OnPoint by Keith Ng

Headlines from the Pre-Election Fiscal Update today:

1. The economic impact of the Christchurch Earthquake was less than expected. This means the short-term hit will be smaller, but the rebound from that will be smaller as well.
2. Household saving was higher than expected (to be precise, dissaving less). "In the year ended March 2011, the difference between income and consumption - saving - is expected to be positive for the first time in more than a decade." Higher saving means lower consumption and lower growth in the short-term.
3. Our trading partners - Europe in particular - are looking a bit grim.

All in all, nothing too wild.

Except that Bill English finally said the words I've been waiting to hear since 2009. He finally acknowledged cutting debt will be painful, and that pain hasn't actually started yet. It's been a long time coming.

In 2009, English made our debt disappear by cutting money promised for future spending. It's like saying that you've actually lost weight because you made a New Year's resolution to lose weight. And of course, because you've already lost weight in the future, you don't need to lose weight now. It seemed like the Government was expecting future Governments to do the painful cutting (or not), while they did little apart from take credit a decade in advance.

I was even more cynical in 2010, when English took credit for the reduction in debt that came from an improved economic outlook - while the Budget itself did nothing to reduce debt. Not only that, but its "fiscally neutral tax switch" was actually a billion dollar tax cut. It was only "fiscally neutral" because, apparently, tax cuts have macroeconomagical powers to grow the economy and pay for themselves.

Back then, I wrote of this growth:

It would be unfair to call this magic money, but at the very least, it’s entirely theoretical money. Not only can we not know whether it’s real or not now, but we won’t know whether it’s real or not in 2013/14.

Well here we are, two years early, and I'm calling it magic money. In today's PREFU, they just revised tax revenues down by $2b. That wipes out the growth the tax cuts were supposed to create twice over. Was that because of the earthquakes or the global economy? Or because the tax cut didn't actually have macroeconomagical growth powers?  Or because of the influence of Mars on Water signs as it ascends over Sagittarius? Oh, that's right - it's unknowable.

Thank you Macroeconomics.

Anyway, after all that, in this year's Budget, English cut the allowance for new spending altogether. It was a good start, but today, by promising pain in the next term (his words were we can't underestimate how demanding the challenge will be), English showed he might actually be committed to reducing the debt, rather than just promising that future Governments will do it. For me, that's quite a big deal. It makes me hopeful that debt is more than just a handy boogeyman for the Government, and that they are willing to expend some political capital to actually govern.

And speaking of boogeymen, here's what the PREFU document said about credit rating agencies:

The credit rating downgrades, which occurred after the interest rate forecasts were completed, are not expected to have a material impact on debt financing costs.

That's to say, Treasury's full response to the downgrade was: "Meh."

Did it mean the Government shouldn't have bothered trying to appease the rating agencies in the first place? That all the talk about the potential impact of a downgrade was overblown? English pointed out that plenty of creditworthy countries are faced with downgrades, and because of that, it didn't have that much of an impact. He made the point that, had a downgrade occurred a year or two ago, it would have been a different story.

I'm marginally sympathetic.

"I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's worth, banks are going bust, shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it."

Few have expressed the outrage of the common people at out-of-control capitalism better than the Howard Beale character in the 1976 movie Network. In the light of current events, the movie’s take on a society that has relinquished its control and independence to greedy corporates in exchange for more TV channels is even more poignant than it was 35 years ago.

Much has changed in the past three and half decades, and not all of it is “worse than bad” - far from it. The internet in particular has opened up virtually endless possibilities for humans to connect, play, work, create, and share. The net today is an enormous, ubiquitous power that influences everything and everyone. And like the proverbial axe that can be used to chop firewood or to chop off an arm, this power can be used or abused.

What’s changed in the past few years specifically is that we’re seeing increased awareness of how technology impacts our lives and what this means for us as individuals, as citizens, as employees, as communities, and as nations. Maybe 2011 will in the future be seen as the year when a lot of big paradigms started to shift and new structures and dynamics started to emerge. It’s early days for seeing the impact of movements such as the Arab Spring, or Occupy Wall Street. We don’t know yet what effect Wikileaks will have long-term on transparency and accountability. It’s possible that government censorship, surveillance, and erosion of privacy will not slow down but instead accelerate. If that happens, our civil rights and democracy itself will be undermined further.

