Bullshitting the Minister

On Monday, the Hit and Run inquiry heard from NZDF's former director of special operations, who claimed that the defence Minister knew everything about the Operation Burnham raid. Today, the inquiry heard from that (former) Minister - and it turns out that he didn't know nearly as much as NZDF claimed:

Mapp – who the Minister of Defence from 2008 until late 2011 – on Friday told the inquiry he had been briefed about the report in the Beehive in September 2011.

"I now have a fragmentary memory of being told … that there was no evidence of civilian casualties but that it was possible that civilian casualties may have been caused during Operation Burnham," he said.

But he said because there had been no detailed evidence to confirm the deaths, he had never passed the information on to former Prime Minister Sir John Key's office.

"I was not left with any reason to think I had to take further action … I thought, on the basis of what I've been told, I can't take this matter any further, because there was no actual evidence," Mapp said.

Which sounds like Jim Blackwell, the former director of special operations, bullshitted the Minister, minimising the contents of the report, and then lied the inquiry about it afterwards in an effort to cover his own arse. But it also sounds like Mapp failed to exercise proper supervision of his agency, in that they (correctly) thought they could do this without getting caught.

There's a lesson in this: Ministers should never trust anything NZDF ever says to them, because they demonstrably will lie and obfuscate and exaggerate to cover their arses and get their way. That's not a basis for a healthy relationship, but what else can Ministers do when an agency has been caught doing this?

Climate Change: Missing the obvious

Writing in The Spinoff, former National Minister Wayne Mapp argues that a good first step to meeting the targets of the Zero Carbon Act would be to end fossil fuelled cars. He's right (and I've talked at length about how to do this here), but falls into a hole when he starts talking about how expensive it will all be:

The big issue is low income families. Maybe half of all car buyers are purchasing second hand Japanese cars for less than $10,000. There is no way they can afford a new electric car. A new electric Hyundai Kona SUV costs $73,000 right now; the price could be around $50,000 for a new model in a few years.

So how do we help lower income families make the shift? It will require a decent subsidy, maybe $5,000 per year for five years of car ownership or annual lease. Not only will this help emissions, it will mean much safer cars for low income families. Many of the terrible recent accidents have many more deaths and injuries in older, less safe vehicles.

Probably 100,000 of the new annual registrations would attract such a subsidy, targeted at lower income families. The initial annual cost would be $500 million, assuming full take up, rising to $2.5 billion per year in five years. It is a large sum of money, but it is doable. Governments have previously had tax packages or family support packages of this size.

...which is an enormously costly policy, but entirely unnecessary. Because, to ask the obvious, why do we need to buy new cars? As Mapp points out, we don't at present. Instead, unless there's a massive cultural shift, we're going to keep buying second-hand vehicles from high-turnover-rate countries, which will be 50% - 75% cheaper than buying new. And the cars most kiwis buy are not high-end SUVs, but compact vehicles designed for driving in suburbia, which are much cheaper. The price of vehicles will almost certainly rise, but we're probably not going to need billions of dollars of annual subsidies to new car dealers to drive it (that said: we can and should follow Norway in taxing dirty vehicles to fund clean ones to drive the transition. Let the dirty drivers of double-cab utes pay to save the world!)

What we are going to need is new electricity generation to power all those cars. But that's another post, I think.

Collins offered Mapp the job

Back in March, I blogged about Judith Collins' brazen cronyism in appointing Wayne Mapp to the Law Commission. In case you'd forgotten, Collins ignored the normal process and appointed Mapp without considering other candidates the Commission had suggested, and without any formal interviews, person specification, or other process. Her excuse boiled down to "the rules don't apply to me".

But there was an interesting gap in her story: the initial email [PDF] from Mapp to Collins referred to discussions they had had. I was curious, so I asked Collins about these discussions, in an effort to find out whether Mapp had asked for the job or Collins had offered it. This is her response:

The discussions occurred with a view to making an appointment to the Law Commission. They took place prior to the appointment of Dr Mapp [I had been hoping for dates here - pre-election would have been interesting - I/S]. No record was kept of the discussions. I initiated the discussions and I proposed Dr Mapp's nomination.

