Dodgy

Back in 2000, when George W Bush needed a Vice-Presidential candidate for his run for the Presidency, he appointed his friend Dick Cheney to find him one. Cheney obligingly reported back that the best candidate was... Dick Cheney.

Something similar seems to be going on in ACC's selection of vocational rehabilitation providers:

Tauranga-based Maureen Bray is the managing director of vocational rehabilitation service Alpha Consultants and is also the director of VocHealth NZ, which she set up last October. Ms Bray was part of an external reference group which ACC used during the design phase of the new model.

ACC awarded VocHealth a contract in January to provide rehabilitation services in much of the North Island outside of Auckland.

So, design the programme, get the contract. It certainly smells bad. ACC of course says that everything is above board, but are hiding behind the usual wall of secrecy. Fortunately, that's exactly why we have the Official Information Act. ACC will of course try and hide behind "commercial sensitivity", but in a case where we've had an allegation of corruption and conflict of interest, the public interest in release is very high indeed.

The cost of bad management

So, how much has Ports of Auckland's psychopathic management's attempt at union-busting cost Auckland ratepayers? At least $37 million this year, according to the Herald:

The port company has put the one-off revenue loss from the strikes and the looming month-long mediation period at $12.7 million, plus about $25 million annually from the loss of the Maersk and Fonterra business which has been taken to other ports.

As a result, it is unlikely that their shareholder, the Auckland Council, will see much of their expected $18 million dividend this year. From their point of view, the entire exercise has been a disaster which has cost them money and undermined the long-term value of their asset. The loss from those contracts alone is more than the savings they hope to make by casualisation.

As for Ports of Auckland's management, I'm appalled that they still have their jobs. This pack of inept clowns have wiped millions of dollars from the value of a public asset, and robbed the Auckland Council of the revenue it needs to support its citizens. And they should be sacked for it.

Starving the watchdog II

The Government Administration Committee released its financial review of the Office of the Ombudsmen [PDF] today, highlighting the systematic underfunding of this crucial watchdog. But in addition to the previously reported comments about caseload, they also have further revelations of the effects of this underfunding:

Because of a lack of resources the office cannot at present publish its case notes or the Ombudsmen Quarterly Review.

...which means that there is no recent guidance for requestors or agencies on requests, meaning the same issues get litigated again and again. But there's also this:

We were also concerned to hear that there had been no movement in staff salaries since 2007. The committee was advised that the current staff turnover was high for the office, which is losing staff to agencies that offer better salaries.

No pay rise for five years for ordinary staff (but comparing the 2007 and 2011 annual reports, the number of staff paid more than $100,000 has doubled). Meanwhile, Backbench MPs have seen their salaries rise by 12.3% in that period, and the Ministers the Ombudsman's Office is supposed to scrutinise by 10.6%. It speaks volumes about what politicians care about.

The Ombudsman's budget will apparently be considered today at a meeting of the Officers of Parliament Committee. Hopefully they'll push strongly for an increase to cope with that workload. If not, I think we can only take it as politicians deliberately undermine this crucial watchdog.

More information thuggery

Today in Parliament, Labour MP Lianne Dalziel asked some questions about the fairness of the government's bailout for red zone property-owners. Gerry Brownlee's response? To dump the details of her earthquake claim into the Parliamentary record.

Again, this is an appalling act of information thuggery, involving deeply personal information. This is purely operational information, which should never have been in the Minister's hands. And yet, when its needed for a political smear, its available to him. This suggests misconduct on the party of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, as well as a gross abuse of power by the Minister.

This isn't the first time a Minister of this government has behaved like this. Paula Bennett is off to the Human Rights Review Tribunal for breaching the privacy of beneficiaries who had stuck their heads up and complained about their treatment, in a case which looks to cost the government tens of thousands of dollars. Sadly, Brownlee's comments are covered by Parliamentary Privilege, so there seems to be no scope for holding him to account. The government department which gave him the information, OTOH, could be in a different boat. There is no reason for Ministers to know the private information of individuals dealing with CERA, it was not collected for the purpose of enabling bullying, and so passing it on to him was a violation of privacy principles. CERA needs to be held to account for that. And in future, government departments faced with such requests from Ministers should not only refuse them - but publicise the fact that the request was made, so the public can hold abusive Ministers to account.

Value for money?

In the wake of the Urewera 4 verdict, attention is turning to how much the case has cost. The latest estimate? Over $6 million:

Legal aid costs for the Urewera trial are nearing $3 million, with final invoices still to be filed.

