Monday, December 11, 2017



Will National support child poverty targets?

When it was in government, National resolutely refused to set a target for child poverty, or even recognise an official statistic for it. Basicly, they didn't want to talk about it, or how their policies to help the rich seemed to make other people worse off. But now, Jacinda Ardern wants their support for a new targets regime:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern wants National's support for a new law that will "take the politics out of poverty" and bind future Governments to set targets to reduce child poverty.

And she says the Government's families package, which will be launched this week, will lift more than 50,000 children out of poverty and help 70 per cent of low and middle income families.

Ardern, who is also the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction, said the Government would introduce a child poverty bill in the new year, and she will write to National Party leader Bill English to seek his support.

It would set a range of measures of child poverty and bind the Government, and future Governments, to setting three-year and 10-year child poverty reduction targets.


Its a good policy, which will force governments to admit the problem and at least pretend to do something about it - and allow us to hold them accountable at the ballot box if they don't do enough. But while I think Ardern has to make the offer to National, I don't think they'll be interested. Throughout its nine long years in government, National consistently showed it simply was not interested in child poverty, and refused to admit that there even was a problem, let alone that government could do anything about it. So they're really not going to be interested in binding themselves to care about it in future. And while normally losing an election would cause an ex-government to reconsider things like that, National is in denial even about that, and still pretending that they didn't lose (despite the reality that they're now in opposition and Bill English has taken a $250,000 pay cut).

In other words, I don't expect anything from National in this area. Its not a problem that affects the rich, or farmers, or trucking or construction companies, so they just won't give a shit about it. The best we can expect is a sullen acceptance of the law produced only by fear of the political cost of repeal, combined with do nothing targets next time they're in government. Just like climate change, in other words.

New Fisk

Donald Trump says recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel will bring peace – it will do quite the opposite

Time to bring them home

Over the weekend, Iraq declared victory in the fight against ISIS, saying that "All Iraqi lands are liberated from terrorist Daesh [Isis] gangs". Which means that its time to think about bringing kiwi troops home.

New Zealand currently has ~150 soldiers in Iraq training the Iraqi army. That deployment is currently expected to end in November 2018, though NZDF wants to keep them there forever to suck up to Trump. But now the war is officially over, there's no reason to. Australia will be immediately reviewing its deployment, and we should be too. After all, if there's no reason to remain, why stay?

Friday, December 08, 2017



Truth overboard again

When the New Zealand government started making serious noise about Australia's immoral refugee concentration camps, and offered to free people from them and give them a new home in New Zealand, suddenly there were Australian claims of "boats heading for New Zealand". Of course, it was all a lie:

There have been no intelligence reports that boat-people are targeting New Zealand more since the change of Government, nor any suggestion of a credible attempt by people smugglers to reach these shores by boat, the Government says.

And Andrew Little, Minister responsible for intelligence agencies the GCSB and the SIS, says that the boat-people who Australia says wanted to come to New Zealand probably didn't even know where New Zealand was.

His comments support those of a senior Foreign Affairs official, who told the Foreign Affairs select committee this morning that there was no evidence boat smugglers are targeting New Zealand more since the standoff over Manus Island.


This isn't surprising. The Australian government has shown a willingness in the past to lie to its own people to bolster its monstrous policy - as in the case of the "children overboard" affair (where the Australian Liberals used such lies to win an election). At the same time, Australia is supposed to be our closest friend. And yet, they're lying to us in an effort to manipulate our public and our policies. This is not the action of a friendly nation. But I guess, Australia hasn't been friendly for quite a while.

Meanwhile, remember: if you don't like Australian policy, Australian cruelty, and Australian lies, don't buy Australian. Its very easy once you get into the habit.

Thursday, December 07, 2017



Equality finally comes to Australia

The Australian parliament has finally passed its same-sex marriage bill. Unlike New Zealand, where MPs simply introduced and voted for a member's bill, the Australian government forced its citizens to participate in a non-binding postal referendum, exposing gay Australians to an outburst of hate speech. When the referendum failed to produce the result the bigots wanted (because they're a minority even in racist, bigoted Australia), they then tried to wreck the resulting legislation with amendments which would have effectively nullified anti-discrimination law and allowed widespread discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Fortunately, those amendments failed. And in the end, the bill was passed without even a head count, because those "opposing" it weren't actually willing to go on record as voting against it.

In other words, the opposition to marriage equality wasn't principled, wasn't from people who actually cared. It was from people who knew better trying to pander to the very worst in society. What a pack of arseholes. Australia needs, and deserves, better politicians than this.

Merry BIM-mas!

Its BIM day, and so I'm spending it reading the Briefings to Incoming Ministers. Most of them are dull, but there have been a few interesting bits:

  • NZDF has redacted comments about how long kiwi troops will be in Iraq. Its not clear whether this is because they expect the new government to withdraw them, or because they want to keep them there for as long as the US wants.
  • The GCSB and SIS want Ministers to trek down to Pipitea House for classified briefings, rather than giving them in the Beehive. Who goes to who shows who works for who, so basicly they're saying they're more important than our elected government. The inconvenience will also deter such briefings, potentially impacting on oversight of both our spy agencies and the intelligence warrant system. The alternative - appropriate secure facilities in the Beehive - is never suggested.
  • The State Services BIM has only a single mention of "open government". SSC's BIM does talk about opennness and transparency, but seems to be largely in denial about the problems with the OIA, and uses good statistics on timeliness to pretend that there are no problems around e.g. unlawful redaction. Its certainly not the approach I'd expect from an organisation committed to open government.
  • The climate change BIM is informative about expected policy direction, but still has an unhealthy (and, given our lack of access to international markets, utterly unrealistic) focus on using international units to meet our commitments. This is echoed in MFAT's briefing on international climate change issues, which also suggests that MFAT is going to keep pushing for accounting scams for trees in order to actuarially reduce our commitment.
  • Unlike Gareth Morgan, DoC thinks domestic cats have a place in New Zealand, even in a predator-free New Zealand. That's a relief for us cat-minions.

Wednesday, December 06, 2017



Time for a republic

During his 33 years in Parliament Peter Dunne was a strong supporter of a New Zealand republic. Now, he's used his pseudo-valedictory speech at VUW's post-election conference to renew that call:

Former United Future leader Peter Dunne has challenged the millennial generation in Parliament to "seize the moment" and begin a process to turn New Zealand into a republic.

"I strongly believe that the time has well passed for us to have severed the umbilical cord to grandmother England," he told a conference at Parliament today.

"We should be an independent republic within the Commonwealth, like India or South Africa and the majority of other Commonwealth nations.

"It is not just my Irish heritage or my sense of pride and confidence in our country in what it can do that is why I am so staunchly in the belief that we can do so much better than continue to bend our knee to a hereditary monarch on the other side of the world.

"We have consistently shown over the last 30 years or so that we can produce many quality New Zealanders to serve as our Governor-General.

"There is no reason why we cannot do likewise with a non-executive president in that role and frankly the time for change is well overdue."


He is absolutely right. While Britain colonised us, there is no reason now why we should continue to be ruled by a foreign monarch on the other side of the world. Instead, we should complete the repatriation of our constitution, ditch the monarch, and have our own president. Given how little the monarch actually does, the change will be almost entirely symbolic. But symbols matter, and the symbolism of the monarch - especially a foreign monarchy with a history of genocide and murder - is utterly inconsistent with the values of modern Aotearoa. We should change that symbol, and the sooner we do it, the better.

New Fisk

An Israeli dream might come true if Trump declares Jerusalem the capital – but so will an Arab nightmare

Withdrawn

For the past month, Catalan president Carles Puigdemont has been in exile in Brussels, forced to flee to avoid being jailed on charges of "sedition" and "rebellion" for respecting the outcome of a democratic vote. The Spanish government has been trying and failing to extradite him. But now they've suddenly withdrawn their extradition request:

A Spanish judge has lifted the extradition order on the former Catalan president, Carles Puigdemont, and four former cabinet members who fled to Belgium to avoid charges of rebellion, sedition and misuse of public funds.

