Disgruntled customer

Dear Lush,

I wish to advise you of the sub-optimal performance of your "Wash That Man Right Out Of My Hair" shower gel, purchased from your online shop in the last month.  

While frequent applications have reduced the size of Winston Peters the smell has increased, and stubborn Bill English has hardly budged at all.  David Seymour persists, defying all logic.  I appreciate that Gareth Morgan has largely washed away, but that was always going to be an easy one given the recency and diminutive standing of that particular stain.

Even though it is a shower gel, I used it as a shampoo as well, to increase its potency.

I'm prepared to give your product two more weeks to prove useful.  If it has not had a meaningful impact on National's party vote by October 7th then I will be making use of your money-back guarantee, and I am prepared to pursue my rights under the Consumer Guarantees Act if necessary.

Yours sincerely
etc

Feminist Election Stuff - Women's Choice & Vote Equal Pay

Two big Auckland opportunities coming up in August

Women's Choice Election Forum - 7th August, 7pm, University of Auckland
Held every three years, an opportunity to hear the major parties debate on women's issues.

Facebook event for all the latest info and to share/invite others.

Chair will be Judy McGregor, stalls for organisations and cool stuff (eg Women's Bookshop) before hand, and reps from

• Labour - Jacinda Ardern MP
• Greens - Jan Logie MP
• NZ First - Tracey Martin MP
• Maori Party Cinnamon Whitlock (Ngapuhi, Ngati-Kahu ki Whangaroa, Te Rarawa) 
• Mana Party - Tracey-lee Repia · (Ngapuhi, Ngati Porou, Uenuku nga Iwi) 
• National - Erica Stanford

Vote Equal Pay March & Rally - 12th August, 11am, Britomart
Organised by the Pay Equity Coalition, a chance to show your support for pay equity and also hear from political parties on how they will tackle the gender pay gap.

Facebook event for updates and to spread the word.



Do feel free to email me about any other relevant feminist election stuff julie dot fairey at gmail dot com to promote and share :-)

Colin Craig is an abuser

In between the Comey/Trump and British election news this morning was this:  Colin Craig is planning to sue Rachel MacGregor for defamation.

This is yet another way of abusing his former press secretary, who already took him to the Human Rights Commission (HRC) for harassment, resulting in a confidential agreement and a financial settlement in her favour.

MacGregor's agency has been continually stripped by Craig throughout this long saga - first when she was his employee, during the HRC mediation including saying he'd put aside $1M to "destroy" her, then when he did that terrible sauna interview and broke confidentiality,  and later with further media comments along similar lines.  Most recently, as he and other men with resources keep taking each other to court for defamation, MacGregor has been forced to be a witness and to even be cross-examined directly by Craig.  This is abuse.

Because he has resources and money, Craig is able to continue to use the legal system to abuse. Sadly this is all too common, where the court is used by abusive men to control, punish and exhaust former partners, as outlined in a shocking recent Out of the Frying Pan Into the Fire report from The Backbone Collective, including:

Women told us that even though initially they went to the Family Court after separating from an abuser seeking protection and safety they now wish they had never done so. For these women, the Family Court has become the new abuser and many have told us it is worse than the abuser. They have been unable to rebuild their lives as they are trapped in Family Court proceedings for years. During this time they continue to be exposed to violence, abuse and associated trauma and they are unable to ‘move on’ in any way.

And

Women’s harmful experience of the Family Court was made much worse because of the compounding effect of time spent in court proceedings, the increasing financial burden and the multiple health impacts. They identified that there was no logical start or end point in the proceedings; once they got involved in the Family Court they found it impossible to get out. Many said they were just ‘hanging out’ until their child turned 16 and they no longer had to be involved. 

Sound familiar?

The Out of the Frying Pan Into the Fire report refers to "litigation/legal abuse" and I am in no doubt that is what Craig is doing to MacGregor, albeit through defamation proceedings rather than in the Family Court.   No doubt there are many other stories of legal abuse through other legal avenues too, multiplying the original injustice of the abuser's actions.

MacGregor said this at the most recent court appearance:

"To this day my allegations stand concrete strong. I withdrew my complaint because I had no longer time or energy to deal with this very weird man. I withdrew the complaint because I couldn't afford to deal with him any more."

And the next day while Craig cross-examined MacGregor she made this appeal to the judge:

"I don't understand how this is an opportunity for me," MacGregor replied.
"I can't believe I'm being made to stand in front of the man that did this to me.
"I can't believe a man who treated me like this is allowed to question me over and over, it's just so stupid." 

It could not be any clearer - MacGregor DOES NOT WANT ANY OF THIS.

And yet Craig keeps going and going, continuing to put his wants ahead of anyone else's, and continuing to abuse someone who has had less power throughout all of this.  Craig's lack of self-awareness and his seemingly endless financial capacity mean he can keep going too, despite supposed barriers to stop vexatious litigation.

Twitter talk is looking at setting up a way to donate to crowdfund MacGregor's defence, and as long as she is ok with that happening I'll be making a contribution and will share the link.  Her consent to that is vital - we don't help if we do it without her approval when she has already had that stripped away so many times.

With all of this, Craig's abuse and the Family Court report, I'm reminded of the outrage around another case that went on and on, with a rapist allowed to cross-examine the woman he repeatedly raped, after which there were calls to change the law to make sure this travesty could not be repeated.

As it stands our court system seems to allow legal abuse to continue.  MacGregor's case is high profile for a variety of reasons, and is, sadly, but one example.  Our legal system continues to fail women, and those with less power, to secure justice from abusers.




I don't do comments here - you can find me easy peasy on Twitter and Facebook if you really want to let me know what you think @juliefairey

Leading the National Party

"Do you really think it's ok for us to get here so early, John?  Doesn't strike you as a little, well, unfair to hold the leadership vote without anyone here but us?"

