The new Muldoonism

Last week, we learned that the government wanted more money from state-owned electricity companies. Today, we're told that this won't lead to higher prices. Clearly, John Key - who is not the responsible Minister here - expects SOE's to "look at their business" and find efficiencies. Which is fair enough, and something they should be doing anyway (I expect SOEs to be well-run so as to deliver high dividends to the people of New Zealand). But there are two issues here. Firstly, it looks like the Prime Minister is trying to dictate from on-high how SOEs are run - something the SOE model with its arms-length control was explicitly put in place to prevent. And secondly, if the SOEs do what Key wants, its going to mean the usual story of cancelled investments and deferred maintenance - the private sector won't need to run down our electricity infrastructure, because the government will have done it for them. And all so National's rich friends can get their tax cuts...

Death of a newspaper

The first thing I saw this morning on BBC was the news that the Seattle Post-Intelligencer is ceasing physical publication and going online-only. This is a newspaper with a daily circulation of ~130,000 - bigger than the Dom-Post, smaller than the Herald - and a readership of over 400,000, serving a city of over 3 million, and they can't stay in business and support proper journalism. Something is seriously wrong with the newspaper industry...

The second thing I read was Jolisa Gracewood's related piece on Public Address. Its spurred by the demise of a completely different newspaper - the Tucson Citizen - but covers what we'll lose if the newspapers fold, and has some good links to people talking about what's wrong. Go and read it now.

It was torture

The CIA's "enhanced interrogation" techniques "constituted torture", according to the Red Cross. As the international body tasked with monitoring the Geneva Conventions and treatment of Prisoners of War, they'd know. But just so there's no doubt:

The report's table of contents lists the methods the prisoners told the ICRC they had endured.

Taken overall they constitute an attempt to break a prisoner down through sensory deprivation and beatings, none of which is supposed to leave physical damage that can be traced.

The accounts indicate that a combination of methods was used on each prisoner.

The methods listed included: Suffocation by water or waterboarding; prolonged stress standing; beating by use of a collar; confinement in a box; prolonged nudity; sleep deprivation and subjection to noise and cold water; and denial of solid food.

The Americans argue that this is not torture, but merely "hard time". History disagrees. Compare and contrast:

[Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] said he underwent waterboarding five times: "A cloth would be placed over my face, cold water from a bottle kept in a fridge was then poured onto the cloth by one of the guards so I could not breathe."

Painting by a former prison inmate, Vann Nath, of Khmer Rouge waterboarding, at the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum

Or this:

[Abu Zubaydah] said he was put into a tall box and later into a smaller one in which he had to crouch, causing a wound on his leg to start bleeding.

The "little ease"

The basement of the White Tower [of the Tower of London] was believed to have housed the notorious dungeon known as the "Little Ease". This terrifying chamber was built in the thickness of the wall and measured just 1.2m square (4sq ft). The hapless prisoner of the 'Little Ease' could neither sit, stand, nor lie, but was compelled to serve his sentence in a cramped and crouching position. Guy Fawkes was shackled hand and foot in the ‘Little Ease’ following his arrest for his part in the Gunpowder plot...

We recognise this unquestionably as torture when seen in a historical context. The same applies to the Americans. The question is how long it will be before those responsible for this torture - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Yoo, and the rest - are held accountable for it, under either US or international law.

No more spying on MPs?

I'd like to post on the outcome of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security's inquiry into SIS spying on Green MP Keith Locke, except that I'm not sure that I can. Why not? Well, take a look at s29 of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1996:

(1) Except with the written consent of the Minister, no report or account of any inquiry by the Inspector-General, or any complaint before the Inspector-General, or any decision of the Inspector-General or the Minister relating to such inquiry or complaint shall be published in any newspaper or other document or broadcast by radio or television or otherwise distributed or disclosed in any manner whatsoever, unless the report or account is confined,—

(a) In the case of a complaint, to advice provided to the complainant by the Inspector-General in accordance with section 25(2) of this Act; and

(b) In any other case, to material that the Inspector-General has approved for release (the approval being an approval given in writing after the Inspector-General has consulted, in relation to security requirements, with the chief executive of the intelligence and security agency to which the inquiry or complaint relates).

The material may have been approved for release, but I haven't seen an official press release from the Minister or Inspector-general (either of which would strongly imply written approval). Given that the penalty is a year in jail and a $10,000 fine, its better to be safe than sorry. Besides, highlighting a totalitarian law which explicitly seeks to prevent the media from reporting on proven government wrongdoing seems rather more interesting...

