Parliament is now a hate-platform

A ballot for two member's bills was held today, and the following bills were drawn:

• Public Finance (Prohibition on Providing Public Funds to Gangs) Amendment Bill (Rima Nakhle)
• Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill (Jenny Marcroft)

The first bill is just more tiresome racism. The second is a hate crime. Its drawing from the ballot (and indeed, its acceptance into the ballot at all) makes it clear that "our" parliament is now simply a hate-platform, Stormfront-in-Thorndon, spewing divisiveness and hate into the public sphere for the benefit of a tiny fringe of fundy bigots and weirdos. Just this week the House supported rules against exactly that, extending a sessional order which deplatforms hateful petitions from parliament's website. But apparently hateful member's bills which seek to erase the identity of some kiwis and reduce their rights are OK. That has obvious implications for the already tottering legitimacy of Parliament as an institution, and for the legitimacy of the laws it makes.

ACT supports slavery

Good news today, as a coalition of Labour and National MPs have teamed up to bypass the biscuit tin and force legislation against modern slavery onto the order paper. Its the first time that particular mechanism has been used, but its unusual that its been used for this issue. Chris Luxon has said this is a personal priority of his that he would "march in the streets" for, and the New Zealand government has promised legislation targeting it in both its UK and EU free trade agreements. Yet nothing has been done. Why not? Because regime coalition partner ACT, which holds the "workplace relations" portfolio, has consistently opposed it. In 2024 they disbanded the government working group on the issue, and their opposition around the Cabinet table prevented government action. A former ACT leader has also written in support of historic chattel slavery - with whips and chains and rapes and murders - which tells you that this support for the most abusive forms of exploitation is built into the DNA of the party. For them, anything goes, provided a rich person can make a buck out of it.

So, we have a member's bill instead, so it'll get done, though slower than it should. Meanwhile, the ACT party has really shown us what it stands for. And having done that, it should be driven out of our society permanently. Slavery is a crime against humanity, and slavers are our common enemies. There should be no place in our politics for supporters of this atrocity.

Unlawful appointments

Last year, the regime sabotaged the Human Rights Commission by appointing a pair of terfs and hatemongers as chief human rights commissioner and race relations commissioner. And when people dug into the appointment process, we found it to be the usual crony stitch-up: both candidates had been shoehorned in at the last-minute and were appointed against the recommendation of the independent panel (and in the case of for-the-time being chief commissioner Stephen Rainbow, because he was an ACT-party crony).

Now, the High Court has ruled that both appointments were unlawful, as Minister of Justice Paul Goldsmith applied the incorrect legal test and ignored mandatory considerations in his decision-making. They have not overturned the decisions - Rainbow and Derby get to keep their jobs. But there's a clear statement that the Minister of Justice failed to do what was legally required of him.

What does this mean? Firstly, I've looked at a lot of government appointments over the years, and a lot of them follow this pattern. Some of them are potentially at risk of being overturned (for example, the 2024 appointments to EECA, or maybe this year's appointments to the Waitangi Tribunal). A big problem is that ministers shoehorn candidates in and appoint them and don't say why - because the "why" is unseemly and corrupt: "jobs for the boys" / getting your own people in regardless of merit to sabotage an agency. While Ministers can subsequently explain why in court of challenged, the court was pretty suspicious of Goldsmith's evidence, implying it was an ex post facto invention to fit the case, nad basically disregarded his bland statements that of course he followed the rules, because he provided no actual detail. The upshot: Ministers are going to have to provide a better documentary record of why they make appointment decisions, and exactly how candidates fit the statutory criteria, or risk having them overturned.

Secondly, of course, this obviously affects the mana of both the candidates and the commission itself. And given the centrality of mana to the work of the commission, a decent, professional person would recognise that this made their position untenable, and resign. It remains to be seen if either Rainbow or Derby are such people.

If they're not, well: from the outset I've said that as they did not meet the statutory criteria, and are unable to credibly perform the functions of their office, the next government should exercise their lawful powers under the Crown Entities Act and simply sack them. Now that there is an explicit ruling saying their appointments were illegal, that seems even more urgent. Unlawful appointments cannot be allowed to stand. it is that simple.

