Friday, April 21, 2017



Places to go, people to be

Nothing from me today - I'm off to Dunedin to attend its first ever larp convention. Normal service will return on Tuesday.

Thursday, April 20, 2017



100% renewable electricity is achieveable

The Greens have launched a new electricity policy today, and the key component is a target for 100% renewable electricity generation (under average hydrological conditions) by 2030. The obvious question is "is it achieveable"? The good news is that the answer is "yes".

That answer is in MBIE's Electricity Demand and Supply Generation Scenarios 2016 (see sheet 13), which show that almost all of our current thermal generation capacity is scheduled to be decommissioned due to age between 2020 and 2027 (the exception is the relatively new Huntly E3P plant, but that seems fine as a dry year backup). The challenge for meeting the target then isn't how to shut the existing generation down, but how to ensure that it is replaced by renewables rather than thermal generation. The Greens don't actually say how, but the obvious answer is to restore the thermal ban passed in 2008. With flat demand, plenty of already-consented wind waiting to be built, and untapped geothermal resources, it seems perfectly achieveable, at minimal cost. We're going to be replacing this generation anyway, so we might as well be clean rather than dirty.

What if demand isn't flat? The long-term risk here is electric cars, which will mean that the energy they currently get from burning petrol will have to come from the electricity grid. Over the term of this policy that's not a big effect - there are currently only 2000 electric vehicles in New Zealand and while the government wants that to double every year, we'd just build extra wind. In the long run, we seem to be heading for cheaper photovoltaics and battery storage which will allow them to be charged from daytime peak, so policy is a matter of positioning to enable that future. On the other side, if Tiwai Point shuts down, then those thermal plants will close earlier, and we'll chieve the target that much faster.

Basicly, its do-able, and with climate change getting worse, seems like its worth doing. we're not going to make things better by continuing to burn coal and gas.

(There's also some other stuff in the policy: a "winter warm up" payment for low-income households to ease winter electricity costs. Funded by government electricity SOE dividends, but should have significant health benefits. And the usual tinkering with electricity market structures and regulation, but that's less interesting than the headline target).

Wednesday, April 19, 2017



The company they keep

"PM announces Sir Edmund Hillary Fellowship", NZ Government, 30 June 2011:

Prime Minister John Key announced today that Indian businessman and Member of Parliament Vijay Mallya will be the next recipient of the Sir Edmund Hillary Fellowship.

Mr Key made the announcement in Mumbai while on a four day state visit to India.

[...]

Mr Key says, "Vijay Mallya is an outstanding businessman with a great affection for New Zealand. He is a worthy recipient of the Fellowship and will be a great asset in strengthening the longstanding and friendly ties between the two countries."


"Force India F1 team boss Vijay Mallya arrested in London", Guardian, 18 April 2017:
Vijay Mallya, the multimillionaire co-owner of the Force India Formula One team, has been arrested in London on behalf of Indian authorities investigating allegations of fraud in connection with the collapse of Kingfisher Airlines.

Scotland Yard said Mallya, who fled to the UK from India to avoid arrest in relation to £1bn of unpaid debts, was arrested on an extradition warrant on Tuesday. Mallya was “arrested on behalf of the Indian authorities in relation to accusations of fraud”, the police said.


Well, that's embarassing. sadly, Key has now resigned, so we don't get to ask him about his poor character judgement, or what exactly New Zealand (or the National Party) got out of this.

So much for fixed-term parliaments in the UK

Back in 2011, the UK passed the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. While born of distrust between the then-government's coalition partners, it for once moved the UK's constitution in a more democratic direction, by stripping the Prime Minister of the prerogarive power to call an election whenever they felt the polls were in their favour. But naturally, it had an escape clause: an election can be called if a government votes itself out of office, or if Parliament votes to hold one by a two-thirds majority. And just five years after being enacted, that clause is being abused to allow the government to call an early election when the polls are in its favour...

Theresa May has stunned Westminster by demanding a snap general election on 8 June that she hopes will turn her party’s clear lead in the opinion polls into a healthy parliamentary majority and secure her Conservative vision for Brexit.

