Class and Metiria

Over on Newsroom, Claire Timperley points out the not-so hidden subtext in the public lynching of Metiria Turei: class:

Beneficiary fraud is a uniquely class-based problem. The only people who are in the position of having to make difficult choices about whether to ‘play by the rules’ and by doing so risk not having the means to support their family are those who are in the poorest group of New Zealanders.

The fact Turei lied to the authorities demonstrates the very difficult position many beneficiaries find themselves in. Whether or not Turei made the morally or legally correct decision is not relevant to the issue I am raising (although there are undoubtedly important questions it raises about the beneficiary system).

What is important, however, is that by dint of her experience of this specifically class-based conundrum, she is no longer considered fit for high office.

And its all the more apparent when you compare it with Bill English's housing allowance rort: there, a rich man lied about where he lived and paid lawyers to order his affairs to scam the taxpayer of tens of thousands of dollars. But it was "within the rules" - rules he helped write - so its all OK. But as Simon Wilson points out on The Spinoff, beneficiaries don't have lawyers to order their affairs like this, and don't get to write their own loopholes, so they have to steal bread rather than being able to pay people to make it look like they're not stealing it. And again, that comes down to class.

The overwhelming message from the political status quo has been that poor people have no place in our Parliament and no place in government. That's been their message since the 18th century (hell, its been their message since fucking Plato). But if they want to overturn 150 years of democracy and go back to the C19th, then they are inviting the C19th response: pitchforks and guillotines.

Member's Day

Today is a Member's Day, the last for the Parliamentary term. Sadly, though, we won't be seeing a vote on death with dignity today, or any time soon.

Partly this is because there's an hour of valedictory statements taking up the House's time - Clayton Cosgrove and Murray McCully's political rememberances being considered more important than actually legislating. But mostly its because the top of the Order Paper is clogged with local bills and latter stages. First up is the second reading of the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill, aimed at easing the oozing sore of the Waitara Purchase and subsequent land thefts from local iwi. Then there is the first reading of the (vitally important, I'm sure) Thames–Coromandel District Council and Hauraki District Council Mangrove Management Bill. If the House moves quickly it might get on to the third readings of Chris Bishop's Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Order Classification) Amendment Bill and Sarah Dowie's Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill, but I don't think it'll get any further. And of course no first readings means no ballot tomorrow.

Labour steps up on water

Labour has followed the Greens' lead and committed to making commercial water users pay their fair share:

Water bottling companies and farmers operating irrigation schemes will pay royalties under Labour's new freshwater policy announced in Auckland on Wednesday.

Newly-minted Labour leader Jacinda Ardern has set out a plan to charge water bottling companies and users of irrigation schemes if Labour's in government after the election.

The policy would be flexible around drought or very wet areas but a rate won't be set until Ardern has an opportunity to consult on the issue, if in government after September 23.

Good. The New Zealand public are being ripped off over water, and in the process we're subsidising the harmful dairy industry to destroy our environment. But water is a public resource, and it is entirely right that companies who profit by extracting it pay for its use, just like they would for oil. Internalising those environmental costs may also help turn the tide against dairy intensification, and push farmers on to a more sustainable track. Alternatively, it might just drive the worst of them out of business. I'm fine either way.

This won't be easy - notably, it will require a Treaty settlement with the original owners - but its a necessary move to save our environment from destruction. And its good to see that Labour has got on board with that.

Climate change: Orwellian

How hostile is the Trump regime to climate change? They've banned Department of Agriculture scientists from even mentioning it:

Staff at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) have been told to avoid using the term climate change in their work, with the officials instructed to reference “weather extremes” instead.

[...]

A missive from Bianca Moebius-Clune, director of soil health, lists terms that should be avoided by staff and those that should replace them. “Climate change” is in the “avoid” category, to be replaced by “weather extremes”. Instead of “climate change adaption”, staff are asked to use “resilience to weather extremes”.

