Posts by nzlemming
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: TPP: Error Correction, in reply to Daniel Kalderimis,
So, taken in context, Patrick is quite right, the TPP would not add a new category of legal risk for New Zealand; it would simply extend an existing mechanism further
The mechanisms in place do not allow US corporations, where most of the multi-nationals are based, to sue the New Zealand government because we do not have an FTA permitting that with the US. Australia's FTA with the US does not permit it either but, as has been mentioned earlier, their agreement with Hong Kong does, so Phillip Morris registered their office in Hong Kong to take advantage of that. We face the same risk, yes, but it's not a trivial task for a multi-national to do this (and I doubt that any of them want to be a registered Chinese company in order to sue NZ). So it is fair to say that NZ does not realistically face this issue from US corporations at the moment.
New Zealand leads the way in including broad public interest exceptions in its FTA investment chapters"
How is this relevant to the TPP where NZ is not even a heavyweight in the discussions? NAFTA, the US-Korea FTA, and other US-driven agreements all do include clauses that over-ride public interest in favour of the US corporations. Australia managed to resist the investment tribunal provisions, but reports indicate it was a pretty messy battle. If an international treaty is made that includes such clauses, and the NZ government signs it, we will not be able exempt our public interest. Indeed, we will be forced to recast our legislation to comply with it.
when one is publicly correcting errors, one should be scrupulous and fair with one’s own facts.
Pot, kettle, black, sir.
-
Hard News: The Mayor's marginal enemies, in reply to Kumara Republic,
The ongoing controversy over how the Basin Reserve Flyover should be built is just the latest reflection of the Dom’s tacit partisanism.
There is nothing tacit about it. Getting a story in the Dom that is critical of NZTA/the government is a miracle. When the Expressway was announced in Kapiti, we could not get an anti story into the local Fairfax outlet, not any letters published. Worth noting that Steven Joyce's sister was the local manager, and she was quietly moved to some other part of Farfax after formal complaints were made.
-
Hard News: Bad Judgement, in reply to Dylan Reeve,
I’m not sure if that’s because TVNZ is owned by the government, or because it’s a media organisation
Probably a bit of both. I know people at RadioNZ who are very well aware of the ownership issue.
-
Hard News: Bad Judgement, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
I’m one of those Spectator readers
Ah, well, there's your first problem, right there ;-)
-
Hard News: Bad Judgement, in reply to Carol Stewart,
I can’t see CRIs in that list of organisations covered by the state servants code of conduct – can that be right?
Yep. CRI’s are corporate entities (essentially companies) with their own legislation.
Cabinet appoints a Board for each CRI. Each Board — intended to comprise business, “professional” and science expertise — operates according to the Companies Act as well as the CRI Act (1992) and other relevant Acts. Each Board produces an annual report and reports to the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit (CCMAU), (part of The Treasury) which represents the shareholders. Parliament also scrutinises each CRI on a regular basis. SSC is not directly involved but has liaised with CRIs and Science New Zealand (was ACRI), particularly where CRIs perform contracted services for multiple government agencies.Day-to-day, CRIs operate as any commercial company would, acting within their strategic statement of intent (agreed with the Shareholders) that aligns with the CRI Act purpose and principles.
Best guess, ask your (or his) boss if they’d be comfortable with it. Quite possibly they’ll be fine, so no hoohah. But, if I was a CRI around grant funding time, I might not want my staff putting out political material/statements, especially if they’re critical of the government of the day.
[and yes, for those keeping score, I did crib most of this from Wikipedia. I tire of reauthoring the wheel]
-
Speaker: TPP: Error Correction, in reply to ChrisW,
I’d say this was the work of someone deeply ignorant of the NZ electricity generating industry, as well as a sloppy researcher.
And that’s simple stuff compared with TPP negotiations!But quite typical of a wordsmith for hire.
-
I just remembered the other rule of thumb - if you have to ask whether it's okay, then it's probably not.