When Crown costs are added, the taxpayer will have paid out well over $6m on an unresolved case the New Zealand Law Society describes as the costliest criminal trial in this country's history.

[...]

Not included are police costs for extended surveillance and raids across the country in October 2007.

And those costs will be several million more.

$6 million for a handful of convictions on firearms charges? Doesn't seem like value for money to me.

Gone rogue

Yesterday, Ports of Auckland workers won an important victory, with a judicial settlement forcing Ports of Auckland back to the negotiating table and barring the port from sacking them. The port's response? Lock everybody out. So, the management hired by Auckland Council to manage their asset are instead shutting it down and depriving their shareholders of revenue, solely in an attempt to show that they have bigger dicks than the union.

I don't think there's any question of it now: Ports of Auckland's management has gone rogue. They are no longer managing in the interests of their shareholders, but in the interests of themselves. And its time they were sacked for it.

Election expenses

Returns of party expenses for the 2011 election have been released. The big story? The Conservatives, who spent nearly $1.9 million [PDF], $100,000 more than Labour, in an effort to buy their way into Parliament. There were unsuccessful - there just aren't enough crazy, child-beating fundies out there - but its indicative of Colin Craig's mindset that he thinks he just needs to throw money at the problem. But that's exactly why we have spending limits: to prevent wealthy individuals like him from turning elections into money-mediated shouting matches.

In other news, the Alliance spent less than the ALCP (they ran fewer candidates too). Another example of their decline.

Psychopathic management in action

You're a psychopathic manager. You're well-paid, but not enough for your narcissistic ego. So you come up with a plan: provoke an industrial dispute at the company you manage, so you can sack the entire workforce and replace them with a new workforce run by a company you own. The shareholders who you work for will lose big - tens of millions of dollars - but you'll get ahead, and your new workforce will be compliant and docile and fulfil your desire for dominance, unlike those uppity union workers.

Something like that appears to have happened at Ports of Auckland. A manager employed to manage the business on behalf of its shareholders, the people of Auckland, appears to have been selling them out for his own financial advantage:

A Ports of Auckland manager who was at the bargaining table with the Maritime Union has been linked to a company hiring non-union wharfies.

The man has allegedly been recruiting staff for a new company, Pacific Crew Holdings Ltd, which was registered with the Companies Office on February 27.

The timing of the new company - nine days before Ports of Auckland announced it would replace 235 striking union members with non-union wharfies - has raised concerns at the Auckland Council, which owns the port company.

Obviously, this manager needs to be suspended immediately, and a full investigation begun into his conflict of interest, the effect it has had on negotiations, and how much the other managers knew about it. And if it is found that they have colluded in this ripoff of their own shareholders, they should all be sacked.

Faith-based restructuring

Last week, John Key announced that he was merging the Ministries of Economic Development, Building and Housing, Labour, and Science and Innovation into a new "super-ministry". So, how much will this cost? Labour's David Cunliffe asked super-minister Steven Joyce that question in Parliament today. The answer?

The specific costings for the items sought by the member are not available at this time.

Yes, that's right: the government embarked on a major, costly restructuring process, with no idea of how much it will cost. And yet they claim it will produce net savings. Obviously, its hard to take that claim seriously.

This is simply faith-based policy. The business-geniuses of National wouldn't be allowed to run a business this shoddily - their shareholders wouldn't let them. So why do we let them run our government in this way?

A conflict of interest?

So, why is Gerry Brownlee so keen on leaving homeless Christchurch residents to the mercy of the market? Today he was questioned about it in Parliament, and responded with utter denial. Then, I checked his entry in Parliament's Register of Pecuniary Interests [PDF] and discovered this:

Property, Ilam, Christchurch
Property, Bryndwr, Christchurch
Property, Fendalton, Christchurch

Yes, that's right: Brownlee is a landlord. I wonder whether he's benefiting from these exorbitant rents he doesn't want to do anything about?

Good riddance

Nick Smith has resigned all of his portfolios. Good riddance. He had attempted to interfere in the operational decisions of ACC in order to aid a crony while being Minister for that portfolio. His behaviour verges on corrupt, and shows that he lacks the judgement required to be a Minister. We are better off without that sort of person in our Cabinet.

