What if you run a transparent process, then ignore it?

On Friday I blogged a news story about Paul Goldsmith's appointment of terf and genocide supporter Stephen Rainbow as Chief Human Rights Commissioner, and how it appeared that he had ignored the recommendations of the appointments panel to shoulder-tap a preferred and unqualified candidate. The Spinoff was on the story as well, and has done their own piece drawing the same conclusions. And better: they've now confirmed them with a leak:

Update: The Spinoff has viewed documents with fewer redactions that show Rainbow was specifically noted as “not recommended” by the panel following his interview. Pacheco was listed as “highly appointable”. Two of the candidates for race relations commissioner (neither of whom were Derby as she was not initially interviewed) were graded as “highly appointable” by the panel.

So, just to make this clear: Goldsmith pretended to follow the Paris Principles by pursuing a transparent and independent selection process, seeking nominations from human rights groups and civil society and appointing a highly-qualified independent panel to assess them. He then took that panel's recommendation, threw it in the bin, and appointed completely unqualified candidates for reasons which have been kept secret (likely because they are embarrassingly inadequate, and possibly unlawful). Obviously, this is not how appointments to quasi-constitutional offices should be made. And again, the next government should respond to this violation of our constitutional norms by sacking the unqualified cronies the moment they take office.

A moral void at the heart of our establishment

Back in July, the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care delivered its report, detailing a horrific litany of abuse for which the government was ultimately responsible. The report found that a long list of government ministers and officials had allowed, failed to stop, and effectively covered up that abuse. Today, Newsroom has started a major new series on how that happened, and how the state turned on its victims.

Reading it, what's stands out is how it all comes down to the framing. Right from the outset, officials saw this not as a crime which demanded justice, but as a fiscal and reputational risk to the New Zealand state - and advised Ministers accordingly. Which is an example of the banality of evil, how bureaucracy rots the conscience. But what's also striking is that for over two decades, no Minister seems to have pushed back against that framing. No-one - not Bill English, not Wyatt Creech, not Helen Clark, or Annette King - seems to have gone "hang on a minute; this isn't right". And while Ministers can not and should not direct police investigations, they can start inquiries (like the one which led to those findings), listen to victims, and arrange compensation schemes before everyone is dead. And none of them did that. None of them apparently even tried. And neither apparently did any of their Cabinet colleagues on the multiple occasions when details of the allegations and the government's proposed response (deny liability and wait for them to die) went to Cabinet.

What this inquiry has exposed is not just torture and abuse and institutional cover-ups, but a complete moral void at the heart of our establishment. If our political class aren't soulless husks bereft of any shred of conscience, they've done such an impressive job of faking it as to make no difference. And the obvious question that raises is: are these really the sort of people we want running our country?

Goldsmith's "transparent" human rights appointment process

Back in August, National sabotaged human rights by appointing terf and genocide supporter Stephen Rainbow as Chief Human Rights Commissioner, and terf and white supremacist Melissa Derby as Race Relations Commissioner. The appointments seemed calculated to undermine public confidence in the Commission, and there were obvious questions about how they happened. So I asked, using the OIA. I got the response back today, and its crystal clear that Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith did not follow a proper appointments process, instead parachuting his preferred candidates in to the interview process, then appointing them - possibly explicitly against the advice of the independent panel he had appointed to do the job.

The full documents are here. Note that they are incomplete, and fail to include panel reports on the successful candidates. My request was also poorly phrased, and did not ask for Goldsmith's communications around the appointment, but there were obviously several important ones. But judging from the documents, this is what happened:

