Your tax dollars in action

Back in October, during the furore over The Hobbit, New Zealand was visited by a team of "heavy-hitters" from Warner Brothers, who extracted millions of dollars in subsidies from us as well as a change in our labour laws to clarify that all film workers were peons. That's outrageous enough, but there's another outrageous aspect to this private big business lobbying trip: we paid for part of it. A reader has sent me the results of their inquiries using the Official Information Act into the Warners visit. They show that Warners' executives received full government VIP treatment [PDF], including customs facilitation (usually reserved for visiting Ministers and heads of state, and bypassing normal security procedures), VIP transfer from Auckland's international to domestic terminal, and VIP transport using ministerial limousines within Wellington. The total cost for this? $5,948 [PDF].

Your tax dollars in action, people - spent on further subsidising the ultra-rich executives of one of the world's richest companies, so they could visit and deal with one of New Zealand's richest men. And its classic National: they have plenty of money for the rich, but none for the people who actually need it.

Climate change: This is what ambition looks like

Climate Change Minister Nick Smith gave his speech to the COP16 negotiations in Cancun today, in which he refused to commit to any reduction targets unless we get some changes to the rules around forestry allowing us to effectively cut down forests while pretending they still exist, and hence to delay any real emissions reduction through accounting tricks. Meanwhile, the UK's Committee on Climate Change - a statutory body tasked with recommending emissions targets - has recommended a 60% cut from 1990 levels by 2030. This will require a massive greening of the UK's electricity and transport systems, but the committee thinks they can do it, at a cost of less than 1% of GDP.

This is what ambition looks like. Its also the sort of action needed to solve the problem - the sort of action we should be taking as a world-leader on the environment. Instead we're arguing for accounting loopholes while committing to no reductions (and planning to massively raise our emissions through more cows and lignite-to-diesel plants). So much for our environmental leadership, and so much for our mana. National has pissed away both.

Tonga: Democracy betrayed

When Tonga went to the polls last month in the first mostly democratic elections that country has ever had, people thought it was the beginning of a new, democratic future. Instead, its looking like more of the same. Radio New Zealand is reporting that the nobles have the numbers to appoint one of their own as Prime Minister, and Stuff's Michael Field reports that Education Minister Siale'ataonga Tu'ivakano is their preferred candidate. So, the first "democratically" elected Prime Minister of Tonga will not hold a majority among the people's representatives, but will instead be foisted on the people by the votes of nine nobles, representing 33 wealthy inbreds. Some "democracy".

What this shows is that the nobles should never have been allowed to retain their power. And when a true people's government is eventually elected, removing this vestige of aristocracy and ensuring that the entire legislature is democratically elected should be their first priority.

So much for the whitewash

Last week, the Speaker issued a whitewash of Pansy Wong's abuse of her Parliamentary travel allowances, which found she had rorted just $474 from us. The method used to produce this figure? They asked the Wongs whether they had broken the rules in any cases beyond the one demonstrated, and (of course) they denied it. So obviously everything must be fine.

Of course, this assumes they were telling the truth. And it turns out that Sammy Wong at least wasn't. He told the investigation he'd travelled to China (on the taxpayer's purse, as the partner of an MP) for "genealogical research"; in fact, he was helping his business partner Jenny Shipley launch a $40 million biotech investment.

When this was raised in the House today, Key abandoned Wong, and invited Labour to complain to the Auditor-General. That now looks certain. And hopefully, they'll do a better job of getting to the bottom of this than Lockwood Smith did. As for Wong, her position is now absolutely untenable. Stealing from the taxpayer is bad enough (and the amount taken would have seen her immediately sacked in the real world). Lying about it when you're caught is worse. If she had a shred of honour, she'd resign. But then, her actions to date suggest that she does not.

