A green light for Project Westwind

Meridian Energy's planned Makara windfarm, Project Westwind, has received the green light from the Environment Court. The project has been trimmed by four turbines, to 198 MW, but it will be able to go ahead. So, once again despite the complaints the RMA proves to be no barrier to sensible renewable energy projects - the emphasis placed on them in the Act seems fairly decisive.

Last-minute submissions

Life has crept up on me again, so I'll be spending the rest of the afternoon writing my submission on the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill in time to get it in the post by this evening. Two years of blogging to be distilled down to two pages in two hours, without any bad language (and there are parts of the government's argument which just cry out for an air-clearing cry of "bullshit!"), and without getting myself so angry that I can no longer write but instead end up walking around swearing randomly at things for half an hour. That'll be fun...

Update: I should also add that if anyone feels strongly about the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, then they should start writing now, as submissions are due on Friday.

Parliament and the OIA

Scoop has an interesting speech by Margaret Wilson on "Parliament And Official Information", given at the Information Law Conference marking 25 years of the Official Information Act (something I'd have gone to if anybody told me about it). The short version: she's in favour of extending the OIA to cover Parliament, provided there are safeguards to protect party political information and the communications of members with their constituents (which seems appropriate). Something else for the government to use to pad the Order Paper, perhaps?

120,000 reasons to increase aid

Yesterday the government announced a welcome increase in our foreign aid budget, laying out a pathway to increase it to 0.35% of GDP by 2010. However, it still has a long way to go if it is to meet its commitment to boost it to 0.7% by 2015. Today, it received 120,000 reasons to push towards that target, in the form of a petition from the New Zealand branch of the Make Poverty History campaign. That's a massive petition for New Zealand, and one that makes it clear that we expect our government to do better in this area. Hopefully they'll take the message to heart, rather than ignoring it.

The calm before the Budget

Thursday is Budget Day, so the news today is thin, mostly tied up with speculation on what sort of savings incentives Cullen will deliver and the pepetual wailing and gnashing of teeth over the absence of tax cuts for the rich (you'd think that after seven and a half years, our political journalists would have twigged to this being something that social democratic governments generally aren't in favour of - but apparently not). Well, that and Ian Wishart's latest bucket of sewage, which everyone to their credit is doing their best to avoid stepping in.

Thanks to Michael Cullen's good work over the last seven years, the Budget is likely to show OBERAC surpluses stretching out as far as the eye can see. This is likely to provoke the usual demands from the right for that money to be "returned to the hard working taxpayer" in the form of tax cuts. Writing in The Listener, Brian Easton is rather acerbic about such demands:

This savings-before-investment figure is an accounting notion, frequently referred to as “The Budget Surplus”, even though almost all of it has been spent.

Treating the amount as available for tax cuts (or for more government spending) confuses an accounting aggregate with an economic reality. It was a monetarist confusion that seemed to lead the National Party during the 2005 election to propose using this “surplus” for income tax cuts. Had the policy been implemented, the cuts would have fed into household consumption, reduced national saving, and so pushed the exchange rate up further, screwing even more exporters and ruining the economy even further.

Fortunately, wiser – or at least more economically informed – heads seem to have since prevailed in National.

But even with a more responsible approach, the large apparent Budget “surplus” (before investment and such spending) is politically unstable: there will always be those who, from economic ignorance or political opportunism, argue that this money – which we haven’t got – should be given away in tax cuts. The danger is that enough of the public may believe the ill-informed to drive an irresponsible economic policy – as almost happened in 2005.

Savings incentives are a political way aroud this, a way of cutting taxes without really cutting taxes, defusing some of the political demand without causing inflation (and while directing it towards social democratic aims to boot). But they don't deal with the underlying problem: that there are people out there too thick to realise that the "budget surplus" isn't, a view encouraged by people who think that it is appropriate to run the country in the same way that National's cronies ran Tranz Rail. The only way of dealing with this is to make it clear what the "surplus" is spent on - roads, schools, hospitals, and pensions - and that the sort of asset-stripping tax cuts promoted by the extreme right for their own benefit would come at the expense of the social and physical infrastructure the vast majority of New Zealanders depend on to live.

Fiji: another beating

On Friday, the Fijian military detained businessman Ulaiasi Taoi. They took his clothes, threw him in a cell, and kicked the shit out of him. Why? Because he was suspected of being a blogger who said nasty things about the regime. Because Cthulhu forbid that people might be allowed to criticise the government, judge its actions, or find them wanting. Why, then there might be... democracy!

