More statistical censorship from National

Last year, the Ministry for the Environment reported that 61% of New Zealand's rivers were unsafe for swimming. National's response? Shut down the monitoring program:

The Government pulled the plug on cleaning up our dirty rivers so they are safe for swimming, and now it has given up on annual reports about the problem, the Green Party said today.

Two weeks ago the Government released its national bottom lines for water quality with changes to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. The bottom line for human health is secondary contact. This means levels of faecal contamination have to be at a level suitable for boating or wading, but not for swimming.

The Environment Minister's answers to parliamentary questions from the Green Party have since confirmed the Government is dropping its annual reporting on how many monitored river swimming sites are safe for swimming. Last year 61 percent of monitored recreational sites on rivers were not clean enough to swim in.

The only reason National doesn't want to publish these statistics is because they will show the continuing decline of our waterways and help drive calls for proper environmental standards. Which is exactly the opposite direction from the one they want to take us in.

This isn't the first time they've done this. They didn't want to hear about the social consequences of their government, so they shitcanned the Social Report. And they dumped comprehensive environmental reporting before reviving it in a crippled form, in order to censor bad news about the environment. Like a bad boss, their response to bad news is "I don't want to know", rather than "lets fix this".

Climate change: A perverse incentive

Farmers are our biggest greenhouse gas polluters. At the moment, they're driving our climate towards more droughts and more storms. But they don't have to care - because when the worst happens, the government steps in to bail them out.

This is what government should do: protect people from the vagaries of fortune. But in this case, it's a bit of a perverse incentive, which results in the people ruining the climate effectively being paid by the government for doing so.

GCHQ's bag of dirty tricks

The latest NSALeak: a look inside GCHQ's bag of dirty tricks:

The UK intelligence agency GCHQ has developed sophisticated tools to manipulate online polls, spam targets with SMS messages, track people by impersonating spammers and monitor social media postings, according to newly-published documents leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The documents – which were published on First Look Media with accompanying analysis from Glenn Greenwald – disclose a range of GCHQ "effects" programs aimed at tracking targets, spreading information, and manipulating online debates and statistics.

[...]

Among the programs revealed in the document are:

• GATEWAY: the "ability to artificially increase traffic to a website".
  
• CLEAN SWEEP which "masquerade[s] Facebook wall posts for individuals or entire countries".
  
• SCRAPHEAP CHALLENGE for "perfect spoofing of emails from BlackBerry targets".
  
• UNDERPASS to "change outcome of online polls".
  
• SPRING BISHOP to find "private photos of targets on Facebook".
  

The document also details a range of programs designed to collect and store public postings from Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Google+, and to make automated postings on several of the social networks.

This isn't just intelligence gathering - these are tools to allow GCHQ to manipulate society for the benefit of themselves and their political masters. Which raises the obvious question: are they already doing it?

With so much now done online, the idea that government spies are secretly intervening to shape our conversations and manipulate public opinion should be deeply troubling. These tools - or ones similar to them - could allow GCHQ to choose governments, topple uncooperative Ministers, and attack human rights groups who object to all this. This makes GCHQ a standing threat to the UK's democracy - and one which needs to be eliminated.

"Political pressure"

The Herald's David Fisher has a scoop this morning: OIA documents with an explicit acknowledgement that "political pressure" played a role in the decision to grant Kim Dotcom permanent residency:

On October 22 [2010], one SIS agent wrote to another saying: "INZ [Immigration NZ] has phoned me to advise that the INZ CEO [Nigel Bickle] is questioning why this case is on hold. Apparently there is some 'political pressure' to process this case."

The agent noted the need for the "CEO" to be briefed on the Dotcom case. The SIS director at the time was Dr Warren Tucker, who reports directly to Prime Minister John Key.

One hour and 27 minutes later, another SIS agent said the agency's block would be lifted, writing: "Since Dotcom is not of security concern, there is no reason for this application to be on hold with us. Please can you inform your INZ contacts of this, also noting Dotcom is the subject of a criminal investigation and that they need to discuss the case with NZ Police before they proceed with granting him PR [permanent residency]."

