Idle Thoughts of an Idle Fellow

Pondering on the Crafar Decision

2012-02-03T16:23:00.003+13:00

The Crafar Decision has produced fascinating effects. We have Mr Fay busily demanding that NZ interests be given preference in his judicial challenge to the government's decision (and who on the Left would want to be seen supporting Mr Fay?). We have Standard writers trying to argue that it's China's political circumstances that make the deal a bad one (Cameron good, China bad?). Then we have Messrs Trotter and Kelsey arguing versions of a Labour-derived force majeure, and a Mr Moore seeking to offer an internationalist perspective against unholy national cross-class alliances. I simplify, of course.

These are eternal political questions for the Left. They split the early Internationals. They dominated the debate about how one was to support the USSR when living in an oppressive capitalist nation. They were the meat-and-drink of anti-colonial independence struggles. And they permeate our current debate about what (weak) social democracy should do when located in a national economy and polity in a globalising world, in which decision-making is increasingly diffused beyond the control of any Westphalian state. And we don't have a developed politics that yet matches this changed circumstance.

I tend to take a prosaic and probably over-simple view of this. I don't favour Albanian solutions. Isolationism for a long-term trading economy is not a palatable prospect. So we must trade, and that requires (pretty much) a willingness to allow the movement of FDI, and the ownership (by us, that is, our Capital) of assets in other sovereign nations, and vice versa. So the issue becomes the conditions under which such arrangements are permitted.

Here we do face a particular problem. Ideally, each sovereign state would define a particular set of conditions appropriate to its needs (those needs again being those primarily of Capital, though one might hope that they would also include a wider reach). The problem is twofold - ideologically, we are, in general, in the grip of an economic orthodoxy that does not permit such "tailoring" of circumstances, and, second, we are substantially path-dependent, that is, the institutional arrangements in place as an effect of GATT and WTO and a host of related international economic arrangements tend to support that orthodoxy. The terms of the FTA with China are but one incident in that path dependency.

I think this situation is now becoming a race between two scenarios. The one is essentially to identification and implementation of the equivalent of the accommodations that were found in the 1930s and 1940s, and which, for the developed world at least, gave us another 30 years of stability. If such an outcome is possible, it would now be far more inclusive, as an effect of global integration. In my happier moments, I see this as a possibility. I can a see the blueprint for what it might look like, but that is for another post.

The alternative is much bleaker. The inequalities, intra and inter-economy, that are now exercising us are, for me, the herald of increasing levels of conflict of a post-Westphalian nature. History tells us that epochs pass through a terminal phase of conflicts, often rising and collapsing swiftly, each cycle of which being met with greater repression and causing greater disruption. I no longer believe it apocalyptic to believe that we are in the early phases of such a terminal phase. Non-Westphalian conflicts abound are are increasingly beyond the control of even the strongest sovereign state. The response of states is greater military and policy action, with inevitable consequences.

Now, historically such epochal challenges have given rise to new arrangements - the transition from a dominant Feudalism to a rampant Capitalism, for example. People living through such epochal changes usually fail to understand them (look at the transition in thinking between, for example, the Physiocrats and Marx and Weber, for example, or between Ricardo and Marshall) but we must hope that, if this is indeed the course upon which we are set, that in the next decades we will come to understand the options that future political order offer to us (for the choice between those options is always the site of political conflict).

MED: I want some of what they are smoking....

2012-02-03T09:09:00.000+13:00

MED is touting the prospect of NZ as a net oil exporter if its (and National's) fixation with mineral extraction is taken forward. We've already seen the East Coast offered a future as a "New Texas". MED is fuelling this hyperbole in its advice to its minister. Never mind the technical difficulties and environmental issues associated with deepwater drilling and extraction. Never mind the question about whether the oil is there in sufficient quantity to justify such grandiose claims. Oil and mineral fever is gripping ministers and officials in a manner that suggest straws being grasped. Indeed, there is something of the cargo cult in the references to minerals as a lifebelt for our economy. Let's hope wiser, longer-term and sensible views emerge as an antidote to this extractive frenzy.

Education is important, and parents vote!

2012-02-03T08:59:00.000+13:00

The government will be looking at the idea of school closures and increased class size, touted by Treasury as cost-saving measures, with growing concern. Most of us cannot afford to pay the $18,000 a year that delivers superior teachers and small class sizes in the St Cuthberts of this world. Most of us must send our children to state schools, in which staff, also often superior, labour under larger class sizes, constrained resources, and a constant ideological battering by National's Ministers of Education, who seem to regard teachers as "the enemy", rather than as a vital and positive element in a modern, successful society.

The state sector education system touches all of us, except that very small affluent group which can afford private education. We will not take happily to the Mr Keys of this world telling us that our kids have to have reduced individual attention in larger classes, whilst his kids are in the state-supported private sector. We will not vote for governments that speak with a forked tongue about education - rambling on about productivity and performance, then undermining one of the key building blocks thereof.

POAL and the Right Blogs?

2012-02-03T08:36:00.002+13:00

The Standard has a post alleging that POAL has private investigators tailing MUNZ staff, giving rise to to such things as a picture of Mr Parsloe and Mr Shearer together on the street.

The use of such measures is not far-fetched. POAL is playing for high stakes. Reputations and jobs are on the line on the board and in senior management. The desire to crush MUNZ is strong. Extreme measures are often associated with such disputes. One has only to read the history of employment relations in the US to understand how this might be. The Open Country Cheese dispute two years ago indicates that such behaviours are not unknown in NZ. It is also interesting how Right Blogs have become a formal channel for POAL management views into the net-based media, and one could see a process of leakage to Right Blogs as part of the expensive PR strategy POAL management has set in place (at some cost to we ratepayers).

The we have the idea that Mr Parsloe meeting Mr Shearer is somehow indicative of clandestine and suspicious behaviours. Walking publicly down Anzac Ave is hardly suspicious. The parliamentary leader of the LP meeting an affiliated union's leader is hardly surprising. The idea that Mr Shearer should not consult carefully to understand the issues involved in the dispute is crass. But in the fevered and management-primed imaginations of the Right, gold from Moscow has been found. They are just a little pathetic in their childish coverage of this meeting. Still, what would one expect?

That said, there is a lot going on in the background to the dispute. It has still some way to run, and various interested parties are, sub rosa, attempting to chart ways through the impasse. The outcome is by no means certain.

TEU on Treasury's Tertiary Approach: more nonsense

2012-02-02T15:21:00.000+13:00

If the nonsense about class size in schools isn't enough, Treasury has outshone itself with its advice on the tertiary sector. As TEU President Sandra Grey puts it;

“There is no evidence that shifting funding to favour youngerstudents getting degrees will have any impact on the economy at all. In fact Treasury’sfocus on degrees at the expense of other qualifications will take awayopportunities from some New Zealand families who most need education to liftthemselves up and contribute to New Zealand’s economy..........Treasury thinks it can pick winners and invest only in them.This denies opportunities to all other ordinary New Zealanders........We should not research things only because a private firm thinksit can make a profit. Often there is a crucial need for research that is notsolely in the interests of private companies."

She is quite right. And her words will fall on the deaf ears of National. who wouldn't know a successful tertiary sector if it saw one. Successful systems like that of Finland would look at the crasser aspects of Treasury's advice and wonder if we had an intellectual death wish.

Mr English: class size does not matter? Think again (more carefully)

2012-02-02T13:13:00.001+13:00

The overwhelming majority of these studies {on class size impacts} have focused on elementary school and even pre-school effects of class size on student achievement. The conventional wisdom among parents, teachers, school administrators, and policy makers is that smaller class sizes translate to improvements in student learning and outcomes. This conventional wisdom, however, has not been universally supported by empirical evidence. While a number of studies have found support for the importance of class size on student achievement, others strongly refute this claim concluding that class size has little to no impact on objective student outcomes. The difficulties in assessing the causal influence of class size on student outcomes, such as achievement, are (1) class size itself is often not directly observed but rather proxied by pupil-teacher ratios at the state, district, or school level, (2) many data sets used to analyze this question are cross-sectional and thus do not allow one to control for fixed student, teacher, class, or school effects, and (3) class size itself may be endogenous in a student outcome equation. Nonetheless, the general consensus among researchers examining this issue is that if class size matters at all its influence is most pronounced at the lowest grade levels.

Monks and Schmidt (2010)

Mr English argues today that savings can be made in education by, for example, increasing class size. He asserts that increased class size will not have an adverse effect on educational outcomes. This is a desperately loaded view. A recent overview of the literature concludes as above. The debate is by no means settled, and to move forward on that basis is dangerous in the extreme. It smacks of ideological conviction mixed with a simple desire to save money, regardless of the impact. It is particularly galling when Mr Key, for example, has sent his kids to schools where small class size is advertised as a benefit (Kings and St Cuthberts). Like Mr Banks on Charter Schools, it is again a "do as I say, not as I do" argument by those who wish to impose poorer delivery on we hoi-polloi, bit preserve their own privileged status.

Mr Key's Government: Hypocrisy Central

2012-02-02T08:41:00.002+13:00

The Herald shows unequivocally that the Key Government's public line on Section 9 is utterly at odds with their real reasoning. Treasury accidentally (in an unexpected and quickly-reversed example of "open government") loaded draft documents on its webpage showing the explicit political (not constitutional) objection of the government against any binding of the private sector to Treaty commitments. it appears that this government does not like the private sector to be bound in any way by such commitments. The argument is, essentially, that private business should not be encumbered by restrictions based upon our founding constitutional document.

Two things follow from this for me. First, how can the Maori Party continue to support a government which takes this explicit position? The pork barrel would be the only explanation. Second, how can we trust this government to take our constitutional order and bi-cultural status seriously, when it is willing to dispense with such issues so easily on behalf of sectional business interests?

This is a damning revelation - perhaps not surprising, but the stuff of serious constitutional debate.

Maori Party: toothless

2012-02-02T08:24:00.001+13:00

The gutting of Te Puni Kokiri whilst the MP is in cahoots with the Key Government is telling. National has never liked the organisation, has white-anted it over many years, and will be pleased to be able to use the smoke-screen of the alliance with the MP as its cover as it pushes through cuts. So far today, there has been barely a peep from the MP, which is also being tossed and turned by the section 9 issue. Wait for the cuts to Whanau Ora to start. They will come, as day follows night.

Maui Street is interesting and, to me, correct on this.

The Christchurch Dilemma

2012-02-02T08:01:00.002+13:00

The travails in Christchurch are far more than a spat between the mayor, members of the council and the CEO. It involves the performance of CERA and of central government. and reflects, in part, a natural build-up of tensions following the earthquakes and the slowness of the recovery process (in part provoked by the slow responses of the insurance industry) and, also, a growing failure of the political order to meet residents' needs for communication and action. Central government is busy trying to insulate itself from this package of issues, hoping that the fall-out will remain at the local level. The absence of Mr Brownlee from media coverage of the current issues indicates this clearly. Central government will be lucky to remain "external" to the problems. The scope of Christchurch's issues and their impact on the local democratic process will drag in Wellington inexorably. It cannot take the praise it claims for an effective response without also taking a fair chunk of the adverse commentary, currently sheeted home to local government. We can be sure that Wellington will seek to avoid the appointment of commissioners, for that will remove the current insulation enjoyed by central government. This parliamentary term will have a strong leitmotif Wellington's attempts to keep that insulation in place.

