The Greens have released their Parliamentary expenses for the year to April 30 [PDF], with details of how much their MPs have spent on air travel, taxis, accomodation and living in Wellington. There don't seem to be any tremendous surprises - but with a sample of only nine MPs, its difficult to know what is normal and what is not.
The onus is now on the other parties to follow suit. Hopefully they will do so soon.
Something I'd missed: over the weekend the Speaker of the Samoan Fono effectively evicted the opposition from the House, disqualifying nine MPs from their seats. Their "crime"? Establishing a new political party to oppose the ruling Human Rights Protection Party. Under Samoa's Electoral Act and Standing Orders, party hopping is forbidden. But these clauses apply only after the Fono has sat. So every election, the HRPP bribes a bunch of opposition members and independents into joining it by offering places in the country's outsized Cabinet (there are 33 ministers and Associate Ministers in the Fono, out of a total of 49 members), and since the deals are all made by the time they are sworn in, its legal. But if a bunch of independents (some of whom were forced into that position by the Speaker's refusal to recognise their party) want to club together to better oppose the government after the first sitting, its is a Crime Against Democracy and they have to be unseated.
And this is how the Human Rights Protection Party has stayed in power for the past twenty years.
Samoa's democracy is sick, and it desperately needs reform. Otherwise, the country will continue on its slow path to being a one-party state, where elections are meaningless.
That is the only way to describe the Immigration Service's decision to cancel the visas of women who become pregnant in New Zealand. This is one of the most fundamental forms of discrimination against women, and it would be utterly illegal for, for example, an employer to sack someone because she was pregnant. But apparently, its OK to deport them (and in the process potentially foul up any future travel, since countries are quite antsy about admitting people where any other country has cancelled their visa).
Immigration's excuse is the strain on our maternity services. I would suggest that we fund them properly then. Because this "solution" is indecent and fundamentally immoral.
(I would add that I trust Immigration's assessment of the state of our maternity services or the strain put on them by paying customers about as far as I can stand the smell of them. This is a department which seems to look for any excuse, no matter how vile and inhuman and morally indefensible, to throw people out of the country or lock them away in indefinite detention forever. But that affect the key point here, which is that if our services can't cope, we should fix them, rather than engaging in this sort of vile, discriminatory behaviour).
As with Ahmed Zaoui, we are supposed to be a better country than this. This sort of policy belongs in the dark ages, not in a modern, liberal democracy.
So now it turns out the complaint which led to Richard Worth's resignation wasn't the only one against him. Phil Goff passed on a complaint last month:
"The allegations were essentially that Dr Worth had offered a number of different positions that were within his gift as minister to this woman, with the overtones that this was in pursuit of romantic ambitions," Goff said.John Key called this "making a nuisance of himself towards women". That's putting it mildly. Here we have an allegation, backed by solid evidence, of a Minister attempting to use his position for sexual favours. That is not "a nuisance"; it is outright sexual harassment (not to mention a gross abuse of office), and Worth should have been out on his arse a month ago. The question then is "why wasn't he?" And is this the sort of behaviour Key tolerates from his Ministers?"One was as an adviser and one was as a board member within the responsibilities of Dr Worth but the overtones were that he wanted to develop a relationship with her," Mr Goff said on Radio New Zealand.
Goff had told Key there was evidence to suggest "inappropriate" suggestions were made in a series of emails and phone calls.
[...]
"The emails were personal, they were about 'do you want to come swimming with me?' … Do you want to take a holiday with me overseas, I want you to buy this see-through clothing. This woman is half Dr Worth's age, she is a happily married woman with children, she was offended by it."
Update: The more I think about it, the more outraged I get at this. This is the worst sort of entitled Tory Boy behaviour, and it makes you wonder what era Worth thinks he is living in. Seriously, what sort of a Minister sees government positions as favours to be handed out to bribe people into sleeping with him? It's practically medieval!
Update 2: And while I'm at it: Key's treatment of the complaint - essentially asking Worth and accepting his denial without bothering to check the evidence - smacks of Tory Boy as well. It's the typical "I talked to my boy and he denied it" - treating serious allegations as simply a matter of someone's word, and devaluing the claims of the complainant - despite their being backed by evidence - because she was just a woman and not part of their club. Another holdover from feudalism that we can do without...