So, wave the Minister, and SIS interest disappears. And despite being briefed on this material, Jonathan Coleman let him in anyway (though he didn't sign the papers himself, instead apparently ordering imigration staff to do it in order to keep his hands clean). This raises all sorts of questions about political interference in immigration decisions, and people are rightly asking them (though it does have a Simpsons-esque element of absurdity about it: "Jonathan Coleman let Kim Dotcom into the country, against SIS advice. Vote Kim Dotcom's people into parliament!").

It also raises further questions about what John Key knew and when. He has claimed to be ignorant of Kim Dotcom - the multimillionaire potential donor living in the enormous mansion in his electorate - until the unlawful raids. But there are explicit references to the need to brief the SIS director, and its unthinkable that he would not in turn have briefed Key. But because whatever went on is hidden under a cloak of secrecy, Key gets to keep lying to the public, enabled by his spies.

Climate Voter and the Electoral Act

When the Climate Voter campaign launched, one of my first thoughts - expressed over Twitter, and directly to their network contact - was that it was an "election advertisement" in terms of the Electoral Act, and was going to get into trouble for not carrying the required promoter statement. It looks like I was right:

Environmental groups are taking the Electoral Commission to court over a ruling on a climate change campaign.

Greenpeace, Forest and Bird, WWF and others launched the Climate Voter initiative last month.

But the Electoral Commission says the campaign counts as an "election advertisement", and is therefore subject to rules around wording of communications and spending restrictions.

The test of whether something is an "election advertisement" is whether it

...may reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading voters... to vote, or not to vote, for a type of party described or indicated by reference to views or positions that are, or are not, held or taken (whether or not the name of the party is stated)

I think that's pretty open and shut. I am not sure how the campaign could not be reasonably regarded as encouraging people to vote (or not vote) for parties on the basis of their climate change policies. And it doesn't fall within any of the exceptions (such as the media one which covers this blog). Which means it must carry a promoter statement, and if they're spending more than $12,500, must register, and are subject to a $313,000 spending cap. Failing to do any of these things is an illegla practice, and deliberate overspending is a corrupt one. Which means that Greenpeace is potentially looking at a hefty fine.

Electoral law exists to ensure there is a level playing field. It applies to all parties. I like the climate voter campaign, but if they're violating electoral law, they need to be prosecuted for it. Its that simple.

(One of the reasons I don't have a little ad up there for climate voter is because of the lack of a promoter statement)

Election 2014: A clear choice on clean rivers

The National government's policy for economic growth has been simple: pump up dairy production, export more low-value milk powder, and keep low-value farmers as the "backbone of the economy". To achieve this, they've dismantled democracy in Canterbury, pillaged rivers, thrown hundreds of millions of dollars at subsidising irrigation schemes, gagged DoC from speaking up for conservation, and gutted the RMA. And to deal with the obvious consequence of shit in our rivers, and shit in our drinking water, they've lowered water quality standards so that rivers will be defined as clean even when you have a 5% chance of infection just from touching them.

Over the weekend the Greens responded with a different proposal: lets have clean rivers instead:

The Green Party's plan to restrict dams and irrigation schemes, and make rivers clean enough to swim in, would save taxpayer money and benefit the agricultural industry in the long term, says co-leader Russel Norman.

The party launched one pillar of its election environmental policy in Hamilton yesterday: cleaning up rivers with a strengthening of existing regulations, a tighter cap on pollution, and setting up a protected network of rivers.

National is already attacking the policy as "irresponsible", "costly", and "impractical". I'd say the same about theirs. Dirty rivers cost us money. There's the obvious threats to tourism and to the dairy industry itself, both of which are marketed on our national reputation as "100% pure". But beyond that, we're also paying directly in pollution subsidies and decontamination and health costs, and indirectly in forgone recreation and industrial opportunities. These are real costs, and they should not be ignored. But the only side of the balance sheet National sees is the one which benefits their donors and cronies in Federated Farmers. To them, environmental costs just don't exist.

This election, we have a clear choice on that: on whether to count environmental costs, or ignore them. On whether to pollute, or protect. On whether we want clean rivers, or shit-filled sewers which make us sick. And I think that's a pretty clear choice.

More contempt from the British establishment

Last week the British government claimed that files which would expose the use of Diego Garcia as a US torture facility had been "lost" due to "water damage". But it turns out that they lied:

Crucial logs revealing flights to a British overseas territory when it was allegedly used as a secret US prison are in the possession of the police, the Observer has learned.

