Local body elections are underway, which is causing people to look at local government for once. And many of us don't like what we see. Our local government is basicly a gerontocracy, stuffed with dead white males. There are more councillors named "John" than there are councillors born after 1980. This is not representative, it looks nothing like New Zealand, and it discourages anyone under 60 from voting.
What is the cause of this problem? Writing in The Spinoff, Hayden Donnell has a simple answer: its the voting system, stupid. FPP and the block vote allow a narrow demographic - old people - to utterly dominate local government, converting their plurality into absolute dominance. But there's an alternative, STV, which is used in a few areas. And the evidence shows that local authorities which use STV have more representative councils, which look more like their voters.
Currently only 11 councils use STV (I am lucky enough to live in one, and my council looks a hell of a lot better than the West Coast's). This needs to change. STV is more democratic. It produces more representative outcomes. It is likely to boost long-run turnout, as younger voters see councillors who actually look like them. It should be adopted nationwide.
Thursday, August 29, 2019
Feeding the kids
The government is trialling a free school lunch programme:
Good. It is simply indecent that children are going hungry in New Zealand, and this programme will help stop that. But its also a good investment: child poverty costs a fortune, and this will help reduce that cost, giving kids a better future. My only question is why they didn't do this sooner.
The Government has launched a trial free lunch in schools programme which it expects to extend out to 21,000 children once the policy is fully rolled out in two years' time.
Starting next year, roughly 5000 year 1-8 children across 30 schools in Rotorua and Hawke's Bay will receive a free lunch five days a week as part of the policy's trial.
The Government is expecting those 30 schools will become 120 once the full policy is under way in 2021.
Good. It is simply indecent that children are going hungry in New Zealand, and this programme will help stop that. But its also a good investment: child poverty costs a fortune, and this will help reduce that cost, giving kids a better future. My only question is why they didn't do this sooner.
A constitutional outrage
That is the only way to describe Boris Johnson's request to suspend the UK parliament to prevent it from voting on Brexit (or voting him out of office). The UK parliament is the sole source of democratic legitimacy for that country's government. For the executive to purport to suspend it, nakedly to prevent debate, calls its right to govern into fundamental question.
Brexit has now become a full-blown constitutional crisis. There are already calls to protest in the UK. MPs are saying they will simply occupy the chamber and that the police will have to drag them out. Last time anything like this happened in the UK, that country got a civil war and the tyrannical executive lost their head. Hopefully it won't come to that. But the fact that this has even been tried underlines how urgently the UK needs democratic reform, to make it impossible.
Brexit has now become a full-blown constitutional crisis. There are already calls to protest in the UK. MPs are saying they will simply occupy the chamber and that the police will have to drag them out. Last time anything like this happened in the UK, that country got a civil war and the tyrannical executive lost their head. Hopefully it won't come to that. But the fact that this has even been tried underlines how urgently the UK needs democratic reform, to make it impossible.
Wednesday, August 28, 2019
It turns out that someone does own the water
For the past decade or more the government has been looking at water issues, trying to find better ways of allocating it and of protecting our environment (or, in the case of National, allowing farmers to shit in the rivers without restriction). Lurking in the back of this work, resolutely unaddressed by the government, has been the Treaty. In 1840, Māori owned all the water in New Zealand, and it is legally questionable whether those rights have ever been extinguished. The government is in denial about this, claiming "no-one owns water" (while handing out property rights in it worth billions to farmers and foreign water-bottlers). But the Waitangi Tribunal has finally ruled on the issue, and they are crystal clear: water is a taonga, and it belongs to Māori.
In case anyone has forgotten, the Treaty of waitangi guaranteed Māori te tino rangatiratanga (or, in the English mistranslation, "full exclusive and undisturbed possession") over their lands, villages and all their treasures. This includes water. The RMA's water management regime and its predecessors have systematically violated this right by failing to recognise proprietary rights, by excluding Māori from use of what is ultimately their resource, and by failing to actively protect it as a taonga. Their conclusion:
Its a perfectly doable solution, and we've done it before for fish (which were similarly a taonga, rights over which were never extinguished). With a bit of patience, we could craft a reasonable settlement with a decent chance of sticking, and which would improve water management into the bargain. But pretty obviously, that would threaten established interests - all those farmers who have benefited from colonial theft, all those water bottlers getting "their" water for free then sticking it in bottles and on-selling it for a fortune. And where there's money on the line, there's going to be politics. I expect we'll see the National Party go full Brash over this, banging the drum for a racist extinguishment of Māori rights to prevent their cronies and backers from having to pay their way. As for Labour, they're such chickenshits they'll probably betray their Māori support base again, bow to National's hate, and turn it into Foreshore & Seabed 2.0. And if they do, they will deserve to be tossed out on their arses.
Finally, the Tribunal apparently recommended that Māori bring a test case to claim their rights, and the New Zealand Maori Council has taken them up on it. The government is not going to be able to dodge this. Instead, they're going to have to say whose side they're on, and suffer the political consequences.
In case anyone has forgotten, the Treaty of waitangi guaranteed Māori te tino rangatiratanga (or, in the English mistranslation, "full exclusive and undisturbed possession") over their lands, villages and all their treasures. This includes water. The RMA's water management regime and its predecessors have systematically violated this right by failing to recognise proprietary rights, by excluding Māori from use of what is ultimately their resource, and by failing to actively protect it as a taonga. Their conclusion:
Our view is that the Crown must now recognise Māori proprietary rights and provide what the New Zealand Māori Council called ‘proprietary redress’. We recommend that the Crown arrange for an allocation on a percentage basis to iwi and hapū, according to a regional, catchment-based scheme. We also recommend an allocation for Māori land development, and that the feasibility of royalties and other forms of proprietary redress be investigated.
Its a perfectly doable solution, and we've done it before for fish (which were similarly a taonga, rights over which were never extinguished). With a bit of patience, we could craft a reasonable settlement with a decent chance of sticking, and which would improve water management into the bargain. But pretty obviously, that would threaten established interests - all those farmers who have benefited from colonial theft, all those water bottlers getting "their" water for free then sticking it in bottles and on-selling it for a fortune. And where there's money on the line, there's going to be politics. I expect we'll see the National Party go full Brash over this, banging the drum for a racist extinguishment of Māori rights to prevent their cronies and backers from having to pay their way. As for Labour, they're such chickenshits they'll probably betray their Māori support base again, bow to National's hate, and turn it into Foreshore & Seabed 2.0. And if they do, they will deserve to be tossed out on their arses.
Finally, the Tribunal apparently recommended that Māori bring a test case to claim their rights, and the New Zealand Maori Council has taken them up on it. The government is not going to be able to dodge this. Instead, they're going to have to say whose side they're on, and suffer the political consequences.
Like something from the English Civil War
The UK's Brexit stupidity is reaching its endpoint, and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson is threatening to suspend Parliament to prevent a confidence vote or anti-Brexit legislation - effectively to force a no-deal Brexit by default. In response, a group of MPs have said they will simply continue to meet anyway:
160 MPs have already signed it, and the Speaker has made it clear he will not allow a dissolution. Altogether, its like something from the leadup to the English Civil War. Back then, an tyrannical executive sought to rule without input from Parliament, and it did not end well for him. Hopefully Johnson will back off from provoking constitutional outrage and crisis, otherwise it may not end well for him either.
Boris Johnson has been described as a threat to the “very nature” of British democracy at a cross-party meeting where MPs agreed to form an alternative parliament in the event of the prime minister shutting down the existing one to make a no-deal Brexit happen.
In a symbolic gathering at Church House in Westminster, where MPs met during the second world war, Labour’s John McDonnell took to the stage alongside the former Conservative MP Anna Soubry as well as the Liberal Democrat leader, Jo Swinson, and Caroline Lucas of the Green party.
They signed the Church House declaration, which said shutting down parliament would be “an undemocratic outrage at such a crucial moment for our country, and a historic constitutional crisis”.
The pronouncement added: “Any attempt to prevent parliament [from] sitting, to force through a no-deal Brexit, will be met by strong and widespread democratic resistance.”
160 MPs have already signed it, and the Speaker has made it clear he will not allow a dissolution. Altogether, its like something from the leadup to the English Civil War. Back then, an tyrannical executive sought to rule without input from Parliament, and it did not end well for him. Hopefully Johnson will back off from provoking constitutional outrage and crisis, otherwise it may not end well for him either.
Conservation land is for conserving
Today, the government declined an application to build a hydro power station on conservation land in the Morgan Gorge, near Hokitika. National MPs are complaining about this on Twitter, but if you read David Parker's very thorough decision, the reason the application was declined is clear: because granting it would have been contrary to the Conservation Act. The area in question is a pristine environment and an outstanding natural feature. Allowing the development would have changed its character utterly. Conservation land is held for the purpose of conserving its natural and historic resources, for both their intrinsic values and (where not inconsistent with those) for recreational purposes. The law requires an application to be declined if the proposed activity is contrary to the Act or the purposes for which the land concerned is held. The decline was thus a no-brainer. (And if any of those wailing National MPs disagree, they can always seek a judicial review of the Minister's decision. They won't, because it is very obvious they will lose).
The clear message here is that this isn't a National government which will ignore the law until forced to obey it by the courts. Instead, the law is going to be enforced. Obviously that will upset the orcs, who want to destroy everything for private profit. But they are exactly what the law is there to protect us from. Conservation land is for conserving. That should not be difficult to understand.
The clear message here is that this isn't a National government which will ignore the law until forced to obey it by the courts. Instead, the law is going to be enforced. Obviously that will upset the orcs, who want to destroy everything for private profit. But they are exactly what the law is there to protect us from. Conservation land is for conserving. That should not be difficult to understand.
Climate Change: Holding polluters accountable
Climate lawsuits are a growing trend, with various people suing their governments in an effort to force real action on climate change. But suits against actual polluters seeking to hold them accountable for the damage they cause are relatively rare (though apparently growing). But now, in New Zealand, Mike Smith of the Climate
Change Iwi Leaders Group is taking our biggest polluters to court:
The companies named are Fonterra (New Zealand's biggest polluter by far), Genesis Energy, Dairy Holdings Ltd, New Zealand Steel, Z Energy, the New Zealand Refining Company, and BT Mining - basicly a who's who of New Zealand climate criminals. I expect it'll be a difficult case - quite apart from the sheer amount of money and lawyers the companies will throw at it, there's the obvious difficulty of proving direct responsibility for a global problem. And OTOH, that's what people said in the early stages of the legal war against the tobacco industry, and the same logic applies: the polluters have to win every case. Those seeking to hold them accountable need only win once. And as the damages rise and such lawsuits become more common, the hope is that they will have a deterrent effect on polluters and force them to change their behaviour - or risk going out of business and leaving their shareholders with nothing.
Change Iwi Leaders Group is taking our biggest polluters to court:
Smith is alleging that the named companies have committed public nuisance, have been negligent or breached other legal duties by emitting greenhouse gases and by not doing enough to reduce those emissions in the face of scientific evidence that their emissions have caused, and will continue to cause, harm.
[...]
