Speaker by Various Artists

The debate over parental corporal punishment of children has got me thinking. As I understand it, the two sides of the argument go something like this. People like Sue Bradford and the Plunket Society are concerned that Section 59 of the Crimes Act currently allows some parents to get away with abusing their children. Whereas people like Family Integrity perceive the corporal punishment of children to be an important issue to do with freedom of choice, and an essential cultural and religious right.

The debate has become so heated that Carey College in Auckland has even distributed a helpful pamphlet to parents. The pamphlet "A Working Definition of Spanking" gives clear instructions to parents about how to use corporal punishment on their children, including detailed directions of how to safely "spank" them with a "stiff, flexible rod".

Well, it seems to me that the real issue in this debate is what constitutes 'reasonable force'. The problem with smacking or caning a child is that the force administered is dependent on the strength of the parent. For a strong healthy adult it is all too easy to get carried away, and end up doing more harm than was intended.

If only there were a solution to this problem, then everyone would be able to agree...

But wait -- there is!

I've turned my engineer's brain to the issue and come up with the perfect answer. An engineering solution to the problem of reasonable force. Imagine a scientific instrument that could deliver a consistent and carefully calibrated 'dose' of pain to a child. Imagine a scientific instrument that can cause absolutely no physical harm, and will leave your child totally unmarked. Imagine a scientific device that is low-cost enough to be in every home in New Zealand. And imagine no longer -- because the technology is already with us. The cattle prod.

The cattle prod has been around for decades and has been shown to be thoroughly safe. It could easily be de-rated for use on children, and could be laboratory-calibrated to make sure that the force it delivers is exactly 'reasonable' every time. It could even be modified to deliver no more than six punishments in a given hour (just in case the caring parent was tempted by the idea of using a little more juice than was strictly 'reasonable'). With the cattle prod there would be no chance of bruising, no chance of bleeding, and absolutely no chance of accidental death. As the governments of Iran, Libya, and Uzbekistan have shown, it leaves no physical evidence at all.

Of course, the cattle prod would only be part of the punishment. First the crime should be carefully explained to the child. Then the child should be shown the cattle prod, and notified of the time when the punishment is to be administered. And then -- after the child had dwelt upon the enormity of its crimes -- the cattle prod would be applied with the words: "It's not me that's hurting you, it's the electricity. And it's doing it with love." Following the punishment you would cuddle the child and say a prayer together. In later years, of course, the whole family could laugh together over the times they were cattle prodded, and thank the Lord for delivering them from becoming "unrestrained agents of evil" (Psalm 51:5).

Those of you who have read this far will probably be feeling rather ill by now. The image of torturing a child with a cattle prod is thoroughly nauseating to most of us. But as I have carefully explained, a cattle prod is actually much safer than smacking or caning your child. Which brings us to the question: if we find the idea of using a cattle prod on children nauseating, then why don't we find it nauseating to smack or cane a child? And the answer is obvious. We're just plain used to the idea of smacking and caning our children. It seems perfectly normal to us.

It reminds me of something a friend from China once told me. He said how disgusted he was when he came to New Zealand and saw people using a handkerchief, and then putting it back in their pockets. "It's like carrying a piece of soiled toilet paper around with you," he said. It was something I'd never even considered before. Although, when I did, I had to agree that -- yeah -- it was pretty disgusting. As with New Zealand's corporal punishment of children, I just hadn't noticed because I was so used to the idea. Of course, some people might think that beating children is even worse than carrying around a pocketful of snot.

I'll conclude by relating something told to me by an acquaintance involved in early childcare, who has recently returned from visiting Denmark. It turns out that New Zealand is rather famous in Denmark's early childcare circles. Not for our clean and green image, unfortunately, but rather as a watchword for first-world child brutality. Unused to the practice of dishing out biffo to misbehaving children, the Danish think the New Zealand way of raising kids is strange and even cruel.

It's just a suggestion, but I wonder if the Danish might not have a point. Perhaps we should think again about the way that New Zealand treats its children. Just because we're used to smacking and caning doesn't necessarily mean it's an important issue to do with freedom of choice, or an essential cultural right.

Being an energy engineer has given me some insight into the complaints of my ex-girlfriend. "I just don't understand you," I find myself saying. "You never listen." Such is the unhappy relationship between the energy engineer and the energy-consuming public. The energy engineer provides the lifeblood that keeps civilization alive -- but does civilization listen to a word we say? Does civilization return our phone calls? Does civilization even care? Well, not until civilization gets into a shower and finds there's no hot water. Or until it suddenly costs $150 to fill up the petrol tank in civilization's SUV.

