Member's Day

Today is a Member's Day. First up is a private bill, the Carter Trust Amendment Bill, aimed at tweaking the law enacting the provisions of some old dead rich dude's will. Its a perfect example of privilege, and the sort of thing we should be eradicating from our parliament.

After that classist waste of time, there's real business: the third readings of Tracey McLellan's Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill and Camilla Belich's Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. After that its the committee stage of Deborah Russell's Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill. If the House moves quickly it might make a start on Cameron Brewer's Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill, in which case there will be a ballot for one bill tomorrow.

National says "fuck you" on the right to repair

The Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee has reported back on Marama Davidson's Consumer Guarantees (Right to Repair) Amendment Bill, recommending by majority that it not be passed. The bill would be the first real advance in consumer rights in decades, creating enforceable rights to have goods repaired rather than replaced, and to parts and repair information to enable people to do it themselves (or get a qualified expert to do it for them). It would help undermine monopolies and their strategy of planned obsolescence, letting us actually use the stuff we buy. The bill is backed by ConsumerNZ and overwhelmingly popular with the public: 95% of 1250 submissions supported it, with only 2% opposed.

But the government sided with the 2%, as usual. No, they didn't say why. But the Labour-Green minority report says that the government majority strung them along, working on amendments in apparent good faith, before bloc voting to reject everything at the last minute. And they note how this undermines the collaborative nature of select committee work. I wonder if there will be consequences for that?

Presumably the National, ACT, and NZ First stooges on the committee got their marching orders from higher up to oppose the bill. And presumably they'll vote it down in the face of that overwhelming public support, tarring themselves as the regime for the 2%, a government of causes with no supporters. And yet, they're not even united on it themselves - a National MP has their own member's bill in the ballot on a right to repair for motor vehicles.

Either way, I don't see this issue going away. And if National votes it down, Davidson should take what has been learned from the committee process, strengthen it (including by adding provisions to prevent companies using intellectual property and technological protection measures to prevent repairs), and then get the next government to introduce it as government legislation.

Foreshore and seabed 3.0?

Back in 2003, in Ngati Apa v Attorney-General, the Supreme Court recognised that the settler government had not actually stolen all the beaches, and that (depending on the specific history of specific areas) some of them still might belong to iwi and hapu.

Naturally, the government went apeshit, passing a law to confiscate any remaining Māori property, with consequences we are still living with today.

Fast forward 22 years, and, in a case about rights over a specific part of the foreshore, the Supreme Court has recognised that the settler government hasn't actually stolen all the riverbeds either. The law the government relied upon to claim that it had - section 261 of the Coal Mines Act 1979 - didn't mean what they claimed it did, and in fact had essentially the same wording as the law the government relied upon to claim it had stolen the foreshore and seabed (section 7 of the Territorial Sea, Contiguous Zone, and Exclusive Economic Zone Act 1977). The interpretation of that sort of law as not expropriating existing customary rights was settled by Ngati Apa, and it applies to purported expropriations of riverbeds just as it did to the foreshore and seabed.

Of course, whether any particular iwi or hapu still owns any particular riverbed is a matter of fact. But the government can no longer simply deny it as a question of law. I wonder how long it will be before they go apeshit and use it to open another front in their racist hate campaign against Māori? And will ACT, who back in 2003 claimed to be the "party of property rights" and opposed retrospective expropriation, support or oppose a racist law change?

What do we do with a lawless Speaker?

Yesterday, Speaker Gerry Brownlee purported to eject Chloe Swarbrick from the House for the rest of the week after she implicitly called regime MPs "spineless". The decision did not comply with parliament's standing orders, so Swarbrick turned up today to litigate that and give Brownlee a chance to admit he made a mistake and move on. Instead, he doubled down on his wrongness, named her, and had her suspended for 24 hours on a partisan vote. But in his incoherent rage he fucked that up too, so he had to do it a second time.

We were then treated to 20 minutes of litigation over the decision, its (lack of) past precedent, and whether Brownlee was simply making it up as he went along (he is) - during which Winston Peters, who had just voted to suspend Swarbrick, disagreed with Brownlee's decision and his own vote (which is another data point on his senility, I guess). Brownlee cycled through justifications, which ultimately came down to him - a purportedly "neutral" chair - being personally offended by Swarbrick's call for government MPs with a spine. Which apparently justifies a week's suspension, because an old white man's widdle feelings were hurt.

The decision was arbitrary and capricious. It ignored the rules parliament is supposed to operate by. In a normal government institution, there are remedies to prevent such lawlessness: the Ombudsman and (ultimately) the courts. They exist to prevent such abuses of power, and force government agencies to follow their own rules. But thanks to Parliamentary Privilege, such remedies are unavailable. Which invites the question: what do you do with a lawless Speaker? What do you do when a significant constitutional figure behaves like an arbitrary tyrant? What is the check and the balance here?

Meanwhile, like the (far more serious) lynching of Te Pāti Māori, this shows that Parliamentary "order" is just a tool for the partisan oppression of the opposition by the regime. And everyone can see it. It's another nail in the coffin of the idea of a neutral Speaker, and another shovel of earth on the grave of Parliament's legitimacy and social licence.

If you don't like this, the Standing Orders Committee is currently calling for submissions on parliament's rules for next term. So you can submit, point out the problems with arbitrary decisions and parliament's procedures for maintaining "order", and ask them to fix it it. If you care enough, you can even suggest solutions. Though honestly, that's really a "them" problem; its fine to say "this is a problem, and you parliamentary big brains who know and care about standing orders need to find a way to stop it". And if they refuse, then they can face the consequences for parliament's reputation.

Principles versus parliament

Yesterday the regime announced that it wouldn't consider recognising Palestine as a state until next month - so basically, waiting until Israel has murdered or deported every last Palestinian and stolen all their land. Parliament had an urgent debate on this today, with a banger of a speech by Chloe Swarbrick:

At the end of it, she challenged government MPs to support the Greens' Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill, saying that "[i]f we find six of 68 government MPs with a spine, we can stand on the right side of history".

The Speaker threw her out.

I guess he didn't want a politician with actual principles making the rest of the cowards look bad.

Meanwhile, there's an obvious comparison here with John Key's famous "get some guts" over backing America's re-invasion of Iraq. On any normal analysis, its a similar allegation of cowardice. So why was it OK, when Swarbrick gets ejected?

I think the answer is obvious: It's OK When You're A Man.

"Our" Parliament is an archaic, deeply racist, deeply misogynist institution, whose "rules" are applied arbitrarily and nakedly for the political advantage of the regime and to lynch its opponents. Its no wonder MPs don't respect it. And its no wonder the people don't either. If it wants to retain its social licence to legislate, to rule by anything other than naked force, it needs to be better, to reflect modern Aotearoa, to drag itself into the present, to not do shit like this.

But good luck getting the fossils in there to understand that.

Gagging the medical professions

Aotearoa has had a public health system since the First Labour Government in the 1930s. And for as long as it has existed, medical professionals have been speaking out about its failures, criticising cuts, and generally acting as a watchdog on government policy. This has been inconvenient to those governments, but the professional role of medical staff has always been respected, because it is recognised that - like academics - they have a duty to their patients and to the public.

...until now. Faced with a public health system collapsing due to systematic underfunding, National wants to silence medical professionals. Its Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill (which is primarily about imposing white supremacy) includes a clause classifying Health NZ staff as public servants, and requiring them to uphold the principle of political neutrality.