New Hampshire has finally passed its same-sex marriage law. IMHO its fatally flawed, with an "except for gays" exemption to state anti-discrimination law which goes beyond allowing churches to refuse to marry same-sex couples to allowing widespread homophobic discrimination in the provision of housing or other services by religious groups. But I guess overturning that is the next struggle. The context here is that the US still has no federal law barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and state anti-discrimination law is usually weak - meaning that exemptions allowing the victimisation of specific groups aren't yet beyond the pale.
Rhode Island is now the only state in New England which does not allow same-sex marriage. Its people support equality. Its politicians do not. But elections next year will hopefully change that.
Question Time saw the usual question from Phil Goff - "Does [the Prime Minister] have confidence in all his Ministers?" - used to explore the resignation of Richard Worth. Key gave no real answers. He first heard allegations last week, sought further information, and secured Worth's resignation immediately when he had it. He was "not at liberty to say' what the allegations were. Meanwhile, the deathly silence in the House as these questions were heard spoke volumes; this is serious, not your average trivial political scandal.
There are some very ugly rumours circulating, which I am not going to repeat (both because they could unfairly tarnish Worth's reputation, and because he'd deservedly bankrupt me if I did and they were untrue). But if the allegations are as serious as these rumours suggest, then I can't blame Key for waiting for some confirmation first. I'd also expect that if there is the slightest truth to them, Worth will be resigning from Parliament.
How much did Bill English's decision to cut contributions to the Cullen Fund cost us? $23.5 billion by 2031. Keith Ng has the details here.
As he points out, this is not the sort of thing you do for fun. The government needs to come clean and explain exactly why they have just impoverished this nation and imperilled the future of our universal superannuation scheme. And they'd better have a bloody good reason for it. Simply muttering about how it makes no sense to borrow to save isn't enough, when the numbers clearly show otherwise.
Meanwhile, if this is National's idea of "strong economic management", then its the same sort which has seen banks go bust due to too many Enron games - and the sort we as a country can do without.
When I heard about Richard Worth's resignation, I immediately wondered whether this was some sort of record for how quickly a new government loses their first Minister. And while Dover Samuels seems to be the most recent holder - lasting just 201 days in office between being sworn in and being sacked due to swirling allegations of sex crimes (which were later disproved), Worth beats him out by almost a week. He was sworn in on 19 November 2008, and resigned last night, giving him just 195 days in office.
There don't seem to be any similarly early resignations in the governments formed in 1984 or 1990, and while I haven't seriously dug back, Worth does seem to be the earliest Ministerial scalp in recent memory. And sadly, also the most secretive.
New Zealand has topped the Global Peace Index, making us officially the most peaceful country in the world. That's quite an achievement, and a testament to Labour's foreign policy while in power.
Drilling down, the major bad spots in our ranking are "military capability / sophistication", and "Perceptions of criminality in society", which measures the level of distrust in other citizens. The latter is driven by systematic over-reporting of crime and dishonest fearmongering from politicians. We'd be a lot better as a society without either.
Here's a hint: being investigated by the police is not "personal reasons" or "some private matters". As Tracy Watkins points out, public office comes with strings as well as a Ministerial limousine, and one of those strings is fronting up and explaining why you've resigned. Especially when the Prime Minister says "If he hadn't resigned I would have sacked him".
On this, the government just looks shifty and secretive, as if they are trying to cover something up. Key has to come clean and explain why he would have sacked his Minister. Fortunately, we have a Question Time today, and he is likely to be pressed hard on it.
(Tui stolen from The Standard)
Update: Key on Worth:
"His conduct does not befit a minister. I will not have him in my Cabinet. I have lost confidence in him as a minister."So a) why didn't Key sack him a weel ago when he first learned of the problem (and not from Worth); and b) such strong condemnation now makes his earlier attempt at a coverup look all the more indefensible. Did he really think no-one would ask, or that we wouldn't find out that Worth was the subject of a criminal investigation? Is Key really that much of a fool?