"Actually Bill, I'm relaxed about it.  At the end of the day, you're the best man for the job, I've already been straight about that with the New Zealand public.  We need to work on you being relaxed now.  Apparently that might be a bit of a problem."

"Oh John," Bill says with admiring awe in his voice, "no one is as relaxed as you."

"Well, the five houses help.  And the nice little nest eggs I have in my offshore bank accounts.  And of course the Labour Party hasn't exactly been the stuff of nightmares for me, have they?"

The two men, best of friends, chuckle together over their last few years. Relaxing together, again.

Their peace is rudely interrupted by the crash of doors flung open.

"J-j-judith!  How l-l-lovely to see you.  And what's that you've done to your hair?"

"Hello Bill.  It's a new look I'm trying."  Minister Collins approaches the outgoing Prime Minister, swishing her shimmering locks, bound into a tight ponytail.  "What do you think, John?"

"Smashing Judith.  It's a great look for you.  Why don't you come and sit over here?"

"So when do we vote on the leadership?  You should all know, Cammy will be running some rather interesting stories over the next few days.  Investigative stuff.  Hard hitting."  Minister Collins turns her attention to the other man in the room.  "How are you, Bill?"

"I-i-investigative stuff?  W-w-what do you mean, Judith?  I am a clean slate."

John pats his deputy with his right hand.  "Relax, Bill.  The public won't care about that silly little housing thing.  It's hardly like stealing, is it?  At the end of the day, you paid us back.  And no one cares about abortion.  Besides, we tidied that up ages ago, remember?"  Turns to Minister Collins.  "Judith, what's that on the table?"

"Oh nothing John, just my Ipod.  I'll turn it off now.  When are the others getting here?"

"Actually, Judith, we might just hold the vote now, everyone else is late. Oh, who's that?"

Paula Bennett strides into the room, wearing gold leopardskin and sporting a stunning new hairstyle.

"We need to pick someone kiwis want to have a beer with, a few sausages.  We all know that's me," she says, flicking her ponytail high.  "Bless you Bill, you're looking old, are you feeling ok?  I guess those memories from the worst election result ever must feel close now?  Poor darling."

"H-h-hello P-p-paula," says Bill, looking from side to side, checking with the Prime Minister how to behave.  "Great hairstyle."

John is distracted, looking at Paula, eyes clouded over, his hand reaching towards her.  Minister Collins slaps it down.  "Good grief man, be serious."

Minister Bennett says sweetly "are you worrying about people thinking you're a dreadful old Tory, Bill?  I guess I can see that, too."

"Girls, girls, girls," says John, appearing to have recovered his relaxed poise.  "Remember what I always say: the media and public are idiots.  They don't even care when our children behave like they hate the gays, remember Bill?  And we're the party of family values!!!"

"I do hate the gays, John.  All the gays.  I mean, think of the children....."  For the first time, Bill starts to become animated, puffing out his chest and growing a couple of inches in height.

Minister Bennett pours herself a beer, knocks it back in one.  "You've got a problem there, Bill.  Might want to deal with that."

"Hello everyone.  Prime Minister, so good to see you.  Now, shall we get this vote underway?"  Steven Joyce enters the room.  "I have the proxy votes of everyone else, been carrying them for a while."

Minister Collins looks up from her Ipod with a sneer.  "What on earth is going on with your hair, Steven?"

"Transplants, Judith.  I'm getting it cut tomorrow, but I've had to tie it up today because they were so successful."  Minister Joyce fixes his eyes on the deputy Prime Minister.  "Bill, my friend.  How on earth are we going to deal with the fact the public sees you as a loser?  If you're my deputy, that won't be as much of a problem, of course.  Who wants to open all the proxy votes?"

"H-h-hello S-s-steven, I'm n-n-not a loser.  John said so.  He said no one will remember.  And I believe him.  Right, John?  John?"

"Steven, I've never seen you looking so good.  Let's take a look at those proxies shall we?  I'm feeling relaxed about this, very, very relaxed.  Looking forward to my new job and at the end of the day, that's all that matters."

If you're saying the same kinds of things as Paul Henry, you should probably stop talking

Remember when Paul Henry wasn't sure if our Governor General was enough of a New Zealander? He wanted someone who "looked" and "sounded" "more of a New Zealander" than Anand Satyanand.

Remember when New Zealand Police prosecuted New Zealand citizens as overstayers because their names sounded Polynesian or they looked brown, even though most overstayers were from the UK and Australia?

Well, we have the latest installment of You're Not A Real New Zealander Unless You're White, from the party that brought us the dawn raids, with Phil Twyford able to tell from last names whether or not people belong here.  This time it's Chinese people that are targeted, and as Keith Ng has already pointed out, Winston Peters couldn't have said it better.

Whiteness is like a magic card that gets you into all the best places.  Sure, it impacts on people differently, but it makes any other area of your life where you might be missing out easier, automatically.

I lived in the UK for 12 years, courtesy of a Scottish grandmother and a friendly (to me) immigration system.  I was always at home there - despite not being from there - until I opened my mouth and my kiwi vowels pierced the stiff upper lips of those nearby.  Whiteness travels well, even for bogan queer girls.

Someone with a "Chinese" last name might have been here since 1860.  When will they be allowed to say they belong?  When will Phil Twyford be ok with them becoming a homeowner?

Alongside the vicious racist dog whistling of Twyford, there's the complete idiocy of blaming the lack of housing in Auckland on an ethnic minority, rather than on the greed of those profiteering from our ridiculous, out-dated property laws.  You know who should be an easy target, Labour, when it comes to Auckland housing being inequitable?  You know who you should be able to ask questions about, when we have some New Zealanders living in housing so awful it's making them sick, or so cold it's killing them?