It's hard to over-exaggerate the importance of energy to New Zealand and to the world in general. Consider your options without an energy supply. No heating, no lighting, no transport, no communications, no medicine, and no Edmund Cake albums. In a word: Palaeolithic. You couldn't even cook the rat you killed with a rock, since the use of fire is -- by definition -- just a very basic form of energy engineering. And, of course it doesn't take a total absence of energy to cause havoc in our society. Even a comparatively minor energy shortage could plunge the New Zealand (and world's) economy into freefall, as we discovered during the 1970s' oil shocks. In fact, if you think about it, a cheap and plentiful supply of energy is perhaps the key ingredient to civilization as we know it [1].

So why, given the importance of energy to our society, is energy not more prominent on the political stage during an election? And anyway, what is a sensible energy strategy for a country like New Zealand? The political parties have all released energy policies, but do they propose practical solutions for our current and future energy needs, or are they just talking pseudo-science? Or even, in that most hackneyed of phrases, political correctness?

Russell Brown thought that a change from the head-banging tax cut debate would be a fine thing. So here I am -- an energy engineer on Public Address. And as an energy engineer I'd naturally like to see some political debate on energy policy. A good place to start might be to ask the question: "how would an energy engineer assess the energy policies on offer?" So I've undertaken a detailed examination of the energy policies of the main political parties, and have awarded them all an 'energy star' rating.

At this point I should perhaps mention that I have no political agenda here. I have never been power-crazed enough to join a political party, and do not have any business interest in New Zealand's energy sector (or, indeed, any business interest at all). The only thing you might like to take into consideration when reading this is that I probably have the typical personality traits of an energy engineer: pragmatic, risk averse, sceptical, and somewhat conservative.

So what does an energy engineer look for in an energy policy? Well, a detailed answer would take a very big book. But I have tried to summarize the important issues in just two paragraphs. Only a brief justification of my reasoning is given here, but things should become clearer as you read on. A comprehensive explanation might be a good topic for a future guest blog.

Let's start with transportation, which (at around 40% [2]) is New Zealand's largest area of energy consumption. Transport fuels are imported and so have a detrimental effect on our balance of trade, as well as a significant influence on the price that we pay for most consumer products. The main potential for improving transport energy usage lies in increasing the efficiency with which we use fuels. Around half of the energy used for transport is consumed by households [2], and therefore a sensible energy policy should encourage smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles (e.g. small diesel cars), as well as greater use of public transport. In terms of the heavy transport sector, the higher fuel-efficiency of rail means that it should be the preferred transport option where possible. Replacing some portion of fossil transport fuels with biofuels made from waste products (such as tallow) would be a sensible economic move at current oil prices. And continued exploration for new oil and gas reserves in New Zealand might be a worthwhile gamble in terms of reducing our dependence on importation.

New Zealand's second largest area of energy usage is electricity [2], with significant increases in demand predicted in the next few years. To avoid shortages a sensible energy policy would increase generation capacity. But it is also practical to introduce policies which limit increases in demand. A major opportunity for cost-effectively increasing the supply of electricity lies in exploiting New Zealand's considerable wind resource, with the latest studies showing that wind should be able to contribute up to 35 per cent of our total electricity mix. Major opportunities also exist for reducing New Zealand's electricity demand. Household usage accounts for more than a third of the electricity generated [2], mostly in water and space heating. A sensible energy policy would reduce electricity consumption by encouraging widespread use of solar water heaters, and biofuels (such as wood pellets) for space heating. Energy efficiency and peak load reduction in the areas of Industry and Commerce -- which account for around 58 per cent of New Zealand's electricity consumption -- could be improved by encouraging further demand-side participation. It goes without saying that New Zealand's building insulation levels need to be dramatically increased; and, of course, that no-one should be using incandescent light bulbs any more.

So that is a brief summary of common sense energy policy according to an energy engineer. How do the politicians do on the same topic? The hyperlinks (below) lead to the energy policies of the eight main political parties. Under each link I have provided a short evaluation of the policy, along with an overall 'energy star' rating (1 star = lowest; 5 stars = highest).

ACT New Zealand

ACT's energy policy made me feel depressed about the intelligence of our politicians. Their electricity generation ideas seem to be straight from the 1950s. ACT only considers fuels (i.e. they completely ignore hydro, geothermal, and wind) and they specifically mention only coal and nuclear. Coal will certainly play a role in our electricity mix for the foreseeable future -- but nuclear? As the Chair of the Electricity Commission has pointed out, nuclear energy is completely unsuitable for integration into New Zealand's electricity generation system [3]. Moreover, it would cost at least twice as much as electricity generated from our abundant renewable resources like wind. I guess this must be political incorrectness gone mad. ACT would have us pay twice as much for electricity -- simply in order to avoid being green.

The other half of ACT's policy is pure late-eighties. Summarized in thirteen words: 'the answer is the free market -- it doesn't matter what the question is'. It's the kind of energy policy that should be written on an extra-big Tui billboard: "Privately-owned electricity companies (some of them with foreign ownership) will altruistically forgo their short-term profits in favour of long-term planning (on the order of decades) so as to act in the best interests of the New Zealand public." Yeah, right.