So there you have it. Collins saw an opening, saw a crony, and matched one with the other, over-riding all proper government processes to do so. She turned an appointment which should have been made on merit into a gift from the Minister - with the full support of John Key.

This is not how government is supposed to operate in New Zealand, and we should not tolerate it.

Key endorses cronyism

The Herald picks up the Wayne Mapp crony appointment story today, and adds a startling fact:

Prime Minister John Key said he was happy with the process and the quality of the candidate.

So, Key is happy for people to be appointed to a powerful, well-remunerated government body with no advertisement, no interview, no shortlist, basically no process to see if they really are the best candidate for the job. I guess this is what he calls "higher standards of government".

Correction: Mapp's nomination

In yesterday's post on Judith Collins' brazen cronyism, I said, based on this email [PDF], that Judith Collins had nominated Mapp for his crony-post at the Law Commission. I've since had an interesting discussion with the Ministry of Justice, who handled the nomination. The upshot: while Mapp's details and CV were passed on by Collins, Justice regarded it as a self-nomination. According to them, Mapp basically nominated himself!

I'm going to do some more digging into this. Information in Minister's heads is official information, and subject to the Act even though it is not in written form. So I can ask Collins about the "discussions" referred to in the email, when they took place, and whether Mapp asked her for the job or she asked him to do it. The answer should be fascinating...

(BTW, top marks to the Ministry of Justice, who responded to my OIA in less than 24 hours. That's how it's supposed to work!)

Scooped!

So, I post a big OIA story, and then discover I've been scooped by NewstalkZB. That'll teach me to leave things till Monday. As for the substance, they've missed the lying to Cabinet and the fact that Mapp was nominated by Collins, but they've got the core problem:

Papers released under the Official Information Act show six other names were put forward for the role last September.

However Justice Minister Judith Collins decided not to check their availability when making the final decision in January, and put Dr Mapp forward as the only candidate.

Appointments to positions like this are supposed to be on merit and made by a contestable process. Collins' shoulder-tapping cronyism was the very opposite of that.

As for accountability, Collins of course is refusing to answer questions from journalists, pretending that its about the appointee rather than her own lack of process. But while she can dodge the media, she can't dodge questions in the House. The only question is whether someone wants to grill her over it.

Judith Collins' brazen cronyism

Last month, Justice Minister Judith Collins appointed former National MP Wayne Mapp to the Law Commission. It looked like a crony appointment, so I submitted the usual OIA request, seeking information on whether the appointment process had followed the SSC guidelines [PDF]. I received the response back on Saturday, and it paints a dismal picture of brazen cronyism.

First, some context [PDF]. The Law Commission needed to make an appointment because one of their members was retiring on 31 January 2012, and another was sick (this member has subsequently died). Statutorily, they're required to have at least three members, and while it doesn't affect their functions if they fall below this number, it looks bad. So back in September they wrote to then Justice Minister Simon Power, floating some potential appointees (none of whom had actually been asked whether they were available) and recommending a short-term appointment. While the names of the prospective appointees have been redacted for privacy reasons, its pretty clear that Wayne Mapp was not one of them. In accordance with the caretaker convention, Power deferred the decision until after the election (and his retirement).

In the interim, according to the Law Commission advice [PDF]

a nomination was received from Hon Dr Wayne Mapp. Dr Mapp's curriculum vitae was also forwarded.

Collins appointed him for the maximum term of five years. No position description, no advertisement, no interviews, no shortlist, no process. His name was given to the Law Commission, and he was appointed. Is that simple.

So who gave Mapp's name to the Law Commission? Why, Judith Collins did [Note: see correction here]. So she imposed her candidate on the Commission, without following any proper process. I guess she's been learning from Brownlee.

