A vicious, corrupt and insane policy from a vicious, corrupt and insane regime

Albert Einstein reportedly said that insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. And that's basically National's housing policy. Back in the 1990's, they sold state houses, raised rents, and handed out money to their landlord cronies via the accommodation supplement. The result was poverty, overcrowding, the resurgence of third-world diseases, and the creation of a permanent underclass. There was some relief from the Helen Clark-led labour government, which built state houses to replace some of what had been sold, and replaced market rents with income-related ones, but it didn't undo the damage. Then, in the 2010's, under the Key-led national government, Paula Bennet did it all over again. That time we got all the previous bad effects, plus a homelessness crisis, people living in cars, then WINZ putting them up in motels at enormous cost (and then trying saddle them with odious debt) to avoid the resulting bad headlines, and finally a bipartisan acknowledgement that it hadn't worked. The following Labour governments again managed to undo some (but nowhere near all) of the damage, started a building programme and so on. And now its 2026, the end of the first term of a national-led regime, and Chris Bishop is back, doing it all again, this time with the added insult of pretending state house tenants are "lotto winners":

"If you're in a state home and you compare how much income you have with someone in a private rental who's got exactly the same income as you, you're $110 a week better off," she said.

"These changes are about making the system fairer. At the moment, people in social housing effectively have won the lotto, they get so much more support than a family with just as lower income in a private rental. That's not fair, and our changes are about fixing it."

So her solution to that unfairness is to make things worse rather than make things better. To kick those on the bottom of the heap and steal from them in order to enrich her cronies. Because increased accommodation supplements don't help renters - they go directly to landlords, who immediately hike rents to capture the entire increase. So the only people who benefit from this policy is them. And the national MPs they kick back to with donations, of course. It is a vicious, corrupt policy from a vicious, corrupt government. And thinking it will lead to a different result from the previous times it has been imposed is pure insanity.

Drawn

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

• Local Government (Management of Local Authorities) Amendment Bill (Stuart Smith)
• Crown Minerals (Prohibition on Mining on Conservation Land) Amendment Bill (Lan Pham)
• New Zealand Humanitarian Aid and Disaster Relief Medal Bill (Tim Costley)
• Oranga Tamariki (Suitable Accommodation on Leaving Care) Amendment Bill (Marama Davidson)
• Residential Tenancies (Requiring Landlords to Provide Curtains) Amendment Bill (Helen White)
• Crimes (Impeding Major Bridges, Tunnels, and Roads) Amendment Bill (Catherine Wedd)

So parliament is going to be forced to go on record about pillaging the conservation estate, or protecting it, right before an election. Unfortunately we also have another national anti-protest law being pushed as a member's bill, fronted by the ever-tyrannical Catherine Wedd (who pushed the teen social media ban / give all your private info to foreign privacy-raiding megacorps bill). But hopefully that one will be nuked by the next government.

Member's Day: Parliament is a house of hate

Today is a Member's Day, and one which is going to see Parliament turned into a hate-platform. Because NZ First has delayed the second reading of its anti-"woke banking" bill (recommended to be dumped by select committee) in order to bring forward its anti-trans hate law. Which National and Act are going to vote for, because they clearly feel they have no hope of winning the election unless they whip up a tide of hate against Māori, immigrants, and trans-people.

Once upon a time National PM Jim Bolger refused to run on hate, because "he had to run the country in the morning". Luxon clearly feels differently - either he doesn't want to actually run the country, or he thinks he can just rely on the police and anti-protest laws and beating people in the streets to get his way. But I don't think that's the kind of government any of us want, and it is utterly shameful to see a New Zealand government going down that path. It is also utterly shameful to see such a platform enabled by Parliament, and it allowing this legislation to proceed brings the entire institution into further disrepute. If Parliament is a house of hate, then it cannot be said to represent Aotearoa.

As for the rest of the day's business, first up is Laura McClure's Deepfake Digital Harm and Exploitation Bill, which will be followed by Catherine Wedd's Social Media (Age-Restricted Users) Bill. The government has said they're withdrawing that bill, but clearly its sponsor feels differently, and it will be interesting to see what happens. Following that is Rima Nakhle's Public Finance (Prohibition on Providing Public Funds to Gangs) Amendment Bill - a shitty little piece of racism from a shitty little racist. And then there's the main hatefest, probably around 8 p.m. Hopefully multiple people disrupt it, because fuck a "parliament" which does this sort of shit. If the House manages to complete that piece of business, then it will move on to Tim Costley's Better Regional Boundaries Bill, a moronic piece of legislation from someone who thinks all lines on a map should match, regardless of their purpose. If the House manages to move quickly it may make a start on Tom Rutherford's Concealment of Location of Victim Remains Bill. There will be a ballot tomorrow, probably for five bills.

"Full and final" goes both ways

Last week National introduced its plans to privatise the conservation estate and allow miners free reign to dig up our taonga places. One of the ways it does the latter is by gutting the Conservation Authority and local Conservation Boards, which act as independent advisors to DoC and the Minister on a number of crucial decisions. But having Fucked Around, they're now about to Find Out, with Ngāi Tahu signalling that any change will require a renegotiation of their Treaty settlement:

Ngāi Tahu kaiwhakahaere Justin Tipa said the amendment strips power from the iwi “by turning those boards and the Authority into advisors only and handing decision-making powers to the Minister.”

“Ngāi Tahu was guaranteed a voice on the New Zealand Conservation Authority and conservation boards which currently hold decision making powers.”

[...]

“The Bill includes proposed arrangements to uphold Treaty Settlements, but it puts iwi in the position of being forced to renegotiate important parts of their settlements to fit within a narrow framework.

“Under the new regime, where elements of a settlement do not fit neatly within that framework, the Crown would only be required to meet them ‘to the greatest extent possible’. In no world does that align with a ‘full and final’ settlement.”

They're not the only iwi affected. The bill amends 57 different Treaty settlements to reflect the regime's preferred new way of doing things - unilaterally and without consultation. Those settlements are literally the work on an entire generation of politicians and iwi leaders. And the overall change - to remove iwi voices and make settlements binding only "to the greatest extent possible" - is an overall weakening of them. It is impossible to see this as anything other than the regime trying to cheat on its agreements, something that is both a clear breach of the state's duty of partnership and consultation under te Tiriti, and which invites renegotiation.

But that's not the only problem. Every settlement made has been negotiated against the backdrop of a strengthening web of Treaty clauses which have variously spelled out the state's obligations and embodied the Treaty principles of partnership, consultation, and active protection. These Treaty clauses have meant that a lot of things which might otherwise have been formalised in settlements has been able to be taken as read. And those clauses have been crucial in protecting Māori rights, including rights under Treaty settlements. For example, the Treaty clause in the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 was crucial in stopping seabed mining because it required decision makers to protect existing interests, which included customary interests.

The regime has already attacked these clauses and removed several (notably in the Oranga Tamariki Act, and Education and Training Act), and now they are coming for the rest. Which again seems to be cheating on the settlements, removing a key way for them to be enforced and protected. And that in turn invites renegotiation, including renegotiation on redress for losses. Because the redress you negotiate with a party which at least makes a show of working in good faith and wanting the settlement to endure is very different from what you demand from one which works in bad faith and gives every sign that it will cheat.

I've said before that Treaty settlements are only "full and final" by Māori goodwill, and whether they stick or not is a political question for each generation of Māori, no matter what the law says. In such a situation, the state would be wise not to call those settlements into question. If it wants them to have any chance of enduring, the state needs to uphold the settlements, including their wider context. Because "full and final" goes both ways, and if the government cheats, the settlements are neither.

Another anti-protest law

National has introduced its new anti-homeless law to Parliament, and it will receive a first reading next week (which puts them up against it if they want it to pass before the election). The law is a disgusting piece of social cleansing, drafted to enable the police to hide the consequences of National's failed economic policies. But its worse than that, because in addition to enabling social cleansing, it is also, like their anti-boy-racer law, an anti-protest law. The new "move-on" order powers apply not just to people begging or rough sleeping (which is bad enough), but also to anyone "behaving in a manner that is disorderly, intimidating, or threatening", "behaving in a manner that is disruptive" (being "disruptive", whatever the fuck that means, is not a criminal offence), "unreasonably obstructing, hindering, or preventing someone from entering or leaving a place where a lawful trade, business, or occupation is being conducted", or "breaching the peace".