This is a complete novelty in Aotearoa. As noted above, medical staff in the public health system have never been classified this way. And this isn't about a change in status - DHBs have been legally "crown agents" since the 2004 reorganisation and reclassification of the wider public sector with the Crown Entities act 2004, and were effectively in that position since their foundation in 2000 (as were their Area Health Board, Regional Health Authority, Crown Health Enterprise, and Hospital and Health Service predecessors). Instead, the motive is obviously to gag critics of the regime.

You might think that this would engage the right to freedom of expression affirmed by the BORA - and you'd be right. But weirdly, the Ministry of Justice, who did the BORA vet on the bill, didn't think so - they don't mention it, even to say it is a justified limitation. Though possibly this is because, as usual, they "ha[d] not yet received a final version of the Bill" (which should raise questions about the quality of the Ministry's BORA vetting process, and the quality of the advice on this core constitutional responsibility...)

What might a BORA vet have looked like? In the case of ordinary public servants, we accept that political neutrality and consequent restrictions on publicly criticising the government of the day are a justified limitation, because a neutral public service is an important public purpose, and the restrictions are proportionate. But ordinary public servants don't have a professional obligation to protect the public of medical staff, or a decades-long tradition of doing so. And the latter is relevant - as the Attorney-General noted in her section 7 report on the voter suppression provisions of the regime's Electoral Amendment Bill:

Expectations based on longstanding legislative settings are salient to judging potential prejudice and proportionality.

We have an expectation based on long-standing legislative settings that medical staff are free to act as critics of the public health system. They have been part of the wider state sector for nearly a century, and have always been free to speak. Restricting that right, when nothing meaningful has changed in terms of their status, therefore seems disproportionate.

The regime could have made a case that this change complies witht he BORA. The fact that they haven't even bothered speaks volumes. It must be rejected. If you'd like to speak up on it (or the other, racist changes in the bill), you can do so here.

Wag or be wagged

The Greens held their AGM over the weekend, and in her speech, co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick claimed to be leading the opposition. Which seems to be obviously correct, in that the Greens are setting the direction for the entire opposition bloc, by virtue of being the ones providing the ideas. And this isn't just a question of Labour's current policy-silence, but of their long-term ideological emptiness and their focus on being managers of the status quo (and getting the prestige and salaries) rather than leading the changes we need to make.

The only policy area Labour has any real interest and skill in is workers rights (and even then: income insurance? Really?) In other key areas - income inequality, tax policy, climate change, industrial policy - they just follow the Greens. Green policy one election tends to become Labour policy at the next one (and, if the public is won over, National policy after that - see home insulation schemes, or the bright-line test). And partly this is a victory by default: Labour's perpetual cowardice and fear of criticism means they're too chickenshit to put their own ideas out there, so the Green ones become the de facto left solution because Labour isn't offering any alternative.

Which makes the stuff about the Greens wagging the Labour dog amusing. They're already wagging that dog - just very slowly.

Obviously, as a Green voter, I would welcome speeding up that process. The more MPs the Greens and Te Pāti Māori bring to a left coalition, the louder their voices will be, and the more Labour will have to give them. But also, I want them to play hardball on this. Which will admittedly be easier if Labour doesn't have any agenda of its own.

As for Labour concern that the prospect of Green-led policy could drive voters to National, that sounds like a "you" problem. It also sounds untrue, given public attitudes towards wealth taxes and higher public spending. In fact, in light of those polls, one might also call it an elite lie to deter change to the status quo. But either way, Labour's solution is obvious: if it doesn't want people to think it will adopt Green policy by default, get some of your own, and stop whining that people expect you to actually stand for something.

Dancing on Kapuni's grave

Ballance Agri-Nutrients' Kapuni Urea plant is shutting down for four months due to a shortage of natural gas. Good. Its one of Aotearoa's biggest polluters, and the fertiliser it produces poisons our water and our people. And from an emissions point of view, we're better off without it.

According to Ballance's FY24 Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report, Kapuni produced 166,605 tons of CO2 in 2023-2024. In calendar year 2023 the government gave them 333,084 tons of carbon credits as a pollution subsidy - over twice their actual emissions. In its 2024 annual report, Ballance valued its FY2024 pollution subsidy at $18.8 million - more than its pre-tax profit, and three times more than the amount of tax it paid. And its been over-subsidised so much that it is sitting on nearly a million tons of surplus units, enough to cover its emissions for six years (see p43 of their annual report).

We should not be subsidising companies to destroy our environment and poison our people. It is that simple. Like Methanex, any shutdown in production reduces emissions and subsidies, so that's a Good Thing. And if it becomes permanent, and we don't have to subsidise this evil any more, that seems like a Very Good Thing Indeed.

But what about the jobs? Kapuni employs 120 people. So we're subsidising those jobs to the tune of $156,000 a year (on Ballance's valuation). Which makes them very expensive jobs. The government could just pay them $100,000 a year each to not destroy the environment, and we'd still be better off.

Of course, if the actually cared about jobs, they could clean the place up, and move to lower emissions production. The previous government might even have helped, through the GIDI program. And Ballance was looking at that, through a thing called the Te Ata project, which promised to reduce the plant's emissions by 90%. But they discontinued it in May 2024. And as a result, they're now left in a situation where they have no way forward, no future but a knife-fight for ever-decreasing amounts of gas. I guess we can call that the consequences of their own shortsightedness...

RUCs vs excise taxes

The government has problem: it gets people to pay for the roads in part through petrol excise tax. But cars are becoming more efficient, and people are switching to EVs and not using petrol at all, so in the long-term it is going to have to find some other way to pay for it. So yesterday it announced its solution: force everyone to pay road user charges (RUCs) instead. Of course, being National, they're doing it in a way which penalises drivers of clean, fuel-efficient vehicles, while subsidising dirty, inefficient hoons; and of course, being National, they've added in private gouging middlemen and extra surveillance to enable future road privatisation (because of course they have). And their vision of how it should eventually work is

"Eventually, paying for RUC should be like paying a power bill online, or a Netflix subscription. Simple and easy," he said.

Or as someone on Kikorangi put it, the government is going to send you another bill.

And that's what it is going to feel like. Because around 80% of us still drive petrol vehicles, and so we just don't have to think about "paying for the roads" at all. Its invisible to us, because its built into the petrol price. So requiring us to monitor usage and buy the appropriate amount of RUCs like the truckies and Rurals do is going to be pretty alien - and alienating. And it raises the obvious question of whether there aren't better alternatives.

There are a bunch of competing values underlying our existing "pay for the roads" policy. There's a strong one of "user pays", and its converse, "non users don't pay": the roads should be paid for by people who use them, and our means of doing so should generally avoid impacting people who don't (which is why we have RUCs at all, rather than a fuel tax on diesel: because it used too often for non-road uses, so that would be unfair). On top of that, we've got simplicity, efficiency, equity, and ease of enforcement. Petrol excise tax ranks highly on all of these: non-road uses are insignificant, so its user-pays by proxy; its simple, easy to administer, invisible to the end user, and very easy to enforce (it is basically unavoidable, unless you have your own secret oil well and refinery setup). RUCs, OTOH, score poorly: while they charge directly for distance travelled (rather than using a litre of petrol as an increasingly rough proxy), they are administratively complex, and require actual enforcement: someone needs to check that you've paid, and force you to pay if you haven't. They're also "lumpy" - you need to buy them in large blocks with a fixed transaction cost - which means you get sticker shocks and resulting enforcement problems. What they have going for them is that they're fuel-neutral (because they charge directly on distance travelled), and its an existing system which can in theory be expanded. Though whether it can be expanded 500% without horrific teething problems at a time when the government is slashing public service capacity remains to be seen...

