Climate Change: Fixing the climate won't cause economic argmageddon

Parliament is currently hearing submissions on the regime's corrupt bill to protect polluters from liability for the damage their pollution is causing. Z Energy - one of the bill's instigators, whose lobbying efforts were unlawfully hidden by the Prime Minister's office - is doing some pretty heavy PR on this, in a desperate effort to convince people that this law benefits the public rather than just those polluters. As part of this, they've released the obligatory lobbying document promising economic armageddon!!!! unless they are immediately granted full and complete immunity for their crimes:

Three of the defendants - Z Energy, Fonterra and Genesis Energy - commissioned a report by an independent economist, Dr Niven Winchester.

It examined the potential economic and emissions impacts of legal remedies sought in the case.

Winchester concluded if an immediate cessation order was applied to the defendants in the case, GDP would decline by $21.9b (0.9 percent) over five years (2028-2032), with 2028 alone seeing a $7.5b (1.6 percent) fall.

The full report is here. The relevant table, on p12, is reproduced below:

The first think to note from this is that the $21.9 billion figure is cumulative economic impact, the sum of all the projected "losses" over 5 years. The actual figure for 2032 is $2.3 billion, or 0.5% lower than the projected base case. The second thing to note is that the report helpfully includes tables showing projected emissions reductions (table 4) and carbon prices (table 3), and when you do the maths, it turns out that the avoided emissions, if priced at the prices provided, offset 80% of that cumulative loss, and over 90% in early years ($7 of $7.5 billion in 2028; $5.2 of $5.7 billion in 2029; $3 of $3.5 billion in 2030; its frontloaded because prices decline as emissions return towards the projected path). The maximum projected net "loss" is $1.2 billion in 2032 - about 0.25%.

Plus of course there is the obvious: GDP is currently $450 billion. It is projected to be higher than that in all but the first years of the projected DFA scenario, and even that qualification disappears once the price of avoided emissions is included. In other words, this report shows that we can take radical action to rapidly cut our emissions, using the harshest method imaginable - an immediate, court-enforced order for large polluters to immediately reduce their pollution to net zero - and still be better off than we are now.

I do not think that is the optimum pathway; I prefer a managed transition. But in the absence of proper government policy, its the pathway we have left. And it still works. Its very bad for Fonterra, Z, and Genesis, of course, which is why they're lobbying so hard against it. But the rest of us are still massively better off because of it.

Unmentioned in this analysis of course is the cost of the storms, floods, fires, and other disasters, which are only growing to go worse if Fonterra, Z, Genesis etc continue polluting. But they only affect actual people, not suits and corporate bottom lines, so of course the ghouls ignore them. But you don't need to hire expensive lobbyists to tell you that the weather is now an ongoing shitshow, and we need to do what we can to stop it getting worse. And if making major polluters liable for the damage their pollution causes is what it takes, I am all for it.

Another outrageous abuse of the OIA

Two weeks ago the Ombudsman released his final opinion on the Prime Minister's unlawful hiding of information around his corrupt climate impunity law, and he was not impressed. As a followup, The Post filed another OIA with the Prime Minister, seeking correspondence between the PM, his "forgetful" adviser, and the Department of Internal Affairs (which hosts Ministerial Services and his his nominal employer). But the regime clearly wants to bury this information, because they have extended the request for 64 working days:

However, it was not until last week when branch performance director Penny Langley wrote back to extend the statutory timeframe by 64 working days.

Langley said “the consultations necessary to make a decision” meant DIA could not reasonably respond within the original deadline.

The extension, dated July 3, means the request is not due to be answered until October 7.

...which means that when they are inevitably late, or announce that a decision has been made but release will happen later, there will be no time to force release before the November 7 election.

This is an outrageous abuse of the OIA. It is also prima facie unlawful. The OIA is clear: extensions must be "for a reasonable period of time having regard to the circumstances". what's "reasonable"? The Ombudsman is equally clear:

Where Parliament has specifically mandated third party consultation on OIA requests, those parties have been required to respond ‘within 10 working days’. In its review of the official information legislation, the Law Commission suggested a minimum 5 working days’ notice. From this, it can be inferred that 5–10 working days would generally be regarded as a reasonable period of time within which to provide comment.