• In December 2023, the Ministry of Justice advised Goldsmith on the need to appoint new EEO and Race Relations Commissioners, and the upcoming need to appoint a new Chief Commissioner. They remind the Minister of the Paris Principles, which require that there is a transparent process for appointments and that an independent review panel advise the Minister. They recommend the appointment of such a panel.
• Later in December, they do a followup briefing about the need to advertise the positions. They also suggest writing to government caucuses. Goldsmith does so.
• In February 2024, he appoints an independent panel, consisting of retired judge Terrence Arnold, former Attorney-General (and National MP) Chris Finlayson, human rights lawyer Paul Rishworth, and iwi chairs representative Lorraine Toki to assess the applications. They do their job properly, and in March they report back with a shortlist (p30). Neither Rainbow or Derby's name appears on it.
• Despite this, later in March Rainbow appears on the interview list. It appears that Goldsmith wrote him in, and bumped another candidate to do so. The recommendations of the panel are (of course) redacted, but if they'd recommended his appointment, they wouldn't be.
• Sometime after this, Goldsmith "asked for the panel to interview Dr Melissa Derby for the position of Race Relations Commissioner" (p46). The panel's views on her are not included.
• In June the appointment goes to Cabinet's Appointments and Honours Committee. The Ministry of Justice's briefing on this (p44-45) and recommendations (p46) suggest strongly that Rainbow was not the candidate recommended by the panel (if he was, then his name would be recommended on p46, and there would be no redaction). Instead, he seems to be recommended as a second-choice because of some redacted objection to the recommended candidate.
• And just like that, Goldsmith's two preferred candidates are appointed!

As noted above, we don't know what Goldsmith said to the panel, and we don't have their recommendations. I can go to the Ombudsman, and if I'm successful, we might know in a year or two. But one thing is clear: rather than run a transparent, independent process as required by the Paris Principles, Goldsmith simply appointed a pair of hatemongers, apparently against the explicit recommendations of the appointments panel. And when we're talking about our chief human rights body, that simply isn't good enough. having seen this appointments process, i stand by what I said in August: these people are unable to credibly perform the functions of the office. And the next government should simply sack them.

10/10: World Day Against the Death Penalty

Today, October 10, is the world day against the death penalty. Out of 195 UN member states, 63 still permit routine capital punishment. Today is the day we work to change that.

This year's theme is the misconception that the death penalty makes people safer. The use of the death penalty in "security" cases, which relies on an inherently political narrative of who is a "threat" and who is not. So its not about "safety", but just another tool of oppression. But even in ordinary cases, the regular execution of the innocent in death penalty states shows the same problems. If we want to make people actually safe, we need to deal with the root causes of crime and conflict - not use the state to murder people.

While no states abolished the death penalty this year, Zimbabwe's government agreed in principle to do so, and legislation is pending. Hopefully that will pass before the end of the year.

This is what corruption looks like

One of the risks of National's Muldoonist fast-track law is corruption. If Ministers can effectively approve projects by including them in the law for rubberstamping, then that creates some very obvious incentives for applicants seeking approval and Ministers seeking to line their or their party's pockets. And its a risk that seems to have been realised, with $500,000 in donations associated with fast-track projects:

Companies and shareholders associated with 12 fast-track projects gave more than $500,000 in political donations to National, Act and New Zealand First and their candidates, RNZ analysis shows.

The projects include a quarry extension into conservation land and a development whose owner was publicly supported by National MPs during a legal battle with Kāinga Ora.

[...]

An RNZ analysis of donations shows entities and individuals associated with 12 of the 149 projects that will be written into the Bill donated to National or its candidates in 2022 or 2023. These projects will be assessed by expert panels as to whether they proceed through the fast-track process.

Two also donated to NZ First or Shane Jones, and two donated a total of $150,000 to Act within the same period.

Note that this does not include donations given through NZ First's secret bribe trust or equivalent vehicles.

The government says this is all OK because the donations were declared. They would never, never be so foolish as to take a donation in exchange for favours when everyone could see what was happening. The problem is that no matter how often they say this, the public simply does not believe them. We know that people (and especially companies, with statutory duties to pursue profit) do not give away such vast amounts of money for nothing; we know they want something in return. And Jones and Bishop seem to be giving them something. If they're not corrupt, they're trying very hard to give us that impression, and they have only themselves to blame if we draw the obvious conclusion.

Which is another reason why the next government will need to not just repeal this outrageous law, but revoke and review every single consent granted: as a basic political hygiene measure. Because corruption cannot be allowed to pay, ever.

But beyond the bill, this again shows the need to outlaw political donations, for full public funding of political parties, for lobbyist regulation, and for the creation of an independent anti-corruption commission to go over every past and future donor, minister, and governing party with a microscope to see if favours were ever traded for money or other reward. National's open embrace of naked bribe-taking is hugely damaging to public trust in our political system. If we want to restore it, we know what needs to be done.

One cheer for the Samoan citizenship bill

Back in April, Teanau Tuiono's member's bill to undo a historic crime and restore citizenship to Samoans stripped of it by Muldoon unexpectedly passed its first reading and was sent to select committee. That committee has now reported back. But while the headline is that it has unanimously recommended that the bill proceed, that masks a very ugly compromise.

