2024 OIA stats

Over on Kikorangi Newsroom's Marc Daalder has published his annual OIA stats. So I thought I'd do mine:

• 82 OIA requests sent in 2024
• 7 posts based on those requests
• 20 average working days to receive a response
• Ministry of Justice was my most-requested entity, with 7 requests (mostly about secrecy clauses)
• Of 74 requests which have received responses: 41 received responses before the due date, 22 on the due date, and 11 were late (8 are still pending, but none of them are due till January).

I also have stats on my complaints to the Ombudsman:

• 28 complaints filed in 2024
• 22 complaints resolved in 2024 (17 from 2024, the others from earlier years)
• 186 days on average for a resolution
• Of the 22 resolved complaints, 15 were successful, 4 partially successful, 1 unsuccessful, and 2 were withdrawn.
• 1 complaint resulted in a published casenote.
• Every "process" complaint (delays, extensions, charging) filed was successful.

The big question is whether any of those successful complaints will result in the agencies concerned changing their behaviour...

Climate Change: A perverse incentive

The government published its first Biennial Transparency Report under the Paris Agreement yesterday, and the media has correctly noted that it is missing any plan to actually meet our target. While it hypes domestic emissions reductions so far - which have been good, but will likely get worse thanks to National - there's an 84 million ton gap between our expected emissions and our Paris NDC. The report doesn't say how we're going to fill this, merely noting that the government is "exploring options for international cooperation".

Why so vague? And why haven't these "explorations" (which they've been doing for years) resulted in any agreements? Other countries have been signing them, after all, and while the previous government was rightly picky about whether foreign "credits" were real, I don't expect any such pickiness from National. They'll happily accept cheap fraud, if it means they get to tick the "target achieved" box, and dealing with the consequences will be Somebody Else's Problem.

A possible answer may be buried near the bottom of that RNZ article:

Also in the background, Treasury had advised Ministers Watts and Nicola Willis that if the government made a statement to the effect that it had signed a deal or made a firm commitment to do so, the $3-23 billion estimated cost of purchasing offshore credits between now and 2030 could start appearing as liability on the government's books.

So, if they take even baby steps towards meeting our obligations, then that's the "demonstration of intent" to meet the NDC that Treasury has been refusing to recognise, the entire obligation becomes real in accounting terms, and the government gets hit with a $23 billion future liability. Normal people might think that recognising an actual obligation is good, and that including the cost also reifies the cost of inaction and so incentivises fixing it. But all the government sees is "books look bad; bad headline". And so we have a perverse incentive: only by denying the problem and refusing to do anything about it can the illusion of fiscal probity be maintained.

It would be nice to have actual adults running climate policy. But that's not going to happen until we throw out this government and get a new one.

Open Government: The joke ends

Correction: This story is fortunately incorrect. While Te Kawa Mataaho repeatedly advised the government to quit the OGP, Ministers rejected the idea, and it never went to cabinet. For some reason, this fact was not mentioned in the OIA response the post was based on. Its one of those cases where I'm glad to be wrong, and hopefully the government will now commit to using the OGP to push our public service for real change.

The Open Government Partnership is a multilateral organisation committed to advancing open government. Countries which join are supposed to co-create regular action plans with civil society, committing to making verifiable improvements in transparency, accountability, participation, or technology and innovation for the above. And they're held to account through an Independent Reporting Mechanism, to ensure they do what they promise and that it has the effects they want.

New Zealand joined the OGP in 2013. We were a late joiner, and from the start it was treated as a PR scam - "we're good at open government, and this is a free headline, hur hur hur". And this showed: its first "action plan" was developed internally with a mockery of consultation and consisted entirely of lazy, business-as-usual goals which the government was doing anyway. And from the outset, it was criticised heavily by civil society groups and the OGP's Independent Reporting Mechanism. Fast-forward a decade, and we're now on our fourth action plan. Over the last four action plans the government has done sweet fuck all, eschewing real change (like beneficial ownership registers, or rewriting the OIA, or requiring real participation in policymaking) in favour of business-as-usual and meaningless "reviews" which are then thrown in the bin. While they've started to do a better pretence of "consultation", there's no real effort at co-creation, priorities are all set by government, for government, and nothing has really changed. Which is why major civil society groups have given up entirely on the process (I gave up after 2016). Our participation was simply a bad joke.

So I'm not entirely surprised to see today that the government has sought advice on withdrawing from the OGP. It hasn't bought them the benefit they wanted (positive headlines), and instead just gets them criticism for failing to meet even the low targets they set themselves. At least by withdrawing they're being honest about their lack of commitment to OGP values, and their preference for the classic Tory values of secrecy, unaccountability, and democratic isolation. (Oh, and naturally they kep the whole idea secret, until it was exposed by an OIA request).

And yet, its disappointing. By requiring formal consideration of open government issues every two years, the OGP could have driven real change in Aotearoa. Instead, the timidity and resistance of officials and a lack of commitment from Ministers buried it, and destroyed any goodwill from civil society for future efforts.

MFAT thinks the risks of OGP withdrawal "can be appropriately managed". I guess its the job of civil society groups now to make those costs as high and severe as possible, to remind the government that it shouldn't cheat wither the international community or the public on transparency.

Can the government change its mind on the ferries?

The decision to unilaterally repudiate the contract for new Cook Strait ferries is beginning to look like one of the stupidest decisions a New Zealand government ever made. While cancelling the ferries and their associated port infrastructure may have made this year's books look good, it means higher costs later, and not just for the government. Quite apart from the facts that the ports need to be upgraded anyway and new ferries will be far more expensive than the price Labour negotiated, pursuing a cheap-arse no-rail option will mean clogging the roads with megatrucks, and higher freight costs for everyone. And it makes you wish they could just change their mind again and go back to the original plan.

And it turns out that that may in fact still be an option. Because while National has repudiated the contract, negotiations over the exit price are still ongoing. The information is buried in a provisional opinion from the Ombudsman (which has now become final, so I can talk about it). I'd requested the iReX contract, and KiwiRail had refused, citing prejudice to negotiations. The Ombudsman upheld that decision, but in explaining their reasoning, described the negotiations:

The negotiations involve numerous parties, including KiwiRail, Hyundai, and external counsel. KiwiRail is represented in the negotiations by counsel based in the United Kingdom, as the contract is based in English law. The parties are meeting on an at least weekly basis for negotiations. Information about the negotiations and the contract is treated confidentially and tightly held. KiwiRail staff who require access to the information are required to sign non-disclosure agreements.

The negotiations are highly complex and detailed. They involve Hyundai submitting information to substantiate the costs incurred in various areas relating to the ship build. There are also numerous subcontractors to Hyundai who are making similar submissions, and this contributes to the complexity. KiwiRail has specialist external lawyers, ship architects and ship brokers assisting its verification of the claims.

KiwiRail has provided me with information about the tenor of its relationship with Hyundai. Unfortunately, I am unable to detail this specifically as doing so has the potential to undermine the interests which section 9(2)(j) is intended to protect. However, what I will say is that the nature of the negotiations, including their stage at the time of your request (and now), suggests there is a reasonable likelihood that they would be prejudiced if the information was released.

[Emphasis added]

That opinion was released to me yesterday, and became final today. While the time-lags involved in Ombudsman's decisions may mean the information relied upon is a month old, taken at face value it suggests that contract negotiations are still ongoing. And you'd expect the government to have announced if they'd concluded.

The fact that negotiations are still ongoing also suggests that there may still be space for the government to change its mind, and decide that actually, they'd like those ferries after all. That will not be free. Quite apart from any penalty payment for dicking them around, its clear that the whole negotiation process has cost a lot of people a lot of money, which the government should rightly pay. But their decision is so disastrous that this might still be the cheapest option. Sadly, the unwillingness of politicians to admit they have ever made a mistake means they probably won't take it.