Finally: again, this highlights that the key problem in state appointments is corrupt Ministers, and the solution is to remove them from the process entirely. If we want independent, lawful, merits-based appointments according to statutory criteria, then we should give the job to a permanent independent appointments panel. We already use such a process for appointing the Government Statistician (with criminal penalties for any Minister who attempts to interfere in it); we should do the same for other roles, starting with constitutional appointments and independent crown entities and working our way downwards. Ministers cannot be trusted not to behave corruptly; we can fix that problem simply by taking the job off them.

Legalising lawlessness

Back in 2021, RNZ exposed the systematic police practice of coercing "voluntary" photographs from young Māori on the street, leading to a joint IPCA / Privacy Commission report exposing illegality, systematic racism, and widespread ignorance among police officers of the limits on their behaviour, and a formal compliance notice to force them to stop and delete it all (something they still haven't done). This was followed earlier this year with the Supreme Court's ruling in Tamiefuna v R, which upheld the ruling of the Court of Appeal that the police photographing people in public places is a "search" in terms of the BORA (meaning any interference with a reasonable expectation of privacy), and was both unlawful and unreasonable. The police immediately started whining about how it would be impossible for them to do their jobs if they had to actually obey the law, and so predictably the regime ahs announced that they will legalise their lawless behaviour:

Police Minister Mark Mitchell said on Thursday police had been left uncertain about taking people's photos and recording their images in public places.

"Recent court decisions have created uncertainty around police's ability to record images in public places for lawful purposes," he said.

"The proposed amendments will reaffirm the prior common law position, making it clear that police can collect and use images in public spaces, and in places where police are lawfully present, for all lawful policing purposes.

"This includes intelligence gathering and crime prevention and other policing functions and associated activities."

They weren't "uncertain". It was crystal fucking clear that they could not, unless they had a warrant. As the Court of Appeal noted, "there is a reasonable expectation that a person’s photograph will not be deliberately taken and retained for identification purposes by police without a good law enforcement reason", and that seems entirely appropriate. But the police want to be able to spy on us without any restrictions whatsoever, and database us for life, in the absence of any criminal suspicion whatsoever. And that is the attitude of a fascist surveillance state, not the police force of a democratic state which respects privacy and human rights.

Oh, also, the police will be given more powers to "temporarily close areas in response to antisocial behaviour or public safety risks" - which means a blank cheque to shut down protests. So more anti-democratic moves from the regime.

The good news is that "[l]egislation will now be drafted, and the changes will go through a legislative process in due course." Hopefully that process will take as long as possible, so it can be shitcanned by the next government. The regime's cuts to the overworked justice portflio won't help here, and I'd hope that public servants who care about human rights will ensure that it is fully and thoroughly and repeatedly reviewed for BORA compliance. After all, we wouldn't want the regime to get another embarrassing declaration of inconsistency, would we?

"A review"

When the government passes legislation trampling on civil liberties it loves to insert - and crow about - "safeguards" which will supposedly prevent abuse. For example, when it passed the Gangs Act 2024, which enables the government to designate a group as a "gang", banning its insignia and enabling all sorts of additional search and harassment powers and other fuckery - the select committee responded to concerns that protest groups would be designated by inserting a clause stating that civil disobedience for the purpose of political activism did not qualify. They also responded to concerns that groups would be designated forever by inserting a clause requiring the list to be regularly reviewed:

To ensure that the list is regularly reviewed, we also recommend inserting clause 30(3A) and (3B). These would require the Minister to review the Schedule before making a recommendation to amend it, and every 5 years if no amendments were made.

The government accepted these changes, with Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith saying in the bill's second reading debate:

To ensure that the list remains up to date, the police will review the entire list each time an addition or removal is considered, and every five years if no changes are made.

The clauses were discussed in the bill's committee stage, where it was taken to mean that the minister must check that every gang on the list still meets the criteria, and remove any that do not.

So how much of a safeguard is this really? Earlier this year police minister Mark Mitchell designated two additional gangs. I was curious to see whether he had complied with his legal obligation to review the entire schedule, so I asked for the review. His response:

There is no standalone document specifically titled or formatted as my review of Schedule 2. The review was undertaken as part of the broader policy development process that informed the introduction of the Gangs Act 2024 and the subsequent Gangs (Identified Gangs) Order 2024. As such, there is no discrete document in scope of your request.

