HEY LISTEN UP

[labellementeuse]

SO it seems that Murray McCully, minister for foreign affairs & trade, is going to merge NZAID (the new zealand aid agency) back into MFAT (ministry of foreign etc). This is basically a real disaster for our aid funding because it means aid will become contingent on politics, something that is basically really bad for the Pacific (where most of our aid goes.) It is really in our interest to have a strong and flourising Pacific - the Pacific is our home; we have to look our for the people who share our gardens, kitchen, and our plumbing (man, this metaphor sucks so bad!)

Anyway, NZAID is less than a decade old, it was innovational and based on a strong report from people whose names I forget about the value of our then-political not-thought-well-of aid agency. Since it was disassociated from MFAT it has gained rather a good reputation and considered a leader in the OECD. National want to merge it back - well, I'm not totally sure why, because it's working pretty well - not perfect, but a hell of a lot better than it was before it was merged.

What can we do? The decision's kind of already been made. But WELLINGTONIANS!!!!! MEET OUTSIDE THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE LAW SCHOOL (pipitea conference, by the railway stn) TOMORROW (1ST OF MAY) AT 12PM TO EXPRESS YOUR DISAPPROVAL. If you can take half an hour from your lunchbreak to swing by between 12:15-12:30ish - please do. If you can make signs - please do.

Crossposting to wellingtonnz, sorry kids who get it 2x.

Comments

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

I expect the Tories probably feel that it's a duplication of effort and that they can get the same aid effectiveness for a lower price by re-integrating it into MFAT.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I think they're fundamentally wrong! How is it a duplication of effort, anyway?? The whole point of NZAID being separate is that NZaid and MFAT do different things, not the same thing.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

Of course they're wrong, they're Tories!

I don't actually think they're totally separate as it stands - NZAID is still ultimately responsible to the Chief Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and through him/her to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It's also funded from the same vote.

I think the fact that they aren't totally separate is a recognition that, while the New Zealand government may regard aid provision as a totally separate area from our relations with the UN, trade agreements, the establishment of embassies and consulates and all the other things MFAT oversees, other countries don't necessarily feel the same way, and that the provision or non provision of aid will necessarily affect our relations with the country that's receiving or not receiving the aid.

These are actually mostly arguments the government of the day used against the setting up of NZAID - I don't know what National's official position is. But I expect it'll be something along these lines.

(Oh and BTW I wouldn't go around promoting official OECD reports as generically authoritative if I were you, even if you agree with this specific one. The recent report on our economy reads like it was written by a National party staffer)

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I wasn't referring to a specific OECD report; I should have said among members of the OECD. It's merely a statement of virtue by herd mentality, not you know, evidence or anything.

Yup, I'm sure all of what you say here is correct. As I understand it the specific purpose of NZAid is to set up aid focussed on poverty reduction without being complicated by politics, and as much of a say as possible is had by development professionals, not politicians. This is a kind of complicated thing for me to agree with because, for example, it might involve supporting governments without universal suffrage. However, there is some evidence that allowing countries to arrive at universal suffrage at their own speed leads to much more stable and enduring democracies - e.g. comparing western samoa to fiji. Only matais can stand for office in Western Samoa (and only about 5% of those are women); universal suffrage only came around in 1990. OTOH, their government is relatively stable and progressive and IMO it's in that climate that changing things like who can stand for office is best positioned to occur naturally. CF Fiji, which, well. Less said about that the better really, but NZ's aid there was often contingent upon who was in power and who was not and I'm not sure that's really done Fiji any favours or made them specially willing to work with us atm.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

I've got to admit, I mentally winced when you mentioned "arrive at universal suffrage at their own speed". I imagine you didn't feel too comfortable writing it either. The problem here (other than the fact that universal suffrage is not any kind of endpoint) is that even if we accept that achieving democracy may depend on culture (and that's hard for me to accept, even as for he sake of the argument) it's hard to tell when this is genuinely the case and when it's simply ideological pettifogging employed by native elites to stem foreign criticism. (Not that any dictatorial regime ever lost power due to foreign finger-wagging, admittedly)

I can see what you're getting at, and I absolutely agree that raising the living standards of people in poverty should have nothing to do with whether or not their government is acceptable (whatever we consider acceptable). If anything, an impoverished populace is usually easier for an oligarchy to control. However, having said that, it doesn't necessarily follow that an institutionally separate aid agency is 100% necessary to ensure that sort of policy. And I've got to say, the difference between a 'diplomat' and a 'development professional' is not necessarily that profound.

But this is all by way of devil's advocacy. Personally I think overseas aid is easily the most important part of foreign policy, and I would like to see NZAID stay, for what it -could- be if not what it actually is. Sadly, I can't come to the protest because I have to meet with my supervisor at midday (and my thesis will change the world for the better, honest), but I've passed it on to people I know who might want to. I hope it goes well. A post-protest LJ report would be appreciated. But I know you're a busy person. :-)

[maudlinrose.livejournal.com]

Without discussing this one at all, because I seriously don't know anything about it, you should also be concerned (if you're not already) about:

Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Bill (gives police the right to get a DNA sample from anyone who has committed a specified offence and, in a few years, from anyone who [hes been charged? or the police intend to charge? something like that] with an offence that is punishable by imprisonment of a term longer than 3 months. Which is... just about everything. I don't know how long they can keep your DNA for or what precisely they can do with it, but it's a bit of a worry.)

Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill (the 3-strikes non-parole thing. This has one of the ugliest, least positive departmental report attached to it in the form of a Regulatory Impact Statement I have ever seen: particularly the "Risks and Likely Impacts" section. Sample:

"Public safety: it is not possible to conclude with any certainty to
what extent any of the options will improve public safety. There is a
possibility that removing the worst repeat violent offenders from the
community for longer periods of time will result in less serious violent
offending in the community. However, offenders who commit
serious violent offences do not necessarily have previous sentences
for serious violent offences."

"There is a great deal of evidence indicating that offending rates
decrease only marginally as a result of penalties being increased." Et cetera.

This is IN THE BILL PARLIAMENT HAS INTRODUCED.

It remains to be seen what will get changed at select committee, but.)