The purpose of the bill was to undo Muldoon's historic crime. Lest anyone forget, in 1982 the UK Privy Council - then our highest court, because colonialism - ruled that Samoans born in Samoa between 1924 and 1949 were and always had been New Zealand citizens (and therefore could not be deported). Muldoon's response was to pass a law - under urgency of course - stripping them of that citizenship, unless they were presently in New Zealand. Tuiono's bill was meant to undo that: not just the effect, but also erase the infamous law from the statute book. While its effects would continue, but be ameliorated by a grant as of right, that evil law declaring Samoans to never have been citizens would be gone.

But that was a bridge too far for the political establishment. So instead, a bill aimed at erasing a crime will now perpetuate it, by explicitly retaining Muldoon's racist law while amending it to add the grant provision and a reference to it. The citizenship gained will very explicitly only apply from when it was granted (rather than being recognised as having always been held and never removed), and unlike "normal" citizenship, won't be able to be (and, more importantly for the government, will not have been) passed on to children born outside Aotearoa. Its explicitly called a "citizenship of special nature" for Samoans; a second class of citizenship, if you will. And of course New Zealand can't be expected to make even this limited restitution for our crimes for free, so every single person who wants this second-class citizenship will have to pay for the privilege - albeit at the reduced price of $204.40. The Department of Internal Affairs has to cover its costs, you know! But given the number of surviving victims - maybe 3,400 still alive - the amount of money is utterly trivial to the government: less than a million dollars. They could simply appropriate it and cover the costs as a goodwill gesture. But like full, uninterrupted citizenship, even that was apparently too much for the racists in Parliament.

Both the Greens and Labour wanted the bill to go further, repealing Muldoon's racist law (the diplomatically important section 7 could simply have been moved to the Citizenship Act, where it belongs), eliminating fees, and extending eligibility to descendents born before Samoa became independent in 1962. But NZ First, whose support provides a majority for the bill, said no. The resulting compromise is an improvement on the current situation - some people will have a form of citizenship recognised! Huzzah! - but its also ugly, nasty, and petty. Rather like NZ First, really. It is a long way from what we ought to do, or what submitters expected. About the best that can be said for it is that its something that can be improved upon in future. And that's... not enough.

So, its one cheer for Teanau Tuiono and his bill. I'm sure this is the best he can do at the moment with the Parliament we've got, but no-one should pretend that this is decent, or honourable, or enough. Like everything else happening this term, the next government will have to fix this. Fortunately, Labour has publicly committed to a position. Now we have to hold them to it.

"The party of personal responsibility"

When National decided to shovel $24 million of public money to a charity run by a donor and chaired by the son of a National MP, on the "independent" advice of a former National PM, they proudly stated that it was because it was in the coalition agreement. Now, the Auditor-General has found that the decision did not comply with public procurement rules, which exist precisely to stop Ministers from giving public money to donors and cronies. The government's response? Blame the Ministry:

Doocey was not available to be interviewed but in a statement a spokesperson said any faults with the procurement process lay with the Ministry of Health.

"While the decision to fund Gumboot Friday was a decision made by the government, how this commitment was implemented was a decision for the Ministry of Health.

"Throughout the process, the minister has sought, and received assurance from officials that the implementation option chosen by the Ministry of Health is compliant with government procurement rules," the spokesperson said.

Of course, those officials gave that advice because the Minister made it clear that he wanted it, and the Ministry is there to serve and provide post-hoc justifications for whatever mad scheme Ministers cook up. And there is no simply employment upside for telling a Minister that their plan is illegal and corrupt.

The bottom line here is that this was the Minister's crooked scheme. It may have been imposed on him by NZ First, but he was proud to own it back in May when he announced it. But suddenly he's pretending it was nothing to do with him. Whatever happened to being the "party of personal responsibility"?

Climate Change: The same problems everywhere

Here in Aotearoa, our right-wing, ATLAS-network-backed government is rolling back climate policy and plotting to raise emissions to allow the fossil fuel industry a few more years of profit. And in Canada, their right-wing, ATLAS-network-backed opposition is campaigning on doing the same thing:

Mass hunger and malnutrition. A looming nuclear winter. An existential threat to the Canadian way of life. For months, the country’s Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has issued dire and increasingly apocalyptic warnings about the future. The culprit? A federal carbon levy meant to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

In the House of Commons this month, the Tory leader said there was only one way to avoid the devastating crisis: embattled prime minister Justin Trudeau must “call a ‘carbon tax’ election”.