As noted previously, the government and police have a habit of regarding protest as inherently disorderly and disruptive, if not as a "breach of the peace". And the application to the common protest tactic of blockading a building is obvious.

Fascinatingly, the bill's BORA vet finds that the anti-begging and anti-rough sleeping provisions are disproportionate limitations on the freedoms of expression and movement, but does not consider the obvious application to protests at all. Which both shows a distinct lack of imagination and is a complete dereliction of duty on the Attorney-General's part.

This law can be used to limit fundamental rights to protest. Given police attitudes, it will inevitably be used to do so. If that is not the intent, then it needs a Terrorism Suppression Act-style clause excluding its application to any protest, strike, or lockout. If the regime fails to add one, then we should regard the suppression of protest as their intent, and the destruction of our democracy as their ultimate goal. It is that simple.

The regime is out of time

The regime introduced its appalling Conservation Amendment Bill, which allows widescale privatisation of the conservation estate, last week, and rammed it through its first reading yesterday. Submissions aren't open yet, but the good news is that the bill got the normal six months select committee consideration - meaning that it isn't due back until after the election. So, if you want to stop it, if you want to protect our taonga places, then one way of doing it is to vote out the regime.

Which illustrates the wider problem for the regime: they're out of time. Normally bills get six months at select committee, and anything less than four requires a vote and (time-consuming) debate. National hates democracy, and hates debate, so they've been tending to go for the minimum four months in an effort to limit both. But the calendar no longer works for that tactic. A bill passed through its first reading today with the minimum four months select committee time will be due back on 13 September. Normally there's a three working day wait before the report can be considered, giving just three sitting days (13 hours of sitting time) before the House rises. Each remaining stage - second reading, committee of the whole, and third reading - must occur on a separate sitting day, so they might just be able to squeeze it in under normal procedures. After today, it simply can't be done constitutionally.

What about unconstitutionally? This regime loves to shit on our democracy, loves to abbreviate select committee stages, loves to ram stuff through under urgency to limit debate. The last sitting weeks before an election tend to be wall-to-wall urgency as governments try and clear the order paper of all the bills they didn't get round to (the end of year "wash-up"). But the window is closing on that too. After next week, a bill given a minimum four month select committee phase won't be back in time to make it into an urgency motion at the end of the final sitting week. They can shorten the select committee stage - spending time on debate now, but because of recesses and scrutiny week, their window for a three month committee phase effectively closes on budget day. And anything less than that is simply a bad joke. Obviously, they can use all-stages urgency to ram stuff through, but the price of that is to absolutely delegitimise the law passed (as well as the state which passes it), and invite immediate repeal by the next government.

So, basically, their time is up. Any policy they offer up now is a hostage to the election. And if we don't like it, we can and should vote for a different government which will throw it in the bin.

Luxon dogwhistles racism

Prime Minister Chris Luxon gave a pre-budget speech to the Auckland business community today, in which he promised even more austerity. But he also made a play for ACT and NZ First's racist, anti-immigration voters, with a warning to his listeners:

"And you should expect to see careful policy on immigration from National as we get closer to the election ... when it comes to immigration, when faced with a choice between social stability and your bottom line, I will choose the former every single time."

Which is bullshit, firstly because immigration is not a threat to "social stability"; and secondly because the greatest historic threat to social stability has been inequality, the greed of the rich. But on that front Luxon has their back. He's perfectly willing to destabilise Aotearoa's society to enrich his mates, promising austerity and asset sales while doing nothing to limit inequality or the runaway wealth of the few, preferring instead to rely on ever-more tyrannical anti-protest laws for protection. And of course when it comes to coalition parties pushing white supremacy, tearing up te Tiriti, and attempting to eradicate te reo from public life, he's all in.

But I don't think an unequal, racist tyranny, divided between a small clique of rich Auckland arseholes and a mass of renters forced to work minimum-wage jobs is the sort of society most kiwis want to live in. And hopefully we will tell Luxon that forcefully in November.

Climate Change: Putting polluters above the law

That's the only way to describe the regime's plans to outlaw civil climate suits against polluting companies:

The government announced on Tuesday it would amend climate laws to prevent companies from being sued over damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

The change will prevent findings of liability in torts - a type of civil case where one person or entity claims another has caused them harm.

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said it would apply to current and future cases - stopping a landmark case against Fonterra and five other major emitters in its tracks.

The actual policy is an ACT party member's bill, which has been hanging around on the ballot for a while. I guess they just got sick of waiting.

If this passes, polluters will be able to lobby the government to prevent action on climate change, pollute with abandon, destroy the global climate, inflicting harm on people all over the world - including in Aotearoa - and face no consequences whatsoever. The courts will be specifically forbidden from doing what the government refuses to do. And this, despite well-established legal principles around public nuisance and negligence.

If someone nearby starts a fire which burns your house down, there's a legal remedy. If they build a shitty dam, collect a pile of water, then deliberately or by negligence release it and flood your neighbourhood, there's a legal remedy. But the regime is saying that there will be no legal remedy for climate change. Someone can literally burn the world, and there will be nothing legal you are allowed to do about it.

This is a naked case of regime corruption, of them serving the interests of big donors and polluters. And its just another example of the need for the next government to pass an Omnibus Repeal Bill, to revoke everything this corrupt, tyrannical regime has done.

If the government wants to avoid private suits over climate change, the solution is simple: have a robust climate change regime which actually reduce emissions. If they don't, then they only have themselves to blame if people pursue other strategies to do the job for them.

More culture-war bullshit

That's the only way to describe the regime's announcement today that new citizens will be forced to pass a test on the "responsibilities and privileges" of citizenship, "covering topics like the Bill of Rights Act, voting rights and the structure of government." Which is a bit rich coming from a regime which has shat all over the BORA, restricted voting rights, and abolishes core government agencies and capabilities at a whim because they said something a Minister doesn't like (or applied the law to someone the Minister does).

Winston Peters says this is because "some of the people who have come here who don't salute our flag, don't honour the values of our country, don't respect the people living here", which again shows how out of touch that fossil is. Real kiwis don't "salute the flag" unless they're in a job which requires it. Anyone who does is some sort of weirdo. We're not Americans, and we don't want to be like them.

But Winston is right about one thing: there are people here who don't honour the values of our country or respect the people living here. They're in the Beehive, running the place, doing shit like this. And the sooner we vote them out on their arses, the better.

41,000 unemployed under National

The March labour market statistics are out, showing unemployment has dropped slightly, to 5.3%. But there are still 163,000 people unemployed, 41,000 more than when National took office.

It ought to be clear by now that National's economy just isn't working. Yes, there are global crises. But everything they do - the austerity, the perpetual restructurings, the random cancellation of major projects because they were Labour's projects - just makes things worse. Its almost as if business dudes have no idea how government finance actually works, and don't really care, because they have a fat salary and a crony job waiting for them when they're de-elected. Meanwhile, everyone else gets to suffer for their mistakes.

If we want any of this to change, the message is clear: we need to de-elect the regime, and get a new government which will end austerity and stop fucking around and making us find out. Fortunately, we'll have a chance to do that in six months time.

The opposite of localism

At the 2023 election, National promised "localism", the devolution of power from central to local government. How's that working out? Today, they're demanding local authorities amalgamate or be punished:

The government has given councils an ultimatum: come up with amalgamation plans within three months or the government will do it for you.

Local Government Minister Simon Watts and RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop announced the move on Tuesday afternoon, giving a three-month deadline for reorganisation plans to be delivered.

It followed an announcement in November that groups of city and district mayors - with some government oversight - would be formed to come up with such plans.

But the ministers on Tuesday said if councils failed to make use of the new 'Head Start' approach, they would be forced into changes.

The three-month deadline leaves no chance for public consultation, which is fundamental to local body reorganisations. And of course there's no mention of examination by the Local Government Commission, or referenda to approve any changes. Instead, National seems to think it can do all this by central government fiat.