In a surprise move as campaigning officially began for this month’s Catalan election, supreme court judge Pablo Llarena withdrew European arrest warrants for the five, but national warrants still stand – meaning they would be likely to face arrest if they chose to return to Spain.

Puigdemont said after the supreme court decision he would stay in Belgium “for the moment”.


The reason is simple: they were going to lose, as (unlike Spain) Belgium requires actual violence rather than democratic voting for sedition and rebellion. And as he can't be jailed for "misuse of public funds" (AKA "spending money according to the commands of the Catalan Parliament on something Spain didn't like"), that would defeat the entire purpose of the exercise. This week Spain finally released six Catalan cabinet Ministers on bail - but only after they had promised to give up politics and not campaign for independence. Those who refused, including Catalan vice-president Oriol Junqueras, are still in prison. Which makes it clear that they are being detained for their political views, not because of any threat to the public.

Meanwhile, in an ominous sign, Spain has refused to allow international observers to observe its forced elections. Which immediately suggests that they are going to try and fix them. They are already mounting a campaign of repression to prevent people campaigning for independence, including banning the colour yellow. If this continues, then it is unlikely the elections will meet international standards. But as we've already seen, the last thing Spain wants is for Catalans to have a free and fair vote to choose their future. Instead, that future will be dictated to them by Madrid. That's not democratic. But Spain surrendered any pretence of democracy when it sent riot police to beat and shoot people for voting.

Tuesday, December 05, 2017



Justice for Iraq?

In 2003, British forces joined the US in invading Iraq. The invasion was followed by serious allegations that they had abused and tortured prisoners in their custody, resulting in at least one death. While the UK government compensated several victims, they have generally tried to impede any investigation or prosecution, shutting down the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, while secretly pressuring the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to try and have a law firm which represented their victims punished. But now, the game is up, with the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court announcing that the claims of war crimes by British troops have a reasonable basis:

The chief prosecutor at the international criminal court in The Hague, Fatou Bensouda, has declared there is a “reasonable basis” to believe that UK soldiers committed war crimes against detainees during the Iraq conflict.

The announcement on Monday means the ICC will press ahead with its investigation into claims that British troops abused and unlawfully killed prisoners after the US-led invasion.

It came in a 74-page report delivered in New York to the annual assembly of states parties that participate in the jurisdiction of the court.

In her conclusion on the long-running inquiry into the role of British troops in Iraq between 2003 and 2008, Bensouda said: “The [prosecutor’s] office has reached the conclusion that there is a reasonable basis to believe that members of the UK armed forces committed war crimes within the jurisdiction of the court against persons in their custody.”


Hopefully this means the ICC will investigate and prosecute the offences the British have refused to properly investigate and prosecute themselves. Which means we might finally see some justice for Iraq.

Stopping the beast

At the moment, a giant seismic survey ship is operating off the coast of New Zealand. It will be firing extremely loud seismic blasts into the seabed every 10 seconds for up to three months in an effort to find oil. But Greenpeace may have found a way of stopping it:

At the rally, Greenpeace will announce legal proceedings seeking a declaration that Schlumberger requires an additional permit from DOC under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), and without it, must stop seismic blasting. Greenpeace understands the company has only been granted a permit by the Ministry of Energy under the Crown Minerals Act.

Anyone undertaking activities that could disturb marine mammals, including whales, must seek a permit under the MMPA, says Greenpeace campaigner Kate Simcock. She says there is clear evidence that seismic exploration disturbs and even injures whales.

Schlumberger’s operation will see it firing seismic blasts into the seabed to search for oil every 10 seconds, 24 hours a day, for up to three months.

"The impacts on blue whales in this area are likely to be torturous, interfering with their communication and feeding," Simcock says.


The Marine Mammal Protection Act prohibits "taking" any marine mammal without a permit. "Taking" includes to harass or disturb, and the regulations governing ordinary interactions with whales, dolphins and seals make it clear that loud noises are contemplated as a disturbance. Those regulations are aimed at hoons in boats and sorts of noises they could make. But the Amazon Warrior will be doing something much more severe: constant and extremely loud noise pollution in the whales' habitat. In other words, constant disturbance and harassment.

The MMPA trumps other laws, so any approval under the Crown Minerals or EEZ Acts doesn't permit this harassment. The issue for the court then will be whether the extreme levels of underwater noise generated by the seismic survey process disturb or harass whales - and if there's an arguable case, whether they need to injunct it to prevent a breach of the law . Of course, the Amazon Warrior could apply for a permit, but this both means that DoC gets to decide whether they can survey, and effectively admitting that they have already committed a criminal offence. Either way, its going to be interesting. And no doubt, we'll see the dying fossil fuel industry wailing for another regulatory subsidy to exempt them from a law that everyone else has to follow.

New Fisk

What the Russian Revolution can teach us about the Middle East today

Austerity equals poverty

How bad is the British government's self-inflicted austerity? In addition to murdering 120,000 people, it has driven 20% of the population into poverty:

Britain’s record on tackling poverty has reached a turning point and is at risk of unravelling, following the first sustained rises in child and pensioner poverty for two decades, a major report has warned.

Nearly 400,000 more children and 300,000 more pensioners are now living in poverty than five years ago, during which time there have been continued increases in poverty across both age groups – prompting experts to warn that hard-fought progress towards tackling destitution is “in peril”.

The report, by the independent Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), shows that a total of 14 million people in the UK currently live in poverty – more than one in five of the population. While poverty levels fell in the years to 2011-12, changes to welfare policy – especially since the 2015 Budget – have seen the numbers creep up again.


The basic function of government is to take care of its people. By any measure, the British government has failed at this. And with their attention focused on Brexit and its related infighting, they're just not going to bother fixing this any time soon, or ease the horrific impact of Brexit on their victims.

Monday, December 04, 2017



Our police are still rotten

Back in the 1970's, the New Zealand Police framed Arthur Allan Thomas for a murder he did not commit. Thomas was eventually freed, but none of the officers who framed him faced any professional or criminal consequences, and just a few years ago the Police were still pretending that they had done nothing wrong. And its not an isolated story. Over the weekend, the Sunday Star Times had a story about former assistant commissioner Malcolm Burgess, who the Independent Police Conduct Authority has now (belatedly) concluded threatened to kill a woman in an effort to prevent her from going to the media about police wrongdoing. Burgess had been assigned to lead a police investigation into the cover-up of police involvement in the death of a young man. Instead, he threatened the victim's relatives to try and silence them. The IPCA initially rejected the complaint without investigating it and concluded that Burgess had "behaved appropriately". Last year, they finally bothered to speak to the witnesses, changed their minds, and even issued an apology for their failure to the complainant. By which time Burgess had retired on a full pension. As for the police, they're relying on that initial failure to investigate, and continuing to pretend nothing bad happened:

Joyce wants a public apology from police, but that call was rejected by current assistant commissioner Richard Chambers.

"Former assistant commissioner Burgess served New Zealand Police for 40 years and was a distinguished and professional officer who was dedicated to serving the community," Chambers said.

"For these allegations to continually be raised when they have already been formally considered and dismissed is disappointing. The allegations from Ms Joyce are strongly refuted by police and retired former assistant commissioner Malcolm Burgess.

"Therefore New Zealand Police will not be offering any apology."


And that's the problem right there: the police are simply institutionally incapable of admitting that one of their own has ever done anything wrong, even when a royal commission or their own conduct authority finds otherwise. In other words, they still institutionally shield and protect the reputations of the criminals among them. And until that changes, they simply cannot be trusted.

Time to strengthen whistleblower protections

The government is reportedly considering stronger protections for whistleblowers:

Whistleblowers who dob-in bad behaviour by their employers to the media could get legal protection.