While the Ombudsman notes that more or less time might be appropriate depending on the circumstances, it is difficult to imagine circumstances which would justify 64 working days, and those which can be imagined - the person simply being unavailable for a protracted period of time - would also make it perfectly reasonable for the agency to simply make the decision itself without consulting at all.

DIA of course refuses to provide any justification for its decision, which in itself seems to be a violation of s23 OIA, and invites the natural suspicion that there is none (or rather, none which would withstand public scrutiny).

The Post has no doubt complained to the Ombudsman already about this, but for the rest of us its a reminder of how extensions are routinely abused, and how you should immediately complain about them. And if you're not sure about what to say, I have specific guidance for extension complaints here.

The bidding war on solar

Last month National announced its solar power policy. It was the bare minimum, a version of the Ratepayer Assistance Scheme expansion advocated by Rewiring Aotearoa, but with the problem that no sane person would trust them to actually deliver on it. Because while they want the positive PR from announcing a solar policy, they don't actually want to spend any time on implementation when they could be doing more important things, like climate change denial and culture war bullshit, instead.

Today it was Labour's turn. And they've announced the same core policy - the Ratepayer Assistance Scheme - backed up with additional loans through lines companies, support for community batteries, and support for renters to get plug-in solar. Which is all good, and unlike National there's no doubts about implementation. Labour will actually do what it promises, at least if there's still a public service to do it with. Not least because their expected coalition partners, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori, will hold them to it (and push it further).

Speaking of the Greens, while they haven't yet announced their solar policy, their 2023 version was twice as generous as Labour's. I'd expect them to be starting from that baseline, and then adding on extra support for renters and community ownership. In the meantime, they're pointing out that with the three largest parties in parliament all supporting the Ratepayer Assistance Scheme, the House can and should just legislate the required tweaks to allow it to be used for solar, rather than making people wait until after the election. But then, that might make National actually deliver on their promise, rather than treating it as a meaningless soundbite.

In a democracy, everyone gets to vote

Its election year, so Winston is back on his bullshit, spewing racism in an effort to pander to his voting base of mostly old, mostly white racists. His latest idea? That only citizens should be allowed to vote:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has announced a policy to restrict voting rights to only those with New Zealand citizenship.

Peters announced the policy at a public meeting in Warkworth on Sunday afternoon.

Currently, legal residents living in New Zealand continuously for a year or more, and whose visa does not require them to leave within a certain time are eligible to vote.

Announcing his new policy on Sunday, party leader Peters said voting "should be a privilege of those who have sworn allegiance to New Zealand, and who have made the commitment to make New Zealand their home and their future".

"If you haven't made that commitment or sworn that allegiance, we are happy to let you live here permanently, but why should you get a say in how this country is run or governed?" he said.

To which the short answer is "because they live here, you disgusting zombie".

The longer answer is that Aotearoa has a long tradition of recognising that everyone who lives here should have a say in the future of this place. Its been the case for over 50 years now, and its part of our democracy. And one of the reasons for it is that we were late to establish our own citizenship, and thus had to deal with a huge population of migrants from the old imperial center, who had made lives here, belonged here, but never had to do any formal paperwork to do so. And so, when we had to seriously grapple with that in the 1970's (thanks to Britain deciding that people it had invaded and oppressed and passed laws saying they were British whether they liked it or not, suddenly weren't British after all, especially if they might actually want to exercise their right to live in Britain), the easiest way of doing so was simply to delete the words "He is a British subject" from the 1956 Electoral Act, reducing the qualification to simply being "ordinarily resident in New Zealand" (plus the usual stuff about living here for a year and in the relevant electorate for a month etc). And then, once we'd passed our own citizenship legislation, the law assumed the form we know today, recognising voting rights for New Zealand citizens as well as permanent residents.

Ironically, the group protected by that transition - old British migrants who came here in the 1950's and 60's - are one of the cores of NZ First's support today. And it wouldn't surprise me in the least if some of them still aren't citizens (because they have never had any need to be; they live here and they belong here).

The other irony is that when Winston talks about how voting "should be a privilege of those who have sworn allegiance to New Zealand", he would effectively exclude almost all native-born New Zealanders from the electorate. Because if you were born here, you've never had to do anything of the sort! The only people who have actually "sworn allegiance to New Zealand" (in reality, to a foreign monarch who lives on the other side of the world) are immigrants who have made a conscious choice to become citizens, and weirdos (soldiers, police officers, and MPs). That might be Winston's vision of a perfect democracy, but it isn't mine - or, I think, Aotearoa's. In a democracy, everyone gets to vote. Its that simple. And people who try and undermine that need to be de-elected.

