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.)

Injustice for torture

Between 1950 and 1993 the New Zealand government tortured and abused up to 250,000 children in residential care facilities. Yesterday, following formal findings from a royal commission, it finally apologised for that abuse. The next step is redress and restitution - compensating the surviving victims for the appalling harm they have suffered. But it turns out that maybe not every victim is going to get compensated, with the government refusing to say if it plans to exclude gang members:

Asked on Wednesday whether gang members would be eligible for redress, the relevant minister, Erica Stanford, declined to say.

"I have not made any decisions and neither has Cabinet. All of these things have to go to Cabinet," Stanford said.

"I'm not going to tell you today what's in and what's out and how much, because we haven't made any of those decisions yet."

Pressed again, Stanford said the question of whether gang members would be eligible was "one of the things that we have to be looking at".

So, they're considering it (and the fact that she refuses to say and hides behind cabinet confidentiality tells us that). So the position of at least some parties in this government is that the government can torture and abuse people, ruin their lives, and that if it decides it doesn't like you, they can refuse to compensate you. That is unjust. it is indecent. And it makes a total mockery of yesterday's "apology".

As the royal commission found, "Gangs provided survivors with the care (that is, attachment and belonging) and protection that state and faith-based institutions should have given." If abuse victims turned to gangs as a response to abuse, that seems to be the government's fault; and maybe it neds to think about compensating those institutions for the care they gave, and that the government did not.

Jagose doesn't get it

The government held a formal apology ceremony this morning to victims of child torture and abuse-in-care. One of those "apologising" was Solicitor-General Una Jagose, who had played a key role in devising and implementing the government's legal strategy of aggressively minimising its liabilities, slandering its victims, and waiting for them to die. Was she actually sorry for this? Of course not! - her "apology" was a masterclass in minimisation, diversion, and misdirection - and it was greeted with a chorus of boos and heckling as a result. And when she was questioned about this afterwards [in liveblog, at 12:04PM], it was clear that she didn't get it:

Solicitor-General Una Jagose said she understood the reaction she received from survivors at this morning's event.

Jagose was met with boos and calls for her resignation, as she delivered the apology on behalf of Crown Law.

"I understand that wero, and I understand people see the lawyer that acts on government instruction and takes cases defending governments as the person in the way. So I understand why I might be seen as the barrier."

So, it's "befehl ist befehl". She was "only following orders". Except that she wasn't some passive tool here - she was devising and recommending the very legal strategy she is hiding behind. her pretending to be a victim flies in the face of both the Royal Commission's findings, and common decency. But I guess you don't get to be a top government lawyer by having any of that, do you?

Jagose is fundamentally tainted by this.If she doesn't have the decency to resign, then she needs to be sacked. And if the government refuses to do so, then they can bear the taint of publicly protecting her.

National suppresses the media

The government is doing its formal apology to victims of abuse-in-care at Parliament tomorrow, along with introducing a (still secret) bill addressing restitution. It will obviously be a big media event. But Newsroom's Aaron Smale, a journalist who has played a key role in exposing crown failure and wrongdoing in this saga, will not be welcome:

Parliament’s Speaker has barred leading investigative journalist Aaron Smale from attending the official Crown apology at Parliament to victims of abuse in state care.

Smale, who has covered for eight years the abuse of children and others in state institutions, and the Crown’s legal strategy to exhaust survivors legally to save money and reputations, will not be accredited to report for Newsroom on Tuesday when the apology is made.

The decision has offended one prominent abuse survivor, known as Earl White, who says: “It is a disgrace that the Government is penalising someone who uncovered the fact that so many people in power covered up sexual abuse like my own.”

Smale had apparently offended National ministers by asking extremely pointed questions about whether Attorney-General Judith Collins and Solicitor-General Una Jagose would be held accountable for their role in the coverup, as well as whether they understood the link between abuse-in-care and the formation of gangs. So they got their rubberstamp Speaker to ban him. It's an outright case of media suppression, another example of the government's contempt for democracy and its fear of being held to account. But that's apparently how this government governs now.

So, if you see a National MP on the street: ask them: why did they ban Smale? And if they don't answer, ask them again. Don't let them escape the basic accountability we all expect in a democracy.

Climate Change: Raising the bar

One of the obligations of the Paris Climate Change Agreement is for every country to set a "Nationally Determined Contribution" - an NDC - of emissions cuts. The Key government initially set an unambitious NDC of a 30% cut (from 2005 levels) by 2030. The Ardern government later increased this to 50%, reflecting the need for greater ambition as well as greater opportunities for reductions. Unfortunately, they both expected to rely on "offshore mitigation" to meet a big chunk of those commitments - paying someone else to reduce emissions instead of reducing them ourselves, at huge expense (which makes you wonder whether we shouldn't just spend that money cutting emissions here...).

The Paris Agreement also requires parties to update those NDCs with more ambitious ones every five years. So the government asked He Pou a Rangi what it could realistically achieve domestically, as a factor in its decision. The Commission has reported back today, and based on its modelling, found that:

it would be feasible to achieve greater net emissions reductions in the NDC2 period (2031–2035) than the NDC1 commitment, through domestic action alone.

Depending on whether its set as a point or budget target, He Pou a Rangi's central scenario is for a 55% to 60% emissions cut from domestic action, with ambitious policy able to push that to 70% to 75%. So that's where NDC2 is going to have to start, with any contribution through offshore mitigation adding to that. And given that the current level of that is 15% to 20%, it looks like our overall target should be in the range of a 70% to 80% cut from 2005 levels - at least if we are to be consistent with our 2021 target.

