Tuesday, January 22, 2019



New Fisk

Bernie Sanders could be US president in 2020 – and this is what it means for Israel and the Middle East
The US media has lost one of its sanest voices on military matters – so let's hope William Arkin's absence is brief

Time for redistribution

Oxfam released a report yesterday pointing out that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Its the usual story, with the twist that New Zealand's two richest men increased their wealth by only slightly less than was stolen from the poorest 50% of us. Which is exactly the sort of shit Labour was elected to put a stop to. As for how, the answer is simple: tax the fuckers.

New Zealand used to have a highly progressive tax system, with rates of up to 90% on top earners. That was during WWII, when the government needed more money than usual, but in the postwar period, the top tax rate was generally 70%. Roger Douglas and his NeoLiberal revolution ended all that, and the result was an explosion of inequality, with the rich using their untaxed income to make even more money, while public services fell apart and they created a permanent underclass - problems the government then refused to fix because (by choice) it "had no money".

Other countries, like Sweden, Norway and Denmark, have much lower rates of inequality than us, while also having much better infrastructure, social services and standards of living. And they do it by taxing the rich and the companies that do business there, and using the money to provide social services and support those on lower incomes. In short, redistribution. We can and should do that too. As for cries from the rich's mouthpieces that their masters will leave and take their money with them, firstly, that doesn't seem to happen in Scandinavia, and secondly, insofar as its a result of real economic activity, the source of that money will still remain here to be taxed (it may just be owned by someone else).

So Labour, are you going to do this? Or is your entire pitch - government for the many, not the few - a lie?

This isn't justice

Robert Roper is a rapist and child abuser. In addition to raping his own children, he raped and harassed women at his workplace, RNZAF Whenuapai, crimes which the air force effectively covered up. After his conviction, one of his victims tried to sue the air force for failing to protect her - a case which necessarily involved Roper. And as a result of that, she now has to pay him $28,000. Not because she lost on the merits - the court explicitly found that she was repeatedly harassed and groped by Roper and locked in a cage by him - but because the law sets a time limit on civil claims.

The judge was clear that the law didn't give them any other option: the time limit means the case must fail, and costs must be paid by the loser. There are good reasons for these laws. But at the same time, this isn't justice. In fact, its the complete opposite. And it sets a terrible incentive for anyone seeking justice in the future, because if you lose, you may be bankrupted by your vindictive abuser.

As for what to do about it, there's a GiveALittle campaign here, which might help with an appeal or with paying the costs. But that's just a sticking plaster, and this seems like it needs a more systematic solution. And here, its worth noting that criminal law sets different time limits on prosecution depending on the severity of the offence, and that there's no time-limit on prosecution for serious crimes. It may be time to import that sort of thinking into civil claims for sexual harassment. The alternative is to allow the law to be known as an instrument of injustice, which directly encourages people to seek their justice by other means.

Friday, January 18, 2019



Places to go, people to be

Nothing from me today - I'm off to Wellington to participate in KapCon, Wellington's annual rpg convention.

Monday is a public holiday,so normal bloggage should resume Tuesday.

Thursday, January 17, 2019



A threat to democracy

People have also suspected that New Zealand's spy agencies saw people who wished to limit their powers, cut their budgets, or disestablish them as a "threat" to "national security". And it turns out they were right. According to former Green MP Keither Locke, the SIS has been forced to apologise to him after documents emerged showing exactly that mindset:

Last April I received a letter from Rebecca Kitteridge, the director of the Security Intelligence Service, apologising for the way I was referred to in internal SIS documents. She wrote that I had been described as a “threat” in speaking notes for a Joint Induction Programme run by the SIS and the Government Communications Security Bureau since 2013.

In the SIS documents I was identified as an “internal” threat because I “wish[ed] to see the NZSIS & GCSB abolished or greatly modified”. The documents labelled this a “syndrome”.