One thing is clear though: The “real” world and the internet world are converging. They are not two separate spheres any more, but have become one and the same. As a citizen and as a social human being, it’s almost impossible to opt out of the latter completely. Internet-rights issues are becoming mainstream, and moreover, are now simply human-rights issues. There’s not just a “digital divide”, but simply an ever-growing divide in our society. We don’t need more media literacy, but more literacy. And so on.

The upshot of this convergence is that more and more people are understanding how technology affects their world. They realise that thanks to the internet we have more possibilities than ever before. At the same time, our freedoms and rights to use this technology are increasingly under threat from corporate interests, paranoid governments, and misguided decision makers in positions of power.

People are getting concerned, and they want to do something. In New Zealand, a month before the election, many voters wonder who will understand and appropriately represent their concerns in the next parliament and government. Anyone who watched our elected officials’ recent performances, for example in the now (in)famous Skynet debate, would be hard-pressed to find any cause for confidence that future net-related issues will be treated responsibly and with knowledge.

So, what can we do? How can we as individuals and as communities make a difference? Here’s our answer: Retake the Net.

Retake the Net is an initiative that connects people with concrete projects to help keep the net free and open. We founded Retake the Net in mid-2011 because we wanted to stop lamenting and do something concrete to take back the internet from corporate and government control.

Our projects encourage people to use, create, and share free and open tools, content, and infrastructures. Current projects include a tool to browse the web anonymously, a computer hub set up in an inner-city soup kitchen, as well as projects related to free software, a platform for policies, and open culture. What connects all these projects is that we are about positive change and creation, and using the power of the network and technology to establish meaningful connections between humans.

Big goals. Why does it matter?

It matters because it shows that we don’t have to sit back and just be good consumers who only watch television and wait for instructions from on high. It’s up to us to do something and make a difference. Moreover, it shows that we can do things right here, in and from New Zealand, and have an effect beyond our shores. 

The Kiwi spirit is about getting things done. Our small population enables access to decisions makers and direct communication with those in power (we forget how special this is). The strong communities already active in various areas related to internet freedom form an ideal basis for initiatives such as Retake the Net. And the internet allows us to connect what we’re doing to the world.

We’ve just started, but it’s been humbling and exciting to see the interest and support from inside and outside New Zealand. Everyone we’ve talked to has been encouraging - from community groups to local and central government people to activists to just about anyone who cares about internet freedom and rights. 

Retake the Net is not about protest. We are about creation. Creation of an internet that we can be proud of. There is a special attitude here in New Zealand that can translate to us being a nation of producers, not just consumers.

________________

More information and contact details for Retake the Net can be found at http://retakethe.net. People can also follow us on Twitter at @retakethenet.

We still have some spots left for the Retake the Net barcamp, an all-day conference on 29 October 2011 in Wellington Town Hall. Anyone keen to join this event should register on our wiki at http://wiki.retakethe.net.

Retake the Net is an ongoing initiative, and we’re always welcoming people who want to get involved in one our projects: http://retakethe.net/projects.

Sibylle Schwarz is a German-ex-American-Wellingtonian who has been working with the net since the days of the first browser wars. Brian Calhoun is a new Kiwi with an American accent who’s trying to recreate the best parts of San Francisco in Wellington. They co-founded Retake the Net to help keep the net free and open.

Hey students' associations. You are not democracies.

5-10% turnout is not a mandate. Year after year after year, students have ignored you resoundingly. This could be a result of the lack of a social conscience in your neoliberal degree factory, it could be because they think student politics is an irredeemable theatre of muppetery, but it doesn't matter - it is a cold hard fact that the majority of students don't care about student politics.

Nor, dear VSM supporters, is this silent majority begging to be liberated from the tyranny of their student association. If they were, they'd have voted for it. They give as much a fraction of a shit about VSM as they do about the associations themselves.