-
Hard News: Bad Judgement, in reply to Carol Stewart,
The Code of Conduct for State Servants says:
We must:
* maintain the political neutrality required to enable us to work with current and future governments
* carry out the functions of our organisation, unaffected by our personal beliefs
* support our organisation to provide robust and unbiased advice
* respect the authority of the government of the day.The list of organisations it applies to is quite extensive (more so than the Public Service Code of Conduct it replaced in 2007) and includes TVNZ.
The resources available there give good guidance, but I would say it is not okay to display party billboards because of the perception it would generate that there is a lack of impartiality in your work for the government of the day. There is nothing in law to prevent you from doing so, and each agency may have a different take on it. It would also depend on your role within an agency, whether an executive or a minion.
I always used to apply the “front page of the Dominion” test, taught to me when I first joined the NZPO back in the 80’s. “Would this make the front page of the Dominion? And how would that affect the Minister/Department if it did?” So, swimming across Cook Strait would make the front page (then) and would not adversely affect the department, but hosting a political meeting on work premises, would be a bad effect.
Above everything else, public servants must be apolitical in their work and be seen to be apolitical. Doesn’t mean you can’t have political beliefs, but it does mean you can’t act on them openly or prominently while working for the government. Can you be a member of a party? Yes. Can you be part of the local electorate organisation? Ye-es, as long as management is aware of it (no surprises). Can you stand for political office yourself? No, you’ll have to take an unpaid leave of absence for the period of the campaign, generally speaking
The guidance notes say:
As a general rule, we are free to belong to any lawful organisation. Our rights to participate in social campaigns and the activities of political parties, unions and professional associations are not precluded because we work in the State Services. But we need to be aware always of the perceptions others may have of our ability to be politically impartial in the way we do our work. When expressing views on behalf of such groups, we must ensure that we will not be seen as speaking on behalf of our State Services organisation.
[…]
Just as membership of a political party is acceptable for most of us, so is helping with fundraising, assisting with a leaflet drop, or taking part in other forms of support for a party. However, senior State servants, and State servants who have a close working relationship with Ministers, should avoid these affiliations.
This standard involves two different principles. It imposes an absolute obligation not to bring our political interests into our work. It also implies that there is a variable tolerance for political involvement. We must maintain in our non-working lives the level of political neutrality that is appropriate for the responsibilities we have. Those of us in very senior positions may be required to have a very low level of involvement, perhaps with our interest being discernible only by a visit to a polling station on election day.
By contrast, if we are unconnected with policy development or are not in a managerial role, we will usually be free to be politically active. What makes the difference is our ability to work not only with the current Government but with future Ministers, following a change in composition of the Government. We must be aware always of how perceptions of our personal activities could undermine the confidence that Ministers have in our organisation.
As always, it is a matter of judgement. Whether it is a political party involvement or taking on a role in a community campaign group, a union or a professional organisation, we must be careful to keep politics out of our job, and our job out of politics.
-
Hard News: The Uses of Dotcom, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
I, too, have been frustrated by Labour's arcane selection process, not in Christchurch but here in the Otaki electorate. After the last election, when replacement candidate Peter Foster lost to Nothin' Guy (but still got more votes than the Labour party vote - the red corner needs to think about that fact), there was effectively no opposing voice. Guy has his weekly bullshit columns in the local rags and there's no-one politically credible opposing him. Annette King was given the role of caretaker MP for the electorate and did a reasonable job of coming to the electorate and meeting people, but it's not the same as having a known candidate who can spend time building their profile. Now they have finally selected Rob McCann, he has a maximum of 9 months to do what Guy has had 9 years or more to achieve. Those are very hard yards.
While I intellectually appreciate Labour's democratic processes, they are somewhat at odds with the reality they exist in, which is easily manipulated by a government like Key's. Delaying the announcement of redrawn electorate boundaries as long as they did meant delaying selection of candidates for Labour, which is of no benefit to the left.
Disclaimer: I am not a member of any party, or involved in selection processes for any party.
-
Looking forward to part 2, David.