Pre-emptive delegitimisation

Today the government announced its constitutional review. Over on Pundit, Andrew Geddis makes some predictions about its recommendations. Among those, a four-year term:

The recommendation will be to move to a 4 year parliamentary term, with fixed election dates as the quid-pro-quo. The "inside the beltway" view is that 3 years just isn't enough time to get government business done, but the public just won't vote for extending the parliamentary term. A recommendation that this should happen - tied to a fixed term, to take that advantage away from the PM - will allow MPs to do it for themselves.

Let's squish this now. The idea of MPs doing it themselves is absolutely illegitimate. There should be no extension of the Parliamentary term unless it is endorsed by a referendum.

The problem for MPs (who overwhelmingly want this, under the guise of "better governance", frequent accountability to us dirty peasants apparently being a Bad Thing), is that it has been overwhelmingly defeated every time it has been put to the vote. We were asked about extending the term in 1967, and again in 1990; in each case, we overwhelmingly voted "no" (68.1% against in 1967, 69.3% against in 1990). Against this background, a cosy collusion between National and Labour to extend the term would look grossly undemocratic.

Politicians need to understand: its our constitution, not theirs. And we should have the final say on major changes. Anything else is simply illegitimate.

Member's Day

Today, barring urgency, is a Member's Day. But unusually, the main item of business will be a select committee report - that of the Maori Affairs Committee on its Inquiry into the tobacco industry in Aotearoa and the consequences of tobacco use for Maori [PDF]. The Business Committee has scheduled two hours an hour for this, so it will get the attention it deserves.

The other important business is the beginning of the third reading of Paul Quinn's shameful Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. It won't be finished tonight, which means it won't finally pass until February. Unfortunately, with the full support of the National caucus behind it, its a done deal; National is going to violate our human rights obligations under international law, so it can be seen to be kicking crims for votes. In the process, they will permanently undermine Parliament's role as the supreme arbiter of our law, and build the case for a Bill of Rights Act with teeth, which will allow atrocities like this to be overturned by the courts.

Correction: I misread the Order Paper, and the inquiry only has one hour. Which means they will likely manage to get through Quinn's prisoner disenfranchisement bill as well.

A constitutional review

In 2008, National signed a confidence and supply agreement with the Maori Party [PDF]. This agreement included a joint commitment to establish "no later than early 2010... a group to consider constitutional issues including Maori representation."

Today - somewhat later than early 2010 - the government finally moved on that commitment, establishing a process to formally examine the size of Parliament, the length of the Parliamentary term, electorates (including Maori electorates), the need for "electoral integrity" (anti party-hopping) legislation, a formal written constitution (because apparently the Constitution Act 1986 doesn't exist), and the entrenchment or modification of the Bill of Rights.

There's a lot here that is worthy of discussion, and I certainly intend to contribute to the process. But there's one topic which is glaring by its absence: the republic. Its our most significant and pressing constitutional issue - Good Queen Bess isn't going to live forever you know - and the government is resolutely sticking its fingers in its ears and refusing to talk about it.

And OTOH, it might be for the best. As Michael Cullen noted, the desire for "big bang" change, to do everything at once, has actually been a real barrier in the past, and led to the debate being bogged down over side issues, resulting in no change. Including the republic in the constitutional review would likely have led to the same problem. Not including it leaves us free to push for change - and also means the government can't just fob us off by saying "its already under review". And given that we can easily shift to a republic while leaving all our other constitutional options open, there's no reason why we can't start that process today.

It couldn't happen to a nicer guy

Almost 8 years after the criminal invasion of Iraq, one of its architects is finally facing criminal charges. But sadly, its not for war crimes, but for corruption. Former US Vice-President Dick Cheney has been charged with bribery in Nigeria over a $US182 million bribery scandal which happened during his former career as CEO of Halliburton. Halliburton has already admitted to the crime in the USA, and paid $US177 million to settle the case with the SEC (because obviously, they couldn't possibly send wealthy executives to jail for corporate malfeasance - just punish their shareholders instead!). But the Nigerians, its actual victims, want justice too. It couldn't happen to a nicer guy...

