Climate Change: More carbon neutral government

The government has introduced a whole-of-government direction to Crown Agents (agencies like ACC, Kāinga Ora, and Waka Kotahi) bringing them under the Carbon Neutral Government Programme. From December next year they'll be required to report on their emissions, set gross emissions reduction targets consistent with a 1.5 C pathway, and implement plans to reach them. Unlike central government agencies, there's no requirement to offset remaining emissions (hence why it is a gross target). But the requirement to include material scope 3 emissions will mean that Waka Kotahi will have to report on their emissions from roadbuilding.

Which sounds weak, but its a start, and the first step to reducing emissions is knowing how much you emit. It also obviously allows those targets to be tightened in future, and for offsetting requirements to be introduced. These will almost certainly be required to meet the net-zero 2050 target, so the quicker the state sector (and the rest of us) get used to it, the better.

Hungarian elections: Putin's man in Europe survives

Hungary went to the polls today in parliamentary elections, in which would-be dictator Viktor Orbán - Putin's man in Europe - was facing a unified opposition for the first time since taking power in 2010. Unfortunately, it didn't go well:

Viktor Orbán has won a fourth successive term as Hungary’s prime minister, capping a campaign dominated by his controversial stance on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine with a speech that appeared to mock Volodymyr Zelenskiy, the Ukrainian leader.

Ecstatic chants of “Viktor, Viktor” greeted Orbán as he addressed supporters of his Fidesz party outside its election headquarters on the banks of the Danube in Budapest as results made the scale of his victory apparent.

With nearly 86% of the vote counted on Sunday night, Fidesz was on course to increase its parliamentary majority by winning 135 seats in the 199-member parliament, crushing a six-party opposition bloc that united to form a common front aimed at unseating Orbán.

Instead, the ruling party has retained its two-thirds super majority, which has enabled it to reshape Hungarian politics and social policy during its 12 years in power.

Fidesz won just over 50% of the vote, but Hungary's unfair electoral system magnified that into a two-thirds majority. And this will further enable Hungary's slow transition from a democracy into an authoroitarian dictatorship. Orbán has already gone quite a way along that path (and went further, with pre-election amendments to electoral law to limit the ability of the opposition to contest elections), and unfortunately it looks like it will stay on that path. So now it will be up to the European Union to protect Hungarian democracy. On that front, there's already ongoing court action, and a cut in funding from the EU. And the war in Ukraine and resulting split between Poland (which is firmly anti-Russian) and Hungary has likely deprived Hungary of political cover in the EU council, potentially allowing further action.

Labour lied about banning offshore gas exploration

In 2018, the Labour-led government announced they were banning new offshore gas exploration. The ban was half-hearted at best, and immediately undermined by permit extensions and changes in conditions - a policy that has continued. But now they seem to have moved beyond sneaky extensions to explicitly voiding the ban, by allowing Greymouth Petroleum to conduct new offshore exploration without a permit:

When is a ban on new offshore oil and gas exploration, really a ban?

That's the question environmentalists are asking after discovering Greymouth Petroleum has been given permission to conduct a massive seismic survey off the coast of Taranaki - with the likelihood of more activity to come.

The crown minerals regulator has allowed Greymouth Petroleum to piggyback off an existing mining permit to survey an adjacent area of more than than 260 square kilometres.

And now they've allowed Greymouth Petroleum to do this, you can bet OMV and the rest will want to do the same.

This has been allowed under s42A of the Crown Minerals Act. Note that this is a discretionary power, and the Minister could simply refuse. The fact that she did not makes it perfectly clear where the responsibility lies. And the fact that this has happened repeatedly makes it clear that it is a conscious Labour policy to say one thing and do another. Labour is lying to us about fossil fuels, trying to preserve an industry whose continuation threatens all of us. They need to stop doing that, be honest, and end fossil fuels permanently.

