Will they be prosecuted?

On December 29 last year, Constables Christopher Pritchard and Rory Chapman attended a reported domestic dispute in Timaru. Despite being told that other police had already attended and resolved the matter, they broke into the house and searched it. When the inhabitants of the house, who were showering after returning from the beach, told them to leave, they pepper-sprayed and tasered one of them. Then, to add insult to injury, they prosecuted him for assaulting them.

Today, that case was thrown out by a judge, who found that the police's taser-cam evidence contradicted their claims, and that they had clearly lied. Which invites the question: will these officers be prosecuted for perjury, trespass and assault? And if not, why not?

Justice for the disappeared

Between 1976 and 1983, Argentina's military junta waged a campaign of violence against dissidents, students, and unionists known as the "Dirty War". Thousands were disappeared, tortured and murdered by government death squads, their bodies flung from the backs of planes over the Atlantic Ocean to prevent any evidence from coming to light. One particular horror was the theft of the children of the victims, who were given to military families to raise. An estimated 400 children were stolen in this manner.

Yesterday, former dictators Jorge Videla and Reynaldo Bignone were convicted for their role in that crime. Videla was sentenced to 50 years in prison, Bignone to 15. Both are already serving lengthy prison sentences for torture, murder, and disappearance, and will likely die in jail. But this doesn't make the convictions pointless. The trial has uncovered and acknowledged the truth. While that makes no difference to Videla, it makes all the difference in the world to his victims.

Something to go to in Wellington

Our Far South, the Morgan Foundation project responsible for the Million Dollar Mouse pest eradication campaign, is holding a series of lunchtime seminars in Wellington:

• 10 July: "Is climate change real and have we caused it?" - We will review the latest evidence on anthropogenic climate change.
• 11 July: "Climate change in our far south" - the southern ocean is the engine room of the world's climate and ocean system. What impacts will climate change have on the region and on the planet?
• 12 July: "Can we keep Antarctica dedicated to peace and science?" - The Antarctic treaty system has bee successful for more than 50 years but can it deal with the rise of a resource hungry China and India?
• 16 July: "Fishing and marine protection in our far south" - We will look at whether the fishing of Antarctic toothfish is sustainable and what options there are for marine protection in the area.

They all start at 12:30 and are in the Academy of fine arts, Queens wharf, Wellington. FaceSpy event here.

Private prisons still failing

When the government introduced private prisons, they promised us that it would lead to better performance. But six months on, Serco's Mt Eden Corrections Facility is still failing to meet basic performance targets:

Private prison operator Serco has failed to meet half of its performance targets since taking over Auckland's Mt Eden Prison.

A report card on Serco's performance released today reveals three inmates were wrongly released, one escaped and there were three wrongful detentions.

The percentage of sentenced prisoners with an appropriate plan in place within required timeframes was only 28 per cent - two thirds lower than the 90 per cent target.

Of 37 targets Serco was to meet in the nine months to April half weren't met.

Looking at the full data [PDF], they're also getting worse on prisoner assaults and on adhering to rehabilitation planning. And remember, these are intentionally soft targets, set below Corrections' performance so National could declare privatisation a success.

So, will Serco be fined? Or will we continue to pay a premium price for this non-performance?

Unscientific

For the past twenty-five years, Japan has been engaging in "scientific whaling" as a way of getting around the ban on commercial whaling. Now, South Korea wants to get into the act too:

South Korea is proposing to hunt whales under regulations permitting scientific research whaling, echoing the programmes of its neighbour, Japan.

Hunting would take place near the Korean coast on minke whales. How many would be caught is unclear.

The South Korean delegation to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) said the research was needed "for the proper assessment of whale stocks".

Because obviously, assessing whale stocks requires killing and eating them, rather than mucking around with cameras, GPS tags, and databases.

This isn't science - its using "science" as a cover for commercial exploitation. And the IWC should not permit it.

Perverting the RMA

What do you call environmental legislation that does not protect the environment? The Resource Management Act, if National has its way!

One of the core parts of the RMA is Section 6. This lays out certain "matters of national importance", which everyone exercising powers under the Act must "recognise and provide for". These include the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment, and the protection of outstanding natural features, significant vegetation and habitats, and historical heritage.