Irony

At the moment the United States Government is attacking Wikileaks, attempting to steal its money and throw it off the web, while threatening its spokesperson with (yet-to-be-determined) charges, or even murder, because it dared to commit an act of journalism and publish leaked US diplomatic cables showing the US's hypocrisy and deceit on the world stage.

At the same time, it is proudly announcing that it will host World Press Freedom Day in 2011.

That’s funny enough, but it gets better:

The theme for next year’s commemoration will be 21st Century Media: New Frontiers, New Barriers. The United States places technology and innovation at the forefront of its diplomatic and development efforts. New media has empowered citizens around the world to report on their circumstances, express opinions on world events, and exchange information in environments sometimes hostile to such exercises of individuals’ right to freedom of expression. At the same time, we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information. We mark events such as World Press Freedom Day in the context of our enduring commitment to support and expand press freedom and the free flow of information in this digital age.

Except, of course, where that freedom might embarrass the US. When that happens, they're just as bad as China, Iran, or any other tinpot despotism in attempting to crush it.

Americans really don't understand irony, do they?

Pork-barrel politics over broadband

Steven Joyce has announced the initial locations for the government's rollout of ultra-fast broadband:

The cities of Hamilton, Tauranga, Whangarei, New Plymouth and Wanganui will be among the first to benefit from the government’s rollout of ultra-fast broadband (UFB), says the Minister for Communications and Information Technology Steven Joyce.

In addition, UFB will be rolled out in Cambridge, Te Awamutu, Hawera and Tokoroa.

So, what does this look like by electorates? UFB will be rolled out to:

• Whangarei, held by National's Phil Heatley, with a majority of 14,663;
• Hamilton East, held by National's David Bennett with a majority of 8,820;
• Hamilton West, held by National's Tim Macindoe, with a majority of 1,618;
• Taupo, held by National's Louise Upston, with a majority of 6,445;
• Taranaki-King Country, held by National's Shane Ardern, with a majority of 15,618;
• Tauranga, held by National's Simon Bridges, with a majority of 11,742;
• New Plymouth, held by National's Jonathan Young, with a majority of 105;
• Whanganui, held by National's Chester Borrows, with a majority of 6,333.

So, the first thing to note is that only National-held electorates get broadband; those with Labour MPs need not apply (sorry, you voted for the wrong person and so must be punished). The second thing to note is the targeting of marginal seats New Plymouth and Hamilton West. It'd be interesting if someone who knew about IT policy used the OIA to delve into National's rollout decision, but from here it looks like pure pork-barrel politics. And I don't like it one bit.

Key surrenders on perks

John Key's response to the Law Commission's review of parliamentary perks? Unconditional surrender:

“The Government accepts the Law Commission’s recommendation that having Ministers’ and MPs’ expenses determined by an independent body will better ensure public confidence. Accordingly, it is the Government’s intention to accept the broad thrust of the recommendation to move decision-making regarding remaining MP and Ministerial expenses to an enhanced Remuneration Authority.”

[...]

“Cabinet will consider the timing of the new legislation early in the new year, but it is my intention that it will be passed before the end of 2011.

Excellent. And now we have to hold him to it.

The Law Commission on perks

The Law Commission has released its Review of the Civil List Act – Members of Parliament and Ministers [PDF], and recommended a complete reform of the system. Instead of MPs setting their own perks, they recommended that all salaries, allowances, and expenses be set by an independent body, an upgraded Remuneration Commission. And instead of it being done in secret, they recommend opening Parliament to the OIA, so the public and media can provide oversight and scrutiny. The overall aim is "clarity, transparency, and independence" - the absence of which "has a corroding effect on public confidence in the integrity of democracy in New Zealand". I'd like to think that this time, Parliament would get the message, put their screaming self-interest aside, and restore that confidence - but their past record on this doesn't give me much confidence. But if they reject these proposals, they will again earn that reputation, and have no-one but themselves to blame for the fact that the public regards them as lower than dogshit.

