Mallard and crony appointments

Writing in Stuff, Luke Malpass defends Trevor Mallard's impending corrupt crony appointment as ambassador to Ireland, saying that he will make a good ambassador. And I agree, he might - but that's not the point. The problem with Mallard's appointment isn't whether or not he is suited to it, but the way in which it has been (or will be) done.

Being an ambassador for Aotearoa is a public role. It should therefore be appointed on merit, rather than as an act of political patronage. That's been the norm in the normal public service for over a hundred years, and its still the norm today, but ambassadorships have been partly exempt - largely due to a lingering legacy of English monarchy which saw them as the personal representatives of the monarch rather than of the state ("partly" because most are appointed on merit, which makes the politicians and cronies parachuted in to certain jobs all the more glaring). Malpass tries to justify this as follows:

There is of course the broader question of political appointments to plumb [sic] diplomatic postings. But it is a practice as old as time and practised by both parties as a way for rewarding old hands and ex-speakers.

In 1912 the system of handing our core public service jobs as patronage was also "a practice as old as time and practised by both parties". That didn't make it right. And the same reasons which justify appointment on merit in the regular public service apply just as strongly to diplomatic postings: in a modern, democratic state, we want the best person for the job, not the biggest crony. No government job should be a "spoil" to be dispensed as an act of political patronage.

If Mallard is as suitable as Malpass suggests, he would have nothing to fear from an open, competitive appointment process, and being appointed that way would add significantly to the legitimacy of the appointment (not to mention public trust in government). Conversely, denying him that process means he will forever be tarred as a crony, his ability questioned because of the manner of his appointment. It does both us and him a disservice.

As for Malpass, maybe a political journalist working for a media agency supposedly in service of the public good should be asking that "broader question", rather than simply seeking to justify public corruption.

Abolishing urgency?

Speaker of the House Trevor Mallard has suggested an effective abolition of parliamentary urgency:

Speaker Trevor Mallard has suggested sweeping changes to the use of Parliamentary urgency, effectively abolishing the practice in all but the most extreme circumstances.

Currently, the Government can put the House into urgency with a simple Parliamentary majority. Mallard’s proposed changes would require a 75 percent majority before the House goes into urgency.

On top of that qualification, the bill under urgency would have to pass each stage of the legislative process with a 75 percent majority.

This would effectively abolish urgency in all but the most extreme cases, where there was some bipartisan consensus.

Such cases are rare, and happen maybe once or twice a year. The rest of the time urgency is used either to bypass public scrutiny and shut down the opposition, or to make up for past laziness. The former is obviously illegitimate, and is why the public hates urgency. As for the latter, Mallard is proposing greater use of extended sittings - effectively making MPs work harder - to pass all the non-controversial bills which are currently rammed through under urgency because MPs have been too busy flinging shit at one another and playing silly buggers on the public dime.

(All of this could of course be bypassed by a government moving to suspend standing orders, and then making up the rules as it goes along. But that has a political cost. Effectively this would increase the cost of using urgency for anything not truly urgent).

Its a good proposal, and in line with public expectations. There's a suggested exception for the first hundred days in office, where the public expect the government to be able to pass legislation they have run on, and that seems reasonable as well. And it would definitely improve scrutiny of legislation and Parliamentary behaviour during the rest of the year. So of course, National opposes it, because they want to be free to abuse the public trust in any way they see fit when next in power.

Mallard on transparency

Since the resumption of Parliament, the Labour-led government has been engaged in a war on transparency, refusing to answer even the most basic and specific written questions, while denying OIA requests on blatantly unlawful grounds. But one good sign is that Speaker of the House Trevor Mallard wants them to stop playing silly buggers and start answering questions:

Speaker Trevor Mallard has put both sides of Parliament on notice in the war over written questions, warning them he expects a higher standard once the House resumes in 2018.

[...]

“I think it’s fair to say I wouldn’t be happy if the current approach from either side continued in the long term ... I don’t want us to be in this situation after Christmas.”

While he says Labour's refusals are "within standing orders" (because standing orders basicly leave it entirely up to the Minister how to respond, and forbid any inquiry into those responses), he's also clear that the information should be released. And on that front, he's supporting automatic, proactive release:

However, he described written questions as “sort of like a last resort”, and instead believed it would be better to establish an automated method of releasing information.

“There was a strong view [in past discussions] that if you could get a system that was pretty much automatic, transparent, didn’t require application, then that would be better.

[...]

“Eventually getting some websites going which contain most of that material, for example, Cabinet papers two months after they’ve been to Cabinet automatically up unless there’s a good reason not to, just that sort of stuff would mean you’d have a lot of access to, actually quite boring information, but access to what's going on.”

