A fresh label for yesterday's rotting garbage

Australia's Centre for Independent Studies has announced the formation of a new New Zealand Policy Unit to provide "fresh policy ideas" for New Zealand. Fresh? For those who have forgotten, the CIS was a major influence on the rightwing "reforms" of the 80's. According to Jane Kelsey's The New Zealand Experiment, some very familiar names were early trustees and board members: Rod Deane, Ron Trotter, Alan Gibbs. Ruth Richardson currently sits on their board. And when you look at their policy conclusions, its the same old 80's neo-liberal agenda: tax cuts, welfare cuts, deregulation, privatisation, reductions in government services - in short, the same market darwinism which completely fucked our society in the 80's and 90's. This isn't "fresh" - it's yesterday's rotting garbage, come back for another round. The CIS should be done for false advertising....

And while I'm at it, its rather interesting, is it not, that this move is announced a mere month after ACT floated the idea of a right-wing thinktank to front for them and make them "look bigger"? But I'm sure its purely coincidental that a "non-partisan" organisation which shares an ideology, funding and backers with ACT would turn up to provide an "independent" source of propaganda in their hour of need...

More on Israeli apartheid

I didn't link to it yesterday, but here is the conclusion of the Guardian's series on Israel and apartheid. This part focuses on Israel's close links to and cooperation with South Africa's apartheid regime, and the shared state of fear that produced similar policies in both nations.

Republican war on science watch

Last week, we learned that Bush-appointed PR flacks at NASA were attempting to censor the organisation's top climate change scientist to prevent him from presenting inconvenient facts on global warming. But it's not just global warming that is in their sights. In October last year, one of those same PR flacks instructed a NASA web-designer to add the word "theory" after every reference to the Big bang. His reason?

The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator."

It continued: "This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most."

Really, this is a government, of, by, and for banjo playing Kansas hicks. Next they'll probably be demanding that NASA remove any references to heliocentrism or the stars being other suns, as its "not NASA's place to make declarations about man's place in the universe"...

(Hat tip: Washington Monthly)

Kyoto: Putting a price on dairy conversions

At the moment, world dairy prices are high and timber prices are low. This is helping to drive a trend to convert land used for forestry to dairy farms - putting increased strain on the environment through effluent runoff and vastly higher water use. Dairy conversions - and the fact that our farmers seem constitutionally incapable of cleaning up after themselves - are one of the factors driving the increasing pollution of our rivers and streams. They also result in increased greenhouse emissions, converting a sink to a source. And this is going to cost us.

Previously the government has kept the figures under wraps, but according to cabinet papers obtained by the Herald, it will be enough to add approximately 32 megatonnes of CO₂-equivalent to our existing Kyoto overflow, effectively doubling it. If we purchase credits on the international market, this will cost us an extra NZ$ 300 million, and possibly more if carbon prices increase.

What can be done about this? A big incentive for conversions is the prospect of a deforestation liability for forest owners who fail to replant after cutting down their trees. The government has said they will cover a land use change of up to 10% of our forest area on 1990 levels, but beyond that they may devolve liability to landowners. This has created a perverse incentive to deforest now to avoid the bill later. Clearly something has to change: either the government has to remove the cap, or it has to impose the liability ASAP to ensure that those converting land pay the full cost of their activities. From the phrasing of the above, it should be clear that I favour the latter. While the cap is a perverse incentive, the underlying problem is the market - and it will only be solved by internalising the externality of carbon pollution and ensuring that the private cost of deforestation is equal to the social cost. Unfortunately, this may be unpopular with the farming and forestry sectors, and to work it would also require payments to those converting land in the other direction, so I expect the government to display its usual craven cheapness and take the easy but stupid option. But I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

Another option is to give in to the forestry owner's capital strike and devolve carbon credits to them. As I've said here, I think this would be an insane policy - either scientifically bogus or an invitation to corporate fraud - but no doubt some boondoggle could be worked out if we were to use internal carbon trading in place of the carbon tax.

A third option is to work with local government to limit new dairy farms. Environment Waikato had the right idea here with introducing resource consents for intensive farming and "cap and trade" for nitrogen runoff around Lake Taupo - but that would be unpopular with farmers, and would take some time to feed back through the market to affect the deforestation rate.

All of these options will be heavily resisted by the business and farming sectors, who are rabidly opposed to taking any action to reduce greenhouse emissions. But if the government doesn't act now, we will all end up paying for it later - either explicitly in the form of carbon credits or indirectly in the form of more droughts. And while the latter is a form of "polluter pays", its one I think we'd all rather avoid.

A rock and a hard place

Since their humiliation at the Bay of Pigs, the United States has maintained a crippling economic embargo against Cuba. US companies and their subsidiaries are barred from trading with Cuba, and the US government even claims the right to punish non-US companies engaging in such trade. This has not exactly made them popular with their neighbours.