State Services Minister Chris Hipkins said the Government planned to review New Zealand's Protected Disclosures Act saying there was "a strong view" the 17 year-old law needed updating to keep pace with international best practice.

"Over the coming months I will be working with my officials on available policy options. I will consider the next steps when this work is more advanced," he said.


Good. Because the current law clearly isn't working, and is ignored by the very institutions responsible for upholding it. As for how to fix it, there are two obvious measures. One is to allow whistleblowers to go to the media or MP's if their concerns have been ignored by their proper reporting chain. That's an important incentive for those who receive whistleblower reports to actually act on them: because otherwise it will blow up messily in their faces. Related to this, we need to decriminalise government whistleblowing. National made it a criminal offence for people who have ever held a government security clearance to report classified government wrongdoing to the New Zealand public. The obvious result is that such wrongdoing will not be reported, even when it involves corruption, deception, or the violation of human rights. Obviously, that needs to change.

Secondly, while the law prohibits retalation against whistleblowers, it requires the victim to take an employment case against their abuser. And where the organisation they blew the whistle on has deep pockets, that's pointless. Instead, retaliation needs to be a criminal offence. Again, Australia does this, and it seems to provide the right incentives against retaliation for agencies and their staff.

All of this was suggested as part of the Open Government Partnership action plan consultation last year. National didn't pay any attention to it. I'm glad that the new government did.

National going back to Brash

Over the weekend Don Brash crawled out of his fetid crypt to remind us all that he was still a racist old arsehole. And the National party followed suit, by reintroducing their Kermadec ocean sanctuary Bill. As I've said before, a Kermadec Ocean sanctuary is a good idea. But it also pisses all over a Treaty of Waitangi settlement. National, the party of racists, naturally ignores this completely, and wants to unilaterally overturn the settlement. This calls the government's good faith and the entire settlements process into doubt. And National is doing this not because it particularly cares about our oceans - they don't, any more than they care about our national parks - but simply in an effort to stir trouble in the coalition government. Its a piss-poor reason to undermine a fundamental of our constitution. But isn't it so very, very National?

I want to see the Kermadecs protected. I also want the government to honour the Treaty and act in good faith towards its Treaty partners. These are not irreconcilable goals, and I'm confident that the current government is both interested in and capable of finding a solution. But National's arrogant racism isn't helping. If they really wanted an ocean sanctuary, they'd drop their bill, and focus on negotiations instead.

Friday, December 01, 2017



Mallard on transparency

Since the resumption of Parliament, the Labour-led government has been engaged in a war on transparency, refusing to answer even the most basic and specific written questions, while denying OIA requests on blatantly unlawful grounds. But one good sign is that Speaker of the House Trevor Mallard wants them to stop playing silly buggers and start answering questions:

Speaker Trevor Mallard has put both sides of Parliament on notice in the war over written questions, warning them he expects a higher standard once the House resumes in 2018.

[...]

“I think it’s fair to say I wouldn’t be happy if the current approach from either side continued in the long term ... I don’t want us to be in this situation after Christmas.”


While he says Labour's refusals are "within standing orders" (because standing orders basicly leave it entirely up to the Minister how to respond, and forbid any inquiry into those responses), he's also clear that the information should be released. And on that front, he's supporting automatic, proactive release:
However, he described written questions as “sort of like a last resort”, and instead believed it would be better to establish an automated method of releasing information.

“There was a strong view [in past discussions] that if you could get a system that was pretty much automatic, transparent, didn’t require application, then that would be better.

[...]

“Eventually getting some websites going which contain most of that material, for example, Cabinet papers two months after they’ve been to Cabinet automatically up unless there’s a good reason not to, just that sort of stuff would mean you’d have a lot of access to, actually quite boring information, but access to what's going on.”


I agree. Ministerial diaries, briefing lists, Cabinet and committee agendas, and the papers should all automatically be made public, with redactions only where necessary and according to the scheme of the OIA (so they can be challenged and reviewed by the Ombudsman). And these would certainly remove a huge number of mundane requests (while enabling specific ones... which is what the government doesn't want). Unfortunately, none of this falls under Mallard's powers as Speaker. But if he wants to push for it, the way to do it is to read Ministers the riot act and force them to answer written questions, so that it will be less fucking work to proactively release everything than it is to try and refuse it.

Thursday, November 30, 2017



The Minister for Open Government again

How bad is Labour's Minister of "Open Government"? This bad:

Brett Hudson: Does she stand by her 29 November refusal to answer an Official Information Act (OIA) request made on 20 November, which sought a list of all reports, briefings, memos, or aide-mémoire that she had received since being sworn in as Associate Minister of State Services, on the basis that the request did not meet the requirement to be "specified with due particularity" as per section 12(2) of the Official Information Act?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes.


Ignore that its Hipkins answering on her behalf, and focus on that OIA request. It specifies the information it is seeking and the timeframe it is being sought over. It is immediately clear to any reader what information is being sought. To refuse it as lacking "due particularity" is utterly baseless and unlawful, and I expect the Ombudsman will tell her that in due course. That would be bad from any government Minister, but Curran is the Minister of Open Government. And it is clear from her reported response to this request that "open government" is not something she believes in or practices. Instead, she is undermining it in her own office, right from day one.

Seeing this, and her previous behaviour, I have no confidence in this Minister to actually open up government or produce anything useful in her portfolio. And if this is how their Minister is goign to act, the government might as well remove the portfolio entirely, because its clearly a complete waste of our time.

Pike River redux

In the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake, the CTV building collapsed. 115 people were killed. A later inquiry found that the collapse of the building was due to its poor design and that it should never have been approved. The design engineer, David Harding, of Alan Reay Consultants Ltd, was singled out as the cause of this as he was "working beyond his competence." In other words, Harding killed those 115 people.

Today, the police decided that they wouldn't bother charging him or anyone else over those 115 deaths:

Police will not prosecute over the collapse of Christchurch's Canterbury Television (CTV) building.

That result is likely to displease some who lost relatives in the disaster and wanted justice and assurance the construction industry will work to compliance.

[...]

Police began a criminal inquiry in September 2014 and commissioned engineering consultants and soil specialists to examine the site's foundations.

Families were informed of the decision in a letter on Thursday.

In it, Detective Superintendent Peter Read said the inquiry "did identify significant deficiencies in the CTV building design" and police considered charges of negligent manslaughter, but concluded there was insufficient evident to provide "a reasonable prospect of conviction in court".


Really? Because the causal link here seems pretty fucking clear and documented. But the police have never been keen on prosecuting cases of social murder - just look at Pike River. And the conclusion we can draw from this is that they regard it as legal, and that people are free to kill again in this manner.

Secrecy hides incompetance

One of ECan's basic jobs is water allocation. It was the entire reason for National's replacement of the council with a dictatorship in 2010, and for its continuing limitations on Canterbury's democracy since. So you'd think ECan would know how much water they were actually allocating in each of its management zones, and in particular, whether they had continued to allocate in over-allocated areas. But they don't, at least not unless you cough up a small fortune to find out:

A $3000 charge is being demanded by Canterbury’s regional council for information about water allocation.

Newsroom asked Environment Canterbury to provide the percentage allocation of each water “zone” and how many water consents have been granted or renewed since the over-allocated areas reached 100 percent. We also asked for those consents to be quantified.

In a response under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA), ECan’s science director Stefanie Rixecker says that information will take a large amount of work to collate and it would charge $2964. That’s based on 39 hours of work at $38 per half hour.

The council has agreed to provide, for free, the current percentage allocation of each of Canterbury’s water zones – but says it’s not information that is readily available and will take some time to compile.


Which is absolutely astonishing. Because surely "is there any water available?" would be one of the basic questions in deciding any water allocation consent, and that's information they should immediately have to hand. Likewise, the number of scale of consents allocated should be one of the basic ways of tracking whether they are making the problem worse or better. For them to not be able to obtain this easily suggests that they're simply not doing their job on water allocation properly in the first place.