The primary cause of human-driven climate change is also targeted, with the term “reduce greenhouse gases” blacklisted in favor of “build soil organic matter, increase nutrient use efficiency”. Meanwhile, “sequester carbon” is ruled out and replaced by “build soil organic matter”.

The clear aim is to remove any implication that people, and especially people who profit from the fossil fuel industry, are responsible for destroying the global climate. It is simply Orwellian manipulation of language. But I guess that's the sort of place the USA is now.

Climate change: "Happy with where we are"

14 NGOs have united to call on the government to pass a UK-style Climate Change Act, with legislated targets setting a downward path for emissions. National's response: yeah, nah:

Prime Minister Bill English said he had seen the letter but was happy with how New Zealand was getting on fighting climate change.

"We're happy with where we are on climate change," English said, but said some other policies to fight climate change might emerge before the election. There would not be a major shift from current policy.

"We've signed up to the Paris Accord - that's pretty clear cut, the measurements are published, we have the Emissions Trading System, which is one of most advanced carbon trading systems in the world."

"Where we are" is that we are going to miss our patheticly weak 2030 target, let alone National's "50% by 2050" target, because "one of most advanced carbon trading systems in the world" subsidises emissions rather than reducing them. No-one with the slightest interest in the issue should be happy with this, and if Bill English is, then it suggests that he doesn't actually care about our future at all. Which given his previous history of virulent climate change denialism, sadly isn't surprising.

Good riddance

Well, that was exciting, wasn't it? Two mediocre male Green MPs told the party "its Metiria or us", and were quickly and efficiently shown the door. Despite trying to roll it back for a bit on RNZ - "no, we didn't quit, we're candidates till writ day", they'll likely be suspended from caucus tomorrow and ejected from the party in short order. Because that's what happens when you pull that sort of stunt: you either win or you die.

Graham and Clendon were a poor fit for the Greens anyway. Back in 2010 they voted for Manukau to be allowed to jail prostitutes again - the only two Green MPs who did so. The rest of the party understand that sustainability and social justice and human rights go hand-in-hand, and you can't throw one of them overboard without harming the whole - a view which also resonates with the vast majority of their voters. Insofar as Graham and Clendon now seem wildly out of step with the party and its support-base, its probably better that they go (though obviously, it would have been better if they'd gone quietly, rather than trying to burn everything down in the process).

The net effect is that a bunch of talented candidates - including Chloe Swarbrick, Golriz Ghahraman, Jack McDonald and John Hart - will move up a place or two on the list and become that much more electable. Which isn't a bad outcome. The great thing about the Greens is that they have more talented people than they have space for. Dead-weights ritually throwing themselves overboard simply makes room for someone better.

The market is not providing

We have a housing crisis, caused primarily by a failure to build enough houses to cope with demand. Dogmatic economics tells us that the market will respond to this naturally by increasing supply to match demand - and the government has basicly crossed its fingers and is waiting for that to happen. Instead, the market seems to be building even fewer houses than before:

The government's forecast for new home building in Auckland in the coming years has been lowered for the second year in a row.

The National Construction Pipeline Report has sliced 2200 off the number of new home consents it expects to be issued in Auckland in the current calendar year, to 11,100.

[...]

The forecast for 2018 has been lowered by nearly 1700 to 11,900, and in 2019, by 513 to 12,800.

The 2017 estimate is now 3549 lower than the report forecast two years ago.

The pipeline report is compiled by the building industry, along with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and its findings are released each year by Building and Construction Minister Nick Smith.

And only about half the homes consented actually get built. So, they're consenting fewer homes, and only building half of what they get approved. Its a clear example of market failure, of an industry focused on providing status properties for rich wankers rather than ordinary homes for ordinary people. And the sensible solution is for the government to get involved and build what the market won't.

Climate change: A sad pretence of policy

Its election season, so the government is proudly announcing how much money it has spent to encourage new forests:

A total of 5183ha of new forest will be planted by 101 applicants who have received support through the 2017 Afforestation Grant Scheme funding round, Associate Minister for Primary Industries Louise Upston says.

[...]

