Friday, February 14, 2025



PPPs are still a rort

On Thursday, infrastructure minister Chris Bishop was wanking in the House about the benefits of Public-Private-Partnerships (PPPs). So how do they work out in practice? We all know Transmission Gully is a complete shitshow which ultimately had to be completely restructured after the contractor simply refused to complete the work. Meanwhile, in the UK, the first 25-year "build-own-operate" contracts for schools under their Private Finance Initiative are about to end. And of course its a disaster:

Stoke council bosses are locked in dispute over almost 3,000 school building issues just months before England’s biggest education private finance initiative (PFI) contract ends.

Local authority chiefs in Sheffield also fear legal action from trusts if they fail to ensure a PFI company meets contractual obligations to return schools back to state ownership in good condition.

Meanwhile, multi-million-pound court rows have also erupted in Lancashire over alleged defects in a number of schools built through similar deals, which are now coming to an end.

The core problem: maintenance spending costs money, which means lower profits, so PFI contractors didn't want to spend it, instead choosing to run the infrastructure into the ground. And while they have a clear legal requirement to make good at the end of the contract, they are basically taking a "fuck you, make me" approach in an effort to preserve their profits. And national wants to do this to our courthouses and defence bases, not to mention schools and hospitals.

But its not just them. Because it turns out that Labour also loves PPPs - anything to hide debt and make the books look good, while kicking the can down the road. Anything rather than live up to their name and properly tax the rich to pay for the infrastructure and services we need.

We shouldn't let them. PPPs are a rort, which result in the public getting screwed. And any politician who thinks otherwise is either stupid or on the take, and needs to be de-elected.

Thursday, February 13, 2025



United States of betrayal

As expected, Donald Trump just threw Ukraine under the bus, demanding that it accept Russia's illegal theft of land, while ruling out any future membership of NATO. Its a colossal betrayal, which effectively legitimises Russia's invasion, while laying the groundwork for the next one. But Trump is apparently fine with that too.

That's bad, but then it got worse, with US Defence Secretary (and chief drunk) Pete Hegseth effectively withdrawing the US from NATO, and telling Europe that it would not defend it:

Donald Trump’s newly appointed defence secretary told allies on his first international trip that the US was no longer “primarily focused” on European security and that Europe would have to take the lead in defending Ukraine.

[...]

The Pentagon chief said he was “here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe”, though the language was notably toned down from a draft briefed in advance to the press.

I'm not exactly a fan of NATO, given its recent use as American expeditionary foederatii. But I'm willing to acknowledge that its original mission of deterring war in Europe was a necessary evil during the cold war, and one that has unfortunately - thanks to Putin - become necessary again. So the US basically abandoning it, and telling Putin "go ahead; invade the Baltics!", is terrible. It makes the world a much less safe place. It also tells the world that America's word can't be trusted on anything, even things which have been considered absolutely crucial for 75 years, and so no-one should make any deals with them - but that really sounds like an "America" problem now.

But its terrible for another reason too. Because NATO served another important purpose: nuclear non-proliferation. As long as NATO members felt that the US would defend them, including by deterring nuclear attack, they did not need to develop their own nuclear deterrent. And now that the US has said "we will not deter for you", that sets a very unpleasant precedent. Putin's invasion of Ukraine - a country which voluntarily gave up nuclear weapons - sent a very clear message that if countries with aggressive neighbours wanted to be safe, they needed nukes. US support for Ukraine (and for NATO) may have kept a lid on that. But now that that support has been withdrawn, and no country can rely on US promises, there is a clear incentive for those countries to get their own bombs. And that means not just Ukraine and Poland, but also Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan.

Nuclear weapons are dangerous. A world with more nuclear-armed states is a more dangerous world, with more trigger points for nuclear war, and a greater chance of nuclear famine. And the incentives set by nuclear weapons, to strike before your enemy can deter, leads to greater instability (just look at the last twenty years duelling between the US/Israel and Iran). So by betraying its allies and abandoning its commitments, the US has made the world a much more dangerous place for everybody. They've committed us to nuclear proliferation, regional arms races, and global instability. And as Eisenhower said, that has a cost: "every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed".

So, fuck Trump, and fuck America. And fuck their boss Putin, for starting this shitfest in the first place. They're wrecking the world. The quicker they're all run out of office, the better.