You can understand why ECan might want to keep that secret, and why they'd want to discourage requests. But that secrecy and discouragement does not serve the public interest. This information should not just be provided for free - it should be proactively published, so we can tell whether they're doing their fucking jobs.

Meanwhile, the quicker ECan can ditch its dictators and have full, free and fair elections, the better.

Wednesday, November 29, 2017



The Minister for Open Government

When Labour appointed Clare Curran as Associate Minister of State Services (Open Government), I was hopeful. Having someone with Ministerial responsibility for open government and transparency might see some progress in those areas. Then Labour started acting worse than National over transparency, trying to pretend that official information isn't and playing the bullshit game over requests for basic information. Naturally, I was curious as to whether the Minister for Open Government would set an appropriate standard, or follow her party like a hack. We found out the answer to that question in Question Time today, and it was not good:

Brett Hudson: How, as the Minister responsible for open government, can she, in all good conscience, address a written question from a member about events in respect of a single day by saying that providing an answer "would take substantial research and collation, which I do not think is in the public interest"?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: I will defend the right of the Opposition to ask written questions, but the Opposition is abusing that right. I happen to agree with Ben Thomas, the former National press secretary, who called it "6000 stupid questions: National's [denial-of-service] attack on the Government".


Just to be clear, this is a specific request for basic information, sent in response to a prior refusal for such information which requested greater specificity. And Clare Curran, the Minister for Open Government, just can't be arsed. I guess you can give the hack a fancy job title, but at the end of the day, she'll always be a hack.

Needless to say, this is not a good way for the government to start, and it suggests that all Curran's fine words about increasing transparency and improving OIA practice are just spin and bullshit. If we want change in this area, we're not getting it from her.

The hostile environment

Since 2012, the UK Tories have been trying to create a "hostile environment" for (illegal) immigrants. Since then they've broken up families, detained trafficking victims, and detained and tried to deport who are entitled to be in the UK, while encouraging hate-crimes against migrants. But they've hit a new low today by arresting a woman for being an illegal immigrant after she reported being raped:

A woman who reported being kidnapped and raped was arrested on immigration charges while being cared for at a centre for sexual assault victims.

The woman, who was five months’ pregnant at the time of her arrest, attended an east London police station in March to report details of her alleged ordeal, which she said occurred in Germany between September 2016 and March 2017.

Officers took her to one of three Havens sexual assault centres in the capital, part of a network commissioned and jointly funded by NHS England and the Metropolitan police. But she was subsequently arrested at the centre and taken to a police station where she was questioned over her immigration status.


The message is clear: immigrants cannot risk reporting crime to the police for fear of arrest. But this effectiely puts them outside the law, and gives those who victimise them complete impunity. Its both utterly monstrous and corrosive of the rule of law. But isn't it so very, very British?

Key lied about mass-surveillance

Surprise, surprise - it turns out that John Key lied to our faces about the mass-surveillance "speargun" project:

Sir John Key's story of how and why he canned a "mass surveillance" programme are at odds with official papers detailing development of the "Speargun" project.

The issue blew up in the final days of the 2014 election with Key claiming the programme was long-dead and had been replaced by a benign cyber-security system called Cortex.

Key always claimed the Speargun project to tap New Zealand's internet cable was stopped in March 2013.

But new documents show development of Speargun continued after the time he had said he ordered a halt - apparently because the scheme was "too broad".

Instead, they show Speargun wasn't actually stopped until after Key was told in a secret briefing that details were likely to become public because they could be in the trove of secrets taken by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.


Key basicly pretended that telling GCSB not to bring the business case to Cabinet for now because it needed legislative approval was the same as cancellation. It wasn't, and work continued right up until the "Moment of Truth" event. Worse, Key's chief-of-staff Wayne Eagleson deliberately hid documents the PM held from an OIA request by transferring it to GCSB. That's not hat-games, its not "pretty legal" withholding, its straight-out lying. The entire basis of the OIA regime relies on officials being honest about what they hold. If they're not going to do that, then we need to start providing strong incentives for them to do so. Incentives like jail time, as they do in Canada.

Meanwhile, new GCSB Minister Andrew Little is refusing to comment. In a situation where the previous government has been conclusively shown to have deceived us about spying, I think he owes us a little more than that.

Member's Day

Today is the first Member's Day of the new Parliament. Unfortunately, its filled with the boring leftover business of the last one.

First up are a pair of third readings of National member's bills: Chris Bishop's Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Order Classification) Amendment Bill and Sarah Dowie's Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill. Both of these are uncontroversial and should pass easily. Following that is the second reading of Ruth Dyson's Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill. National tried to bury this one in committee, but it eventually escaped, and there's majority support for it. If the House moves quickly it may make a start on the second reading of Brett Hudson's Employment Relations (Allowing Higher Earners to Contract Out of Personal Grievance Provisions) Amendment Bill, which will probably be voted down given the new Parliamentary balance of power.

All second and third readings means no first readings, which means no ballot for new bills. The good news is that this may change after next member's day.

Tuesday, November 28, 2017



Time to put the environment into the Crown Minerals Act

At the moment, a giant seismic survey ship is arriving off the coast of New Zealand. When it gets here, it will start blasting every ten seconds, right in the middle of a blue whale (and Hector's dolphin) habitat, in an effort to find oil.

This is clearly bad for the environment - not just for the whales, but also for the climate. The government apparently has no power to stop it. But they've signalled that they will change the law in order to prevent future blasting:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has signalled the law could be changed after her Government found its hands tied on turning around the world's largest seismic survey ship from New Zealand waters.

[...]

Ardern, who during the election campaign said climate change was her generation's nuclear free moment, said it had become clear that the Government is legally bound by "some quite strict criteria".

"The question for us now is, is that criteria fit for purpose.

"We are bound by the Crown Minerals Act. That sets out some quite strict criteria on which we can make a decision. Much stricter than I would have thought would be reasonable.

"I think it is only fair that we now look at whether that legislation is fit for purpose."


Good. Because the Crown Minerals Act process for granting permits does not include any assessment of the environmental impacts of surveying. The closest it gets is requiring the Minister to assess whether the applicant will follow "good industry practice in respect of the proposed activities". But where there are potentially severe environmental impacts, as there are with offshore seismic surveying, then they need to be considered.

That's not the only change they need to make. Repealing the Anadarko Amendment banning anti-mining protests should be a priority. The Minister of Energy needs to be removed as a decision-maker from access arrangements to government land, and economic benefit needs to be removed as a consideration. And Schedule 4 needs to be updated and expanded. And the sooner all this is done, the sooner we can stop worrying about mining companies destroying our environment and our planet.

Good riddance

Texan oil cowboys Anadarko are leaving New Zealand:

Anadarko, the Texan oil giant, is poised to leave New Zealand, dropping its final exploration permit and closing its local operations.

Alan Seay, who has headed the company's New Zealand office since 2011, said the Houston-headquartered company had informed its partners in its remaining permit, in the Canterbury Basin off the coast of Oamaru, that it wanted to resign as the operator and was leaving New Zealand.

"It's all down to the continuing low oil price. Ourselves and other explorers are having to make some tough decisions about where we invest capital and frontier areas like New Zealand are always going to struggle in an environment like that," Seay said.


Good. Anadarko has undermined our human rights, corrupted our government, and endangered our environment. Their business is inherently dirty, but they are utterly reckless in conducting it. The sooner they shut up shop and fuck off back to Texas, the better. Hell, maybe they could take their spies Thompson and Clark with them?

Oil is not our future. The climate simply cannot afford for it to be drilled and burned. We cannot afford that. The industry Anadarko represents profits from slowly killing us, just like the cancer industry. And they should be treated the same way.

Monday, November 27, 2017



This is not what democracies should be doing

One of the hallmarks of undemocratic regimes is the government's use of propaganda against their own population to keep themselves in power and support government goals. So naturally, the US is now doing this:

The US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media sites by using fake online personas to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda.