(Meanwhile, the lesson from all of this is to request major government procurement contracts the moment they are announced, and before political interference screws them up and allows the holders to claim “negotiations” as a withholding ground...)

Member's morning

Today is a special member's morning, scheduled to make up for the government's theft of member's days throughout the year. First up was the first reading of Greg Fleming's Crimes (Increased Penalties for Slavery Offences) Amendment Bill, which was passed unanimously. Currently the House is debating the third reading of Rima Nakhle's Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill, which, having got this far, is destined to pass. Following that are the first readings of Catherine Wedd's Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (3 Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill and Cameron Luxon's Repeal of Good Friday and Easter Sunday as Restricted Trading Days (Shop Trading and Sale of Alcohol) Amendment Bill. If the House moves quickly it might make a start on Marama Davidson's Consumer Guarantees (Right to Repair) Amendment Bill, but given that its the last day before the holiday adjournment, its more likely they'll take an early lunch. There will be at least two free spaces on the ballot, but I'm not sure when they will be filled.

Corrections is torturing prisoners again

In 1998, in the wake of the Paremoremo Prison riot, the Department of Corrections established the "Behaviour Management Regime". Prisoners were locked in their cells for 22 or 23 hours a day, with no fresh air, no exercise, no social contact, no entertainment, and in some cases no clothes and no toilet paper. Over 200 people were treated like this, all for a minimum of 2 weeks, and some for years. If this sounds like cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, you're right - the Supreme Court found that it was, and the government had to pay out nearly a million dollars in compensation. No-one in Corrections ever faced any employment consequences for this (let alone criminal ones) - which might be why, twenty years later, its all happening again:

The Chief Ombudsman says the Department of Corrections must stop the way it’s running the Prisoners of Extreme Risk Unit (PERU) because the unit’s prisoners are being ill-treated.

Peter Boshier has released a report that outlines serious concerns about human rights abuses at the unit which is based at Auckland Prison.

“The conditions and treatment in the PERU are cruel, inhuman and degrading and in breach of the United Nations Convention against Torture,” Mr Boshier says.

The full report is here. It details "prolonged and potentially indefinite solitary confinement" (which international law recognises as torture), "oppressive living conditions", "disproportionate use of force", and "excessive and unjustified" searches and surveillance. All run by a semi-autonomous unit within Corrections with little oversight and poor reporting and record-keeping.

These are the exact problems found with the BMR, and they likely mean significant liability for the government. The Ombudsman has recommended that the entire regime be stopped immediately, but that's not enough - because this isn't just a matter of civil liability; it is a crime. Torture is a crime. Assault is a crime. Failing to keep proper records is a crime. Our prison guards are criminals. And it is time they were properly held to account.

"Better economic management"

At the 2023 election, National basically ran on a platform of being better economic managers. So how'd that turn out for us? In just one year, they've fucked us for two full political terms:

The government's books are set to remain deeply in the red for the near term as a big dent in the tax take and higher expenses deliver continued budget deficits.

But the government has adopted a new measure of its finances, excluding the impact of ACC, which it said has distorted previous forecasts and had the potential to affect spending decisions.

[...]

Using the established measure the deficits would rise more than expected in the budget and a surplus was not expected in the forecast period to 2028/29.

The reason for this of course is austerity, which has seen core government services cut and 11.6% of all the workers in wellington sacked in a single year. Meanwhile, they're grinding down ordinary people with sub-inflation increases to the minimum wage and 0% pay offers to public servants (so: pay cuts in real terms). And all of this flows through to the rest of the economy. The only people doing well are landleeches, who are gouging us for an extra 6.9% this year. But then, that's who National works for, isn't it?

If this is "better economic management", I'd hate to see what worse looks like.

More public service contempt of parliament

Back in 2023 the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties raised concerns about the inherent conflict of interest involved in public service agencies supporting parliamentary select committees. Our parliament is run on a shoestring, so depends on the public service for advice. But public service agencies work for Ministers, not the legislature, and are usually committed to progressing the legislation they have proposed and worked on. This isn't an abstract concern; there have been a couple of disturbing instances where public service agencies have attempted to impede or even outright subvert the will of the select committees they are supposedly supporting, advancing unauthorised amendments, sanitising departmental reports to remove criticism, and even preparing a fraudulent "select committee" report despite being instructed not to. And now we have another example, this time of an agency just saying "nope" when instructed to advise on amendments.

The bill in question is National's Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill. The bill introduces new search powers to detect drug-driving, and these are so extreme that even Judith Collins though they were unjustified and produced a statutory section 7 report advising parliament that it violated the Bill of Rights Act. To their credit, the select committee tried to fix this. A key issue was that compulsory roadside testing necessarily involves detention, but the bill set no time limit on this, meaning it allowed indefinite (and thus arbitrary) detention. The committee naturally asked the obvious question (how long is it expected to take?) so they could set one. But according to the select committee report, the department (Ministry of Transport) simply refused:

We record here that we have been unable to satisfactorily resolve this matter ourselves during our consideration of the bill. This was due to time constraints on our committee and because departmental officials did not provide us with a possible maximum time period for enforcement officers to administer the first oral fluid screening test. Officials noted this was due to their concerns about specifying a maximum period as outlined above.

It is very clear from the above that the refusal was deliberate. It is also very clear that this obstructed the work of the committee. And that sounds an awful lot like contempt. The question is, will the committee actually do anything about it, or just whine pathetically in their report?

There are more than enough examples now to make it clear that this situation is untenable. Parliament cannot depend on the inherently conflict and compromised servants of the government of the day to advise it. It needs its own independent advisers if it is to do its job properly. And if this means that it reaches different conclusions to the executive about what the law should be, so much the better - that is what a separate branch of government does.

Showing the Americans how to do it

Just ten days ago, South Korea's president attempted a self-coup, declaring martial law and attempting to have opposition MPs murdered or arrested in an effort to seize unconstrained power. The attempt was rapidly defeated by the national assembly voting it down and the people flooding the streets to defend democracy. And now, after one failed attempt, the national assembly has impeached the insurrectionist scumbag. Yoon will now be suspended and be sent for trial with the constitutional court to determine whether he will be permanently removed from office. Assuming he's not tried and convicted on criminal charges of insurrection first...

The contrast with America's handling of Trump's insurrection couldn't be greater. There, Republican legislators refused to defend democracy, voting against Trump's impeachment in the Senate. Criminal charges were dragged out and delayed, and have now been dismissed. And the Republican Supreme Court allowed him to stand for re-election, despite crystal clear constitutional language barring insurrectionists from federal office. The clear message is that the US political elite doesn't care about democracy or the rule of law. And Americans will find out the consequences of that on January 20th.

Rotten to the core

Just a few months ago, Deputy Commissioner Jevon McSkimming was one of the final two candidates for the position of police commissioner. Now, he's on leave and facing multiple investigations for unspecified wrongdoing:

The second-most powerful police officer in the country is on leave pending separate investigations, the Herald can reveal.

Deputy Commissioner Jevon McSkimming is being investigated by the Independent Police Conduct Authority, and the New Zealand Police.

The nature of the allegations against McSkimming cannot be reported.

And he's not the only one. Stuff reported back in October that a (now-former) senior police officer is being prosecuted for grooming a 12 year old girl. How "senior" he is is unclear, but it all adds to the impression that the police are rotten to the core, and that their senior leadership, the ones who are meant to set standards for everyone else, are criminals themselves (and particularly grotty ones at that). And it invites the question of how they possibly expect to have the trust and confidence of the public when this is the case.

