Drawn

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

• Crimes (Offence of Failing to Report Child Harm) Amendment Bill (Andrew Bayly)
• Building (Energy Efficient Office Buildings) Amendment Bill (Rachel Brooking)
• Accident Compensation (Extended Cover for FENZ Personnel) Amendment Bill (Kieran McAnulty)

So some more performative law and order bullshit, and some minor policy. The only notable thing here is that Bayly is leaving Parliament in November, and his bill may not get a first reading before then. Even if it does, and National sends it to committee, someone else may have to adopt it.

Climate Change: Failure

National's first act in power was to repeal all effective climate change policy. How's that working out for them? Badly:

New Zealand is at risk of missing all of its climate targets, and time to get back on track is running out, the Climate Change Commission says.

The commission says lagging progress on switching to low-emissions technology is no longer just a climate change problem: it's preventing households from saving money on energy costs.

Its annual emissions monitoring report said New Zealand's climate pollution had gradually decreased over time.

However, progress stalled in 2024, and the pace of reductions now needed to double to get back on track, it said.

If the government did not come up with new ways to save emissions within the next year or two, the country would not be able to meet some of its targets at all, the commission warned.

And that's after they twiddled the numbers by refusing to update the budgets to take account of methodological improvements.

The full report is here. The figure on p9 says it all:

[CC-BY He Pou a Rangi]

The regime's policies - such as they are - are failures, and unlikely to deliver the emissions reductions claimed. Even if they did, the regime would still fail to meet the 2031-35 budget. Which means they need to do more. Instead, they're weakening the Commission and removing its ability to advise on budgets, so it can't make politically awkward recommendations to strengthen targets, or even meet them. Which makes it clear that this is a regime of arsonists, who want to burn down the world.

This regime needs to go. Vote them out in November, so we can start saving the planet.

Member's Day

Today is a Member's day. First up is Tom Rutherford's Concealment of Location of Victim Remains Bill, a classic law and order / performative cruelty wank which (like other such wanks) violates the Bill of Rights Act. Following National's ritual "tough on crime" posturing, there's the second reading of Shane Reti's Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill, which is supported by every party but ACT (who think parents should be free to drown their children). Then it will be the first readings of Tangi Utikere's Criminal Records (Clean Slate) (Additional Eligibility) Amendment Bill, which extends the highly successful clean slate regime to people who have served short custodial sentences and not reoffended, and Priyanca Radhakrishnan's Crimes (Virginity Testing Practices) Amendment Bill. If the House moves quickly (and I expect it to zip through the life jackets bill) it should get on to Stuat Smith's Local Government (Management of Local Authorities) Amendment Bill. There should be a ballot for at least two bills tomorrow.

Bring on the legislative ping-pong!

In 2020 an independent review suggested a repeal and replacement of the RMA system. The then-Labour government spent years doing the right thing, consulting affected groups and developing consensus policy, before progressing two replacement bills (the Spatial Planning Act 2023 and Natural and Built Environment Act 2023) through parliament under the normal legislative process. They eventually passed right before the 2023 election. The radical far-right National regime immediately repealed them. National unveiled its own version late last year, including American bullshit like "regulatory relief" (a propertarian scam to fiscally intimidate councils against regulating), and of course cutting the public out of environmental decision-making completely so Shane Jones's donors can drive their bulldozers everywhere. It came back from select committee last week, and its now (somehow) even worse, with the regime planning to statutorily nullify existing Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements (agreements between iwi and councils to manage the former's statutory consultation rights under both planning law and Treaty settlements) and allowing Ministers to rubberstamp consents despite their being otherwise illegal. The latter is a giant Henry VIII clause, fast-track on steroids, and further entrenches the nexus of corruption which has proven so profitable to government ministers with the fast track law. It is a recipe for further naked corruption and environmental devastation.

This is not what the public wants. According to the bill's departmental report, 74% of submissions were opposed, with only 3.7% in support. But its what donors wanted, and that's who buys this regime. But such overwhelming public opposition is a licence for the next government to take a hatchet to the bill and change it - or simply repeal it outright.

Chris Hipkins has (sadly) ruled out the latter. Its disappointing - I want to see National's legislation, all their legislation, burned to the ground and the earth salted - but understandable. Starting from scratch will take them three years again, just in time for a potential repeal. Chopping the obnoxious features out can be done in one, with a full parliamentary process. Or, if they're in the parts of the bill which take effect immediately and do irreparable harm, it can be done in a day under all-stages urgency. The next government doesn't need to hurry, as if passed the law won't take effect until 2029, but it also shouldn't piss about. Getting it done quickly and embedding the changes in the new planning process so that they are difficult to unpick without everyone having to do a shitton of extra work needs to be a priority.

And sure, if the government changes again, National could just reimpose their radical propertarian bulldozer bullshit. But so what? Let them play legislative ping-pong trying to repeatedly impose their radical, unpopular, weird ideas - and make them pay the price for it. "Environmental law should actually protect the environment", "Ministers shouldn't be allowed to take bribes", and "No-one should be able to approve a nuclear waste dump, no matter how much money someone slips Shame Jones" are not unpopular propositions in this country. Every time National espouses those ideas is going to cost them, and hopefully lose them more support. So make them argue for those unpopular positions as often as possible. Don't let them win by default because labour was too cowardly to fight back.

A clear choice

New Zealand First held its party conference over the weekend, and among all the weirdo cooker shit and outright racism, Winston dropped another election policy: a billion dollar subsidy for gas exploration, lest we be left behind in destroying the planet.

And today the Greens offered their alternative: a billion dollar investment in renewable firming for the grid, to help our energy transition and keep power prices low:

The Green Party wants to use its ‘Super Rich Tax’ to establish a publicly owned renewable energy company called Kiwipower, to fill the gaps they say the market has failed to fill.

The party says Kiwipower could use a combination of pumped hydro, geothermal and batteries to backup more intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar, making them a far better investment.

The party’s freshly released energy election policy would also see the wealth tax used to put solar panels on more than half of all public homes within four years, give renters access to plug-in solar, and expand the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme for insulation.

It would also invest $200 million for community-owned renewable energy and commit another $80m to Māori housing.

NZ First naturally offered no clue as to where their billion dollars would come from. The Greens, after years of the media crying "how will you pay for it!?!", said so explicitly. But its also worth noting that Kiwipower is an asset, and so the "spending" is largely an exercise in moving money from one column of the government's books to another. Ditto the mass installation of solar on state houses. And given what we know about home insulation, the "spending" will be more than saved in reduced downstream health costs. What does NZ First offer us? At best, a billion dollars down a black hole. At worst, the continued destruction of the global climate, with ongoing increased costs for health and natural disasters.

There's a clear choice here, and it should be obvious which one is a better deal, both for us as individuals, and for Aotearoa.

Eating Labour's lunch

Yesterday the Greens announced a significant election policy: default union membership. New employees would automatically be enrolled in a "default union", but would be able to opt out. Unions approved, of course, but what did Labour, the supposed party of the union movement think about it?

Yes, they were "non-committal". The same way they're "non-committal" about anything actually left-wing these days (when they're not actively hostile to it, like taxing the rich).

Snark about Labour useless aside, this is actually good policy. It's a nudge towards union membership, making it frictionless to join, while still respecting freedom of association. People can easily opt out, and the first month of temporary membership will cost them nothing. The big question is how many will. Union membership dropped to about 20% after National's Employment Contracts Act, and has never really recovered. This will almost certainly see a significant increase, and provide a place to build from.