Increasing Aid

Foreign Minister Winston Peters has announced a major increase in aid spending - $70 million this year, and $250 million over the next four years. This will mean that Labour will meet its election pledge to increase aid to 0.35% of GDP by 2010 - the highest level in thirty years, though still not a touch on the 0.52% reached under the Kirk government. Still, it is an extremely welcome increase, and one the government can be proud of.

Next step: getting them to lay out a pathway to meet their commitment under the Millenium Development Goals to increase aid to 0.7% of GDP by 2015.

Against RMA call-ins

Ever since Project Aqua, energy companies have been arguing that renewable energy projects be called in under the RMA, arguing that the national importance of their profits more electricity generation should override petty local concerns about the environment or quality of life. There's another example of this today, with Meridian Energy complaining that the government has refused to call in its 630 MW Central Otago windfarm, Project Hayes.

Meridian's "justification" is that the Central Otago District Council is "dragging its feet" over hearing the application, but this simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Meridian applied for consent in November 2006, and the CODC is currently holding hearings, which are expected to last a couple more weeks. Six months to notify, submit, and process submissions is not onerous or unusual, and certainly should not be unexpected - it's just the basic length of time the process takes for a major project. Instead, Meridian's demands for a call-in seem to be driven more by the fact that their project has significant local opposition and has received an adverse report from the CODC's planning consultant panning its visual impact and recommending that it not proceed. So, rather than fight for their project on its merits, they're forum shopping instead. The Minister is right to refuse this request. But are they right to be so reluctant to use their call-in powers?

IMHO, yes. The RMA lays out a process by which local communities can assess the environmental impacts of a project against local and national priorities, with the Environment Court as a backstop to ensure that the process is fair. We should no more short-circuit this process by sending applications directly to the Environment Court or Minister's desk than we should short-circuit the process of criminal trials by sending cases direct to the Court of Appeal. It's not their function, and it removes an important safeguard from the system (it also raises significant barriers to public participation in the process, which was the very point of the RMA, and precisely why the anti-democratic right are so in favour of it). If central government is concerned that local bodies are not paying sufficient attention to issues they consider important, then the Act already lays out a process by which they can make them do so, in the form of National Policy Statements. Alternatively, they can amend the Act to add to the list of matters which must be considered (as they have already done over climate change and renewable energy).

More generally, use of the call-in mechanism, even in the form of choosing which projects get "fast-tracked" to the Environment Court, raises the spectre of favouritism and corruption. This is fine to a generation of energy company executives raised on the Clyde Dam and the National Development Act, but it ought to be anathema to the rest of us. I take it as a bedrock principle that projects should be assessed on their merits, not on who has (or can buy) the ear of the Minister. The law should do likewise.

Something to go to in Wellington

Transparency International New Zealand (TINZ) and VUW's Institute of Policy Studies are holding a one-day symposium next month on The Funding of Political Parties and Election Campaigns [PDF]. Speakers include Dr paul Harris (former head of the Electoral Commission), Dr Helen Catt (current head of the Electoral Commission), Raymond Miller, Andrew Geddis and Steven Price, as well as a couple of MPs and a slew of party presidents. Sounds like its well worth going to.

When: Friday, 15 June, 9:00 - 16:00
Where: Council chamber, Hunter Building, VUW, Wellington (the big old building at the top of the hill)
How much: Free!

(Hat tip: Coalition for Open Government)

Climate change: A fair contribution

National Party leader John Key made a major speech on the environment today, in which he committed his party to both the Kyoto Protocol and a 50% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. This is a welcome shift in policy from National's dark days of climate change denialism, and a return to the party adopting a responsible attitude (as it seems to have also done on race). Last week, I compared National's chosen target with those of other nations and found it rather underwhelming - but having crunched some numbers, I've changed my mind.

"50% by 2050" doesn't look that impressive when compared to the much higher targets set by the UK (60%), EU (60 - 80%), California (80%) and Norway (100%). However, National justifies it by implicitly appealing to a per-capita comparison:

New Zealand’s emissions are significantly less per person than those of Australia, the United States and Canada. National believes the “50 by 50” target is New Zealand’s fair contribution to avoiding dangerous climate change, taking into account our already high level of renewable energy and the difficulty of reducing agricultural emissions.

I was a bit suspicious of this, so I did the numbers. And actually, they turn out pretty good:

	California	EU-15	United Kingdom	New Zealand
1990 emissions (MTCO2-e)	373.4a	4,014.58b	750.64b	40.15b
2050 emissions (MTCO2-e)	74.68	1,605.83	300.26	20.08
2050 Population (millions)	54.778c	384.356d	69.162e	5.045f
Per capita emissions (TCO2-e / person)	1.36	4.18	4.34	3.98

(All emissions figures are net; I've linked to the sources for the curious).