Chris Hipkins' poor leadership on freedom of information

Chris Hipkins is the Minister for the Public Service. In this role, he's responsible for overseeing the whole public service and ensuring that it meets its obligations under the Public Service Act 2020 to be politically neutral, provide free and frank advice, and so on. One of those obligations is "to foster a culture of open government". But there's a problem: the Minister pretty obviously doesn't believe in that, and prefers secret, closed government. How do we know? Just look at the way he answers OIA requests.

Here's an example: an anti-vaxxer used FYI, the public OIA request system, to lodge a request seeking affidavits prepared for the purposes of any judicial review relating to any COVID-19 Order. Hipkins, as the Minister named in those proceedings, would naturally be presumed to hold that information in his capacity as a Minister. But rather than responding properly, Hipkins refused the request, with the rather novel claim that since it had been before a court, it was "court information":

The affidavits you have requested are "court information" for the purposes of section 173 of the Senior Courts Act 2016... Accordingly, I must refuse your request under section 18(c)(i) of the Act, as making the information you have requested available would be contrary to the provisions of the Senior Courts Act 2016 and the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017.

Which would be a fine response if the requester had actually requested court records (and you see responses like that all the time where people have done that from the Ministry of Justice). But they hadn't. Instead, they had requested information prepared for a court case but still held by the Minister. And that means it is not "court information" (which, from the definition in the Senior Courts Act, is strictly information forming part of the court record, in its custody or control, or held on its behalf by the Ministry of Justice), but "official information", and fully subject to the Act. As an additional data point, such information was subject to the OIA prior to the passage of the Senior Courts Act (see for example Ombudsman's ruling 405640), and there's no reason to think the Act changed that position. Instead, it seems that the Minister (or his staff, for whom he is completely responsible) has adopted a tendentious interpretation of the law to shut down a request he simply did not want to answer, from someone he did not want to talk to (and honestly, I'm Done With Antivaxxers too, but the OIA works for them just like everyone else).

This would be simply another case of ordinary bad ministerial behaviour, another sad example of a tribal politician viewing information as a weapon and abusing his powers to deny it to someone he viewed as an "enemy", except that Hipkins is Minister for the Public Service. And as noted above, that carries additional responsibilities. Former Ombudsman Beverley Wakem made the point back in 2014 that the leadership of Ministers on the OIA matters, that their attitude to requests matters, that if they set a poor example, they undermine the Act. She was talking about the Prime Minister, but the same applies now to the Minister for the Public Service. Hipkins has a responsibility to be better than this. If he does not want to meet that responsibility, he should resign so that someone better and more committed to open government can take his place.

The IPCA should be subject to the OIA

This morning, RNZ raised the question of whether the Independent Police Conduct Authority - an agency which is a fraud on the New Zealand public - should be subject to the Official Information Act. The short answer is that of course it should be. As for the long answer, see below.

The Law Commission noted the anomalous situation of the IPCA in its 2012 Review of the OIA, The Public's Right to Know. It recommended that the Ministry of Justice conduct a review of all public agencies to determine what should and shouldn't be included (this of course has not occurred). It also provided a list of the Legislation Advisory Committee criteria on whether a body should be subject to the Act, as a guide to the process:

1. the extent of the agency’s dependence on central government funding;
2. the obligation of the agency to consult with the Minister on particular matters, respond to ministerial directions, or obtain ministerial approval;
3. the existence of ministerial control over appointments in contrast to, for example, elected membership representing relevant interest groups;
4. the existence of any government controls on finance, for example by the Auditor-General;
5. the public purpose of the agency.

The IPCA is government-funded. Its chair and membership are appointed by the government. It is subject to the control of the Auditor-General. It serves a public purpose, described in its Act as "the investigation and resolution of complaints against the Police". This means it meets four of the five core criteria for application of the OIA. The Law Commission also recommended two more criteria: the degree of public ownership of the agency and "the potential for decisions of the agency to impact on members of the public". It meets both of those too.

What about its statutory independence and investigative and quasi-judicial functions? There are other independent crown entities with similar functions - for example, the Human Rights Commission, Privacy Commissioner, Commerce Commission, Criminal Cases Review Commission. Every single one of them is subject to the OIA. They protect investigative and quasi-judicial information in various ways (typically through a secrecy clause, which may be broad or narrow depending on when the agency was established, and which may or may not be justified), but fundamentally they are subject to the Act, allowing basic oversight. The IPCA is an anomaly in that regard, and at the least should be subject to the same regime.

