But will they stop?

The Independent Police Conduct Authority has slammed the police's habit of engaging in high-speed pursuits, arguing that few of them uncover evidence of serious crime, while the risks usually outweigh the benefits. They are recommending clearer and tighter guidelines to officers on when pursuits should be started, most notably by requiring actual evidence of criminal wrongdoing rather than just speculation, and making whether the offender poses any risk to the public (to which the answer is almost always "no") the key consideration.

Police assistant commissioner Viv Rickard says they will accept the recommendations, which is good. But the real question is whether police officers in the field will obey. These people view flight as both suspicious and as a challenge to their power which must be crushed pour encourager les autres (and lest they have to work all the time), and will be reluctant to accept the new policy. And while officers who start dangerous pursuits in violation of the guidelines could be disciplined, we've already seen that the police are less than stellar at policing their own. The upshot: we may be seeing stupid, pointless chases and consequent police-induced carnage for a while yet.

The full IPCA report is here.

Its not all about wealth

The way the right talks, you would think that government policy was all about wealth and increasing GDP. Today, we have a stark reminder that that is not the case, in the form of the European Quality of Life Index [PDF]. According to the index, the UK has the lowest quality of life in Western Europe - despite having the highest average after-tax family income. Partly this is because of the high cost of living in London, but there are other problems as well: they work longer, die younger, and get fewer holidays. In addition, they spend less on healthcare and education than other nations. And the result is reflected in their emigration figures: In 2006, 41,000 UKanians fled the UK for brighter prospects - the highest number in Europe.

This is where NeoLiberal growth maximisation gets you: a country where no-one wants to live and everyone feels miserable. The lesson for New Zealand ought to be obvious.

About time II

The Auckland Regional Transport Authority has given NZBus until 5pm today to explain when it is going to restore bus services, or it will start the process of cancelling its contract for non-performance. That process will take a while - between two and six months - but faced with a company which simply will not do what it is paid to, it looks like a good option. As for the future, I'd like to see Auckland running its own buses again (they are clearly too important to be left to the market). But if they can't, then I'd hope they include much higher penalties for non-performance in their next contract, to provide a serious incentive to avoid repeating this kind of problem.

Kafkaesque

The Guardian today tries to report that as a result of a court case, it has been forbidden from reporting on certain matters in Parliament:

Today's published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.

The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.

The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck, who specialise in suing the media for clients, who include individuals or global corporations.

This is simply ridiculous. Firstly, there is a longstanding principle in the UK that Parliamentary privilege extends to reporting what happens in the House, and that comments made in Parliament can be reported without fear of contempt. And secondly, all of the above is a matter of public record. For example, anyone can go to the UK Parliament page, look at the future business for the House of Commons, grep the question book for the rest of the week, and learn that on Tuesday Newcastle-under-Lyme MP Paul Farrelly has a series of questions for the Secretary of State for Justice on suppression orders and press freedom, one of which specifically mentions Carter-Ruck solicitors and its corporate criminal client Trafigura.

(Just doing my bit for the Streisand effect...)

People in the UK have a democratic right to know this: to know that the question is being asked, and what, if anything, the response is. But thanks to the UK's repressive libel laws, their democratic right to know what is going on in their own Parliament can be suppressed by anyone rich enough to afford an expensive lawyer. And that is unacceptable in a democracy.

Fortunately, these days we have the internet and a free market in legal jurisdiction. Which makes such orders unenforceable in practice. And the rich and powerful had better start getting used to it.

Does Labour still believe in fairness?

Treasury is having one of its regular ideological burps at the moment, with its Chief Executive touring the country spouting ACT policy, while his minions crank out policy papers calling for regressive tax changes, such as a flat tax or cuts to taxes on dividends, interest and profit (a form of income enjoyed pretty much solely by the rich). Naturally, Labour opposes the plan:

Labour deputy leader Annette King said her party was opposed to a flat tax because it raised questions about what other taxes would have to be raised to cover expenses.

