Shouty McShoutface. Photo: Getty

PoliticsJuly 4, 2019

For a few weeks, we heard Muslim voices. Then the free speech debate took over

Guest writer

Shouty McShoutface. Photo: Getty

It will always be hard to keep Muslim and migrant perspectives in the foreground as long as material support is wanting, write Mohan Dutta and Murdoch Stephens

After the mosque attacks in Christchurch, there was a strong call from media to centre Muslim responses. For a few short weeks, the voices from the attacked communities were not only heard but prioritised.

But as the weeks turn to months, there has been a change to the way we talk about voices and speech. No longer were people discussing prioritising the voices from specific communities. Instead, to the fore rode more abstract and legal questions of hate speech and free speech.

We have no problem with a public discussion on hate speech and free speech, even if it means we have to put up with myopic views of freedom to speak that exclude freedom from hate speech. However, we are concerned that this debate has overshadowed the need for medium and long term reforms that focus on whose voices are prioritised.

Two days after the mosque attacks, one of the authors of this article spoke at length to a senior member of the government who assured him that there would be government support for these communities. But as the budget came and went, there was very little to help sustain these communities other than short-term funding for mental health. Compare that to the opaque $25m spent on stopping asylum seekers arriving by boat and it feels like little has changed. Even the much needed Multicultural Hub is backed by the local council, not central government.

Prioritising Muslim voices generally meant seeking out those community members already skilled at public communication. In the medium term, we can’t expect these individuals to continue to offer commentary: most are employed in other jobs, and not always places that look kindly on advocacy and journalism.

Luckily, we already have organisations established that can provide commentary from Muslim and migrant perspectives. Consider the work by Anjum Rahman from the Islamic Women’s Council, Imam Gamal Fouda from the Al-Noor mosque or Ahmad Tani from the Canterbury Refugee Centre.

We are particularly interested in the last of these three. The day after the mosque attacks it was the Canterbury Refugee Centre and Mr Tani who hosted Jacinda Ardern in Christchurch. Tani’s organisation is one of a handful around New Zealand funded through MBIE’s Strengthening Refugee Voices (SRV) programme. SRV organisations organise hui to collect and then communicate former refugee experiences – including many new Muslim New Zealanders – to Immigration New Zealand. Though we understand there is no neat crossover between refugee and Muslim communities, the SRV programme is one way that the least heard voices from the Muslim community can be amplified.

Emerging in the third term of the previous Labour government, it is fascinating to look back on where the policy came from. Then Immigration Minister David Cunliffe, speaking to refugee community leaders, announced the SRV funding as part of an earlier $62m budget package for the area. But the allocation for these refugee community groups was only $250,000 per year. That is not $250,000 per organisation, but in total, across all resettlement centres.

More than ten years since the establishment of SRV it is time for a review. Resettlement of refugees has moved away from Auckland with five other centres – Wellington, Waikato, Nelson, the Manawatū and Dunedin – now hosting more in each case than our largest city. On top of this, the next year will see the opening of six new resettlement centres in smaller regions.

Immigration New Zealand explicitly states, on page three of their resettlement strategy, “At the heart of the Strategy is the refugee voice. The Strategy was developed by Government and service providers in conjunction with former refugees and the identification of strategic priorities is undertaken in consultation with refugee communities.”

We agree that voice lies at the heart of sustaining an infrastructure for addressing the climate of hate experienced by refugees. Building spaces where voices of refugees can be heard is integral to addressing the challenges experienced by refugees. Moreover, the broader climate of prejudice and hate is addressed through the presence of refugee voices.

Last week, Immigration NZ told resettlement organisations that SRV would be reformulated for the expanded quota. But instead of facilitating this work through the usual full year contract, the groups we talked to have been offered just six months. In addition to the actual work of engaging with resettled communities, they are now being required to do the groundwork of redesigning the programme, which one of our contacts described as “a significant workload increase”.

In researching our just released White Paper on Strengthening Refugee Voices for the CARE centre, we discussed these issues with many interested parties. One of us met with Immigration NZ representatives in their MBIE headquarters in Wellington recently renovated for $15m. But when we met the head of a smaller resettlement organisation – not one of the original four – we had to meet in a public library. They simply did not have the funds for an office, let alone a salary. This person was tasked with coordinating and reporting on one of the largest refugee background communities on a budget of $6,000. How, we wondered, can refugee voices really be at the heart of the strategy when the material support is so wanting?

Over the coming months, the country will be doused in debates over free speech for those already affluent enough to want for nothing. Some of the newest members of our Muslim community, on the other hand, will arrive to a new land, and perhaps a new language. How, we ask, will their voices be heard?