Virtually the only sensible thing that ACT says about energy is actually in their environment policy. They are strongly in favour of "polluter pays". So that must mean that they're in favour of the carbon tax, right? Ah, no, their energy policy says that they're going to remove the carbon tax. Perhaps ACT's energy 'expert' and their environment spokesperson should get together and work out which one of them is living in a fantasy world [4].

Energy Star Rating = Zero

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand

Ironically, alphabetical order has placed ACT right next to their mortal enemy -- the Green Party. Practically all I know about the Greens is that they are anti-GE and seriously bad dancers. I entirely expected that their energy policy would consist of building wigwams, or perhaps making us wear braces instead of belts. Imagine my astonishment when I discovered that their energy policy actually makes sense. In fact, it's so sensible from an energy engineering perspective that I have hardly anything to say about it.

I would only seriously debate them on two points. Firstly, the Green Party supports the use of biomass for transport fuels. Apart from waste biomass, this is difficult to justify at the moment, and may only become economic when plants/organisms are bred that produce much higher energy densities at much lower extraction costs. In practical terms this probably means genetic engineering -- to which, of course, the Greens are implacably opposed. Secondly, the Green Party make mention of "wind and solar freighters in the shipping industry". While this is technically feasible, it is not readily available technology, and frankly it sounds bloody daft. This is the energy policy equivalent of letting a camera crew film you dancing, guys.

But these are only minor points. The Green's energy policy is by far the most detailed, comprehensive, and well-considered of any political party. Congratulations to whoever wrote it.

Energy Star Rating = * * * * 1/2

The Labour Party of New Zealand

I feel lukewarm about the Labour Party's energy achievements to date. They have certainly done much better than their National Party predecessors, who left the energy sector in a shambles. But, on the other hand, they have been astoundingly slow to address the many obvious and urgent problems. Labour has done well at encouraging new renewable electricity generation, and has made progress in improving public transport. But they have done badly at getting New Zealanders into more efficient homes and motor vehicles. And, of course, the jury is still out on their Electricity Commission.

However, much as I'd like to chide them for their glacial slowness, I have to admit that Labour manages to hit nearly all the key points for a common sense energy policy bang on the head. Although -- as in the case of their 'National Energy Strategy' and 'Plan for Peak Oil' -- you are very tempted to ask why they haven't addressed these issues years ago. It is interesting to note that Labour prefers to coerce rather than decree when it comes to energy policy. Their proposed energy efficiency labelling scheme for cars and houses is designed to make New Zealanders realize the error of their ways, and mend their evil lifestyles accordingly. Well, I suppose it might work. I think, however, that they are misguided when it comes to employing this approach to solar water heating. It seems self-evident that this should be mandatory for all new buildings and houses (as per the Green and Maori Party policies).

It is unfortunate that Labour's otherwise workmanlike energy policy is spoiled by this faux pas: "[Labour will] work towards raising the proportion of electricity generated from new renewable sources such as wind, solar and fuel cells." Fuel cells? Surely energy minister Trevor Mallard doesn't think that fuel cells produce energy from thin air? Surely he realizes that fuel cells are only as renewable as the fuel you put into them? And surely he knows that many fuel cells run on hydrogen made ultimately from coal, and some -- via a reformer -- even on petrol. I hope this is a typing error, Mr Mallard.

Labour's energy policy is not as visionary as the Greens, but it is still (mostly) sensible with much to recommend it.

Energy Star Rating = * * * 1/2

The Maori Party

The Maori Party's website is, at least, refreshingly different; their policy is presented in a manner that relates to the structure of a Wharenui. Unfortunately, this makes it rather difficult for my linear engineer's brain to extract information. As far as I can tell, their official energy policy consists of only 23 words: "To ensure the... conservation of energy [5] To support alternative energy research funding to target energy and resource waste to support the Kyoto Protocol". Nothing wrong with this, of course, just a little short on detail.

Their energy spokesperson has, however, responded to this survey on the New Zealand Futures Trust website. This suggests that the Maori Party, have -- broadly speaking -- some quite sensible energy policy ideas. These include: an energy labelling system for cars, distributed electricity generation, increased use of biofuels, and implementation of a national energy strategy.

Their good sense is, however, somewhat spoiled by this statement: "The [Maori] Party advocates for compulsory solar water heating... This would take pressure off the national grid, and would also give back-up supply by feeding surplus power from home units back into it [my italics]." Now, of course, solar water heaters convert sunlight directly into thermal energy without an intervening electrical stage, so it is quite impossible for them to feed electricity into the grid. Note to Maori Party energy spokesperson: try this experiment. Leave your garden hose in the sun all day until the water inside gets really hot. Then try connecting it to the power lines outside your house -- and see where it gets you.