Climate Change: Hope is not a plan

One of the purposes of the Zero Carbon Act was to break the bad old cycle of announcing targets and then doing nothing to meet them. Instead, governments would have regular carbon budgets with relatively short deadlines - meaning any failure would happen on their watch - and be required to state what, specifically they would do to achieve them. And if the numbers didn't add up, the courts would (in theory) force the Minister to come up with a different plan. But National's second Emissions Reduction Plan released today throws all that out the window, and we're back to the bad old days again.

Labour's first ERP had gaps - notably around agricultural emissions - but for everything else it had actual effective policy, which was working spectacularly. National repealed all that out of pure spite. Instead, they've replaced those proven, working policies with a reliance on unproven and speculative technologies like carbon capture and storage (a fossil industry PR scam), methane inhibitors (always a decade away, and with no plan to force their adoption when developed), sustainable aviation fuels (another PR scam), and "non-forestry removals and nature-based solutions" (accounting fraud, unless sources are included as well as sinks and baselines are adjusted accordingly). Together these scams and wishful thinking account for more than half of their "planned" emissions "reductions". And of coures they're not counting the effects of their proposed expansion of the gas industry, which would destroy any chance of meeting our future emissions budgets.

National has made its numbers add up - barely - but as Rod Carr points out, that's not enough. It doesn't understand the uncertainties involved in measurement, technology and behaviour, and leaves no margin for when things inevitably go wrong. Most obviously: National's plan is based on the current emissions budget numbers, but He Pou a Rangi has recommended that those be lowered to account for methodological change, to ensure that the numbers are consistent and that we're not comparing apples and oranges. National won't want to follow that recommendation, of course - they like accounting fraud as a substitute for real action - but that will inevitably mean legal action. What are they going to do if the court forces them to accept the recommended changes?

And of course there are other uncertainties. We could have a dry year, meaning we need to burn more gas for electricity. National's attack on EVs and public transport could result in even higher transport emissions. One or more of their hoped-for technologies could fail to arrive on time (or just not be adopted, because of insufficient regulation to force it). Any of these will sink their plan. Skin-of-the-teeth budgeting may work in the corporate world, where all you have to do is tick the box on next quarter's targets and then move on to another job. But IBG YBG is not an appropriate philosophy for government. Unless their plan really is to be a one-term government, and leave someone else to clean up their mess (and criticise them for doing so). In which case, I wonder: has anyone told their backbenchers, who will lose their comfy political jobs under such a plan? I wonder how they will feel about it?

A bad joke

That's the only way to describe National's announcement today on replacement Cook Strait ferries. A year ago they cancelled iRex, which would have given us two new, rail-enabled ferries in January 2026 for $551 million (plus port costs). Today, they're promising two smaller, non-rail enabled ferries sometime in 2029, and the cost is secret. But it was leaked last night: $900 million. Excluding port costs, of course, plus contract break fees , and the costs of setting up a new SOE to shift them off KiwiRail's books. Once you include the contract break fees, we're paying twice as much to less, later.

This is not a competent government. Instead, it is one driven by spite and penny-pinching. And this is a perfect example of how this ends up being more expensive in the end. The quicker we throw this bunch of muppets out on their arses, the better.

Bringing the House into disrepute

Last month we all thrilled to see Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke's haka in parliament in response to National's racist, anti-constitutional Treaty "Principles" Bill. Of course, the targets of that haka did not like someone speaking so forcefully and well against them - so they had Maipi-Clarke named and suspended from Parliament for a day. And now, National's Speaker has sent her and three other MPs to a kangaroo court for further punishment:

Four opposition MPs who left their seats as part of the haka at the end of the Treaty Principles Bill debate last month have been referred to the privileges committee.

They include Te Pāti Māori MPs Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, Rawiri Waititi, Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke and Labour's Peeni Henare.

Speaker Gerry Brownlee said the haka was "disorderly and disruptive".

I use the phrase "kangaroo court" because that's exactly what the privileges committee is: a bunch of MPs, on which the government has an automatic majority, which decides cases on partisan lines and which can impose arbitrary punishments. And when the government are white supremacists, its difficult not to see this as just another racist organisation, upholding white supremacy under the guise of "decorum" and "civility" (because, remember, reminding people they're being racist and responding appropriately to their racism is uncivil) - not to mention just an outright abuse of process, a politicised pretence of "justice" which is really just an exercise of power by the majority to silence and discipline the minority. And that seems like it will have a significant effect on the public legitimacy of parliament.

If Maipi-Clarke and the others are "convicted" by this sham-court, it will be a badge of honour. It will also be a badge of shame for parliament. The entire process brings the House into disrepute. And there's a name for that: contempt. Maybe Brownlee should report himself to his own kangaroo court for it?

Climate Change: An alternative plan

The government is supposed to release its second Emissions Reduction Plan any day now, and if its anything like the draft, it will be a pile of false accounting and wishful thinking, which will do nothing to actually reduce emissions. The central problem here is that national is legally required to have a plan to meet the emissions budget, but they have repealed virtually all effective policy, leaving them with a carbon capture fantasy and an ETS that doesn't work because it excludes our biggest polluters and is full of pork. Meanwhile, their plans to increase the gas industry will increase emissions, in a way that is wildly incompatible with all future emissions budgets.

So, what's the alternative? The Greens have just released one. He Ara Anamata: Alternative Emissions Reduction Plan is exactly what it says on the label. The core of it is a return to the successful policies of the previous Green-Labour government: public transport funding, the clean car standard and discount, the GIDI fund to reduce energy-sector emissions, a coal phase out, and the offshore gas exploration ban. But in addition to that, it goes further, by bringing agriculture into the ETS, immediately eliminating industrial allocation, and kicking forestry out (as recommended by He Pou a Rangi). Plus a "green jobs guarantee" to ensure a just transition, more regional rail, a sinking lid on synthetic nitrogen fertiliser, and direct government investment in renewable electricity. Together this will reduce emissions by 35% by 2030, and 47% by 2035 - setting us up nicely for a rapid shift to net zero and negative emissions.

Can we do it? I think so. Bringing agriculture into the ETS at the processor level is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, with He Waka Eke Noa modelling estimating that its worth an 8% cut in total emissions by 2030 alone (which was far more than the bullshit they eventually came up with). The rest puts us at least back on to the He Pou a Rangi demonstration pathway. Of course, these numbers are if the Greens were in power now; we don't know what impact three years of lost progress will have.

Finally, its good to see this development. Climate change is the core policy of our era, and parties should be offering alternative plans for voters to choose between. So far we have spin, bullshit, and denial from National, and a real plan from the Greens. The question is "will Labour offer anything"? Or is this an area of policy where they are happy for the Greens to do all the heavy lifting?

Climate Change: Sabotaging the Climate Commission

Throughout its term in government National has been annoyed by repeated unwelcome advice from He Pou a Rangi Climate Change Commission to move faster, do more, or even just do something. But Rod Carr's term as commission chair expired over the weekend, as did those of two other board members. And National has taken the opportunity to remove this source of irritation by replacing them with three new people who will not challenge the government's "do nothing" stance:

Former Governor General Dame Patsy Reddy has been appointed as the new chair of the Climate Change Commission, replacing Rod Carr whose term ended last week.

[...]

Watts also appointed Felicity Underhill and Devon McLean as climate commissioners, replacing Catherine Leining and Professor James Renwick.

The most noticeable point here is that unlike those they are replacing, none of the new appointees are climate change experts (Leining was a policy wonk from Motu, Renwick is a climate scientist who had been a lead author for the IPCC, and Carr had an interest, took the role seriously, and learned on the job). The new people have plenty of governance experience, but only tangential interest in climate change (Reddy has none, Underhill is interested in hydrogen, and McLean has conservation credentials). So its a very real deskilling of the Commission, which will almost certainly impact on the quality of its advice.