The core of the Clark government's industrial relations policy was "give unions the tools, and let them fight and win gains for themselves". That worked quite well. And it will work better with stronger unions. Membership by default will enable that, but also put real pressure on the unions to deliver real benefits for those new members, to demonstrate their relevance and utility - because people are not going to stay members if membership delivers nothing. Its a direct recipe for greater union power - a thing employers actually fear.

The Ardern government's alternative was to spend years building supposed consensus with employers for "fair pay agreements" - essentially a system of centrally negotiated industry-specific awards. These would supposedly deliver to workers regardless of union membership (if employers didn't drag out negotiations and litigate to prevent them from being completed). But then after all that work and despite that supposed consensus, the current regime simply repealed them. It turns out that the employers simply lied about supporting them. Who'd have thunk it?

The same can happen to any replacement system, or any legal tweaks a Labour-led government puts in (see National's reinstatement of the 90-day law, its removal of workplace protections for contractors, and what its doing to the Holidays Act). But the beauty of the Greens' proposal is that it is insulated against such moves. While a new government can repeal the law, union members will remain members until they decide not to be. So the boost to union power will survive a change of government, in a way that laws don't. And the concessions unions win in the interim, and the legal minimums they have written into their contracts "just for certainty" will survive too, and be that much harder to get rid of.

The Greens putting this out there puts the pressure on Labour to support it. And if they don't, or if they want to play silly buggers and pretend not to so they can "surrender" it in coalition negotiations, voters can vote for the party which will deliver the policy they like. If Labour doesn't like that, maybe they should start living up to their name, rather than being NeoLiberals in red ties.

Climate Change: Incoherent

Two weeks ago, Climate Change Minister Simon watts was sending shitty letters to local authorities warning they were doing too much to adapt to climate change. Now, he's introduced a law to require them to do so:

Councils will have to come up with adaptation plans for communities at high risk from climate change hazards, under a proposed law change.

The Climate Change Response Amendment Bill, introduced to Parliament on Wednesday, will require councils to plan at least 30 years into the future, and spell out the likely cost.

[...]

Climate Change minister Simon Watts said for the first time, councils would be required by law to plan how high-risk communities in their area will prepare for the impacts of climate change.

This is utterly incoherent with their previous warnings, and it suggests that the regime simply has no idea what it is fucking doing. And of course, they're still leaving the question of who will pay for this completely up in the air - while constantly criticising councils for raising rates to cope with regime spending demands. Instead, like many things, its just been punted to next term, in the clear hope that another government will take the hit for it.

But while this piece of law is welcome, the rest of it isn't. Other nasty changes in the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill include:

• removing consultation requirements for Emissions Budgets and Emissions Reduction Plans, allowing everything to be done in secret without public input;
• removing all policy requirements from Emissions Reduction Plans, removing He Pou a Rangi's role in advising on them, and weakening monitoring;
• allowing the government to dictate He Pou a Rangi's recommendations on ETS limits and price control settings;
• removing the requirement that emissions budgets and decisions relating to them and Emissions Reduction Plans be consistent with the Paris Agreement and 1.5 degree limit. This in particular is contrary to international law.

So, do everything in secret, cut the public out, and return to the "good old days" where the government promised action then did nothing - which is what the law was meant to end. This is a total repudiation of the Zero Carbon Act. It is also the end of any pretence of bipartisanship on climate change - instead, National has returned to soft denial (accepting the problem, but refusing to act). Which means that the next government should end that pretence as well, and just implement real policy. Make the polluters scream! The louder they scream, the more of them who go bankrupt, the better!

National's New Zealand

How bad are things under the Luxon regime? We already knew that we had the worst wage growth in the world, with wages 6.4% below 2021 levels - which shows the lie of National's "economic growth". But what does that mean in reality? The Press headline from today speaks for itself: "Police are dealing with a new type of shoplifter - ‘everyday people’ who just need to eat":

A year ago, Sergeant Melissa Shaw’s retail crime team was set up to curb retail theft in Christchurch.

Shaw expected to deal mainly with drug addicts who repeatedly steal to fund their next hit. And there have been those.

But then came the surprise: A growing cohort of thieves who were not drug addicts, not kleptomaniacs, not youths.

They were parents and elderly people with no criminal histories, without the money to keep up with rising living costs, who stole food and clothing for themselves and their families.

And that's where we are now: normal people having to steal to get buy, because National's "rockstar economy" doesn't provide for them, and instead funnels everything upwards into the pockets of Luxon and his mates.

We desperately need to get rid of this government. So in November, vote for regime change!

Climate Change: Fixing the climate won't cause economic argmageddon

Parliament is currently hearing submissions on the regime's corrupt bill to protect polluters from liability for the damage their pollution is causing. Z Energy - one of the bill's instigators, whose lobbying efforts were unlawfully hidden by the Prime Minister's office - is doing some pretty heavy PR on this, in a desperate effort to convince people that this law benefits the public rather than just those polluters. As part of this, they've released the obligatory lobbying document promising economic armageddon!!!! unless they are immediately granted full and complete immunity for their crimes:

Three of the defendants - Z Energy, Fonterra and Genesis Energy - commissioned a report by an independent economist, Dr Niven Winchester.

It examined the potential economic and emissions impacts of legal remedies sought in the case.

Winchester concluded if an immediate cessation order was applied to the defendants in the case, GDP would decline by $21.9b (0.9 percent) over five years (2028-2032), with 2028 alone seeing a $7.5b (1.6 percent) fall.

The full report is here. The relevant table, on p12, is reproduced below:

The first think to note from this is that the $21.9 billion figure is cumulative economic impact, the sum of all the projected "losses" over 5 years. The actual figure for 2032 is $2.3 billion, or 0.5% lower than the projected base case. The second thing to note is that the report helpfully includes tables showing projected emissions reductions (table 4) and carbon prices (table 3), and when you do the maths, it turns out that the avoided emissions, if priced at the prices provided, offset 80% of that cumulative loss, and over 90% in early years ($7 of $7.5 billion in 2028; $5.2 of $5.7 billion in 2029; $3 of $3.5 billion in 2030; its frontloaded because prices decline as emissions return towards the projected path). The maximum projected net "loss" is $1.2 billion in 2032 - about 0.25%.

Plus of course there is the obvious: GDP is currently $450 billion. It is projected to be higher than that in all but the first years of the projected DFA scenario, and even that qualification disappears once the price of avoided emissions is included. In other words, this report shows that we can take radical action to rapidly cut our emissions, using the harshest method imaginable - an immediate, court-enforced order for large polluters to immediately reduce their pollution to net zero - and still be better off than we are now.

I do not think that is the optimum pathway; I prefer a managed transition. But in the absence of proper government policy, its the pathway we have left. And it still works. Its very bad for Fonterra, Z, and Genesis, of course, which is why they're lobbying so hard against it. But the rest of us are still massively better off because of it.

Unmentioned in this analysis of course is the cost of the storms, floods, fires, and other disasters, which are only growing to go worse if Fonterra, Z, Genesis etc continue polluting. But they only affect actual people, not suits and corporate bottom lines, so of course the ghouls ignore them. But you don't need to hire expensive lobbyists to tell you that the weather is now an ongoing shitshow, and we need to do what we can to stop it getting worse. And if making major polluters liable for the damage their pollution causes is what it takes, I am all for it.

Another outrageous abuse of the OIA

Two weeks ago the Ombudsman released his final opinion on the Prime Minister's unlawful hiding of information around his corrupt climate impunity law, and he was not impressed. As a followup, The Post filed another OIA with the Prime Minister, seeking correspondence between the PM, his "forgetful" adviser, and the Department of Internal Affairs (which hosts Ministerial Services and his his nominal employer). But the regime clearly wants to bury this information, because they have extended the request for 64 working days:

However, it was not until last week when branch performance director Penny Langley wrote back to extend the statutory timeframe by 64 working days.