Drawn

A ballot for a single member's bill was held today, and the following bill was drawn:

  • Employment Relations (Collective Agreements in Triangular Relationships) Amendment Bill (Adrian Rurawhe)

The bill would extend union rights to employees in triangular relationships, where they are (nominally) employed by one party, but actually under the control and direction of another (which means many cleaners and contingent workers, but also parliamentary staff). So we can probably expect national and its crony coalition to vote it down.

National's BORA-violating attempt to repeal prisoner voting rights (again) is still in the ballot. Which shows how little they care about our constitutional norms.

Wednesday, February 12, 2025



Its almost as if there's a pattern here...

In 2016, Aotearoa shockingly plunged to fourth place in the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index. Nine years later, and we're back there again:

New Zealand has seen a further slip in its global ranking in the latest Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI).

[...]

In the latest CPI New Zealand's score fell from 85 to 83, dropping its ranking to fourth place.

With Singapore moving into third place, it also bumped New Zealand off the top rank in the Asia Pacific region.

Previously considered a world leader in integrity and transparency, for many years New Zealand scored 'least corrupt' alongside Denmark.

Why? Transparency International Aotearoa blames a failure to keep up with international anti-corruption norms. Successive governments have still refused to reform political donations, ensure transparency around political lobbying, or create a public beneficial ownership register to ensure we can see who is really bribing or buying who. But in addition to that, there's just the way National does business. Last time, I highlighted "[t]he Saudi-sheep bribe. Sky City's crony casino deal. Oravida... wall-to-wall crony appointments and a politicisation of the OIA". This time round I'd point the finger at the fast-track law, undeclared conflicts of interest, and of course that same continuing pattern of wall-to-wall crony appointments and politicisation of the OIA. All of this creates a stench of corruption around the government, and around the state as a whole, leading to declining public confidence and legitimacy. If Parliament wants to do this, it knows how to fix it. If it consistently refuses to do so, we can draw our own conclusions.

Tuesday, February 11, 2025



Colonialism towards the Cook Islands

Last week, 1 News broke the news of a major diplomatic rift between New Zealand and the Cook Islands, over the latter's plans to sign a "comprehensive strategic partnership agreement". Foreign Minister Winston Peters felt that he should have been consulted. Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown disagreed. So who's right?

Probably not Winston. Because while New Zealand explicitly had responsibility for "the external affairs and defence of the Cook Islands" at independence (and still does in New Zealand law), the situation has evolved. Over the past 60 years the Cook islands has increasingly been conducting its own foreign policy, joining various international bodies, and having bilateral diplomatic relations with over 60 other countries. New Zealand publicly recognises this fact, with MFAT saying "the Cook Islands conducts its own affairs", but that "New Zealand has a constitutional responsibility to respond to requests for assistance with foreign affairs, disasters and defence". In other words: the Cook Islands are their own country, they do their own thing, but as close friends (and former colonisers with ongoing obligations towards our victims) we have to help if asked.

In this case, they pretty obviously don't want our help. So New Zealand should just butt out. Or maybe try talking, rather than threatening. Because as with Kiribati, Winston's crude jerking of the colonial leash seems unlikely to make friends, and will likely be felt and remembered in the Cook Islands for a very long time. Especially when it is accompanied by the New Zealand media openly asking questions like "should New Zealand invade the Cook Islands?" - which seems to be an explicit invitation for the Cooks to seek the protection of a more powerful state like China.

Meanwhile, this has also highlighted another issue: because the New Zealand government is at this very moment in the process of passing a law which would allow them to prosecute any Cook Islands minister or official who made foreign policy decisions New Zealand doesn't like. The Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill creates a new criminal offence of improper conduct for or on behalf of foreign power, with extraterritorial jurisdiction, so that it applies to New Zealand citizens anywhere in the world. All Cook Islanders are New Zealand citizens, so it automatically applies to them. As for the criminal offence, China is a "foreign power", signing an agreement "in collaboration with... or agreement of" them is the very definition of "by and on behalf of", not telling MFAT about it meets the test to be "covert" or "deceptive", and thus "improper", and the government very clearly thinks it compromises the "protected new Zealand interests" of the security or defence and international relations of New Zealand. And while New Zealand diplomats and officials have an exemption for "the lawful performance of [their] functions or duties as an employee, contractor, authorised representative, or agent of" the NZ government, there's no such exemption for Cook Islands officials performing their functions in representing their country (likely due to colonial myopia: the metropole just doesn't think about its former colonies).