If the IPCA was fully subject to the OIA, the "sensitive" information around investigations would clearly be subject to various withholding grounds: privacy and confidentiality for witness statements and details, and the maintenance of the law where there is still a chance of prosecution. And where there is no longer a chance of prosecution, there seems no case for secrecy. Its been established that police prosecution decisions are subject to the scrutiny of the OIA, even if they hide behind legal privilege, and there seems to be little justification to withhold similar information on resolved complaints. The only purpose that services is to continue the unaccountability of police, which is contrary to the purposes of both Acts.

Incidentally, this means that where the IPCA recommends prosecution and the police refuse, the details of the police's decision can be requested, and they will need to at least provide a summary with their reasons, allowing their decision-making to be scrutinised. I am surprised the media doesn't do this more often in controversial cases.

The IPCA is a fraud on the NZ public

RNZ examines the Independent Police Conduct Authority this morning as part of its ongoing series about murders by police. The first part of the article discusses the IPCA's exclusion from the OIA, which is probably worth another post. Because the rest of the article, about the IPCA's funding issues and its relationship with police, is pretty interesting reading, and it crosses over with a recent select committee report on Shannon Parker's petition. The agency started out underfunded and toothless - it had no investigators of its own for its first 15 years of existence - and has stayed that way. While it has some independent investigation capacity today, it still relies on police to investigate the vast bulk of complaints for them, rubberstamping and laundering their conclusions, despite the obvious conflict of interest and clear concerns in some cases. Which is pretty dubious when you think about it. The IPCA was established precisely so police wouldn't be investigating themselves. Instead, they still are (because of underfunding and the desire to preserve a cooperative relationship). Which essentially makes this entire agency a fraud on the New Zealand public, a toothless propaganda exercise designed to make us think there is oversight when there is not.

Can it be salvaged? That would require a complete change. A complete change in organisational culture, from a cooperative relationship with police to one of actual oversight, which works for victims of police misconduct rather than for police. It would also require sufficient resources for the task, so they could effectively investigate complaints themselves, plus powers to force police to cooperate and report misbehaviour by their coworkers. And it would require giving them powers not just to prosecute criminal offending by police, but also to intervene in the employment relationship to discipline, sanction, and if required, fire police officers whose misbehaviour does not warrant criminal charges. Because it is clear from the evidence that the police won't do any of that themselves, and are viscerally opposed to any real accountability.

Will the government do that? If they want the public to have any confidence in the police at all, they need to. Otherwise, we have no reason to view them as anything other than a well-armed, government-sanctioned gang.

Sticking a privacywall on our history

Archives New Zealand is the repository for our public records, the institutional collective memory of the nation. All sorts of people use it: genealogists, historians, policy wonks. I've used it, when digging into the history of sedition, or of the Official Information Act. But the Department of Internal Affairs has just decided to make using the archives much harder: they've introduced a new search engine to replace the old (but quite effective) Archway. This will allow access to some recent digital records online, which is great. But if you want to view older records, either by visiting and looking at them on paper, or by getting the staff to digitise them, you'll need to get a RealMe account:

To book a viewing in one of our reading rooms or to pay for an archive to be digitised you’ll need to login using RealMe.

Why is this a problem? Well, apart from the conceptual problems of an agency which is supposed to be all about enabling public access sticking a privacywall on our history, people absolutely hate RealMe, making it effectively a barrier to access. When people say things like "I hate RealMe with a visceral loathing" about a digital identity system, you probably want to avoid it (which is why NZ businesses generally do).

But it also seems entirely unnecessary. Why do you need a digitally verified identity to visit what is essentially a library? What was wrong with the old system of physically signing up and signing in? Does the government really need to be able to link what you request in the archives with your medical, welfare, and travel records? Or is the real problem here that nobody was using RealMe if they could possibly avoid it, so DIA (which runs the digital ID system as well as the archives) decided to try and forcibly impose it on more people?