The case against the companies is brought by Mike Smith, in his personal capacity, to protect his customary interests in land and resources in Northland. The litigation seeks relief including a declaration that the companies have acted unlawfully, and an injunction requiring each of them to reduce total net greenhouse gases by half by 2030, and to zero by 2050, or to otherwise cease their emitting activities immediately.
The companies named are Fonterra (New Zealand's biggest polluter by far), Genesis Energy, Dairy Holdings Ltd, New Zealand Steel, Z Energy, the New Zealand Refining Company, and BT Mining - basicly a who's who of New Zealand climate criminals. I expect it'll be a difficult case - quite apart from the sheer amount of money and lawyers the companies will throw at it, there's the obvious difficulty of proving direct responsibility for a global problem. And OTOH, that's what people said in the early stages of the legal war against the tobacco industry, and the same logic applies: the polluters have to win every case. Those seeking to hold them accountable need only win once. And as the damages rise and such lawsuits become more common, the hope is that they will have a deterrent effect on polluters and force them to change their behaviour - or risk going out of business and leaving their shareholders with nothing.
Tuesday, August 27, 2019
PNCC hates parents
Palmerston North is often advertised as "a great place to raise kids". Unless you're a city councillor:
There's a long list of comments from councillors, which are worth reading just to see how backwards and unrepresentative Palmerston North's local "representatives" are. Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Bruno Petrenas, Lorna Johnson, Karen Naylor, and Grant Smith voted against, and as a result I will not be giving any of them a preference next month. I am not interested in voting for sexist gerontocrats who support barriers to the participation of parents or potential parents in local government.
Palmerston North's city council has thrown out the idea of paying councillors' childcare costs, for now.
The Remuneration Authority this year approved the concept of allowing elected representatives to claim up to $6000 a year for a child's care while a parent was on council business.
But it left it up to individual councils to decide whether to adopt a policy.
Despite a spirited plea from the council's youngest councillor, mother-of-two Aleisha Rutherford, the proposal failed at Monday's full council meeting.
There's a long list of comments from councillors, which are worth reading just to see how backwards and unrepresentative Palmerston North's local "representatives" are. Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Bruno Petrenas, Lorna Johnson, Karen Naylor, and Grant Smith voted against, and as a result I will not be giving any of them a preference next month. I am not interested in voting for sexist gerontocrats who support barriers to the participation of parents or potential parents in local government.
Yet another attack on transparency
The Finance and Expenditure Committee reported back on the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill on Friday. Its a boring bill which would establish a Crown Entity which would produce reports about infrastructure needs, so I hadn't paid attention to it. I should have, because the bill includes a - increasingly common - secrecy clause, forbidding disclosure of any information gathered using the Commission's information-gathering powers unless it is already publicly available, in statistical form, or required by an enactment. The kicker? Those information gathering powers apply only to:
- a department named in Schedule 1 of the State Sector Act 1988, other than [the GCSB or SIS]
- a departmental agency named in Schedule 1A of the State Sector Act 1988:
- a statutory entity named in Schedule 1 of the Crown Entities Act 2004:
- the New Zealand Defence Force.:
- a local authority, as defined in section 5(1) of the Local Government Act 2002:
- a council-controlled organisation, as defined in section 6 of the Local Government Act 2002 (but disregarding subsection (4) of that section):
- Auckland Transport, as defined in section 4(1) of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009.
And disregarding some twists and turns around council-controlled port companies, every single one of those bodies is already subject to the OIA or LGOIMA. So, if they give information to the Infrastructure Commission (which as a Crown Entity is explicitly subject to the OIA), it becomes secret - but if you ask them directly, the usual rules apply.
It gets worse, because the Select Committee spent some time thinking about the OIA and LGOIMA and how it applied, tightly restricting the reasons an agency could refuse a request for information from the Commission and including a clause (currently s23(4A)) saying that information could not be withheld from the Commission if it could not be withheld under the OIA or LGOIMA. But somehow, in all of this, no-one on the Committee thought to question whether it was necessary to apply secrecy to information that was already presumptively public, and clearly no-one thought about it in the drafting process either. Our government is basicly completely blind when it comes to open government and proactive steps to protect it.
The fix for this is simple: amend s25 at the committee stage to explicitly permit disclosure under the OIA. But in the longer-term, this needs to stop happening. The government needs to think about transparency and open government when designing legislation, just as they do about human rights, the Treaty, and gender equality. Getting them to do that would make a great Open Government Partnership commitment.
(And meanwhile, there's another one: the new Venture Capital Fund Bill allows the (Crown Entity, subject to the OIA) Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation to create "VCF investment vehicles" under their control which are explicitly exempted from the OIA. This runs counter to the usual control principle, under which government-controlled entities such as subsidiaries of CRIs, SOEs and Crown Entities (and local government ones like CCOs) are subject to the OIA and/or Ombudsmens Act. No policy justification is provided for this secrecy).
The whiff of corruption
The Herald this morning has a major story about National's fundraising from foreign businesses [paywalled / depaywall script], courtesy of former National MP Jami-Lee Ross:
This is whiffy in all sorts of ways: McClay organising the donation while a Minister, the use of a New Zealand-registered company to circumvent the law against foreign donations, the question of why National is so eager to get Chinese money. But especially stinky is this bit, which shows the nakedness of what is going on:
And based on past practice, I think its a reasonable bet that if National hadn't been tossed out at the 2017 election, Lang would have gotten what he paid for.
As for the use of corporate fronts to circumvent the law, its clear that this is a loophole which needs to be closed. We should ban company donations immediately, and restrict donations to natural persons and membership-based organisations only.
Former National Party MP Jami-Lee Ross has dropped a fresh donation bombshell, revealing then-trade minister Todd McClay helped facilitate a $150,000 donation to his party in 2016 from a company owned by a Chinese racing industry billionaire known as "Mr Wolf".
McClay first met horse-racing mogul Lang Lin in July 2016 while the then cabinet member was in Beijing for a meeting of G20 trade ministers. The pair met again in April 2017 in Rotorua, McClay's electorate. A month later National declared a six-figure donation paid by Lang's company, Inner Mongolia Rider Horse Industry NZ (IMRHINZ).
The donation was largely organised by a phone call made from Ross' parliamentary office to Lang's representatives on the evening of April 4, 2017. Ross claims he was asked to make the call by McClay, who was in the office listening to the call on speaker, and the minister was kept informed of developments.
This is whiffy in all sorts of ways: McClay organising the donation while a Minister, the use of a New Zealand-registered company to circumvent the law against foreign donations, the question of why National is so eager to get Chinese money. But especially stinky is this bit, which shows the nakedness of what is going on:
Representatives for Lang said he expected nothing in return from the donation, and it was made in appreciation for National's "promoting trade between the two countries".
They added that the mogul had expressed an interest in a gong: "Lang also considered that he made so much effort to open the China market in exporting NZ horses to China, the NZ Government should award him an honour."
And based on past practice, I think its a reasonable bet that if National hadn't been tossed out at the 2017 election, Lang would have gotten what he paid for.
As for the use of corporate fronts to circumvent the law, its clear that this is a loophole which needs to be closed. We should ban company donations immediately, and restrict donations to natural persons and membership-based organisations only.
Friday, August 23, 2019
Places to go, people to be
Nothing from me tody - I'm off to Christchurch to pretend to be other people for a weekend. Normal bloggage should resume on Tuesday.
Thursday, August 22, 2019
Dodging a bullet
Donald Trump seems to be eager to start a war with Iran, and naturally Australia is yapping at its heels like a good little vassal. The UK also asked New Zealand to get involved, but fortunately, we had a good excuse: we simply didn't have the toys available:
Which seems like we really dodged a bullet there. The lesson is obvious: you can't be involved in a US war if you don't have the capability. Which suggests that rather than replacing the frigates when they reach the end of their lifetime, we should simply ditch that capability, and focus on things which actually suit our needs.
Meanwhile, National is desperate for New Zealand to get involved in America's war, as usual. Lest we forget, their continued involvement in Afghanistan killed ten New Zealanders in an unjust war which was none of our business and not worth fighting. How many kiwis do they want to die for the America over Iran?
Britain asked New Zealand whether it could help patrol the Strait of Hormuz following the seizure of oil tankers by Iran, but we didn't have any boats to send, the Minister of Defence says.
[...]
New Zealand's Defence Minister, Ron Mark, says while no formal request for assistance was made, Britain approached New Zealand about whether it had any capacity to help.
"I've said right now both of my frigates are in Canada undergoing refit. We don't actually have any capabilities available," Mark told reporters.
"The bottom line that I can barely struggle to keep two P3s [surveillance aircraft] flying ... I just don't see that we have any spare capability right now to engage in that kind of a mission."
Which seems like we really dodged a bullet there. The lesson is obvious: you can't be involved in a US war if you don't have the capability. Which suggests that rather than replacing the frigates when they reach the end of their lifetime, we should simply ditch that capability, and focus on things which actually suit our needs.
Meanwhile, National is desperate for New Zealand to get involved in America's war, as usual. Lest we forget, their continued involvement in Afghanistan killed ten New Zealanders in an unjust war which was none of our business and not worth fighting. How many kiwis do they want to die for the America over Iran?
Climate Change: Another emergency
Yesterday the Greater Wellington Regional Council unanimously declared a climate emergency. They've also set themselves a goal of being carbon neutral by 2030, though this only applies to their direct emissions. Still, its a good step, and as usual it invites the question: where is Parliament? When are we going to see some national leadership on this issue? Or was the Prime Minister's talk of climate change as "my generation's nuclear-free moment" simply hot air?
Wednesday, August 21, 2019
A sensible idea
That's the only way to describe the government's plans for a Parliamentary Budget Office to allow opposition parties to get an independent costing of their policies. When the idea was first floated back in 2016 as an office within Treasury, I thought that wasn't independent enough and argued that it should be an Officer of Parliament. I'm glad that that's the path the government has gone down.
Meanwhile, National Leader Simon bridges claims this is "screwing the scrum" against the opposition. Rather, it does the opposite. in the past, we have seen governments use the bully pulpit of the Treasury benches to falsely claim that the opposition is financially profligate and has a "fiscal hole". An independent Parliamentary Budget Office will protect oppositions from such behaviour, while providing the public with more information on which to base their votes. That's something an honest opposition should welcome. The fact that National doesn't tells us they are neither honest, nor interested in informing voters properly about their policies.
Meanwhile, National Leader Simon bridges claims this is "screwing the scrum" against the opposition. Rather, it does the opposite. in the past, we have seen governments use the bully pulpit of the Treasury benches to falsely claim that the opposition is financially profligate and has a "fiscal hole". An independent Parliamentary Budget Office will protect oppositions from such behaviour, while providing the public with more information on which to base their votes. That's something an honest opposition should welcome. The fact that National doesn't tells us they are neither honest, nor interested in informing voters properly about their policies.
Corrected: Another attack on transparency
Correction: This post is entirely incorrect. Yes, the Statutes Amendment Bill removes the Māori Trustee from part 1 of schedule 1 of the Ombudsmen Act 1975. What I hadn't noticed is that it is also listed in part 2 (Organisations other than local organisations). Which means the Ombudsman will still retain jurisdiction and the trustee will still be subject to the OIA. The Māori Trustee appears to have been double-listed because they were originally managed by a government department, the Maori Trust Office. This was abolished in 2009, but while the name in part 1 was changed (and both spellings updated), the double-listing itself wasn't corrected. So, this really is a "technical, short and non-controversial" amendment.