The Cook Islands Prime Minister should not face criminal charges on New Zealand for doing his job in a way that the New Zealand government does not like. And if the New Zealand government thinks that that is appropriate, then I think that that is a very ugly piece of colonialism, which can only further undermine the relationship between our two countries.

Good riddance

The proposed Waimate garbage incinerator is dead:

The company behind a highly-controversial proposal to build a waste-to-energy plant in the Waimate District no longer has the land.

[...]

However, SIRRL director Paul Taylor said the sales and purchase agreement to purchase land from Murphy Farms, near Glenavy, lapsed at the end of last year.

The company gave no indication of where the plant may be located now it had lost the land.

So, South Island Resource Recovery may have got itself placed on National's corrupt fast-track list, but that list specifies the exact site, so they can no longer use it. And while they could find a new site and re-apply, they'd need to spend years gathering the required environmental data for the new site to support an application. Which means in practical terms that the whole thing is dead. Until of course it pops up in a new small town with a low-capacity local authority to start the whole scam again.

United States of corruption

The US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act has been a vital tool in combatting international corruption. It forbids US companies and citizens from bribing foreign public officials anywhere in the world. And its actually enforced: some of the world's biggest companies - Siemens, Hewlett Packard, and Bristol Myers Squibb - have paid huge fines after being convicted or settled cases brought under the law. But not anymore, because Donald Trump has decided that it's "bad for business":

Donald Trump has ordered the Department of Justice to halt the enforcement of a US anti-corruption law that bars Americans from bribing foreign government officials to win business.

“It’s going to mean a lot more business for America,” the president said in the Oval Office after signing an executive order on Monday directing Pam Bondi, the US attorney-general, to pause enforcement of the 1977 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

A White House official said: “American national security depends on America and its companies gaining strategic commercial advantages around the world, and President Trump is stopping excessive, unpredictable FCPA enforcement that makes American companies less competitive.”

This is of course nakedly corrupt, and it puts the US in violation of the OECD anti-bribery convention, to which it is a party (it may also put it in violation of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption). But as withdrawl from the Paris Convention or Trumps ignoring of trade-agreements shows, the US will no longer keep its word on the international stage. Which means there is no point ever negotiating any agreement with them, because they can't be trusted to keep it.

It also seems a bit weird that congress can pass a law, and then a future president can just say "actually, we're not going to enforce that". It seems contrary to both the rule of law and the separation of powers, allowing the president to arbitrarily rewrite the law to suit their whims. But I guess arbitrary executive power is just another way in which America is "exceptional".

Wednesday, February 05, 2025



34,000 unemployed under National

The December labour market statistics have been released, showing yet another increase in unemployment. There are now 156,000 unemployed - 34,000 more than when National took office.

And having thrown all these people out of work, National is doubling down on cruelty. Because being vicious will somehow magically create the jobs they and the Reserve Bank have destroyed or something. Or maybe its because they're just cruel, vicious arseholes bereft of empathy. But either way, its hard to see how it does any good whatsoever. These people aren't out of work because they're "lazy"; they're out of work because National has destroyed the economy. And being cruel isn't going to fix that.

Tuesday, February 04, 2025



Te Tiriti needs a guardian

This year, we've seen a radical, white supremacist government ignoring its Tiriti obligations, refusing to consult with Māori, and even trying to legislatively abrogate te Tiriti o Waitangi. When it was criticised by the Waitangi Tribunal, the government sabotaged that body, replacing its legal and historical experts with corporate shills, historical illiterates, and swivel-eyed weirdos.

This radicalism is unacceptable to the people of Aotearoa, who overwhelmingly support te Tiriti and want it to be honoured. And it's producing pushback. We've already seen a proposal from Te Pāti Māori to strengthen the Waitangi Tribunal and protect it from government fuckery, and now they've gone better, with a proposal for a formal parliamentary guardian for te Tiriti:

Te Pāti Māori will demand the establishment of a new parliamentary commissioner with the power to overrule Parliament if proposed legislation violates Te Tiriti o Waitangi, should they form part of a government.

