me now. Who has the the South Pacific’s interests most at heart? The U.S.?
China? Or New Zealand and (maybe) Australia?

 

What did we learn from W.W.1 100 years on?


When Europe spiralled into war in 1914, there was an almost euphoric, gleeful, delightful jolly mood throughout Europe. What a jolly thing they all said. It will be all over Christmas and we’ll be having pudding on the table, with presents under the tree and a roast for dinner.

So off they all rushed to war, this jolly good European jaunt. The Commonwealth nations excited to be supporting Mother Britain all began to mobilize. The Canadians, the Australians, the New Zealanders, Indians and South Africans all put out calls for troops.

Within weeks the first casualty counts were coming in. The Germans had somehow stalled on the banks of the Marne River. No worries everyone thought. Things will get going again soon. The days turned into weeks. The weeks into months. The nights began to become longer and the days colder. The trenches that were supposed to be temporary were starting to take on a degree of permanence.

No peace would descend on Earth in 1914. Instead the first of many bloody battles up and down the Western Front over which a few square miles of land would be fought with fanatical savagery had begun. Battles costing thousands of lives a piece had happened at St. Quentin, the Marne, Albert, Yser, Ypres (No. 1 of 5) and a host of other places. The ground that would become a muddy hellhole over the next four years was starting to be ground up.

The mincing machines of the Somme, Verdun and Passchendaele were still over a year away. But as the mass of pill boxes, bunkers, tunnels and barbed wire accrued on both sides of no mans land the men who sat in water logged dug outs eating, washing, and otherwise trying to live in close quarters to many other men, the task of finding ways to break the stalemate and win the war became a priority.

The plane as a weapon of war was still in its infancy. The tank was still years away. But other sinister developments were taking shape. Desperate to gain the military initiative, the Germans, French and British had begun experimenting with chemicals as weapons. The initial attempts were unsuccessful, but in 1915 the Germans introduced chlorine.

Tactics were changing too. The creeping barrage that moved in front of advancing soldiers had been introduced. A moving wall of exploding shells would proceed the soldiers across no mans land, chewing up and spitting out already mangled land and bodies. Another one, the bite and hold strategy of biting a small chunk out of the enemy lines, consolidating and moving on was another.

By the time the Somme and Verdun, two blood baths with a combined total of nearly 2 million Allied and German dead between them, were over, the French were ready to mutiny. The Russians, sick to death of their wealth hoarding Tsar and no longer able to stomach any further fighting against the Germans were ready to revolt. Food shortages in Germany and Britain were dire and no one knew how or when this giant mangling machine would end.

Conditions were no better in the Commonwealth countries. New Zealand and Australia were permanently scarred by their experiences in Gallipoli in Turkey where they had been trying to take the Dardenelles and secure a supply line to Russia. Canada, South Africa and India were also bleeding steadily. All had further bloody confrontations awaiting them at Passchendaele (Ypres III), and elsewhere.

And so, Passchendaele got underway with the misgivings of just about everyone involved. Only the Generals seemed to be keen for it to happen. The 100 days of mud and blood that followed earnt it a special place in the collection of hell’s that World War 1 was.

Whilst that was happening the Russians had the second of two revolts that toppled the Tsar. Communism became a new term in the language of politics and within months, Russia and the Germans had cut a deal that enabled the Germans to flood the western front with fresh forces.

The German offensive of 1918 temporarily terrified the Allies, moved rapidly west for a month and then, unable to sustain their supply lines, failed. Another 688,000 Germans and 863,000 British, Commonwealth, French and American lives later and it was over for Germany. Before they could recover, the Allies 100 days offensive that would end with the Kaiser abdicating and Germany calling for an armistice began. It took back everything the Germans had taken and was closing on the German border when the Kaiser abdicated.

So what did we learn from World War 1? Apparently not a lot, other than that type of war is criminal. Suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder was apparently cowardice, for which one could be shot. Soldiers went home and suffered permanent mental break downs as a result of what they had seen and done with no redress of any sort. And in that 4 1/4 years, enough progress was made on the technological front to unleash horrors unheard of in 1913. Historians to this day argue over the true meaning of the battles that took place, though all are in agreement that it was a truly appalling time in human history.

It was meant to be the war that ended all wars. The Germans would be vanquished, and unable to conduct offensive wars ever again. It would be punished and made to pay huge reparations. Yet on 01 September 1939 World War 2: The Really Really Dreadful Sequel started.

The pill boxes and the grave yards that litter fields in Belgium and France are silent testament to four years of abject madness where political pride and military prestige were more important than the lives of millions of soldiers and civilians. If nothing else, on this 100th Armistice Day Anniversary, we would do really well to remember that. They did not die for nothing.

Australian leadership rumble possibly good for New Zealand


Yesterday in Canberra, Australia, there was a leadership rumble in the governing Liberal National Party coalition. Incumbent Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was assailed by former Minister of , Peter Dutton, over his failure to grasp the real aims and objectives of the National Energy Guarantee. It came as after 38 consecutive polls showed the persistent gap between the Australian Labor Party and Liberal/National Party only succeeding in growing – the A.L.P. on 55% and able to comfortably govern; the Liberal Nationals on 45% and probably wondering how to safely and cleanly dispose of Mr Turnbull’s political carcass.