The prime minister made an unscheduled statement on Tuesday morning from behind a lectern outside 10 Downing Street, in which she recanted her repeated promise not to go to the polls before 2020.


Supposedly this is about Brexit. Bullshit. Its the dirty old trick of calling a snap election when the opposition is on the rocks, in the hope of gaining a few more years. But regardless of the reason, it has also made it clear that British governments can not be trusted to behave constitutionally, and that establishment promises of better democracy are simply lies. Again, if you're a UK voter who believes in democracy, I suggest that you get out, while you still can.

Tuesday, April 18, 2017



New Fisk

Lebanon’s efficient security services are stepping up their watch over Islamist supporters in Beirut and beyond
If Trump cares so much about Syrian babies, why is he not condemning the rebels who slaughtered children?

A victory for women

In 2014 Kristine Bartlett won a huge victory in the Court of Appeal over pay equity. Now, it looks like that victory is about to pay off, with the government about to approve a huge pay settlement for underpaid women:

A historic pay equity settlement could lead to hefty pay rises for about 55,000 low-paid, mainly female workers as part of a deal between unions and the Government.

Cabinet will discuss the settlement later on Tuesday, with Prime Minister Bill English saying ministers do not want to leave the issue for the courts to decide.

NZME reported the deal would lead to significant pay increases from July for workers in aged residential care, home support, and disability services, all state-funded service sectors with low pay rates and predominantly female employees.

Kristine Bartlett, the aged care worker whose court case kickstarted the pay equity negotiations, would have her salary increase from about $16 an hour to about $23 an hour.


This is great news. And while progress might be slower than if it was gained by a court order, its more certain. Government agencies introducing equal pay should also put more pressure on the private sector to provide it and help drag wages up across the board. And if not, the changes negotiated to the Equal Pay and Employment Relations Acts will allow women to fight for equality and win.

Thursday, April 13, 2017



Secret court hearings violate the right to justice

Over the past decade we've seen a push by governments around the world to allow them to present "classified information" (AKA the paranoid ravings of spies) to the courts in secret while denying the opposing parties the right to contest it, or even know what is being claimed. We saw this procedure used in the persecution of Ahmed Zaoui, and since then its been encoded in law in the Passports Act 1992, Immigration Act 2009 and even the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. More generally, National wants to allow this procedure to be used in all civil and criminal trials, just in case the government wants to put its finger on the scales of justice.

Meanwhile, in a decision on judicial review of a passport cancellation, the High Court has just ruled that such provisions violate the Bill of Rights Act:

A statutory provision that material and potentially decisive evidence in a court proceeding is to be presented to the Court and considered in the absence of the party adversely affected is as flagrant a breach of the fundamental right recognised in s27 of NZBORA as could be contemplated...

The whole of our common law tradition, as bolstered by the rights and protections recognised by NZBORA, render the procedure under s29AB an anathema to the fundamental concepts of fairness. However, the reality is that Parliament has recognised the justification for the use of that procedure in defined circumstances.


And because Parliament is supreme, rather than the Bill of Rights Act, they get to get away with this violation.

In passing, the court also criticises the Attorney-General's apparent failure to warn Parliament of what it was doing, citing the lack of a s7 report on the provisions when they were passed. Which doesn't build confidence in Parliament as the guardian of our human rights. As with National's Anadarko Amendment and prisoner voting restrictions, it instead suggests that its time we took the job off them, and gave it to a body which can be trusted to do the job properly: the courts.

The same question

Another month, another formal finding from the Independent Police Conduct Authority that a police officer unjustifiably used a taser to "induce compliance" (torture someone into obeying them):

A police officer's second use of a Taser on a Christchurch man was unjustified, the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) has found.

[...]

The IPCA found the officer's first use of the Taser was justified, but that the weapon could not be used on an uncooperative, non-aggressive person to induce compliance.