So please, can we just all STFU with the hyperbole? It is not some epic battle over the soul and conscience of society. It is a few dozen student politicians and their grown-up counterparts trying to claim that students are on their side.

They are not.

The "principled" part of this debate is a flimsy crock of shit. Truly, students' association have to STFU about being representative of students. They are, at the best of times, self-appointed advocates who occasionally do good work. At the worse of times, I don't even have the words to describe this shit. Actually, sure I do: They lick piss.

Between student politicians who claim goddamn heavenly mandate over students and ACToids who derive their powers from the Absolute Immutable Freedom Matrix in the Rand dimension, I really don't know who I want to punch more.

Look ACToids, if you really don't want to be a member of a compulsory students' association, they have opt-out clauses. If you morally object to being bound by an opt-out clause, you can choose to go to Auckland University, where students' association membership is voluntary - honestly, they're Quite Okay. What you're really arguing is that a university should not be able to set its own condition of entry (e.g. "You have to be a member of our students' association"). That has nothing to do with personal choice, with freedom of association, and it's contrary to your own principles of freedom.

Consider body corporates. Does freedom of association mean that I should have the right to not be a part of the body corporate when I move into a building?

I haven't participated in this debate until now because it seemed rather pointless. It's been a pure grudge-match.

Also, I really don't know what I want. Even if students' associations are stripped down, even if some of their roles were given to the university, they could still be better in the sense that students are better served. To an extent, I agree with Farrar. VSM doesn't have to be a "hey guys, here's a blunt knife and a plastic bottle, good luck surviving!" affair. It doesn't have to be, but it is. Farrar argues that this is the students' associations' fault for not negotiating on - and capitulating to - a compromise bill, and relying instead on the Labour filibuster.

Well, that's a pretty irresponsible argument. If the Government actually wanted to do the best thing for students - if this was anything other than a grudge-match - why would the Government have needed to wait for students associations to come to it?

In conclusion, I will sign off as I would have done in student media: This is ridiculous and fuck you all.

Dear Readers. I'm going to assume that you are mortal. And no mere mortal can absorb the full essence of Rick Perry in 1 minute 45 seconds. In the interest of public health, I have transcribed this ad below.

Parking meters urban decay empty streets public transport deindustrialisation Obama The Walking Dead S01E01 hurricanes barbershops foreclosures why are kids not playing in the hurricane - OBAMA IN THE CORNER! - creepy greeting cards gauntlet I hate my cafeteria buses vandalised by rappers Obama miniture American flag on saggy concrete building signifying urban decay iconic Obama VOTE poster next to HOPE poster except the hope poster is already ripped to shreds and I think they actually drew an Afro on Obama but IT'S DECAYING LIKE THE URBAN DECAY THAT WAS JUST FORESHADOWED - DRAMATIC TURNING POINT! Crank volume to TENSION crack out the brand jujitsu - O = Zero jobs O = Zero confidence ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO - WHERE'S YOUR PRECIOUS BRAND OBAMA NOW COMMIE HIPSTER PINKOS - WE BRAND JUJITSUed THAT SHIT (though we wouldn't say that cos that sounds foreign and/or gay, and subvert sounds wanky elitist and definitely gay) - ZERO NOTHING OBAMA PRESIDENT ZERO (ZING!) economy is shit one in six Americans live in poverty and what they really need is an extension on the Bush tax cuts - disapproving lady at disconcerting angle - AbruptCutsClimax!: Obamastockmarket ObamaChinesewords Obamastockphoto ObamashakinghandswithChinesepeople ObamaI'MHAVINGANEPILEPTICFIT ObamaDONTFORGETTHE2008LOGOONEMORETIME.

Breath. You have 1.4 seconds.