ACT Tail wags National Dog (vigorously)

2012-02-01T12:53:00.002+13:00

It is delicious to hear National forced into qualifying everything that Mr Banks is saying about "his" Charter Schools initiative. On "Morning Report" we had the trial up and running this year, and Ms Isaac appointed and ready to roll. By lunchtime, we have National telling us that the end of the parliamentary term is the roll-out period, that Ms Isaac's appointment is still to be processed, and that the group to be created is to consult first. Nevertheless, at lunchtime, Mr Banks is still full of himself, spouting on about how ("under my tutelage") immediate action will follow.

So we have ACT already playing up (and with Mr Banks in charge, what else would we expect?), and the Maori Party very grumpy, and Parliament is still to sit. Some political management needed, perhaps?

Two excellent posts on Cricket and Politics in Australia

2012-02-01T10:02:00.001+13:00

http://readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2012/01/peanuts-and-politics.html

http://readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2012/01/hoggy-keeps-laughs-coming.html

Trickle down

2012-02-01T09:27:00.002+13:00

When National Elder Statesmen are in court...

2012-02-01T08:20:00.002+13:00

It is notable that Sir Douglas Graham's prosecution for alleged failures as Chair of the Lombard Finance and Investments' board has attracted very little public attention. Here we have allegations about poor business practice as practiced by an elder statesman of the National Party, someone who might be expected to be held up as a beacon of good practice by the party of free enterprise and rampant Capitalism, and there is little reflection on the contradictions raised by the allegations.

Stripping Knighthoods for bad business practice is a growing industry. Could a guilty verdict lead to the sane for Sir Douglas, I wonder?

The Tangled Web of the Maori Party

2012-02-01T08:10:00.000+13:00

The spoon simply wasn't long enough. The Maori party has supped with the Devil, found that it involves being marginalised and taken for granted, but has no-where to go. They weren't consulted about the SOE sale implications for Treaty commitments. As an afterthought, Mr English has now been in touch, but too late. Mana is hammering the MP, MP supporters are fuming at the prospect of the loss of reference to the Treaty, and Mr Key is indicating that he is able quickly and easily bring the MP on side, as one would call a loyal gun dog to order. The MP can't win. Any solution will be a watering down of what MP supporters expect. Walking away will be a signal of the failure of the collaborationist policy. Ms Turia and Mr Sharples are left swinging, and the MP looks even more bedraggled than it did at the election. Meanwhile, Wira Gardiner is busily trying to deliver Maori for National in another tokenistic gesture. It's a mess.

Ms Isaac and the Charter Schools

2012-02-01T07:54:00.000+13:00

Mr Banks' appointment of Ms Isaac to run the Charter School trial is hardly surprising. This is an ACT-imposed, ill-thought through, ideological measure, more about asserting the presence of the private sector in state-funded education than building a stronger education system. Why would we expect anyone with educational background or qualifications to be involved in its running? The underpinning rationale - if you have a modicum of business experience, you can run anything - is exposed in all its arrogance in this appointment. And the targeting of South Auckland for this experiment by ACT reflects Mr Banks' own deep fear of the "brown masses" that he exposed in his election campaign for the Supercity mayoralty. The Right frequently harangues the Left about social engineering. The biter is indeed bitten in this case.

Red Alert

2012-01-31T15:49:00.001+13:00

Better dead than read?

Exit Dr Bollard; enter whom?

2012-01-31T12:50:00.000+13:00

Dr Bollard, an affable chap who is, contrary to many views, not truly economically orthodox, is for off. So he must be replaced. The debate has already started about the need to use the change in leadership as a way of moving away from the narrow inflation targets that have dogged the RB Governor for years. Dr Brash has already come out swinging against such backsliding. I'm not hopeful about a shift in orientation. The names emerging as a possible replacement are orthodox and eminently safe. Dr Brash has given them his imprimatur, which tells us much. He's even warning against an appointment from overseas (a pre-emptive strike, clearly, and rather at odds with his theological commitment to open global markets). We'll see.

Mr Key on Crafar: wrong, wrong, wrong

2012-01-31T12:44:00.000+13:00

As others have pointed out, Mr Key has made the following comment:

''We can change the law but at this point I would have thought it would be a bit of a knee-jerk reaction.

''We should look at it, if the flow of sales starts to accelerate and people really become very concerned.''

Neo-classicists will be horrified by this lack of firmness of purpose and incipient Muldoonism. Mr Key must be set straight forthwith. The operation of the market shall not be disturbed by political pressures. Privatisation is good, regardless of the origins of the purchaser (provided thyat they operate within the Rule of Law). All commodities shall be traded in international markets for maximum efficiency. Land is no different. Foreign ownership should be encouraged as a goad for local market efficiency. Race or country of origin shall be no obstruction to such measures, which promote market efficiency. Foreign ownership of NZ is a good thing!

To suggest that at some point, the size or rate of foreign ownership increase will cause Mr Key to think about changing the law is a sign of ideological impurity of the first water. Treasury and the coven of neo-classicists that patrol correct thinking must warn Mr key against backsliding. A course of Hayek is called for, accompanied by a high-energy, fibre-rich diet.

Re Ms O'Sullivan (again): a plague on both houses

2012-01-30T13:19:00.000+13:00

It all started with an unnecessarily extreme comment by one "Redlogix" on "The Standard", essentially accusing Ms O'Sullivan of treason for supporting the Crafar farm deal and, presumably, using hyperbole for effect. Some of the subsequent comments appended to that post were plain silly.

The Right have now got on their very high horse (having been provided with a fairly large and easy target) and are pontificating about extremism on the Left. The right has a real nerve to do so, given the outpourings of bile appended in commentaries to Right blog postings. On the whole, Left blogs are less sustainedly vicious, in my view, though, no doubt, I will be taken to task for such a view.

Thus is a vital issue for NZ - how we understand and manage our sovereignty - lost in an unproductive and sometimes downright gormless rant. It is a shame, really.

Apple-Foxconn contd: Apple ducking and weaving

2012-01-30T13:02:00.001+13:00

Apple is busy trying to insulate itself from the growing tides of complaints about its links to Foxconn. Currently, attack is the preferred mode, claiming anger at unfounded reports. The problem is, they are founded in years of commentary. Once again, a large company has been found out to be words rather than action when it comes to supplier labour standards. The next phase will be assurances of stricter monitoring, but until Apple takes seriously that monitoring, and is prepared to scrap contracts for non-fulfilment of labour standards, firms like Foxconn will cut corners.

And when you read this, you know that then problem is very deep indeed:

"Apple never cared about anything other than increasing product quality and decreasing production cost," said Li Mingqi, a former Foxconn Technology manager at the Chengdu factory. "Workers' welfare has nothing to do with their interests."

The Marryatt Case: more of the same.

2012-01-30T07:09:00.000+13:00

Christchurch City Council chief executive Tony Marryatt was awarded a controversial $68,000 pay rise despite a steady decline in his performance reviews, official documents show.

Stuff

Why are we surprised at this? Everywhere, across the corporate world, in universities, in government departments, in iwi organisations, people who take up "leadership" roles expect the trappings of power - high and higher incomes, and the kudos that goes with a managerialist vision of power and decision-making. It's why Mr Gibson at the Ports expects to get his $750k, or that Telecom chap the $7 million plus. And the corollary of this is that the average employee is to be paid (relatively) less, and be told that they are unproductive, lazy, redundant and more. Capitalism in extremis is a deeply dividing creed.

Bound to happen: US writers challenge the Apple-Foxconn nexus

2012-01-29T15:53:00.005+13:00

The Guardian has reported on US writers, who have picked up on the unconscionable link between Apple and Foxconn. They are targeting the consumer in their campaign, helped by the Foxconn boss's reference to the "animals" that he must manage (meaning the 1.2 million Foxconn workers in China). I commented on this last week, as I have long commented on the excesses of Foxconn.

As The Guardian puts it:

In a lengthy email sent to Apple staff, chief executive Tim Cook met the allegations (of poor production conditions for workers) head-on. "We care about every worker in our worldwide supply chain. Any accident is deeply troubling, and any issue with working conditions is cause for concern," Cook said. He went on to slam critics of the company. "Any suggestion that we don't care is patently false and offensive to us… accusations like these are contrary to our values."

Earlier this month Apple took the unusual step of releasing a list of all the firms in its worldwide supply chain as part of its 2011 audit of human rights conditions at factories where it has partnerships.

However, the company's own list made for grim reading. It revealed that a staggering 62% of the 229 facilities that it was involved with were not in compliance with Apple's 60-hour maximum working week policy. Almost a third had problem with hazardous waste.

This is the tip of the iceberg. We enjoy our iPods and iPads at a huge cost to Chinese workers in terms of health and safety, bullying, over-work and more. Apple pontificate about their standards, but the evidence is in their own reports of massive failings in terms of their social responsibility programme.

And it is not just Apple. many IT hardware companies use these contracting companies. Targeting Apple means targeting the sector.

In passing, this is an effect of contracting-out, the mode of employment so beloved by POAL here in NZ. Go figure.

Is Ms O'Sullivan a traitor?

2012-01-29T08:11:00.000+13:00

The Standard has launched a hyperbolic attack on Ms O'Sullivan for her support for the government's decision on the Crafar farms' bid. It is a little odd. I often disagree with Ms O'Sullivan, but she is usually consistent, and has always taken a pro free-trade and investment line. She is explicit in this, and, therefore the venom in the attack on her seems to me to be that bit manufactured. My own view is that she is defending a particular view of "national interest" (see my post yesterday), one to which I do not subscribe, but it is widely held, even, I must say, in the ranks of Labour. I doubt for, example, that Mr Goff would differ from Ms O'Sullivan's view, if push came to shove.

Redlogix should, perhaps, abstain from red meat for a week or so.

News Corp's Loyalty to Staff?

2012-01-29T07:55:00.000+13:00

The Murdoch Empire is enmeshed in crisis about its phone-hacking activities. Now, four "Sun" staffers and one serving police officer have been arrested in relation to charges that the police have been paid to hand on stories to "The Sun". The interesting thing is that News Corp is admitting that it has dobbed in its own staff, via a Management and Standards Unit set up as the phone-hacking scandal evolved. It must be confusing times for News Corp staff as the rules change in mid-game. One day, it's all on; the next,it's all evil. They must find the adjustment to such a wide moral compass challenging.

Cricket: Against Zimbabwe

2012-01-29T07:27:00.000+13:00

"New Zealand's new era of test cricket prowess" suggests the Herald. Well, it may be a swallow and a half (consecutive victories over Australia and Zimbabwe) but we should perhaps wait and see what happens against the South Africans before we start thinking of "eras" or, indeed, or any other time-span. Still, it was a decisive win, even if Taylor is now out with another of cricket's new-fangled injuries.

The politics of playing Zimbabwe remain problematic, for all that.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

2012-01-29T07:17:00.000+13:00

Tomas Alfredson's version of TTSS is superb. I finally saw it last night, and it is wonderfully evocative, both of 1970s England and the original novel. Liberties, probably necessary, have been taken with the book, and the explicit violence is perhaps out-of-tune with the more reflective text, but these are minor quibbles. Gary Oldman should win an award or two for his portrayal of George Smiley,though La Streep will be difficult to beat in a head-to-head fight. I particularly liked Kathy Burke as a slightly younger Connie Sachs. If you you don't know the book, it is a film that requires full concentration for over two hours to keep the plot under control. Highly recommended.

One measure against inequality: the "Times 7" Model for Incomes

2012-01-28T08:09:00.002+13:00

Here's an idea (not new at all, of course, but perhaps worth renovating in the current climate).