But while I'm on the subject of the report, its also worth noting that the SIS aren't bound in any way to obey it or implement its recommendations (hence why the Inspector-General will be reporting on their implementation again in six months time). In fact, reading the relevant Act, the same could be said of the organisation in general. Control of our spies is not a matter of law, but of grace and favour, and for all practical purposes, does not exist. They are not accountable to their "watchdog", they are not accountable to the courts, they are not accountable to the Minister, and they are not accountable to Parliament (sorry, but a non-Parliamentary committee which never meets and which the SIS can lie to is not "accountability"). That fundamental lack of accountability underlies all of their abuses; unless someone watches (and more importantly, can sack and jail) the watchmen, they are invited to become a bigger threat than what they are watching for.

Random amputation

When Heather Roy let slip last month that the government's razor gang has been instructed to slash 10% from departmental budgets, Bill English was quick to reassure us, saying that "There is no blanket, across the board figure applied at the high end level".

He lied. Documents uncovered by the Dominion-Post reveal exactly that sort of target: a demand for blanket, across the board cuts of 10%:

[A] paper issued under the Official Information Act, offering "guidance for carrying out the reviews", makes it clear savings of that size some of which will be switched to other areas are under consideration. In the paper, attached to a letter from Finance Minister Bill English late last year, chief executives were told: "Using your detailed knowledge of both the department and sector ... can you identify the spending that delivers the lowest value for money, say, the bottom 5 per cent and 10 per cent."

This is not "trimming the fat" - contrary to the right's propaganda, there is precious little fat in the public service to trim. Instead, it's a programme of random amputation. Cuts this deep will mean restructurings, layoffs, cancelled projects, deferred maintenance, a general running down of the public sector. It will mean dirty hospitals, falling down schools, underpaid teachers, and the outsourcing of core government functions to overpaid "consultants". And all so National's rich friends can get their tax cuts.

That wasn't what smiling John Key promised during the election. But National seems to regard its election promises as lies to children, told for the purpose of getting elected and then ignored. Just like in the 90's.

Public relations replaces policy

The government is at it again, spinning its non-stimulus by announcing "$1 billion more for state highways". But when you dig into the details, you find that that billion is anything but.

According to the press release, the "new" funding will come from:

• "$420m reallocation from non-state highway classes (including savings on administration costs)" - in other words, money they were already going to spend on roads, but have now decided to spend on different - and higher publicity - roads;
• "$258m in new Crown investment (paying for the NZ Transport Agency’s share of Wellington Passenger rail infrastructure)" - which had already been committed to by the previous government; and
• "$283m increases in fuel taxes (commencing 1 October and replacing regional fuel taxes)" - speaks for itself.

And the total amount of actual new funding here? Zero. But the aim isn't to do something, its to make it look like they are doing something. Policy has been replaced by public relations, and substance by spin.

Climate change: we should be ashamed

Back in 2006, Helen Clark showed some vision for once and announced a bold plan to make New Zealand carbon neutral. Unfortunately, the reality didn't quite live up to the rhetoric, and the plan which was eventually released pushed the target date all the way out to 2040 and even then excluded agriculture, our largest source of greenhouse gases - but it was a start. Now, of course, that plan has been formally abandoned by the National Party, whose "ambition for New Zealand" does not extend to the environment (or even to areas we have traditionally led in such as women's rights). And now, "clean, green New Zealand" is about to be overtaken - by the Maldives.

The president of the Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, will today unveil a plan to make his country carbon-neutral within a decade. The announcement comes only days after scientists issued stark new warnings that rising seas caused by climate change could engulf the Maldives and other low-lying nations this century.

[...]

The plan includes a new renewable electricity generation and transmission infrastructure with 155 large wind turbines, half a square kilometre of rooftop solar panels, and a biomass plant burning coconut husks. Battery banks would provide back-up storage for when neither wind nor solar energy is available.

The clean electricity would power not only homes and businesses, but also vehicles. Cars and boats with petrol and diesel engines would be gradually replaced by electric versions.

This should shame us all. The Maldives is a developing nation, with a per-capita GDP around a tenth of ours, and a Human Development Index of 0.741 - about the same as Sri Lanka. And yet they're pursuing not just carbon neutrality via offsetting, but a radical decarbonisation of their entire economy. But then, they have a lot more at stake than the rest of us. For New Zealand, climate change merely means farmers suffering from a lot more droughts and a few people losing their beach houses. For the Maldives, whose highest point is a mere 2.3 metres above sea level, it means death.