The climate-denier coalition isn't going to want to do this. But other countries - and in particular, the EU, which has a climate clause in their FTA with us - have expectations. And maybe they'll just agree to it because it will be Somebody Else's Problem. And if they don't, and set a weak target, the next government can always simply raise it.

Drawn

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

• Employment Relations (Termination of Employment by Agreement) Amendment Bill (Laura Trask)
• Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill (Kahurangi Carter)

The first is ACT bullshit aimed at undermining basic employment rights. The second would correct a long-standing hole in our copyright laws, and hopefully it will be passed.

There were 73 bills in the ballot today - the most in quite some time. Naturally, Chris Hipkins doesn't have one - he doesn't care about anything / is too good for actual work. And naturally, his deputy Carmel Sepuloni is pushing for a four-year Parliamentary term, which tells us that what Labour really cares about is job security and unaccountability for themselves.

Member's Day

Today is a Member's Day. First up is the committee stage of Teanau Tuiono's Restoring Citizenship Removed By Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill. This will be followed by the second reading of Rima Nakhle's Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. And then, finally, the House will get on to some first readings: Tracey McLellan's Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill, Camilla Belich's Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill, and (if the House moves quickly) Julie Anne Genter's Income Tax (Clean Transport FBT Exclusion) Amendment Bill. Which means there will finally be a ballot tomorrow, for two or three bills. Which I guess is why the page of proposed member's bills is filling up with new ones...

End the government, not te Tiriti

For the last few months the Waitangi Tribunal has been holding an urgent inquiry into National's "Treaty Principles Bill". They've already issued one interim report, declaring it to be a steaming pile of racist horseshit, but the inquiry is still going on to determine just how big and how steaming and how shitty that pile is. This is obviously embarrassing for the government, so they decided to put a stop to it, with a plan to rob the Tribunal of jurisdiction by introducing the bill to the House early.

Obviously, it didn't work. The government's lawyers immediately told the Tribunal (as they were obliged to do under their duty of candour to the court); the Tribunal immediately passed this on to claimant's lawyers (ditto); and then it produced an interim report (it being their job to do so), declaring the bill to be "worst, most comprehensive breach of the Treaty/te Tiriti in modern times" which, if passed and not immediately repealed, "could mean the end of the Treaty/te Tiriti" (which is, sadly, the point; this white supremacist government wants to end te Tiriti, and that needs to be said loud and clear so we all know what is at stake).

And now Rimmer has the gall to be upset at the Tribunal for doing its job when he tried to stop it. Because apparently he thought he could rob it of jurisdiction and so prevent criticism of his white supremacist, anti-constitutional policy in secret, without anyone noticing or being allowed to do anything. Which just shows how utterly contemptuous of democratic norms this racist fuckweasel is.

Democratic governments don't try and undermine the foundations of their constitution. And they especially don't try and do it in secret, with a blitzkreig to prevent and limit opposition. That's Trumpist shit, and stuff we should not tolerate in Aotearoa.

Neither should we tolerate Rimmer's bill. Te Tiriti is the foundation of our constitution. While it is not the source of the government's sovereignty (because sovereignty was never ceded), it is one of the key sources of its legitimacy. It meddles with it at its peril. If the government wants to end te Tiriti and the crown-Māori relationship, then I think that many kiwis would rather end them and their illegitimate regime instead.

26,000 unemployed under National

The latest labour market statistics have dropped, showing another rise in unemployment. There are now 148,000 unemployed - 26,000 more than when National took office.

...which is what happens when you sack thousands of public servants and have the Reserve Bank crash the economy. This is apparently the most severe per-capita recession in our history, and its completely self-inflicted for purely ideological reasons. What's scary is that this recession will have a body-count, measured both in direct suicides as well as ill-health. We need some way of holding the murderers who have inflicted it to account.

National's privatised child-abuse camps

National has a hard-on for "boot camps" as part of its desperate attempt to grub "tough on crime" votes from sadistic geriatric pedophobes. That's bad enough, but its gets worse: the camps will be privatised. And they will be allowed to use force against children:

A leaked ministerial document from the Children’s Minister shows an admission that giving military-style academy providers the power to use force against children may be seen as “increasing the potential risk of abuse in custody”.

[...]

Cabinet agreed that military-style academy providers – including “third-party providers” – will have the power to use force against young people outside of a residence, such as on overnight camps or rehabilitative programmes. Currently, powers only exist when a person is at a residence.

Providers would be able to use physical force, no greater than reasonably necessary, to restrain a young person attempting to abscond or harm themselves or others.

The problem of course is that Oranga Tamaraki already treats those in its care as sub-human, and physically abuses them; private providers will likely be worse, and certainly be far less accountable. While Karen Chhour is denying it, this is a recipe to repeat the abuses of the past, and Chhour and National need to be held accountable for that.

Meanwhile, Luxon is all over the place about this, first pretending he "wasn't briefed", then, when it was pointed out that that made him look like a stupid fool who had no idea what was happening around his own Cabinet table, admitting that he was. Which I guess shows us the dishonesty of his claims to be "unaware" of things, and how he uses them to try and kill questions and avoid accountability.

Stephen Rainbow is ACT's crony

Back in August, National sabotaged human rights by appointing terf and genocide supporter Stephen Rainbow as Chief Human Rights Commissioner. The Spinoff has been digging into this, and they've uncovered new information: Rainbow didn't actually get the job - until suddenly he did:

“I didn’t get the HRC role but still very keen to help out,” wrote Stephen Rainbow to Act Party chief of staff Andrew Ketels in a text message on May 22 this year. Rainbow had applied for the position of chief human rights commissioner, after being nominated by Act leader David Seymour, and been interviewed for the job in March. He did not receive a text back from Ketels.