In her apology, Kitteridge said “the talking point suggests wrongly that being a vocal critic of the agencies means you are a ‘threat’ or a ‘syndrome’. In fact, people who criticise the agencies publicly are exercising their right to freedom of expression and protest, which are rights we uphold, and are enshrined in the Intelligence and Security Act 2017.”


But pretty obviously, these are not rights the SIS upholds. They have a long and dirty history of political surveillance, of which this is just the latest outrage. And their closed, cold war mindset and the iron law of bureaucracy gives them clear and ongoing incentives to continue to paint critics in this light. All of which means that it is the SIS, not its critics, which is a threat: a threat to our democracy. And the best way of eliminating that threat is to disband it.

Wednesday, January 16, 2019



Why is NZ business opposed to behaving ethically?

In the wake of several high-profile cases of being bitten by the immoral behaviour of companies it has outsourced to, the New Zealand government is planning to impose a code of conduct requiring its suppliers to behave lawfully and ethically and not engage in corruption. Of course, Business NZ thinks that this is too onerous:

However, Business NZ chief executive Kirk Hope said some businesses may just pull the plug on contracts with government departments if a new code of conduct is too stringent.

"If there are additional obligations and things they have to do in their business to meet standards, additional auditing of small to medium businesses, particularly if they're only a small supplier then they might say this isn't going to work for us," Mr Hope said.


So, just to get that clear, Business NZ thinks NZ companies not committing crimes is too much work. Nice to have that on the record. New Zealand businesses meanwhile might want to reconsider the wisdom of being "represented" by a body which publicly portrays them all as corrupt, unethical criminals.

What happens now?

This morning the UK parliament voted on Theresa may's Brexit deal - and as expected voted it down in the biggest defeat for a UK government in the democratic era. So what happens now? The problem is that no-one can tell. The UK has passed into political singularity, and no-one knows what might come out the other side.

There will be a formal confidence vote tomorrow, which it seems likely May will win - no-one wants her shit Brexit deal, but her supporters don't want an election either. But MPs are known to lie, and its not inconceivable that a few backbenchers grumpy about the outcome will decide to roll her. Meanwhile, May says her plan is to consult her party and its DUP (fanatic Northern Irish protestant) supporters and take their views back to parliament, but this goes straight back to her core problem: her own party doesn't know what it wants. Or rather, it is divided into two increasingly hostile factions who want incompatible things: a full-on hard Brexit to show Britain's greatness and superiority to Johnny Foreigner (complete with soundtrack of "Rule Britannia" as the clown car hurtles off the White Cliffs of Dover and into the sea), versus cancelling the whole thing and trying to go back to the status quo ante. But she's legally required to come up with something for parliament to vote on, within three days.

Whatever may comes up with, Parliament gets to vote on it, and amend it. But its unclear whether there's a majority there for anything either. It seems there's a majority against hard Brexit, but the UK parliament voting against that doesn't mean its not going to happen: its the default option, and the only way to prevent it is to agree something else with the EU. Who, having painstakingly reached consensus on the deal parliament just voted down, are unlikely to agree anything more generous. Ideas that there is a "better deal" if the UK just Speaks Slowly in A Very Loud Voice (or more likely, whines piteously enough) are simply fantasies. Likewise, the idea that they can join Norway or Lichtenstein in the EFA or Efta are fantasies, because the existing parties to those deals won't agree to it.

As for a "people's vote", that would require someone to decide what the options actually are. So, the same problem, on a different stage. Plus they'd probably fuck it up again by not making the decision legally binding (or as legally binding as they could, given that its a referendum on international relations).

What happens now? Nobody knows. But what has been exposed by this is the utter dysfunction of its political system, and the utter cowardliness of its major political parties in refusing to take a formal position for which they can be held electorally accountable on the most salient political issue in a century. Whatever happens, UK voters should do something about that. sadly, the UK's unfair electoral system is likely to prevent them from doing anything of the sort, and so these dysfunctional political inbreds will remain in power.

