Burying the evidence

Back when it was in power, Labour came up with a seriously good idea: the Social Report. Its a compilation of statistical data on our health, education, standard of living and various other things, published every year. The aim was explicitly to allow changes in these indicators to be tracked annually, just as we do for things like GDP. Which would in turn allow us to see if government policy was having a positive or negative effect on our society.

The Social Report is (now) published in November. But it hasn't turned up yet. Asking around, apparently National have decided not to publish it this year, and to scale it back to being published every three years. Why? Its hard to see it as anything other than burying the evidence. To point out the obvious, running an austerity programme in the middle of a recession while handing out fat tax cuts to your rich mates resulted in a broad deterioration in social indicators in the 90's, and its likely to be doing the same now. And National really, really doesn't want us looking too hard at the consequences of its policies, especially in the middle of an election campaign.

Which is why we need a statutory reporting scheme, rather than a "grace and favour" one which depends on government goodwill. National thinks our environment deserves such a scheme. Surely our society does as well.

New Fisk

Will computers make extinct the last of Islam's proud and honourable calligraphers?

This stinks

While everyone was paying attention to the election, he Herald on Sunday has quietly revealed what seems to be a case of full-blown political corruption in Pita Sharples' electorate office:

A key aide to a Government minister asked for money in an email that also discussed putting "political pressure" on an issue.

Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples' electorate manager Martin Cooper wrote to a local property owner that he wanted money, then spoke of contacting a Government minister.

[...]

Cooper replied saying: "Can you please pay another $1000 towards the car". He then detailed his plans to send emails supporting the owner's case to Hide, former Auckland mayor John Banks and the manager of a department at the former Auckland City Council.

"Political pressure will hopefully place the council into submission where they will be ordered to shut it down," Cooper wrote. "Given it is election year for the Super City, now they surely don't want this to become a council or even a political issue."

The owner said he initially refused, then agreed to pay. Cooper provided him with a bank account number.

There's a long and complicated backstory here about Cooper facilitating the sale of a building to his former gang, Black Power, but there's not enough to conclude that that was corrupt (as opposed to merely moonlighting while employed as a public servant). But the details above, asking for money in exchange for political support (and, as noted elsewhere in the article, arranging for Sharples to write a letter on Maori Party letterhead)? That seems to be a clear case of soliciting a bribe as an official. And it needs to be prosecuted. This sort of thing is simply not supposed to happen in New Zealand.

Astoundingly, Sharples is standing by this behaviour from his staffer. He needs to pay the political price for that. An MP who allows his electorate staff to behave corruptly and extort bribes for doing their jobs is no different from Taito Philip Field.

John Banks: Racist

It looks like Don Brash isn't the only racist in the new ACT Party. ACT's Epsom candidate (and last hope) John Banks was asked about law and order on The Nation this Saturday morning back in June. His response?

If we continue the bankrupt response of just paying young Polynesian, young Maori men in South Auckland, the dole to sit in front of TV, smoke marijuana, watch pornography and plan more drug offending and more burglaries, then we're going to have them coming through our window

Don't believe me? Here's the video:

And John Key has endorsed this man. Someone should really ask him what he thinks of Banks' views, and whether he'll be happy to sit around a Cabinet table with such a racist. The answer should be illuminating.

Correction: Right, so its an old clip, from back in June, which just happened to do the rounds over the weekend. But the point stands: Banks is a racist, and not the sort of person decent people would have a cup of tea with, let alone endorse. Endorsing him is endorsing these views and the racist mindset behind them.

Closer than we think

I avoid blogging about the polls - that way lies hackdom - but today's "shock" Herald poll, showing that (surprise, surprise) things have tightened as the election has grown closer, does have an interesting point. In addition to the straight analysis of seats, showing a single-party National government, the Herald also computed the outcome if NZ First made it across the line, with the necessary votes coming from Labour. And that shows National forced into coalition, even if it wins 49.5% of the vote, thanks to the Maori Party's overhang.

There are caveats around this. It's a hypothetical situation. The Maori Party may not overhang by so much (their hold on Te Tai Tonga is apparently looking quite dodgy). And National is hardly short of single-seat coalition partners should it need them (especially now Key has endorsed Banks in Epsom). At the same time, it shows that things are a bit closer than we think, that a movement of just a few percent can force National into coalition (which means a possible check on their power), and that every vote counts. Which is as it should be in an election.

Brooker delivers

In January last year, the police arrested a group of protestors for protesting against the presence of an Israeli player at a tennis tournament. The reason for the arrests? The protestors were making noise, telling someone something they didn't want to hear, much to the rich and powerful tennis attendees' annoyance. At the time I pointed out that this was outrageous and ignored the Supreme Court's ruling in Brooker v. Police [PDF] that public order law was actually about public order. Now, the courts have agreed. The protestors have had their convictions quashed, with the judge ruling that

disruption to an individual's enjoyment of a sporting event is not the same thing as disruption of public order.

