Swearing in Samoan II

Labour MP Su'a William Sio's request to be sworn in in Samoan has brought out the worst in the kiwi blogosphere. Over on KKKblog, DPF panders to his redneck audience, while on Tumeke it also brings out Tim Selwyn's racist streak. While both would disagree violently about the exact definition, both are clear in viewing Sio's request as a threat to New Zealand's (and more importantly, their) national identity, which they view in exclusivist terms. But I just can't see it that way.

New Zealand is a diverse nation, encompassing many cultures [PDF]. Not just Maori and Pakeha, but also Samoan, Chinese, Indian, Cook Islanders, and Tongans (to name the top few). And all of those cultures are compatible with being a New Zealander. To the people like DPF or Tim Selwyn or Chris Trotter, who view identity in exclusivist terms, and claim that you must be Samoan or a New Zealander, Maori or a New Zealander (but curiously never "you can be Irish or a New Zealander, Scots or a New Zealander"), I say "no, you can be both". And that's a fact proven every day by New Zealanders all over the world.

Allowing people to use their preferred language in something like a swearing in ceremony is an important way of recognising this. It sends a clear message on what sort of country we are: a tolerant, inclusive, liberal democracy where everyone can belong. It also sends a clear message to the constituents of MP's like Sio: "you belong". Refusing it sends an equally clear message: "you don't". Tim and DPF might want to send that message. I don't.

The failure of "tough on crime" in NSW

The Sydney Morning Herald had a piece yesterday on the results of New South Wales' "tough on crime" policies: spiralling costs, a new prison every two years, higher rates of recidivism as "soft" rehabilitation programs are ignored in favour of building extra jail cells, and no measurable effect on crime rates. And National wants to bring these policies here? It's simply madness.

Instead of trying to lock more people up for longer, denying bail in an effort to impose pre-trial punishment, and abolishing parole out of a sense of mindless viciousness, we should instead be investing seriously in rehabilitation, post-release monitoring, and in keeping young offenders out of prison. These policies are effective, in Australia and elsewhere. Unfortunately, they also cost money, which National would rather give to its rich mates as tax cuts or to its private sector cronies to run new jails, and they will be difficult to sell for a public fed a steady diet of promises to be ever tougher on crime. And that is the real problem: effective policy does not get politicians re-elected. So instead we're caught in a trap, where politicians compete to be ever more counterproductive, and anything which might actually be effective at reducing crime rates or reoffending is derided as "soft". Like I said, it's simply madness...

Dirty beaches

The Herald reports that nearly a third of our beaches are unsafe for swimming. But reading the story, a scarier fact emerges: that's just the ones they report on. While all regional councils monitor water quality, only half publish the results and rank their beaches for clenliness. The result is that large numbers of New Zealanders could be swimming in water that makes them sick.

This obviously isn't good enough. If they're testing, we have a right to know the results. And if they're not going to publish them, then someone needs to start OIAing them and sticking them online.

The cause of the problem boils down to two things: sewage and cows. Parts of New Zealand (including Auckland) have inadequate sewage systems, while in other parts unregulated dairy farming has filled our streams with shit - all of which eventually washes out to sea. If we want to solve it and have safe beaches which live up to our "clean and green image", then the answer is more regulation, tighter water quality standards, a crackdown on dirty dairying and extra funding for small councils to bring their sewage systems up to scratch. Unfortunately, with National planning to gut the RMA and strangle local government, it looks like our beaches are going to get dirtier rather than cleaner.

The crisis in a (very long) nutshell

Paul Krugman: We all go together when we go

More ASBO madness

An elderly man in the UK has been issued as ASBO for dressing as a schoolgirl:

A 59-year-old man who went out in public dressed as a schoolgirl while children walked home from lessons has been given a five-year antisocial behaviour order. Peter Trigger dressed up in a grey skirt and jumper, white shirt, baseball cap and a tie before waiting near a primary school as children came and went, Northampton Borough Council said.

On several occasions he also wore a knee-length laboratory coat and appeared to be wearing nothing underneath, the authority added. Trigger received a five-year Asbo at Northampton magistrates' court, banning him from wearing a skirt or showing bare legs on a school day between 8.30am and 10am, and 2.45pm and 4pm.