A Californian corporation has been awarded a contract with United States Central Command (Centcom), which oversees US armed operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, to develop what is described as an "online persona management service" that will allow one US serviceman or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world.

The project has been likened by web experts to China's attempts to control and restrict free speech on the internet. Critics are likely to complain that it will allow the US military to create a false consensus in online conversations, crowd out unwelcome opinions and smother commentaries or reports that do not correspond with its own objectives.


Supposedly, this is all OK because none of it will be in English and therefore it won't target US audiences. But this ignores the fact that the international media often rely on local social media reports to build stories. A planted tweet in Pashtun could easily end up on the front page of the New York Times. And this is exactly what they're after - because one of the key stories the US military wants to shape and influence is civilian casualties from their drone assassination program.

This is not what a democracy should be doing. But its been clear for a long time that the US is no longer the "world's greatest democracy". Instead they're just another over-armed, authoritarian empire, bullying the world while beating domestic dissent with a stick.

Disappointed

While I'm on the topic of transparency: I am disappointed to see Green co-leader playing the bullshit game over requests for the meetings he has attended. Green Ministers should be more transparent than that. This is basic information which should be available as of right, and if Shaw doesn't like receiving requests for it, there's an easy way of stopping them: proactive publication.

Time to stand up for open government

The new government's attitude to transparency has suddenly become a concern, with an apparent trend of secrecy setting in early. Playing silly buggers over requests for basic information. Slacking around on releasing briefings to Incoming Ministers. Trying to pretend that official information isn't. These are not the actions of a government dedicated to transparency and opennness. They are not the actions that Labour promised.

Part of the problem is undoubtedly new Ministers getting to grips with their role. Part of it is a desire among senior Labour figures for utu against National over all the bullshit they had to put up with while in opposition. But part of it is that there's no real voice for transparency, no strong lobby for openness, no-one keeping an eye on them. Political scientist Bryce Edwards is suggesting we change that, by forming a new Coalition for Open Government:

Calling all journalists, academics, public servants, political activists, and members of the public who believe in the need for government to be more open with its information. We need to form a coalition to fix the Official Information Act (OIA).

It’s time for everyone who believes in reforming the OIA processes to join together and campaign to make that actually happen. Such a coalition could guide the new government in making the necessary changes so that New Zealand is once again a world leader in open government, the way we were in 1982 when the extraordinary act was introduced.

[...]

Now is the perfect time to act. Whenever a new government is formed, it’s normally enthusiastic and idealistic about fixing problems in the system. And when it comes to problems with the OIA, the parties coming in from opposition are highly sensitive to its faults because they’ve been on the receiving end of governments keeping an overly-tight grip on information.

The parties making up the new coalition government have protested strongly against abuses of the OIA that occurred under National. So, hopefully they’ll want to prioritise some sort of review aimed at fixing the problems.

[...]

If you’re interested, please get in touch. Contact me: bryce.edwards@vuw.ac.nz


I'm definitely interested. We need a voice on this - not just a group to lobby the government, but also to advocate in the media for greater transparency and provide reactions to open government stories. Not to mention to stick up for all the other groups - journalists, NGOs, environmental organisations, and victims of government bureaucracy - who depend on the OIA to do their jobs or get justice. If you're interested in openness, this is definitely worth exploring.

New Fisk

Egypt's President al-Sisi facing serious questions about strategy to bring Isis hotspot Sinai province under control

The refugees were right all along

For the past month, Australia officially closed its Manus Island concentration camp. However, the refugees there refused to move, because the new concentration camps they were supposed to move to were both unfinished and dangerous. On Friday, PNG police stormed the camp, beating refugees and loading them into buses for a forcible transfer. And after all the violence and brutality, the refugees were right all along:

A Manus Island refugee says there is not enough space in new facilities for the men forcibly removed from the decommissioned detention centre.

[...]

Sudanese refugee Abdul Aziz Adam is one of about 25 men unable to find a bed in the new facilities that pictures show are still under construction, despite Australian government claims to the contrary.

"For myself its been 48 hours I couldn't find a place to sleep," Mr Adam said on Sunday.

"There are about 25 men still living in a classroom. We spoke to the authority but they say the prison camp is not ready and they're doing their best to make it ready maybe in the next couple of weeks," he said.

Mr Adam said more than 350 men had been crammed into the East Lorengau Transit Centre, which he said only had room for 290.


Meanwhile, the refugees are being denied even basic medical care, because the Australian government wants to prevent people from seeing how bad conditions are. But officially, They Are Not Being Detained. They're simply being kept somewhere against their will and prevented from leaving or communicating at the behest of the Australian government. Which I guess shows how much respect the PNG government has for the rulings of its courts: none whatsoever.

This is just the same Australian torture in a different place. New Zealand should not tolerate it. Instead, we should give all of these refugees a home here. And if Australia doesn't like it, fuck 'em.

Friday, November 24, 2017



There's a word for this

How bad was Nigel Murray's abuse at Waikato DHB? This bad:

A health board boss took two international work trips while on sick leave, used public money for personal jaunts, did not declare hospitality, booked travel without approval and tried to cover up the breaches, an Audit NZ investigation found.

Former Waikato District Health Board chief executive Dr Nigel Murray circumvented DHB policy to use taxpayer money for personal spending, according to auditors in the damning draft report released today by a board member.

[...]

In a copy of the Audit NZ report obtained by the Herald, it showed that the business reason for travel was often missing from documentation, he had no proof he attended events he said he was going to, or the purpose for travel was retrospectively completed.

International trips in the past financial year did not explain why each trip was required and on domestic trips extra nights were booked, including into weekends, without explanation.

There were two international trips that, when corroborated with Murray's diary, showed he was on sick leave at the same time.


...and it goes on. There's a name for this behaviour: theft. And Murray should be prosecuted for it. As for the DHB chair who has tried to cover this up, he should be sacked. This sort of shit is simply not acceptable where public money is concerned, and those who did it and let it happen need to be held to account.

New Fisk

US foreign policy in the Middle East doesn’t exist anymore

Manus needs a rescue flotilla

On October 31, Australia finally closed its concentration camp on Manus Island. But rather than leaving, the refugees refused to move, because the new concentration camps Australia wanted to put them were even more dangerous than the one they were in. Over the next three weeks, Australia's colonial mercenaries, the PNG police, laid siege to the camp, cutting off food and water supplies, and eventually destroying buildings. Yesterday, they finally moved in and started clearing the refugees by force. Refugees were beaten and loaded onto buses, while journalist Behrouz Boochani was arrested (though what for is entirely unclear). Today, they are apparently finishing the job. The entire operation was arrested by and performed for the benefit of Australia (it was announced by their immigration minister, FFS), which shows that they are continuing to pull the strings regardless of all their denials of responsibility. And that string-pulling includes bullying PNG into refusing to let the refugees come to New Zealand.

The refugees on Manus have been tortured, beaten, starved, and denied medical care. The new "PNG run" concentration camps will continue to do the same, with the added extra danger of victimisation and murder by the local community.

we cannot let this happen in our back yard. And if the New Zealand government can't or won't act, New Zealand citizens should. Its time for a rescue flotilla for Manus Island.

Climate change: A good question

Writing in the Herald, Brian Fallow asks what makes farming so special in relation to climate change policy? It's a good question. Other industries pollute, and they don't get a free ride. Neither do industries which have no real way of reducing their emissions beyond cutting production. They do get a (gradually decreasing) free allocation of credits, but they also all face the cost of emissions at the margin, giving them an incentive to find efficiencies and look for ways to reduce their emissions (or at least not increase them). Farming, OTOH, gets excluded from the ETS altogether. And as Fallow points out, that's a direct subsidy to landowners:

In the end, New Zealand is internationally accountable for all of its emissions. If those who profit from half of those emissions entirely escape that cost, the rest of us bear it.

That is a subsidy and one that gets capitalised into land prices.