 

Energy Star Rating = * * *

The National Party of New Zealand

I'm sorry to say that the National Party's energy policy is kind of lame. In their own words: "The discovery [my italics] and harnessing of indigenous oil and gas reserves is an important part of National's energy plan." That's a little like saying: "winning Lotto is an important part of my career plan". It'd be nice if I won Lotto -- and sure, it'd be nice if we discovered a squillion cubic metres of oil off the coast of New Zealand -- but let's not depend on it, guys.

Other than this, the National Party promises to remove carbon tax and amend the Resource Management Act. Since their climate change policy acknowledges that: "the balance of scientific opinion supports the thesis that human activity is contributing to global warming", then the question arises as to how they are going to encourage the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions arising from energy consumption. A clue might be that they "support the goals of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority". Except for the fact that one of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority's strategies is "ensuring that prices reflect the full costs of supply including environmental costs"[6]. In other words... a carbon tax. Sigh.

National makes a couple of good point about the structure of the Electricity Commission, and the need to develop a generation and transmission plan -- in fact, the Greens have similar policies on these topics. But apart from this there's hardly any other content in National's policy. The whole thing reads like a statement of disinterest in energy. Nowhere is wind energy mentioned, nowhere is solar energy mentioned, and efficiency increases are only mentioned in the context of saying that they're not feasible (I agree that efficiency increases are not feasible as a total solution to New Zealand's energy requirements, but they are a vital part of the solution)[7].

I really expected something better from a party that may well form the next government. Perhaps the only explanation is that this energy policy was written when National thought it couldn't possibility win the election. I suspect Don Brash's conversation with energy spokesperson Phil Heatley might have gone a little like this:

Heatley: Any ideas for the energy policy, boss?

Brash: Well, it doesn't look like we'll be winning the next election, so don't spend too much time on it. Just write down the first thing that comes into your head.

Heatley: You know I love you -- don't you, Don?

Brash: I love you too, Phil. If it weren't for my wife [8] we could spend much more quality time together.

Okay, perhaps not the last two lines. But it seems that little else could explain such a lacklustre effort.

Energy Star Rating = *

New Zealand First

The trouble with New Zealand First's energy policy is not so much what it says, but rather, what it doesn't say. Certainly there is nothing objectionable or stupid in it. But, on the other hand, there is insufficient detail to make a serious evaluation. Much of their policy is prefaced by phrases like: "explore the feasibility", "seek to", and "consider". And the rest is vague at best. For example, they are going to provide incentives to encourage investment in electricity generation. Well, that may or may not be a good thing. What form do the incentives take? What sort of generation capacity are you going to incentivize? The only categorical statement they really make is that they won't privatize Meridian, Genesis, Mighty River Power, Transpower, or Solid Energy. Fair enough.

New Zealand First may have quite a good energy policy, but there is too little detail for me to make a judgement. The rating I have given them is solely based on a lack of outright stupidity.

Energy Star Rating = * *

New Zealand Progressive Party

I thought these guys were now calling themselves 'Jim Anderton's Progressive Party', but -- according to their web site -- apparently not yet. They are a small party with a big energy policy, I was actually quite impressed. They have clearly done a great deal of research, and demonstrate a good grasp of the issues when it comes to energy. I particularly liked their attitude to future coal-fired power stations; they have correctly identified some of the problems which tend to make these an option of last resort (but still an option, nonetheless).

Not visionary, but pragmatic -- and with plenty of detail. A good solid piece of policy.

Energy Star Rating = * * * *

United Future New Zealand

I must admit that I opened United Future's policy without much hope. Their scientific credentials are impeccably bad. United Future MP Larry Baldock has even quoted the famously bogus "Oregon petition" [9] in parliament, which must put him on the short list of New Zealand's stupidest politicians (although I note that ACT's Ken Shirley and Deborah Coddington, and National's Brian Connell have also cited this petition following Baldock's speech [10]).

The first part of United Future's energy policy deals with electricity, oil, and gas. They favour electricity generation capacity which can be "consistently delivered at the lowest cost". As the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority has pointed out, wind-generated electricity is lower in cost than coal-generated electricity in New Zealand. So that must mean that United Future are in favour of wind energy, right? Of course not. Larry Baldock [12] has called wind turbines "yet to be proven", which must be a big surprise to Meridian Energy, and the dozens of other hard-nosed electricity companies who are installing them worldwide.

United Future is also opposed to a carbon tax on the grounds that global warming is "based on debatable science". I suspect that United Future's thoughts on global warming are based on debatable journalism. Namely, an article in the Australian Sunday Mail which quoted television presenter and botanist David Bellamy. Larry Baldock was so impressed with this article that he tried to have it tabled in parliament. Curiously, he didn't try to table any of the many criticisms of David Bellamy's statements from climatologists and atmospheric physicists. Nor the later admission from Bellamy himself that he was wrong. On a more positive note, however, United Future's policy on energy efficiency is actually pretty good. Hopefully this has come about because someone in United Future has an ounce of common sense, rather than on the principle that a broken clock is right twice a day.

