Energy: More wind

While I'm on the subject of energy, Hawke's Bay Wind Farm has applied for resource consent to build a 220 MW farm near Te Pohue. They have to get that consent, of course - but if successful, they could be generating by 2007.

For those who think that wind will never amount to anything, or that it cannot supply our needs, 220 MW represents one and a half years demand growth in one hit. Factor in the 120 MW of wind farm consents granted in the last six months, and we are looking at meeting our entire demand growth for the next few years from wind alone. And while it won't generate all the time (New Zealand wind farms "only" run at 45% of their maximum capacity - compared to 58% for hydro), every MWh generated by wind is gas that does not need to be burned and water that does not need to be spilled. When our biggest worry is a dry year, that's a nice capability to have.

Energy: security of supply?

Today's Sunday Star-Times reports on an oil prospect "which could change the face of New Zealand's petroleum industry":

The Barque prospect, 70km off Oamaru, is believed to contain as much oil as found in all previous New Zealand discoveries and could have as much gas as in the original Maui and Kapuni gas fields combined - equal to 30 years of recent gas production.

They're drilling a well to confirm it, but if its even half the size they expect, Oamaru could become the New Plymouth of the south. But it won't necessarily mean the end of our current energy worries - as with other promising finds off the South Island, the gas is in the wrong place. There's simply no market for it in the South Island, and while one could be created, it would require a substantial capital investment - as would getting the gas to where the market is, in the North Island.

Fortunately, with Maui winding down, there may be someone willing to make that investment: Contact Energy. Contact is already looking at constructing an LNG terminal in New Plymouth to supply its existing gas-fired power plants - and it makes no difference to them whether the gas comes from Indonesia or Oamaru. A large find off the South Island would probably convince them to go ahead with the project - which means we could continue to build gas plants rather than having to resort to coal. Electricity prices would still rise - transporting gas as LNG adds a significant amount to the cost - but we wouldn't need to worry about security of supply for another few decades.

An earthquake for the government

Despite their rubbishing it as flawed and not statistically significant, there's no question that yesterday's Marae-Digipoll, which showed that the Maori Party was ahead in five of the seven Maori seats and tied for the party vote among those on the Maori roll was an earthquake for the government. DPF has an analysis of the margins of error, and concludes that the Maori Party is significantly ahead in most seats - and even where Labour is leading, their lead may be illusory (though less so in the case of Nanaia Mahuta). Labour is going to have to fight hard for Maori votes, which given their past history as safe seats whose support could be taken for granted can only be a Good Thing.

But lest anyone think its all bad news for the government, there's one cheerful detail: John Tamihere may not be a problem anymore after the election. Even with the limited sample size, the poll shows that he will lose by between 19 and 53 percent of the vote. I guess refusing a list spot wasn't such a good idea after all...

DPF also notes that, based on current speculation about party lists, there could be as many as 25 Maori MPs after the election - giving them 21% of seats for only 12% of the population. But this is an artefact of list-selection policies and the strong competition for the Maori vote more than anything else. When there are three parties all competing for a limited number of Maori votes, and giving Maori candidates strong places on their lists, then there are likely to be a disproportionate number elected. But I guess we should all be thanking national for fighting this insidious threat of over-representation, by shoving maori firmly to the back of their electoral bus. On current polling, they're likely to have around 40 MPs after the next election - but according to David, only one to three of them will be Maori. I think that shows very clearly that they simply are not interested in Maori's votes...

First victory in California

The San Francisco Superior Court has ruled that California's ban on gay marriage violates the state's constitution. Drawing on precedents that marriage is a fundamental human right and "one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men", the court found that there is no compelling state interest for it to be limited to partners of opposite gender. It also found that civil unions were not enough:

The state's position that California has granted marriage-like rights to same-sex couples points to the conclusion that there is no rational state interest in denying them the rites of marriage as well.

The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal.

The quote from Brown v Board of Education is not accidental; the court correctly notes the parallels with the great civil rights cases of the 50's, particularly those dealing with miscegenation and interracial marriage. And using those precedents, it argues strongly that limiting marriage to partners of opposite gender is no more justifiable than limiting it to partners of the same race.

This is good news for Californians, but it is only the beginning of the process. The ruling has already been appealed, and must work its way slowly through the California court system, which could take years.

