A backdoor to environmental destruction

Next week Parliament is likely to vote on Nick Smith's mini-Muldoonist bill to seize land from a protected conservation area to build an irrigation dam. Smith's spin is that this is a one-off, but as Forest & Bird points out, there's a very real risk of setting a precedent for using Parliament as a backdoor to bypass the RMA and Conservation Acts:

[E]nvironmental lobby group Forest & Bird warns the bill might set a “moral” precedent, allowing a developmental back door for schemes, particularly those for water storage schemes, like the Waimea Dam, that are contrary to the Conservation Act.

“It just seems that everybody’s looking at ways that they can get around the Conservation Act for water storage schemes,” Forest & Bird solicitor Sally Gepp, of Nelson, says.

“The really concerning thing is, if this goes through then why just this one? Why not any other one? So all the other potentially damaging impacts on conservation land, which are not allowed under the Conservation Act, could potentially be facilitated by local bills. All you need is a willing local MP, who can put it forward and then get the votes in Parliament.”

Constitutionally, of course, Parliament can do what it likes. But that doesn't mean it should. Using legislation to bypass the law and the courts is obviously corrosive to the rule of law, and to the extent that it is successful, encourages developers to try that path rather than obeying the law. And as we've seen in Australia, having MP's involved in big-money development decisions is an invitation to corruption. There's no suggestion that that is what is happening in this case - Smith is just an orc, who is happy to destroy even our most protected areas so someone can make a buck - but "donations", kickbacks, and outright fees for legislation is the future behaviour that this invites. And every MP who votes for this bill is voting for that as well.

A start on fixing tenancy laws

The government has released its first discussion paper on fixing tenancy laws, proposing an end to no-cause evictions, increasing notice periods when evicting for cause, a ban on rent-bidding, limiting rent increases to once a year, and a process for negotiating simple issues like pets or minor alterations. Good. Our current tenancy laws deprive renters of both stability and dignity, and with National's property bubble consigning an entire generation to renting for life, its an issue that desperately needs to be fixed. While the government could do more, this is at least a start, which tackles some of the core issues.

Naturally, landleeches are squealing, and crying that these changes protect "bad tenants". As usual, they're lying: there's nothing here that restricts the ability of landlords to remove tenants who damage properties or fail to pay rent. What these proposals do do is restrict the ability of landlords to bleed their tenants dry while denying them security and dignity. If landleeches oppose that, well, fuck them: the quicker such people are out of the industry, the better. And that will at least allow their hoarded houses to be bought by people who view them as homes, rather than financial investments...

Places to go, people to be

While its probably going to be an exciting day politically, there'll be nothing from me - I'm off to Christchurch to participate in their annual larp convention. Normal bloggage should resume on Monday.

Police violence is contagious

The Intercept has a great piece of research today about police violence in Chicago, which shows that police violence is contagious

From 1972 to 1991, a Chicago detective named Jon Burge led a group of police officers in torturing confessions out of suspects. They called themselves the “Midnight Crew,” and their behavior eventually resulted in the jailing of Burge and the creation of a reparations council to pay the victims. More recently, the Baltimore Police Department’s Gun Trace Task Force was found to have planted evidence, assaulted innocent citizens, and committed overtime fraud.

Many of the most egregious examples of police misconduct arise from tightly knit groups of officers like these. That’s no accident. Recently released data from the Chicago police department shows that misconduct spreads from officer to officer like an infectious disease. And the same behavior that leads cops to violate the rules often predicts whether they will participate in a shooting.

Its part of a long-series about the Chicago Police Department, based on statistical analysis of complaints, shootings, and use of force reports. And it basicly shows that bad cops are an infectious disease who corrupt everyone around them, leading to worse and worse abuses. In Chicago, that means torture and murder, as well as unjustified use of force and racism. Which suggests that their employer needs to treat them like an infectious disease, and quarantine them as quickly as possible to prevent them infecting others and harming the public with their criminal behaviour.

Sadly, we'll never see this sort of analysis in New Zealand. The Independent Police Conduct Authority redacts all names from its reports, even when complaints are upheld, and is not subject to the Official Information Act. The Police are subject to the OIA, but I expect they'd fight tooth and nail to protect the privacy of officers who have been subject to complaints or used force, assuming they can even find the underlying data (because, conveniently, they have extremely poor record keeping in all sorts of places you'd expect them to track). Which is a shame, because to point out the obvious, we've had several networks of bad cops - Shipton, Schollum and Rickards and all their enablers being the most obvious - and being able to perform this sort of analysis, either internally or externally, would help identify problem cops and allow them to be removed from duty. But as we've seen time and time again, the last people the police want policed is themselves, and they're opposed to any meaningful oversight. Which means that in New Zealand, this contagious disease will be left to fester.