Langley said “the consultations necessary to make a decision” meant DIA could not reasonably respond within the original deadline.

The extension, dated July 3, means the request is not due to be answered until October 7.

...which means that when they are inevitably late, or announce that a decision has been made but release will happen later, there will be no time to force release before the November 7 election.

This is an outrageous abuse of the OIA. It is also prima facie unlawful. The OIA is clear: extensions must be "for a reasonable period of time having regard to the circumstances". what's "reasonable"? The Ombudsman is equally clear:

Where Parliament has specifically mandated third party consultation on OIA requests, those parties have been required to respond ‘within 10 working days’. In its review of the official information legislation, the Law Commission suggested a minimum 5 working days’ notice. From this, it can be inferred that 5–10 working days would generally be regarded as a reasonable period of time within which to provide comment.

While the Ombudsman notes that more or less time might be appropriate depending on the circumstances, it is difficult to imagine circumstances which would justify 64 working days, and those which can be imagined - the person simply being unavailable for a protracted period of time - would also make it perfectly reasonable for the agency to simply make the decision itself without consulting at all.

DIA of course refuses to provide any justification for its decision, which in itself seems to be a violation of s23 OIA, and invites the natural suspicion that there is none (or rather, none which would withstand public scrutiny).

The Post has no doubt complained to the Ombudsman already about this, but for the rest of us its a reminder of how extensions are routinely abused, and how you should immediately complain about them. And if you're not sure about what to say, I have specific guidance for extension complaints here.

The bidding war on solar

Last month National announced its solar power policy. It was the bare minimum, a version of the Ratepayer Assistance Scheme expansion advocated by Rewiring Aotearoa, but with the problem that no sane person would trust them to actually deliver on it. Because while they want the positive PR from announcing a solar policy, they don't actually want to spend any time on implementation when they could be doing more important things, like climate change denial and culture war bullshit, instead.

Today it was Labour's turn. And they've announced the same core policy - the Ratepayer Assistance Scheme - backed up with additional loans through lines companies, support for community batteries, and support for renters to get plug-in solar. Which is all good, and unlike National there's no doubts about implementation. Labour will actually do what it promises, at least if there's still a public service to do it with. Not least because their expected coalition partners, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori, will hold them to it (and push it further).

Speaking of the Greens, while they haven't yet announced their solar policy, their 2023 version was twice as generous as Labour's. I'd expect them to be starting from that baseline, and then adding on extra support for renters and community ownership. In the meantime, they're pointing out that with the three largest parties in parliament all supporting the Ratepayer Assistance Scheme, the House can and should just legislate the required tweaks to allow it to be used for solar, rather than making people wait until after the election. But then, that might make National actually deliver on their promise, rather than treating it as a meaningless soundbite.

In a democracy, everyone gets to vote

Its election year, so Winston is back on his bullshit, spewing racism in an effort to pander to his voting base of mostly old, mostly white racists. His latest idea? That only citizens should be allowed to vote:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has announced a policy to restrict voting rights to only those with New Zealand citizenship.

Peters announced the policy at a public meeting in Warkworth on Sunday afternoon.

Currently, legal residents living in New Zealand continuously for a year or more, and whose visa does not require them to leave within a certain time are eligible to vote.

Announcing his new policy on Sunday, party leader Peters said voting "should be a privilege of those who have sworn allegiance to New Zealand, and who have made the commitment to make New Zealand their home and their future".

"If you haven't made that commitment or sworn that allegiance, we are happy to let you live here permanently, but why should you get a say in how this country is run or governed?" he said.

To which the short answer is "because they live here, you disgusting zombie".

The longer answer is that Aotearoa has a long tradition of recognising that everyone who lives here should have a say in the future of this place. Its been the case for over 50 years now, and its part of our democracy. And one of the reasons for it is that we were late to establish our own citizenship, and thus had to deal with a huge population of migrants from the old imperial center, who had made lives here, belonged here, but never had to do any formal paperwork to do so. And so, when we had to seriously grapple with that in the 1970's (thanks to Britain deciding that people it had invaded and oppressed and passed laws saying they were British whether they liked it or not, suddenly weren't British after all, especially if they might actually want to exercise their right to live in Britain), the easiest way of doing so was simply to delete the words "He is a British subject" from the 1956 Electoral Act, reducing the qualification to simply being "ordinarily resident in New Zealand" (plus the usual stuff about living here for a year and in the relevant electorate for a month etc). And then, once we'd passed our own citizenship legislation, the law assumed the form we know today, recognising voting rights for New Zealand citizens as well as permanent residents.

Ironically, the group protected by that transition - old British migrants who came here in the 1950's and 60's - are one of the cores of NZ First's support today. And it wouldn't surprise me in the least if some of them still aren't citizens (because they have never had any need to be; they live here and they belong here).

The other irony is that when Winston talks about how voting "should be a privilege of those who have sworn allegiance to New Zealand", he would effectively exclude almost all native-born New Zealanders from the electorate. Because if you were born here, you've never had to do anything of the sort! The only people who have actually "sworn allegiance to New Zealand" (in reality, to a foreign monarch who lives on the other side of the world) are immigrants who have made a conscious choice to become citizens, and weirdos (soldiers, police officers, and MPs). That might be Winston's vision of a perfect democracy, but it isn't mine - or, I think, Aotearoa's. In a democracy, everyone gets to vote. Its that simple. And people who try and undermine that need to be de-elected.

More lightning legislating

The House has been in urgency this week, as the regime struggle against the clock to pass its agenda. In addition to the inherent abuse of urgency, this has led to other abuses, with parliament once again returning to being "the fastest legislature in the west" to ram things through. And now there's another one: National has rammed its corrupt bill to protect polluters from liability for the climate change they are causing - the same bill a Ministerial Adviser violated the Public Records Act and hid the lobbyists' draft of from the OIA - through its first reading and sent it to committee. The committee report back date? 30 July. So the committee will have less than a month to "consider" this corrupt atrocity against the rule of law, turning it into little more than a rubber-stamp for Cabinet.

Submissions are open, and due by 9.00am, Monday, 13 July 2026 (note the dirty time chosen; you need to have this in by 12 July to be safe). So we have less than ten days to submit on this corrupt violation of constitutional norms. And this is what National calls "democracy".

The opposition has committed to repealing the bill if it becomes law, so any benefit Fonterra and Z Energy get from their corrupt lobbying will be transitory, lasting only until the repeal bill is passed and Mike Smith (or someone else) files a new case against them. Its probably worth supporting that in your submission, so Labour knows they're doing the right thing. Again, National's over-reach and abuse of power creates the potential to push back, and so we should push back hard, and demand not just repeal, but that polluters have absolute liability for the damage caused by their pollution. Fonterra and Z and their polluting mates have undermined our democracy to protect their profits. We need to punish them harshly for that, just so they don’t do it again.

Climate Change: Overdoing it?

Climate change is here, causing increasingly severe weather. In April, Wellington was flooded by extreme rainfall, making 40 homes uninhabitable and killing one person. Auckland suffered similar floods in 2023. We had more weather-related states of emergency in the first two months of 2026 than in the whole of 2025, and the number has only increased. A severe weather warning affecting multiple regions is issued every two weeks. But weirdly, the minister for climate change and local government thinks councils are doing too much to stop this, and has sent them a shitty letter demanding they pretend its not happening:

Wellington’s mayor has slammed a climate mitigation letter from the local government minister as “tone deaf”, in a city where a man died in flood waters and other residents scrambled for their lives mere weeks ago.