The problem with control orders

Last month, in response to the Law Lords' ruling that it could no longer detain terrorist suspects without trial, the British government implemented a system of administrative "control orders", allowing it to restrict the freedom of movement, speech or association of suspects, or even place them under house arrest. Unfortunately, the new system shared the most obnoxious feature of the regime it replaced: the orders are issued by the Home Secretary rather than by a judge, and the evidence justifying them is not tested by any independent body. The flaws in this system are now becoming obvious, with the Home Office being forced to apologise to ten men subject to control orders for linking them to the London ricin plot.

The ten men were originally detained without trial for two years in Belmarsh prison. Following the Law Lords' decision, they were released on bail, but subjected to control orders on the basis that they "belonged to and have provided support for a network of north African extremists directly involved in terrorist planning in the UK, including the use of toxic chemicals". This was simply false - but because there was no independent oversight, it was not detected until challenged by the men's lawyers. Which really does make you wonder exactly how much attention the Home Secretary is paying when he signs these things...

It also makes you wonder exactly what else the Home Secretary hasn't paid attention to, and how much else of the "evidence" on which these orders is based is similarly bullshit. But the problem is, we simply have no way of knowing. It could be ironclad, or the security services could have convinced themselves of the men's guilt and ignored all evidence to the contrary. And we can't simply take their word for it. When people's liberties are being restricted, when they are being forbidden to speak with their families and made prisoners in their own homes, we must demand the very highest standards of evidence. The control order system simply does not meet that standard. It is unsafe, and should be abolished.

Another political quiz

Chris Lightfoot has done another version of his political survey, which extracts axes from the answers given by survey respondents. The axes for the last version were economic left/right and pragmatic vs idealistic; this one divides people into "hanging / flogging Eurosceptics" vs "rehabilitation internationalists" (the most significant axis), and "free market pro war" vs "socialist anti-war". More information on the survey methodlogy can be found here.

In addition to giving handy cartesian coordinates, it also compares your scores with those of major UK political parties and newspapers, as well as by age and location. Unfortunately, the questions are fairly UK-specific, so I won't be doing a graph of this one.

Candidate survey launched

The candidate survey has been launched. I've emailed the initial batch of 160 candidates - basically everyone from National and Labour, plus a smattering of others.

Many of the smaller parties haven't completed candidate selection yet, while for others (United Future in particular) it has been difficult to find contact details for the people they have named. But several have also promised to send me candidate lists when selections are confirmed, and I'll be sending out further batches of surveys as details come to hand.

(Obviously if anyone can help with gathering candidate lists, please contact me. I'm particularly short on ACT and Green candidates at the moment, mainly because their websites are less than clear about who is standing and who is not).

The survey itself is here, and the current candidate list here. I'll put it into Access sometime, once I start wanting to run queries that I can't just do by sorting.

All I have to do now is wait, and hope that somebody replies to the bloody thing...

New Fisk

Lebanon delays its election despite US demands

Is denial of parole a penalty?

Ahmed Zaoui hasn't been the only person in front of the Supreme Court recently, and yesterday it was also hearing an appeal on an application for a writ of Habeas Corpus brought by Kenneth Morgan. Morgan was charged in 2001 with cannabis offences, but between then and his conviction, the government passed the Sentencing and Parole Acts, which altered his eligibility for parole. Previously, he would have been entitled to parole after serving two-thirds of his sentence; under the new rules it is discretionary, and he will be serving his full term. Morgan claims that this violates his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, specifically s 25 (g), which states that everyone charged with an offence has

the right, if convicted of an offence in respect of which the penalty has been varied between the commission of the offence and sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser penalty.

What the Supreme Court will really be deciding here is whether denial of parole is a penalty. And there's a good prima facie argument that it is. If Morgan had been treated according to the rules in place at the time he committed the offence, he would be out of jail by now. Supervised, but still out of jail. Because of the changes in the law, he is still imprisoned. This is a stark difference in his conditions, and no different from if the government had simply increased the length of his sentence by a year.