But nearly three months later, Ketels did text. “Congratulations!” On that day, Rainbow had been announced by justice minister Paul Goldsmith as the new chief human rights commissioner. “Thanks Andrew,” Rainbow replied. “Appreciate the opportunity to serve my country.” He is due to start in his role at the commission next week.

So, Rainbow was ACT's choice, and the natural conclusion is that they pressured Goldsmith to overturn the transparent and independent appointments process to shoe-horn their saboteur into office. A saboteur BTW who commiserated with ACT about the "challenging time for your office and David as you head into Waitangi Day"... which sounds just a little bit racist, and adds to the evidence that he is a completely unsuitable appointee incapable of properly performing the functions of the office, who should be immediately sacked by the next government.

Sabotaging justice

One of the achievements of the Labour-led government was the establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2019. After decades of high-profile miscarriages of justice, and judges looking the other way on state conspiracies of silence and each other's fuckups, we finally got an outside body to cast an independent eye over dodgy convictions, and refer them back for re-examination. But now, National seems to be trying to sabotage it, by their usual method of dubious appointments:

[L]ast week Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith told Hampton, CCRC head Colin Carruthers, KC, and fellow commissioner Virginia Hope their terms wouldn’t be renewed when they expired in December, despite them wishing to continue.

They have been replaced by two less experienced lawyers, with the chief commissioner’s job controversially going to retired judge Denis Clifford.

On Thursday afternoon, Hampton resigned from the commission with immediate effect, saying that allowed him to speak about his serious concerns with the appointments, and the the CCRC’s future.

Hampton said the changes at the commission effectively stripped it of anyone with experience in the commission’s core work of investigating individual miscarriages, which he and Carruthers had extensive involvement in, prior to the CCRC’s formation.

Moreover, it removed the only people who had significant backgrounds in criminal defence work, and added more commissioners who were previously Crown prosecutors, Hampton said.

So, rather than being an independent, outside view, it will be the system "re-examining" itself (in some cases, they may even be re-examining their own decisions). The foxes will be back in charge of the henhouse, able to go back to pretending there isn't a problem, just like they did before the CCRC was established.

Pretty obviously, this will undermine public confidence in the CCRC, and deter people from applying. And that's the point. Miscarriages of justice are expensive and embarrassing for the state. And so it has decided to limit its liability - just as it did with child torture. The rotten state doesn't want justice; it just wants its victims to shut up and go away.

As for how to fix this, as with the Human Rights Commission and Waitangi Tribunal, sacking National's saboteurs would be a start. But beyond that, the next government needs to amend the CCRC's legislation to ensure that New Zealand judges, prosecutors, and police officers cannot serve on the commission or taint its independence. If we want people to have confidence in the CCRC - and by extension, the entire justice system - we can accept no less.

The High Court says "Land Back"

Way back in 1839, the New Zealand Company bought the area that is now Nelson from local iwi and hapu. As part of the deal, they promised that Māori would retain their homes, fields, and burial grounds, and that in addition, 10% of the land in the planned township and surroundings would be set aside for them. A few years later, the New Zealand government, as part of its investigations into pre-Treaty land deals, effectively took over the arrangement. They then proceeded to break it: land which was meant to be set aside was stolen; promised land was never delivered; and what was given was stolen again for "government purposes". The local iwi have been fighting this ever since, and in 2017 won a major victory in the Supreme Court with a ruling that the government owed them a fiduciary duty and must honour the deal. They kicked it back down to the High Court to decide exactly what was owed, and after seven years of foot-dragging the court has finally ruled, deciding that the government must give them their land back:

Māori customary landowners in New Zealand’s oldest property claim, the Nelson Tenths, suffered a loss of land and are entitled to millions of dollars in compensation, the High Court has found.

In a decision released on Thursday, the plaintiffs, led by kaumātua Rore Stafford on behalf of the descendants of customary landowners, were found to be entitled to relief, which was likely to be “substantially less than $1 billion” but still a “significant sum”, the court found.

The sum could not be settled until the final acreage of land to be returned and other issues are determined, a press summary on the decision said.

...which the government will no doubt try and drag out for another seven years, as part of the same immoral legal strategy it used on the children it tortured. But the principle isn't in doubt: the High Court said "Land Back". And if they've already given it away, then they have to pay compensation. In addition, there's 180 years of back-rent, plus 180 years of interest. Its simple interest, not compounding, but: this is going to be hugely expensive for the government.

(Note that "given it away" apparently includes to SOEs and Crown Entities, which are part of the government. The government here is behaving exactly like a rich bankrupt who hides their assets in a trust: sure, they can use them, control them, even get money from them, but they're not "theirs", so can't be used to pay off their suckerscreditors. Whether this position meets the standard of ethical behaviour we expect from our government, or is consistent with its longstanding position that privatisation would not undermine Treaty redress, is left as an exercise for the reader...)

So, given the current government's anti-Māori agenda, the question naturally arises: will National once again abuse its Parliamentary power to over-rule the courts and prevent justice, as they are doing over the foreshore and seabed? Sadly, I don't think it can be ruled out. But if they try and go that way, it would be another ongoing Treaty breach, and basically blow up the crown-Māori relationship completely. National might not care about that: Māori don't vote for them. But the rest of us should. And we should not let it happen.