In November 2018 Murdoch Stephens was invited to be an activist in residence with Professor Mohan Dutta’s CARE research centre at Massey University in Palmerston North. The White Paper that emerged from that residency can be found here.

Keep going!

(Photo: file)

PoliticsJuly 4, 2019

Taking the fight to short-termism in government

Jonathan Boston

Guest writer

(Photo: file)

Parliamentary scrutiny of quality of long-term governance in New Zealand is limited, ad hoc and unsystematic. So what are the solutions, asks Jonathan Boston

Safeguarding the interests of current and future citizens is one of parliament’s crucial roles. This requires holding governments to account for the quality of their governance, especially their long-term governance. Forward-looking scrutiny is critical to such accountability.

Above all, this means investigating how well governments are preparing and planning for the future. For instance, are they undertaking effective foresight? Are they successfully identifying, mitigating and managing significant national risks? Are they sufficiently alert to slow-burning or creeping problems, not least those with irreversible consequences? Do they have effective strategies to address major long-term policy challenges such as biodiversity loss and climate change, the fiscal impacts of demographic changes or the social consequences of disruptive technologies? In short, are they exercising sound anticipatory governance?

Evidence from a new report published by the Institute for Governance and Policy Studies at Victoria University of Wellington – Foresight, Insight and Oversight – suggests parliamentary scrutiny of the quality of long-term governance in New Zealand is less than ideal. Put bluntly, it is limited, ad hoc and unsystematic.

This is unfortunate. Weak parliamentary scrutiny reduces the political incentives for good governance. It also means poor decision-making may go undetected while non-urgent, but potentially serious, long-term problems receive inadequate political attention. Future citizens are then left to pay the price.

Parliament’s limited focus on long-term matters is readily explicable. Legislators face powerful political incentives to concentrate on short-term issues. Voters typically want solutions today rather than tomorrow. New Zealand’s three-year parliamentary term, which is very short by international standards, compounds the presentist bias in decision-making. Moreover, many of the solutions to long-term problems require measures that entail upfront fiscal or other costs. Intertemporal choices of this nature are rarely popular.

Aside from this, forward-looking scrutiny and future-focused analysis by our parliament is hampered by various institutional and constitutional constraints. For one thing, the House of Representatives is relatively small when compared with legislatures in comparable democracies, such as Denmark, Finland, Ireland and Norway. This restricts the availability of MPs to sit on select committees and encourages strict party discipline. For another, even in the context of minority governments, the House is dominated by the executive. This places significant political limits on detailed scrutiny of governmental performance.

Parliamentary oversight of long-term governance is further constrained by the high workloads faced by most select committees and the priority accorded to the scrutiny of government bills. Matters are not helped by the House’s relatively limited access to, and modest use of, independent expert advice.

What, then, are the solutions? Plainly, there is no silver bullet. However, the Institute’s report outlines numerous options for enhancing parliamentary scrutiny, especially forward-looking scrutiny.

One possibility would be to establish a select committee dedicated to future-oriented issues. Finland has a Committee for the Future. The House of Lords in London has a Committee on Intergenerational Fairness and Provision. Meanwhile, the Scottish parliament has established a Futures Forum, which brings together parliamentarians, researchers and civic leaders. These provide useful models for the New Zealand parliament to explore.

Another option would be to establish a select committee dedicated to governance matters, of which long-term governance would be a crucial component. This could be combined with the inclusion of a new specialist function on long-term governance in parliament’s standing orders. The specialist function would provide guidance to MPs on the kinds of future-focused issues requiring investigation.

The Institute’s report considers many other options. Among these are:

Requiring the prime minister’s statement at the beginning of each year to include information about long-term matters
Amending arrangements for oral questions in the House to provide for periodic sessions focusing on long-term matters
Requiring chairpersons and deputy chairpersons of select committees be allocated across parties in accordance with proportionality, as in the United Kingdom’s House of Commons
Requiring specified select committees such as the Finance and Expenditure Committee be chaired by a member of an opposition party
Improving range and quality of performance information provided to select committees by departments, agencies and Office of the Auditor-General
Increasing the funding of parliament to enable greater use of independent experts to help subject select committees with their review and oversight activities
Appointing a chief parliamentary science adviser.

Plainly, some of these options will entail extra costs. But these are likely to be relatively modest and should not be considered in isolation from their expected benefits. After all, better parliamentary scrutiny of long-term governance has the potential to enhance the quality of governmental decision-making, thereby reducing future fiscal, social and environmental costs.

Equally, if not more important, a healthy and vibrant democracy does not come cheap. It requires proper investment in high-quality political institutions and robust policy processes. Current and future generations deserve nothing less.