"Common but differentiated responsibilities" is a key principle underlying current climate change treaties: lesser ability and lesser responsibility means that the developing world should follow, not lead. But thanks to western selfishness, that principle is in practice being reversed. Again, we should be ashamed; we are ruining the world for everyone, and we are expecting the poor to pay the price of fixing it. And that is simply not just.

The same problems everywhere

Last month, gender equality took a dramatic step backward in this country when the National government shitcanned two inquiries into pay equity in the public sector. An issue of fundamental equality - paying women the same as men for doing the same work - is being sidelined because it is "too expensive". Which speaks volumes about National's priorities.

Sadly, its not just New Zealand. According to the Guardian, the UK's Equalities and Human Rights Commission, the body tasked with shrinking the UK's growing gender pay gap, wants to end equal pay reviews and instead replace them with a voluntary approach (which has not worked and never will). Why? The recession, of course. As for those underpaid women who will be denied justice, or even information showing there is a problem, that's just tough shit. Shareholder profitability is apparently more important than fundamental equality - even to the government body tasked with promoting the latter.

Climate change: death by delay

Green MP Jeanette Fitzsimons has an interesting post over on Frogblog about the prospects for the ETS. When National established a committee to review the ETS as part of its confidence and supply agreement with ACT, it was careful to talk down the consequences, suggesting that they would be minor and promising that an amended ETS would be in place by the end of 2009. But according to Jeanette, that's looking highly unlikely. The reason? The clash between the Parliamentary timetable and that required to produce an allocation plan for the energy and industrial sectors. By law, the energy sector must have an allocation plan providing for free credits for CP1. To provide certainty, that plan will need to be in place before energy and industrial emissions enter the ETS on January 1, 2010. But an allocation plan will be tricky to draft, given the high degree of self-interested special pleading from various polluters, and requires an extensive period of public consultation, including being open to public submissions for two months. And they can't even start writing it until the committee has reported back and any amendments passed by Parliament.

According to Jeanette, that's just not going to happen this year. The ETS Change Review Committee is currently hearing submissions, and is unlikely to report back before June. After that, the government will need to digest the results, draft and introduce a bill, and send it to select committee. A select committee would normally take three months, but the Local Government and Environment Committee is currently overworked, and Jeanette doesn't expect it to be able to be done before the end of the year. So we're already beyond our deadline without even getting into the mess of consultation stakeholders on an allocation plan, drafting it, and sending it out for public submissions. Which means they are likely going to have to delay the entry of the energy sector into the ETS by a year - meaning that we will finally start making polluters pay for using coal and gas in 2011, just one year before the end of CP1. National's "review" of climate change policy has in fact been a death by delay.

New Fisk

The West should feel shame over its collusion with torturers
The mysterious case of Mohamed al-Dainy

Weaselling out

ACT has announced that it will allow its MPs a free vote on all issues other than confidence and supply. This is obviously a move brought on by the party's internal disagreements over the Wanganui gang patch bill (supported by David Garrett, opposed by ACT's more principled members), but its also something to be generally praised. Excessively strong party discipline has long been a problem in our democracy, and it was virtually unknown for an MP to "cross the floor" even under FPP (and MMP has only strengthened this trend). The sorts of widespread backbench rebellions seen in the UK over human rights issues and privatisation simply are not part of our political culture. This is something I'd like to see changed (though MMP combined with centralised parties makes it difficult), and ACT's move is something I hope will be emulated.

At the same time, it also somewhat undermines the government's confidence and supply agreement [PDF] with ACT. Despite its title, this wasn't just about confidence and supply - it includes a clause which commits ACT MPs to support government policy where they have participated in its development and this has led to an agreed position, and there certainly seems to be an underlying expectation that ACT MPs will support National policy unless there has been a specific opt-out on a matter central to the party's ideology. But now ACT is in danger of not being able to deliver the votes it agreed to. Given National's dominance of the House, its not that critical - at worst, they need only 2 ACT votes, which should be provided by their two Ministers outside Cabinet. But it does look a bit like they're weaselling out (it also looks like ACT has split in all but name into a financial libertarian party and a social reactionary party, which could get interesting next election)

And OTTH, this means that National will have to count its votes rather than assuming they exist, and pay more attention to its other support parties. Which isn't a bad thing at all. The requirement to consult widely and line up multiple support partners was a check on government in the 1999 - 2008 Parliaments, and it led to the place functioning like a proper legislature rather than the rubberstamp National is treating it as. Any move back in that direction is thus a positive one.