I agree. Ministerial diaries, briefing lists, Cabinet and committee agendas, and the papers should all automatically be made public, with redactions only where necessary and according to the scheme of the OIA (so they can be challenged and reviewed by the Ombudsman). And these would certainly remove a huge number of mundane requests (while enabling specific ones... which is what the government doesn't want). Unfortunately, none of this falls under Mallard's powers as Speaker. But if he wants to push for it, the way to do it is to read Ministers the riot act and force them to answer written questions, so that it will be less fucking work to proactively release everything than it is to try and refuse it.

"Talking about the things that matter"

There's been appalling news today about the housing crisis, with the $34.53 increase in the annual average (not median) massively outstripped by a $38,000 increase in the average house price. So naturally Labour is talking about resurrecting the Moa:

Trevor Mallard continues to push his idea that moa may one day roam in Wainuiomata, despite his leader saying the "moa is not a goer".

Labour's Hutt South MP presented the idea to 30 or so businesspeople at a development breakfast in the Lower Hutt suburb Wainuiomata.

While admitting it sounded "a bit Jurassic Park", Mallard said scientists had been making progress on techniques for using recovered DNA from extinct animals to reconstruct new life. Moa could return to the bush of Rimutaka Forest Park, he said.

If this is their idea of "talking about the things that matter", then its no wonder they're losing.

(I've got nothing against Moa, and I think de-extinction would be an interesting scientific project. But FFS. If you don't want the media to stop focusing on this sort of thing, you should stop offering it to them on a silver platter).

Tau to retire

The big political news this morning is that Tau Henare plans to retire at the election after 15 years in Parliament. This brings the number of National MPs retiring to 15, a quarter of their caucus. Meanwhile, Labour's Old Guard grimly hangs on to their positions and refuses to make way for new blood, with Trevor Mallard talking about being "mid-career" after 27 years, and pointing out that Walter Nash was an MP until he was 86. And then they wonder why people don't vote for the same old faces with the same old baggage...

Labour's hypocrisy on homophobia

DPF has a post today on Labour's rainbow policy [PDF]. The policy itself is good - allowing same sex adoption, removing the last vestiges of discrimination in law, eliminating homophobia in schools - and its what I'd expect to see from any political party. At the same time, you can't help but notice the irony. Labour points out that

Every New Zealander should be able to live a life of safety and dignity. Many GLBTI New Zealanders continue to be subject to insult, verbal and physical abuse, and to be made to feel inferior, most damagingly in schools. Too often, this results in high rates of self-harm and suicide amongst young GLBTI New Zealanders.

Meanwhile, prominent Labour MPs Trevor Mallard and Clayton Cosgrove engage in exactly this sort of homophobic abuse in the House [video; start at 2:30]. Other MPs, who I normally respect, will not condemn them, and even go so far as lying in public to deny this abuse takes place.

This is simply gutless. Labour needs to own its shit, recognise that eliminating homophobia begins at home, and start by eliminating its bigots. Their failure to do so undermines their credibility, and their entire policy. After all, how can politicians prohibit homophobia in schools, when they allow it amongst themselves? How can we say "its not OK", when Labour pretty obviously still thinks it is?

Update: Now that this is receiving media coverage, Labour's Grant Robertson is willing to stand up and condemn Mallard, though in fairly weak terms:

"Of course I don't think it's a good thing for Labour MPs to call Chris Finlayson Tinkerbell. It's silly statement. Just as it was for Tau Henare to give a prepared speech when he talked about Driving Miss Daisy with Charles Chauvel.

"I would not endorse them at all."

Good to hear it. If you want to make homophobia unacceptable, then you actually need to stand up against it in public - even when it comes from your mates.

Labour's homophobes

Back in 2009, we learned that Labour frontbencher Trevor Mallard was a homophobe, when he repeatedly called Chris Finlayson "tinkerbell" across the House. Today, he continued this trend, coming up with a new witty name for John Key: the "Prime Mincer". And he wasn't alone - both Clare Curran and Kris Fa'afoi repeated it over Twitter.

All these MPs seem to think that someone's sexuality or imputed sexuality is a reason to abuse them. That people should be abused and mocked for engaging in behaviours they regard as stereotypically gay. That's not cool, and its not funny. Its simply bigotry.

(As for Key, he's in the same camp and pretty clearly has some rather bigoted views about male models. But that doesn't excuse Labour's abuse).

