All the media attention given to political donations from million or billionaires has ignored what is now the biggest source of political party finance: backdoor state funding. This is something that has been researched by political scientist Bryce Edwards, who wrote in a 2006 guest column for the Herald

About 1200 staff are employed by the Ministerial and Parliamentary Services, many of whom carry out party political research, marketing and organising. Out in the electorates, regional party organisers (previously paid for by the party organisation) have been replaced by electorate agents (paid for by the Parliamentary Service), and the electorate offices that they work in are now de facto regional party headquarters. Mail-outs, glossy leaflets and newspaper advertisements are also paid for by parliamentary funding.

In this election maybe voters should focus less of what political parties are doing with money from overseas businessmen, and more on the campaigning they are doing with our tax dollars.

An issue has arisen because it is a requirement of the union’s staff collective agreement, and it would be a requirement even if it were not in the employment agreement, that any staff member wishing to seek public office needs to have the union’s permission,

As No Right Turn points out however

That’s just not on. It’s unfair, it compromises the right of everyone to participate directly in our democracy, and if the political shoe had been on the other foot - if Tan had worked for Business NZ and was standing for Labour - they would be shouting this to the heavens

While an EPMU worker standing for ACT seems almost as bizarre as a meat worker collecting for SAFE, people of all political persuasions should support Shawn Tan’s right to stand in the election, for what ever party. The EMPU rules, which have meant that in half a century the union has only approved its staff to stand for Labour, could be used against any non-Labour candidate. As Tim Bowron notes the rule was first introduced to prevent a regional secretary of the union standing as a candidate for the Communist Party in a local mayoral election.

Supporting Free Speech isn’t always easy, but real Free Speech means supporting peoples right to say things that we disagree with, like the neo-liberal policies of ACT.

Claire Dougan has perfected a New England accent for her role as Martha McCarthy, a liberal CNN war corespondent. One of the most memorable scenes has her arguing with an American soldier (Jonathan Martin). While Martha raves about the lies used to take the US to war, and the devastation the conflict has since caused, the soldier, Kilroy, speaks of his home town in Arkansas where the choice people have is join the army, or take a job in the local vinegar factory. Kilroy insinuates that liberals such as Martha have forgotten Americas own working class. The spectacularly preformed scene provokes thought along side an emotional response.

The set featured a number of televisions suspended from the ceiling that throughout the play showed a mix of both real and fictional media imagery of the war, as well as videos made by US soldiers. The show ends with Amir, the “part time” resistance fighter played by David McKenzie, becoming the otherwise unknown Iraqi shot by a car load of soldiers; bathed in a night-vision-green stage light he pleads for his life before the stage goes dark with the sound of a gun shot and the words “ok, he’s down” from the unseen soldier in the video.
Also in the cast was Cassie Baker who played excellently the role of Shirin, the owner of the cafe, also working as a prostitute for US soldiers.

Baghdad, Baby! is as topical is when it was written in 2004, some of the statistics have been brought up to date for this latest round of performances. Director Jon Pheloung described this season as “a final sign off to those years of outrage over the US debacle in Iraq, a very misguided and fatal mission.”
The play runs until September 13 and is well worth seeing if you are in Christchurch.

Among the investors [in Pickets companies] were Kathie and John Hands who had $312,000 at stake, money they put away as a fund to help their granddaughter, Matisse Reid’s recovery from an organ transplant she was waiting for in the US.

Investor John Hands told the National Business Review that the losses were devastating for the local community, as sports clubs and church groups were among the 200 investors.

While spectacular profits -and losses- have been made in the finance sector, the ‘industry’ is based on speculation and moving money around, it is unproductive and could even be described as socially useless. Part of the artificial bubble economy, its not surprising that finance is being hit by global economic woes. Sadly, the sector of the economy that actually produces things is not immune either, chocolate manufacturer Cadbury has recently announced that it will make 145 of its Dunedin workers redundant, as the company “responds to the global pinch” this comes after a number of other high profile redundancies in the city such as those at Fisher and Paykel, Tamahine Knitwear and PPCS’s earlier this year.

National’s policy has, unsurprisingly, been criticized by the Green Party:

The policy has no security of supply where fossil fuels are concerned. It’s a false promise. The cost of all fossil fuels are going through the roof all over the world and the National Party wants us to commit to another 30 years of it, when in fact renewable energy options are cheaper. New geothermal and wind power stations are being built right now. Just as bad generals always plan for the last war, the Nats are planning to solve the problems of the past.

said co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons in a press release.