People making sure there's no such thing as a capital gains tax, while they rake in their dosh each week from multiple, million dollar properties, just because our economic systems make it possible.  It's not racist dog whistling you need, it's whistle blowing on the Richwhites. 

Power and ponytails

From the ongoing unfolding issue about the Prime Minister's ponytail pulling, specifically in the case of Amanda Bailey, there's one little bit I want to write about a bit more, and it comes back to this quote from The Nation interview with Patrick Gower.  (Quote taken from the transcript here).

Gower: Yeah and when you when you accept that you got it wrong, do you accept that you misused your power?Key: No because I didn’t intend to do that, it was the opposite, I intended to try and be in a much more informal sort of setting so that I put people at ease and we could have a bit of a laugh and a bit of fun so it’s really the opposite.

So Key is saying that the repeated ponytail pulling was the opposite of an abuse of power.

What would the opposite of an abuse of power be?

To me, it would be empowering, it would be giving up your power to someone else.  

If I were being generous, I'd interpret this as Key thinking that by engaging in verbal "banter" and "horse play" and "mucking around" with staff in a cafe he was effectively making it clear he is on the same level as them, an equal; that the staff should feel they can josh him in the same way he joshes them.  Key has given the impression he was wearing his Prankster Casual John Cap at the cafe, and had firmly removed his Prime Ministerial Top Hat.

That seems to me incredibly naive, at absolute best, for the following reasons:

1. The presence of security guards, there with Key because he is the Prime Minister
2. Both the Prankster Casual John Cap and the Prime Ministerial Top Hat are invisible; only John knows when he has changed hats.  
3. There's a strong argument that the Prime Ministerial Top Hat can never really be removed entirely, certainly while he's in New Zealand and amongst the people he is primes inter pares (first among equals, which is where the name Prime Minister came from)
4. Key has been Prime Minister for over six years now, he is by no means an inexperienced newbie in the role who has made a rookie mistake of forgetting about his day job
5. Even if you accept that the Prime Minister was not being Prime Minister at the time, and that this was somehow able to be clearly understood by the people around him, there is still the significant power imbalance between customer and staff in a hospitality/service environment.

I've written the above points just focusing on the verbal interactions.  Because when you add in the touching, which was unwanted, repeated, and didn't stop even when he was challenged on it by a number of people around him, it really becomes impossible to defend these actions as somehow empowering, somehow the opposite of an abuse of power.

To be Prime Minister of a country and so unaware of the cloak of power and privilege you wear even when you are sleeping seems disingenuous at best.  Key possibly needs to make a choice here - is he being stupid by putting this line forward, or is he lying?

Finally, when he did apologise directly to Bailey, eventually, what did he give her to express his sincerity?

A symbol of his own power; two bottles of wine named and labelled for him, bearing his name and possibly his image.

The arrogance of the third term?  Or the ongoing deliberate and convenient ignoring of his own power which means he could, by his definition, basically never abuse his position.  

Sexual harassment and the Nats

Julie has covered John Key's disturbing sense of entitlement in his local cafe, where he clearly feels he can treat a woman as his own personal property because she's waiting tables.  Not much more to say there.

I've lots more to say though about the patterns of behaviour from this National Government.

It's not the first time a National MP has been caught out treating hospitality staff with disdain.  When Aaron Gilmore resigned after asking bar staff "Don't you know who I am?" because they refused to serve him, John Key said it was "the right decision."

It's also not the first time sexual harassment scandals have bedevilled the personnel in this government.  Or even the second or third time.

First there's Michael Woodhouse, before he was even in parliament, telling the student press in Dunedin what he thought of young women:

"I love spring around here, it's bloody fantastic, the skirts were never this short in my day."

He was a 42 year old father of three at the time.  Now he's the Minister of Police, responding to the Police bungling of Roastbusters. 

Then there's Minister Richard Worth, serial sexual harasser, forced to resign after the Police began investigations into his behaviour.  John Key "washed his hands" of Mr Worth at the time.

Or what about Gerry Brownlee appointee to CERA, Roger Sutton, who had to resign after being found guilty of sexual harassment?

And then there are the allegations from Dirty Politics, about National Party pollster David Farrar organising parties for "National Party friends" which treated Young Nats women as potential "targets". 

It's almost like National Party men and friends of National Party men think women are playthings for their own amusement.  That it's ok to touch us when we don't want to be touched, text us when we don't want to be texted, call us when we don't want to be called, make sexual comments about us when we are walking around our campuses, and target us for sex when we are drunk (otherwise known as rape).  National Party men appear to think women at work - or anywhere else - are fair game for whatever they feel like doing to us.  Hell, John Key appears to think even little girls are on the menu for unwanted touching.

What's the answer to this blatant, entitled sexism?  To be fair, lots of the culprits have gone already.  But it's scarcely an individual issue when it's happening this frequently.  If John Key wants to show he doesn't condone sexual harassment, he might have to think about more than just his own apology, more than just curtailing his own behaviour.

He might need to change the culture in his party.  He might need to work out how he shows New Zealand women that he does have some respect for us.  He might need to stop presiding over a government so blatantly tilted towards the powerful.  And he might need to start keeping his creepy hands to himself.

Open thread: The prime minister, the pony tail, and the disturbing sense of entitlement

Very quick post on this breaking news today, here are some links if you have no idea what this is about:

The guest post on The Daily Blog where the waitress explains that the Prime Minister has been pulling her pony tail when he visits the cafe she works at.

Herald article giving Key's apology

Stuff summary

My initial thoughts, after WTF, are:

• There appears to be no dispute about the basic facts
• You don't need to touch other people
• There is a huge power imbalance between the Prime Minister and someone working in hospitality in a junior position 
• When asked to stop he didn't
• Intention isn't magic - harassment should be determined by the person the action is done TO, not the person who is doing it to them
• Who pulls ponytails?  Seriously, why would you do that?

