Assets

We don’t have holy men singing eerily from the mosque. We have the people’s television. Every day a kind of rosary for the souls of speculators. Others may have to attend a special indoctrination class to understand the prayers: The Fed, The Dow, NZX Fifty, The FTSE show. 

We read of discount book value and cash flow, hedge funds, futures markets, complex portfolios, assets and asset stripping, profit margins and high geared corporate debt, Collateralised loan obligations, depreciation and low productivity.  

But even the uninitiated are able to pick-up the meaning of “shedding” workers. And who needs language to get the message when factories are fleeing the workers that made them, or the push for Easter opening? 

We need more investment, apparently. Ahem! We have one hundred and fifty thousand idle workers.  

Happy Christmas.

   

Private Prisons

Why not privatise the army? The Americans have gone some way along that road in Iraq. It’s a lucrative business. In New Zealand schools airlines, banks and railways continue to be tempting for investors with short memories. Way back, private Catholic schools had to be rescued by taxpayers. Had they not been bailed out they would have closed. And it is much too recent (and painful) to discuss the sad tale of our bank, railway and airline. 

One can see the temptation. The argument goes that bureaucratic institutions are expensive, inefficient and archaic. Private enterprises are cost-conscious, efficient and innovative. To believe this one would have to ignore the hundreds of shops, cafes etc. that provide awful service. Accepted, the argument goes, but we are talking of large institutions run by qualified and experienced people. Like banks and finance companies for instance? 

But let us concede that government institutions run by bureaucrats are stodgy and are not famous for startlingly innovative service delivery. These institutions often operate excessively rigid and complicated procedures which are tiresome. They would argue that where important public institutions are concerned caution is a necessary watchword. Currently millions of investors throughout the world argue that caution was exactly what was forgotten by the innovative stewards of their investments.

Now, to cut to the chase: Privatising prisons has nothing to do with penology, the study of punishment and the ethical considerations of locking people up. It doesn’t even have anything to do with prisons. It is about unchanging political attitudes, selfish voters and political parties whose central policy is expedience. 

Listen to ordinary people before an election: What’s in it for me? They don’t vote for a healthier environment or social cohesion or a legacy for their children’s grandchildren. They have money on their minds. Money now. Hence the focus of policy makers seeking to attract the only two streams of voters that matter to mainstream parties; those who imagine they can make money running prisons and those - the majority - who hope that leaner prisoners equates with reduced taxes. 

I think the saddest part of this legislation is that it highlights the dearth of vision in New Zealand politics. Norman Kirk was able to inspire with his vision but died before he was tested. David Langi, although he did not follow through, had the potential to be an inspirational leader. Helen Clarke was able and competent but lacked the ability to inspire. John Key seems affable and reasonably competent but if the tired old ploy of privatising prisons is an example of his vision I think we’d better prepare for many more years of mediocrity.   

One of the boys.

Witi Ihimaera, novelist and Auckland University professor, was in a plagiarism row last week over his new novel, ‘The Torwenna Sea,’ which included uncredited material from books written by other writers. Ihimaera has apologised and as good as admitted plagiarism. Yet today he was named as a New Zealand's Arts Foundation Laureates for 2009 and awarded $50,000.   

According to Auckland University dean of arts, Associate Professor Jan Crosthwaite, Ihimaera’s plagiarism had been investigated and it was found that there was no deliberate wrongdoing. This follows the Race Relations Conciliator’s obsequious judgement on Hone Hariwera’s inflammatory comments and is equally hypocritical.  

Ihimaera belongs to an academic clique that changes the rules according to who is breaking them. On this occasion it was blatantly one of them. Had it been a student cribbing someone else’s work for an essay, the consequence would not have been a reward of a title and $50,000. but the boot. 

As far as I’m concerned it is not only Witi Ihimaera’s reputation that has been diminished by this affair. 