United Future's energy policy finishes off by promising to "fully investigate the future viability of hydrogen as a major energy source". Actually, I can investigate this for them right now. It isn't. Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source. On earth you have to manufacture hydrogen (usually from water). And it takes more energy to make than you get back as fuel. Pure hydrogen only exists in space [13]. This has given me visions of the energy spokespeople from Labour, the Maori party, and United Future getting together. One could be conjuring renewable energy from fuel cells, another could be piping hot water into power lines, while the third could be channelling hydrogen from the centre of the sun -- the nearest place where it exists naturally in quantity. You know, I rather think that the energy spokesperson for a political party should be at least slightly scientifically literate.

Energy Star Rating = * *

So this brings me to the end of my analysis. And it leaves me with one final observation: why are the parties of the right so adverse to common sense energy policy? In a recent television debate Peter 'Common Sense' Dunne asserted that the problem with the Green Party was that they'd have us all taking cold showers. Actually, I remember the electricity shortages of the early 90s, a winter of cold (or at least lukewarm) showers for most of us. A winter where, of course, the only people who had hot showers were those with solar water heaters. So ironically -- from an energy engineer's perspective -- the Greens' policy is just the opposite of cold showers. And the policies of United Future (and some of the other parties of the right) are just the opposite of common sense.

NOTES

[1] Apart from energy, the other vital ingredient to civilization is the unwritten Kantian social contract which prevents us from murdering our neighbours and nicking their plasma TV sets. Although -- as those of us who grew up in West Auckland will know -- humanity can sometimes struggle along even without a detailed knowledge of Kant’s philosophy.

[2] It is a little difficult to extract information for this reference: (i) Go to this URL (ii) Select “What fuel was used to generate the energy?” from the ‘Questions’ drop-down menu (iii) Select “PJ” from the ‘Unit’ drop-down menu (iv) Select “Delivered energy” from the ‘Energy types’ drop-down menu (v) Select all the energy sector boxes (‘Agriculture’, ‘Household’, ‘Commerce’, ‘Industry’, and ‘Transport and Storage’). Click the ‘submit’ button.

[3] Nuclear energy may, however, be a sensible option of last resort for other countries which have large electricity demands and comparatively few renewable resources, e.g. some parts of the USA.

[4] Both.

[5] Actually, this is the First Law of Thermodynamics -- it will happen anyway.

[6] National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy, p. 28.

[7] Incidentally the National Party’s energy policy implies that the Greens and Labour are opposed to increasing generation capacity. This is not true. In both cases their policies are actually strongly supportive of increased capacity.

[8] From Singapore.

[9]The Oregon petition was organized by Arthur Robinson, a lone nutter operating out of a tin shed in the backwoods of Oregon. The petition claimed to have gathered the signatures of 18,000 (or variously: 2,000, 15,000, 17,000, or 19,000) scientists who said there was no evidence for global warming. The list included such scientific luminaries as Dr. Frank Burns, Dr. B. J. Honeycutt, and Dr. Benjamin Pierce (characters from the television series M*A*S*H).

[10] Ken Shirley and Brian Connell here, and Deborah Coddington here.

[11] National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy, p. 2.

[12] Larry enjoys “a good night out at the rugby, or at home relaxing with his wife and children with a video”. He clearly does not enjoy keeping up with scientific or engineering literature.

[13] And in very trace quantities on earth.

PLEASE NOTE: THE VIEWS EXPRESSED HEREIN ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHOR, AND DO NOT PURPORT TO REPRESENT THE OPINIONS OF HIS EMPLOYER IN ANY WAY.

“Playing the race card may help us win – then come Monday how do we run the country?” - Jim Bolger (1990)

-

In a few days New Zealanders will go to the polls with our eclectic mix of motivations. Some of us will vote according to the party we identify most strongly with, or against, some of us will vote in self-interest, some will vote with their hearts, some will choose in anger, some in impatience, and others with ambivalence, perhaps even profoundly so given the nature of this desperate campaign.

In other words Kiwis, for a whole host of reasons, will tick some box or another. It’s a great day and one we should all rejoice in, enjoy, and certainly have a few, and then a few more, because it reminds us of our freedom to choose, and it reminds us that for one day at least we are truly in charge, we the people are sovereign.

Of the many policies and issues raised in this campaign there is only one that has any significant long-term consequences for the direction we take as a nation, and that is treaty and race policy. I have argued, since the very first day of this campaign, that National’s treaty and race policy is a radical departure from the generally progressive direction that race relations has travelled during the past twenty years. We are facing a crucial forking point.