Labour announces that, if elected, it will enact legislation to the effect that incomes will be managed in New Zealand such that the highest gross salary paid in a concern can be no more than seven times the average wage paid therein. Thus, where the average wage is $60k, the highest salary cannot exceed $420k. I reckon that the screams of pain from the Right - especially those arguing about an outflow of talent as a result of a such a measure - will, in practice, be matched by layers of people who agree with the idea. Moreover, I think that "leaders" will emerge to manage companies on that basis, and will be as good as the ones we have now (who hardly impress, after all). And if people want to throw their toys about it, good riddance. Take the hit and adjust. My guess is that, over time, it would become an investment attraction, rather than the reverse.

I would couple it with a "basic income" model, as I've blogged before.
Why "Times 7"? Because back in the '50s and '60s, that was a ballpark reality (as I remember the data).

Monty Python to make new film?

2012-01-28T07:56:00.000+13:00

Overseas media outlets are telling us that the Monty Python team (sans Graham Chapman, of course) are to make a new film called "Absolutely Anything", a science fiction parody (which, from the title, has Douglas Adams written all over it - he knew the MT team in an earlier time).

I am of the generation that was entranced by MT in their first incarnation, and I still enjoy "The Life of Brian", particularly the "splitters" conversation, and the "blessed are the cheesemakers" line. I wonder if they can equal that in the modern era.

Mr Gaynor on Inequality

2012-01-28T07:48:00.000+13:00

The OECD report shows that the top 1 per cent have a much higher share of total taxable income than they did 30 years ago (see table).

Only the Netherlands, which has seen the top 1 per cent have its share of total taxable income fall from 5.8 per cent to 5.6 per cent, has experienced a decline in inequality as measured by the OECD. The top 1 per cent now has 18.1 per cent of total taxable income in the US compared with 8.1 per cent in 1980.

In Australia, the top 1 per cent has increased its share of total taxable income from 4.8 per cent to 11.2 per cent, and in New Zealand from 5.6 per cent to 9.0 per cent.

Brian Gaynor

Of course, we knew this. The interesting thing is that Mr Gaynor is telling us that this is now a problem that won't go away (which many of us also knew). It is both an economic and political problem. Economically, it has severe repercussions for consumption, saving, poverty and productivity. Politically, it is an arrow at the heart of Mr Key's unswerving support for greater inequality. His "muddling through" is an explicit statement of his commitment to greater inequality.

It will end in tears, for people will not put up with a model that assumes that the affluent must become ever more affluent.

National Interest: Mr Key's version versus the alternative

2012-01-28T07:26:00.001+13:00

Ms O'Sullivan has praised Mr Key's Crafar decision "a victory for economic rationalism over blind xenophobic nationalism". So it might seem. But it is not obviously in the national interest, unless one takes Ms O'Sullivan's market rationalism seriously (as Mr Key clearly does).

How come? There are at least two versions of national interest. The one derives from the Westphalian state thesis, in which national interest was reduced to the interest of a ruling elite - originally absolutist monarchs, but, in the modern era, dominant fractions of Capital. Thus, when Ms O'Sullivan and Mr Key promote things like privatisation, the sale of farmland to overseas buyers, and measures such as the Hobbit legislation, they are promoting outcomes that serve a narrow definition of national interest, usually a fraction of the wealthy population (often financial Capital) that benefits from such measures. We, the hoi-polloi, are told that positives trickle down to us from such measures, but inequality data tell us something very different.

The alternative - a "democratic" national interest - does not start and end with economic efficiency and short-term gains for particular, advantaged elements of our population. It takes a longer and inclusive view, asking what is in the interests of the population as a whole, rather than of a select few. So it might ask what the implications for NZ share milkers might be of wholesale selling of land to overseas buyers. It might ask about previous asset-stripping as an effect of privatisation. It might wonder whether significantly disadvantaged labour conditions are justified simply because a local elite film producer gets his knickers in a twist.

Mr Peters understands this clash of "national interests" very well. I would hope that Labour does, too

NASA Video of the Earth's Warming

2012-01-27T08:55:00.000+13:00

Here is a video (courtesy of Le Monde) from NASA showing the warming earth, based on data from1880 onwards. Scary.

Pearson versus Kelly on POAL

2012-01-27T08:50:00.000+13:00

The two columns in yesterday's Herald - one by Ms Kelly of the CTU , and one by the Chair of POAL, Mr Pearson - were interesting. I won't go through them in detail, but Mr Pearson's column was the most interesting, for it said three things. First, the Ports board wants to destroy MUNZ because it cannot get its own way by any other means. The image of the playground bully permeated Mr Pearson's view of the dispute. Second, it argued, in a classic Tui ad. manner that there was no privatisation agenda involved in the Ports' board strategy (to which the "Yeah, Right' response is entirely appropriate). Third, it put the acid on Mayor Brown, for it made it clear that the Ports management strategy to crush MUNZ was explicit and about meeting performance targets set by Mayor Brown's Council.

Mayor Brown may wish that Mr Pearson had not gone into print, for it makes his position (apparently, in the absence of any statement to the contrary, supporting the destruction of MUNZ) ever clearer. Did I really campaign actively against a privatising, anti-union Mr Banks to get a dissembling, anti-union Mr Brown? Am I that gormless?

Mr Key's imminent failure

2012-01-27T08:36:00.001+13:00

It was to be achieved by "muddling through" and measures such as privatisation (that people like Brian Fallow are now savaging). We were to be in surplus by 2014/15 as a result of Mr Key's good management, a product of his superior financial skills. It was the leitmotif of the minimalist "trust me" campaign that National ran last year. And the wheels are now coming off, as we expected. Treasury forecasts are already reducing the anticipated surplus, Mr Key is fudging already, and Mr Bollard is already expected to keep interest rates down for many more months as the economy falters.

We face a cut-ridden, welfare-bashing future, in which the affluent, enriched already by major tax cuts, continue to absorb excellent salaries and dividends, and the less well off face unemployment6, and measures such as casualisation, designed to force down standards of living. Welcome to Mr Key's image of a successful New Zealand. It is a pity that it's designed to meet the needs only of the top 10% of the population.

Teapot Tapes: damp squib

2012-01-26T15:08:00.001+13:00

Most of the contents of the TT revealed in various quarters appear to be trivial, and of interest only to political junkies of the first water. One does now wonder what the fuss was about, why they weren't simply allowed to be broadcast, and why the Police are wasting taxpayers funds on a pointless investigation. The focus is now on Mr Key's.National's wasting of police time, which could be spent better elsewhere (perhaps arresting international criminals to which the government has offered residency because they are rich)?

Foxconn true to form.

2012-01-26T10:09:00.000+13:00

Taiwan technology giant Foxconn has apologised over comments by chief Terry Gou allegedly comparing workers to animals, a report said.

Gou drew criticism on online news forums and discussion sites after he was quoted by Taiwanese media as saying "I have a headache how to manage one million animals" at the company's year-end party in Taipei Zoo earlier this month.

Foxconn is the largest maker of computer components and assembles products for Apple - including the iPhone - plus Sony and Nokia. It employs about one million workers in China.

Herald

This has been globally reported, and pretty much is in accord with Foxconn's approach to its workers in China and elsewhere. Such is the brave new world of global value chains. Think about this when you are playing with your iPhone.

Shearer on Crafar

2012-01-26T09:08:00.000+13:00

If Labour is to oppose the sale of the Crafar farms to Chinese interests, then let it be in the framework of national interest assessment and asset protection. And, if this is the trope, then let it also be applied to the ports with equal vigour. Therein lies some principle and a sustainable politics.

POAL expansion into the Waitemata?

2012-01-26T08:51:00.003+13:00

It is interesting to hear news in the Herald of plans for the ports to spread further into the Waitemata. These plans (or their principle) have been in place since the 1990s (and have nothing particular to do with Len Brown's mayoralty, despite some Right-wing numpties who are suggesting that Mr Brown is somehow culpable for the plan), and have involved the movement of the centre of activity of the port towards the Mechanics Bay end of port operations, with associated new facilities, dredging (and the disposal of waste) and the like. The issue of reduced amenity for the Mr Keys of this world (who might hear more port noise from their two-section modern bunkers overlooking the port, for example) has been an associated factor, as have been concerns about the environmental effects of the proposed development. Lurking in the background is the issue of blasting the rock band on the sea bed, which limits the safe entry of the largest container vessels.

It is an unfortunate time for this to arise in the media (at least, for management). People are already concerned about a high-handed, arrogant approach to employment relations in the port. The possibility of reduced community amenity and environmental damage caused by port expansion is not a good look.

On the Crafar Bid and the Challenge to Fonterra

2012-01-25T16:50:00.000+13:00

National have a couple of problems looming on the agricultural front. Free trade and investment ideology requires National allow the Chinese purchase of the Crfara farms. To offer any blockage to the deal is to spurn that ideology and, also, to anger the Chinese government. Mr Fay's attempts to block the deal muddy the water even more for government, for Mr Fay is associated with a phase of privatisation that National would not wish to have raised at the moment. Many, however, will worry about major overseas purchases of our land, and the question of where does an asset become a strategic national resource is now being asked, once again. Meanwhile, the support for non-national dairy processors captured in National's desire to require milk to be made available will, undoubtedly. irritate Fonterra and its farmer base (already suspicious of government's role in the current restructuring of Fonterra ownership).

Getting offside on these two fronts before Parliament sits is pretty good going.

Ports wasting more ratepayers' money

2012-01-25T09:01:00.002+13:00

When a management has to bring in Ernst and Young to attack its own employees with partial and skewed analysis, you know that management has lost the plot completely. Never mind the cost of the exercise, the simple fact that management's ability to conduct a negotiation in good faith is so lacking is a bitter indictment. First, as I've pointed out before, you cannot earn the much-trumpeted $91k by working a standard week. Second, the pay rates that exist are agreed by management. No-one held a gun to their head. They are negotiated rates, and for management now to attempt to undermine them is a statement of its own incompetence. Third, the real issue is flexibility, not rates, and on that MUNZ has shown itself, perhaps reluctantly, to be flexible.

There is a solution on the table, but management are now in grandstanding mode, having gone nuclear and now facing the possibility that it will backfire on them.

As for the Right blogs, they simply parrot POAL data, and revel in attacking decent wages. They clearly prefer a Victorian model of labour control, in which property rights carry with them the right to dispose of workers as seen fit. We will never have a high-performing economy on that basis.

And one would be interested to understand how the POAL distributed its PR information - the speed with which the Right, pro-National blogs picked this up was remarkable. One does not need to invoke conspiracy theory in NZ to see many linkages in play round this dispute.

Matthew Hooton: too much red meat?

2012-01-24T14:37:00.000+13:00

Was anyone else gob-smacked by the feral display by Matthew Hooton on "Nine to Noon" on Monday? Not only was he parroting uncritically the Ports PR, but also his vicious ad hominem attack on Mike Lee was startling in its vehemence. Ms Ryan was forced to intervene twice to insist on some decorum in his behaviour. Radio NZ will have to think about his appropriateness as a commentator. Attacks such as the one launched yesterday, against people not present and unable to defend themselves, are distasteful.

Mike Williams was, by the way, unimpressive in his response on the Ports issue, too.

Demographia's Annual Obeisance to the Developer

2012-01-23T12:16:00.002+13:00

Every year it comes round - the Demographia survey that trumpets our housing unaffordability (as if we didn't know) and then, hey presto, provides the solution - free up land - endless land - for more housing development. Abandon urban limits. Let urban sprawl stretch from Whangarei to Hamilton and beyond (whilst guaranteeing to the well-off nice pockets of expensive and nicely-protected real estate). The Demographia report is the developers' annual nocturnal emission, a natural and unexceptionable event about which little need be said.

Kim Dotcom: a National icon?