Lawless order

Back in July, a group of boy racers gathered at Chaneys, outside Christchurch. Police broke up the gathering, arrested those present, and charged them with unlawful assembly. Now, those charges are being thrown out by the courts. Why? Because unlawful assembly, like most public order legislation, is aimed at suppressing riots and requires a threat of violence. There was no suggestion that the boy racers were going to smash windows and set cars on fire, and no evidence produced of any public fears that they would do so. In other words, the police engaged in a false arrest, and a false charge which could not possibly be sustained.

(Meanwhile, 12 people had already pled guilty to this bullshit to avoid onerous bail conditions. Those convictions may now be challenged. And they should be. Its disturbing that police can lodge a bullshit charge, then blackmail you into pleading guilty with the threat of onerous conditions and the expense of defending yourself.)

The core problem here is the police use of "catch-all" offences to punish non-criminal behaviour. While it may be untidy, boy racers merely gathering in public is not a crime. Neither is protesting outside someone's precious tennis game, or a police officer's house. But in all of these cases the police feel an urge to punish or suppress to "maintain order", and so fall back on public order offences, even when they do not apply. And if people don't have legal advice, or aren't willing to contest the charges, they get away with it. The result is a lawless order, which in reality brings the law into contempt.

Stupidity

In the wake of the police's weekend contribution to the annual roadtoll, the Independent Police Conduct Authority have renewed their call for a change in police pursuit policy so that it is based on public safety rather than general suspicion and injured pride. Meanwhile, the government is talking about tougher penalties, in the erroneous belief that this will deter people from fleeing police. I doubt it. In order to deter, drivers would have to think - but as the IPCA has already found, the typical driver who flees police is a stupid scared teenager, who does it precisely because they aren't thinking. In these circumstances, tougher penalties are just a futile exercise in dick-waving. As for Greg O'Connor's call for car crushings and $10,000 fines, I'd really prefer he worked out his sexual problems in private, rather than splashing them across the media for all to see.

These police killings will not be reduced by imposing tougher penalties on victims. They will only be reduced by the police changing their pursuit policy. But that is clearly the last thing on their mind. And so kids will continue to die, victims of unsafe pursuits driven by the police's kneejerk authoritarianism.

Submit!

The Justice and Electoral Committee has called for submissions on the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill. Two copies, by Friday, 18 February 2011 to:

Justice and Electoral Committee Secretariat
Parliament Buildings
Wellington

Or you can submit online.

The bill is a serious attack on the rights of the accused, which would abolish jury trials for all but the most serious crimes and force suspects to testify against themselves, all in the name of "efficiency", of course. It is deeply contrary to the principles of justice we expect in this country. If we want to protect those principles, we need to speak up for them, and in large numbers. So, please submit on this one.

If you don't know how to make a submission, the Clerk has a handy guide here.

Further down the spiral

This morning National unveiled the government's books, revealing tax revenues $1.1 billion lower than expected and a resulting rise in the deficit. Bill English's response? More cuts:

"This reinforces the need for sound financial management and ongoing discipline in Government spending if we are to get back to surplus by 2016. That is why the Government is committed to spending restraint for the foreseeable future.

"In the New Year the Government will consider further decisions around how to increase efficiency in the public sector and how it manages some of its large and growing expenses.

"This will be assisted by report of the Welfare Working Group, the Government's review of spending on policy and the ongoing response to the report of the Housing Shareholders Advisory Group," Mr English says.

So, faced with a death spiral, English's response is to drive us deeper into it. But then, with a $250,000 salary and a taxpayer-rorted house, he's completely insulated from its effects. Other people - people like you and me - will suffer for his discredited ideology. And he'll sit pretty and tell us to eat cake...

A couple of centuries ago, he would have been driven from that taxpayer-rorted house by a torch-wielding mob. Next year, we'll get a chance to do the modern equivalent at the ballot box. We'd better take that opportunity. Otherwise, he'll drive us even further down the spiral - just as his mentor Ruth Richardson did in the 90's.