More lightning legislating

The House has been in urgency this week, as the regime struggle against the clock to pass its agenda. In addition to the inherent abuse of urgency, this has led to other abuses, with parliament once again returning to being "the fastest legislature in the west" to ram things through. And now there's another one: National has rammed its corrupt bill to protect polluters from liability for the climate change they are causing - the same bill a Ministerial Adviser violated the Public Records Act and hid the lobbyists' draft of from the OIA - through its first reading and sent it to committee. The committee report back date? 30 July. So the committee will have less than a month to "consider" this corrupt atrocity against the rule of law, turning it into little more than a rubber-stamp for Cabinet.

Submissions are open, and due by 9.00am, Monday, 13 July 2026 (note the dirty time chosen; you need to have this in by 12 July to be safe). So we have less than ten days to submit on this corrupt violation of constitutional norms. And this is what National calls "democracy".

The opposition has committed to repealing the bill if it becomes law, so any benefit Fonterra and Z Energy get from their corrupt lobbying will be transitory, lasting only until the repeal bill is passed and Mike Smith (or someone else) files a new case against them. Its probably worth supporting that in your submission, so Labour knows they're doing the right thing. Again, National's over-reach and abuse of power creates the potential to push back, and so we should push back hard, and demand not just repeal, but that polluters have absolute liability for the damage caused by their pollution. Fonterra and Z and their polluting mates have undermined our democracy to protect their profits. We need to punish them harshly for that, just so they don’t do it again.

Climate Change: Overdoing it?

Climate change is here, causing increasingly severe weather. In April, Wellington was flooded by extreme rainfall, making 40 homes uninhabitable and killing one person. Auckland suffered similar floods in 2023. We had more weather-related states of emergency in the first two months of 2026 than in the whole of 2025, and the number has only increased. A severe weather warning affecting multiple regions is issued every two weeks. But weirdly, the minister for climate change and local government thinks councils are doing too much to stop this, and has sent them a shitty letter demanding they pretend its not happening:

Wellington’s mayor has slammed a climate mitigation letter from the local government minister as “tone deaf”, in a city where a man died in flood waters and other residents scrambled for their lives mere weeks ago.

Local Government Minister Simon Watts’ letter to mayors, regional council chairpeople and council chief executives around the country started arriving in in-boxes about 6pm on Tuesday.

In it, he insinuated councils were “gold-plating” climate initiatives and building for worst-case scenarios at ratepayers’ expenses.

[...]

Asked for examples of problem initiatives, Watts’ office highlighted a Greater Wellington Regional Council regional flood hazard assessment, which produced a map showing where is prone to flooding risk. Areas severely flooded in April, such as Emerson St in Berhampore, were identified as being at risk.

The last bit makes it crystal clear why Watts is doing this: because clearly identifying climate change risks means some people's property values will drop. People with houses in flood zones might not be able to insure or sell them, and developers who have hoarded coastal property won't be able to develop it and might lose money. So to protect the imaginary property values of the rich, we all have to ignore what is happening before our eyes and pretend that everything is perfectly normal.

This is, simply, bullshit. And if Watts gets his way, more people will die. But Watts doesn't care. Weirdly, he seems to think none of this bad weather will affect him in any way.

Climate change is an existential threat to future for humanity. The regime has clearly chosen a side in that struggle, and it is the side of polluters and devastation. They have moved from passively not giving a shit to actively trying to stop people from doing anything about it. If we want a future, we need to throw this climate quisling regime out of office, and elect a government which will protect us, rather than protecting polluters.

Completely unsurprising

Back in May, we learned that climate polluters had bought themselves an exemption from the law (an exemption that will be passed through its first reading and sent to select committee under urgency this week), lobbying the Prime Minister in secret for a special law change in their favour. The Ombudsman has now completed their investigation of the failure to release that lobbying, and they are not impressed:

The Ombudsman has released a damning report into the failure of the Prime Minister’s Office to release a written briefing its chief policy adviser had received ahead of a controversial law change.

His report reveals that the adviser - who received the briefing note in hard copy and to his personal email address - was personally consulted on the request for information, but did not provide it.

