Reported back

The Local Government and Environment Committee has reported back [PDF] on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill, and failed to make any recommendation on whether it be passed. This is highly unusual for a government bill. On most committees in this Parliament the government can simply use its majority to force passage regardless of what the other parties think. But Local Government and Environment is evenly split, with six National members and six opposition ones. While the chair could have used their casting vote to force passage, for some reason she decided not to. Which can only be seen as an implicit agreement with the opposition's assessment of the bill as too flawed to progress.

Those flaws are serious. Quite apart from being too lax on environmental protection and failing to reflect our international obligations over the EEZ, the regime the bill proposes has major technical flaws as well. While superficially the same as the RMA, the regime is different in crucial areas, and these differences will cause confusion and ultimately litigation. Using the RMA's language would result in much clearer law, which would benefit everybody. Sadly, National seems opposed to clear environmental law - which is quite disturbing when you think about it.

Sadly, despite this vote of no confidence, the bill is likely to pass regardless. The government has a majority in the House, and they'll use it. The result will be a legislative mess. But hey, oil drillers will get a blank cheque, and that's all National cares about.

Correction: Chairs do not have a casting vote. There was no majority either way on the passage of the bill, so the committee reached no conclusion. Which shows that National failed to understand MMP and its need for consensus to progress legislation (either that, or they simply have contempt for the entire process)

Back to the polls in Greece

Its official: Greek coalition talks have failed, and the country will be going back to the polls. On current polling, SYRIZA will likely emerge with a solid mandate to tear up the German "bailout" (actually a bailout for German banks, laundered through Greece with a side-order of pointless suffering). But things could change. In particular, the EU technocrats are likely to pull out all the stops and turn up the fear to try and terrify people into voting for a "sensible" government which will sell them out to save the German banks. That is if they don't just force them out of the Euro out of impatience with democracy...

Submit!

The Transport and Industrial Relations has called for submissions on the Immigration Amendment Bill. You can submit online at that link, or send two copies to

Transport and Industrial Relations Committee Secretariat
Parliament Buildings
Wellington

Submissions are due by Friday, 8 June 2012.

The bill will allow Howard-style mandatory detention for groups of refugees, as well as empowering the Minister to prevent their claims from being processed. Its a clear breach of the Refugee Convention, which will make us an international pariah. If you don't want that to happen (and if you don't like the government scaremongering on non-existent "boat-people"), then please submit against it.

Welfare Working Group appointed to run WINZ

The Welfare Working Group was one of the more blatant displays of ideology in recent political history, with a pack of hand-picked cronies (including the ever-present Catherine Isaac) producing highly ideological policy prescriptions. The only good thing about it was that it was temporary. Except now a pack of them have been appointed to oversee MSD and "guide" its welfare "reforms":

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett today announced the new Work and Income board members to oversee the investment approach to welfare.

This new approach will be embedded at all levels of the welfare system and the Board will be responsible for ensuring accountability and overseeing the delivery of reforms that will see fewer people on welfare for long periods

“Paula Rebstock will chair the Board with five other members from outside the public service with a wide range of relevant experience and expertise.”

Those other members include Kathryn McPherson, another member of the Welfare Working Group, plus the usual assortment of business cronies. All of whom will receive generous daily fees for the task of "advis[ing] and support[ing] the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development in the implementation of welfare reforms" and reporting back to the Minister (as well as the Ministers of Finance and State Services) on MSD's performance. Of course, Paula Bennett is already paid $257,000 a year to do those things, but I guess she didn't want to dirty her hands with the actual work.

but apart from demonstrating expensive Ministerial laziness, this is another example of National's construction of a parallel public service staffed with cronies. Our professional public servants have a bad habit of looking at evidence, rather than just reading Hayek or asking Michael Laws. These boards allow the public service to be bypassed, and policies imposed without the usual checks and balances. The result will be worse policy: more unforeseen outcomes, more mistakes. But National doesn't care: they get to silence those annoying public servants, and provide jobs for the boys at the same time.