Tuesday, January 15, 2019



Fiji: Criminalising the opposition again

The Fijian government has introduced a Code of Conduct Bill, ostensibly setting standards for politicians and public servants and a body to receive complaints about them. But when you read the fine print, it turns out that its just a trojan horse for punishing people who complain about the government:

The bill lays out codes of conduct for public servants, politicians and judges as well as rules for a new Accountability and Transparency Commission which would enforce the code.

Under the bill, the commission must refer complaints it believes are malicious or politically motivated to Fiji's Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) and anyone found guilty would be liable to a fine of up to $FJ10,000 or up to five years in jail.

The terms "malicious" and "politically motivated" were not defined in the bill, Mr Naidu said.


Here it is worth noting that any criticism of the government by the opposition is deemed "malicious" and "politically motivated" by the former. So, if they make a formal complaint, they can be jailed (and unseated, and barred from public office) for it. Which when you look at the actual power of the ATC - all they can do is report things to the Fiji "Independent" Commission Against Corruption, and they are not allowed to investigate issues which have been raised in the media or with anyone else first - then it seems that jailing people who make complaints is the whole point of the exercise. The net result? Rather than building trust and accountability, it erodes them.

There's more from Richard Naidu about the bill here.

Monday, January 14, 2019



The police keep on killing

The police killed three people in a pursuit in Christchurch last night:

Police said they began the pursuit after a vehicle was seen speeding in the city centre at about 11.13pm.

They said it is believed the car continued to drive at speed on Blenheim Road.

Police said they weren't in pursuit of the vehicle at this stage but laid spikes in an attempt to stop the vehicle.

The vehicle hit the spikes and crashed into a tree, catching fire, they said.

Police said all three occupants died at the scene. They were working to notify and support their next of kin and the staff involved.


So, just to be crystal clear, they decided to stop a vehicle using an inherently risky method, and people died as a result. And they almost certainly violated police policy in doing so. According to this 2016 IPCA report, road spikes are not to be used if "injury is likely to occur to the public, Police or the occupants of the fleeing car". Using them where there are trees to crash into means injury is likely to occur.

If you or I deliberately caused a fatal car accident in this manner, we would be charged and prosecuted. Isn't it time police officers who show a depraved indifference to lives of the public are subject to the same law as everybody else? Or are their egos, the blow to the confidence of arresting someone later when it is safe to do so rather than pursuing them like mad dogs, more important than human life?

Thursday, January 10, 2019



New Fisk

Judge Richard Goldstone suffered for turning his back on Gaza – but not as much as the Palestinians he betrayed
Trump vs Mattis: Watch out when men of war come to the rescue
The Ottomans were once humiliated by Yemeni rebels – today, the Houthis have done the same to Saudi Arabia

Taking back control

Brexit day is fast approaching, and the UK government seems to have no plan. Their deal is so despised that it will not pass the required parliamentary vote, while their contingency plans seem to rely on wishful thinking and ferries which don't exist (which is a perfect metaphor for the rest of the process). And so in a dramatic last-minute development, the UK parliament has taken back control over the entire process:

Theresa May’s room for manoeuvre should her Brexit deal be rejected next week was further constrained on Wednesday night, after the government lost a second dramatic parliamentary showdown in as many days.

An increasingly boxed-in prime minister must now set out her plan B within three working days of a defeat next Tuesday, after a rebel amendment passed on Wednesday.

There were furious scenes in the House of Commons, as the Speaker, John Bercow, took the controversial decision to allow a vote on the amendment, tabled by former attorney general Dominic Grieve.

A string of MPs, including the leader of the house of Commons Andrea Leadsom, repeatedly intervened to question the Speaker’s approach, with some accusing him of being biased against Brexit.

But parliament went on to back Grieve, as Conservative rebels determined to hand control of the Brexit process to MPs if next week’s vote is lost, defied the prime minister.