“Estimates suggest that 1.1 million ha of land is at serious risk of erosion, and forest cover is the best form of erosion control. Through the AGS, we aim to plant 15,000ha of new forest by 2020,” says Ms Upston.

“The latest funding round drew 40 applications and 400ha more than last year’s. That brings the total number of hectares funded through the AGS since 2015 to 12,451, putting us well on track to achieving our 15,000ha goal by 2020.

1.1 million hectares of land under threat. So a paltry 15,000 hectares of forest (over five years!) to cover it. To ask the obvious, what about the other 1,085,000 hectares?

But we should also remember that this isn't really an erosion-control policy: its a climate change policy. Planting permanent forests is our best and quickest way of soaking up carbon from the atmosphere and buying time to decarbonise the economy. Once its through its initial establishment phase, a hectare of pine aborbs 25 tons of CO₂ a year, every year, until it peaks in 40 or 50 years time. Doubling our current planting rate to 80,000 hectares a year would soak up an extra million tons of carbon from the atmosphere for every year we did it. That's the scale of ambition we need. Its achievable - we maintained this sort of planting rate for most of the 90's. Its cheap: a mere $40 million a year at AFG prices. Its the sort of thing a government which was serious about preventing climate change would be pushing hard to do. Instead, we've got the usual pretence of action, utterly disconnected in scale from the problem, aimed at getting headlines rather than actually doing anything. And when faced with a problem the size of climate change, it looks like downright negligence.

Australia kills again

Australia is reportedly planning to storm its Manus Island concentration camp to suppress protests there. Meanwhile, their refusal to provide proper medical care to those imprisoned there has claimed another life:

A refugee in Australia's immigration detention network on Manus Island has died, with local police suggesting the man had taken his own life.

The man was understood to be an Iranian refugee who had a history of mental illness. Manus provincial police commander David Yapu said a crime scene had been established.

[...]

According to Iranian refugee and journalist Behrouz Boochani, who is also on Manus Island, the refugee concerned had a long history of mental illness and distress.

He was reportedly jailed following a mental breakdown at the regional processing centre, but was released, only to be found wandering the streets of Lorengau without clothes.

Australia's concentration camps are full of people in utter despair, many of whom have already attempted suicide. In those circumstances, attempting to clear them by force to force refugees into an even more dangerous situation seems to be a recipe for deaths. And every single one of the corpses should be laid at the feet of the Australian government. They killed this man. They are his murderers. And they should be held accountable for it.

Auckland's future is rail

National and Labour both announced transport policy over the weekend, with the usual lists of projects and spending. But while they had different priorities, one thing is clear: Auckland's future is rail. Both big parties now support the third main (the idea National tried to bury) to stop freight from clogging Auckland's roads. National supports electrification to Pukekohe, Labour supports rail to the airport, but either way its on tracks, and they're arguing about what trains to build when rather than more useless roads. Which is a big shift from the previous roads vs trains arguments of the previous decade. I guess the evidence that Auckland needs proper public transport has got so overwhelming that even the trucking-industry funded National party can no longer ignore it (alternatively: too many Ministers got stuck behind trucks in Auckland gridlock).

The big difference between the parties is in funding: Labour would allow councils to charge regional fuel taxes, giving them a source of revenue to fund transport upgrades. National hates this idea, partly because its a tax, and partly because of control freakery. Auckland having its own revenue stream for transport would allow them to set the agenda, rather than having to wait for central government to dole out the cash (and if Auckland sets the agenda, Auckland politicians rather than government Ministers get to make the announcements). But it seems entirely fair that if Aucklanders need more transport infrastructure, they should pay for it, and for the revenue to be collected from those who would directly benefit from the spending rather than from residents in general. And its certainly a better idea than letting politicians in Wellington slowly strangle Auckland until there's an election on and they need to announce some spending.

Spies are a threat to democracy

If you need any further evidence that spies are inherently a threat to democracy, just take a look at South Korea, where its chief spy agency has just admitted manipulating elections to get its preferred candidate elected:

South Korea’s spy agency has admitted it conducted an illicit campaign to influence the country’s 2012 presidential election, mobilising teams of experts in psychological warfare to ensure that the conservative candidate, Park Geun-hye, beat her liberal rival.

