Auckland power cuts

I don't live in Auckland, so I have no exciting tales to tell about yesterday's power cut and how it was (or wasn't) the end of civilisation. What I do have to say, however, is going to annoy a lot of Aucklanders. And that is "bad weather happens, get over it".

Down here south of the Bombay Hills, we understand this fact, and while we don't like losing our power or ADSL connections, we know that its just one of those Bad Things that happens, like earthquakes, or National governments. Sure, you can bitch about it, but expecting it to change is simply playing Canute.

As for all the talk about how there is a "single line" into Auckland, and how this is an unacceptable vulnerability, it is no different anywhere else in the country. Every electron going into Wellington, for example, comes through Haywards, and there is scope for a similar act there to plunge the entire lower North Island into darkness (particularly when we are drawing on power from the southern hydro lakes over the Cook Strait cable). But you don't see Wellingtonians complaining about their vulnerability; we just accept it as a fact of technological life.

Palmerston North is slightly better off, because we have at least 150 MW of wind up there on the hill feeding directly into the local grid. But there'll still be a single point of failure there somewhere, and when the wind isn't blowing there'll be a SPOF somewhere (out by Bunnythorpe, I think) where the national grid connects to the local.

Christchurch? Everything goes through a big substation out past Hornby way, and if something happens there, it gets very cold and very dark in most of Canterbury.

Or of course there's always that lovely big single point of failure down there at Benmore, where the power goes into the grid at the first place.

Everywhere is on a "single wire" - it's a natural consequence of the top-down heirarchical design of our electricity network, where power flows from the national grid, through regional ones and down to local networks. Everyone accepts this - except Aucklanders. I can only suggest that they get over themselves. And if they can't, and want to move to a radically decentralised "web" model, with more local generation and greater crosslinking, then I suggest they stump up and start paying for it. But the chances of that happening are about as great as the chances of them paying for their own roads...

Non-substantive rights

When is a right not a right? When you're in America, of course.

The US Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that prisoners facing execution can make last minute appeals under the constitutional right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment - but that this does not necessarily mean that the execution will be halted. So conceivably the court could rule that an execution should not proceed, but the point be moot because the prisoner has already been executed. You'd think that given the irreversibility of execution, the court would order a temporary stay simply to preserve the status quo, but that apparently is trumped by the interest of the state and crime victims in "the timely enforcement of a sentence" (even one that is later ruled to be illegal and unconstitutional).

This is a kafkaesque mockery of law which comes close to establishing a "no prior restraint" rule for executions. But I guess that's just how things work in bloodthirsty America...

Delayed

Looking at the list of bills before select committee, I see that George Hawkins' two Manukau local bills - the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill and the Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill - have had their report-back dates pushed back to September 18. They were originally scheduled to report back last week. This suggests that the Labour caucus hasn't been able to decide what to do with them. Both bills are flatly draconian and have extremely harsh penalties for trivial or non-existent offences, and both contain sections found to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act (the two bills' BORA reports are here and here). The prostitution bill in particular will be opposed by the liberal faction within Labour's caucus for attempting to effectively overturn on a local scale the Prostitution Reform Act 2003.

Obviously, I'm not exactly unhappy with this delay. But I'd far rather the committee recommended that the bill not proceed than leaving it to hang around and possibly be resuscitated later on. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens in September...

Update: Fixed link to BORA analysis.

And he's gone

I didn't see it, but word on the blogs is that Rodney was voted off "Dancing with the Stars" tonight. And now hopefully he can get back to doing the work we're paying him to do, rather than grandstanding at the taxpayer's expense.

New Fisk

How Racism Has Invaded Canada

"That for your Royal Prerogative, you blaggard!"

Just over a month after the popular revolution which ended direct monarchical rule, the Nepali Parliament has voted unanimously to emasculate their king, abolishing the concept of the "king in Parliament" and removing his ability to veto legislation and sign bills into law. Constitutionally, he is now an appendix, purely vestigal, a powerless, ceremonial figurehead - as all monarchs should be.