So, he didn't need to do a review because he'd passed the law (including a list of gangs, 11 of which were outdated and removed by the select committee) just a few months earlier (unfortunately, that's not what the law actually says). Instead, the Minister pointed me at the police's advice and the relevant cabinet papers on the matter - which are interesting reading. The police's advice makes no mention of the need to review the schedule, and does not consider any gang other than those targeted for designation. As for the cabinet paper, it includes this:

I have reviewed the list of identified gangs in Schedule 2 as required under section 32(5) of the Act before making a recommendation to update the list.

Given the (lack of) documentary record, I leave it for readers to judge whether Mitchell was being honest with his cabinet colleagues, or fulfilled his legal obligations under the Act.

Meanwhile, this shows the contempt the government - and the public servants who support them - have for safeguards for our civil liberties. And it shows why it is a fool's bargain to trust them.

A criminal nation

The European Court of Human Rights has found Russia guilty of horrific human rights violations during its unlawful invasions of Ukraine:

Russia has committed flagrant and unprecedented abuses of human rights since it invaded Ukraine in 2014, including extrajudicial killings, sexual violence and forced labour, the European court of human rights has found.

The court’s grand chamber unanimously held that between 11 May 2014 and 16 September 2022, when Russia ceased to be a party to the European convention on human rights it had committed “manifestly unlawful conduct … on a massive scale”.

[...]

In its judgment, published on Wednesday, the court said there was evidence of widespread and systemic use of sexual violence, accompanied by acts of torture, such as beatings, strangling or electric shocks. Civilians and prisoners of war were subjected to mock executions, the severing of body parts and electric shocks, including to intimate areas of their bodies, the court said.

Finding repeated violations of the convention, many of which had taken place over a period of more than eight years, the court said: “These actions seek to undermine the very fabric of the democracy on which the Council of Europe and its member states are founded by their destruction of individual freedoms, their suppression of political liberties and their blatant disregard for the rule of law.

The court also found Russia guilty of shooting down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, murdering 298 people.

Russia withdrew from the court in September 2022, so the ruling isn't directly enforceable. But its enforceable within Europe, and Russian assets frozen there could lawfully be seized to pay compensation. More importantly, if Russia ever wants to normalise its relationship with Europe, it is going to have to address this, accept the ruling, and make restitution. And until it does, the world is justified in treating it as a criminal nation.

A calculated policy of deceit

This week the government rammed through legislation under urgency to cancel all outstanding pay equity deals and make them impossible to get in future, balancing their books by stealing $17 billion from New Zealand women. It was an outrageous abuse of the democratic process, and since it passed, we've learned just how abusive it was. According to an analysis by Stuff, the government first started plotting this move in December 2023, right after they gained power. The real work began in December last year, and was deliberately kept outside the normal policy process to prevent us from learning about it:

Even many officials who would normally work on a proposal like this were kept in the dark. For instance, no regulatory impact statement was made to assess the lawmaking.

Similarly, the BORA vet was - unusually - issued by the deputy Attorney-General himself, rather than the usual Ministry of Justice team (of course, he said stealing from women was OK, and absolutely did not impact their rights - a case of mansplaining away human rights?)

The government "justifies" this by talking about "legal risk". But what risk is that? The risk that the Employment Relations Authority would rule on and approve deals before they could legislate them away. Which is really a financial risk, that they wouldn't be able to steal as much money. But the real risk they were worried about was democracy: that we would object, that we would protest, that we would submit on the bill, that we would make it clear to their backbench that pursuing this misogynistic policy would result in a bunch of them losing their jobs. And to avoid that, the government pursued a policy of total secrecy, unseen before in modern policy-making.

In short, they followed a calculated policy of deceit, pissing all over our constitutional norms in order to steal from women and attack our democracy. And we should hold them to account for it. There are protests tomorrow in most major centers outside government MPs' electorate offices. Be there, and speak out against this dogshit misogynist regime.