Enron tricks

John Key's answer to the massive hole in regional transport budgets created by his decision to scrap the regional petrol tax? Enron tricks. Auckland and Wellington Regional Councils, in anticipation of the revenue, had already signed contracts for electric trains to ensure they arrived when they were needed. But rather than the government stepping in to pay for them, they are instead planning to get KiwiRail to do it. This is being sold as an "efficiency" - it apparently being better for KiwiRail to own the trains than them being split among several regional operators - but oddly there's no push to take over existing trains, which rather blows the whole argument out of the water. Instead, the real reason is fiscal. Getting KiwiRail to pay moves the cost off balance sheet, allowing the government to pretend its decision had no fiscal consequences. It will also likely load KiwiRail with debt, giving the government ammunition to use when they want to push to sell it in the future. I guess John Key learned something in his time as a banker after all...

Sexed up

Six years ago, the British government went to war on the basis of a lie - Tony Blair's "dodgy dossier" which infamously claimed that Saddam Hussein could launch weapons of mass destruction against Britain "within 45 minutes". By presenting the threat as imminent, Blair was able to convince Parliament - but not the British people - that war was necessary. The problem for Blair was that it was spin.

In the intervening six years, people have spent a lot of effort digging into the history of the dossier in an effort to find out where the lies came from. They've learned, for example, that it was written by a Foreign office spindoctor, rather than the intelligence officials Blair sought to hide behind. And now they've uncovered secret emails from those same intelligence officials showing that the dossier was "sexed up", and that their concerns about overstating the case were being ignored:

The 45-minute claim – presented to MPs in a notorious dossier on 24 September 2002, six months before military action began – was central to the Blair government's justification for war.

But a memo sent 13 days earlier by Desmond Bowen, head of the Cabinet Office defence secretariat, to John Scarlett, who was head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, suggested he had grave reservations over the threat. His comments were copied to Mr Blair's press secretary Alastair Campbell and to his chief-of-staff Jonathan Powell.

Mr Bowen wrote: "The question we have to have in the back of our mind is: 'Why now?' I think we have moved away from promoting the ideas that we are in imminent danger of attack and ... intend to act in pre-emptive self-defence."

He argued instead that the Government should stress Saddam's disregard for international law and his continuing drive to obtain weapons of mass destruction.

Another memo, dated 16 September 2002, from an unnamed official, also suggests exaggerated claims were being included in the about-to-be-published report. It said: "I note that the paper suggests that Saddam's biotech efforts have gone much further than we ever feared. Page 4 Bullet 4: '[Iraq] has assembled specialists to work on its nuclear programme' – Dr Frankenstein I presume? Sorry. It's getting late."

A further email released yesterday, arguing for amendments to the report, says: "We have suggested moderating the same language in much the same way on drafts from the dim and distant past without success. Feel free to try again!"

Despite Blair's efforts to "draw a line" under his crime, there needs to be accountability for this. And as it involves initiating a war of aggression - the "supreme international crime" - then the best place for that accountability is in The Hague.

A travesty of justice

Remember Sayed Pervez Kambaksh? In 2007, he was sentenced to death in Afghanistan for distributing a paper to his fellow journalism students discussing the role of women in Islam. His "trial" was a joke - no laywer, no opportunity for a defence, just a death sentence handed down in four minutes. And that's under Afghanistan's new "democratic" government.

That sentence was later commuted to a mere 20 years imprisonment after the key prosecution witness recanted his testimony, saying he had been forced to lie on pain of death. This led to further appeals, which a Supreme Court Judge said would be held in "a very open court". Instead, the final judgement upholding the sentence was handed down in secret, with no opportunity provided for a defence. Instead, Kambaksh's lawyer was told of the verdict when he arrived to file his written defence - and he is now being threatened with prosecution for "defending infidels".

This is a travesty of justice and a mockery of the judicial process. And Kambaksh is not the only case. This sort of "justice" is the norm in Afghanistan. And we are supporting it. We give aid money to the Afghan government, and we have troops in Afghanistan helping to prop them up. Its time we ended both. We should not be supporting a corrupt, human rights abusing regime which ignores due process, retains capital punishment, and hands out death sentences for "blasphemy". We would not support Iran's theocracy; neither should we be supporting Afghanistan's.