(I would also add in "privacy" and "difficult to privatise" as values here, but the governments mileage clearly varies on that one...)

Looking at those policy values, it seems that there are other ways to pay for the roads which would meet those values better than RUCs. And one obvious solution which immediately stands out is some equivalent of petrol excise tax for EVs, charged through (for example) public and private fast-chargers and collected by power / charging companies as part of your regular bill. There are a number of questions that would need to be answered: what proportion of EV charging is done by fast-charger (rather than normal household plugs); how many fast-chargers have separate meters and can power companies bill separately for them; what the cost of installing new meters at existing setups would be; how to deal with things like solar panels and vehicle to grid (because we expect both these things to increase, so the policy should deal with them upfront); How much there might be in residual costs and whether they are best dealt with by over-charging on fast-chargers, through a far lower levy on all residential electricity, or an annual fee somewhere. But the government knows how much it needs for the roads, it knows what proportion of that it wants EVs to pay, it can know or reliably guess how much energy they use, so in theory it can just work out a simple cents / kWh price, just like petrol excise: efficient, invisible, difficult for normal people to avoid, and so not requiring huge effort to enforce.

Such a system would obviously take time to develop. But there doesn't seem to be a huge need for urgency here - this is a policy we need in 2030, not tomorrow. We could take the time to do it properly and avoid lumping ourselves with a complex, difficult to enforce, intrusive and surveillance-and-privatisation-ready system. And it would be nice if opposition parties committed to doing so.

Secrecy to protect criminals

Fishing is a criminal industry, with fishers routinely violating quotas, under-reporting bycatch, and engaging in fraud to profit from pillaging the ocean. To stop this criminality, the government has finally been dragged into putting cameras on fishing boats, so they can monitor what is caught and ensure fishers obey the law. But fisheries minister Shame Jones is a bought-and-paid-for tool of the fishing industry, so he's decided that the resulting footage will be exempted from the Official Information Act:

An overhaul of fisheries rules will allow greater catch limits when fish are abundant and stop on-board camera footage being made public.

[...]

The move to exclude footage from the OIA was supported by Seafood New Zealand.

Chief executive Lisa Futschek said while it supported cameras on fishing vessels, they were a tool for "verification, not vilification".

"We accept that the regulator should have access to footage to ensure that we are doing what we say we do, but to enable members of the general public to see this footage is unfair," she said.

Which is exactly what burglars would say about security cameras, or police child-pornographers would say about their computer-use being audited. As for "vilification", if the fishing industry doesn't want to be vilified, they should not behave like villains. Simple.

As for the policy, there's a strong legal argument against it - OIA exemptions violate the BORA-affirmed right to freedom of expression, so must be demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. But "protecting fishers poor little fee-fees" isn't an "important public purpose", and that's before we even get to questions of proportionality. But beyond that, the reason we have cameras is because MPI (and its predecessor Fisheries NZ) were completely captured by the industry they were supposed to be regulating, and was ignoring its serious crimes, until their enforcement reports were leaked and OIA'd, creating public pressure for them to do their job properly. The lesson here is that transparency is vital to keep the regulator honest and prevent capture. All secrecy does is protect criminals. But then, that's precisely why the fishing industry and their $10,000 mouthpiece Jones support it.

36,000 unemployed under National

The June labour market statistics are out, showing unemployment has risen to 5.2%. There are now 158,000 unemployed - 36,000 more than when National took office.

This is the highest level since Covid - and it will get worse, with ANZ suggesting it could rise by another 0.5% (another 15,000 people) as companies get the message that there is no economic recovery from this government. So much for "better economic managers"...

"An illegitimate exercise of kāwanatanga"

That was the Waitangi Tribunal's assessment of the National regime's plans to gut the Marine and Coastal Area Act and steal the foreshore and seabed for its greedy fishing-industry donors. It found that the regime had violated te Tiriti of Waitangi by failing to consult iwi and hapu, and failed to identify any actual policy problem requiring the changes, and warned that continuing would "significantly endanger the Māori–Crown relationship".

So of course racist National are doing it anyway:

The government is forging ahead with plans to change the law governing New Zealand's foreshore and seabed, despite a Supreme Court ruling last year that appeared to undercut the rationale for the change.

The proposed legislation stems from a clause in National's coalition deal with NZ First, which promised to revisit the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act.

That commitment was driven by fears that a 2023 Court of Appeal decision could have made it significantly easier for Māori groups to win recognition of customary rights over parts of the coastline.

[...]

On Tuesday, Goldsmith confirmed to RNZ that Cabinet had agreed to press ahead with the law change regardless and to pass it before October.

Let's be clear: the underlying motive here is racism, pure and simple. Māori were having their rights over the foreshore upheld by the courts, and the white supremacist government did not like that. Neither did their donors and cronies in the aquaculture and commercial fishing industries, who did not want to pay iwi and hapu rent for the coastal space they want to use, or face an iwi veto over that use (because apparently property owners shouldn't get to decide what happens on their property if they're brown). So, they're overturning the law, and forcing the courts to revisit and overturn their decisions (rather than letting settled decisions stand as usual).

I do not expect Māori to take this lying down. We've already seen one hikoi which outnumbered the entire NZ police force five to one; I expect there'll be another. And it won't just be Māori. Modern Aotearoa recognises that Te Tiriti is the foundation of our constitution. It gives the government its right to exist. If the regime wants to rip that up, they will effectively be ripping up their own legitimacy and undermining their own foundations. And that seems like a very stupid and dangerous thing to do.

One thing is clear: if we are allowed to have a free and fair election next year - something the regime has also put in doubt - then this government must go. Whatever it does must be reversed by the next, with the courts required to revisit (again) any decisions they have been forced to revisit in the meantime. Racism and corruption cannot be permitted to stand.

"Longstanding expectations"

In her section 7 report declaring the government's voter suppression bill to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act, Attorney-General Judith Collins noted that New Zealanders have had an expectation, since 1993, that electors can register to vote either on the day before polling day, or on polling day". Furthermore,

Expectations based on longstanding legislative settings are salient to judging potential prejudice and proportionality.

The TL;DR is that the prejudice from such a significant change from those longstanding expectations was more than enough to outweigh the uncertain benefits of the change on the vote-count.

That was for an expectation dating from 1993. But our expectation of being able to enrol at least the day before the election actually goes back much further than that. The relevant law is section 60 of the Electoral Act 1993. Section 60(g) is a recent (2020) addition, and allows same-day voter registration. Section 60(b) is part of the original Act, and allows registration up to the day before the poll. And as the law notes (in the handy little "compare" note at the bottom), it has a history. The current form, allowing voting by anyone who enrols before polling day - dates to 1990 (see s49). But we've allowed late enrolment well before that. The Electoral Act 1956 (s99(b)) allowed newly-qualified voters to register up until polling day, and that provision seems to go back to 1948 (s10). So our expectation that people who have moved or just turned 18 should be able to register right up to the election, and to vote as a result, goes back over three-quarters of a century, and no-one under the age of one hundred has voted under rules as restrictive as those National is proposing.