The Ombudsman has referred the matter to the chief archivist and says it is “surprising” that the adviser does not recall the meetings in which the document was handed over.

The Ombudsman is being polite here. Because it is very clear what happened: the ministerial adviser lied to protect himself and his boss. And then he lied to the Ombudsman about lying, pretending he didn't remember. And the only people surprised by that are people who have to pretend, by virtue of their position, that the government gives one wet fart for the law.

The adviser's initial actions, in getting official documents sent to his private email account and then failing to create a full and accurate record, were a crime. That crime needs to be prosecuted. And while we're at it, we need to make non-compliance with the OIA a crime in its own right, defined as a "corrupt practice" in the Electoral Act, so that Ministers convicted of breaking it will be automatically removed from parliament.

Meanwhile, the next time anyone in power whines about trust in government declining, they can blame the Prime Minister and his staff. Because they've shown conclusively that those in power are corrupt, untrustworthy criminals. And only a fool would trust them.

The fastest legislature in the west strikes again!

In his book Unbridled Power, constitutional scholar (and future Prime Minister) Geoffrey Palmer described New Zealand's parliament as "the fastest legislature in the west" in reference to its constant abuse of process to speed legislation. Usually this is all-stages urgency, but recently we've had a problem with abbreviated committee processes as well, with tight deadlines used to ram laws through with a veneer (but not the substance) of democratic process.

This week's example is the Te Here ā Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Bill, which implements a court settlement over the state's theft of land from Nelson iwi and hapu. The bill was introduced to the house last Monday, and passed its first reading on Thursday. So far, so ordinary. Submissions on the bill are now open - but they close this Thursday, having been open for all of a week. And the bill will report back to the House by 29 July, having had just a month for select committee consideration.

Why the speed? Presumably because the regime has decided it wants it passed before the election. But its a bullshit process which leaves no time for real scrutiny or input. If there's a problem in the bill - if it is poorly drafted, or fails to properly implement the agreement, or whatever - then there's no time for anyone to notice, and no time for the committee to fix it. And no way to fix it afterwards, because the bill protects the state from all future claims in relation to the underlying proceedings or the settlement act itself.

While stemming from a different process, the bill covers similar ground to Treaty settlement bills. Those bills receive full process, with normal submission periods and committee consideration (and some then linger on the Order Paper for years, because there's no political urgency to actually implement Treaty justice). While on the one hand I'm pleased to see the government treating injustice against Māori with some urgency, this is not good legislative practice, and there are significant risks of getting it wrong. State-Māori relations are too important to be treated this way. Parliament needs to slow the fuck down, and make sure they get it right, rather than trampling on our democracy while risking serious and irreparable errors.

A busy week

Do you hate the regime? Do you hate their tyranny, their transphobia, and their desire to destroy the environment? If so, you're in for a busy week - because submissions on bills on all of those things all close on Thursday.

The details are on Parliament's select committee page. Submissions on the following all close at 11:59pm on Thursday 2 July:

• The Conservation Amendment Bill. This bill allows the regime to sell off the conservation estate to foreign billionaires, repurposes DoC towards economic exploitation of conservation land, disestablishes regional conservation boards, and violates Treaty settlements.
• The Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill: NZ First's anti-trans hate bill, which seeks to legally define trans people out of existence.
• The Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill, which aims to persecute the homeless while also allowing police to ban any public protest.

Also closing at the same time is the Local Government (Port Companies Accountability) Amendment Bill, a members bill which would bring some much-needed transparency and accountability to port companies. That one's worth submitting on too if you're a transparency advocate, though in support rather than opposition.

Stacking up controversial bills like this seems to be a clear attempt to deter submissions. So don't be deterred. We've already seen that if we scream loud enough at the regime, it backs down, and its likely to be even more sensitive in the lead-up to the election. So scream at them. If you don't have time to write a full submission on everything, pick one to do a good job on. For the rest, saying "I oppose this bill, and recommend that it not be passed" is a perfectly valid submission, though it will count for more if you can specify particular things you hate. And if you can, submit early - with so many controversial bills due at the same time, parliament's servers may end up overloaded by the backlash. Submitting early, rather than trying to do everything at once, may avoid this.

This seems awfully familiar...

