"Economic wellbeing" and "national security"

One of the most controversial ideas in New Zealand's national security legislation is the idea that "national security" includes "economic wellbeing". This appears to have been formally introduced for the first time in an amendment to the SIS Act in 1999 (the same one that immunised SIS officers for illegal burglaries), and it was greeted with immediate suspicion. And the reason for that was obvious: because historically, the government and deep state had regarded the left and the environmental movement's demands for higher wages and economic and environmental justice as a threat to the economic wellbeing of the rich.

Now, that controversial clause has just been used to justify the GCSB's spying on our friends and allies in a failed effort to advance the personal career of a government Minister - a move whose discovery upset those friends and allies and clearly undermined our peaceful diplomatic relations.

That "justification" comes from the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security in her report into the incident. From the summary:

First, the New Zealand government had made a foreign policy decision to support Mr Groser as a candidate. The decision reflected a considered assessment that Mr Groser would, if selected, advance the effective functioning of the WTO (an international, multilateral organisation) and so have a significant impact on New Zealand’s economic well-being.

Second, under the terms of the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 which applied at the time, the GCSB had a statutory responsibility to provide foreign intelligence assistance in support of New Zealand’s foreign policy objectives. In line with the government’s decision and the foreign policy basis for that decision, the GCSB acted lawfully and appropriately in providing its assistance to the campaign.”

And so that's that. The "economic wellbeing" clause and a stated view from MFAT that Groser would behave corruptly in office to advantage New Zealand equals corruptly spying on our allies. And presumably the same logic applies to justify spying on e.g. Greenpeace if MFAT decides that a strong climate change agreement would be bad for farmers. As for the solution, I think its simple: we need to get rid of the economic wellbeing clause, as quickly as possible.

As an aside, the Inspector-General's picture of the GCSB's decision-making process in this case is not exactly flattering. The GCSB director (John key's chum Ian Fletcher) seems to have decided himself that it was a good idea, then asked Groser whether he wanted his career advanced by spying on his rivals. Of course, Groser said "yes". Its telling that the Inspector-General is forced to rely on the GCSB's statutory objectives being "sufficiently broad" to permit this, rather than being able to point to a formal government decision to undermine our diplomatic relations. And there are recommendations about proper documentation of such cases, including consideration of improper personal benefit to Ministers who receive GCSB intelligence.

Just a bit shit really

So, the biggest trade deal in a generation has been finalised. The thing National was pinning all of its hopes of economic success on, John Key's "something special". And it turns out to be just a bit shit really, because it doesn't include dairy. New Zealand's primary industry, the whole reason why we engage in these talks, and absent some reduced tariffs on cheese in twenty years or so, its excluded. Slow clap, Mr Groser. Heckuva job you've done there. You've totally earned that knighthood you were gunning for, you royalist suckup.

And how much did we pay for this "free trade" deal that doesn't include dairy? Sadly, we don't know, because the text is still secret. A deal has been reached, but they are still keeping it all secret from the people whose name it is made in. I guess they really don't want the Canadian public to be able to vote on it. But from what we do know, we've avoided some of the worst bits - no dismantling of Pharmac or extended patent terms for pharmaceuticals, for example. But we did have to accept an odious investor-state disputes clause, allowing foreign companies to sue us if we try to legislate to protect worker's rights, public health, or the environment, plus a twenty-year extension of the copyright term to further incentivise dead people to produce more work. In other words, we give foreigners a policy veto on our democracy and enable foreign rent-seeking, in exchange for nothing, and no dairy. Another round of applause for Mr Groser!

Still, there's a positive side: not including dairy means less incentive for farmers to overproduce milk - a good thing given that we're already over our environmental carrying capacity for cows and our lakes and streams (and Christchurch's groundwater) are being poisoned by their shit and piss. So, Tim Groser's shit negotiating has inadvertently helped save our environment. Maybe that is something we thank him for.

Another IGIS investigation

Back in March, we learned that the GCSB had been abused to spy on friendly nations in the name of getting National's Tim Groser a better job. It was an outright abuse of power, verging on personal corruption. And now it will be investigated by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security:

The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Cheryl Gwyn has commenced an inquiry into the way the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) considers undertaking foreign intelligence activities.

