Utterly unreasonable

Its 2017. So when you send away a request for relatively recent government information - an appendix to a review completed in 2014, say - how do you expect to receive it?

Certainly not like this:


Hardcopy? PDF on disc? Why not just email it?

Every other appendix to this report is already available online in PDF. This appendix almost certainly exists in the same format. In that context, the police's insistence in providing it only in an antiquated format is utterly unreasonable and seems like both a naked attempt to use cost as a barrier, and to prevent it from ending up on FYI on public view forever. It is, in short, an attempt to thwart the purposes of the Act (and for obvious reasons: because the police framed an innocent man for this crime, were caught, and yet still utterly unrepentant about their perversion of the course of justice). And once again, the Ombudsman needs to teach them to obey the law.

We need more oversight on police spying

Over the weekend, we learned that the police had illegally spied on blogger Martyn Bradbury, demanding his bank records as part of their "rawshark" investigation while relying on the Privacy Act's law enforcement exception. As in the previous case of Nicky Hager, the Privacy Commissioner ruled the spying unlawful because the police had provided no justification for the search; furthermore, given the sensitivity of the information, they should have sought a (judicially-approved) production order instead.

Bradbury is now off to the Human Rights Review Tribunal in search of damages, and rightly so. The police invaded his privacy. In his case, it had significant consequences, with the bank refusing him credit essentially on the basis of police defamation. This in turn led to significant personal consequences for him. Both the police and the bank are on the hook here, and they need to be forced to pay, both to right the wrong and pour encourager les autres.

But beyond Bradbury's case, this seems to be a growing problem. Police do thousands of these sorts of information requests a year, including hundreds to banks. And there's no oversight of any of them. The practice of privacy invasion and poking through our most sensitive private details is so routine the police don't even bother keeping proper records of it:

A Police National Headquarters spokeswoman said it had yet to "consider the full impact of the Privacy Commissioner's ruling".

She said there was "no centralised system that records the number of times police may have obtained such records".

The system didn't exist because "there is currently no business requirement to do so" - the same answer then-assistant commissioner Malcolm Burgess gave in early 2015 amid an outcry over police using the exploit to get bank, electricity, travel and other records without a legal order.

No centralised records means they can't even count the number of requests, let alone review them to ensure that the police use their powers proportionately. Its highly convenient that an intrusive and proven to be abused practice is not tracked in this way. But its also completely unacceptable. The police have had multiple rulings that this practice is in some circumstances abusive and unlawful. The onus is on them to ensure that they obey the law, and it would require only a small administrative change to do so. Instead, it looks like they're deliberately colluding to cover up unlawful conduct by investigating officers.

Transparency and review are solutions here. The police are required to publish annual statistics on search and interception warrants and how effective they are so that we can see whether they are abusing their powers. They should be required to do the same for production orders and "maintenance of the law" requests. It would be a simple law change; is there an MP who wishes to stand up for the public against police abuse?

Climate change: Suppressing the evidence

National appears to be suppressing a report on climate change impacts and adaptation in the leadup to the election:

Now, Carbon News [paywalled - I/S] has revealed that another key climate change report has been withheld by Government until after the election. This is the Climate Change Adaptation Technical Working Group’s first report. The Report was to include “a summary of the expected impacts of climate change on New Zealand over the medium and long-term, and a stocktake of existing work on adaptation, by both central and local government” and has been presented to Climate Change Minister Paula Bennett.

Bennett said she would not release the report in order to “maintain the constitutional conventions which protect the confidentiality of advice tendered by officials”.

The delay in releasing the report has raised suspicions with constitutional law expert and former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer who says the public interest outweighs the constitutional convention. The Government’s refusal to release the report on the impacts of climate change suggests it might contain something politically damaging .