Over on Public Address System, a couple of loons are valiantly trying to excuse and minimise the murder of abortion doctor Dr George Tiller, arguing that it isn't terrorism. Of course it is. Tiller was murdered by a "pro-lifer" (quotes for the obvious irony) to advance a religious cause, with the clear aim of inducing terror in a civilian population - namely other abortion providers. That would meet our definition under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, and it certainly meets the United States'.
One of the minimising tactics is to claim that this is an "isolated incident" and a single murder. But it is neither. Since 1977, there have been 8 murders, 17 attempted murders, 179 assaults, 4 kidnappings, 659 bioterror threats, 41 bombings, 175 arsons, and 96 attempted bombings or arsons against abortion providers in the US. That's a sustained, but low-level campaign, driven by an organised movement which incites murder by publishing hate lists and "wanted posters", with the underlying aim of pointing random armed nutjobs at people who carry out a lawful medical procedure.
The bodycount may be low - largely I think because the US's anti-abortion nutjobs don't have access to rocket-propelled grenades and semtex - but this is unquestionably a terrorist campaign. And we should be honest enough to call it that.
Meanwhile, I'm just pleased that I live in a sane country, which does not have a right-wing culture of eliminationism, and where killing people for their political views is absolutely beyond the pale.
The Nevada state legislature has overridden a gubernatorial veto to pass a "domestic partnership" law, guaranteeing same- (and opposite-) sex couples
the same rights, protections and benefits... as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.It's not marriage - instead its "separate but equal" (which isn't). At the same time, its a tremendous step forward for gay rights in Nevada, and more broadly in the US. Five states now offer full marriage equality; six offer domestic partnerships or civil unions practically equivalent to marriage (though one of these, New Hampshire, is about to go the full way as well). New York is expected to pass a same-sex marriage bill by the end of the month, and New Jersey has similar legislation in the pipeline. State by state, equality is slowly advancing...
In her first speech as Green party co-leader, Metiria Turei has opened the books on her party's Parliamentary expenses:
Following the example of Russel Norman as our candidate in Mt Albert, this week we will release the costs of all MPs air travel, taxi use, rental car hire, Wellington accommodation and out of Wellington hotel costs for the period 1 January to 30 April. Thereafter we will release this information annually.It is a welcome move towards transparency in this area, and it immediately puts the pressure on the other parties to do likewise. And it seems to be producing some movement already, with John Key writing to the Speaker to request a cross-party committee to examine ways of opening up Parliament to greater scrutiny. However, he also caveated that with the usual argument against Parliamentary transparency:We are the first political party to make this commitment to transparency and we hope that the others will follow suit. It is traditionally the role of the Green Party to keep the old grey Parties honest and we will do so again.
However, the public had to remember that some MPs' expenses would be much higher because of where they lived - the MP for Wellington would obviously spend far less on air travel than that for Invercargill.In other words, they need secrecy to prevent the public from drawing unfair conclusions about MPs based on their spending. It's the same arrogant, snobbish attitude that saw Tories arguing in the nineteenth century that the poor and women couldn't be allowed to vote because they were just too stupid or irresponsible to make such decisions "properly". It also shows a deep discomfort with the role of the people in a democracy as the ultimate arbiters of political behaviour. We decide what politicians are judged on - not the politicians themselves."So you wouldn't want a Member of Parliament to be besmirched by the fact that they might have a slightly higher flight bill or taxi record simply because they live further away," Mr Key said.
Transparency is vital if we are to do the latter properly and hold politicians properly accountable. Trying to hide will simply increase the public suspicion of politicians (who regularly rate down there with used car salesmen and Paul Holmes in terms of public trust), and increase the costs when the truth comes to light, with a consequent corrosive effect on our democracy.
The Auckland Governance Committee has called for submissions on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. Two copies, by Friday, 26 June 2009, to:
Auckland Governance Committee SecretariatThe bill contains the details of the government's Auckland Supercity, including its plans for at-large election, no Maori seats and powerless community boards. Submitting on it is vital if we want those things to change.