A collapse in police legitimacy

Last week, the government had a big wank about police raids in Ōpōtiki, crowing about "gangs" and "drugs" and "law and order". Unfortunately the police did exactly the same shit they did in the Urewera terror raids 17 years ago, dragging people off in front of their kids and terrorising the community (so much for their "apology"; sincerity requires change, and the police are just incapable of that). And it seems that the local iwi have had enough of that:

Māori community leaders Te Aho and Tame Iti attended a meeting in Ōpōtiki, the Eastern Bay of Plenty town, where locals outlined issues caused by the police raids where mokopuna were forced to watch as whānau were arrested by armed police.

“No more will we tolerate this.”

[...]

“If the NZ Police Head office or any other government agency like Oranga Tamariki think that they can do what they have done again in our district again then they have another thing coming.

“The other thing coming is that we will establish our own intelligence and surveillance of them. When an emergency is triggered we will blockade them at the houses that they raid and not relent until the rights of our people have been validated and our tamariki mokopuna.”

Its hard to see this as anything other than a collapse in police legitimacy. Police need the support of the community to do their jobs effectively, but in Ōpōtiki, the community is saying "nope". National likes to complain about "Labour's" policy of policing by consent (you know, the foundation of our entire model of policing); the above is a glimpse of what policing without consent looks like. While the police can (maybe) use force to carry out their raids and arrests, the cost of that is to further alienate the community they are ostensibly there to protect - which means a further reduction in cooperation, and possibly even more active opposition. And the police simply cannot function as police in the face of that. At least not in any way that we would recognise or accept.

Taking the piss again

Remember Casey Costello? The government's most ignorant Minister? First she was referred to the Chief Archivist after claiming that key advice on her cancer promotion policy had simply magically appeared on her desk one day, and that she had no idea where it came from. Then, when the Ministry of Health said her plan to give Philip Morris a $216 million tax cut for its heated cancer products was a bad idea, she told Cabinet she had received "independent advice" to the contrary; when the media quite rightly asked to see that advice, she released a collection of random papers which did not support the case, and appeared to have been googled up at three a.m. by an emotional junior staffer in response to media queries. And now, she's claiming to have no idea where they came from either. In response to an OIA request for the origins of the material, she claimed:

I note that the advice consists of academic articles and health research that forms part of a wider body of scientific literature that focuses on harm reduction, rather than a moralistic, abstinence-only perspective on tobacco and nicotine products. This research is available online and my office has spent a considerable amount of time reviewing a wide range of evidence and information. As such, it is not possible to provide a definitive response to the date and time the articles and health research were first accessed by my office. Therefore, this part of your request is refused under section 18(g) of the Act, as the information is not held.

Yeah right. And if you believe that, I have a Minister to sell you.

Obviously, this is going to the Ombudsman. They have already made clear in their previous ruling that Ministers are required to take reasonable steps to find if information is held. Obvious steps in this case could include searching emails, checking document management systems, examining file metadata, or just asking staff. Its not clear whether the Minister did any of those things - but in the wake of the previous ruling and referral to the Chief Archivist, it smacks of a further attempt to mislead the public and cover up the truth. Hopefully the Ombudsman will get to the bottom of it.

More Sabotage

The Waitangi Tribunal has been one of the most effective critics of the National government and its racist, anti-Māori agenda. So naturally, they're sabotaging it with a crony appointment:

Former ACT Party leader Richard Prebble has been appointed to the Waitangi Tribunal.

Prebble, a Commander of the British Empire, is one of two new members to be appointed, Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka said in a statement on Thursday.

Prebble is a former Cabinet minister who was originally a member of the Labour Party. He joined the newly formed ACT party in 1996, later becoming its leader until 2004.

Prebble is a racist. He opposed even limited recognition of Māori rights through the (now repealed, and disastrous in other ways) Foreshore and Seabed Act. He opposed recognition of Māori interests in water through Three Waters. He hangs around with racist people like Don Brash, Michael Bassett, and Rodney Hide. He has nothing positive to offer the Tribunal, and his appointment can only be seen as an attempt at sabotage, similar to Paul Goldsmith's sabotage of the Human Rights Commission by appointing racists and terfs. And to add insult to injury, we'll be paying for him to undermine them from within.

Our institutions deserve better from our government than this. We deserve better from our government. Their contempt for democratic and constitutional norms is another reason why they need to urgently be voted out on their arses.

As for Prebble, like Goldsmith's Human Rights Commission appointments, he appears incapable of actually performing the functions of the office to which he has been appointed. And like those other racists, the next government can and should simply sack him.

National's fast-track fucks our future

A few years ago, we looked to be on-track to a decarbonised future, with an international consortium led by BlueFloat Energy announcing plans for huge offshore windfarms off Taranaki and Waikato. But National's corrupt fast-track law just fucked all that:

Spanish offshore wind developer BlueFloat Energy is cancelling plans for wind farms off the coast of Taranaki and Waikato, citing “key uncertainties” about the route to market and the competition for allocation of the seabed.

The move comes after a controversial seabed mining plan was revealed to be among the 149 projects listed in the Government’s Fast-Track Approvals Bill.

Developers, including BlueFloat, have previously said the seabed mining project could shrink or completely eliminate the area available for offshore wind in South Taranaki, which is considered to have the country’s best wind resource.

This is an absolute disaster. In addition to GW of renewable generation, these offshore wind developments were expected to result in 10,000 jobs during construction and 2,000 ongoing ones for maintenance. It would have been a lifeline for the Taranaki economy, a replacement for its current fossil industry which would have allowed many fossil employees to move directly into new work. But National prefers to rip, shit, and bust for a tiny number of mining jobs with no wider benefits, to help a company which lies to the stock exchange.