And what could that be? Pretty obviously there are significant impacts on coastal land, and those owners of expensive coastal property face being left with a worthless stranded asset. So do intensive dairy farmers in areas of the country predicted to become dryer - with Canterbury expected to be in severe drought every couple of years, and no snow on the Alps to replenish the rivers, dairy farming there is basicly finished (its just a question of how much they ruin their death spasm). And of course there's the impact of sea-level rise on our major cities: big areas of Wellington and Dunedin are expected to be at risk of storm surges or actually under water by the end of the century. And all of these things promise severe pain to voters, as well as questions about why the government hasn't acted sooner to prevent it.

Hopefully Carbon News has complained to the Ombudsman, and hopefully it'll be treated urgently and be released before the election. Meanwhile, you really have to ask whether we want a government so obsessed with secrecy and spin to be managing this issue, rather than one which will actually do something to fix it.

Assisting in death penalty cases is illegal

In 2014, two UK backpackers were murdered in Thailand. The UK National Crime Agency provided information to Thai police which allowed them to apprehend and convict a pair of suspects. But those suspects were sentenced to death and allegedly tortured in custody. And as a result, the NCA's assistance has been found to be illegal:

The National Crime Agency in the UK has been forced to admit it acted unlawfully when it gave information to Thai police that helped send two men to death row for murdering two British backpackers.

The NCA supplied phone record evidence and intelligence to investigators in Thailand following the September 2014 murders of Hannah Witheridge, 23, and David Miller, 24, on the island of Koh Tao.

Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo, both Burmese nationals, were convicted of the murders in 2015 after a trial which the anti-death penalty group Reprieve said was unfair. They face execution by lethal injection, and claim to have been tortured.

On Tuesday, the high court in London found against the NCA – Britain’s version of the FBI – in a case brought by lawyers for Lin and Phyo.

The NCA apparently violated government guidelines designed to prevent assistance in death penalty cases or to torture states. Its unclear whether they also violated UK Human Rights Act protections against the death penalty or torture in the process, but it is highly likely. And while it will do their victims no practical good - the Thais are going to murder them - it will hopefully prevent similar abuses in future.

Meanwhile, I'm again wondering what restrictions there are on the New Zealand police to prevent similar abuses here. I know we don't extradite to China because they murder people, but do we provide them with assistance? Because if we do, it would seem to violate s8 of the Bill of Rights Act, which applies to every action done by the police.

Dead and buried

Finally, the Ruataniwha dam is dead and buried with a stake through its heart:

The Hawke's Bay Regional Council has voted to pull its financial support for the controversial Ruataniwha water storage scheme.

Councillors confirmed the decision at a meeting this morning.

Though the council-controlled company holding rights for the scheme could still seek out other investors, local farmers have said they doubt it will ever go ahead.

Good. The dam would have been an ecological disaster, encouraging dairy intensification in an area utterly unsuited to it and committing Hawke's Bay to dirty rivers for generations. And now its dead, maybe Hawke's bay farmers will start thinking about what they can actually grow in the environment they've made themselves, rather than sticking their hand out for a government subsidy to continue their unsustainable lifestyle?

An unbelievable denial

Paula Bennett has denied leaking Winston Peters' pension information to the media:

There was "absolutely no benefit" for National to leak the details of NZ First leader Winston Peters' pension problems, says deputy leader Paula Bennett.

She has rubbished suggestions National might have seen gains if Peters' party dropped in the polls, telling TVNZ's Breakfast the theory made no sense.

"It just doesn't make sense that it was. Why would we leak something on the day of our campaign launch, which we want to be all about us quite frankly.

All of which is just a little bit unbelievable. Firstly, because there is obvious motive for leaking against Winston: National's entire election strategy depends on taking him down by a few points, while benefiting from the "wasted vote". And secondly of course because Bennett has form on this. In case anyone has forgotten, she leaked the information of two beneficiaries who spoke up about government policy - then refused to apologise or rule out doing it again. Then she leaked against Te Puea Marae chairman Hurimoana Dennis after he showed the inadequacy of government housing policy last winter. In both cases, private personal information which she should never even have seen was abused for political purposes - its her favourite weapon. And of course, she was briefed on Peters' private business, in apparent violation of the Privacy Act.

In short, Bennett had motive, means and opportunity. If you believe her denials, I have a bridge to sell you.