The amalgamations must be to become "unitary authorities". In other words, its about abolishing regional councils and turning their regulatory functions over to local authorities. So in Palmerston North, it would mean the same people who want to pump shit into the river would be in charge of deciding whether people should be allowed to pump shit into the river - an inherent conflict of interest. It would also mean abolishing our Māori wards (which two-thirds of us voted to retain just last year) - as well as those pesky Ngai Tahu seats that ECan refuses to get rid of. Meanwhile the fixed size of councils would effectively mean reduced representation for everyone, while allowing National to gerrymander disproportionate representation for its rurals. They might also take the opportunity to do away with STV, allowing all local government to be dominated by narrow pluralities via the undemocratic block-vote.

National's August deadline is a clear attempt to pre-empt the election and present the next government with a fait accompli. But councils could just refuse to play along. There's no law saying they have to do this, only Trumpian threats from two regime Ministers. And that seems a weak justification for spending a lot of time and money, especially when there may be a new government in November which will throw it all out the window. Its probably better to just wait and see, rather than waste time and local money on National's bullshit.

National's attempt to dictate the merger of councils, abolish regional government, and reduce local representation is the very opposite of localism. There is an established process for this. Councils can use it if they want to, after consulting their electorates. The fact that so many have chosen not to speaks for itself about what they want.

Climate Change: Make farmers pay

Last year, the corrupt National regime lowered our methane reduction target, while ruling out pricing agricultural emissions for as long as they were in government. We would rely on technology, they said, while talking up all the blue-sky research into ways of getting cows to burp less. But now the other shoe has dropped, with their own technology partnership demanding that farmers be subsidised to use their product:

At the annual Agriculture and Climate Change conference in Wellington last week, AgriZeroNZ chief executive Wayne McNee said some of the technologies had a commercial benefit because they also improved animal productivity.

However, many - including a methane-inhibiting capsule or 'bolus' being developed by New Zealand company Ruminant Biotech - did not.

"In the absence of productivity improvement, which is often quite hard to prove, there will need to be an incentive," he said.

[...]

"If there's a productivity improvement, great, that''ll be a key driver. If there's not, there'll need to be some sort of payment to the farmer to take the technology up."

Of course, we had an incentive: agriculture was scheduled to enter the ETS at the processor level from 2022, creating a clear price on emissions and financially incentivising processors to lower them (for example, by contractually demanding use of technology and changes in farming practices as a condition of getting your milk collected). But Labour chickened out, and National is corrupt, and so here we are, with goals, but no way of meeting them, and technology, but no way of getting anyone to use it unless the government pays money (which seems unlikely to happen under bipartisan austerity, and will come directly out of your schools and hospitals if it does). And so agricultural emissions continue to rise, the storms and floods and fires get worse and worse, while our biggest polluters evade any responsibility for their crime.

Pretty obviously, this isn't good enough. We can't reduce our emissions meaningfully while declaring 50% of them off limits. Quite apart from the fairness issue, the maths just doesn't work. Farmers have to do their bit, and that means reducing the herd or them using technology to reduce its emissions.

"Polluter pays" should be a bedrock of our environmental policy. Polluters need to take responsibility for stopping, cleaning up, or mitigating the impacts of their pollution - for meeting its full social costs. And if they can't or won't, they need to be regulated out of existence and/or jailed. The current situation, where a rural elite gets to destroy the world with abandon, directly and indirectly imposing costs on the rest of us, is neither fair nor sustainable. It needs to end. Farmers must pay. And if this government won't make them, well, in November we can elect a better one which will.

Public expenses should be public as a matter of course

The cover story of today's Substandard is the forced release of Palmerston North Mayor Grant Smith's credit card expenses. The actual expenses show nothing much - a bunch of work-related travel and hospitality spending, in accordance with policy. Smith travelled for work, attending meetings with Ministers and other significant, job-related events, and so of course his employers - the people of Palmerston North - paid for that, as any normal employer should. The release of the expenses is useful in exposing some of those policies - for example, around alcohol and hospitality - allowing us to update them to meet modern public expectations. But I don't see any real suggestion that Smith has done anything wrong, or spent outrageously or anything like that. There's no reports of huge drunken dinners or lonely late-night porn movies - unlike Shane Jones or Murray McCully.

The real story here is that Hayden Fitzgerald - a cooker and TPU stooge on city council - had to ask in the first place. Because official credit card spending is public money, and it should be proactively released at regular intervals as a matter of course - as happens with Ministers and public sector chief executives (example). Which makes it all the more outrageous when Smith complains about it:

Smith hit back, saying it had cost the council $10,000 to fulfill Fitzgerald's Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act request when his "sensitive expenditure" was already published every three months.

Firstly, the council only had to spend "$10,000" (a suspiciously round number, and unlikely to be true) because they tried to hide this information, rather than publishing it regularly like they should. Secondly, the claim that the existing reports (example on p113 - 116) are remotely useful is laughable. Like "reporting" on MPs' expenses, they are a category summary only, with no information on what, when, or why, and so allowing no analysis of whether particular spending was reasonable and necessary. That doesn't mean it wasn't - again, from the reporting, there's no real suggestion the spending was inappropriate - but if public bodies want to enjoy public trust, they need to earn it. And the way to do that is to be open and transparent. Which means that PNCC should respond to this by immediately moving to a proactive release model for all mayoral and councillor official expenditure.

Finally, I guess the other story here is that this request was made by Hayden Fitzgerald, a city councillor, rather than the Substandard themselves. Ministerial expenses have been public for 17 years, and I'd have thought that mayoral expenses would just be a regular part of the local government beat by now. You're really earning that nickname there, guys!

Terrible instincts

The Herald has a story today about emails released by Winston Peters under the OIA, showing that prime minister Christopher Luxon wanted to go all-in on backing Trump's stupid and illegal war against Iran. A lot of the story and subsequent material is about the subsequent coalition ructions - who is undermining who, and whether the regime will last until the election in November. But what it shows is just how truly terrible Luxon's instincts are, and how politically out of touch he is. American wars have universally turned out to be unjutifiable disasters, and as a result are not popular with New Zealanders - and this one is no exception. Trump's illegal bombing has taken the world from uncomfortable stability, to a global fossil fuels and economic crisis, while killing and maiming thousands of people. And it is about as popular here as dogshit and politicians. And fundie weirdo armageddon-cultist Luxon wanted to - and still wants to - support that?

The first instinct of past New Zealand leaders - Helen Clark, for example - has been to keep us well away from American wars. Its a good rule of thumb. Luxon's abandonment of it shows how terrible his instincts are. And if he's that unthinkingly American, maybe he should go back there?

Drawn

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

• Better Regional Boundaries Bill (Tim Costley)
• Concealment of Location of Victim Remains Bill (Tom Rutherford)
• Criminal Records (Clean Slate) (Additional Eligibility) Amendment Bill (Tangi Utikere)
• Crimes (Virginity Testing Practices) Amendment Bill (Priyanca Radhakrishnan)

So, could be better, and looking at some of what is in the ballot, it could have been a lot worse.

These bills are unlikely to come up for first reading until June, or even July, depending on how much the regime abuses urgency in the next month.

Member's Day

Today is a member's day. First up is the third reading of the Carter Trust Amendment Bill, a boring private bill to tidy up the lingering effects of some rich peron's will. Then its the first reading of Camilla Belich and Greg Fleming's Modern Slavery Bill, which has gone straight to the top of the Order Paper after a majority of MPs signed up to support it. Its the first time that provision has been used, and hopefully it won't be the last. Then its another bunch of first readings - Arena Williams' Financial Markets (International Money Transfers) Amendment Bill, Jenny salesa's Residential Tenancies (Registration of Boarding House Landlords) Amendment Bill, and Kahurangi Carter's Drug Overdose (Assistance Protection) Legislation Bill (which will be quite illuminating about which MPs want to murder people). Tomorrow should see a mega-ballot for four bills.

And because people have been asking: NZ First's terf bill is currently down the bottom of the Order Paper. With the expected progress today, it might get a first reading next member's day (currently scheduled for 20 May), but their anti-"woke banking" bill is due back from committee tomorrow and will push everything out of the way, meaning it'll likely be delayed until 24 June.

