Submit!

The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has called for submissions on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. The due date is Thursday, 25 July 2013. You can either use the form linked above, or send two copies to

Transport and Industrial Relations Committee Secretariat
Parliament Buildings
Wellington

The bill will allow employers to refuse to "opt-out" (refuse to negotiate) multi-employer collective agreements, and abolish the good faith requirement to conclude collective bargaining. Essentially it will allow employers to simply refuse to negotiate with unions at all (while, if National has their way, locking out their workers and hiring scabs instead). And this of course means lower wages, worse conditions, and ultimately lower living standards for ordinary kiwis.

A victory for free media in Greece

Last week, the Greek government pulled the plug on state broadcaster ERT. Now, the courts have ordered it back on air. But only in the interim - they endorsed the idea of restructuring, just not cutting it off immediately.

In the meantime, the government's high-handed actions have upset its coalition partners, who were not consulted, and it is now threatening to cause the collapse of the coalition and a snap election. This is being greeted with horror by the NeoLiberals, who are using phrases like "possible destruction of the country" if they're forced to go to the polls. Which I think perfectly illustrates their contempt for democracy and the people they supposedly represent. If Greece has an election over this, the country will go on - but a large pack of the parasitic and institutionally corrupt MPs who have sold their country out to the IMF will not. And that can only be a Good Thing.

Fundamentally compromised

Today's in NSALeaks, the news that GCHQ spied on foreign diplomats at the 2009 G20 summit, compromising their cellphones, emails, and internet communications (including by the ingenious method of setting up fake internet cafes loaded with keyloggers and other spyware to capture diplomat's communications and passwords). This should cause us to ask a couple of questions here in New Zealand.

Firstly, have our supposed "allies" spied on us in this way? Probably, because international friendship means nothing in such negotiations. Similarly, it is likely that the GCSB has pulled similar dirty tricks where we have hosted diplomatic events, which tarnishes our role as an honest broker (there's probably a scoop waiting for some journalist if they start tracking down ownership of internet cafes around venues for diplomatic events we have hosted, such as APEC or the Pacific Forum; likewise a fun game for protesters of picketing such cafes with warning signs).

Secondly, and more importantly: has the GCSB done everything it could to prevent our "allies" spying on us in this way? This after all is their fundamental job: to ensure the security of government communications. The problem is that its a bit difficult to do so when you have a partnership with those foreign spies, and where protecting your own communications means revealing their capabilities and methods (which the GCSB will have agreed to keep secret in order to benefit from their intelligence).

This exposes a fundamental conflict of interest between the GCSB's two roles, created entirely by its relationship with foreign agencies. Bluntly, it cannot protect our government's communications while working in partnership with foreign agencies in the way that it does. We need to choose, between a spy agency which works for us, and one which will betray our interests to protect its relationship with the US and UK. And put that way, the choice is obvious.

New Fisk

Iran to send 4,000 troops to aid President Assad forces in Syria
As the US wants to arm 'nice Syrian rebels' we must remind ourselves that weapons are not just guns. They are about money
Now I really don't want to appear on the Newseum's shameful list

Against karakia in schools

Over the weekend the Herald reported that teachers at Kelston Intermediate were objecting to being forced to lead pupils in a karakia every morning. They're right. The Education Act 1964 is crystal clear: teaching at intermediate schools (which are primary schools according to the Act's interpretation clauce) "shall be entirely of a secular character". That means that prayers in any language are inappropriate, and pretending its a "cultural practice" doesn't change that. If the school wants to hold religious observances, it must either do it outside normal school hours, or seek special permission from the Minister - and in both cases attendance cannot be compulsory. And regardless, it is inappropriate (and a violation of the right to freedom of religion) to require teachers to lead such observances.

This is settled law, and the school's Board of trustees should know that. And so should Pita Sharples. While karakia may be entirely normal in pupil's homes, it is not appropriate in schools. Compulsory schooling is not a vehicle for the religious beliefs of the majority to be rammed in the face of the minority (or vice versa, for that matter).

Meanwhile, its worth noting that while primary students are protected in this way, because secondary education was not compulsory when the original clause was passed in 1914, high school students are not. That has to change. Anyone want to take a member's bill to do it?