Nepal isn't officially a republic yet, but it is in all but name. It will be interesting to see how far they will go - whether they will prosecute the king for the murders carried out to defend his position, or be content with stripping him of all power.

"An act of warfare"

Last night, three detainees at the US gulag in Guantanamo committed suicide. That's an indictement of the US arbitrary detention system, but the reaction of US camp commandant, Rear Admiral Harry Harris, simply floored me:

"They have no regard for life, either ours or their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us."

Yes, they did it to make America look bad. The fact that they had been detained without trial for four years, interrogated, beaten, forcibly medicated, force-fed, frozen, baked, waterboarded, terrorised with their worst phobias, and that there was no sign that this mistreatment was ever going to end clearly had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

If an individual harried someone to suicide and then responded in this way, we would regard them as an egotistical psychopath, willing to spout any bullshit in order to avoid admitting what they had done. And that, I think, is exactly how we should regard America at the moment.

Erosion

A couple of months ago, I ran a progressive bills thinktank to solicit ideas for legislation to push at MPs. One of the proposals was for a bill to update benefit income test thresholds and index them to the CPI. While I thought that such a bill would be justified simply on fairness grounds, I thought I'd do some research first - if only to gather ammunition to push for change. So I sent in an OIA request asking when the income tests were last updated. Today, I received the response:

the five current income test thresholds (called "Income Tests")... were inserted into section 3 of the Social Security Act by section 2(2) of the Social Security Amendment Act 1996 (on 1 July 1996). The current Income tests have not been amended by Order in Council since they were introduced in 1996.

1996 was ten years ago. In that time, we've had significant wage growth, and significant inflation. But over that time, the ability of beneficiaries to both supplement their income and move towards full-time work through part-time employment has been significantly eroded.

How significantly? Here's an example. According to Schedule 9 of the Social Security Act, the rate of the unemployment benefit for a single adult with no dependent children to be "$173.92 a week, subject to Income Test 3". Income Test 3 is defined in s3 of the Act as a 70% clawback on every dollar earned above $80 a week. $80 a week in 1996 is now equivalent to:

• $96.44, if adjusted for changes in the CPI since June 1996; or
• $128.63, if adjusted for changes in the minimum wage ($6.375 / hour in 1996; $10.25 / hour now).

The latter is probably more relevant, as it shows the level of growth in wages at the bottom end of the labour market. But beneficiaries have been effectively excluded from that growth; any pay rise must be balanced with a cut in hours, or you end up paying an effective 90%+ tax-rate.

(Actually, it's worse than that. The 1996 amendments replaced a two-step abatement regime, with 30% abatement kicking in at $50 or $60 a week (depending on children), and 70% abatement at $80 a week. So the $80 a week threshold goes back even further. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how far yet...)

A cabinet paper received with the response ("Hand-Up Strategy Supplementary Paper Two: Abatement of Benefits and Incentives to Work", 7th September 1995) noted that the pre-1996 regime acted as a disincentive to part-time work. This is likely to be even truer today. It also contained some discussion of the level at which abatement thresholds should be set. The primary concern here was to ensure equity with full-time workers and ensure that there was an incentive to move into even a minimum-wage job. This was judged by comparing the net income from a benefit and part-time work at the top of the threshold ($201/week for a single unemployed adult earning the maximum) with that from a full-time minimum-wage job ($207/week). Today, those numbers are $238.32 and $330.05 - and if the government goes ahead with its plan to raise the minimum wage to $12 / hour, the latter figure will jump by $50 / week. Clearly there's a lot of space to increase the threshold while still maintaining incentives to work. And given that there is currently a labour shortage, I'd have thought it would be a no-brainer.

What this also tells us is how far benefit values have eroded. In 1996, a single adult unemployment benefit paid about 70% of a full-time, minimum wage job. Now it pays just over 50%. There's been a similar erosion in other benefit levels. No wonder things are so fucking miserable at the bottom end of our society...