So, "50% by 2050" is a fair contribution, at least by comparison with other nations. It's not exactly leading the world, but its certainly doing our bit. The challenge now for National is to flesh out this distant target with some intermediate targets and some firmer policies for meeting them. The challenge for the government is to beat it.

Fiji: shutting down the blogs

Since the December 5 coup, the Fijian blogosphere has exploded, with a network of "Fijian Freedom Bloggers" established to distribute information critical of the military regime. These blogs have broken several important stories deeply embarassing to those in power, and now the regime is trying to close them down. On Friday they detained a businessman on suspicion of being a blogger, and now they are pressuring FINTEL (Fiji's international telecommunications gateway) to block access to sites critical of the regime. So we may see a "little firewall of Fiji" to "protect" Fijians from harmful concepts like democracy, accountability, and human rights.

Of course, such firewalls may be circumvented. There's an escalating series of circumvention and privacy methods in the Reporters Without Borders Handbook for bloggers and cyber-dissidents [PDF]. The easiest method is to use a service like Anonymouse, Proxify or The Cloak to disguise the destination of your traffic. Such sites may also be blocked, but you can DIY by using a proxy server (lists here; IE configuration tutorial here). There are stronger and more secure methods as well for the seriously paranoid, but the basic ones ought to be enough to begin with.

Reality mirrors satire

As in "The Trial of Tony Blair", so in reality: Blair leaves office, and Labour goes up in the polls...

Generational and constitutional change in Samoa

Malietoa Tanumafili II, Samoa's o le Ao o le Malo (head of state) has died, aged 95. His death marks the passing of the generation which led Samoa to independence. But it also signifies an important change in the country's constitutional system. When Samoa became independent in 1962, the position of o le Ao o le Malo was shared between two paramount chiefs. Now that they are both gone, the position shifts to being elected by the Fono for a five-year term. While it is highly likely that it will continue to be elected from among the four paramount chiefs, that's not a legal requirement - so in a sense samoa has just become a republic (if they weren't already).

New Fisk

Our need for beauty in the midst of war

What opposition to NCEA is about

Sexism. What else can you say when an exclusive boy's school principal withdraws from the system because it "tends to favour girls"? And it looks even worse when he explains himself:

Headmaster Graeme Yule said NCEA lent itself to the girls, who tended to be more diligent with the internal assessment aspects of NCEA.

Otherwise known as hard work and academic merit. Clearly we can't have an education system which rewards that!

Such anti-meritocratic attitudes aren't uncommon in elite educational institutions. Reading this reminded me of an article I read a while ago about the history of the US S.A.T, which mentioned in passing the use of aptitude tests to keep Jews out of Ivy League universities. The theory behind this was that Jewish students were "grinds", who excelled simply because they worked hard, as opposed to having the "innate ability" of, say, the scion of an inbred New England dynasty. The use of an aptitude test (which nowadays we would recognise as being significantly culturally biased) allowed the colleges to weed out the (mainly Jewish) students who were "achieving beyond their ability" in favour of the (mainly white) students who were "naturals" (as shown by their ability to achieve a gentleman's C). Unfortunately, it seems that this attitude is alive and well in the principal of Scots College.

Submission

Below is my submission on Supplementary Order Paper 106 to the Major Events Management Bill. It's been drafted in a bit of a hurry, but it will have to do.

• I oppose Supplementary Order Paper No 106 to the Major Events Management Bill, and the proposed offence of pitch invasion for the following reasons:
• The proposed offence is redundant. Police can already prosecute pitch invaders for disorderly behaviour under s4 (1) of the Summary Offences Act 1981, or for disturbing meetings (s37). Those throwing objects onto the playing surface in a manner likely to injure the players can be prosecuted for throwing stones under s34 of the same Act, or for assault.
• The proposed penalties are excessive. Three months imprisonment is the same as handed out for disorderly behaviour leading to a substantial risk of violence (s3 Summary Offences Act), intimidation (s21), or wilful damage (s11). It is the same as that for discharging a firearm in a public place (s48 Arms Act 1983), or for presenting a firearm or restricted weapon at another person (s52). These are crimes involving actual violence or a serious threat of such to people or property. “Pitch invasion” simply is not on the same level.
• The rationale for the proposed offence is to protect major events from disruption, and their sponsors from “ambush marketing”. Against the first point, existing law and the ability of event managers to control access to venues already provides sufficient protection; those disrupting events can be prosecuted, convicted, and barred from future events (as happened to streaker Lisa Lewis). Against the second, I do not believe that protecting the right of sponsors to exclusively brand an event justifies the proposed infringement of our civil liberties or the excessive penalties. If sponsors believe their investment in an event has been diluted by such tactics, they should pursue civil penalties, rather than having a special offence created for the purpose.
• I do not wish to make an oral submission to the Select Committee.