This prevents the government from running out the clock and forcing a no-deal Brexit by default (and from using that threat to try and force people to vote for its shit deal). But more importantly, thanks to some earlier procedural jockeying, parliament will be able to amend the response. So, they'll be able to instruct the government to withdraw the Article 50 notice (stopping Brexit), leave with no deal (something they've already demonstrated a parliamentary majority against, though they should formally vote on it), or grovel to Brussels for an extended deadline while they draft legislation for a binding referendum giving the UK public a clear choice between those two options. The problem is that no matter what they decide, the issue isn't going to go away soon: a chunk of the UK population (mostly old, white, and rural) rabidly hates the EU, and will see any reveral as a betrayal, and any confirmatory referendum as the public being forced to vote until they get it right (as opposed to the public being given a final say over the actual options on the table / being used as the final arbitrator because the political establishment is too dysfunctional to make up its mind). Worse, they've shown a willingness to murder people to get their way. So, the immediate results are likely to be unpleasant. And in the long term, the demon that Cameron let loose is likely to continue to cause trouble - at least, until demographics takes its course, and memories of Empire die out naturally. And the UK will be a much better place for that.

Something to be proud of

New Zealand is the world's 4th most democratic country, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit:

New Zealand remains the world's fourth most democratic country, while the United States remains a "flawed democracy", the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) says.

According to the EIU's 2018 Democracy Index, New Zealand is one of 20 full democracies in the world. As often happens with such lists, top places are dominated by Scandinavian countries, with Norway rated most democratic, followed by Iceland and Sweden, while Denmark is fifth and Finland eighth.

Canada and Ireland share sixth, Australia is ninth, Germany 13th, and the United Kingdom 14th.

The US was in 25th place, having dropped from 21st in 2017, although the decline was partly to do with improvements in some other countries, the EIU said.


This is good, but our score hasn't shifted at all since last year, and its something we can still do better on. OTOH, at least it didn't decrease, unlike the US.

Wednesday, January 09, 2019



More government spying

The Herald has disturbing news this morning: MBIE has recently signed a contract to train its staff in using fake social media profiles to spy on people:

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has hired a security firm to increase staff skills in using fake social media profiles to gather intelligence.

Among the modules offered are harvesting information from social networks, creating back-stories for false online personae and creating dossiers on people and groups.

When informed of the training by the Herald, Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones said senior ministers would be briefed on the issue when they returned to work at the end of the month.

"Kiwis should be able to go about their daily business without the fear of bureaucrats peering into their social media," he said.


Jones is right. This sort of spying is intensely problematic. As highlighted in the Law Commission's Review of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, simply using public information
has the potential to undermine the right to freedom of expression and other associated rights. It may discourage the public from engaging in debate and presenting opinions without fear of government interference. This is particularly likely if enforcement agencies use social media to monitor legitimate activity such as peaceful protest.

And that's just public information. Using fake profiles with detailed backstories suggests they are trying to capture people's private or friend-locked information, which is even more intrusive. But under the new "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard, it may also constitute a "search" under s21 of the Bill of Rights Act, and therefore be illegal without explicit statutory authority (which in turn, poses a legal threat to every case MBIE has used such information in). The Law Commission recommended that harvesting public information be covered by a statutory policy statement, setting out the purposes for which it could be done. They also suggested that using false profiles to access private, "friends-only" information be treated as a covert operation requiring a warrant. The fact that MBIE is doing this suggests we need such regulation as quickly as possible, to restrict such government spying to proper investigative purposes, rather than the current free-for-all.

Tuesday, January 08, 2019



Another "labour shortage"

Hawke's Bay apple growers are whining about a seasonal "labour shortage" and demanding they be subsidised by immigrant labour again. But the "labour shortage" is illusory - its not that there is a shortage of people to do the work, but a shortage of people willing to do it (in the hot, hot sun, in the middle of nowhere, with no job security etc) at the price employers are willing to pay. Which suggests an obvious solution: if apple growers want people to pick their apples, they should offer more money. Otherwise the fruit can and should just rot on the trees.