Meanwhile the fourth Australia-New Zealand Climate Change and Business Conference that begins tomorrow has identified using biomass made from cow dung for electricity generation as a possibility for New Zealand’s future. Such a plan would surely be beneficial, not only would it contribute to renewable electricity generation, it would also utilize a by-product of the dairy industry that usually contributes to environmental degradation though methane emissions and farm run-off into rivers. That the plan was identified as “one way New Zealand could make billions” however seems to show priorities are in the wrong place.

The decision has provoked anger as the council earlier this year imposed a 24% rent increase on public housing tenants. The increase was supposedly to raise money for maintenance on the aging council housing. While taking more money from its tenants, 95% of whom are people on some kind of welfare benefit, the Council sees itself fit to take out an interest only loan to bail out a local millionaire.The council claims that it was forced to make this decision to save the South of the City from “inappropriate” development. Clearly they believe that the only way to protect the city from developers is to prop up other developers with the resources of the workers of the city.

The Council of Social Services (Coss) is taking the council to the High Court, over the rent rise, claiming it breached the Local Government Act by not consulting adequately with housing tenants.
Coss chief executive Sharon Torstonson told The Press that she was confident it would win the case. “It’s about democracy and a lot of people have a really strong interest in seeing some kind of definitive decision about how the council should work and having the law clarified.”

Instead of bailing out the rich, the Council should use its resources to provide services on the basis of need, not on the basis of profit.

It 1991 the National government cut benefits by 20%, putting most beneficiaries on below-subsistence incomes. And in 1999 National brought in a ‘Work for the dole’ scheme requiring those on the benefit to work for it. After winning the election that year Labour scraped work-for-the-dole but retained the 1991 benefit cuts.
One political commentator has described National’s welfare stance as:

simply bad policy, particularly in an economic downturn when people are going to be needing the state more than ever to insulate them from outside shocks. It failed in the 90’s, and it will fail now. It is almost certainly bad politics as well. By dredging up failed policy from the 90’s, National has shown that their thinking is still firmly mired in the past

Recently, the council again angered residents again when it was revealed that they will be removing the mini doughnut cart that has operated in the city for 35 years. City planner Maurice Roers said the cart did not fit the “design or aesthetic” of the City Mall revamp, and a “retail expert” employed by the council had advised against this kind of “clutter.” The owner of the cart, Darryl Duncan, told The Press that people were outraged by the decision, and a petition to save the van has already garnered hundreds of signatures. “It amazes me how upset people are, I don’t know whether it’s just the doughnut cart or whether people have just had enough of the council.” he said. This is a protest outside the council office planned for August 22.

While a New Zealand where workers organise to defend their rights, under any government, is certainly something desirable, I fail to share McCartons optimism. The previous day The Herald had spoke to workers at an Auckland work site, commenting “Auckland Panel and Paint’s seven workshop staff should be part of Labour’s blue-collar heartland. They literally wear blue overalls.” yet of the seven staff the reporter only found one Labour voter- and three National voters. In fact, National’s current position in the polls- losing support but still in front of Labour- would be impossible if not for many workers planning to vote National later this year. It seems workers are far from satisfied with Labour.

There is perhaps some cause for hope though, inside an article about the rather depressing subject of rising unemployment was this quote “the 96 per cent of the workforce still with a job would demand higher wages in the face of the highest inflation in 20 years, Westpac said. “There is every reason to expect wage demands to be met,” its economists said, because of acute skill shortages.” Will there then be more industrial unrest in the coming years? only time will tell.

In 2005 the association opposed a reform that would give workers an extra week holiday every year, and the following year they opposed a bill that brought about equal pay for workers regardless of age, ending a situation where workers under 18 years old could be paid less than workers over 18 for doing the same work. Last year the organisation was continuing to oppose increases to the minimum wage. One proposed work related law change the association has supported, was a bill that would give employers more power to fire workers during their first ninety days of employment.

In its most recent submission to parliament, the Hospitality Association has supported the draconian immigration bill, with an amendment however:

Where the Association does however have concerns is in the proposed Clause 313 of the Bill in respect of employer obligations to ensure that persons who are not entitled to work in New Zealand are not employed by New Zealand organisations...The Association would therefore like to recommend that Clause 313(3) be reworked to more clearly state employer obligations and defences.
Such an amended section 313(3) might look like this:
It is a defence to a charge under subsection (1) (b) that the employer did not know that the person was not entitled to do the work and took reasonable steps and due diligence to ascertain whether the person was entitled to do the work.

In other words, the association supports the immigration bill so long as their members can hire migrant workers (some of the most vulnerable workers in the country) without fear of prosecution. The Hospitality Association has a frightful record when it comes to the issue of workers rights, showing that employers in New Zealand are still looking out for their own class interests against those of the working class.