Labour leadership: Too many irrelevant judgements

1.  Why is it only the people who aren't straight white men who have a judgement based on something about their identity, something they can't change?

2.  To take the awful ones in order:

• "Too gay" -  his sexuality is far from the only thing about Grant Robertson.  If this is a reference to the purported concern that New Zealand won't vote for someone who isn't openly heterosexual to be Prime Minister, then the problem is not that Grant is "too gay" but that NZ is too homophobic.  What does "too gay" even mean?  
• "Too passed it" - nice to mix up the sexism and homophobia with a bit of ageism.  And shouldn't it be "past it"?
• "Too many teeth" - because we all know that the most important thing about a woman is her appearance.  ARGH!  

3.  King, Ardern and Mallard have not even expressed any interest in running for the leadership.  Yet they get used to portray Labour as more divided than it actually is (which is, it seems, somewhat divided, but not so divided as to actually have 9 different candidates for leader)

4.  Why not Minnie Mouse? ;-)

A Woman's Place: Greens 2014

The Greens have a strongly stated commitment to gender balance both for internal party positions and candidates.  They currently have more women than men in their parliamentary caucus.

Historical representation of women:
The Greens first stood in their own right under MMP in 1999, and in that time they have had 23 MPs of whom 12 have been female (52%).  They have long had gender balance for shared leadership positions both of the caucus and the party.

2008 Green Party List:
Women represented across the whole list: 20 out of 48 (42%), with 50% in the top 10.

2011 Green Party List:
Women represented across the whole list: 16 out of 42 (38%), with 40% in the top 10.
 
Current representation of women:
The Greens currently have 14 MPs in total and 8 are women (Catherine Delahunty, Metiria Turei, Eugenie Sage, Jan Logie, Denise Roche, Holly Walker, Julie Anne Genter, Mojo Mathers), making 62% of the caucus. Turei is co-leader.  There have been some issues in the present term with Turei receiving some quite sexist treatment, in comparison with Russel Norman, the male co-leader.   


2014 Green Party List:
Women represented across the whole list: 19/53 (36%), with 60% in the top 10.

Top 5: Two (Turei at 1, Sage at 4) 2/5 = 40% (Same as 2011)

Top 10: Six (as for Top 5, plus Delahunty at 6, Genter at 8, Mathers at 9, Logie at 10) 6/10 = 60% (Increase on 2011)

Top 20: Ten (as for Top 10, plus Walker at 12, Roche at 14, and non-MPs Marama Davidson at 16, Jeanette Elley at 20) 10/20 = 50% (Same as 2011)

Top 30: Fourteen (as for Top 20, plus Sea Rotmann at 23, Susanne Ruthven at 26, Teresa Moore at 27, Dora Roimata Langsbury at 28) 14/30 = 47% (Increase on 2011)

Top 38:  Sixteen (as for Top 30, plus Rachel Goldsmith at 31, Anne-Elise Smithson at 35) 16/38 = 42%

After 38 the list candidates are unranked, and include only 3 women, out of 15 (20%), which skews their total figures considerably.  The Greens followed a similar practice of unranking after a certain number in 2008 and 2011, which is a practice I still personally support for smaller parties.  


Likely future representation of women:
The Greens did much better than I anticipated when I did this analysis for 2011.  This time they are aiming for 20 MPs, which would require about 17% of the vote. The Greens have had a good term, and are currently polling at about 11% (which would see them return 14 MPs again). They have a history of coming up during the campaign too.  

If they do reach their 20 MPs they will have a 50/50 caucus, including two new women (Davidson and Elley).  If they get 14 again it will be 8 women (57%), 15 MPs (53%), 16 MPs (56%), 17 MPs (53%), 18 MPs (50%), 19 MPs (47%).  I'd say there was a deliberate intention there to ensure their caucus is likely to be 50%+ female, in the likely range of seats they will win, except that they could have achieved that if Elley was at 19, rather than 20, and they didn't.  Many considerations do go in to the ranking of a list! 

The co-leadership arrangements will continue to ensure a gender balance in the top spot for the forseeable future.  

Other observations on candidate diversity:
As always with this section, I am interested in comment from those with more knowledge than I. Gender is often easy to determine, other aspects of diversity less so.  I would note that there appear to be no candidates who identify as any gender other than male or female, and as far as I know none of the parties which have made it into, or close to, Parliament have put up anyone who identifies outside the binary.

In regard to Maori candidates in the top 20, Turei, Clendon, Roche, and Davidson all identify as such.  The rest of the top 20 are Pakeha though* and there is little evidence of Asian or Pasifika candidates (one Tamil that I could find).  

There's a lot of diversity on age, and some great experience on disability in the candidate pool, not least Mojo Mathers MP (who is deaf), Catherine Delahunty MP (who has personal experience of disability), and long time disability advocate Chris Ford (37) who I remember from my long-ago days in the Alliance.  

The Greens also have a good record on selecting people who identify as LGBTI, returning Kevin Hague last time and adding Jan Logie.  

The final observation I will make on their list is that for a party that many dismiss as Sensitive New Agers there are a lot of people with serious qualifications and experience in actual real science.  I stumbled across this interesting blog post about Green stereotypes that I thought many of you might like :-)

---

In 2011 when I did this analysis I was disappointed the Greens hadn't really lifted their gender balance from 2008, however that was because I vastly underestimated how many MPs they would get!  This time it looks pretty good to me in the higher portions of the list, but becomes troublesome as you get lower.  I wonder if this is a reflection that more men than women have put themselves forward?

Links:
Green Party candidates
Idiot/Savant's analysis, including ups and downs since 2011's list.
A Woman's Place Index for 2014
A Woman's Place Index for 2008 and 2011


*  Jan Logie gives "Tangata Tiriti" as her ethnicity which makes me want to give her a high five.  