Heckuva job, National. Hope you're proud of yourselves.

Member's morning

Today the House is in an extended sitting, devoted to Member's Business as a catch-up for time stolen by the government in urgency. First up was the second reading of the Restoring Citizenship Removed By Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill, soon to be known as the Citizenship (Western Samoa) (Restoration) Amendment Bill. Second is the first reading of a local bill, the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill. After that the House will move on to the third reading of Katie Nimon's Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill. If that goes quickly the House might be able to spend a bit more time on the second reading of Rima Nakhle's Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill, but I doubt it'll get there. So again, no ballot - but with the postponement of several second readings, we might finally get one soon.

The cooker government

We know that the current National government is basically a government of and for antivaxxers and cookers, the people who rioted at Parliament and burned the grounds. But so far they've generally avoided explicitly identifying themselves as such. Until today, when Workplace Relations Minister dropped (or rather refused to wear) the mask, by claiming that the previous government was "anti-worker" because it supported vaccine mandates:

I don't agree with that statement because I believe, in fact, the most anti-worker Government we've seen in decades is the previous Government. It was the previous Government that ordered vaccine mandates for workers; never before had we seen the rights of workers across the country be eroded so swiftly. Not only did this erode workers' freedom of choice and bodily autonomy, so many people were forced out of their jobs because the Government refused to look at other options like rapid antigen tests. Rather than listen to those affected workers, the previous Government pushed them to the margins of society. The previous Government's legislative overreach led to ostracism and division that have hugely impacted our civil society and had a negative impact on the employment and earnings of Kiwi individuals.

ACT has form on hosting cookers, but previously they've tried to downplay it. Van Velden's stance suggests they're now nakedly trying to appeal to them. Meanwhile, we now have a Minister for Workplace safety who seems to be opposed to the whole idea. If she's unwilling to do the job properly, and commit to protecting workers from all workplace hazards (including disease as well as bad employers), she should resign.

Stomping on democracy

That's the only way to describe National's actions in appointing a crown observer to the Wellington City Council. Wellington didn't vote for National. They elected a council which supports public transport, housing intensification, and making Wellington a nicer place for people to live (rather than landlords and house hoarders to bank capital gains). So they've started the process to overthrow that council, using the disruption created by National's own proxies on the council as a justification. Which sounds an awful lot like Putin's tactics of using "instability" caused by local proxies to justify invasion...

But its not just Wellington. The Otago Regional Council is trying to pass a land and water plan which will protect its rivers. The government has just decided to legislate to stop them from doing so - and of course it will have retrospective effect (a favourite tactic of this government). In Auckland, they're trying to over-rule the Auckland Council's commitment to safe speed limits, so they can hoon to the airport in their government limos. In Canterbury they seem to be gearing up to overthrow local democracy to steal the water again. And then there's all those councils who want to keep their Māori wards...

it seems that rather than being committed to localism, National wants to micromanage our councils from Wellington. And if voters disagree, well, they'll just stop us from voting. Which probably sounds fine to them - except (so far) we can still vote in 2026, and we should take the opportunity to vote these anti-democratic authoritarian tyrants out on their arses.

A violation of law, justice, and decency

This morning, in a desperate effort to distract attention from the suppurating sore of contempt that is Andrew Bayly, National announced that it would be bringing back its "three strikes" regime. The policy never worked and had no significant quantifiable benefits; but National doesn't care, despite a commitment in both coalition agreements that policy would be "evidence-based". Instead, they seem to think the reason it didn't work was because they simply weren't vicious enough. So this time round, they'll not only be lowering the threshold for a 'strike" - they'll also be imposing them retrospectively:

The regime would also be retrospective, capturing all the strike convictions in the old regime that would count in the new one.

This is despite officials warning this would “contravene a fundamental justice right only to be subject to penalties that were in place at the time of the relevant offending (Bora section 26)”.

Murder Minister Nicole McKee disagrees, which I think shows her complete lack of understanding of not just the BORA, but of justice. The right to the lesser penalty has been black-letter law in this country since at least 1980, thanks to s22 of the Criminal Justice Amendment Act 1980, and I suspect it goes back much further in caselaw (the law codifying practice rather than creating a new principle). We're committed to it under Article 11 of the UDHR and Article 15 of the ICCPR, so National's tyranny will put us in breach of our international obligations. And as we are subject to universal periodic review as well as an individual complaints mechanism, they will be called on it.

But National doesn't care about any of that. All they care about is the sugar hit of "tough on crime" headlines. And as with their prisoner voting law or their climate change policies, complying with our international obligations will be a problem for the next government (which National will of course criticise them for).

What National thinks of us

A "what the fuck" moment for National: Andrew Bayly went round calling a worker a "loser" on an official visit:

The worker explained their interaction with Bayly, and said once the pair were introduced, Bayly asked them why they were still at work.

“Take a bottle of wine and go home, go on, go home ... take some wine and f*** off,” the complainant wrote that Bayly said.

“What followed next was both shocking and humiliating. He called me a ”loser“ repeatedly, saying the reason I was still was work was because I am a ”loser“.

“He turned to the group of people with him at the time, including my boss, the minister’s assistant and marketing staff, and ... employees and formed an ‘L’ with his fingers on his forehead.

Again, what the actual fuck?