Parliament Buildings
Wellington
Making a submission is as easy as writing a letter saying that you support or oppose the bill and stating the reasons why. If you need help, the Office of the Clerk has a handy guide here [PDF].
Minister of Conservation Tim Groser ignored official advice and instead bowed to demands from the Minister of Energy when he decided to alter the proposed boundaries of the Oteake Conservation Park to exclude a lignite deposit.
The boundaries for the new park were announced by the Minister in April, and excluded a 195 hectare area over the Hawkdun lignite deposit, described as "a significant resource of recoverable energy". But papers released under the Official Information Act show that the previous Minister, Steve Chadwick, had been advised to include the area in the park [PDF], and had agreed to do so. However, the gazetting of park boundaries - originally scheduled for Conservation week on 11 or 12 September 2008 - was delayed by the announcement of the election date. Following the election, the new Minister put the formal setting of park boundaries on hold following a letter from the Minister of Energy [PDF]. He then ignored advice from the Otago Conservator on the value of the area to the park as a whole and instead decided to exclude it [PDF] in order to remove
a significant barrier to investment and development [due to] increased access uncertainty.According to advice from the Otago Conservator [PDF], the Hawkdun lignite deposit "is one of ten in Otago-Southland that could help meet the country's energy needs in the future". It noted that the boundaries had already been agreed by the previous Minister after consultation [PDF] with the previous Minister of Energy [PDF], who had agreed with the decision as
the Hawkdun deposit straddles the main stem of the Manuherikia River, and so has environmental constraints that may be more pressing than for other lignite deposits.The core of the advice stressed the value of the area to the park and to the New Zealand conservation estate:
The upper Manuherikia valley is one of the few places where Oteake park can include basin floor or "lowland" components. Including such components enables parks to better protect and represent the full range of high country environments, ecosystems and landscapes, and offer a wider range of recreational opportunities. To agree to the Crown Minerals / L&M Mining request would have removed from the park one or both of the two substantial areas that extend onto the basin floor. Therefore, although the Crown Minerals and L&M Mining submissions are only asking for a tiny fraction of the total conservation land proposed for the park (65,000 hectares) to be excluded, they are critically important areas. Undeveloped basin floor to range crest sequences and landscapes are now rare in the South Island high country, and opportunities to include them in parks are rarer still. This is one of the few such remaining opportunities.The Conservator also highlighted the area's current recreational (it was the site of a DOC campground and the locus for a network of 4WD and mountain bike trails), ecological (it provides habitat for the endangered black-fronted tern and other birds), and archaeological (a Maori quarry) value. But in the eyes of the present government, all of that apparently comes second to the possibility of turning it into an open-cast mine for an environmentally unsustainable fuel which is quite literally killing the planet.
How can we replace the irrelevant Queen's Birthday holiday with one New Zealanders actually care about? Like this:
Holidays (Matariki) Amendment BillThe bill is online at the Progressive Bills Project. All we need is an MP to take it.The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows:
1. Title
This Act is the Holidays (Matariki) Amendment Act 2009.2. Commencement
This Act comes into force on the 1 January 2010.3. Principal Act Amended
This Act amends the Holidays Act 2003.4. Matariki a Public Holiday
Section 44 (1) is amended by adding the following paragraph:"(l) Matariki"
5. Queens Birthday Abolished
Section 44(1)(i) is repealed.
Today is Queen's Birthday - an event that means nothing to most New Zealanders, except as the last public holiday before the long, dark winter. It doesn't mean much to our government either - apart from the annual honours list (this year with extra feudalism!), there is no official celebration. No local government is marking the "occasion" either - but several have organised official celebrations for the homegrown matariki.
It's yet another sign of the total irrelevance of the monarchy to modern New Zealand - and another argument to get rid of it. They don't care about us, we don't care about them - so why bother to pretend anymore? If this was a marriage, it would be long over and the parties gone their separate ways.
It's time to ditch the Queen and replace them with a head of state who is truly of this country, rather than distant foreigner. And while we're at it, we can replace this holiday that no-one cares about with one that people do.