Authority chairman Judge Sir David Carruthers said the second Taser use "when the man was on the ground and clearly still affected by the first use" was unjustified.

"While the man did not immediately roll over, there was no immediate threat of harm to anybody.

"The second use of the Taser was for compliance and should not have been used. It amounted to a breach of police policy, was disproportionate in the circumstances and an unjustified use of force."


There's a name for "unjustified use of force": assault (in this case, with a weapon). And I'm left asking the same question as I was last month: will this officer be prosecuted? And if not, why not?

New Fisk

Donald Trump, who doesn't read books, is ignorant of history – and so is his pet chump Sean Spicer

Drawn

A ballot for four member's bills was held today, and the following bills were drawn:

  • Friendly Societies and Credit Unions (Regulatory Improvements) Amendment Bill (Stuart Smith)
  • Electoral (Registration by Special Vote) Amendment Bill (Meka Whaitiri)
  • International Transparent Treaties Bill (Fletcher Tabuteau)
  • Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill (Joanne Hayes)
So, a couple of National spam-bills, a useful change to our electoral administration, and a bill to require that Parliament vote on the signing (rather than implementation) of treaties. That ought to shake things up a bit. There were 70 bills in the ballot this time, a decrease from the last few ballots. The full list can be viewed here.

Wednesday, April 12, 2017



Utterly vexatious

That's the only way to describe Lani Hagaman's decision to continue her vindictive defamation suit against Labour leader Andrew Little. But I guess that's what happens when National feels it can't beat a Labour leader at the ballot box: their get their wealthy proxies to try and bankrupt them instead.

But if the aim is to defend dying Earl Hagaman's reputation, it has backfired. Since the original decision, a number of voices (including Stuff and Andrew Geddis) have spoken up strongly in defence of the right of politicians to raise concerns about apparently corrupt behaviour (and, prior the Auditor-General's report, the coincidence of a political donation and the award of a contract looked exactly that). By continuing the suit, the Hagamans now look not only like vindictive tools, but anti-democratic defenders of corruption.

Climate change: The UK drags its feet

Earlier this week, Generation Zero proposed a "Zero Carbon Act", an ambitious plan to force the government to set emissions reductions targets and meet them. The proposal is based on the UK Climate Change Act, which has so far worked rather well. But now it seems the UK government is violating its own law, and is on the verge of being sued to force it to comply:

ClientEarth – the team of environmental lawyers that has twice taken Ministers to court and won – has given the Government 21 days to explain why it has failed to produce a plan setting out how the UK will fight climate change as required by law.

Under the terms of Britain’s Climate Change Act, the Government must come up with a way to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 57 per cent by 2032.

[...]

The Government’s Emissions Reduction Plan is supposed to set out how this will be achieved and was due to be published at the end of last year, but has been repeatedly delayed.

It is thought further significant cuts could involve policies that are too radical for the current Government, particularly during the upheaval caused by Brexit. For example, as part of its efforts, Norway has pledged to ban petrol-powered cars by 2025. Such a move is not considered likely in the UK.


The Tories are full of climate change deniers, and they now seem to want to "scale down" their climate change obligations to promote trade in the wake of the self-inflicted disaster of Brexit. But the law's the law. If they don't want to obey it, then the correct thing to do is repeal it (and face the public and international opprobium for doign so), not to simply ignore it.

But what this does point out is another benefit of a "Zero Carbon Act" in New Zealand: legal enforceability. A New Zealand government which similarly ignored the law could likewise be sued to force it to obey. Which would be a useful check on the denier-stuffed National party in the future.

Past the tipping point

How bad are our rivers and lakes? Past the tipping point, according to the Prime Minister's chief scientist:

The state of some of the country's waterways have gone beyond a tipping point, according to a report from the Prime Minister's chief scientist.

Some will take more than 50 years to recover, and even then they will never get back to their original state.

The report said the science was clear: New Zealand's fresh waters were under stress because of what we did in and around them.


There's more in the Herald, and the big culprits are urban expansion (from stormwater and industrial waste), and intensive agriculture (from cowshit and fertiliser runoff). Given that agriculture employs only 6% of the workforce, I think its clear who is having a disproportionate effect here.

