Welcoming Wen

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao arrived in Wellington this evening to be greeted by protestors. About 10 Falun Gong members protested outside Wellington Airport's military terminal, and another group was waiting for him at his hotel (the Intercontinental, if anybody wants to have some fun). Its good to see that we haven't greeted Wen with silence, and that people are letting him know of our human rights concerns even if the government isn't.

There's also supposed to be some sort of protest outside Parliament on Thursday, possibly organised by the Greens. I'll post details once I've dug them up.

Not impressed

I've just read the government's Immigration Act Review Discussion paper [PDF] - all 263 pages - and I am not impressed. While many of the changes involve streamlining administration, and a welcome proposal to fully incorporate Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture and Articles 6 and 7 of the ICCPR into immigration law, there's also a definite focus on removing appeal rights and generally making it more difficult to contest immigration decisions. The proposed time limits on filing humanitarian appeals against expulsion - 14 or 28 days from the time someone's presence in New Zealand becomes unlawful - are positively Texan in their potential for injustice, and seem aimed more at imposing bureaucratic hurdles to prevent appeals and so allow easier deportation than properly addressing questions of justice or humanitarian concern. And the section on the use of classified information (whether security or otherwise) is proposing broadening its use to everyday immigration decisions such as whether to admit someone into the country. Real concerns about natural justice and fairness stemming from the use of such secret "evidence" (not to mention the quality of the "evidence" provided when it is not subject to robust testing or a right of reply) are simply dismissed. Instead, they want to take one of the key injustices in the Zaoui case, and inflict it on more people. Clearly, they haven't learned anything from the whole saga.

Labour's problem with immigration policy is that, as with crime, it has allowed itself to be drawn into a bidding war with the right over who can be "toughest". And its a bidding war they cannot win. No matter what the government does, the right will claim that it is not enough, and demand even more vicious, vindictive and unfair treatment. This is a mug's game, and the only way to win is not to play it. Labour has just done that on sentencing, and they need to do the same here by rejecting the premise of "toughness" and instead pursuing an alternative framing based on justice and fairness. Otherwise, sooner or later they're going to fatally compromise their values (if they haven't already), leaving the supporters who fought so hard to elect a left-wing government last election wondering why the fuck they bothered.

Priviliged!

The Privileges Committee has released its report [PDF] on the TVNZ board's attempt to punish chief executive Ian Fraser for evidence given before a select committee, and recommended that TVNZ be fined $1000 - the first time in 103 years that it has handed down such a penalty. But while I agree that TVNZ should have been punished for what was in essence an attempt to interfere with a witness, I am deeply uncomfortable with that punishment being handed down by Parliament. In effect, what we have here is Parliament acting as judge and jury in its own case, something that should not be tolerated in any legal system. It would be far better if these sorts of offences were specified in law and prosecuted in ordinary courts, rather than allowing that sort of potential for abuse.

Stuck in the eighteenth century

The Holden Republic points to a new kiwi blog, Queen and Country, set up to defend the institution of the monarchy. Their chief defence? Divine right:

God appointed the Windsor family to rule over his children on earth. Monarchy is therefore a natural & ordered way of government & undeniably the way in which a country should order itself. It has honour and grace borne from the Lord, God.

And monarchists wonder why people laugh at them...

Justice for Al-Anfal

Saddam Hussein and six others are to face genocide charges over the 1986-89 Anfal campaign, in which Kurdish villages were systematically destroyed by bombing, artillery, and poison gas, and Kurds subjected to execution, mass deportations, and imprisonment in concentration camps. An estimated 180,000 civilians died during this campaign, and hundreds of thousands more were displaced. It's something Saddam should definitely face trial for; we just have to hope that they make a better job of it than the current farce.

A rap on the knuckles

UN Special Rapporteur Rodolfo Stavenhagen has presented the second draft of his report into human rights and indigenous issues in New Zealand [PDF], and given the government a rap on the knuckles for its treatment of Maori - particularly over the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Stavenhagen critiques the Treaty settlements process, the lack of enforceable human rights protections for both Maori and Pakeha, and the Foreshore and Seabed Act - and finds them wanting. And he has a point. The Treaty Settlements process is one-sided and effectively coerced, and would be vastly improved (from a justice standpoint) by having the Waitangi Tribunal or some other independent judicial body able to make binding recommendations rather than merely being able to advise. The inability to enforce the Treaty through the courts has made it easy for the government to systematically disposes and oppress Maori, and constitutionalisation in an appropriate form would help prevent such abuse in the future. Our existing human rights legislation is fundamentally compromised by the government's ability to overrule it on a whim. And the Foreshore and Seabed Act did discriminate against Maori, by actively expropriating any remaining customary title, stacking the legal deck comprehensively against them, and ensuring that their ability to see their rights recognised depended not on the strength of their case, but on the grace and favour of the crown. The Special Rapporteur is entirely right to recommend that these problems be corrected.