So much for "closing the gap"

Currently, there's a marked differential in wage rises between unionised and non-unionised workers. Unionised workers get decent wage increases, non-unionised workers don't (on average). Now, National wants to change that, with a series of employment law "reforms" designed to cripple unions and give employers the whip-hand:

Employers will no longer have to reach a collective agreement during collective bargaining, under changes made to industrial relations laws, approved by Cabinet today.

Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson said the changes include removing the requirement to conclude collective bargaining, allowing employers to opt out of multi-employer bargaining, allowing partial pay reductions in the case of partial strikes and removing the 30-day rule, under which new workers automatically come under a collective agreement for the first 30 days.

Removing the duty to conclude effectively means that employers won't have to negotiate with unions. Pay reductions for partial industrial action (defined as "work to rule") is designed to intimidate workers from engaging in such action by threatening to cut their pay for doing their job. Removing the 30-day rule will remove basic union protections, and enable employers to actively discriminate against union members. Collectively, these changes will reduce the power of unions to bargain effectively on behalf of their members, thereby reducing wages (and living standards) for ordinary kiwis.

...which is the complete opposite of National's stated goal of "closing the wage gap" with Australia. But then, when it comes to representing the interests of ordinary kiwis versus representing the interests of greedy bosses, National will pick the latter every time.

Climate change: The Overton window

Via Paul Krugman, a scary image of the current debate on climate change:

This disconnection of reporting from scientific reality matters. In particular, by understating the problem, it constrains the Overton window, the range of reasonable policy options available to counter it. Policies necessary to prevent a substantial cost look too extreme for a problem which is reported as only inflicting a slight one. Which means we dither, and the problem gets worse.

The question is whether the media start reporting on the scientific consensus before it is too late.

A bitter pill

The Budget will be delivered next week, and the government is well into the usual pre-announcements, dribbling out Budget programmes to distract from the ongoing John Banks scandal. Yesterday's "good news" announcement was more money for elective (meaning unnecessary) surgery and cancer treatment. Yesterday's bad news was that they are paying for this by raising prescription charges from $3 to $5.

Two dollars doesn't sound like a lot of money (especially to government Ministers paid over $250,000 a year). But as GP Lance O'Sullivan pointed out on Nine To Noon this morning [audio], the existing charges are already a barrier to uptake among low-income families. Which means people going without the medication prescribed to them, which in turn means them ending up in hospital as the problem goes untreated. O'Sullivan summed it up bluntly:

Anything that hinders access to primary health care does result in unnecessary and preventable hospitalisations and deaths. Anything that hinders and creates more barriers to primary health care will create more mortality, more morbidity, more death and hospitalisations.

(Which of course costs money. It remains to be seen whether the cost of increased hospitalisations has been included in National's "savings", or whether they're ignoring it).

So, this will reduce health access to those at the very bottom, resulting in more illness and more deaths, in order to provide more treatment for rich old people. How very, very National.

Deceitful

Last year, at the height of the "teapot tapes" saga, John Key was eager to claim that the police searches of media organisations and vigorous Crown Law intervention to defend his claim that the taping was illegal was nothing to do with him, and that these bodies were all "just doing their jobs". Now it turns out that he personally called the Solicitor-General to thank him for that intervention:

Prime Minister John Key personally phoned Solicitor General David Collins to pass on his gratitude for work on the so-called teapot tape case, two days before the election.

The Solicitor General's office is meant to be kept strictly independent from all political influence.

However, an email obtained under the Official Information Act showed Collins wrote to an unnamed counsel saying: "The PM phoned this morning and asked me to pass on to you his personal thanks for your work on Ambrose. He was very complimentary notwithstanding my attempts to say you were just doing your jobs! Well done. D "

The email is dated November 24 and referred to Bradley Ambrose, a freelance photographer who left an electronic device on a table, inadvertently recording a conversation between Key and Act Party leader John Banks.

So much for prosecutorial independence. And while not a smoking gun, it certainly shows Key has been deceitful in his public claims about the case.

Also deceitful: Key's response to an OIA about the case:

In his response, Key's chief of staff Wayne Eagleson did not mention Key's phone call to Collins but did provide transcripts of media interviews, and a copy of a press release.