So, what would it mean if Australia had another rumble and it resulted in a Labor-led coalition? The LIberal National Party would have some seriously huge questions to answer both to the Opposition, but also the Australian voting public. Such as:

  1. Few in Australia now seem to have any confidence in a Government iinvolving individual  Peter Dutton or Tony Abbott – two mean who seem to have scant regard for the nature of federal governance
  2. If the Turnbull Government falls, will there be the risk of others such as Fraser Anning, with openly hostile views towards minorities, trying to take over
  3. Is Bill Shorten fit to be Prime Minister of a country that is increasingly clearly saying “Go” to Malcolm Turnbull, should Labor win an election or will Tanya Pilbersek take over before then?

These questions are important, but I don not think that Australia can solve this identity crisis it is having without exploring a much bigger problem: Labor and the Liberals have become so much like the Democrats and Republicans in the United States. Fighting each other just for the sake of fighting each other, with almost toxic levels of contempt. Unable and unwilling to admit sometimes one party or the other may have better legislation.

I have already explained how the arrival of more refugees is not likely to cause adverse effects in New Zealand. I have also in the past explained how we have one of the best screening programmes in the west for newly arriving refugees and asylum seekers.

Also, the Australian leadership as it currently stands is non-compatible with New Zealand on a range of issues, from refugees and climate change to national security. The idea that has been floated that Australia should actively contribute to the armaments industry world wide by manufacturing and exporting armaments to whomever if it means jobs for Australia is fundamentally flawed. If this goes from being a daft idea on a back room whiteboard to being reality, it also puts a withering glare on the larger A.N.Z.A.C. identity that the two countries share.

New Zealanders in Australia are known to have it tough. Whereas other nations have clear paths to permanent residency or citizenship Australia does not have one for New Zealanders, thereby depriving New Zealanders living there a host of rights that go to Australian citizens, and nationalities of other countries where this is possible.

No one said murder or any other serious criminal offence is okay, but deporting people not originally from Australia back to where they came from is not okay if their lives are in danger. It is not okay, if that nation is recovering from a major disaster, to lump it with people who are Australian citizens because of some random isolated event in their past. So to deport people who have lived in Australia for nearly their entire life, and know nothing about New Zealand, have any connections there or support threatens to make already unstable people into time bombs.

Abandoning any effort at all to make good on Australia’s climate change commitments under the Paris Accord does not just undermine Australia, but also those nations that are trying to up hold their commitments.

I do not know whether the Australian Government of Malcolm Turnbull will fall. It might survive somehow to the next election, but its inability to do anything constructive for both Australia or the international community at large makes me doubt that its eventual demise will be a bad thing.

Certainly not to New Zealand.

Andrew Little correct to stand up to Peter Dutton


Yesterday, reacting to the deportation of New Zealanders who had lived their entire lives in Australia, Minister of Justice Andrew Little sharply criticized Australian Minister for Immigration Peter Dutton for the breach of human rights.

I applaud Mr Little for standing up to Mr Dutton. Mr Dutton has made it his mission in office to wage full on war against anyone who is seeking asylum, is a refugee or  otherwise in a vulnerable category of residency. Mr Dutton, who is reported to enjoy his work, was a detective in the Queensland Police force before he became a politician in 2001.

One method Mr Dutton employs is the use of offshore detention centres on tropical islands such as Manus, Christmas and Nauru. People who get sent there stay in centres and have been found to be severely wanting both in terms of their management, and a severe lack of basic amenities. Violence including riots, hunger strikes and so forth have been commonplace.

Another is the deportation to New Zealand or to other countries of people found to have committed a crime, whether they were born in that country or not. In the case of New Zealand, people who left New Zealand very young as children and have spent their entire adult lives in Australia have found themselves deported back to a country where they have nothing, know no one or any support.

Obviously I do not condone whatever crimes they committed. But the ethics of deporting a person to a country that they have no connections whatsoever to and are in danger of just committing further offences raises significant moral issues. They also serve to strain ties with those nations who have not had to deal with these people before and now find themselves with no choice but to take them in.

His policies have inspired United States President Donald Trump’s attempt to build a wall on the Mexican border, to wage the war he has been against illegal immigrants. Whilst many of the immigrants whose citizenship status is questionable in the United States, the vast majority were fleeing from countries where diplomatic relations with other countries are weak and seeking legal avenues for emergency protection signals to the Government that one is fleeing.

Mr Dutton wields considerable power. Aside from being Minister of Immigration, he is also in charge of the Australian Border Force, which are equivalent to Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the United States. The A.B.F., like I.C.E. in the United States have had considerable controversy in their time in existence, including the two examples I have mentioned above.

Mr Dutton was wrong to say New Zealand does little for defence. The South Pacific is a largely peaceful region, which very much how New Zealand wishes to keep it. Mr Little understands this perfectly. Mr Little also understands something Mr Dutton does not – if a nation does not want to have large numbers of asylum seekers arriving then it should not be interfering in that nations affairs. A lot of the asylum seekers arriving in Australia are from nations where Australia has joined the United States and other western powers – on occasion New Zealand too – in interfering for reasons of “national security”.