As an example of the lunacy and pettiness of the embargo, the US-owned Maria Isabel Sheraton Hotel in Mexico City last week evicted a group of Cuban officials from their rooms on orders of the US Treasury Department. The international Sheraton Hotel chain had been warned that even renting a room to a Cuban government official contravened the embargo, and that they could face a substantial fine unless their guests were kicked out (strangely, no threats were made against the US oil company executives they were meeting with). However, the hotel now faces a substantial fine or even closure under a Mexican law which bars cooperation with extraterritorial sanctions regimes.

All I can say is that it sucks to be a US company...

But do you believe them?

National is apparantly revising its nuclear policy back to support of the status quo. And if you believe that, there's a bridge in Auckland I'd like to sell you. This is, after all, the party that believes in "a moral obligation to lie"...

I'm with Tony Milne on this one: we should be looking at a referendum to entrench the anti-nuclear legislation, to ensure that it can't be sold out from under us by politicians who owe greater allegiance to Washington than New Zealand. I don't think there'd be any problem gaining a Parliamentary majority to pass the required legislation - both the Greens and NZFirst would back it, as would (probably) the Maori Party. Perhaps someone should draft a private member's bill on the subject...?

In the ballot III: Death With Dignity

Over the last few weeks I've been devoting some attention to private member's bills currently in the ballot. But this one deserves a post all of its own: Peter Brown's Death With Dignity Bill. This was last before the House in July 2003, when it was defeated 60 - 57 on its first reading. But the issue won't go away, and Brown is back for another shot.

The bill itself is virtually identical to the 2003 version. In keeping with NZ First's commitment to direct democracy, it would require ratification by a referendum before coming into effect. If ratified, it would establish a regime whereby a medical practioner could assist a patient suffering from an incurable illness which fundamentally impairs their quality of life, independence or mobility to end their lives (either by prescribing or preparing a substance for self-administration, or administering such a substance. I think most doctors, even those who support assisted suicide, would balk at the latter). There are safeguards built in, including a medical check, psychiatric interview, and a requirement that the witnesses to any request be truly independent. "Advance directives" (otherwise known as living wills are allowed). Finally, it would establish strong provisions against undue influence (5 years in jail and a $250,000 fine), prevent any contracts on the issue (whether contracting to kill yourself or contracting not to), and ensure that any death is treated as a death due to terminal or incurable illness by insurance companies.

How does this compare to laws overseas? Only four jurisdictions currently allow assisted suicide: Oregon, the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland. Oregan, Belgium and the Netherlands require the consent of two doctors, and the Netherlands also requires the consent of a psychologist if there are any doubts about competance. Switzerland allows anyone to help, provided it is "altruistic", but in practice voluntary societies such as Dignitas insist on a medical opinion and will refuse to provide lethal drugs if the condition is not terminal. Where the various jurisdictions differ signficiantly is on the method: both Oregon and Switzerland require self-administration, and forbid doctors from actually killing the patient.

The Northern Territory used to allow assisted suicide, under the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995, but this has since overturned by Australian federal legislation. The law similarly required the consent of two doctors, but had no requirement for a psychiatric interview. Compared to these then, the safeguards in Brown's bill seem very robust. Not that that necessarily means they are enough (for some people, no safeguards will ever be enough) - but they compare very well with the overseas examples.

In 1995, Michael Laws' "Death With Dignity" bill was defeated 61-29. In 2003, the margin was 60-57. This time round, I don't think the bill will do quite as well. 43 current MPs voted for death with dignity in 2003, while 48 voted against (though 5 of those had voted for in 1995). And of newly elected MPs, only one has declared that they support voluntary euthanasia, while 5 have declared that they oppose it. That still leaves 24 MPs unaccounted for, of course - but the initial situation doesn't look good. While I think this bill or some variation of it will ultimately succeed, I don't think it'll be this term. That won't stop me fighting for it though.

Right to the wire

The Costa Rican election - widely expected to be won by former President and Nobel Peace Prize winner Oscar Arias - has turned into a nailbiter. With 88% of the vote counted, Arias leads his main rival, Otton Solis, by only 3000 votes - and the trend is going against him (it was 9000 votes when 77% of the votes had been counted). Now, they're looking at a manual recount. Final results will be known in two weeks.

Arias is nominally social democratic, but in reality a neo-liberal. Solis is a left-wing populist reformer, in the same broad school as Lula, Evo Morales, and (when he's not being an authoritarian) Hugo Chavez. If the latter manages a win, we can expect more screaming from the US about how Latin Americans are electing the "wrong" governments - and a lot of worried eyes on the Mexican elections in July. But that's democracy for you...