A Woman's Place 2014: Internet Party

For 2008 and 2011 I did some analysis of the likely party caucuses after each election, based on list and electorate seat selections, in regard to women's political representation.  I'm hoping to do it again for 2014 but will depend a lot on time, as these can be very time-consuming for the bigger parties.  Here's my first for this time, cos it came up today and was easy to do.


The Internet Party is brand new this election, in fact this year, and released their 15 person list today.  It will be zipped in some fashion with the Mana list, and I'm not sure quite what that will look like yet (Mana have only announced their top 4 so far) so I'll have to do another post on this when that is all out.  

Historical representation of women:
New party so not relevant.

Current representation of women:
No current MPs, or caucus.  Leader (Laila Harre) is a woman.

2014 Internet Party selections:
Women represented across the whole list: 6 out of 15 (40%).  

The top ten are alternated female and male, 11 is a man, 12 a woman, and then 3 men for the lowest 3 spots.
 
Top 5 - Three (Harre at 1, Pierard at 3, Ballantine at5) 3/5 = 60%
Top 10 - Five (As for Top 5 plus Farvid at 7, Sami at 9) 5/10 = 50%
Top 15 - Six (As for Top 10 plus McClintock at 12) 6/15 = 40% 
Women selected for electoral seats: 6 out of 15 (40%)

All of the list candidates are running in electorates.  Realistically the list is far more important, as the Internet Party will be getting MPs from Hone Harawira winning Te Tai Tokerau rather than breaking the 5% threshold (although we shall see!).  They have clearly strategically picked seats where they think there will be wider spread media coverage than the immediate electorate - and it looks to me like the ones where the Alliance used to do well, but that could just be my own past filter* ;-).  Which makes me wonder if the seat Harre will run in may be Epsom?  Another theory is Upper Harbour, which is closer to Harre's roots in West Auckland and her past efforts in Waitakere, plus no worries in that seat of having to talk about coat-tailing more than usual.

Likely future representation of women: 
Depends very much on percentage of the vote for Internet/Mana combination, whether Harawira holds his seat, and how the combined list works after the sixth spot.  At this stage it seems that they might get down as far as the combined 5th spot, which would mean two Internet MPs, Harre and Yong, so 50/50 gender-wise.

Other comments on candidate diversity:
Youth is a big feature, deliberately and highlighted.  The youngest candidate is 23 (Ballantine at 5) and only two are over 40 (Harre at 1 and Keinzley at 11).  Salmon is a "digital Maori" at number 8, while there are a number of candidates who appear to have Asian heritage, and one (Farvid) who is Iranian.  No mention of disabilities or sexuality, that I can see.  


Links:
Internet Party List on their website
Index of A Women's Place posts for 2008 & 2011 - analysis of all the likely caucus outcomes for as many parties as I could a) get and b) give time to look at.  
Index of A Women's Place posts for 2014 


*  I was in the Alliance Party from 2000 to 2007, and ran for them in 2002 and 2005.  

A Woman's Place: Index for 2014

In both 2008 and 2011 I did some analysis of the party lists (and electorate selections to a point) to determine likely future women's representation for each party.  I'm intending to do it again in 2014, as time allows.

Here's what I wrote about doing this series, back in 2008, and it held true in 2011 too:

The idea of this analysis is not to say "you should vote for the party with the most women candidates." The point is to provide some information that may give you some insight to the role of women within the party in question, and to also highlight the women who are standing in this year's General Election.

[In 2008] When we our current and immediate past Prime Minister have both been female, a Queen is our Monarch, a woman sits in the Speaker's Chair, and [laydeez] fill a variety of high profile roles in our democratic institutions it is sometimes easy to forget that our current Parliament has only 40 women MPs, out of 122. That's around 33%, when women are a little over 50% of the general population. Better then most other countries in the world, but still a long way from parity.

And how do women get to be MPs? They need to rise up through party organisations to be nominated for electorates and for list spots, and in order to actually make it into the House they need to be candidates in winnable positions. So it's important to not only consider how many women a party puts up as its representatives, but also whether they are likely to get that opportunity in a practical sense.

Since the 2008 election we have only had a lady Queen and Chief Justice.  The purpose of this series of posts remains the same.

In 2011 this issue finally got some mainstream media coverage, particularly around the poor level of representation for women in the likely National caucus (only 25%), both through the list and safe seat selections.  It will be interesting to see if this happens again (both the media attention and National's low level of women).

The 2014 A Woman's Place series (alphabetical order, added to as I do them): 

• Greens 2014 - 36% over whole list (19/53) - 60% in top ten
• Internet Party 2014 - 40% over whole list (6 out of 15) - 50% in top ten

Collins' cronyism - not just Oravida, remember

(Content warning: not obviously feminist ;-)  )

There has been some excellent blogging about the recent Oravida scandal in which senior Cabinet Minister Judith Collins is currently embroiled.  She's taking some leave to get disentangled, if not in fact then by the passage of time, and I thought it might be timely to reflect on some not so recent incidents.  There is a strong theme of Collins not understanding, or not caring, about conflicts of interest, and/or correct process.

Arranging for Dr Wayne Mapp to be appointed to the Law Commission in 2012 - some people may recall Mapp was a National MP (Shadow Minister of Eradication of Political Correctness under Brash iirc?).  He was also a law lecturer prior to entering Parliament, and was not well served by Collins' interference.

Overruling independent selection panel to appoint close friend of her husband to Director of Human Rights Proceedings, 2013 - a position that must be independent and seen to be independent from the government of the day as they are often taking cases against the government.

Dodgy "celebrity" appointment of Dame Susan Devoy as the new Race Relations Commissioner, 2013 - many people questioned whether Devoy was a good fit for this role and with some digging it became clear that Collins had skewed the process in her favour.

