Damning

That's the conclusion of an independent review into the Ministry of Primary Industries' decision not to prosecute fishers for illegal fish dumping, high-grading and under-reporting of catches:

The inquiry, led by QC Michael Heron and released today, said the Ministry of Primary Industries obstructed the prosecution process, that its decision process was "confused", and that it failed to follow up and "draw a clear line in the sand" with regard to fish dumping.

However, the inquiry says the limitation period for prosecution has now passed. And the ministry, while accepting the "regrettable" findings, says no one will be disciplined as a result of the inquiry.

[...]

The prosecution decision was influenced by "considerations which were not relevant", including "potential embarrassment to MPI or officials", he said.

The process was "confused, not well documented, and not well communicated", and MPI created hurdles to the prosecution, which Heron said were inappropriate "or at least unhelpful".

No-one being disciplined is the most-damning thing about this entire debacle. MPI officials helped the people it was supposed to police laugh at the law - and yet no-one will be held accountable. Which just invites them to keep on doing it. But I guess prosecution decisions aren't the only ones being influenced by irrelevant considerations of embarrassment to MPI or officials...

MPI has said it will clean up its act. But in the absence of clear accountability, there's no reason for their staff to change their behaviour, and therefore no reason for us to believe that it will happen. Instead it'll be business as usual, with MPI being the loyal servant of a criminal, unsustainable fishing industry.

Climate change: Beaten by Brazil

Last year the government announced a climate change target of a 30% reduction on 2005 emissions by 2030. It was an unambitious target, puffing up a pathetic 11% cut from 1990 emissions behind the baseline shift, and worse, would commit us to failure on our 50% by 2050 target (which is against the 1990 baseline). And as a sign of just how unambitious it is, its just been trumped by Brazil:

The Brazilian government has ratified its participation in the Paris agreement on climate change, a significant step by Latin America’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases that could spur other countries to follow suit.

[...]

Countries set their own targets for reducing emissions. The targets are not legally binding, but nations must update them every five years. Using 2005 levels as the baseline, Brazil committed to cutting emissions 37% by 2025 and an “intended reduction” of 43% by 2030.

So there you have it: we're dragging our feet so badly on climate change that even developing nations are setting targets substantially more ambitious than ours. But I guess that's what you get when you have a government stuffed with (barely) closeted deniers and working for polluters.

Open Government: A dishonest assessment

Last night, I learned that the government had released its draft Final Self-Assessment Report on its First OGP National Action Plan. As usual for OGP issues, I learned about it second-hand, via a tweet from Engage2; there's been no official announcement from SSC, and at time of posting no mention of it whatsoever on SSC's official OGP page. Which is odd, given that the draft is supposed to being released for consultation. Again, you'd almost get the impression that SSC didn't want us to see or comment on this.

And reading the report, you can see why: there's absolutely no acknowledgement of the very real issues with the action plan revealed by the Independent Reporting Mechanism and no recognition of the failures in developing and implementing it. There's also ongoing confusion about what the OGP commitments actually are, particularly around the "Better Public Services" reporting and IT strategy refresh commitments. But I guess if they only reported against what they'd said in the published Action Plan, it would be a very short document indeed. They're also claiming to have completed commitment 3, responding to Transparency International's recommendations from their National Integrity System Assessment - on the basis of a report which hasn't yet been published, and only will be after the action plan has concluded. While I appreciate that they've actually, finally done the extremely weak thing they promised to do - and "responding" to a report with no commitment to actually implement any of its suggestions is a pretty weak commitment - claiming credit for doing it late is a definite "yeah, nah". As for the "Lessons learnt, next steps, [and] conclusion" section, this is it in its entirety:

New Zealand’s first action plan, covering 2014-16, contained commitments that were multi-faceted and delivered improvements in public services, increased public integrity, and more effectively managing public resources. There has been significant progress against the plan, and this reflects New Zealand’s ongoing commitment to the values inherent in OGP. However there remain many opportunities for improvement in the development and implementation of New Zealand’s second action plan.

Civil society and the IRM assessment noted clear scope to explore new initiatives as commitments, and to show measurable year-on-year advancements in meeting OGP’s ‘grand challenges’.