Something I hadn't noticed: there is a Statutes Amendment Bill currently awaiting its second reading in the House. Among its many changes is an amendment to the Ombudsmen Act 1975 which would remove the Māori Trustee from the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, and thus from the Official Information Act.
What's the reason for this change? Unfortunately, the Bill doesn't say. The explanatory note simply says that the amendment is to "remove redundant references, insert an updated reference to the State Services Commission, and update spelling in 5 items." But the Māori Trustee hasn't been disestablished, and it does not appear to have changed into another form of entity already covered by another part of the Act, so it doesn't seem to be redundant. Perhaps the government feels it is inappropriate for the Trustee to remain subject to the Act. But if so, firstly, they need to make the case, and secondly, that doesn't seem to meet the "technical, short and non-controversial" requirement for inclusion in a Statutes Amendment Bill.
I've sent in an OIA request to Andrew Little, who (under the usual approval process had to sign off on this amendment). Hopefully that will provide a justification for this change. If none is forthcoming, or it is simply a desire on the part of the Trustee for more secrecy, then I will be seeking an MP to object to the clause at the Committee Stage, which would see it removed from the bill.
What's the reason for this change? Unfortunately, the Bill doesn't say. The explanatory note simply says that the amendment is to "remove redundant references, insert an updated reference to the State Services Commission, and update spelling in 5 items." But the Māori Trustee hasn't been disestablished, and it does not appear to have changed into another form of entity already covered by another part of the Act, so it doesn't seem to be redundant. Perhaps the government feels it is inappropriate for the Trustee to remain subject to the Act. But if so, firstly, they need to make the case, and secondly, that doesn't seem to meet the "technical, short and non-controversial" requirement for inclusion in a Statutes Amendment Bill.
I've sent in an OIA request to Andrew Little, who (under the usual approval process had to sign off on this amendment). Hopefully that will provide a justification for this change. If none is forthcoming, or it is simply a desire on the part of the Trustee for more secrecy, then I will be seeking an MP to object to the clause at the Committee Stage, which would see it removed from the bill.
Member's Day: End of Life Choice, part 2
Today is a Member's day, and after the third reading of Hamish Walker's KiwiSaver (Oranga Tamariki Guardians) Amendment Bill, Parliament will be continuing the committee stage of David Seymour's End of Life Choice Bill. The bigots have put up another pile of amendments in an effort to delay or wreck the bill, which is going to mean a large number of personal votes. So its likely that the House will sit late, as they did last time, in an effort to get through them all.
If they're doing a part per sitting day, this will drag on for at least another month, and there's still a pile of second readings stacked up on the Order Paper as well. So we won't be seeing a ballot any time soon.
If they're doing a part per sitting day, this will drag on for at least another month, and there's still a pile of second readings stacked up on the Order Paper as well. So we won't be seeing a ballot any time soon.
Tuesday, August 20, 2019
Oh Canada
Canada is having an election in the next few months, and (perhaps because their Prime Minister is so nice and reasonable) they have a party running on a platform of Trumpism and climate change denial. But there's a twist: the latter means that it will be illegal for anyone in Canada to state the scientific fact that climate change is real:
Fortunately, they repealed the clause which would have made it illegal for anyone else in the world to talk about climate change.
Obviously, this is a nonsensical position. If a politician says the sky is green or that 2+2=5, everyone gets gagged from saying otherwise, in any context, unless they include a promoter statement? If a politician says they don't believe in the germ theory of disease, no-one else can say "wash your fucking hands"? In NZ, we avoid this problem by a "may reasonably be regarded as" clause, which rules out such silliness. Canada's definition of "election advertising" does not include such a clause. Of course, its still subject to the affirmation of freedom of expression in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and you'd think that would imply a reasonableness test. But the only way to find that out is to get prosecuted and challenge it in court. Which is simply a terrible way to do electoral law, especially given the consequences for getting it wrong (notably, charities face deregistration if they engage in "partisan political activity" - a definition which until now hasn't included environmental advocacy).
Hopefully Elections Canada will reverse this obviously unreasonable advice. If not, well, I guess we'll find out what civil disobedience to electoral law looks like.
A pre-election chill has descended over some environment charities after Elections Canada warned them that discussing the dangers of climate change during the upcoming federal campaign could be deemed partisan activity.
An Elections Canada official warned groups in a training session earlier this summer that because Maxime Bernier, the leader of the People’s Party of Canada, has expressed doubts about the legitimacy of climate change, any group that promotes it as real or an emergency could be considered partisan, said Tim Gray, executive director of the advocacy group Environmental Defence.
The Canada Elections Act dictates that advertising by third parties, like environment groups, can be considered partisan if it promotes or disputes an issue raised by any party or candidate during the campaign period, even without mentioning that party or candidate by name. If the ad campaign on that issue costs at least $500, the third party has to register as such with Elections Canada.
Fortunately, they repealed the clause which would have made it illegal for anyone else in the world to talk about climate change.
Obviously, this is a nonsensical position. If a politician says the sky is green or that 2+2=5, everyone gets gagged from saying otherwise, in any context, unless they include a promoter statement? If a politician says they don't believe in the germ theory of disease, no-one else can say "wash your fucking hands"? In NZ, we avoid this problem by a "may reasonably be regarded as" clause, which rules out such silliness. Canada's definition of "election advertising" does not include such a clause. Of course, its still subject to the affirmation of freedom of expression in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and you'd think that would imply a reasonableness test. But the only way to find that out is to get prosecuted and challenge it in court. Which is simply a terrible way to do electoral law, especially given the consequences for getting it wrong (notably, charities face deregistration if they engage in "partisan political activity" - a definition which until now hasn't included environmental advocacy).
Hopefully Elections Canada will reverse this obviously unreasonable advice. If not, well, I guess we'll find out what civil disobedience to electoral law looks like.
Monday, August 19, 2019
Australia should be suspended from the Pacific Forum
Last week, Australia sabotaged the Pacific Forum by opposing action on climate change. Their Deputy Prime Minister followed that up by saying that Pacific Peoples could always pick Australian fruit - just as they had done in the era of blackbirding. And now, that arrogant, tone-deaf approach has drawn a response, with former Kiribatian President Anote Tong calling for Australia to be kicked out of the Pacific Forum:
And he's right. Australia, by its actions, is trying to drown much of the rest of the Forum, and literally wipe their nations from the face of the Earth. Such an attitude seems completely inconsistent with membership. Australia should be suspended until it changes it policies so as to no longer pose a direct threat to the existence of its neighbours.
Australia should be sanctioned or suspended from the Pacific Islands Forum over the Morrison government's pro-coal stance, Kiribati's former president, Anote Tong, says.
The Sydney Morning Herald reported Mr Tong saying if a country causes harm to others, such as by fuelling climate change, "there should be sanctions".
Mr Tong, who has long been an advocate for low-lying nations facing catastrophe as sea levels rise, said the Australian government's recent approval of Adani's Carmichael coal mine was an example of "ignoring the science that's coming forward".
And he's right. Australia, by its actions, is trying to drown much of the rest of the Forum, and literally wipe their nations from the face of the Earth. Such an attitude seems completely inconsistent with membership. Australia should be suspended until it changes it policies so as to no longer pose a direct threat to the existence of its neighbours.
Winning the battle on feebates
It looks like the government has won over the public on its vehicle feebate scheme:
And its obvious why: because raising vehicle fuel efficiency standards and making drivers of dirty cars pay for clean ones is a no-brainer, and people can see it has been successful overseas. The problem is that it doesn't go far enough - standards imposed too slowly, and no final cutoff for fossil fuels - not that its a bad idea.
And meanwhile, National is still trying to pretend that its a "tax grab" or solely about subsidising expensive electric vehicles and luxury cars. Its not. The policy is designed to be roughly revenue neutral, and drivers of gas-guzzling utes will mostly be paying to subsidise fuel efficient fossil-fuel vehicles, like Honda Fits and Nissan Notes. Sure, Leafs and expensive new EVs will also get a subsidy - but they make up only 2% of new registrations, and while that number will increase, its very obviously not where the money will be going. Its an utterly dishonest position. But I guess that's the National Party for you: preferring deceit to honest policy criticism.
A feebate scheme that would transfer hundreds of millions of dollars from buyers of higher-emission cars into the pockets of people buying EVs and other more fuel-efficient vehicles has been winning favour with submitters, the Government says.
Associate Transport Minister Julie Anne Genter said about 80 per cent of the online responses the Transport Ministry had so far received in response to a discussion paper on the feebate scheme and an associated "clean car standard" had supported the policies.
And its obvious why: because raising vehicle fuel efficiency standards and making drivers of dirty cars pay for clean ones is a no-brainer, and people can see it has been successful overseas. The problem is that it doesn't go far enough - standards imposed too slowly, and no final cutoff for fossil fuels - not that its a bad idea.
And meanwhile, National is still trying to pretend that its a "tax grab" or solely about subsidising expensive electric vehicles and luxury cars. Its not. The policy is designed to be roughly revenue neutral, and drivers of gas-guzzling utes will mostly be paying to subsidise fuel efficient fossil-fuel vehicles, like Honda Fits and Nissan Notes. Sure, Leafs and expensive new EVs will also get a subsidy - but they make up only 2% of new registrations, and while that number will increase, its very obviously not where the money will be going. Its an utterly dishonest position. But I guess that's the National Party for you: preferring deceit to honest policy criticism.
Dead white males
Over the weekend Stuff had an analysis of the demographics of our local body "representatives". It was a horrifying read. The average councillor is dead, white, and male, and there are more councillors named "John" than there are councillors born after 1980. Representative? Not very. Local government is basicly a gerontocracy. And that explains a great deal about why our councils deny climate change, skimp on social services, and persistently underfund infrastructure by Keeping Rates Low.
So what can we do about it? The first step is encouraging people who aren't dead white males to run, and there's some promising signs this year. But ultimately it comes down to us at the ballot box (or rather, the voting form). And for that, there's some simple rules to rebalance our representation:
So what can we do about it? The first step is encouraging people who aren't dead white males to run, and there's some promising signs this year. But ultimately it comes down to us at the ballot box (or rather, the voting form). And for that, there's some simple rules to rebalance our representation:
- Vote for women
- Vote for young people
- Don't vote for anyone named "John"
A matter of consistency
When people suggest lowering the voting age, others argue that the young are too uneducated or silly to exercise the duties of citizenship. Australian John Quiggin has just blown that argument out of the water:
Democracies don't do that, of course. Regardless of their poor education, stupidity, and irresponsibility, old people still have interests and those interests need to be represented. So rather than taking the vote off old people, we should instead extend it to 16 year olds. Its a simple matter of consistency.
Looking at the array of ignorant and vindictive old men attacking Greta Thunberg and other young climate activists, the case for lowering the voting age is just about unanswerable. Anything that could be urged in justification of stopping 16 year olds, as a group, from voting, is equally applicable to those over 60 (a group to which I belong). Over 60 voters are, on average, poorly educated (the school leaving age in Australia was 15 when they went through and I assume similar in most places), and more likely to hold a wide range of false beliefs (notably in relation to climate change).