Very dodgy appointment of Dr Jackie Blue as the new EEO Commissioner, 2013 - which was a shame because Blue was a strong candidate and is now, from reports I hear and my own observations, doing a good job, but will now always be tainted by this.

Then we come to this year and the Oravida Justice trip to China - this is still very much alive.  This started with concerns that Collins had effectively endorsed Oravida's products and business, but has since evolved significantly.  For me the biggest problem with all this so far has been Key's statements to the House that it was a Justice focused trip and the Oravida bits were add-ons, when, as Rob Salmond has shown at Polity, actually Collins had Justice-related appointments to be cancelled to do Oravida bits.

Collins fundamentally does not seem to understand, and does not want to understand, that the role of Minister comes with some hefty rules and expectations around not interfering in a way that favours your mates.  I come across it all the time in local government - people ask me about this job or that contract and you have to be Very Very Careful, maintain a distance, declare interests pro-actively, and sometimes rudely interrupt people to say "I CANNOT talk about this with you."

Remember Collins has not apologised or accepted that she did anything wrong with any of the instances above.  Which means she is very likely to do it again.

Guestie: Being Brilliant in the Classroom

Many thanks to an anonymous teacher who emailed this in.

Teachers often bemoan a lack of funding for education.

Yet I suspect I'm not the only teacher feeling deeply uneasy about the $359 million the government is planning to spend in education over the next four years. 

For teachers to complain of such an huge investment seems at best ungrateful and at worst, a confirmation of every stereotype of the unionised teacher out there: unwilling to compromise, stubborn and arrogant.

After all, why are we paying our worst teachers the same as our very best?

And there in lies the deep ideological divide between many in the teaching profession and the government. 

Because underpinning the initiative of lead teachers, change principals is a philosophy that talent is something innate which needs to be recognised and rewarded rather than something that is constantly being developed and nurtured.

It strikes me as odd that when it comes to our kids the government has embraced the vision that all children can learn. That it's s  a matter of good teaching that will, to borrow a talking point, ensure five out of five kids are achieving.

Yet when it comes to managing those entrusted with educating our kids, talent is in short supply. 

Good teachers need titles to make change and in the words of the Prime Minster "we are going to pay them more to get it."

To me this isn't good enough.

We should want expert teachers in front of all our kids and that's what we should paying to get.

Fortunately most teachers will quite happily admit that they themselves are still learning. More importantly, teachers will learn from anyone be it a 1st year teacher, an  internationally renowned expert and most importantly their students. Teachers know that what works for one group of kids will not automatically transfer to another.

Just as each kid has their own personality so too each class and school. The danger in paying to get results from super teachers is that it assumes the process of teaching and learning can be standardised - follow what the expert teacher to get results - when it needs to be personalised.

I know I'm not the only teacher who has taken an idea from an expert at a conference or a classroom observation and tried to implement it in class only to have it fail miserably. But then I adjust a few things and make the idea work for my learners or I try a new approach. Yes expertise is important but  just as important is that teachers know how to tweak best practice to fit the needs of the kids in my class.

It's what the New Zealand curriculum calls teaching as inquiry and what high achieving systems  strive for - all teachers need to be experts in how their students learn. 

On a more structural level teachers as a professional acutely feel the effects of income inequality in New Zealand. Even at the high decile school I worked at there were teachers dipping into their own funds for food, trips and schools. 

Throwing millions into establishing an executive level of educators won't help the 11 year old in tears because there are holes in their shoes and no money in the house until payday.

Yes teaching quality is the biggest in-school factor in, to borrow another sound byte, lifting student achievement. However it is those out of school factors, having enough food to eat, secure housing to avoid transience as well as sickness and above all a feeling of love and belonging which  have a far greater impact on our kids' learning. 

I'm sure my rant might easily be construed as jealousy - if I'm not going to get recognised and rewarded then no one else should.

However I don't actually have any skin in the game as I no longer teach in New Zealand. 

Would this announcement be enough to lure me home in the next few years?

No.

While my prime motive for moving overseas is for travel, the support and resources I now enjoy are well beyond what the education system in New Zealand is resourced to provide. There is more admin support, specialist help, a smaller class and more release time. I am still as busy as I ever was back home however I am now far more focused on teaching and learning.

Because while money is important, the most important resource for teachers is their time.

Rather than injecting a few thousand super teachers into our education system how about focusing on ensuring that every teacher and more importantly every child is supported to be brilliant in the classroom?

keeping up the momentum

we had our national day of action against rape culture.  it was awesome to see so many people out on the streets, raising their voices on this issue.  and it's good to see that there may be some changes to the law as a result of these protests.

but as time goes on & the pressure goes off, it's likely that there will be less change than we hoped for.  this is why we're holding a public meeting in hamilton tomorrow night, to have a discussion on what needs to change & what needs to be improved.  hopefully we can talk about meaningful ways to change both our culture and our institutions.  and hopefully we can come up with some action points to take forward.

it's election year next year, and most parties will be working on policies to take forward into the election.  it's important to make sure that issues around justice & funding in relation to sexual violence & abuse remain at the forefront of policy debates.  if there is a time to push for meaningful change, it's now.

for those of you who are already active in politics & campaigning, please don't let the issues slide.  raise it with your party caucus reps, your party's leadership & those who you know will be active in your party's campaign team.  the amount of discussion and debate that arose out of the "roast busters" incident shows that many, many people care about this stuff, and many people want things to change.

for those who aren't so deeply involved in politics, small acts make a difference.  letters to MPs, letters to the editor, questions at public meetings (& particularly at meet-the-candidates events in the campaign) will help to keep focus on the issues.  it's all basic stuff, the building blocks of any political campaign.