The question now is what this means for his portfolios. The news there is probably bad: climate change denial and destroying the environment are tribal shibboleths of the right, and so these portfolios will almost certainly go to someone with no commitment to them. On the other hand, a change in Ministers may disrupt Smith's plans for Wellington to take over local government, just as his loss of the ACC portfolio disrupted his plans for privatisation.

Shearer and "Gotcha" politics

Back in February, Labour leader David Shearer made a lot of noise about how he was going to be different and not engage in "gotcha" politics:

"I'm not the kind of leader who believes in rival tribes playing 'gotcha', where bickering and partisanship are prized. Of course that's what a lot of people look for. They want to score the game, give points for the best smart remark in Parliament. But that's not what most New Zealanders want," Mr Shearer told an Auckland Grey Power meeting yesterday.

So what was he doing in Question Time yesterday? Engaging in "gotcha" politics:

DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements with regard to asset sales?

Its not the only incident. Every single question he has asked since the House resumed in February has asked the Prime Minister whether he stood by some statement or another - classic "gotcha" politics. In fact, he was doing this just three days after that interview was published. I guess he thought no-one would notice (or that the media, desperate for access, wouldn't call him on it).

But in addition to being a hypocrite, Shearer is also incompetent. Because yesterday, his efforts to trip the Prime Minister up over asset sales saw him comprehensively schooled about their use in his favourite country: Finland. Whoops.

Wouldn't it be nice if Labour had an honest and competent leader?

The cost of austerity

In May last year, Portugal reached a deal for a bailout from the IMF and European Central Bank. The bailout of course came with conditions: cuts, austerity, and privatisation. Now the cost of those cuts is becoming apparent: dead people.

There is a chart on the wall beside a machine that accepts credit cards. It shows the charges for seeing a doctor in one of western Europe's poorest countries, where opposition politicians blame budget cuts for a thousand extra deaths in February, 20% more than usual.

"They hiked the fees in January," said the receptionist, pointing to the new charges for everything from jabs and ear washes to having stitches removed. "Now a visit to the emergency room costs €20 instead of €9. A consultant costs €7.50. People are angry."

The health service is just one victim of sweeping cuts and increased charges for public services across Portugal.

Its a similar story in Greece, where German-imposed austerity has seen a resurgance in HIV and malaria (because needle-exchange programmes and hospitals were cut), and is expected to lead to a significant rise in infant mortality. Which is what happens when you cut healthcare and price it out of the reach of ordinary people.

It will take years before we have the proper numbers on this from an excess death study. But there's little doubt that these cuts will lead to tens of thousands of deaths in each country. And every one of those deaths can be laid at the feet of the foreign bankers demanding their pound of flesh. What they are doing to Greece and Portugal constitutes mass-murder on a vast scale. And they need to be held to account for it.

Member's Day

Today is a Member's Day, and we might actually see some Member's business for once. While there are two local bills at the top of the Order Paper, they will at most occupy only three hours of the four allotted - meaning that the House will finally be able to move on to the Committee Stage of Tau Henare's Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill. That bill is likely to be controversial - not because it requires ballots (this is merely a formalisation of current practice), but because it will allow employers to challenge the internal decision-making processes of unions and thereby undermine strike action (no such rules will apply to employers and shareholders about lockouts, of course). In a time of increasing employer militancy, its another tipping of the scales in their direction, and another erosion of employment rights in New Zealand.

There's four more Second Readings on the Order Paper, which will take a while to get through. So we're not likely to see a ballot for new bills any time soon.

The verdict

Four and a half years after the initial raids, the jury has finally reached a verdict in the trial or the Urewera Four, finding them guilty of some of the firearms charges, but failing to reach a verdict on the core charge of "participation in a criminal group". On the former, its worth noting that this crime has a reverse onus of proof; once its alleged, and possession is proven, the defendants have to prove themselves innocent. Clearly, they didn't do that to the satisfaction of the jury in all cases, and its not hard to see why. "Bushcraft" is one thing, but training to use guns against people looks very dubious indeed, and something which is hard to see as "lawful or proper" under any circumstances in a peaceful society. Likewise, on at least one of the charges in question - possession of a Molotov cocktail - there seems to be very little scope for there to even be a "lawful and proper" purpose for having one. If you want to do that sort of thing, stick to paintball.

(On the plus side, we can now all look forward to the Police mounting a year-long operation to bust the local Neo-Nazis for their camo-wearing, gun-toting training camps, right? Or is it OK if you're white and have an actual history of murdering people?)