Worse, as voters the over 60s have ceased to act, if they ever did, as wise elders seeking the best for the future. Rather (on average) they vote in a frivolous and irresponsible way, forming the support base for loudmouthed bigots and clowns... Substantively, they respond to unrealistic appeals to nostalgia, wanting to Make America Great Again, and restore the glories of the British Empire, while dismissing concerns about the future. If my age cohort were to be assessed on the criteria applied to 16 year olds, we would be disenfranchised en masse.
Democracies don't do that, of course. Regardless of their poor education, stupidity, and irresponsibility, old people still have interests and those interests need to be represented. So rather than taking the vote off old people, we should instead extend it to 16 year olds. Its a simple matter of consistency.
Friday, August 16, 2019
Not destined to be
Back in May, Destiny Church leaders Brian and Hannah Tamaki launched another political party. Despite consisting entirely of followers of their religion, they grandly called it "Coalition New Zealand", in a vain effort to suggest it was something broader. But when they applied for registration, submitters opposed the name, as being likely to mislead voters (which was perhaps the point). And as a result, they've been refused registration:
The party can simply reapply with another name. Hopefully next time they'll choose something more honest.
Meanwhile, its worth noting: this is the first party anyone can remember being refused registration for having a misleading name. Others have been refused for not having enough members, but not apparently for this reason. The closest parallel is that in 2014 the Conservatives were refused a misleading logo (it said "vote", and would have been right next to their circle on the ballot box, so likely to be viewed as a ballot-paper instruction). Which really does invite the question: what is it with bigots and deception?
The Electoral Commission has refused to register Hannah Tamaki's political party, Coalition New Zealand.
The Destiny Church-derived party was refused registration because the name and logo was likely to mislead or confuse voters, the commission confirmed on Friday.
The Tamakis launched their political party in May and claimed the country would see "politics with teeth".
The party can simply reapply with another name. Hopefully next time they'll choose something more honest.
Meanwhile, its worth noting: this is the first party anyone can remember being refused registration for having a misleading name. Others have been refused for not having enough members, but not apparently for this reason. The closest parallel is that in 2014 the Conservatives were refused a misleading logo (it said "vote", and would have been right next to their circle on the ballot box, so likely to be viewed as a ballot-paper instruction). Which really does invite the question: what is it with bigots and deception?
A real mayoral race
Last local body elections, the race for Palmerston North mayor was pretty boring - basicly being the incumbent rugby meathead vs the convicted child-beater. As a result, 1500 people (including myself) simply left that part of the ballot paper blank (vs less than 300 for the council elections). The good news is that this time, we have some actual competition. And the race has had a surprising last-minute entry from the Green Party:
This is good, both for electoral competition, and because its good to see a candidate focusing on what is really the only policy issue in town. Yes, Palmerston North is 10m above sea-level, so things have to get pretty bad before we're going to be drowned. But climate change is also going to mean floods and severe weather, which local authorities need to prepare for. More importantly, there's the need to reduce emissions to stop all that from happening, and that's something which requires leadership at all levels.
(Its also good to see the Greens running strong local body campaigns, and hopefully it'll pay off both in elected councillors and in a higher general election vote. Though, there's no-one running for Horizons carrying the Green banner, which is odd given that they decide both water quality and air pollution - which will mean CO2 if the government keeps its promises and puts climate change back in the RMA.
But its not all good news: because this time, we have not one, but two convicted child abusers running for mayor (child-beater Ross Barber is back, and he's joined by convicted child sex abuser Maruna "donut man" Engu). I guess Palmerston North is really living up to its reputation for quality mayoral candidates...
The Greens have put action on climate change centre stage for Palmerston North's mayoral election, endorsing activist Teanau Tuiono as their candidate.
The party two months ago chose incumbent councillor Brent Barrett and newcomer Renee Dingwall as council candidates, pitching Tuiono for mayor on Friday, the day nominations close.
[...]
[Tuiono] said he would stand up to tackle climate change, putting in place a local plan to prepare for the changes expected, and do what was possible to reduce effects on the environment.
This is good, both for electoral competition, and because its good to see a candidate focusing on what is really the only policy issue in town. Yes, Palmerston North is 10m above sea-level, so things have to get pretty bad before we're going to be drowned. But climate change is also going to mean floods and severe weather, which local authorities need to prepare for. More importantly, there's the need to reduce emissions to stop all that from happening, and that's something which requires leadership at all levels.
(Its also good to see the Greens running strong local body campaigns, and hopefully it'll pay off both in elected councillors and in a higher general election vote. Though, there's no-one running for Horizons carrying the Green banner, which is odd given that they decide both water quality and air pollution - which will mean CO2 if the government keeps its promises and puts climate change back in the RMA.
But its not all good news: because this time, we have not one, but two convicted child abusers running for mayor (child-beater Ross Barber is back, and he's joined by convicted child sex abuser Maruna "donut man" Engu). I guess Palmerston North is really living up to its reputation for quality mayoral candidates...
Climate Change: Fuck Australia
The Pacific is on the front line of climate change, and if we don't cut emissions quickly, some countries are literally going to be underwater. Because of this, small Pacific states had tried to use this week's Pacific Islands Forum meeting to get Pacific countries to agree to ending coal use. Australia sabotaged it:
So Australia's attitude is that the Pacific can drown before they will stop using coal (oh, and if climate refugees come to Australia, they'll put them in a concentration camp). That's not really being a good neighbour. Its certainly not being decent human beings. But Australia hasn't been either for a long time, has it?
Which is just another reason to not buy Australian - because if you do, you're effectively funding coal burning and the drowning of the Pacific.
Australia has stymied efforts by small island states to get Pacific-wide consensus on their declaration for stronger action on climate change.
Regional leaders, including Australia and New Zealand, held 12-hour talks in the tiny Pacific nation of Tuvalu for this year's Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), eventually reaching an agreement on a statement on climate change and a communique early this morning.
They could not reach agreement on the Tuvalu Declaration made by smaller Pacific countries, instead drafting a separate Kainaki II Declaration, with different terms on coal use and emissions reduction.
The finished communique comes with a qualification that means the leaders do not support all of the declaration from the smaller nations.
So Australia's attitude is that the Pacific can drown before they will stop using coal (oh, and if climate refugees come to Australia, they'll put them in a concentration camp). That's not really being a good neighbour. Its certainly not being decent human beings. But Australia hasn't been either for a long time, has it?
Which is just another reason to not buy Australian - because if you do, you're effectively funding coal burning and the drowning of the Pacific.
Thursday, August 15, 2019
Nazis, prisons and mail
Everyone was outraged yesterday to learn that the Christchurch shooting accused had been able to send mail from prison to his Nazi fans, apparently pushing more hate. "How could this possibly happen", people asked. Simple: because New Zealand is a civilised country, and so we let prisoners send and receive mail.
The right of prisoners to send and receive mail is stated very clearly in the Corrections Act: "A prisoner may send and receive as much mail as the prisoner wishes". In fact the law goes further, because the Corrections Regulations state that the prison must pay for postage for up to three standard letters per week (plus another three to prison inspectors or the Ombudsman). We do this for simple and obvious reasons: firstly, simple freedom of speech, which prisoners retain despite being in prison. Secondly, because communication with the outside world helps prisoners maintain their social relationships, and that's one of the key drivers of reoffending (in that if they don't have any beyond the prison walls, they tend to reoffend). For the same reason, we let prisoners make phone calls (I have no idea if they're allowed to receive email, but they should be allowed to do that too, given the way social relationships have all moved online).
This right isn't a blank cheque. Mail is monitored. It may be opened and read. Incoming or outgoing mail (or items in it) can be withheld for various reasons, including consent, court orders, and preventing the commission of further offences. In particular, it can be withheld if it appears to "promote or encourage the commission of an offence, or involve, or facilitate the commission or possible commission of, an offence". The letter in question may fall into that category. So, the first lesson here is Corrections fucked up. Because the letter was marked as having been screened, and they let it through.
Corrections' immediate response to publicly fucking up is to ban the prisoner from sending or receiving any more mail. Which I guess protects them from fucking up again, but it is simply illegal. The right to send or receive mail is not a privilege that can be withheld, but a minimum entitlement specified in law. It can be withheld only under narrow, legally defined circumstances. The closest one is probably s69(2) - that there is an emergency in the prison, a threat to the prison's security or to someone's health or safety. But I think even the latter is pushing shit uphill, and in any case the ban must be for no more time than is reasonable in the circumstances. And in this case, the amount of time that is reasonable in the circumstances is zero, because the correct response to Corrections failing to screen mail properly is not to ban someone from sending anything, but to do their fucking job properly.
The longer-term response is the real problem. Firstly, because the government is apparently reviewing the law and threatening to change it, and that law exists for good reasons. If they move to amend it, it'll be a perfect example of hard cases making bad law, and long-term interests around rehabilitation being threatened by the short-term ones of politicians around re-election.
(While we're on politicians, journalists are badgering both the Minister and Corrections for details of what mail has been sent. But its a criminal offence to tell them, and indeed, a criminal offence for the prison manager to tell anyone higher up the food chain, and in particular, the Minister. And if they've done the latter, then they need to be prosecuted - because prison officers, like police, must obey the law, and must be held strictly accountable when they do not, to prevent the whole institution from going rotten).
Secondly, the Minister has told Corrections "this can not happen again". Which means that every prisoner's mail is now going to be subject to the "front page of the Dom-Post" test by overenthusiastic Corrections officers, resulting in more stuff being unlawfully withheld for an essentially political purpose of "avoiding embarrassing the Minister". Corrections, being natural arseholes, will have no problem with that whatsoever. But its both illegal and stupid, in that it undermines long-term rehabilitation (and remember: we're not barbarians, so everyone in a New Zealand prison eventually gets out. Everyone. Yes, even the Nazi shooting accused, if he is convicted). Fortunately, this is probably self-correcting, because prisoners can complain to the Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman will force Corrections to obey the law. And if that fails, Arthur Taylor will sue them and win.
The right of prisoners to send and receive mail is stated very clearly in the Corrections Act: "A prisoner may send and receive as much mail as the prisoner wishes". In fact the law goes further, because the Corrections Regulations state that the prison must pay for postage for up to three standard letters per week (plus another three to prison inspectors or the Ombudsman). We do this for simple and obvious reasons: firstly, simple freedom of speech, which prisoners retain despite being in prison. Secondly, because communication with the outside world helps prisoners maintain their social relationships, and that's one of the key drivers of reoffending (in that if they don't have any beyond the prison walls, they tend to reoffend). For the same reason, we let prisoners make phone calls (I have no idea if they're allowed to receive email, but they should be allowed to do that too, given the way social relationships have all moved online).
This right isn't a blank cheque. Mail is monitored. It may be opened and read. Incoming or outgoing mail (or items in it) can be withheld for various reasons, including consent, court orders, and preventing the commission of further offences. In particular, it can be withheld if it appears to "promote or encourage the commission of an offence, or involve, or facilitate the commission or possible commission of, an offence". The letter in question may fall into that category. So, the first lesson here is Corrections fucked up. Because the letter was marked as having been screened, and they let it through.