The revelation has raised concerns about why, despite repeated demands, details of the flights have not been shared with lawyers and MPs, who for years have been investigating the role played by Diego Garcia, an atoll in the Indian ocean, in the CIA's extraordinary rendition programme.

A Whitehall official was photographed last week carrying documents marked "sensitive" confirming that the logs recording details of planes landing and taking off at the atoll have been handed to detectives. The documents, a series of printed emails and handwritten notes made by the official, reveal internal Foreign Office discussions about the line to take in response to questions about the British territory raised by lawyers and MPs.

This can only be interpreted as a deliberate attempt at a cover-up - and one which has extended to an outright lie to a parliamentary select committee.

Its just another reminder of the utter contempt the British establishment has for the public, for the law, and for democratic institutions and control - and of why the UK needs to rid itself of them.

New Fisk

Why doesn't the media ever mention the lack of progress in the Middle East?

Juking the stats II

Last week we learned that police were juking the domestic violence stats by refusing to prosecute people. But that's not the only area where they're fixing the numbers:

Police altered official crime statistics to make hundreds of burglaries disappear, a Herald on Sunday investigation has found.

A damning report obtained by the newspaper reveals the burglaries were instead recorded as more minor crimes, or as incidents, which are not counted in crime statistics at all.

Five police staff, including then area commander Gary Hill, were sanctioned over the incident, and an "extremely disappointed" Police Minister, Anne Tolley, has moved to reassure the public this is an isolated incident.

The stat-juking took place between 2009 and 2012. Judith Collins - who was police Minister at the time, and crowed about how crime had fallen in the area - admits she was told about it at the time but hushed the whole thing up. According to her, the leak is "political". But its more than that.

Crime stats are a tier 1 statistic - something "of high public interest" and "essential to critical decision-making" which therefore requires long-term, impartial, accurate statistics. Manipulating these statistics may mean we get policy based not on evidence, but on lies. The people who manipulated them almost certainly violated the Statistics Act 1975, and offence for which they could be prosecuted. Insofar as they were paid bonuses or advanced based on their "success" reflected in these false statistics, they may also have committed fraud. But naturally, no-one was charged, because the police do not think they are subject to the same laws they enforce on others. But the net result is again to further undermine the public standing of the police, and therefore their ability to do their jobs effectively...

Spying on their "allies"

On Wednesday Germany uncovered a second American spy in its military, and retaliated today by evicting the local CIA station chief. I'm wondering now whether we'll see Cold War-style tit-for-tat expulsions between two ostensible "allies".

Meanwhile, the US infiltration of its ally Germany raises the obvious question: are they spying on us? And what measures, if any, is the government taking to prevent it?

Protecting the press gallery

Last year we learned that Parliamentary Services had spied on journalist Andrea Vance, tracking her movements around the Parliamentary precinct and turning over her phone records to the Prime Minister's office in an effort to uncover one of her sources. As I noted at the time, the case raised serious constitutional issues. Spying on journalists at Parliament impedes their ability to fulfil their democratic functions, and has a tendency to impede the ability of MP's to do the same. It is therefore a breach of Parliamentary Privilege.

The Privileges Committee agrees. Today they released their report into Question of privilege regarding use of intrusive powers within the parliamentary precinct, in which they suggested guidelines for future inquiries touching on Parliment. Naturally, they protected themselves, with a requirement that MPs approve any release of information of any sort about themselves. But they also extended that to journalists working in Parliament:

Journalists working in the parliamentary precinct should retain complete control over the release of any information that relates to them. That is, material relating to a journalist or group of journalists who work in the parliamentary precinct should only be released with their specific authorisation.

Its a good rule, and it will help protect the vital role our media plays in ensuring democratic accountability. And hopefully it means that the Vance spying will never happen again.

The Privileges Committee also reported back the Question of privilege concerning the agreements for policing, execution of search warrants, and collection and retention of information by the NZSIS in which they recommended various amendments to those agreements. The SIS will not be allowed to spy on MPs without the approval of the Speaker - though as the Speaker is essentially appointed by the government and the current one is a partisan hack, that's not much protection. Given the revelations from the Dotcom case, they also recommended that a similar agreement be made with the GCSB.