2012-01-23T08:21:00.000+13:00

Isn't Mr Dotcom exactly the type of buccaneering capitalist that National wants to support in their renovation of the NZ economy? I think that National should grasp this nettle and give Mr Dotcom support. After all, he has money, entrepreneurial energy and is financially successful in a trendy business sector. Why are Mr Key and Mr Joyce, for example, being so coy about the decision to let him into the country? Come on, guys, let's hear it for your own side.

Widows ripping off ACC benefits?

2012-01-23T08:04:00.000+13:00

This Herald headline attracted my attention. The image of a hardened cadre of criminal widows reminded me of Monty Python's "Hell's Grannies" sketch. In fact, there was little evidence presented of a massive eruption of twin-set crime, the cases of errant widows in the handful, rather than in masses. And the level of fraud against ACC - perhaps $3 million a year - is, to my mind, low, and suggests that people, on the whole, behave properly when their circumstances change.

President Obama whistling a happy tune

2012-01-23T07:51:00.000+13:00

President Obama must be a happy chappie. The Newt has, from left field, crushed The Mitt in the South Carolina Republican primary, upsetting The Mitt's progress to nomination and creating a situation in which the campaign will be longer and more bitter than could have been imagined. The Mitt's business and ethical flaws, compounded by his Mormon faith, have shifted Republican support to The Newt (a man plagued by stories from his political life in Washington and racy claims by an ex-wife). Radio NZ interviews now suggest that other, non-declared candidates (such Jeb, the next Son of Bush) might even declare in the face of the two flawed front-runners. The Democrats will watch the internecine battle in the Republican with great happiness, especially as economic news in the US is better than could have been expected.

POAL: A Question for Mayor Brown

2012-01-22T08:19:00.001+13:00

It is a simple one, requiring a "yes" or "no" answer. Will he allow POAL to make redundant its workforce and contract out its staff?

I have no reason to doubt that Mr Gibson sees this as a permanent way to destroy an effective trade union voice in Auckland's ports, and that he is carrying forward his threat to casualise the POAL workforce.Whatever structures he inherited from Mr Hide, the political buck stops with Mr Brown. I can understand that he wishes this would all go away. But he wanted the job, rallied us to work for him, hoovered up our time and resources, and convinced a large majority that he was the man for the job. We now expect him to lead.

The POAL board and CEO are now operating under one of two scenarios. The first is that they have calculated the risk that Mr Brown will not act and have decided that he is a bent reed (leaked documents suggest this). The second is that they have received a tacit nod from Mr Brown that they can go ahead. I think that the first is correct but, and this is a big but, the first is fungible into the second as time passes, for the longer Mr Brown says nothing, the more his absence from the fray supports the board and CEO. I have no doubt that he opposes the POAL position personally. But I have a growing interest in whence comes his political advice and its temper.

On 15 storey brothels

2012-01-22T08:02:00.001+13:00

I support legalised prostitution and the licensing of brothels. I know enough about trafficking and child exploitation in the global sex industry to believe that more transparency and regulation is better than the horrors of hidden exploitation.

If something is legal, then it should be allowed to exist as unfettered by petty regulation as possible. This is true of all things. Regulation is an important social and political tool, but it is there to balance individual and collective rights, and that balance is important. If I am consistent then, the desire of the Chow brothers to build a 15 storey brothel up by the Sky Tower should not be vicariously obstructed. I find it particularly interesting that Sky City might be discomforted by the idea. In my view, casino operations add little to our social well-being, and, like brothels, are by many a tolerated feature of our society. Pots and kettles come to mind.

Anyway, I'll believe it when I see it!

Hollande to beat Sarkozy?

2012-01-21T18:05:00.000+13:00

A Socialist most French think to be overwhelmingly dull and boring is looking more and more likely to beat President Sarkozy in the forthcoming presidential elections. Hollande came though the SP leadership pack after the fall of DSK, and looked initially to be a desperate choice. But a combination of declining fortunes for the incumbent, and Hollande's numbing ordinariness seems to have won over large parts of the French electorate. The underpinning issue is the nature and rate of change proposed by President Sarkzy, which is offending too many sections of French society. Germany will be watching this contest with interest, as German domination in Europe requires French support, and Hollande would be less easy to manage than Sarkozy.

Audrey Young on Mr Shearer

2012-01-21T17:14:00.000+13:00

I have worked my way through Ms Young's analysis of Mr Shearer's Labour Party, and it reads to me as a recipe for tail-ending National, wrapped up in a rhetoric of "re-engagement" with Labour's constituency. It is a statement of the view that National occupies the only disposable political terrain available in NZ, and that Labour must displace National by being more of (and better than) National. It is a model of political unitarism, in which Mr Key makes the rules, and Labour must play to them.

This is not the Labour Party of Ms Clark (despite what some might say). Neither is it Mr Goff's view, though he was somewhat closer. It is a view of a caponed Labour party, in which Mr Shearer is to preside over a constrained centrism, afraid to take "radical" positions, unless they have been sanctioned by the rule of that new unitarism. Fortunately, it is only Ms Young's view. If it were to be that of Mr Shearer, his troops would be thin on the ground.

Rumour and Red Alert

2012-01-20T15:45:00.000+13:00

Rumour (and, I stress, it is but rumour that has come my way) has it that the powers-that-are in the Labour Party are thinking about canning "Red Alert". I can understand that thought, and have blogged before on the damage that it can, and sometimes does, do for Labour as ill-thought-through posts go viral.

Of course there must be rationalisation of the ports sector

2012-01-20T15:42:00.001+13:00

Nothing that I've ever written in support of MUNZ opposes change in the port industry. It is often badly sited, over-capitalised, subject to idiotic, predatory competition, and is still vital for our economy. I support the merger of Auckland and Tauranga, and have done since the 1990s. I can see real merits in concentrating container traffic in one or the other, with proper long-term infrastructure in at least one port on the North Island. I would expect Labour to take the same position. Bryce Edwards surprises me when he expresses surprise about what Mr Twyford has written. Every report on the sector for years says that change is needed.

Smashing MUNZ and allowing a private sector rationalisation of the sector is not the way to go about the necessary change. That is a recipe for asset stripping by overseas investors (who have been hovering for years, especially from the US). A national port strategy is required, including a proper approach to staff consequences of rationalisation. Labour is on solid ground when it argues for this.

POAL: Mr Twyford speaks out

2012-01-19T14:54:00.001+13:00

Mr Shearer may still be waxing his board, but Mr Twyford has come out against casualisation in the POAL dispute. This certainly reflects the thinking of Labour MPs and Labour supporters. Casualisation is another clear route into lower wages. Often, profits increase because labour costs are transferred from the enterprise to the employee, but the long-run effect is lower skill, less investment in training and development, quality and H&S issues and so on. Casualisation, at best, brings short-term gains for Capital, and long-term adverse effects for the economy and employees. But then, we have a short term management tradition in NZ, in which 6 months is a lifetime.

I'm pleased to see that the CTU is winding up the campaign on POAL. It has been active in the background for some time, but the importance of the dispute is clear to the CU leadership and more resources are being devoted to the campaign. Now that Labour has taken a position on casualisation, the acid now falls ever more strongly on Mr Brown and his council to take the same view. He may think that taking an anti-casualisation view carries political risks, but he should be clear that his activist support bases will collapse if he doesn't.

NZOA: National par for course

2012-01-19T14:45:00.000+13:00

Of course National has spooked our broadcast authorities over "political bias" around the election. National, like much Conservatism, is no lover of true free speech or, indeed, of a "free market of ideas". As all purportedly market-driven ideologies turn out, they are as interventionist as any social-democratic governments, and much more likely to intervene, or threaten to (in the guise of protecting democracy), on behalf of their interests as an Labour-led government. Remember - free market ideologists legislate , and free market ideologists define free speech as that of the propertied classes. Once one has understood this, the media brouhaha becomes comprehensible!

Wrong: Eddie at "The Standard"

2012-01-17T08:15:00.000+13:00

"Eddie" of the The Standard tells us that Labour should keep out of the POAL dispute. His or her thesis is that:

There is no ‘national interest’ in POA getting what it demands. This dispute is about a business trying to cuts its wage bill so that it can undercut a competitor.

And that’s why, for now, Labour and the Greens are smart to stay out of this, and why the union wants them to stay out. The parties wouldn’t do any favours to the workers if they turned what is essentially a story of a greedy company and workers just wanting to keep what they’ve got into a national political issue.

That would end up hurting the workers’ interests and probably the parties too – it would justify National going nuclear on work rights; tying the wharfies to Labour would justify National attacking them (hence Farrar and Slater’s desperate attempts to link them). And, frankly, do you back Labour’s PR team to do more good than harm to the wharfies’ cause?

My response is: when would it be OK for Labour to say anything? Presumably when, according to "Eddie", national interest arises? This is nonsense. The POAL dispute is already fundamentally important at a national level. It is in some ways similar to the 1980s mining dispute in the UK, in which a powerful union was targeted for destruction as a warning to all other organised labour. If publicly-owned POAL is allowed to throw away its labour force and contract in a new one, in the context of a deeply anti-labour National government, the signal to other employers will be very clear indeed.

Eddie's advice reminds me of Martin Niemoller's moving statement:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.

Waiting for the "right" time to speak out is a recipe for appeasement and capitulation.

POAL: The Failure of Mr Gibson

2012-01-17T07:57:00.000+13:00

I fear that we are facing the bane of employment relations - the testosterone-driven CEO. Mr Gibson is now bellowing about the 'irresponsibility' of MUNZ because MUNZ won't do precisely what he wants. He is behaving like the little boy in the playground, who can't get his own way. Indeed, he's threatening to take away the ball if his team won't toe the line.

Let us understand that, at the mediation last week, an offer from MUNZ was on the table that gave Mr Gibson an extraordinary level of labour flexibility - the outcome he claim is necessary. Mr Gibson rejected this because he doesn't want to have to deal with MUNZ. He desires deeply to sack his workforce and replace them with contracted labour. He wishes, simply, to throw away his current workforce because he cannot manage the relationship with it. His failure is a striking indictment of his abilities as a manager. The MSM miss this consistently. Mr Gibson, in managerial terms, is failing badly, and blaming his workforce for his own failure.

The Hypocrisy of Mr McCully: the MFAT cuts

2012-01-17T07:41:00.000+13:00

He tells us that the proposed loss of 200 jobs in MFAT will be be scrutinised carefully to ensure that NZ's international interests are not compromised. He does so as if Mr Allen is making the cuts, and Mr McCully is the guardian of the service. Of course, it is the reverse. Mr Allen is the CEO told to make cuts by the Key government and his minister, Mr McCully. The cuts are de facto made by Mr McCully and Mr English. It is a classic case of telling the big lie, and, simultaneously, shifting the blame for one's own actions elsewhere in that most cowardly of manners.

Mayor Brown: it's quite simple.....

2012-01-16T08:00:00.000+13:00

The Ports issue can be put back on a sensible course by Mr Brown saying two things:

a) there will be no wholesale redundancy and contracting out arrangements in POAL whilst he's on the job;

b) he requires POAL and MUNZ to hammer out long-term performance arrangements, in the context of a broader debate about port capacity in NZ. He can do this with confidence, for MUNZ knows that it must drive progress in negotiations, much as it did in last week's mediation. MUNZ is on a steep learning curve at the moment.

In passing, the more one discovers about POAL management's intransigence in the mediation process, the more one is forced into the belief that the "manufactured crisis" argument is irrefutable.

POAL's Mr Gibson is 57

2012-01-16T07:38:00.000+13:00

57 is a good age. Most of us get there. But why was Mr Gibson of POAL, and POAL's expensive PR apparatus, so concerned about his age being published in the Herald on Sunday yesterday? Is there some significance in 57 that eludes me?