There's a suggestion that Bayly was drunk; alternatively, it may just illustrate the attitude of Ministers on $304,300 salaries towards people who actually have to work for a living: they're all just "losers" who should have become Cabinet Ministers. Whether either is the sort of behaviour acceptable for a Minister is left as an exercise for the reader.

Unexpected support

When the Education and Workforce Committee reported back on Camilla Belich's Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill and recommended that it not be passed, I'd assumed it was doomed. The right-wing coalition government supports employer exploitation of workers, and certainly doesn't see why intentionally and systematically conspiring to not pay them or demand free labour - an actual business model for some employers - should be a crime, or why the current law which views employers as "persons in special relationship" towards their employers, but not vice-versa - could be considered unfair and asymmetrical. So I was quite surprised when, last night, NZ First voted for the bill, getting it over the line to its second reading.

During the debate in Parliament, NZ First MP Mark Patterson said his party hadn't been part of the select committee that investigated the bill, but had listened carefully to both sides.

"It is the view of the New Zealand First caucus that this bill is not without some merit," he said.

But he wasn't guaranteeing support all the way through.

"New Zealand First will be supporting this bill through to the committee of the whole House stage.

"We, however, have listened carefully to the concerns on this side of the House. So there are some things that we want to see examined further through that committee stage."

...Which suggests that this isn't actual support, but just a weapon in some internal coalition power-play. Still, maybe they're pissed enough at ACT or National to support it all the way, if they get a token amendment to let them claim a victory. Which would be well worth doing if it doesn't further gut an (already pathetically weak) bill.

But if it passes, this bill will establish a principle: that wage theft is theft. And it means that a future government can then amend it to actually treat it as such, with an identical penalty.

We need more judicial power, not less

The Herald is reporting on yet another reporting from the ATLAS-network-linked "New Zealand" Initiative, this one complaining of a creep towards judicial supremacy, and calling for the powers of judges to interpret the law to be reined in. It seems that the billionaires who fund ATLAS and its local collaborators want to be sure they get what they pay for when they buy politicians, and don't want judges souring the deal or interfering with corporate power, even when the law requires that they do so. Hence the short-sighted enthusiasm for arbitrary executive despotism. Meanwhile, for people who aren't billionaires or shilling from them, and who actually live in Aotearoa and pay attention to our democracy, its clear that we need more judicial power, not less.

The most obvious reason for that is the current government, whose naked corruption is exactly the sort of thing judges were invented to prosecute. But beyond that, there are also long-term reasons. Parliament has been a terrible guardian of our human rights. It does not even pretend to do the job properly. Remember Hilary Calvert's absurd third-reading speech on the prisoner disenfranchisement law? That's the standard of "care" our politicians bring to our laws. That abdication of responsibility produced a constitutional backlash: the first ever declaration of inconsistency, and a law requiring Parliament to formally take notice of them. But that law did not fix the problem: the current government is ignoring formal declarations of inconsistency, and Parliament is still routinely passing laws which violate human rights. And now the present lot are taking that attitude and applying it to te Tiriti as well, on the weird belief that their private coalition agreement amongst themselves trumps the foundation of our constitution and state legitimacy. Which is in turn inviting a constitutional backlash in that area as well...

Again and again our parliament has shown that they cannot be trusted to make laws responsibly. Our judges, OTOH, seem to be responsible custodians. They take their duties seriously, provide real reasons for their decisions (which are in turn tested and scrutinised by others), and unlike politicians, have not institutionalised bribery as part of their culture. The balance of power between legislature and judiciary is a slider we can move. And the sheer irresponsibility and corruption of the former is inviting voters to shift it further towards the "judicial" end. And when we do, the present advocates of "parliamentary supremacy" will have no-one to blame for it but themselves.

Member's Day

Today is a Member's Day. First up is the third reading of Deborah Russell's Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill, which looks like it will pass unanimously. This will be followed by the committee stage of Katie Nimon's Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill and the second readings of Camilla Belich's Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill and Rima Nakhle's Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. If the House moves very quickly it will make a start on Tracey McLellan's Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill, which would mean a ballot tomorrow, but that seems unlikely.

What if you run a transparent process, then ignore it?

On Friday I blogged a news story about Paul Goldsmith's appointment of terf and genocide supporter Stephen Rainbow as Chief Human Rights Commissioner, and how it appeared that he had ignored the recommendations of the appointments panel to shoulder-tap a preferred and unqualified candidate. The Spinoff was on the story as well, and has done their own piece drawing the same conclusions. And better: they've now confirmed them with a leak:

Update: The Spinoff has viewed documents with fewer redactions that show Rainbow was specifically noted as “not recommended” by the panel following his interview. Pacheco was listed as “highly appointable”. Two of the candidates for race relations commissioner (neither of whom were Derby as she was not initially interviewed) were graded as “highly appointable” by the panel.

So, just to make this clear: Goldsmith pretended to follow the Paris Principles by pursuing a transparent and independent selection process, seeking nominations from human rights groups and civil society and appointing a highly-qualified independent panel to assess them. He then took that panel's recommendation, threw it in the bin, and appointed completely unqualified candidates for reasons which have been kept secret (likely because they are embarrassingly inadequate, and possibly unlawful). Obviously, this is not how appointments to quasi-constitutional offices should be made. And again, the next government should respond to this violation of our constitutional norms by sacking the unqualified cronies the moment they take office.

A moral void at the heart of our establishment

Back in July, the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care delivered its report, detailing a horrific litany of abuse for which the government was ultimately responsible. The report found that a long list of government ministers and officials had allowed, failed to stop, and effectively covered up that abuse. Today, Newsroom has started a major new series on how that happened, and how the state turned on its victims.