An internal investigation by the powerful National Intelligence Service also revealed attempts by its former director and other senior officials to influence voters during parliamentary elections under Park’s predecessor, the hardline rightwinger Lee Myung-bak.

[...]

The NIS’s in-house investigation found that its cyberwarfare unit formed as many as 30 “extra-departmental” teams comprising officials and internet-savvy citizens to upload posts in support of conservative politicians for two years in the run-up to the 2012 presidential vote.

“The teams were charged with spreading pro-government opinions and suppressing anti-government views, branding them as attempts by pro-North Korean forces to disrupt state affairs,” the NIS report said.

The NIS's 2012 candidate was eventually forced from office and is now standing trial on corruption and abuse of power charges. The NIS director at the time is also currently standing trial, and faces four years in prison if convicted.

The fundamental problem here is a conflation of domestic politics with enemy action, and the interests of the spies with the interests of the state. Secretive agencies are prone to such problems, and the problem is that we'll never find out that they've done it until its too late. For safe, peaceful countries, its is safer then not to have such agencies at all, lest they get tempted...

Coalition relations and the silver lining

So, Jacinda Ardern has stuck the knife in by saying that she had told the Greens this morning that she would not have Metiria Turei in any Labour-led Cabinet. Political parties work for their members and their own interests of course, so I expect Labour to do what's best for Labour and the Greens to do what's best for the Greens. At the same time, that's crossing a boundary. Its one thing for Metiria and the Greens to decide that a recusal from any future Cabinet post is the best way of handling this. Its quite another for another party to order it. And it smacks of the usual Labour arrogance.

In case Labour people are having trouble understanding this, imagine of the Greens had said "Stuart Nash doesn't get to be in Cabinet" or "Greg O'Connor doesn't get anywhere near the justice sector" or "Trevor Mallard doesn't get to be Speaker" or "Willie Jackson doesn't get to be anything". Sure, they might all be good ideas (because right wingers, proto-fascists, useless has-beens and misogynist rape-apologists have no place in a left-wing government anyway) - but its not really the Greens' place to say. Part of good coalition relations is knowing when something is another party's business - and Labour just crossed that line. And by doing so, they've lost any basis to complain if the Greens demand a scalp of their own as utu (the sad thing is, there's just so many to choose from. Why does Labour tolerate these people? How bad is their judgement that they'd personally handpick a rape-apologist for a list spot?)

There is a silver lining however: not being in Cabinet means not being bound by Cabinet Collective Responsibility. Which means that if Labour forms a government, Metiria will be absolutely free to criticise them if they continue to weaponise poverty and wage war on the poor. So, Labour can either sort that shit out quick-smart, or they can have Meyt standing up to them in Question Time every sitting day holding them to account for not doing so (and wedging them against their own supporters in the process). Because shitting on the poor doesn't stop being wrong simply because a Labour apparatchik rather than a National one is collecting a fat salary for overseeing it.

Labour would probably be very upset with this. But they've made their bed. Now they get to lie in it.

Martyria

A couple of weeks ago, Metiria Turei confessed to not telling WINZ everything about her living arrangements when she was a poor solo mother on the DPB in the 90's. Since then there has been a relentless barrage of hate from the dead white male establishment commentariat, outraged at the thought that a mother would do whatever she had to to keep her kids from starving. Yesterday, it emerged that - shock! horror! - in 1993 she had enrolled in a different electorate from the one she lived in (something which was fine for the PM and fine for his predecessor, because under NZ electoral law you live where you say you live, provided you only live in one electorate at a time). The hate intensified. And so today, Metiria fell on her sword and ruled herself out of any Cabinet position if the Greens were lucky enough to be involved in a government.