The man's behaviour is undeniably creepy, and definitely the sort of thing which should result in the police monitoring the situation to ensure it doesn't escalate into anything worse. At the same time, it's difficult to see anything illegal about it. In a liberal society, you can wear what you like. Other people may find your style of dress unfashionable, even disturbing - but provided its not actually obscene, they just have to lump it. And this extends even to creepy old guys who want to dress as schoolgirls in public. He's not actually harming anyone by doing so, and so his fashion sense is none of the state's business.

(Note also the overbreadth of the order. I'm presuming that the limit applies only to public places, and that the UK government is not purporting to regulate what someone wears int he privacy of their own home (OTOH, they have in other cases - someone was awarded as ASBO forbidding them from opening the door in their dressing gown). But even then, he's not just forbidden from dressing as a schoolgirl, but from crossdressing in general (again, none of th state's damn business), or even from wearing shorts. No matter how ugly you think old men's legs are, they shouldn't be facing five years in jail for displaying them).

But the problem isn't just one of illiberalism - it's also one for the rule of law. Since the time of Solon, western societies have written their laws down to ensure clarity and prevent abuses by the authorities. But in the UK, the police just get to make up the law as they go along, and throw you in jail if you disagree. And that's not just a threat to creepy old men - but to everyone's freedom.

New Fisk

Whenever I'm in Tajikistan, my mobile phone says I'm in Dubai

Carnival of the Liberals

The 79th carnival of the liberals is now up at the Capitol Annex.

Proroguing democracy

I haven't commented on Canada’s constitutional crisis so far because, to someone who lives in an MMP jurisdiction where coalition politics is becoming second-nature, it seems so simple. The government has clearly lost the confidence of the House. While that loss of confidence hasn't been crystallised yet through a formal vote, it is clear and unequivocal. In New Zealand, according to the Cabinet Manual, the incumbent government would be required to demonstrate confidence "within a short time frame (allowing a reasonable period for negotiation and reorganisation)" (and might not even be able to call an election, as this requires the confidence of the House). In Canada, they instead prorogue Parliament, delaying the vote - and allowing Harper's Ministers to collect their salaries - for almost two months.

This strikes at the very heart of the Westminster system. The fundamental rule of every UK-descended Parliament, dating from the days when we threatened to cut off the monarch's head rather than just their sock budget, is that the government must have the confidence of the House. Instead, in Canada, they are going to have a government for two months with no democratic mandate to rule. And that turns their constitution into a bad joke.

As for claims that a mid-term change of government is somehow undemocratic, piffle. The present opposition has a majority in the House. They also had the backing of 54.4% of Canadian voters at the last election, compared to the 37.7% gained by the Conservatives. A majority of votes, and a majority of the people. It would be undemocratic if they were not able to gain power.

Fiji: two years on

Two years ago today, Fiji's democratically elected government was overthrown by its own army in a military coup. And two years on, things have got even worse. The military regime, which in the usual authoritarian military style, sees criticism as rebellion, is waging a war on the media, deporting journalists and hauling editors before the courts on contempt charges. After getting a tame academic to redefine "media freedom" as "the freedom to print what the government tells them to", they are now in the process of enacting Singapore-style media controls to prevent further criticism.

The military, having seized control, are now following the usual pattern of coups and are expanding their budget. Not that they ever keep to it anyway...

A court has purported to legalise the coup, in a judgement that can only be described as laughable. And so a "coup to end all coups" has now created a legal process by which any jumped up thug can hold a gun to the President's head and legally seize power.

And worst of all, the regime is refusing to hold elections until it has illegally changed the constitution and the electoral system. So there is no end in sight, and no pathway back to democracy.

But there is some hope. Today the SDL, United People's Party, National Federation party (basically, every significant party bar the Fijian Labour Party) and a host of unions and NGOs have united under the banner of the Movement for Democracy to push for a return to Parliamentary rule. After two years of sullen acquiescence, the military may finally face some serious internal opposition. Which can only be a good thing in the long term.

Swearing in Samoan?

