No room for renewables under National

A couple of years ago I highlighted the findings of the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology's Energy Research Roadmap [PDF], which found that our R&D spending on energy research had been consistently directed into fossil fuels rather than renewables. Fortunately, Labour moved to correct this, channelling $4 million a year into sustainable energy development. And then, there was a change of government. National doesn't believe in renewables, and doesn't believe in sustainability, and so in their first budget they cut that funding from 2011 [PDF; p 146]. Now, they've released a new "feedback document" on their research priorities. The word "renewable" doesn't appear in it once. As for energy research, it has been grouped together as "energy and minerals", with a focus on

Increas[ing] New Zealand’s wealth by identifying and exploiting hydrocarbon, mineral and other resources.

In other words, finding more coal and gas to dig up. "Short-sighted" doesn't even begin to describe it.

The document is still open for feedback for the next two weeks or so. If you'd like to let the government know their priorities are misplaced, you can do so here.

Submit!

A while ago the government set up the 2025 Taskforce, with the goal of "closing the gap" between Australia and New Zealand. As its chaired by Don Brash and stacked with like-minded cronies, the taskforce is likely to come up with the usual tired old NeoLiberal "solutions" of tax cuts for the rich, service cuts for the poor, deregulation, and labour market "flexibility" (for employers) - in other words, the very policies which opened that gap in the first place.

While its not exactly being publicised, the taskforce has called for submissions. So, if you'd like to have your say, then let rip. While I doubt it'll change any minds on the taskforce, it will at least stop them from claiming any "consensus" or widespread support for their views.

41,000 out of work under National

All this week the Herald has been running soft-interviews and profiles of National Ministers, celebrating its first year in office. Meanwhile, today's Household Labour Force Survey shows their true record in government: 41,000 more people out of work, and the worst unemployment rate in 15 years.

Except that when you dig into the numbers [XLS], its worse than that. In addition to those extra 41,000 unemployed, another 47,000 have simply given up, leaving the labour force entirely. Its a dramatic reversal of the trend of increasing participation rates, and to the extent that it is involuntary, that these people would rather be working, then it is something National should be deeply ashamed of.

It is the government's job to keep people in work during a recession. National has failed at that job. When people turned to them, they abandoned them to the market. And that is simply not good enough.

Cleaning up the UK Parliament

For the past year the UK Parliament has been in the grip of a massive expenses scandal, as a series of leaks and then a formal Freedom of Information Act release exposed widespread and shameless corruption by MPs in the abuse of parliamentary expenses. The revelation of overclaiming, "flipping", tax evasion, and moat-cleaning has already forced the retirement of more than a hundred MPs, including the Speaker (and good riddance to him), and may claim more. It has also forced reform. Chair of the committee on standards in public life Christopher Kelly published his recommendations for reform of the expenses system today. These include:

• Ending the practice of MPs engaging in property speculation at public expense, by no longer paying mortgage interest and requiring any capital gain in a property funded in this manner to be surrendered to the crown;
• A shift to providing MPs with rental accommodation, sourced transparently from a commercial provider;
• No accommodation expenses for MPs living within a "reasonable" distance of Parliament;
• A ban on employing family members;
• An end to the traditional "golden handshake" for MPs who voluntarily resign;
• A ban on MPs simultaneously sitting in devolved parliaments;
• A register of interests, to be published by all candidates standing for election.

The recommendations have been accepted by all party leaders, but backbenchers and even some senior MPs are mutinous. But its either this or the torch-wielding mob. Which do they prefer?

Meanwhile, the first of those recommendations is something we should adopt here. I am happy to pay for MPs to live in Wellington while Parliament is in session. But we should not be providing them with taxpayer-funded capital gains to supplement their Parliamentary salaries. But the chances of MPs voting to accept that limit is about zero, and the government is moving in exactly the opposite direction. As I said, they earn their reputation.