But it gets better. In her response to me [PDF], Collins justified her failure to follow SSC guidelines as follows:

The SSC guidelines to which you are referring are designed to ensure Ministers receive consistent information on candidates being recommended for appointment about whom they often have no prior information. The guidelines are just that. It is wholly up to Ministers to determine to what extent the guidelines need to be applied in any appointment process or part thereof.

In the case in point, the appointee was well known to Ministers and is respected for his abilities.

Or, in English, "the rules don't apply to cronies". Interestingly, despite this response, she told her Cabinet colleagues [PDF] that

I can confirm that an appropriate process has been followed in selecting the proposed appointees [sic] in terms of the State Services Commission (SSC) guidelines. Alternative options for identifying candidates were considered.

The paper trail tells a different story. The process was not followed, and there is no evidence that alternative options were considered. This was a crony appointment, pure and simple. And we should not tolerate it in our public service.

Daily cronyism

Back when he was in Parliament, Wayne Mapp didn't exactly come across as the sharpest tool in the shed. He was a second-rate MP, and a second-rate Minister, notable only for taking on the "portfolio" of "political correctness eradication" for Don Brash.

So naturally, National has just appointed him to the Law Commission, a collection of our best legal brains tasked with the ongoing review and reform of New Zealand law.

This is cronyism, pure and simple. But it's not just a blatant case of "jobs for the boys", it also politicises the Commission, turning it from a reform body into a National-stacked stooge. Mapp will be able to influence the shape of New Zealand law for the next decade from this - and through him, national will be able to, whether they're in power or not.

An apology to Dr Mapp

Earlier today, I posted a post alleging that Dr Wayne Mapp, Minister of Science and Innovation, was drunk in the House at Question Time on Wednesday. I have since been contacted by a member of the Press Gallery who was present in the House at the time, who says

I'd say I know Dr Mapp reasonably well and can tell when he's had a few. In this case I'm 100 percent positive that he was absolutely sober.

What I saw was someone, who doesn't have a great reputation as a public speaker, trying to ham up an answer and not do it very well.

This person is obviously in a better position to judge things than I am from a video, and I see no reason to doubt them. So, my post was incorrect, and I apologise unreservedly to Dr Mapp for the error and for any slur on his character.

Drunk in the House?

Note: The allegations in this post about Dr Mapp are incorrect, and I apologise unreservedly for them. The original post however will remain. Honest people own their mistakes, rather than disappearing them down the memory hole.

One of the advantages of Parliament being broadcast live (and archived on the web) is greater accountability. We can see how our politicians behave, and judge them on it at the ballot box. And we can see when they turn up drunk for Question Time, as Wayne Mapp seems to have done yesterday:

Note how he's slurring and having problems with pronunciation. If he's not pissed, he's doing a bloody good impression of it. If any of us turned up drunk for work, we'd be fired; but apparently standards are much lower in our Parliament.

They shouldn't be. Being drunk isn't just unprofessional; it shows an absolute contempt for both Parliament and the people of New Zealand and brings the House into disrepute. That's apparently contempt of Parliament if one of us plebs does it; it would be nice if they'd police their own and take action against Ministers and MPs who undermine Parliament's reputation by being obviously drunk in charge of a country as well.

[Hat-tip: The Standard]

The SAS takes prisoners after all

So, having denied for years that the SAS takes prisoners in Afghanistan, the government has now admitted that they do:

KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Minister of Defence: Has New Zealand’s SAS detained anyone during its operations or joint operations with other forces since being redeployed to Afghanistan in 2009?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence): On 30 January the New Zealand SAS detained a mid-level Taliban commander in response to a tasking by the International Security Assistance Force, because the Afghan authorities, including the crisis response unit, were not available at the time. That person was transferred to a United States facility at Bagram, and is now being held at a joint US-Afghan facility at Parwan. The detainee is being monitored by New Zealand officials in accordance with our responsibilities under international law. The last visit to the detainee was by New Zealand officials on 25 April. His principal complaint was that he was unhappy at being held by infidels, but had no other concerns.