[...]

In a statement released alongside the media stand-up, Waititi and Ngarewa-Packer said their party would campaign on creating an independent Parliamentary Commissioner, who they described as an “advocate ensuring that Te Tiriti is honoured across all government policies and decisions made in Parliament”.

“The commissioner would have the role of auditing the government in being honourable of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It will provide independent advice to Parliament, and ensure Māori voices are central to decision-making processes,” Ngarewa-Packer said.

[...]

The pair explained the commissioner would be able to assess proposed legislation before the House and scrap any bills that did not align with Te Tiriti, describing the role as a “Te Tiriti auditor” and distinct from advice Parliament already received on bills impacting Te Tiriti.

Te Pāti Māori argues that a guardian should be able to do this because te Tiriti, as the foundation of our country, is superior to Parliament. I think most kiwis would agree with them. And if you asked them "should Parliament be able to ignore te Tiriti?" - well, you can see the public's response to that in the hikoi, and the overwhelming rejection of the Treaty Principles Bill.

As with Te Pāti Māori's proposal to make Waitangi Tribunal findings binding on the state, if we take te Tiriti seriously, then a guardian to audit proposed legislation for Tiriti compliance and prevent breaches from advancing is absolutely where we need to be going. Whether we get there all at once, or spend some time in a section 7 BORA-style advisory half-way house is an open question, but the destination should not be in doubt. As for those who point to America and say that judicialised solutions don't work, they work fine in Canada, Germany, and South Africa; so maybe America's problem is just American exceptionalism.

Still, it is worth remembering that there are no permanent solutions in our system. Parliament can over-rule the courts, and even disestablish them if they want to. A future parliament could simply replace a Tiriti-guardian with a racist crony (as National has done to the Waitangi Tribunal), rewrite the rules to prevent them from reporting honestly or over-ruling legislation, even disestablish them entirely. The only durable solution is to build strong norms which make such things unthinkable, and which make allying with norm-violating radicals like ACT political poison.

In a quasi-Westminster system, all "safeguards" are really just constitutional tripwires. But that doesn't make them useless. Tripwires send clear signals to the public that it is time to take action (escalating from protests all the way to a complete and violent rejection of the regime). And they can help strengthen the norms we need. We've seen this process with the BORA, originally casually disregarded, now with an increasing presumption that parliament will not legislate against it, and a formal mechanism making parliament accountable to the judiciary when it does (still, National wants to backslide on both jury trials and prisoner voting). A Tiriti-guardian can do that for te Tiriti. And that's what makes it worth doing.

An appropriate process?

Back in December Energy Minister Simon Watts appointed John Carnegie and Vijay Goel to the board of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority. The appointments looked dubious - Carnagie is chief executive of Energy Resources Aotearoa, previously known as the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand: basically, an oil and gas lobbyist. And Goel is an accountant who runs a pokie trust. So, I sent in the usual OIA, seeking all advice and communications on the appointments. I received the response today, and it shows the appointments are even more questionable than expected.

Watts' response included an explanatory letter and over 500 pages of documents (most of which are redacted). Watts' short explanation is that:

10 candidates interviewed for the two board member roles. Initially seven candidates were shortlisted and interviewed. Subsequently, a further three people were shortlisted at my request and were also interviewed. I appointed the two new members for terms commencing 6 January 2025.
...which doesn't really give the full picture. MBIE ran an entire appointments process for two roles between January and June 2024. In June 2024 Watts agreed to appoint one person (and rejected a recommended reappointment). MBIE drafted a cabinet paper, with appointment letters and everything, and then something clearly went wrong. No appointment was made, and the whole search began again. MBIE went immediately to the previous candidates, and here we learn that John Carnagie had applied in the previous round and was not recommended for the shortlist. Despite this, Watts instructed MBIE to interview him, then instructed them to interview Goel as well.