This is good news, and a victory for freedom of speech. At the same time, its also worth remembering that the police's actions robbed the protestors of their freedom of speech when it mattered, and that the acquittal does not remedy that. The police officers who committed this crime will face no consequences for doing so.

This has to change. As long as police enjoy impunity, they will continue to breach our rights, and the guarantees of the Bill of Rights Act mean nothing. If the police will not police their own, and discipline or sack officers who abuse their power and use false arrests to silence those they don't want to hear, then we need to look at revoking state immunity and making police individually liable for their abuses once more.

Compare and contrast

Back in 2007, we learned that Solid Energy had been hiring private investigators to spy on environmental groups. After a brief public scandal and a clear instruction from the government not to do it again, everyone forgot about it and the spying continued. No-one was held to account, and nothing changed.

Compare this with a similar case in France. In 2006, state-owned energy firm EDF was facing a series of protests from Greenpeace over their plans to build more nuclear reactors. So they hired private investigators to spy on them. As a result, the spies have been jailed, and EDF has been fined €1.5 million and ordered to pay another €500,000 in damages. I guess they just take their democracy more seriously over there...

How it works in PNG

Last year, Papua New Guinea's Acting Prime Minister Sam Abal was ousted in a confidence vote. The vote has been challenged as unconstitutional, and last month the case finally got underway. Last week there were rumours that the government was planning to remove the Chief Justice in order to prevent the case from being decided against them. The government not only denied these rumours - it urged that those spreading them be prosecuted for contempt of court. So, guess what's just happened? That's right: the Chief Justice has been suspended:

The Papua New Guinea government has suspended the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a month before he was to deliver a verdict on the legitimacy of Prime Minister Peter O’Neill’s election.

The Herald Sun online reports the government suspended Sir Salamo Injia yesterday, citing a police report that he is facing charges of breaching a contempt order in a previous case, and mismanaging court finances.

In a statement, the deputy prime minister, Belden Namah, said a tribunal of former judges would investigate the allegations against Sir Salamo.

I have no idea about the allegations, but given the background, this smells very bad indeed. It looks an awful lot like a government interfering in the courts in order to prevent a judgement against it. But I guess that's just how things work in our local banana republic.

Justice for Pike River

On 19 November 2010, the Pike River mine exploded, killing 29 miners. Today, three men were charged with 25 health and safety charges over the explosion. Good. The evidence that has emerged through the commission of inquiry into the disaster shows that safety standards at the mine were lax, and this appears to have contributed to the deaths. Those responsible need to be held to account for that. Companies and bosses should not be allowed to effectively murder their workers in the name of higher profits.

An odd twist is that at least one of the accused appears to be subject to a name suppression order. I'm boggled as to how this can be the case. This isn't a crime affecting a minor, where automatic suppression would be justified. It doesn't seem to serve the interests of justice either. Instead, name suppression here serves simply to shield corporate sociopaths from the social consequences of their actions. And that drags the entire system of suppression, and the law itself, into disrepute.

Choices: Education

Labour released their education policy today. The headline grabber is their promise of $75 million over four years to put laptops in the hands of poor kids - a solid, sensible idea, and one which can be funded from National's subsidies to rich private schools. But the core of the policy is in fact the early childhood sector. Here labour are promising to restore ECE funding and qualifications targets, and expand 20 hours free for the most vulnerable children. Its a good idea, it invests in our future, and the payoffs are likely to be significantly higher than the costs.

Compare this with National's policy [PDF]. Its not about education at all, but really about providing a justification for their privatisation programme, with a promise to spend a billion dollars from asset sales on school maintenance (something that normally gets paid for out of taxes, but which is apparently now a luxury under National). Beyond that there's... nothing. Oh, there's a vague promise to "get better value for money from school buildings", but that's a finance policy, not an education one. There's nothing in there about education at all.

I think that's a pretty clear choice: you can have a government which thinks about education, or one which just thinks about it as a cost and a justification for other stuff they want to do anyway. I know which I prefer.

Climate change: Running out of time

How much time do we have to prevent dangerous levels of climate change? Less than five years, according to the International Energy Agency:

The world is likely to build so many fossil-fuelled power stations, energy-guzzling factories and inefficient buildings in the next five years that it will become impossible to hold global warming to safe levels, and the last chance of combating dangerous climate change will be "lost for ever", according to the most thorough analysis yet of world energy infrastructure.

