Ardern and Kaye on same-sex marriage

The Herald's "broadsides" column this week asks Jacinda Ardern and Nikki Kaye for their views on same-sex marriage. Unsurprisingly, being young MPs, they both support it. Here's Ardern:

Votes in Parliament on issues like civil unions, prostitution and alcohol are generally conscience votes so, just as my vote is my own, so are my views. But if a vote came up tomorrow on the question of gay marriage, I would give my support because of the same principle - fairness.

I don't believe it's for me, the state, or anyone else to determine how a couple wants their relationship recognised; that is for them to decide. But it is absolutely our job to remove the barriers that stop people from having the same choices as everyone else and to ensure we are all treated equally and fairly by the law.

And Kaye:

If legislation came before Parliament I'd vote for it. I understand that for some gay and lesbian people the Civil Unions legislation represented a compromise and enabling same-sex marriage would be hugely symbolic.

(Kaye also comes out in support of removing the bar on same-sex adoption, BTW)

It would be great if these MPs got to vote on this change. Unfortunately, their parties are too scared of the bigots, too chickenshit, to permit it. John Key won't even talk about it. As for Phil Goff, he explicitly opposes any further progress. And so discrimination continues, because our politicians are too cowardly to confront it and call it what it is.

Murray McCully never learns

Back in the 1990's, Murray McCully gained a reputation for cronyism, appointing a pack of his mates to the Tourism Board, then dismissing them with unlawful golden handshakes when things fell apart. He was forced to resign as a Minister over this, but he doesn't seem to have learned anything from it - because now he's Minister of Foreign Affairs, he's up to the same old tricks. First, there was his corrupt awarding of a $78,500 untendered aid contract to former National MP and McCully crony Marc Blumsky. And now he's given another $54,000 of our money to another of his mates, Charles Finny, again without any sort of tender or proper process.

McCully seems to regard public money as his own personal piggy bank, which he can distribute to his mates. That is simply corrupt, and it is not how government is supposed to work in this country. If McCully can't follow the rules and administer his Ministry without engaging in corrupt cronyism - and he's had more than enough chances, and failed on every one - then he should be sacked. We cannot allow this sort of behaviour in our government, and a Prime Minister who tolerates it can only be regarded as aiding and abetting McCully's corruption.

Still digging

This morning, Employers and Manufacturers Association chief executive Alasdair Thompson claimed that women are paid less because they menstruate. He's subsequently issued a press release which he clearly hopes will undo the damage he's caused. It hasn't. Instead, its just digging a deeper hole. Why? Just look at the second sentence:

Alasdair Thompson, chief executive of the Employers & Manufacturers Association, says its only right that women should be paid more than men when their output and productivity is greater than men.

Subtext: where women are paid less than men it is because they are less productive than men. Not that the EMA thinks women are paid less than men, as they go on to state:

"The Equal Pay Act 1972 already makes it illegal to pay a different rate to a man and a woman doing the same work at the same standard and if there was widespread discrimination you would expect to see numerous court cases under the Equal Pay Act - there aren't.

Personally I think that the 12% gender pay gap speaks for itself. The reason there aren't more court cases over it is because a) it is expensive; and b) the privacy of pay details mean that it is often unclear that there is discrimination in any particular workplace. Catherine Delahunty's bill would solve the second problem, by forcing employers to disclose the data necessary to bring them to court. No wonder the old men of the EMA hate the idea.

Making Parliament more democratic

Via DPF, I learn that the Human Rights Commission has published a discussion paper on Strengthening Parliamentary Democracy [PDF] as part of its submission on the triennial review of Standing orders. The key recommendations are:

1. A minimum 12 week period for submissions to select committees
2. Establishing a dedicated Human Rights Select Committee
3. All international reports and recommendations on human rights be tabled in Parliament and referred to this select committee
4. Standing Orders to forbid major legislative provisions by way of Supplementary Order Paper
5. Amend Standing Order 246 to make it a right for dissenting members to publish a minority report

Like DPF, I think these are all good ideas, though I can see exceptions to (1) for the (very few) occasions when real urgency is justified, and (4) will be difficult owing to disagreement over what constitutes a "major change" (still, establishing a culture that refers significant changes back to select committee for proper consideration is highly desirable). Unfortunately, the HRC is up against the natural desire of politicians to behave undemocratically to advance themselves politically - to ram bills through under urgency, or spring major and controversial changes by surprise via SOP in order to limit debate and political damage. Our democracy isn't just a matter of good rules - though they help enormously - but of what we let our politicians get away with. And fundamentally, if we want a better democracy, we need to vote for it, by turfing out those who consistently abuse it (I'm thinking of you, Gerry Brownlee and Steven Joyce), and making it clear to the survivors that they will face the same fate if they step out of line.