If a mere 32 year policy setting was a sufficiently longstanding expectation to make change a restriction of the right to vote, what does 77 years of stability - and fewer than 500 people who remember any different - mean?

National's policy is bullshit. It goes against the entire history of our democracy. It cannot be allowed to stand. And nor can they. Throw the tyrants out!

"A review"

When the government passes legislation trampling on civil liberties it loves to insert - and crow about - "safeguards" which will supposedly prevent abuse. For example, when it passed the Gangs Act 2024, which enables the government to designate a group as a "gang", banning its insignia and enabling all sorts of additional search and harassment powers and other fuckery - the select committee responded to concerns that protest groups would be designated by inserting a clause stating that civil disobedience for the purpose of political activism did not qualify. They also responded to concerns that groups would be designated forever by inserting a clause requiring the list to be regularly reviewed:

To ensure that the list is regularly reviewed, we also recommend inserting clause 30(3A) and (3B). These would require the Minister to review the Schedule before making a recommendation to amend it, and every 5 years if no amendments were made.

The government accepted these changes, with Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith saying in the bill's second reading debate:

To ensure that the list remains up to date, the police will review the entire list each time an addition or removal is considered, and every five years if no changes are made.

The clauses were discussed in the bill's committee stage, where it was taken to mean that the minister must check that every gang on the list still meets the criteria, and remove any that do not.

So how much of a safeguard is this really? Earlier this year police minister Mark Mitchell designated two additional gangs. I was curious to see whether he had complied with his legal obligation to review the entire schedule, so I asked for the review. His response:

There is no standalone document specifically titled or formatted as my review of Schedule 2. The review was undertaken as part of the broader policy development process that informed the introduction of the Gangs Act 2024 and the subsequent Gangs (Identified Gangs) Order 2024. As such, there is no discrete document in scope of your request.

So, he didn't need to do a review because he'd passed the law (including a list of gangs, 11 of which were outdated and removed by the select committee) just a few months earlier (unfortunately, that's not what the law actually says). Instead, the Minister pointed me at the police's advice and the relevant cabinet papers on the matter - which are interesting reading. The police's advice makes no mention of the need to review the schedule, and does not consider any gang other than those targeted for designation. As for the cabinet paper, it includes this:

I have reviewed the list of identified gangs in Schedule 2 as required under section 32(5) of the Act before making a recommendation to update the list.

Given the (lack of) documentary record, I leave it for readers to judge whether Mitchell was being honest with his cabinet colleagues, or fulfilled his legal obligations under the Act.

Meanwhile, this shows the contempt the government - and the public servants who support them - have for safeguards for our civil liberties. And it shows why it is a fool's bargain to trust them.

Voter suppression is election rigging

What do you call an election where the regime stops up to half a million people from voting, because they're more likely on historical trends to vote for the opposition? Rigged. And Labour's Willie Jackson isn't afraid to say it:

Labour MP Willie Jackson has accused the government of trying to rig next year's election through its move to block people from being able to enrol for 12 days before voting day.

[...]

In a fiery speech on Wednesday, Jackson poured contempt on the "disgraceful, rotten, useless government", accusing it of actively suppressing the vote and "vandalising democratic participation".

He pointed to official advice which noted that young people, Māori, Pasifika and Asian communities would be disproportionately affected by the changes.

"It's racist disenfranchisement," Jackson said. "It's a breach of democracy... this government risks being accused of rigging the next election."

"Risks"? I'd say they are. Its well-known that the special votes tend left, and last election they cost National two seats and an easy coalition with ACT, forcing it into the arms of NZ First. Recent polling shows a tight election, with just a seat or two between the left and the right. National's voter suppression is easily enough to do that, and ensure they are returned to power.

This change is contrary to the recommendations of the Ministry of Justice. It violates the right to vote. It is discriminatory. It is being done for partisan advantage, under the guise of "efficiency". Any election conducted under it will not be free or fair, and a government "elected" under it will not be legitimate.

Public faith in free and fair elections is absolutely foundational to democracy, and to the legitimacy of the state. National's voter suppression moves put that at risk. It cannot be allowed to stand.

Member's Day

Today is a Member's Day. First up is the third reading of the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill, a local bill dealing with archaic private law. Next is the first reading of Ingrid Leary's Property Law (Sunset Clauses) Amendment Bill. After that its the committee stages of Tracey McLellan's Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill and Camilla Belich's Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. If the House moves quickly it might make a start on Cameron Brewer's Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill, in which case there will be a ballot for one bill tomorrow.

"Laser-focused"

Another week, and so another day of weather warnings, power cuts, slips, and likely flooding. Meanwhile, the government is steadfastly refusing to do anything about climate change, which is driving all this. Instead, they seem to be doing everything they possibly can to make things worse.

These weekly "1 in 100 year" weather events are costing us a fortune. But the government is still resisting making the polluters pay. Instead, they're "laser-focused on the cost-of-living" - of large, polluting industries who donate to them. As for the rest of us, if your house gets flooded, you're on your own. And if you have to move as a result, the government will stop you from voting.

Contra their propaganda, this is not "a government that focuses on what matters to [New Zealanders]". Instead they're just looting the country, while everything goes to hell in a handbasket. The quicker we kick them out of office, the better.

Feathering their cronies' nests

The central refrain of this regime has been "we can't afford it". They're constantly pleading poverty over public services, and using "tight" finances as an excuse to drive down public service wages. Meanwhile, they're nearly doubling the pay of their cronies who serve on government boards:

A Cabinet document, quietly uploaded online on Monday, shows ministers agreed to lift the maximum annual fee for chairs of governance boards from $90,000 to about $162,000.

The "Cabinet Fees Framework" is not binding but provides guidance to ministers when deciding compensation for those on a range of bodies, such as royal commissions and ministerial inquiries.

Speaking on Tuesday, Luxon said public sector fees had become completely "out of whack" with private sector rates and needed a reset.

So, just to get this clear: workers are paid too much and need a pay cut, but managers and board directors are paid too little, and need a whopping increase (probably so they can afford butter). As usual, austerity applies only to normal people, not the rich. Alternatively, the regime is just looting the public purse and engaging in upwards redistribution - as usual.

And next, of course, those higher pay rates for government boards will be used to "justify" higher pay for Ministers. Just wait...

More misogyny from National

How misogynistic is this dogshit regime? Since 2020 the Public Service Act has included explicit legal commitments to pay equity and diversity in the public service workforce.

This government is repealing them. Today they introduced a new Public Service Amendment Bill, which (among other things) repeals pay equity and freedom from bias from the "good employer" principles, and removes the promotion of diversity and inclusion as a duty of chief executives.

Reading the bill's Regulatory Impact Statement, there's a lot of mealy-mouthed bullshit about how these are things better addressed through the public sector workforce policy statement, and how "different governments take different stances on these matters". Clearly. This government, for example, does not believe in pay equity. It wants to pay women less. It also does not believe the public service should look like Aotearoa, preferring instead one which looks like local councils (where for a while there were more bald old white men called "John" than women as councillors). That position is simply not shared by the people of Aotearoa. And if we're allowed free and fair elections next year - currently in doubt due to regime plans for voter suppression - we should throw this misogynistic pack of wankers out on their arses.