(While the response was made by Eagleson, it is Key's legal responsibility under the Act)

I guess they just decided that the public didn't need to know about it. Sadly, there's no penalty for this sort of violation of the OIA. Which is why officials think they can ignore the law.

A victory for human rights

The Court of Appeal has ruled in the case of Ministry of Health v Atkinson [PDF], and upheld the Human Rights Review Tribunal's ruling that the government's policy of refusing to pay disability support to parents of disabled children unjustifiably discriminates on the basis of family status. In doing so, the court dismissed the government's attempts to weasel around the meaning of discrimination, and to pretend that people have a lifelong duty to care for adult, disabled children unassisted (it may be praiseworthy, but its very much above and beyond what should be expected). The government has been pretty naked that it imposed this policy to save money by dumping care costs onto parents, and they've been deservedly squicked for it.

The question now is whether the government will admit defeat, or take this all the way to the Supreme Court in an effort to undermine New Zealand human rights law. Sadly, my money is on the latter. The crown's case has always relied on using superior resources and patience to bury the opposition. And dragging it out even longer fits that strategy perfectly.

Key on marriage equality

So, John Key's position on same-sex marriage has evolved from "I'm not personally opposed to it" to "I'll support it at first-reading". I guess when even the reliably reaction Stuff online poll is showing 80% in favour, he realises he has to shift.

But note how careful and caveated that "support" is. He doesn't say outright "I support same-sex marriage". And as we learned from Don Brash, another National party faux-liberal, support at first reading isn't the same as support to change the law. Key is very deliberately leaving himself space to pull the same trick. And in a party stacked with Christians, including a Cabinet which voted overwhelmingly to ban same-sex marriage in 2005, I don't think he can be trusted not to.

New Fisk

Must we stand idly by while world leaders spout this codswallop?

Labour doesn't lead

Tomorrow is the International Day of Families, which this year is focused on the issue of work-life balance. So naturally we have a press-release from Labour calling on community groups to get involved in the debate and push harder on this issue:

Speaking at church services this weekend Su’a William Sio called on church and community leaders to become involved with the debate on ‘work and family balance’ and to use the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the foundation to build on.

“It is the community’s responsibility to take ownership of this debate and ensure it is focused on good and productive social and economic outcomes for families, communities and our country,” Su’a William Sio said.

Which is good, so far as it goes - democratic participation is important, after all. At the same time, I find myself thinking: shouldn't Labour be leading this debate? Isn't standing up for your core principles and those of your supporters something we expect political parties to do? And if Labour doesn't want to do that, if they just want to dump the job on others, why the hell are they in Parliament?

This is just another example of Labour's malaise, its underlying belief in its own helplessness at leading and defining the issues. But if Labour won't lead, then someone else will - and reap the benefits from doing so.

Winning hearts and minds again

Since the beginning of the "war on terror", the US government has been at pains to draw a distinction between al-Qaeda, a terrorist group, and Islam, the religion it claims to fight in the name of. Sadly, it seems that its military disagrees. The Defense Department’s Joint Forces Staff College has been teaching US military officers that Islam is their enemy, and that it must be destroyed by total war, including nuclear attacks against civilians and religious targets. I wonder how many recruits to al-Qaeda that will bring in?

(Yes, the US military have shut the course down. But the fact that it went on for over a year before anyone objected, and that the teachers still have their jobs, is quite informative about their attitudes, both of the top brass and course participants).

Meanwhile, today we learn that the New Zealand military will be exercising with these sick fucks. That's not a good idea. The US military uses torture and has total contempt for civilian lives. By exercising with them, we run the risk of those toxic attitudes infecting our own soldiers. And that's simply not a risk we should take.

Hoist by his own petard

Since being elected to Horizons Regional Council in 2010, former Federated Farmers Tararua President John Barrow has been a critic of the council's enforcement on water quality, alleging bias against farmers and demanding that everyone be treated equally. Horizons seem to have taken him at his word: they're prosecuting him for repeatedly violating water limits, and if convicted he could lose his seat, forcing a by-election.