The revolving door

The Herald reports on new Speaker David Carter's generosity in approving Parliamentary access passes to lobbyists. But in the process, they miss the real story: the revolving door between government and lobbying:

Three former ministerial advisers are among those give easy-access cards in the past year: Air New Zealand's Phil de Joux, who used to be John Key's deputy chief of staff; Anadarko's Anita Ferguson, who was Steven Joyce's press secretary, and Fonterra's Nicola Willis, who was an adviser and speech-writer for Mr Key.

All three of these people are leveraging relationships built in government service for private gain. That is not only ethically dubious; it degrades the reputation of Parliament, and raises the question of whether the advice they gave in their previous position was affected by their desire to gain outside employment (a question which also arises about members of the Parliamentary press gallery when they move to better-paid positions as political spindoctors). Granting them the special favour of free access to Parliament degrades it even further, and raises questions about what other favours they are getting from Ministers.

Some countries prohibit former public servants from leveraging their relationships in this way, by barring them from employment as lobbyists for a period. That would be a big step, but I think the least we can do to clean up our politics is to not enable such individuals. And the first way of doing that is to stop showing them special favour. If they want to talk to Ministers, let them wait in the queue with everybody else.

Gutted

The Commerce Committee has reported back on Te Ururoa Flavell's Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. But while they've recommended that it be passed with amendments, the bill has basically been gutted, turned from a tool to reduce gambling harm to one to increase it.

As originally drafted, the bill would have required that gambling profits be distributed in the communities they were extracted from, rather than given to rich people's "charities" at the other end of the country; eliminated corrupt "pokie trusts" and given the job of distributing funds to elected local authorities; prohibited the use of gambling proceeds to fund racing and racing stakes (i.e. more gambling); allowed local authorities to impose tighter restrictions in specific suburbs; and required the use of tracking technology to show users how much they had lost. The amended bill does none of these things. Instead, it allows pokie operators to circumvent existing legislation by allowing grandfathered sites (which are allowed more than the current cap of nine machines) to retain their licence if they relocate. Oh, the government will gain the ability to regulate around profits and player-tracking technology, but that's not the same as a statutory requirement.

These amendments were imposed by the National majority on the committee. The conclusion? That party is the bought-and-paid-for servant of the gambling industry. They are not interested in eliminating pokie corruption (because it is their mates doing it, stealing money from the poor to pave their own driveways and support their own hobbies).

Meanwhile, the Labour Party did not issue a minority report on the bill, and instead "reserve[d] its position". Clayton Cosgrove was on the committee. Clayton Cosgrove was also in SkyCity's corporate box last week. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

Time for Invercargill to buy the smelter?

Rio Tinto has written down the value of Tiwai Point to next to nothing:

The Australian majority owners of the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter, Rio Tinto, have written more than half a billion dollars off the value of the ageing plant, leaving it with a value on its books of just $14.8 million, from $606.9 million previously.

The decision was made in February but has been only disclosed today with the lodging of financial accounts with the New Zealand Companies Office for Rio Tinto Alcan NZ, the subsidiary that owns 79 per cent of the smelter, which has operated near Bluff since 1971.

Which raises the question: if its that cheap, why doesn't Invercargill try and put together a local consortium to buy it? If they seriously believe it has a future, this seems like an excellent opportunity for them to put their money where their mouth is (and reap the rewards if they're right).

Too radical

So, it looks like Jamie-lee Ross's Scab Bill is too radical even for the Employers and Manufacturers' Association:

A leading business lobby warns a strike-breaking bill to come before Parliament will prove ''divisive'' and could be a bridge too far.

[...]

"New Zealand communities place a high value on fairness and the Bill could have consequences that would be considered unfair.

"In spite of several high profile cases we have had 10 to 15 years of harmonious workplace relations and don't want to jeopardise that."

The EMA are no shrinking violets when it comes to putting the boot into workers. But even they can recognise that this is the sort of law which invites a reaction, which is likely to be unpleasant for employers. Ross would be wise to listen, and withdraw his bill from the Order Paper.

Blinding the public in Greece

The Greek government has shut down its state broadcaster "to save money":

Greek state TV and radio were gradually pulled off the air late on Tuesday, hours after the government said it would temporarily close all state-run broadcasts and lay off about 2,500 workers as part of a cost-cutting drive demanded by the bailed-out country's international creditors.