A stupid decision

One of Labour's real achievements in office was the regional petrol tax. Ostensibly sold as a transport policy, aimed at giving regional authorities an income stream to fund their own transport projects, it is also a de-facto environmental policy. Firstly, because most of those projects are public transport: rail electrification in Auckland, upgrading the Johnsonville line and buying new trains in Wellington. And secondly, because it acts as a de-facto carbon tax, at up to triple the rate the 2002 carbon tax was proposed at, and with a high degree of revenue recycling to boot. In addition to that, it was fair; it made it clear that if Aucklanders wanted more roads (or trains), they could bloody well pay for them themselves, rather than sticking their hand out to the government - and hence people in Southland - to do so.

Good environmental outcomes, local democratic control, fairness and subsidiarity - it was a good policy. So naturally, National wants to get rid of it. Why? Because they're concerned about the effect on petrol prices. I guess that $30,000 from the Road Transport Forum was money well spent, then.

This decision is going to have consequences - and not just for the environment. Both Auckland and Wellington regional councils, for example, have already committed to spending the money they expected to get; they've signed contracts, and have trains arriving. The money will have to be found from somewhere, and that almost certainly means general taxation. Which means that something else is going to have to be cut, or the money will have to be borrowed. Either way, it also means that the rest of the country will once again be paying for Auckland's infrastructure. I wonder how National's farmer supporters in rural podunk feel about that?

Roll out the knightcart

The other day, in a discussion about the re-introduction of knighthoods, Jim Anderton sought leave to table "a copy of the A R D Fairburn poem “On the Awarding of Knighthoods”, to be sung to the tune of “Waltzing Matilda”." This intrigued me, and I spent some time unsuccessfully googling to find it. I was unsuccessful - but fortunately Scoop has found a copy. It's not very good, but it is delightfully cynical:

Jack up! Jack up! Jack up the knightcart!
Who’ll come a-hunting a knighthood with me?
For I’ve always backed the Party up, it’s time I got a bloody gong —
Who’ll come a-hunting a knighthood with me?

[...]

Roll out the knightcart! Roll out the knightcart!
Who’ll come a-hunting a knighthood with me?
For we’ll get our bloody gongs now they’ve changed the bloody Government —
WHO’LL COME A-HUNTING A KNIGHTHOOD WITH ME?

Looks like some things never change.

A total beat-up

There are any number of important public policy issues the media should be highlighting for the public at the moment: the economy, private prisons, the RMA, the government's systematic lying on ACC and on the MfE budget. Instead, TV3 tonight decided to focus on... some MPs getting extra funding to better serve their large electorates:

National has just found $400,000 of new money to help mainly its MPs and friends in the Maori Party to run their electorates.

Despite companies laying off workers, these MPs will hire extra staff with taxpayers’ money.

“The whole problem of very large electorates has been a problem for some time,” says Leader of the House, Gerry Brownlee.

“I think it’s outrageous,” responds Labour MP David Cunliffe.

This is a total beat-up, both by TV3 and by Cunliffe. The issue of how to serve increasingly large rural electorates has been simmering since MMP was introduced, and its a serious problem. It should be obvious to everyone that an electorate covering 147,000 square kilometres such as Te Tai Tonga needs more resources to ensure that its MP is accessible than one covering a mere 300 (Hutt South) or 22 (Epsom) square kilometres. That's why the Third Triennial Review of Parliamentary Appropriations [PDF] recommended in 2007 that

[A]ll Maori constituent Members of Parliament and each constituency Member of Parliament with an electorate in excess of 20,000 sq km in area, be entitled to the services of an extra staff member to equate to three full-time equivalent out-of-Parliament support staff members.

National has implemented this, sans the absurdity of providing extra resources for Tamaki Makarau, and its a perfectly reasonable and sensible decision. While some might quibble at them spending - gasp! - $400,000 a year on it, people in large rural seats have an equal right to participate in our democracy, and it is money well spent. Unfortunately, it seems TV3 would rather engage in shallow hatemongering against politicians rather than recognise this. But I guess its just so much easier than doing real journalism...

My heart bleeds

BBC: Rich list hit by economic crisis

The financial crisis is taking its toll on the world's richest people, wiping 332 names off Forbes magazine's "rich list" of world billionaires.

Just 793 people can now lay claim to a place on the list, but on average they have lost 23% of their wealth.

Of course, they still have more money than any sane person knows what to do with, and it will not have affected their practical standard of living one iota, but we're supposed to feel sorry for them. Meanwhile, the millions of ordinary people who have lost their jobs due to these people's (or rather, their financial mercenaries') financial "cleverness" whose living standards will be dramatically affected go unmentioned.