A loss for Labour

Louisa Wall has been one of the most effective MPs of recent times. She gave us marriage equality, she gave us safe zones around abortion clinics, she gave us a ban on revenge porn, and she's currently working on protecting journalists sources. And now she's resigning, having been forced out of Parliament by her own party:

Labour MP Louisa Wall has resigned from Parliament, ending a 14-year career marked by the passage of same-sex marriage legalisation but also clashes with her party.

Wall, who has been cast as an outsider in the party, specifically referenced in her resignation an internal stoush at the 2020 election which led her to be ousted from the Manurewa seat, which she has held since 2011.

“It’s been an honour to represent and provide a voice in parliament to those who are so often unheard,” Wall said on Tuesday afternoon.

This is a tremendous loss for Labour, but they won't recognise it. But the rest of us should. And it certainly makes you wonder what is wrong with a party which cannot accept her.

Finally

Last month, we learned that Australia had agreed-in-principle to Aotearoa's offer to resettle refugees from Australian concentration camps. And today, Australia finally accepted it:

In a major about-turn, Australia has accepted New Zealand's long-standing offer to take 150 refugees a year for three years from detention centres in the Pacific.

The deal aims to rehome some of the thousands of refugees who have arrived in Australia by boat, and been placed in detention in line with the country's policy.

The original offer was made by then-prime minister John Key in 2013 and has continued to be extended by his successors Bill English and Jacinda Ardern.

Australian authorities have rejected the proposal until now, citing concerns that the refugees could claim Kiwi citizenship and then travel into Australia freely.

Australia's solution to that problem has long been a demand that we permanently deny their victims citizenship. Obviously, this has been unacceptable to the New Zealand government. And it looks like we got our way: the refugees won't be denied residency or citizenship. Further, while Immigration Minister Kris Faafoi has said that Australia's border decisions are a question for Australia, he's also said that we expect all kiwis to be treated equally - suggesting there may be diplomatic consequences if they try any continued victimisation.

Obviously, this deal could have been made nine years ago when it was first proposed. The fact that Australia refused over illusory, racist fears, and then tortured these people for nine years, is something Australian politicians need to be held accountable for.

Jamaica plans to become a republic

At the end of last year, the Caribbean state of Barbados became a republic. Now, the Jamaican government has taken the opportunity of a royal visit to announce plans to do the same:

Jamaica’s prime minister has told the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge that his country is “moving on” and intends to become a republic.

The royals’ arrival in Jamaica on Tuesday coincided with a much-publicised demonstration urging the monarchy to pay reparations for slavery, and calls from politicians for the country to become a republic.

The couple’s visit to Jamaica has given the nation the opportunity to address “unresolved” issues, the prime minister, Andrew Holness, told them. During an official welcome, Holness said: “There are issues here which are, as you would know, unresolved but your presence gives an opportunity for those issues to be placed in context, put front and centre and to be addressed in as best [a way] as we can.

“Jamaica is as you would see a country that is very proud of our history and very proud of what we have achieved. We are moving on and we intend to attain in short order … our goals and fulfil our true ambitions as an independent, developed, prosperous country.”

They've already established a ministry for constitutional reform, but Barbados provides an easy model for quick change: simply twink out the old royalist terms like "monarch" and crown", write in "president" and "state", and appoint your existing, domestically-appointed governor-general as president. This settles the main change - getting rid of the British - while preserving existing constitutional norms and leaving space open for further changes if desired.

And obviously, this raises the question: when will Aotearoa join the modern world?

Climate Change: Ending Tiwai's subsidies

The Tiwai Point aluminium smelter is one of New Zealand's biggest climate scammers. Under the ETS's industrial allocation provisions, it receives far more carbon credits than it actually emits, which it can then sell to other polluters for profit. The core of its scam is a thing called the "electricity allocation factor" (EAF), which is meant to compensate heavy electricity users for the effects of the ETS on the electricity price. Tiwai receives over 900,000 tons of carbon credits free every year under this scheme, despite paying below-market prices for power, and being subsidised $350 million a year by the rest of us. But now, that scam is over. back in December, Climate Change Minister James Shaw took a paper to Cabinet arguing that Tiwai's EAF be reduced to zero:

I recommend setting NZAS’s EAF for the main contract at zero. This means there are no emissions costs passed on to NZAS under this contract. Should Cabinet agree to this recommendation, NZAS will not receive emission units for its electricity consumption under this contract.