This is utterly ridiculous. Legally, its not clear that there was any offence, and even if there was, it is so long ago and so minor as to be utterly trivial (seriously - its on the same level as the standard protest charge of disorderly conduct. And can you imagine the palpitations those establishment political commentators would have if it emerged that Turei had ever participated in a political protest?) This is not the sort of thing that should rule anyone out from a political or Ministerial career. But Metiria's real crime wasn't stopping her kid from starving, or voting in the "wrong" electorate: it was putting the issue of our society's weaponisation of poverty front and centre, and standing up for the poor and downtrodden. And it has now been made crystal clear that that is absolutely intolerable to the establishment, and so she has been crucified for it. Which kindof proves her point, neh?

We desperately need change. Political change and social change. We need a political system where people who have escaped poverty are allowed to seek power. And we need a media where people can talk about the experience of being poor without being denigrated for it or treated like a criminal. And the first step to that is to change the fucking government.

New Fisk

When you watch Dunkirk, remember that it’s a whitewashed version which ignores the bravery of black and Muslim soldiers

We have a right to know

Yesterday, Auditor-General Martin Matthews resigned, apparently to avoid a formal motion to remove him from office. But the report which led to his resignation, into his handling of convicted fraudster Joanne Harrison, has been kept secret. And Speaker of the House David Carter says that we have no right to know its contents:

Speaker of the House David Carter says the public don't have the right to know what was in a draft report that led to the resignation of the Auditor-General.

[...]

The Officers of Parliament Committee is now refusing to release the $27,000 report.

Mr Carter, who leads the select committee, told Morning Report it was only a draft report, and there was a unanimous cross-party decision not to make it public.

He said he could not say whether a deal was done with Mr Matthews to keep the report secret, saying any such discussion would break Parliament's rules.

This smacks of a stitch-up, a dodgy deal by which the facts are kept secret to preserve Matthews' reputation, allowing him to get another job and do the same thing in future. That's the normal way the private sector handles these sorts of things - getting people to go quietly - but this isn't the private sector. Matthews was a public servant. His mistakes cost public money. And above all, the public needs to be able to have faith that they will never be repeated. The committee's cosy secrecy robs us of that, and prevents the public service from making the necessary changes to ensure that fraud is stamped out. And while that might suit arse-covering politicians who want this all to just go away, it fundamentally betrays the public.

That report needs to be released. If its not released, it needs to be leaked. And if anyone wants to send it, my mailbox is always open.

Corrupt Australia

Oh look - more Australian politicians have been found to have acted corruptly:

Former NSW Labor ministers Eddie Obeid, Joe Tripodi and Tony Kelly have been hit with fresh corruption findings and may face criminal charges after the state's corruption watchdog found they were involved in preparing a "deceptive" cabinet minute to benefit the Obeid family.

On Thursday, the Independent Commission Against Corruption released its long-awaited report on Operation Credo, its investigation into Obeid-linked company Australian Water Holdings.

[...]

The ICAC found Eddie Obeid snr and his ministerial allies Mr Tripodi and Mr Kelly were involved in preparing a deceptive cabinet minute to support AWH's push for a multimillion-dollar public-private partnership.

It recommended the DPP consider charging the men with misconduct in public office.

Obeid is already in jail for corruption, and there's a string of further charges still awaiting trial. But its not just him - two other NSW politicians have been convicted in the last decade, and the list from across Australia is long indeed. Australia's political culture suffers from pervasive corruption, with far too many politicians scumbags focused on lining their own pockets rather than serving the public who elected them. And the rot comes from the top: while most states have an independent anti-corruption body, the Federal Parliament has refused to create one for Federal politicians. Which suggests strongly that they have something to hide.

Australia needs to clean its act up and eliminate this culture of political corruption. Until it does, it can't be regarded as a decent country.

Good riddance

Auditor-General Martin Matthews has resigned. Good riddance. Given his woeful performance as chief executive of the Ministry of Transport, where he appears to have repeatedly looked the other way on Joanne Harrison's fraud, there really was no other option. While the Select Committee report into his appointment has clearly been rewritten in light of the resignation, it is clear on one thing: the constitutionally important role performed by the Controller and Auditor-General means that they must demonstrate the highest standards of judgement, and to have a reputation that is beyond question. Matthews failed on both counts. And that is why he had to go. And if he hadn't resigned, I would have expected the committee to recommend an address to the Governor-General to sack him.