Unlike our ETS, Canada's carbon tax is fully and directly rebated - meaning most people actually profit from it. Like our (sadly repealed) clean car discount, its the polluters that pay. But Canada's Conservatives and their far-right fossil think-tank backers have used waves of misinformation to pollute the infosphere and try and hide this fact. If they succeed, not only will Canada fail to meet its climate targets - most Canadians will actually be financially worse off. But you wouldn't know it from the institutional liars on the right.

...and all so a dying industry can eke out a few more years of profit. But technology change - solar and the electrification of transport - is going to bury them eventually, if policy doesn't first. The problem is that that may be too late to avoid horrific damage.

The corruption list

Yesterday the navy lost one of its newest ships in an accident. And so obviously, National used it as cover to release its list of projects to be rubber-stamped under its corrupt Muldoonist "fast-track" law. When the list of invitees was released, I called it "a who's who of New Zealand's dodgiest companies". The final list is a who's who of our most corrupt. Those willing to bribe ministers or simply trample all over our democracy is order to get their projects (briefly) approved.

Trans-Tasman Resources is there, with their seabed mine which has already been rejected by the Supreme Court and which would prevent the construction of a vital offshore windfarm. As is the South Island garbage incinerator, Oceana Gold's giant Waihi gold mine, and a host of other dirty mining and irrigation projects. Plus a bunch of housing developments to pay off the property developers. All wrapped up with a tiny amount of infrastructure and renewable energy projects for PR purposes (except: there's NZ's dodgiest solar farm company's Warkworth project; and a bunch of projects in the Mackenzie Country, which independent panels have already decided is not an acceptable place for solar farms; and a bunch of the wind projects are already consented).

Some of these filler projects might gain consent through the normal RMA process. The fact that their promoters have chosen to piss in our faces and shit on our democracy by pursuing fast-track authorisation tells us something ugly about them and their corporate mindset. And they need to be punished for that choice. So I'm not in favour of drawing any distinctions when the next government inevitably revisits this. Repeal the law, revoke all their consents without compensation, and make them do it properly or not at all.

The good news is that while the bill will be law by the end of the year, and the government thinks it will have the first approvals early (really mid) next year, there's really only an eighteen-month window for construction and profit before the next election and a potential change of government and policy. Every month of delay due to legal action, protests etc against these projects narrows that window. And if its narrowed enough, it will become too risky to start for fear that consent will be revoked and money wasted. So, we may not have to do too much against the worst of them to stop them - provided the left wins the next election.

I've posted before about the legitimising effect of the RMA process. Given the potential for protest, occupation etc, whether these projects proceed is ultimately a matter of public consent. But by choosing to pursue this process, these companies have basically surrendered any prospect of that. I hope they are made to regret it.

Taking the piss

When cancer minister Casey Costello convinced Cabinet to give her mates at Philip Morris a $216 million tax cut, she did so in the face of departmental advice that there would be no benefits and that Philip Morris' "heated tobacco products" were more cancerous and toxic than cigarettes. But she told her fellow Cabinet Ministers that it was fine because she had received "independent advice" that they were effective as an anti-smoking tool. Yesterday, she finally produced that "advice". And it was simply laughable:

The Associate Health Minister Casey Costello's "independent advice" on heated tobacco products is five articles that are either about different products, outdated, or only offer weak support for her view.

The five documents are not decisive on the benefits of the products.

They're also published in dodgy scam-journals and potentially funded by the tobacco industry. As Ayesha Verrall points out, it looks like she just did a quick google and grabbed whatever came up. It is certainly not the level of evidence you would expect to support a $200 million government policy, and not the level of care we should expect from a government minister.

At this stage it is clear that Costello is simply taking the piss. We deserve a better standard of government than this. Its long past time Luxon sacked her. And if he can't or won't, maybe we should start recognising that it is Winston who is really Prime Minister and deciding who is in cabinet...?

National's democratic suppression fails

Last week, National rammed its destructive offshore gas-drilling legislation through to select committee under urgency, and then gave submitters only four working days to have a say on it. The goal was clearly to stifle opposition, but it appears to have failed spectacularly:

Despite being given only 3½ working days to make a submission, 5600 people and organisations lodged written submissions on the legislation, with 392 asking to be heard by the committee.

