Garret quits ACT

But not Parliament. Instead, he'll hang around as an independent, propping up the government and continuing to collect his $131,000 salary.

There's one reason for this: preserving Rodney Hide's leadership. If Garrett resigns, the next person on the ACT list comes in - and she hates Hide and will roll him the moment she joins caucus. Even if she can be persuaded to stand aside, that doesn't help - the person after her, Peter Tashkoff, is also a member of the anti-Hide camp.

Hopefully, this will spell the death of ACT. And good riddance.

Jobs for the boys again

Another case of "jobs for the boys" from National - this time making washed-up former MP Mark Blumsky high commissioner to Niue.

Niue isn't the most important of New Zealand's diplomatic postings, and there have been political appointments before, but that doesn't excuse it. Diplomacy should be left to diplomats, not treated as a sinecure for the government's mates. And if Mark Blumsky wants to spend a year or two sunning himself on a Pacific Island, he should pay for it himself, not dump the cost on the taxpayer.

Another conviction, another cover-up

So in addition to one of the major drivers of our criminal justice policy having an assault conviction and a penchant for stealing the identity of dead babies, it turns out we have a Transport Minister with multiple convictions for careless driving. This isn't minor stuff, like speeding tickets; one of those convictions is for careless driving causing injury - meaning he seriously hurt someone while behind the wheel.

Joyce has voluntarily disclosed it now - but as with Garrett, he should have done it in 2008, before he ran for Parliament. If he'd done that, I doubt it would have mattered - it was 20 years ago, and a crime of negligence (though still a fairly serious one from the charge). But still, its the sort of thing the voters deserve to know. Covering it up just makes us feel we were lied to by self-interested politicians concerned primarily with image control than letting us make up our own minds about who should represent us.

David Garrett: Hypocrite

The suppression order on David Garrett has been lifted, and the Herald now has all the squalid details. Apparently, he though it was "a bit of a lark". Then there's this bit:

Garrett asked to keep his identity secret to "maintain his reputation".

[...]

Garrett was supported by three character references, none of whom are mentioned in the court record. But one is believed to be Sensible Sentencing Trust founder Garth McVicar.

So, we have an opponent of suppression orders demanding one to "maintain his reputation", and gaining a discharge without conviction with the support of a man who has publicly opposed any hint of mercy or proportion in the justice system. What a pair of hypocrites.

This is serious

Last weekend, the Herald reported what seemed like a serious case of attempted electoral fraud in Auckland, with 90 people registered as living at two suburban addresses in Papatoetoe. Now the Electoral Commission has confirmed it was even wider, and has removed 306 people from the electoral roll as a result. That's about 3% of the total vote last election in that ward, and about 10% of the winning candidates' votes - more than enough to swing a tight race.

The police are still investigating. I hope they get to the bottom of this, and punish whoever is responsible. While they may not think so, electoral fraud is a serious crime. It is not something we can tolerate in our democracy.

Must-read

Andrew Geddis on the Canterbury Enabling Act: Canterbury's earthquake is worse than an infestation of zombies...

More on Garrett

Over at Public Address, Damian Christie has some personal recollections of what a repulsive human being David Garrett is:

In discussing one of Garrett's previous political 'strikes', I asked a couple of friends what they thought of him. One told of how he'd reduced my friend's girlfriend to tears by (completely out of the blue) asking her an obscene question while my friend was in the bathroom. Because Garrett was an MP, someone she thought she should respect, she felt completely blindsided, didn't know what to do, and didn't even mention it to my friend for days. Utterly repugnant.

In my own experience with Garrett he buddied up to me after I'd made a (possibly ill-advised) joke on Back Benches. It was sexist, but I'd meant it ironically, something obviously lost on Garrett. "They're trying to stitch me up too..." he confided, beginning his story with "...there was this one bitch at The Listener...".

Those incidents of racism, sexism and homophobia weren't isolated outbursts - they were the real Garrett. The sooner he resigns, the better.

States of emergency

The state of emergency in Canterbury has officially been lifted. So, instead of being under the wide but ultimately limited powers of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act, Cantabrians are now subject to the whim of Gerry Brownlee. I'm not sure that this is an improvement.