Dealing with ghost homes

There's a bit in Kim Stanley Robinson's New York 2140 where the empty investment properties of the ultra-rich are compared to giant gold bars, taking up space in our cities that people could live in. Its becoming an increasing problem. It was nakedly exposed in London after the Grenfell fire, when the residents of the apartment were left homeless despite being surrounded by empty properties which could easily house them. And with Auckland's property bubble, it has become a problem here as well. So how do we deal with it? Simple: we tax it:

How to persuade the world’s wealthiest people not to leave properties empty is a conundrum that is not confined to London – other major cities around the globe have also been grappling with the problem of buy-to-leave.

Higher rates of tax for owners and buyers seem to be the preferred choice. In Vancouver, where an estimated 20,000 properties were lying empty all or much of the year, a new tax on empty homes was introduced at the start of this year. The city is now charging 1% of the value of any property left empty for at least six months a year. Owners must declare that this is the case, or face fines of up to $10,000 a day if they do not and are found out. On a property worth £500,000 the annual bill is £5,000 and as the property rises in value, so does the penalty for leaving it unused.

In the days running up to the first taxes kicking in, six months into the year, local media reported that homeowners were caught in a “scramble to rent”, or considering selling up to avoid the tax. The response suggests that the threat of taxation was having the desired effect.

Which is what we want: we want houses to be homes for people to live in, not gold bars for the rich. If they want to stockpile wealth, they can do it in a way which doesn't fuck up the rest of our lives, thanks.

Pissing on the public

Back in 2015, almost 9000 people signed a petition asking Parliament to investigate public attitudes towards assisted dying legislation. When the petition was sent to select committee, almost 22,000 people submitted on it, and nearly a thousand appeared before it.

Today that committee reported back to the House. And after all that effort, all that engagement in the democratic process, they make no recommendations. Not a one. Zip. Nada. In other words, all of those people, at least 22,000 of them, wasted their efforts. There was simply no point in their hard work, because when push came to shove, our politicians were more interested in covering their arses and avoiding having an opinion on a controversial topic than in fulfilling their duty as representatives (naturally, they all kept their fat parliamentary salaries for this year of not doing their jobs).

And then MP's wonder why people think they're lower than dogshit, and why people no longer engage in the democratic process. This is why: because when they do, politicians piss in our faces.

MP's have normally responded to calls for direct democracy by talking up the value of representatives. But that argument relies on them actually doing the job they're elected and paid to do. And if they're not, then we might as well cut out the middle-man, and legislate for ourselves directly.

The GCSB has no control over its systems

That's the natural conclusion of their latest admissions about illegal spying on Kim Dotcom:

The GCSB also told the High Court the "majority of selectors" were removed on January 24, 2012, the Monday following the raid, and a further "small number of selectors" were removed on January 30, 2012.

"They say that all activity by GCSB staff relating to Operation Debut ceased by 30 January, 2012."

But it added: "Limited interception of some communications continued beyond the detasking date without the knowledge of GCSB staff."

The GCSB said it was unaware of continued access of Dotcom through its systems until legal action was filed over the unlawful spying.

How did they not know? There's a tacit admission that the NSA might have been involved, and that the GCSB assisted them to illegally spy on a New Zealand resident, in violation of both New Zealand law and the Five Eyes agreement. There's also a suggestion that the equipment really belongs to and works for the NSA, and that the GCSB don't have control over it. Either way, they seem unable to meet their obligations under New Zealand law, or to find their arse with both hands. And it raises the obvious question: if they can't work their toys properly, why do we let them play with them?

Every time the GCSB comes under any sort of scrutiny, they're found to be incompetent muppets at best, if not criminals working for a foreign power. Its long past time this agency was shut down, its spying functions removed, and its privacy invading equipment and records thrown in a volcano. We need a computer security agency. We do not need foreign spies.