The second point to note is that a former Governor-General is the ultimate safe pair of hands. Reddy may bring mana to the role, but fundamentally will not challenge anything or rock the boat in any way. Backing this up, she was previously chosen to review New Zealand's spy agencies, a review as usual saw them given greater powers. So no threat of recommending anything which might change things or see anyone forced to do things differently - unlike Carr, who very much rocked the boat and said loudly "we have to change!"

And thirdly, Underhill is from the fossil fuel industry (Shell, Origin) and a hydrogen quack. She is currently a director of fossil fuel company Channel Infrastructure. Which seems like a significant conflict of interest.

While none of these appointments are as bad as those National has made to the Human Rights Commission, its the same agenda at play: sabotage a key institution and effectively prevent it from challenging National's agenda. He Pou a Rangi is simply not an institution we can have confidence in going forward. Fortunately, the Greens are now producing their own emissions reduction plans, so they'll do the job it National's strapped-chicken commission won't.

National finds out

Since coming to power last year, National has viciously cut the public service, sacking nearly 10,000 public servants (to date). Those people weren't just doing nothing, and it was obviously going to have an impact on something other than the government's books. But while National's over-paid, privately-insured, and DPS-guarded Ministers may have been able to ignore growing hospital wait times and the police withdrawing from enforcing laws against domestic violence, there's finally been an impact they may have to pay attention to: it may affect their ability to deliver their agenda:

Funding cuts have been so deep at the Ministry for the Environment that it may not have enough resource to enact the Government’s resource management reforms, including the Fast Track resource consenting plans.

The current work plan is only able to be delivered because some of those losing their jobs accepted delayed redundancy, MPs have heard.

[...]

Palmer said the ministry had hit all its deadlines on the work programme set by the Government, but indicated that it may now need more funding next year as the Government embeds its reforms, including the Fast Track resource consenting regime.

“It may well be further resources are required,” he said.

This was a problem for Labour last term as well, when their ongoing austerity meant the Ministry of justice could not deliver on their promise to rewrite the OIA, and instead had to ask the Minister to prioritise (the Minister ultimately chose to prioritise reducing accountability for politicians via a four-year term instead). But this is rather more serious. RMA reform and the fast track law are National's key priorities for the portfolio, and the Ministry is basically saying that they can no longer provide the necessary advice and analysis to do it. They've been gutted so badly by National's arbitrary cuts that they're basically useless.

Given the scale of the cuts, this is unlikely to be an isolated story. Other Ministries will likely be in the same situation, even if they have not yet publicly said so. So National may have cut itself into ineffectiveness, and its agenda may now be going nowhere fast.

Climate Change: More unwelcome advice

He Pou a Rangi / Climate Change Commission has just released its Review of the 2050 emissions target including whether emissions from international shipping and aviation should be included. After noting that there have been significant changes since the target was originally set in 2019 - stronger evidence that we need to do more, stronger international action, and greater projected impacts on the world and Aotearoa specifically - they recommend that the headline 2050 target be strengthened from net-zero to negative 20 million tons (meaning: we must not only reduce and offset all our emissions, but also offset 20 million tons a year more than we emit). They also recommend a strengthening of the methane target band from a 24 to 47 percent reduction (from 2017 levels) to a 35 to 47% reduction. At the top end this almost turns our "net zero long-lived plus variable methane reduction" into a true all-gases net-zero target (we'd still be emitting ~0.2 MT net, which is well into the margin of error). Oh, and international shipping and aviation should be included. And they've done all this because they think its realistic and achievable. Not only should we move faster to reduce emissions - but we can actually do it! More importantly, we have been doing it - or were, until the current government repealed virtually all effective policy.

Its a slap in the face to National, which systematically dismantled our climate change policies, and which has just released its own strapped-chicken review of the methane target to support its position that we should do less. The problem for the government is that He Pou a Rangi's review has statutory force: the government must publicly respond to it, and the statutory presumption is clearly that the Minister will follow the advice of Parliament's expert body. If they do anything other than agree to fully adopt the recommended target, they must give reasons for any departure. And in such a case, you can expect the decision to be very closely scrutinised by the courts. OTOH, the only way to amend the targets is by legislation, and I'm not sure that the courts can actually order parliament to pass a law. But they can certainly say the Minister has acted irrationally and unlawfully in not recommending to cabinet that it do so.

Climate Change: National wants to cheat on Paris II

Back in September, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts shocked us by suggesting that New Zealand could refuse to meet its international commitments under the Paris Agreement. Now Forestry Minister Todd McClay has echoed that position:

Minister for Agriculture and Forestry Todd McClay says the Government won't be buying carbon credits overseas to meet the Government's 2030 climate targets.

According to the latest calculations the Government would be more than 90 million tonnes - over a year's worth of the whole country's greenhouse gases - short of meeting its international promises under the Paris Agreement target if it doesn't buy help from overseas but the Minister repeatedly told Morning Report spending money overseas was off the cards.

"No we don't have to go and buy credits overseas to meet our obligations and we're working very hard to make sure we don't.

"The idea of sending billions overseas is not palatable to anybody in New Zealand."

McClay said that the government has a plan to meet the target without using overseas mitigation, but won't say what it is. Which is as much as admitting that there isn't one. National's upcoming Emissions Reduction Plan certainly won't do it, given that they've ripped up virtually all existing measures to reduce emissions. So what's left? Getting Lester Levy in to cook the books with an accounting fantasy of "blue carbon"? Or are they just hoping for another pandemic - or an outbreak of foot and mouth - to save them?

Meanwhile, McClay is also Trade Minister, and you'd expect him to have some idea of what the consequences are for failing to meet our Paris commitments. Not least: trade sanctions from the EU (which should target our biggest polluters, the dairy industry). But maybe he's also hoping that it'll all happen on someone else's watch, leaving National to complain from the sidelines while better politicians clean up their mess?

Climate Change: The ETS needs reform

The final ETS auction of the year was held today, resulting in a partial clearance: 4 million of the available 11.1 million units were sold, at the minimum price of $64/ton. Once you add in March's partial sale, the government managed to sell just over 7 million tons all year - or just under half of what it had planned to.

Which I guess is a strong argument that the ETS was overallocated. Polluters didn't need all that carbon, so they didn't buy it. Fortunately, the available volume is being brutally cut next year, to just 6 million tons - which should help rebalance things. Unfortunately, National has cancelled expected cuts to industrial allocations (aka pollution subsidies) - and after next year these subsidies will exceed auction volumes. Meaning the benefits of the system will accrue to those subsidised large polluters rather than the public. And the systematic overallocation of subsidies means these polluters are already making out like bandits at our expense.

I don't think this system is sustainable. For the system to work and help us meet our targets, ETS volumes need to decrease every year - and that includes industrial allocations. But beyond that, I don't think there's public support for a tool which simply operates to enrich favoured cronies at public expense - especially when said cronies are (by definition) New Zealand's worst polluters, and some of them are not lifting a finger to change that (while others are demanding that their subsidies continue, even as they take government money to reduce their emissions). If the ETS is to continue, it needs wholesale reform. And that includes ending the subsidy regime. These polluters have been receiving subsidies for 16 years now - more than enough time for them to transition to cleaner technology. If they have not, that is a poor business decision, for which they deserve to be held accountable. End the subsidies, make them pay their full social costs, and if they can't, then they were never really "profitable" anyway.