As for the government's response to this, it is frankly pathetic, running from petty nitpicking of the style more commonly seen on a sewerblog, to pure nationalist chest-beating:

[Stavenhagen's] raft of recommendations is an attempt to tell us how to manage our political system. This may be fine in countries without a proud democratic tradition, but not in New Zealand where we prefer to debate and find solutions to these issues ourselves.

Frankly this is the sort of bullshit I expect from the Americans - or the National Party - not a government which prides itself on its commitment to being a "good international citizen". These UN bodies do not exist just to kick around poor countries and those with shitty governments - they exist to ensure that nations with a "proud democratic tradition" remain committed to their core values - something the Americans have failed to do with Guantanamo, and something we have arguably failed to do with our passage of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. If the government no longer wishes to support those values, then it is of course entitled to say so - but to publicly proclaim adherence and "good international citizenship" while rejecting independent oversight by international bodies is simply rank hypocrisy.

Useful questions

Apropos of nothing in particular, Keith Ng interviews a lawyer and devotes the first post of his new blog to the question of why prior convictions are inadmissible as evidence. The basic reason is to preserve the defendant's right to a fair trial, and ensure that they are tried on the allegations in question, rather than on their past. While this may sometimes lead to situations which simply scream out that there was a miscarriage of justice (Icehawk gives a good example in this comment), the flip side is that allowing such information would vastly increase the chances of someone being wrongly convicted on the basis of past offences, and simply make it far too easy for the police to stich people up. Which rather defeats the whole purpose of a justice system.

A core principle of our justice system is that it is better for ten guilty men to go free rather than see an innocent punished. I think that that's a good principle, and I think that anyone who can put themselves in the shoes of that innocent would agree. Unfortunately, it's a lossy principle - it means that some people escape justice and "get away with it" - but that's just the price we pay.

Growing your own organs

One of the problems with organ transplants is a shortage of donors. And one of the dreams of medical technology has been to grow new organs in the lab from patient's own cells, reducing both the supply shortage and rejection worries. This dream now seems a lot closer, with the news that US scientists were able to successfully grow and implant bladders in patients uffering from bladder diseases. Sure, it's just a bladder - but the technique can conceivably be applied to other organs - such as hearts, lungs, and blood vessels. Which means that in ten or twenty years, we'll hopefully be seeing a lot fewer people dying while waiting for replacement parts.

Sadly, though, I don't think it will put the Chinese government out of business.

Protesting Wen Jiabao

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao arrives in New Zealand tomorrow for a high level meeting and talks on the proposed China-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement. Lest anyone forget, China has a terrible human rights record: torture is widespread and accepted, political protest is subject to heavy sanction by the police and state security forces, dissidents face arrest and long periods of detention, and the arbitrary use of state power (often for the private gain of local officials) is common. The government practices forced abortion and sterilisation as a means of population control, executes 3,400 people a year, and sells the organs of executed criminals and political prisoners on the open market. Helen Clark has as usual promised that human rights will be "on the agenda", but she didn't say exactly where on the agenda they would be; its more likely that she will take a "softly-softly" approach in order not to upset the chances of winning that coveted FTA. Which means that its really up to the New Zealand public to send the message that Helen will not. Unfortunately, the only protests that seem to be being staged are from the Falun Gong. Surely we can do better than that...

Biodiesel on the way

One of the ways of reducing our greenhouse emissions is to start using biofuels - biodiesel made from vegetable oils or animal fat, or bioethanol from sugar or (ideally) fermented cellulose. I'd been expecting to see this introduced to New Zealand only after the government set a target to create a market. But someone seems to have jumped the gun. Gull Petroleum will be introducing a B20 blend of biodiesel by the end of the year. They already sell it in Australia, and it retails for up to three cents a litre cheaper than mineral diesel. I guess the market is providing after all.

On the downside, they make their biodiesel from palm oil, which depending on where they get it from, may be a very environmentally unfriendly source...

Living skeletons

The above are photographs of pure evil. Not the men portrayed - but what was done to them. They had been starved to within an inch of their lives (and perhaps beyond) in prison by their captors. You might assume that they were survivors of Buchenwald, or one of the other Nazi camps - but you'd be wrong. These men were turned into living skeletons by the British government.

The men pictured were prisoners of the UK's Combined Services Detailed Interrogation Centre (CSDIC) detention facility at Bad Nenndorf near Hamburg. In the wake of the Nazi surrender and the early days of the cold war Bad Nenndorf played host to former Nazis, members of the SS, prominent German industrialists, and later suspected communists, as well as various people who were there apparently for no reason at all. Prisoners were systematically starved, beaten, frozen, whipped, and tortured with captured Gestapo shin- and thumb-screws. At least two prisoners were starved to death, at least one was beaten to death, and others suffered serious illness and injuries.