While there's no corresponding cabinet minute in today's proactive release, Shaw clearly got his way, because the regulations have now been changed, reducing Tiwai's allocation by 60%. The emissions impact is 934,000 tons per year - over 1% of our entire national emissions. And because industrial allocation is accounted for before ETS auction volumes are set, that will be a real reduction: polluters won't have access to these permits anymore, so they'll either have to pollute less now, or use stockpiled credits (meaning they pollute less later).

The paper notes that there's a wider review of the EAF and industrial allocation, as well as of ETS volume settings, so hopefully this will become a permanent reduction. And it would certainly be one way of compensating for both past CCR releases and the massive stockpile of carbon credits built up by past government stupidity. If we don't want that stockpile to threaten our future targets, we need to force it to be used by ratcheting down annual supply. And cracking down on pollution subsidies is a great way of doing this.

The decision will also apply more pressure on Tiwai's decision on whether to stay after 2024. This has a significant impact on renewable electricity supplies, and the government's plan for decarbonising industry depends on them leaving. Cutting their subsidies will send a message that the free ride is over, and force them to make that decision on the basis of actual costs, rather than what they can milk out of the government. And that can only be a good thing long-term.

Throwing away our cheese

Back in 2020, Siouxsie Wiles and Toby Morris published a catchy graphic on The Spinoff on the Swiss Cheese Model of public health, with various policy interventions as slices of (holey) cheese. Stack up enough slices, and its harder and harder for covid to get through the holes. Except for the past few months - ever since the introduction of the "traffic light" system, covid policy hasn't been a matter of stacking up slices, but of ripping them out and throwing them on the floor. Traffic lights. Opening the border and ditching MIQ. Sacking the contact tracers. And today, the government has taken out another few slices, by effectively ditching gathering limits, scanning in, vaccine passes, and vaccine mandates. And they're not doing this at a time when the covid risk has decreased, but in the middle of our biggest outbreak, when people are still dying. As a result, the model now looks something like this:

("Something like" because this is based on the pre-vaccination graphic. The version which shows vaccines and masks doesn't show a bunch of the other stuff).

The Prime Minister says that these changes will mean that we will have a baseline caseload of "potentially several thousand cases a day" when the current wave is over. In other words, more covid than we had in the first wave, when we all locked down, and more than we had in the Delta wave, when we all locked down again. That caseload is going to mean ongoing, constant deaths, and an increasingly large number being disabled from long covid. But clearly Labour is fine with that now. Some of us may die, but its a sacrifice they're willing to make to pander to the increasingly sociopathic hospitality industry.

I remember when the government was kind, and was obviously doing its utmost to keep us all alive. That is clearly no longer true. This is a policy of stochastic murder. And we should hold the government accountable for it at the next election.

Climate Change: We need to end fossil fuels

Last year, the International Energy Association warned us that the world needed to cease all new fossil fuel development immediately if we wanted to reach net-zero by 2050. That still leaves the problem of phasing out existing production, though. Now, a think-tank has recommended that the richest countries end all production by 2034:

Rich countries must end all oil and gas production in the next 12 years, while the poorest nations should be given 28 years, to provide a fair transition away from fossil fuels, according to a study.

The report, led by Prof Kevin Anderson from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at Manchester University, found that wealthy countries such as the UK, US and Australia had until 2034 to stop all oil and gas production to give the world a 50% chance of preventing devastating climate breakdown, while the poorest nations that are also heavily reliant on fossil fuels should be given until 2050.