The interviews were not successful. A briefing on 19 September reported that "MBIE does not consider the candidates suitable for appointment". For some reason - whether actual or anticipated Ministerial displeasure is unclear - this briefing was "put on hold", and then rewritten. The rewritten version reached the same conclusions: none of the Minister's picks were recommended. Carnagie was "n the lower end of suitability for appointment", while Goel was "not recommended for appointment to the Board". In an effort to appear more "scientific", they quantified these conclusions with an "assessment framework". And while the actual scores are redacted as "free and frank", you can see exactly what the interviewers thought of the candidates from what is bolded in the scoring sheets. Carnagie ranked highly on public accountability, but scored poorly on stakeholder relationship management, and was a terrible board fit, assessed as "likely to relitigate board decisions, or undermine decisions that have been made" and "likely to create tension or conflict with fellow board members". Goel was just a nothing candidate, with no actual interest in the role, no particularly strong areas, and assessed as "likely to make little contribution outside area of expertise". Despite this, both were appointed anyway, with the Minister certifying to Cabinet that "appropriate processes have been followed in selecting the proposed appointees" and that "invitations for nominations were publicised and that nominations received were considered". Yeah, right. In reality, those nominations were ignored in favour of Ministerial cronies, who were appointed regardless of merit, despite being assessed as unsuitable for the job.

Its a perfect example of National's cronyism. And yet another argument for why we need to take government board appointments completely out of the corrupt hands of Ministers, and put them in the hands of a neutral statutory appointments body.

Monday, February 03, 2025



ACT's problem is Luxon's problem

Back in 2023, a "prominent political figure" went on trial for historic sex offences. But we weren't allowed to know who they were or what political party they were "prominent" in, because it might affect the way we voted. At the time, I said that this was untenable; it was unfair to voters, it was unfair to the party (which I assumed would want to dispel the inevitable suspicion that they knew or were careless about this historical offending), and it was unfair to all its candidates (some of whom may have wished to avoid the taint of representing a party which hosted a sex offender). And it was terrible for our democracy:

Because if the party ends up in government and helping to make justice policy after the election, and then suppression is lifted, voters will rightly feel that they have been defrauded at the ballot box and that the government gained power by covering up child abuse. Which is obviously horrific for its legitimacy, and for public confidence in our democratic institutions.
Now that his name suppression has formally lapsed, we are allowed to formally know that the man was Tim Jago, and the party which benefitted from this suppression is ACT. Who are indeed helping to make justice policy, and are currently trying to rewrite te Tiriti o Waitangi and core elements of our constitution. ACT is able to do this because a judge covered up these allegations, preventing reporting of the party's institutional cover-up (not to mention connecting the dots with sexual harrassment and sexual assault within the party, not to mention the dodgy attitudes of its previous leader), and thereby preventing voters judging them accordingly. So, we have an illegitimate rewrite of our constitution by a government whose support is based, in part, on a colossal act of electoral fraud. Yeah, that's totally legitimate, and I'm sure people will have huge confidence in the political system which enables it.

People need to be asking Christopher Luxon how he feels about depending on the support of a party which covered up for a child abuser, and what he's going to do about it. Because he chose his friends. He chose to lie down with that dog. If he doesn't want the fleas, he knows what he can do about it.

Thursday, January 30, 2025



Climate Change: Beyond irresponsible

Back in November, He Pou a Rangi provided the government with formal advice on the domestic contribution to our next Paris target. Not what the target should be, but what we could realistically achieve, by domestic action alone, without resorting to offshore mitigation. Their answer was startling: depending on exactly how it is measured, He Pou a Rangi's central projection was for an emissions reduction of 55% to 60% by domestic action alone, with ambitious policy able to push that to 70% to 75%. Which means its rather disappointing to see National's announced 2035 target:

The Government has today announced New Zealand’s second international climate target under the Paris Agreement, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts says.

New Zealand will reduce emissions by 51 to 55 per cent compared to 2005 levels, by 2035.

[...]

“Meeting this target will mean we are doing our fair share towards reducing the impact of climate change, while enabling New Zealand to be stronger and thrive in the face of a changing climate.

The latter of course is pure bullshit. He Pou a Rangi has also provided advice at various stages on what a fair target would be, assessed by various frameworks such as equal per capita emissions, ability to pay, historic responsibility for warming, and the right to sustainable development. Under all of these measures, we need to be doing much more than we are at present (which is why their latest advice recommends strengthening our 2050 target). National has instead shrugged its shoulders, and gone "yeah, nah". It is beyond irresponsible - it is profoundly immoral and selfish, and arguably criminal. And the current cabinet, who have set this target, are very clearly betting that there won't be any criminal trials for ecocide in their lifetimes. Given the way things are going, that seems... courageous. Or maybe just shortsighted, unimaginative, and stupid.

