10/10: A link

The world day against the death penalty doesn't get a lot of attention in the NZ blogosphere, so I thought I'd link to the only other kiwi posting on it: John Edwards at JCELaw. He blogs about his time working for the Death Penalty Division of Amnesty International in New York, making last-minute appeals for prisoners who were about to be executed. Its an interesting post, and well worth reading.

National's New Zealand

A stagnant economy. 154,000 unemployed. Record high inflation. And now we also have lockouts to force 15 - 20% wage cuts. I guess someone took John Key's comment that "we would love to see wages drop" seriously.

This is National's New Zealand: a place where the rich make out like bandits by screwing over everyone else. If you want to change that, you know what to do on November 26.

Where is the government?

Blog-life balance means I take weekends off, but over the weekend I couldn't help but notice the growing disquiet over the government's lack of response to the Rena grounding. The government seems to have been in no particular hurry to respond, despite warnings the ship could leak further or even break up, delaying sending a tanker to offload the ship's oil until yesterday. And now, oil is washing up on Mt Maunganui's beaches, and it is being left to local residents to clean it up:

Tauranga resident Dave Lynn said he was walking his dog north up the beach when he found the oil near Tay Street.

The beach north from there was coated, he said.

He had also found three dead birds on the beach.

"You can see the oil everywhere, the moment you touch it, it's sticky and yuck - it looks like big black rocks," he said.

Lynn had been picking up clumps with plastic bags, then throwing it in the rubbish.

He was frustrated that no official response was evident.

"I'm not happy. Something should have happened already," he said.

And he's right. Disasters like this are why we have an army. But they're still sitting around, twiddling their thumbs, waiting for the Minister to make a decision. Its appalling management of a disaster which could have a significant effect on one of New Zealand's favourite holiday spots - and our environmental reputation. And it speaks volumes about the priority National attaches to the environment.

New Fisk

Jerusalem can do strange things to your sanity

10/10: The death penalty in the Pacific

The South Pacific is virtually a death penalty-free zone. The last execution in the region took place in Tonga in 1982, and almost all countries have abolished the death penalty. But four of them - Tonga, Fiji, Nauru and Papua New Guinea - still have it on their books, and one of them, Papua New Guinea, is still actively handing down death sentences (though not yet carrying them out).

This is something that needs to change. And New Zealand, with our close links to the Pacific, is in an ideal position to help change it.

If you're in Auckland, then Amnesty International are out and about in Vulcan Lane this afternoon, collecting signatures for a letter to the heads of those four governments asking them to abolish capital punishment. Alternatively, you could email the Foreign Minister, Murray McCully, and ask him to work towards this goal. While none of these countries seem keen on restarting executions any time soon, it would be better if their outdated and immoral laws were repealed.

Update: You can also urge pacific leaders to repeal their death penalty here.

10/10: World Day Against the Death Penalty

Today, October 10, is the world day against the death penalty. Last year, 67 countries sentenced people to death, and 23 - including the United States - actually executed people [PDF]. Today is the day we work to change that.

This year's focus is on the inhumanity of the death penalty. This isn't just the inhumanity of execution itself, the pain inflicted as people are hanged, electrocuted, or slowly poisoned. Its also the inhumanity of people sent to death row, spending years there, often in appalling conditions, knowing they are going to die. This frequently results in mental illness, and inflicts severe mental pain and suffering - meeting the definition of torture in international law.

Next year the United Nations will vote for a 4th time on a global moratorium on executions. There is a petition calling on all countries to support the moratorium. You can sign it here.

An actual death panel

The committee meets in secret, and keeps no records. It operates by no fixed rules, only a mandate: decide which citizens outside the country are enemies of the state. When they make such a decision, the President is informed, and if he agrees, the victim is targeted for assassination.

No, its not the Soviet Union, or some totalitarian dystopia. It's the United States of America under Barack Obama:

American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.