Justice for rendition

In 2003, Osama Mustafa Hassan (AKA Abu Omar), an Egyptian refugee, was snatched off the street in Milan by the CIA, flown to Egypt, and tortured in the name of the "war on terror". Now, six years later, an Italian court has convicted 23 Americans for their role in the kidnapping:

The former head of the CIA in Milan Robert Lady was given an eight-year jail sentence for his part in the seizure of Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, known as Abu Omar, who claimed that he was subsequently tortured in Egypt. Lady's superior, Jeff Castelli, the then head of the CIA in Italy, and two other Americans were acquitted on the grounds that they enjoyed diplomatic immunity.

But another 21 alleged CIA operatives and a US air force officer were each sentenced to five years in jail. All were tried in absentia and those who were convicted will be regarded as fugitives under Italian law.

Two low-ranking Italian spies were also convicted and sentenced to three years jail. But as with the Americans, their superiors - the former head and deputy head of their secret service - were acquitted, on the grounds that the evidence against them was secret and could not be used in court. So, its not perfect - the trial was in absentia and the kingpins walk - but it is some justice for rendition. And if any of those CIA scum are dumb enough to set foot outside the USA ever again, maybe they'll get a feeling of what it feels like to be bundled into an aircraft and flown to another country to be punished - though as the result of a legal extradition warrant.

Earning that reputation

A couple of days ago I responded to Sue Bradford's final complaint about public attitudes to MPs by pointing out that they have collectively worked very, very hard to earn our contempt. And right on cue, Hone Harawira blows off work on a Parliamentary delegation to the European Parliament in favour of a taxpayer-subsidized sightseeing trip to Paris:

Maori Party MP Hone Harawira is being investigated after skipping a European parliamentary delegation meeting to make a 300km dash from Brussels to go sightseeing in Paris.

He was leading a three-MP group that travelled to Europe last month for meetings in Brussels and Geneva when he decided on the jaunt.

"How many times in my lifetime am I going to get to Europe? So I thought, 'F*** it, I'm off. I'm off to Paris'," he said yesterday.

And that's the problem in a nutshell: we pay for public service, we get self-interest. If Harawira was an employee, he would unquestionably be sacked for this. But he's not an employee, he's a politician - and so we have to put up with him until 2011, and the only hope we have of getting rid of him is that the voters of Northland will tire of these sorts of abuses of the public trust.

But Harawira's not the only one at fault here:

[Harawira] said he told Ms Shanks before going to Paris, but had not spoken to Dr Prasad until his return.

"He [Dr Prasad] had a laugh and said, 'Well, what goes on tour stays on tour'."

Neither said anything - we only found out about it because Harawira wrote about it in his newsletter. Its this cozy little attitude of looking the other way and covering up for each other which enables misbehaviour and abuse, and makes all politicians co-conspirators in the public eye.

Bigotry wins in Maine

I've spent the afternoon watching the results of Maine's "people's veto" of its same-sex marriage law. It was tight early on, with the lead see-sawing back and forth and never more than 1,500 votes in it - but now with 75% of precincts reporting, the "yes" vote is leading 52-48, with a gap of about 17,000 votes. It looks like the bigots have won.

As a consolation prize, it looks like Washington is set to approve stronger domestic partnerships. But its still a dark night for gay rights in the US.

New Fisk

America is performing its familiar role of propping up a dictator

Gay rights in the balance in the US

First Tuesday in November is election day in the US, and while its not an election year for Presidential or federal midterms, there are a number of state elections and referenda happening, and gay rights in the US are hanging in the balance:

• In Maine, voters are voting on a "people's veto" of that state's same-sex marriage law [results]
• In New Jersey, pro-same-sex marriage Governor Jon Corzine is facing a strong challenge from Republican Chris Christie [results]
• In Washington, a "people's veto" campaign means that the state's domestic partnership (AKA civil union) law must be approved by a referendum [results].

The polls have just closed on the east coast, and results are begining to trickle in. I'll be watching them closely.