Last year, we saw almost-Police Commissioner Jevon McSkimming convicted for possessing child sexual abuse material. The conviction was an accident, something which came up during an investigation of McSkimming's past history of alleged sexual abuse. McSkimming had worked hard to gaslight his colleagues and discredit his victim, with the result that the police as an institution (and a bunch of very senior police officers as individuals) dragged their feet and systematically looked the other way on complaints about him, protecting their own while persecuting his victim. But eventually, an audit of his computer system turned up his criminal activity, and he became impossible for them to protect.

But there's a sequel. Because around the time new Police Commissioner Richard Chambers was denouncing his former colleague, people were complaining about him. And the police and IPCA sat on it for six months, not bothering to actually investigate it until early June. And the only reason we know about it at all is because it was leaked to RNZ. Which sounds exactly like the sort of foot-dragging that happened with McSkimming. From the police's response, you'd get the impression that they would have kept the whole thing secret if they could.

This isn't good enough. The police need to retain public trust, and that means they must be seen to be trustworthy and to obey the law. If something calls the trustworthiness of the Police Commissioner into question, the public deserve to know about it. And if he's actually under investigation, he needs to stand down and let someone else do the job - because its pretty obvious that he can't. It's that simple. And if this is too hard for police - if they can't follow the basic norms of ethical behaviour we expect from other public officials - then they should fucking quit. Otherwise people will draw the natural conclusion: that they're a corrupt shitshow interested in protecting themselves over the public, and we're better off without them.

Screaming works

Last month, the regime introduced the Conservation Amendment Bill, a steaming pile of shit which would allow it to sell off huge chunks of the conservation estate while opening up more of it to mining, development, and exploitation. Pretty obviously, this did not fit with the public's expectations and the value it placed on our natural taonga, and people started screaming about it. This week, after being challenged in the House, Chris Luxon tried to claim it was just about selling a few old buildings - but no-one believed him. And so just like that, the regime has backed down:

Conservation Minister Tama Potaka has announced the controversial exchange and disposal provisions for conservation land will be dropped from the Conservation Amendment Bill.

The minister said he never intended to dispose of vast swathes of the conservation estate, but acknowledged the public outcry over the bill. He took personal responsibility for giving New Zealanders that impression. “That’s on me – that’s on us,” he said at the Environmental Defence Society conference in Auckland. “We were not clear enough.”

Good. Our taonga places are exactly that - taonga, to be kept for future generations. No government has any right to sell or despoil them.

Obviously there's more work to do here. The bill guts regional boards, compromises Treaty settlements, and includes an odious "economic opportunities" clause in the department's functions which push it towards enabling rather than stopping the bulldozers. But stopping conservation land from being sold is a good first step. And if it helps drive a wedge between National (who want to get re-elected) and NZ First (who want to pay off their mining industry donors with public taonga) then that's a bonus. The sheer scale of public opposition has also opened space for a serious push-back - something the Greens have recognised - which could be leveraged into giving our taonga places greater protection. Hopefully people will push on that as hard as they can.

Meanwhile, the lesson in this is that if we scream loud enough, the regime backs down. Their desire to be re-elected is a weapon we can use against them. So keep screaming. Screaming works.

The bare minimum

Household solar power is having a moment at the moment, and encouraging it is looking like a total no-brainer for any government. Even National has got on board, announcing a loan scheme as an election policy:

National has promised to help households shift to solar power through low interest loans, if it's re-elected.

It planned to introduce a Home Energy Fund offering low-interest, long-term loans that are repaid through rates so households can invest in solar, batteries, insulation and heat pumps, without big upfront costs.

Which sounds good, and it is, but it is also the bare fucking minimum now. Low-interest loans are something offered by every major bank. Handling them through rates allows broader access and easier repayment, and that will boost uptake, but you could also get more (at higher cost) through direct subsidies, or by regulating for higher payback rates or net metering. And of course there's still landlords to tackle.

There's also serious doubts over National's actual delivery on its promise. Councils have been asking them for this exact policy since last year, and National has stalled them, apparently so it can cynically announce it as an election policy. They considered, then chucked solar incentives last year, so there's a real question of commitment. And of course lurking in the background is their "promise" last election of 10,000 EV chargers, which due to a complete lack of implementing policy has resulted in fewer than 500 extra actually being built. Its easy to imagine this promise going the same way - once they've got the headline, they simply won't pass the legislation, won't allocate the trivial amount of money required, and so won't do the thing. Other parties are likely to be more committed.