Monday, January 07, 2019



We need higher pay for local councillors

Everyone hates politicians. But sensible people recognise that they need to be paid - firstly, because they work hard for us, secondly, to prevent corruption, and thirdly, so that politics isn't the exclusive domain of the independently wealthy who can afford to do it as a sort of hobby. The latter is an underappreciated reason, but historicly one of the most important: we inherited our political system from the UK, where politicians were unpaid - a measure which would have excluded the vast bulk of the population even if they were allowed to vote (and this being Britain in the C19th, of course they weren't). Which is why "paid MPs" was one of the six demands of the People's Charter, along with universal suffrage and the secret ballot.

But while New Zealand got the message and pays its MPs (perhaps a bit too well, but better than the alternative), we haven't accepted it for local authorities. While large councils pay a decent salary, small councils effectively pay the minimum wage. And the result is what you'd expect: only rich people and pensioners can afford to do it, while young people and those with families are excluded. And the result is that their interests are excluded as well, while those of rich old people dominate. So public transport and playgrounds are sacrificed to keep rates low, while climate change is ignored because the rich old pricks either don't accept its reality or expect it to be someone else's problem (unless it threatens the value of their foolish coastal property investments, which case they will move heaven and earth to dump that cost on the young). And of course it sets a tremendous incentive for corruption, in bodies which perhaps have the greatest potential for profit (to point out the obvious, RMA planning decisions can be extremely lucrative, and that sort of corruption is pervasive in Australia).

This is a real problem. It undermines our democracy, and it results in poor, unrepresentative, and potentially corrupt policy choices. But fixing it would require accepting that local body governance was actually work, for which we should pay a proper wage rather than rely on potentially corrupt hobbyists. It would also require the status quo to yield some power. And that is not going to happen without a fight.

It can't happen here

Over in the US, they're in the second week of a government shutdown - an event so regular in their dysfunctional, ramshackle "democracy" that it has a name and a list on Wikipedia. And in NZ, curious people are asking the obvious question: can it happen here?

The good news is that no, it can't. The simple reason is that under New Zealand's Westminster system, "supply" - funding the government - is what constitutionally determines who is in power. So if a government is unable to do that, we don't have a shutdown, we have a coalition renegotiation or an election instead.

The more complicated reasons have to do with budget processes and incentives on government. The US has these shutdowns because they dick around with the budget process, engage in brinkmanship, and engage in other childish bullshit. One of the reasons they do it is because they have weak party discipline, and consequent weak accountability to the public. Another is that the US's strict separation of powers means legislators have no investment in the success of executive government. A shutdown isn't their problem, but a problem they make for someone else. Here, the executive is drawn from the legislature, so the governing parties (in theory a majority of the House) are invested in success. The ability of the government to continue to perform its basic functions is very much their problem, to the extent that threatening to interrupt it is like holding a gun to their own head. And they can't just refuse to do it or run out the clock like they do in the US: McGee's Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand (practically a quasi-constitutional text) says that "The Government cannot avoid asking the House for supply, for to do so would be to abdicate its responsibility as a Government." While I don't think it has ever been tested, if they piss about, fail to do their jobs and pass the usual bills for interim funding and allow current budgetary approval to expire, then its treated as a loss of confidence and an election or coalition renegotiation automatically follows.

Which brings us to the ultimate safeguard: us. US politicians play these games because the US electorate tolerates it. While it has never been tested in practice, I suspect the tolerance of the New Zealand electorate for such bullshit is very, very low, to the extent that any government which threatened such an interruption (let alone presided over one) would be voted out on their arse. US politicians appear to face no such threats. And you can see the result of that in the media every January.

Thursday, December 20, 2018



No freedom of speech in India

Criticising the prime Minister is considered the duty of the press in New Zealand. But in "democratic" India, it's a "threat to national security":

An Indian journalist has been jailed for a year after he criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Facebook, in the latest example of what critics claim is a clampdown on free speech.

Kishorechandra Wangkhem was arrested last month in the remote northeastern state of Manipur under a draconian law that allows authorities to detain anyone for up to a year without trial.