I also wonder if his salary is $750,000, as widely reported. POAL is very keen that its workers salaries be (inaccurately) presented. Mr Gibson's salary is of equal interest to many of us, especially when its associated performance leaves so much to be desired.

Sharpen the ploughshares: Battle is about to be joined on mining

2012-01-16T07:32:00.000+13:00

The Government is planning "significant" changes to the Crown Minerals Act next year to make it easier for miners to explore and then extract minerals, and it will consult the public and industry soon...........The proposal comes as oil exploration company TAG Oil has written of turning the East Coast into the "Texas of the south" with the potential of building thousands of wells in the region.

Herald

Mr Heatley is about to lead government into battle against the environment and its many lobbies. We can assume that the "consultation" is a sham. The decision to allow easier and bigger mining is made, and the government's alliance with mining capital is prospering. That said, Mr Heatley must rue such comments as that made by TAG Oil above. I doubt if any part of NZ wishes to be transformed into anything like Texas, and the idea of thousands of "nodding donkeys" spread across the East Coast will fill many people with horror. The Key Government does not understand the depth of feeling that the prospect of mining promotes, especially when it involves things like deep-water exploration and extraction or changes to the protected status of many environments.

They have been warned by the demonstrations in their first term. Onwards to battle once more.

Herald on Sunday on POAL

2012-01-15T08:32:00.002+13:00

This is a sensible position for the Herald to take. It makes the point that I have made several times. The POAL strategy increasingly looks to be extremist (hotheaded, provocative, arrogant, high-handed are terms that hit home). It is losing ground in the media and with the public. MUNZ also has to front up to wider issues in the national port sector, and they have been doing so in conjunction with previous POAL CEOs.

The Gibson appointment looks now to have been disastrous, which sheets home to the POAL board and its intentions all along.

Matt is good this week, too.

POAL, CCOs and Contracting Out: some legal issues

2012-01-15T08:21:00.000+13:00

I'm not a lawyer, but scanning the 2009 legislation (as subsequently amended) that set up Auckland Council, it seems to me that Mayor Brown has the power to sanction directly Auckland Council Investments Ltd (ACIL - the CCO established to run the city's investments). Equally, therefore, the Council has the levers to dismiss the POAL board if it is seen to be performing improperly or perversely. In other words, there is no legal impediment, as far as I can see, that stops Mr Brown deciding that boards that deliberately promote industrial disharmony in furtherance of commercial ends that are expressly at odds with Council policy should be replaced. Mr Brown is on record as saying that such powers will be used carefully. However, news that the POAL strategy is now unequivocally to refuse to settle except on its own terms (when a good settlement is possible) suggests that such powers should be invoked.

Turning to the POAL strategy itself, the contracting out approach is not without technical fishhooks. Readers may remember the tortuous development of "contracting out and sale or transfer of business" (COSTB) measures in the ERA. I won't repeat the story here, but it is to be found in brief in DoL coverage. What are the fishhooks for the company? The up-front costs are one. They have been suggested to be $24 million is redundancy compensation, a figure I haven't verified, but sounds plausible, and one which is a big one-off hit, and one that the Auckland Council and ACIL would want to think about. Then there is the relationship between Section 4 and Good Faith. POAL would have to show in law that it has acted in Good Faith (including good and effective communication with affected staff) in moving to a contracting-out model. Inter alia, it also has to show "genuine" reasons for such a move. Case law is limited in this area, but it strikes me that the behaviour of POAL is such that a good legal team might well show a lack of Good Faith in POAL behaviour and also a lack of a genuine reason for redundancy. I don't doubt at all that POAL has been trying to establish a public case for this, in support of a a future legal position. But the leaked POAL documents, for example, suggest an argument could be made about premeditated bad faith behaviour. The Employment Court is a tough environment for unions in this context, but one could see a long legal process grinding through. I'll be asking some employment law specialist what they think in the next few days and will comment in more detail then.

Ports management now actively promoting industrial activity: What price "Good Faith"?

2012-01-15T01:30:00.003+13:00

The CTU notes in a press release following last week's failed mediation:

"Despite Port employers acknowledging in Mediation today that a proposal tabled by the Maritime union went “a considerable way to meeting its labour allocation issues and was big in a financial sense to the Port” the Port employers rejected the opportunity to settle this dispute unless the workers concede complete managerial discretion to the employer over the manner in which they are employed."

This is confirmed for me by other, non-union sources as accurate. In other words, there is a positive sum settlement to be had, but management is intransigent. Let us be very clear here. Management have changed position utterly in the course of this negotiation. They have achieved an outcome via mediation which, at the beginning of the process, would have met their needs and more. They are now, out of left field, demanding extraordinary flexibility, are apparently happily promoting industrial action, and now prefer an option which involves sacking the existing workforce and moving to a contract-based system. By any standards, a board and CEO that changes horses in mid-race in this way, and is now actively obstructing settlement except on its own terms, is behaving unreasonably.

Why is this? It is clear that there is now a privatisation agenda being run by the POAL board and CEO. They have seen the election result. They see partial privatisation coming fast in SOEs. They have judged the time ripe to promote the privatisation of POAL and, also in tune with National policy, the destruction of MUNZ. They are doing so in the name of a council led by a Labour-backed mayor. The population of Auckland is being played as suckers by elements of the business community, insouciant in their knowledge of Government support for their position. Mayor Brown knows this. He must act. I expect Mr Shearer and Mr Twyford to move on this shortly. They too must see that a "wait and see" approach to this dispute is ceding a far bigger principle than POAL labour flexibility.

On navigating SH2 when faced by idiots

2012-01-14T21:10:00.001+13:00

This morning I drove up SH2 through Maramarua, on the way up to Auckland, in general much impressed by the discipline of drivers in sticking to the new 90km limit, introduced this year in an effort to reduce the incidence of accidents on a traditionally very dangerous stretch of road..

Those who know the road will also know the new carriageway that begins by Maramarua Golf Cub (a delightful country course, by the way). The carriageway has, still, a 100km limit, and a group of drivers, with me in the rear, signalled and moved out to overtake a slower vehicle. As I passed the slower vehicle, the quintessential idiot came roaring up behind me. A deep lilac Hyundai (ART 637, if I remember rightly) flashed its lights and clung to my rear bumper, imperiously demanding the right-of-way at about, I estimate, 130kms. Unable to move in quickly, for I was overtaking, I did so at the earliest opportunity, still being flashed and tail-gated, but grateful to see the idiot move on ahead (where he - for, inevitably, it was a "he") promptly did the same to the next vehicle moving at the legal rate.

The youngish driver in the Hyundai is, in my view, destined to kill himself one day, but I pondered as he made his dangerous and impatient way towards SH1, how many perfectly decent drivers he may take with him because of his stupidity. I try not to wish ill of people yet today would have been a brilliant day for a patrol car to have been just over the brow of the golf club hill with a speed camera in place. There are times when the educative role of Justice is to be applauded.

France, Austria, Italy and Spain (and five others) downgraded by S&P

2012-01-14T17:39:00.001+13:00

As everyone notes (I claim no originality here), this downgrading, and the general longer-term warning therein implied. damages badly Europe's crisis management process. Confidence in European financial circumstances will fall, and the additional costs of borrowing that follow make crisis-management all the more difficult. Germany continues to avoid adverse financial consequences, but the anti-German feeling in Europe will also be fed by this news.

Productivity? Or simply cutting wages?

2012-01-14T12:47:00.001+13:00

I see that most of the business commentators are falling into line with POAL management-speak and supporting the contracting-out model used at Tauranga. Their approach is, to a person, cut wages to improve productivity. Indeed. Mr Gaynor, for whom I usually have great regard, reduces the POAL-POT comparison to simple wages costs, and therefore advocates a contracting-out model for POAL. And, to add to the pressure, we all know, obviously, that this is the only method to achieve productivity increases. In parroting this line, Mr Gaynor also chooses to skew the argument, by inexplicablyn omitting from his discussion POT's contracting costs.

Productivity is not about simple wage cost-cutting. This is why we look at multi-factor productivity, not just labour productivity. There is a host of new arrangements of technology and flexibility within existing agreement arrangements in POAL, which can give rise to productivity improvements. The contracting-out model is not the only game in town. POAL does not have to ape POT. No doubt charting a different course is difficult, especially when trust has been so badly battered, but, as we know productivity increases in POAL in recent times have been lauded by POAL management, and much more could be done in this direction. This is where the deceit arises. The privatisation-contracting out approach is an a priori judgement - the TINA of the modern period, for it suits certain interests that influence the POAL board. I wish that business commentators would think a little outside their preconceptions and the POAL press releases.

Ports strategy revealed: board must be sacked

2012-01-13T10:22:00.002+13:00

The Standard has published draft POAL ER strategy material indicating clearly that the current dispute is a deliberate attack on collective bargaining in order to replace port workers with contracted labour. In other words, Mayor Brown's board is deliberately engaged in union-busting. This is contrary to the ER law in place. It is contrary to international conventions to which NZ adheres. It is contrary to the expressed wishes of Mayor Brown's team. We ratepayers are funding, directly or indirectly, significant directors' fees to support this disgraceful behaviour. The board must be replaced now. They are servants of Auckland ratepayers, but are acting as agents of the private sector.

Meanwhile, the Productivity Commission's latest draft report on infrastructure makes it clear that its role is as a purveyor of Stage 1 Neo-classical Economics rhetoric. It is wasted space.Y

And the Right, sensing the tide turning against its ports agenda, is now flinging any accusation it can muster against MUNZ. Now it is the question of office rentals in the MUNZ offices. It is pathetic, yet one more sign of their loathing of any legitimate voice against that of Capital. There is something almost nineteenth century about the current bluster against workers and for Capital.

POAL, the Right and Mr Shearer

2012-01-12T11:33:00.000+13:00

The Right are busily telling Mr Shearer what he should do about the ports dispute. They obviously feel that that have a line through to the new Labour leader, and that he needs their help in stiffening the sinews in the face of the ports dispute. They want him either to come down on the side of management , or, at least, stay neutral. They are threatening him with public approbrium if he in any way supports the union.

What would I say to Mr Shearer? First, there will never be a polarised situation in which he must act which will not involve such threats. The only way that he can avoid such threats is to do nothing, on anything at all. If he wants to play to a Right-defined middle ground (as the Right commentators are clearly directing him), he will be an empty vessel. Second, we don't have the luxury of timing big events to suit us. This dispute, and its escalation, has been timed deliberately. It coincides with National's election victory, its proposed ER changes and the delight that will be felt in National circles that Mr Shearer has been put on the spot. Third, when will there ever be an issue more important for a Labour Party? This is a concerted managerial attack on a workers' union involving a range of issue which area anathema to Labour supporters - contracting out, privatisation, unfettered management control, creating the conditions for further attacks on other groups of organised workers.

What he can say is clear:

longer-term issues about port capacity are important, and should not be resolved by means of industrial disputes
this dispute can be solved without recourse to the nuclear threat of contracting-out
the facilities of the DoL and other agencies should be brought to bear on the dispute
the Supercity should caution the Ports management that escalation of the dispute does not meet the owners' requirements
this is not the way to manage ER problems

There is a host of practical suggestions that might follow, that are at once positive, and also clearly in tune with Labour sentiments. Mr Sheaer can speak, and with confidence, on this issue.

Blogging

2012-01-12T11:02:00.001+13:00

Blogging is difficult at the moment - this is typed on that infernal machine called an iPad, clearly designed for diminutive fingers and the wonderfully patient. Better service will be resumed in a week, when I will provide a long account of the Ports dispute ab initio.