Climate Change: He Pou a Rangi's FAFO warning

Since winning power in 2023, the present National regime has Fucked Around on climate change policy. They're repealed a swathe of measures to reduce transport and industrial emissions, reversed course on agricultural emissions and signalled a continued free ride for polluting farmers, promised continued pollution subsidies for industrial emitters, reduced the ambition of future emissions budgets, and decoupled the ETS from international climate goals... its a long list. And they've Fucked Around with the Emissions Trading Scheme itself, saying they were thinking about lowering auction reserve prices before hastily backing away. All of this has had an effect on the credibility of the ETS, and on emissions prices: auctions haven't cleared since December 2024, and the carbon price has crashed and remains below $50 a ton as participants have hedged against the prospect of National crashing it further (or just doing away with the whole thing and leaving them holding a pile of worthless paper).

And now He Pou a Rangi Climate Commission is warning that we're about to Find Out the consequences of all that Fucking Around, with their latest Advice on NZ ETS unit limits and price control settings for 2027–2031 projecting an ETS supply crunch (due to stockpile burning and all those failed auctions) as soon as 2028. But there's no way of fixing it. Because the obvious way - add more credits - would be taken as a further sign of the regime's lack of commitment to climate action. But doing nothing means a credit shortage, price spikes, and demand destruction by the market:

Volatile or rapidly rising NZU prices could also force emissions reductions through reduced production or plant closures (rather than incentivise investments in lower-emissions technologies), and create conditions where the Government is pressured to make ad hoc interventions in the market.

In other words, the sort of deindustrialisation we've already been seeing due to high gas and electricity prices. And TBH, if that happens and knocks over large emitters, I'm happy to take the win. Sure, it's not the best way of doing it - that would be clear regulation and/or a steadily rising carbon price which incentivises emissions reductions over time - but the regime has clearly signalled that they're not interested in doing things the good way, so we're left with the bad way instead. And if your job is affected, you should know who to blame: National, for Fucking Around on this.

He Pou a Rangi can't solve this this year, because the regime basically has no credibility to make changes. So they're recommending hitting pause for a year and staying with the status quo - effectively hoping for a new government with more credibility, which might be willing and able to actually fix things. Because while we've got a short-term problem due to regime credibility interacting with stockpile reduction policy, we also have a long-term problem of too much industrial allocation, no price on agricultural emissions, and the need to decouple forestry from the ETS, which will crash the system in about a decade. National is absolutely incapable of solving that problem. A new government might be able to, if it can overcome the lobbying of all those entrenched interests. And if not, well, I guess we'll get to find out the next bad way of cutting emissions...

Orcs want to pillage Te Wāhipounamu

Te Wāhipounamu is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, a taonga of Aotearoa's conservation estate. So naturally, the orcs in the Beehive want to dig it up and despoil it:

The Green Party says the government's decision to grant a prospecting permit on heritage land is unacceptable.

It comes after a permit was approved within Te Wāhipounamu, one of the country's three UNESCO World Heritage Sites.

The permit covers 157 square kilometres, and allows prospecting for all minerals except uranium.

Green Party list MP and resources spokesperson Steve Abel said heritage sites had long been ruled out for mining, and should remain that way.

But the problem here is that, legally, they're not ruled out for mining. Bits of them are, if they're national parks, nature reserves, wilderness areas, or other areas protected by Schedule 4. But Te Wāhipounamu includes land not protected by such status, and the New Zealand state has repeatedly rejected extending it. In 2017 Labour's Ruth Dyson put up a bill to explicitly protect World Heritage Sites by adding them to Schedule 4. National voted it down. And in 2023 the Greens put up their own bill, which (among other things) would have protected all state land managed by DoC under Schedule 4. Labour voted that one down. And in 2025, when stewardship land on the west Coast was reclassified, Tama Potaka refused to extend national parks or further protect land within Te Wāhipounamu. Which rather invites the question of whether he knew about this application, and whether he made his decision in order to advantage the applicant. But given that its going to court, I guess we'll get to find that out...

What this tells us is that we need greater protection for taonga land and ecosystems. Once this tyrannical, destructive regime is voted out in November, the next government needs to make it a priority to protect our natural heritage, as part of the project of undoing every shitty thing that it has done. And that means urgently expanding national parks and fully protecting World Heritage Sites under Schedule 4. In the meantime, I guess we've just got to hope that any exploration activity permitted by this "consent" is delayed.

Schools belong in the OIA

For the past decade, successive governments have been chipping away at the Official Information Act, exempting agencies and passing secrecy clauses, reducing transparency and the accountability of officials. One of the results of this tide of secrecy has been increased demands for it, as agencies see other bodies protected from accountability and demand it for themselves. And now even school principals are demanding to be above the law:

A major education union is seeking legal advice in a bid to exempt state schools from the Official Information Act after an Auckland law student sent an onerous “system-wide” records request to nearly 2500 schools.

The Secondary Principals’ Association of New Zealand (Spanz) says a growing number of OIA requests are burdening stretched principals and tying up time and resources preparing responses that would otherwise go towards educating children.

This of course mischaracterises the Act as an onerous additional burden, rather than a core democratic requirement. Because that it is what it is. Its purposes include enabling people to participate in the administration of laws and policies, and promoting the accountability of public officials. And those purposes apply absolutely to schools. Looking at the criteria for OIA inclusion used by the Law Commission in their 2012 Review of the Official Information Act (p337), they are funded by central government, they are subject to Ministerial direction in various ways, the government controls and oversees their finances, and they serve a public purpose. The decisions they make are fundamentally public in nature, effectively being an exercise of state power. They clearly belong in the OIA regime.

Looking at the sorts of requests they get on FYI, there's broad surveys of policy (for example: do schools support queer kids at their school ball?), basic financial accountability, focused questions about policy and culture (there's a series at the moment asking how various toff schools appoint their prefects). Not seen so much on FYI, but ever-present: requests for the exact rules children are supposed to have broken, or the reasons why they have been punished.

The first sort of request is about participation: collect information, summarise the results, draw conclusions, and say "maybe this needs to change". The second sort is absolutely about accountability, about ensuring that decisions are lawful, reasonable, and justified, and being able to challenge them if they are not. You can understand why school principals would find this irritating. So do Ministers. But we don't let them declare themselves to be above the law, and neither should we allow school principals to.

Finally, as for the supposedly inappropriate request sent to all schools, SPANZ has this to say:

She wrote that Cunliffe’s request was not a simple exercise to establish how a particular school managed its records.

“It is a carefully designed, system-wide exercise intended to map legislative non-compliance across the school sector.

That seems like a clear public purpose, well-aligned with the purposes of the OIA. Exposing wrong-doing is what it is for! And if SPANZ sees that as a threat, the public is entitled to take that as an admission of guilt.

Climate Change: Madness

Over the last few days Wellington has been hammered by torrential rain and floods, and one person is still missing dead. So naturally its the perfect time for a bunch of Aussie grifters to announce a huge, high-emissions project, a Southland lignite-to-urea factory:

Australian company Victorian Hydrogen has applied to explore for lignite on 3141 hectares of Southland farmland in the hopes of eventually setting up a 1.5 million tonne per year urea fertiliser production plant.

The executive director of Victorian Hydrogen, Allan Blood, said the proposed $3 billion lignite-to-urea project would give New Zealand’s agricultural sector self-sufficiency.

The project is expected to apply for approvals under the fast-track regulatory process. Blood said key milestones would include applying for regulatory consents and engaging with landowners, completing initial geological and hydrological studies by spring 2026 and progressing to detailed engineering design, and a targeted three-year pathway from the conclusion of studies currently underway, to full production.

Unmentioned: the emissions from the project. But the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment looked at this when Solid Energy was proposing similar insanity back in 2010; they found that making urea from lignite produced 1.3 tons of carbon for every ton or product (compared to 1.1 tons for making it from natural gas at Kapuni, or 0.8 tons for making it from natural gas in the Middle East). So 1.5 million tons of urea a year from lignite is 2 million tons of carbon dioxide - a figure completely inconsistent with our future carbon budgets.

Why are they looking at Southland? Because their plans to do it in Australia have fallen through: the state government won't give them consents, and no-one will sell them coal anyway. Whereas Aotearoa has corrupt politicians willing to grant consents for "donations", and a policy of explicit pollution subsidies, so the grifters will be paid to destroy the climate. Interestingly, those subsidies are justified on the basis of preventing "emissions flight", but as Middle East production is in fact cleaner than domestic, it seems that it is in fact a perverse incentive for dirty production.