National’s commitment to remove the Maori seats with white votes is only one aspect of its policy that could herald in a reaction from Maori that tears at the very fabric of our social cohesiveness. A colleague of mine calls it ‘path dependency’. That is, when one reaches a forking point and decides to embark on a new path, try as one might, one can never return to the original point of intersection again if things turn pear-shaped because the new landscape is forever changed. There’s no going back.

And that has been my primary concern throughout this campaign. What is the impact on the social cohesion of our country if National’s policy is fully implemented? Dr Brash has never addressed this crucial question other than to say that some Maori have e-mailed him with their support. That, from a potential Prime Minister, is simply not good enough. If National’s wider policy is implemented, might not some moderate Maori be radicalised? What about the radical element that already exists? How might they react? We must know the answers to these questions otherwise we are taking a giant leap into the unknown with no ability to return to a path that is, if not perfect, at least one underpinned by a basic decency.

Another curious response from National was its admission that it had simply never thought about the economic consequences of its policy to dismantle the entire political and institutional framework for Maori. Brand New Zealand – our international image as a ‘clean and green,’ beautiful country – will surely be damaged if greater civil unrest, damning UN reports and wider scrutiny of our race relations from the international community becomes part of our new national narrative.

And given the fact that tourism now matches primary production as a significant driver of our economy, what impact would deteriorating race relations have on tourists’ decisions to travel down here? Especially when the choices are manifold. We might still be green, but how clean, how beautiful?

If there is a pernicious element to the policy it must surely be to expunge from our minds (and our children’s) any notion of partnership between our first people and the rest of us. If one party enters an agreement with another to start something new, whatever the motivations, we all have the common sense to see that this is a partnership. Our treaty is no different and if we still have much work to do, much of the work has already been done.

This campaign has reinforced to me that the real problem with race discourse is at the elite level, not below. Those who call themselves leaders can, still, easily exploit the public's frustration and impatience with some of the more exotic or maladaptive aspects of the Maori renaissance. I suspect, however, that after the last twenty months of inflamed rhetoric on race Maori have got the point. The vast majority of us, including Maori themselves, want to move forward. But we need to be patient, not in a paternalistic sense, but a patience born of mutual respect.

One of the great glues underpinning our race relations is that ever since colonisation we have fancied each other and we are so much the richer for a mutual attraction that has transcended politics. Second, the finest strands of our national character, features of ourselves that the late Michael King saw as the basis for his optimism about our future together – our good-heartedness, our commonsensical approach, and our tolerance – should serve us well as we make our way together, alongside the many other vibrant cultures that enrich our land and our culture.

So, come September 17, whatever your impulse is when you’re deciding your choice, don’t let impatience cloud your choice. Voting with the hope that your children will have a less complicated, less uncertain future will prove more satisfying than voting with either your frustration or your fears.

A special post for Public Address, a look at the rat-race from an unimpressed frequenter of the Wellington Beltway, "Michelle", who would rather not be identified for very good reasons. Enjoy - Keith.

When the abyss stares back you only have a split second to react, react or go mad, or bad, or both, because a wrong choice can never be put right. For Bill Clinton his moment of ultimate peril was leering at Monica’s thong. He chose poorly and Dante’s ‘Inferno’ placed Bubba in its dark stormy wind:

“Love, which in gentlest hearts will soonest bloom, seized my lover -
and with passion for that sweet body I was torn unshriven to my doom.”

And so he was, impeached by Cotton Mather’s progeny – crazed Republicans like De Lay and Livingstone, who were twisted around the delusional notion of self-righteous black bile and an even darker puritan spirit – and Bubba was saved only because there were fewer hypocrites living outside the Beltway than within it (some of the South was still Democratic then, and an old Southern defence - ‘eaten ain’t cheating’ - held some force).

For Kurtz the abyss was the shocking epiphany that there was no purpose, anything was permissible: ‘The horror, the horror,’ bemoaned Brando in Apocalypse Now. Which might have also been what David Lange muttered, during that fateful moment back in late ’87, when his calculator stared back at him and told Lange that the inevitable consequence of Douglas’s flat-tax proposals was fiscal Armageddon: The poor bastards his government had already shafted would have to stand in line for another flogging. Lange recoiled from the abyss. No Coppola moment for Mangere’s man. He did the right thing. He recoiled from his colleagues and derailed a juggernaut that was about to begin its insane death spiral, one that combined a black hole of contempt, about the ‘will to change’ of ordinary Kiwis, with a junkie’s obsession for the next fix.

Zip to 2005, and the forces Lange defeated have regathered around an unlikely new champion. Don Brash, the son of the manse, who ‘chid his truant youth,’ and knelt before the altar of neo-liberal purity – which, one suspects, makes his burden easier. Driven by an unsated ambition, a little engine that knows no rest, if you will, sixty-four year old Brash’s sense of duty propelled him forward, to Orewa... twice. Brash’s backers – those who across the spectrum never accepted Lange’s judgement back in January 1988 – were all for it, even if they were much older, far richer, and uncommonly grumpy.