I expect better from my elected representatives. And I expect better from the Labour Party. Once upon a time, they did the decent thing and opposed this sort of shit. Now they don't. And against a backdrop of homophobic hate crimes, that's exceptionally disappointing.

Homophobia isn't cool

What's Trevor Mallard's latest taunt across the House to National's Chris Finlayson?

"Tinkerbell".

As The Hand Mirror points out, this sort of homophobia and misogyny isn't cool. And it is appalling to see a senior member of a supposedly "progressive" party engaging in it. Particularly when as a teacher he should know the social cost of this sort of public homophobia.

What next from Trevor? Calling Hone Harawira "nigger"?

The Official Secrets Act for schools

Trevor Mallard has posted the text of his member's bill to amend the OIA to prevent the public from using it to compile school "league tables". The relevant section:

6A School level assessment information must not be publicly released.

(1) Despite any other provision of this Act, organisations including, but not limited to schools, the Ministry of Education and the Education Review Office, must not publicly release school level assessment information.

(2) Nothing in subclause (1) prevents the release of information:
a. relating to an individual child to the parents or guardians of that child
b. the sharing of information between teachers and staff within a school environment
c. the sharing of information between schools, the Ministry of Education and the Education Review Office.

("School level information" is defined elsewhere).

There are a number of problems with this. In addition to being "class-based" (that is, targeting information based on its content or type rather than the interests its release might prejudice), it also categorically forbids release. And that has never been part of our OIA regime. While the OIA allows information to be withheld if there are good reasons for doing so, it doesn't make it mandatory, and an organisation can always just release information if they feel like it. This amendment would forbid them from doing that. It effectively recreates the Official Secrets Act specifically for schools. The "justification" for this - that the public might "misunderstand" or "misuse" the information - is decidedly authoritarian.

This is a nasty regression from Labour, and one which undermines a fundamental part of our freedom of information regime. Fortunately, it doesn't have a hope in hell of passing. Unfortunately, given mallard's seniority in the caucus, it has a real chance of becoming policy in 2011 - and that would be a real step backwards.

Mallard vs the OIA

Earlier in the year, National moved to introduce standardised testing in primary schools "to improve standards". But they've run into a problem: teachers, principals and schools are refusing to cooperate with the new regime because the information will inevitably be used to construct school "league tables", if not by the government then by the public using the Official Information Act. Now Labour's education spokesperson, Trevor Mallard, is proposing a solution: a "minor tweak" to the OIA, preventing the release of school-level data. This would undoubtedly solve the problem and give the schools the secrecy they desire. But in the process it would do immense damage to our freedom of information regime.

Why? Firstly, because the purpose of members of the public in requesting information, and the use they will put it to, has never been a legitimate part of the consideration of OIA requests. Secondly, because it would be a remarkable shift in the regime from considering the interests which might be prejudiced by releasing information (e.g. privacy, justice, national security) to exempting specific classes of information entirely. And of course it would set a terrible precedent for a bunch of bureaucrats to get secrecy (and hence unaccountability) just because they whined for it. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of league tables (and I agree that what they primarily show is the socioeconomic status of the intake), this "cure" is worse than the disease. For very good reasons, to do with democratic participation and holding officials to account, we have enacted a law whose basic principle is that

information shall be made available unless there is good reason for withholding it

The fact that information might be "misused" (in the eyes of those seeking unaccountability), misinterpreted, or misunderstood has never been a good reason for denying access under the law. And if the government or anyone else is concerned about those possibilities, then the correct response is for them to stand up and explain properly, not hide behind secrecy. More information, not less.

Election funding: unsurprising

So, Trevor Mallard's Labour-emblazoned electorate vehicle has been deemed an "electoral advertisement" under the Electoral Finance Act. What's surprising is that anyone is surprised by it. The EFA uses a "reasonable person" test, and I think any reasonable person would agree that this eye-catching paint job is intended to persuade people to vote in a particular way (and if it wasn't, why would he be doing it?). That makes it an advertisement, which must bear a promoter statement.

As for DPF's contention that this makes the entire vehicle attributable expenditure, I doubt it. The advertising is in the paint job. Without it, it's just a van. But I guess he has to adopt extreme positions to keep the sewer-dwellers fed.