New Fisk

Uri Avnery, the Israeli optimist who played chess with Yasser Arafat, has died – he was one of my few Middle East heroes

Time to end feedlots

Our usual picture of New Zealand farming is of animals in a field somewhere, eating grass - a natural environment, where the animals get to exhibit their natural behaviours. But on Monday, SAFE exposed the beef industry's dirty secret: we have American-style feedlots in New Zealand:

The Five Star Beef Limited feedlot in Ashburton is New Zealand's biggest and has been running since 1991.

The cattle spend six months grazing, eating grass, before being moved to the feedlot where they are locked in square, uncovered pens, given vaccination to prevent disease and fed grains, for anywhere from two and a half, to eight months.

Animal welfare group SAFE has serious concerns about both animal welfare and the environmental impact of having nearly 20,000 cattle confined.

Feedlots are an environmental and animal welfare disaster. The animals are confined, fed an unusual diet which causes them health problems, and unable to exhibit their natural behaviours - its basicly battery farming for cows. Environmentally, all those cows leads to a lot of shit and piss, which pollutes the local water table or goes straight into the nearest river. I suspect the Environment Minister is not the only one struggling to see how this is legal. And its effect on New Zealand farming's international reputation - which is built on that image of animals in green fields - is catastrophic. But rather than recognise this, and move to fix it, Federated Farmers is instead attacking the messenger. But while "militant vegan" may be horrifying and instantly discrediting in the eyes of rural hicks, to urban voters its about as persuasive as calling someone a "pretty little communist", and it says more about the mindset of the accuser than the accused. If they were looking to defend their social licence for cruelty and pollution, I think that's likely to backfire.

If feedlots aren't legal, then the RMA and Animal Welfare Act need to be rigorously enforced. If they are, then those laws need to be strengthened. Because like dirty dairying, this is not a type of farming that New Zealanders find acceptable. The farmers who use them need to stop, or the public will make them.

Meanwhile, if you don't want to support their type of farming, you can get a list of feedlot beef stockists from the wayback machine here.

Frozen

MP's are rightly well-paid, as a defence against corruption. But their high pay and the fact that they get a pay increase year after year no matter what they do puts them on a different planet from most New Zealanders, and is frankly offensive when they are trying to deny pay rises to others in our society. So now, Jacinda Ardern has said "enough" and frozen their pay:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has announced the Government will freeze MPs' salaries and allowances for a year.

The Remuneration Authority recently recommended an incease of about three percent for the coming year, which Ms Ardern said did not feel right.

Urgent legislation will have to be passed in order for the freeze to take effect before the Remuneration Authority's increase comes into force.

This will be a popular decision, because MPs have worked hard to make themselves despised by the public. But its also not unjustified. As I noted above, they are literally not in the same boat as the rest of us, and that's something they need to look long and hard at. As for how they should proceed, indexing their pay to the median wage, so they do no better than everybody else, seems like a good idea. And it sets some solid incentives for them to boost everybody's living standards, rather than just their own.

Small victories

The Greens had their annual conference over the weekend, and after some jousing over the waka-jumping law, were able to announce some small victories for the environment. The first is a proposal to put protection of water into the Overseas Investment Act - effectively, the law change Eugenie Sage needed to refuse the Otakiri Springs water bottling plant. The second is a proposal to extend the waste levy and to introduce mandatory product stewardship schemes for tyres, e-waste, and synthetic greenhouse gases, requiring the companies who import or produce these products to clean up their own mess. There's consultation to be done first - in the latter case, as a statutory requirement - but I think we can be confident that they'll actually make it into actual policy. As for the impact, stopping foreign water bottlers from pillaging our water and forcing some polluters to clean up their own messes are relatively minor things, but still welcome and worth doing. And hopefully they'll establish some useful policy directions which can be built on later.

"As soon as reasonably practicable"

How quickly are agencies required to respond to Official Information Act requests? The law is very clear: "as reasonably practicable". While there's a 20-day limit, this is a backstop. When they're actually meant to respond is "immediately".

So do agencies do this? Of course not. And thanks to a long series of requests filed using FYI, the public OIA request website, Mark Hanna has the statistics to prove it. Pretty much every agency investigated showed a huge spike in their responses at the 20-day limit, and usually responded on the day a request was due. In other words, they weren't responding as reasonably practicable as required by law, but instead treated the 20 day limit as a target.