Expanding consultation using online technologies enables participation by those outside the main centres and those otherwise unable to have a dialogue with government.

Co-creating the commitments between government, civil society and the New Zealand public, will enable a broader range of voices to help shape New Zealand’s open government.

While there seems to be a recongition that things need to be done differently, it remains to be seen whether SSC has paid it anything more than lip-service in practice (and every indication that we were wasting our time engaging with them).

In short, its a dishonest assessment from a dishonest organisation. If we want to see the real story of how New Zealand has done with its first action plan, we'll just have to wait for the IRM's take on it at the end of the month.

Nauru's corrupt justice minister

Last year, when Australia's ABC revealed evidence that Nauru's President and justice minister had received tens of thousands of dollars in bribes from a phosphate company, Nauruan justice minister David Adeang denied the allegations. But its now undeniable. Why? Because ABC has the bank records to prove it:

New documents have emerged detailing tens of thousands of dollars being paid by an Australian company to the family of Nauru's Justice Minister, David Adeang.

The bank records reveal monthly transactions from the account of the phosphate company Getax, which was formerly based on the Gold Coast.

[...]

Amounts of $10,000 were transferred on several occasions from Getax's Westpac account into the ANZ bank account of Madelyn Adeang, the late wife of Minister David Adeang.

The payments were described as "Consultancy fees", or "Fees for Adeang".

And no doubt Adeang will deny this too. But the evidence is clear: he accepted bribes. He should be prosecuted for it, but with police and a court system totally under the thumb of the government, that looks unlikely.

Cui Bono?

Economic stats are out, showing a significant increase in GDP growth. The government is crowing, of course, but they're avoiding the obvious question: who is actually benefiting from this "growth"?

And the answer to that clearly isn't ordinary kiwis. Unemployment is still high and wages are stagnant. In other words, while the economy is growing overall, the majority of people are locked out, with the benefits flowing to the rich. Which means that this "growth" just makes us worse off, by increasing inequality and all the problems of health and crime that go with it. And that's nothing to crow about...

Our racist police

In entirely unsurprising news, the police exhibit racial bias in their use of pre-charge warnings:

Pākehā are nearly twice as likely to be let off by police for minor offences than Māori, a new report by the Independent Police Conduct Authority has shown.

Figures between February and April 2015 showed 40 percent of New Zealand European offenders were given a pre-charge warning in Northland, compared to 25 percent of Māori.

In the Waikato, 55 percent of Pākehā were let off, compared to 24 percent of Māori.

An offender can get a pre-charge warning if they commit a crime with a penalty of less than six months imprisonment, such as trespassing or cannabis use.

Naturally, the "Independent" Police Conduct Authority says that this isn't racism, citing differences in previous criminal convictions. Of course, one of the reasons Māori are more likely to have criminal convictions is because they get prosecuted rather than receiving pre-charge warning. So racism perversely becomes its own defence.

This isn't acceptable. Police discrimination against Māori must end.

National's arrogance bites it in the arse

Back in March, National introduced legislation to establish an Ocean Sanctuary around the Kermadec Islands, banning mining and fishing within the entire Kermadec's EEZ. The legislation has an obvious impact on iwi fishing rights and the Sealord settlement. Unfortunately, in typically arrogant fashion, National refused to consult with iwi first. Now, that lack of consultation is coming back to bite it in the arse - not just with court action, but a potential coalition collapse:

A battle between iwi and the Government over the proposed Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary is set for court after attempts to find a compromise failed.

The failure to reach an agreement on the matter prompted Maori Fisheries Commission (Te Ohu Kaimoana) chair Jamie Tuuta to send a strong warning to the Government today, saying the Kermadecs issue was "this Government's foreshore and seabed".

Te Ohu said the breach of iwi fishing rights was so serious that the the Maori Party should now consider severing its ties with the National-led Government.

The Maori Party's executive is holding a meeting this evening to discuss its relationship with National.

It didn't have to be this way, and a compromise could have been found which respected existing Treaty settlements while enabling the Ocean sanctuary (this probably would have involved not just the co-management on offer, but also buying out the settlement quota. Which isn't a great precedent, but we want these settlements to stick). National's arrogance has prevented that from happening. Worse, they've poisoned the ground for future marine sanctuaries as well, and turned a group who should support kaitiakitanga into bitter opponents of it - while putting the entire Treaty settlement process in danger.