The cost of National: third-world diseases and dead kids

The Herald this mornign has an appalling report on the human cost of a National government: third-world diseases and dead kids:

Diseases linked to cold, damp, overcrowded homes are killing more New Zealand children than car crashes or drownings.

An average 20 children die and 30,000 are hospitalised every year from preventable, housing-related diseases like asthma, pneumonia and bronchiolitis, health statistics show.

Poor areas suffer the most - suburbs like Auckland's Pt England and parts of Glen Eden - because of high deprivation and low incomes, lots of rental housing and fewer Europeans.

The illnesses peak in winter. They kill more children than either car crashes or drownings, which claim an average 10 lives a year each.

And this is National's fault. The graph of hospitalisations for bronchiectasis makes that clear. As for the why, its because they've reduced access to both social housing and benefits, effectively grinding the poor even deeper into poverty. And they're paying a serious price for it.

It is utterly obscene that this is allowed to happen. These diseases and this death toll are perfectly preventable. We know what is needed to prevent them: a warrant of fitness and mandatory insulation and heating standards for rental homes, more and better social housing, easier access to primary health care. National opposes all that, preferring instead to support the interests of landlords (which many National MPs happen to be). Its a perfect example of the moral bankruptcy of the government - and why we need to throw them out.

New Fisk

We need to talk about the Spanish and Catalan reactions to the Barcelona attack – even if it's not a nice conversation

A noble coup in Tonga

Tonga's nobles don't like the Prime Minister. They don't like his policies, but more importantly, they don't like the fact that he's a "commoner", not One Of Them. So, they got their king to dissolve parliament in the hope of getting someone different:

King Tupou VI dissolved the country's parliament on Thursday and called for elections a year early in an effective vote of no confidence in Prime Minister 'Akilisi Pohiva.

[...]

Reports from Tonga said Mr Pohiva had described the move to dissolve the parliament as part of a failed coup.

Mr Pohiva told New Zealand's Newshub the move was an organised attempt to push him out.

He said he was never informed of the decision and that the way it occurred could be illegal.

Newshub reported Mr Pohiva learned of the king's decision to dissolve the parliament on social media.

Mr Pohiva had originally planned to retire after one term, but now said he will stand again in the November election.

Constitutionally, Tonga's unelected king has the power to dissolve parliament whenever he wants, and is not yet constrained by convention. At the same time, its deeply undemocratic, and clearly an outcome of his own political views. The problem is, what happens if Pohiva gets elected again? Will the nobles respect the people's decision, or will they get their king to call new elections again and force people to keep voting until they make the "right" choice? And if they try such a stunt, how long do they think they can do it before the people get sick of it and vote them off the island for good?

Promising what they've vetoed

Last year, National used a cowardly, undemocratic and unconstitutional financial veto to prevent a Parliamentary majority from extending paid parental leave. Now, they're trying to convince voters to vote for them on the basis that they'll extend it themselves:

National will progressively extend Paid Parental Leave to 22 weeks as part of its Parents and Newborns Package designed to support families to grow and stay healthy, while also putting more money into their pockets.

“National will share the dividends of a growing economy, with more support for families with newborns in a new package made possible only by the improving government finances,” Women Spokesperson Paula Bennett says.

Which is a bit rich, considering that they literally took a great steaming dump on our democracy in order to prevent this from passing. I'm pleased that they've changed their minds and all, but this is clearly a policy they're delivering through gritted teeth, because they feel they have to, not because they want to. Which means that it'll be one of the first things they delay or cut in order to provide fat tax cuts for their rich mates.

Muldoonism at its worst

While I was away over the weekend, a new political scandal broke, with Winston Peters apparently being overpaid his pension for some years and paying it back. WINZ regards the matter as resolved, which tells us that it is probably one of their innumerable fuckups (otherwise they'd be prosecuting, right?). But there are serious questions to answer about how an MP's private welfare information was systematically leaked to the media to smear them. And on that front, the evidence seems to point squarely at the government:

The Beehive was told about Winston Peters' private meeting over his superannuation payments a fortnight ago and before it was leaked to media, the Herald can reveal.