Of course, they won't be the government forever, and we've been here before: in 2015 the then-National government set a similar "yeah, nah" target of a 30% reduction in emissions by 2030. So the next government simply had to strengthen it. The next government will have to do the same, if it wants to retain any international credibility whatsoever. And the by-then-opposition National Party will no doubt accuse them of doing too much - just as they did last time.

It would be nice if one of our major political parties wasn't trying to play such transparent and childish games with our most pressing policy challenge, but that's just who they are: childish little sociopaths. We deserve better than that. And the sooner we vote them out and get a responsible government, the better.

The SIS and the "mosaic effect"

Back in 2022, when the government was consulting internally about proactive release of cabinet papers, the SIS opposed it. The basis of their opposition was the "mosaic effect" - people being able to piece together individual pieces of innocuous public information in a way which supposedly harms "national security" (effectively: correlating the contents). DPMC was eventually forced to release further information on the SIS's opposition, in which they offered to brief other government agencies on this risk, and also attempted to weaponise the OIA's outdated eligibility requirement to oppose the entire concept of proactive release. In the process, they made a specific claim that proactive release could result in information being released which "would be of no interest to someone who meets the requestor criteria, but may be of interest to a foreign state."

I was interested in this claim, so I asked the SIS for guidance they have about the "mosaic effect", as well as for evidence of their claim. Their response is here. It includes SIS/GCSB guidance on the use of "neither confirm nor deny" responses under the OIA and Privacy Act, and an internal memo on "The mosaic effect in the context of official information release". The latter is quite interesting, in that its primary evidence is from privacy researchers attacking the concept of "anonymised" data (though they are also agitated about the work of the UK's Undercover Research Group, which helped expose widespread police spying on civil society groups and identify its perpetrators and forced an ongoing public inquiry into police wrongdoing). It also rehearses some rather novel OIA withholding arguments, the use of which is something to keep an eye out for in the future. Along the way they also make a somewhat startling claim that:

some individuals have used information gained through the Privacy Act improperly (i.e. taken information provided to a separate individual, or sought to suborn an individual to make a Privacy Act request under genuine auspices.
...which sounds like they're annoyed that their past victims and relatives of their past victims have been pooling their information to assemble a pretty damning picture of the SIS's historic wrongdoing.

So, what about the specific claim they make about information being released which is "of no interest to someone who meets the requestor criteria, but... of interest to a foreign state"? What evidence do they have that this is actually a problem (and a problem sufficiently threatening to justify undermining our freedom of information rights under s14 BORA)? The SIS won't say. While they claim this is because of "national security", as in the case of Ahmed Zaoui, the natural suspicion is because whatever "evidence" they think they have would not withstand public scrutiny. What does speak volumes is that while they offered to brief other government agencies on the mosaic effect "threat", they didn't actually give any briefings. Which I think tells us how serious it really is: not at all.

Tuesday, January 28, 2025



A disrespectful foreign policy

The first item I remember on RNZ news this morning was that Winston is threatening to cut all aid to Kiribati because they wouldn't meet with him. Of course, there's more to the story than that - Kiribati's president had a pre-planned and significant historical event - but clearly Winston thinks that he should drop everything to give him his vital "I visited every Pacific country" photo op. Meanwhile, Judith Collins makes the colonialism and white supremacy even more explicit when she says "we can't have a disrespectful relationship". Quite. But who's disrespecting who here?

Which also makes me think of yesterday's international mess over Trump threatening Colombia (a friendly nation and an American ally, which had asked that its people be treated respectfully when being deported, and was threatened with tarriffs and sanctions in response). There was some commentary on BlueSky from @Pwnallthethings about how such spats tend to have uncertain and long-term diplomatic consequences, and how they are felt and remembered very differently in the metropole than in the small nations they are bullying (the obvious local examples of this are how we kiwis still remember American bullying over nuclear ships, and French terrorism against Greenpeace, and this still influences our relationships with both countries).