if you need motivation & you haven't read them all, then read through the testimonies of survivors in their own words (huge trigger warning - it's tough reading).  but i think so many of us have our own experiences to draw on.  the problem isn't that we don't care enough, it's that there are so many things to care about, so many fronts that we're fighting on, that we run out of energy.  or sometimes the issues are too triggering, the wounds still too fresh for us to be able to take on activism as well.  i understand that.

for those who do have the energy, and particularly if you're in the waikato, i hope you'll come to the meeting tomorrow night.  i'm a little nervous about it - i hope that the discussion is constructive.  but also pretty excited to have speakers like louise nicholas, dr neville robertson & catherine o'kelly.  here are the full details:

government inquiry on sexual violence services

i've only just heard that there is a parliamentary "inquiry into the funding of specialist sexual violence social services".  submissions apparently close this thursday, 10 october.

you can find a link to a pdf copy of the press release on the right-hand sidebar of this page.  it gives the terms of reference of the inquiry:

The terms of reference for the inquiry are to review:

• the state of specialist services and determine whether they reflect an integrated approach to service delivery, full coverage, and best practice

• specialist services, including those for Māori and other diverse ethnic communities, and assess whether they are accessible, culturally appropriate, and sustainable.

i wouldn't have thought there was a need for a full inquiry to know that sexual violence services are grossly underfunded, and have been for many, many years.  there's some good information in this article, which tells us about the inquiry into funding that has already been done:

These funding issues were investigated in 2007 when the Taskforce for Action on Sexual Violence was set up to advise Government on how to prevent and respond to sexual crime.
The Taskforce’s 2009 report recommended “effective funding of front-line services for victims and offenders”, immediate changes in the justice system, and a coordinated response to the problem from “across the social, health, education and justice systems in partnership with the community sector”.

and look at this: you can still download a copy of that report or even a summary of it from here (see box on right side).  one of the main points in the summary is:

ensuring a coordinated response as work continues across the social, health,ƒ ƒeducation and justice systems and in partnership with the community sector

and page 3 of the report has this:

Specific Taskforce projects have focused on understanding sexual violence from a Mäori cultural perspective. This work includes a case study of the Tiaki Tinana rape prevention education project; a stocktake of kaupapa Mäori and tikanga services; and Te Puäwaitanga o Te Käkano.

in fact, the only thing missing from the report, and it is a big omission, are the needs of "other diverse ethnic communities".  i don't know that there needs to be a whole commission of inquiry on it - maybe they could have consulted with ethnic communities to see what could be added to the 2009 report.  i have some ideas on that.

it seems to me that this inquiry is just the government trying to look like it's doing something, without actually doing something.  they've shown that they are not prepared to make the difficult decisions, especially around changes to the justice system.  while simon power was making progress in this area, judith collins made it clear when she took over the justice portfolio that she wasn't prepared to make any changes.

neither have the government committed to decent funding for rape crisis centres.  if they had, wellington rape crisis wouldn't have needed to take funding from hell's pizza, and auckland sexual abuse help line would not have been close to shutting down so many times over the last few years.

still, i suppose we must play the game and put the time into resubmitting to this inquiry, re-doing work that has already been done.  long-time readers of the blog will remember the submission we put in from THM on the original inquiry.  i'll be submitting again, in the hope that there might finally be some concrete action, some minister that actually has the courage to bring about change.

if you're in hamilton, link house are doing a submission-writing workshop on thursday morning, specifically to help in writing submissions for this inquiry.  contact me at info@anjum.co.nz if you'd like further details.

Guestie: Why I'm voting for Grant Robertson

Thanks to Rebecca Matthews for this guest post putting the case for Grant Robertson.  Rebecca is the convenor of Unions Wellington and, amongst many other things, has recently been campaigning for pay equity, 26 For Babies (extending paid parental leave), and abortion law reform.

I remember well the NZUSA conference when I first met Grant Robertson. I was a fresh-faced, Doc Marten wearing Women's Rights Officer. He was president of the Otago students, with those weird 90s big glasses still sported by Deirdre off Coro. As I recall it, student presidents were meeting with then Minister of Education, Lockwood Smith. But Grant, as representative of those students who had were facing off against the police and been put in harm's way, just couldn't stomach the sit-down pleasantries with the architect of our user pays system.

The Grant I met then had principles that transcended the political expediency of the moment. And he still does, which is why he has my vote for Labour Party leader.

Fast forward many years, and the owly glasses have been updated, and those Docs have been dumped (but I don't know, should I get some more?). Grant has been in New York representing NZ on the world stage, and I have put in a few more years of service for the student movement as researcher for NZUSA.

I get an invite to a big education announcement from then Prime Minister Helen Clark. I don't expect too much, to be honest. I'd been working on a claim to the Human Rights Commission about the fact that through interest payments women paid much more for our qualifications, so thought, maybe some tinkering around with interest rates?

The announcement that Labour were scrapping all interest on student loans, period, came as a shock, in a good way obviously. The announcement went way beyond Labour's previous tinkering around the edges of user pays, and was in no small part Grant's achievement, behind the scenes. To knock out in one punch the worst aspect of the loans scheme to me was the greatest political achievement of anyone from my generation so far. It speaks to the vision, effectiveness, and politics of Grant as a person and the great leader Grant will be.

The campaign for Labour leader is being kept very clean so far, and this is A Good Thing. But comparing the candidates also needs to take place if we are to make an informed decision. Shane Jones to me represents a past, worst, age and his comments about geldings and the like don't even bear thinking about. Of course, its really Robertson v Cunliffe.

Why do I favour Grant over Cunliffe? Yes, I know him and trust him and have seen him engage in politics in a way I respect for over 20 years. But how do I compare him to Cunliffe to influence others?

I guess I don't believe in The One, when it comes to political leadership. I don't think that a  strong man, a demagogue, or any of those things is what Labour needs right now. Of course, the leader should be a fluent speaker, and effective in the media and in the house. Grant has all these qualities as much as David Cunliffe. Grant is very progressive and there seems to be no basis to claims that Cunliffe is the more leftwing candidate, despite a lot of internet rhetoric to the contrary. 