Restoring the status quo is not enough

Labour held its party conference over the weekend, and Chris Hipkins gave a speech promising to make the current coalition a one term government. Along the way he made some policy promises: restoring free prescriptions, resuming the Smokefree Aotearoa policy, restarting the build of Dunedin hospital, restoring state housing investment, reinvesting in new Cook Strait ferries, restoring public transport funding, re-enacting fair pay agreements. There was one new policy: ditching AUKUS (good). But almost all of labour's agenda can be summed up as putting things back the way they were before Luxon came to power. Or, to put it another way, simply restoring the status quo ante.

This is good and necessary, because Luxon has wrecked shit, and that needs to be fixed. But at the same time, its nowhere near enough. Because the pre-Luxon status quo wasn't exactly great - we had a climate crisis, a housing crisis, an inequality crisis, and Labour wasn't exactly moving fast on fixing any of them. We also had a government strangling itself with austerity, running down key government services out of a weird self-flagellating desire to meet arbitrary financial targets in an effort to appeal to people who would never vote for them, and who would accuse them of financial mismanagement and loose spending no matter what they did. And while Labour is talking about one of the big fixes again - a capital gains tax - they're still unclear on whether they want to actually do anything with the money, or just give it away in income tax cuts (in which case, sure, its a redistribution tool, but also makes you wonder what the fucking point is). And of course, they simply have no credibility on that issue, having promised and then backed away from it repeatedly, and there's no reason any of us should believe it will end any differently to the last time: in the party leader getting cold feet and swearing off actual effective change for the rest of their careers.

The core problem is that Labour seems to have no vision of what it actually wants, other than to be in power and get the big offices and big salaries and free limos again. It has a nostalgic vision of things being great when they were in charge, but nothing beyond that. Nothing they want to change. Nothing they want to do. Nothing they actually want to use power for, other than adding the letters "Hon" before their names.

And that is simply not enough. To point out the obvious, there are other opposition parties, who do know what they want, and are working hard to persuade us that we want it too. And a Labour Party which seems to want nothing beyond "put us in charge" deserves to lose to them. While good management is useful (just look at the current clown show), at the end of the day nobody fucking cares about managers.

Subsidising ecocide

Aotearoa has long been an opponent of fossil fuel subsidies. In 2010 we joined the Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform. In 2015 we reviewed our policies to eliminate subsidies following advice from APEC. In 2021 we "lead the call" for subsidy reform at the WTO. And at COP29 just last month we joined the International Institute for Sustainable Development coalition against fossil fuel subsidies. So naturally, Shame Jones wants to overturn all that and is considering directly subsidising gas exploration:

The oil and gas lobby has asked the government to underwrite the risk of fossil fuel exploration, with the taxpayer potentially taking "some or all" of the risk if new gas supplies fail to eventuate.

Resources Minister Shane Jones says he is considering options to support gas exploration, but "no decisions have been made either way".

However, Shane Jones' response to RNZ's query about the industry's request suggested the government had not ruled out some form of intervention.

I don't even know where to start with this. It's stupid. It's immoral. Its effectively subsidising ecocide. It is simply not something any government should be doing. But Jones' mind is stuck in the past, when oil and gas were the future (rather than the threat to it), and he can't see past the idea of winning the fossil fuel lottery (and those big industry donations).

OTOH, MFAT's page on fossil fuel subsidy reform provides an argument that even this government might listen to: trade. Both the UK and EU FTA's include provisions against fossil fuel subsidies, and we have literally just signed the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability with a group of other small nations which bans them - including (very explicitly) the exact policy Jones is considering.

National may want to publicly set fire to our reputation on the world stage, void key trade deals, and ensure we can never sign another one (because what fool would sign any deal with a country which is so obviously two-faced and breaks its word the moment it is given). But I don't think the rest of us would think that that's a good idea. As a small peaceful country, our foreign policy is of necessity mana-based. Jones would destroy that. We shouldn't let him.

A two-faced "apology"

Last month, the government formally apologised to victims of child torture and abuse-in-care. Part of the apology was meant to be for the state's long-standing policy of aggressively minimising its liabilities by dragging out cases, slandering its victims and ultimately denying redress. So you'd think that the state would actually have stopped that immoral policy, right? But of course not. In planning meetings leading up to the apology, it was continuing as usual:

Senior ministers raised concerns about the commitments the government made to survivors of abuse in care and the need to lower expectations, according to notes obtained by RNZ.

The comments came at a meeting on the eighth floor of the Beehive on 26 August, where ministers and government heads discussed what was needed for the formal apology for abuse in care on 12 November.

[...]

"AG [Attorney-General Judith Collins] reinforced concerns about setting precedents and being careful about what we commit to," Holsted wrote.

"Min Upston [Minister for Social Development Louise Upston] reiterated her concern about needing to lower expectations."

Because we wouldn't want to do the decent thing by properly compensating victims of state wrongdoing for the horrors inflicted on them and the damage done to their lives - that might "set a precedent". And we wouldn't want to suggest that we might, because that might led to "expectations" of both compensation, and future state behaviour.

Our Cabinet are monsters. They're doing exactly the same vicious, heartless shit which has denied victims justice and compounded the harm inflicted on them. In doing so, they've undercut the apology Luxon made, and made it clear that the state will never act in good faith over its crimes. Any meaningful apology would see these monsters gone.

Police: "It's OK if you're a cop"

Imagine you want to buy some guns, but you want to hide the fact from someone. So you abuse your access privileges to obtain the details of a registered owner, then use them to fraudulently register the weapons. If you or I did this, we'd obviously be going to jail. But apparently it's OK if you're a cop:

The South Island police officer was investigated after allegations surfaced that he illegally acquired firearms and concealed the purchases by registering them under false names.

He registered firearms under the names of innocent licensed firearm owners, intending to deceive the gun sellers and Te Tari Pūreke – Firearms Safety Authority.

[...]

The allegations were initially investigated by the police, who concluded the officer had not committed any criminal offences.

Police accepted the officer’s explanation that he used third-party names to acquire firearms to avoid conflict with his wife.

As a result, they found no grounds to proceed with either criminal charges or disciplinary action.

The IPCA disagrees. But they're a toothless sham, who don't get to make prosecution decisions, so the cop gets away with it. And to add insult to injury, he got to keep his firearms licence, despite clearly not being a fit and proper person to enjoy such trust.

This is just the ordinary, everyday corruption of a police force which sees itself as being above the laws they enforce on us peasants. Its the corruption of a police force which behaves essentially exactly like a criminal gang. And its not acceptable. Crime is not OK if you're a cop. And if the police refuse to understand that, then we should fire them all and get some honest ones instead.

Another day, another breach of te Tiriti

Back in February, the National government disestablished Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority. It was a revolting breach of te Tiriti, but the government avoided a formal ruling of that by rushing the legislation into the House specifically to deprive the Waitangi Tribunal of jurisdiction and kill its inquiry into the matter. But that only delayed the inevitable - the Tribunal's jurisdiction was restored the moment the law was passed, and they've now produced a formal report, Hautupua, finding that the government pissed all over te Tiriti and its principles:

After assessing the evidence presented from parties, the Tribunal found breaches of te Tiriti/the Treaty principles of tino rangatiratanga, good government, partnership – including the duties of consultation and acting reasonably and in good faith – active protection, and redress.

The Tribunal found that the policy process the Crown followed to disestablish Te Aka Whai Ora was a departure from conventional and responsible policymaking in several concerning ways. The Crown did not act in good faith when disestablishing Te Aka Whai Ora as it did not consult or engage with Māori, nor did it gather substantive advice from officials. Consequently, the Crown made the ill-informed decision that Te Aka Whai Ora was not required, despite knowledge of grave Māori health inequities. The Tribunal found that Māori did not agree with the Crown’s decisions but were denied the right to self-determine what is best for them and hauora Māori. Instead, the Crown implemented its own agenda – one that was based on political ideology, rather than evidence, and one that fell well short of a Tiriti/Treaty consistent process. It did so without following its own process for the development and implementation of legislative reform.