We need to clean up our rivers. Towns and cities have a role to play, but the primary cause of contamination is farmers, and that's where the burden should lie. And if it drives dirty farmers out of business, so much the better for our environment.

Member's Day

Today is a Member's Day, though a relatively boring one. First up is the vote on Clayton Mitchell's Broadcasting (Games of National Significance) Amendment Bill, which apparently didn't happen last time. Following that there's a succession of minor bills: Jami-Lee Ross' Land Transport (Vehicle User Safety) Amendment Bill (which bans washing cars on the road), Steffan Browning's Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill (does what it says on the label, and its inexplicible why anyone would oppose it), Ruth Dyson's Education (Teachers’ Code of Ethics) Amendment Bill, and Paul Foster-Bell's Arbitration Amendment Bill (another National spam-bill). There will likely be a ballot for four bills tomorrow, which should give a chance for something more interesting to be drawn.

A betrayal of public service values

Back in January, The Press reported that three former CERA staff had been running a property development business on the side in an apparent effort to profit from their jobs. Yesterday the State Services Commissioner reported back on an investigation into them, and made it clear that their actions were completely unacceptable:

Mr Gallagher and Mr Nikoloff were found to have been using a private company (PIML) to attempt to participate in a business deal for personal gain, relating to the same property (273 Manchester St) and with the same parties they were engaging with in their public capacity as CERA employees. They did not disclose their personal interest to parties involved in the potential transaction or to their employer.

This created a clear conflict of interest which they were aware of and should have disclosed to CERA, however they did not do so.

“I consider their actions to be serious misconduct that is unacceptable in the New Zealand Public Service,” Mr Hughes said.

“If these two individuals were still employed by CERA I believe there would be strong grounds for terminating their employment,” he said.

“I am unable to direct State sector employers when making employment decisions, however based on what I have seen in Mr Heron’s report, if it were up to me I would not employ these individuals,” Mr Hughes said.


This behaviour apparently continued when they moved to Otakaro Ltd, National's secret, corporatised development company. They've been referred to the Serious Fraud Office as a result, presumably on charges of corrupt use of official information. And apparently they're now looking at another group of CERA employees for similar behaviour. The rot appears to go deep.

One of the three, Murray Cleverley, wasn't involved in the apparent corruption around PIML, but the report makes it clear that he had behaved unacceptably in his position as chair of the Canterbury DHB by refusing to properly manage a conflict of interest around leasing them property. He's resigned as a result, and good riddance. While less serious than his friends, he too has betrayed the core values of the New Zealand public service.

Gallagher and Nikoloff appear completely unrepenant and have sought to minimise their behaviour. They've also tried to explain it because they come from a business background. And that is exactly the problem: the corrupt values of the New Zealand business community are completely at odds with those expected from public servants. If we want a clean public service, we shouldn't hire from business.

Tuesday, April 11, 2017



New Fisk

Isis has finally reached central Egypt – but that's not even al-Sisi's biggest problem

Bullying the Ombudsman

In December last year the Ombudsman's Quarterly Review mentioned that DPMC was planning a discussion on revising the rules around withholding "free and frank" advice. Naturally, I fired off an OIA, and learned that the discussion was confined to the government - they were talking to themselves about secrecy and how much we should be allowed to know, with no input for the OIA's users. I received the followup to that request yesterday, with more information. Naturally, DPMC has withheld their actual views as "free and frank" - apparently, they can only talk about secrecy in secret, presumably for fear of public outrage. But what they have released is bad enough.

It turns out that in September last year, Gerry Brownlee called the Ombudsman into his office to "better explain this Office's project on proper compliance with the [OIA]". From the Ombudsman's email summarising the meeting, Brownlee was concerned about the Ombudsman's defence of transparency and had

a genuine perception that the rules have changed and that we are pushing for a wider range of Ministerial advice and briefings to be released.