The Supreme Court cannot overturn the law, but it can "read it down", reinterpreting it so as to be consistent with the Bill of Rights (and in fact it is legally required to do so, under s6, to the extent that it is possible). The likely result of this would be that Morgan would be freed on parole, and possibly be able to sue for compensation. The cases of other prisoners in a similar situation would also have to be reviewed. But the consequences don't just stop there; a finding for Morgan would be extremely damaging to the government's plans to deny convicted criminals compensation for wrongs done to them in prison. After all, if being denied parole is a penalty, then being denied fair access to the courts certainly is - a point I made in my submission on the Prisoners' and Victim's Claims Bill:

The entire bill constitutes retrospective punishment. The bill effectively adds a little something extra to the sentence of every past, present, and future prisoner - a removal of equal rights in the courts - and justifies it on the basis of conviction. It is different only in scale from Parliament deciding to add, say, three years or a $5000 fine to the sentence of every prisoner.

We can only hope that Morgan wins...

Gearing up for privatisation

So, National has a "new" education policy, and what is it? A return to the same tired old policies that were tried - and failed - in the 80's. Bulk funding, so the government can wipe its hands of the last shreds of its responsibility to ensure that everyone has equal access to a decent education (or at least equal access to teachers) - not to mention hide underfunding and dump blame on the local board; smashing the unions, so they can drive the cost (and quality) down; and of course abolishing zoning, so that children can be forced to travel miles for a basic education rather than go to their local school. All this has been roundly criticised by parents, teachers, and principals - those with an actual stake in the education system. But what hasn't been criticised is the overwhelming thrust of the scheme - which is to funnel public money into private pockets so as to enrich National's mates in the business community - and the way educational outcomes have been sacrificed to this goal.

The headline of the policy is the introduction of national literacy and maths standards, coupled with testing for primary school children to ensure that those standards are met. Let's ignore the fact that we already have testing, and that there's no problem with identifying the children who are struggling, and move on to what National proposes be done with those who fail to make the grade. Rather than funnelling them into the internationally acclaimed Reading Recovery programme (and resourcing it properly to cope with the increased load), National instead proposes giving them vouchers to purchase private tuition - in other words, taking money out of schools and giving it to an industry which has no standards, and which must pay not just for the cost of service delivery, but also a profit margin. The chief beneficiaries of this move will not be children, but the owners of Kip McGrath.

Then there's their promise to boost government funding to "independent" (meaning private) schools. Again, these are profit-making entities, and the primary beneficiary will be their owners. Also advantaged will be the children of the rich, who will effectively be getting a fat subsidy for abandoning the public education system.

But we should also ask where National is going with this policy - and the destination is obvious. The shift to running schools through a community trust effectively turns them into private entities; allowing them to cannibalise "underperforming" schools will mean that we will end up with a small number of competing educational corporations, probably regional monopolies. If this sounds familiar, it's because it is what was done in the electricity sector - and the end result was the sale of much of the industry into private hands. In other words, National is gearing up for a full-scale privatisation of the public education system. Is that really what we want?

Hopping around the corridors of power

The Greens have finally launched their new blog...

Valuable consideration

Earlier in the month I discovered the British site tacticalvoter.net, which promotes vote-swapping between labour and Liberal Democrat voters so as to maximise the anti-Tory vote and specifically target high-ranking Conservative MPs. The idea is that labour and Lib Dem supporters in seats where the other party's candidate is the strongest anti-Tory agree to "swap votes" - to vote for the other party to defeat the common enemy. While IMHO a strong argument can be made for voting tactically in such a situation in any case, the swap allows people to feel that they are helping their preferred party at the same time - even if they have no way of knowing whether the other party has fulfilled their side of the bargain.

This got me thinking about the potential for vote-swapping in New Zealand. While there's obviously no point in swapping party votes under MMP (as it would have no net effect), there are possibly some electorates with an analogous situation to the British example - Tamaki, for example - where the Greens and Labour have a common interest in keeping out the right, and Coromandel, where they should have a common interest in ensuring that the Greens get an electorate seat (there are also electorates where similar deals would make sense for the right - Tamaki again being a case in point). However, there's a problem: s 216 of the Electoral Act 1993 bars

giving, lending, agreeing to give or lend, offering, promising, or promising to procure or endeavour to procure, any money or valuable consideration

in order to induce someone to vote a particular way (or not vote at all). It's a corrupt practice, carrying a penalty of a $4000 fine, up to a year in jail, and being barred from voting for three years.