This annoys National's orcs, who see the requirement to protect these things as a barrier to development. So they convened a "Technical Advisory Group" of cronies and told them to look at it. That group has now reported back - and recommended a new section 6. This new section does not use the word "protection" once. Oh, the value of the coastial environment, outstanding national features, significant vegetation and habitats, and historical heritage must be recognised - but there's no requirement to protect it.

And it gets worse: they've also recommended adding a few clauses, requiring local bodies to recognise and provide for

• The significant benefits to be derived from the use and development of natural and physical resources
• The planning, design and functioning of the built environment, including the reasonably foreseeable availability of land for urban expansion, use and development
• The planning, design and functioning of significant infrastructure

So, instead of protecting the environment, we will have a developer's charter, requiring local authorities to encourage mining and urban sprawl, and giving a blank cheque to whatever crazy roading project Gerry Brownlee wants to buy votes with.

Naturally, none of this is mentioned in National's press release. That's all about "recognising natural hazards" (an utterly uncontentious idea, the omission of which should be corrected).

This is a fundamental perversion of the RMA, away from environmental protection and towards blanket statutory approval of development. National's orcs, who want to dig up, cut down, or pave over everything in sight, will be pleased. But I'm not so sure the New Zealand public will be.

Europe rejects ACTA

Last month, the European Parliament's International Trade Committee took a hard look at the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, and did not like what it saw. Last night, the European Parliament followed the committee's lead, and resoundingly rejected the treaty, by 478 votes to 39:

The defeat brings to an end years of secret international negotiations, during which opponents of the treaty had complained that it was not being given sufficient public examination to determine whether its proposals were excessive or reasonable.

When it finally surfaced and became the topic of European Parliament discussion, opponents complained that it could, if interpreted strictly, lead to censorship and loss of privacy online.

Fears that the treaty would limit internet freedom had mobilised broad opposition across Europe, leading to demonstrations in a number of cities in the spring.

This means ACTA is basically dead in Europe. While the unelected European Commission is talking about reviving it, its highly unlikely they'll win a vote the second time round (and if they push it, they may find the European Parliament cuts off their sock budget).

Meanwhile, wouldn't it be nice if our parliament had these sorts of powers over foreign policy? While we're rightly proud of our democracy, on foreign policy we're resolutely stuck back in the age of absolute monarchy: the king Prime Minister decides, with no democratic input or oversight. As a democratic country, we can and should do better than that.

The same problems everywhere

It looks like the UK has a problem with police rapists as well:

Sexual predators in the police are abusing their power to target victims of crime they are supposed to be helping, as well as fellow officers and female staff, the Guardian can reveal.

An investigation into the scale and extent of the problem suggests sexual misconduct could be more widespread than previously believed.

The situation raises questions about the efficacy of the police complaints system, the police's internal whistleblowing procedures, the vetting of officers and a failure to monitor disciplinary offences.

Police officers have been convicted or disciplined for a range of offences from rape and sexual assault to misconduct in public office relating to inappropriate sexual behaviour with vulnerable women they have met on duty. Others are awaiting trial for alleged offences, though many are never charged with a criminal offence and are dealt with via internal disciplinary procedures.

The problem is to a large extent hidden, as no official statistics are kept and few details are released about internal disciplinary action in such cases.

And the contributing factors look awfully similar to those in New Zealand: a culture of sexism, a refusal to take complaints seriously, failure to monitor officers subject to repeated complaints, and a police force which puts preserving its own reputation ahead of justice. Together, these let abusive police officers get away with crimes which should see them in jail.

The UK's Independent Police Complaints Commission and Association of Chief Police Officers are carrying out a joint inquiry onto the scale of the problem. it will be interesting to see whether it leads to justice, and whether it will result in changes in the UK's police culture.

National's wheel of fortune II

Via Dim-Post, another version:

(Image by Joe Wylie)

All down to Dunne again

Last week, the government passed its privatisation law on the single vote of Peter Dunne. Now, it looks set to vote down a minimum price for alcohol in the same way:

Labour has drafted an amendment to the alcohol legislation which would introduce a minimum pricing regime.

[...]

But the Green Party and Maori Party also back minimum pricing.

That leaves United Future MP Peter Dunne with the deciding vote.

Dunne has previously stated he was unconvinced a minimum pricing regime would have the desired affect.