To bring it back to Kiribati: regardless of whether aid is ultimately cut or not, the fact Winston made this threat, over something so small, will likely be felt and remembered there for a very long time. Winston's petty tantrum may have poisoned our relations with Kiribati for a decade, and (since Judith Collins seems to care) may help push them closer to China. Whoops. Maybe we shouldn't have a thin-skinned petty old colonialist with an outsized sense of victimhood running our foreign policy?

Drawn

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

  • Crimes (Coward Punch Causing Injury or Death) Amendment Bill (Paulo Garcia)
  • Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill (Carl Bates)

So a harmless bill and some "tough on crime" bullshit.

There were 75 bills in the ballot today, including another one to ban prisoner voting. This is a law which has been found to be inconsistent with the BORA by the Supreme Court, and yet some national backbencher - with the approval of the National caucus - is trying to push it through again. Which is another data-point on the anti-constitutional anti-human rights radicalism of the current National Party. Maybe some journalists should be asking pointy questions about this?

Monday, January 27, 2025



The orcs are back

Last time National was in government they tried to pillage the conservation estate and open our national parks for mining. But we told them to go fuck themselves, and they slithered off. Unfortunately, Minister for Corruption Shane Jones, who shamelessly takes "donations" from mining companies, didn't get the message:

New Zealanders need to “get over ourselves” and identify which areas of the land administered by the Department of Conservation (DOC) can be used for economic purposes, including mining, Resources Minister Shane Jones says.

[...]

Jones said he would be making a “major speech” about the mining industry and related economic matters in Waihi next Friday.

He would be saying: "We have an inordinately large DOC estate, much of which is overrun with weasels and rats and stoats and noxious weeds,” Jones told Newstalk ZB on Friday.

"Weasels and rats and stoats and noxious weeds" sounds more like a description of the current cabinet.

Kiwis of all political persuasions value the conservation estate, and understand that it is for conserving, not exploiting. If National doesn't want its own "blue green" supporters to abandon them again, it needs to tell Jones to shut the fuck up, and rule out any mining on the conservation estate (including any recategorisation of conservation land to enable it). As for the other parties, the best way to kill this idea dead is to deter investment, by making it crystal clear that any mining or exploration permits granted will be legislatively revoked, with no compensation, and that any investment made will be lost. Its worked well against the oil and gas industry; now the opposition needs to apply the same tactics to defend our natural taonga.

We deserve to know who chose this bullshit

Oral submissions on National's racist, ahistorical Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill are being heard today, and in addition to the expected iwi, academics, lawyers, and constitutional experts calling bullshit, there's been a succession of racist, swivel-eyed loons spewing hate. You might think that that's the luck of the draw, but it wasn't. Submitters in the first week were specifically chosen by the political parties:

In a press release yesterday, the committee confirmed it will hear 80 hours of oral submissions across four weeks. A full day of oral hearings will be held on January 27, with a further two hours being heard on January 30.

Submitters in the first week will be nominated by the members of the committee, which features politicians from all six of the parties in Parliament. It’s understood each party will be able to pick 25 submitters each.

So when you see some racist conspiracist fruitbat using the committee hearings as a platform to monger hate, keep in mind: some party chose them. Some party thought their constitutionally and historically illiterate contribution would be "valuable". Someone thought their voice needed to be heard more widely. And we deserve to know who, both so we can ask them what the fuck is wrong with them, and judge them at the ballot box.

Friday, January 24, 2025



Justice for Afghanistan?

The International Criminal Court is seeking arrest warrants against senior members of the Taliban regime on the grounds that their persecution of women is a crime against humanity:

The international criminal court’s chief prosecutor has requested arrest warrants for the Taliban’s supreme leader and Afghanistan’s chief justice on the grounds that their persecution of women and girls in Afghanistan is a crime against humanity.

It marks the first time the prosecutor has built a case around systemic crimes against women and girls, legal experts say. It is also a rare moment of vindication for Afghan activists, who over the last three years have often felt abandoned by the international community even as Taliban oppression deepened.

[...]

Karim Khan, the ICC chief prosecutor, said in a statement that the Taliban’s supreme leader, Haibatullah Akhundzada, and chief justice, Abdul Hakim Haqqani, are “criminally responsible” for ongoing persecution of girls, women, the LGBTQ+ community and their allies.