These protections are not enough. While the SIS is legally required to be politically neutral, given their powers and the secrecy they operate under, we can't trust them to actually obey that (and we'll never know if they're obey it or not). Our democracy would be much safer if we amended the SIS and GCSB Acts to absolutely prohibit security or interception warrants on MPs, officers of political parties, or political candidates. Its a simple amendment, and I'd love to see it put up as a Member's Bill.

A new government in the Cook Islands?

The Cook Islands went to the polls yesterday for Parliamentary elections. The result is interesting: from the preliminary tallies, Prime Minister Henry Puna has lost his seat, as has political dinosaur (and the Winston Peters of Cook Island politics) Norman George. Meanwhile, the new One Cook Islands Party - consisting of a former Minister currently under investigation for bribery and corruption, and a convicted arsonist - holds the balance of power.

There are still several results close enough to be affected by special votes, including one outright tie, but there is likely to be a Prime Minister, there may be a new government, and it may be founded implicitly on a promise to keep a politician out of prison.

100% Pure with a 5% chance of infection...

How awful are National's "bottom lines" for our lakes, rivers, and streams? The Greens' Russel Norman dug up something this morning which I think speaks for itself:



[Original on p. 31 National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014]

Yes, National is happy with rivers and streams which have a "moderate" risk of making us ill just by touching them. So much for "100% Pure"...

Winning the argument on paid parental leave

When paid parental leave was introduced back in 2002, National opposed it, calling it "middle-class welfare", "feminist ideology" which excluded males, and "discriminatory". How times have changed. In the Budget, National were forced to promise to extend paid parental leave to 18 weeks. And now, they've been forced to promise greater flexibility as well:

“The proposals outlined in the discussion document Modernising parental leave: Changes to allow greater access and increased flexibility will ensure New Zealand’s parental leave framework better reflects New Zealanders’ wide range of family and work arrangements,” Mr Bridges says.

Key proposals in the discussion document are:

• Extending the eligibility of paid parental leave to include primary carers other than parents
  
• Extending payments to people in less-regular work or who recently changed jobs
  
• Enabling employees to take unpaid parental leave part time and flexibly
  

“Introducing more flexibility into parental leave legislation will support primary carers who wish to remain active in the workforce without losing their entitlements,” Mr Bridges says.

They've also been forced to extend unpaid parental leave to employees who have been with an employer for six months (rather than 12). These are all good changes, and I welcome them. At the same time, they're not enough. Our paid parental leave scheme is one of the least generous in the world. Its time we fixed that properly.

More British torture by proxy

Another day, another case of British spies being complicit in the torture of one of their own citizens:

Britain’s intelligence and security agencies are facing claims that they were complicit in the brutal torture of a British man secretly detained in an African prison.

Ali Adorus, a security guard from east London, was subjected to electrocution, hooding and beatings during his 18 month imprisonment in Ethiopia, according to allegations made against Ethiopia and Britain to the United Nations High Commission.

Before leaving Britain to visit family in Ethiopia in 2012, Mr Adorus had complained that he had been targeted by the Metropolitan Police and the Security Service, MI5, over alleged links to Islamic extremism.

Now his lawyers say that some information contained in a false confession, which he claims was beaten out of him in an Ethiopian prison, could only have been provided by “British intelligence”. It is the latest case in which Britain has been accused of complicity in the torture of UK nationals and residents.

There's a consistent pattern of behaviour here of British spies providing information which gets people tortured, or even providing questions for the torturers to ask for them. And despite repeated government denials and assurances that they don't do this, it just keeps happening. The only conclusion we can draw is that those denials and assurances are lies, and that the spies are continuing to ignore the law and their supposed political masters.

There is an obvious answer to this: prosecution. Build a case for conspiracy to torture, drag the spies into court, and jail them if found guilty. The fact that the British government refuses to do this speaks volumes about its (lack of) good faith.

Labour will restore democracy in Canterbury

Finally the concrete promise I've been waiting for: after years of wibbling and refusing to go on record, Labour has said clearly and unequivocally that they will restore democracy in Canterbury:

A Labour Government will restore the right of Cantabrians to make their own decisions about the future of their communities, Labour Leader David Cunliffe says.

[...]