Reading it, what's stands out is how it all comes down to the framing. Right from the outset, officials saw this not as a crime which demanded justice, but as a fiscal and reputational risk to the New Zealand state - and advised Ministers accordingly. Which is an example of the banality of evil, how bureaucracy rots the conscience. But what's also striking is that for over two decades, no Minister seems to have pushed back against that framing. No-one - not Bill English, not Wyatt Creech, not Helen Clark, or Annette King - seems to have gone "hang on a minute; this isn't right". And while Ministers can not and should not direct police investigations, they can start inquiries (like the one which led to those findings), listen to victims, and arrange compensation schemes before everyone is dead. And none of them did that. None of them apparently even tried. And neither apparently did any of their Cabinet colleagues on the multiple occasions when details of the allegations and the government's proposed response (deny liability and wait for them to die) went to Cabinet.

What this inquiry has exposed is not just torture and abuse and institutional cover-ups, but a complete moral void at the heart of our establishment. If our political class aren't soulless husks bereft of any shred of conscience, they've done such an impressive job of faking it as to make no difference. And the obvious question that raises is: are these really the sort of people we want running our country?

Goldsmith's "transparent" human rights appointment process

Back in August, National sabotaged human rights by appointing terf and genocide supporter Stephen Rainbow as Chief Human Rights Commissioner, and terf and white supremacist Melissa Derby as Race Relations Commissioner. The appointments seemed calculated to undermine public confidence in the Commission, and there were obvious questions about how they happened. So I asked, using the OIA. I got the response back today, and its crystal clear that Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith did not follow a proper appointments process, instead parachuting his preferred candidates in to the interview process, then appointing them - possibly explicitly against the advice of the independent panel he had appointed to do the job.

The full documents are here. Note that they are incomplete, and fail to include panel reports on the successful candidates. My request was also poorly phrased, and did not ask for Goldsmith's communications around the appointment, but there were obviously several important ones. But judging from the documents, this is what happened:

• In December 2023, the Ministry of Justice advised Goldsmith on the need to appoint new EEO and Race Relations Commissioners, and the upcoming need to appoint a new Chief Commissioner. They remind the Minister of the Paris Principles, which require that there is a transparent process for appointments and that an independent review panel advise the Minister. They recommend the appointment of such a panel.
• Later in December, they do a followup briefing about the need to advertise the positions. They also suggest writing to government caucuses. Goldsmith does so.
• In February 2024, he appoints an independent panel, consisting of retired judge Terrence Arnold, former Attorney-General (and National MP) Chris Finlayson, human rights lawyer Paul Rishworth, and iwi chairs representative Lorraine Toki to assess the applications. They do their job properly, and in March they report back with a shortlist (p30). Neither Rainbow or Derby's name appears on it.
• Despite this, later in March Rainbow appears on the interview list. It appears that Goldsmith wrote him in, and bumped another candidate to do so. The recommendations of the panel are (of course) redacted, but if they'd recommended his appointment, they wouldn't be.
• Sometime after this, Goldsmith "asked for the panel to interview Dr Melissa Derby for the position of Race Relations Commissioner" (p46). The panel's views on her are not included.
• In June the appointment goes to Cabinet's Appointments and Honours Committee. The Ministry of Justice's briefing on this (p44-45) and recommendations (p46) suggest strongly that Rainbow was not the candidate recommended by the panel (if he was, then his name would be recommended on p46, and there would be no redaction). Instead, he seems to be recommended as a second-choice because of some redacted objection to the recommended candidate.
• And just like that, Goldsmith's two preferred candidates are appointed!

As noted above, we don't know what Goldsmith said to the panel, and we don't have their recommendations. I can go to the Ombudsman, and if I'm successful, we might know in a year or two. But one thing is clear: rather than run a transparent, independent process as required by the Paris Principles, Goldsmith simply appointed a pair of hatemongers, apparently against the explicit recommendations of the appointments panel. And when we're talking about our chief human rights body, that simply isn't good enough. having seen this appointments process, i stand by what I said in August: these people are unable to credibly perform the functions of the office. And the next government should simply sack them.

10/10: World Day Against the Death Penalty

Today, October 10, is the world day against the death penalty. Out of 195 UN member states, 63 still permit routine capital punishment. Today is the day we work to change that.

This year's theme is the misconception that the death penalty makes people safer. The use of the death penalty in "security" cases, which relies on an inherently political narrative of who is a "threat" and who is not. So its not about "safety", but just another tool of oppression. But even in ordinary cases, the regular execution of the innocent in death penalty states shows the same problems. If we want to make people actually safe, we need to deal with the root causes of crime and conflict - not use the state to murder people.

While no states abolished the death penalty this year, Zimbabwe's government agreed in principle to do so, and legislation is pending. Hopefully that will pass before the end of the year.

This is what corruption looks like

One of the risks of National's Muldoonist fast-track law is corruption. If Ministers can effectively approve projects by including them in the law for rubberstamping, then that creates some very obvious incentives for applicants seeking approval and Ministers seeking to line their or their party's pockets. And its a risk that seems to have been realised, with $500,000 in donations associated with fast-track projects:

Companies and shareholders associated with 12 fast-track projects gave more than $500,000 in political donations to National, Act and New Zealand First and their candidates, RNZ analysis shows.

The projects include a quarry extension into conservation land and a development whose owner was publicly supported by National MPs during a legal battle with Kāinga Ora.

[...]