I'd call that being hoist by his own petard.

The AFFCO Workers’ Appeal

The CTU have launched an appeal for AFFCO workers, who have been locked out for over two months in an attempt to deunionise their workplace:

Donations can be made to CTU Disputes Fund at Kiwibank, Wellington (Branch), NZCTU DISPUTES FUND (Account holder), 38 9007 0894028 08 (Account).

Funds will be disseminated directly to the workers and used for essential food items and bills.

You might also like to vote with your wallet and not by Talleys until they start treating their workers properly.

I agree with Colin Craig

Colin Craig on same-sex marriage:

“Government needs to get out of the bedrooms of the country”.

I agree with this absolutely. The state has no business in our bedrooms, or in dictating to us the sorts of relationships we should pursue. If the parties involved are consenting adults, then it is none of the state's business what they do.

And this is exactly why I support same-sex marriage: because it puts all relationships on an equal footing, and gets the government out of people's bedrooms. Contra Craig, it is the privileging of some relationships over others that constitutes "social engineering". If Craig truly opposed that (rather than simply wanting to engineer things his way and make us all conform to his preferred lifestyle), then he'd support equality, not bigotry.

Time to make some noise for marriage equality

John Key's response to being questioned about his position on same-sex marriage? He's "not personally opposed" to it and that there is no "clamour" for it. DPF of course is disingenuously trying to spin this as support, but its a long way even from David Shearer's lukewarm statement. Sure, he's not opposed - but its not as if he's going to do anything to make it happen either. Its just not a priority for him (unlike, say, giving our assets to his rich mates).

As Emma puts it

One thing Key has admitted: there are no legitimate arguments against gay marriage. Just a lazy feckless government that doesn’t give a shit.

So, we have to change their minds, by making the "clamour" Key demanded. One way you can do so is here: a site to send emails to Key about the issue. Another way is to write a letter to your local newspaper; there's a tool here which will help with that (note: only email a single newspaper; editors hate spam). Or you could email your local MP (firstname.lastname@parliament.govt.nz) and ask them where they stand (and then let Pete George know so he can update his list). If you're in Wellington, go to the Queer the Night march tonight.

(I'm just waiting for some MP to seize the moment and offer a petition to Parliament, which will at least make a Select Committee pay attention. Do any of them have virtù?)

John Key has basically laid down a challenge. Let's take him up on it, and make some noise.

Something to go to in Wellington

Wellington’s Queer Avengers have organised another "Queer the Night" march for tomorrow evening:

When: 19:00, Friday 11 May
Where: Waitangi Park, Wellington
Going to: Cuba Mall

Shameful

Last night, Campbell Live had one of the most shameful stories I have seen about New Zealand recently: a 4-year old boy kicked out of his local childcare centre for having HIV. Worse, the childcare centre had informed local parents of his status, causing problems for the boy's siblings at a local school.

This is a clear violation of the Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, including physical illness. While there's an obvious exception to that in relation to public safety, it simply doesn't apply here. The boy is not infectious, and poses no risk to anyone.

(Its also a serious breach of the Privacy Act. It is difficult to imagine a more serious privacy breach than the disclosure of sensitive medical information, the sharing of which causes widespread persecution by the community. If pursued, the damages will be high, and may drive the childcare centre bankrupt. Which at least means they won't be causing problems for anyone else)

We've been here before, back in the 80's, with Eve van Grafhorst. We dealt with it better then, showing understanding and humanity towards a victim of disease. Sadly, the people of Whangarei appear to prefer hysteria. In the process, they are shaming us all.

Shearer rises to the challenge

Obama's declaration of support for same-sex marriage made it inevitable that people would start asking the same question of our local progressive politicians. And unlike his predecessor, David Shearer has risen to the challenge:

I fully support marriage equality in principle but would like to see the detail of any legislation before giving formal support.

Which is good, but as pointed out by Craig Ranapia, Labour could "see the detail" by writing the bill themselves. Alternatively, here's one I prepared earlier...