National says "fuck the BORA"

That's the only way to describe their plans to reinstate the prisoner voting ban. In case anyone has forgotten, this is a law that was explicitly found to be inconsistent with the BORA by the Supreme Court, in Aotearoa's first ever declaration of inconsistency. The solution that was eventually hashed out to this constitutional impasse was that if the courts made such a declaration, parliament would fix it. National is now rejecting that - along with the very idea that parliament has responsibilities under the BORA.

That being the case, it is clear that the half-measures of the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Act 2022 are not enough. Parliament has again demonstrated that it is unwilling to be a responsible branch of government and uphold its explicit, legislated duties under the BORA. That being the case, the solution is clear: take the job off them and give it to someone with a demonstrated track record of acting responsibly. In this case, that means repealing s4 BORA, and allowing the courts to directly overturn legislation themselves.

Aotearoa should sign the Disappearance Convention

There's horrible news from the US today, with the Trump regime disappearing Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University student, for protesting against genocide in Gaza. Its another significant decline in US human rights, and puts them in the same class as the authoritarian dictatorships they used to sponsor in South America.

How can Aotearoa signal its disapproval of this abuse? Back in 2006, the UN agreed the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED). The Convention requires its parties to take various steps to prevent forced disappearance, as well as criminalising it in international law. When it was established, Aotearoa refused to sign, officially because of a slight technical difference in wording with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, but really because our "ally" the US was disappearing and torturing people as part of its extraordinary rendition program. And we wouldn't want to disagree with that, would we?

But times - and the international situation - have changed, and its time to revisit that decision. When Aotearoa refused, the ICPPED had fewer than 20 parties. Now it has almost a hundred - including almost all of Europe and South America. Basically, everyone we consider to be "like-minded" in supporting that "rules-based international order" we talk about so much. These states are all also members of the International Criminal Court, so its pretty clear that the inconsistency we were supposedly so worried about can be managed to the satisfaction of the majority of the international community.

Signing and ratifying the Convention would establish safeguards against disappearance here and improve human rights in Aotearoa. It would also signal our disapproval of disappearance internationally, and allow us to punish those responsible if any of them ever set foot in Aotearoa. That seems like a Good Thing. The question is, will the government do it, or are they still chickenshits about human rights?

Police want to ban protests

The "Independent" Police Conduct Authority issued a radical report today, a Review of the policing of public protests in New Zealand, in which they propose a complete rewrite of protest law, to restrict public protests and enable the police to ban them at a whim. Protest organisers would be forced to notify police of their intention to hold a protest (and would be liable for police overtime if reality moved faster than the police's sclerotic bureaucracy); police could impose conditions about who could do (or say) what and where; violating those conditions would be a crime; and there would be new criminal offences for protesting against "critical infrastructure" and picketing private residences (the latter something the Supreme Court has found to be legal, and which the police are particularly sore about because the target of the protest in that case was an abusive cop). The proposals are a serious and direct threat to the right to protest in Aotearoa, and are explicitly based on laws from anti-democratic regimes such as the UK and Australia.

Its a huge overstepping of their powers by the IPCA, whose functions include hearing complaints and making recommendations on "apparent misconduct or neglect of duty by a Police employee, or any Police practice, policy, or procedure", but do not include "law reform" or "giving policy advice", and perhaps in recognition of that, the recommendations are framed as recommendations that the police propose these changes (so: the IPCA laundering their views through the police. But see later...) As the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties' Thomas Beagle puts it, "Has the IPCA got confused into believing that the PC in their name is for Public Conduct rather than Police Conduct?"

Except its worse than that. Because when you dig into how the IPCA came to do this questionably legal "thematic review", they say:

the need to undertake this review was discussed and agreed with Police from an early stage, and some components of the review have been conducted jointly with Police.

...which invites the conclusion that the police are in fact laundering their policy preferences through the IPCA, which is collaborating with them to give these anti-democratic proposals an imprimatur of "independence". So, the police are laundering through the IPCA, who are laundering through the police, but its cops all the way down. And this shoddy deceit by a supposedly "independent" oversight body makes it crystal clear which side they are really on.