So, I thought I'd ask the Electoral Commission about the legality of vote-swapping here. Their response?

A vote is valuable consideration and as such a contract between voters to swap votes would amount to bribery under s216 of the Electoral Act 1993.

So, be warned: cutting an explicit deal with another voter is illegal. However, we can still agitate, and I will probably be advocating tactical voting options closer to the election.

No Tour II

Via Bloggreen: A petition against the Black Caps' tour of Zimbabwe.

Legislating by press release

The Herald this morning has more details on Jim Anderton's banning of nitrous oxide - and it looks like he's legislating by press release. Or rather, by legal opinion. Because that is what this ban is: a legal opinion from the Ministry of Health that nitrous oxide can only be dispensed with a prescription.

How strong is this? Well, nitrous oxide is listed as a prescription medicine in Schedule One of the Medicines Act 1981. But so is

Nicotine; for nasal use except when sold from a smoking cessation clinic run under the auspices of a registered medical practitioner; in medicines other than for smoking cessation

and I don't see them threatening to prosecute dairies for selling cigarettes. Why not? Because they're not being sold as medicine for a "therapeutic purpose". It's not considered prescription medicine if used for another purpose.

Unfortunately for nos users, "inducing anaesthesia" is a therapeutic purpose, which would seem to make things fairly open and shut. So yes, they can prosecute, and relying on selling food or automotive grade nitrous isn't a defence, as it is the purpose for which it is supplied, rather than its quality, which makes it illegal.

Of course, this is only a legal opinion, and there would need to be a test case on whether a "cheap headrush" is anaesthesia, but who wants to take that risk?

And on the flip side, this is yet another example of our inconsistency and hypocrisy over some drugs but not others. The vast majority of alcohol in this country is sold for exactly the same purpose as nitrous - "inducing anaesthesia" - with far worse long-term health effects and equivalent potential for dumbarse behaviour under the influence. And while nitrous has been implicated in combination with other drugs in two deaths over the past few years, alcohol verifiably kills hundreds (whether directly in accidents or indirectly through long-term side effects) every year. By any measure, it is the greater danger - but rather than banning it, we have restricted its use to adults, and changed the culture so that driving under the influence is no longer acceptable. We should adopt the same solution for nitrous.

The proper way to deal with terrorists

Prosecute them. Of course, that means you actually have to proove your case in a court of law - but that requirement ought to make the intelligence services, who currently deal in little more than suspicion and prejudice, lift their game.

Anderton the killjoy

Via BlogGreen: Jim Anderton has banned recreational use of nitrous oxide. Whether he's trying to legislate by press release or has whipped up an Order In Council to schedule it alongside other drugs is unclear, but according to Newstalk ZB, it "is no longer a legal high".

This is simply a crazy decision. Nitrous is one of the safest highs around. It's not physically addictive, and while it has been linked to low levels of vitamin B12 (which long-term leads to neurological problems), you have to be doing boxes and boxes of the stuff for a prolonged period of time for that to occur. Likewise, while there have been incidents of people asphyxiating or giving themselves frostbite due to improper use, or simply behaving like dumbarses and hurting themselves, these are not a significant problem, and far less likely in the "nitrous bars" Anderton is targetting. And of course both the long-term health effects and the risks of misuse are far lower than those of alcohol, which we happily tolerate. Really, the only reason seems to be that Anderton is a killjoy.

Needless to say, I don't think I'll be voting for him either...

Shrinking coalition watch

And now the Poles are leaving. Not immediately, but by the end of the year. They've already reduced their troop levels from 2500 to 1700, and will pull their remaining forces out when the UN mandate expires in December. I guess "New Europe" isn't so keen on Bush's war either, particularly if it means risking de-election...

Fresh Python

Let them eat bombs

Sedition by Example XIII: Robert Semple

(A historical illustration of the abuses perpetrated under our law against sedition)

Robert Semple, speaking at the Globe Theatre, Auckland, December 3rd, 1916:

I have a message of fraternal greetings from the Australian people. It is the Australian people's message that the people of this country shall not under any circumstances permit this country to be lassoed by that Prussian octopus, conscription.