What it does show is how comprehensively the Greens have won the argument on this. They've been advocate solar loans for a decade, and now even National has to pretend to agree with them. Which just goes to show the value of advocacy - and invites the question of how Labour could have changed the political landscape if they'd bothered to argue for anything, rather than hiding and triangulating.

National gets Winstoned

"Reform health and safety law and regulations" is one of the commitments in the National-ACT coalition agreement, and ACT has advanced it with the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill which (somewhat predictably) guts workplace health and safety, letting employers maim at will. The bill is currently up for its second reading, and the plan was clearly to pass it before the election. But there's a problem: Winston Peters:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters says he will not vote for the government's health and safety reforms if there are not changes to the legislation, after earlier saying he was hamstrung by the coalition agreement.

Pike River campaigners Anna Osborne and Sonya Rockhouse are in Wellington, hoping to persuade politicians to reject legislation they say risks a workplace disaster.

The Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill proposes a radical shake up of New Zealand's health and safety laws.

Speaking to RNZ's Checkpoint after meeting with Osborne and Rockhouse, Peters said he did not have confidence in the Bill as it stood.

Winston did a lot of this when he was in coalition with Labour, agreeing to something, then threatening to veto it at a late stage unless changes were made. While its entertaining to see National getting the same treatment, its a sign that he simply cannot be trusted, and there is no good faith in any coalition relationship he is a party to.

He's since changed his tune, saying he can't vote against it and instead promising to fix it after the election. That seems unlikely to satisfy his supporters, who are demanding action. But voting against it won't satisfy his donors, who have given him half a million dollars to keep propping up ACT, so he's kindof fucked either way. Which is exactly what he deserves for being such a duplicitious shit.

If we're lucky, Winston's prevaricating will be enough to stall this bill at the committee stage. Otherwise, its just something else for the Omnibus Repeal Bill, with or without Winston.

Time to tax the rich

Aotearoa has a problem: the rich don't pay their fair share. They benefit from our society: the state protects their wealth and provides peaceful conditions allowing them to carry on business without fear. And yet they refuse to pay for it. Meanwhile, their cartels suck the money out of ordinary New Zealanders, so they can spend it on bigger and bigger houses, bigger and bigger yachts, helicopters, and so on.

Its time we made them pay their fair share. And over the weekend, the Greens put up their election year tax policy, which will make them do it. A wealth tax, targeted at the super-rich, which will finally bring them into the tax system. A new top income tax rate, for those earning top incomes. A capital acquisitions tax, targeting gifts and inheritances over $1 million, to limit intergenerational accumulation and tax-dodging. A higher corporate tax rate for big companies. A bank-levy, targeting our biggest cartel parasites, Aussie banks. Stopping foreign tech companies from dodging New Zealand taxes by pretending the profits happen elsewhere. And reversing Luxon's landlord and property speculator tax cuts.

These are not radical socialist policies. They are all perfectly normal overseas. But the rich have bought so much power in our society since 1984 that they've been able to gaslight us into thinking that the normal is abnormal, that other countries don't have wealth taxes, inheritance taxes, more progressive income taxes, restrictions on tax cheating. And they've been able to do that, in part, because they can use their money to buy politicians and media outlets, steering our society in their preferred direction, despite huge public support for taxing them.

Taxing the rich and limiting their ability to accumulate and weaponise their wealth is a necessary thing for the preservation of our society. And the best bit is that it won't affect the vast majority of New Zealanders. Only a tiny proportion of people - the Chris Luxons of this world - have more than $10 million. Only a tiny proportion of people inherit or are given more than $1 million. Only a tiny proportion (which includes every MP) "earn" more than $160,000. None of that affects us. Instead, what we get in practice from this policy is a reduction in inequality, a restriction on the power of the rich, better-funded public services, and a tax cut! Because most of us will end up better off, thanks to a shift in the tax burden from the poor to the rich. Which is perfectly sensible the moment you think about it. There's no point taxing people who don't have any money. Instead you go after the people who do have it, the bloated accumulators who have sucked all the wealth out of our society into their own pockets.

Sadly, Chris Hipkins - a man paid $305,900 a year plus slush, who rorted his parliamentary superannuation scheme into buying his holiday home and then said "it's my money" - is saying that none of this will happen if he's in charge. Voters should take that as a challenge: if we want these policies, we have to vote for them. We need to put the Greens in a position where they can force this policy on Labour. Otherwise, nothing will change, and the rich will just keep on leaching and looting us.