DPF also suggests extending the Attorney-General's responsibility under the Bill of Rights Act to report on inconsistent bills to apply at all stages of Parliamentary debate (so human rights violations cannot be introduced without review in later legislative stages). I support this measure. As for the HRC, while its a bit beyond the scope of a review of Standing Orders, they suggest broadening the responsibility, so that the Attorney-General must report on any prima facie inconsistency, so that their judgement on whether it is justified or not can be properly scrutinised and debated. This wouldn't require any legislative change - the law requires them to report on any provision that "appears to be inconsistent", which could easily be interpreted to require reporting on justified limitations - and it would not violate legal privilege. The government already publishes this information; this would simply ensure that MPs have it in time to inform their debate.

Why women are paid less

Because they menstruate, according to Employers and Manufacturers Association chief executive Alasdair Thompson. Yes, really.

Which is a perfect example of the real problem: the dominance of our management class by old-fashioned misogynists like Thompson. Its also a perfect example of why the government needs to act: because with people like Thompson in charge, then business is not going to solve this problem by itself.

Good news on Auckland prostitution ban

It looks like the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill - which is being extended to cover the whole of Auckland - is going to be voted down:

A bill giving Auckland Council the power to ban street prostitution in public places like Hunters Corner and Northcrest looks unlikely to be passed into law, the MP sponsoring it says.

Manurewa MP George Hawkins says soundings among MPs from all parties indicate the bill "won't get very far at all" even if it gets out of select committee before the November elections. There's little support for it, despite MPs voting 82-36 last September to send it for public submissions, Mr Hawkins says.

"People from right across the House weren't in favour of seeing the bill passed into law but they were prepared to let people have their say on it in select committee."

This is good news. The bill was an abomination which would have effectively overturned the Prostitution Reform Act in Auckland, reducing prostitutes to outlaws again and allowing them to be victimised and abused at will. The problem it purported to solve was one of Manukau City Council's own making, caused by their attempts to outlaw small brothels. I'd like to think that the bill failing a second time (it has already been voted down once) will cause them to rethink their approach and remove the ban which is causing the problem; sadly, I suspect they'll simply put it up again, in the hope of getting it through if they just keep on whining.

Jim Anderton plans his legacy

Jim Anderton is retiring at the election, but he's just posted the policy he hopes will be his legacy: a plan for free, universal dental care in New Zealand. Currently, 44% of us never see a dentist, and there are significant access problems for pensioners and the poor. Meanwhile, increased rates of obesity and diabetes - both of which are linked to dental decay - mean that these problems are likely to increase.

Anderton estimates the total cost of free universal dental care at between $670 million and $1 billion per year. He proposes several options for financing it: a levy on soft-drinks (a primary cause of dental harm), a dedicated levy similar to ACC, or rolling back tax cuts for the rich. To make it more affordable, he also proposes a staged implementation over 10 years, first targeting vulnerable groups such as pensioners and then gradually extending to cover everyone, in a similar manner to Labour's extension of primary health care. This would keep the annual cost increase manageable, effectively turning a big expensive policy initiative into a series of smaller, cheaper ones.

In short, its a good, progressive policy for New Zealand, something which will benefit all of us. I guess National will be opposing it then.

As for Labour, they've agreed to take this on after Anderton's retirement. So while Anderton may not get to do it himself, we will hopefully see it eventually from a future Labour government.

Schrödinger's Prime Minister

Schrödinger's cat is a famous thought experiment in quantum physics, which illustrates the indeterminacy of quantum events. A cat is stuck in a box with a tiny amount of radioactive material - enough to statistically produce a 50% chance of a radioactive decay within an hour - and a mechanism designed to break a flask of poison gas if it detects a radioactive decay. Quantum mechanics describes the situation as a superposition of states, in which the cat is both alive and dead at the same time.

Now we seem to have a Schrödinger's Prime Minister. In response to questions in the House today about his comments on the safety of the Pike River mine, John Key initially sought to blame the previous government. When it was pointed out that the mine was initially consented in 1998, he suddenly claimed not to know when it had happened. When asked which response was correct, he then claimed "both". So, he claims both to know and not know when the mine was consented.

Clearly we need to collapse his wavefunction. Anyone got a box?

The Greens move on equal pay

Almost forty years ago, Parliament passed the Equal Pay Act 1972, which outlawed discrimination on the basis of gender in wage rates. Since then, the gender pay gap has decreased, but not disappeared; it currently remains stubbornly at around 12%. Successive governments have ignored this, believing that the problem would work itself out eventually, but after 40 years, I think its clear that stronger action is needed. And the Greens have stepped up, with a new Equal Pay Amendment Bill.