Mike Lee on the POAL dispute

2012-01-12T11:00:00.000+13:00

As Isuggested earlier this morning, Mike Lee is not disengaged from the ports issue. The question of the relationship between POAL and Tauranga is at least as old as the the 1990s, when the question if NI capacity really began to be asked. I have blogged on this several times over the last three years. The problem is that the multiple attempts to cajole the two companies into an joint arrangement have foundered for many reasons, mainly to do with business acumen and a lack of drive on many parts. I have always argued that this is inevitable, and that it is better managed by a Supercity-oned company than a privately-owned operation (which will simply drive a low-road solution, as we see with Mr Gibson today). This is why I am in no doubt that the crisis in train is deliberately ramped up to promote privatisation and, then, a private sector-driven rationalisation, facilitated by the government. We are being played for mugs by the ports' board and CEO, and their allies in different quarters, and Right commentaries are meekly falling into line. One day, if this all goes through, and we see the asset stripping of one or other of the ports, and Emerson draws another bitter cartoon about the rip-offs of privatisation, we may be moved to say "we told you so', but there will be no joy in that.

Ports: in the background

2012-01-12T08:26:00.000+13:00

There is a lot going on around the ports dispute, which is not public. We can be sure that Mr Brown's team is not idle, and that Mike Lee is busy, and that the CTU is in the frame. I have no doubt that discussions with central government at several levels are also in train. The pressure is on from many parties for a mediated or facilitated outcome, without recourse to management's threatened wholesale replacement of the workforce (a costly, difficult and often inefficient action).

Government may well want a different outcome. The Thatcher strategy of taking on key groups of workers sequentially is well-documented, and a defeat of MUNZ would set the scene for major new anti-union ER legislation. I hear that the replacement strategy is being investigated seriously by Mr Gibson, and that his board supports confrontation to the bitter end. Mr Brown cannot ignore this board-CEO position. He is politically responsible for them. The Right expect Mr Brown to cave on this. Will he prove them wrong?

Parroting the Ports' management

2012-01-11T22:18:00.001+13:00

The mindless repetition of port management press releases by the Right is par for the course. There is no purpose in debating with them, especially when they are now simply cut and pasting media releases. It makes the key point vey clearly. Management must win, right or wrong. Organized working people must be defeated unless they are already sufficiently cowed. Right blogs have become transmission belts for POAL propaganda, which is, of course, their prerogative. Fortunately the MSM has moved on, and the POAL position is now under greater scrutiny. Mr Gibson has a much harder job convincing people of his position today than he did a week ago.

McCully: bane of MFAT

2012-01-11T10:35:00.001+13:00

The news that 200 plus jobs may be going in MFAT may please Mr McCully and the ideologues, but many think that this is cutting deep into the flesh of a key department. MFAT has about 900 staff apparently, which in international terms is a fairly tight operation for a developed economy. It is also an department from which improved trade performance is expected. It has been in decline morale-wise, since Mr McCully took over his portfolio. One must expect that morale to plummet further as the endless re-application process takes over.

Not just a question for Mr Brown. Where are Mr Shearer and Labour?

2012-01-10T17:16:00.001+13:00

Mr Brown is not alone in facing a major issue in relationt to the Ports dispute. He is, of course. A Labour-supported mayor presiding over one of the most blatant pieces of union bashing in recent years is not a good look. He must act and clearly or lose all credibility in his vote. It is a first and crucial test for his leadership. He fails in this, and he is a one term mayor, for his loyal vote will be hurt by dissembling.

However, Mr Shearer and Labour have also to step up and come out swinging on this issue. It's no longer a simple question of management of an enterprise. The is Capital rampant, with National in full support looking for multiple advantage - port privatisation, destruction of a union, cowing of the wider labour force, exertion of a wider statement of power and intent. The Ports dispute has become, potentially, the defining first moment for Labour under Mr Shearer, and we look for clear leadership on what is now a matter of principle.

Ports: unnecessary escalation proves point

2012-01-10T10:49:00.002+13:00

Mr Gibson is showing the true strategic nature of the dispute. The threat to replace the workforce is "going nuclear" in ER terms and is clearly a premeditated move. It is a tried management approach. Create a crisis, escalate it and go nuclear. It is a strategy about total managerial control for it says to a new contracted workforce "toe the line or you know what we'll do to you". Mr Brown cannot tolerate a publicly-owned organization behaving in such a way. The Ports board ane CEO must be brought to heel and required to act in a responsible manner.

This is turning into one of the most disgraceful displays or arrogant management that I've see in many years. It is possible because Mr Key's government is promoting precisely such behaviour. I fear that we will se far more of the type of management bullying in weeks to come, a serious consequence of the election outcome.

Mayor Brown dissembles.

2012-01-09T09:59:00.000+13:00

Mayor Brown disappoints. He has taken the media-driven anti-Munz route and joined the call for greater flexibility in the ports. This is despite the huge flexibility already in place. He has also rejected the privatization line being driven by many vested interests, but that rejection would be all the stronger if he took a balanced approach to the issues at the heart of the dispute. Still, as I argued yesterday, the tide has turned against Mr Gibson and his agenda. The road to privatization is increasingly strewn with debris.

Wellington's "gay capital" claim: typical

2012-01-08T08:41:00.000+13:00

Wellington wants it all. The national museums, the orchestras, wearable arts, the arts portfolio in general, and now, on the basis of the incidence of same-sex civil unions, is claiming to be the gay capital of NZ. We Aucklanders will not subscribe to this usurpation of one of our primary claims to greatness. Speaking as a denizen of the Ponsonby Road end of town, and also being a regular visitor to Wellington, I can claim with certainty that we have a buffer, better-dressed, harder-partying and more sophisticated coffee-drinking gay community than anything that wind-swept Wellington can offer. Indeed, Ponsonby Road has a significantly classier feel about it as a result of the Pink Dollar, an impact not observable anywhere in Wellington. Come on, Auckland, stand up to this further example of Wellingtonian aggrandisement.

POAL: a suggestion to Mr Brown

2012-01-08T08:18:00.002+13:00

Mr Brown must come out of his shell and say the following:

there will be no privatisation of POAL on his watch
Ports management should accept the 2.5% pay rise, with roll-over and the promise of calm discussions about any further flexibilities in the port (over and above the many already in place)
scurrilous pre-emptive strikes by the Right about a Mr Brown-MUNZ dependency are nonsense.

Mr Brown is facing a concerted Right attempt to ramp up privatisation. That process has begun the personal white-anting of Mr Brown in an attempt to shut him down (the stories being spread by extremist bloggers about a MUNZ donation to Mr Brown's campaign) and let people like Ms Fletcher drive the agenda. This is a political rort, that begins with Mr Hide's measures for the Supercity to reduce public commentary on privatisation of public assets, and runs through the current government, the Right on the Supercity, through to the CEO via the POAL board.

I'm beginning to think that the Ports management has over-played its hand. The truth about its agenda has, slowly, emerged, and the anti-MUNZ agenda has begun to change, with a spotlight now being played upon management. I think that this explains the obvious testiness on the part of Mr Gibson in a recent radio interview. From an ER position, the union is offering him a realistic deal. Refusing to make it will place management in an increasingly negative light.

The key to this is better communication from MUNZ. They have fallen down badly in the quality and tactics of their media campaign. They have not been in any way sophisticated enough in an environment in which the management (with a full PR department and a board including experienced privatisers) started ab initio to drive a privatisation agenda.

The Carterton Balloon Disaster

2012-01-07T11:43:00.001+13:00

As I watch the rain teem down here in Auckland, my mind floats back some thirty years or so. Immoderately happy with the world, for reasons that do not concern us but have much to do with a very brilliant and beautiful anthropologist, I was driving along the D25 between Amboise and Loches, just south of the Loire in France. It was early evening on a warm September, and the sun was falling across an immense vista of plain and fields. To the west of the road, silhouetted against the declining sun, were dozens of hot-air balloons. They are popular in France, and there must have been a ballooning event in the region. They rested, to the eye unmoving, in the evening sky. They were a picture of calm and peace, and they were very beautiful.

There is a terrible contrast between my overwhelming image of ballooning, created all those years ago, and the news from Carterton today. Something must have gone terribly wrong to change such a gentle progress into a deadly plummet. The initial commentaries suggest a catastrophe that is at odds with the usual calm of balloon travel. And it seems that those who suffered in the accident may belong to the local community. My sympathies to all who have lost loved ones.

"Thousands" of US Troops head to Israel: the Iran Crisis deepens

2012-01-07T08:37:00.000+13:00

Reports are emerging of pretty much unprecedented US troop movements into Israel in preparation for joint exercises with the Israeli military. The focus of the exercise is on missiles, but its timing is inevitably tied up with the growing Iran Crisis, and the idea of greatly enhanced co-operation between a belligerent Israel and an equally- angry US will be interpreted in one way by Iran, which is already smarting as a result of US sanctions against it. A disturbing space to be watched.

Holidays (so variable blogging for two weeks)

2012-01-07T08:24:00.001+13:00

I go on my annual two weeks tomorrow. It is raining here in Auckland today, and the promise is for rain well into March. I remember that before Christmas someone suggested that we were in for a settled and pleasant summer. One cheerful meteorologist in the news yesterday suggested that saps like me did not understand the difference between climate (settled patterns) and weather (what results day-to-day from those patterns). This may well be true, but it also strikes me that La Nina patterns are predictable (once begun) and do tend to produce this miserable match of one warm day and three of blustery rain.

Still, I will pack the clubs and the rod and the Kindle, and the odd bottle of red, and will enjoy whatever the elements throw at me. I have just begun AS Byatt's "The Children's Book", which looks to be a great start to holiday reading - any book that engages with William Morris makes me happy.

Finally, data: What the Ports pay

2012-01-07T08:04:00.002+13:00

At last, things are clear. The wharfies are currently paid at $27.40 an hour (which, to make the point, isn't a high wage). The normal average annual wage is, as MUNZ said, $57k. They get to the much quoted $90k a year only by working 68 hour weeks. Vast overtime is needed because. first, it looks like the port is understaffed, and, second, because the arbitrary timing of ship arrivals makes such staffing problematic for management. Management has been deliberately obfuscating the data (all this stuff about $90k for a 26 hour week). Regulation breaks do not permit people to work more than 44.5 hours of the 68 - management has been deliberately using data that doers not include that downtime (when people are on the job but must by law rest).

Now we have the story, the following becomes clear:

MUNZ really needs to tell its story better
the media are shocking at times - they have purveyed the $90k fallacy unquestioningly and simply failed to get to the root of the issue
Ports management have been devious in the presentation of data
the real trigger point was the arbitrary casualisation of the driving of four straddles during the course of an extant CEA
management changed its position when an agreement was close, and has worsened this dispute by demanding far wider casualisation even though the current agreement has substantial and effective elements of flexibility therein
MUNZ is now shown to have made very realistic demands in the context of a roll-over of an agreement that management has been comfortable with for years
either the CEO, or, more likely, the CEO with the support of the board, has decided to precipitate this much worse dispute deliberately, although an agreement on a roll-over arrangement was close
the spotlight now needs to be pointed baldly at the CEO and the board. They have some explaining to do.

It also looks like the Tauranga CEO doesn't think much of his Auckland counterpart!

Messy, and probably outside building regs.

2012-01-06T19:28:00.000+13:00

"Much of your seed is going to go toward the foundations of an offering toward our promised land, and that beginning is not going to come without a fruitful start financially," Mr Tamaki said.

Herald on "Bishop" Tamaki's megalomania.

Stating the obvious.........

2012-01-06T18:58:00.000+13:00

An Australian bistro which made a meal with death cap mushrooms that killed two people admits it made a fatal error.

Stuff.