The beneficiaries are those who sell farmland and who get a larger tax-free capital gain.

The buyer just gets a correspondingly larger mortgage.


This is no different from the subsidies Muldoon paid farmers, and just as pointless and wasteful. The farming sector must be made to pay its way, like the rest of us, rather than expecting the rest of New Zealand to financially support their dirty, polluting industry.

Thursday, November 23, 2017



A bribe's a bribe

In 2010, Peter Whittall killed 29 men at Pike River Mine by running an unsafe mining operation. In 2013 he bribed his way out of prosecution by demanding (and receiving) a plea bargain in which the serious charges he faced under the Health Safety and Employment Act would be dropped in exchange for making a compensation payment to his victims' families. Now, the Supreme Court has ruled that the decision to drop the charges was unlawful:

The Supreme Court says a deal not to pursue a prosecution against Pike River boss Peter Whittall was unlawful.

Two families of miners killed in the Pike River mine disaster had asked the Supreme Court to overturn a Court of Appeal ruling that upheld a WorkSafe NZ decision to drop charges against Whittall. Families were paid $3.4 million in the deal.

[...]

The Supreme Court on Thursday said Worksafe dropping the charges against Whittall was "an unlawful agreement to stifle prosecution". It said the deal was "struck in return for a $3.41m payment".

[...]

The Supreme Court said it was irrelevant WorkSafe took account of other factors in deciding not to prosecute.


And that's basicly what it comes down to: a bribe's a bribe, and the fact that one was discussed and paid taints everything else. Even when its disguised as a "plea-bargain".

But this raises an obvious question: will the charges be reinstated? Or if not, will Whitall and those who conspired with him in this unlawful conspiracy be charged with conspiring to defeat justice? Because you can be damn sure that a gang member who paid a prosecutor to drop charges would be back in court when it was discovered, and the same rule should apply to the rich as well as the poor.

Justice for Srebrenica

In July 1995, a Bosnian Serb army under the command of Ratko Mladić murdered more than 8,000 people around the town of Srebrenica. It was an act of genocide, and the worst human rights abuse in Europe since the Nazis. Today, Mladić was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for those crimes:

The former Bosnian Serb commander Ratko Mladić, nicknamed the ‘butcher of Bosnia’, has been sentenced to life imprisonment after being convicted of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

More than 20 years after the Srebrenica massacre, Mladic was found guilty at the United Nations-backed international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague of 10 offences involving extermination, murder and persecution of civilian populations.

[...]

The one-time fugitive from international justice faced 11 charges, two of genocide, five of crimes against humanity and four of violations of the laws or customs of war. He was cleared of one count of genocide, but found guilty of all other charges. The separate counts related to “ethnic cleansing” operations in Bosnia, sniping and shelling attacks on besieged civilians in Sarajevo, the massacre of Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica and taking UN personnel hostage in an attempt to deter Nato airstrikes.


Good. The Bosnian genocide was a crime against humanity, and those responsible needed to be held to account. The good news is that they largely have been. Mladić was the last person awaiting trial befre the ICTY. While there are a handful of appeals remaining, its work is basicly done. Unfortunately, there are plenty of other crimes against humanity crying out for justice - most notably Iraq. We need to see justice for those too. But that will be the job of another court, not the ICTY.

Wednesday, November 22, 2017



No tears for Mugabe

So, Robert Mugabe has finally resigned as president of Zimbabwe. Good riddance. He was an authoritarian dictator who fixed elections, looted his country, and tortured and murdered his opponents, so I'm glad to see him go. At the same time, its a shame that it was the army, rather than the people, who removed him. At least nobody was killed, but it looks more like an internal power struggle in an authoritarian government than the transition to democracy Zimbabwe desperately needs. One dictator replacing another is hardly progress, and the new boss may simply turn out to be the same as the old boss. All we can do is hope that its not going to be like that, and that the new regime will actually respect democracy and human rights, rather than just changing the names of the abusers.

Climate change: Fudging on trees

So, it turns out that the government's "billion trees" policy isn't a billion extra trees, but maybe only half a billion:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is denying that the Government is backtracking over its goal to plant 1 billion trees over 10 years, saying it was always going to be in partnership with the private sector.

Forestry and Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones told the National Business Review today that the Government was going to plant about half of the 1 billion trees, while the private sector would plant the rest.

"[The one billion goal] is not something that is going to be pursued in isolation from the industry. If we work together, if they continue with their 50 million [a year] over 10 years and we continue with 50 million [a year] over 10 years, you get to a billion."


Partnership with the private sector is one thing, but misleading the public about the ambition of the policy is another. Because the 50 million trees a year private industry currently plants is almost entirely replanting, replacing trees which they've already cut down. In other words, that's just planting to stand still. Worse, the required replanting rate is going to soar over the next decade, as the forests that were planted in the 1990's are harvested. If private industry wants to avoid deforesting land (and paying the carbon costs for doing so), it will probably end up planting that billion trees itself.

Meanwhile, if we want to get the emissions benefits, we need to plant additional trees, not just replant harvested land. The billion trees policy looked like it was an ambitious target to do this, and bring our emissions under control. Instead, it looks like it is just more bureaucratic fudging, designed to give the impression of action while deliberately avoiding achieving anything substantive.

Against the Te Kuha mine

The orcs are at it again, wanting to rip the top off a mountain on the West Coast to dig an open cast coal mine. Part of the area they want to mine is DoC stewardship land, so the Minister of Conservation has to decide whether to grant them access. That's bad enough, especially when the area in question is a rare ecosystem of an unusual type and home to threatened and protected species. But its actually worse than that, because the rest of the mine is also on public land - specifically, a water conservation reserve under the Reserves Act 1977. The Buller District Council had already granted access, then rescinded it after the decision was challenged in court. The case was heard in October, and if the judicial review fails, it will effectively gut the Reserves Act and open all local reserves to mining.

If that happens, there will need to be a law change, because I don't think that's remotely acceptable to the New Zealand public. Just as conservation land is for conservation, reserves are for preserving and protecting. That's why we have them. Opening them up for an inherently destructive activity like mining would defeat that purpose.

As for the DoC land, the Minister will have to make a decision. Thanks to National, the Minister of Energy will also be involved, and they will have to consider economic benefit as well as environmental factors (because, apparently, that's what's important about conservation land: how it can be exploited. Again, that's something else that needs to go). But they'll also have to consider the purpose the land is held for, and any recommendation from the Director-General of Conservation. And if their significance report is anything to go by, that's unlikely to be favourable to the miners. So, we may get the right decision; it'll just take a while to get there. And if the judicial review against mining in reserves succeeds, the entire point will be moot anyway.

Monday, November 20, 2017



Climate change: Eliminating coal

Last week, at the climate talks in Bonn, New Zealand joined an alliance to eliminate coal-fired power stations:

New Zealand has joined an international alliance - including Britain and Canada - to phase out coal from power generation before 2030.

The Powering Past Coal Alliance was unveiled at the COP23 climate talks in Bonn, Germany, working out implementation of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

[...]

Since signing the Paris Agreement, several countries had already made national plans to phase out coal from their power supply mix.

The Powering Past Coal Alliance also involves sharing technology to reduce emissions, such as carbon capture and storage, and encouraging the rest of the world to cut usage.


For us, this is largely a business-as-usual goal, in that the government has already committed to a 100% renewables target, which includes the elimination of coal. The country's sole coal-fired power station, Huntly, usually runs on gas at the moment, and the older dual-fuel turbines are scheduled to shut down in the next five years anyway. At the same time, its an important sign of international solidarity to help shift the balance away from and de-legitimise dirty electricity, and it turns a domestic commitment into an international one, raising the cost if a future National government welches on it. It also lays the groundwork for a future agreement to eliminate coal from industry (e.g. from Fonterra). So, worth doing, even if it doesn't mean much for us immediately in practice.