The Ministry of Social Development's chief executive Brendan Boyle told minister Anne Tolley on 31 July under the 'no surprises' policy that MSD had met with Peters about his superannuation payments. She was updated on 15 August that MSD were satisfied with the outcome of the meeting with Peters.

Tolley's office originally said 15 August was the first briefing, but have clarified that after checking the dates.

The Prime Minister's office has also confirmed English's chief of staff Wayne Eagleson was told by Tolley. A spokesperson said Eagleson did not tell English or others in the office.

Eagleson, in case you've forgotten, was up to his arse in dirty politics a few elections ago - and note that he carefully doesn't rule out having told people outside the PM's office. Meanwhile, other stories are saying that Steven Joyce (National's campaign manager) and Paula Bennett (who likes to leak welfare information to the media) were also briefed.

This is pretty obviously a gross abuse of the "no surprises" policy. "No surprises" is meant to ensure that Ministers aren't blindsided by their own department's cockups, not that their departments effectively spy on the opposition and leak their private personal information so Ministers can smear them in the media. But its also a gross abuse of power by the government to use the information in this way, reminiscent of Muldoon at his worst. It shows an utter lack of ethics on the part of the National party to do this, or to permit a political atmosphere among their hacks that this was seen as an acceptable tactic. And those responsible don't just need to be sacked - they need to be prosecuted if at all possible for their gross abuse of privacy. Corrupt use of official information is a crime, and this seems like a case where prosecution is more than justified. Politicians and flacks need to be sent a message that this sort of shit is not acceptable. And the best way to send that message is to stick the fuckers in jail.

Meanwhile, the government is trying to build "social licence" for greater and more intrusive use and sharing of our personal private information. I think we've just been handed a perfect example of why we shouldn't do that. The government already collects too much, and it clearly can't be trusted with what it has. If anything, they need to be invading our privacy less, not more.

Places to go, people to be

Nothing from me today - I'm off to the South Island for Phoenix, Christchurch's annual larp convention.

Normal bloggage will resume Monday or Tuesday.

Changing their minds

Back in February, the Greens decided not to run in Ohariu, in a cowardly effort to help jackbooted fascist Greg O'Connor win the seat for Labour. Last night, they changed their minds:

The Green Party has dealt an unexpected blow to Labour's chances of winning the hotly contested Wellington seat of Ohariu by deciding at the 11th hour to stand a candidate.

Tane Woodley was the surprise revelation at an Ohariu candidates meeting in the suburb of Khandallah on Wednesday night - revealing to the crowd that he was entering the race following the shock departure of 33-year incumbent Peter Dunne.

Woodley planned to campaign solely for the party vote. But the decision is likely to benefit National's Ohariu candidate Brett Hudson, as it could split the vote on the left and dent the lead in the polls enjoyed by Labour's Greg O'Connor.

Good. Because O'Connor is a nasty little authoritarian and not the sort of person I want to see in Parliament. The Greens aren't standing to defeat him, of course - they want the extra party votes a visible candidate would bring. But if it has that effect, it would be a bonus, and providing left voters a chance to object to an armed police force is not a bad thing at all.

As for Labour voters upset at the Greens spoiling their chances, tough shit. Peter Dunne's departure means the Greens now have no reason to stand aside, while recent polling means they need every vote they can get. Labour should do what's good for Labour, and the Greens will do what's good for the Greens.

Oh, FFS

In response to scaremongering by (highly-paid) journalist Patrick Gower, (highly-paid) Labour leader Jacinda Ardern and (highly-paid) finance spokesperson Grant Robertson have just ruled out any prospect of tax increases on highly-paid people like themselves. By doing so they've chained themselves into National's current fiscal straitjacket, under which the government can not collect enough revenue to properly fund our health, education, and welfare systems, and effectively ruled out any real chance of making any progress if they become government.