Local Government Minister Simon Watts’ letter to mayors, regional council chairpeople and council chief executives around the country started arriving in in-boxes about 6pm on Tuesday.

In it, he insinuated councils were “gold-plating” climate initiatives and building for worst-case scenarios at ratepayers’ expenses.

[...]

Asked for examples of problem initiatives, Watts’ office highlighted a Greater Wellington Regional Council regional flood hazard assessment, which produced a map showing where is prone to flooding risk. Areas severely flooded in April, such as Emerson St in Berhampore, were identified as being at risk.

The last bit makes it crystal clear why Watts is doing this: because clearly identifying climate change risks means some people's property values will drop. People with houses in flood zones might not be able to insure or sell them, and developers who have hoarded coastal property won't be able to develop it and might lose money. So to protect the imaginary property values of the rich, we all have to ignore what is happening before our eyes and pretend that everything is perfectly normal.

This is, simply, bullshit. And if Watts gets his way, more people will die. But Watts doesn't care. Weirdly, he seems to think none of this bad weather will affect him in any way.

Climate change is an existential threat to future for humanity. The regime has clearly chosen a side in that struggle, and it is the side of polluters and devastation. They have moved from passively not giving a shit to actively trying to stop people from doing anything about it. If we want a future, we need to throw this climate quisling regime out of office, and elect a government which will protect us, rather than protecting polluters.

Completely unsurprising

Back in May, we learned that climate polluters had bought themselves an exemption from the law (an exemption that will be passed through its first reading and sent to select committee under urgency this week), lobbying the Prime Minister in secret for a special law change in their favour. The Ombudsman has now completed their investigation of the failure to release that lobbying, and they are not impressed:

The Ombudsman has released a damning report into the failure of the Prime Minister’s Office to release a written briefing its chief policy adviser had received ahead of a controversial law change.

His report reveals that the adviser - who received the briefing note in hard copy and to his personal email address - was personally consulted on the request for information, but did not provide it.

The Ombudsman has referred the matter to the chief archivist and says it is “surprising” that the adviser does not recall the meetings in which the document was handed over.

The Ombudsman is being polite here. Because it is very clear what happened: the ministerial adviser lied to protect himself and his boss. And then he lied to the Ombudsman about lying, pretending he didn't remember. And the only people surprised by that are people who have to pretend, by virtue of their position, that the government gives one wet fart for the law.

The adviser's initial actions, in getting official documents sent to his private email account and then failing to create a full and accurate record, were a crime. That crime needs to be prosecuted. And while we're at it, we need to make non-compliance with the OIA a crime in its own right, defined as a "corrupt practice" in the Electoral Act, so that Ministers convicted of breaking it will be automatically removed from parliament.

Meanwhile, the next time anyone in power whines about trust in government declining, they can blame the Prime Minister and his staff. Because they've shown conclusively that those in power are corrupt, untrustworthy criminals. And only a fool would trust them.

The fastest legislature in the west strikes again!

In his book Unbridled Power, constitutional scholar (and future Prime Minister) Geoffrey Palmer described New Zealand's parliament as "the fastest legislature in the west" in reference to its constant abuse of process to speed legislation. Usually this is all-stages urgency, but recently we've had a problem with abbreviated committee processes as well, with tight deadlines used to ram laws through with a veneer (but not the substance) of democratic process.

This week's example is the Te Here ā Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Bill, which implements a court settlement over the state's theft of land from Nelson iwi and hapu. The bill was introduced to the house last Monday, and passed its first reading on Thursday. So far, so ordinary. Submissions on the bill are now open - but they close this Thursday, having been open for all of a week. And the bill will report back to the House by 29 July, having had just a month for select committee consideration.

Why the speed? Presumably because the regime has decided it wants it passed before the election. But its a bullshit process which leaves no time for real scrutiny or input. If there's a problem in the bill - if it is poorly drafted, or fails to properly implement the agreement, or whatever - then there's no time for anyone to notice, and no time for the committee to fix it. And no way to fix it afterwards, because the bill protects the state from all future claims in relation to the underlying proceedings or the settlement act itself.

While stemming from a different process, the bill covers similar ground to Treaty settlement bills. Those bills receive full process, with normal submission periods and committee consideration (and some then linger on the Order Paper for years, because there's no political urgency to actually implement Treaty justice). While on the one hand I'm pleased to see the government treating injustice against Māori with some urgency, this is not good legislative practice, and there are significant risks of getting it wrong. State-Māori relations are too important to be treated this way. Parliament needs to slow the fuck down, and make sure they get it right, rather than trampling on our democracy while risking serious and irreparable errors.

A busy week

Do you hate the regime? Do you hate their tyranny, their transphobia, and their desire to destroy the environment? If so, you're in for a busy week - because submissions on bills on all of those things all close on Thursday.

The details are on Parliament's select committee page. Submissions on the following all close at 11:59pm on Thursday 2 July:

• The Conservation Amendment Bill. This bill allows the regime to sell off the conservation estate to foreign billionaires, repurposes DoC towards economic exploitation of conservation land, disestablishes regional conservation boards, and violates Treaty settlements.
• The Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill: NZ First's anti-trans hate bill, which seeks to legally define trans people out of existence.
• The Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill, which aims to persecute the homeless while also allowing police to ban any public protest.

Also closing at the same time is the Local Government (Port Companies Accountability) Amendment Bill, a members bill which would bring some much-needed transparency and accountability to port companies. That one's worth submitting on too if you're a transparency advocate, though in support rather than opposition.

Stacking up controversial bills like this seems to be a clear attempt to deter submissions. So don't be deterred. We've already seen that if we scream loud enough at the regime, it backs down, and its likely to be even more sensitive in the lead-up to the election. So scream at them. If you don't have time to write a full submission on everything, pick one to do a good job on. For the rest, saying "I oppose this bill, and recommend that it not be passed" is a perfectly valid submission, though it will count for more if you can specify particular things you hate. And if you can, submit early - with so many controversial bills due at the same time, parliament's servers may end up overloaded by the backlash. Submitting early, rather than trying to do everything at once, may avoid this.

This seems awfully familiar...

Last year, we saw almost-Police Commissioner Jevon McSkimming convicted for possessing child sexual abuse material. The conviction was an accident, something which came up during an investigation of McSkimming's past history of alleged sexual abuse. McSkimming had worked hard to gaslight his colleagues and discredit his victim, with the result that the police as an institution (and a bunch of very senior police officers as individuals) dragged their feet and systematically looked the other way on complaints about him, protecting their own while persecuting his victim. But eventually, an audit of his computer system turned up his criminal activity, and he became impossible for them to protect.

But there's a sequel. Because around the time new Police Commissioner Richard Chambers was denouncing his former colleague, people were complaining about him. And the police and IPCA sat on it for six months, not bothering to actually investigate it until early June. And the only reason we know about it at all is because it was leaked to RNZ. Which sounds exactly like the sort of foot-dragging that happened with McSkimming. From the police's response, you'd get the impression that they would have kept the whole thing secret if they could.

This isn't good enough. The police need to retain public trust, and that means they must be seen to be trustworthy and to obey the law. If something calls the trustworthiness of the Police Commissioner into question, the public deserve to know about it. And if he's actually under investigation, he needs to stand down and let someone else do the job - because its pretty obvious that he can't. It's that simple. And if this is too hard for police - if they can't follow the basic norms of ethical behaviour we expect from other public officials - then they should fucking quit. Otherwise people will draw the natural conclusion: that they're a corrupt shitshow interested in protecting themselves over the public, and we're better off without them.