TV and radio stations of the Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation, or ERT, were pulled off the air in several parts of the country from about 11pm (9pm BST), about an hour before the government said all signals would go dead, although satellite broadcasts continued.

The conservative-led government said ERT would reopen "as soon as possible" with a new, smaller workforce. It wasn't immediately clear how long that would take, and whether all stations would reopen.

I guess its far easier to impose "reforms" and sell off the country if there is no independent media there to keep an eye on you.

The good news is that the Greek people aren't taking this lying down. And neither are the ERT staff - they've seized control of their studios and are still broadcasting with the assistance of the European Broadcasting Union. The government's response has been to threaten to send in riot police to shut them up - which tells you what this is really about: blinding the public and stifling criticism.

New Fisk

Iran election: Farewell Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, we’ll miss you – but not that much...

A dark day for New Zealand

Last night, the Immigration Amendment Bill passed its third reading in Parliament. The bill allows for the indefinite detention of refugees who arrive in a "mass arrival" (30 or more people), and to allow the processing of refugee claims to be suspended indefinitely by order of the Minister, in violation of the Refugee Convention. In other words, we've just signed up to Australia's racist, xenophobic refugee policy.

Why? Its not as if we have hordes of refugee boats arriving here, after all, or that such refugees turn out to be ineligible (in fact, looking at the Australian experience, most prove their claims for asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution). But to riff on some stuff Gordon Campbell posted in relation to surveillance and terrorism, its not about the threat to New Zealand, but about the threat to New Zealand politicians' careers. A mass arrival would inevitably cause criticism, and distract the government form its policy programme. And the only thing worse than a mass-arrival is a mass-arrival where the Department of Labour leaks that it was denied the authoritarian tools it thought it needed to prevent it. So, the politicians crack down not to protect us, but to protect themselves. And refugees are their helpless punching bags in the process.

It is vile, brutal, bullying politics, kicking those who are already down and making their lives miserable essentially for PR reasons. But its so very, very National, isn't it?

We are supposed to be a better country than this. We certainly think we ought to be better than the Australians. This law must be repealed. The question now is whether labour - who rightly opposed it - will actually do so when they next gain power.

Extended

According to the Parliamentary website, submissions on the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill have been extended for a week to 21 June 2013.

Unfortunately the time the Committee has to consider the bill has not been extended - they still have to report back by 26 July. So they'll have only one month (rather than the usual three) to consider complex and far-reaching changes to GCSB powers. This doesn't give them much time, and it doesn't add credibility to the process.

How very British

Back in the 1960's and 70's, the British government ethnically cleansed the island of Diego Garcia to make way for a US military base. Its inhabitants, the Chagossians, were forcibly deported from their homes and dumped in a slum in Mauritius. Stripped of their citizenship, they've been fighting to get their islands back ever since.

After losing a few court battles, the British government's latest move was to turn the entire area into a vast marine reserve, in which people - other than US military personnel and their rendered prisoners, of course - would be forbidden to live. Naturally, this was challenged in court. Unfortunately, the government won.

[Commissioner for the British Indian Ocean Territory] Roberts denied under cross-examination at the high court that the marine park was created for the "improper purpose" of keeping the Chagossians out as the US wanted, and said it was for environmental and conservation purposes.

On Tuesday the judges accepted his evidence. Richards said "a truly remarkable set of circumstances" would have to have existed for the case on improper purpose to be right, involving a long-term decision "somewhere deep in government" to frustrate Chagossian ambitions by promoting the MPA.

"Those circumstances would provide an unconvincing plot for a novel. They cannot found a finding for the claimant on this issue," Richards ruled.

That of course is exactly what did happen. But it would apparently be impolite to recognise that, so the court clings to the legal fiction that it did not happen. Incapable of admitting the truth, they are thus incapable of providing justice to those it has wronged.

There will inevitably be an appeal. The question is whether the British courts can recognise the substantive case and provide justice, or whether they will ignore it because of what is essentially a code of politeness between criminals.

Drawn

A ballot for a Members bill was held today and the following bill was drawn:

• Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill (Jami-Lee Ross)
  

The full text of the bill is here. Despite the innocuous title, the bill allows employers to use scabs to break strikes. When that was last permitted, back in the C19th and early C20th, it led to widespread industrial violence (as people naturally don't like having their jobs stolen by a scab). But like the Bourbons, it seems the reactionary National Party have learned nothing and forgotten nothing, and are hellbent on dragging us back to the horrors of the past.