Official impunity in China

In October, the editor of China's Taizhou Evening News published an article accusing local police of corruption and charging illegal bicycle registration fees. So, they beat him - ultimately, to death. And somehow, I don't think they'll be starting a murder investigation.

The problem here isn't official action - the police's actions were clearly illegal, even under Chinese law. The problem is corruption and a culture of official impunity which allows local officials and those exercising power to grossly abuse it in their own interests. And it affects a lot more than just the press. The near-fatal beating of local democracy activist Lu Banglie (blogged here, correction here) was driven by local government officials' desire to preserve their positions so that they could further enrich themselves at the public's expense - as was the recent massacre in the village of Shanwei. Until this culture of impunity changes, even the limited freedom there is in China will exist only on paper, not in practice.

Stand up against youth rates

Sue Bradford's Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill will be getting its first reading on Wednesday. Unfortunately, we don't know whether it has the numbers. The Greens will support it, as will United Future, and NZ First has promised to "raise the minimum and youth wage", so it might - but there is still a big question mark over Labour. If we want this bill to pass (or at least go to select committee, so the arguments can be made), we need to show that there is strong public support for it. One way of doing this is by going to the SuperSizeMyPay campaign's public rally in Auckland on Sunday. Another is to email MPs.

Who to email? The obvious target is the government's chief whip, Tim Barnett. Mailing your local Labour MP is also a good idea; if you don't know who that is, you can use the labour party website to find out here. If you already know but don't know their email address, the format for Parliamentary email addresses is "firstname.lastname@parliament.govt.nz".

I'd also suggest emailing NZ First's Peter Brown and the Maori Party's Pita Sharples urging their parties to support the bill.

Needless to say, a face to face meeting with your local MP is far more effective than an email or letter. You can arrange this through their electorate office. If you're not sure where that is, there's a list here.

If we want progressive legislation, we have to fight for it. The other side certainly will be, and if the bill fails because we failed to stand up for what we believe in, we have no-one to blame but ourselves.

(Hat tip: Span).

Please continue your petty bickering...

Ah, the sweet sound of a National Party leadership challenge in the making. First you have the not-so-subtle undermining of the incumbent and denials of any leadership ambitions, then you have the attempts to exert authority, then we'll have the simmering discontent and rolling of the deputy leader (down the stairs, if anyone has a sense of irony), and finally we'll have the staged resignation "for the good of the party etc". It's vastly amusing to watch, and made all the sweeter by the fact that the Nats' guns are once again trained on themselves rather than on the government. And if we also get the usual post-coup fratricide driving talented people to the backbenches, it will be even better...

A doomed garden

Scientists in New Guinea have discovered hundreds of new species in a remote part of the New Guinea rainforest they described as "as close to the Garden of Eden as you're going to find on Earth". Unfortunately, it's a discovery tinged with tragedy, because many of these species are in all likelihood doomed to extinction in the near future. And the reason is global warming. This doomed garden is on the upper slopes of the Foja mountains, which rise to up to 2200m above sea level. But as global temperatures rise, their habitat will be forced up the mountain, shrinking all the way. If we are lucky, some of it will survive as a tiny island in the clouds. If we are unlucky, they'll run out of mountain.

This problem isn't limited only to New Guinea. It affects every alpine and subalpine environment in the world. And it has been going on for some time. In The Weather Makers, Tim Flannery recounts how, as a young scientist in 1981, he climbed Mt Albert Edward, one of New Guinea's highest peaks. At the boundary between jungle and subalpine tussock, he noticed that the jungle was advancing:

In the leaf litter on the forest floor, I was surprised to find the trunks of dead tree-ferns. Tree-ferns grew only in the grassland, so here was clear evidence that the forest was colonising the slope from below. Judging from the distribution of the tree-fern trunks, it had swallowed at least thirty metres of grassland in less time than it takes for a tree-fern to rot on the damp forest floor - a decade or two at most.

The reason, he recounts later, is to do with climate change. The temperature drops slightly over half a degree for every hundred meters you go up a mountain. This means that an increase in air temperature of a single degree will allow the treeline to climb up to 200 metres. We're already physically committed to at least one degree of global warming, and if we do nothing and continue "business as usual", then that becomes at least three degrees (I say "at least" because these are lower bounds, not upper ones). That's 200 - 600m less mountain for alpine species to inhabit. And when the mountain you live on is only 2200m high, and you're already more than halfway up, it doesn't leave much room to maneuvre.

Limiting the royal prerogatives

This is interesting: new UK Conservative party leader David Cameron has announced a an ambitious policy of constitutional change - centered around the limitation of the royal prerogative to wage war. At present, this power (along with the power to make treaties, appoint judges and other officials, and change the structure of government) is exercised on behalf of the Queen by the Prime Minister and Cabinet. But if Cameron has his way, these powers will be devolved to Parliament - leading to far greater democratic scrutiny of executive decisions.