The Tribunal stated that Te Aka Whai Ora was an integral part of a system responsible for the equitable delivery of health care and services in Aotearoa New Zealand and gave effect to the Crown’s Tiriti/Treaty obligations. The Crown could have left Te Aka Whai Ora in place until it had a replacement, but instead it chose to disestablish it in haste. Te Aka Whai Ora was previously established by the Crown to provide redress for the long-standing failure by the Crown to reflect tino rangatiratanga in our health system. The Crown’s unilateral decision to remove Te Aka Whai Ora had effectively taken that redress away.

The later is important. The creation of Te Aka Whai Ora was effectively a Treaty settlement, aimed at undoing the damage caused by the systematically racist colonial health system. National has effectively unilaterally repealed that settlement. And that has implications for the whole settlement process, as well as the sustainability of existing settlements. Because pretty obviously, if a settlement is only a settlement until a racist government decides to steal it from you again, then its not really a settlement, is it? And its certainly not in any way "full and final", no matter what that government's laws may say.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering: has this government already achieved the dubious distinction of having the highest number of modern Treaty breaches? Because they certainly seem to be treating that as a goal to be achieved in their hundred day plans, rather than something to be avoided.

The law means something

Former Ports of Auckland CEO Tony Gibson has been convicted of violating his duty to run a safe workplace over the death of one of his workers:

In a judgement released today, Judge Steve Bonnar found Gibson was guilty of one charge raised under the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA); the charge that alleged Gibson had failed to comply with his duty under the act to exercise due diligence, and therefore exposed the port workers to a risk of death or serious injury.

In the 146 page judgment, Bonnar concluded that Gibson was "ultimately responsible for health and safety" and he was required to exercise systems leadership. He ruled Gibson should have been aware of the need for improvement of the monitoring of the night shift, but that in failing to address associated shortfalls failed in his duty.

"I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Gibson's breach of his duty ... made it materially more likely that POAL would breach its duty of care to ensure that stevedores were not exposed to the risk of death or serious harm. His failure thereby exposed the stevedores to the risk of death or serious harm by being struck by objects from operating cranes."

Good. This is how the law is meant to work. Chief executives need to be strongly incentivised to run a safe workplace and not cut corners, and strict personal liability is the way to do that. And I'm glad that the law has passed its first test.

The question now is whether National will repeal it to protect their cronies from the consequences of their criminal behaviour.

Secrecy destroys trust: the case of the nuclear waste dump

Something I was not expecting to learn this morning: the government has built a secret nuclear waste dump in rural Manawatu:

A facility for storing all of New Zealand’s radioactive waste has been secretly built near Palmerston North, in a decision neighbouring farmers have called “horrifying” and “deceptive”.

The building, surrounded by a 2.5m-high fence, padlocked gates and CCTV, has been constructed next to New Zealand Defence Force communication dishes in rural Manawatū. The facility sits on Defence Force land – part of which was redesignated by the Health Ministry. The Health Ministry said the facility stores low-level and intermediate-level waste, such as redundant radiation devices for treating cancer patients.

[...]

New Zealand’s national storage facility neighbours prime Manawatū farmland, but residents were not informed of the building plans which were kept secret at the request of government officials.

The story is buried behind the Herald's paywall, but there's also a video version here. The video version carefully blanks out all the addresses, but the site is east of Ohakea, by the corner of Wilson and Ngaio Rd, and you can see it on Google maps here.

Is it safe? I don't see any reason to doubt it. But the government arrogantly didn't want to even make that argument, preferring to hide behind a bogus veil of "national security" to avoid objections. By doing so, they subverted the normal RMA process of having to respond to and mitigate concerns - which in this case would largely mean explaining the inverse square law, their monitoring and risk-management processes. And they prevented the RMA safeguard of having an independent, fair, and transparent appeals process to manage disagreements. I have no doubt that the government would have gained resource consent if they had done this openly.

Instead, they chose to do it in secret. And by doing that, they've made it look like they have something to hide. Because if it is safe, they would have just been open about it, right? It's a perfect example of how secrecy destroys trust, as well as a basic failure of democratic norms. And the government deserves every bit of the suspicion it is now going to get for this.

The lesson here for the government should be obvious: don't do things in secret unless you really, absolutely have to. Sadly, they'll probably take the opposite one, double down on secrecy, and try to punish its exposure. And then they'll wonder why trust in government is declining...

Government by google

In this year's Budget, cancer Minister Casey Costello gave Philip Morris a $216 million tax cut for their heated tobacco products, on the basis of "independent advice" which contradicted that produced by the Ministry of health. When she finally produced this "independent advice", it did not support her case at all, and looked like a collection of random shit she had found on google while "doing her own research". Now someone using FYI, the free OIA request tool, has finally force Costello to admit where her advice came from. And the answer is exactly what you thought it would be:

Which is I guess the flip side of National's public service cuts: Ministers who think they can just google shit up instead (and a Prime Minister and Cabinet who accept this).

Whether this meets the standards of competence and professionalism we expect from Ministers and which supposedly justify their enormous salaries is left as an exercise for the reader.

Will Luxon let ACT privatise the health system?

The racist piece of shit government is a year old this week, so there's a bunch of retrospectives and looking forwards and so on. Today it was Rimmer's turn - and in addition to gloating about how he's setting the policy agenda and making all the decisions, and about his racist attempt to repeal te Tiriti, he also dropped this:

And while it's not yet December he's already turning his mind to ideas ACT might push next year, hinting privatising the healthcare system would be one of them.

Seymour said a conversation about the future of the health system was needed as it was not working as is.

Of course, the sole reason it is not working is because of government underfunding, because small-government weirdos like Rimmer have been slowly drowning it in the bathtub.

We know what a privatised health system looks like: America, where any health problem costs you everything and drives you bankrupt. Rimmer may think that's a great idea (MPs get their health insurance subsidised, just so they're not in the same boat as the rest of us). But kiwis do not want to live like that. Not even National voters want to live like that. The question is will Luxon recognise this, or will he let Rimmer destroy our health system (and his government), the same way that he's letting him destroy our constitution and social cohesion?

Justice in Brazil

Following the 2022 Brazilian general election, election loser Jair Bolsonaro tried to do a Trump, attempting a coup to overturn the election. It failed. But unlike his American friend, he hasn't been allowed to get away with it:

The former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro and some of his closest allies are among dozens of people formally accused by federal police of being part of a criminal conspiracy designed to obliterate Brazil’s democratic system through a rightwing coup d’état.

Federal police confirmed on Thursday that investigators had concluded their long-running investigation into what they called a coordinated attempt to “violently dismantle the constitutional state”.

In a statement, police said the report – which has been forwarded to the supreme court – formally accused a total of 37 people of crimes including involvement in an attempted coup, the formation of a criminal organization, and trying to tear down one of the world’s largest democracies.

Prosecutions are likely to follow.

The contrast with America couldn't be clearer. There, the federal government dragged its feet on prosecuting Trump for insurrection, he was allowed to stand for re-election despite clear constitutional language forbidding it, and the US people then voted for him. Its an appalling indictement of the US's ramshackle "democracy" and of the state of the rule of law in that country.

(Meanwhile, in other good news, the ICC has finally issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defence minister Yoav Gallant. Which invites the obvious question: when will our government be imposing sanctions against these war criminals and their genocidal regime?)