Labour MP Su'a William Sio is annoyed that he will not be allowed to be sworn in as an MP in Samoan. According to s11 of the Constitution Act 1986, MPs must take an Oath of Allegiance as prescribed in the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957. And while that Act allows oaths and declarations to be made in Maori, it does not seem to permit any other language other than English.

This is needlessly shitty. As a tolerant, diverse, and multicultural nation, New Zealand should not be engaging in this sort of puerile linguistic imperialism. Something as simple as an oath or declaration should be able to be made in any language, not just English or Maori. Unfortunately, there's nothing which can be done about it this time round, but there is an Oaths Modernisation Bill currently before Parliament which may be reinstated. It would need heavy amendment (and it needs it anyway, given NZSL's new status as an official language), but it could be adapted. Otherwise, I think Mr Sio has just found his first member's bill.

Correction: added the extra "other" in there, for clarification.

National: soft on dictatorship

Since the Fijian coup two years ago, New Zealand has imposed sanctions on the Fijian regime, including a travel ban on official sports teams. But not any more:

[T]he National-led Government's Foreign Affairs Minister, Murray McCully, has said Fiji's under-20 [football] team can enter New Zealand, even though the team was told by immigration officials at the New Zealand High Commission in Suva that visas would not be issued.

The Oceania Football Confederation (OFC) lobbied Immigration Minister Jonathan Coleman for the exemption.

Mr McCully said ministers retained discretion to grant exemptions, "and in this case it was decided an exemption was appropriate".

So, the first move of the new National government is to go soft on dictatorship. I guess they just don't think democracy in Fiji is worth making a fuss over.

Pleasantly surprised

National has rejected Treasury's advice in its triennial ideological burp. Some of this is stuff they were never going to do anyway - e.g. ensure capital gains are taxed properly - but they are also explicitly rejecting Treasury's advice on shifting to a more regressive tax system and that there is no need for any economic stimulus (Treasury thinks the market will solve everything, even the problems it creates. Which I think shows how disconnected from reality their brand of economics is). The latter is a pleasant surprise, and signals that English at least isn't going to simply be a tool of the unelected neo-liberal high priesthood on The Terrace.

Meanwhile, this whole incident suggests that Treasury needs to be firmly put in its place. As usual their briefing has gone well beyond its remit in attempting to dictate the broad sweep of policy across the entire government. And that is rightly a decision for elected politicians, not unelected bureaucrats.

Treasury on climate change

In addition to trying to restart the Revolution and take us back to the 90's, Treasury's Briefing to the Incoming Minister [PDF] also has a few things to say about climate change. But not just on domestic policy, no - in addition to thinking they should be doing MfE's job, they also think they should be doing MFAT's, and are advising on the position New Zealand should take in the current international negotiations. They don't go so far as to suggest a target, but do say that we should have a "bottom line" of

recognition of our unique emissions profile when setting our target, and agreement to a level of stringency that is appropriate relative to other countries’ targets – in particular the major emitters such as the USA and China, but also the advanced developing countries, such as Singapore, South Korea and regions of the Middle East.

The clear subtext is that we should refuse to ratify any deal if this does not happen.

This of course assumes that we have a choice in the matter. We don't. As MAF pointed out, our largest export markets are also the most environmentally sensitive, and are quite willing to use trade policy to produce environmental compliance. Any failure to sign up to Kyoto II will see the trade barriers (such as border carbon taxes) go up quicker than you can say "filthy cows". Treasury's advice is simply a recipe for disaster.

The same is true of their advice on domestic policy. Here they continue to push market fundamentalism: the ETS is all we need, and other measures, "such as the thermal moratorium, biofuel standards and vehicle-fleet fuel-economy standards", should be repealed as market distortions. In case it needs to be pointed out, we still do not have a market mechanism, and have just abandoned one for the fourth time in fifteen years. The policy of putting all our eggs in the market basket and having no interim measures to control emissions in the meantime is precisely the policy that has failed us for fifteen years and seen emissions rise and rise and rise. Its also worth pointing out that the countries which have most successfully reduced emissions - such as Norway - are precisely those that combine market mechanisms such as carbon taxes and emissions trading with strong backup policies designed to ensure minimum standards and push the market along. This of course is anathema to the market fundamentalists in Treasury, but its hard to argue with the empirical evidence.