What Grant Robertson has that I have never seen in David Cunliffe  is an  inclusive approach to leadership. Grant takes people with him. He's about empowering communities and local decision making. He really does represent a new generation of leadership. I can easily see a Robertson/Ardern (and I want Jacinda there at the helm too, she deserves it and is a real talent) . team leading Labour for ten years. Not in a Helen Clark, take no prisoners style. But in a way that allows all the leaders in the party to grow and flourish, and be empowered. And as leaders in a Labour/Green government, that will provide modern, progressive leadership to deal to the growing crisis of inequality.

This feminist (and unionist) is voting for Grant Robertson for Labour leader, and is proud of it.

i'll be voting for david cunliffe

it's time to select a labour party leader once again.  a not entirely unpredictable happenstance, given that the person chosen by caucus had little experience as an MP and not much experience of party politics.

at the end of 2011, i wrote mildly in support of david cunliffe, & more in the context of my support for nanaia mahuta as deputy.  in that post, i predicted that the writers in the political blogosphere who were vociferously supporting mr shearer's leadership bid would soon turn against him, and it only took a few months for that to happen.

i still don't know mr shearer particularly well, in that i've had very little personal interaction with him.  his public utterances never did give me much of a clue as regards his underlying values and philosophies.  that he was clearly out of his depth was pretty obvious, and it was obvious at the time that he & mr cunliffe were touring the country in december 2011.  listening to the two speak & answer questions side by side, there was no doubt that mr shearer was nowhere near ready to take on the role.

i didn't speak out too strongly about that at the time.  mostly because i didn't think it mattered: the vote was to be taken by caucus after all.  this time around, the party membership has a say, whether they vote directly or through their union delegates.  and this time around, i feel much more strongly about the issue.

i'm still very disappointed that none of the women MPs have put their names forward.  perhaps they don't have a chance of winning, but then neither does shane jones & that hasn't stopped him.  it would not only give them valuable experience, but would also give them the opportunity to connect more closely with the membership.  it's part of the process of developing leadership skills, and the fact that there is no woman in the race is still a major issue for the party.

so we are left with the three who have put their names forward.  shane jones was prepared to turn on his own party membership, particularly those who care about the representation of women, so it would be pretty odd for him to be asking support from that membership for his leadership bid.  if he represents the "red-blooded male" sector of the party, it would be interesting to know why that positioning seems to involve a pretty confrontational approach towards many women party members.  does he see being that kind of male as being incompatible with being supportive of the aspirations of women?   i've yet to hear him say much about issues of equity & equality, particularly as it comes to gender.

in terms of capturing the maori vote, i'm not in a position to say too much about that.  ms mahuta has signed mr cunliffe's nomination form, so she is clearly not supporting mr jones.  there is this from morgan godfrey who is supporting mr cunliffe, and i'll be keeping an eye on what the writers at maui street have to say.  i'd love to see a maori person as leader of the labour party & prime minister of the country, but mr jones is a person that i can't support.

in a labour leader, i'm looking for someone who actually recognises that when labour has won the government benches, it's on the back of the women's vote.  i'd like to see a leader who has both the courage and the good sense to appeal directly to women.  mr obama clearly did that in his last campaign, both in his speech to the democrat convention and in his televised debates against the opponent whose name already escapes me.  mr obama deliberately used female pronouns and talked to issues that were of importance to women.  he also spoke directly to people of colour.  he wasn't side-tracked by the right-wing dismissal of "identity politics" (a way to deflect from the fact that the republicans weren't prepared to give due attention to marginalised groups).  and it showed in the demographic breakdown of voting results.

so is grant robertson the person who can do this: is he prepared to fight for the women's vote instead of focusing on "waitakere man"?  can he relate to and articulate a vision for people of colour?  as someone who belongs to a community that is also marginalised, he is capable of empathising.  but i'm not so sure that he is capable of listening.

he was prepared to act as a deputy to a leader (mr shearer) who would not commit to standing up against racists, but instead kept talking about a "broad church".  a leader who wasn't prepared to discipline MPs who were not only publicly dismissive and pretty nasty about fellow MPs and the aspirations of women, but who actually promoted those MPs.  perhaps, for the sake of public unity, mr robertson was quiet in public but vociferous behind closed doors.  it's entirely possible, and i'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.

but there comes a point where we expect people in leadership positions to stand up and be counted.  and to respond positively and constructively when members take the trouble to put forward their serious concerns.  if he was listening, it didn't come across that way.

which leaves mr cunliffe.  referring back to my post which i linked to above, i was impressed that he had the strength of character to take on ms mahuta as his deputy and the ability to recognise her talents.

not only in this but in other ways, he has shown himself to be a secure male who isn't threatened by women and is willing to support their aspirations.  this is something we saw in people like michael cullen, steve maharey and many other men in the 5th labour government, who happily supported the introduction of paid parental leave, childcare subsidies, pay equity legislation and much more.  men who were advocates and champions of policy that positively impacts the lives of so many women.

this time around, i get a vote in who gets to be a leader.  my vote will be going to david cunliffe and i'll be advocating for him as much as i'm able to within the time pressures i'm currently facing.  it's not just about policy regarding women, which i've focused on in this post, but about the ability to articulate a vision and to take on powerful elites.  the willingness to make some fundamental changes and to challenge long-standing narratives that serve to increase inequality.  maybe he won't be able to do all of those things, but i certainly think he is much more likely to do so than the other two.  and after a pretty long stretch of time, i do feel some hope that the party i joined in 2003 will stand for strong progressive values once again.

so if you're a labour party member, i'm asking you to vote for david cunliffe.