Climate Change: The inevitable consequences

When National came to power in 2023, one of its first acts was to repeal all useful climate change policy. And now this is having its inevitable consequences, with he Pou a Rangi reporting that we are at significant risk of missing our 2026-35 budgets, and the 2050 target:

New Zealand is at significant risk of missing its 2050 climate target, and the government's actions have increased the risk, according to independent monitoring.

The Climate Change Commission's 2025 emissions reduction monitoring report said New Zealand had made steady progress on reducing its climate pollution, but urgent action was needed to get on track for future goals.

The report had shown the country was likely to meet the government's first emissions budget, which runs from 2022 to 2025, in part due to accounting changes in the way emissions were measured.

However, the risks of missing targets from 2026 onwards had risen in the past year, and the government's plans were insufficient to put the country on track long-term.

That's the polite way of putting it. The blunt way is that the margin on EB2 is very tight and might not happen, while there are insufficient reductions to meet EB3, and two thirds of those are marked as "significant risk of delivery" - pure hot air. So the government needs to do more. He Pou a Rangi has a bunch of suggestions - cutting pollution subsidies, pushing the shift to EVs and industrial electrification, decarbonising farming - but it seems unlikely that a government ideologically hostile to climate action will take them. Instead they're more likely to end He Pou a Rangi's statutory monitoring role, to ensure nothing undermines their real policy of doing nothing.

The good news is that this report is strong evidence for the Environmental Law Initiative's judicial review of the next emissions reduction plan, increasing the chances it will be found to be inadequate and forced to be revised. But if that happens, I guess we'll see the regime attack fundamental judicial review rights as well.

And whichever way that goes, it is crystal clear that the next government will need to take immediate action to restore and strengthen climate policy, and make up for National's three wasted years. This will mean much harder emissions cuts than we would have had to make if National had simply continued previous policy. But that's what happens when you kick the can down the road: eventually, the future arrives, and you need to actually deal with the problems you've been denying.

The full report is here.

Climate Change: the ICJ ruling

Last night the International Court of Justice provided its advisory opinion on Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change. Its very long, but the TL;DR is that states have real obligations under climate change treaties and other international law, including an obligation to limit fossil fuels, and that failing to uphold them may result in legal liability to pay compensation to injured parties. Importantly, these obligations are not just restricted to climate change treaties like the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement, but stem from all sorts of other treaties and agreements, including Montreal Protocol, Biodiversity Convention, Convention on the Law of the Sea, international human rights law, and ultimately, customary international law. So merely sticking your fingers in your ears and withdrawing from climate change treaties - fuck you, America - may change some specific obligations, but ultimately does not remove them or prevent liability.

Internationally, the door is now open for countries suffering climate damage to start suing laggards and deniers and start demanding reparations, with the backing of the international legal system. But the real difference will be its effects on how laws are interpreted within states, and on climate change litigation across the world. Because most legal systems recognise or refer to the relevant international law, and most courts pay attention to the ICJ's definitive interpretation of what that means. So if countries are not meeting the obligations the ICJ says they have, their own courts may be able to say so and force them to do so.

What does it mean for Aotearoa? To give one example, back in January the National-led regime issued a new Paris NDC of a 51-55% cut in emissions by 2035 (from a 50% cut by 2030). This was... unambitious, especially in light of advice from He Pou a Rangi that we could do 55-60% by domestic action alone, and that a fair target would be in the real of 70-75%. That unambitious NDC is clearly illegal in international law, as it clearly does not reflect our "highest possible ambition", and may not be consistent with the (now legally binding) 1.5 degree target. Another country - the Cook Islands, say - could sue us to force us to raise it. The next government has a cast-iron case for doing so. And all future advice on such targets will reflect the ICJ's ruling (at least if it is competent).

Another example: states have concrete obligations to limit fossil fuels, and granting new permits was marked as an action inconsistent with that. So the legal ground under the regime's plans to restart offshore drilling and subsidise the gas industry just shifted. The climate change clauses in our free trade agreements will be interpreted accordingly, so if it wasn't already illegal and in breach of those FTAs, it definitely is now. And MFAT should be screaming at the regime about that.

Most importantly: our climate change legislation refers explicitly to our international obligations in various places - target reviews, the setting of emissions budgets and emissions reduction plans, and ETS volume limits and unit price settings. The relevant legal instruments are incorporated directly into the law of Aotearoa in the schedules to the Climate Change Response Act. In interpreting them and deciding on those obligations, New Zealand courts are likely to find the ICJ ruling persuasive. While international obligations are explicitly one of only a number of factors for consideration, there's an assumption that the government will behave legally and consistently with its obligations, so in practice they're a limit. Which means that targets, budgets, and plans which are inconsistent with the legally binding 1.5 degree temperature threshold, or with the requirement to exercise due diligence in reducing emissions - might be ruled to be unlawful and forced to be reconsidered. Judicial review just got easier, and the Environmental Law Institute's case challenging the ERP may benefit significantly.

Its less clear what it will mean for cases like Smith v Fonterra, but I guess we'll find out.

Ideally, we shouldn't have to sue our own governments to get them to stop grovelling to the fossil fuel industry and adhere to their clear international obligations. But the ICJ has just given us a weapon to do so, and the people of the world should use it.

An attack on free and fair elections

That's the only way to describe the regime's new Electoral Amendment Bill. The big change is ending same-day enrolment, which enabled over a hundred thousand people to vote last election. National wants to disenfranchise those people. Their excuse? Administrative convenience - because they refuse to properly resource the Electoral Commission to handle the load. But it is simply a cynical attempt to strap the electoral chicken, and prevent those people - primarily young people and those who have moved shortly before the election - from voting.

But that's not the only change. They're re-instating the prisoner voting ban, which explicitly violates the Bill of Rights Act, in the process giving the finger to the carefully negotiated settlement between courts and Parliament over their responsibilities under our constitution. its pure performative punching down, while also helping to gerrymander electorates with prisons in them.

There are other unpleasant changes too:

• increasing the declaration threshold for donations from $5000 to $6000, reducing transaprency over who is bribing our politicians;
• restricting public access to donation records to the last six years, limiting our ability to see who has been buying our politicians, and making bribes paid in opposition effectively invisible;
• extending the prohibition on registering new political parties, from writ day to the entire regulated period, in an effort to stifle political competition;
• expanding the Electoral Commission from 3 to 7 members, enabling them to pack it with cronies, US-style.

So, reducing voting rights, transparency, and competition, while creating a one-off opportunity to put their thumb on the electoral scale for the next election. All of this runs completely counter to our democratic norms, and to public demand, which overwhelmingly favours more transparency. Combined with the regime's attacks on protest rights, it paints an increasingly dark picture of the character of this regime - and makes it clear that we need to oust it at the first opportunity.

Willis says "let them eat butter"

Butter has become a flashpoint in the cost-of-living crisis, with the price of the baking staple doubling in the last 14 months, and people queuing for cheap blocks. Its got so bad that National - the party of rich farmers - has had to pretend to care, with Nicola Willis having a meeting with Fonterra's CEO in an effort to talk down the price. The result? everything is fine, apparently:

The Finance Minister does not believe New Zealanders are getting a "raw deal" on butter, but has accepted there is no getting away from how expensive it is right now.