The inquiry is in response to issues recently raised around a Minister of the Crown’s bid to become Director-General of the World Trade Organisation.

“I consider the issues raised about the process followed when the GCSB considers undertaking particular intelligence activity are of sufficient public importance to warrant an own motion inquiry,” Ms Gwyn said.

“While it is unlikely that I will be able to publicly confirm or deny the specific allegations relating to this process, I can inquire more generally into how the GCSB determines, within its statutory constraints, what intelligence activity to undertake and what policies and procedures are in place to regulate its activities.”

Which is good, because in this case, it looks like a state agency with highly intrusive powers was suborned for personal gain.

Meanwhile, that's two major IGIS investigations as a result of the Snowden revelations, and there are probably more to come. But it also makes you wonder what the hell the current Inspector-General's predecessor was doing during their time in the job, since they clearly weren't conducting an ongoing review and unscheduled audits of the GCSB's actions to ensure they were lawful and appropriate (as required by their governing legislation). In fact, you'd almost get the impression that previous IGIS's saw their role simply as a rubber-stamp and a sop to public opinion, not actually as a watchdog...

Contributing to the international relations of New Zealand

On Monday, we learned that the GCSB had supported Tim Grosers campaign to become director of the WTO by spying on internet traffic about him and his rivals, including Brazil's Roberto Carvalho de Azevdo. Today, Brazil demanded an explanation:

Brazil has demanded an explanation from New Zealand after reports New Zealand's foreign intelligence agency the GCSB spied on its campaign to get Brazilian diplomat Roberto Azevedo elected as Secretary General of the World Trade Organisation in 2013 - successfully.

Brazil media have reported that New Zealand's ambassador in Sao Paulo, Caroline Bilkey, was summoned by the Secretary General of Brazil's foreign ministry (MRE), Sergio Danese, to explain.

A statement issued by the ministry was translated to say Brazil's Government was surprised at the news and is determined to have the facts clarified in consideration of the friendship that has always existed between the two countries.

Foreign Minister Murray McCully confirmed in statement that "MFAT officials in Brazil have discussed the matters raised in media reporting with their counterparts."

So, GCSB spying has damaged our relationship with Brazil. Just another way the GCSB "contributes" to the international relations of New Zealand...

Spying for personal advantage

When anyone questions the GCSB's powers or budget, we're told its to protect us and keep us safe from (US-inspired) terrorists. But in reality, the GCSB has been spying to try and get a National MP a better job:

A top secret document reveals New Zealand's surveillance agency spied on candidates vying to be the director-general of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), a job sought by National Government minister Tim Groser.

The Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) programmed an internet surveillance system so it would intercept emails about the candidates from Indonesia, Mexico, South Korea, Brazil, Kenya, Ghana, Jordan and Costa Rica in the period leading up to the May 2013 appointment.

Mr Groser missed the selection.

This is not spying for "national security". It does not advance our "international relations" or "economic well-being" (quite the opposite; spying on friendly nations actively harms these goals). Instead, it was done purely to advance the personal career interests of a government Minister. That's simply corrupt, and cloaking it under "national security" raises some very disturbing questions about both oversight and what else they're doing for the same purpose.

[See also: Dim-Post]

Climate change: A do-nothing approach

Another day, another example of our government's "do nothing" approach to climate change:

A lobby group has challenged the next government to introduce a climate change act that would galvanise promises to cut greenhouse gas emissions and help New Zealand "catch up" with proactive countries such as Denmark.

Climate Change Minister Tim Groser last night congratulated Generation Zero on its proposals, but said it wasn't New Zealand's place to position itself out ahead of where international negotiations were at.

Which, as under National New Zealand is part of a group of countries actively impeding those negotiations, basically means doing nothing. The difference from our historical role on nuclear weapons, human rights and women's suffrage couldn't be any starker. This is a government with no ambition, and no commitment to the future.