When the torture was revealed (in the usual way: brave and moral people who could not believe or stomach what they were seeing complained), it was hushed up by the British government. It would not do to have the public know that they had been treating prisoners, in the words of one Cabinet Minister, "in a manner reminiscent of the German concentration camps". Three officers were eventually charged with a variety of crimes, and their half-hearted courts-martial held in secret. Only one, the camp doctor, was convicted - and his "sentence" was dismissal from the army. As with Abu Ghraib, no-one was really held accountable - and the veil of official secrecy was intended to ensure that no-one would be. It has only been lifted now because of the UK's Freedom of Information Act - but I suspect it is too late; after sixty years, almost everyone involved will have died of old age, and the memories of any surviving witnesses and prisoners may have faded too much. OTOH we are still prosecuting Nazi camp guards for what they did sixty years ago, and if any surviving interrogators from Bad Nenndorf can be found, they should if possible face the same fate (or at least spend their twilight years fearing it). There should be no pity for torturers; they are hostis humani generis, whatever their nationality.

As for the British government, the least they could do is acknowledge and apologise for the horrors of the past - but the British Ministry of Defence is apparently refusing to do even that. They are also holding back further documents about other post-WWII torture centres on the basis that they have been "contaminated with asbestos". Which really just makes you wonder what else they are trying to hide...

That was quick

The Big News is dead - and after less than two weeks. But contrary to the author's opinion, this is a long way from being "the shortest lived blog" - most barely make three posts, let alone eleven.

I guess the lesson is a) make sure you can devote proper attention to your blog; and b) try to choose a name which isn't already taken.

New Fisk

Another brick in the wall

Another one for the Human Rights Commission

A bar in Taupo has decided to raise the drinking age by itself by barring 18 and 19-year olds from the premises. According to the bar owner, the ban is designed to make the bar appeal to "more mature" clients, and that

[l]egally, the bar was entitled to set its own age limit

Well, actually, they're not. Section 44 of the Human Rights Act 1993 forbids discrimination in the provision of goods and services. And "age" (for these purposes, any age over 16) is definied as a prohibited grounds of discrimination in s21. In other words, what this bar is doing is illegal - and as illegal and immoral as refusing to serve people because of the colour of their skin.

Bars can and do do all sorts of things to signal to their target market and indicate that they're trying to appeal to certain demographics. But the moment they start refusing to serve people based on qualifications like age, gender, sexuality or race, then they are breaking the law, and deserve to be clobbered for it.

No connection?

In the wake of the London bombings, the British government was quick to downplay any link between the bombings and Iraq. The two had nothing to do with one another, according to Tony Blair. Instead it was all about "our way of life".

Now, it seems, the Home Office disagrees, with a draft report into the bombings saying that Britain's participation in the US invasion of Iraq was a key "contributory factor" which helped inspire and radicalise the bombers and put them on the path to mass-murder.

This doesn't excuse the bombers in the slightest - but it does suggest that, contrary to its claims, the British government's participation in Iraq endangered its citizens rather than making them safer.

Submit!

The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee is seeking submissions on the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill. 20 copies, by Friday, 21 April 2006, to

Paul Weakley
Transport and Industrial Relations Committee Secretariat
Parliament Buildings
Wellington

Submissions may also be able to be emailed to SC-TI@parliament.govt.nz.

A submission can be as simple as a letter saying "I support / oppose this bill" and stating your reasons why. There's a guide here if you need further help.

Submissions have also opened on the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill. Same committee, same address, but by Friday, 19 May 2006.

Two-faced Tony

Last week, Tony Blair addressed the Climate Change and Governance Conference with strong words, saying that the long-term consequences of climate change were "extremely serious", that failing to take action would be "absolutely disastrous", and that he

"[didn't] want it on my conscience, or my generation's, that we knew about it but did nothing and left our children to deal with the consequences."

But according to the Independent, just weeks before he had blocked a plan to cut the UK's emissions by conspicuously failing to back his Environment Minister's strategy to ensure that the UK met its CO₂ reduction target. Worse,

Privately the Prime Minister shows little interest in measures to cut pollution, preferring international talks, where he increasingly mirrors the position of President George Bush.

So much for "showing leadership" on climate change. Instead, he's just being a two-faced little weasel - saying what the public wants to hear, while doing exactly the opposite. What's surprising is that anyone believes a word he says anymore...

Turn down the heat

This morning's Sunday Star-Times editorial hits the nail on the head in utterly panning the government's climate change policies:

The government's climate-change policies are a mess. The carbon tax that Labour championed for several years was coherent and sensible. It would have forced the local planet-polluters to pay. It would have rewarded a range of activities that lessened CO2 production. It would have built these incentives into economic activity, which is a necessary step if we are to stop the planet burning. The government promised it was fiscally neutral and not just a revenue-earner. And then, last December, Labour suddenly dropped it. Now the regime lacks coherence and conviction.