An RNZ analysis of donations shows entities and individuals associated with 12 of the 149 projects that will be written into the Bill donated to National or its candidates in 2022 or 2023. These projects will be assessed by expert panels as to whether they proceed through the fast-track process.

Two also donated to NZ First or Shane Jones, and two donated a total of $150,000 to Act within the same period.

Note that this does not include donations given through NZ First's secret bribe trust or equivalent vehicles.

The government says this is all OK because the donations were declared. They would never, never be so foolish as to take a donation in exchange for favours when everyone could see what was happening. The problem is that no matter how often they say this, the public simply does not believe them. We know that people (and especially companies, with statutory duties to pursue profit) do not give away such vast amounts of money for nothing; we know they want something in return. And Jones and Bishop seem to be giving them something. If they're not corrupt, they're trying very hard to give us that impression, and they have only themselves to blame if we draw the obvious conclusion.

Which is another reason why the next government will need to not just repeal this outrageous law, but revoke and review every single consent granted: as a basic political hygiene measure. Because corruption cannot be allowed to pay, ever.

But beyond the bill, this again shows the need to outlaw political donations, for full public funding of political parties, for lobbyist regulation, and for the creation of an independent anti-corruption commission to go over every past and future donor, minister, and governing party with a microscope to see if favours were ever traded for money or other reward. National's open embrace of naked bribe-taking is hugely damaging to public trust in our political system. If we want to restore it, we know what needs to be done.

One cheer for the Samoan citizenship bill

Back in April, Teanau Tuiono's member's bill to undo a historic crime and restore citizenship to Samoans stripped of it by Muldoon unexpectedly passed its first reading and was sent to select committee. That committee has now reported back. But while the headline is that it has unanimously recommended that the bill proceed, that masks a very ugly compromise.

The purpose of the bill was to undo Muldoon's historic crime. Lest anyone forget, in 1982 the UK Privy Council - then our highest court, because colonialism - ruled that Samoans born in Samoa between 1924 and 1949 were and always had been New Zealand citizens (and therefore could not be deported). Muldoon's response was to pass a law - under urgency of course - stripping them of that citizenship, unless they were presently in New Zealand. Tuiono's bill was meant to undo that: not just the effect, but also erase the infamous law from the statute book. While its effects would continue, but be ameliorated by a grant as of right, that evil law declaring Samoans to never have been citizens would be gone.

But that was a bridge too far for the political establishment. So instead, a bill aimed at erasing a crime will now perpetuate it, by explicitly retaining Muldoon's racist law while amending it to add the grant provision and a reference to it. The citizenship gained will very explicitly only apply from when it was granted (rather than being recognised as having always been held and never removed), and unlike "normal" citizenship, won't be able to be (and, more importantly for the government, will not have been) passed on to children born outside Aotearoa. Its explicitly called a "citizenship of special nature" for Samoans; a second class of citizenship, if you will. And of course New Zealand can't be expected to make even this limited restitution for our crimes for free, so every single person who wants this second-class citizenship will have to pay for the privilege - albeit at the reduced price of $204.40. The Department of Internal Affairs has to cover its costs, you know! But given the number of surviving victims - maybe 3,400 still alive - the amount of money is utterly trivial to the government: less than a million dollars. They could simply appropriate it and cover the costs as a goodwill gesture. But like full, uninterrupted citizenship, even that was apparently too much for the racists in Parliament.

Both the Greens and Labour wanted the bill to go further, repealing Muldoon's racist law (the diplomatically important section 7 could simply have been moved to the Citizenship Act, where it belongs), eliminating fees, and extending eligibility to descendents born before Samoa became independent in 1962. But NZ First, whose support provides a majority for the bill, said no. The resulting compromise is an improvement on the current situation - some people will have a form of citizenship recognised! Huzzah! - but its also ugly, nasty, and petty. Rather like NZ First, really. It is a long way from what we ought to do, or what submitters expected. About the best that can be said for it is that its something that can be improved upon in future. And that's... not enough.

So, its one cheer for Teanau Tuiono and his bill. I'm sure this is the best he can do at the moment with the Parliament we've got, but no-one should pretend that this is decent, or honourable, or enough. Like everything else happening this term, the next government will have to fix this. Fortunately, Labour has publicly committed to a position. Now we have to hold them to it.

"The party of personal responsibility"

When National decided to shovel $24 million of public money to a charity run by a donor and chaired by the son of a National MP, on the "independent" advice of a former National PM, they proudly stated that it was because it was in the coalition agreement. Now, the Auditor-General has found that the decision did not comply with public procurement rules, which exist precisely to stop Ministers from giving public money to donors and cronies. The government's response? Blame the Ministry:

Doocey was not available to be interviewed but in a statement a spokesperson said any faults with the procurement process lay with the Ministry of Health.

"While the decision to fund Gumboot Friday was a decision made by the government, how this commitment was implemented was a decision for the Ministry of Health.

"Throughout the process, the minister has sought, and received assurance from officials that the implementation option chosen by the Ministry of Health is compliant with government procurement rules," the spokesperson said.

Of course, those officials gave that advice because the Minister made it clear that he wanted it, and the Ministry is there to serve and provide post-hoc justifications for whatever mad scheme Ministers cook up. And there is no simply employment upside for telling a Minister that their plan is illegal and corrupt.

The bottom line here is that this was the Minister's crooked scheme. It may have been imposed on him by NZ First, but he was proud to own it back in May when he announced it. But suddenly he's pretending it was nothing to do with him. Whatever happened to being the "party of personal responsibility"?