Superannuation cuts for us but not for them

The government is cutting KiwiSaver, slashing the government contribution to people's superannuation savings. Meanwhile, MPs enjoy a gold-plated scheme, which sees the taxpayer contribute $2.50 for every dollar MPs put in, up to a maximum of $26,000 a year (so, about 26 times what we get). Tonight, 3 News cornered Finance Minister Bill English and asked the obvious question: will the government be doing to itself what it is doing to the rest of us? And they received the obvious answer: yeah, right. Apparently, its not something they've thought about. Superannuation cuts are only for little people.

And politicians wonder why we regard them all as self-serving arseholes...

Update: Added link. And to add insult to injury, English thinks that the scheme "is pretty similar to what everyone has available to them". Which is the sort of worldview you get when you've been in Parliament for over 20 years.

The database state expands

The Guardian reports that UK police have begun using online tracking software, designed to map information pillaged from mobile phones, satnav systems, financial transactions and social networking sites to track criminal suspects' movements and communications in real time. The police's intended use? "Public order disturbances". Which is police-speak for "protests".

Think about that for a moment. In a democratic society, you are supposed to be free to speak your mind. But if you do so in the UK, you'll end up in a database, your every movement tracked for "suspicious" connections. The UK already conducts unlawful surveillance of protestors, but this will take it to another level entirely. The intimidation factor and chilling effect is likely to be huge.

But then, that's the point, isn't it? To ensure an "orderly" society, where nobody speaks out, and everybody does what they are told. Such a society is very good for the people at the top. As for the people at the bottom, well, they get to go to jail if they object. Just like they did in the Soviet Union.

Time for a countermarch

Its election year, so the local skinheads are trying to whip up hate again, this time with a anti-asian flyer campaign in Auckland and planned march down Queen Street. People are calling for them to be prosecuted, but apart from the high legal barriers, this is the wrong solution. The answer to objectionable speech is more speech, not less. If the "Right-Wing Resistance" wants to hold a hate march, we should hold a countermarch, to remind everyone that their racism is not shared by the rest of the community, and that it will not be uncontested.

Indiscriminate killing in Syria

In Syria, protestors have been taking to the streets to demand democracy and freedom. The government has responded with arrests, beatings, torture, and shootings. Their latest tactic? Line up tanks and just shell cities where protestors live.

This is totally indiscriminate and disproportionate. It is also criminal. At the moment the International Criminal Court is seeking to prosecute Libyan officials for crimes against humanity over their indiscriminate slaughter of civilians. We can demand no less for the Syrian regime.

Bait and switch

With the government's planned changes to KiwiSaver, the entire scheme seems to have turned into a gigantic bait and switch scam. First, offer people incredibly generous terms to get them to sign up. Then, unilaterally change those terms, leaving them locked into a scheme which isn't the deal they were told it was. If a private company operated like this, they'd be being prosecuted. Unfortunately, the Fair Trading Act apparently doesn't apply to the government.

Understandably, people are pissed off about this and want to quit the scheme. Unfortunately, they can't - once you're in, you're in, and forced to contribute until you're 65. And with employers now allowed to treat KiwiSaver contributions as part of your pay, then the government's proposed higher contributions effectively mean a legislated in-the-hand pay cut as well.

Meanwhile, Labour is incoherent as usual. They oppose the changes, but Phil Goff says they won't reverse them. So what does their "opposition" mean? Nothing. And on an issue where the government is potentially creating 1.7 million enemies, and turning the election into an explicit referendum on their policy, that's even more stupid than usual.

This stinks

We like to think that we are not a very corrupt country. We don't do bribes, and we don't do kickbacks. Governing parties receiving donations from companies in exchange for steering government business their way is something which happens in other countries.

We're wrong:

The National Party received a donation from a BMW franchise just days after a deal was made for the government to buy a new fleet of cars.

[...]

In Question Time today, Labour raised serious concerns over a $50,000 donation to National by Auckland BMW franchise Team Macmillan.