"In 2012" FLAG horses FLAG city fields LIBERTY cameras RICKMOTHERFUCKINGPERRY boots subliminalspeedsingleframe:TRAINwithCHUUUnoise FLAGonKid ladygladeyesPerry Perry's on TV "AMERICA will discover" kidlookingoutofwindow kid blinding light PerryWithFlags MOTIONBLUR peoplescreamingshitinbackground PerryWithFlags PerryWithCamera PerryWithMarines PerryHuggingLadyBecauseHe'sEmpathetic PerryWithUS&TexasFlagLookingLikeHe'sWonSomething PerryInSuit BANG, BITCH "A new name in LEADERSHIP" PerryWithFlags FLAG LIBERTY COWS! PerryWithTexanSoldiersAndCustomsOfficerWithRubberGloves SteelSuspensionBridge FLAG PerryWithFlag-STEPZOOM LIKEHEJUSTPUNCHEDYOUINTHEFACE (he didn't BUT HE FUCKING COULD HAVE)- old man PerryWithFlag NOW WE ARE IN SPACE BECAUSE WE ARE AMERICA FUCK YEAH (we're still in space right?) - on a truck! shaking hands with guys with beards! WELDING! RAAA! Hard hats! Trucks! Buildings! Tires! HIGHFIVERICKPERRY "An AMERICAN" (unlike oh, I don't want to name any names...) Soldier! PerryInUniformAndBadassAviatorsWithBombersAndExplosions! IwaJimaFlag [Some B&W footage which look like immigrants kissing America's land under the watchful eye of Lady Liberty] $2 Shop Lady Liberty Helicopter FLAG PerryWithWife PerryWithFactoryWorkers KidAspiringToBeFighterJet ClappingLadies PerryWithFlag Church Macy'sWithFlag PerryWithBuilders PerryWithGuyInSuit KidsDrawingFLAG "A PRESIDENT" RibbonCutting "Who will lead A NATION" HotDogGuy PerryStillInThatFactoryWithAlltheBeardedGuys Traffic NewCar FLAG City Open Harvester PerryWithBuilders PerryWithFlag - MOTIONBLURGASM!!! CharlesBronsonPose AdoringCrowds Fields City LumberYard Perry Cameras PerryWithFlags PerrySalutingFactoryGuys PERRYPRESIDENT! 

Don Brash's speech on Saturday was pitched at farmers and property owners. The focus was on the RMA, but at the end of that, he tagged on a bunch of stuff about ACT's Regulatory Standards Bill, selling it as a way to protect property owners. Basically, it's about enshrining property rights in law, in the same way that fundamental human rights are enshrined.

So, "Rightwinger Wants to Enshrine Neoliberal Principles in Pseudoconstitution". Big whoop, right? But under the slogan "this land is your land", with Don Nicholson doing his best Barry Crump impersonation, they're selling RMA reform along with the Regulatory Standards Bill. Even though the latter has little to do with land, they want to get farmers on-board so they'll have an easier time pressuring National (while, at the same time, trying to eat their lunch).

I've never really understood the fuss over the Regulatory Standards Bill, but then I got a little help from my favourite corporate citizen, British American Tobacco NZ. In its submission on the Bill last year, it said:

While BATNZ broadly supports the principles in the Bill, we consider they could be improved in the following ways:

• The principles should include a reference to New Zealand's international obligations, which is an important feature of the LAC Guidelines.
• The principles should specifically state that an evidence-based assessment is required of the issue and the necessity of legislation to address that issue.
• The 'Taking of property' principle.. should be amended to specifically state that 'property' includes both tangible and intangible property.

If you're not finding this hilarious yet, let me explain the joke for you.

Right now, Philip Morris is suing the Australian Government for billions of dollars over its plans to introduce plain packaging for cigarettes. Plain packaging means no brands, just pictures of lung cancer, rotten teeth and so forth. Philip Morris is arguing that this law would diminish the value of its trademark (i.e. Intangible property), and doing so violates a bilateral investment treaty between Australia and Hong Kong (i.e. Australia's international obligations).

Tariana Turia has said that "New Zealand will inevitably follow their lead and look to introduce the plain packaging of tobacco products".

BATNZ's submission went on to say:

There is no good reason to deny compensation for breaches of the principles in the Bill if compensation for breaches of the rights in the [NZ Bill of Rights Act] exists. The reasoning of the Law Commission in approving remedies under the NZBORA applies equally to the Bill; the Bill is closely modelled on the NZBORA and has been described as being functionally equivalent to a bill of rights.