While America's latest Middle east war and the resulting disruptions in international fertiliser flows are being used as a justification here, if consented this factory won't be producing before 2030. By which time you would expect those disruptions to have been resolved. So its an opportunistic grift, presenting a dirty "solution" to a problem which won't exist when it is complete, aimed at collecting huge subsidies. It should not be permitted to progress. And if the present regime corruptly grants it fast track approval, it should be legislatively revoked by the next government. We simply cannot afford this madness.

Climate Change: The new normal

I'm sitting here in Palmerston North (where it is raining), watching the reports of the rain and flooding from Wellington. Water flooding down the hillsides. Main streets turned into rivers. Looking at the Wellington City Council's flood map, every place I've ever lived in in that city would currently have a river running through it.

This is not normal. Or rather, it didn't used to be. But now, thanks to polluting capitalism, it is. Its happening somewhere every month or so, and it will keep happening, year after year, and get worse and worse, until we zero our emissions, then draw down the excess carbon we have spewed into the atmosphere. Our government should be doing its bit to do that, and until 2023 it was at least making a start. But the the current pack of arsonists in the Beehive stopped all that, because not drowning is woke or something, and is now pushing fossil fuels as hard as it can, with policies for more oil and gas, an LNG terminal for more expensive power, and an associate energy minister who calls out "coal! coal!" in Parliament at random, like he's suffering from some form of carbon Tourette's syndrome.

These morons will kill us all if they get their way. They will destroy our homes and turn us all into climate refugees, rather than upset the economic incumbents and do the hard work of healing the climate. So, we need to get rid of them before they get rid of us. And that means voting them out in November, and never letting them back into power until they have dragged themselves into the modern world from whatever historical backwater they think they're living in.

More racism from National

When National voted down its own Treaty Principles Bill last year, they claimed it was because they understood that "seek[ing] to impose a particular interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi by simple majority and referendum" was not an appropriate way to handle the foundation of our constitution. But the racist party never sleeps, and a year later, they're back, seeking to impose a particular interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi by simple majority, without the referendum this time:

The Government has quietly agreed to repeal a number of references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi within laws, while amending others to be more specific.

Cabinet has also decided that, going forward, these provisions in legislation will reference both the Treaty of Waitangi and Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

[...]

The Herald learned of Cabinet’s decisions after discovering a memorandum filed by the Crown at the Waitangi Tribunal on March 12.

"Amending others to be more specific" of course means imposing a particular interpretation of the state's obligations under Te Tiriti, naturally without any consultation with the other party (or, for that matter, the public). Which is exactly what they were trying to do with the Treaty Principles Bill they denounced as illegitimate. But if the Treaty Principles Bill was illegitimate, then so is this - and so, if this passes, is the state. Because Te Tiriti is the fundamental bargain which legitimises the state in Aotearoa, and it is not one which can be unilaterally altered. A regime which reneges on that bargain cannot be regarded as having any legitimate authority over the country.

That's the sort of shit the regime is meddling with here, and why a sensible government wouldn't touch it. Meddling with the fundamentals of the state ought to be anathema to conservatives. But national is now dominated by radical white supremacist fundie weirdos, half of whom seem to have a hard-on for Armageddon. And if they're allowed to remain in power, then all of us are going to pay the price for their stupidity.

Climate Change: The latest inventory

Ministry for the Environment has released New Zealand's Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990–2024, which has updated emissions figures. The bad news is that gross emissions fell by just 87,000 tons last year, or 0.1%. The regime blames a dry year for this, but those emissions are more or less balanced by the resulting demand destruction from high electricity prices and no gas. The real problem is that in sector after sector - transport, agriculture, waste - emissions just didn't fall at all. The government removed all policy pretty much instantly after being elected, crashing the carbon price in the process - and this is the result: nothing.

But there's also some good news, because net emissions - gross emissions minus trees - did fall, by 1.1 million tons, or 2%. And if we can keep that up for the next 25 years, we're in the ballpark for the government's "net-zero for everything but cows" target. But that's an awful lot of trees, and the regime's chief backers - farmers - hate them because they're economically and environmentally better than their filthy cows. So its difficult to see that sort of progress being allowed to continue, at least if the current regime does.

Fundamentally, if we want to solve this problem, planting trees is not enough. We need to cut gross emissions as well. Which means driving fossil fuels out of the electricity market, sticking solar panels and wind turbines everywhere, electrifying all the things, and reducing the number of cows to a more sustainable level. It means doing things differently, and destroying a bunch of current market incumbents. But we have to do it. We're seeing the alternative already: once-in-a-lifetime disasters are now once-a-year events, and it will only get worse. If we want any hope of mitigating that damage, we need to bring our emissions under control. Alternatively, we can just let the weather and the fires do it for us.

Strengthening proactive release

Newsroom has an opinion piece by Marcus Ganley, on the problems of proactive release of official information. The government releases vast quantities of stuff - annual reports, cabinet papers, briefings, research, investigations, datasets, OIA responses, and so on - but its often very hard to find. It's not deliberate "beware of the leopard" territory so much as no-one really cares about making it easy, and even if an agency is doing a good job this week, they'll inevitably "update" their website, break all existing links, and wreck it all. And of course there's no indexing or metadata telling you what these documents are or what is in them - just a soup of cabinet papers and "proactive release material" you have to trawl through.

There's not even a central index of where to find each agency's data. Te Kawa Mataaho has a spreadsheet listing the various places cabinet papers are found, but it was last updated in 2023 - which I guess shows how much of a priority it is for them.

We can obviously do better than this. Ganley has a few suggestions:

Since 2010, the Australian Freedom of Information Act has required agencies to publish information released to a requester on a website. In New Zealand this is a discretionary matter. Some agencies publish all requests, others only those they deem to be “of public interest”. Making publication of all releases compulsory would be a simple change.

Another step would be to require agencies to publish a much wider range of information on a regular basis. In the same way that we don’t have to wait for someone to request a Cabinet paper, there are whole categories of government information that, after a limited period of confidentiality, could be routinely released.

The UK Freedom of Information Act is the model here. It establishes a system of "publication schemes", basically requiring every government agency to say what it is going to publish, and to actually do it (meaning its legally enforceable; agencies can be forced to publish information they have "forgotten" to). Looking at the model publication scheme shows that it contains a lot of stuff that's routinely published here. But its a legally enforceable duty, not the current system of grace-and-favour, which can be revoked or forgotten on an official or Ministerial whim.

Adopting a publication scheme system would give us enforceable rights to proactively published information. It would also resolve Ganley's other issue, about legal protection for OIA releases not extending to proactive releases, and this perversely deterring release. There are very good reasons why that is the case - they can be summed up with the words "Paula Bennett" - but extending protection to release under a publication scheme would I think avoid that problem, and make it even clearer that any such release is prima facie bad faith (so not protected anyway).

But that still leaves us with the problem of things being difficult to find. There's a solution to that too: open government advocates have long advocated for a central government proactive release portal, with proper metadata, indexing, tagging, and searching. Chris Hipkins even suggested the first step towards one, with a proposal for a central repository for released cabinet papers. But he shot himself in the foot by not even bothering to consult the agency he thought should do it, allowing them to sink it. Such a portal would be a huge leap forward for open government in Aotearoa, the sort of project worthy of the Open Government Partnership. And we need to push for it (and then for things to be added to it). But I just can't see it happening under the current bunch of tyrannical control-freaks.

A victory for democracy in Hungary

Hungarians went to the polls yesterday in parliamentary elections, and responded with a resounding "Ruszkik Haza!", telling Putin (and Trump) proxy Victor Orbán to fuck off. The opposition even gained a two-third majority, enabling it to amend the constitution and undo all of Orbán's fuckery (including the stacked electoral system which translates bare majorities into supermajorities).

The opposition front may be led by a right-winger, but I (and more importantly, Hungarians) will take a normal, democratic, conservative over a fascist any day. And he's promising the right things: normalising relations with the EU, joining the European Public Prosecutor's Office, and prosecutions for the corrupt beneficiaries of Orbán's regime. Hopefully that will include Orbán himself, for his role in channelling public money to his friends and family. Which means Orbán will either need to flee back to his master in Moscow, or face a prison cell.