So who else did the IPCA consult in this review? The Ministry of Justice and Department of Internal Affairs, and "stakeholders", including "frontline officers" and "academic and policing experts" from New Zealand and "comparable jurisdictions including the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland and some Australian states". Given their anti-democratic record, the latter are the absolute last people I would ask about protest rights, and the fact that they were consulted suggests a predetermination to suppress protest. Meanwhile, note who is absent from that list: protestors and civil society groups. They've done a big report on how protest law isn't working (for who?), while failing to consult the major "users" (for want of a better word) of that law. And its hard to escape the conclusion that this affected the outcome significantly.

How? Well, the report starts with a summary of protest law, starting with the international and domestic human rights framework, including Article 21 (right of peaceful assembly) of the ICCPR and sections 14 (freedom of expression), 16 (freedom of peaceful assembly), and 17 (freedom of association) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The latter of course are subject "to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". And this is where it gets weird, because the IPCA - which is led by a High Court Judge and whose members are a pair of former senior public servants with experience across the justice and police portfolios - pretends not to understand the law, with repeated statements that what constitutes a "justified limitation" is unclear:

there is no general legislative definition of what reasonable limitations might look like, nor how reasonable limitations might be applied in the protest context

There is of course 35 years of jurisprudence on both of these things, including a detailed framework for the assessment of justified limitations, and a pile of caselaw around protest rights. The IPCA even refers to that caselaw later in the report, but largely to pretend that the law is "uncertain" when it is not. Largely they seem to be whining that when stuff gets to court, police decisions are overturned. Which, again, is a clear sign of bias from the IPCA.

They keep hammering this idea that the law is "imprecise", quoting the UNHRC's General Comment No. 37 on Article 21 (Right of peaceful assembly) that protest laws be

sufficiently precise to allow members of society to decide how to regulate their conduct and may not confer unfettered or sweeping discretion on those charged with their enforcement.

And this is where their failure to consult protest groups really shows. Because if you asked kiwis what we are allowed to do, we would say it is perfectly clear: we are allowed to protest peacefully (and as GC37 notes, "Mere pushing and shoving or disruption of vehicular or pedestrian movement or daily activities do not amount to “violence”"). Protest groups who trespass or block roads are not doing it because they think it is legal - to the contrary, they know it is not, and they expect arrest, and maybe prosecution. And that's one of the many tactics of protest, and All In The Game.

Instead, the people who seem to have an unclear understanding of the law here are those charged with enforcing it. But rather than educating themselves, with better training and a nationally consistent approach, they would rather limit our rights, limit our democracy, gag us, essentially for their own convenience. And it is for their own convenience, as their complaints about the overtime costs of policing protests, or having to manage traffic for a march down Riccarton Road, or their question about whether "the availability of staff and the impact of their deployment on other Police operations... is relevant to an assessment of reasonable limitations on protest activity" show.

The police are basically demanding the very "unfettered or sweeping discretion" to shut down protest the UN HRC rules out, as well as financial penalties against those who do not cooperate in their oppression. We should not let them do it. All political parties should denounce this assault on our right to protest. And those that don't should be vigorously de-elected.

Restore birthright citizenship

In 2005, Labour repealed the long-standing principle of birthright citizenship in Aotearoa. Why? As with everything else Labour does, it all came down to austerity: "foreign mothers" were supposedly "coming to this country to give birth", and this was "put[ting] pressure on hospitals". Then-Immigration Minister George Hawkins explicitly gave this as the reason during the law's first reading debate, saying:

Some people may come to New Zealand on temporary permits solely to give birth, so that their New Zealand - born children are citizens. Under current law those children are entitled to access publicly funded services such as health care and education. Restricting citizenship by birth will ensure that citizenship and its benefits are limited to people who have a genuine and ongoing link to New Zealand.

Twenty years later, and we're seeing the cost of this change: kiwi kids being threatened with deportation to foreign countries. And while public outrage seems to have caused the Minister to rethink, this should never have happened. People who were born here, have grown up here, have never known anywhere else should not be exiled from their country, or victimised due to the legal mistakes of their parents.

We should learn this lesson, and fix the underlying law which threatened to result in this injustice. And that means restoring birthright citizenship, not just to those born here in future, but also to those immorally deprived of it by the Clark government's cruel penny-pinching. And if the current government wants to quibble over this, we should ask them: are they really that small?

(And while we're at it: we should restore relationship rights too, so kiwis can be with the people they love).