I can't see the Maori Party supporting the bill, and with ACT pulling its support they now don't have the numbers unless they rely on the opposition. Who are likely to be wary of risking a Treaty settlement. Which means the entire thing now looks unlikely to pass, thanks to National's arrogance.

Heckuva job, you're doing there, National. Way to go with fucking up our most important national relationship.

(And just to reiterate: I want to see a Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary (in fact, I want there to be other ocean sanctuaries too). But I want the government to obey the Treaty, keep its word, and treat its Treaty partners with respect too. These aren't incompatible goals, and I would expect a competent government committed to the Treaty to work hard to keep them aligned).

Cows and rivers don't mix

Another day, another case of farmers letting their animals foul our rivers. And this time, DoC seems to be to blame:

Cows - and cow faeces - have been seen in or near a river next to a popular kayaking and fishing spot in North Canterbury, a tourist operator says.

RNZ documented the cows and cow faeces right next to the Hurunui River.

The Department of Conservation (DOC) allows 80 cattle within the Lake Sumner Forest Park as long as farmers fulfil certain conditions.

That includes not letting them linger in the river, where there is a greater chance of their faeces entering the water.

In practice, those "conditions" seem to amount to diddly-squat. Rather than letting cows pollute a river within a conservation area, DoC should evict them. Cows and rivers just don't mix.

A fair point

The UK Labour Party is currently in the middle of a leadership vote, and the (Blairite) party apparatus is conducting a vigorous purge of the membership in an effort to prevent the popular Jeremy Corbyn from winning. People are being kicked out of the party for expressing support for left-wing policies of other parties. Meanwhile, in the Independent, Mark Steel points out the logical consequence of that action:

This could get even more complicated soon, because most Labour MPs supported Tory party policies on welfare and immigration and war, so when the General Secretary gets round to banning them, there will end up being a minus figure of members, meaning any candidate who wins nought votes will be the clear winner.

It is kindof weird that members get ejected for supporting left-wing policies, but MPs are safe despite actually voting to cut benefits, bomb children, and lock people up without charge. But its always been clear what the purpose of the Purge is, and it isn't punishing those who vote for Thatcherism. But I guess that's what re-selection battles are for.

Parliamentary Services is spying on MPs

At the start of Question Time today, Labour whip Chris Hipkins raised a very serious matter: Parliamentary Services is spying on MP's emails, and blocking them on the basis of whether the content is classified by the government.

If true, this is a significant breach of privilege, and a betrayal of trust by an organisation which is supposed to serve and assist MPs. The freedom of speech and freedom to receive information of MPs is fundamental to their role and protected by Parliamentary Privilege. In this case, Parliamentary services was caught preventing an MP from passing on to a journalist information they had lawfully received under the Official Information Act. But it would also intercept leaks made to MPs, undermining a fundamental safeguard in our democracy. More importantly, any spying on MPs and their communications is simply unacceptable and a threat to our democracy.

Parliamentary services owes us all an explanation as to who came up with this idea and how much they've spied on, intercepted and blocked. But more importantly, they need to stop fucking doing it. The communications of MPs are sacrosanct. And having a bunch of bureaucrats censoring them for the convenience of the unelected Deep State is simply unacceptable.

Not credible

Back in May, the Ministry for Primary Industries announced the winner of a contract to monitor surveillance cameras on fishing boats. The problem? The contractor was wholly-owned by the New Zealand fishing industry. And as pointed out in the Herald today, that's simply not credible:

New Zealand's decision to monitor fishing practices with a watchdog owned by the industry would not be acceptable in the United States, Canada or Australia, an international monitoring company has told the Government.

The criticism was made in a letter to the Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy obtained by the Herald.

Howard McElderry, vice-president of Archipelago Marine Research, said appointment of a company owned by the industry it was policing would create a problem proving objectivity any time the data looked questionable.