This is, of course, completely unconstitutional - the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits individuals from being "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Which is presumably why they don't keep records - they would be evidence of conspiracy to murder.

Sadly, this being the modern US, the chances of anyone being held to account for this are around zero. In the US, laws apply to poor black people, not to presidents and their cronies. We saw that with Bush and his torturers, and we will see it with Obama and his assassination squad.

Britain protects another war criminal

Tzipi Livni is a war criminal. In 2008, while Israeli Defence Minister, she oversaw Operation Cast Lead, an indiscriminate attack on a civilian population. So, when she planned a private visit to the UK, activists were ready. Like all civilised countries, the UK has universal jurisdiction for war crimes, and activists applied for an arrest warrant to allow Livni to be detained so she could stand trial. The UK government's response? Grant Livni diplomatic immunity so she couldn't be prosecuted. To add insult to injury, while they're doing it they claim that

"The UK will continue to honour our international obligations and make sure that people who have committed some of the most awful crimes – wherever in the world they took place – can be brought to justice in our courts."

Yeah, right. It is clear from their repeated actions that the UK has no intention of ever enforcing this law or bringing visiting war criminals to justice. Every time it looks likely, they conspire to thwart it. And then they wonder why no-one believes them when they say they support international law...

Ending corruption at Treasury

Back in July, we learned that Treasury staff had been behaving like bankers, accepting lavish gifts and hospitality from people they were meant to be regulating and/or representing us against. Today, Treasury released an independent review of their gift policy [PDF] - and it ought to give us all concern. The report found that there had been shortfalls in Treasury's policy and that

there were several instances where hospitality was accepted with a level of frequency and nature that could be perceived as frequent, excessive or misconstrued. The nature of some of the hospitality (such as entertainment-related events) and frequency leave the Treasury open to public and / or media perception that there have been shortfalls in the Treasury's compliance with its policy and guidance.

For example, one Debt Management Office staff member had accepted 107 gifts since 2007, 36 of them in 2010-2011, and 30 of them from ANZ. Another had 79 total gifts, 31 for this year alone, and 22 from Westpac. The next four biggest recipients had also received significant hospitality from ANZ. This pretty obviously contravenes SSC guidance on gifts, and leads us to question Treasury's integrity (not to mention that of ANZ).

The good news is that Treasury have fully accepted the recommendations of the review and that Treasury staff will no longer be allowed to accept gifts or hospitality unless refusal would cause offence. Which will hopefully put an end to their culture of corruption.

A reminder

Some Parliamentary history, courtesy of Wikipedia:

Before 1771, the British Parliament had long been a highly secretive body. The official record of the actions of the House was publicly available, but there was no such record of debates. The publication of remarks made in the House became a breach of Parliamentary privilege, punishable by the two Houses. As more people became interested in parliamentary debates, more individuals published unofficial accounts of parliamentary debates. Editors were at worst subjected to fines. Several editors used the device of veiling parliamentary debates as debates of fictitious societies or bodies. The names under which parliamentary debates were published include Proceedings of the Lower Room of the Robin Hood Society and Debates of the Senate of Magna Lilliputia.

In 1771 Brass Crosby, who was Lord Mayor of the City of London, had brought before him a printer called Miller who dared publish reports of Parliamentary proceedings. He released the man, but was subsequently ordered to appear before the House to explain his actions. Crosby was committed to the Tower of London, but when he was brought to trial, several judges refused to hear the case and after protests from the public, Crosby was released.

While this happened in Britain, it is part of our Parliamentary tradition, and it shows what we're up against: a mindset that Parliament belongs to its members, not the people, that they can and should control what is said about them. And its not just photos of the gallery which they prohibit. Standing orders prohibit any use of film or other images for "satire, ridicule, or denigration", as well as

reflecting on the character or conduct of the House or of a member in the member’s capacity as a member of the House

Which is what every single one of us does as citizens and voters. And if some MP doesn't like what we think of them, or how they look when caught asleep in the Chamber, or giving obscene gestures to other MPs, then they can haul us before a kangaroo court of their mates, with no rules of evidence or independent review, and subject us to arbitrary punishment without limit.