Routing around censorship

Since Wikileaks started dumping America's diplomatic dirt, it has been subjected to an increasing number of attacks, both legal and illegal. Its servers have been taken down by DDOS attacks by "patriotic" hackers, and then its domain has been taken offline after being dropped by its (American) DNS provider. Those behind these attacks are obviously hoping that it would result in the suppression of Wikileaks and the information it is hosting. They couldn't be more wrong. Instead, it has had the usual effect, spawning a horde of mirrors. So now instead of the leaked material being in one place, its everywhere, and circulating peer-to-peer as well.

Its a classic example of the Streisand Effect. The net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it; attempts to suppress information instead help it to spread further. Even if the US does something catastrophic, and starts drone-bombing servers, the leaked data is already circulating as a torrent and has been downloaded thousands of times; all Wikileaks has to do is tweet a 256-bit key (about 32 characters of text), and it all goes public, without their redactions to limit the names of US sources who might be in danger.

This information - or anything else people choose to leak - cannot be suppressed. Those in power will just have to learn to live with a more transparent world. And if they can't, we're better off without them.

Against 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. Quite apart from the practical effects, which have seen the US government sued over its efforts to prevent the spread of BSE, the Canadian government sued for regulating dangerous fuel additives, and the Mexican government sued for demanding companies clean up their toxic waste, such clauses are also objectionable on principle. They basically say that democratic societies are not allowed to regulate where it might cause someone to lose money - even where such regulation is clearly in the public good. Such clauses freeze regulation and forbid us from acting on new challenges (or responding to old ones once the public will is there). The only people who win from them are sociopathic corporations who want to pollute, lie, and sell us unsafe products.

Last month, the Greens asked the government about whether they would permit such a clause in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The government refused to rule it out, on the basis that it regarded the prospects of a challenge as "far-fetched" (despite all evidence to the contrary [PDF]).

Yesterday, they dropped the other shoe: evidence that tobacco giant Philip Morris intended to use any such clause to overturn any attempt at regulating tobacco, and specifically identifies moves to require plain packaging (law in Australia, recommended here) as "expropriation". And in case the government thinks that is "far-fetched", they're already doing it in Uruguay.

This shows that a TPP investment clause would be a clear and present danger not just to our sovereignty, but also to our health. We cannot allow it. The government must rule it out immediately. If not, we can only conclude they are on the side of the tobacco companies.

Time to end police chases

Two more people died over the weekend as a result of police chases. On Saturday night, a man died and two people were injured after being chased in a suburban area in Mangere. On Sunday, one person died and three were injured after a chase in Mangere. This brings the police's bodycount to 17 so far this year, its highest level ever. How many more do they have to kill before we cry "enough"?

The second chase was sparked by the car being identified as stolen. The cause of the first has not been identified, but it is unlikely to be anything serious. Police figures released last week showed that only one of nine recent fatal chases was initiated by criminal offending - in that case, shining a laser at traffic from an overbridge:

Police listed the other reasons for pursuit as manner of driving (in four cases), suspected drink driver (two), speed (one) and unspecified (one).

In English, this means the police are mounting highly risky pursuits over bullshit, in the process vastly magnifying the risks to the public. And of course they're killing people. I have no sympathy for speeders, or for drunk or dangerous drivers who put us all at risk. But this is a vastly disproportionate response. And I'm not alone; the Independent Police Conduct Authority has repeatedly demanded the police change their pursuit policy to ensure dangerous pursuits are only carried out when there is an immediate risk to public safety which outweighs the risk of pursuit, rather than simply a generalised suspicion and a sense of wounded "authority" on the part of police officers. They have been ignored. So much for the "watchdog".

But then, when the Minister backs police to the hilt and calls their victims "criminals", its no wonder. She's given them a blank cheque, and doesn't care how many people they kill. We can lay those 17 corpses squarely at her door.

Perhaps its time we did.

New Fisk

Survival of the neutral - Ireland's Second World War