Drawn

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

• KiwiSaver (Guardian Consent) Amendment Bill (Jan Tinetti)

Its a minor bill, which would make it easier for single parents to opt children into Kiwisaver. The question is, will National vote it down out of pure spite?

The IPCA has failed

Back in 2022, RNZ took an in-depth look at the "Independent" Police Conduct Authority and its handling of killings by police. These are the most serious test of oversight, and you would expect the police's use of lethal force to receive the most severe scrutiny. But despite the police regularly shooting people in the back, or when they are unarmed, or when they clearly have mental health issues, the IPCA had never found a killing by police to be unjustified. That changed today, with the IPCA's release of its report into the police killing of Kaoss Price. But despite finding that the killing was unjustified, and so unlawful, the IPCA recommends that the killer face no consequences whatsoever:

The Independent Police Conduct Authority has issued a rare ruling that a fatal shooting by a police officer was not justified in a new report that details the final moments of Taranaki’s Kaoss Price.

But it has also said it does not recommend a prosecution of the officer who fired the fatal shot.

The report says: “We found that the fatal shot was excessive force on the balance of probabilities, but we do not recommend police lay criminal charges or commence an employment process against the officer.

“While excessive use of force constitutes serious misconduct under the Police Code of Conduct, in the circumstances of this case, we do not recommend police commence an employment process.”

And there you have it: the police can officially kill you, unlawfully and without justification, and face no consequences - not even employment ones. They can literally get away with murder. Coming on the same day that the new "I don’t talk about policing by consent" police commissioner is expressing his enthusiasm for a gun on every hip, and the same day that the police's own research finds them behaving in a discriminatory, dehumanising, abusive, and likely criminal way towards gang members and peopel they see as "unworthy" victims, its a bit fucking on the nose. And I think the public are entitled to ask whether an armed police force which behaves no different from a criminal gang, which is apparently legally entitled to abuse and even kill us with absolute impunity is worth having, or if they're a bigger problem than the ones they're meant to be solving.

One thing is crystal clear: an IPCA which excuses unlawful killing like this is not worth having. It is a fraud on the New Zealand public. An "oversight" body which does not effectively provide oversight, consequences, and (most importantly) result in institutional behavioural change is worthless. All it does it launder the reputation of the police, and prevent the accountability and change we need to see. And we are better off living honestly, with the knowledge that the police are an unaccountable criminal institution, than with that scam.

The end of policing by consent

National has appointed a new police commissioner. And he explicitly rejects policing by consent:

Asked if he subscribed to policing by consent, he said he did not.

“I don’t talk about policing by consent. I talk about trust and confidence, and it is fundamentally important that the police have the trust and confidence of the public, and we’ve got some work to do at the moment.”

And just like that, nearly two hundred years of core police culture has been tossed out, in favour of an American model evolved from slave patrols and based on subjugating the population by force - everything that Peel opposed. Which is precisely why trust and confidence has plummeted.

As for the consequences, Peel rightly recognised that the cooperation of the public was essential for the police to be able to do their job. Now the police have abandoned that, I guess they can try doing that job without that cooperation - and see how far it gets them.

Member's Day

Today is a Member's Day, and a significant one: it should finally see the passage of Teanau Tuiono's Citizenship (Western Samoa) (Restoration) Amendment Bill. While the bill is an ugly compromise which is a long way from proper redress for the government's past crimes (oh that's a familiar story), it will help, and I will be glad to see it pass.

With the main event out of the way, there will be the committee stage of Rima Nakhle's Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill, followed by the first readings of Julie Anne Genter's Income Tax (Clean Transport FBT Exclusion) Amendment Bill and Greg Fleming's Crimes (Increased Penalties for Slavery Offences) Amendment Bill. If the House moves quickly, it may make a start on Catherine Wedd's Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (3 Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill. There should be a ballot for two bills tomorrow.

Submit to defend te Tiriti!

The Justice Committee has called for submissions on National's racist and constitutionally radical Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill. Submissions can be made at the link above or by post, and are due by Tuesday, 7 January 2025. But I'd get in quick, in case National grows a spine and shortens the select committee period.

There are already template submissions floating around for this bill. Please don't use them. As people who have worked inside the sausage factory have pointed out, form and template submissions are grouped and ignored. You will have more impact and be more effective if you write your own. It does not have to be long, just a few sentences: who you are, your top reason(s) why you oppose the bill, and a request to appear before the committee (if you want to do that - and remember, it can be done by phone or zoom). If someone else - a big NGO, say - says something you agree with, then saying "I support the submission of [X]" (optionally, "on [issue Y]") is good - but make sure to also say something in your own words. Don't just crib and rearrange their language, because it is very obvious, and then your submission goes in the template bucket.

[This BTW is why I stopped posting my submissions here: people were just copy-pasting them, which undermined my impact and theirs]

There are many, many critiques of this bill which you can mine for ammunition. The Waitangi Tribunal reports, politicians' first-reading speeches, Helmut Modlik, Ngati Toa, senior lawyers, Geoffrey Palmer, Chris Finlayson, even Jenny fucking Shipley. You can pick one problem, try and cover them all, or just go with the general vibe that this bill misrepresents our history and would be (in the words of the waitangi Tribunal) "worst, most comprehensive breach of the Treaty/te Tiriti in modern times". Just be polite, be brief, and above all, resist the temptation to tell the politicians what complete arsehats vandals they are for even considering this piece of shit law. (This is always the hardest bit for me. Submission voice is different from blog voice is different from Kikorangi voice...)

Rimmer will be looking for a big show of astroturfed support from Hobson's Pledge. It's our job to outnumber them, to bury them in opposition. The marchers showed that today with the hikoi (which is now being estimated at 40 or 50 thousand, with some estimates in the 80's); time to show it at select committee as well.

The hikoi

Like everyone else (everyone who wasn't there, anyway), I've spent the morning watching the hikoi march on Parliament. The pictures are astounding: parliament grounds and the surrounding streets are full, and there are still people backed up along Lambton Quay. The police are estimating 35,000 people, and that's a floor rather than a ceiling.

The challenge this poses to the National government is clear. Faced with a crowd half this size at the foreshore and seabed hikoi in 2004, Helen Clark infamously dismissed them as "haters and wreckers". Labour lost the Māori seats as a result, and Clark was denied a majority, forcing her into the arms of NZ First for her last lame duck term. And while ACT's racist hardliners will say that no-one outside parliament today will be voting National, no, they won't be - not any more. But its also not just them. For everyone marching today, there are ten or more who don't live in Wellington and couldn't make it and who think that National's bill is an atrocity. And they're not all on the left. When people like Chris Finlayson and Jenny fucking Shipley are denouncing your bill as divisive and "inviting civil war", then its a sign that you've lost even the most boring of conservatives. Which is what happens when you attack the very foundations on which our state is built.

So what should National do? Simple: kill the bill, and quickly. Don't let Rimmer have his six month racist hate-fest of a select committee process; instead cut it short, vote it down, and tell Rimmer to go fuck himself. And if he threatens the government's confidence, then tell him to bring it on - because National is likely to do better out of an early election in those circumstances than it would otherwise.

But I think we all know that mediocre manager man Chris Luxon is too spineless and chickenshit to do anything. The man never stood up for anything in his life, beyond his own aggrandisement. And sadly, he's unlikely to start now.

More lawlessness from National

On Tuesday, sick of government stonewalling, the Waitangi Tribunal issued a rare court order, ordering the Minister of Health to release unredacted documents within 48 hours showing its reasoning for disestablishing Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority. The government's response to the lawful order of a court? Yeah, nah:

The Health Ministry has only partially adhered to a Waitangi Tribunal order for unredacted information regarding the closure of Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority.

[...]