Unconvincing, unsatisfactory, and insincere

Which conclusions in the censored final chapter of the government's State of the Environment report caused it to be pulled because they were not supported by the facts? Green MP Jeanette Fitzsimons tried to find out in Question Time yesterday; unfortunately the answers she got were less than convincing:

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he agree with chapter 13, dumped from the report on the state of the environment, that “significant intensification of land use, particularly pastoral land use” is “arguably the largest pressure today on New Zealand’s land, freshwaters and coastal oceans, and atmosphere”; if not, what does he believe is the largest pressure on New Zealand’s land, freshwaters and coastal oceans, and atmosphere?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment): As I am sure Dr Norman told the member, because he was there, both myself and the Ministry for the Environment officials spoke at length about the damning facts in the main body of this report and the summary document, which clearly showed that this was the case. If the member has not spoken to Dr Norman about it, could I recommend that she opens the report, just to the forward, and reads my comments in there where I say that the report highlights the decline in water quality in New Zealand “as a consequence of the increasing intensity of agricultural production.” Clearly, that is the case.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: In that case, which conclusions specifically was he referring to when he told the media on Monday that *chapter 13 was scrapped because it made a series of conclusions that were not strictly supported by the facts, and on what peer-reviewed reports is he basing that conclusion, or does he just disagree with the specialists who wrote chapter 13?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That is the very area—because it is forward-looking rather than backward-looking, as the report is—that was outside the scope and actually not matched by the facts in the report.

[...]

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Was chapter 13 pulled because it clearly points the finger at agriculture and recommends a polluter-pays principle at a time when the Minister’s Government is subsidising the farming industry’s greenhouse gas emissions to the tune of $1 million every working day and allowing it to pollute our rivers for free?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The chapter was pulled for two reasons: first, that the qualitative comments contained in the draft section were not backed up by the facts contained in the report itself; second, the substantive comments being made were actually right through the report.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Was the chapter pulled, then, because although the Minister’s Government proudly proclaims its biggest road-building binge in history, chapter 13 states that doubling the distance travelled by vehicles on our roads over the past 20 years is putting pressure on the environment and human health?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The chapter was pulled because the qualitative comments contained in the draft report were not backed up by the facts contained in the report itself, and the substantive comments being made were carried through the report itself.

So, first the conclusions are supported by the facts, then they're not, but Mallard won't say exactly which conclusions are problematic. This is both unconvincing, and deeply unsatisfactory. If Mallard is going to say that there are unsupported conclusions there, he should be able to point to them and say why. The fact that he won't, and instead roboticly repeats his single talking point again and again when asked "was it this?", "was it that?", speaks volumes about the sincerity of his excuse, and suggests that the Greens' underlying accusation that it was pulled to avoid offending the farming lobby is entirely correct.

Extortion

Graham McCready's private prosecution of Trevor Mallard has already been criticised for being a vindictive abuse of the legal process for purely political ends, but now it's managed to reach a new low, with McCready trying to extort a $100,000 "donation" to one of his charities in exchange for dropping the case and offering diversion. So much for any claim that this is about justice. Rather, it is about victimising a public figure and subjecting them to disproportionate penalties for an offence neither the victim nor the police believe is worth prosecution. I know private criminal prosecution is occasionally a check on police inaction (e.g. in the case of Gerry Brownlee, where the police refused to press charges against him for a reasonably serious assault because he was a public figure and the victim an obnoxious lefty), but this is really dragging the whole process into disrepute.

A very expensive smear

Last month we learned that Climate Change Minister David Parker had grossly overstepped his authority and demanded that the Ministry for the Environment (which provides support for his portfolio) hire a particular individual in order to represent his personal political agenda. This was already utterly unacceptable, but the government's response was even worse: when questioned about it in the House, Environment Minister Trevor Mallard stood up and used the cover of Parliamentary Privilege to smear the whistleblower, saying that she had "repeated competence issues".

Mallard based his smear on advice from his Ministry. However, MfE Chief Executive Hugh Logan has just come clean and said that advice was wrong and that they had not intended it to reflect on Erin Leigh's performance or professional ability. They've since apologised to Leigh, as they should, and it will be very interesting to see whether Mallard does the same. Not that that should save him. His attack on Leigh for reporting wrongdoing by a Minister was unconscionable, and a clear attempt to bully her and other public servants into silence. And that is not something any Minister of the Crown should be doing. I do not like bullies and thugs, and I do not believe they are morally fit to sit in Cabinet.

Meanwhile, it seems that the person with "repeated competence issues" is not Leigh, but her former boss Hugh Logan. His past screwups are enough to raise doubt about his suitability to serve as a senior public servant, and now he’s just put the government on the hook for defamation. While Mallard is absolutely protected by Parliamentary Privilege from any comeback for his remarks, Logan and the Ministry are not. And the latter have just admitted defaming Leigh to a Minister, in a way which has had a significant effect on her life and business. In short, the government's response could turn out to be a very expensive smear indeed...