Not only should the Bill not deny compensation, BATNZ considers it would be prudent for the Bill to be amended to explicitly allow damages for breaches, rather than leaving development of remedies to the 'slow and sporadic' common law.

So, what BATNZ is saying is: "Look, we appreciate having property rights enshrined in this Bill. If the government does anything that hurts our business, we can claim that this is a breach of Principle 3 and demand compensation in the same way that those who have their human rights breached get compensation. But we'd have to spend millions on lawyers, having them argue that our brands count as property under Principle 3 and that the only way to remedy a breach of this bill is with money. And it will take years! It'd be heaps easier if you, you know, did it for us."

It's pretty cheeky, asking the Government to change the bill specifically so they'd have less of a case to prove when they sued the government. But top marks for hilarity, Corporate Lawyers!

Such a use wouldn't be an abuse, a side-effect or a necessary evil to come out of the Bill. It *is* the Bill. It's intended to stop the state from interfering with private property, which includes the property of big businesses, which includes cigarette brands. Yes, it affects ordinary property owners too - but they don't have the resources to use it to fight the government.

We enshrine rights in our kinda-constitution because there are some things we don't want ourselves - as a nation - to be able to do even if we wanted to. That's why we enshrine the right to life, civil and democratic rights, and freedoms from the state itself. But do we really care about property rights in the same way? Do we really think that a tobacco company's right to profit off their brand should trump a democratic mandate saying otherwise? Because that's exactly what enshrining property rights in the pseudoconstitution means.

Hmmm, I guess it still doesn't amount to much more than "Rightwinger Wants to Enshrine Neoliberal Principles in Pseudoconstitution, Multinational Corporation Glad to Hear It".

But the BATNZ submission is also gleeful about evidence-based policymaking. This scares the shit out of me. The main problem for people like BATNZ is that hosting politicians in their corporate boxes only gets you so far - that is, not terribly far. They have deep pockets, but there just aren't enough opportunities for them to use it.

But if we were in an environment where policies have to meet evidentiary thresholds to become law, every evidentiary threshold would be an opportunity for them to throw money to impede the law (essentially, hire consultants to ceaselessly shit on our windscreen until we crash).

For example, their international strategy is to say that every measure that hurts tobacco companies will benefit the illicit tobacco trade, which is basically organised crime, which is basically terrorism.

(I kid you not. Check out this awesome video. BAT basically did their own episode of 24. Spoiler: The regulators are the bad guys!)

Anyway, because that's their international strategy, they regularly commission research on the illicit tobacco trade. In Australia, they've thrown money at PwC and Deloitte to do "estimates" of the size of the problem (which, funnily enough, always falls on the high side), backed up by surveys from Roy Morgan. In New Zealand, they got Ernst & Young to do the same thing.

They might be commissioned specifically to reinforce a global PR message, they might make claims about an inherently invisible market that are impossible to prove/disprove, and their estimates might always be higher than official ones, but they're still evidence. BATNZ seem to think that such an environment would work in their favour, and I have no reason to doubt them. In such an environment, players with deep pockets can afford to buy facts and hire an army of lawyers to hold them up.

Of course, an evidence-based policy framework doesn't have to be courts-based, or provide absolute thresholds for evidence to meet. But it's just something to think about for you policy wonks. And if you are a policy wonk, I'd encourage you to read BATNZ's submission for yourself. It's basically a wishlist of sharp objects they'd like to stab you in the eye with.

 

P.S. Don Brash, I know you're too busy to keep up with popular music the kids listen to these days, but I'm pretty sure the lyrics go "this land is your land, this land is my land", not "this land is your land, so you can tell everyone else to fuck off".

In fact, Wikipedia tells me that the original version of the song included this paragraph:

There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me;
Sign was painted, it said private property;
But on the back side it didn't say nothing;
This land was made for you and me.

I think you just made half a line of a communist song against private property your new slogan for private property.

Very post-mo.