That's not a record number of submissions, but it is a large one, and incredible for only four days. And an overwhelming number of them oppose the bill, with only a few self-interested lobby groups and industry shills in favour.

We know who the government will listen to, of course - but the purpose of submitting isn't to change their mind or to fix the bill: it is to convince the opposition to promise immediate repeal and revocation of all permits issued without compensation, and so deter the investment National hopes to encourage. The Greens are on-side with that, because they recognise the stakes here. The question is whether Labour will listen, or whether they'll again tell everyone they are useless chickenshits unworthy of your vote.

National wants to loot the health system

Hot on the heels of their cancellation of Dunedin hospital (meaning a cut to health services in half the south Island), National has revealed the next part of their agenda: the outright privatisation of the health system:

The health agency is suggesting the Government to consider allowing private companies to build – and potentially run – the country’s public hospitals.

[...]

Earlier this year, Health New Zealand told ministers given the scale of investment required, "a range of options for different financing and commercial arrangements may be needed".

Build and leaseback arrangements, where private companies own the buildings, would help free up funds.

They also floated "Public Private Partnerships", and said they are widely used overseas.

Health NZ chief infrastructure and investment officer Jeremy Holman said PPPs are "a whole spectrum of how the private sector could work with the private sector from that side of it so there are many different options in there".

They're also hugely expensive, wasteful, and inevitably corrupt. You just need to look at Transmission Gully or the UK's Private Finance Initiative to see what a disaster they are for the public. But the contract providers laugh all the way to the bank.

National seems intent on destroying our entire society - the schools, the hospitals, te Tiriti, our democracy - in favour of an economy focused on corrupt capitalist extraction and rent-gouging. All that will be left will be motorways leading to airports and gas wells (at least until rising sea levels wash them all away). As for what to do about it, as with everything else this government is doing, the opposition needs to be crystal clear: this will be repealed on day one. Contracts will be legislatively revoked, with no compensation to contractors, and the health system returned to public ownership and control. Those who steal from us will not be allowed to profit from it.

Luxon just became a poster boy for taxing the rich

Whenever our politicians are caught with their hand in the till, they loudly proclaim that their theft from the public was "within the rules". The problem is that they are the ones writing the rules, and there's a certain suspicion that they write them to suit themselves. And so their their legalistic defences simply add to the stench of self-interested corruption from our political class.

That's bad enough when it comes to rorting perks and getting paid to live in your own house. But Prime Minister Chris Luxon has taxen it to a new level, apparently scamming $70,000 from a tax break he gave himself:

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon narrowly avoided paying what might have amounted to a large tax bill on the sale of his Wellington apartment thanks to changes brought in by the Government.

Luxon sold his Wellington apartment and moved into the Prime Minister’s official residence, Premier House.

[...]

Because Luxon bought and sold the apartment within five years of purchase and he bought the apartment after the introduction of the five-year test, he would have been required to pay tax under that test at a rate of 39% - equating to a maximum tax of $70,200.

However, on coming into office, Luxon’s Government scrapped both of Labour’s extensions of the bright-line test, shifting it back to two years as of July 1, 2024. That means Luxon avoided being caught by the five-year test by just over two months and saved himself $70,200. If he had sold the apartment in February, when he declared he would move into Premier House, he would likely have been required to pay the tax.

Obviously, Luxon didn't change the rules solely so he could profit from it. But he did nakedly profit from the rule-change he wrote. And that's... unseemly. A "bad look". A bit stinky.

But I guess that's just who our political class are now: not normal people, but people with huge portfolios of hoarded houses, and the rapacious, grasping, self-interested attitudes to match. According to his Gospel of Prosperity, Luxon saw an opportunity and took it, and that's why he's "wealthy and sorted" and the rest of us are just struggling peasants. And because we were fools enough to give him power, we deserve to be exploited in this way. But while that may sound great in the weirdo fundamentalist circles Luxon moves in, to the rest of us, it just looks like a greedy arsehole abusing his power to rip off the public. And it makes some form of wealth tax a necessity. Because its no longer just a fair way of giving the state the resources it needs to pay for the services we need - its about making sure rich arseholes like Luxon don't get to rort us while laughing at us.