Something we need to fix

An OIA request on FYI has alerted me to an unpleasant quirk in Parliament's rules. Someone has asked Jenny Marcroft, who is Parliamentary Under-secretary for media and communications and fisheries, for information she holds about her hateful terf bill. The request will be refused, because Marcroft will play the hat game, and claim that any information she holds on the bill is held in her capacity as an MP, rather than her capacity as a Parliamentary Under-secretary. But it does raise the question: given her role, why was she allowed to advance the bill at all?

The short answer, given by McGee, is that "[a] Parliamentary Under-Secretary may introduce a member’s bill." In other words, it is "within the rules" (as members of the political class love to say).

But again, we can ask why? Because member's bills are meant to be for members, not the executive. And Parliamentary Under-secretaries are absolutely members of the executive. They're defined as such in the Cabinet Manual, and effectively recognised as such in various parts of Parliament's Standing Orders. For example, they are treated as members of the executive when allocating oral questions under Standing Order 391, and they do not count for support to immediately introduce a member's bill under Standing Order 288. If Standing Orders were consistent, they would also be excluded from entering member's bills into the ballot.

The answer is almost certainly historical. While Parliamentary Undersecretaries were always part of the system, they'd fallen into disuse in favour of Associate Ministers. They were revived comparatively recently thanks to MMP and its need to hand out official baubles as bribes to supporters, some of whom might not have the pull or experience to merit even an associate ministerial position. So John Key made Rimmer an undersecretary in 2014, and since then every coalition government has included them as a bribe to its minor partners and as training wheels for those who might one day be Ministers. The present regime includes a PUS from each party (Marcroft from NZ First and Simon Court from ACT), giving each of them a fat salary bump and a bunch of perks to rort - which will help keep everyone sweet and not wanting to rock the boat. And the rules have struggled to keep up - undersecretaries were excluded from the OIA until 2016, despite being members of the executive, simply because no-one had really thought of it.

This is another example of the rules failing to keep up with practice. And its something we should fix. While its far too late for it to go into the review of standing orders, hopefully the next government will bring a sessional order to remove this oddity.

Good riddance

Shame Jones' corrupt Fisheries Amendment Bill is dead:

Controversial fisheries reform led by New Zealand First minister Shane Jones is being abandoned until after the election.

Jones, appearing before a select committee in his role as Oceans and Fisheries Minister, told MPs his “much-beloved bill could use some more panel-beating” and as such, would not be progressed in this term of government. The Fisheries Amendment Bill had caused division within the coalition, particularly with National which faced a backlash from recreational fishers over changes to minimum legal-size limits for commercial fishing operators.

Plus of course there's the quota changes, which let fishers over-fish; the restriction of judicial review, so we'll never be able to force the Minister to follow the law; and of course the absurd secrecy for camera-footage, which existed solely to protect criminal fishers from public scrutiny. The entire bill was bought and paid for by fishing industry donations, the public could see that, and they responded with utter revulsion.

And now its "delayed", which basically means dead. But if we want it to be gone for good, we need to throw the corrupt regime which advanced it out of office.

The price of justice

Last year, the regime rammed through the Equal Pay Amendment Act under urgency, gutting pay equity laws, dumping all claims, and stealing $13 billion from New Zealand women. Labour wants to reverse that. So naturally, they're getting the usual bullshit question from the regime and its stooges: "how will you pay for it?"

The short answer to this is "who the fuck cares?" It is fundamentally immoral to pay people less because of their gender. The state has been committed to eliminating this form of discrimination for over fifty years. It is appalling that it has taken so long to do so. It is even more appalling to see people quibbling about the fucking cost. Do they think we should pay women less? This is justice; we pay whatever it costs. It's that simple.

And the substantive answer is that we could afford it up until last year. What changed then is the government's priorities: they decided to spend all the state's money on landlord tax cuts and stupid fucking roads, and that these things were somehow more important than justice. That was an appallingly immoral decision, which shows what disgusting sexist pieces of shit the present regime are. But a different government can change those priorities. It can not be sexist, and put justice ahead of greed and stupidity. So, it can "pay for it" by simply reversing National's landlord tax giveaway. Or maybe just by cancelling some stupid roads.