As for the specific proposals National is rejecting, five-year carbon budgets are an essential mechanism for reaching any target, whether National's pathetic ones or something more realistic. They're also a vital means of holding government to account for not meeting those targets (e.g. by the usual NZ "strategy" of setting targets and then doing nothing to achieve them). Which is exactly why politicians hate them.

Secrecy equals betrayal

Tim Groser is attacking those calling for transparency over the TPP, saying that they want it to fail:

Campaigners against the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations want the negotiating texts made public to help ensure the process fails, says Trade Minister Tim Groser.

Think about that for a moment. What Groser is implicitly saying is that if the public knew what the government was signing away, we would never agree to it. That is government is acting against the interests of the public. That they are betraying us.

And this is precisely why we need transparency: to stop that from happening. The only thing secrecy enables is betrayal.

Has Groser sold us out?

Last night the TPP negotiations in Singapore broke up without reaching a conclusion. But they did apparently reach agreement on some things, notably intellectual property:

Washington Trade Daily has reported that ministers from all TPPA countries, except one developing country, have dropped their objections to the US-based intellectual property chapter, with some modifications.

That means Australia, New Zealand and Canada have agreed to a ‘very high standards’ text with unspecified transition clauses for developing countries.

In other words, our government has backed down to US demands of copyright maximalism. So how much have we given away? Will we lose Pharmac or be required to impose US DMCA-style restrictions? Has Groser sold us out? Unfortunately, he refuses to tell us. And as a result, we're left here in the dark, expected to endorse a deal Groser has made in our name without knowing any of the details, and conveniently unable to hold him to account for his negotiations until after the face.

Whatever you want to call that, it isn't democratic. We need full transparency on foreign policy, so we can see what we are trading away, and hold negotiators accountable for the deals they are making in our name. And if Groser feels he can't work like that, he should resign in favour of someone who respects the sovereignty of the New Zealand people.

Ministerial expenses

So, right after the failure of the Meridian share offer, the government has dumped its Ministerial expenses. Highlights:

• Maurice Williamson's [p 9] $137.50 three-course dinner for one in Dunedin, including a full bottle of Sauvignon Blanc. I guess it just gets lonely down there...
  
• John Key [p 13] spent $110 on very expensive skin-care products, tagged as "NZ skin care for protocol officer". Was it a gift? Because if it wasn't, it seems extravagant. Not to mention odd.
  
• Jonathan Coleman's [p 9] $1500 a night stay at the Shangri-La Hotel in Singapore (his private secretary was exiled to the servant's quarters at a mere $500 a night). I expect Ministers to stay somewhere reasonable when they travel, but this is simply insane; even the Prime Minister only gets a $500 / night room when he travels. There's also the $93 lunch bill, which doesn't include his minion because they billed for two lunches of their own on the same day.
  
• Murray McCully's boozing. ~$50 on "room service wine" in Cairo. A dinner in Singapore (itemised on his hotel bill) which spent ~NZ$165 on food and ~NZ$135 on beverages. A ~NZ$400 diner in PNG with another ~NZ$280 on booze (classified as "accommodation and meals for MFA and 2 P/S"). A similar pattern in Port Vila, with ~NZ$150 on food, and ~NZ$120 on booze. I don't begrudge a Minister a glas sof wine with their meal, but when its that proprortion of a large dinner bill, it looks like a habit. He's also in the luxury hotel scam, paying ~NZ$1250 for a night in the Grand Papua in Port Moresby.
  
• And then there's Tim Groser. What we have from him is bad enough - foie gras on the taxpayer (so he's the Minister of Animal Cruelty), obviously different minibar expenses hand-labelled "mineral water", and Heinekin with everything. But it's what we don't have that's interesting. Oddly, every time Minister Groser has an expensive meal somewhere, he loses the detailed receipt, and only keeps the till receipt with the costs (which are inevitably over NZ$100 a head). He also misreports trips to posh Parisian restaurants where he spends hundreds of Euro of taxpayers money as "refreshments". No, Tim - "refreshments" is when you go to Starbucks, or buy a coke, or even buy green olives, hummus and (of course) a Heinekin for (presumably) a snacky lunch in the sun. When you spend 250 Euro at a sit-down place at 10pm, its called a "meal", and you give us a fucking full receipt so we can see whether we are getting value for our money, or whether you're just having a giant piss-up at our expense.
  