He's gone a bit further than that, tweeting today that "If Labour's minimum alcohol price amendment depends on my vote, it is doomed."

Which is sadly exactly what you'd expect from an MP in the pocket of the liquor industry. This is a guy who abuses his Ministerial position to bury data which makes his booze buddies look bad; of course he'll vote against real action which will cost them money.

Don't buy stolen assets

Last week the government passed its privatisation law, allowing it to sell parts of Mighty River Power, Genesis, meridian, Solid Energy and Air New Zealand to their rich cronies. So what should opponents of asset sales do about it? Dominion-Post journalist Vernon Small uses his Stuff blog to argue that we should buy the shares to keep them in Kiwi hands.

IMHO, this is a bad idea. Firstly, there's the moral argument: privatised assets are stolen assets. Buying them is no different from buying a "second-hand" laptop from a dodgy person at a pub. Its receiving stolen goods. Because these goods were stolen from us by the government, its not a crime - but its not moral either.

But secondly, even Small admits his plan won't work:

Of course it won't happen, because some shares - maybe as many as 20-30 per cent of those on offer - will be set aside for foreign institutional investors.

Meanwhile, interest from those extraordinary kiwis rich enough to buy shares will be taken as a sign of success by the government. So by buying in, you'll be helping National's PR (not to mention being the greater fool our stockmarket insiders rely on).

Instead of buying in, opponents of asset sales should boycott stolen assets (both on he stock market, and in the real one: if you are a customer of Mighty River Power, switch). And they should support calls for those assets to be forcibly renationalised at less than the sale price. Asset-thieves should not be allowed to profit from their crime.

OIA performance stats: That time of year again

For the past two years, I've conducted an annual survey of OIA performance, requesting Ministers' and Departments' internal OIA data and crunching the numbers to find out who answers on time and who does not. The 2011 financial year has just ended, so its time for another round. Last night I emailed 29 Ministers and 28 departments; now I get to spend the next month alternatively waiting and number crunching. Hopefully this year I'll even remember to post the results.

Of course, this isn't something I should have to do. In the UK, for example, departments are required to proactively publish this information. In Canada, the Information Commissioner collects and analyses the data. Nothing is stopping the government from doing that here, and I'm surprised that they don't.

Iwi and rivers

Last week, the Supreme Court decided a significant case. Paki and Others v Attorney-General of New Zealand [PDF] was officially about a very tight legal question: whether the Coal-Mines Act Amendment Act 1903 (which asserted crown ownership of the bed of navigable rivers) applied to a particular stretch of the Waikato River. The Supreme Court found by a 4-1 majority that it did not, as navigability had to be assessed as a question of fact according to how it applied to particular stretches of river in 1903.

The court did not find that the Pouakani people owned the bed of that part of the Waikato River (they agreed they did not). It did not find that the crown held the riverbed in trust (which is what the case is actually about). Those questions will be decided by lower courts now that this appeal has been resolved. But like the Ngati Apa decision on the foreshore and seabed, this opens an incredible can of worms, and is likely to lead to other cases. Most obviously, where the crown asserts ownership of a riverbed merely on the basis of navigability rather than purchase, that can be disputed as a question of historical fact, and the original customary ownership restored (if indeed it was ever ousted; both the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal are doubtful about that). As with the foreshore, assumed crown ownership on the basis of English customary law won't stand against aboriginal title.

But the most significant implication is for the government's planned sale of Mighty River Power. Three of Mighty River's dams are built on land covered by the decision - land which may yet be found to be held in trust for the Pouakani people, and other iwi may yet file their own cases. That means at the least that some provision needs to be made for compensation or transfer if the courts uphold the trust, and the sale should not proceed until such provision is made. To do otherwise would be a Treaty breach, of exactly the type that New Zealand Māori Council v. Attorney-General (1987) (and the subsequent amendments to the State-Owned Enterprises Act) was supposed to prevent.

This is what happens when you keep rates down

There was a storm in Auckland this afternoon. In a normal city, this means people stay indoors with the cat, and hope they don't have to go out. In Auckland, it means flash-flooding and sewage in the streets. The reason? Decades of local government promising to "keep rates down", and penny-pinching on infrastructure and maintenance to do it. Aucklanders reliably voted for this, and today they got their payoff: shit flowing down Queen Street, causing a public health hazard and untold damage to the city's reputation.