Like the recent Equality Act in the UK, the bill is aimed at providing more information about discrimination, so that it can be identified and removed. Unlike the UK law, it does not require employers to publish this information themselves; instead they must forward it annually to the Department of Labour for publication in statistical form, and make it available to any employee or their representative on request. The bill includes provision for independent review if the information is deemed "confidential". The net result will be that employees who suspect pervasive discrimination will be able to legally obtain the information required to bring a case, while the government will be able to better identify which types of employers (and which geographic areas) still discriminate so as to craft better policy. These are good measures, though I also think self-publication will help as well, in that it forces employers to directly confront their own statistics, and maybe think a little about whether there is a problem and how to correct it.

As with Labour's anti-privatisation bill, there is no hope of this bill being drawn before the election. But that's not the point; instead, this is about raising the issue, highlighting the problem, and forcing the government (and opposition) to front up and respond. And if it shifts the conversation, and forces one or other of the two major parties to promise this sort of action, then it will have been a success.

NZSF supports nuclear proliferation

New Zealand has a proud record of opposing nuclear weapons both domestically and on the international stage. We banned nuclear ship visits in 1984. We helped establish a South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone in 1985. We have consistently advocated for nuclear arms reduction and spoken out against nuclear proliferation.

Meanwhile, our superannuation fund is helping India build nuclear-armed submarines:

The Green Party is calling on the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to divest from its $2.1 million stake in Larsen & Toubro, a Mumbai-based multinational involved in designing and building a fleet of nuclear-armed submarines for India.

A response to a Green Party Written Question revealed that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund holds 44,595 shares in Larsen & Toubro Ltd, which had a valuation of NZ$2,082,736 on June 9, 2011

[...]

Larsen & Toubro is India’s largest defence engineering company and is partnering with the Indian Navy to manufacture their new fleet of nuclear-armed submarines. They also hold a contract to develop a missile launcher for the Sagarika — a nuclear-tipped, sub-launched cruise missile.

Its not illegal, but it is grossly inconsistent with our foreign policy and our national values. I would expect the Cullen Fund to do better, to be better than that.

The Big Push 2.0

Back in February, the NZEI planned a protest march against the government's ECE cuts. Then an earthquake happened, and it was delayed. But now its back on next month:

When: 10:30 - 11:30, Saturday 9 July
Where: Queen Elizabeth Square, Auckland, marching up Queen St
Bring: Children, friends, prams

Wiggs on renewable energy

Last week the government released the latest edition [PDF] of the New Zealand Energy Quarterly, its regular compilation of energy statistics. The headline result is that the weather has been good - meaning that renewable energy generation has increased to 79% of the total - but that's not the only good news. Over on his blog, Lance Wiggs analyses the data, and concludes that coal use is dying out, causing a significant decline in electricity sector emissions. The cause? The ETS, which has made it more economic to run Huntly on gas than dirty coal. Meanwhile, both wind and geothermal are increasing, and wind is now producing more electricity than coal. And hopefully these trends will continue.

New Fisk

'No wonder they were rioting in Damascus. This was insulting both to the living and to the dead'

Fiji: Tevita Mara cannot be extradited from New Zealand

Runaway Fijian colonel Tevita Mara is reportedly heading for New Zealand. So, predictably, the Fijian regime is trying to have him extradited on charges of sedition and mutiny. But the law is crystal clear: they can't.

Extradition from New Zealand is governed by the Extradition Act 1999. In addition to providing a general framework for extradition decisions, it also includes a number of limits on who can be extradited and on what charges, including a list of mandatory restrictions on surrender. These include the offence being "of a political character", the supposed offence being a pretext for persecution (including political persecution), the likelihood of not receiving a fair trial, and the offence being under military rather than civilian law. Mara's extradition request fails on all four of these counts. Sedition is a purely political offence, mutiny a military one, and it is clear both that there is no such thing as a fair trial in Fiji anymore and that the charges themselves were bought to persecute someone who had fallen out with the dictator over the direction of the coup.

This is a matter of clear statute law. I can only presume that Fiji's lawyers either hadn't bothered to read it before demanding extradition, or that they thought that our legal system was like Fiji's, with the law actually depending on the whim of the dictator. Either way, they've wasted their time; Mara cannot be extradited from New Zealand.

Submitting on my local democracy

According to a brief in Saturday's Manawatu Standard (offline), the Palmerston North City Council is consulting on introducing Maori wards and changing the voting system to STV. I'll be writing a submission supporting both changes.

Maori are significantly under-represented in local government, with an estimated 5 - 7 percent of local authority councillors claiming Maori descent, versus ~15 percent of the general population. Dedicated Maori seats would ensure a Maori voice and help solve this problem, just as it has in central government. Currently, the Bay of Plenty Regional Council has such seats, and the experiment has been so successful that the Human Rights Commission is arguing for their adoption nationwide [PDF]; I'd like my council to do the same and be part of the solution, rather than clinging to the racist past.