Anything built from now on that produces carbon will do so for decades, and this "lock-in" effect will be the single factor most likely to produce irreversible climate change, the world's foremost authority on energy economics has found. If this is not rapidly changed within the next five years, the results are likely to be disastrous.

"The door is closing," Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said. "I am very worried – if we don't change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum [for safety]. The door will be closed forever."

The danger threshold is set at 450 parts per million of CO₂, the level which gives us just a fifty-fifty chance of avoiding more than two degrees of warming. Above that level, we're looking at droughts, water shortages, the spread of tropical diseases, famine, and war. And we're now in real danger of being locked in to that future.

Meanwhile, rich governments seem in no hurry to do anything. Our own government doesn't give a damn about the most important issue facing the global environment. They are fiddling while the planet burns. If we want to stop them from burning our future, then we need to vote them out and replace them with people who will act.

Who benefits from privatization?

Bankers:

Brokerage fees and other expenses could cost up to $100 million for the state-owned enterprises tagged for partial sale if National wins the election.

The Government says those firms that want the business must keep fees down but, based on previous floats of public assets, the costs of sale were typically up to 2 per cent.

With signs the hoped-for $5 billion to $7 billion from the sale of four energy companies and more of Air New Zealand may be heading towards the lower figure, this equates to $100 million. The sales are expected over a period of three to five years.

Privatisation isn't just a way of redistributing society's wealth upwards into the hands of the rich; its also a way of further subsidising them, by paying them to steal our stuff. No wonder banks are wealthy interest groups push it so relentlessly.

As for the rest of us, we lose the dividend stream which is used to pay for schools and hospitals, and we lose control, which in the case of our energy sector could be disastrous. And despite that, we're still expected to bail these companies out when the private sector inevitably mismanages them, because as a country we need the services they provide.

If its too important to fail, its too important to be in private hands. It is that simple.

It's the BORA, stupid II

The police have publicly refused to evict Occupy Dunedin protestors from the Octagon, saying that the trespass notices did not meet "the test of balancing the rights and freedoms of all parties". Good. As Andrew Geddis noted on Sunday, the protestors have rights under the Bill of Rights Act which need to be respected. Dunedin City Council has not given any good reason for limiting those rights, and the fact they can't even convince the police (who are not exactly friendly to protestors) speaks volumes.

Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull is now talking about using private security guards for the eviction. If he goes ahead with that threat, he would be exposing Dunedin ratepayers to significant liability from the ensuing BORA cases. If you live in Dunedin, you might want to let him know that this is not how you want to see your rates money spent.

National on the environment

National finally released its environment and climate change policies today, in the process showing how little it cares about these issues. Most of the policy document [PDF] is taken up with blather about what they've supposedly done and the obligatory section on how "Labour would take us backwards". As for the actual policy proposals, they're rather thin and unappealing. We have a promise to introduce comprehensive environmental monitoring - a good idea, but they also promised to introduce it last election as well, and didn't. We have a promise to introduce the EEZ legislation the government has been working on for a decade (which means its not really a significant new policy, but just business as usual). And some kibble around funding for cleaning up lakes and rivers and toxic sites and setting up a recycling programme for old TVs. On the big environmental issues of the day - dirty dairying and offshore drilling - there's complete silence.

And then there's the climate change policy: a further weakening of the ETS and blank cheque to farmers, with a price tag of half a billion dollars (which goes straight into the pockets of polluters). Again, its the underpants gnome theory of pollution control: you pay polluters to pollute, and this (by magic, despite every economic theory to the contrary) is supposed to make emission reduce. And if you believe that, I have a "20% by 2020" target to sell you...

National's climate change policy was already a joke. This turns it into a complete farce. The message is clear: there will be no real action on climate change under National. If you care about these issues, you should vote accordingly.

Anderton's response: Threats and bluster

Jim Anderton has lashed out at the Electoral Commission over their referring him to the police for violating electoral advertising law, blustering that

"I'm authorised to send my constituents any message I damn well like. This is my electorate.

"And if the Commission wants to start stopping electorate MPs from communicating with their electorate, they'd better get prepared for a breach of privilege complaint, because that's what it amounts to.

They are interfering with the regular work of an MP."

On the first point, Anderton is just wrong. He has to obey the law like everyone else. That law provides for an exemption for regular parliamentary funded communications such as constituent newsletters and contact information, but Anderton's letter did not fall into that category (its not a regular newsletter and stated that it was not funded by Parliament).

As for the threats, Parliament has made it clear that it is not part of an MP's regular work to solicit for votes. It may be what they do, but its not protected by Parliamentary privilege.

Yesterday, I was willing to attribute Anderton's crime to (unforgivable) ignorance. Today, its clear that its one of arrogance. And he needs to be held to account for it.