"Cutting red tape"

During the election, National vowed to "cut red tape". Unfortunately, it seems they have a very funny idea of what "red tape" is:

(Image stolen from the Herald)

As the Herald points out, National's proposed RMA "reforms" would remove the ability of local authorities to protect general classes and types of trees - which will mean a chainsaw massacre of Auckland's pohutukawa by greedy developers, and a consequent affect on Auckland's amenity values. While DPF attempts to defend this with propertarian absolutism, the fact is that we have never accepted that principle in New Zealand, and that the right of local authorities to regulate what people do on their own properties to protect the rights of others and ensure a beautiful or well-designed city is widely accepted. It's why we have zoning bylaws and height restrictions, for example - both aimed at protecting the same values as general protections for trees. But then, the extremists in National and ACT probably want to do away with those as well...

Anyway, this suggests a very easy advertising campaign for the next election: "before" and "after" shots showing the effects of National's RMA changes. If they want to allow their rich developer friends to cut down trees with abandon, then they can be held politically responsible for it at the ballot box.

No accountability for National's private prisons

The government introduced its Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill, which would allow US-style private prisons, today. Mostly its what you'd expect - conditions of contracts, monitoring, transfer of information etc - and there's been at least some effort to ensure the prisons must meet the same standards as Corrections. But I can't help but notice a couple of absolutely shocking absences from new s199 (2):

(2) Every prison management contract must impose on the contractor, in relation to the management of the prison, a duty to comply with—

(a) the requirements of this Act, of any regulations made under this Act, and of any instructions or guidelines issued by the chief executive under section 196, in so far as those requirements are applicable to contract prisons; and

(b) the requirements of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, as if the prison were a prison managed by the department; and

(c) all relevant international obligations and standards; and

(d) the requirements of sections 56(1) and (2) and 58(3) of the State Sector Act 1988 (which relate to personnel and equal employment policies), as if the contractor were the chief executive of a department within the meaning of that Act and as if those requirements applied, not only in respect of employees of a contractor, but in respect of all staff members of a contract prison.

What's missing? Firstly, the Ombudsmen. They have an important role in the monitoring of prisons, just as they have an important role in monitoring everything else. But that stems from the Ombudsmen Act, not the Corrections Act, and is not recognised in the bill. The upshot is that prisoners dumped in private prisons will have less access to complaint mechanisms and independent oversight than those in the public system. Given the way the government's preferred bidder systematically violates prisoner rights for fun and profit overseas, that is a serious mistake.

(I should note that the Ombudsmen's jurisdiction to inspect prisons to prevent torture is preserved due to s162A of the Corrections Act - but their general jurisdiction to investigate any act or decision of any government department is not. And that matters. It was the Ombudsmen, remember, who excoriated Corrections for their general conditions of prisoner transport - conditions which led, among other things, to the death of a teenage prisoner. Private prisons will need that oversight, and those held there deserve to be protected just as much as those held in the public system).

The second obvious omission is of course the OIA. Currently, we can demand information from Corrections, and we can do that at all levels, down to and including a prison manager. But under this bill, we won't be able to anymore; effectively National is using privatisation in an effort to contract out of its obligations under the OIA, in an area where public oversight is vitally necessary. And that's not something we should stand for.

I'm also horrified by this clause (new s199B (2)):

For the purposes of determining the liability of the Crown or the contractor for any act or omission of a contractor or a contractor's employees or agents, neither the contractor nor the contractor's employees or agents are to be treated as agents of the Crown.

Despite the fact that that is in fact exactly what they are. But black can be white where Parliament decrees - particularly if it stops prisoners who have - e.g. been beaten and raped by poorly trained private prison thugs - from holding the government to account for their actions.

(It's difficult to see this as anything other than an end run around the BORA; while obligations are imposed by contract, that's a matter between Corrections and the prison. Meanwhile, as private parties rather than agents of the crown, the liability of private contractors under the BORA is reduced, while the government gets to wipe its hands of the whole matter. So they're trying to contract out of that as well. It will be interesting to see whether the courts will stomach that, though...)

I loathe the idea of private prisons and sadism for profit; but this implementation of it simply stinks. It would remove private prisons from public scrutiny and from the jurisdiction of the Ombudsmen, and so dramatically weaken oversight. The effect would be to reduce accountability. And where prisons are concerned, that's not something any civilised society can afford.