If people wonder why I have nothing but contempt for the Labour Party, this is why. They talk a big game about fixing things, but refuse to embrace the necessary tools to do so. Instead, they're just the smily face of the austerity status quo, unwilling to really change anything.

But its not just a betrayal, its also simply fucking stupid. There is absolutely no political downside to making MP's and corporate bigwigs pay more tax. To the contrary, Helen Clark ran on a platform of taxing the rich, and she got elected on it. But now Labour has just made it look like they've put their own personal greed ahead of the public's needs. And they deserve to be punished for it.

Time to tax the rich to fix National's social deficit

Steven Joyce has released the Pre-Election Financial Update, proudly announcing that National has spent $2.1 billion less on health, education, infrastructure and social services than it could have this year. Because that's what National's "surplus" is: the result of deliberate government underspending in all of those areas. As I've said before, when you have people living in cars, you don't have a "surplus", you have a social deficit. And if you have people living in cars while you have billions of dollars of spare cash rolling around, you're a monster.

Apparently this is Bad For Labour because the social deficit is a one-off and if they want to do anything to fix it they'll need to raise taxes on the rich. Bring it on. Stick it to them. Those fuckers have had it too easy for too long, and its time they paid their fair share. And if they want to fuck off with their money to some foreign tax-haven with all the other criminal rich, good fucking riddance. We don't need sociopathic freeloading parasites in this country.

Kiwis want a high level of public services. We want free universal public education, a health system to take care of us when we're sick, a welfare system to take care of us when we're poor or disabled, superannuation to take care of us when we're old. We need to pay for that with taxes. National has cut taxes below the level required to provide the services we want, and shifted the burden from the rich to the poor. That has to change. Fortunately, we can change it in a month.

Let's lynch the landlord

That's the (regulatory) conclusion of the People's Review of Renting by Renters United and ActionStation:

A tenants' advocacy group is calling for an end "no fault" evictions by landlords, and to limit annual rent rises to no more than the percentage change in the national minimum wage.

The People's Review of Renting is being launched on Wednesday morning by Renters United based on over 600 renters' stories crowd-sourced by social advocacy platform Action Station.

It recommends a raft of law changes to regulate landlords and strengthen tenant rights, including licensing all landlords and introducing compulsory rental Warrants of Fitness.

These are good suggestions. They would ensure that houses are fit to live in and that renters can have the security to turn them into homes, while preventing the currently pervasive abuses of power by landlords. Naturally, the Property Investors Federation AKA the landlords union is not happy, saying that it will cause many landlords to quit the business. Good. Because we don't want exploitative, abusive arseholes renting properties unfit for a dog to live in, then evicting people if they complain, and sooner those scumbags exit the market, the better. And as most landlords are really just housing speculators, it also means less heat in the housing market (and if they sell the houses they're hoarding, even better, because it'll help crash the price). All in all, I don't see a downside to any of this.

You can read the People's Review here.

(Title from the Dead Kennedys)

Getting what he asked for good and hard

The Auckland University Students' Association has had enough of bigots taking their money to spread hate, and are moving to disaffiliate them. Voluntary student membership campaigner DPF is outraged by this. But bluntly, this is what he asked for. AUSA is now a completely voluntary association, an incorporated society under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908. It is, in law, no different from your local rugby club - or the National Party. And like those other groups, it has rights to freedom of association and freedom of expression and no obligation to support or promote groups or viewpoints its members disagree with. It might have done once, when membership was compelled by law. But it certainly doesn't now, any more than the National Party is compelled to support the Coal Action Network or the Animal Liberation Front or the Communist Party of Aotearoa. And if DPF doesn't like that, he has only himself to blame. He got exactly what he asked for, and now he can suck it.

Ardern wants a republic

Jacinda Ardern is shaping up as a change candidate. And she backed that up yesterday by telling the Herald that she wanted to push for a republic:

Labour leader Jacinda Ardern says it's time New Zealand started having the conversation about New Zealand becoming a republic.

"I do think that we should start having the conversation. There are a lot of issues that need to be resolved on that path, and I would have liked the government to have had that conversation when the flag debate came up," Ardern said during a special PM Job Interview with the Herald today.