Since this was done as part of the progressive bills thinktank, the next step is to start waving these figures at MPs to see if we can prod any into action. The first target is probably Sue Bradford - this sort of thing is right up her alley...

Deportation and "national security"

The government has deported a man, Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali, on national security grounds. He was a previous associate of one of the 9/11 hijackers who had been a flight student in both the US and New Zealand. But despite FBI suspicions, he was never charged with any offence, and was allowed to return to Qatar after 9/11.

While the mouth-breathers down in the sewer are crowing, this does raise concerns. There are two clauses in the Immigration Act 1987 which allow deportation in these sorts of cases. The first, s73, allows the deportation of suspected terrorists. It requires that the Minister has "reason to believe" that the person is a member of a terrorist organisation, or (more relevantly in this case)

That the person will, if permitted to remain in New Zealand, engage in, or facilitate the commission of, any act of terrorism.

(Emphasis added).

The "problem" with this is that it requires some evidence, however minimal, and that the order can be challenged in court. So instead, the government chose to rely on s72, which requires no reasons and allows no right of appeal. If the Minister of Immigration thinks you are a Bad Person, you are out. This is an autocratic provision and a prima facie violation of the Bill of Rights Act's affirmation of the right to justice. While the mouth-breathers will no doubt talk about how such a draconian law is "neccessary" to protect New Zealand from terrorism, I think it is also necessary to ensure that government decisions are reviewable and that attention is paid to justice. And for those who disagree, I can only point out that it is rather rich to complain about "Helengrad" while explicitly supporting autocratic and dictatorial behaviour (with thanks to Bernard Darnton for that little line).

Interestingly, the government's review of the Immigration Act proposes bringing national security provisions together with those covering ordinary deportations and removals to create one list of criteria and one streamlined process. While having concerns about where and how decisions would be made (a key theme of the review seems to be to devolve important decisions to unaccountable, faceless officials who would make them in secret), a consequence of this would be that national security decisions would be subject to appeal and independent humanitarian review. That's certainly an improvement on the current process, and its something which should be incorporated into legislation even if the review concludes that a single expulsion provision is undesirable.

New Fisk

Zarqawi's end is not a famous victory, nor will it bring Iraq any nearer to peace

Warnings

Yesterday, Reserve Bank Governor Allan Bollard warned workers not to make "extravagent" wage demands, or else he would raise interest rates. But while this may make sense from a top-down, economic perspective, or from a business one, it makes no sense at all for many individuals beset by rising fuel and living costs. What Bollard is saying is that those who do not have mortgages should sacrifice their standard of living for the benefit of those who do. And I really don't see why anyone who is not going to be hit directly by higher interest rates should pay him any attention at all.

But what's most disturbing is that Michael Cullen has backed Bollard's warning. So we have an ostensibly "labour" government telling workers to knuckle under and make sacrifices for the benefit of business, while the business sector take shome fat profits to boot. Harry Holland would be rolling in his grave...

Sedition by Example XX: Thompson v Nalder

(A continuing exposure of the abuses perpetrated under the archaic law of sedition)

Article published in Revolt, a newsletter issued by the Militant Worker's League, September, 1931:

The Single Men

Once again the single men are being made the goats! It does not seem to have occurred to the workers yet how neatly and completely they have fallen into the trap and allowed the fact of men being single or married to create a barrier between worker and worker. No wife-less wages. Even amongst militants, we often hear it, "He's all right, he's single!" And the barrier is erected and the workers ranks split. It is proposed to draft all the single men into the backblocks, into the block of nowhere, where they will be conveniently out of the way upon some highly philanthropic pretext of "food, shelter, and a little pocket money in healthy surroundings." Dear, dear! Kind of the unemployment board, isn't it? For the good of the single men? No - emphatically no! It is to isolate them, keep them away from the main body of the workers and above all, ignorant. To dragoon them and prepare them for their part in the coming war which the scoundrels who rule the British Empire are plotting as a road out of their difficulties. The single men must organise and fight against this wholesale deportation. The married men must fight side by side with them, or they and their families will go next. The employed workers must back them up. The attempts to isolate these men - treat them as criminals - put them beyond the pale, must be smashed. That, or the men will be taken away, gradually forced into a state where they will do as they are told - Fascised, fit weapons against the other workers here or for foreign warlike adventure. The fight for the single men therefore is a direct blow against the boss's Government, a direct attack on N.Z. Capitalism, a blow for the whole working class.