The triennial ideological burp

Bill English has released Treasury's Briefing to the Incoming Minister [PDF], and as expected, its the usual ideological burp. Following Friedman's shock doctrine, the market fundamentalists at treasury have seized on the international financial crisis as an excuse for "economic adjustment", including massive tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, public service cuts and an attack of workers rights. Among the highlights:

In the near term, we recommend equalising investment tax rates, including capital gains, and bringing statutory rates on personal income together at around the current level of the corporate tax rate [30% - I/S].

In other words, massive tax cuts for the rich, which combined with a greater emphasis on consumption taxes, will mean a much more regressive tax system. While Treasury recommends compensating for the equity effects of such tax cuts with "suitably targeted transfers and spending programmes", you and I know that this will never happen under a National government. Neither will the proposal to broaden the tax base by finally taxing capital gains properly - National is a party which represents those who benefit from capital gains, and it will represent their interests to the hilt.

In the current economic climate, the net effect of this will be to lock in high debt levels. This strategic deficit will then be used to justify slashing public expenditure and public services.

The RMA, "and the scope for further process improvements, including trading off broad participation versus speed and certainty and the balance between environmental protection and economic growth," is identified as a priority for action. So, screw democracy and the environment, let the developers run rampant. It's not as if that "clean and green" image is worth anything to anyone, is it?

Also identified as a priority:

labour market regulations and the impact on compliance cost concerns associated with the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1999 and Holidays Act 2003; the level of the minimum wage for youth and young adults entering the labour market; and specific provisions in the Employment Relations Act 2000 relating to hiring (e.g. probationary periods) and dismissal.

So, Treasury thinks we should have more dangerous workplaces, fewer holidays, lower wages and less secure employment. Which I'm sure makes perfect sense to an analyst on $150,000 a year who will never experience these conditions (Treasury has the highest proportion of top-paid public servants in the whole public sector). There's nothing like being fifteen floors up with a harbour view to separate you from the concerns of the hoi polloi. But given that they're also trying to boost productivity and build a higher skilled labour force, reducing the benefits of those skills by slashing wages and conditions seems to be the wrong way to go about it.

Sadly, I don't think this programme is going to meet with much objection from National. So, hang on for the ride - Treasury is in charge again, and the 90's are back with a vengeance!

It gets worse II

It now turns out that the police who searched UK Conservative MP Damian Green's Parliamentary office did not have a warrant and was not authorised by the Speaker. Instead, their search was - unbelievably - "consented" to by the serjeant at arms.

This raises interesting questions about whether the search was legal - whether the serjeant at arms can consent to a search of an MP's office (as opposed to merely the police entering Parliament to carry out their legal duty with a warrant). But it also makes you wonder whether the serjeant at arms is fit to carry out her duties. The first thing anyone should ask when the police want to search their home or office is "do you have a warrant" - and that should go double for the guardian of the people's house. It's not just a matter of protecting Parliament from harassment; its a simple matter of enforcing the law and making sure the police prove their case.

In this case, the police have acted in a heavy-handed manner which suggests they think they are above the law. And someone is going to be held accountable for it.

Banning cluster bombs

Earlier this year, a disarmament conference in Wellington hammered out a draft agreement to ban cluster bombs. Today, the resulting document - the Convention on Cluster Munitions - was formally opened for signature in Oslo. And New Zealand will be among the first to sign it.

This is something to be proud of. New Zealand has played a key role in developing this treaty, and by doing so, we've made the world a better place. Cluster bombs are totally indiscriminate weapons which attack an area without any distinction between military and civilian targets and are intentionally designed to create a long-term danger to civilian lives. A global ban on their use is a Good Thing. And while major cluster bomb using states such as the US and Russia are refusing to sign, the stigma created by the Convention is likely to significantly reduce their deployment and use of these weapons (not to mention their export markets). And in the case of the US, they won't be using them from (most of) their bases in Europe anymore.