This proposal would put New Zealand in the second group, with a phase out by 2039. Interestingly, business-as-usual will see almost all existing oil and gas mining permits expire by 2037, so this is actually slower than we are expecting. But this is only for a 50% chance of avoiding catastrophe, which is pretty shit odds (basicly worse than playing Russian roulette, and with human civilisation on the line), so we need to move faster. Which means we need to legislate to end those mining permits early, as quickly as possible. If we are to have a future, then the fossil fuel industry cannot.

Finally

After years of foot-dragging, the government will finally implement a public beneficial ownership register:

Cabinet has agreed to push for a public beneficial ownership register - effectively pulling back the veil of corporate secrecy and requiring companies to declare who they truly act for - following years of pressure by transparency advocates and multilateral bodies.

MBIE had proposed such a register in 2018, with public consultation taking place that year, before the reform apparently stalled.

But a change of government, two changes of minister, international scandals, a multilateral body earlier this month requiring members - including New Zealand - to implement such a register, and four years later, Commerce Minister David Clark this morning said Cabinet had agreed to introduce legislation by the end of the year.

There may be devils in the details - will it apply to trusts, for example? - but this is a good move, which will help narrow the space for tax cheats, criminals, and oligarchs to hide their stolen wealth. The sooner it is passed and implemented, the better.

Disarm the police to save lives

RNZ has launched a major investigation into killings by police, revealing that we have one of the most violent police forces in the western world:

New Zealand police kill at 11 times the rate of police in England and Wales.

[...]

The police in England and Wales have fatally shot 77 people over that time - twice as many as in New Zealand but in a population more than 10 times greater than ours.

When taken over the last 10 years, the rate of fatal shootings is 11 times higher in New Zealand than in England and Wales - or six times higher dating back to 1990.

Specialist firearms lawyer Nicholas Taylor said the high rates of police shootings were the result of poor weapons training, a shoot-to-kill policy and a police culture which put risk taking ahead of deescalation.

Its a long article, looking at who they shoot (disproportionately Māori and/or the mentally ill), whether they had weapons (not always) or had injured anybody before being shot (mostly not), and how often they were shot in the back or while fleeing (disturbingly often). Its an ugly picture, which gets worse when you remember that the Independent Police Conduct Authority has never ruled a police shooting unjustified, even when they shoot innocent bystanders (RNZ will apparently be doing more on that issue later).

Killings by police were historically low, but seemed to escalate in 2007, and again after 2015. I'm wondering what caused those changes, and my suspicion is that it is readier access to firearms (the police started installing gun safes in every vehicle in 2012, and it will have taken time for that change, and the change in mindset from an unarmed force to one with guns everywhere, to filter through). And as the article makes clear, the police now have a mindset of getting their guns, charging in, and putting themselves in a situation where they "have" to kill someone, where previously they would have called for help, contained and de-escalated the situation, and waited for the armed offenders squad to arrive. We need to force them back into the latter mindset. And the best way to do it is to take their guns away, and restrict them to specialist, trained officers, rather than giving a lethal weapon to any yahoo in blue.

We also need to make sure that police officers who use lethal force (or any force) face meaningful oversight, and prosecution where their decisions are legally questionable. The current situation of effective impunity is effectively an ongoing incentive for the police to kill. And that is not something we should tolerate in our society.

Climate Change: Stuff, denialism, and net-zero

Back in 2018, Stuff finally took a sensible stance on climate change, recognising the need to save the planet. part of this was a commitment that they would no longer publish climate denial:

we won't include climate change "scepticism". Including denialism wouldn't be "balanced"; it'd be a dangerous waste of time.

Four years later, they're back publishing climate denial again, in the form of an op-ed calling for the net-zero goal to be dumped. The author is a fossil industry shill (their partner is general manager at an oil company), and they're doing this in a context where the people who pushed Brexit have now taken a hard turn to pushing climate inaction (the author also pushed Brexit, so it looks like she's the local troll in Farage's network). You might expect a media organisation to be aware of these facts, it being their job to follow the news and all. But I guess that expectation is about as realistic as expecting them to keep their promises.