We’re not getting a raw deal? Bullshit. We can see it every time we go to the supermarket. But Willis is paid $304,300 a year plus slush, so she can buy all the butter she wants. Which makes the above sound a lot like "let them eat butter".

So who’s to blame? Willis is desperate to deflect attention from Fonterra, so blames the supermarkets:

The meeting had reinforced Willis' interest in increasing supermarket competition to put downward pressure on the price of butter.

"All roads lead back to supermarket competition. I continue to believe that is the most powerful lever that the government has on this issue. We will never be able to control global dairy prices. What we can influence is the amount of competition in New Zealand's grocery sector and we have a lot of work underway to address that."

While the supermarket cartel is absolutely part of the problem, National's "work programme" is basically "hope a third party joins the oligopoly and gets in on the gouging". So they have no real solutions there. And they're certainly not going to do what is necessary: legislate to forcibly break up the cartel and forbid mergers in the sector or its underlying logistics to prevent such accumulation of market power.

And none of this should be letting Fonterra off the hook. Because while there's a global price, there's no reason we, the people who bear the environmental costs of the dairy industry's profiteering and who subsidise them billions of dollars a year in water and carbon, should pay it. And we have tools we can use to ensure we get some benefit from hosting this parasitic, polluting industry. For example, we could ban or restrict dairy exports to ensure they served the domestic market first. Or just directly regulate to require them to sell domestically at a low price. Because seeing butter exported overseas while it becomes unaffordable to kiwis is simply unacceptable.

Obviously, regulating Fonterra would be bad for farmers. But it would be far better for the rest of us. And why shouldn’t those subsidised rural parasites give something back to the community they leech off for once?

National takes another step towards tyranny

Earlier in the month, the British government proscribed Palestine Action, a peaceful protest group, as a terrorist entity, over their effective protest action against British support for Israel's campaign of genocide in Gaza. Since then hundreds of people have been arrested for "supporting" them, some for simply holding a Palestinian flag. Its an appalling act of tyranny from a regime desperate to shut down criticism of its support for a genocidal regime. And now, the National government wants to bring that tyranny here, with a secret "consultation" on the Terrorism Suppression Act aimed at making designation easier and outlawing speaking in "support" of terrorist entities:

New Zealanders who publicly express support for terrorist groups could be charged with a criminal offence, as part of secretive proposals being considered by the Government.

[...]

The coalition Government is eyeing reforms to the law, with limited consultation currently taking place behind closed doors with a handpicked selection of groups and experts.

In a copy of the consultation document seen by Newsroom, the Ministry of Justice said the Government had agreed to progress “targeted amendments” to the law, which had not been substantively reviewed since its enactment.

The document said existing offences in the law “don’t capture the full range of behaviours or activities of concern that are part of the contemporary threat from terrorism”, and needed to be updated.

Among the changes being considered were making membership of a terrorist entity a criminal offence, creating new offences to capture public expressions of support for a terrorist act or designated entities (such as showing insignia or distributing propaganda), and modernising definitions for terms like “material support” to capture new online forms of support.

The consultation document also raised the possibility of a streamlined designation process, saying the current decision-making system was lengthy and the designation period was short.

You can read the consultation document here. Its odd that the NZCCL - Aotearoa's premier civil liberties organisation - was not consulted. But then, the whole point of this sort of "targeted consultation" is to exclude opposing voices, and insulate the process from criticism until it is rammed through parliament and is a fait accompli.

As for the merits: criminalising membership of a terrorist organisation does not sound unreasonable, except that such entities don't exactly have membership cards, and all the ways in which membership actually matters - recruiting, training, financing, providing material support, or enhancing the ability to carry out terrorist acts - are already all crimes. As for "public expressions of support", what is happening in the UK at the moment, where virtually any sign of opposition to Israel's genocide in Gaza or support for Palestine in general is being treated as support for a terrorist entity - shows the danger of that. And while the New Zealand government would claim that it is "different", its past actions show that they are not. Just this year, a government minister denounced an opposition MP as "support[ing] terrorism" over Gaza, and I recall him saying similar things about environmentalists opposing coal mines. These are the last people I would trust with stronger anti-terrorism powers.

The Ministry of Justice did not want to hear from Aotearoa about its secret plans. But you can tell them anyway. Read the discussion document, and send your feedback to nationalsecurity@justice.govt.nz by Friday 8 August 2025. While you're at it, tell them that in a democracy, consultations about fundamental civil liberties issues are public, not private.

Justice for Orgreave?

Forty years ago, during the UK miner's strike, Margaret Thatcher sent 8000 police to attack striking miners during the so-called Battle of Orgreave. 95 miners were subsequently charged with riot and violent disorder - only for the charges to be thrown out when the police were found to have systematically lied. The police paid nearly half a million pounds (in 1980's money) to settle the resulting lawsuits, but no officer was ever disciplined, and no-one was held accountable for the abuse of power. But now, the UK government is finally launching a formal inquiry into the police's actions:

More than four decades after the violent policing at Orgreave during the miners’ strike and a failed prosecution criticised as a police “frame up”, the government has established a statutory inquiry into the scandal.

The home secretary, Yvette Cooper, announced the inquiry having informed campaigners last Thursday at the site in South Yorkshire where the Orgreave coking plant was located.

The inquiry into the policing on 18 June 1984 and the collapsed prosecutions marks the culmination of remarkable persistence by campaigners, who argue that the miners’ strike remains an enduring source of injustice.

If run fairly and allowed to inquire fully (and if the files haven't all been conveniently “lost” or destroyed), the inquiry might actually get to the bottom of the systematic police misconduct during this part of the miner's strike, name names, and allow those responsible to be held to account - just like the similar inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster. OTOH, after 40 years, it is likely that many of those ultimately responsible - including Thatcher - are dead and buried, and the Establishment (which has refused justice and dragged its feet and whitewashed for the last forty years) will no doubt now argue that too much time has passed and nothing can be done - just as it has done over all its other crimes. Which just reinforces the need for that rotten institution to be ejected from power - permanently. The UK deserves democratic, accountable government, not a rotten system of lies and cover-ups which seems to exist primarily to protect itself from accountability.

Killing the alternative

During the debate over ACT's hated Regulatory Standards Bill, many professional submitters (such as the law Society) have pointed at the existing Part 4 of the Legislation Act 2019 as an alternative. While it has not been brought into force, this would replace the existing grace-and-favour Departmental Disclosure Statement system with a statutory scheme, requiring all government bills to be accompanied by a report on their unusual features and departures from accepted - as opposed to propertarian weirdo - legislative and constitutional norms.

So naturally, the government is repealing it. The Legislation Amendment Bill, which began its first reading yesterday, includes a section repealing all of part 4, which will come into force the day after it is passed. Why? The bill's explanatory note is for once crystal clear:

The Bill proposes to repeal Part 4 of the Act before it comes into force. Part 4 would impose disclosure requirements for Government-initiated legislation, which would duplicate key elements of the Regulatory Standards Bill being progressed separately by the Government. Existing Cabinet-mandated provisions for disclosure requirements for Bills will continue to apply in the meantime.

So, it's being killed just to ensure there is no alternative to ACT's weirdo Libertarian fetish bill. Which I guess just means additional work when the RSB is repealed by the next government.