Corrections' immediate response to publicly fucking up is to ban the prisoner from sending or receiving any more mail. Which I guess protects them from fucking up again, but it is simply illegal. The right to send or receive mail is not a privilege that can be withheld, but a minimum entitlement specified in law. It can be withheld only under narrow, legally defined circumstances. The closest one is probably s69(2) - that there is an emergency in the prison, a threat to the prison's security or to someone's health or safety. But I think even the latter is pushing shit uphill, and in any case the ban must be for no more time than is reasonable in the circumstances. And in this case, the amount of time that is reasonable in the circumstances is zero, because the correct response to Corrections failing to screen mail properly is not to ban someone from sending anything, but to do their fucking job properly.
The longer-term response is the real problem. Firstly, because the government is apparently reviewing the law and threatening to change it, and that law exists for good reasons. If they move to amend it, it'll be a perfect example of hard cases making bad law, and long-term interests around rehabilitation being threatened by the short-term ones of politicians around re-election.
(While we're on politicians, journalists are badgering both the Minister and Corrections for details of what mail has been sent. But its a criminal offence to tell them, and indeed, a criminal offence for the prison manager to tell anyone higher up the food chain, and in particular, the Minister. And if they've done the latter, then they need to be prosecuted - because prison officers, like police, must obey the law, and must be held strictly accountable when they do not, to prevent the whole institution from going rotten).
Secondly, the Minister has told Corrections "this can not happen again". Which means that every prisoner's mail is now going to be subject to the "front page of the Dom-Post" test by overenthusiastic Corrections officers, resulting in more stuff being unlawfully withheld for an essentially political purpose of "avoiding embarrassing the Minister". Corrections, being natural arseholes, will have no problem with that whatsoever. But its both illegal and stupid, in that it undermines long-term rehabilitation (and remember: we're not barbarians, so everyone in a New Zealand prison eventually gets out. Everyone. Yes, even the Nazi shooting accused, if he is convicted). Fortunately, this is probably self-correcting, because prisoners can complain to the Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman will force Corrections to obey the law. And if that fails, Arthur Taylor will sue them and win.
A good start
If we are to avoid dangerous anthropogenic climate change, we need to rapidly decarbonise our transport fleet. The good news: its starting to happen:
That's an annual increase of 70%. But we have a long, long way to go: EVs only make up 2% of quarterly vehicle registrations, and at current rates it'll be a decade before its even 25%. There are doubts whether that rate will continue, but if the technology matures and cheapens over that time, and an "electric car" just becomes a "car", then it will. But if we want it to remain high, we will need policy. The government's feebate scheme will help, when it kicks in - and it will certainly help reduce the dirtiness of the fossil fuel fleet. The just-announced support for EV trials and charging stations will help too. But in the long run, we need to push people towards EVs, by calling time on fossil fuel vehicles - both new imports and re-registrations. Unfortunately, our government is too chickenshit to do that.
The number of electric vehicles on New Zealand's roads have nearly tripled in the past two years.
There are currently 15,453 registered electric vehicles (EVs), up from 5,363 in October 2017.
That's an annual increase of 70%. But we have a long, long way to go: EVs only make up 2% of quarterly vehicle registrations, and at current rates it'll be a decade before its even 25%. There are doubts whether that rate will continue, but if the technology matures and cheapens over that time, and an "electric car" just becomes a "car", then it will. But if we want it to remain high, we will need policy. The government's feebate scheme will help, when it kicks in - and it will certainly help reduce the dirtiness of the fossil fuel fleet. The just-announced support for EV trials and charging stations will help too. But in the long run, we need to push people towards EVs, by calling time on fossil fuel vehicles - both new imports and re-registrations. Unfortunately, our government is too chickenshit to do that.
Against facial recognition
Yesterday, we learned that Auckland Transport wanted to turn Auckland into a surveillance state, with an extra 8,000 cameras equipped with facial recognition technology. Today, we learned that the police want to use those cameras:
Or, to put it another way: they're open to engaging in mass-surveillance and spying on innocent members of the public going about their daily business, in the hope of catching a few criminals. Except that its a forlorn hope, because facial recognition has false positive rates between 81% and 96%. Meaning that if they try and make an arrest based on a "match", they'll be harassing an innocent person four times out of five, or 24 times out of 25. Which may work fine in a police state like China, but imagine what it does to the police's social licence in New Zealand.
Using facial recognition cameras is mass surveillance. Instead of encouraging Auckland Transport, we should be outlawing this intrusive technology and the tracking it enables and entails.
The new cameras are capable of facial recognition but Auckland Transport (AT) said this function was not used.
However, police are interested in it.
"Police does not currently have the ability to run facial recognition off live CCTV cameras," a police spokesperson said in a statement.
"However, we would always be open to using new and developing technologies in the future, balanced against relevant legislation."
Or, to put it another way: they're open to engaging in mass-surveillance and spying on innocent members of the public going about their daily business, in the hope of catching a few criminals. Except that its a forlorn hope, because facial recognition has false positive rates between 81% and 96%. Meaning that if they try and make an arrest based on a "match", they'll be harassing an innocent person four times out of five, or 24 times out of 25. Which may work fine in a police state like China, but imagine what it does to the police's social licence in New Zealand.
Using facial recognition cameras is mass surveillance. Instead of encouraging Auckland Transport, we should be outlawing this intrusive technology and the tracking it enables and entails.
Wednesday, August 14, 2019
Drowning our taonga
The government has announced plans to move the Treaty of Waitangi and other taonga to a new site. Great news! So where are they going? Right next to the old one:
Huh. Isn't that close to the pre-colonial shoreline? I wonder how it looks on the Wellington City Council's interactive climate flooding map, with their expected sea-level rise of 1.5 metres?
So basicly, the government plans to move everything to a site which will be on the beach within 80 years, and subject to erosion and flooding. I don't think that's a good idea. Instead, the government should be seeking to minimise its climate risk. And that means taking this opportunity to move the archives out of Thorndon, to somewhere well above sea-level. Like Karori.
The new plan will see a new 22,000-square-metre archive built on the former site of Defence House - the former Defence Force headquarters demolished after the 2016 Kaikoura earthquake - to home the documents.
Huh. Isn't that close to the pre-colonial shoreline? I wonder how it looks on the Wellington City Council's interactive climate flooding map, with their expected sea-level rise of 1.5 metres?
So basicly, the government plans to move everything to a site which will be on the beach within 80 years, and subject to erosion and flooding. I don't think that's a good idea. Instead, the government should be seeking to minimise its climate risk. And that means taking this opportunity to move the archives out of Thorndon, to somewhere well above sea-level. Like Karori.
Data Ventures: StatsNZ plays startup
Back in June, StatsNZ went public about a project to track population data on an hourly level by using people's cellphones. It wasn't as bad as it initially looked - they were receiving no individual data, only counts by suburb - but there was still a huge consent problem, so I sent off an OIA to try and find out more. Thanks to commercial sensitivity redactions, the OIA wasn't very informative about that (it basicly boils down to StatsNZ is trusting cellphone providers' clickwrap licences, which does not meet the ethical standard I expect from a government agency). But it was quite informative about Data Ventures, the StatsNZ subsidiary responsible. And what it shows is unsettling.
Here's StatsNZ's initial pitch to the Minister of Statistics about Data Ventures, and here's their "strategy session" to define what they want to do:
Revenue is top of the list, but it won't come from selling Stats' (or rather, our) data. Instead, they'll be providing commercial data analysis services. But they tell the Minister they'll be using this revenue to fund social good ventures, so its a bit confused there. More confusing is their talk of "providing [a] new reputation for stats" as "disruptive" - they use this word a lot. Basicly, it sounds like a bunch of public servants playing at startups with government money - and its an impression confirmed by their monthly reports, which are all about sales pitches and innovation shows and grovelling for grants (frequently from other government agencies) to get a "longer runway". This is not the culture of the public service, and it makes me wonder what the hell is going on over there. And when they talk about wanting to "infect the organisation" with their values, well, that's a worry. And maybe the sort of thing the State Services Commission needs to be looking at.
But most worrying is this bit, from their pitch to the Minister:
In other words, they're going to use these contracts to hoover up private data for government use. There's no evidence they've done this yet - Data Ventures is still in its early days, and has only just delivered its first product - but that's one of the goals. And its a concern, because inevitably that data is going to end up in the Integrated Data Infrastructure, Stats' big brother pile of everything government has ever learned about you, where it will be mined for future "insights" (meaning: ways to cut funds somewhere or interfere in your life).
StatsNZ has a huge social licence problem at the moment, with using data collected for one purpose for something completely different without any sort of consent. Feeding private data into the IDI on the basis of commercial clickwrap licences is just going to add to that. And this is dangerous, because it undermines trust, and StatsNZ is an organisation we need to be able to trust. Maybe they should focus a bit more on that, rather than all the cool things they can do with Really Big Databases full of stolen data.
Here's StatsNZ's initial pitch to the Minister of Statistics about Data Ventures, and here's their "strategy session" to define what they want to do:
Revenue is top of the list, but it won't come from selling Stats' (or rather, our) data. Instead, they'll be providing commercial data analysis services. But they tell the Minister they'll be using this revenue to fund social good ventures, so its a bit confused there. More confusing is their talk of "providing [a] new reputation for stats" as "disruptive" - they use this word a lot. Basicly, it sounds like a bunch of public servants playing at startups with government money - and its an impression confirmed by their monthly reports, which are all about sales pitches and innovation shows and grovelling for grants (frequently from other government agencies) to get a "longer runway". This is not the culture of the public service, and it makes me wonder what the hell is going on over there. And when they talk about wanting to "infect the organisation" with their values, well, that's a worry. And maybe the sort of thing the State Services Commission needs to be looking at.
But most worrying is this bit, from their pitch to the Minister:
All data acquired and created by Data Ventures is fed to Stats NZ for noncommercial benefits, such as improving existing data and statistical outputs.
In other words, they're going to use these contracts to hoover up private data for government use. There's no evidence they've done this yet - Data Ventures is still in its early days, and has only just delivered its first product - but that's one of the goals. And its a concern, because inevitably that data is going to end up in the Integrated Data Infrastructure, Stats' big brother pile of everything government has ever learned about you, where it will be mined for future "insights" (meaning: ways to cut funds somewhere or interfere in your life).
StatsNZ has a huge social licence problem at the moment, with using data collected for one purpose for something completely different without any sort of consent. Feeding private data into the IDI on the basis of commercial clickwrap licences is just going to add to that. And this is dangerous, because it undermines trust, and StatsNZ is an organisation we need to be able to trust. Maybe they should focus a bit more on that, rather than all the cool things they can do with Really Big Databases full of stolen data.