The company which wrote the letter failed to win the contract themselves, but at the same time, they have a point: this is setting the fox to guard the henhouse. The incentives on Trident are to cover up rather than expose wrongdoing - and with MPI completely in the pocket of the fishing industry, they'll be happy to look the other way on it.

Onboard video surveillance is a good solution to the problem of pervasive criminality in the fishing industry. But it needs to be independent and credible. And this simply isn't.

Frank Bainimarama should not be welcome in New Zealand

Over the weekend Fiji took another step back towards dictatorship with the arrest of the leaders of all opposition political parties, apparently for taking part in a forum which discussed Fiji's constitution. They have since been released, after being detained without charge for 48 hours, but it casts Fiji's status as a democracy in grave doubt. To point out the obvious, in a democracy people should be able to discuss changing the constitution by peaceful, democratic means without fear of arrest or prosecution. Clearly, that is not true in Fiji.

Coincidentally, Fijian Prime Minister (and former dictator) Frank Bainimarama is scheduled for a state visit to New Zealand next week. Labour's David Shearer suggests that this visit should be cancelled, and he's right. Given Fiji's questionable democratic status, we should not be rewarding its leadership with state visits - and if the persecution of the opposition increases, we should be re-imposing sanctions and travel bans.

Climate change: No path to lower emissions under National

In 2011 the National government set a long-term climate change target of a 50% reduction on 1990 emissions by 2050. So how will they achieve it? In 2014, as part of the planning for seting our (patheticly weak) 2030 target, the Ministry for the Environment prepared a report on Potential long-term pathways to a low carbon economy for New Zealand. A copy of that report has just become available through FYI, the public OIA request site, and its interesting reading.

The first thing to note is that there are some comments on how our goal stacks up globally, against a contraction and convergence scenario (which Treasury thinks is "unfair" - kiwis apparently being somehow special and entitled to pollute more than everyone else or something). According to MfE, the 50% by 2050 goal is only consistent with the 90th percentile contraction and convergence target - that is, if permitted per capita global emissions were at the absolute upper limit of risking dangerous levels of global climate change. The target is not consistent with the median scenario, which would require something like a 90% cut. The clear implication: we will not be "pulling our weight" in reducing emissions.

Secondly, MfE looks at how we might actually achieve even this minimal cut. There's some good news here: it requires emissions reduction rates of 3-4% a year (compared with 7% for the median scenario), which is a good match for asset turnover rates in the New Zealand economy. In English, that means that the goal is achievable without paying too much just through the normal asset replacement cycle. Coal plants get replaced with windfarms and cars with electric vehicles as they wear out, and the cost is pretty much zero.

But - and there's a big but - this critically depends on the government having strong incentives in place to ensure that the appropriate replacements happen:

If it were desired to increase the certainty of achieving such an emissions pathway to 2050 then it would be urgent to put in place now policies which incentivise relevant investments by asset owners. The relevant sectors whose assets turn over at less than the critical 7% per annum rate (implied by the media budget) are boilers, power plants, forests (some crops), transport infrastructure and buildings. If action were delayed, then accelerated asset turn-over rates, and higher costs, would be required to stay within a given emissions budget for CO₂.

And pretty obviously, that's not happening. In fact, the opposite has happened: National has repealed the ban on new thermal electricity generation, cancelled the biofuels obligation (which would have reduced our transport emissions by 5% by now), and gutted the ETS to prevent the plantation of new forests, while doing SFA to ensure the uptake of electric vehicles. Confronted with a pressing global challenge, they've done the exact opposite of what we need to do.

Finally, MfE presents two pathways to achieving the required level of emissions reduction. In both, electric vehicles and new forest plantings play a crucial role. And to be blunt, that is simply not going to happen under current policy settings. If we want to solve this problem, we need a government which will actually engage with it, rather than retreating into denial while trying to leave it all to the market. And we're not going to get that under National.

NZ Police recommended torture

Last month we learned that the Christchurch City Council was using a sonic weapon to discourage young people from using one of its libraries, in a prima facie violation of the Human Rights Act. The good news today is that they've turned it off following public complaints. The bad news?

Police were the ones to suggest the council tried out the mosquito device, she said.