Climate change: Fixing the ETS

The government's headline policy for combating climate change is the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). But the ETS is broken. An idea which in theory is supposed to make polluters pay for their emissions has been perverted in practice into one where we pay polluters to pollute more. This doesn't just make it ineffective - it also burdens future New Zealand governments with the enormous costs of subsidising polluting for decades to come.

If we actually want to do anything about this problem, then the ETS will have to be changed. The Greens have put a few markers in the ground with a members bill on the subject, the Climate Change Response (National Emissions Reduction) Amendment Bill. The bill would immediately end free allocation of credits, bring agriculture into the scheme, phase out the two-for-one deal over three years, repeal the $25/ton price cap and introduce a $30/ton price floor. In the longer term, it would establish a pathway to an 88% emissions reduction by 2050 with 5-yearly targets, and require the Prime Minister to report on progress in meeting them.

The bill is a bit rough. While seeking to end free allocations, it does not actually repeal the relevant sections. It is vague on what will need to be done to make the price floor an enforceable reality. And the independent Climate Change Commission seems to lack any real purpose, other than checking and reporting on corporate claims that price increases are due to carbon costs (something I don't think justifies the creation of a new Crown Entity). But its core provisions are the guts of any real solution to the problem. Its thus an important sign of the direction we can expect policy to take under any future Labour-Green government. Polluters beware - your free ride is going to end.

Submission

Below is my draft submission on the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill. Submissions are due tomorrow (details here), so if you want to send in one of your own, be quick about it.

1. I oppose the bulk of the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill. I specifically oppose the expansion of GCSB powers in part 1 of the bill. I cautious support the amendments to other acts in parts 2 and 3 of the bill. Finally, the bill is an excellent opportunity to improve the transparency of intelligence oversight in New Zealand by bringing the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Intelligence and Security Committee under the coverage of the Official Information Act 1982.
   
   Amendments to the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003
   
   
2. I oppose the amendments to the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 in the bill and ask that they not be passed.
   
   
3. The primary effect of the amendments to the GCSB Act in the bill is to broaden the powers of the GCSB and allow it to spy on New Zealanders. This is unjustified and a threat to democratic freedoms.
   
   
4. The supposed justification for these amendments is that the law is "unclear". This is incorrect. Section 14 of the Act is crystal clear: the GCSB is barred from intercepting the communications of New Zealanders. And as the Hansard of the debates when the Act was passed makes clear, that was the clear intent of the government and of the House. The fact that the GCSB has ignored the law is not a good reason to change it.
   
   
5. The revised interception powers in section 14 of the bill apply not just to foreign intelligence-gathering, but also to information assurance and cyber-security. The justification for the latter is weak. According to the bill's Regulatory Impact Statement, they are required in order to prevent cyber-crime (identified as "cyber-borne frauds and scams") in order to "allow the GCSB to see who (namely New Zealand individuals and companies) is being attacked". This is a disproportionate response, akin to the police sticking hidden cameras inside everyone's house in order to detect burglars.
   
   
6. The new interception powers are broader than the existing ones, applying not just to specific persons or places, but to classes of persons or places. As written, they would allow GCSB to obtain a warrant applying to "all members of Greenpeace", or to all ISP email servers.
   
   
7. Recent revelations from the USA about widespread surveillance by their National Security Agency on domestic telephone metadata and on internet user data in cooperation with major internet companies such as Apple and Google invites suspicion that the GCSB could engage in similar behaviour. Under the bill, this would be completely legal. Given the level of secrecy involved, the best way to prevent such suspicions is not to grant the powers in the first place.
   
   
8. Finally, I am concerned about the new objective of the bureau in section 6 of the bill, which includes "the economic well-being of New Zealand". In an environment where the government denounces critics of its policies as being guilty of "economic sabotage", extending the GCSB's ambit to encompass economic security while giving it domestic spying powers invites suspicion, and can only have a chilling effect on political discourse.
   
   
9. Government surveillance, or the potential for government surveillance, has a chilling effect on political expression and a corrosive effect on social relationships between citizens. It must be kept to an absolute minimum if we are to remain a free and democratic society. No justification has been provided for these powers, and therefore they should not be granted.
   