Climate Change: Fossil fuels versus free trade

One of the arguments against National's gas fantasy is that it breaches our environmental commitments under various free trade agreements, including the NZ-EU FTA, which requires us to meet our Paris commitments and not weaken our environmental protections. And it turns out that MFAT agrees:

Legal advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade states the Government’s plans to repeal the 2018 ban on new offshore oil and gas exploration will “likely” breach New Zealand’s obligations in recent free trade agreements.

Deals with major trade partners such as the European Union and the United Kingdom prohibit New Zealand from reducing environmental protections to encourage trade or investment. Though officials said the risk of a country taking a case against New Zealand was low, the policy was “likely” inconsistent with these provisions.

National apparently doesn't care, leaning heavily on that low chance of anyone bringing a case. Which I guess shows how committed they are to the "rules-based international order" they keep talking about. But we're a pretty poor international partner if we only keep our commitments if they are actually enforced against us, and I think most kiwis would expect better from our government than that. We've made promises, and we should keep them. Only business weasels and sociopaths would try and cheat.

But also, it seems that if we want the direction of this government to change, we should be doing our utmost to ensure that these countries do take action. After all, National has said its the only thing they'll listen to. We should take them at their word. And if it results in sanctions on the dirty dairy industry, so much the better.

Climate Change: The end of coal in the UK

It's official: coal has been eliminated from the UK's electricity system:

Britain’s only remaining coal power plant at Ratcliffe-on-Soar in Nottinghamshire will generate electricity for the last time on Monday after powering the UK for 57 years.

The power plant will come to the end of its life in line with the government’s world-leading policy to phase out coal power which was first signalled almost a decade ago.

The closure marks the end of Britain’s 142-year history of coal power use which began when the world’s first coal-fired power station, the Holborn Viaduct power station, began generating electricity in 1882.

Good. Coal has been a significant source of greenhouse gases, and its elimination from global energy systems is vital if we are to get climate change under control. So its a huge positive step from a historical polluter.

Sadly, here in Aotearoa, Shane Jones is trying to push us back onto coal, taking us in entirely the wrong direction in service to his fossil fuel masters. So much for trying to do our bit. Tim Winton is right: our leaders are collaborators with the fossil fuel industry. And if they don't like that word, or the public anger that comes with it, then maybe they should stop collaborating in our destruction.

A tipping point?

The National Party has been promising Dunedin - and the lower South Island - a new hospital since 2008. Despite those promises, the Key government did nothing during its nine years in office, and it was left to Labour to actually start the process in 2017. National promptly criticised them as moving too slow, and continued to promise Dunedin a new hospital. They repeated the promise during the 2023 election campaign. So it was a bit of a shock when on Thursday, they suddenly declared it was "unaffordable" and announced they weren't going to build it after all. And Dunedinites were Not Impressed: 35,000 of them - a quarter of the city - turned out to show their disagreement:

Dunedin's Octagon packed with people on Saturday calling for the government to keep its promise to build the new Dunedin Hospital with no cuts.

[...]

Dunedin Mayor Jules Radich called it the biggest protest in the city of about 134,000 in years.

"Today up to 35,000 people from across the South have come together on Dunedin's streets to express their outrage at proposed cuts to our new regional hospital," he said in a statement.

Its easy to see why: this is vital infrastructure, which serves half the South Island. Downgrading it will mean a permanent reduction in the quality of health care for people in the South. And since everyone needs hospitals at some stage in their life, this is going to hit very close to home for a huge number of people (including people in "safe" National seats in Otago and Southland). Calling it "unaffordable" while dishing out billions for landlord tax cuts, truck motorways in Auckland, or a mega-tunnel in Wellington solely so Luxon doesn't have to see people giving him the finger when he is driven from the airport is a fundamental misunderstanding of the public's priorities, a failure to read the room.

And its not just about Dunedin. With its mantra of "unaffordable" for everything outside Remuera, what National does to Dunedin could be coming to your city. If you live in Hastings, New Plymouth, or Palmerston North - or their catchment areas - you can just see National sharpening the knives for your local health system. And it will hurt you or someone you love.