A victory for freedom of religion in Italy

The European Court of Human Rights has issued an important decision today, ruling unanimously that the compulsory display of crucifixes in Italian classrooms violates freedom of religion. Its a complete no-brainer. So naturally, the Vatican disagrees:

The Vatican said it was shocked by the ruling, calling it "wrong and myopic" to exclude the crucifix from education.

[...]

Vatican spokesman the Rev Federico Lombardi said the European court had no right intervening in such a profoundly Italian matter, the Associated Press reported.

Somehow, I think they'd feel differently if it was a pentagram or a Koran in every classroom. But then, the Vatican has never really believed in freedom of religion, have they?

What's surprising isn't that the court made this ruling (something it had every right to do; Italy is a party to the ECHR and thus subject to the court's jurisdiction), but that the Italian courts didn't. Freedom of religion is enshrined in the Italian Constitution, but reading the summary of the ruling, it seems the Italian courts bent over backwards to avoid enforcing it in this case. Its a clear failure of the Italian legal system to protect fundamental rights - and exactly the sort of problem the ECHR was intended to remedy.

A united Europe

For the past two years, the European Union has been struggling to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon, effectively a constitution for the EU which would create a new President, strengthen the powers of the European Parliament, and make the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding on its members. Today, it overcame its last hurdle, when Czech President Vaclav Klaus signed it. The Treaty will now enter into force in early December.

This means a stronger, more united Europe. It also means a lot of red faces in the UK Conservative Party, with Tory leader David Cameron forced to rescind his "cast-iron" pledge for a referendum on the treaty - something which would have entirely different consequences once the Treaty is in force. Instead, he's promising to "fight" Europe on social issues, with the threat of vetoing future enlargement (by Croatia and Iceland) if the UK is not granted special exemptions weakening the rights of its citizens. In other words, bluster a lot, but do nothing. Which is the UK's attitude to Europe in a nutshell...

A response to Sue Bradford

Last week, Green MP Sue Bradford gave her valedictory speech. In it, she hit out at public attitudes to politicians:

So, we all have an obligation to do the best job we can, and I think most of us take that pretty seriously, no matter which party we are from. It continues to sadden me that so many people, particularly in the world of blogs and talkback, so casually dismiss New Zealand MPs as corrupt, or lazy or incompetent, or all those things simultaneously.

I am the first to acknowledge that MPs work hideously long hours in a very demanding job. At the same time, I also think they have worked very, very hard to earn their bad reputation. From the systematic abuse of trust of the FPP era to the day-to-day rorts of Bill English and Rodney Hide to the self-interested refusal to properly reform electoral finance law or bring Parliament under the OIA or introduce proper disclosure of MPs interests, they have collectively earned every bit of it. And if MPs don't want to be thought of as lower than dogshit, lower than used-car salesmen, lower than Nigerian spammers, then they need to clean their act up.

I think the Greens are an exception to this - with a few lapses, they have generally been a clean and ethical party (but not clean enough!) who have spoken out against the prevailing Parliamentary culture. But the rest? They've made their bed, and they get to lie in it; they'll get our respect and trust when they earn it.

Environmental priorities

The NZIER has a report [PDF] out today suggesting that we have our environmental priorities all wrong, and that we should be focussing on biodiversity protection and air quality rather than emissions reduction. How do they reach this conclusion? By arbitrarily assigning the atmosphere a low value, and claiming that we have "negligible" control over it. Which is correct if you look at the global atmosphere, but absolutely false if you look at our contribution to it. But remember, this is the organisation which produced the infamous strapped chicken report which used the worst case scenario for climate change costs, and then did not consider forestry, our most effective means of emissions reduction, all to provide ammunition for the government to do nothing. So please forgive me for taking their "analysis" with a pinch of salt.