Drawn

A ballot for two member's bills was held today, and the following bills were drawn:

• Crimes (Coward Punch Causing Injury or Death) Amendment Bill (Paulo Garcia)
• Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill (Carl Bates)

So a harmless bill and some "tough on crime" bullshit.

There were 75 bills in the ballot today, including another one to ban prisoner voting. This is a law which has been found to be inconsistent with the BORA by the Supreme Court, and yet some national backbencher - with the approval of the National caucus - is trying to push it through again. Which is another data-point on the anti-constitutional anti-human rights radicalism of the current National Party. Maybe some journalists should be asking pointy questions about this?

Corrections is torturing prisoners again

In 1998, in the wake of the Paremoremo Prison riot, the Department of Corrections established the "Behaviour Management Regime". Prisoners were locked in their cells for 22 or 23 hours a day, with no fresh air, no exercise, no social contact, no entertainment, and in some cases no clothes and no toilet paper. Over 200 people were treated like this, all for a minimum of 2 weeks, and some for years. If this sounds like cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, you're right - the Supreme Court found that it was, and the government had to pay out nearly a million dollars in compensation. No-one in Corrections ever faced any employment consequences for this (let alone criminal ones) - which might be why, twenty years later, its all happening again:

The Chief Ombudsman says the Department of Corrections must stop the way it’s running the Prisoners of Extreme Risk Unit (PERU) because the unit’s prisoners are being ill-treated.

Peter Boshier has released a report that outlines serious concerns about human rights abuses at the unit which is based at Auckland Prison.

“The conditions and treatment in the PERU are cruel, inhuman and degrading and in breach of the United Nations Convention against Torture,” Mr Boshier says.

The full report is here. It details "prolonged and potentially indefinite solitary confinement" (which international law recognises as torture), "oppressive living conditions", "disproportionate use of force", and "excessive and unjustified" searches and surveillance. All run by a semi-autonomous unit within Corrections with little oversight and poor reporting and record-keeping.

These are the exact problems found with the BMR, and they likely mean significant liability for the government. The Ombudsman has recommended that the entire regime be stopped immediately, but that's not enough - because this isn't just a matter of civil liability; it is a crime. Torture is a crime. Assault is a crime. Failing to keep proper records is a crime. Our prison guards are criminals. And it is time they were properly held to account.

National's privatised child-abuse camps

National has a hard-on for "boot camps" as part of its desperate attempt to grub "tough on crime" votes from sadistic geriatric pedophobes. That's bad enough, but its gets worse: the camps will be privatised. And they will be allowed to use force against children:

A leaked ministerial document from the Children’s Minister shows an admission that giving military-style academy providers the power to use force against children may be seen as “increasing the potential risk of abuse in custody”.

[...]

Cabinet agreed that military-style academy providers – including “third-party providers” – will have the power to use force against young people outside of a residence, such as on overnight camps or rehabilitative programmes. Currently, powers only exist when a person is at a residence.

Providers would be able to use physical force, no greater than reasonably necessary, to restrain a young person attempting to abscond or harm themselves or others.

The problem of course is that Oranga Tamaraki already treats those in its care as sub-human, and physically abuses them; private providers will likely be worse, and certainly be far less accountable. While Karen Chhour is denying it, this is a recipe to repeat the abuses of the past, and Chhour and National need to be held accountable for that.

Meanwhile, Luxon is all over the place about this, first pretending he "wasn't briefed", then, when it was pointed out that that made him look like a stupid fool who had no idea what was happening around his own Cabinet table, admitting that he was. Which I guess shows us the dishonesty of his claims to be "unaware" of things, and how he uses them to try and kill questions and avoid accountability.

Stephen Rainbow is ACT's crony

Back in August, National sabotaged human rights by appointing terf and genocide supporter Stephen Rainbow as Chief Human Rights Commissioner. The Spinoff has been digging into this, and they've uncovered new information: Rainbow didn't actually get the job - until suddenly he did:

“I didn’t get the HRC role but still very keen to help out,” wrote Stephen Rainbow to Act Party chief of staff Andrew Ketels in a text message on May 22 this year. Rainbow had applied for the position of chief human rights commissioner, after being nominated by Act leader David Seymour, and been interviewed for the job in March. He did not receive a text back from Ketels.