Demand: Equal treatment for married and single men - no distinction, no divisions of the ranks!

No exile from the workers centres on this or any other fancy pretext. If no work, then free food, clothing, and shelter for all workers, married or single.

Rally round the U.W.M. and the Militant Workers League!

Down with fancy employment schemes - work at T.U. rates or full maintenance!

To hell with the United Swindlers Government.

A man caught distributing the above - the "Thompson" of the title - was arrested and charged under the Police Offences Act 1927 with inciting "disorder, violence, and lawlessness". While there was "nothing in evidence to show that any serious disturbance has happened", or anything linking outbreaks of disorder to the circulation of the paper, it was held to be "a mischevious publication which definitely encourages disorder" and "an invitation to its readers to disregard law or rule for the purpose of gaining their ends". Thompson was convicted, and imprisoned for three months.

(Sources: Revolt!, No 1, 1931, Militant Workers League, Auckland; Thompson v Nalder, 32 GLR 61)

Sedition on the internet!

NewstalkZB has noticed that Tim Selwyn has republished the text of his seditious leaflet on his blog. Shock! Horror! But in fact this isn't news at all. The leaflet has been available online pretty much since the day it was released. Scoop published it the next day, as did the Herald, and I've had it up as part of my Sedition by Example series since March last year, and it was posted at Dog Biting Men around the same time. Not even Selwyn's post is new; he originally republished it in May last year, and this is a republication of a republication.

If Selwyn is "in further trouble" for this, then so are a lot of other people. But I forget: words are only seditious if uttered or published by the wrong people. That's certainly the lesson of the C.O.B. Davis case, and it looks to be true here as well.

Better late than never

The Greens have finally spoken up on sedition, calling for a review of the law and an inquiry by the justice and Electoral Select Committee. Keith Locke gets it exactly right in saying that

“[t]he police are taking us down a very dangerous road in prosecuting a person for making a generalized call for civil disobedience.

“New Zealand has an honourable tradition of civil disobedience against injustice, most notably during the Springbok tour of 1981. Thankfully the sedition laws weren’t used at that time, but the police now seemed prepared to prosecute anyone advocating such resistance.

“Next thing we might see farmers facing charges for encouraging others not to get their dogs micro-chipped.

Though actually, I doubt the latter, simply because the bald, bullet-headed thugs in the New Zealand police who are now the self-appointed guardians of our political discourse will likely see them as being part of the political "mainstream", rather than outside of it.

While a call for a review is good, I would rather see the law repealed in its entirity.

Sedition on Nine to Noon

Nine to Noon had a discussion of yesterday's sedition verdict this morning, featuring Ursula Cheer of the University of Canterbury and Barry Wilson of the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties. Both criticised the law for being overly broad, and noted that a lot of what we would regard as legitimate protest and genuine political speech is covered by it. Cheer gave an overview of the history of the law and how it tended to be used in times of social disorder - though it was noted that ordinary public order laws were considered sufficient to deal with the disorder surrounding the 1981 Springbok Tour - a case where sedition laws would seem to be far more applicable. If sedition was not needed then, then it can hardly be argued to be needed now.

Wilson pointed out that America's sedition law (18 USC 115 s2385) is interpreted very strictly to require a "clear and present danger" of immediate violence, which reduces it to effectively a conspiracy charge and provides far greater protection of free speech that our law. He also mentioned the cases of Annette Sykes (which I've been meaning to blog about for some time) and Ormond Burton, who was imprisoned in 1942 for making an appeal to pacifism. While the latter was an attack on free speech, strictly speaking it wasn't sedition, as IIRC the charge related to interfering with the war effort and discouraging recruiting, rather than exciting disaffection or inciting lawlessness (the same applies to the case of James Kellman).