Labour member for Rimutaka Chris Hipkins said the donation came two days after the Prime Minister John Key's chief of staff Wayne Eagleson met with VIP transport to discuss the upgrade.

Key said he had "no responsibility for that" and that Eagleson did not remember the meeting.

Later on in General Debate [video; 2 mins in], Trevor Mallard claimed that John Key went to a fundraiser at BMW just before the deal was made. Two days later, National received its donation.

This stinks. It absolutely reeks. And if it had happened overseas, we would all call it corrupt. Governments have to not only be clean, but be seen to be clean. National and John Key have failed that test.

The Herald backs MMP

Over the weekend, the UK went to the polls in a referendum over its voting system, and voted overwhelmingly to retain an unfair system which lets politicians abuse and dominate them. The result has made people here think hard about our upcoming referendum on MMP, with the result that the Herald, which has previously pushed for the quick referendum process favoured by Peter Shirtcliffe and the anti-MMP clique, has come out in support of MMP:

Experience with MMP suggests voters for third parties are not interested in proportionate power, they want their vote represented in Parliament, not necessarily in the Government. Increasingly, the small parties have kept their distance from the governing party they support, preferring confidence and supply commitments to a formal coalition.

All five elections under MMP have produced government by the party that was first past the post. Proportional representation has changed less than its advocates hoped or its opponents feared. Minority governments still rule, tails have not wagged dogs, stability remains. The previous Government lasted nine years; polls suggest most voters want the present Government to have a second term.

[...]

MMP is working well and could be better with some refinements. If it fails this year, it will be given a second chance against the preferred alternative. It deserves to survive - but voters are not theorists on electoral fairness, they want the system that produces the Government they want.

I'd take issue with the first paragraphs: small-party voters are interested in proportionate power, and proportional representation gives it to them. What has changed is how that power is exercised (from formal coalition to a looser arrangement). And while that's been an unexpected feature, the end result is still what MMP's advocates wanted: a properly representative parliament, weaker government, and policies backed by real majority support rather than a clique within a subgroup within a plurality. But I don't disagree with the conclusion. MMP is clearly working. It is delivering representative, fair and stable government. Under MMP, we get the government we vote for. That can't be said of the less democratic alternatives.

Collapsing revenue

John Key has confirmed that he is going to cut Working for Families and KiwiSaver, thus breaking his 2008 election promises. His excuse? We can't afford them anymore, due to the collapse in government revenue since 2008.

So, what has caused this collapse in revenue? The recession carries some blame, certainly, leading to lower revenue from GST and company taxes. But the prime culprit here is the government's 2010 "tax switch", which radically cut the top tax rate. While the rise in GST - something else Key promised not to do - was supposed to compensate for this, the recession meant that it didn't. The result has been a billion dollar a year hole in the government books, all of which has been effectively redistributed to the richest New Zealanders.

It speaks volumes that rather than plugging this hole and reverse the top-rate tax cuts, National is instead taking more money from the poor by cutting KiwiSaver and Working for Families. In their eyes, we are not all in this together. The recession is just another opportunity for them to pillage the state for the benefit of their rich mates.

Meanwhile, its a bit rich for Key to complain that the government is "no longer running the big surpluses that the previous Labour Government thought were there". Those surpluses weren't just a figment of Michael Cullen's imagination, they were real. National undermined them with its constant calls for tax cuts, then delivered the death blow by handing over money to the rich the moment it gained office. And as a result, we're now running record deficits. National has no-one to blame for that than themselves. They inherited a government on a very sound financial footing, and promptly pissed it away in bribes to their mates. And now they're pleading poverty in an effort to get the rest of us to pay for it.