Crown solicitors deserve scrutiny

Graeme Edgeler had an interesting piece the other day advocating for crown solicitors to be subject to the Official Information Act. Uniquely in the western world, Aotearoa has privatised its most important prosecution decisions to private law firms. These make public decisions in the name of the state, decisions that if they were made by any other government functionary would be able to be scrutinised using the OIA. But because they are appointed by royal fiat, rather than simply a contract, they are not subject to the OIA:

This isn’t true of all prosecutions. The serious fraud office conducts prosecutions – including jury trials – of serious fraud. You can request information about these prosecutions under the Official Information Act. And when Police prosecute more minor offending, and Police prosecutors are making the same sorts of decisions around plea bargaining that Crown Solicitors make, Police are covered by the Official Information Act, and their decisions can be subjected to public and media scrutiny.

And the same goes for importation prosecutions by Customs, and fisheries prosecutions undertaken by the Ministry of Primary Industries, and District, City and Regional Council prosecutions, and even the exercise of prosecution powers by local Fish and Game Councils when people fish or hunt without a licence.

[...]

But, if that charge wasn’t fishing without a licence but was instead murder, the Official Information Act will not help you understand the decisions made by those prosecuting on behalf of the State, because the law says that there is no public interest in allowing OIA oversight of murder prosecutions.

This is, quite obviously, fundamentally wrong. And even the solicitors themselves recognise that! A 2021 investigation of crown solicitors by RNZ quotes one of them as being uncomfortable with the lack of scrutiny of their decisions not to prosecute (it also highlights other issues deserving of scrutiny: the lack of diversity, the level of expenditure, the way that these warrants have been held by the same clique of law firms for a century. Which just... smells. But the state protects itself from investigation by denying basic transparency...)

Not mentioned in Graeme's article: crown solicitors are subject to the Public Records Act. And the terms of their appointment state that all their information belongs to the state, and they must make it available to the Solicitor-General on request. Which simply reinforces his point: these are public officials, making public decisions in our name. As he says, "given the power Crown Solicitors possess, conducting the most serious prosecutions on behalf of the Government, there is no good reason not to subject them to the same scrutiny as Fish and Game wardens."

Graeme has set up a petition to parliament asking for the OIA to be extended to cover them. I've signed it. You should too. Because the people who make decisions about whether to prosecute rapes deserve at least the same level of scrutiny as fish and game wardens.

A hegemony-ending war?

Well, that was a day, wasn't it? After threatening that "a whole civilisation will die tonight" if he didn't get what he wanted, the orange shitgibbon has decided that actually its time for a ceasefire. The terms of which - a continuation of Iranian nuclear enrichment, and Iran and Oman getting to toll the Strait of Hormuz in lieu of reparations - are effectively an admission of US defeat. The US says it will be "negotiating" over the next two weeks to try and change that, with the threat of restarting bombing, but its clear to everyone else that that won't get them what they want, and that it would be much better to simply walk away, and let the uneasy ceasefire eventually become effectively permanent.

And hopefully the rest of the world will spend the next two weeks persuading America to do that. Because America has made it clear that they are the enemy of the world, and we simply cannot take their shit any more. The way they export instability with their perpetual interference in other countries, the way they start wars and fuck up the entire world on the whim of their demented mad king. And while its tempting to see this as a problem of their current leadership, he is just the symptom of a society which believes itself exceptional and so entitled to do this to us.

Our global system is now too interconnected and too brittle to withstand such constant sabotage. And that means that America needs to be constrained, diplomatically and economically.

The good news is that this disaster of a war looks to be the beginning of the end for American hegemony. They've alienated the allies they depend on for their power, and shown that hosting their bases creates insecurity, not stability. If America is allowed to station forces in your country, they will use those forces to start a war with your neighbours, without asking or warning you, then leave you to burn when the inevitable retaliation comes. If they are allowed to use your airspace for military purposes, they will do so to commit or enable war crimes. All while sitting safe in their fascist "homeland", which of course is sacrosanct and is never allowed to be attacked. That's not a recipe for good relationships. Countries hosting US bases should be seriously reconsidering whether they want to keep doing so, and hopefully kicking America out. Meanwhile, they've also demonstrated the limits of their military power. Like their friend Russia, they are in fact incapable of defeating a middle power. While they can bomb for a month, smash stuff up, kill people, destroy infrastructure, and commit war crimes from the air, all that does is piss people off (Who knew?) And even that power is now constrained, because they've burned most of their arsenal on murdering Iranian schoolchildren and enabling Israel to do the same.

So, while this probably isn't the last American imperialist war, I think its all downhill for them from here. The world is already looking to China, simply because they manage to appear normal, and aren't constantly bombing people. If they can keep that up, and resist the urge to exploit America's weakness to steal from their neighbours, then the hegemonic position occupied by America will simply fall into their lap as the status quo coalition aligns behind them. I'd rather have no hegemon (because fuck hegemons and fuck empires), but a peaceful, non-predatory one is better than the American monster.

Justice for Afghanistan?

Ben Roberts-Smith is a war criminal. While serving in the Australian SAS in Afghanistan, he murdered four unarmed Afghan civilians and committed other war crimes. He kicked an elderly handcuffed man over a cliff. He machine-gunned a prisoner with a prosthetic leg, then stole the leg as a trophy and used it in drinking games. He ordered soldiers under his command to murder unarmed civilians. He assaulted prisoners in his care, and ordered other assaults. These are not allegations; they are findings of fact by an Australian judge (though under a civil burden of proof, and sadly not in a criminal trial).

That judge said that Roberts-Smith had "disgraced his country" by his conduct. The Australian government gave him a Victoria Cross for it. But now, he is finally being prosecuted for it:

Ben Roberts-Smith has been arrested in relation to multiple counts of murdering unarmed Afghan civilians and prisoners in what looms as the most significant war crimes prosecution in Australian history.

Roberts-Smith is expected to be charged on Tuesday with five counts of war crime - murder following a joint investigation between the Office of Special Investigator and the Australian Federal Police. The maximum penalty for the offence of war crime - murder is life imprisonment.

Good. And hopefully the same will happen to the rest of Australia's war criminals. Because the Brereton Report found 39 murders, not just four, with 25 war criminals responsible. And they all need to be held to account.

Parliament is now a hate-platform

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

• Public Finance (Prohibition on Providing Public Funds to Gangs) Amendment Bill (Rima Nakhle)
• Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill (Jenny Marcroft)

The first bill is just more tiresome racism. The second is a hate crime. Its drawing from the ballot (and indeed, its acceptance into the ballot at all) makes it clear that "our" parliament is now simply a hate-platform, Stormfront-in-Thorndon, spewing divisiveness and hate into the public sphere for the benefit of a tiny fringe of fundy bigots and weirdos. Just this week the House supported rules against exactly that, extending a sessional order which deplatforms hateful petitions from parliament's website. But apparently hateful member's bills which seek to erase the identity of some kiwis and reduce their rights are OK. That has obvious implications for the already tottering legitimacy of Parliament as an institution, and for the legitimacy of the laws it makes.

Member's Day

Today is a Member's Day. First up is the committee stage of the Carter Trust Amendment Bill, which is the usual cleaning up the mess after some rich person got a private law once. After that is the third reading of Kieran McAnulty's Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill, which repeals some archaic religious trading restrictions, while weirdly leaving others in place. It will be a conscience vote, but there was a significant majority for it at second reading. If it passes and is signed today or tomorrow will come into force just in time for the easter holiday. After that is the first reading of Kahurangi Carter's Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill, which fixes a significant problem with our copyright law, and then the House should make a start on Tim van de Molen's Military Decorations and Distinctive Badges (Modernisation) Amendment Bill, which is just army wank with a pronoun fix (the latter of which could have been done at any time by the Chief Parliamentary Counsel). And if that happens, there should be a ballot for one bill tomorrow.

Good riddance?

It sounds like the regime is having second thoughts about its stupid plan for an LNG terminal:

The Government’s plan to build a liquefied natural gas import terminal in Taranaki to reduce electricity prices is in doubt.

A decision on the type of terminal and who will build it is due mid-year, but ministers are considering using that decision to rethink the project, potentially delaying it – or axing it.

Multiple Beehive sources say skyrocketing liquefied natural gas (LNG) prices, driven by the war in the Middle East, have changed the economics behind the idea.

[...]

However, the final decision, multiple ministers privately admit, may be to walk away from the project entirely, given the high prices.