The lesson: one way or another, you are going to end up paying for sewers and storm-water drains. Better to vote for politicians who are honest about that fact, rather than those who pretend that cuts don't have consequences.

Key's TreasuryLogic on alcohol

One of the basic rules of economics is that if you increase the price of something, people buy less of it. But not in the case of alcohol, according to the Prime Minister:

Prime Minister John Key says he is not convinced a minimum price for alcohol would work because it could force people to drink poorer quality liquor instead of drinking less.

[...]

He said it was uncertain what a minimum pricing scheme would entail: "Does it mean a supermarket couldn't loss-lead ... or does it mean that there's actually a minimum price for a unit of alcohol?"

Mr Key believed that if a minimum price were set, it would change the quality of alcohol that people drank, but not the amount.

"What typically happens is people move down the quality curve and still get access to alcohol."

Which I think tells us firstly that Key doesn't understand the concept of a minimum price (it is a minimum price per standard drink, which would basically double the cost of budget drinks like cask wine and discount beer; switching drinks doesn't escape it, because they're also subject to the same minimum price); and secondly, that like Treasury he is willing to deny basic economics when it serves his political goals (in this case, coming up with a reason to oppose a Labour party policy). He is both ignorant, and intellectually dishonest.

The evidence is crystal clear: the most effective method to reduce social harm from harmful products is higher prices. It works for tobacco. It would work for carbon (but instead the government subsidises pollution). It will work for alcohol. But that would mean that the booze barons make less money, and we can't be having that now, can we?

Climate change: Neither balanced nor responsible

The government has announced its response to its strapped-chicken review panel: introducing offsetting for pre-1990 forest land, and extending pollution subsidies for industry and agriculture for another three years. While inconsistent with Kyoto, the former isn't particularly bad when applied to plantation forestry, though it will mean the government covering the costs of such switches, which is an implicit subsidy to dairy conversion. The latter OTOH fatally undermines the scheme. The basic principle of the ETS is supposed to be "polluter pays". Instead, with the extension of "transitional" subsidies, that has been turned on its head, to "pay polluters". And its costing us over a billion dollars a year - revenue we are currently having to borrow, or steal from other areas in cuts. And while we are paying these subsidies, polluters have no incentive whatsoever to clean up their act and pollute less.

The government calls these chances "balanced and responsible". They're not. Instead, they're just another handout to its cronies.

Not thinking about it

Marriage equality has been a big topic over the past few years, with country after country (latest: France) moving to remove discrimination from their marriage laws. So how much thinking has our government done about it over the years? Someone used FYI, the free public OIA request website, to ask for all documents on the matter since the passage of the Civil Union Act in 2005. The result? A whole lot of responses to emails from the public, and a one-page briefing from February this year [PDF] apparently produced as a response to the US Court of Appeal decision overturning Proposition 8. The guts of that briefing?

No policy consideration is currently being given to same-sex marriage... No work is currently underway.

And that's it. Its as if the government has been resolutely sticking their fingers in their ears and going "la la la la not thinking about it".

National's wheel of fortune

How National generates policy (inspiration from this and this; artwork by Tim Denee):

New Fisk

President Morsi, a rigged ballot and a fox's tale that has all of Cairo abuzz

Kiwis support gay adoption

The Herald reports on a poll showing that over 60% of kiwis support gay adoption:

A Herald-DigiPoll showed that 61.2 per cent of the public felt adoption law should be changed to allow all couples, including same-sex couples, to adopt while 35.1 per cent felt adoption should be kept to heterosexual couples. The survey also showed more than half of New Zealanders approved of gay marriage, while 40.5 per cent opposed it.

Labour and Greens have long called for an update to the Adoption Act 1955, which governs the rules of adoption. National felt it was not a priority.

This is a seven percent increase in support in the last six months, which is probably statistically significant. And the reason is pretty clear: people have begun talking about it. And once they do, the case for reform becomes overwhelming. No sensible person opposes same-sex couples being allowed to be legal parents to their own kids, or civil unioned couples being able to adopt when de facto couples can. Meanwhile, the "case" against - essentially smearing gays as paedophiles - is exposed as nothing more than bigotry.

There's a bill in the ballot, and I have no doubt that if it is drawn, it will pass, with only arch-bigots like Bill English and Judith Collins voting against it.