   Amendments to other Acts
   
   
10. I support the amendments to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1996 and Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996 and ask that they be passed.
    
    
11. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has a significant credibility problem and is widely viewed as a toothless rubberstamp. While I do not believe the changes in this bill will lead to much improvement, they have the potential to do so, and so I support them.
    
    
12. The changes to the Intelligence and Security Committee are mostly housekeeping but could slightly strengthen the committee. However real change will only come from the committee members taking a robust and proactive view of their role in overseeing New Zealand's intelligence agencies.
    
    Increasing transparency
    
    
13. I also ask that while Parliament is revisiting the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1996 and Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996, it add both the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Intelligence and Security Committee to Schedule 1 of the Official Information Act 1982.
    
    
14. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security performs a watchdog function over the SIS and GCSB. While they report annually to Parliament, these reports have been difficult to obtain, and there is little real information available about their work. Public confidence in their role would be improved by more openness.
    
    
15. The Committee is a government body, but it operates totally in secret. Confidence in its work (and hence in the New Zealand intelligence community as a whole) would be increased if the public were able to learn such basic facts as how often it met and whether it considered any matters beyond the annual reports of intelligence agencies (that is, whether it was providing robust and proactive oversight) without having to depend on the grace and favour of the Prime Minister.
    
    
16. The agencies the Inspector-General and Committee are responsible for - the SIS and GCSB - are both themselves subject to the OIA. The OIA contains a conclusive withholding ground for information likely to the security and defence or foreign relations of New Zealand, and this is sufficient to protect any such information either may handle.
    
    
17. I do not wish to appear before the committee.
    

Labour's hypocrisy on SkyCity

Labour has been making a lot of noise about opposing John Key's crony-casino deal with Sky City. But they're happy to take SkyCity's hospitality:

Labour has cried foul over the deal offered to SkyCity in return for building an international convention centre. But this didn't stop MPs Clayton Cosgrove and Kris Faafoi accepting an invitation to watch the All Blacks beat France from the comfort of the SkyCity corporate box at Eden Park on Saturday.

But it gets worse - David Shearer was also sucking at the corporate teat.

This is utterly hypocritical. What next? They'll be taking SkyCity's dirty gambling money as well? Labour needs to stop playing us for chumps, and walk its talk. Until it does, it shouldn't expect any votes from people who value honesty and integrity.

Member's day

After being delayed by the interminable budget debate, today is finally a Member's Day. Unfortunately there's not much exciting going on. First up there are a pair of reports of the Privileges Committee on protecting their apparat from defamation action and protecting themselves from the GCSB. The latter in particular promises to be a wonderful exercise in hypocroisy, given that they want the GCSB to be able to spy on everybody else. After that there's a boring local bill to dispose of, before they get down to the actual member's bills. But even on that front it looks rather dull - the committee stage of Todd McClay Mark Mitchell's petty Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill and the rest of the first reading of Sue Moroney's doomed Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill. If the House moves quickly, they might get on to Labour's Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill (still down as belonging to Charles Chauvel on legislation.govt.nz, but now fronted by Moana Mackey). If they get that far, we'll have a ballot for one bill tomorrow morning.

More homophobia in Russia

Russia has progressed a law making it illegal to express support for gay rights:

Gay activists were attacked and then arrested outside Russia’s parliament as lawmakers overwhelmingly passed a bill that will ban “gay propaganda” aimed at under-18s. The Duma passed the bill, which outlaws the “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations”, by 436 votes to zero, with one abstention.

The bill will now become law if it is approved by Russia’s upper house of parliament and then signed by President Vladimir Putin, who has already expressed his support for it. The bill is the most criticised element of a series of measures that activists say makes a difficult situation for gay people in Russia even worse. Individuals who violate the law can be fined up to £100, while the penalty for organisations can be up to £20,000. Foreigners found to be promoting gay equality in violation of the law will be arrested and immediately deported.

So what's "propaganda"?

[S]preading information aimed at forming non- traditional sexual behaviour among children, suggesting this behaviour is attractive and making a false statement about the socially equal nature of traditional and non-traditional relationships

Or in other words saying that gays are equal human beings whose relationships are equally worthy of respect and recognition.

Russia is a party to the European Convention on Human Rights and is supposed to respect equality. But clearly, that means about as much as the US Constitution these days.