Good riddance. It was always a stupid plan, more expensive than simply reducing gas demand, while leaving us dependant on imported fuel which could simply disappear in a crisis. And that's exactly what happened! There is a crisis, the LNG has disappeared, and its likely to stay gone for a long time (and longer the more National's "ally" Donald Trump fucks around). Those risks were always there of course, but they've happened quickly enough for the government to actually change its mind at least.

So what's the alternative? A mix of demand reduction - investing in electrifying industry to get it off gas - and building renewables to increase supply. That's perfectly do-able, and for only a fraction of the cost of National's $2.7 billion boondoggle. Of course, its not what the gas industry wants, so the question is whether the regime will be sensible, or continue to listen to its donors, even when everyone can see that what they want is total stupidity.

Using austerity to attack democracy

A couple of weeks ago, when the Financial Times reported that the UK regime was planning to attack their Freedom of Information Act because too many people were using it, I wondered how long it would be before National tried the same. Not long, as it turns out

The Government has asked officials to examine the costs associated with responding to Official Information Act requests, in a move some fear could lead to reduced transparency.

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has confirmed any changes could lead to less information being released to the public in some cases, arguing the system has become unsustainable as “every different little element of communication has been included”.

[...]

In a statement to Newsroom, Goldsmith confirmed he had asked the ministry to gather more information on the effects of a sharp increase in OIA requests, which had risen 394 percent since 2016.

“We are interested to know what revisions could be made to make the Act more efficient and practical.”

...which he then confirms means more secrecy. Because that's what "efficient" and "practical" means to these arseholes.

OIA numbers have absolutely risen over the last decade, for a lot of reasons. There have been changes in who and what gets counted, reflecting both government restructuring and evolving OIA practice, and there have been changes in awareness and accessibility and in democratic engagement. But that's really just the background increase. Because when you dig into the numbers, you see huge increases in service delivery agencies, agencies like Corrections and ACC and MSD, who make decisions over people's lives. And it seems that part of the story is that government has become more adversarial - denying people their rights in prison, cutting ACC and benefits to save money - and people are using the tools they have to push back and enforce their rights.

(There are other things going on as well. Over 85% of Custom's OIA workload in 2024 seems to be "travel movement requests" by insurance and finance companies wanting to check if someone has left the country. There are likely other similar stories for other agencies when we start digging...)

Goldsmith has apparently tasked some consultants to dig into this. If they do their job properly, that will help us understand where the increased load has come from, and how badly successive governments have under-resourced agencies to handle this basic democratic requirement. But consultants say what they are paid to say, and they may simply have been paid to do a hatchet job to make a case for removing our rights. The regime could avoid such suspicions by proactively publishing the brief and all their advice on the issue so far. But until they do, we should assume the worst. This regime surrendered any claim to a presumption of good faith long ago.

The OIA is a key constitutional measure, a pillar of our democracy. We can't participate in democratic decision-making or hold the government to account for its decisions without the transparency it enables. Yes, it costs money - but so do elections, and like elections, we should gladly pay that price as the cost of living in a democratic society. A regime which sees it merely as a cost to be cut and controlled is both missing the point, and fundamentally opposed to democracy. We need to vote that regime out while we still can.

Maybe the regime isn't united on tyranny?

When the regime introduced four tyrannical bills last week, I joked that the reason for the theme was that it was one of the few things the coalition could agree on. But it turns out that maybe they don't? RNZ's Phil Pennington has a piece on the Policing Amendment Bill today, focusing on the surveillance aspect rather than the protest-suppression clauses. Which it turns out were opposed by both the Ministry of Justice and the Privacy Commissioner as overly broad and lacking safeguards. Opposition parties are jumping on that and wanting changes, which is good. But the problem for the regime is that ACT also agrees:

ACT's Todd Stephenson gave qualified backing to [the bill].

"This bill does clarify and expands the police's power to collect, record and use information, including images, sounds, for lawful policing purposes," he said in the debate.

But with a kicker.

"Our support is conditional on ensuring that there is strong privacy protections and safeguards against mass surveillance powers."

So maybe the regime isn't as united on tyranny as they appear...?

My own thoughts on the bill are here. Unless safeguards are added, it will give the police power to shut down any protest, and to engage in mass or targetted surveillance without any need for a warrant - overturning both fundamental constitutional principles and long-settled law. These are not things we should accept.

If you'd like to have your say on the bill, you can submit on it here. Submissions are due by 1.59pm, Wednesday, 22 April 2026.

The alternative to pay equity legislation

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.

Today, they got a taste of the alternative. Because before that law was passed, the College of Midwives started a class action on behalf of its members, alleging breach of a prior settlement, breach of good faith, and unlawful discrimination on the basis of gender. Today, the High Court issued its decision, finding for the midwives on those points, awarded (token) BORA damages, and required that they be restored to the position they would have been in had the breaches not occurred. Which means:

Held, fair and reasonable take home pay, as at 1 July 2020, for a notional LMC midwife working 1.0 FTE was $170,340. Figure to be adjusted for successive years based on Labour Cost Index.

Held, LMC midwives must be paid the fair and reasonable service price, backdated from 1 July 2020.

And "adjusted using the LCI, fair and reasonable take home pay was $200,275.59 in July 2023, and $206,946.03 in July 2024."

In June 2025 the take-home pay for an LMC midwife was $132,000. And that's after a substantial pay equity bump in 2023. In 2020, it was about $99,000. In other words, the court has ruled they've been underpaid by $70K a year for the last five years. Multiply that by 1500 claimants, and its half a billion dollars in midwives pockets.

The question is whether the regime will accept the ruling of the court, whether they'll appeal in a desperate effort to delay payment until its someone else's problem, or pass "fuck you" legislation to overturn the ruling. And with this coalition, the latter can't be ruled out. The sooner we have a new government, the better.

Naked corruption

Its election year, so the big parties are already collecting big donations from rich people wanting corrupt favours. But the disclosure threshold for those donations is set at an appallingly high $20,000. Meanwhile, National is nakedly selling access to Ministers for $8,000, and to the prime Minister for $10,000:

The National Party is offering the public a chance to sit next to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon over dinner at a cost of $10,000.

It’s led to criticism from one academic, labelling the event “cash for access”, but the party says it’s a form of fundraising used by many parties.

The “Mainland Dinner” will be hosted by party president Sylvia Wood at Christchurch’s Town Hall next month.

Tables for the dinner start at $5000, which the party calls the “silver” tier.

The “gold” tier will get you a table with either a Cabinet minister or Wood at a cost of $8000.

The most expensive table, the “platinum” tier and where Prime Minister Christopher Luxon will be seated, is priced at $10,000.

This is simply naked corruption. But its all below the disclosure threshold, so there's no requirement to declare it, or for the purchasers of policy to be identified to the public.

The media would be doing Aotearoa a favour by infiltrating someone into this dinner, photographing everyone sitting next to a Minister, and then doorstopping them and asking them what they wanted for their money. And if that deters future corrupt donations, good.

Not a government in waiting

The fundamental job of the opposition in a Westminster system is to show us the alternative, both in people and in policies. When the government makes some policy announcement, the opposition is meant to tell us what they would do instead, and how it serves our needs better. But when the government said it would be responding to the American fossil fuel crisis, Labour's Chris Hipkins literally couldn't be bothered:

Labour leader Chris Hipkins isn’t providing an alternative plan of action to help struggling New Zealanders facing pain at the pump and the threat of rising prices elsewhere.

Asked repeatedly what alternatives Labour could suggest, Hipkins said the onus to present ideas was on the current Government.

And it is. But there's also an onus on him to show us what he would do if he was in charge. And not just because its a democratic obligation - its also a way to win votes, to convince people you would do the job better! The Greens understand this: they were ready with a pile of Green policy and an offer of votes to pass it over the objections of National's coalition partners in the unlikely event that national wanted to (they did not). And hopefully they'll reap the reward from that. But Labour just can't be bothered trying to convince us. Its unclear if this is due to arrogance, a belief that they're just entitled to govern and so don't need to convince us plebs, or just because there is genuinely nothing they would do differently from National. But either stinks, and shows that they're not a government in waiting.

As for Hipkins, we're paying him $298,000 a year plus slush, and he's not doing the job! So why are we paying him then?