And they do use this power. The Herald today. Matt Robson, when he pointed out that Peter Dunne's love of beer money compromised his role as an MP. TV3, when they filmed Ron Mark giving the finger to someone. There is a litany of abuse here. And it is simply objectionable in a free and democratic society. Over the centuries, we've emasculated the monarchy and reined in the executive. Now we need to do the same to Parliament.

Our monarchical Speaker strikes again

On Wednesday, a man sitting in the gallery of Parliament attempted to throw himself over the railing and on to the floor of the chamber. The Herald's Audrey Young, sitting in the Press Gallery nearby, knowing news when she saw it, snapped a photo on her phone of the ensuing struggle as security guards and members of the public attempted to stop the man from going over the edge. The Herald, also knowing news when they saw it, published it. And as a result, Lockwood Smith has now banned them from reporting from Parliament for two weeks.

Publication of the photo was clearly in breach of Parliament's Standing Orders, which prohibit filming or photographing interruptions from the gallery. At the same time, it is obvious that the Speaker has not considered the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in his decision. As the voice of the legislature and an official performing a public function, he is bound by the BORA, and must therefore ensure that his decisions respect the public's freedom of speech and that his punishments are not disproportionate to the offence. Any departure from these principles must be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".

This decision is not demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society which respects the freedom of speech and allows the public to see what is happening in their legislature. But sadly, no court can overrule the Speaker here. The British Bill of Rights Act 1688, which asserts the supremacy of Parliament, prevents it. Which makes the Speaker effectively a king, possessed of unreviewable and uncontrollable power. We need to change this.

Secondly, this shows that our Parliament is still in some ways stuck in the mindset of the eighteenth century, regulating itself like an exclusive gentlemen's club with public scrutiny permitted by grace and favour, not as of right. This too has to change. It is not the Speaker's House - it is our House, and we have an absolute right to know and see what happens there.

Passed

The Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill has just passed its third reading. The final stages of the debate were pushed through under urgency, and took all of two hours. There were strong speeches by Keith Locke, Rahui Katene and Hone Harawira in defence of civil liberties - and a lot of excuses from Labour about why they were voting for it. While the debate was going on, I took the opportunity to read through all the submissions on the bill. There were 438 submissions - and only 6 in favour. So, we have a government of the 1.5%, stomping on the human rights of the rest of us.

Ironically, at the end of his third reading speech, Labour's Charles Chauvel called for an entrenched Bill of Rights Act to prevent further discredits to Parliament like this one. Then he voted for it. No, it doesn't make much sense to me either.

As Keith Locke pointed out, the prospective powers in the bill apply far beyond the police, to customs, fisheries, CYFS, internal affairs, and the SIS. For the next six months, any of these bodies will be able to get a warrant to search your house, then stick a camera in your bedroom. Unlike a wiretap or audio bug, there will be no limits on what they can do with the information, or requirement that irrelevant records be destroyed. If they feel like it, they can stick the footage on YouTube. That's the law our parliament just passed: one which lets any government body videotape you in your home without oversight, and post the footage on the internet. Today, they really have earned their reputation.

Earning that reputation IX?

Last year, the Speaker ended MP's international travel rort, which had seen us paying up to 90% of the cost of senior MP's international holidays. Now it looks like we're about to get the sting in the tail: a massive increase in MP's salaries as "compensation":

MPs are set to get a potentially large pay rise weeks before the general election.

The increase will compensate MPs for losing the international travel subsidy, which the Remuneration Authority had estimated was worth about $10,000 a year.

Last year, the Remuneration Authority gave MPs and ministers a 1.4% pay rise as well as an extra $2000 a year to take account of falling use of the travel subsidy but did not fully compensate MPs for losing the travel entitlement.