But nearly three months later, Ketels did text. “Congratulations!” On that day, Rainbow had been announced by justice minister Paul Goldsmith as the new chief human rights commissioner. “Thanks Andrew,” Rainbow replied. “Appreciate the opportunity to serve my country.” He is due to start in his role at the commission next week.

So, Rainbow was ACT's choice, and the natural conclusion is that they pressured Goldsmith to overturn the transparent and independent appointments process to shoe-horn their saboteur into office. A saboteur BTW who commiserated with ACT about the "challenging time for your office and David as you head into Waitangi Day"... which sounds just a little bit racist, and adds to the evidence that he is a completely unsuitable appointee incapable of properly performing the functions of the office, who should be immediately sacked by the next government.

A violation of law, justice, and decency

This morning, in a desperate effort to distract attention from the suppurating sore of contempt that is Andrew Bayly, National announced that it would be bringing back its "three strikes" regime. The policy never worked and had no significant quantifiable benefits; but National doesn't care, despite a commitment in both coalition agreements that policy would be "evidence-based". Instead, they seem to think the reason it didn't work was because they simply weren't vicious enough. So this time round, they'll not only be lowering the threshold for a 'strike" - they'll also be imposing them retrospectively:

The regime would also be retrospective, capturing all the strike convictions in the old regime that would count in the new one.

This is despite officials warning this would “contravene a fundamental justice right only to be subject to penalties that were in place at the time of the relevant offending (Bora section 26)”.

Murder Minister Nicole McKee disagrees, which I think shows her complete lack of understanding of not just the BORA, but of justice. The right to the lesser penalty has been black-letter law in this country since at least 1980, thanks to s22 of the Criminal Justice Amendment Act 1980, and I suspect it goes back much further in caselaw (the law codifying practice rather than creating a new principle). We're committed to it under Article 11 of the UDHR and Article 15 of the ICCPR, so National's tyranny will put us in breach of our international obligations. And as we are subject to universal periodic review as well as an individual complaints mechanism, they will be called on it.

But National doesn't care about any of that. All they care about is the sugar hit of "tough on crime" headlines. And as with their prisoner voting law or their climate change policies, complying with our international obligations will be a problem for the next government (which National will of course criticise them for).

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.

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.

A constitutional shitshow

Last month, we learned that the government was half-arsing its anti-gang legislation, adding a significant, pre-planned, BORA-abusing amendment at the committee stage, avoiding all the usual scrutiny processes. But it gets worse. Because having done it once, they're now planning to recall the bill in order to add another such amendment:

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith's office confirmed on Tuesday night the government would be sending the bill back to Parliament to ensure it includes gang patches and symbols being displayed in cars, as whether the bill as it stood would in fact cover them was in dispute.

"There was some debate around whether gang insignia being displayed from inside a car would be covered by the ban. We decided to clarify, and make sure it was covered completely. We make no apologies for getting tough on gangs."

The bill had only been waiting for the final, third-reading, stage before getting the Governor-General's signoff - but now will be sent for a second Committee of the Whole House stage. The amendment will ensure the ban does affect insignia displayed from vehicles.

Regardless of what you think of the merits of the amendment, this is a fucking shitshow. It is not how laws should be made. It is a constitutional abuse. And the blame for it can be laid squarely at the feet of the National government, and their preference for rushing legislation through to meet arbitrary deadlines, leaving no time for the required policy advice and drafting (and their "back office" cuts, which mean there's no-one left to formulate that advice and draft the law anyway). So we get messes like this, where law is being written literally on the floor of the House, so National can tick the box on its latest quarterly plan.

This is not a style of government we have seen in a long time - not really since the Douglas / Richardson Revolution of the 1980's and 1990's. Back then the executive treated the legislature as a rubberstamp, to be mushroomed and bullshat and jerked about to ram through its agenda as quickly as possible, before the public could catch on and oppose it. MMP was supposed to put an end to that. But we have a coalition apparently composed entirely of crazies high on their own power, and lacking a single party or Cabinet Minister with a commitment to good policy or proper lawmaking to keep the radical weirdos in check. And the result is half-arsed law, rammed through without proper scrutiny. The sooner it blows up in their faces with an embarrassing hole or a messy court-case, the better.