Or, to put it another way: Gerry Brownlee tried to bully the Ombudsman about transparency. Which is absolutely outrageous.

It gets worse. Because in response to this bullying and as part of these secret discussions about secrecy, the Office of the Ombudsman is "revising" its guidance on sections 9(2)(f)(iv) and 9(2)(g)(i) covering confidential and "free and frank" advice to Ministers. So, Brownlee may get what he wants. And if he does, we all lose.

Denying the obvious

Currently we have a housing crisis, with homes becoming unaffordable to young New Zealanders. Labour says it wants to do something about this - but not if it results in lower property prices in Auckland:

Labour wants to see more affordable houses built, but is steering clear of suggesting it would welcome a fall in prices, even in Auckland.

After a week focused on his successful defence of a defamation claim, Labour leader Andrew Little was back on message today with a 20 minute press conference dominated by housing issues and Labour's plan to build houses and crack down on speculators.

[...]

But asked if he welcomed signs Auckland house prices were falling, Little said no.

"Falling house prices doesn't add a single extra house to a market that is at least 60,000 houses short," he said.

"Just trying to manipulate the prices of existing houses isn't going to provide the 60,000 houses needed. There is only one answer to the housing crisis and that is build more bloody houses and that's what we are going to do."


Except that building more houses would reduce prices - its simply supply and demand. More generally, if the problem is unaffordable houses there are only two ways of making them more affordable: lower prices or raise incomes. And given the huge disparity between incomes and prices, the latter is not a credible option. Which means the only real solution to the housing crisis is to crash prices with capital gains taxes, limits on speculation, and a massive government house-building program with sales restricted to first-home buyers.

This will obviously make wealthy Boomers in Auckland worse off, as their paper wealth evaporates. Fuck them. Speculators who have leveraged that wealth in an effort to bleed us even more will go to the wall. Fuck them too. There will be some real victims - young Aucklanders who paid too much for houses during the bubble who will be left with negative equity. I'd welcome policies to ameliorate that, but I'm more interested in making houses affordable for all than in the handful of young home buyers featured on the front page of the Herald.

As for Labour, this is not a thing you can finesse away. Either you want to solve this problem, or you don't. And if you don't, people can and should vote for someone who will, rather than a party which talks big but in the end wants to defend the inequalities of the status quo.

National's New Zealand

What does National mean for New Zealand? Families sleeping in cars over winter:

Emergency housing providers are predicting more families will sleep rough this winter because of a lack of affordable accommodation.

The issue is further complicated by tens of thousands of players and supporters due to descend on Auckland later this month for the World Masters Games.

The Games, combined with another mass arrival in June and July for the Lions Rugby Tour, means even motels currently being used by the Government to house the homeless will be chocker with overseas guests.

[...]

Currently about 370 families a week rely on motels for emergency housing in Auckland.

Mangere Budgeting Services spokesman Darryl Evans told TVNZ a number of people will end up in cars this winter and some will end up in shipping containers.


This is simply indecent. Making sure everyone has a roof over their heada is a core purpose of government in this country, and National isn't doing it. Instead of fixing this crisis, they're simply making it worse by flogging off state houses.

Clearly, we're not going to get a solution from National. If we want everyone to have a home, we have to vote for a party which will deliver it. Fortunately we'll get a chance to do that in September.

Monday, April 10, 2017



National's proxy attack fails

The jury has come back in the Little-Hagaman defamation case, with a majority verdict that Little did not defame Lani Hagaman, a majority verdict that he might have defamed Earl Hagaman on one occasion, but a hung jury on whether he had a defence of qualified immunity. The jury was also undecided on whether other statements about Earl Hagaman were defamatory. Which means a) that Little is entitled to costs from Lani Hagaman; and b) that any real motivation for a retrial on the undecided issues will be ended by Hagaman's inevitable death (he is reportedly on his deathbed). At this stage, it looks like a win for Little: the case will probably end, and if it doesn't, it will be clear that it is a purely political exercise, aimed at distracting and possibly bankrupting Little in an election year.