The 39-year-old television journalist is accused of posting an "inflammatory" social media video in November, in which he accused Modi and state chief minister Biren Singh's government of promoting rightwing Hindu ideology in the region.

Local media said he called Singh a "puppet" of Modi and of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a hardline Hindu group and ideological mentor of Modi's ruling party.

Authorities said the arrest was made to "prevent him from acting in any matter prejudicial to the security of the state".


And he's not the only one. Call the Prime Minister a dog, get arrested. Call him a thief, get charged with sedition. Neither would be considered a criminal matter in New Zealand.

if the "world's largest democracy" wants to keep that name, it needs to recognise basic political rights, including freedom of the press and the right to free speech. Until it does that, its just a shitty despotism in democratic fancy dress.

Justice for Nisour Square

In September 2007, mercenaries employed by Blackwater Security murdered 17 iraqis in Nisour Square. Now, one of them has finally been convicted for it:

A former security guard for the US firm Blackwater has been found guilty of murder for his role in a notorious massacre of unarmed civilians in downtown Baghdad in 2007.

Nicholas Slatten, 35, was convicted of first-degree murder by a federal jury in Washington on Wednesday after five days of deliberations.

Slatten was convicted of killing Ahmed Haithem Ahmed Al Rubia’y, 19, an aspiring doctor who was one of more than a dozen civilians killed by Blackwater guards in Baghdad’s Nisour square on 16 September 2007.


This is the third attempt to obtain justice against this murder: his first conviction (in 2014) was thrown out, and a jury was unable to reach a verdict in a second trial. Hopefully this time it will stick.

Wally Haumaha should be fired

The Independent Police Conduct Authority has released its report on allegations of bullying against Deputy Commissioner Wally Haumaha. While they don't uphold the core complaint of bullying, due to a lack of (evidence demonstrating) persistence, they do find that he repeatedly behaved in an inappropriate, unprofessional, and intimidating manner, and that he improperly approached police staff in an effort to solicit support for himself and discredit his victims when the allegations came out.

Reading the report, there are a number of things which stand out. First, Haumaha is a shit manager who should never be put in charge of other people. There's an obvious culture clash between hierarchical police and consensus-based public servants, but this was exacerbated by his utter lack of people-management skills. Second, Haumaha systematically "fails to remember" his bad behaviour. Either he sees it as normal, or he simply lies his way out of trouble. Second, that other police officers report agreeing to his demands "out of fear" - phrasing which tells us everything we need to know about him. This is not a person who should ever be put in charge of other human beings. Simply on professionalism alone he is unfit for office.

Wally Haumaha should be fired. The question is whether the Prime Minister will exercise her powers under the Policing Act to make that happen, or whether she will continue to let an unprofessional thug undermine the police and its public reputation.

Update: Apparently, its the latter. Its amazing how tolerant the government is of poor behaviour if it wears a uniform.

Wednesday, December 19, 2018



Delivering

When Labour became the government, they promised (as part of their confidence and supply agreement with the Greens) to raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour by April 2021. And they're delivering:

More than 200,000 people will benefit from an extra $48 a week next year in the biggest boost to the minimum wage in its history.

The minimum wage rate will rise from $16.50 an hour to $17.70, taking effect on April 1 next year, Workplace Relations Minister Iain Lees-Galloway and NZ First employment relations spokesman Clayton Mitchell announced today.

"For a fulltime worker, this will mean an extra $48 a week before tax – enough to make a real difference for working people," Lees-Galloway said.

"The increase will benefit approximately 209,200 workers and their families, lifting wages throughout the economy by $231 million per year and making a big difference for families.


It's a great step, which will make a huge difference to a lot of people. But Lees-Galloway also laid out his expected increases over the next few years, to give employers certainty: $18.90 an hour in 2020, and $20 an hour in 2021. Which means that they will have delivered a 27% increase to the living standards of the working poor by the end of their term. Now that's what I call progress.