Tuesday, August 13, 2019
Climate Change: Say no to carbon cheats
The Environment Committee is currently hearing submissions on the Zero Carbon Bill, and Stuff is reporting on the submissions. Today, they're covering yesterday they heard from "NZ" Steel:
They want the committee to remove restrictions on foreign carbon credits, allowing them to meet their carbon costs from international markets. Of course they do. Because before the government outlawed the use of such credits, "NZ" Steel (actually foreign owned by Aussie polluters Bluescope) were one of the biggest carbon cheats in the country. The scam was simple: the government gave them hundreds of thousands of tons of valuable NZ units as a pollution subsidy, but instead of using them, they banked or sold them, paying instead in fraudulent Ukranian "credits" which had no environmental benefit whatsoever. And they scammed us for millions by doing so: NZ units traded for $4.20 at the time ($25 now), while Ukranian credits cost a tenth of that. If they banked those credits for use now - effectively paying off all their previous obligations with fraud - then they're sitting on tens of millions of dollars of fraudulent profits.
Naturally, they want to start this scam again. We should refuse. Instead, we should be cutting their pollution subsidy - currently 1.4 million tons a year - and demanding they stand on their own feet. And if they close, good riddance - they emit 2.5 tons of CO2 per ton of steel, against an international benchmark of 2 tons CO2 per ton of steel, so shutting them down is a net environmental gain.
NZ Steel has told MPs it may be forced to close with the loss of thousands of jobs if changes aren't made to the Climate Change Response Bill which is being considered by Parliament.
[...]
But NZ Steel said in a submission to Parliament's Environment select committee that by failing to adequately recognise the issue of "competitiveness", the legislation could kill the industry.
"There is a very real prospect ... we may set up policy decisions that could result in the closure of steel-making in New Zealand," it warned.
They want the committee to remove restrictions on foreign carbon credits, allowing them to meet their carbon costs from international markets. Of course they do. Because before the government outlawed the use of such credits, "NZ" Steel (actually foreign owned by Aussie polluters Bluescope) were one of the biggest carbon cheats in the country. The scam was simple: the government gave them hundreds of thousands of tons of valuable NZ units as a pollution subsidy, but instead of using them, they banked or sold them, paying instead in fraudulent Ukranian "credits" which had no environmental benefit whatsoever. And they scammed us for millions by doing so: NZ units traded for $4.20 at the time ($25 now), while Ukranian credits cost a tenth of that. If they banked those credits for use now - effectively paying off all their previous obligations with fraud - then they're sitting on tens of millions of dollars of fraudulent profits.
Naturally, they want to start this scam again. We should refuse. Instead, we should be cutting their pollution subsidy - currently 1.4 million tons a year - and demanding they stand on their own feet. And if they close, good riddance - they emit 2.5 tons of CO2 per ton of steel, against an international benchmark of 2 tons CO2 per ton of steel, so shutting them down is a net environmental gain.
Strike for a future on September 27
Students are striking against climate change on September 27. And this time, they're asking everyone to join them:
I'll be joining them. I hope you will too. As the article says, pressuring politicians is one of the most powerful things you can do to stop climate change. Sure, you can eat less meat, not fly, use public transport or an electric car, and all of that by everyone adds up. But real change needs policy, and that needs politicians to get the message that if they don't do something about this, they will be de-elected and replaced with someone who will. And that needs people making their anger and demands known.
As the article makes clear, this matters to all of us. If you want a future, strike for the climate on September 27.
Students are taking to the streets, beaches and parks on 27 September, and we're inviting everyone to join us. That's right, this is an intergenerational issue, and you're all invited to put pressure on politicians worldwide to pass bills which will take action to reduce the impacts of climate change.
[...]
On 24 May, we walked out of school alongside hundreds of thousands of students around the globe. We won't sit and watch our futures disintegrate, and we invite you to join us to strengthen our movement. That's you, reading this column; that's the next person you talk to; that's the waiter who gives you your coffee and the woman sitting in front of you in the car/bus/train, it really is everyone.
Climate change isn't just a youth problem, even though it'll hit us the hardest. It's everyone's problem. Everyone has a responsibility to act, in both practical ways and through joining the strike movement on 27 September.
I'll be joining them. I hope you will too. As the article says, pressuring politicians is one of the most powerful things you can do to stop climate change. Sure, you can eat less meat, not fly, use public transport or an electric car, and all of that by everyone adds up. But real change needs policy, and that needs politicians to get the message that if they don't do something about this, they will be de-elected and replaced with someone who will. And that needs people making their anger and demands known.
As the article makes clear, this matters to all of us. If you want a future, strike for the climate on September 27.
We need to clean up local body politics
Peter McKenzie has a piece on Newsroom this morning about how local body politics is awash with property developer cash. 70% of all the donations in the 2016 Wellington mayoral election came from property developers. And its pretty obvious what they want in exchange:
There's a name for this: corruption. And its not just a Wellington problem. Back in 2007, newly elected Palmerston North Mayor pushed through a private plan change for the benefit of a trust run by one of his donors. It was later revealed that another trust run by that same donor had bankrolled 95% of his campaign. Naylor pinky-promised he wouldn't vote on issues affecting his donors again, but it didn't matter - the donor had already got what they wanted. The nexus of power and poor oversight around local government and zoning decisions invites corruption - just as it does in Australia.
What to do about it? There are obvious measures. Greater transparency - down to $50 or $100, rolling disclosure so we can see who is being bought and when, a cap on individual donations to limit the power of the rich and encourage fundraising from small donors. There's also just outright public funding (used in Canada) or "Democracy vouchers" (used in Seattle), where everyone can assign money to a candidate of their choice. To that, I'd chuck in outlawing local body members from discussing or voting on issues where donor's interests may be impacted - making such donations effectively self-defeating.
Politicians will complain, but ultimately this is a question of who we want our local body politicians to work for: us, or property developers. Of whether we want our local government to be honest, or corrupt. And the answer to those questions ought to be obvious.
That’s particularly important in local government, according to Rashbrooke. “Local government is pretty weak in New Zealand. The one thing they have huge influence over is urban planning - what to build, and where, and with what restrictions.” It’s the kind of decision-making that can have a huge impact on a property developer, says Chapple. “It benefits the donors because the Wellington City Council is making decisions under the regional plan that greatly affect their bottom line.”
It’s the kind of decision-making which will have a huge impact on Cassells’ bottom line in particular. Cassels and his companies have been the driving force behind the controversial $500 million Shelly Bay development in southern Wellington. The Shelly Bay development has had to secure approval from Wellington City Council (WCC) at multiple points over the past five years, including to secure Special Housing Area status in 2015 and to purchase or lease WCC land in Shelly Bay in 2017. After a lengthy court battle, the Shelly Bay development is still trying to get approval to proceed.
Cassels made no identifiable donations to candidates in the 2013 WCC elections; he only began to do so after the Shelly Bay development started making its way through the council approval process.
There's a name for this: corruption. And its not just a Wellington problem. Back in 2007, newly elected Palmerston North Mayor pushed through a private plan change for the benefit of a trust run by one of his donors. It was later revealed that another trust run by that same donor had bankrolled 95% of his campaign. Naylor pinky-promised he wouldn't vote on issues affecting his donors again, but it didn't matter - the donor had already got what they wanted. The nexus of power and poor oversight around local government and zoning decisions invites corruption - just as it does in Australia.
What to do about it? There are obvious measures. Greater transparency - down to $50 or $100, rolling disclosure so we can see who is being bought and when, a cap on individual donations to limit the power of the rich and encourage fundraising from small donors. There's also just outright public funding (used in Canada) or "Democracy vouchers" (used in Seattle), where everyone can assign money to a candidate of their choice. To that, I'd chuck in outlawing local body members from discussing or voting on issues where donor's interests may be impacted - making such donations effectively self-defeating.
Politicians will complain, but ultimately this is a question of who we want our local body politicians to work for: us, or property developers. Of whether we want our local government to be honest, or corrupt. And the answer to those questions ought to be obvious.
Monday, August 12, 2019
Submit!
The Justice Committee has called for submissions on the Electoral Amendment Bill. The bill makes a number of technical changes to electoral administration, and while these are good, it could do so much more. Obvious things to demand in your submission:
- Greater transparency around donations, including lower the donation disclosure threshold to $1500 and requiring rolling disclosure so we can see who is buying our politicians as it happens;
- Removing the 5% threshold, or at least accepting the Electoral Commission recommendation to lower it to 4%;
- Restoring voting rights for prisoners to remove an ongoing breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and the BORA.
Scandalised
When the Justice Committee reported back on the Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill, free speech advocates breathed a sigh of relief. As originally introduced, the Bill reitered the ancient offence of "scandalising the court" - basicly, a special sedition law protecting judges from criticism. The select committee, following practice overseas, removed it. But now, thanks to an amendment introduced out of the blue at the committee stage, its back:
Really? The law imposes a penalty of up to 6 months imprisonment for making a "false accusation" about a court or a judge. The basis for it is that judges are important people doing an important job and therefore public confidence in them shouldn't be undermined by false accusations. But politicians and public sector CEOs are also important people doing an important job. Does Little think people making false accusations and undermining public confidence in them should also be thrown in jail?
But don't take it from me. Here's Geoffrey Palmer, basicly the architect of the BORA, on the subject (quoted on Scoop because the NZLJ is behind a corporate paywall):
And to that I'd add: if the confidence of the public in judicial institutions rests solely on the threat of jail - that is, on terror - then they deserve neither our confidence or our protection. The fairness, impartiality and competence of our courts and judges should speak for itself, and it usually does (usually). The real threat to public confidence is not wild accusations on websites no-one pays attention to - but laws such as this.
This bill should be recalled to committee and this clause removed before it is allowed to pass. Laws which protect the powerful and punish their critics have no place on our statute books.
The Government is pushing to protect the integrity of the judiciary by limiting free speech and making it illegal to publish fake news about the courts, also known as "scandalising the court".
And it has taken aim at National MP Nick Smith, using his contempt of court conviction from 2004 as a reason for justifying the move.
Justice Minister Andrew Little said a new clause in the Contempt of Court bill, currently awaiting its third reading in Parliament, is a justified limitation on free speech to protect the administration of justice.
Really? The law imposes a penalty of up to 6 months imprisonment for making a "false accusation" about a court or a judge. The basis for it is that judges are important people doing an important job and therefore public confidence in them shouldn't be undermined by false accusations. But politicians and public sector CEOs are also important people doing an important job. Does Little think people making false accusations and undermining public confidence in them should also be thrown in jail?
But don't take it from me. Here's Geoffrey Palmer, basicly the architect of the BORA, on the subject (quoted on Scoop because the NZLJ is behind a corporate paywall):
This new offence amounts to a statutory libel on a judge or a court. The judiciary are part of the system of government, although independent from Parliament and the Executive. False statements made in attacks upon the government are no longer punishable under the criminal law of libel and slander and sedition. Why should it be any different for the judiciary and the system of justice than for the political arms of government? ... These provisions in the Bill seem to be bringing back an approach to speech that has recently been rejected by the Parliament.
And to that I'd add: if the confidence of the public in judicial institutions rests solely on the threat of jail - that is, on terror - then they deserve neither our confidence or our protection. The fairness, impartiality and competence of our courts and judges should speak for itself, and it usually does (usually). The real threat to public confidence is not wild accusations on websites no-one pays attention to - but laws such as this.
This bill should be recalled to committee and this clause removed before it is allowed to pass. Laws which protect the powerful and punish their critics have no place on our statute books.