(If you like, you can imagine me theatrically examining the statement to see whether there is anything more, but it doesn't work very well with a computer screen)

Yes, that's it. They oppose Treasury's ideas for massive tax cuts for the rich not because it is a direct attack on progressive taxation, the idea that those who can afford it should pay more (or "from each according to his abilities", to use the deprecated version), not because its just bloody unfair, but because it "raises questions" (to which Treasury has answers, though ones we would not like) about what other taxes would have to be raised to compensate. if this sort of pallid technocratic managerialism is the best the modern Labour party can bloody do, then I'm left wondering why anyone would bother to vote for them. Its enough to make you wonder whether they still believe in fairness at all...

The money was just resting in her account...

Three News had a scoop tonight on an NZ On Air investigation of National MP finding that she had misused taxpayer's money. A $100,000 contingency fund from NZOA was not spent but was not returned, instead being spent within the company. Lee's explanation?

“We didn’t have enough money so we transferred our profit margin across to cover contingencies,” she said, in an effort to explain the problem.

“We then transferred the money back at the end of the year. Technically all unspent contingency is meant to be returned to NZ on Air.

“It’s an accounting error in my view, I’m waiting for the outcome.”

So the money was just resting in her account, and she always intended to pay it back. Really. And if you stick that on a billboard, you could use it to sell beer.

There are strict rules for government contracts, and Lee appears to have breached them - first by unauthorised overspending, then by treating the next year's funding as her personal piggy bank. Those rules exist for good reason, and violating them is a serious business. As for Jonathan Coleman, it turns out that there was a clear conflict of interest between his role as Minister of Broadcasting (in which he should have been demanding accountability from Lee) and his role as Lee's campaign manager (in which he was more interested in shuffling it all under the carpet to avoid even more humiliation). I think he has some pretty serious questions to answer as well. And hopefully we will get some answers from him tomorrow.

Climate change: A day of action

The 350.org international day of action is happening in just under two weeks. If you care about the global climate and want to pressure our government into taking real action on it rather than sitting there with their thumb up their arse, then why not join in?

According to 350 Aotearoa, there are now 75 actions registered in New Zealand:

• 19 in Auckland
• 17 in Wellington
• 12 in Dunedin
• 6 in Christchurch
• 2 each in Hamilton, Tauranga and Nelson
• even one in Palmerston North.

(If you live somewhere smaller, check the full list; there's stuff happening in smaller centres like New Plymouth and Oamaru as well)

And if none of these events take your fancy, you can always start one of your own. Just remember: do it somewhere visible, invite your local MP, mayor or city councillors, and of course the media. The aim is to bring it to the attention of government, not go off by yourself into the forest where they will not know or care.

If we want politicians to act, then we need to make it clear to them that their political futures depend on it. And that means making our presence felt.

About time

The Auckland Regional Council, which funds Auckland's bus services, has stepped into the Auckland bus lockout telling NZBus that if they will not supply the services they are contracted for, it will find someone else who can:

“The Auckland travelling public have run out of any patience or sympathy for this on-going nonsense,” said Mr Lee.

“NZ Bus operates public transport services under contract to the Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA). NZ Bus is currently in breach of those contracts – it is not delivering the services. Like any commercial contract, NZ Bus contracts can be terminated for non-performance.

‘If this dispute is not settled, I will be calling on ARTA to start the process of terminating the existing contracts and finding someone else who will deliver the services that Auckland expects and pays for.

Hopefully this will sharpen the minds of NZBus and Infratil and force them to settle the dispute. And if they won't, then Aucklanders will get a new, and hopefully better behaved, bus company.

Meanwhile, this lock out is showing once again that public services such as public transport cannot be effectively delivered by contracting out. Instead, its time to shift back to councils owning and running their own bus services. That way, at least, they'll have enough direct control to stop these sorts of disruptions.

Freudian slip

Italin Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, on his legal troubles:

The problem, he explained, was that "In absolute terms, I am the most legally persecuted man of all times, in the whole history of mankind, worldwide, because I have been subjected to more than 2,500 court hearings and I have the good luck – having worked well in the past and having accumulated an important wealth – to have been able to spend more than €200m in consultants and judges ... I mean in consultants and lawyers."