Some of this is due to explicit game-playing to delay release, as admitted by John Key. Some of it can be explained by overworked public servants having to prioritise their workflows and so not dealing with requests until they have to. But either way, it is not acceptable. The law says that requests must be dealt with "as reasonably practicable". And clearly, that law is being ignored.

As for what to do about it, Hanna suggests better reporting on timeliness, so that agencies can be held to the "as reasonably practicable" standard. That's a good idea, since we can't manage what we don't measure. But I'd also add that we need a culture shift within the public service to make handling public requests for information a priority. That can only come from the top, from Chief Executives and Ministers, and it must be backed by funding, so that OIA staff have time to handle things quickly, rather than having to juggle requests and so process them in deadline order. Sadly, despite all its talk in opposition, and even appointing a "Minister for Open Government", Labour seems uninterested in displaying this sort of leadership on transparency issues.

Nauru is farming refugees

World Vision has launched a campaign to get the New Zealand government to resettle refugees from Australia's concentration camp on Nauru in New Zealand:

World Vision national director Grant Bayldon said they were asking Ardern to make the offer directly to Nauru, rather than Australia.

"While there remains an obligation on Australia under international law, it doesn't look like they are going to do the right thing any time soon."

Another element of the campaign was that they were asking for the evacuation of children and their families to be prioritised, Bayldon said.

They should be brought to safety in New Zealand before Universal Children's Day in November, he said.

"These vulnerable people seeking refuge and asylum should be resettled in New Zealand as part of an emergency intake over and above our refugee quota," he said.

Of course we should do this - its the humanitarian thing to do. But I suspect Nauru's response will be a firm "no". And the reason for that is that being Australia's concentration camp is big business for the Pacific despotism. Australia pays Nauru by the prisoner, and releasing any of them has a direct impact on the government books. Last year's budget took a 10% hit from "uncertainty surrounding the number of refugees who will be resettled in the United States" and another 5% due to less tax from foreign concentration camp workers. Once you include the families, rescuing these 120 children would likely have a similar financial impact. The Nauruan government just isn't going to want to give that up.

Of course, refusing to release people because you'll lose money is morally reprehensible. But "morally reprehensible" pretty much describes the Nauruan government these days. In addition to the crime of running a concentration camp, they've jailed the opposition, undermined the judiciary, and banned foreign journalists. So I expect Baron Waqa and his cronies to reject any offer of resettlement New Zealand makes. The only way they'll surrender any of their refugee cash cows is if Australia cuts off the funding.

Labour supports Muldoonism

Last month, National's Nick Smith pushed a Muldoonist bill aiming to force the Department of Conservation to surrender part of a protected forest park so farmers in his electorate can build a dam for irrigation. Sadly, it seems that Labour has decided to support it:

However, the Labour Party caucus has agreed to support the legislation while Shane Jones, of NZ First, this week said the social and economic benefits of the dam were large. Nelson MP Dr Nick Smith, who is sponsoring the local bill, in July said he had secured support for it from all 56 National MPs.

The local bill seeks to gain an inundation easement over 9.67 hectares of conservation land in the Mount Richmond State Forest Park needed for the creation of the reservoir for the proposed dam in the Lee Valley. The bill would also secure a right to construct the dam on Crown riverbed.

[Green Party co-leader Marama] Davidson said the Green Party believed that conservation land should be protected for its innate values and that the transfer of conservation land "for use as part of a dam cannot be reconciled with the fundamental commitment to protect it for conservation".

The Green Party caucus was listening to the concerns of environmentalists "and the local community, and will not support the upcoming Waimea dam-enabling legislation".

So, when it comes to a choice between conservation and farmers, Labour chooses farmers. Its good to know which side they're on, and that they cannot be relied upon to protect the environment. And hopefully, the Greens will be taking that into account when considering their support for government legislation in the future.

New Fisk

A US trade war with Turkey over a little known pastor? Don't believe a word of it

Unsurprising

The 2017 election delivered a tight result, with National feeling cheated because they no longer held a majority. So naturally, they've been trying to persuade NZ First MPs to switch sides:

National leader Simon Bridges has tried to talk New Zealand First MPs, including Ron Mark, into leaving the party, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has claimed.

[...]

"The leader of the National Party Simon Bridges has been talking to members of my caucus about how they might jump the ship and stay on, doing a deal with them. This is how bad and how rotten it is," Peters said.

He named Defence Minister and New Zealand First MP Ron Mark as a target of Bridges' approaches.

"He's been witnessed saying 'look come on Ron, let's just do a deal. You can have Wairarapa'. In short he was talking about dumping his local MP called [Alastair] Scott. So, you know, pretty bad stuff."

Mark did not return a call for comment but in a text message said "Wow, how did you find out about that."