Either way, the people asking these questions should be asked one in return: do they think women should be paid less? If so, they're ghouls and weirdos who have no place in the modern world and can be simply ignored. If not, then why are they even asking? Either way, maybe they should be thinking about the values underlying the policy, rather than the details.

Out of touch

There's been some stuff over the last few weeks about how MP's high salaries and extensive perks put them out of touch with normal people. How out of touch are they? Revenue Minister Simon Watts thinks that people with $50,000 invested overseas aren't wealthy:

Inland Revenue figures suggest only tens of thousands of New Zealanders have directly invested more than $50,000 in overseas shares.

But Revenue Minister Simon Watts has rejected the assertion that those whose purchases total less than $100,000 and who stand to gain from a tax change in Budget, could be described as mostly wealthy.

Watts has four houses, three trusts, and a salary of $320,600, plus perks (including $52,000 a year for housing and a tax-free "expense allowance" of $19,000). With all that, I think its fair to say that he has a certain level of wealth, and might not see $50,000 as a big deal, and certainly not real money. But $50,000 is vastly more than most kiwis have - median savings balances are less than a tenth of that, and a third of kiwis don't even have $500. Only 38% have a Kiwisaver balance of more than $40,000, so Watt's "not wealthy" is more than most people's entire lifetime savings.

You'd think as Revenue Minister, Watts might have some acquaintance with these facts. But wealth is something this regime steadfastly refuses to look at, because if it did, it might face pressure to do something about it. So he just falls back on his own reckons as a four-house, three-trust, $300K salary guy. $50K isn't a lot of money to him, so ergo people who have it aren't wealthy.

Which just goes to show that ministers and MPs are in a completely different boat from the rest of us. And that calls into question their claim to be "representatives".

Cheap but effective

Labour has finally announced some policy, with a promise of cheaper public transport:

Labour has vowed to cap public transport fares at $20 a week in main centres and $10 everywhere else if elected.

Its fare cap policy, announced on Wednesday, would put money back into New Zealanders' back pockets, said leader Chris Hipkins.

"This is real cost-of-living relief. It means cheaper commutes, more money left at the end of the week, and a public transport system that works for everyone."

This seems quite effective. Most public transport systems already include weekly fare caps, so it uses existing mechanisms. It will push people to use public transport (so its a climate change and fuel saving and congestion policy), and deliver real savings for doing so (so its a cost of living policy as well). And it costs fuck all - only $65 million a year. What's surprising is that we're not doing it already.

Hopefully there'll be a lot more of this. When parties are standing for election, they owe it to us to tell us what they hope to do in power. Labour's previous "small target strategy" is a strategy of deceit, an attempt to deny us the information we need to make an informed choice on how to cast our vote. It is fundamentally dishonest and fundamentally undemocratic. And we deserve better than that from those who want to be our leaders.

Fucking absurd

Since time immemorial - or at least the 1990's - the National party's Big Economic Idea was cuts. Slash the state! Sack people! Give away billions in tax cuts to cronies so future governments couldn't fund anything! And to justify this peculiar fixation, they talk constantly about debt. There's too much of it! We can't afford the interest! We're about to go bankrupt! And sadly, this ideological framework has been swallowed wholesale by Labour, who sternly promise to keep debt low and not increase spending

But as Bernard Hickey points out this morning, none of this is true. Sure, the NZ government has $426 billion of debt - but it has $611 billion of assets, a positive net worth of $185 billion. And interest payments - which are now fixed and in NZ dollars, unlike the 1980's - are just 2% of government revenue. Which is perfectly sustainable.

And yet, National still keeps demanding cuts. Meanwhile, we have failing infrastructure, collapsing public services, and 33,000 homeless children. Hickey asks the obvious questions: would you leave kids homeless when you were worth $207 billion? Would you leave your kids homeless with interest costs of 2% of income? Answering "yes" to those isn't just fucking absurd, it's absolutely sociopathic. But I guess that's the sort of person right-wing politics attracts: the sort of person who wants to deliberately starve and freeze children, while running the country into the ground, all so they and their rich mates can steal more from us.

We need to vote this NeoLiberal plague out. Both sides of it. Because as long as Labour remains committed to NeoLiberalism and the "too much debt" myth, they will continue doing exactly what National does. The only difference is they'll lie to us about how they're helping us while they fuck us over.