Climate change: allocation

Now that the government has decided to go for emissions trading, the debate has turned to the most fraught past of the issue: allocation. This has bogged down past proposals for emissions trading for years in pointless debate as the government has tried to escape the fact that any allocation will annoy someone. I say "pointless" because from a policy point of view, it doesn't actually matter - what's important is the creation of a marginal price on emissions (which is done by the creation of a cap and permits), not who pays who. According to Coase's Theorem the market will all work it out anyway - so why the debate?

The answer is simple: money. While created by the government, emissions permits will be worth money - billions of dollars at expected carbon prices. The debate then is over who gets those billions of dollars: the government, or private industry. The sums involved mean the latter will squeal long and loud in an effort to get a free windfall, and to ensure that it flows preferentially to them rather than their competitors.

It ought to come as no surprise that I favour the government in this. New Zealand's emissions quota under the Kyoto Protocol is a public asset. It should not be given away for free, even by proxy. Instead, permits should be allocated by auction. Ideally I would like to see the revenue from sales recycled to fund other emissions reduction programs and compensate those adversely affected by climate change, but that's not strictly necessary. What's important is ensuring that polluters pay, rather than rewarding them with windfall profits. I'm not opposed to partial grandparenting where there is a significant risk of emissions leakage (as judged under similar criteria to the previous Negotiated Greenhouse Agreements programme), but this should be the exception, rather than the rule. The basic presumption should be that businesses pay the full cost of their pollution, rather than getting a sweetheart deal, and that the rent from establishing the system go to the government to be used for the public benefit, rather than into private pockets.

Some businesses will no doubt complain that being forced to pay the full cost of their activities will drive them to bankruptcy. My response to this is "the sooner the better" - because if the claim is accurate, then it is clear that they were never really profitable in the first place.

Timor-Leste elections

Despite the headlines, there hasn't actually been an official result in East Timor's presidential election. But with 90% of the votes counted, Prime Minister and Noble prize winner Jose Ramos-Horta is leading with 73% of the vote. It looks like Fretilin has received a real drubbing, and they may have serious trouble in the Parliamentary elections in June.

East Timor Journal isn't the only blogger covering the count BTW; Dili-gence managed to attach themselves to an election monitoring team, and has also been reporting on the results. It's a good example of bloggers playing at journalist, and one that should be encouraged. And if I wasn't so attached to election-night parties, I might consider doing it myself next time there's an election here.

A constitutional outrage

The Turkish Parliament has just passed a major constitutional reform package, allowing direct election of the president and shifting them from a single seven year term to a renewable five year one. These changes may be desirable, or they may not - it depends on what sort of constitutional framework the Turkish people want - but what's not desirable is the timing: just a few months before an election, itself forced by the government's inability to elect their own candidate as president. Going to the people in search of a new mandate and a larger majority is an appropriate and democratic response to this. But ramming through major constitutional changes at short notice is not. It smacks of an attempt to stack the deck, and is more reminiscent of the constitutional outrages practised in South America than in a supposedly European country.

Fortunately, the Turkish constitution has a few safeguards. One of these is the ability of the President to return legislation to Parliament for reconsideration, or to put it to referendum. Hopefully they'll do the latter. The shape of the Turkish constitution should be ultimately decided by the Turkish people - not by politicians maneuvering for electoral advantage.

Driving the market

Last year, the government announced that it would be imposing a biofuels sales obligation on New Zealand oil companies, requiring them to sell an escalating percentage of biofuels, starting at 0.25% next year and building up to 3.4% in 2012. The aim was to push the market in a greener direction. And it seems to be working. Argent Energy had already announced its interest in a tallow-biodiesel plant in Northland, and Solid Energy has just announced that it will be buying Canterbury Biodiesel and expanding it into producing biofuel from canola. Between them, these two companies will be able to meet 75% of New Zealand's 2012 target. With a number of other companies also working on biofuels (LanzaTech from flue waste gases, BioJoule from wood, AquaFlow from sewage, and Steve Tindall on corn ethanol) it looks like the targets will be met. The question in a couple of years time then will be how far and how fast they can be expanded.