Despite all the strongest opposition, slander and vilification and journalistic perjury of the hypocritical tongue of that polished wowseristic gang, the democracy stood on their feet and wiped from the sunkissed hills of Australia every vestige of Prussianism. In years to come generations of the future will look back with glowing hearts and benevolent souls upon the men and women who broke the chains of despotism that were about to be put about their bodies. It is only a repetition of the past, anyhow. In every war it was the opportune time for the reactionist and commercial vulture to do his dirty work in the name of patriotism. They are doing that now. What other guarantee could the politicians of the world give to the Shylocks who are lending money to conduct this dreadful tragedy? No other guarantee, only a servile slavish people.

Conscription and liberty cannot live in the one country. Conscription is the negation of human liberty. It is the beginning of the servile state. It is the one forged chain that can be applied to the legs and minds of men and women. Conscription was not intended in this country to fight the Kaiser, but to fight trades unionism and the working classes. They are more afraid of the trade unionists, the capitalists are, than the Kaiser. Why? The Kaiser belonged to the same school that they belonged to. The Kaiser stands for despotism, robbery, plunder, oligarchy. The workers stand for liberty. They fear the rising of the working class population a sight more than the Kaiser because the Kaiser belongs to the same school as the rest of the robbers in the rest of the world.

The psychological effect of my experience in Australia has kindled a flame of rebellion in my soul, and, regardless of the consequences, I intend to fight, by God, that infamous rotten law (to wit, the Military Service Act, 1916), that has been passed upon the heads of the people in New Zealand. The men who fought the campaign in Australia feared nothing. We have, too, the same kind of soul. I believe similar blood flows in the veins of men and women such as flowed in the veins of the martyrs in days gone by. It has got to do things and say things, and the time has arrived in New Zealand to do it now. We're not going to allow Australia to say we haven't got a kick. They have said to me, 'Semple, whatever you do, we will be with you morally, financially, in spirit as in every other way.' We are going to make it damned hot for this government. How long are the working classes of New Zealand going to be the apathetic tools of the employing classes that they are to-day? Something has got to be done in this country to resurrect the fighting energy of the working classes. Miners in this country are ready to pay their share of the battle, no matter what it might be. I have a wire in my pocket which I got last night to the effect that every coalminer if he is drawn in the ballot (to wit, the ballot for service under the Military Service Act, 1916) has received instructions not to present himself. He is exempted by instructions of the Government. The miners don't want that exemption. They will say: 'Take your bribe back again.' They will say: 'You are not going to bribe us and conscript our labour. You are not going to play us against the other fellow. To hell with your bribery.' We are going to see before many weeks how much there is in them. We are going to try them. Make no mistake about that.

I know that everyone talking against this infamous law is knocking at the jail door. But we have to take these risks. I refuse to have my tongue bound in my cheeks. I have the freedom of my children and the dignity of my wife to fight for, and I am going to do it regardless of what I may personally suffer in the process. The gong has got to be sounded. The forces of manhood have got to be mibilised, and things have got to be done in order that the sun of liberty may shine upon the people of this country. The political system has its roots in hell. The wowser churches are infamous dens administering chloroform and 'dope'.

For this, and similar speeches in Wellington and Christchurch, Semple was charged with sedition. He was convicted, and sentenced to twelve months imprisonment. Concurrent charges that he had published (spoken) "matter likely to interfere with recruiting, discipline, or administration of His Majesty's Forces, or with the effective operation of His Majesty in the present war" were dropped.

(Source: 1916 Sedition Trials, Maoriland Worker, 1917)

Cold political calculation

The Labour caucus has responded to John Tamihere's friendly fire and denigration with... a motion of censure. That's right, the old wet bus ticket one-two. But lest anyone think that Labour is doing this because they're saps, think again: there's cold political calculation going on here. Tamihere's comments are made, and can't be undone. The only question is whether Labour loses more by keeping him around as a millstone around their neck, or by fighting a messy and uncertain battle to deselect and evict him.

When faced with a problem like that, Helen Clark will choose certainty every time. Especially when, despite everything he has said, Tamihere can get the full backing of his electorate committee.

He'll never be in Cabinet, of course - not after alienating not only his caucus rivals but his allies as well - but I'm not sure that that's enough of a punishment. And OTOH, it's not my party, and therefore in many ways not my business. The most I can do is not vote for people who will tolerate such an arsehole. But then, I was already doing that...