(Emphasis added)

A Freudian slip, perhaps?

New Fisk

Obama, man of peace? No, just a Nobel prize of a mistake
The right photographer can strip a leader's power in a flash

Climate change: Submission

Below is the draft of my submission on the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill, which I'll be submitting tomorrow. If you want to make a submission - and all you have to do is say "I oppose the bill for these reasons..." - you can do it online here. Submissiosn are due by Tuesday, so be quick!

1. I oppose the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill and ask that it not be passed.
2. The bill would substantially weaken the existing emissions trading scheme, reducing incentives to reduce emissions while providing large ongoing subsidies to climate polluters at enormous cost to the taxpayer. This is both financially and morally unsound. In addition, the new scheme for allocation lacks transparency.

   Transition phase

3. The bill would create a transition phase until 1 January 2013, in which polluters would have a reduced liability to surrender credits, while the price of carbon would be capped at NZ$25/ton.
4. The reduced liability is unsound for two reasons. Firstly, it means that polluters are not exposed to the full marginal cost of their activities. This means a significantly reduced incentive to reduce emissions. Secondly, it will significantly reduce the demand for units in the transitional phase, which will in turn reduce the price and hence the incentive for forest planting. Forests are the key to reducing our emissions in the short-medium term, and are vital if we are to meet even the government’s low 10% - 20% 2020 and 50% by 2050 targets. Planting rates are highly sensitive to price, and so it is important that the incentive for planting is as strong as possible. I note that the Minister for Climate Change, Nick Smith, assumes future planting rates of 50,000 hectares per year [PDF]. This will not happen under the modifications proposed.
5. The NZ$25/ton price cap is very close to the present market price of NZ$22/ton, and lower than the price at this time last year. There is a real chance that changes in carbon prices or in the exchange rate will push international prices above this level. If this happens, then it will create a perverse incentive for deforestation (as forest credit is able to be internationally traded, forest owners could sell their credits at the higher price, then deforest and pay only the cap, pocketing the difference) as well as resulting in a direct taxpayer subsidy for pollution.
6. The effect of these changes is to socialize risk and privatize profit. Polluters – or rather, their mostly foreign shareholders - will benefit from large subsidies. Ordinary taxpayers will carry the cost of those subsidies and bear the risk of fluctuations in the carbon price. This is unfair and inappropriate. Those who engage in polluting activities should bear the risks, not the people of New Zealand.

   Industry allocation

7. The bill revises industry allocations, shifting to a production-based allocation rather than one based on historic emissions, and reducing the rate at which those allocations are phased out. This will see free allocations extended until 2090 or so. I oppose these changes for a number of reasons:
8. The shift to production-based allocation explicitly allows emissions to continue to rise, and again insulates polluters from the full marginal cost of the next ton of carbon. This will mean higher emissions than if they had to pay that cost.
9. The slow phase-out for free allocation commits us to higher emissions for longer, and makes it far more difficult to meet the targets necessary to prevent dangerous levels of anthropogenic climate change.
10. Free allocation to industry is simply a subsidy from the taxpayer for pollution. This is morally inappropriate. It turns the principle of “polluter pays” on its head; instead we will be paying the polluters. Worse, the proposed allocation scheme outlined in new section 161A (separating polluters into moderately and highly emissions-intensive, with a higher rate of subsidy for the latter) explicitly rewards the least cost-effective polluters, those producing the least value per ton of carbon. This is, to put it politely, arse-backwards.
11. I oppose subsidies in the economy. The removal of agricultural subsidies was one of the few good policies of the Rogernomics era. Companies which are not profitable without subsidies are a net loss to society, and we are better off letting them go bankrupt. If the government feels it must protect jobs, then at the rates it is proposing – approximately $25,000 per job in the case of Solid Energy’s proposed lignite-to-urea plant in Southland – then I am sure it can find something to pay them to do which does not involve destroying the environment in the process.
12. The fiscal cost of these proposed subsidies – ballooning to $2 billion per year by 2030 – is fiscally unsustainable. Currently the government is panicking about “a decade of deficits”. This bill looks to make those deficits permanent, and at a time when the government will be struggling to pay for the increased healthcare and retirement costs of an aging population. New Zealanders should not have to suffer cuts to their healthcare and retirement entitlements to subsidize the profits of Rio Tinto, Methanex, and other polluters.