Screaming works

Last month, the regime introduced the Conservation Amendment Bill, a steaming pile of shit which would allow it to sell off huge chunks of the conservation estate while opening up more of it to mining, development, and exploitation. Pretty obviously, this did not fit with the public's expectations and the value it placed on our natural taonga, and people started screaming about it. This week, after being challenged in the House, Chris Luxon tried to claim it was just about selling a few old buildings - but no-one believed him. And so just like that, the regime has backed down:

Conservation Minister Tama Potaka has announced the controversial exchange and disposal provisions for conservation land will be dropped from the Conservation Amendment Bill.

The minister said he never intended to dispose of vast swathes of the conservation estate, but acknowledged the public outcry over the bill. He took personal responsibility for giving New Zealanders that impression. “That’s on me – that’s on us,” he said at the Environmental Defence Society conference in Auckland. “We were not clear enough.”

Good. Our taonga places are exactly that - taonga, to be kept for future generations. No government has any right to sell or despoil them.

Obviously there's more work to do here. The bill guts regional boards, compromises Treaty settlements, and includes an odious "economic opportunities" clause in the department's functions which push it towards enabling rather than stopping the bulldozers. But stopping conservation land from being sold is a good first step. And if it helps drive a wedge between National (who want to get re-elected) and NZ First (who want to pay off their mining industry donors with public taonga) then that's a bonus. The sheer scale of public opposition has also opened space for a serious push-back - something the Greens have recognised - which could be leveraged into giving our taonga places greater protection. Hopefully people will push on that as hard as they can.

Meanwhile, the lesson in this is that if we scream loud enough, the regime backs down. Their desire to be re-elected is a weapon we can use against them. So keep screaming. Screaming works.

The bare minimum

Household solar power is having a moment at the moment, and encouraging it is looking like a total no-brainer for any government. Even National has got on board, announcing a loan scheme as an election policy:

National has promised to help households shift to solar power through low interest loans, if it's re-elected.

It planned to introduce a Home Energy Fund offering low-interest, long-term loans that are repaid through rates so households can invest in solar, batteries, insulation and heat pumps, without big upfront costs.

Which sounds good, and it is, but it is also the bare fucking minimum now. Low-interest loans are something offered by every major bank. Handling them through rates allows broader access and easier repayment, and that will boost uptake, but you could also get more (at higher cost) through direct subsidies, or by regulating for higher payback rates or net metering. And of course there's still landlords to tackle.

There's also serious doubts over National's actual delivery on its promise. Councils have been asking them for this exact policy since last year, and National has stalled them, apparently so it can cynically announce it as an election policy. They considered, then chucked solar incentives last year, so there's a real question of commitment. And of course lurking in the background is their "promise" last election of 10,000 EV chargers, which due to a complete lack of implementing policy has resulted in fewer than 500 extra actually being built. Its easy to imagine this promise going the same way - once they've got the headline, they simply won't pass the legislation, won't allocate the trivial amount of money required, and so won't do the thing. Other parties are likely to be more committed.

What it does show is how comprehensively the Greens have won the argument on this. They've been advocate solar loans for a decade, and now even National has to pretend to agree with them. Which just goes to show the value of advocacy - and invites the question of how Labour could have changed the political landscape if they'd bothered to argue for anything, rather than hiding and triangulating.

National gets Winstoned

"Reform health and safety law and regulations" is one of the commitments in the National-ACT coalition agreement, and ACT has advanced it with the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill which (somewhat predictably) guts workplace health and safety, letting employers maim at will. The bill is currently up for its second reading, and the plan was clearly to pass it before the election. But there's a problem: Winston Peters:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters says he will not vote for the government's health and safety reforms if there are not changes to the legislation, after earlier saying he was hamstrung by the coalition agreement.

Pike River campaigners Anna Osborne and Sonya Rockhouse are in Wellington, hoping to persuade politicians to reject legislation they say risks a workplace disaster.

The Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill proposes a radical shake up of New Zealand's health and safety laws.

Speaking to RNZ's Checkpoint after meeting with Osborne and Rockhouse, Peters said he did not have confidence in the Bill as it stood.

Winston did a lot of this when he was in coalition with Labour, agreeing to something, then threatening to veto it at a late stage unless changes were made. While its entertaining to see National getting the same treatment, its a sign that he simply cannot be trusted, and there is no good faith in any coalition relationship he is a party to.

He's since changed his tune, saying he can't vote against it and instead promising to fix it after the election. That seems unlikely to satisfy his supporters, who are demanding action. But voting against it won't satisfy his donors, who have given him half a million dollars to keep propping up ACT, so he's kindof fucked either way. Which is exactly what he deserves for being such a duplicitious shit.

If we're lucky, Winston's prevaricating will be enough to stall this bill at the committee stage. Otherwise, its just something else for the Omnibus Repeal Bill, with or without Winston.

Time to tax the rich

Aotearoa has a problem: the rich don't pay their fair share. They benefit from our society: the state protects their wealth and provides peaceful conditions allowing them to carry on business without fear. And yet they refuse to pay for it. Meanwhile, their cartels suck the money out of ordinary New Zealanders, so they can spend it on bigger and bigger houses, bigger and bigger yachts, helicopters, and so on.

Its time we made them pay their fair share. And over the weekend, the Greens put up their election year tax policy, which will make them do it. A wealth tax, targeted at the super-rich, which will finally bring them into the tax system. A new top income tax rate, for those earning top incomes. A capital acquisitions tax, targeting gifts and inheritances over $1 million, to limit intergenerational accumulation and tax-dodging. A higher corporate tax rate for big companies. A bank-levy, targeting our biggest cartel parasites, Aussie banks. Stopping foreign tech companies from dodging New Zealand taxes by pretending the profits happen elsewhere. And reversing Luxon's landlord and property speculator tax cuts.

These are not radical socialist policies. They are all perfectly normal overseas. But the rich have bought so much power in our society since 1984 that they've been able to gaslight us into thinking that the normal is abnormal, that other countries don't have wealth taxes, inheritance taxes, more progressive income taxes, restrictions on tax cheating. And they've been able to do that, in part, because they can use their money to buy politicians and media outlets, steering our society in their preferred direction, despite huge public support for taxing them.

Taxing the rich and limiting their ability to accumulate and weaponise their wealth is a necessary thing for the preservation of our society. And the best bit is that it won't affect the vast majority of New Zealanders. Only a tiny proportion of people - the Chris Luxons of this world - have more than $10 million. Only a tiny proportion of people inherit or are given more than $1 million. Only a tiny proportion (which includes every MP) "earn" more than $160,000. None of that affects us. Instead, what we get in practice from this policy is a reduction in inequality, a restriction on the power of the rich, better-funded public services, and a tax cut! Because most of us will end up better off, thanks to a shift in the tax burden from the poor to the rich. Which is perfectly sensible the moment you think about it. There's no point taxing people who don't have any money. Instead you go after the people who do have it, the bloated accumulators who have sucked all the wealth out of our society into their own pockets.

Sadly, Chris Hipkins - a man paid $305,900 a year plus slush, who rorted his parliamentary superannuation scheme into buying his holiday home and then said "it's my money" - is saying that none of this will happen if he's in charge. Voters should take that as a challenge: if we want these policies, we have to vote for them. We need to put the Greens in a position where they can force this policy on Labour. Otherwise, nothing will change, and the rich will just keep on leaching and looting us.