This is how National spends your money. You can judge at the ballot box whether its a good investment.

Climate change: Promising less than we've already achieved

The government has finally set its emissions reduction target, promising a 5% cut by 2020:

"In deciding this target, the Government has carefully balanced the cost to New Zealand households and businesses against taking ambitious action to tackle climate change," Groser said.

It is unconditional but weaker than the conditional reduction of 10 to 20 per cent the Government has previously tabled in international negotiations.

Groser said he was confident the target could be met without any changes to settings of the domestic emissions trading scheme.

[Emphasis added]

So, the government explicitly sees this as a "do-nothing" target, then - one designed to give the appearance we're making a commitment, but one where the government doesn't expect it to be any effort at all. but looking at the 2011 Inventory Report again, its actually promising less than what we've already achieved - 2011 net emissions were down 6% from 1990 (thanks to economic collapse and an end to deforestation).

I expect this to be treated with the scorn and contempt it deserves by the international community. That gurgling sound you can hear is our mana-based foreign policy going down the toilet.

I'm also less sanguine than Groser that merely keeping emissions at the same level they are now will require no changes to the ETS. Maybe he's forgotten, but that broken system has production-based pollution subsidies, handing out more credits to polluters the more filth they spew. This doesn't set an incentive for reductions, and it doesn't set an incentive to cap growth. If we want even to merely limit emissions to where they are now, we will need to eliminate those subsidies - otherwise we're going to see an explosion of pollution when the recession finally ends.

Democracy and "national security"

Trade Minister Tim Groser during the debate on John Key's spy bill today (video here):

[W]e all know about Opposition politics. There has got to be some slack given to Opposition politics, where things that were done when the party was in Government are airbrushed out of reality—fine—but there are some limits that have to be observed. We could debate, probably inconclusively, where they should stop—before you start to undercut the fundamental concept where Government proposes and Opposition opposes—but we cannot debate where it starts. Where it starts is national security.

Or, in short, "opposition should not be permitted on national security". But as we're seeing with this very bill, "national security" is a highly political concept - there is nothing more political than defining who is an "enemy" and what the state is allowed to do to them. And what Groser is suggesting is that those hugely political questions should somehow be beyond democratic politics and beyond the vote.

Groser is Trade Minister and used to work for MFAT, and this is very much how MFAT operates. But it sure as hell isn't democracy. And for a senior government Minister to expound this ideology in Parliament raises serious questions about whether that party believes in democracy at all.

Not acceptable

It seems that while Tim Groser has been gallavanting around the world unsuccessfully campaigning to get himself a better job, he's been ignoring things at home - including such basics as answering OIA requests:

New Zealand First says Trade Minister Tim Groser’s refusal to acknowledge or answer Official Information Act (OIA) requests, brings the Minister’s performance of him and his office into question.

Associate spokesperson for Trade Andrew Williams says the Minister has so far failed to respond to five different OIA requests dating back to November 2012.

“While Mr Groser was off traveling the world at the tax-payer’s expense, trying to sure-up support for his failed WTO bid, his office has been failing to act on numerous OIA requests.

This is simply unacceptable. The OIA is not optional - it is the law. Ministers are legally required to respond to requests as soon as practicable, with 20 working days as the upper limit. And they should not be putting their personal career advancement before their legal obligations to the people of New Zealand.

Sadly, there's no penalty for breaking this law, and given the constant underfunding of the Ombudsman's office, complaining about late requests is pointless (for a start, it won't make them arrive on time). The only way this disease can be cured is by naming and shaming Ministers who ignore the law, so that voters can hold them accountable for their performance at the ballot box.