On the organised criminal group charge, its good to see that the government's fantasies of armed rebellion were not believed by the jury. OTOH, their failure to resoundingly reject them means that (fairly or unfairly) Iti, Kemara, Bailey and Signer will be tainted for the rest of their lives. While the government could push for a retrial, that's unlikely to happen; another four and a half year delay will push this well into "undue delay" territory, and see the charges dismissed by the court. So, that's the best resolution we have: the government clearly didn't prove its case. Whether this was worth spending four and a half years and millions of dollars on is left as an exercise for the reader.

We now have a two month wait for sentencing. The maximum sentence for these offences is four years or a $5,000 fine, and the government will be pushing for a harsh sentence on the basis of those unsubstantiated fantasies. We'll just have to see whether the judge buys that, or sentences them for the crimes actually proven, rather than the police's fantasies.

Enabling council takeovers

Something I missed: National's local government reforms will allow big councils to take over little ones without their consent:

Rules for triggering an amalgamation vote would be changed, and the requirement for a majority in each of the areas considering a merger would be dumped, in favour of a majority across the whole area.

Which means that large population areas can push for a merger, and just outvote their smaller neighbours. Oh, there'll be a requirement for "significant community support" in the vassal area - but that still means that its fate will be decided by a minority of its residents. Which simply isn't democratic. But given their past actions in Auckland and Canterbury, that's just par for the course for National.

How hard is it really?

Over on A Bee of a Certain Age, Deborah highlights the real problem with Nick Smith's "personal reference" on Ministerial letterhead for a friend in conflict with his Ministry:

Yes, we know Ministers of the Crown have friends. I’ve got friends too. And I know damned well that if one of my friends turns up in my classes, then I make a careful separation between my friend and my student. I ensure that I don’t give her extra assistance over and above the assistance I would give to any of my students, and I get all her work marked by someone else, and I keep everything as open and above board as possible. That’s what an ethical person does. And it’s not at all difficult to work out.

As she said, its not difficult, and a basic part of ethics. Sadly, National Party Ministers seem to have that part of their brain surgically removed on taking office. Instead of trying to be fair and be seen to be fair, it's "how can I use this to advantage myself and my mates?"

We should not allow such unethical people to hold government office in our country.

Consented

Genesis Energy has been granted resource consent for its proposed Castle Hill wind farm. At a potential 858 MW, Castle Hill would be the biggest wind farm in the country, and our second-largest power station; if constructed, it would double our total wind generation in one hit, and put us 5% closer to our "90% renewables by 2030" target.

Unfortunately, they're not planning to actually build the thing for a few more years. But its good to have in the pipeline.

Nick Smith's personal cronyism

Cronyism is an emerging theme of this government, with favoured friends of the National Party being appointed to cushy, well-remunerated sinecures or crucial positions with a total absence of process. That's bad enough, but Nick Smith seems to have gone further, attempting to secure an ACC payout for a friend by writing her a "personal reference" on Ministerial letterhead, while Minister for ACC. The "reference" [PDF] said:

I can confirm, however, that in my many contacts with [X] prior to the accident she was well and a dynamic, capable person who worked hard and achieved a lot. To the best of my knowledge she did not have any health or other conditions that would have compromised her capacity to work.

Or, in other words, "this person has no pre-existing conditions, so give her money". Its a serious intervention into ACC's operational affairs, and a clear attempt to influence their decision. And when you're a Minister, that's absolutely unacceptable.

So, what does John Key think of all this? He's relaxed about it of course, and won't be demanding Smith's resignation. Just another example of his "higher standards" in government.

"Leave it to the market"

Christchurch has a homelessness problem. The earthquake has destroyed or damaged housing, and the resulting shortage has pushed up rents. As a result, people at the bottom of the heap can't find anywhere to live.

The government's response? Leave it to the market:

The Government appears to have ruled out further intervention in Christchurch's worsening rental housing crisis.

The solution is best left to the market, Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee says.

This would of course be the same market which has demonstrably already failed, and which will continue to fail in future unless the bottleneck around insurance can be resolved. Continuing to leave it to the market means continuing to leave people homeless. Which, over a cold southern winter, means illness and possibly death. But hey, that's obviously better than Brownlee having to admit there's a problem, and getting off his arse to solve it, right?

This isn't good enough. This is precisely the sort of problem we expect government to solve. We should demand that they meet their obligations, or be de-elected.