Something we need to fix

An OIA request on FYI has alerted me to an unpleasant quirk in Parliament's rules. Someone has asked Jenny Marcroft, who is Parliamentary Under-secretary for media and communications and fisheries, for information she holds about her hateful terf bill. The request will be refused, because Marcroft will play the hat game, and claim that any information she holds on the bill is held in her capacity as an MP, rather than her capacity as a Parliamentary Under-secretary. But it does raise the question: given her role, why was she allowed to advance the bill at all?

The short answer, given by McGee, is that "[a] Parliamentary Under-Secretary may introduce a member’s bill." In other words, it is "within the rules" (as members of the political class love to say).

But again, we can ask why? Because member's bills are meant to be for members, not the executive. And Parliamentary Under-secretaries are absolutely members of the executive. They're defined as such in the Cabinet Manual, and effectively recognised as such in various parts of Parliament's Standing Orders. For example, they are treated as members of the executive when allocating oral questions under Standing Order 391, and they do not count for support to immediately introduce a member's bill under Standing Order 288. If Standing Orders were consistent, they would also be excluded from entering member's bills into the ballot.

The answer is almost certainly historical. While Parliamentary Undersecretaries were always part of the system, they'd fallen into disuse in favour of Associate Ministers. They were revived comparatively recently thanks to MMP and its need to hand out official baubles as bribes to supporters, some of whom might not have the pull or experience to merit even an associate ministerial position. So John Key made Rimmer an undersecretary in 2014, and since then every coalition government has included them as a bribe to its minor partners and as training wheels for those who might one day be Ministers. The present regime includes a PUS from each party (Marcroft from NZ First and Simon Court from ACT), giving each of them a fat salary bump and a bunch of perks to rort - which will help keep everyone sweet and not wanting to rock the boat. And the rules have struggled to keep up - undersecretaries were excluded from the OIA until 2016, despite being members of the executive, simply because no-one had really thought of it.

This is another example of the rules failing to keep up with practice. And its something we should fix. While its far too late for it to go into the review of standing orders, hopefully the next government will bring a sessional order to remove this oddity.

Good riddance

Shame Jones' corrupt Fisheries Amendment Bill is dead:

Controversial fisheries reform led by New Zealand First minister Shane Jones is being abandoned until after the election.

Jones, appearing before a select committee in his role as Oceans and Fisheries Minister, told MPs his “much-beloved bill could use some more panel-beating” and as such, would not be progressed in this term of government. The Fisheries Amendment Bill had caused division within the coalition, particularly with National which faced a backlash from recreational fishers over changes to minimum legal-size limits for commercial fishing operators.

Plus of course there's the quota changes, which let fishers over-fish; the restriction of judicial review, so we'll never be able to force the Minister to follow the law; and of course the absurd secrecy for camera-footage, which existed solely to protect criminal fishers from public scrutiny. The entire bill was bought and paid for by fishing industry donations, the public could see that, and they responded with utter revulsion.

And now its "delayed", which basically means dead. But if we want it to be gone for good, we need to throw the corrupt regime which advanced it out of office.

The price of justice

Last year, the regime rammed through the Equal Pay Amendment Act under urgency, gutting pay equity laws, dumping all claims, and stealing $13 billion from New Zealand women. Labour wants to reverse that. So naturally, they're getting the usual bullshit question from the regime and its stooges: "how will you pay for it?"

The short answer to this is "who the fuck cares?" It is fundamentally immoral to pay people less because of their gender. The state has been committed to eliminating this form of discrimination for over fifty years. It is appalling that it has taken so long to do so. It is even more appalling to see people quibbling about the fucking cost. Do they think we should pay women less? This is justice; we pay whatever it costs. It's that simple.

And the substantive answer is that we could afford it up until last year. What changed then is the government's priorities: they decided to spend all the state's money on landlord tax cuts and stupid fucking roads, and that these things were somehow more important than justice. That was an appallingly immoral decision, which shows what disgusting sexist pieces of shit the present regime are. But a different government can change those priorities. It can not be sexist, and put justice ahead of greed and stupidity. So, it can "pay for it" by simply reversing National's landlord tax giveaway. Or maybe just by cancelling some stupid roads.

Either way, the people asking these questions should be asked one in return: do they think women should be paid less? If so, they're ghouls and weirdos who have no place in the modern world and can be simply ignored. If not, then why are they even asking? Either way, maybe they should be thinking about the values underlying the policy, rather than the details.

Out of touch

There's been some stuff over the last few weeks about how MP's high salaries and extensive perks put them out of touch with normal people. How out of touch are they? Revenue Minister Simon Watts thinks that people with $50,000 invested overseas aren't wealthy:

Inland Revenue figures suggest only tens of thousands of New Zealanders have directly invested more than $50,000 in overseas shares.

But Revenue Minister Simon Watts has rejected the assertion that those whose purchases total less than $100,000 and who stand to gain from a tax change in Budget, could be described as mostly wealthy.

Watts has four houses, three trusts, and a salary of $320,600, plus perks (including $52,000 a year for housing and a tax-free "expense allowance" of $19,000). With all that, I think its fair to say that he has a certain level of wealth, and might not see $50,000 as a big deal, and certainly not real money. But $50,000 is vastly more than most kiwis have - median savings balances are less than a tenth of that, and a third of kiwis don't even have $500. Only 38% have a Kiwisaver balance of more than $40,000, so Watt's "not wealthy" is more than most people's entire lifetime savings.

You'd think as Revenue Minister, Watts might have some acquaintance with these facts. But wealth is something this regime steadfastly refuses to look at, because if it did, it might face pressure to do something about it. So he just falls back on his own reckons as a four-house, three-trust, $300K salary guy. $50K isn't a lot of money to him, so ergo people who have it aren't wealthy.

Which just goes to show that ministers and MPs are in a completely different boat from the rest of us. And that calls into question their claim to be "representatives".

Cheap but effective

Labour has finally announced some policy, with a promise of cheaper public transport:

Labour has vowed to cap public transport fares at $20 a week in main centres and $10 everywhere else if elected.

Its fare cap policy, announced on Wednesday, would put money back into New Zealanders' back pockets, said leader Chris Hipkins.

"This is real cost-of-living relief. It means cheaper commutes, more money left at the end of the week, and a public transport system that works for everyone."

This seems quite effective. Most public transport systems already include weekly fare caps, so it uses existing mechanisms. It will push people to use public transport (so its a climate change and fuel saving and congestion policy), and deliver real savings for doing so (so its a cost of living policy as well). And it costs fuck all - only $65 million a year. What's surprising is that we're not doing it already.

Hopefully there'll be a lot more of this. When parties are standing for election, they owe it to us to tell us what they hope to do in power. Labour's previous "small target strategy" is a strategy of deceit, an attempt to deny us the information we need to make an informed choice on how to cast our vote. It is fundamentally dishonest and fundamentally undemocratic. And we deserve better than that from those who want to be our leaders.

Fucking absurd

Since time immemorial - or at least the 1990's - the National party's Big Economic Idea was cuts. Slash the state! Sack people! Give away billions in tax cuts to cronies so future governments couldn't fund anything! And to justify this peculiar fixation, they talk constantly about debt. There's too much of it! We can't afford the interest! We're about to go bankrupt! And sadly, this ideological framework has been swallowed wholesale by Labour, who sternly promise to keep debt low and not increase spending

But as Bernard Hickey points out this morning, none of this is true. Sure, the NZ government has $426 billion of debt - but it has $611 billion of assets, a positive net worth of $185 billion. And interest payments - which are now fixed and in NZ dollars, unlike the 1980's - are just 2% of government revenue. Which is perfectly sustainable.