The police are bound by the Bill of Rights Act and must act in accordance with it in all their decisions. And yet they're explicitly recommending violating the right to be free from discrimination - and with a device which has been found overseas to constitute torture to boot. Yes, our police recommended that young people be arbitrarily tortured for the "crime" of being young in a public place. And then they wonder why people hate them...

Which invites the question: who else have they made such recommendations to? And is it really police policy that young people should not be permitted to use public space in New Zealand, and should be tortured if they try? Someone should ask them a few questions about that.

New Fisk

Saudi Arabia cannot pay its workers or bills – yet continues to fund a war in Yemen

The real cost of a predator-free New Zealand

Back in July, National announced a goal of making New Zealand predator-free by 2050. Its an ambitious and worthy goal, with huge public support. But the funding they've announced for it - $28 million over four years - is so paltry that it calls the entire thing into question. Since then, people have been wondering how much it will actually cost (and if the government even knows). Now, thanks to a request lodged through FYI, the public OIA request system, we know the answers.

The Department of Conservation released 110 pages of information on its predator-free target, including a Cabinet paper and a business case. The first surprise is that while the Cabinet paper is big on goals and specific about what the immediate funding will be spent on, nowhere does it even hint how much meeting the target will actually cost. Cabinet has no idea how much money they have committed to spend. Which doesn't speak strongly of their actual commitment.

That said, they are aware that its going to cost them a lot more than they're spending. While they're relying on Science! to find a magic solution, and are expecting to spend $1 million a year on it for the next four years, DoC has told them explicitly that:

The funding available through the challenge is modest relative to the size of the task. To make real progress, we consider that targeted scientific research would require at least $15 million funding over five years.

Their "solution" to this is that "Predator Free NZ Ltd be charged with attracting additional funding from non-government sources". That's right: the government "plans" to meet a key target by begging. Given that the amount of money is so trivial on a government scale - $3 million a year isn't even pocket change, to the extent that it could be funded merely by cutting the pay of Ministers to the level of the top 1% - you again have to question whether they're serious.

Finally, while DoC is clearly not keen on giving a long-term cost, one can be parsed out of the information they provide. The business case includes the costs of previous predator-control initiatives, which DoC uses to get an estimate of how effective spending might be. These range from 3,500 to 33,500 ha per million dollars spent, depending on the effectiveness of magic Science! and their ability to gain co-funding from business:

Under these scenarios $4 million per year might yield around 150,000 hectares (range 40 - 200,000 hectares) of predator suppressed land in four years, and 600,000 hectares (range 160-800,000) in ten.

Which means that they're estimating 9375 ha / $million in the short term, and 15,000 ha / $million in the long term. Combining this with their estimate that there are approximately 26 million hectares to be cleared gives us a total cost of 1.73 - 2.77 billion dollars. Or, an annualised cost over 35 years of $50 - $80 million.

And that's not so bad. Its a policy, but not a hefty one (big policies cost hundreds of millions a year, small ones ten million). In comparison to DoC's budget, it would mean a 15 - 20% increase, funnelled to their new corporate offshoot. And again, that doesn't seem huge. Make New Zealand predator-free for a 20% increase in DoC funding? Where do I sign up? But instead, DoC, for some reason, appears to have tried to hide this cost. And that really doesn't speak well of their relationship with senior Ministers, or of the government's expected commitment if they had known what they were signing up for.

No demand for the "lost luggage" bill

Last month, Nuk Korako's Airport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment Bill was drawn from the member's ballot. The bill has been widely criticised as ballot-spam, a waste of the House's time, and the worst member's bill ever, all of which is true. And thanks to an OIA request Andrew Geddis made via FYI, the public OIA request system, we also now know that it was completely unnecessary. Asked whether there had been any submissions or complaints on the lost property auction powers purportedly modified by the bill, the Ministry of Transport admitted that there hadn't been any. In other words, there was no demand for the change the bill is supposed to make.

Which really does make you wonder why Korako put it in the ballot in the first place. But I guess we know the answer to that: simply to take up space and prevent a more worthy bill being drawn. He's a spammer, pure and simple.

The law means nothing

Another day, another case of the "impartial" police refusing to prosecute the rich and powerful for their crimes. This time, its investing in cluster bombs:

KiwiSaver providers will not face a criminal investigation after the Police and Financial Markets Authority decided not to progress a complaint about investments in banned weapons.