Climate Change: Holding conservatives responsible

Last week the regime released its approach to climate adaptation: basically "you're on your own". The government won't use policy to manage retreat and minimise costs, but rather just let people keep building in stupid places where they will be flooded and eroded. But they won't bail people out for that either; at least, not after some transition period designed - as usual - to ensure the Boomers are protected while everyone else gets fucked. Basically, the worst of all worlds, with no responsibility by anyone for managing the effects of our biggest policy failure. And meanwhile the costs of the failure keep rising and rising and rising...

(Oh, but of course they bailed out the farmers, who caused this. So I guess not all of us are on our own...)

Over on The Spinoff, Max Rashbrooke asks a very good question: Where do I send conservatives the bill for climate change?. Because as they point out, it is conservatives, here and abroad, who have systematically thwarted efforts to reduce emissions and prevent this ongoing disaster. Internationally, conservative billionaires spent millions to build a vast network of denialist mouthpieces (and that was a decade ago; they've spent a lot more since). As for here, well...

As the documentary Hot Air reveals, in the early 1990s Simon Upton, the minister for the environment, wanted to introduce a carbon tax, but was thwarted by the likes of the New Zealand Initiative – in its former guise as the Business Roundtable – bringing in climate deniers to disrupt the debate.

[...]

[The Clark] government did introduce the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), and if she didn’t go further, it was substantially because of opposition from – you guessed it – the right. Remember National MP Shane Ardern driving a tractor up parliament steps to protest against the ETS? That’s the story of this issue, over and over: left-wing governments trying to do more in the teeth of right-wing opposition, and right-wing governments doing very little despite being urged to do more by left-wing ones.

Basically, we are in this mess because conservatives, out of ideology, greed, partisan hostility, and a desire to protect their status quo, worked very hard to put us here. Its time we recognised this. But not just by making them pay - but by holding them criminally responsible for ecocide.

Drawn

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

• Residential Tenancies (Registration of Boarding House Landlords) Amendment Bill (Rachel Brooking)

(Thanks to Dave for getting the results up before parliament did)

There were 72 bills in the ballot, including two new right to repair bills (one for motor vehicles, and one for agricultural equipment). Which makes me worry about the fate of the Consumer Guarantees (Right to Repair) Amendment Bill...

ACT means secrecy

Back in April an OIA request exposed the absurd cost of ACT's charter schools - five times more per student than the government spends on public schools. ACT obviously didn't like that, but they have a solution: keep the number of students secret:

The seven charter schools set up at the start of the year have been told to keep their enrolments secret, by The Charter School Agency.

The organisation, which manages charter school contracts and funding, told RNZ it was not appropriate to share information about the rolls of the publicly funded private schools.

"The Charter School Agency does not intend to release the numbers of students currently enrolled at each individual school during the crucial establishment phase as this could undermine their commercial position and their efforts to build their roll and deliver quality education," it said.

...which means no more bad headlines about stupidly high costs per student. Convenient for a minister and an agency wanting to avoid criticism. But terrible for the public wanting to know whether these gold-plated luxury schools work or not, and if the cost is worth it.

(Of course, it's illegal: most of the schools in question are non-profit, and so cannot have a commercial position to protect, and for those that aren't, there's a clear over-riding public interest in transparency and accountability, in that student numbers are essential to determining whether the people of Aotearoa are getting value for money. But that would require a complaint to the Ombudsman, which would take a year or two, so the government wins simply by virtue of shit enforcement...)

There's an obvious parallel here with the government's boot camps - also run by an ACT minister - where after several high-profile failures, all outcomes were declared secret. And that's how this government prevents criticism: not by performing well, but by censorship and secrecy. Transparency? Our right to know? Not under this regime.

Member's Day

Today is a Member's Day. First up is the first reading of Debbie Ngarewa-Packer's Resource Management (Prohibition on Extraction of Freshwater for On-selling) Amendment Bill, and then it's the second readings of Tracey McLellan's Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill and Camilla Belich's Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. Then it's back to the first reading of Ingrid Leary's Property Law (Sunset Clauses) Amendment Bill. If the House moves quickly it might make a start on Cameron Brewer's Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill. There should be a ballot for one or two bills tomorrow.

This industry should be destroyed, not subsidised

The health insurance industry is parasitic on our public health system, taking people's money, providing them with th easy, cheap stuff, then sending them straight back into the public health system for anything which might cost them money. But not enough people are buying it anymore. So they're doing what all NZ industries do when the going gets tough: demanding a government subsidy:

Health insurance is becoming too expensive for some New Zealanders and it's prompted a call from the industry for tax breaks to help.

Research from the Financial Services Council, which represents life and health insurers, shows that a third of people with health insurance have downgraded or reduced their cover in the past year.

They're wanting full tax deductibility for premiums, and an exemption from fringe-benefit tax for employer-paid schemes. Which would obviously be great for them, and great for the rich people using their system to try and jump the queue. But any money spent subsidising their profits like this would be far better spent directly through the public health system. And spent there, it would benefit everybody, not just health insurance executives and their shareholders.

This is not an industry that should be subsidised. Instead, like foodbanks, the government should be actively trying to drive health insurers out of business, by building a stronger public health system that provides for everyone's needs.

A step towards freedom in Kanaky

Last year, New Caledonia burned after colonial France attempted to renege on a hard-won decolonisation deal and unilaterally impose constitutional changes without the consent of Kanaks. But now, after months of negotiations, France has finally consented to a further devolution of power, making Kanaky a state within France:

One of the most notable developments in terms of future status for New Caledonia is the notion of a "State of New Caledonia", under a regime that would maintain it a part of France, but with a dual citizenship (France, New Caledonia).

[...]

The text also envisages a gradual transfer of key powers currently held by France (such as international relations), but would not include portfolios such as defence, currency or justice.

In diplomacy, New Caledonia would be empowered to conduct its own affairs, but "in respect of France's international commitments and vital interests."

[...]

On police and public order matters, New Caledonia would be entitled to create its own provincial and traditional security forces, in addition to national French law enforcement agencies.

Its not independence. But its getting close, and it will allow the people of Kanaky to run their own country in their own way. And from here, its a very small change to full independence, or being an "associated state" of France.

Whether the deal will stick remains to be seen. But on that front, there's an obvious question: when will France release the political prisoners it took hostage?

Gas is still dead

The National regime, with its outdated fossil thinking, is desperately trying to revive the fossil fuel industry. Meanwhile, that industry seems to be voting with its feet: one of my regular checks of the gas permit map, and comparison with the permit spreadsheet, shows that OMV has surrendered another two offshore exploration permits: 57075 and 60092. So of the nine offshore Taranaki exploration permits which existed when I started tracking this, seven have been surrendered, and only one is still active, and it expires in 2028.

(If you're wondering why I say nine offshore permits but the spreadsheet shows ten, its because the government was forced to grant another one under pre-ban rules by the courts in 2023).

The bad news is that National has converted Todd Energy's Karewa exploration permit off Kawhia into a mining permit. Which is weird, because the exploration permit had expired in July 2023, but NZPAM conveniently sat on an application to convert it for the last two years. Then, Todd Energy apparently applied again in May, and had it granted in just two weeks. Which seems... unusual. And only possible because of Labour's bad faith in banning new permits, but allowing existing ones to be extended and even converted, rather than guillotining the industry like it needed to do, which allowed the application to hang around until National had changed the law.