It's an interesting question whether we would have played such a role under a National government. On the one hand, the principle of an independent, multilateral, humanitarian foreign policy is now well-established, at least with the public. OTOH, National's natural instinct is to toady to the US, even when the latter's actions are morally indefensible (see: Iraq). The latter I think would have seen us bow out and ally with the murderer-countries to oppose progress, rather than working to make the world a better place. And what worries me is that the next three years will see us abrogating our role as a voice for human rights in the name of not offending National's key ally. This is something I will be very pleased to be wrong about.

It's official

In the UK, embarrassing political leaks are now classified as a "threat to national security":

Sources said their investigation was prompted by a request from the Cabinet Office, whose officials told the police that the "systematic series of leaks" from the private office of the home secretary were so serious that they could pose a threat to national security. Police sources said this explained their decision to take the step - unprecedented in recent history - of arresting Green and searching his parliamentary office.

This is a perfect example of how politicians conflate their political interests (in being re-elected, in a avoiding embarrassment, in not having to stand up in Question Time and explain how your department screwed up yet again) with the public interest. It's a conflation the police should be wary of. Unfortunately, in the age of terror, appealing to "national security” short-circuits all safeguards. And so we have the unseemly sight of a supposedly democratic nation arresting an opposition MP for performing his democratic duty in holding the government to account. If that's a threat to "national security", then the nation does not deserve to survive.

Drinking Liberally hits Christchurch

At long last, Drinking Liberally is getting a Christchurch chapter. The first meeting will be next Thursday, with EPMU Secretary Andrew Little as the speaker.

When: 18:00, Thursday, 11 December
Where: Warner’s Pub, on the Square

Apparently Dunedin is coming soon as well.

About bloody time

Australia is notable as the only democratic nation not to have a bill of rights. Not any more. The Labour government is planning to mark the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by beginning public consultation on a bill of rights for Australia, along the lines of our own Bill of Rights Act. While weak, as international legislation goes, such legislation will still have a dramatic effect on Australian laws around terrorism, sedition, immigration, and the regulation of protest around public events. And given how downright totalitarian those laws are, that can only be a good thing.

National's temper tantrum

National are screaming about a blowout in the ACC books which will see them another billion dollars in the red over the next few years. Naturally, they're blaming Labour, and claiming that they covered it up by deliberately not including it in the Pre-Election Fiscal Update. The problem? It's just not true. Here's the chain of events according to the Herald:

The papers show officials flagged concerns in May (this year's budget was delivered in May) and former ACC minister Maryan Street wrote to former finance minister Michael Cullen on October 22 about the shortfall.

According to the papers it said officials had originally advised that it should not have been disclosed because they were not certain of the cost.

Then there was no disclosure because no decision had been made and later because it was a decision for the incoming Government.

It is usual for Treasury to flag in pre-budget documents when they become aware of fiscal risks even if they can not be quantified.

The Herald gets it wrong in that last paragraph. The criteria for including financial risks in the PREFU or Budget are laid out in the PREFU here [PDF]. They must be "reasonably certain", have a material impact (more than $10 million), and be under active consideration by Ministers. ACC's initial communication with the Minister, saying "we may have a problem", does not meet the first criteria. While Budgets and the PREFU include unquantified risks, a glance at the details on them shows that they need to be more certain than that. It also does not meet the last; risks must be being actively considered by the Minister of Finance and other responsible Ministers. Until then, it is simply an internal departmental question.

Could it have been included in the PREFU, as National seems to be implying? No. The cutoff dates are here. The government's fiscal forecasts and risks were finalised in mid-September, and the PREFU was released on October 6. Street didn't write to Cullen until October 22, by which time the government was operating under the caretaker convention and had to defer any major fiscal decisions. After the election was announced, it was a problem for the incoming government, not the outgoing one. That incoming government turned out to be from the other party.

In short, this is simply a beat-up by a government grumpy that its not going to be able to give away so much money to its rich mates. They should get over it. Labour followed the proper process and obeyed the normal disclosure rules, and I have no doubt that National would have done exactly the same. The lesson here is that problems don't always crop up at convenient phases in the budget cycle, and National would be better learning that than throwing a childish temper tantrum whenever something goes wrong.