New Kiwi blog

The Lady Garden - tea and strumpets

Hiding behind "security"

Last week, we learned that John Key had accepted a free helicopter ride from a pair of dodgy businessmen, then paid for it when he realised it would look bad. We were subsequently treated to Bill English claiming in Parliament that it was "not in the public interest" to say whether Key could have made his "urgent security-related meeting" if he'd taken a car rather than a chopper. Today, we had the obvious followup:

Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Prime Minister: Why is it not in the public interest to tell New Zealanders whether, if he had travelled by car from Hamilton to Auckland as previously arranged, he would have arrived in time for his “security related meetings” on 11 December 2009?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): It is my judgment that it is not in the public interest for me as Prime Minister to talk publicly about any of the details related to security-related meetings held on that date, and, from the best of my knowledge, that was the custom of the previous Prime Minister, as well.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that I am not seeking the subject of the meetings, the number of meetings, the venues of the meetings, the attendees at the meetings, or the duration of the meetings, but, rather, I am seeking to know only whether, if the kind helicopter pilot had not offered a lift direct to Auckland, the Prime Minister would have got there on time?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I said earlier, it is my judgment that it is not in the public interest for me as Prime Minister to talk about security-related matters.

The problem for Key, as Hodgson so neatly pointed out, is that whether he needed to use a chopper is not a security-related matter. And that is obvious to everyone. So why does Key persist in hiding behind "security"? Is he that afraid of admitting that he made a mistake and took an unnecessary chopper trip at the taxpayer's expense? And would admitting it really make him look any worse than he looks now?

The Tomlinson cover-up

In 2009, a UK police officer beat newspaper-seller Ian Tomlinson from behind during a protest and killed him. At the time, the police swore black and blue that he had not been beaten, and that he had died of a heart attack. It wasn't until video footage of the beating emerged that they were forced to admit that they might have had something to do with it. And now, with the UK's Independent Police Complaints Commission releasing further reports on the case, the dirty truth is emerging.

Firstly, the police knew all along about the beating. Three police officers had seen it, done the right thing, and reported it to their superiors. Their evidence was hidden from the initial IPCC inquiry by a police hierarchy concerned primarily with its public image rather than justice.

Secondly, the IPCC has found that a senior police officer misled two pathologists over the circumstances surrounding Tomlinson's death, telling them that he had previously fallen over before the beating (and thereby implying that he was ill and that there was another cause of death). The IPCC can't prove it was deliberate, but its dodgy, and contributes even further to the cloud of suspicion around the killing.

That suspicion needs to be dispelled. The public need a police force they can trust. Those responsible for the cover-up need to be disciplined and sacked. And the officer responsible for the killing must be prosecuted.

Delayed

The trial of the Urewera 18 is likely to be delayed until next year, after the Supreme Court advised that it would not be able to resolve questions over the admissibility of evidence before the trial date was due to start. Which means the accused are going to be looking at a four year wait for a trial. Quite apart from justice delayed being justice denied, and the memories of witnesses fading over that time, the accused are also subject to bail conditions which have limited their freedom of association, movement and expression beyond what is strictly necessary to ensure attendance at trial. And they're now looking at a continuation of this extrajudicial punishment, thanks to the government's insistence on trying them all at once.

The good news is that there will be plenty of time for the Supreme Court to rule on the jury issue.

Unsafe mines

Thanks to Pike River, we all know that coal mining is dangerous. We also know that those dangers can be mitigated, reducing the risk of an accident. Unless, apparently, your coal mine is in New Zealand. According to an audit by the Department of Labour, 50% of our coal mines are unsafe, with one not even bothering to install gas monitoring equipment to prevent explosions. And I don't think its an accident that the safe mines are run by an SOE, while the unsafe ones are all privately owned.

As the EPMU points out, this exposes the complete failure of our mine inspection system. These are serious, blatant problems, which should have been picked up on any inspection. But apparently, it took an explosion and people dying for the Department of Labour to even bother to check. Shouldn't they be breathing down people's necks, to ensure that employers in a dangerous industry are not exposing their workers to unnecessary and easily preventable risks?

The question now is whether DoL will do any followup to ensure these changes are made and that these mines are safe, or go back to their pre-Pike River situation of ignoring mine safety entirely. Sadly, I'm kindof expecting the latter.