Abusing Ministerial office for self advancement

Last week we learned that the Minister of Trade negotiations, Tim Groser, had spent almost $250,000 of taxpayer's money promoting himself for his bid to head the WTO. That bid has now failed, but the entire thing is a perfect example of why the public are distrustful of politicians and their spending: while there are legitimate expenses involved with being a Minister, trying to set yourself up for a post-political career isn't one of them. The expenditure was for personal purposes, not official Ministerial ones. As such, it is outside the appropriation, arguably unlawful, and should be repaid.

And while we're at it, we've been paying Groser $250,000 a year to represent us in international trade negotiations, a job he has been neglecting for his own personal advancement. That needs to stop as well. We pay Ministers and MPs the big money because we expect them to represent us. If they don't want to do that job, they should do the decent thing and resign - not continue to serve in name only so they can spend our money on boosting their own careers.

(Meanwhile, it looks like its time for the quarterly trawl to see which Ministers have been abusing their expense accounts...)

Climate change: Locked out

Its official: New Zealand will be locked out of the international carbon market in retaliation for our refusal to sign up for Kyoto's Second Commitment period:

In December, the COP 18 meeting voted to exclude New Zealand, Canada and Japan from access to the units after all three countries said they would not sign up to the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.

At the time, Climate Change Issues Minister Tim Groser described commentary by Carbon News and others that the decision would exclude New Zealand from international markets as “ill-informed”, saying that New Zealand emitters would continue to have access to them until the end of 2015.

But now officials in the New Zealand Emissions Unit Register have confirmed that New Zealand will be barred from trading in almost all Kyoto credits generated under the second commitment period, New Zealand's specialist carbon market information service, Carbon News, reports today.

“As of 1 January, 2013, only countries that have taken an emission limitation and reduction commitment under the Kyoto Protocol’s second commitment period (2013-19) may trade in CP2 Kyoto units,” a statement on the registry website says.

Unmentioned: the fate of our expected CP1 Assigned Amount Surplus. This is currently expected to amount to 35 million tons, but thanks to the lockout we won't be able to sell any of it. Given the crash in global carbon prices, that's not exactly a great loss - but it will be if they recover.

Reading the background documents on FYI, the government's clear aims were to avoid commitment while retaining access to the international carbon market. In that context, the lockout can only be viewed as a major foreign policy failure. And judging from the lack of the passive voice in the documents (particularly here [PDF]), that failure should be owned fairly and squarely by Tim Groser.

Key lied about investment clauses

One of the worst features of modern free trade agreements are investment clauses. First emerging in NAFTA, these allow foreign companies to sue governments for profits "expropriated" by regulatory changes (for example, by tightened environmental regulations, changes to employment law producing better working conditions, or safer food standards). Such clauses transfer power from elected democratic legislatures to illegitimate, unelected corporations - and effectively prevent the former from acting in the interests of their voters.

Our government is currently negotiating a far-reaching FTA called the "Trans-Pacific Partnership". Given their past record on including such agreements in FTAs (such as the NZ-China FTA), people here were concerned that the TPP would include such a clause. So, they asked the Prime Minister about it. He denied it, calling such a suggestion "far-fetched" [link removed]. Later, his Trade Minister stood by the denial in Parliament.

It turns out they both lied to us:

This week, US trade negotiator Barbara Wiesel said that was no longer New Zealand’s position, according to TPPA critic Professor Jane Kelsey.

In response to questions about New Zealand and Australian positions during a briefing to civil society in Washington on 31st January Ms Wiesel said “New Zealand had retracted the Prime Minister’s statement. It is not their position.”

(Emphasis added)

Oddly, New Zealand was never told about this. We had to hear about our government's change in position second-hand, from the people they were negotiating with (supposedly on our behalf). Nice to know our government has such contempt for democracy that they will lie brazenly about their foreign policy to us, while cutting a deal to sell us out behind our backs.

I expect this will become a major issue when Parliament resumes tomorrow. Key and Groser are going to be asked whether they stand by their earlier denial, and their reasons (if any) for the change in position. Unfortunately, I don't expect they'll give any. That would be treating us like adult citizens in a democracy, capable of making our own decisions about what sort of deals we want to cut. And that is something that is apparently anathema in foreign policy. According to MFAT, us dirty peasants can't be trusted to know our own interests, and have to be kept in the dark to prevent us from messing things up.