A reminder
Eighteen months ago, the government promised to strengthen the Bill of Rights Act, by explicitly affirming the power of the courts to issue declarations of inconsistency and requiring Parliament to formally respond to them.
Since then - crickets.
Which raises the obvious question: are they actually going to do this, or is it something - like restoring voting rights to prisoners - which is "not a priority" for them?
Since then - crickets.
Which raises the obvious question: are they actually going to do this, or is it something - like restoring voting rights to prisoners - which is "not a priority" for them?
Fix the OIA
Back in March, the Ministry of Justice conducted a public consultation exercise on whether to hold a review of the Official Information Act. 285 people submitted on it. Now, Stuff has trawled through those submissions, and the case for reform is strong:
So will the government act? So far, they've been dragging their feet. A decision is due "by September", so I guess we'll know whether they're lying to us in the next three weeks.
The Justice Ministry asked Kiwis what they thought was wrong with the OIA, to help them decide if the act needs an overhaul. The 290 submissions reveal what appears to be a broken process.
Those who use the act to seek information highlight delays, excessive deletions, overuse of vague withholding grounds, political interference and an ombudsman appeal process made ineffective by sometimes years-long waits.
On the other side, officials who respond to OIA questions say requests are unwieldy and unfocused and they need more reasons to withhold information, not fewer.
The only common ground seems to be support for more information to be proactively released, the idea of an independent agency such as an Information Commission to help with training and prevent political interference and penalties for failing to comply.
So will the government act? So far, they've been dragging their feet. A decision is due "by September", so I guess we'll know whether they're lying to us in the next three weeks.
National's prisoner voting ban breaches the Treaty
National's prisoner voting ban has gone down as one of the worst laws in New Zealand history. Passed after a farcical debate (including this farcial speech from ACT MP Hilary Calvert), it has subsequently been found to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act by the High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court. And now the Waitangi Tribunal has weighed in, with a formal finding that the law and how it was passed breaches the Treaty of Waitangi:
The law has a hugely disproportionate impact on Māori, with 11.4 times more Māori than Pakeha disenfranchised in 2018. Effectively its a magnifier for racism in the justice system - and one that is completely without justification. The government could identify no purpose whatsoever for the policy, and none was identified by Parliament when they shamefully passed it.
The Tribunal has asked the government to urgently repeal the law and allow prisoners to vote in 2020, and to their credit, they're actually looking at it (having previously said it was "not a priority". Which tells you what they think of the courts and Bill of Rights Act). But they've also recommended that the government establish a system to provide a proper Treaty impact analysis of all bills before the House. That is something worth doing in and of itself, and it needs to be an independent statutory reporting function, similar to that of the Attorney-General under the BORA, so that the House cannot pretend that it has not been informed. That would be a worthwhile reform in and of itself, to ensure that Parliament upholds its Treaty obligations. Sadly, I think they'll be as eager for it as they are for any other constraint on their power.
The Tribunal found that the manner in which Crown officials offered support and advice to the Law and Order Select Committee before the 2010 law change failed to provide sufficient information about the specific effect the legislation would have on Māori, as well as on Crown rights and obligations under the Treaty.
By failing to provide adequate advice, the tribunal said the Crown had failed to actively protect Māori rights.
Additionally, they found that being unable to vote had the potential to affect Māori prisoners beyond their time in prison, impacting their whanau and their community.
The law has a hugely disproportionate impact on Māori, with 11.4 times more Māori than Pakeha disenfranchised in 2018. Effectively its a magnifier for racism in the justice system - and one that is completely without justification. The government could identify no purpose whatsoever for the policy, and none was identified by Parliament when they shamefully passed it.
The Tribunal has asked the government to urgently repeal the law and allow prisoners to vote in 2020, and to their credit, they're actually looking at it (having previously said it was "not a priority". Which tells you what they think of the courts and Bill of Rights Act). But they've also recommended that the government establish a system to provide a proper Treaty impact analysis of all bills before the House. That is something worth doing in and of itself, and it needs to be an independent statutory reporting function, similar to that of the Attorney-General under the BORA, so that the House cannot pretend that it has not been informed. That would be a worthwhile reform in and of itself, to ensure that Parliament upholds its Treaty obligations. Sadly, I think they'll be as eager for it as they are for any other constraint on their power.
Friday, August 09, 2019
Climate Change: Chickening out on a fossil-fuel vehicle cutoff
When the government announced its timid and unambitious vehicle "feebate" policy, my first question was why they hadn't coupled it with announcing a cutoff date for fossil fuel vehicle imports. Such a policy would turn off the tap of transport emissions, while providing lead time for us to electrify the vehicle fleet within the normal upgrade cycle. The feebate advice noted this had been proposed and rejected, and someone used FYI, the public OIA request site, to ask for the advice about it. The advice shows that Associate Transport Minister Julie-Anne Genter proposed a 2035 cutoff last year, but that it did not make it to Cabinet. Sadly, its completely silent on why not, but I think we can all guess.
The released advice (such as it is) also includes a cost-benefit analysis. This straps the chicken every way it can, with lowball carbon prices, arbitrary costs for "welfare impact" of people not buying the car they want (which end up making up the majority of "costs"), and most astoundingly, a "business-as-usual" emissions case which assumes that a 50% by 2050 target will be met (quite how is unclear, and assuming targets will be met when assessing policy designed to meet those targets seems to be getting things arse-backwards). But even then, it shows a BCR of 1.26, and NPV net benefits of $2.25 billion - which is hugely better than most of National's roads. So, this policy would have been beneficial, and it would have been effective at turning off the carbon tap. It is a disgrace that it was not implemented.
The released advice (such as it is) also includes a cost-benefit analysis. This straps the chicken every way it can, with lowball carbon prices, arbitrary costs for "welfare impact" of people not buying the car they want (which end up making up the majority of "costs"), and most astoundingly, a "business-as-usual" emissions case which assumes that a 50% by 2050 target will be met (quite how is unclear, and assuming targets will be met when assessing policy designed to meet those targets seems to be getting things arse-backwards). But even then, it shows a BCR of 1.26, and NPV net benefits of $2.25 billion - which is hugely better than most of National's roads. So, this policy would have been beneficial, and it would have been effective at turning off the carbon tap. It is a disgrace that it was not implemented.
Climate Change: The cost of sea-level rise
We've had some grim projections about sea-level rise in the last week, with Wellington Regional Council notifying storm surge risks for a 1m sea-level rise, and Wellington City Council expecting 1.5m by the end of the century. How much is all this going to cost us? A shit-ton:
A metre means $25 billion. Wellington's expected 1.5m means ~$38 billion. The latter is roughly the cost of the Christchurch rebuild, or about 40% of a years government spending, which is a staggering amount. And the way things are going, we'll probably find out that these were conservative estimates.
The even scarier thing is that the amount of carbon we have put into the atmosphere means we are already committed to at least a half-metre by 2100, and more after that (because warming and sea-level rise doesn't just stop after then). So we're going to be paying at least half a shit-ton. The challenge is to ensure we don't have to pay the rest of it.
Every 10cm of sea level rise puts several thousand more New Zealanders in a position they might rather avoid: living in an area that could be flooded by an extreme storm.
Modelling has found that each added 10cm puts at risk another 7,000 New Zealand buildings, worth an estimated $2.48b to replace, 133km of roads and 10km of railway line.
To put this in context, seas have already risen almost 20cm globally since pre-industrial times and 1m of sea level rise is considered a middling projection for 2100.
A metre means $25 billion. Wellington's expected 1.5m means ~$38 billion. The latter is roughly the cost of the Christchurch rebuild, or about 40% of a years government spending, which is a staggering amount. And the way things are going, we'll probably find out that these were conservative estimates.
The even scarier thing is that the amount of carbon we have put into the atmosphere means we are already committed to at least a half-metre by 2100, and more after that (because warming and sea-level rise doesn't just stop after then). So we're going to be paying at least half a shit-ton. The challenge is to ensure we don't have to pay the rest of it.
Submit!
The Abortion Legislation Committee has called for submissions on the Abortion Legislation Bill. I urge everyone who wants reform to submit - the bigots certainly will be, and they've monopolised this conversation for too long. As for what to put in your submission, I'd suggest listening to health professionals, and pushing or "option A", which would require removing new section 11, and amending new section 10 to remove any reference to a time limit. While its not in the bill, expressing opposition to a referendum on a fundamental human rights issue may also help focus the minds of MPs on opposing NZ First's SOP when it comes up.
Submissions can be made at the link above and are due by Thursday, 19 September 2019.
Submissions can be made at the link above and are due by Thursday, 19 September 2019.
Climate Change: Don't starve
Since scientists started studying climate change, they have warned that it will reduce food production. And now, its happening:
Our food crops require a specific environmental range - so much moisture, this much heat. Outside that range, they produce less, or just die. And our CO2 emissions are taking the climate in our food-growing regions further and further outside that range. Ironicly, a lot of those emissions are driven by food production itself - deforestation to clear land for agriculture, nitrous oxide from fertiliser, methane from cows and rice paddies. But regardless of the source, the net result is the same: an increased risk of famine, and all the associated disruption it causes.
Somewhat predictably, the media is focusing on the recommendation that rich, western consumers with choices eat a bit less meat - something which is neither particularly hard, nor the end of the world, but which has an outsized impact on emissions and heating. But that's not enough. Food production is responsible for between 23 and 37% of global emissions, and food is essential, so we can only reduce those emissions so far. Avoiding a collapse in global food supplies means solving the climate crisis, which in turn requires the rapid decarbonisation of the economy while planting forests to offset (and ultimately draw down) what we can't cut. And that requires policy change on a national and international level. So the most important individual action you can take is to vote for that change, and to vote out politicians, parties, and governments who oppose it.
The climate crisis is damaging the ability of the land to sustain humanity, with cascading risks becoming increasingly severe as global temperatures rise, according to a landmark UN report compiled by some of the world’s top scientists.
Global heating is increasing droughts, soil erosion and wildfires while diminishing crop yields in the tropics and thawing permafrost near the poles, says the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Further heating will lead to unprecedented climate conditions at lower latitudes, with potential growth in hunger, migration and conflict and increased damage to the great northern forests.
Our food crops require a specific environmental range - so much moisture, this much heat. Outside that range, they produce less, or just die. And our CO2 emissions are taking the climate in our food-growing regions further and further outside that range. Ironicly, a lot of those emissions are driven by food production itself - deforestation to clear land for agriculture, nitrous oxide from fertiliser, methane from cows and rice paddies. But regardless of the source, the net result is the same: an increased risk of famine, and all the associated disruption it causes.
Somewhat predictably, the media is focusing on the recommendation that rich, western consumers with choices eat a bit less meat - something which is neither particularly hard, nor the end of the world, but which has an outsized impact on emissions and heating. But that's not enough. Food production is responsible for between 23 and 37% of global emissions, and food is essential, so we can only reduce those emissions so far. Avoiding a collapse in global food supplies means solving the climate crisis, which in turn requires the rapid decarbonisation of the economy while planting forests to offset (and ultimately draw down) what we can't cut. And that requires policy change on a national and international level. So the most important individual action you can take is to vote for that change, and to vote out politicians, parties, and governments who oppose it.