This should be a tipping point for the government. When 40,000 people marched down Queen Street to oppose the Key government's plans to mine our national parks, the government got the message and backed down. But the first-term Key government wanted to be re-elected. And I'm not sure that that's actually true of the current government. Quite apart from ACT and NZ First, who do not care about anything other than their corrupt donors, Luxon's National Party is not the Key National Party. Key still had a fair whack of pragmatic conservatives (hence also their desire to seek coalition with Te Pāti Māori and work with them on the foreshore and seabed). But those have now been replaced with crazed ideological glue-sniffers and religious weirdos, who seem to want to wreck our society and burn shit to the ground as quickly as possible. I'm not sure that they will listen, even to mass protest. But if they don't, then they should be a one-term government. The only question is how much damage they will do before being defenestrated by the voters.

Another abuse of democracy

This week National introduced its long-threatened bill to repeal the offshore drilling ban and promote the fossil fuel industry, and rammed it through to select committee. Today the select committee opened for submissions. If you have an opinion on this corrupt, ecocidal legislation, you will need to speak up quick - because the committee has decided that submissions are due by Tuesday, 1 October, just four days away.

Submissions can be made using the form above. On the one hand, it is clear that the committee is not interested in listening to the public; the donors and lobbyists have already spoken. But it is still worth submitting. Not to change or improve the bill - that is a waste of everyone's time, and the more uncorrected mistakes in it, the better - but to influence the opposition members of the committee, and encourage them to publicly commit to a policy of immediate repeal.

As for how to do this, I would suggest focusing on the projected emissions impact of the bill (as laid out in MBIE's Climate Implications of Policy Assessment statement) and their utter inconsistency with both our emissions budgets and our domestic and international emissions reduction targets. If these projections are remotely accurate, then a future government which wants to meet those budgets and targets will need to repeal this bill as quickly as possible. Insofar as permits represent a commitment to emit, they will need to be revoked as well (and basic political hygiene - ensuring that there are no profits from corrupt lobbying - means such revocation will have to be without compensation).

Submitters could also mention the impact of the short submission period, the effect of these continued abuses on the public legitimacy of Parliament as an institution, and the terrible message it sends about the effectiveness of pursuing change by parliamentary methods rather than by other means.

I expect the major environmental groups will set up web forms and submissions guides; I'll update with links as I see them.

Update: Environmental NGOs have a submission guide here. Ngaa Haumi has one here.

Climate Change: We can't afford the gas industry

Yesterday, National finally introduced its long-threatened bill to repeal the offshore drilling ban and promote the fossil fuel industry to the House. They'll be ramming it through its first reading under urgency this afternoon, and while it will go to select committee, they will almost certainly try their usual stunt of an undemocratically short submissions period in an effort to limit opposition.

The Greens have made it quite clear that they will be reinstating the ban and revoking any permits granted in the interim, but Labour are being their usual chickenshit selves, and refusing to commit to that. Which makes them fools as well as cowards. Because permits represent extra emissions, which we simply cannot afford. The government's own modelling shows that their policy will increase emissions by 14.2 million tons to 2035, and 51.6 millions tons to 2050. Which is a cast-iron commitment to breach not just our first two emissions budgets, but all future targets as well.

No party which pretends to be committed to climate action can accept this. So Labour has to choose: do they want to maintain credibility with the public, or suck up to ecocidal big business polluters? Because they can't do both.

Meanwhile, what this bill and this climate assessment shows us is that we cannot as a society afford the gas industry. It has to be destroyed. And currently, that's on-track to happen: high prices and shortages are driving industrial users to electrify, the electricity sector is going to be hit by a flood of solar and batteries which will drive gas out of the system, and Methanex - the customer which fundamentally drives demand and effectively underwrites all future development - is shutting down two of its three plants. This is exactly the managed decline we need to see. The gas industry and their corrupt stooges in National hate it, and so we have this desperate rearguard action in an effort to pretend that gas still has a future. But it doesn't and it can't. All we need to put the final nail in the coffin is for Labour to publicly commit to that. But I guess the question here is: when has the NZ Labour party ever done the right thing voluntarily?

How to complain about a delayed OIA release

A few years back, Te Kawa Mataaho / Public Service Commission started releasing OIA statistics, on the theory that this would allow failure to be identified and managed, and so improve performance. It may have done so initially, but then the iron laws of bureaucracy (and specifically, Goodhart's and Campbell's) took over, and underresourced agencies began to game them in order to improve their "performance". So we had a flood of bullshit extensions, as agencies tried to scam extra time while claiming responses were "timely". When the Ombudsman stomped on that, they started responding that the information would "soon" be "publicly available" (when "soon" meant "when we feel like it" and "available" meant "with whatever we want redacted"). The Ombudsman has stomped on that too, and so the latest tactic to pretend a response is timely for statistical purposes while scamming extra time is "delayed release": a response claiming that a decision has been made, but information will be released later (sometimes with a date, sometimes without, sometimes after a long delay). Et voila! A timely "decision" which can be used to make the stats look good, while giving as much extra time as an agency wants to actually do the work.