The problem is that foreign policy conducted in this fashion is fundamentally illegitimate. It has no democratic mandate. Doing things this way tarnishes not just the deals in question, but our entire institution of government.

This has to change. We need openness and democracy in our foreign policy. We need openness so we can ensure our government is acting according to our wishes and not betraying us, and we need democracy in order to provide legitimacy for the deals it makes. Democracy cannot stop at the border. We cannot have a society which is a democracy internally, and a dictatorship in foreign affairs.

Update (6/10/15): Removed link that now points to a spam site.

"Higher standards"

During the 2008 election campaign, John Key ran on a platform of bringing higher standards of government. And yet today we have another Minister who appears to have used a trust structure to disguise substantial shareholdings - and a whopping potential conflict of interest - from the electorate.

Tim Groser owns 40,000 shares of New Zealand Farming Systems, currently valued at $22,000. He's registered as their owner, but for the purposes of his pecuniary interest declaration, they are "owned" by his superannuation fund, so we don't get to know about them:

"The distinction here is, in a legal sense, I don't own shares. A trust, of which I am the beneficiary, owns the shares and it's standard practice for all trusts not to note the nature of the investments," Groser said.

Meanwhile, in his role as Trade Minister, he actively promotes this company, and tries to negotiate deals to its advantage. Ordinary people would call that a conflict of interest - something both Cabinet and Parliamentary disclosure rules are supposed to avoid. But John Key says he's "100% comfortable" with it, as usual (but he guess he has to be, given that he's pulling the same scam himself).

As a member of the public and a voter, I am not comfortable, either with a Minister promoting and negotiating on behalf of a company he has a direct financial interest in, or with the secrecy. Once again, legal structures are being used to thwart oversight. But with conflicts of interest, the perception is as important as the reality - something that the Cabinet Manual recognises:

Ministers are responsible for ensuring that no conflict exists or appears to exist between their personal interests and their public duty. Ministers must conduct themselves at all times in the knowledge that their role is a public one; appearances and propriety can be as important as an actual conflict of interest.

Tim Groser has failed to meet that standard. His shareholding creates a perception of a conflict of interest, and his attempts to keep it secret make it look like he has something to hide. Its time for him to choose: he can either dabble in dairy investments, or represent New Zealand on the international stage - but not both. Either he sells his shareholding, or he resigns. It is that simple.

Meanwhile, the core problem here - the ability of MPs and Ministers to hide conflicts of interest by using a trust - needs to be addressed. The current rules do not provide the level of scrutiny and oversight the public expects. And they do not provide the level of protection from corruption we expect either. This is not an area where we can trust politicians - that is basically just asking for it. Instead, we must make them prove every day they are not corrupt. And that requires full disclosure. Not half-disclosure, not semi-disclosure with everything significant hidden by trusts and corporate fronts, but full disclosure. Parliament and Cabinet must amend their rules to bust the trusts and require full disclosure of all assets screened in this fashion. Otherwise, the public are fully entitled to judge every MP with any trust structure as prima facie corrupt.

OIA performance stats: Fail

The Official Information Act requires government agencies to respond to requests

as soon as reasonably practicable, and in any case not later than 20 working days after the day on which the request is received.

Requests can be extended, but the 20 day time limit is the basic benchmark against which performance is measured.

This morning I received the OIA tracking data for the office of Tim Groser, Minister of Trade and Climate Change Negotiations, and until recently, Minister of Conservation. Groser's office received 48 OIA requests during the 2009 financial year. Eleven of these were transferred to other Ministers, while 5 were excluded to bad data. Of the remainder, 16 - 50% - were late. The average response time was 31.2 working days, while the median response time was 24.5 working days. These figures were dragged up by a series of requests which were extended for three months, but even excluding those, the average response time is still 22.9 working days and the median 22 working days - both well outside the statutory timeframe.

This can only be viewed as an utter failure by Groser to meet his obligations under the Act, and it is not acceptable from any Minister or department. Mistakes happen, but only obeying the law 50% of time suggest simple contempt.