“Another important step to restoring democracy in Canterbury is to reinstate local body representatives to Environment Canterbury (ECan), a right denied residents since the sacking of the previous council in 2010, as soon as possible.

“That could mean an election as soon as 2015.

An incoming government could do this with a flick of a pen, by amending the commissioner's terms of reference to include "hold an election under Section 8 Local Government Act as soon as possible". The dictators then immediately lose their jobs (and are replaced by the new elected council) the day after the poll.

New Fisk

The true Gaza back-story that the Israelis aren’t telling this week

How convenient

The other day we learned that the Home Office had conveniently "lost" 114 files on alleged child abuse by senior members of the British establishment. But its not just them: it turns out that the Foreign Office - which was caught last year running its own illegal secret archive - has "lost" files on rendition and torture:

The government's problems with missing files deepened dramatically when the Foreign Office claimed documents on the UK's role in the CIA's global abduction operation had been destroyed accidentally when they became soaked with water.

In a statement that human rights groups said "smacked of a cover-up", the department maintained that records of post-9/11 flights in and out of Diego Garcia, the British territory in the Indian Ocean, were "incomplete due to water damage".

The claim comes amid media reports in the US that a Senate report due to be published later this year identifies Diego Garcia as a location where the CIA established a secret prison as part of its extraordinary rendition programme. According to one report, classified CIA documents state that the prison was established with the "full cooperation" of the UK government.

Against that background, "water damage" probably means "we threw them in the ocean". And the reason is obvious: because these files would prove absolutely British complicity in US torture, exposing both the government and then-Ministers to civil and possibly criminal charges.

Its another perfect example of how the British establishment protects itself - and of why the UK needs to rid itself of them.

Why we need solar energy policy

Startling news from across the Tasman: the Australian government's home solar energy policies - a combination of direct subsidies, feed-in tarriffs, and a renewable energy target - are so successful that they are driving coal-fired generators out of business:

Daytime prices are supposed to reflect higher demand, when people are awake, office building are in use, factories are in production. That's when fossil fuel generators would normally be making most of their money.

The influx of rooftop solar has turned this model on its head. There is 1,100MW of it on more than 350,000 buildings in Queensland alone (3,400MW on 1.2m buildings across the country). It is producing electricity just at the time that coal generators used to make hay (while the sun shines).

The impact has been so profound, and wholesale prices pushed down so low, that few coal generators in Australia made a profit last year. Hardly any are making a profit this year. State-owned generators like Stanwell are specifically blaming rooftop solar.

Solar is now cheaper than network charges - meaning that it would be more economic even if coal was free. No wonder Tony Abbott hates it and wants to do away with it.

We could do this here too, with the right policies. The Greens have those policies. Labour backs them too. Only National supports the established electricity players. And as more people see how well these policies are working in Australia, Germany, and elsewhere, they'll be forced to grudgingly back them too - because the argument will have been won with the public.

This change can happen quickly. Making the coal-electricity industry uneconomic in Australia took only five years of good policy. One decent Green-Labour government is all it will take to put fossil fuel generators out of business here. And that will knock between 3 and 6 million tons of CO₂ (4 - 8% of the total) off our annual emissions.

Syrian chemical weapons: Brought to you by Britain

When the Syrian regime used chemical weapons against its own people last year, the British government expressed outrage. Now it turns out that those weapons were purchased from Britain:

Britain sold chemicals and components to Syria that ended up being used in the manufacture of the deadly nerve agent sarin, BBC Newsnight can reveal.

A leaked Foreign Office document says they were supplied in the mid-1980s.

Ministers will confirm within days that UK firms provided the materials and that Syria has admitted they played a role in its chemical weapons programme.

[...]

Syria's declarations to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) name Britain as the sole supplier of dimethyl phosphate (DMP), trimethyl phosphate (TMP) and hexamine - three chemicals that Syria used in the production of sarin.

The phosphate chemicals are regarded as the building blocks of sarin and Newsnight understands British companies sold hundreds of metric tonnes of them to Damascus.

Syria's declarations have since been verified by a Whitehall audit of chemical sales by British companies.

Syrian crimes against humanity: enabled by the British-government-backed British arms industry.

The UK is at least helping to clean up the mess it helped make, contributing naval escorts and destruction facilities to the international program to destroy Syria's chemical weapons. But that's probably a small consolation to their victims.