And yet, National still keeps demanding cuts. Meanwhile, we have failing infrastructure, collapsing public services, and 33,000 homeless children. Hickey asks the obvious questions: would you leave kids homeless when you were worth $207 billion? Would you leave your kids homeless with interest costs of 2% of income? Answering "yes" to those isn't just fucking absurd, it's absolutely sociopathic. But I guess that's the sort of person right-wing politics attracts: the sort of person who wants to deliberately starve and freeze children, while running the country into the ground, all so they and their rich mates can steal more from us.

We need to vote this NeoLiberal plague out. Both sides of it. Because as long as Labour remains committed to NeoLiberalism and the "too much debt" myth, they will continue doing exactly what National does. The only difference is they'll lie to us about how they're helping us while they fuck us over.

Deeply unethical

Yesterday, the Labour party announced its party list, parachuting senior police officer Superintendent Rakesh Naidoo in at 13th place to show how much they care about "law and order". Which immediately caused problems, because Naidoo apparently hadn't told his bosses until the last minute.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins claims this is all OK, because while they had been talking to Naidoo "over a couple of months", his selection "was done at the last minute deliberately" to enable him to stand. But that's not OK. We have a politically neutral public service, and to protect this, section 52 of the Electoral Act 1993 requires public servants seeking office to take leave. This is normally from nomination day, but where candidacy undermines the perception of political neutrality, it may be for longer. While the police are not public servants, these provisions explicitly apply to them. And Naidoo is a senior police manager, working on policy issues, and that's simply not something you can do while seeking political office.

On top of that, the Police Manual chapter on elections and political matters specifically requires police employees seeking public office to

advise their District Commander or Director at the earliest opportunity so that the potential impact on their role as a Police employee and any necessary plan of action can be discussed early.

An ethical person following the rules would have advised their managers when they were considering seeking office, to ensure that risks were managed and they had obviously obeyed the rules. Naidoo didn't do that. Instead, he and Labour seem to have contrived a process, with the latter deliberately manipulating its normal candidate selection procedures so he could pretend not to be running, so he could keep on collecting his salary (and, potentially, accessing police information) right up until the last minute.

This is deeply unethical behaviour which reflects badly on everyone involved. It doesn't meet the standard of ethics we expect from police or political parties. And given how low our expectations are of either, that's pretty damning.

Time to end MPs' property rorts

Last week we had the unseemly sight of Social Development Minister Louise Upston cutting housing for the needy, while being paid $1,000 a month to live in an apartment she already owns. It was "all within the rules", of course - because politicians write the rules to suit themselves - but it was all a bit Marie Antoinette. And its not just her. Politicians have claimed over $2.5 million so far this term to live in their own houses - a practice which makes it clear how low the ethical standards of our rulers are.

As Thomas Coughlan points out, it is entirely right and proper that MPs are paid, and paid expenses, for doing their jobs. But this is taking the piss. And if you made expenses claims like this in a normal employment situation - demanding to be compensated for living in your own fucking house, in some cases the house where you had always lived - you would be fired, if not prosecuted.

The practice of rorting expenses delegitimises parliament, and it delegitimises the political class as a whole. They're nothing but thieves and fraudsters, unfit to rule over us. Once again, they are earning their reputation...

So what can be done? Coughlan has a good suggestion:

The obvious fix is a simple one: ban related party leases for electorate offices and Wellington accommodation, and tidy up Parliament superannuation scheme rules to ensure MPs aren’t using private super schemes to build property portfolios.

It’s this particular issue that’s at the nub of most expenses scandals in the past decade or so: an MP claiming an awful lot of money to rent accommodation that they or a related entity own.

It’s within the rules now. But it shouldn’t be.

It is blatantly obvious that we need to do this, and blatantly obvious why: because it is a naked conflict of interest. It is dishonest, and it is corrupt. I'd throw in preventing MPs from effectively moving their place of residence after election in order to access a higher allowance. If you live in or near Wellington already, then that's where you live for the term, and we're not going to pay for you to pretend to live elsewhere so you can campaign and/or get a holiday home (this means you, Andy Foster).

MPs complain constantly about how the public perceives them. I suggest that if they don't want to be viewed as corrupt and dishonest, they should stop behaving that way, and amend the rules so that they can't. Its that simple. And if they don't, the public will continue to hold them in the contempt they deserve.

Parliament fails to defend transparency

The Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee has reported back on the Commerce (Promoting Competition and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. The bill makes various changes to competition law, which the National-dominated committee has naturally gutted. It also includes an odious secrecy clause, effectively granting the Commerce Commission a ten year exemption from the OIA, which is renewable, meaning it is really an indefinite exemption. The case for this was exceedingly weak, it was denounced as "unnecessary and excessive" by the Ombudsman, and it seems to have been driven by misunderstanding of and hostility to transparency from senior Commission staff (here are the receipts; if you keep scrolling you'll also see they also admitted that it was completely unnecessary). So what did the committee thing? Rather than standing up for transparency or conducting a first-principles analysis, they simply split the difference, reducing the exemption to five years. But its still renewable, meaning its still effectively indefinite, unless the commission fails to do the paperwork).

In talking about the Fisheries Amendment Bill, which also included a secrecy clause, the Ombudsman noted that:

In circumstances where the OIA already protects the relevant interests, only an extraordinary harm to those interests would justify a permanent exclusion of information from the scope of the OIA.

In this case, the OIA also protects the relevant interests, and the Commission (in advice it attempted to keep secret) admits that. There is no extraordinary harm to justify exclusion. Secrecy cannot be justified.

Using austerity to attack democracy II

Back in March, Newsroom's Sam Sachdeva reported that the regime was planning to use high costs as an excuse to limit access to the Official Information Act, and had commissioned consultants to build them a case. Obviously, I was quite curious about this, so I fired off a series of OIA requests to government agencies. Some were about costs, and revealed (unsurprisingly) that no-one (at least, no-one in the sample of core government agencies I checked) had any idea how much the OIA cost them, and that no-one was counting. Some, aimed at understanding recent large increases, were about the types of requests received, and when they had started being counted in statistics, and they were quite illuminating. And of course there was a request for the policy advice underlying the regime's plans. A request for Te Kawa Mataaho's advice got bounced to Ministry of Justice - saving me the effort of asking them directly - where it was delayed, and then delayed, and then delayed again. They finally responded yesterday, having illegally delayed the response until a related proactive release was signed off.

The response letter, with links to the released documents, is here. There's a lot of emails (some of which are significant), a couple of contracts, and notes from a meeting with the Ombudsman which suggests the regime's intent is to use this as an excuse to declare requesters "vexatious" - something both the Law Commission and the Ombudsman have opposed in the past. The Ombudsman is clear, both there and elsewhere, that one of the drivers of costs is increasingly convoluted agency review and sign-off procedures, where every response is scrutinised by multiple layers of management for arse-covering and "no surprises" reasons. This frequently results in delays, and it has been a frequent topic of the Ombudsman's practice reviews.

As for the costs themselves, they're in the proactively released Tregaskis Brown report and accompanying briefing. You hire consultants to deliver the answers you want, and TBL has delivered in spades, with a headline cost estimate of

$183.6 million for the 2024/25 financial year, within a possible range of $175 million – $250 million depending on estimated complexity of OIA requests.