This is completely unsurprising. National is just four seats from government, and if NZ First has refused as a party to work with them, they'll naturally try shifting individual MPs and buying their loyalty with electorate deals. Its dirty, but that's what desperate Tories when denied what they think is their "natural" place. At the same time, its no justification for anti-party-hopping legislation. If a party cannot maintain the loyalty of its MPs, then that's on them, and our democracy shouldn't be undermined because Winston Peters feels insecure and inadequate.

A contempt of Parliament?

Today in the sparring over the waka-jumping bill, Nick Smith reminded everyone of something we'd forgotten about: NZ First's dubious attempts to coerce their Members of Parliament:

NZ First leader Winston Peters has defended a clause in the party's constitution which hold MPs liable for a $300,000 penalty if they resign.

The clause states that every member who is elected as a New Zealand First list MP or constituency MP, must sign a "resignation obligation contract" which imposes a "liability for liquidated damages in the sum of $300,000" if they resign or are expelled from caucus or the party.

Peters said a lot of time and money was put on the line and "no one is entitled to jeopardise it and just walk off without any regard to the proportionality of the vote at election time, that's why it's important".

[...]

National MP Nick Smith asked Justice Minister Andrew Little in Parliament whether the Government supported MPs being subjected to legally binding contracts requiring them to pay $300,000 if they fell out with their party.

Little said he had no knowledge of such an arrangement and it sounded hypothetical.

Clearly, its not: its part of NZ First's constitution. And, as Andrew Geddis explained last time this came up, its clearly unenforceable: no court will touch a contract which purports to determine whether someone is an MP, and any attempt to enforce such a contract (that is, to financially punish someone for being an MP) would be a clear contempt of Parliament. But while the clause may be unenforceable, like a lot of other illegal contracts, it still may be treated as binding by its victims and influence their behaviour. So its worth asking: insofar as it threatens MPs in the course of their official duties, is the rule itself also a contempt? Hopefully the Privileges Committee will give us an answer.

More pillage

Back in 2014, the then-National government rammed through the West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Act 2014. The Act was an act of pure pillage, using the excuse of a strong storm to undermine the Forests (West Coast Accord) Act 2000 and allow National's donors and cronies to loot native timber from the conservation estate. The one good thing about the Act is that it is scheduled to expire next year. But naturally, National wants to extend it:

National MP Maureen Pugh is hoping to introduce a bill to Parliament soon on behalf of the West Coast Regional Council which would allow the Director-General of the Department of Conservation to authorise the removal of some windblown trees on conservation land following bad weather.

"I have been working with the West Coast Regional Council since the Government blocked my motion to have my Members Bill on this topic introduced to Parliament in April," Pugh said.

It is similar to legislation implemented by the former National government in 2014, opposed then by Labour and the Greens, after Cyclone Ita flattened large swathes of native forest in the region.

Worse, according to that article it has the support Shane Jones, and therefore probably NZ First. Which is odd as they opposed the 2014 version. But now they're promoting themselves as the champions of rural pillagers I guess.

This is the issue where the Greens should put their foot down, because it strikes at the very idea of conservation in New Zealand. These trees are on conservation land, and conservation land is for conserving, not for mining. But it also shows the gulf in mindset between the pillagers and the rest of New Zealand. As with its characterisation of rivers as "water flowing out to sea", National is characterising these trees as "waste". What they actually are is the nutrient cycle in action, and vital for the health of those forests. Removing them will actively undermine conservation. This bill needs to be opposed, both in the House and in the forests themselves.

A bit rich

So, the Education Minister thinks teachers are demanding too much money:

The Education Minister says teachers' demand for a 16 percent pay rise over two years outstrips what others in the workforce are receiving.

[...]

Chris Hipkins told Morning Report he expected there to be compromise.

"If they're going to hold fast to 16 percent over two years or eight percent a year, that's way out of kilter with what everybody else in the economy is receiving and I think I would be looking for some movement from their side on that as well," he said.

Which is a bit rich coming from a man currently paid ~$250,000 a year, and who for the past decade has enjoyed an MP's salary of at least $120,000. Another example of how the necessary evil of MP's high pay distorts their perceptions.

The blunt fact is that teachers have been underpaid and exploited for years and need to catch up. And this necessarily requires pay increases that are "out of kilter" with what everyone else is getting - or else they don't get anywhere. As for the solution, Hipkins can either pay up, or learn to teach his own fucking kids.

More Australian racism

How vile is Australian politics? A federal Senator has called for a "final solution" to immigration, and called for a return to the white Australia policy:

An Australian crossbench senator has invoked the term “the final solution” in an inflammatory speech calling for a plebiscite asking voters whether they want to end all immigration by Muslims and non-English speaking people “from the third world”.