 

Junk

The Key Government went to great lengths to protect the health of the relatively few New Zealanders who use the illegal drug Methamphetamine, commonly called P. So concerned was it to ban this junk from society that in the process it banned a useful drug that was harmless, effectively relieved the symptoms of cold, and was popular with many thousands of sensible, law-abiding New Zealanders. The problem was that some people were using certain ingredients of the good drug in the manufacture of the bad drug. So we all had to be punished.  

Block punishment is a well known ploy in reformatory circles. It goes like this: One or two inmates break the rules. Everyone is punished. It’s a bit like giving all drivers in Christchurch demerit points because of boy-racers. The effectiveness of this behaviour modification strategy lies in its powerful peer-pressure effect. Well, it works in boarding schools. Perhaps that’s where the Ministers learned the trick. Perhaps they were too busy to work out that even when block punishment works it breeds resentment.

Then there’s the strange case of the junk that all schoolchildren were being sold in school canteens. In this case the previous (nanny) government banned the junk and insisted that canteens stock only healthy food. But the Key Government reversed the ban. Presumably on the premise that if children want to eat food that is bad for their health it is not the government’s place to intervene. 

It gets worse: In Britain the top drugs advisor made the mistake of embarrassing the government by stating the well known scientific fact that cannabis, ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol. He was sacked.

No wonder the Green Party stopped talking sensibly about cannabis years ago.

So, nicotine, which kills in the thousands, is okay provided it is regulated and the tax is paid. Ditto for alcohol which is responsible for lowering the inhibitions of most of the violent offenders in our prisons. Bashed women and children and abused Accident and Emergency staff have alcohol to thank for their pains. Or, let’s be accurate here, they have to thank those who abuse alcohol. 

If they weren’t banned I’d pop an ecstasy pill.  

Competition.

Monopolies need to be kept honest so I don't mind the Act Party's insistence on opening the Accident Compensation Scheme to competition from private insurers.  Just so long as they deliver on the long-term care of broken backs along with the sprained fingers.  

Death in the cosmetic lane.

A little while ago I saw a televised insurance advertisement featuring Keith Quinne, rugby broadcaster. In a sensible matter-of-fact way it dealt with the possibility of sudden death and the financial consequences for bereaved families. Who put the ad on? I didn’t notice. But I certainly noticed the ad now showing on TV.    

Sovereign Finance’s current effort at selling insurance on television is also about providing for your loved ones after sudden death. The about-to-be-deceased, portrayed by telegenic male and female actors alternately, no doubt in the interest of gender balanced marketing, is supposedly talking to the grieving children after the funeral. But not to worry because Mummy or Daddy smile throughout. No room here for sense or seriousness and certainly not sorrow. Hey, this is not a big deal kids, they seem to say. See you guys. Have a nice day. 

While I gazed in wonder at this ad man's idea of an impurity deleted view of the world, the man himself was probably celebrating a bonus for finally de-griefing death.  

IN PRAISE OF A POLITICIAN.

As expedient political decisions go, the Green Party cannot be faulted for rejecting Sue Bradford’s bid for leadership. She is divisive and probably lost the Greens some supporters with her parental discipline bill. She also has the annoying habit, shared by Phill Goff and many other politicians, of being impervious to the eye-roll capacity of listeners. She drives on and on and on with her point as though the message must get through at all costs. Even if the cost is a switched off audience.

In contrast Jeanette Fizsymmons, though a little wooden in her delivery, wins our attention when she speaks. Partly because she is immensely knowledgeable but also because she appears to listen as well as talk. So the message apparently is not as important as carrying the audience.

I sat down for a chat with Sue Bradford a few years ago. I found, as I am sure many others have found, that in person she gentle, patient, understanding. She is a listener. Not at all the blustering politician we have so often heard on the platform. But it’s on the platform that politicians are judged and where the ‘good look’ is paramount. There are no points awarded for being genuine, honest, tireless and effective.

Despite her record for effectiveness, Sue Bradford had no chance against her opponent,  a younger, prettier, smiley, inclusive Maori woman.  

But Sue Bradford can do what comparatively few have done before her; leave parliament knowing she personally made a difference.