This is simply obscene. Quite apart from the fact that the rort was never justified, making "compensation" for its loss unjustifiable, this also "compensates" MPs by three times the cost of the rort. And MP's wonder why the public think they are scum...

The media should be getting MPs on record about this now. Will they accept this unjustifiable, inflated "compensation"? If so, what's their justification for rorting us more, especially in the middle of a recession when ordinary people are lucky to get a meagre 1.9% pay rise? And if they don't answer, and maintain their cosy conspiracy of silence on their perks, they will deserve every bit of their reputation.

The constitutional status of the OIA

The Ombudsmen Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2011 [PDF] was released yesterday, and I've spent this morning reading it. OIA complaints reached an all-time high last year, though were down in many departments (the big exceptions being Corrections, Labour and MSD). John Key was the only Minister to attract more than 15 complaints. But the interesting part of any Ombudsman's annual report is the section on significant decisions. And this one has a very interesting one, about the constitutional status of the OIA. Someone had requested information about the citizenship status of an individual, and been refused on the basis that it would be contrary to an enactment - specifically the Citizenship Regulations 2002. The Ombudsman found that it would indeed be contrary to those regulations, but that it did not matter because the derogation was not explicit enough:

The Ombudsman accepted that release to the requester would be contrary to regulation 15. However, he did not accept that a regulation made after 1 July 1983 could have the effect of overriding the OIA unless the empowering provision under which that regulation was made expressly or impliedly provides for the presumption of availability of official information under the OIA to be abrogated. To accept otherwise does not do justice to the constitutional status of the OIA. There was nothing in the empowering provisions in the Citizenship Act 1977 that justified the setting aside of one’s obligations under the OIA. Accordingly, the Ombudsman did not accept that section 18(c)(i) of the OIA could apply.

In our view, Parliament must have made clear its intentions to override the OIA by way of primary or pre-existing secondary legislation in order to have that effect.

(Pre-1983 regulations are protected by the OIA's savings clause).

This is, I think, something new. But its also the way our constitution evolves. The courts have gradually taken this sort of view with both the Treaty of Waitangi and the BORA: that any derogation must be explicit and leave no room for doubt, because the constitutional (and in the case of the BORA, statutory) presumption is that Parliament would never derogate from these accidentally and therefore a consistent interpretation must be found. Now the Ombudsman is playing the same game on transparency. The result will be a more open government, and an even greater presumption against statutory secrecy. And that will be better for all of us.

Good news and bad

There's good news and bad in the latest New Zealand Income Survey. The good news? The gender-pay gap has decreased to 9.6%, though this is largely due to higher-paid men losing their jobs than any virtue on the part of employers. The bad news? Wages grew by just 1.9%, the smallest amount in a decade, and far less than the 5% annual inflation in the comparable quarter. So, we're all going backwards. So much for National's "brighter future"...

A dictatorship in Christchurch?

Eighteen months ago, in what can only be described as a coup, the government disestablished the democratically-elected Environment Canterbury and replaced it with a clique of hand-picked dictators. Now, they may be planning to do the same to Christchurch. In Question Time yesterday, earthquake Minister Gerry Brownlee was repeatedly whether he was planning to replace the Christchurch City Council with dictators. He repeatedly refused to deny it:

Brendon Burns: Having told the Press that the Government saw no need to install commissioners into the Christchurch City Council “at this time”, will he now confirm that the Government is in fact discussing such an option for implementation after the 26 November election?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I cannot speak for what the Government after 26 November will be doing.

[...]

Brendon Burns: Will the Minister confirm that among the reasons the Government is ruling out commissioners only “at this time” is that he knows that Christchurch City councillors will fight tooth and nail against the Government’s agenda to force the council, as the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation allows, to sell Christchurch’s $2 billion - plus in public assets to help pay for Christchurch’s earthquake recovery?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have responsibility neither for the next Government nor for the Christchurch City Council.