Meanwhile, the government of Nauru has just extended its state of emergency for another 21 days, until mid-October. Nauru has been in a state of emergency for the last three months, after two successive elections resulted in a deadlock and failed to elect a new President. As a result, the country now has an illegitimate president with no democratic mandate ruling with "emergency" powers, and no democratic outcome in sight.

Fortunately, such a thing can't happen here. A provision in the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act requires Parliament to sit immediately if a national state of emergency is declared. Its a recognition that at such times, when the government is effectively granting itself extreme powers, the very highest level of democratic oversight is required. If only the House had remembered that on Tuesday night...

New Fisk

Freedom, democracy and human rights in Syria

The Herald on the Canterbury Enabling Act

While the media were asleep at the wheel during Tuesday's passage of the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act, some of them finally seem to have woken up to what has happened under their noses. This morning's Herald has a strong editorial attacking the bill:

These extraordinary powers are potentially far-reaching. Effectively, Parliament has handed over its normal law-making role to the Executive. And it has done this while also sacrificing the precept of judicial scrutiny.

Rarely should either be contemplated, no matter how dire the crisis. In this case, an earthquake has triggered a law that goes far beyond what is required to get things done in Christchurch.

The justification offered by Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee is that "business as usual won't work". That is true and strands of red tape embedded in the likes of building law needed to be stripped away. But not to this degree.

The Government should have passed a tightly focused law, which could be broadened if road-blocks persisted.

Unfortunately, now we've got it, we have to live with it, so the best we can do is watch Brownlee like a hawk and scream bloody murder at even the slightest hint of abuse - for example if he uses the bill to greenlight any contentious projects in the name of "reconstruction". Political accountability isn't really a substitute for limited powers and proper judicial oversight, but its the best card we've got.

Meanwhile, DPF, normally a democrat, is busy praising Brownlee's "wise dictatorship". I'm appalled. While I know he's a partisan hack, he had in the past purported to have some principles. So much for that pretence. And it speaks volumes that even his normal sewer-dwellers aren't really buying it.

Rare unity indeed

Over on Red Alert, labour's Brendon Burns praises Parliament's "rare unity" in passing the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act. Meanwhile, there's another sort of rare unity in the comments to that post: after 27 comments, not a single person has spoken out in favour of the bill. Instead, all see it as a dangerous encroachment on our democracy, offensive in principle.

Meanwhile, over on Frogblog, Green co-leader Russel Norman tries to explain his party's decision to back the legislation:

We tried to improve the legislation. We moved half a dozen amendments, but National and Labour opposed most.

[...]

And then after all that we had to decide how to vote on it. We decided to vote for it to support Canterbury’s recovery. But it was with a heavy heart given all our reservations about the act.

His commenters aren't really buying it either (though there are a couple who so support them). There's a palpable sense of disappointment that the Greens did not stand by their principles last night and stand up for our democracy and constitution. Someone has to speak up for those things, and I'm very sad that the Greens didn't.

There's a shorter word for that

Today's Orwellian abuse of language: this story in the Sydney Morning Herald, about a league star in court for sexual assault:

The 25-year-old denies a charge that he had sexual intercourse without the consent of the teen, who cannot be named for legal reasons. He also pleaded not guilty to two counts of assaulting her with an act of indecency.

There's a name for the act of having sex with someone without their consent. That word is rape. And I'd expect the media to have the decency to call the crime by its name, rather than engaging in tortured circumlocutions. But I guess the rules are different if you're a sports star...

Strikes all round

National's underfunding and attempt to dump the costs of the recession on public servants have resulted in the inevitable: strikes. Two weeks ago, it was radiographers. Last week, lab staff. Today, its teachers. And junior doctors are likely to walk off the job in the near future.

All of these strikes have the same cause: government penny-pinching. Government departments and DHBs are offering nil or derisory wage-rises. And in an environment of high inflation and rising living costs (GST, childcare etc), that is exactly the wrong offer to make to highly trained and irreplaceable staff whose services are in hot demand elsewhere. All of these people can get more money for less work overseas. All of them know exactly how essential they are. And that means they have the confidence to stand up for fairer wages and conditions.