A Ministry of Health spokesperson confirmed it released a number of documents on Thursday night, but asked for more for “consultation” before releasing the remaining documents.

There's a name for this: contempt. And as a standing commission of inquiry, the Tribunal has the power to punish it. And they should. While the penalty of a $1000 fine is derisory, Ministers need to learn that they are not above the law. And the shame of a conviction might focus his mind on proper comity towards the judiciary.

Of course, instead Ministers are again threatening to "reform" the Tribunal. Which sounds like a classic case of perversion of the course of justice to me.

National's tyrannical "foreign interference" law

Yesterday, under cover the the biggest political fight of the year, National quietly - covertly, even - introduced anti-foreign interference legislation. The bill is the product of a years-long work-program aimed at countering shit like this and this, and there's unquestionably a need to do something to counter foreign states' attacks on the democratic rights of kiwis. Unfortunately, the government's preferred solution - the creation of two very vague new criminal offences - goes too far, and will criminalise basic democratic activity such as protests. And under a straight and direct reading of the law, it would have criminalised most of our historic protest movements.

Much of the bill is unproblematic, if a bit weird. Tweaking the law of parties in relation to espionage offences to fill a gap? Fine. Changing existing offences around wrongful retention and corrupt use of official information to refer to "relevant information" instead so as to cover bodies excluded from the OIA? Fine, but there was another solution to that - include those bodies! - which of course the government didn't even consider. Amend the definition of "information" so that it "includes information about military tactics, techniques, or procedures"? Weird status-driven flex, but as those things are information and so already included in the definition, harmless as well as pointless. And the new offence of "commission of imprisonable offence to provide relevant benefit to foreign power" seems to target exactly the sort of problems linked to above, and not be problematic (it may be pointless, because foreign agents won't be deterred in the slightest by it, but the existence of the law isn't a problem).

The problem lies in new section 78AAA, improper conduct for or on behalf of foreign power. This makes it an offence to engage in improper conduct for or on behalf of a foreign power when you know (or in the government's opinion, ought to know) that you are acting on behalf of a foreign power, with the intention of or being reckless as to whether it compromises a "protected New Zealand interest". If that sounds vague, it gets worse when you start unpacking the definitions:

• "Foreign power" means essentially a government or agency, so that at least is OK. Neither the UN or Amnesty International are "foreign powers" in terms of the law. But...
• "acting for or on behalf of a foreign power" includes doing things that are merely "instigated by" or "with the agreement of" a foreign power. Does the government believe that all protest stems from nefarious foreign actions? Did a foreign PM give your protest photo a "like" on Facebook? Congratulations, you a criminal! (more on this later);
• "protected New Zealand interests" include not just important things like lives and public safety, the functioning of our elections and government and the democratic and human rights of our citizens, but also state bullshit like "international relations" and (more worryingly) "the economic well-being of New Zealand". Does your protest offend a foreign government, or a powerful industry lobby group? You're compromising those interests, and a potential criminal.
• "improper conduct" isn't just criminal or corrupt (indeed, actual crime seems not to be part of its definition at all), but instead conduct which is "covert", "deceptive", or "coercive". And here's where it gets nasty, because the Regulatory Impact Statement implies that merely holding confidential meetings or using encrypted communications falls within the definition of "covert" (and its excuse is that its not a problem because usually "the purpose of the activity is not to harm designated interests"). Do anything without inviting the police or SIS or narks to spy on you and read all your stuff? Covert! "Deceptive" means hiding or obfuscating consequences, or lying, or even "omitting any material particular"; what's a lie or an omission is of course entirely in the eyes of the state here, but the scope there seems very broad. Writing anonymously or under a pseudonym is absolutely covered. And "coercive" includes not just intimidation and threats, but also "enabling the denial or restriction of access to property or services that another person would otherwise be entitled to access". Did a fragile white incel feel "threatened" by your protest? Was someone late to work? Congratulations, it's coercive!

The latter point of course covers a huge swathe of legitimate democratic protest. Occupations and blockades are a normal part of the push and shove of democratic society. This law would define them as "coercive".

But wouldn't they only be illegal if they compromised protected New Zealand interests on behalf of a foreign power? As noted above, those interests include "international relations" and "economic wellbeing", while links to a foreign power can be highly tenuous. We've seen protests blockade streets and buildings, occupy land, ships and oil rigs, and the targets of those protests - the dairy, oil, and weapons industries - have all claimed that it threatens "economc wellbeing" (they've even called it "economic treason"). And the government and SIS of the day have slandered virtually every major protest movement in our history - the union movement, the anti-war movement, the anti-apartheid movement, the anti-nuclear movement - as a tool of foreign interests.

Essentially, this law allows the government to criminalise people based on its own misconceptions, conspiracy theories, and outright fantasies of their motivations (and its belief that we "ought to know" about their weirdo fantasies). It would have allowed Muldoon to jail John Minto and all of HART for 14 years for being foreign agents. It would have allowed them to jail every anti-nuclear protestor who blocked a street or rowed a canoe in front of a ship, and everyone who wrote a letter to the editor under a false name advocating against nuclear ship visits. It potentially - depending on what weird fantasies the SIS and Federated Farmers have - allows them to jail every member of the climate, environmental, and indigenous rights movements.

This is massive over-reach. And it being done in the name of "protecting" our rights adds insult to injury. As noted above, foreign interference is a threat. But the real threat here seems to be our own government, and its contempt for basic democratic rights.

Can this bill be saved? Removing s78AAA entirely would fix it. Alternatively, it could have an "avoidance of doubt" clause protecting protest, advocacy, dissent, and strikes, as used in the Terrorism Suppression Act might work. But I suspect that the government would view that as undercutting the core purpose of the bill: an all-encompassing criminalisation clause, with no loopholes for foreign agents to wriggle through. The problem is that that purpose criminalises us. And while the government will no doubt say "trust us, we wouldn't prosecute you", their record on this shows that they simply cannot be trusted. This law needs to be gutted. And any MP who votes for it in its present state needs to be voted out on their arse.

D-day for the government

The government's Treaty Principles Bill is up for its first reading today - bought forward in a rush in a desperate effort to avoid the hikoi which is currently marching on Wellington. But the Prime Minister won’t be there for it – he’s literally running away to Peru! But he took the opportunity to denounce his bill as he was fleeing:

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has given a scathing appraisal of the Treaty Principles Bill on the day of its first reading, saying the legislation has been unhelpful to his mission of getting the country back on track.

[...]

Luxon will miss the parliamentary debate - enroute to Peru for the APEC summit instead - but he called a morning media conference where he criticised the legislation in perhaps his strongest words yet.

"You do not go negate, with a single stroke of a pen, 184 years of debate and discussion, with a bill that I think is very simplistic."

Luxon is clearly unhappy with his bill sucking all the oxygen out of his government. But he knows the solution to that: he can vote it down today - or just encourage 6 National MPs to "rebel" and do so. Either would be nuclear for his coalition - but so clearly is supporting the bill. National is going to bleed and bleed over this, and even if Rimmer lets them vote it down when it gets out of committee in six months, the stench of having supported it in the first place isn't going to go away. National will bear the taint of being the racist party which tried to destroy our constitutional foundations. And that's something which is going to be impossible to live down.

Luxon could end all that today. But he won't, because he's a chickenshit, too cowardly even to face up to what he has agreed to. As for the National Party, by supporting this they will make it clear that there is no such thing as a "good Nat" - they're all racists, all the way down. And we should not let them escape that judgement.

(And for people who want to nitpick and say that this isn’t Luxon’s bill: he agreed to it, so he owns it. MMP may mean coalitions, but it does not mean you can escape responsibility for your choices.)