Gutting KiwiSaver

Back in 2008, John Key ran for election on a platform of maintaining Labour's popular KiwiSaver and Working for Families policies. On KiwiSaver, their policy [PDF] was crystal clear: while they would alter the minimum contribution rate and allow employers to discriminate against KiwiSaver members, they would retain the scheme intact from a saver's point of view. The policy specifically enumerated the parts of the scheme which would remain untouched, including the $1,000 kickstart and the member tax credit, by which the government matched member payments into the scheme.

Over the weekend, they began softening us up for massive cuts to the scheme in next week's Budget, specifically targeting the kickstart payment and member tax credit. Supposedly, this is necessary to balance the budget. Meanwhile, National's tax cuts for the rich - which benefit only a tiny proportion of the population and have not worked as an economic stimulus - remain intact. So, as usual, National is looking after its rich mates, and screwing over everybody else in the process.

There are two issues here. The first is that this is terrible policy. As people keep reminding us, New Zealand has a savings problem. If we want to solve this problem, then we are going to need some pretty strong government incentives (because, contra brash et al, the market faeries will not magically solve it for us). But these cuts will effectively remove all incentive to participate in the scheme. If the government doesn't kick in, then its no better than a bank account (and in fact much worse, as you can't access your money until you are 65). And if your employer regards their contribution as part of your pay, then you might as well take that money in the hand.

But more importantly, there is a clear issue of political deceit here. National made a commitment to the electorate in 2008, and were elected on the basis of that commitment. Now it seems that they have lied to us. This is not behaviour we should tolerate from politicians, and National need to be punished for it. But it also has consequences for this year's election. National has promised us something and lied to us. How can we trust the promises they make this year?

National's incoherent fresh water policy

The government is hyping its new fresh water policy today. From the PR, you'd think they'd committed to cleaning up our lakes, rivers and streams, and ending dirty dairying forever. The reality is rather different. The key instrument - a new National Policy Statement on fresh water [PDF] merely requires regional councils to change their policies to set maximum limits on water takes, establish cleanup targets for polluted waterways, and end overallocation. That's a good start, the minimum necessary really, but there's no urgency in this process. The deadline for implementing the NPS - that is, for establishing the policies, rather than cleaning up the actual waterways - is 2030. So, in 20 years, every council will have set targets. Woop-de-fucking-dooh.

Meanwhile, to "balance" this underwhelming "commitment" to clean water, the government is pumping $35 million into subsidising irrigation. Which means effectively pumping $35 million into producing cowshit, which will go straight into the same waterways they supposedly want to clean up. Its not just incoherent - its directly undermining the policy they've just established.

But the important thing is that they can claim they are Doing Something about fresh water. Not right now, and not effectively, but they get the headline now, and no-one will pay attention to the nasty details. Again, its the triumph of PR over policy. But that's National is all about.

Climate change: Avoiding analysis

Earlier this year, the government formally adopted its climate change target of a 50% reduction (from 1990 levels) by 2050. You would expect that when the government was setting this sort of target, with important and long-term effects, they would consider somewhere in the process whether it was achievable. This being National, you are probably no longer surprised that they didn't.

The target was set by Cabinet last December in a paper titled New Zealand Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction target "50 by 2050": Release of Minister's position paper [PDF]. Cabinet permission was required because the exercise involved public consultation and because Cabinet had agreed in a one-line aside in 2009 [para 31] to set the target by regulation rather than a gazette notice. The paper notes that the target has been

developed taking into account other Annex 1 country targets, New Zealand's agriculture intensive economy, and international agreement that global temperature increase needs to be limited to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (to avoid dangerous climate change).

It talks about the need for a target to "make a definitive and credible statement" about our commitment to climate change, and send a message to investors. It notes in passing that there is "no mechanism for enforcement" and that the consequences of failing to meet the target are "predominantly reputational". But nowhere in the paper, or in any of the other documents I have received or viewed on this issue, is any analysis of whether it can be met. In fact, reading between the lines, the decision to impose a target by Gazette notice rather than regulation was driven by a desire to avoid such analysis. The paper notes that using a Gazette notice means that no Regulatory Impact Statement is needed. Meanwhile, an earlier briefing note from MfE ("Options for setting a 2050 emissions reduction target", 10-B-04111, 28 October 2010), notes that

[a] regulatory impact statement would rely on existing data on domestic abatement potential. This data is currently insufficient to provide meaningful analysis on how the target might be achieved, the costs and benefits of the proposed target compared to alternatives, and the regulatory, economic and environmental impacts of the proposal. Setting a target by regulation is likely to draw public attention to the fact this data does not yet exist...