Restoring democracy to the RMA

One of National's primary policy goals during its time in power was to remove democracy from the RMA by removing notification and appeal rights while allowing Ministers to dictate local plans from their office in Wellington. This agenda was so extreme that they were unable to gain the votes for it for years, despite reliable footstools as coalition partners. But finally, earlier this year, the Maori Party sold out and let them do it. The changes only came into effect a month ago, so their impact hasn't yet been felt. But they're bad enough that Environment Minister David Parker has promised to roll them back and restore democracy:

The Government will attempt to reverse a National-led law change that has removed the public's right to participate in discretionary resource consent processes, Environment Minister David Parker says.

The Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 also removed the right for applicants and submitters to appeal discretionary resource consent decisions made by district councils.

[...]

Parker told Stuff this week removing public notification and appeal rights was going "a step too far" for applicants and submitters.

"We still think that was wrong. We are intending to have some reform of the Resource Management Act and that would be one of the things that we would fix," he said.


Sadly, it'll take a while, because the RMA is a complicated piece of legislation. On the other hand, there's usually at least a bill a year tinkering with it in one way or another, so it should be easy enough to put the changes in the next one. But unlike National, Labour won't be ramming it through under urgency.

Meanwhile, while they're restoring democracy, maybe they could do something about ECan as well? Apparently they can't hold an immediate election because National's dictatorship dragged its feet on setting electoral boundaries (which were set before the earthquakes and will not take subsequent population shifts into account). But they have nearly complete discretion to sack the appointees, or to appoint new people to replace them. Removing National's dictators from office ought to be a priority. As for their replacements, if they can't yet hold a proper election, holding some sort of poll and appointing the winners would seem to be a more democratic solution. Because its simply unacceptable for Cantabrians to have an illegitimate local government where half the members have no democratic mandate and were specifically appointed to thwart the will of the people.

Unnatural partnerships

Post-election, there was a sustained campaign in the media from National supporters for the Greens to support National to cling to power for another term. One of their arguments was to point to Germany, where Green - Christian Democrat coalitions have been tried at a regional level, and such an arrangement looked like the only possible outcome in the wake of the German elections. Except that hasn't worked out so well...

Exploratory talks to form Germany’s next coalition government were on the verge of collapse on Sunday night after the four parties involved missed their own deadline to resolve differences on migration and energy policy.

Chancellor Angela Merkel has been trying to forge a coalition between her Christian Democratic Union (CDU), its Bavarian sister party the Christian Social Union (CSU), the pro-business Free Democratic Party (FDP) and the Green party following federal elections at the end of September.

A so-called “Jamaica” coalition – so nicknamed because the parties’ traditional colours mirror that of the Jamaican flag – represents new ground even for Germany’s experienced leader, and has only previously been tested at regional level.


The key sticking points are immigration and climate change, with the parties unable to find common ground on either. And this in a country where the political mainstream is greener than ours. In Germany, they're in a four party situation (thanks in part to the CDU maintaining a regional partner party), but in New Zealand some of those parties are effectively factions within the National Party. And its hard to imagine National's farmer-yokels or climate change refuseniks accepting Green demands for real action on water or the climate, let alone allowing them to be implemented effectively.

Basicly, unnatural political partnerships are difficult and likely to fail. In Germany, they've been forced to explore the option because successive grand coalitions turned voters against the political establishment. And even then, it looks to have failed. In New Zealand, where there's no such pressure, there's no reason for parties with choices to take the risk. National's long-term problem of course is that now it has no friends, it has no choices, so it will be perpetually begging for such an unnatural partnership - and is likely to be perpetually rejected if there's any credible alternative.

Friday, November 17, 2017



Farmers ruin another river

The Kaiapoi River is turning salty, and irrigation is to blame:

A freshwater Canterbury river is on the brink of turning into a saltwater estuary, in part due to water abstraction, new data shows.

It has blindsided some in the community and would permanently alter the river's character if the trend continued.

"The prospect of that river turning to a smelly, scum-filled seawater estuary is just totally unacceptable," Waimakariri District councillor Sandra Stewart said.


The problem is caused by farmers taking too much water from the Waimakariri River, meaning that its flow is too weak to prevent salty tidal flows from entering the Kaiapoi. The solution is obvious: reduce irrigation flows. But that means reducing farmers' profits, which was unacceptable under National. Hopefully with a different government (and a soon-to-be elected ECan) they'll be able to stop the farmers poisoning this river before its too late.

New Fisk

Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri accepts exile in France as Saudi Arabia no longer feels like a home away from home

Democracy wins in Tonga

Back in August, Tonga's king dissolved the country's parliament, because he and the noble caste did not like the elected government. Yesterday, Tongans went to the polls, and re-elected Prime Minister 'Akilisi Pohiva in a landslide. Pohiva's Democratic Party won 14 of the 17 "commoner seats", giving them an absolute majority in parliament and the ability to elect a government unchallenged.

You'd hope that the king gets the message: that it is for the people, not the monarch or the nobles, to choose governments. And hopefully Pohiva will be able to use this mandate to push for further constitutional change, such as the elimination of the noble seats and the restriction of monarchical power. Because the current situation, where a third of parliament is elected by just 33 inbred nobles, is simply unsustainable. The sooner this undemocratic power is removed, the better.

Thursday, November 16, 2017



Horse trading

In their coalition agreement, Labour and New Zealand First agreed to pass a "waka jumping" law, preventing MPs from switching parties. Now, it looks like the Greens will support it to keep the coalition peace. But naturally, they want something in return:

The Green Party is considering opposing NZ First's "Waka Jumping" bill - a deal struck in coalition talks - unless Labour gives it a national "Parihaka Day".

Green Party justice spokesperson Golriz Ghahraman, in an internal email obtained by Stuff, suggested some horse trading with Labour to acknowledge the fact the party has long opposed waka jumping legislation.

Ghahraman's suggested her colleague Marama Davidson's bill, which recognises the anniversary of the invasion of Parihaka by making it a National Day, be put on the table for Government support.


Waka-jumping laws are undemocratic, prevent the natural formation and evolution of parties, and give too much power to parties and their leadership to stifle dissent. At the same time, I don't think this is worth dying in a ditch over. It sounds as if there's been some additional limits on the ability of parties to throw out members, and if they sunset clause it for the end of the Parliamentary term, then its something that can be accepted in the name of getting along. And that said, the Greens should not let themselves be taken for granted, and its entirely right that they ask for something in exchange. If Labour and NZ First don't like that, then they're welcome to seek National's support instead.

Austerity kills

Tory austerity has murdered 120,000 people in the UK since 2010:

The Conservatives have been accused of “economic murder” for austerity policies which a new study suggests have caused 120,000 deaths.

The paper found that there were 45,000 more deaths in the first four years of Tory-led efficiencies than would have been expected if funding had stayed at pre-election levels.

On this trajectory that could rise to nearly 200,000 excess deaths by the end of 2020, even with the extra funding that has been earmarked for public sector services this year.


The study attributes this to cuts in health and social spending. It attributes 10% of the death toll to cuts in the number of nurses. And those cuts have led directly to the deaths of people. Just as the Grenfell Tower fire was social murder, a result of "cutting red tape", this is economic murder, a result of cutting the vital services people depend upon to protect their lives. And in both cases, the architects of that murder, the policy-makers who cruelly cut those vital protections, need to be held criminally accountable for it.

Meanwhile, here in New Zealand National pursued a similar strategy of health cuts. How many people have they murdered?

The same question, again

The Independent Police Conduct authority has found that police used unjustified force, including pepper spray, to effect an unlawful arrest:

A Lower Hutt man who was pepper sprayed by officers trying to serve a trespass notice on him was within his rights to stop them entering his home and should never have been arrested, the police watchdog says.

The man complained to the Independent Police Conduct Authority that the officer who pepper sprayed him in his apartment complex on 23 December 2015 also kicked him and deliberately forced his arm up behind his back while he was being led away.