I'm not sure about the desirability of all of these powers being devolved - while Parliamentary hearings on appointments is a good way of uncovering cronyism, it is also a quick step to US-style politicisation (and that goes double for judges). But I'd certainly agree with limiting the power of the executive to make treaties and wage war however and whenever they see fit. These are some of the most important decisions a government can make, and therefore deserve the very highest scrutiny. And while it won't solve the Iraq problem of a government hyping the threat to lie its way into a war, it will at least mean that the government's claims can be challenged, and provide for clear accountability afterwards.

As for New Zealand, we already have limited Parliamentary scrutiny of treaties (through the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Select Committee), but the executive still has full warmaking power. Perhaps that's something someone could try and address through a private member's bill...?

The price of freedom of speech

Phil Goff has pointed out that the publication of those cartoons could cost New Zealand up to $100 million if Iran carries through with its threat to cancel trade deals with countries where the cartoons are published. The implication being that people should have shut up for the sake of our exporters. I don't think so. Freedom of speech is not subject to the veto of the business community. If they don't like what is being said and fear losing money, they can of course speak up in their defence. But they shouldn't expect anyone to remain silent on their behalf.

New Fisk

The Fury

Israeli apartheid

Today's Guardian has a substantial article on Israel's apartheid-style policies towards both Palestinians and its own Arab citizens [long]. Many will object to any comparison between Israel's policies and those of South Africa, but reading the article, it is entirely appropriate. Oh, there's not the petty segregation of public facilities of South Africa or Jim Crow, but the core - the confiscation of land, the use of ethnic classifications, the systematic use of planning restrictions to oppress and dominate and encourage demographic change, the legal restrictions on marriage aimed at preventing cross-cultural ties, the channeling of public resources overwhelmingly towards one ethnic group, leaving the other without public housing, schools, parks, or access to government services, the institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one group over another - its all there. And it is truly a tragedy that a country founded by people fleeing exactly these sorts of tactics would go on to use them in turn.

Apartheid is recognised as a crime against humanity in the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It deserves to be. And nations which practice it deserve to be made pariahs and their leaders tried before an international court. In the 1980's, the international community showed its opposition to this crime in South Africa with a sustained international boycott. Is Israel does not change its policies soon, then that is exactly what deserves to happen to it.

New Fisk

Don't be fooled, this isn't an issue of Islam versus secularism

Undue influence?

Via DPF, I see that a Northland Maori leader has proposed that iwi bar their members from accessing money from tribal lands or Treaty settlements unless they are on the Maori roll. My initial thought was that this would constitute exerting undue influence - a corrupt practice under s218 of the Electoral Act 1993. But I'm not so sure. "Undue influence" is defined as threatening or infliciting (among other things) "damage, harm, or loss" in order to

induce or compel that person to vote for or against a particular candidate or party or to vote or refrain from voting, or on account of that person having voted for or against a particular candidate or having voted or refrained from voting

Which seems to be very specifically about voting. Wheras what Mr Perry is seeking to compel (by threats of harm or loss) is enrolment, and specifically which roll people enrol on.

This ought to be illegal, because it is fundamentally about trying to force voters to make certain political choices - but I'm not sure that it is. I've written to the Electoral Commission in an effort to get some answers, but if its not, then its a glaring hole in the law which needs to be patched ASAP.

Costa Rica votes

Costa Ricans go to the polls to elect a president and legislature today. While there are over thirty presidential candidates, it seems to be a fight between the National Liberation Party's Oscar Arias (a former President who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in ending several civil wars in South America) and the Citizen's Action Party's Otton Solis. Interestingly, a Libertarian candidate is coming third. The Central American Free Trade Agreement is a key issue in the campaign, with Arias supporting and Solis opposing it. Currently, it looks as if Arias will win a first round victory and avoid a run-off election.

(More information on Costa Rica's politics and the elections can be found here and here)

Haiti is also going to the polls tomorrow, and then after that its Peru in April. The latter will be "interesting", to say the least...

Another embassy burns

This time in Beirut. Embassies are traditionally extraterritorial, and considered the sovereign territory of the sending state. That means that technically, Lebanon just invaded Denmark. It also means that yesterday, Syria technically invaded Denmark and Norway. Are we frightened yet?

Needless to say, I think this is a Bad Thing. But I also can't help but notice this little piece of hypocrisy:

Norway and Denmark criticised Syria for allowing Saturday's demonstration to go ahead.

Note that that's not "failing to protect the embassy when the demonstration turned violent" (as is their duty under Article 22 (2) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations) but "allowing [the] demonstration to go ahead". Freedom of speech, it seems, is fine for Danes but not for Syrians.