The right solution for the wrong problem

The regime has been taking a bit of stick about its "policy" of 10,000 new EV chargers, which seemed to have no tracking and no actual means of achieving it. So they've finally been forced to announce something: $50 million in loans to Meridian and ChargeNet to build a quarter of the chargers they'd promised. As a policy it doesn't stink, and has the virtue (to National) of being cheap (a loan from the government is just creating a pair of matching asset and debt entries in the government books, and costs nothing). It might even see some chargers built, which would be good. But its also a solution to the wrong problem.

National's "10,000 new chargers" policy is from 2023, which was a different era as far as EVs are concerned. And its rooted in thinking which is even older, when EVs were short-range luxury vehicles for urban elites. That wasn't really true in 2023, and its certainly not true now; when new EVs have comparable range to fossil vehicles, "range anxiety", the problem the new EVs policy was supposed to solve, simple ceases to be an issue. Sure, we want a comprehensive nationwide network so that vehicles can always get to a charger if they need one. But with most people charging at home, its not the big problem it once was.

So what is the problem? The same as it was before: price (though this is less of an issue now than it was in 2023, because EVs are cheaper as well as better). We had a perfectly good policy targetted at that problem, in the form of the clean car discount, which was self-funding (or meant to be) by charging dirty vehicles to fund clean ones. And that was a good idea, reflecting the significant positive externalities for EVs (and negative ones for fossil vehicles) in the form of emissions, air pollution, public health, and energy security.

But National scrapped that policy. And "10,000 new chargers" was meant to be just rhetorical cover for doing so. "Sure, we're refusing to act on the biggest barrier, but we'll totally act on the imaginary one our outdated preconceptions have invented, and we'll pretend that's the same". But it wasn't the same, and then they didn't do shit about it for two years anyway. Now they've finally been forced to do something, but all it does is expose the massive inadequacy of their policy and the paucity of their thinking. And looking down the barrel of an American fossil fuel crisis, that is something we should absolutely hold them to account for.

Corrupt, criminal secrecy

Fishing is a criminal industry. Fishers routinely lie about catch sizes, illegally dump bycatch, and cover up the murder of protected species. After a long campaign by NGOs in the 2010s, the Ardern government was finally dragged (kicking and screaming, against the wishes of two corrupt fisheries ministers) into putting cameras on boats to ensure criminal behaviour could be monitored and deterred. The fishing industry felt that this was unjust, and immediately began lobbying and bribing to have the footage declared a state secret, so it could never be used by NGOs to hold them to account. And they've got what they wanted. The new Fisheries Amendment Bill, introduced today, includes one of the most draconian secrecy clauses I have ever seen, with protections exceeding those given to classified security information.

First up, all fisheries camera recordings are declared exempt from the Official Information Act. But that's not enough for the fishing industry. There is also a clause that they cannot be disclosed outside the ministry, except to certain agencies or for certain purposes. Any other disclosure, or disclosure by anyone it has been lawfully passed on to, is a criminal offence, with a penalty of a $50,000 fine. And naturally, there's no whistleblower exemption (so if a recording exposes serious wrongdoing, and the ministry refuses to act on it, reporting it to appropriate whistleblower authorities is a crime. Which is one way of the criminal industry preventing anyone bypassing its captive regulator...)

This information isn't a threat to national security. It doesn't endanger the maintenance of the law, or any any person's safety. Its not even commercially sensitive. If it was any of these things, the law wouldn't be necessary. Instead, its potential exposure - and the potential for the exposure of their crimes, and for oversight of MPI to ensure they enforce the law properly - hurts the poor widdle fee-fees of the fishing industry. And that, to this regime, is "an important public purpose", proportionate to the consequent destruction of our BORA-affirmed right to free expression (which includes the right to receive information), and the least infringement on that right, and so a measure which can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

That is simply bullshit. Protecting a corrupt criminal industry and its captive regulator from public scrutiny is not an important public purpose. It is the very opposite of a public purpose. But its what happens when you put a man who has taken tens of thousands of dollars from that industry in the position of regulator.

This bill is simply an affront to democracy. It is an abuse of our human rights, an insult to transparency, and the product of corruption. It should not be allowed to pass.

More tyranny

The regime introduced a bunch of bills today: an Immigration (Enhanced Risk Management) Amendment Bill to introduce a "papers, please" regime for anyone MBIE (which also means the police) suspects they may be liable for deportation or in breach of their visa conditions; a Corrections (Management of Prisoners, and Prisoners’ Property) Amendment Bill to enable them to torture prisoners with solitary confinement more easily and stop them from writing books about it; a Fisheries Amendment Bill to make the Quota Management System a matter of ministerial fiat and introduce a secrecy regime for boat camera footage; and a Policing Amendment Bill, to allow the police to arbitrarily close public places and spy on people without warrants. There's a couple of themes across these bills. The first is overturning court decisions, including some that have affirmed quite significant protections for human rights. The second is replacing statutory protections with executive discretion, which means executive arbitrariness and corruption. And the third, linking the two, is tyranny. Because that's what we call an arbitrary executive which does not respect human rights: tyrants.

The Fisheries Bill secrecy clause deserves its own post, so I'm going to talk about the policing bill here. And it is awful.

One part of this is the creation of a new regime allowing any police officer to close access to any "accessible area" - meaning "an area of land that is accessible to the public, or a section of the public, by motor vehicle", and apparently including private property. So anywhere that is a road, or connected to a road. They're probably thinking of car-parks, but of course the definition also applies to your backyard, and even your house if you have an indoor garage. These closures can be done for a variety of reasons, some of which are good (for example, if there is a danger to the public, like a gas leak or incipient landslide, or a serious offence has been committed and there is a need to secure the crime scene). But most of it is of course aimed at one of the regime's perennial targets: boy-racers. So they can close roads to everyone if an "antisocial road use offence" is being committed or might be committed; if people are operating (or are expected to be) motor vehicles in an antisocial way; or if people are creating (or are expected to create) excessive noise with a motor vehicle, or if there is (or is imminent) "public disorder". If they close an area, its an infringement offence not to leave immediately.

The regime will be looking at this and thinking "anti boy-racer law". But the public disorder and noise clauses also make it an anti-protest law, because the police have a history of regarding public protest as inherently disorderly, and noise (say, from a vehicle-mounted PA system leading a protest march) which upsets those in power as "excessive". Naturally, there's no protection against this - no Terrorism Suppression Act-style clause saying "for the avoidance of doubt, protests, strikes, lockouts, and industrial action are not 'disorderly', and their noise is not 'excessive'". The drafting is so shoddy they haven't even excluded dwelling-places or marae from the definition of "accessible area". And given the regime's anti-protest noises, this should be regarded as deliberate until proven otherwise.

That all stinks, but its not the worst of it. The other part of the bill "reaffirms" the rules about the police collecting intelligence and recording people in public places. I put "reaffirms" in quotes because it does nothing of the sort. The courts and the Privacy Commissioner, in a long series of judgements (Tamiefuna v R, but also Hamed v R), have said what the law is, and that the police have been systematically breaking it. The regime's response is to dramatically broaden the law, and legalise the police's unlawful behaviour.

The new amendments start with a list of "purposes for which Police may collect information", which is a good start. It then says that the police can record anything they can see or hear in or from a public place, or anything they can see or hear on private property if they are lawfully there. No warrants required. To see how much of an intrusion this is, we have only to look at the police's illegal photographing and databasing of young Māori, or the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamed v R, which found that the police could not just covertly film and record people on private (but generally publicly accessible) property under "implied licence" without a warrant. That ruling led to a temporary law change, which was later incorporated into the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, which set limits on the police's ability to spy from public places without a warrant. The amendment bill would void that long established law.

If this passes, the police will be able to park outside your house with a camera and spy on you in your yard or through your windows, and record anything visible (to what wavelength?) or audible (with how much amplification?), without needing any type of warrant. They won't even need to be physically present, because the "by any means" allows remote cameras and microphones. Or they can use a drone, with thermal cameras and high-gain directional microphones and just spy on you 24/7, without any warrant, oversight, or reporting. Those are unquestionably "searches" in terms of the BORA (clearly being interference with a reasonable expectation of privacy) - but they'll be lawful. And of course they can hassle people on the street, photograph them, database them, and record their conversations without any suspicion of a crime.

This is obviously very convenient for police. But it is not the sort of thing done in a free and democratic society. We need to stop it. We need to topple the tyrants at the election.