The authority has determined the officer did not kick the man and the force used to escort him from the building was not excessive - but it was unjustified.

Its chairman, Judge Colin Doherty, said the complainant, who was trying to close the door on the officers, had clearly revoked permission for them to be there, which meant they were trespassing and the arrest was unlawful.


The police could simply have served the notice on the victim by dropping it at his feet. Instead, they invaded his home, assaulted him with a weapon, and kidnapped him. If you or I did that, we would be prosecuted and would be facing up to 14 years in jail. So, to ask the obvious question again, why aren't the police? Or does the law simply not apply to them?

If the law is to mean anything, it must apply to those who enforce it as well as those they enforce it on. As long as police officers feel they are above the law, they will continue misbehaving and treating New Zealanders with contempt. These officers must be prosecuted, pour encourager les autres.

Wednesday, November 15, 2017



We need to do more than this

Jacinda Ardern has again approached Australia with New Zealand's offer to save refugees from their concentration camp on Manus Island - and again been rejected. So instead, we're giving aid to Papua New Guinea to help them:

New Zealand will give Papua New Guinea and aid agencies up to $3 million to help care for Manus Island refugees.

[...]

"We intend to work with PNG and other agencies like the International Red Cross to financially support them with any additional needs that may need to be met while those refugees remain on the island."


Its better than nothing, but we must do more. We cannot allow people to be tortured in concentration camps. If Australia opposes them coming to New Zealand, then fuck them - we should talk directly to Papua New Guinea. The New Guineans don't want them, we do, so it should be easy to negotiate a deal. Especially as the refugees have already been assessed.

Meanwhile, while we're all celebrating Australia's vote against bigotry today, lets also remember that they are currently detaining people who fled countries where they fear persecution on the basis of their sexuality in a country which will persecute them on the basis of their sexuality. And that is blatantly failing to meet their obligations under the Refugee Convention.

Australia votes for equality

The results of the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey were released today, showing a 61.6% majority in favour of marriage equality. Good. And now maybe Australia can join the civilised world and actually legislate, rather than trying to remain a bigoted backwater? But before it does, I suppose we'll have to watch another orgy of autophagy from the Australian "Liberal" Party, as its bigots desperately try to pretend they're still living in the C19th. Not to mention attempts to roll back basic anti-discrimination laws to enable bigotry. This people would be justifiably outraged if shops refused to serve them on the basis of their bigoted religious views, but they think the same protections shouldn't apply to gay people. Which just shows how hypocritical the bigots are.

Meanwhile, while Australians are in a progressive mood, maybe they could release the refugees they are currently torturing in concentration camps as well?

Tuesday, November 14, 2017



"Daddy leave" and the parental leave bill

Labour's Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill will be going through its committee stage this afternoon, having been introduced and taken to second reading under urgency last week. The bill essentially duplicates Sue Moroney's Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill. That bill had already been through the select committee process and had the support of the House, but National subjected it to an unconstitutional financial veto earlier in the year. So naturally, having now lost an election over the issue, National are trying to wreck the bill with an amendment allowing the parental leave allocation to be split between parents - effectively halving its length.

They do have a point. The best overseas parental leave schemes include provisions requiring leave to be split (or rather, that no parent can take the full allocation). In Sweden, this "daddy leave" has levelled expectations around parental leave, leading to greater equality in the workplace. Employers have come to expect employees to take leave irrespective of gender, and this has a levelling effect on both pay and promotions. In 2007, the Families Commission recommended [PDF] that the then 14 weeks of parental leave be extended progressively and include a specific "partner leave" allocation. So, this is clearly something New Zealand should do at some stage. At the same time, what we're doing really badly on at the moment is duration and pay rates. I'm perfectly comfortable for the government to prioritise fixing that first - especially when that's the bit that's already been examined by select committee. When a bill is introduced in this way, under urgency, then I'd prefer to keep the scope to what's already been approved, thanks.

In the longer term, I think its likely that further extensions to the paid parental leave scheme will feature in future Labour-NZ First budgets. So we'll hopefully see a move to a split allocation in the future, in a way that doesn't effectively reduce existing entitlements.

Opening the floodgates

One of Labour's first decisions in government was to respect the ruling of the High Court and inflation adjust Teina Pora's compensation payment for the more than twenty years of wrongful imprisonment he suffered. Now, National's "justice" spokesperson Amy Adams is warning that this move will "open the floodgates":

National's justice spokeswoman Amy Adams is warning the Government may have opened up a can of worms in awarding Teina Pora almost an extra $1 million for his two decades of wrongful imprisonment.

[...]

How the new calculation for Pora's settlement will affect "everyone else who has had compensation that wasn't inflation adjusted" remains to be seen, Adams said.

"The way the decision is written, it now throws in to question every sort of payment of any sort the Government might make that isn't specifically provided to be inflation-adjusted."

"There will be others now looking at whether they should be inflation-adjusted."


And so they should. Because the High Court has effectively ruled that National's penny-pinching policy of screwing over people shown to be innocent was wrong. And that means the current government may have to clean up National's mess. But the proper response to that is to clean the fucking mess up, not stick your fingers in your ears and deny that you ever did anything wrong.

So, let the "floodgates" open. The worst that will happen is that we'll have to treat people fairly, like we should have done in the first place. And only an arsehole from a party of arseholes which grubs for votes from other arseholes would see any problem with that.

New Fisk

This isn't the first time Saudi Arabia has threatened the stability of Lebanon

Climate change: Not good news

Back in September, we had some apparent good news about climate change for once, with reports that emissions had peaked. Sadly, those reports were incorrect:

Scientists’ predictions that carbon emissions had peaked were actually far too optimistic and they will continue to rise this year, according to a major new study.

After claims that world CO2 emissions could soon start falling, new research has been presented at a UN meeting that says they will rise by 2 per cent this year to hit a new record.

Emissions had been roughly flat between 2014 and 2016, leading to hopes that one of the leading drivers of climate change would stay that way. But they are up this year in large part because of an increase in China, where emissions have fallen over the last couple of years.


Damn. Climate change is the world's most urgent problem, and one we desperately need to see progress on. But hopefully this will encourage parties to the UNFCCC to do more, rather than fiddling while the planet burns.

Monday, November 13, 2017



Bring them here

Last week, Jacinda Ardern rolled over for Australia on refugees, accepting their bullshit story that Donald Trump would somehow take them. Now, she's going to use the East Asia Summit in Manila to offer them a new home in New Zealand:

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull faces further pressure from Jacinda Ardern as the New Zealand leader repeats her offer to take 150 refugees from Papua New Guinea's Manus Island and Nauru.

[...]

"I will be raising with Prime Minister Turnbull, as I have consistently done, that we have great concerns over the situation on Manus Island but also for the refugees on Nauru."

She saw no difference in principle between the cases on the two islands.

"Our hope is to lend a hand as far as we are able in helping resolve this situation."

Good. Because what Australia and its PNG proxies are doing here is horrific: torturing people for years, then abandoning them to starve to death in the jungle or be murdered by hostile locals. Its a human rights disaster, contra Gerry Brownlee, we need to help.

The good news is that, in theory (and explicitly in PNG, because they Are Not Being Detained), the refugees are free to leave to any country which wishes to take them. We should call Australia on that. And if they don't like us offering a new home to 150 people, then we should offer one to 500. If they don't like that, we should offer one to all of them, whether on Manus or Nauru. And if they still don't like that, it should be "fine, you're a citizen. The next Australian PM will give us what we want, or get the same".

Because ultimately, this is about who decides who gets to come to New Zealand. And the answer to that question can only be "New Zealand". Not "Australia", and certainly not Malcolm Turnbull or Peter Dutton. To riff on John Howard, we will decide who comes to New Zealand, and the circumstances in which they come - and we will be far less arseholey about it than our racist arsehole neighbours.

And remember, as long as Australia is torturing refugees in concentration camps, don't buy Australian.