Another Spectrum

Personal ramblings and rants of a somewhat twisted mind


Leave a comment

Corruption and the abuse of (media) power

It seems that corruption and abuse of and by the media is on the rise. No doubt, with Trump as a role model, politicians are fighting back ensuring that the public are not deceived by fake news and appalling journalism.

No continent seems to be free of this scourge, and that includes the continent of Zealandia. Here in Aotearoa New Zealand, we have seen two appalling examples of the disclosure of unsavoury information about leading politicians and yet those involved have not fought back with fake news arguments or any criticism of the media at all! This is totally unacceptable and as electors we should expect those we put into office to use whatever means they have available to them to fight any “news” or source that might be harmful to their position.

First, there was Clare Curran who was stood down from her Open Government and Government Digital Services portfolios for failing to disclose a meeting with entrepreneur Derek Handley back in February. Unlike Trump’s staff who learn of happenings via twitter, Curran’s staff were kept totally in the dark. If she had tweeted, then at least her staff would have not been completely ignorant of the late night rendezvous. But no, she didn’t mention the meeting at all. In fact she failed to enter it into her official diary.

This is nothing short of incompetence. If the meeting was supposed to be secret, why disclose the event in answer to a parliamentary question many months later? Her excuse of “I forgot” is totally unacceptable, and as this is the second time that it’s been revealled that she has attended an unrecorded meeting, it’s clear that she is incapable of running her office.

If she had a private meeting, then she should make sure not to mention the event months later. And if she did simply forget, as she claims, she should have laid the blame squarely on the media for reporting the discrepancy, with accusations of fake news and dishonest reporting. At least that way she would not have had to admit responsibility. That’s where she she failed and why she was fired: for accepting responsibility. Can you imagine Trump doing that?

Now on to the second event. The Minister of Customs Meka Whaitiri has been stood down over a “staffing matter”. Once again, incompetence. Why hasn’t the Minister come out and publicly criticised the ministerial staff member involved. Surely her position allows her to find or create information that would discredit anything this staffer might say, but it seems she has made no attempt to do so. Nor has she attempted to silence the staff member or colleagues by buying the silence of those involved. Surely the status of a Minister takes priority over the reputation of a staff member?

And now there’s rumours that the “staffing matter” involves an assault by Whaitiri on the staff member. Trump has claimed that he could actually kill someone in broad daylight and get away with it. And here we have a New Zealand Minister who is facing potential police involvement in what amounts to little more than a minor scuffle between two individuals. That fact that the Minister is likely to be considered the offender and not the victim speaks volumes about how ineffective she is, and inappropriate she is for the role. Can you ever imagine Trump being in that position?

I blame Prime Mister,Jacinda Ardern. The problem is she has taken a principled stand whereas truly capable leaders such as Trump would take a pragmatic stand to protect their power base. After all, politics isn’t about doing what is right, but about about what can be done.

Advertisements


5 Comments

Home grown terrorism threat?

It was revealed today that a threat has been made to contaminate infant formula and other milk products if the government doesn’t stop using 1080 poison for pest control by the end of March.

Blackmail threats were made by anonymous anti-1080 campaigners late last year and small packets of milk powder, contaminated with 1080, were sent to both Federated Farmers and Fonterra in November last year.

Prime Minister John Key says the Government will not negotiate with “eco-terrorists”. However the police deputy commissioner of national operations refuses to call it a terrorist act, saying police had been treating it solely as an act of criminal blackmail.

In some ways the threat couldn’t come at a better time for the government as the Prime Minister wants to pass controversial anti-terrorism legislation that will allow our spy agencies to legally spy on NZ residents – something they have been caught doing illegally over recent years. With an upcoming by-election which is no longer a certainty for the government, could this be the event that persuades voters to give up some of their freedom in order to defeat terror? I hope not, but it looks like John Key is going to milk the threat for all it’s worth.

Why is 1080 used?

1080 (Sodium Fluoroacetate) was first approved for use in New Zealand in the mid 1960s to control introduced pests such as possums, rats, mice, stoats and rabbits. These creatures are decimating our native fauna and flora. The poison is spread from the air in pellet form at the rate of about 2 Kg per hectare (about 2.5 lb per acre).

Until the start of human settlement in New Zealand around a thousand years ago, these islands were devoid of land mammals. Birds occupied all the niches occupied by mammals in other parts of the world – with one exception. The niche taken up elsewhere by small carnivores such as cats, stoats and weasels, remained empty in NZ. This lack of danger resulted in a bird population with very low reproductive rates and many became ground dwellers or lost the ability to fly.

When the Europeans arrived here a little over 200 years ago, they brought with them the pests that are now the target of the 1080 poison. NZ has one of the highest extinction rates in the world for animal species. and that’s likely to continue until the pests are eliminated. Possums also carry bovine tuberculosis, which is a threat to our dairy industry.

Currently 1080 is the most effective tool available to make a significant effect in reducing pest numbers. In 2013, 1080 was dropped over 448,210 hectares (1730 square miles), and last year aerial drops covered  550,000 hectares (2124 square miles)

Why is 1080 controversial?

The poison is highly toxic to all mammals including deer and dogs. The hunting community is against its use for this reason.