Forget the slick marketing, for oil slick is its essential quality (Iwi-Kiwi et al), this election for Brash and the good old boys is about one last attempt to finish the job (see Goldsmith’s biography, pages 110-111. It covers a speech made by Brash “as Prime Minister”). But before I delve too far into that particular viper’s nest, close Brash watchers have seen his template, and told this girl. It is, after all, explicitly revealed in his biography:

“attract the audiences interests, show them the depths of hell, give them hope, then make the call to action.”

Now think about Orewa on race: Brash’s handlers, in the lead up to the speech, convinced the chattering classes that the speech was going to be something special, their first sign of competence for months. It then paints a picture of the Dis, or lower reaches of Hell, of Dante’s imagination; Maori costing us jobs with their bloody Taniwha, bleeding us dry, being lazy, being uppity, and forcing us down a dangerous path to racial separatism.

The speech delivered hope – National, after all, would deal to Maori, strip them of their seats (with white votes, as one political scientist put it), remove all Treaty references (errr… when will someone ask Dr Brash if this mightn’t merely shift the location of the Treaty ‘grievance industry’ to a new location, rather than solve it) and make the still too large Maori underclass work for the dole (which brings with it the vivid imagery of our own domestic version of chain gangs). Plenty of people were thinking what Brash said at Orewa. “Didn’t you know, once they got muskets they slaughtered each other in a wild frenzy, bloody ‘primitives.’” Oh yeah, Brash called Maori that twice too (Lange would, I’m sure, have enjoyed the irony that it was our much cherished Western civilization that invented the means for our very sophisticated selves to destroy in a nuclear furnace every living thing on the planet bar cockroaches). Well, never mind. The main gig was that Kiwis were set free to say to each other all that suppressed stuff they felt too guilty to say before the cork popped out.

Finally, to check off the Brash-template, and so the cry goes, vote for National to end this madness. It may have cost the Nats Georgina te Heu Heu and her tribe’s respect, but so what, the blue collar and elderly shift was reward enough.

The template was also there at Orewa II, if you read the speech, except a stand by Katherine Rich, on liberal principle, errr… not to mention compassion, messed with the first and last bits of Brash’s model and cost her her job (and with Katherine went many other women – of which I would have been one if I hadn’t have already decamped after the first Orewa speech).

And the usual modus is coming with the tax policy. All this flirting round the date of release fuels the pack’s interest. The depths of hell will then be laid bare: Government waste (like previous set-piece speeches, the anecdotal will reign. You know… hip-hop tours and other egregious degradations will swamp all the civilised things that are achieved every day); over-taxing ‘hard working’ New Zealanders who deserve ‘their own money back’ is in for a flogging (cos they’re the buzzwords the focus groups are spewing out); not to mention the lemming-like futility of those of us who actually chose to stay in this country), and, of course, a further retelling of the reasons why Dr Brash came into politics (presumably not including either climbing into stockcars, nor the promise of more cash for the campaign than National would EVER get under some lame centrist like Bill English).

"Hope" is the extra bucks we’ll all get if we buy into this. Yehaa, I’m gonna blow mine on lotto. If the state trusts me so much I’m gonna deliver, maximize my investment, win the big one, then plan for my retirement… in Monte Carlo. The call to action is to give you ‘party vote’ to National in this ‘two-horse’ race (wasn’t the prime reason for voting in MMP to make sure we never had to suffer another ‘two-horse’ race?).

But all this raving brings me to the other horse…and what’s a girl to do?

Helen Clark is competent, we all know this, and she never embarrasses us overseas (the odd speculative ‘what if’ notwithstanding). BUT… where was her emotional connection to David Lange when he died? I was waiting to see it, dying to see it, but instead we got the political point being made about Lange’s anti-nuclear bust-out. Poor form, methinks.

After Orewa-on-race I expected something far better too – and the five year anniversary of the Hikoi for Hope speech wasn’t bad for Clarkie – but she led Labour, in full retreat most of the time, during the blue collar and elderly backlash against her government’s not unreasonable attempts to reduce Maori unemployment, their poor health comparison with the rest of us, their disparate outcomes across the whole range of stuff that makes life more fun.

Now Labour are using the same language as their opponents on all matters to do with the Treaty. Where has its principle gone?

Having sat on squillions – or having prudently managed the economy, as Michael Cullen would prefer – Labour now finds itself vulnerable to National’s tax bribe. So its resorted to bribes itself. When in Rome, I guess, but where has principle gone? Principles of fraternity and compassion like Lange could confidently assert in his maiden speech:

‘I believe that our challenge is to create a society where people feel committed to each other, where they have an interdependence which no adversity can force apart, where they realize they have a duty to their brothers, and where the fruits of such a society are seen in the love, the charity, and compassion of people…’

A girlfriend, one more steeped in all this muck than I, put to me that sometimes one has to take the low road to prevent something worse from happening. Maybe that’s Labour’s shtick on race… but I’m not so convinced. There have been too many opportunities passed over or missed altogether… and there is the little matter of self-interest to think about as well.