But on the plus side: Todd Energy's permit may simply end up as an accounting fiction, used to boost the nominal value of the company while the gas stays in the ground. Any possible development isn't going to happen until the end of the decade at the earliest, and there simply won't be a market for gas by then. And of course there'll be plenty of time between now and then for the next government to reimpose the offshore ban and legislatively revoke their permit. Which in itself ought to deter any development, because the risk of wasting a shit-ton of money is simply too great. The only question is how much this zombie industry is going to shamble around groaning before it finally realises it is dead.

A criminal nation

The European Court of Human Rights has found Russia guilty of horrific human rights violations during its unlawful invasions of Ukraine:

Russia has committed flagrant and unprecedented abuses of human rights since it invaded Ukraine in 2014, including extrajudicial killings, sexual violence and forced labour, the European court of human rights has found.

The court’s grand chamber unanimously held that between 11 May 2014 and 16 September 2022, when Russia ceased to be a party to the European convention on human rights it had committed “manifestly unlawful conduct … on a massive scale”.

[...]

In its judgment, published on Wednesday, the court said there was evidence of widespread and systemic use of sexual violence, accompanied by acts of torture, such as beatings, strangling or electric shocks. Civilians and prisoners of war were subjected to mock executions, the severing of body parts and electric shocks, including to intimate areas of their bodies, the court said.

Finding repeated violations of the convention, many of which had taken place over a period of more than eight years, the court said: “These actions seek to undermine the very fabric of the democracy on which the Council of Europe and its member states are founded by their destruction of individual freedoms, their suppression of political liberties and their blatant disregard for the rule of law.

The court also found Russia guilty of shooting down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, murdering 298 people.

Russia withdrew from the court in September 2022, so the ruling isn't directly enforceable. But its enforceable within Europe, and Russian assets frozen there could lawfully be seized to pay compensation. More importantly, if Russia ever wants to normalise its relationship with Europe, it is going to have to address this, accept the ruling, and make restitution. And until it does, the world is justified in treating it as a criminal nation.

"There is no corruption in New Zealand..."

A government lavishes corporate welfare on a project managed by one of its donors, then appoints him as a director of a government body. The USA? No, its National's New Zealand:

A newly-appointed KiwiRail board director is associated with a company which donated to NZ First.

Scott O'Donnell is one of the four directors of Dynes Transport Tapanui, which donated $20,000 to NZ First in July 2024.

The company is also involved in a project which recently received a government regional infrastructure loan of $8 million.

A $8 million loan and a fat package of directors fees for a $20,000 donation? That's a hell of a return on investment...

The government says none of this is a conflict of interest, and its all perfectly OK. Bullshit. Its simply naked corruption - and the NZ public recognises that instantly. If our political class can't, then it shows how corrupt and institutionally rotten they are.

So how can we stop this? Getting money out of politics - banning donations and publicly funding political parties - is the ideal solution. But if that's not going to happen, we need a cordon sanitaire between money and politics. Which means long cooling off periods - at least the length of a parliamentary term - before a former donor is allowed to be appointed to any government role or receive any honour, and similar prohibitions on any body they control or are involved in being awarded any government contract or discretionary benefit. And if this deters donations, then it will simply confirm the suspicion that the primary driver is corruption.

Another attack on the rule of law

Over the past few years New Zealand fisheries ministers have been repeatedly found to have acted illegally in their quota decisions, ignoring the Fisheries Act's environmental and information principles and setting quota at unlawfully high levels to pander to the fishing industry. But current fisheries minister Shame Jones has a solution: ban court cases:

But a “frustrated” Jones is signalling a dramatic response: he’s considering changing the law to limit such court action altogether.

In an interview with The Post, Jones said he had asked officials to review the Fisheries Act to determine whether it had become “weaponised” by environmental groups.

[...]

“The frequency of this litigious activity has caused me to explore with the officials as to whether or not the law is fit for purpose,” he said.

“We cannot have a situation where we’re outsourcing to litigants and the judiciary the statutory role of resource management on behalf of the citizens of New Zealand.”

But of course that wouldn't be happening if ministers were obeying the law in the first place. The problem here is not the courts - it is consistently unlawful behaviour by ministers, who seem to regard the whims of their fishing industry donors as being more important than the law.

More generally, interpreting the law and ensuring that the government actually follows it are key duties of the courts. When you remove that, you don't have legal government in any real sense. Instead you have the arbitrary whims of a dictator. That may suit Jones very well - he's made no secret of his authoritarian and autocratic inclinations. But I don't think it suits kiwis at all. But if Jones goes ahead and pushes this through in his narrowing time window before the election, it will simply be another piece of bad law to be nuked in the next government's Omnibus Repeal Bill.

A further descent into tyranny

A protest group carries out repeated non-violent actions to highlight its cause, highlighting the fact that the regime's foreign policy is in violation of international law and is at odds witht he values and wishes of its people. The regime responds by banning the organisation, and threatening 14 year jail terms for anyone who expresses support from it.

Putin's Russia? No, it's Starmer's UK:

MPs have voted in favour of legislation to proscribe group Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation, passing by 385 votes to 26.

The order, which amends the Terrorism Act 2000, is now expected to be signed by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper and come into effect later this week.

Once in effect, supporting Palestine Action will become a criminal offence, with membership or expressing support for the direct action group punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

This is exactly what civil libertarians and human rights groups warned about when western governments passed "anti-terrorism" legislation in the wake of September 11th: that the tools used to target terrorists would ultimately come home and be used against peaceful protest groups. Its taken 25 years, but its happened, and there's no coming back from it. Along with the UK's anti-protest laws and the jailing of peaceful activists, it makes it clear that the UK is now a tyranny in all but name. And there's one thing we all know about tyrannies: they deserve to be overthrown.

This is what the IPCA's anti-protest laws mean

Back in February, the "Independent" Police Conduct Authority issued a radical, out-of-the-blue proposal to ban protests. The core of their proposal was a requirement for protesters to notify police well in advance of any protest action, and to obey whatever conditions police subsequently set or directions they made, with failure to do so being an arrestable offence. The latter proposal has since been adopted as a Member's Bill by a National MP, so its very much the regime's agenda as well.

The IPCA's proposal was based in part on draconian Australian anti-protest laws. And there's a perfect example of what they mean in practice, with the possible blinding of a protestor by police in Sydney:

A former Greens candidate has been injured after allegedly resisting police arrest while picketing a business in Sydney’s west, with friends and family warned she may lose sight in her right eye.

The protest, which attracted between 50 and 60 people, sought to stop pedestrian access to a business that was accused by protesters of “supplying electroplating and surface coating services for a variety of applications including aerospace and defence technology” to Israel.

[...]

According to police, officers issued a move-on direction to the protesters at about 5.30am on Friday.

The force alleged the protest was “unauthorised”, as those involved had not given advanced notice nor submitted a form that protected them from being charged under anti-protest laws.

The key thing to realise here is that police may use "reasonable force" to effect an arrest. So creating an offence of "disobeying police" or "refusing to tell police your plans" is effectively a licence for police to beat people at will, an invitation to the sort of violent and brutal policing exemplified above. Or to the sort of violent and brutal policing we see in America, where police respond to protests with barrages of tear gas, rubber bullets, and baton charges, because apparently that's an appropriate response to people yelling and waving banners in the streets.

This sort of policing is profoundly incompatible with democracy. It is not the sort of policing we want to see here. And if the IPCA wants it, then they are no longer fit for purpose, and should be dissolved.