Good. And not just because of Afghanistan. There's also Iran and Saudi Arabia, and of course the US is increasingly going full-Gilead. And while none of those countries are parties, establishing a principle in international law that gender persecution is a crime against humanity will still enable their regimes to be held to account in future under other legal jurisdictions. Members of the Republican Party might not be able to take European holidays ever again.

Thursday, January 23, 2025



Fixing science?

Aotearoa's science sector is broken. For 35 years it has been run on a commercial, competitive model, while being systematically underfunded. Which means we have seven different crown research institutes and eight different universities - all publicly owned and nominally working for the public good - fighting over the same fixed pool of funding, leading in turn to a huge amount of competition, duplication, and wasted effort. We also have 15 different CEOs, all trying to empire-build and make their balance-sheets look big so they can move on to the next, bigger job. Which leads to a certain amount of institution dysfunction.

Today, the government announced its "solution" to this: a partial re-merger of the CRIs, into four new "public research organisations". Which means years of restructuring, layoffs, and chaos, all of which will affect the ability of these organisations to actually do science. Not mentioned in the announcement: any change to funding, either the amount or the model. Which means it only (partially) fixes part of the problem. Because if funding remains fixed and on a commercial model, then the new PROs will simply engage in the same inefficient, pathological behaviours as the old CRIs, because that's what the funding system incentivises.

Interestingly, the Science System Advisory Group report which underlies all of this recommended going much further, with a complete re-merger of all CRIs into effectively a new DSIR, plus a lot of changes further up the chain to reduce duplication and ensure coordination across government and with universities. Its unclear how much of that is happening, though the government has seized on the recommendation for a new agency to try and attract venture capital and multinational research efforts.

Whether this ends up as yet another expensive, failed, pointless restructuring done just to give the impression of Doing Something remains to be seen. Funding decisions are the key, and there's meant to be another SSAG report on them due out sometime. But if they do this restructuring without changing funding, then I think its really just a wasted effort.

Wednesday, January 22, 2025



How is this legal?

Leo Molloy's recent "shoplifting" smear against former MP Golriz Ghahraman has finally drawn public attention to Auror and its database. And from what's been disclosed so far, it does not look good:

The massive privately-owned retail surveillance network which recorded the shopping incident involving former MP Golriz Ghahraman is able to be searched by police even when no complaint has been made, the company co-ordinating it has confirmed.

[...]

But Auror, which hosts the surveillance network covering 90% of New Zealand retailers, has confirmed information recorded by its retail clients is available to police.

“By using Auror, retailers choose to make this information available to law enforcement and also have the option to directly report to them via the software. Retailers determine what information they enter,” a spokesman said.

This has led people to ask the obvious question: how the fuck is this legal? And its a good one. Because while the purpose of collection and general idea of tracking information on shoplifters and disclosing it to police for the purpose of prosecution seems to comply with the information privacy principles, there are clear questions around the fairness and intrusiveness of the method of collection, not to mention disclosure. Because cameras which spy on you every time you go shopping, linked to facial recognition and ANPR to ID you, all of which spy on everyone regardless of guilt or innocence seems a bit over-the-top. And while disclosure for the purposes of investigation or prosecution is legal, disclosure for any other purpose is not. And where a retailer has decided not to prosecute, then that decision undermines the entire purpose of collection and retention, and renders any subsequent storage and disclosure illegal.

The Privacy Commissioner urgently needs to investigate Auror, to ensure that they are complying with the law. And if they are not, they need to be brought into compliance or shut down.

But its not just a problem for Auror - its also a problem for police. Because using Auror's database is very clearly a "search" in terms of the BORA: people have a reasonable expectation that they won't be spied on and databased when going about their daily business, even in public places. The fact that this spying is done by a third party is irrelevant - the moment the police access it, the BORA is engaged, and they need to meet a test of reasonableness. And permitting casual searches, without any reasonable causes, clearly violates the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. As the article points out, the police have already had this problem with Auror's ANPR database, and been forced to impose reasonable cause requirements on searching it as a result. They will need to do the same for the retail database. The problem is how to incentivise that. There's obvious scope for a BORA class action by everyone they've unreasonably searched, but the problem is getting them to admit doing so in the first place...