(Emphasis added)

Using a Gazette notice allowed this unpleasant fact - as well as the unpleasant fact that the government has already legislated for failure through high pollution subsidies - to be glossed over. Its another triumph of PR over policy. Which is par for the course for National.

Europe leaves refugees to die

At the moment, NATO, backed by a UN mandate, is bombing Libya, ostensibly to save civilian lives. Meanwhile, it left a boatload of refugees fleeing the bombing to die of hunger and thirst at sea:

Dozens of African migrants were left to die in the Mediterranean after a number of European and Nato military units apparently ignored their cries for help, the Guardian has learned.

A boat carrying 72 passengers, including several women, young children and political refugees, ran into trouble in late March after leaving Tripoli for the Italian island of Lampedusa. Despite alarms being raised with the Italian coastguard and the boat making contact with a military helicopter and a Nato warship, no rescue effort was attempted.

All but 11 of those on board died from thirst and hunger after their vessel was left to drift in open waters for 16 days.

As the article points out, the law of the sea requires all vessels to respond to distress calls. But the military forces of Italy and France refused, because that would mean the refugees would be entitled to asylum in the rescuing country. So instead, they left them to be someone else's problem - which in practice meant leaving them to die. At the least, it is a violation of international maritime law, and the officers who gave the order to ignore need to be prosecuted and stripped of their positions. But beyond that, it exposes an ugly policy on the part of European nations to ignore cries for help when they come from people with the wrong coloured skin. And that is simply racism.

Punishing success

Since 1992, the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority has been promoting energy efficiency in New Zealand. For the past several years, it has done a fantastic job promoting home insulation, primarily through the massively successful "Warm Up NZ" home insulation grants scheme. So naturally, the government is planning to disestablish it and fold its functions into the Ministry for Economic Development.

This makes no sense at all. But it speaks volumes about National's commitment to energy efficiency: none at all.

Something to go to in Wellington

Back in March I highlighted the work of the New Zealand Centre for Public Law's Urgency Project. They've been conducting a systematic study of how Parliament has used urgency over the last 24 years, with an eye to suggesting reforms to the system. And they're giving their final report tonight:

When: 17:30, Monday 9 May
Where: Lecture Theatre 2, Old Government Buildings, 55 Lambton Quay, Wellington
Contact: nzcpl@vuw.ac.nz (RSVP if you care about them getting their catering numbers right).

Sadly, I'm stuck in Palmerston North. Bugger.

UK elections

The UK went to the polls on Friday for a national referendum on the voting system. Sadly, the marginal improvement of preferential voting could not compete against the desire to kick Nick Clegg in the bollocks for crawling into bed with the Tories, and so FPP will be retained. They say people get the government they voted for, and in the UK's case its going to continue to be unrepresentative and unaccountable. Hopefully it will be a lesson to them.

Meanwhile, those parts of the UK with fairer voting systems had regional elections. In Scotland, which uses MMP, the Scottish National Party won an absolute majority - something no-one expected to happen. They're taking this as a mandate for greater autonomy, and there is likely to be a referendum on Scottish independence within the next four years.

Meanwhile, in Wales, Labour came within a hair's breadth of an absolute majority, winning 30 of the 60 seats on only 37% of the vote. Wales uses MMP, but a broken version which proportionalises regionally rather than nationally. With only 4 list seats in each 12-seat region, the result is massive, structural overhangs which benefit Labour and shortchange everyone else. The overall result is highly disproportionate; the Gallagher Index for the Welsh election was 10.4 - practically an FPP result. By contrast, Scotland, which proportionalises across larger regions with a better balance between list and electorate seats, had 7.5; New Zealand's last election, out most disproportionate under MMP, was 3.8.