The other shoe drops

Two weeks ago, John Key told us that the money from his privatization programme would be funneled into schools and hospitals. Now, he says its going to go to help farmers by funding their irrigation schemes. This is even madder than his original plan; at least there we'd be getting public infrastructure which would benefit the many. Here, we're getting private infrastructure for the profit of the few, with a side helping of dirty rivers into the bargain.

But then, isn't that what National is all about? Stealing from the many to give to the few. Their privatisation scheme is just more of the same.

Berlusconi falls

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi will resign after losing his majority in the lower house of the Italian Parliament. Good. Berlusconi has been a cancer in the Italian body politic, systematically undermining the judicial system in order to protect himself from corruption charges. In 2005 he reduced Italy's statute of limitations, allowing murderers, rapists, and other serious violent offenders escape justice in order to protect a crony about to be convicted of corruption. In 2008 he suspended all "non-priority" trials to prevent a case against him from reaching the courts. The man is a corrupt little thug. Italy will be well rid of him.

Going backwards

National is trying to stand on its record as "good economic managers". But as Phil Goff pointed out today, that record leaves a lot to be desired. Goff lists ten of national's biggest failures:

1. Unemployment increased by 50 per cent, leaving 157,000 people out of work.
2. 100,000 Kiwis left for Australia
3. Prices up nearly four times faster than incomes.
4. First credit rating downgrade in 13 years.
5. 60,000 more on benefits costing $1b
6. Wage gap with Australia increased by $32 a week.
7. 55,200 people aged 15 to 24 not in education, employment or training.
8. Economy grown by just 0.4 per cent
9. Tax cuts actually cost an extra $1.1b in their first nine months.
10. Underclass grown with 32000 more children living on benefit dependent households.

National's response, of course, is pure denial. But these are facts, and namecalling doesn't change them. John key personally promised last election that he would close the gap with Australia, reduce the number of people fleeing across the Tasman, and help the underclass. He's failed on all three. Meanwhile, he and his government have failed to meet our expectations on how to handle a recession, sitting on their hands and letting people lose their jobs out of an ideological belief that the market should just be left to sort itself out. The consequences of that policy have been a disaster for New Zealand. Its time we held National to account for that.

A democracy in name only

The government pursues a policy the people do not like. The voice their discontent by organising a mass-protest in the capital city. The government responds by issuing police with plastic bullets.

A murderous third-world dictatorship? No, the modern UK, whose public order policing still seems to be stuck in the mindset of Peterloo:

Baton rounds of plastic bullets will be available to police chiefs in an attempt to prevent disorder from breaking out in the capital during the latest round of student fees protests.

Trained officers will be free to use baton rounds for "extreme" measures as 10,000 protesters march through London on Wednesday to voice their anger over tuition fees and cuts. Scotland Yard commander Simon Pountain said about 4,000 officers will be on duty to police the event amid fears the march could be hijacked by anarchists.

The message is clear: "protest, and you will be shot, certainly hurt, and perhaps maimed". The intent is to cow the public into silence. But with this move, the police have just given UK citizens a hell of a lot more to protest about - namely, the state of their democracy. When the government responds to democratic protests with open threats of physical force, then something is very, very wrong, and needs to change. Speaking out is not a crime. Protest is not insurrection. If the government and police are allowed to continue as if it is, then the UK is a "democracy" in name only.

A bad way to end a political career

DPF reports that Jim Anderton has been referred to police for violating electoral advertising laws over a letter he sent to everyone in his constituents urging them to vote for Labour candidate Megan Woods. Such a letter is clearly an election advertisement, meaning that it can only be promoted by a party secretary, a candidate, a registered promoter, or an unregistered promoter. Anderton isn't any of the first three, and as a person involved in the administration of a party, he's ineligible to be the fourth. Which puts him on the hook for an illegal practice and a fine of $40,000. Not a good way to end your political career.

(I'm assuming Anderton's endorsement was also authorised by Woods. Otherwise he's also on the hook for illegally endorsing a candidate and illegally incurring election expenses. The latter is potentially a corrupt practice, an even worse way to end your political career)

Some could characterise this as a technical offence. Anderton's advertisement would have been perfectly legal if he was running as a candidate, or if he'd had the brains to have it sent by his party rather than himself. But that doesn't wash. A politician as experienced as Anderton has no excuse for being ignorant of electoral law. And he should suffer the full weight of the law as a result.

Meanwhile, DPF also disturbingly reports that the police are refusing to progress any of the cases forwarded to them by the Electoral Commission until after the election, effectively allowing electoral criminals to be advantaged by their crimes. Nice to know that they're taking electoral crime seriously.