Some communities have concerns over aerial 1080 drops near waterways. They are afraid that they or their animals may be poisoned.

However a report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment evaluating the use of 1080 was published in 2011 and concluded that not only should the use of 1080 continue to protect New Zealand forests – but it should be used more often. She also noted:

“It is seldom that I come to such a strong conclusion at the end of an investigation. But the possums, rats and stoats that have invaded our country will not leave of their own accord.”

“The clean green brand that New Zealand identifies with is at risk unless more is done to protect native animals and forests.”

There is one record of a hunter dying in the 1960s after eating a 1080-laced jam bait (which was later banned). An adult would have to eat about seven cereal baits to be lethal, although one bait could seriously harm a child.

1080 residues have never been recorded in public water drinking supplies and no human deaths from drinking affected water or food have been recorded. The Ministry of Health sets a drinking water standard of two parts of 1080 per billion parts of water, which has never been breached. At that level, a 60 kg (132 lb) adult would need to drink about 60,000 litres (15,850 gallons) of water in one sitting to consume a fatal dose. The highest record of 1080 in water was nine parts per billion.

To consume a fatal dose from an animal that had died from 1080, an adult would need to eat at least 37kg (81 lb) of meat from that animal. The New Zealand Food Safety Authority has not detected 1080 in any commercially-produced foods since testing began in 1999.

However, some people are so concerned by the possible dangers of 1080, that they formed the Ban 1080 Party which stood in the 2014 general election. They received 5,113 party votes (0.21 per cent of the total vote).

Personally, I’m happy for the 1080 drops to continue until the last of the vermin is dispatched. As for the blackmailer/terrorist, if they attempt to carry out the threat and put innocent children at risk, they’ll be no better than the likes of the barbaric murderous ISIS.


8 Comments

So, New Zealand has a seat at the Security Council

Why aren’t I thrilled that our little country has been elected to a two year stint as a member of the highest chamber of the United Nations? Because our membership will have absolutely no effect on the outcome of the decisions made by that body.

I can give you five reasons why our membership will be ineffective.
* United States of America
* United Kingdom
* France
* Russia
* China

As long as the five permanent members of the Security Council have the power of veto, the security council will always be hamstrung by the self interests of the five. It is time that both the power of veto and permanent membership be reviewed.


3 Comments

The abuse of power?

Our democratic system has been evolving for over 150 years and is likely to continue to change, albeit at a slower rate than in the past. We are one of a handful countries that don’t have a formal written constitution (Israel and the United Kingdom are others that spring to mind) and a Unicameral legislature (parliament). Members of the executive are selected from members of Parliament. Parliament has absolute sovereignty, and there is no institution that can override its decisions.

Parliament has entrenched some legislation relating to elections, which requires either 75% support in Parliament or a simple majority in a referendum. However the entrenchment act itself is not entrenched, so in reality a simple parliamentary majority is all that is required to change the general elections from once every three years to once every 1000 years. Legally there is nothing you or I could do about it.

Our democratic system is open to abuse due to its lack of checks and balances. So it begs the question why do we enjoy the highest levels of freedom in the world? I’m afraid I can’t answer that with any certainty, but I see a number of trends that put our democratic process at risk.

Loss of egalitarianism: Until the introduction of Rogernomics in the mid 1980’s we were one of the most egalitarian nations on earth. Poverty was almost unknown, and where it did exist, it was largely due to lifestyle choices of a family’s primary income earner. The wealthiest 1% of the population held a relatively small proportion of the nation’s wealth compared to today’s top 1%. By and large, members of Parliament not only represented their electorate, they were also representative of their electorate.

Charting the bell curve of the population as a whole and members of parliament would have resulted in very similar charts. Today it’s quite different. The chart for the population as a whole shows a flattening of the curve. The tails at either end of the curve have extended and the highest bulge in the graph has moved noticeably towards the poorer end of the chart. We now have the dubious reputation of having the fastest growing disparity between rich and poor in the OECD.

While we do have some members of parliament from poorer backgrounds there is an increasing number of millionaires and multimillionaires present. The bulge in the bell curve of the wealth of parliamentarians has been moving in the opposite direction to that of the general population.

Our parliamentary representatives are becoming less representative of us. Issues that are important to lower income groups have become less relevant to them as they have become more isolated from those they represent. This is apparent in the attitude the National Party has with its fund raising dinners.

For anyone who is not familiar with the controversy, dinner guests get the right to have a private conversation with a government minister by making a suitable “donation” – typically between five and ten thousand dollars. While this may not actually result in the buying of a minister’s support, the public and no doubt the wealthy (and often foreign) business people see it differently. At least one minister has admitted that his thinking on a topic has “shifted” after such private discussions, although he claims he wasn’t “influenced” by them. Yeah right!

What these ministers can’t or don’t want to see is that not only must government be free of corruption, it must be seen to be free of it.  They are walking a very slippery slope with this practice.


This post was going to be about the misuse of Parliamentary urgency to pass non-urgent legislation, but once started, took on a life of its own. The issue I have with the use of urgency it that it bypasses the Select Committee phase of the process where members of the public have the right to present written or spoken arguments for or against the bill – A very important part of our democratic process. This will be a rant for another day.