As for the merits, the troll's argument is basicly that net-zero is "unrealistic", "will never be delivered", and "incremental and ineffective". In other words, the standard "its all too hard" that climate deniers have fallen back on now that they can no-longer deny the physics. Which is simply bullshit.

The current net-zero target gives us 30 years. Its perfectly realistic and achieveable to decarbonise over that length of time - after all, we carbonised over that timescale. The Maui gas-field was discovered in 1969, and NZ gas use peaked in 2002. Farmers doubled the size of the dairy herd between 1991 and 2019. New Zealand's first car was imported in 1898, and 30 years later horses were confined to farms (we mass-motorised even quicker, in the short period from the opening of the Auckland Harbour Bridge in 1959 to the oil shock in 1973. And we moved to multi-car households and dirty inefficient utes and SUVs over a similar period in the 2000s). So decarbonising energy and transport, eliminating the fossil fuel industry, minimising industrial emissions and culling the dairy herd is perfectly do-able over a similar timeframe. Yes, we need to do all of these things all at once. But its definitely do-able.

Early long-term climate targets were recipes for delay and inaction. But the framework of the Zero Carbon Act means the 2050 target gives shape and focus to our short-term goals, ensuring that our incremental progress stays on track. The problem with the 2050 target isn't that its "unrealistic", its that its not ambitious enough. The climate data is suggesting that we need to decarbonise even faster to avoid catastrophic damage, and countries like Germany are already bringing their (all-gases) net-zero targets forward from 2050 to 2045. And Putin's war and the increased public understanding that carbon bankrolls tyranny is likely to give them a strong incentive to push that process harder. Aotearoa will need to do the same.

How fast we decarbonise is largely a matter of how fast the government pushes it. And as we've seen from Covid, the government can push very hard indeed when the chips are down. Articles like Pagani's are there to do the opposite, to lay the groundwork for further footdragging. They are simply propaganda for civilisational suicide. And a responsible media outlet like Stuff, which proclaims that it will no longer publish climate denial, should not publish them.

A policy that purports to over-ride the OIA

A request made via FYI, the public OIA request site, has uncovered the NZSIS-Police Joint Operating Strategy and Information Sharing Protocol. Most of this is the usual stuff about protecting classified information. But it also in places purports to over-ride the Official Information Act, potentially resulting in unlawful OIA decisions.

The protocol explicitly acknowledges the OIA and Privacy Acts. But it also follows the "originator control" (ORCON) principle common to spy agencies, and explicitly states that when information is subject to an OIA request:

Disclosure or acknowledgement of the existence of that information must not occur without the written authorisation from the source Party.

This is contrary to the OIA. While it is proper to consult the originating agency about a request (and this may result in a transfer), the processing agency must ultimately make its own decision, and its assessment of the interests at stake. The originating agency cannot veto release. In fact, this seems to be exactly the sort of illegal secrecy contract ruled out by Wyatt Co (NZ) Ltd v Queenstown-Lakes District Council, except it is the government agreeing secrecy with itself, rather than an outside party (which makes it even more dubious). Which means that any refusal of a request for information under this protocol should be immediately challenged with the Ombudsman.

(This is a similar issue to that of "security of information" agreements, except again, its the government agreeing secrecy with itself, rather than with an outside party. A perfect example of how spy-thinking infects and corrupts our democracy).

Whose law did they think they were subject to?

During the war on terror, the US ran a program of extraordinary rendition, in which alleged terrorists were kidnapped, taken to foreign countries, and tortured for information. The British government colluded in this, both directly by assisting in kidnappings, and indirectly by providing questions for their torturing proxies to ask the victims. Now, their victims are suing. The British government's "defence" has been to claim that its spies weren't subject to British law when performing their official duties. The UK Court of Appeal's response? yeah, right:

UK intelligence services who allegedly asked the CIA to put questions to a detainee who was being tortured in “black sites” were subject to the law of England and Wales and not that of the countries in which he was being held, the court of appeal has ruled.

The three appeal judges were asked to decide whether Abu Zubaydah, who was subjected to extreme mistreatment and torture at secret CIA “black sites” in six different countries, has the right to sue the UK government in England.