POAL, wages and Johnny Toloi: read his letter

2012-01-06T11:01:00.000+13:00

Mr Toloi's letter in today's Herald is a cracker (Herald 6 January, p. A8). He is a wharfie, who happily admits to earning over $100k a year. And he shows how - by working a 64 hour week which grosses him $2000 a week. He works a 3000 hour year, a tad over $30 an hour. Is that overpaid, I ask? He also points out that, contrary to the crisis rhetoric of Mr Gibson, he has received regular productivity-based bonuses over the past six months, much as the POAL Annual Report suggests. And he makes the point that strikes me most strongly - the idiocy of comments that port work is unskilled is revealed by the skilling that goes on across the workforce.

He also suggests that Mr Gibson earns $3000 a day (I have not verified this, but it is a plausible figure).

Let's hear the POAL rebuttal of this case. It will be interesting to hear how they get round such data.

The "Non Vegetarian" Corner: Rillettes de porc (by Nigel Slater)

2012-01-06T09:04:00.003+13:00

Nigel Slater produces some good recipes. This one works very well with Freedom Farm belly pork. He misspells "rillettes" as "rilettes". Truly a Grauniad journalist.

A goodly amount of black pepper added in the packing stage is good idea.

SERVES 8
belly pork – 1kg, skinned and boned
bay leaves – 3
thyme – 3 large sprigs
garlic – 3 large cloves, peeled
water – 250ml

Put the piece of pork in a roasting tin or large shallow pot for which you have a lid. Set the oven at 160°C/Gas 4.

Rub a tablespoon of salt all over the meat, drop in the bay leaves, together with the thyme, the whole garlic cloves and the water. Cover, either with tight foil or a lid, then leave in the oven for 3 hours or until the pork is completely tender.

Remove the lid, lift the meat from its juices, then tear it into very fine shreds with the aid of two forks. This takes a little while to do thoroughly, but is a rather pleasing task. Pack tightly into a china or earthenware bowl. Pour the liquid in the roasting tin through a sieve over the rilettes and mix lightly. Leave to cool, then refrigerate till the fat has set.

Serve with toast or exceptionally crusty bread and cornichons, or perhaps pickled chillies.

Exhibitionism and debauchery in Auckland: Ladies Bay in St Heliers

2012-01-06T08:54:00.000+13:00

Local residents have also complained that nudists' brazen daylight antics, including public sex acts and flashing their genitals, are destroying the area.

Herald

The Eastern Suburbs of Auckland, usually associated with bourgeois sensibilities, harbours a centre of debauchery and sexual excess (apparently). As most of we Aucklanders know, Ladies Bay is a beach where nudists disport, one of several in the Auckland region. It worries me not one jot. Naturists like the sun and sand, and I'm happy that there is somewhere where they can go. The council should formalise this.

What is interesting is the intolerance shown by non-nudists, who choose to use the beach. Given the traditions associated with the place, one might well expect to see naked people if one makes the journey down to the pretty, secluded cove. Faux outrage (and the inevitable accusations that nudity leads to sexual excess) follows as prudish bourgeois feelings are offended.

We are a funny species - how can we find our own bodies 'intimidating'? Hilarious, more like.

Mr Gibson comes clean: Intransigent management will only settle for what it wants

2012-01-06T08:25:00.000+13:00

Mr Gibson, Ports CEO and somewhat tetchy, has made it clear in his interview on the radio this morning. Management will only settle when they get precisely what they want - a flexible workforce defined by management needs. Even the Radio NZ interviewer picked up on the fundamental issue - management wants casualisation across rosters and shifts, and will not settle until they get it. They are intransigent in this, as MUNZ have claimed all along. This is not a case of joint regulation (as collective bargaining is often understood). It is the imposition of management prerogative.

Given the generally good performance of the port (which I described yesterday from management's own reports) one must ask why management has decided to take the course of confrontation. In such cases, confrontation is a deliberate practice, designed to cow and subordinate the other partner. Such an approach would usually have been agreed at board level. So we must now ask: why is a board appointed by a Supercity COO overseeing a strategy of deliberate and destructive confrontation? Mr Brown needs to think about this very carefully. Hiding on holiday in Waiheke may not, after all, be a good move.

The "Lucky" 17%: Business spurns employees again

2012-01-05T14:25:00.000+13:00

The good news for Kiwi workers this year is that more of their bosses intend to give them a pay rise. The bad news is that only 17 per cent of them will get a raise that beats inflation.

Stuff

When we understand that this is a bitter indictment of our so-called entrepreneurs and business leaders, then we will begin to move towards a high performance economy.

MUNZ Press Release Today (A Public Service Announcement)

2012-01-05T11:04:00.002+13:00

Repeated claims made in the media that the Ports of Auckland dispute is about wages are factually incorrect.

Maritime Union National President Garry Parsloe says the public have a right to know that the dispute is actually about job security.

He says due to the misinformation campaign, the Union would put the general points of its offer to the port company into the public domain.

As part of its offer to the company, the Maritime Union wanted work on container shuttles on the waterfront operated by MUNZ members to remain, with any overflow work to be negotiated.

The Maritime Union had proposed a realistic percentage increase on wages, with the current collective agreement and all terms and conditions including rosters rolled over for the term of the agreement.

The union had agreed to continue to work with the company on productivity, and drug and alcohol policy.

“In return our main request is that the jobs of our members are not contracted out as continually threatened by the port company as part of a strategy to undermine their employees job security.”

“This dispute is about retaining job security, and ensuring workers have a family life that is not further disrupted by unsocial shifts and job insecurity.”

Mr Parsloe says that offers made by Ports of Auckland management were simply cut and paste jobs with management appearing to want to talk to everyone but its workforce.

“The quantity of the offers is not the point. The quality and the genuine nature of the negotiations are what matter. One hundred offers are pointless if they are one hundred offers of rubbish.”

Mr Parsloe says all New Zealand workers deserved secure jobs and a family life outside work.
He says the Union is always prepared to negotiate and wanted a resolution, but would not give away hard won job security.

Mr Parsloe says a misinformation campaign about wages and conditions at the port needed to be corrected, and he suggested the media examined the figures being thrown about more closely.

“Maritime Union figures show that a stevedore would have to work around 32 weeks of overtime a year to earn the figure the employer is stating, on top their base rate of 50-60K."

“What’s more, those hours would be worked on round the clock shifts every day of the year.”

Mr Parsloe says the Maritime Union gives a categorical assurance to the public of New Zealand that we’d happily settle for $10 000 less a year for a 40 hour week than that figure they are saying we are getting at the moment for a 26 hour week. So there is no need to talk about the money any more, which was never the issue anyway.

He says the only people possibly earning inflated salaries at Ports of Auckland are senior management.

“We have repeatedly called for Ports of Auckland management to release a breakdown of the salaries, perks and leave provisions of senior management so the public have the full picture.”

“They continue to ignore this request, which indicates they don’t want the information made public. They are happy to misrepresent their workers, but not prepared to open themselves up to transparency, which we believe is quite shameful.”

Reading POAL's 2011 Report

2012-01-05T09:02:00.000+13:00

POAL produced a 2011 Annual Review. What does it tell us?

2.1% increase in profits
EBIT up 5.3% on revenues up 7% (and revenues have now surpassed the pre-crisis 2008 data)
Non-containerised cargo up 24%
Containers up 3.1% to a record high of 894,383
Hubbing and transhipment up 7.1%
Transport of container5s up 9%
Debt reduced by $19 million
staff hours per container are falling

And, and let's think about this, an all time record for crane rates up 2.4% annually and up 4.1% across June quarters. POAL is now running at over 26 crane moves per hour, a massive improvement on the 19 moves in, say, the mid 1990s, and over the benchmark 20-25 moves per hour for the available gantry technology. This performance is around both the average and the median of international crane movement performance.This improvement has been made possible by twin-lifting, shorter shift changeovers, improved straddle-performance, and other organisational changes.

My point is simple, and one that Mr Parsloe makes - no wonder the CEO was putting on barbecues for his staff last year to celebrate their performance. POAL is doing pretty well, and the staff are doing a pretty good job, It would be nice to see this reported in the media.

There is one further interesting issue. Tauranga crane rates are better than those of Auckland. Several factors impinge. One is the sub-contracting of container work in Tauranga. Another is the physical configuration of Tauranga (more space for container movements). A third is the throughput of vessels and associated crane intensity. In other words, work organisation is only one, if important, factor in determining port productivity (also bearing in mind that crane movements are an imperfect measurement anyway).

The sticking point for MUNZ is casualisation, and nothing to do with productivity performance of its members, for we see that POAL itself celebrates that performance. Casualisation is POAL's attempt to match the sub-contracting model adopted by Tauranga. What workforce would, or should, accept casualised work as a price for improved performance to which it is already contributing greatly?

Yellow-bellied Sea Snakes (They mass in Spring? - see comments)

2012-01-05T07:41:00.003+13:00

I will start worrying about them when summer starts.

MIchael Clarke

2012-01-05T07:37:00.000+13:00

I watched some of Clarke's innings yesterday. It was impressive. He was clearly seeing the ball very well, and his timing was immaculate. Moreover, whilst the bowling lost some of its penetration on an easing pitch, it still required careful assessment. Ricky Ponting also played very well indeed. A quieter innings than that of Clarke, it displayed some of the grit and quality that has put Ponting in the top echelon of batters in the game. It goes to show that age does not necessarily wither batting skill - it is the three 'oldies' - Clarke, Hussey and Ponting - that are putting the acid on the Indian bowling attack.

Christine Fletcher: mealy-mouthed but supporting Ports privatisation

2012-01-05T07:30:00.000+13:00

Ms Fletcher (on the radio this morning) has indicated the thinking that her group (and, I assume, others) use for POAL - privatise the operations but keep ownership of the land. Meanwhile, Mr Brown has gone to ground. He's not commenting, but we can read between the lines that he and his team are hoist on the petard of the COO model - the port's board is driving the confrontation with MUNZ, and Mr Brown seems by default to be supporting 'his' board. His room for manoeuvre is nil. To be even-handed - the 'plague on both houses' approach - will be seen to be critical of 'his' board, and will be nailed by Ms Fletcher, the media and Wellington. His only potentially positive option was to have been pro-active at the beginning, but I think that that opportunity is past.

As I have argued before, there is more than a sniff of orchestration about what's happening.

The board is:

Richard Clive Pearson BCA
Chairman
Mr Pearson was appointed a Director in December 2010 and Chairman in 2011. He has extensive experience in port operations and investment around the world and has recently returned to New Zealand following a long career with Hutchison Port Holdings Group, most recently as Managing Director, Hong Kong International terminals Ltd (1996 – 1998) and Managing Director – Europe Division, President ECT Rotterdam (1998 – 2007).

He is currently Chairman of Wellington Electricity Distribution Network Holdings Ltd.

Graeme Scott Hawkins BSc, BCom
Director and Audit Committee ChairmanMr Hawkins was appointed a Director in September 2009. He is a professional Director, with extensive experience in senior management roles in the private sector, including at Fletcher Challenge and as Chief Executive of Dominion Breweries in the late 1980s.

Mr Hawkins is currently Chairman of Watercare Services and Southern Cross Healthcare, a Director of Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited and Cavalier Corporation. He has previously been a Director of a number of dairy industry organisations including Fonterra.

Andrew Bonner BA (Hons)
DirectorMr Bonner became a Director in December 2009. He is also a Director of Marlborough Wines. Mr Bonner was formerly an executive with Fosters Group Limited where he ran the import arm of the Fosters business in Australia, was Managing Director of Fosters Group New Zealand and also Managing Director and Chairman of Fosters Group Pacific Limited in Fiji . He is currently a founding partner in an export focused wine business.