In a political context, such repeated refusals to deny can only be taken as an admission. If Brownlee wasn't planning a Christchurch dictatorship, he could have said so. The fact that he equivocated and dodged tells us he is hiding something. The people of Christchurch should be very, very afraid for their democracy.

Revealing

There was an incident at Parliament today when a (possibly mentally disturbed) man attempted to throw himself over the railing of the viewing gallery and into the debating chamber. It was dealt with by Parliamentary security, but the aftermath in the chamber was quite unpleasant:

At the start of the man's episode, Goff said he was "stunned" and sat down from giving his speech. He waited for the incident to be dealt with.

"But then the Prime Minister started yelling across the House 'shame on the Labour Party, shame on the Labour Party', as though this was something that was instigated by the Labour Party.

Unmentioned are the cries of "scumbag" directed at Goff from the government benches, which can be heard on this video.

Its quite revealing about John Key, and it tells us that contrary to his carefully managed image, he's really not a very nice person.

Correction: Right, so it was the Labour front bench crying "scumbag" at Key for his comment. I'd read over the Twitter feed that it was from the government. Either way, not a good look for anyone concerned, though its still revleaing that Key's first response to anything is to reach for the Crosby-Textor playbook and blame Labour for it.

Broken promises over MP's perks

Back in 2010, the Law Commission issued its Review of the Civil List Act 1979 – Members of Parliament and Ministers [PDF], in which they recommended removing MP's control of their own perks and instead having them set by an independent body. Their solution wasn't perfect - for example, it allowed senior MPs to keep their unjustifiable travel perk, including the extra 15% lifetime discount they stole from us by stealth in 2010 - but it was a start. And the Prime Minister got with the programme, promising that he would pass the bill by the end of 2011.

Today, the second-to-last sitting day in this Parliamentary term, the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill was finally introduced. It will not pass by the end of 2011. Which means that sometime next year, MPs through the Parliamentary Services Commission will set their own perks again, continuing the rorts we are all sick of.

As for the bill itself, its pretty much what the Law Commission recommended, and from my brief skim I haven't found any significant differences. It does have the bad effect of locking in existing entitlements, in particular the ongoing lifetime travel discounts to senior MPs, which do not serve any Parliamentary purpose and are "justified" on the basis of longstanding myths which even if they were true would apply only to a few members. Parliament should use this bill to end those entitlements forever. And if they don't, they'll be earning that reputation once again.

In case you hadn't already seen it

Last week, Russell Brown did a great post on the politics of absence, about National's strategy of burying serious political news under a tide of trivial pap and feel-good stories about John Key. Today, we have the Dim-Post's response:

(Click for a larger version).

Sums it all up pretty well, doesn't it?

National doesn't care about gay rights

There's an election in just a couple of months, and while the unmentionable sporting event is distracting a lot of people, some are beginning to find out where the parties stand on various issues, so as to decide where to cast their vote. One of these groups is Rainbow Wellington, who asked the major parties where they stood on its priority issues, including adoption reform and same-sex marriage. Only a single party did not support immediate reform of our outdated adoption laws. The outlier? National:

"We are currently running a very full justice agenda focused on making New Zealand safer, putting more police on the streets, and reducing crime. In the context of the current economic environment reform of adoption laws is not a priority for the Government," National says.

The party's response on the issue of full marriage rights is in the same vein, with it stating: "In the context of the current economic environment and our strong focus on providing stability, reducing debt, and returning to surplus by 2014 the government currently has no plans to amend the Marriage Act."

I don't know about you, but I expect governments to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, and pass human rights legislation while managing the economy. Clearly National expects rather less of its Ministers.

The full responses are here. Don Brash's response on same-sex marriage is particularly interesting; charitably, it shows elderly incomprehension. Less charitably, it shows that he really is a bigot underneath his platitudes of freedom. Either way, if you care about this issue, he's not worth voting for, and given that it contains John Banks, neither is his party.