Thursday, August 08, 2019
94-23
The Abortion Legislation Bill just passed its first reading, 94-23. Its a far bigger margin than I expected, even allowing for the Winston factor, and it reflects the overwhelming support there is in this country for reform. but that support isn't a new thing - it has existed for literally decades. Which invites the question: why has it taken our chickenshit politicians so long to get around to this?
Submit!
The Justice Committee has called for submissions on the Referendums Framework Bill. The Bill does what it says on the label - establishes a framework for referenda. Things you may want to address in your submission:
- Whether the bill should apply only at the 2020 election, or whether it should establish a permanent framework to enable the government to consult voters more often;
- Whether Cabinet should set referendum questions, or whether they should require the approval of Parliament;
Time to repeal the Anadarko Amendment
The Thompson and Clark / MBIE spying scandal continues to result in fallout, this time in the form of a report on the implementation of MBIE's "Operation Exploration", its internal operation to enforce the infamous Anadarko Amendment which criminalised protests against the oil industry. MBIE's enforcement operation was tainted by the involvement of Thompson and Clark, and so after SSC told government agencies not to work with private spies, the entire operation was reviewed. The full report is here, but the key findings are:
The report recommends reforming the governance of "Operation Exploration", because that was its terms of reference. Instead, it would be much easier to simply repeal the Anadarko Amendment, ending both its direct affront to democracy and its encouragement of anti-democratic behaviour by the state.
- MBIE's risk model treated democratic protest as an imminent, severe threat - basicly as piracy or terrorism. This led to a focus on spying on protest groups. MBIE staff interviewed for the report admitted that the risk was "overblown".
- MBIE's plan for reducing risk i.e. protest focused on boosting the social licence of the oil industry - basicly, conducting and disseminating oil industry propaganda.
- MBIE staff believed the Anadarko Amendment was "not a deterrent to interference, but a motivator for some organised protest entities, increasing the likelihood of on-the-water protest actions". The entire thing was counter-productive anyway.
The report recommends reforming the governance of "Operation Exploration", because that was its terms of reference. Instead, it would be much easier to simply repeal the Anadarko Amendment, ending both its direct affront to democracy and its encouragement of anti-democratic behaviour by the state.
"Blindsided"
So, Winston Peters is defending his last-minute demand for a referendum on abortion by claiming he was "blindsided" by the bill. Really? The bill is a government bill. It has been working through the cabinet approval process since December last year. As part of that process, NZ First was consulted, given the chance to negotiate amendments, and agreed to the bill. And here's a report from May on that [paywalled; depaywall script]:
And here's a further report from last month, in which Andrew Little talks about "very helpful" discussions with NZ First.
This bill was consulted on. It was approved by the NZ First caucus. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide who is acting in bad faith here.
Justice Minister Andrew Little confirmed he expected to be able to make an announcement in the next few weeks, after reaching agreement with NZ First this week.
[...]
NZ First minister Tracey Martin confirmed that on Tuesday this week, the party's caucus had agreed to the reform going to Cabinet. "It's now finalised, and the Cabinet paper is on its way up to Cabinet."
The Government's response to a Law Commission paper on abortion reform is now almost six months overdue, partly because NZ First has baulked at treating it as a government measure, given it was a conscience vote.
Martin said she had taken the precaution of getting the NZ First caucus to agree to it to make sure it was not gazumped at the last moment, as had happened to Labour's plans to repeal the "three strikes" legislation.
And here's a further report from last month, in which Andrew Little talks about "very helpful" discussions with NZ First.
This bill was consulted on. It was approved by the NZ First caucus. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide who is acting in bad faith here.
Waikato's dirty farmers
Five years ago, the Waikato Regional Council ended aerial monitoring of dairy farms, ostensibly because it caused stress to the poor sensitive little farmers. What were they stressed about? Being caught breaking the law, of course:
Twenty farmers are now being prosecuted, and another 45 have been issued abatement notices. Others have been warned or issued infringements. And hopefully all of that will force them to clean up their act. But it speaks volumes about the honesty of the industry that their kneejerk response to environmental problems is to oppose monitoring and enforcement, rather than own their problems and correct them. Like the fishing industry, it seems that a significant proportion of dairy farmers are simply criminals. And we should treat them like that, until they prove otherwise.
Waikato's dairy farmers again delivered a grim record of environmental compliance for the region.
The return to aerial monitoring has revealed the extent of dirty diarying.
The latest effluent compliance statistics from the Waikato Regional Council show significant non-compliance continued to be a problem with 13 per cent (121 farms) of the 936 farms monitored during the 2018-19 season falling into that category.
Of the farms monitored, 497 (53 per cent) were categorised as as 'high risk', due to previous significant non-compliance or past issues with effluent storage.
Twenty farmers are now being prosecuted, and another 45 have been issued abatement notices. Others have been warned or issued infringements. And hopefully all of that will force them to clean up their act. But it speaks volumes about the honesty of the industry that their kneejerk response to environmental problems is to oppose monitoring and enforcement, rather than own their problems and correct them. Like the fishing industry, it seems that a significant proportion of dairy farmers are simply criminals. And we should treat them like that, until they prove otherwise.
Wednesday, August 07, 2019
Abortion reform has the numbers
The Abortion Legislation Bill will have its first reading tomorrow, and while NZ First is making noises about a referendum, it appears the bill will pass regardless of what they think:
Overall they're expecting the bill to pass with at least 73 votes. NZ First's votes are not needed. Which means their last-minute demands for a referendum can be safely ignored.
The Government's abortion bill will pass its first hurdle with an overwhelming majority, with or without NZ First's support.
Stuff has spoken with a majority of Parliament's 120 MPs, 67 of whom said they would support or be likely to support the Bill at its first reading on Thursday.
Just seven said they would vote against it, with another four indicating they would be likely to vote against. Another 12 were still deciding, alongside NZ First's nine MPs who are refusing to confirm their position.
Overall they're expecting the bill to pass with at least 73 votes. NZ First's votes are not needed. Which means their last-minute demands for a referendum can be safely ignored.
Standing up for kiwi values
Last week, the ongoing democracy protests in Hong Kong saw a pro-Hong Kong student assaulted at the University of Auckland. The Chinese consulate in Auckland followed this up with a press release "express[ing] its appreciation to the students for their spontaneous patriotism" - effectively condoning the assault and inciting further violence in New Zealand. Now, MFAT has told the Chinese government that this is not acceptable:
Good. In China they might beat people for peacefully expressing their views, but that is not how we do things in New Zealand, and trying to incite such actions goes well beyond diplomatic norms. Arguably, its a crime, which makes the Consul-General party to any further assaults. And if there are further assaults, we should hold Chinese diplomatic staff responsible for their incitement, declare them persona non-grata, and deport them.
The Government has rebuked China over its recent comments and actions where it sought to suppress freedom of speech and voiced support for violent opposition to Hong Kong protestors in New Zealand.
On Monday, Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials met with Chinese Government representatives in New Zealand to reiterate that freedom of expression would be upheld and maintained, which included on university campuses.
This is a significant move for a Government that has largely spoken generally about foreign interference and about democratic principles, while avoiding specifically mentioning China’s behaviour in recent years under an emboldened president.
Good. In China they might beat people for peacefully expressing their views, but that is not how we do things in New Zealand, and trying to incite such actions goes well beyond diplomatic norms. Arguably, its a crime, which makes the Consul-General party to any further assaults. And if there are further assaults, we should hold Chinese diplomatic staff responsible for their incitement, declare them persona non-grata, and deport them.
Tuesday, August 06, 2019
Climate Change: The double benefit of forestry conversions
Rural communities are wailing about forestry conversions "taking land out of production" and putting it into locking up carbon. Its driven purely by economics: there's more money and lower costs in carbon than in sheep or beef, and if carbon prices rise, there'll be more net money than dairy even. But while they're all worrying about the threat to their rural lifestyle, there's an obvious benefit too:
And at 2 tons CO2-equivalent per beef cow and 300 kg per sheep, that's over 55,000 tons of emissions we won't have to worry about every year. Better, as it is methane, the effect is even more significant, because methane is a hugely-powerful (but short-lived) greenhouse gas, and exactly the gas we need to focus on cutting. The carbon price of those avoided emissions is already $1.375 million, and if prices are allowed to rise, it won't be too long before their value exceeds the $1.7 million annual economic activity of the farms they have displaced. In other words, simply shutting down those farms is likely to be more beneficial to the local economy than letting them continue to operate. And that's without even considering the value of the carbon stored.
Looked at like this, the message is clear: the sooner marginal farms shut down and are converted to trees, the better off we'll all be.
Tararua District mayor Tracey Collis has seen 13 farms in her district sell in the past year. Everyday she is contacted by a worried constituent.
[...]
Collis estimates the sales represent 47,500 sheep and 20,500 cattle gone.
And at 2 tons CO2-equivalent per beef cow and 300 kg per sheep, that's over 55,000 tons of emissions we won't have to worry about every year. Better, as it is methane, the effect is even more significant, because methane is a hugely-powerful (but short-lived) greenhouse gas, and exactly the gas we need to focus on cutting. The carbon price of those avoided emissions is already $1.375 million, and if prices are allowed to rise, it won't be too long before their value exceeds the $1.7 million annual economic activity of the farms they have displaced. In other words, simply shutting down those farms is likely to be more beneficial to the local economy than letting them continue to operate. And that's without even considering the value of the carbon stored.
Looked at like this, the message is clear: the sooner marginal farms shut down and are converted to trees, the better off we'll all be.
A referendum on abortion?
This week, the government introduced its (underwhelming) Abortion Legislation Bill. And despite having negotiated the text of the bill through the coalition process, Winston Peters is now suggesting that he will demand a referendum on it:
This is a vile idea. Abortion is a matter of fundamental rights, and like marriage equality or torture or freedom of religion is simply not something we should be having referenda on. What part of "her body, her choice" remotely suggests you or I getting a vote about it? The whole point of law reform is to get other people out of that decision entirely.
The good news is that the bill is a conscience vote, and I don't think there's a majority there for a referendum. And if he tries throwing his weight around within the coalition over this, the Prime Minister should call his bluff and call an election on the issue.
NZ First leader Winston Peters has hinted that his party may only support the Government's abortion changes if they go to a binding referendum.
This last-minute positioning - after months of negotiation with Labour - has angered Justice Minister Andrew Little, who said any such position would be completely new to him.
Peters on Tuesday refused to clarify how his party would vote on the bill, which is up for its first reading on Thursday, or whether it would be a party-position or up to individual MPs.
NZ First MP Clayton Mitchell had suggested to media that the way NZ First considered the issue should go to the public.
This is a vile idea. Abortion is a matter of fundamental rights, and like marriage equality or torture or freedom of religion is simply not something we should be having referenda on. What part of "her body, her choice" remotely suggests you or I getting a vote about it? The whole point of law reform is to get other people out of that decision entirely.
The good news is that the bill is a conscience vote, and I don't think there's a majority there for a referendum. And if he tries throwing his weight around within the coalition over this, the Prime Minister should call his bluff and call an election on the issue.