    Transparency

13. As a final note, the new scheme for making allocations is less transparent than the one it replaces. Under the existing law, draft allocation plans must be published and are subject to public feedback. This allows us to see and debate who gets what. The bill would replace this with a simple regulatory power, subject to narrow industry consultation.
14. This level of secrecy is unacceptable. Billions of dollars are on the line in these allocation decisions, meaning that there is a tremendous incentive for corruption. In cases like this, everything must be seen to be above board. Making them in secret will simply invite suspicion and result in a further loss of trust in our political system.
15. I do not wish to make an oral submission to the Select Committee.

10/10: World Day Against the Death Penalty

Today, October 10, is the world day against the death penalty. Last year, at least 2,390 people were legally executed, 93% of them in just five countries: China, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the USA. Today is the day we work to change that, and end the abomination of judicial murder for good.

This year the focus is on teaching abolition [PDF]. The children of today will be the citizens of tomorrow. Encouraging them to debate the death penalty will help them to understand why it must be abolished. In addition, there is a push to end child executions, outlawed under the (universally accepted) Convention on the Rights of the Child, but still practiced in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Sudan. There is a petition calling on these countries to end their practice of executing children; you can sign it here.

10/10: Progress

Today, October 10, is the world day against the death penalty, the day we highlight the global struggle against capital punishment. So, how is that struggle going? Slowly, but well. In 2009, two countries abolished the death penalty: Burundi and Togo. In addition, Kenya and Lebanon are planning abolition, and Japan's new Justice Minister wants to move in that direction as well. There are still 58 countries which retain the death penalty, but their number is decreasing every year; it will be a long struggle, but it is one we are slowly winning.

This is a joke, right?

Obama wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

As much as I admire the guy, he has been in office for a mere eight months. During that time he has continued the wars started by his predecessor, and looks set to escalate one of them. Though I suppose he hasn't started any new ones, which makes him fairly peaceful as US presidents go. Still, if that's the new standard, hell, I haven't started any wars recently. Can I have a Nobel peace Prize too?

Like a cockroach

Winston Peters is back, and spewing his usual stream of racial hatred and immigrant-bashing:

New Zealand had suffered a "tsunami" of immigrants, he said, and large scale immigration could not be justified when 140,000 people were out of work.

He said the country was being taken for a sucker and immigrants were not needed in many occupations. Some immigrants were using New Zealand as a "transit camp" before moving to Australia.

The burden of immigrants on welfare and pensions was bemoaned.

"These people are feasting on your pension pie ... the pension pie you and other Kiwis paid for."

And which they pay for too. But the idea that immigrants work and pay taxes (or have family members who do - something considered perfectly legitimate by the elderly women who fling their knickers at Winston) seems to be lost on him.

This is National Front stuff. And its presence as part of New Zealand political discourse is something that every kiwi should be ashamed of. The positive side is that the vein of prejudice Winston is mining is dying out (literally). But we'll have to put up with it for a few more years yet.

ACC: Talking up a crisis

Today, ACC announced that its liabilities had grown by $4.8 billion in 12 months. Like clockwork, ACC Minister Nick Smith announced that this was "unsustainable" and threatened "significant changes" (meaning: service cuts and privatisation) to ensure the future of the scheme. But are they necessary? At this stage, I think its worth remembering this Brian Fallow column from back in March, where he pointed out that the "crisis" is entirely manufactured and due to changes in discount rates:

A key variable is interest rates. The lower rates are the larger the notional lump sum needed to fund the required cash outgoings will be. And lately they have dropped with a thud.

In the actuaries' latest estimate the steep drop in interest rates, all along the yield curve but especially at the short end, has alone added $1.6 billion to the liability - more than half the overall increase.

Together with other changes in economic assumptions, including the outlook for economic growth and wage inflation, it accounts for 71 per cent of the latest "blowout" in liabilities the politicians are wringing their hands over.