As for STV, it is unquestionably a fairer system than the current block vote, which allows a narrow plurality to utterly dominate each ward and gives us no diversity of representation (either demographically or in worldview). STV would give us fairer electoral results and a better democracy, and could be easily retrofitted over the existing ward system with minimal change. The issue was last considered a decade ago, in 2002, and while it was voted down, I think its time to look at it again. If its rejected again, then people really will be getting the democracy they deserve.

The cost of cuts

The cost of National's cuts to public spending? Shit in the drinking water in our rural communities - at least according to our DHBs:

“The Government’s sixteen month freeze on the drinking water capital works assistance program has limited communities’ ability to address drinking water concerns that were highlighted by the Ministry of Health a year ago.”

Information obtained by the Green Party under the Official Information Act shows that some District Health Boards (DHBs) have made progress in their efforts to help communities improve drinking water, but thirty percent of DHBs said that the freeze on funding had been a limiting factor for some communities to improve their drinking water and monitoring regimes.

There's a concrete example of this down the road from me in Shannon, where residents have been coping for years with unsafe water contaminated with giardia and E coli. The local council wants to fix the problem, but its small rating base means it can't afford to. They had been hoping to access a pool of money from central government, but National froze and cut it. As a result, they keep getting sick. But the rich get marginally lower tax rates, which is all that appears to matter to National.

This is a basic failure of the National government to provide proper living standards to kiwis. Everyone in New Zealand should have access to clean, safe drinking water. Everyone. We're not the third world, and its not expensive. Its just that National are too cheaparse to help out where help is needed.

New Fisk

We can't tell the victims to leave mass graves in peace

Preventing privatisation

A couple of years ago, Labour proposed a Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill, designed to stop the new Auckland supercity from privatising its strategic assets against the will of its people. Now, they're proposing an equivalent at a national level. The State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand's Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill would effectively entrench public ownership of SOEs and other strategic assets such as TVNZ, Radio New Zealand, and the Crown Research Institutes, requiring a 75% supermajority or a referendum before they can be sold.

It's a solid, democratic idea, which rightly recognises that this decision belongs to the people and that politicians (inevitably tainted by corrupt donations from would-be purchasers) cannot be trusted to make it unsupervised. Sadly, it is unlikely to ever become law. Standing Order 262 [PDF] requires that any proposal for entrenchment be passed in the Committee stage by its proposed supermajority. National - ideologically and corruptly in favour of privatisation - is unlikely to vote for it. So, even if the bill is drawn, or put up by a future Labour government, its sole effect will be to put National on the spot and remind everyone that they cannot be trusted when it comes to deciding ownership of state assets. Which is a perfectly valid purpose for a member's bill, but sadly one that is unlikely to lead to positive change.

(If Labour really wanted to put National on the spot, they'd get the bill endorsed by a public referendum first. But I doubt even that would convince National to vote for it. The entire problem is that they genuinely don't care what we think about this issue, and are quite willing to sell public assets with no mandate and in the face of enormous opposition from the public).

The right thing for the wrong reason

Refugee politics is a perennial topic in Australia, with government's and oppositions competing, regardless of political stripe, to see who can be the most racist towards desperate people in need. The government's current plan, in the wake of the failed "Pacific solution", is to forcibly transfer refugees to Malaysia. This is deliberate denial of rights under the Refugee Convention (which requires that Australia provide sanctuary to anyone with a well-founded fear of persecution, regardless of how they happen to arrive); worse, Malaysia isn't a party to the Convention, and has a record of abusing and mistreating refugees [PDF]. Which, I suspect, is exactly why Australia is trying to send them there: as a "deterrent".

So its good to see the Australian Parliament voting to condemn the deal. While its not legally binding, its a shot across the government's bow, and suggests that the Australian Labor Party's coalition partners might not vote for money for the program. Unfortunately, this isn't due to any real respect for refugee rights on the part of Australian MPs. The Greens have taken their usual principled and humanitarian stand, but the coalition is opposing the deal because its not nasty and vicious enough. So, they're doing the right thing, but for terrible, terrible reasons.

Shuffling the deckchairs in Greece

Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou's response to protests and backbench rebellions against his austerity program? A cabinet reshuffle. Because obviously, swapping who gets to ride in which Ministerial limo will magically fix everything!

This is shuffling the proverbial deckchairs on the Titanic. It does not solve his underlying problem: that his proposal has been utterly rejected by the Greek people, to the extent that the message has even gotten through to their Parliament. But it buys a few more days while they piss around with a confidence vote, before having to confront that problem again and risk giving either the IMF of the Greek people a definitive answer (resulting in either default or serious unpleasantness).