And the desperation! This is a desperate campaign for Labour and the Prime Minister, and it shows.

So what’s to do? I was part of National’s 20.93% in 2002. They were my home cos I’d never contemplated Labour before. I went down with the ship, grim night that it was. I valued freedom most of all. But any liberal – at least one in the tradition of a Jack Marshall, he who once said with pride that being a liberal was not to succumb to holding “a fixed and definite creed” or a Jim McLay or a Doug Graham, whose instincts for decency will hopefully be revisited after the storm has passed – is no longer welcome in the National Party.

Which leaves me an odd choice, but one forged by staring down at the abyss. David Lange’s last sentences, in My Life, hinted at his desire to force the spring, for he sensed, I guess, that time was against him. Yet we seem strangely stuck in a winter of discontent. Spring may be delayed a while longer but I reckon it’ll be worth the wait. In the meantime, I shall lament the yawning gap between David Lange and his successors, and the pretenders. Then I’ll vote to end this era in a benign fashion.

And somewhere out there, I hope there is a fat kid or a shy kid or a smart kid who thinks they can go all the way. I’ll be looking out for them.

The following is a blog I sent out to my Stage 1 Biology students at the University of Auckland. We set up a bulletin board so that the new students straight from school could get into the swing of university life. I caused disquiet in a lecture when I made rude comments about intelligent design (something about the human genome being a mess and not very intelligently designed). It caused a firestorm on the weblog, where I was accused of brainwashing. And so I posted my own views on ID

Now, creationism, and brainwashing?

Science is not about dogma. It is not about what is right and wrong or about what we'd like to be the truth; it's about what is best supported by the evidence at hand.

First and foremost, science must be testable and disprovable. Evolution can be tested, for example, by searching for correlation between molecular data and morphological data. It can also be disproved. A single molecule that cannot be explained by random change and directional selection would bring the whole edifice of evolutionary theory crashing down.

Unfortunately for the creationists, despite 120 years of trying, nobody has yet come close. Indeed, every gene, every protein, every complete genome sequenced, has evolution written all over it in flashing neon lights. Only somebody deliberate averting their eyes could miss it. It is so blindingly obvious.

There have of course been arguments and counter-arguments about the mechanisms by which evolution acts (and this has been great ammunition for the creationists) but the assertion that organisms change and can change to new forms is, I'm afraid, now proven beyond doubt.

What about creationism? "Creation Science" declares that all life was created a few thousand years ago by forces no longer present in the universe. (It is defined as such in many web sites.) This definition renders it a priori a theory that can be neither tested nor disproved (the forces have gone). It is therefore a theory, but not a scientific theory.

Then along came ID (Intelligent design) and IC (irreducible complexity). These brazen pieces of rhetoric are alas, creationism dressed in a lab-coat and safety glasses to make it look like science - a bit like the stuff you get on shampoo ads.

The argument of IC goes like this: If you take any protein and chop out any one amino acid, then it won't work. Ergo, the complexity cannot be reduced and so there was no evolutionary route to the present day level of complexity. The fact that this is complete balderdash is largely ignored by the ID people. In fact, you can swap and change most amino acids in a protein and cut many out without altering its ability to catalyse reactions - talk to any X-ray crystallographer.

Worse though, is the claim that evolutionary biologists believe that proteins got there one step at a time - one amino acid added after another. Nobody has even suggested such an idea for over half a century and it is patently obvious that proteins (and their corresponding exons) are modular; made up of smaller sub-units that can be swapped and changed like Lego.

In other words, what the ID zealots do is find an outdated and silly model of evolution that nobody in living memory adheres to and they then declare that evolutionary biologists believe in this model and hence they must be silly misguided people. Great politics, a great way to get converts to the cause and foist ID into American schools, but an unrepentant lie nonetheless.

The saddest thing of all is that evolution is so elegant, so simple and so beautiful. Any right-minded intelligent designer would be proud to have come up with such a staggeringly simple and efficient way of constantly adapting life to be suited to an ever-changing world.

Ah, but I forgot. The world is but 8000 years old and it doesn't constantly change. Geologists, palaeontologists and cosmologists are as daft as evolutionary biologists.

I have no problems with anybody's religious beliefs but what I hate is bad science and ID is lousy, fraudulent science.

And if you think that tossing into my lectures the latest scientific observations and ideas is brainwashing, then welcome to the cerebral laundromat! You?ll get a lot of it over the next 3 years: it's what we call University.

If you want to read about ID, type "intelligent design" at Google and you will get over twenty million hits. If you want to read about how ID is a travesty of science, there are some good essays at Talk Reason.