Fraser Anning, formerly of the far-right Pauline Hanson One Nation party, and now a member of the Katter’s Australia party, used his maiden speech in the Senate to call for “a plebiscite to allow the Australian people to decide whether they want wholesale non-English speaking immigrants from the third world, and particularly whether they want any Muslims”.

[...]

Anning also invoked the white Australia policy, suggesting Australians may want “to return to the predominately European immigration policy of the pre-Whitlam consensus”. The white Australia policy, which restricted non-European immigration, ran from 1901 until it began to be dismantled in the late 1960s.

The speech has been condemned by government ministers, but it all seems a bit two-faced when that government has been fearmongering about "immigrant gangs" and is putting refugees in Pacific concentration camps and letting them die of preventable diseases in an effort to psychologically torture them into renouncing their claims to refugee status. The blunt fact is that Anning's vile politics are simply an extension of the government's.

Teachers deserve a raise

Primary and intermediate school teachers are on strike today in effort to get higher pay and better conditions. Good on them. Teachers are massively underpaid for the work they do, and there's been an exodus from the profession as a result. Unless the government does something serious to improve things, they're going to find themselves with an even bigger shortage in coming years.

The government is of course pleading poverty and saying that the strike is "too early" - which is a bit rich coming from Ministers paid (respectively) quarter of a million and half a million a year. To point out the obvious, teachers are as deserving of nurses of a pay rise. But I guess Labour, "the worker's party", would rather spend $2.3 billion on pointless war toys than ensure the proper education of the nation's kids: something which will make far more of a difference to our wellbeing than searching for mythical submarines from non-existent enemies ever will.

During their time in office, National ran down our public infrastructure with cruel austerity. That included not just the physical infrastructure of hospitals and schools, but the human infrastructure, the people who staff them. The coalition government was elected to reverse that. If Jacinda Ardern wants to keep her half a million a year, she needs to deliver on that core promise. Alternatively, she can see disappointed voters kick her out in 2020. Her choice.

Captured

A farmer illegally digs up a reserve, destroying native vegetation, in order to plant pasture to make the land they lease seem more attractive to foreign buyers. You'd hope that in New Zealand, such actions would lead to charges under the RMA and Reserves Act. Instead, LINZ just retrospectively approves them:

Just as the country’s second-biggest Crown pastoral lease was being touted for sale, riverside reserve land on the farm was converted to pasture without permission to boost its prospects.

[...]

As the marketing campaign launched, a roughly 100ha block of Mt White was fenced, and some of it cleared of indigenous plants and put into pasture. Half of the area to be cleared was on a freehold title owned by Mt White, but the other 50ha was reserve land. Government officials didn’t know about the work until two months later, when Mt White sought retrospective permission.

The 50ha of reserve land – about two-thirds the size of Auckland Domain – is part of the 1000ha Riversdale Flats reserve, an area earmarked for inclusion in a national park since 1901. Despite the fact Mt White borders the Arthur’s Pass National Park, the reserve is part of the Mt White lease. Its care, therefore, is in the hands of the lessee, with Government oversight.

The Crown land manager, Land Information New Zealand (LINZ), retrospectively approved Mt White’s reserve land work – against advice from the Department of Conservation (DOC) and without punishment of the lessee.

Worse, LINZ then turned around and granted permission to this criminal leaseholder to destroy another thousand hectares of the high country, turning native bush and endangered bird habitat into farmland.

This isn't good enough. LINZ is supposed to act as a guardian of crown land, and prevent it from being destroyed in this way. Instead, they just seem to be rubber-stamping everything. Like MPI, they seem to have been captured by the people they are supposed to be regulating.

Crown pastoral leases are a rort which needs to end. But until they do, is it too much to ask that the public's representatives actually enforce the public's rights, and prevent leaseholders from destroying the environment they are temporarily occupying? And if they're not willing to, they should be sacked and replaced by someone who will.

And more cronyism

Labour's cronyism continues. Last week, it was appointing MP's partners to a charity trust. This week, they've appointed former Labour MP Margaret Wilson as deputy chair of the Waikato DHB.

As with many crony appointments, its not so much an issue of qualification as of preference. If Wilson had applied like a normal person and been appointed by the previous government, her appointment would have been unobjectionable. But the fact that its a Labour government appointing one of their own immediately calls both the process and the outcome into doubt. If the government wants people to have confidence in its appointments, it needs a better process which is transparent, merit-based, and does not allow Ministers or MPs to shuffle their friends in and bypass the usual process.