So, despite having transferred prisoners to US torture in 2002, the SAS have done it again. And they've been sent to Bagram, the Afghan Guantanamo, where prisoners have been tortured and even murdered. The good news is that this time, there is proper monitoring. But given the US's past treatment of prisoners, I wouldn't consider them suitable custodians for a dog, let alone a human being.

Meanwhile, this again calls the Jerry Mateparae's testimony to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee into question. In 2010, he told them [PDF] that

the SAS has no authority to exercise control over detainees, even when its personnel are present at the arrest, as the detainees are subject to Afghan law. The SAS’s role is to provide support and training for the Afghan authorities.

This is clearly inconsistent with Mapp's answer yesterday. Either something changed, or Mataparae lied to Parliament. We deserve to know which is the case.

SAS complicit in torture

According to the Herald and 3 News tonight, Metro magazine has a major story out tomorrow exposing the New Zealand SAS's complicity in torture in Afghanistan. In at least one of the cases, the SAS are the good guys - back in 2002, they objected when prisoners they had captured and transferred to the US were mistreated. But in at least two cases in 2010, they transferred prisoners to the Afghan National Directorate of Security - an organisation so well-known to engage in torture that British troops have been prohibited from transferring prisoners to them by UK courts. Those transfers violated both the Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions. And by transferring those prisoners, the individual soldiers responsible have exposed themselves to prosecution under New Zealand and international law.

Obviously, there must be a full investigation of these events, with an eye to pressing charges where they are necessary. No New Zealand soldier can be allowed to be complicit in torture, and any soldier who is needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

But beyond that, we also need to look at political accountability. Both John Key and Wayne Mapp have stated repeatedly in public that the SAS does not take prisoners. We now know that they were lying. The Minister of Foreign Affairs stood up in Parliament and claimed that we had an agreement with the Red Cross to monitor transfers to Afghan forces. We now know that that is a lie. McCully also claimed that "to date, no detainees have been transferred by the SAS to Afghan authorities". That may or may not have been true (it will depend on the dates published in Metro tomorrow).

But its not just the politicians who we need to look into. At the time, the Chief of Defence Force was Jerry Mateparae - who is about to become our next Governor-General. The 3 News story cites Key as explicitly relying on his advice that the SAS were not taking or transferring prisoners. And in late 2010, Mataparae stood up before the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade select committee during its annual financial review of the NZDF and told them the same thing [PDF, p. 3]. We now know that that is not true, and that he lied to Parliament. The question, then, is whether someone tainted by lies about torture is fit to be our head of state.

The end of eradication

National has released its new lineup, and looking at the full list [PDF], one portfolio is notable by its absence: that of "political correctness eradicator". Good. The position was a bad joke when it was established, and became a worse one when Wayne Mapp opened his mouth, spewed his ignorance, and displayed the bigotry and illiberalism which underlay his worldview. Worse, it suggested a conscious effort by National to roll back the increased equality, opportunity and erosion of privilege of the last 50 years and return us to some sort of idealised version of the 1950s when New Zealand was run by and for dead white males and anyone else (women,gays, Maori) could bugger off. I am glad those days are gone, and I am glad that the fringe loonies who wish to return to them no longer seem to be pulling the strings of our major opposition party. Perhaps now we'll have a serious opposition, rather than the bad joke Brash seemed intent on turning it into.

It is however apparent that women and young people still don't matter to the National Party, both portfolios being given to unranked newcomers. I guess old habits die hard...

Misplaced confidence

Wayne Mapp's Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill has passed its first reading after three Maori Party MPs voted for it. I'm appalled. This bill is an attack on the vulnerable; it will allow employers to fire workers for any reason whatsoever (or no reason at all) within 90 days of hiring them, with no recourse under existing dispute resolution procedures. It would allow people to be fired for joining a union or even talking to one. It would prevent workers from suing for arrears if they are not paid. And given that WINZ imposes a 13-week standdown on anyone fired, it will mean workers are effectively left with no rights whatsoever for the first part of their employment; it will be accept whatever is offered (and live in fear of having it arbitrarily withdrawn if your Masteremployer takes a dislike to you or is in a bad mood) or face starvation and homelessness.