But beyond the obvious flaws, there's also a bigger one: that they treat this as an "either-or" choice: either we deal with air quality (which BTW the government refuses to do) or we reduce emissions. Its not - its "both-and". Believe it or not, our government can walk and chew gum (and deal with multiple problems, environmental or otherwise) at the same time. Unlike, apparently, the NZIER's economists.

Climate change: Fail

That was quick. Having opened just this morning, the latest round of climate change talks in Barcelona have collapsed over the failure of developed countries (including New Zealand) to agree strong enough reductions targets:

The first signs of trouble occurred in the morning when the African Group (the group of African countries at the negotiations who work together) warned that if there wasn’t sufficient progress in the negotiations on developed country emission reduction targets, they’d walk about and not allow further meetings to be scheduled.

The African Group’s threat reflects increasing frustration over the refusal of developed countries like New Zealand to adopt strong climate change targets.

Then in the afternoon, the chair of the meeting to discuss developed country targets told countries to not restate their targets (eg - like New Zealand’s nothing- 20% target) but to talk about how they could increase those targets. In other words, current proposed targets are well below what’s needed.

The request from the chair of the negotiations was met with complete silence from developed countries for around five minutes before South Africa finally said they were disappointed no developed country was willing to speak. From then on a walk-out was inevitable.

Just as a reminder, to meet a 450ppm target - one which gives us only a 50% chance of avoiding damaging levels of climate change - the IPCC says that developed countries need to cut their emissions by 25% - 40% by 2020. Most are offering far less - effectively negotiating a treaty designed to fail. I am glad the developing world - who will be the primary victims of our emissions - are calling us on that, and demanding that any treaty be effective rather than simply an exercise in greenwash.

Fraud wins in Afghanistan

So let me get this straight: the recent Afghan presidential election was so riven with fraud that a quarter of the votes were thrown out and a runoff ordered. But having found all of that fraud, the Afghan government refused to do anything to stop it happening again - and so one of the candidates, Abdullah Abdullah, pulled out. As a result, the man responsible for the fraud, Hamid Karzai, has been elected unopposed.

And we're supposed to regard him as legitimate? We're supposed to send kiwi troops to fight and possibly die to keep this crook in office?

Screw that.

New Zealand is now supporting an outright fraudulent regime in Kabul. We shouldn't be. After this farce, those soldiers should be coming home immediately.

Foreshore and seabed: No hurry

Back in July, the Ministerial Review into the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 reported back, concluding that the Act was "simply wrong in principle and approach". They recommended immediate repeal, with the Act replaced by interim legislation recognising customary rights as a stepping-stone to a settlement. Yesterday, Cabinet discussed its response to that recommendation, and decided to do... nothing. Repeal is apparently inevitable, but the government does not seem in any hurry to do so.

The positive side of this is that it gives more time for consultation, to build a lasting solution with iwi and hapu. The negative side is that it gives more time for the government to get cold feet. Having whipped up racism in 2003 and 2004 in response to Labour's original passage of the Act, National now finds itself grappling with the same issue, and likely afraid that Labour will do the same to them. Meanwhile, the same dark forces who pushed National to pander to racists for electoral gain back then, and again last month over Maori TV and the Rugby World Cup, will be seeing the same possibilities, whispering their poison, and trying to frustrate a solution so as to engineer a Maori Party walkout in the hope of a windfall of redneck votes. Indeed, they seem to already be making their presence felt:

It is understood some National Cabinet members want a clear explanation of Maori customary rights, or title, and how that might be interpreted by the courts.

Given that this information is in the very report they are responding to, its hard to see this as anything other than a delaying tactic.

The problem for the rednecks is that we've all seen that their "solution" is unworkable. They can stamp their feet and say "this is final" all they like, but an unjust solution unilaterally imposed by Pakeha might will simply not be accepted by Maori. The only thing which will make the issue go away is justice - and if that is lacking, it will simply be relitigated in every forum until it is not. Currently, the most effective forum is the electoral system. And if the Maori Party get burned this time, you can bet that they will be far less accommodating of any future government.