The problem of course is that - absent highly unusual circumstances - this is simply illegal. The OIA requires that decision and release both be made "as soon as reasonably practicable" (ASARP). When a decision has actually been made, then release should be immediate unless it is not "reasonably practicable" to do so. Unless an agency gives a specific reason why that is the case, a delay is illegal (and, under s28(5) of the Act, an effective refusal).

What should you do if you receive an OIA response like this? The first step is to look for the reason justifying the delay. If there isn't one, reply immediately asking exactly what circumstances make it impractical to release the information immediately. There may be a reasonable explanation! But if there is not, or they say "we need more time", or "it is still at the Minister's office", or "it is still under review", or they don't respond at all within 48 hours, then its on to step two: complain. You can use the online form here, or just email it to complaint@ombudsmen.parliament.nz.

What should you say in your complaint? After laying out the circumstances of the request ("on $RequestDate I filed a request with $agency. A response was due by $DueDate. On $ResponseDate the agency responded, saying that it had made a decision on my request, but that release of the information would be delayed..."), ask that the response be investigated, and say something like:

the response has been unduly delayed, and therefore (following s28(5) of the Act), effectively refused. While the Act permits a delay between decision and release, this requires unusual circumstances...

At this stage either give the agency's explanation (if one has been provided), and say that it does not seem to make immediate release impractical, or say that no explanation has been provided. Either way, go on and say:

This seems to be a failure to meet the "as soon as reasonably practical" standard demanded by the Act.

Additionally, if the response does not provide an actual release date, or indicate what specifically will be released, or if it does not include any withholding grounds, note this, and question whether it is actually a "decision" under the Act. In a past ruling on this sort of response (587412), the Ombudsman said:

To constitute a valid decision under the OIA, a response must be very clear as to whether a request is granted, in full or in part, as well as confirm if information is intended to be withheld, and provide the reasons for the same. I would expect an agency to have identified the specific information within the scope of the request, collated and reviewed this information, and set specific criteria for determining which information (if any) is to be withheld.

Many "delayed response" "decisions" fail to meet these conditions, and are thus not "decisions" at all.

A complaint will take a while - possibly six months to a year. You will likely receive your information long before then. But it is still important to complain. Complaints have stopped routine forms of OIA abuse in the past. With enough complaints, we can stop this one.

Priorities

Back in 2018 the then-Labour government legislated formal targets to reduce child poverty with the Child Poverty Reduction Act - and took actual steps to achieve them, with a $5.5 billion families package to boost incomes and a school lunches scheme to ensure kids didn't go hungry. While a lot of work needed to be done, it made a good start. And then National came along and gutted the targets, replacing them with more "achievable" ones. Why? Because they didn't want to spend the money required to met them:

Documents showed year-on-year progress was not on track and meeting the targets "would require investment in the region of $3 billion per year".

Officials presented Upston with two alternative targets for 2028 that they believed could be achieved.

However, Upston told RNZ the government "disagreed with the advice and this approach, as it would further entrench long-term welfare dependency and the number of children growing up in benefit-dependent homes".

Instead, the government spent $3 billion on landlord tax cuts, effectively deciding to give to the greedy, not to the needy (they also scrapped the survey tracking child poverty, to prevent any evidence of failure). Its a stark illustration of National's priorities, and who they favour in society.

As for child poverty, Upston thinks it will be solved by "growing the economy, improving health and education outcomes, and getting more households into work... rather than welfare payments and tax credit changes". In other words, the usual capitalist magical thinking that if you make rich people richer while shitting harder on the poor and gutting health and education, everything will magically get better. National applied such cruel "solutions" in both of their previous times in government, in 1991 and 2012, and their efforts are why we have a child poverty problem in the first place. Do they seriously expect us to believe it'll be third time lucky? Or are they just spewing bullshit to cover for the fact that they do not give a shit about anyone other than the ultra-rich?