Robert James Campbell (Rob) BA (Hons), M.Phil (Economics)
Director
Appointed a Director in December 2010, Mr Campbell is Director and Owner of Tutanekai Investments Limited. He is a Director of a number of New Zealand and international companies including the Accident Compensation Corporation, Aquasure Pty Limited (Australia), Guinness Peat Limited (UK), Serica Balanced Credit Fund (Hong Kong), Truescape Limited, CallPlus Limited and Murray and Co, as well as being a Trustee on the Auckland City Mission Foundation.

Mr Campbell has been a Director and Investment Manager at Tappenden Holdings Limited, has lectured in the Economics Departments at Victoria and Massey Universities and has been a Union Advisor, acting as an advocate in the Arbitration and Appeal Courts. He has previously been on the Boards of NZ Post, Bank of New Zealand, Government Printing Office, Mitsubishi Motors (NZ) Limited and Netway Limited.

Elizabeth Mary Coutts (Liz) BMS, CA
Director
Appointed a Director in December 2010, Ms Coutts is also a Director of EBOS Group Limited, Skellerup Holdings Limited, Ravensdown Fertiliser Cooperative Limited and Chair of Urwin and Co Limited.

She has previously been Chief Executive of Caxton Group, Chairman of Meritec Group Limited, Industrial Research Limited and Life Pharmacy Limited, Deputy Chairman of Public Trust, and a Commissioner of both the Commerce Commission and Earthquake Commission. She has been a Director of the Health Funding Authority, PHARMAC, Air New Zealand, Sport and Recreation New Zealand and Trust Bank New Zealand, and a member of both the Financial Reporting Standards Board of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Monetary Policy Committee of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand.

Wayne Walden ONZM
Director
Wayne is an experienced Company Director, and was previously Managing Director and shareholder of Farmers/Deka Ltd. He has had more than 30 years senior management experience in the liquor, wholesale and retail trades in New Zealand.

Wayne’s past directorships include, Director of Farmlands Co-Operative Society, Director of the Westpac Bank NZ Advisory Board, Deputy Chairman of Meat New Zealand, Director of Mighty River Power Limited, Chairman of Tranz Rail and Chair of Maori Television. Wayne was

Fonterra moves POAL Contract: anyone surprised?

2012-01-04T15:02:00.001+13:00

My suspicions about the orchestration of this dispute are growing by the day. Fonterra's decison to move weekly trade of $27 million from POAL to Tauranga is, shall we say, timely for the management position in POAL. There are layers within layers in this dispute, and we on the outside see only some of them.

My extended thinking goes like this:

ramp up a dispute
take some short term losses
promote privatisation
rationalise POAL and Tauranga under private ownership

It's a private sector onanist's dream.

The Logic of Welfarism

2012-01-04T11:00:00.000+13:00

The thought as I walked to work this morning:

From a Left perspective, the Welfare State was part of a larger crisis-driven accommodation (including collective bargaining , wage regulation, and support for business) designed the 'manage' Capitalism in a way that bought off sufficiently large section of the working class. It was a price Capitalism, in days when it was primarily domestic Capitalism, was forced to pay to ensure worker quiescence.

In a globalised world, in which global value chains allow nearly optimum incorporation of high-price labour (R&D, design, management etc) in some locations with cheap manufacturing labour in others, the 1930s Welfare State no longer serves its original purpose. States like NZ now attempt a challenging balancing act - reduction of welfare provision to the point that social cohesion is (just) sustained, and returns to Capital are maintained. All notions of power-sharing and respect inherent in the Social Democratic model of the Welfare State are abandoned. The balancing act has an ideology- neo liberalism. The Social Democratic parties of the Welfare State (Savage-like Labour Parties) become anachronistic, and seek to redefine themselves as useful within the new reality.

Is this Mr Shearer's new broom, I wonder?

The Perils of Summer

2012-01-04T07:52:00.001+13:00

If one were to arrive from Mars, and attempt to understand NZ from today's media, one would assume that we spent our time trying to kill each other, whilst attempting to get to beaches where we then seek to drown ourselves in ever greater numbers (if we don't achieve the same effect by means of inexperienced people at the helm of boats). Thus is the focus of the media in the holiday season. I understand that road deaths are 50% up on last year (12 versus 18), a sad figure. yet, in my wanderings around the North Island in the last two weeks, I have been struck by the generally improved behaviour of drivers on the road. The new 90kms limit on parts of SH2 seems to be a success, in particular.

The median barrier argument makes sense to me. People now drive whilst messing around with radios, CDs, iPods and phones, whilst also smoking, eating and drinking and generally attempting to lead a normal domestic life , whilst also driving at 100kms. Inattention follows as day follows night, and, especially on the main trunk roads, barriers would reduce the number of head-on crashes that we experience.

Drownings are another matter. Putting to one side the need to ensure that our youngsters are taught to swim and respect water, I have watched too many people pulled out of the surf on my own local beach on the Coromandel, thankfully alive in most cases. On any day over summer one can see the obviously inexperienced swimmer gaily jumping into the surf next to signs warning of rips. Inevitably some get into difficulties; fortunately, in most cases experienced swimmers pull them out, but once in a while, things take a different course. I doubt that we can do much about this, other than improve water safety training.

Boats are now scary. I watch the array of new boats arriving at the slips, pulled by their SUVs, launched inexpertly, crammed with people without life-belts, heading our across notorious bars at twice the decreed speed and with little regard for the water traffic rules, and wonder why more are not killed in accidents. At some stage, greater regulation will be needed for this leisure activity. Boats are potentially lethal, and the idea that one can acquire one without any formal training in their use is challenging. Of course, the costs of running them may also become a factor. One can put $200 plus dollars of fuel in a boat these days, which might get you 30 miles or so. Boating is not a cheap leisure option.

More on the Ports

2012-01-03T19:42:00.000+13:00

One Damien Grant, who is, apparently, a business writer for the Herald supports the sacking of all POAL workers and the re-engagement of a new workforce. It would be easy, he feels, because there is no skill involved in port work. Well, in arguing that, he joins the group of ignoramuses who clearly know little about port operations.

But the key point he makes is his support for privatisation of POAL. I've blogged about this before, but I am now brought to wonder if there is not a strategy in place - between the COO, the ports board and ports management - to pressure government into intervention. It wouldn't be difficult to organise, and Mr Brown is not necessarily on top of such things. Just a thought

Important things: Coromandel Brewing Company

2012-01-03T15:50:00.000+13:00

If you are lucky enough to find some of the Coromandel Brewing Company's wares, try them. A micro brewery in a Matarangi garage, the "Good as Gold" pilsner is very pleasant indeed, but the "Cloud 9" wheat beer is a delight. The webpage has stockists.

UK Labour to rethink Welfare State?

2012-01-03T15:40:00.001+13:00

Mr Mallard picks up on a a debate that has been running for some time in the UK Left about the purpose and design of the Welfare State. Those readers who persevere with me will note that this is a theme I've addressed several times over the last three years, as people return to the original thinking behind the Beveridge approach. I've likened that to a 'trampoline' model - a mechanism that 'bounces' people who are able to contribute back into a useful role as promptly as possible. The intention was never to provide a counterpoint to gainful employment - it was, after all, welfarism under Capitalism. However, I have also argued before that such is the ideological baggage around welfarism, we should consider a basic income model instead, as one way to move the debate into new territory. This is a debate that the NZ Labour Party should have now, for, as i wrote in 2009, Opposition is when you develop radical new policies.

More on POAL: MUNZ in the gun?

2011-12-31T12:41:00.001+13:00

The letter pages of the Herald have been full of attacks on MUNZ as the POAL dispute continues (though, to be fair to the Herald, the odd contrary view has been published, too). Michael Barnett has a go today., but the cracker was an ignoramus (a word chosen carefully) yesterday who, on the basis that his family had something to do with ports in the UK, was able to deduce that wharfies were lazy, inflexible etc etc. I'm constantly struck by the repetition of the information that wharfies are well-paid. As I've note before, it is clear that being well-paid (if, indeed they are) is either a crime (to be subject to retribution) or a reason for humility and quite a lot of forelock-tugging. It really does look like the capitalist class in NZ has a pathological dislike of good wages (as opposed to high salaries for managers and even higher dividends for owners).

I am, however, worried about the strategic purpose of MUNZ. Its case is not well-presented, and there is a growing concern in some quarters that this dispute is ramping up a rationale for government intervention. The argument would be national interest. The mode of intervention would be via privatisation of POAL (easily done in law, though possibly with serious political implications). The intent would be to destroy MUNZ and, also, propel a rationalisation of North Island port capacity. I don't doubt that business is in the ear of Mr Key and Mr Joyce on this front, and I sense that Mr Brown and his team have little enough sympathy with MUNZ to warrant a major defence of the holding (especially if government were to balance port privatisation against, say, the rail loop). I see no evidence that MUNZ is thinking about this longer term game; indeed, one of the union movement's concerns is that MUNZ lives in a inviolable bubble of internal organisational tensions and the narrow engagement that it has with management.

Thatcher, Streep and Funerals

2011-12-31T09:02:00.002+13:00

I'm not sure that I want to see the Meryl Streep film about Margaret Thatcher. The extracts that I've seen suggest that she has provided an uncanny likeness, especially in terms of 'that voice', and she and the film seem to be heading for honours, but a couple of hours of Thatcher in power might be too much for my system. For, in a way that people in NZ may not really understand, Thatcher, in her rigid ideological attack on 50 years of political consensus in the UK, polarised the country utterly. We hear much about the recognition of her qualities. One cannot from here understand the deep loathing felt by many for her. It verges on hatred - a powerful and over-used word - but apt in this context.

There was a piece in yesterday's Guardian which captured this. Liverpool erupted in street violence in 1981. A city I know well, in which I lived for a decade, it had been particularly badly hit by the consequences of neo-liberal reforms (which hammered many industrial centres and privileged London and the financial sector). The community had had enough of unemployment and marginalisation, of welfare cuts and constant berating by crass individualism, and took to the streets. Because Liverpool 8 (Toxteth) was involved, it was portrayed by Thatcher's government as race riots, rather than as a consequence of neo-liberal reforms. Anyway, it appears that the Thatcher approach (as captured by the advice she was given by her hand-picked ideologues) considered wholesale evacuation of Liverpool, that is, taking large parts of the population out of the city semi-permanently, rather than an attempt to solve the problems created by restructuring. Michael Heseltine's attempts to fund economic change in the city were laughed at - he was given a paltry 15 million pounds, rather than the 100 million he requested - on the grounds that Liverpool's problems - economic, social, riots - were self-inflicted and there should be no ground given to cities that did not toe the Thatcher line. The same story can be told for other cities outside London - indeed, Scottish economists suggest that Scotland was deliberately disadvantaged in government expenditure because it was a bastion of the Labour Party and was a relic of the old-style, pre-Thatcher economy.

Hence, she is thought by many in the UK to be a nasty, vindictive and relentless enemy of much that was valued in society and community. You will note that praise for her these days tends to focus on her personal characteristics, rather than on what she did, for, even in the Tory Party, her religious fervour for neo-liberalism now seems extremist and divisive.

The question of a state funeral therefore becomes a serious one. She was not a unifier, a symbol of a united country and community. She was quite the contrary, a defender of one privileged group against a far larger disadvantaged group. Many in that latter group believe that she did irrevocable damage to the UK. A formal celebration of her life by the country would be seen by many across the country as deeply offensive. This is why the idea that her funeral should be fully privatised and sponsored by the corporate sector has taken hold in some sections of the UK - let her go out on the back of her beloved private sector, rather than paid for by the taxpayers she in general despised.