And therein lies the problem: with its relentless focus on short-term thinking, will National's rednecks really care about that?

Carnival of the Liberals

The 98th Carnival of the Liberals (special Halloween fearmongering edition) is now up at Greta Christina's Blog.

"Fantastic"

Yesterday morning, Police Minister Judith Collins fronted up on Q&A to answer questions about new police powers and specifically the police's new asset seizure unit. Paul Holmes pressed her on civil liberties, pointing out that the asset forfeiture regime was the end of "innocent until proven guilty". The Minister's response?

It's fantastic isn't it?

Yes, Really. We have a fascist as a police Minister.

It gets worse. What stops the police from abusing the vast new powers National (and, to be fair, Labour - because this bill and the Search and Surveillance Bill are both Goff's babies) has introduced? Apparently, the police are supposed to be concerned for their reputation, and afraid that they would "lose all credibility" if they victimised innocent people. Yeah, and I have a brewery in Mangitinoka to sell you. But Collins thinks we have other safeguards as well:

All these powers of the Police and other groups, they're all subject to all sorts of controls around the judicial oversight, they're also obviously subject to the Independent Police Complaints Authority. It's very important though too to remember we have a free media in this country, it's part of our democracy, so we don’t live in a country where the media can't say what they think, in fact often do all sorts of things that some of us would rather they didn’t, but the fact is that we do and that is part of our democracy. We have an MMP system, which is also part of the democracy. We don’t live in a Police state, thank God.

Lets look at those one by one, shall we?

• Judicial oversight is rather difficult when judges don't get a look in. The police need no warrant for example to seize DNA, while the bar to seize property is so low that the judiciary is reduced to a rubberstamp for the prejudices of the police force. Throw in a reverse onus of proof - guilty until proven innocent - and the idea that police abuses will be checked by the courts is simply a joke (that would require, for example, that their victims were able to afford lawyers - difficult when the police have just taken all your money).
• The Independent Police Conduct Authority simply isn't. The police don't take it seriously; why should we?
• While a free media is a theoretical check, that would require that they do their jobs, rather than simply relating court gossip and conducting softball interviews to retain "access".
• As for MMP, National wants to get rid of it.

So much for "safeguards". In reality, the government is handing police vast new powers with incredible potential for abuse - and then taking it on trust that they will use them appropriately and lawfully and not e.g. manufacture evidence to "get their man" (of course not; our police would never do such a thing). And that simply isn't good enough. Systematic distrust of government is the guardian of democracy. And the best safeguard against possible police abuses is robust judicial oversight: making them go to court, present real evidence, and prove guilt not "on the balance of probabilities", but beyond a reasonable doubt. And the government has chucked all that away, just to get a few "tough on crime" headline and an extra $14 million a year in revenue. Fantastic, isn't it?

Sadism

As surely as night follows day, the election of a National government is followed by benefit cuts and the economic victimisation of the weakest and most vulnerable in our society. But they have really surpassed themselves this time with their plans to force people off the invalids benefit. The benefit is, as you would expect from its name, for invalids - people unable to work due to ongoing sickness, injury, or disability. Its paid to terminal cancer patients, people with no limbs, and the totally blind. Work-testing these people, particularly against a background where disability is the most widespread form of workplace discrimination, is simply an exercise in sadism.

But in National's eyes, these people are simply malingerers, to blame for their own condition. Quadriplegics should be out there in their motorised wheelchairs, dragging themselves up stairs by their lips to knock on doors in the search for a job. Anything less makes them unworthy of charity. And so we will waste millions hounding these people, and millions more on pointless and humiliating medical tests to confirm that no, there haven't been any miracles, and that they still have cancer, motor neurone, paralysis, or whatever other condition robbed them of their career. As I said: sadism - and a particularly expensive and wasteful form of it.

Its not just sadistic - it is also simply indecent. But it is so very, very National.

New Fisk

The truth about the Middle East is buried beneath the headlines