This is law for the rich, and its victims will be those on the bottom of the heap - a group which includes a lot of Maori. I cannot understand why then why the Maori Party, who claim to represent Maori interests, would vote for it.

Last month the Maori Party's support for Sue Bradford's Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill gave me some confidence that the Maori Party could be relied upon to support basic left-wing causes like employment rights for the weakest and most vulnerable. Unfortunately, it seems that that confidence was misplaced.

Neither consistent nor liberal

Why do conservatives oppose "political correctness"? Over the last few days, we've seen a lot of bluster about how "political correctness" is about minorities attempting to impose their views on the majority, an attack on freedom of expression, and a threat to secularism. But looking past that, it seems that exactly the opposite is the case. Opposition to "political correctness" is primarily about the imposition of majority opinion onto minorities, rather than the protection of a free and neutral society or a marketplace of ideas.

There was an excellent example of this in Wayne Mapp's interview with Sean Plunket on Morning Report yesterday (hat tip: Keith Ng):

Mapp: Another example: the government now puts into law Maori spiritual values, and yet we don't even have Grace at state functions. Now that's wrong. In a secular state, all beliefs - you know, spiritual beliefs, religious beliefs - should be treated equally, because that's actually what secularism means. Instead, this government puts it into law that one set of values has preference. That's where the whole thing's got completely out of control, and we need a systemtic review of all of that to fix it - [in the name of?] freedom of speech.

Plunket: I'd presume you'd also get rid of the Lord's Prayer at the start of each Parliamentary session

Mapp: No, I think that's part of our history. I mean, things are part of our history.

Plunket: OK, so whose history? Whose history is that part of?

Mapp: The Nation's history, the nation's history.

Plunket: OK, because it would seem to me that if you're going to be secular right across the board, then that's got to go to.

Mapp: Well, there was this issue in North Shore, I can tell you the majority of the public did not like it, and the councillor who promoted it did not retain his position. Part of this whole issue is respecting the views of the majority, not always pandering to minority views...

So, minority religious expression must be eradicated from public institutions, but majority public expression is acceptable - because they're the majority. Similarly, laws outlawing "hate speech" against gays are bad, but laws outlawing blasphemous libel - "hate speech" against (the Christian version of) god - are OK. You don't have to be a genius to see that this position is neither consistent nor liberal. Instead, it is an appropriation of liberal language to mask gross illiberalism and the imposition of majority opinion. And even if the majority existed somewhere outside the National party's heads, it would be wrong. As John Stuart Mill famously pointed out,

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

This doesn't just follow from one interview. The idea that "political correctness" is about the struggle between majorities and minorities is encapsulated in Wayne Mapp's definition of the term in his speech "The Problem With Political Correctness":

A person, an institution or a government is politically correct when they cease to represent the interests of the majority and become focused on the cares and concerns of minority sector groups.

According to Mapp, democratic government means that "the ideas and values of the majority are able to prevail over other choices". According to liberals, they should not, at least in certain areas. And those areas - religion, sexuality, equality, substantive freedom - overlap precisely with the battlegrounds of "political correctness".

Justice sometimes takes time

National says "Let's just get on with the Ahmed Zaoui case":

"On the day there's a world-wide warning about terrorist activity, it's absurd that we in New Zealand are still arguing about how to deal with the Ahmed Zaoui case," says National Party Immigration spokesman Wayne Mapp.

Yes - it is absurd, but not in the way Dr Mapp thinks it is. What is absurd is that a country like New Zealand is even arguing that a man should be denied the right to a fair and impartial trial or to know the allegations against him. I had regarded these sorts of issues as having been settled with the Enlightenment, not something that would be seriously debated in this day and age.

Unfortunately, the govenment - acting under legislation drafted and passed by a National government (guilty conscience, Dr Mapp?) - is contesting these fundamental rights, and thus we have to fight them. This takes time, but the cost in injustice of acting swiftly - of allowing Justice Grieg to act according to his prejudices rather than according to law, natural justice and human rights - is intolerable.