They've calculated this by (roughly) taking the number of requests, estimating the proportion per agency which are complex (expensive) vs routine (cheap), and multiplied by the relevant cost per request, based on Australian data. They correctly highlight that 77% of requests come from 6 agencies (Police, Natural Hazards Commission (EQC), Department of Corrections, NZ Defence Force, Fire and Emergency NZ, and NZ Customs Service), and (sensibly) recommend further work to understand both actual costs, and what is driving them, as well as strengthening proactive release. Those bits are fine, but the cost estimate is absolutely absurd. How? The accompanying A3 (p10 of the proactive release) estimates the police's annual OIA costs at $50 million. But the police are actually one of the few agencies we have good OIA cost data for! A November 2025 request made on FYI, the public OIA request site, included both the numbers of requests processed, and the staff numbers and costs for both the police Ministerial Services OIA group, and the Information Requests Service Group (IRSG), for exactly the time period TBL is looking at. Ministerial services processed 1014 requests in the second half of 2024, and 832 in the first half of 2025, for a total of 1846 in 2024-25. IRSG processed 28921 and 25280 respectively, for a total of 54201. (Yes, there's a discrepancy between these numbers and those published by TKM. The reason for that is speed cameras and media requests, which are handled by other groups).

As for costs,

Police advises that there are 13 people in Ministerial Services who process OIA requests. As at 1 November 2025, the annual total for their salaries is $1,547,991.

There are 53 people who work in the Information Request Service Group and the annual total for their salaries is $4,489,296.

This gives a cost-per-request for police ministerial services (which handles the most complex requests) of $838.57, and for IRSG as $82.83. While there's no cost-estimate for speed cameras and media requests, both are likely to be at the lower end (the former because they are routine, the latter because anything non-routine gets kicked into the formal OIA process and handled by Ministerial Services). These are obviously far lower than TBL's estimates of $3530 for complex requests and $353 for routine ones. Even allowing for overheads (which TBL estimates at 66%), TBL's costs are inflated by a factor of 2.5.

You would hope that TBL's followup work will reveal that. In the interim, though, Goldsmith has got what he paid for: a big, scary number for costs, which he can decry as "waste", plus the inevitable line-go-up graph, showing those costs will increase into the future. Which he will probably consider to be a case for action.

The proactively-released briefing notes that the OIA is of constitutional significance, and that any change will attract significant interest. It recommends 10-12 weeks of public consultation on any proposal. That's clearly not happening on the original proposed timeline of "before July", so it may have been kicked back until after the election. Alternatively, Goldsmith being Goldsmith, he may just not bother with proper process. This regime has established a terrible reputation for ignoring advice and enacting radical, anti-democratic, even constitutional vibe-based policy under urgency. Sadly, we can't rule out them acting as they have in the past, and wrecking the OIA in the same manner. The only way to stop them is to throw them out of office as quickly as possible.

A crime

Last week, we learned that climate polluters had been writing our climate laws, and trying to hide the evidence by handing over their demands in hardcopy (which was then conveniently "lost" and so unavailable to an OIA request). That was highly suspicious, suggesting a deliberate attempt to thwart the Public Records Act and its requirement to create and maintain full and accurate records of official business. And now it gets worse, with news that prime ministerial staffer and former far-right lobbyist Matt Burgess was getting official documents sent to his private email account.

Once is suspicious. This however suggests a pattern of behaviour to hide public records, a deliberate non-compliance with the Public Records Act. And that is a crime. While the penalty is pathetic, he needs to be prosecuted, pour encourager les autres. Failing to do makes a mockery of the law.

But that's not enough. We clearly need law reform here to protect transparency. This must include explicit penalties in the OIA, stronger (and matching) penalties in the Public Records Act, and a tweak to the Electoral Act declaring violation of either to be a corrupt practice - meaning anyone convicted will be automatically removed from parliament. Add a legal principle of absolute ministerial responsibility for the actions of their subordinates, and we would finally have proper incentives for open government.

If Ministers refuse to do this, it is effectively an admission that they are guilty. The question is, how shameless is how political class?

Sabotage and spite

What is the purpose of the state? What is our government for?

If you ask the average New Zealander, you'll likely get some variation on "he tangata, he tangata, he tangata". But from today's budget, National clearly thinks the sole purpose of the state is to balance the books. The stuff government does doesn't matter; what matters is that the numbers all add up (sortof), and - if suitably heroic assumptions about growth and global peace are made - there's some sort of mystical government surplus in the far-off future.

But this sort of government by spreadsheet puts the outdated technological metaphor before the other thing. The numbers are less important than what government actually does. And what National is telling us is that, under them, its going to do less. Its going to support fewer people with state housing, even though need is growing. Its going to support fewer of us to university as well. While they're touting big headline numbers for health and education, when you poke at them, it turns out that its all sub-inflation increases, which means - you guessed it - doing less. And of course they're going to cut the core capabilities of the state, sacking 8,700 public servants to meet some arbitrary target.

Normal governments reprioritise spending to do other things - social spending for labour governments, tax cuts for National ones. Here, the cuts seem to be an end in themselves, driven by a desire to shrink the state, reduce its capacity, and stop it from being able to do things in the future. It's pure vandalism, the American dogma of "drowning the government in the bathtub", with a side-order of "fucking things up for next year", as a poison pill if they lose the election. Because the next government will have to undo a bunch of this damage, if they want government to be able to function at all. At which stage National will scream "waste" and accuse them of excessive spending. It's simply an exercise in sabotage and spite.

Most governments want to leave a better legacy than that. But clearly, the National party is now run by weirdo cultists intent on destroying the very state the purport to want to govern. The sooner we are rid of them, the better.

Taking the piss

National is busy cutting social housing, which has resulted in increased scrutiny of politicians' housing entitlements. First, there's Social Development Minister Louise Upston, who is being paid $1000 a week to live in her own house while cutting payments to everyone else. She's "comfortable" with that, and of course she is - because she's being paid $1000 a week when she doesn't even have a mortgage! But the worst case so far is NZ First's Andy Foster. Foster is a former mayor of Wellington, and he's lived there for over twenty years. But now, for entitlement purposes, he's suddenly contriving to "live" somewhere else, so he can trouser more money from the rest of us:

Despite owning a home in Wellington for 26 years, Foster is claiming a $36,400 per year taxpayer-funded accommodation subsidy intended for non-Wellington MPs. Foster’s parliamentary expense reports show he claimed $22,700 in 2025, starting with $3,100 in the April-to-June quarter, followed by the maximum possible amount of $9,800 in every quarter since. He confirmed to The Spinoff that he continues to claim the allowance.

MPs are eligible for the accommodation subsidy if they live “outside the Wellington commuting area”. In 2025, Foster purchased a second home in Wairarapa, where he intends to run as a candidate in the 2026 election. He now lists the Wairarapa property as his “family home”. Foster still owns his Karori home and stays there during parliament sitting blocks but told The Spinoff it was “no longer my primary place of residence”.

At this stage, I must point out that this is not theft and it is not fraud, because - as the politicians love to say - it's "all within the rules" (which the politicians wrote to suit themselves). I must also point out that paying MPs to live in Wellington so they can do the job properly is good. We don't want only rich people or people who live in Wellington to be able to be MPs. But in this case we're not paying Foster to live in Wellington. Instead, we're paying him to not live there, so he can campaign for election elsewhere. And that's just taking the piss. Its not necessary for him to do his job, and arguably is an unlawful use of parliamentary funds for a political purpose (subsidising his election campaign).

MPs rorting their expenses like this delegitimises parliament and is one of the reasons they regularly feature below real estate agents on public trust surveys. Fortunately there are solutions. They clearly can't be trusted to manage their own accommodation arrangements ethically, so its time Parliamentary Services bought an apartment block to house them. And if this results in them being less comfortable than they are at present, they will only have themselves to blame.

(And while we're at it, we should do the same for ministerial housing, and electorate offices. If these thieves can't help themselves from double-dipping, then the decision needs to be taken completely out of their hands, and suitable workplaces and accommodation provided for them).