"That was the time to say, 'actually, where are we heading? What's the Crown's ongoing relationship with Maori if we transition into a republic? Where will we be in 20 years' time in this regard.'"

The previous generation of politicians always said that a republic was "inevitable", but were never willing to do anything to bring it about. Ardern at least recognises that if we want a republic, we need to actually make it happen. And I'm looking forward to her doing it.

Coleman's plan for health savings: sell hospitals

Our health system is systematically under-funded. Canterbury DHB has responded to this in the way that DHB's traditionally have, by providing essential services and running a deficit. But the government wants them to stop, and instead make cuts. But don't worry, says Jonathan Coleman, it won't come from services:

In emails released yesterday, the board discussed what it said was a Ministry of Health demand for its deficit to be slashed to $17 million, down from its current estimate of almost $54m. The ministry has asked that the following year, it reduce its deficit to zero.

The DHB's former acting chair, Sir Mark Solomon, told RNZ that reducing spending on that scale would mean significant service cuts of unprecedented size.

He said it would equate to the cost of 750 nurses or 256 senior doctors, although Sir Mark emphasised those options were not being considered.

But Dr Coleman told Morning Report today that he could guarantee there was "no way" frontline services would be cut.

So where's it going to come from then? After decades of cuts, its not as if DHBs have thousands of pointless back-office staff they can cut. These people do jobs, and those jobs matter. Things like making sure everyone gets paid. Or making sure the wards are clean. Or ensuring there's enough cancer drugs for everyone who is scheduled to get chemotherapy. Or scheduling the appointments for all those hip replacements Coleman regards as the sole determinant of DHB output. Or is Coleman suggesting they sell their hospitals instead?

Oh, actually he is:

He said savings could be made by leasing facilities instead of owning them

Which is just a scam: you end up with a big capital injection (which the government steals for tax cuts), but paying more (which means providing fewer services) in the long-term. But Coleman clearly doesn't care about the long-term: he's probably opted out of the public health system by having private health insurance. And so he sees free public healthcare as a cost, rather than an enormous benefit which enables kiwis to get on with their our without fear of being completely fucked if we get sick.

(See also National's plans to redevelop Dunedin hospital using a public-private partnership: it saves in the short-term, but costs more in the long run. Another scam designed to make the books look good).

We deserve better than National's scams and accounting tricks. We deserve a health system that is properly funded to deliver the services we need. And we won't get that under National.

Australia denies refugees medical care again

Since 2013, Australia has been detaining refugees in concentration camps on Nauru and Manus Island. The refugees face persistent neglect by the government that has a duty-of-care towards them - including an explicit denial of basic medical care:

Nearly 50 refugees and asylum seekers held on Nauru – including at least three women seeking to terminate a pregnancy – are being refused, or not considered for, overseas medical treatment, in defiance of doctors’ recommendations.

Three pregnant refugee women on Nauru have asked to terminate their pregnancies, for cultural, familial and health reasons. Doctors’ requests for them to be transferred overseas for the procedure have been rejected. Terminations are illegal on Nauru, a devoutly Christian country.

And Australian immigration department staff have confirmed to the Guardian that nearly 50 refugees and asylum seekers are on a waiting list for approval for medical transfer for a variety of conditions including musculoskeletal injuries and surgeries that cannot be performed on the island.

Why is the waiting list so long? Because all transfers must be approved by the Nauru hospital overseas medical referral committee, which never meets. And in the case of abortion, will not approve overseas transfer because it is illegal on Nauru. And this suits the Australians perfectly - both because it increases the harshness of the conditions in the concentration camps, but also because it prevents refugees from exercising their legal rights once in Australia to avoid being sent back to torture and neglect - thus fulfilling the government's promise to never let them into Australia.

This is absolutely vile. As for the solution, there's an obvious opportunity for the New Zealand government to step in and provide the medical care Australia won't. But that would require politicians who aren't craven vassals of our racist neighbours.