The problem for the government is that not paying them makes everyone suffer. If you don't pay the doctors, people can't go to hospital. If you don't pay the teachers, people have to mind their own kids. And the blame for this goes straight back on the government. The public value the jobs that these public servants do. They know they are overworked and underpaid. And the natural question they ask is why the government isn't paying them what they're worth and avoiding the disruption. Which means a big political headache for the government.

The power to end this is completely in the government's hands. The question is whether they will see sense and make a fair offer, or cling to their anti-worker attitudes and refuse to budge. But if they do the latter, they'll be paying a heavy political price, which will get higher the longer this goes on.

More hypocrisy from David Garrett

So, it turns out that an assault conviction isn't the only skeleton hiding in ACT law and order spokesperson David Garrett's closet. According to One News, he was also [Deleted due to suppression order]

Again, its minor offending, reportedly an 80's prank (and yet, you don't get charged 20 years later unless you're still using it). But it makes Garrett's position as a law and order hardman utterly hypocritical, and it again raises serious questions about how forthcoming ACT was over his candidacy. As with the assault conviction, ACT leader Rodney Hide decided to keep this from the voting public, to prevent us from making a fully informed choice over his candidate. That's deceitful and wrong. And hopefully now it will come back to bite them.

Update: Garrett has since made a personal statement to the House explaining his offending, in which he also stated that he was given permanent name suppression. Given that, I think its best to remove the specifics until the order is rescinded.

Irony

Last night, Parliament passed wide-ranging emergency legislation vesting near-absolute power in Gerry Brownlee. Today, its website is celebrating the International Day of Democracy.

We are now (in theory) a dictatorship

Earlier tonight, in a unanimous vote, Parliament made us a dictatorship. While Parliament still exists, it is meaningless. We are now under the rule of a single tyrant: Gerry Brownlee, the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery.

Oh, not in practice, of course. But in form. The Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill, passed unanimously less than an hour ago, gives Brownlee the power to repeal or modify practically any law on our statute book, without even having to refer to Cabinet, let alone Parliament. With the flick of a pen, Brownlee could:

• repeal Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act;
• ban unions;
• strip anyone he likes of citizenship. Or, for that matter, grant it;
• make murder, rape, and bribery legal;
• overturn the results of the SuperCity election;
• declare the Treaty a "simple nullity" and sack the Waitangi Tribunal;
• legalise torture, or medical experimentation on pensioners;
• ban booze and legalise marijuana;
• declare himself immune from the OIA (which given his performance, I'm sure he'd love to);
• vest the foreshore and seabed now and forevermore in Paul Holmes;
• remove income tax on the rich;
• overturn the nuclear-free legislation;
• repeal the ETS, or exempt anyone he wants from it;
• legalise discrimination against gays or Catholics;
• grant permission for the Central Plains Water Project.

Provided he doesn't mess with a very short list of laws (basically the Constitution and Electoral Acts, and the BORA - but not the Human Rights Act), he can do anything he wants. While officially he has to "take into account" the purpose of the bill, "take into account" means sweet fuck-all - and thanks to a Fiji clause, the courts have no jurisdiction over the resulting Orders anyway. While he is theoretically subject to the oversight of the Regulations Review Committee, that is a slow process, and he could (if he felt like it) simply remove that clause. Result: absolute, dictatorial power, at least in theory, until 1 April 2012.

I do not for a moment think Brownlee will do any of those things.¹ But the mere fact that he can is a constitutional outrage. As Lew put it, we are relying on Gerry Brownlee to not be evil. And that is not acceptable in a democracy. Democratic societies under the rule of law do not trust politicians not to be evil - we tie them up so they cannot be.

No-one questions the need for emergency legislation to empower the reconstruction. But this bill, with these effectively unlimited powers was not the way to do it. And what really stinks is that every party voted for it. Faced with the threat of National labelling them "unpatriotic" (or worse, "unCantabrian"), they obediently fell into line and voted for it in the name of "national unity". Even the Greens were silenced where it mattered - at the vote. And that is how dictatorship happens. Hitler (of Reichstag fire and Enabling Act² fame) would be proud.