And this less than two years out from the start of CP1. But what's really worrying is that whatever policy emerges from the current review process will be so weak as to be effectively no policy at all. This simply isn't good enough for a country which prides itself on being "clean and green" and a "good international citizen".

The editorial goes on to talk about the Turn Down The Heat policy package [PDF] released last week by the Greens. Which is good, because it gives me a chance to talk about it as well. Turn Down The Heat is basically a collection of policies targeting forestry, agriculture, transport, and the energy sector aimed at meeting our CP1 target and setting our emissions on a downward trend by 2012. More generally, it is aimed at kickstarting the economic transformation we need if we are to shift our economy from a high- to a low-carbon emissions model. The key tools for doing this are:

• "Carbon storage payments" for owners of "Kyoto forests", coupled with consequent liabilities for their deforestation which can be avoided by replanting elsewhere. It's not carbon credit devolution, but it is something, and it should significantly help encourage the planting of the sinks we need. For non-Kyoto forests (those planted before 1990) they propose maintaining the 10% deforestation cap and penalising forest owners for net deforestation in excess of 10% if it is breached (meaning that only those who deforest will pay). The Kyoto Forestry Association seems to like the idea, which is a good sign.
• Capping ruminant numbers and requiring offsets and resource consents for any increase (the latter is really beginning to be required in some areas to preserve water quality anyway). Farmers could trade spare capacity, so what they're really proposing is a "cap and trade" mechanism for (a proxy for) ruminant methane. This is good policy, implementing the polluter pays principle in a flexible way, but I really can't see it being implemented. Our economy rests on cheap farm exports, and therefore on farmers externalising their environmental costs onto the rest of us - and farmers are quite willing to flex their political muscle to keep getting that free ride and what is in effect an enormous environmental subsidy.
• Increasing research into reducing ruminant methane and nitrous oxide from fertiliser and animal waste. This is frankly a no-brainer, and I'm surprised the government hasn't done it already.
• Fuel efficiency labelling, fuel economy standards, and a "feebate" system for vehicle registrations to push the market towards more fuel efficient vehicles. Again, this is a no-brainer, with significant co-benefits for the balance-of-payments deficit as well as the environment.
• Pushing public transport. This is a common Green solution, but it could make a big difference to Auckland traffic as well as to CO₂ emissions. Currently there's a vicious circle in this area - people don't use public transport because its crap, and local government doesn't support it because people don't use it. This needs to be changed, at least in our largest cities.
• Require 5% biofuels by 2010, and 10% by 2015. This again is a no-brainer; they're already cheaper than fossil fuels, but the investment isn't happening because there's no certainty. Creating a market solves that problem, and setting long-term targets allows the transport capital and infrastructure (cars and petrol stations) to be slowly upgraded to cope.
• Requiring offsets to domestic air travel. According to the EBEX21 calculator, this would add about $2.50 to the price of an Auckland-Wellington air ticket, with pretty much no equity concerns.
• Pass the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill to provide some controls in the absence of an economic instrument.
• Impose a "cap and trade" regime on existing fossil-fuel power plants, meaning that new stations could only be built by taking older, less efficient ones out of service (or presumably, purchasing offsets elsewhere).
• Setting a long-term target for a move to a fully renewable electricity system. I think this is technically impossible - we will still need at least some fossil fuel generation for dry-year security - but we can certainly move to a far more renewable system than we have at present. The long timeline will allow the change to be made through the normal upgrade and replacement process, and hence at least cost.

This is a good, credible, coherent package, which targets emissions all across the economy, and I'd very much like to see it (or as much of it as possible) adopted. The question is whether the government will come to the party, or whether they'll continue to back away from doing anything effective to meet our Kyoto obligations.

New Fisk

A lesson from the Holocaust for us all

Something I should have said yesterday

Happy interest-free student loan day!

Labour's policies have removed an enormous burden from the backs of tens of thousands of mainly-young New Zealanders, giving them a chance to share in the Kiwi dream. Because of this, getting an education will no longer be incompatible with buying a house or having kids. It will also no longer be incompatible with saving for retirement. People will still pay for their education, but through a mechanism more akin to a capped graduate-tax than an actual loan, and which is a lot less of a burden. And that is I think something we should thank Labour for. They may be cowards on climate change, they may lack the backbone to make a proper stand for human rights on the international stage, they may wilt at the slightest sign of displeasure from the business community or the "hang 'em high" brigade, and fold at the first allegation of "political correctness" from rednecks who would never vote for them anyway, but they have at least managed to deliver in this area.