[...]

In a statement today Police said a review by themselves and the FMA of the Cluster Munitions Act had revealed "significant threshold issues" and an investigation would not be progressed.

"At this stage there is no evidence to indicate offending. Should there be any new evidence that comes to light this will be assessed and acted on as required."

Compare this with the zealousness with which they prosecute minor drug offences, and its clear that the police think there's one law for the rich and another for the poor. And with the rich, its all just too much work... apparently despite the law saying it is an offence to knowingly invest in forms which make cluster bombs, that's "unclear". Which means not only that these scum walk free, but that they'll keep on making such investments.

The natural response is to call for Parliament to clarify and strengthen the law, as Rob Stock does. But I suspect the problem goes deeper than that. The police seem to be very good at finding laws to be "unclear" when they want them to be - just look at the lack of prosecutions over criminal GCSB domestic spying, or over electoral overspending. The central problem instead is that the police are reluctant to challenge the rich and powerful and hold them to account. But if that's the case, and the law applies only to the poor and the weak, then we have no moral reason to obey it.

Nauru sinks further into dictatorship

Speaking of Nauru, our neighbours sank further into dictatorship yesterday when the Parliament passed legislation legitimising their unlawful seizure of an opposition MP Sprent Dabwido's passport and preventing the courts from overturning such decisions:

The Nauru government has passed amendments to the country's passport laws to give it broader powers to cancel passports.

It had earlier cancelled the passports of several former MPs and others who allegedly took part in an anti-government protest in June 2015.

The Justice Minister David Adeang introduced the amendments to the Passport Act 2011, which passed with a voice vote in the house, where the government enjoys a 16-2 majority.

He told parliament the new law allows the government to cancel passports of people it reasonably thinks might engage in acts that threaten the national or economic security of the country.

And of course opposing the government is considered a threat to national security.

In this case, Dabwido will die unless he receives medical treatment in Australia (Nauru's medical facilities are substandard, of course - gulag money goes to politicians, not hospitals!) So, the government is basicly trying to kill an opposition MP, or force a by-election by forcing them to become a foreign citizen in order to receive a travel document to leave the country. Australia could end this abuse in an instant by jerking its purse-strings. The fact that they don't tells you everything you need to know about their desire for democracy and human rights on Nauru.

In the Maldives, exposing corruption is terrorism

Last night, Al Jazeera aired a documentary exposing corruption by Maldives President Abdulla Yameen. In retaliation, he raided the offices of local media and human rights organisations and had people cooperating with the documentary arrested for terrorism:

Authorities in the Maldives have raided the offices of a newspaper and a human rights NGO and cancelled the passports of fugitive opposition figures after an al-Jazeera documentary aired corruption allegations against the country’s president, Abdulla Yameen.

Local journalists involved with the documentary, broadcast by the Qatari news network on Wednesday evening, had already left the country in anticipation of a backlash, amid warnings by senior MPs that contributors risked jail under defamation laws.

Hours after the documentary was posted online on Wednesday, police raided a building in the capital, Malé, housing the Maldivian Independent, a newspaper accused of links to the former president Mohamed Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic party (MDP).

[...]

The Guardian understands that two men, neither of them employed by the newspaper, were arrested and accused of terrorism and plotting to the topple the government. They were released but will be questioned on Thursday. The police warrant also listed possible charges of inciting discord and threatening public order.

And that's the problem with authoritarian states: if the interests of the state are identified with the private interests of those holding power, then any criticism or attempt at reform becomes subversion. If the Maldives had a robust democratic culture, this wouldn't happen. But the whole problem is that it doesn't, and any attempt to create one is criminalised.

As for Yameen, it really sounds like he should be in jail. But that won't be happening as long as he is in power - and the prospect of it happening is a reason for him never to peacefully surrender power. And so corruption feeds authoritarianism in a vicious circle.

And for a local angle, this seems to be the direction Nauru is heading in, thanks to a never-ending stream of Australian gulag money. If we don't want Australia to destroy one of our neighbours and turn it into the Maldives, that money needs to be cut off.