[...]

In [Justice] Males’s written judgment, he said: “These are strong connections connecting the tortious conduct with England and Wales. They reflect also the parties’ reasonable expectations. While it is true that the claimant himself had no connection with this country, he could reasonably have expected, if he had thought about it during the 20 years in which he has been detained, that the conduct of any country’s security services having to do with him would be governed by the law of the country concerned. As for the services, they would reasonably have expected that their conduct here would be subject to English law.”

Which is obvious the moment you think about it. For a government to claim it is not bound by its own laws is simply absurd. But apparently nothing is too absurd when the British establishment is attempting to justify and excuse torture.

The path is now open for Abu Zubaydah to sue. And hopefully he will force the British government to admit its crimes and extract compensation for them. But the spies who colluded in torture and the Ministers who authorised that collusion shouldn't just be facing a civil suit - they should be facing criminal prosecution. And if the British government refuses to prosecute its own, well, there's a court in The Hague for that.

Luxon is a climate change denier

Chris Luxon claims that climate change is a "priority" for him. So what does being a priority mean in practice? Opposing every policy which might make a difference. He opposes the clean car discount (or specifically, the dirty car fee which funds it). He opposes cycling infrastructure and therefore mode shift away from polluting cars. He opposes bringing agriculture into the ETS and making farmers - our biggest polluters - pay their way. And he today he added a few more things to the list:

Christopher Luxon has reaffirmed National's policy of overturning the ban on issuing new permits for offshore oil and gas exploration, saying it is a solution to New Zealand's energy crisis. He also suggested his big tax cut policy could change by the time of the next election.

The Government is currently grappling with the high cost of fossil fuels, driven by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. While it is motorists and businesses who are currently most exposed to high transport costs, other fossil fuels like coal, which New Zealand burns for electricity, have also spiked.

Luxon said gas could be used as a bridging fuel, and said the Government should scrap its 2018 decision to stop issuing permits for oil and gas exploration offshore.

Gas as a "bridge fuel" sounded OK 20 years ago (and indeed, its how the UK reduced its emissions: by swapping coal for gas). But this deep in the climate crisis, it is a recipe for disaster. We cannot afford to burn existing fossil fuel reserves if we want to survive, and the International Energy Association - historicly a pro-fossil fuel group - has said that all new development must cease immediately. So the problem with our offshore exploration ban isn't that it exists, its that it does not go far enough. Rather than repealing the ban, we need to extend it, and phase out fossil fuels entirely. Anything less is suicide.

As for Luxon, his continued support for fossil fuels and his opposition to any practical policy to limit emissions show that he is just a dirty old climate change denier (he's simply moved from denying physics to denying we need to do anything about it). And as such, he is unfit for any position of responsibility. He should not be a CEO, he should not be an MP, and he certainly should never be allowed to be our Prime Minister. Fortunately, with MMP, voters have the tool we need to defend ourselves against him.

More Labour secrecy

The government introduced a new Natural Hazards Insurance Bill today to replace EQC. And as has become depressingly usual from this government, it includes a secrecy clause. Section 113 of the bill requires insurers to pay levies to the new Natural Hazards Commission. Section 118 of the bill requires them to keep that information secret, on pain of a $50,000 fine.

The clause essentially re-enacts section 25 of the old Earthquake Commission Act 1993, but with a significantly higher penalty (the penalty under the current Act is a $1,000 fine). But that isn't a justification. The information covered by the secrecy clause is obviously commercially sensitive, and its provision is compelled by an enactment. It can therefore be withheld under sections 9(2)(b)(ii) and 9(2)(ba) of the Official Information Act. While a public interest test applies, its hard to see how the usual public interests of transparency, accountability, and participation apply, so really it would only be disclosed where there was evidence of fraud. Which seems like the right level of protection (interestingly, as written the secrecy clause seems to forbid disclosure to the SFO if the Commission believes there has been fraud). A statutory secrecy clause basicly signals that the government does not trust the OIA, or the Ombudsman, or the public. And that's not something we should accept from our government.