There was some discussion of the Bill of Rights Act and the prospects for an appeal, as well as the possibility of the Law Commission reviewing the law. The latter is long overdue, but I'd rather go for straight repeal. As Cheer said, there are plenty of offences which already cover incitement to violence, and it would be better to use them rather than risk criminalising genuine political speech.

The most amusing bit was when Cheer was asked whether others were committing offences under the Act - "people on blogs, for example". Nice to see that we're viewed as a hotbed of sedition by the responsible media...

Murphy Strikes

Great- on a day when I have something to say and really want to post, Blogger falls over completely. Talk about "the worst possible time"...

Sedition roundup

Media reaction to the conviction of Tim Selwyn for sedition:

• TVNZ: Still a place for sedition charges
• NestalkZB: Extraordinary verdict in sedition case
• The Age: NZ axe thrower found guilty of sedition charge
• New Zealand Herald; Sedition verdict 'harms free speech'
• Dominion-Post: Axe flier ruled seditious
• NewstalkZB: Outrage over verdicts
• Radio New Zealand: Sedition verdict

There have also been blog posts at DPF, Not PC, Capitalism Bad, Tree Pretty, Oh Crikey!, Holden Republic, NZBC, and Liberty Scott. The latter raises the quite reasonable question of where the usual voices of liberalism within the political parties are on this. The Labour Party, who were once victims of this unjust law? Silent. National? Silent. ACT, who proudly proclaim themselves to be "the liberal party"? Silent. The Greens, usually a reliable voice on civil liberties issues? Silent. And of course nothing from the Progressives or Maori Party either. This is a serious civil liberties issue which threatens the freedom of speech of everyone in New Zealand - and our supposed representatives in Parliament refuse to say a word. Thanks, guys.

There was also a fairly long discussion on Nine to Noon this morning, which I'll blog about when the audio is up.

A shameful verdict

Tim Selwyn has been found guilty of sedition. This is a shameful verdict, and a major step backwards for freedom of speech in this country. Punishing people for their words and intentions rather than their actions should require meeting a very high threshold, and one which our sedition law, with its vague references to "violence, disorder, and lawlessness" simply does not come close to. While superficially covering incitements to riot and such, historically this law has been used to cover such "incitements" as encouraging civil disobediance of unjust laws (for example, those relating to conscription, or Depression-era unemployment taxes), encouraging political opposition to government policy (for example, of Depression-era welfare policies which discriminated against unmarried workers), and selling or publishing communist literature which advocated global revolution and an end to capitalism at some undefined point in the future.

Directly inciting a riot may be "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre" - but none of this is. And neither were Selwyn's pamphlets. While encouraging "like-minded New Zealanders to take similar action of their own", no specific crime is being incited. Instead, it's just a strongly-worded call to action - and it should be protected as such.

By finding Selwyn guilty, the jury have effectively revived sedition in New Zealand, and opened the door to further prosecutions for what is effectively a political crime. And that is not something any of us should welcome.

I've been told that Selwyn will likely appeal to the High Court on BORA grounds, and we just have to hope he succeeds.

Taking on McDonalds

Fresh from the success of their recent victory over KFC, Pizza Hut and Starbucks, Unite are now taking on the biggie: McDonalds. As before, they are pushing for a $12 an hour minimum wage, secure hours and an end to youth rates - exactly what they demanded from the other fast food chains. And they are willing to strike and protest to get it.

Things kick off tomorrow, with the declaration of "McFight Night" at the Point Chevalier McDonalds in Auckland. If you'd like to show your support, then turn up between 5 and 7 pm.

The jury is out

The jury has retired in the Selwyn sedition case.

Juries have historically been "unreliable" in sedition cases - which is why most prosecutions were carried out under the War Regulations Continuance Act 1920, which allowed summary conviction by a magistrate. We just have to hope that this jury follows the trend...