In other words, ACC's books look bad because we are in the middle of a depression. As the economy returns to normal, interest rates will rise, long-term costs will decline, while asset values will increase. Instead of running around like a headless chicken screaming "crisis", all the government has to do is take a deep breath and wait.

But that wouldn't let them do what they want. And so we're going to see the depression used to gut a key public institution, for the profit of National's donors and cronies in the insurance industry. As Brian Easton points out, ordinary kiwis will lose out. But since when has National ever cared about us?

In the ballot XXXIV

Another batch of Member's Bills currently in the ballot. Previous batches are indexed here:

Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill (Chris Hipkins): would amend the Electricity Act 1992 to restore the ban on thermal generation of electricity.

Goods and Services Tax (Exemption of Healthy Food) Amendment Bill (Rahui Katene): Amends the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985 to exempt "healthy food" (meaning fruit and vegetables, breads, milk, and lean meat) from GST. The measure is aimed at reducing poverty (poor families spending a greater proportion of their income on food than wealthy ones) and is supported by the Public Health Association and Heart Foundation.

Members of Parliament (Code of Ethical Conduct) Bill (H V Ross Robertson): Would impose a formal code of conduct on MPs. The code is based heavily on the UK Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament [PDF] and requires members to uphold the law, act in the public interest, and avoid bring parliament and politics into disrepute. Robertson has been pushing this for the last ten years, and has had it repeatedly turned down by the Standing Orders Committee. Some parties have voluntarily signed up to it, but the larger parties have refused (clearly they wish to preserve their "right" to take inducements, misuse confidential information for private gain, and hide their conflicts of interest). I suspect this bill will face tremendous resistance, particularly from National, and is unlikely to pass.

As usual, I'll have more bills as I acquire them.

Nick Smith vs the OIA

Carbon News this morning thinks it has a scoop: that the government's ETS deal with the Maori Party was made without reference to officials. But reading their story shows that this is more of a problem of asking the wrong question combined with obstinacy on the part of Climate Change Minister Nick Smith than a lack of official advice.

Carbon News asked for Cabinet papers on the agreement. They were told that they did not exist. This seems proper - the agreement is an arrangement between political parties, and so would not have been explicitly discussed by Cabinet (it would also fall outside the definition of "official information" as any information relating to it would not be held by Smith in his role as a Minister). Carbon News sought clarification, and were met with stonewalling by Smith, who in his desire to not give out any information whatsoever went so far as to deny that Cabinet had discussed the changes at all and that there were no Cabinet papers or minutes relevant to the issue. He seems to have eventually calmed down though, because

“Just before Carbon News went to press this morning we were told that there are papers relating to the moderation of the emissions trading scheme which are being considered for release in relation to Carbon News’ request. “

There are two lessons in this. The first, for requestors: be clear about what you are asking for, and be aware of the definition of "official information". The second, for Ministers: if you stonewall and deny, people may just take you at your word, and you will have no-one but yourself to blame for the resulting bad headline.

Meanwhile, I'm hoping for a public release of papers on this issue. They will make fascinating reading to find out what Treasury and Ministry for the Environment thought of this compromised scheme.

New Fisk

Genocide forgotten: Armenians horrified by treaty with Turkey

Westpac stole from the taxpayer

That is the conclusion of the High Court in a case brought by IRD against Westpac. The Australian-owned bank structured its finances to illegally evade taxes. They're now being forced to repay $961 million plus interest they effectively stole from the taxpayer.

That's all well and good, but I have to ask: what about punishment? If someone steals a TV, we don't just make them give it back - we stick them in jail or charge them a fine. Shouldn't we be doing the same to corporate criminals, or does their wealth put them above the law?

Fining them is no good - that punishes the shareholders, not the people responsible. If we want to end corporate tax evasion, then we could start by imposing personal liability on the smarmy accountants who come up with these clever schemes, and the greedy executives who approve them. I suspect they'd be a lot more careful and ethical in heir behaviour if they personally faced jail for their thefts, rather than merely losing their bonus...