Human Rights, Environment Obligations, and Ethical Investment: Aotearoa New Zealand is Going Down the Wrong Path
Dr Robert Howell
1 Introduction and Summary
A considerable portion of the world’s investments are unethical in that they have inadequate regard for the welfare of people and/or the planet. They invest in companies that abuse workers’ or other stakeholders rights. Their activities destroy our environment. Very few companies are fully fossil-free, or operate within ecological boundaries. One of the reasons for this is that the term ethical investing is defined by such unvalidated concepts as ESG, or responsible.
Should the Reserve Bank target unemployment as well as inflation? Will the new government abolish the dual mandate?
Back in 1989 – near the end of the fourth Labour government – the inflation-busting Reserve Bank Act was passed. Labour has shifted well away from the Rogernomics of that decade, and in 2021 Grant Robertson added maximum sustainable employment to the bank’s mandate - with the support of coalition partner NZ First.
Our Reserve Bank joined a powerful grouping of central banks that have dual targets, including the US Federal Reserve, the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England and the European Central Bank.
Going into the 2023 election, National and Act committed to a return to the 1989 objective. Will they take us out of the mainstream and into a straitjacket rather than a life-jacket? And how does it square with their stated aim of getting people off the dole and back to work?
The next three years – the job ahead for Labour, Greens and Te Pāti Māori
The Fabians had a session on Nov 14th reflecting on the elections. Our panel of Simon Wilson, Senior Writer at NZ Herald, Bridie Witton, Stuff Press Gallery Reporter and Ollie Neas, freelance writer used the election results as a springboard to target some of the key issues for Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori as they head into opposition.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Pae Ora health reforms with you.
Since I was sacked by the Health Minister I have taken time to reflect on the experience and to make a considered assessment of what I learned in the process. My intention tonight is to share that with you, making the assumption that we share common ground in wanting to have an effective, efficient, excellent and equitable public health service.
If anyone does not want that, I don’t really have anything useful to share with you.
The proposed Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) has a very low profile for a treaty whose impact has such potentially profound implications. Its proponents advocate it as panacea for the NZ economy, unlocking overseas markets for agriculatural exports, while its opponents see it as sinister and anti-democratic breach of our sovereignty. A significant difficulty in assessing the merits of the the treaty has been the utter secrecy under which its negotiations have taken place.
This Wednesday the Fabian Society presents speakers arguing the pros and cons of the TPPA. For the treaty will be Wayne Mapp, member of the Law Commission and former MP for North Shore. Speaking against will be Jane Kelsey, Professor of Law and campaigner against the treaty.
Please join us on Wednesday, October 9th, 6pm
Venue - (260-092) Lecture Theatre 3, Owen Glenn Building, University of Auckland
It would help us plan if you registered your interest here.
During August the Fabian Society presented a series of eminent speakers, reflecting on the promise made by the Royal Commission for Auckland and the prospect for a liveable urban landscape.
An audio recording of the David Shand & Bill McKay session is available here, and of the Phil Twyford, Denise Bijoux and Paul Grimshaw session here. Available online for download are copies of the presentations by Bill McKay, Denise Bijoux and Paul Grimshaw.
Widespread cuts to public sectors and social benefits mark this out as an international age of austerity. Post-war gains in welfare states are being rolled back and the political commitment to social protection is fast being eroded. The overwhelming narrative that drives this international project is that of debt crisis and fiscal emergency – it drowns out even the voices of at least four Nobel economists who argue 'growth now, deficit later' (Krugman).
Is there a fiscal or debt crisis - how would you know? Where is the public argument? Why are we accepting of the logic that says economics should govern our choices – instead of debating what kind of society we want and then asking economics to deliver that? How are we supposed to work out as a citizenry what counts as public value?
David Mayes and Nigel Haworth give their views of contemporary political economy. David is Professor of Accounting and Finance and Director of the Europe Institute; Nigel is Head of the Department of Management and International Business. Each will start with a response to a brief introduction to Who Needs the Cuts: Myths of Economic Crisis. One of the book's authors is Saville Kushner, Professor of Public Evaluation at the University's Faculty of Education, and he will explain the analysis in the book giving an alternative to that of 'crisis'. Professors Mayes and Haworth will offer a commentary of the relevance (or otherwise) of the analysis to the New Zealand context and elsewhere.
Join us in Case Room 2, 260-157, University of Auckland, on Thursday June 6th at 6.00pm to hear these perspectives and engage in the discussion. You can register here.
Lori Wallach & Jane Kelsey (Photo: John Miller)On December 3rd Lori Wallach and Jane Kelsey delivered presentations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) to a large audience in Auckland. They identified TPPA as one the biggest political issues facing New Zealand, Jane focusing on the NZ implications of the agreement and Lori on the implications of US participation.
While many specific concerns were raised, the overall picture was one of what amounts to structural and even fundamental constitutional reform being imposed on NZ without any democratic input. Clearly, the agreement affects far more than trade, potentially constraining the social and economic policy options of future NZ governments. Although exit provisions may exist, associated costs mean they are unlikely to ever be triggered. Above all, the nature and extent of these issues has been difficult for observers to assess because of the secrecy and lack of democratic accountability inherent to the negotiating process. Seemingly, only those with the most to gain have been officially privy to the details.
We have had a number of inquiries asking whether the seminar was recorded and available. Sorry, no. However, you can find much of the material referred to at:
Interesting interview with Hugh Fletcher on Friday October 19th. Well worth a listen as he condemns NZ's misguided laissez-faire economic approach over the last three decades. Listen here.