¹ I expect him to do other things instead - like weakening the building regulations which just saved thousands of lives, or exempting some large donors from the "hassle" of the RMA and so forth.

² Reading that, the similarities are creepy. But the practial difference in implementation is important. The Enabling Act created a dictatorship in practice; we are one only in theory.

The details

Parliament is currently sitting urgently - but not under urgency - to pass the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill through all three stages. Yesterday when the bill was announced I said the devil would be in the details; now I've seen a copy some of those details are very devilish indeed.

The core power of the bill allows the Governor-General to make Orders-in-Council to suspend or modify existing laws if it is "reasonably necessary or expedient" to aid the reconstruction of Christchurch and other earthquake affected areas. These Orders will have the force of law, but will be made by the Minister after consulting a committee of government stooges; they will be subject to the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989 (meaning they can be challenged and eventually revoked), but that happens after the fact. The upshot: Gerry Brownlee is now dictator of Canterbury, able to legislate on his own whim and bulldoze through whatever he wants.

While the power to make Orders includes a list of bills (such as the RMA, Building Act etc), it rather scarily is not limited to those bills. There is however a small list of Acts that cannot be modified (including the Constitution Act 1986, Electoral Act 1993, and the BORA). Rather scarily, there is no ban on modifying the Local Electoral Act, and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, the key vehicle for local government accountability, is included in the list. So Brownlee can suspend council elections or allow local authorities to hold meetings in secret and withhold information from the public if he feels like it.

These are signs of legislation drafted in haste and without proper safeguards. Such safeguards must be added at the committee stage. The Greens list of suggestions is a good start, but I'd also remove the LGOIMA from the list of Acts, and add the Local Electoral Act to the forbidden list. I'd also make it very, very clear that any changes apply only within a few districts in Canterbury. Otherwise, we are simply asking to be abused.

Hospitals without doctors

That seems to be the vision of our new Director-General of Health, Kevin Woods. As chief executive of the Scottish NHS, he sacked 1,500 nurses. Then there's this bit:

At the time, he was asked by a Government committee whether it was possible to still provide quality health services with "significantly fewer" doctors and nurses.

"Yes, we believe we can," Dr Woods said.

Apparently, all they need to do is get fewer doctors and nurses to work harder. Given that they already work too hard (a resident doctor typically works a 60 hour week, for example), and the stress of not enough people trying to do too much is already showing, this is exactly the wrong approach. But again, its so very, very National, isn't it?

Foreshore & seabed: Consent issues

So, Hone Harawira will not be voting for the government's Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. In some ways, its expected - Harawira represents the maximalists who believe Māori should own the foreshore by default, rather than those who think having their day in court / at the settlement table is enough - and its not going to prevent the bill from passing. But at the same time it is a problem for the government. As I've repeatedly pointed out, a durable solution to the problem can only happen with overwhelming Māori consent. Harawira's opposition reflects the fact that some Māori at least do not consent, and regard the law as fundamentally unfair. And depending on their numbers (and whether they win or lose the argument within Māoridom), that could mean that we'll still be grappling with this issue in another five or ten years (and at this stage its worth remembering that the rest of the Māori Party's position is one of conditional support; they'll take the marginal improvement, but don't rule out coming back for more later).

Not that that's a problem as far as I'm concerned - I'd rather have that durable solution rather than a quick, unjust one, and getting it takes as long as it takes. But the fools who think they can solve the issue by stamping their foot, unilaterally imposing a settlement without Māori consent and declaring it to be Over may be disappointed.

Accountability, Icelandic style

Back in 2009, the people of Iceland drove the government of Prime Minister Geir Haarde from office after its lax regulation had destroyed the economy. Now a Parliamentary committee has recommended that Haarde and three of his Ministers stand trial over the collapse for negligence in office and violating the law on ministerial responsibility. Now that's accountability.

Parliament will now vote on the charges, and if they decide to proceed, a Court of Impeachment (provided for in Article 14 of the Icelandic Constitution) will be convened for the first time in over a century. I'm not sure what the penalty is if convicted (and the indictment includes "breaches of the Icelandic penal code" as well as violations of Ministerial responsibility), but the mere fact that a conviction is recorded would be a serious penalty to any politician.