Submit!

The Abortion Legislation Committee has called for submissions on the Abortion Legislation Bill. I urge everyone who wants reform to submit - the bigots certainly will be, and they've monopolised this conversation for too long. As for what to put in your submission, I'd suggest listening to health professionals, and pushing or "option A", which would require removing new section 11, and amending new section 10 to remove any reference to a time limit. While its not in the bill, expressing opposition to a referendum on a fundamental human rights issue may also help focus the minds of MPs on opposing NZ First's SOP when it comes up.

Submissions can be made at the link above and are due by Thursday, 19 September 2019.

Climate Change: Don't starve

Since scientists started studying climate change, they have warned that it will reduce food production. And now, its happening:

The climate crisis is damaging the ability of the land to sustain humanity, with cascading risks becoming increasingly severe as global temperatures rise, according to a landmark UN report compiled by some of the world’s top scientists.

Global heating is increasing droughts, soil erosion and wildfires while diminishing crop yields in the tropics and thawing permafrost near the poles, says the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Further heating will lead to unprecedented climate conditions at lower latitudes, with potential growth in hunger, migration and conflict and increased damage to the great northern forests.

Our food crops require a specific environmental range - so much moisture, this much heat. Outside that range, they produce less, or just die. And our CO2 emissions are taking the climate in our food-growing regions further and further outside that range. Ironicly, a lot of those emissions are driven by food production itself - deforestation to clear land for agriculture, nitrous oxide from fertiliser, methane from cows and rice paddies. But regardless of the source, the net result is the same: an increased risk of famine, and all the associated disruption it causes.

Somewhat predictably, the media is focusing on the recommendation that rich, western consumers with choices eat a bit less meat - something which is neither particularly hard, nor the end of the world, but which has an outsized impact on emissions and heating. But that's not enough. Food production is responsible for between 23 and 37% of global emissions, and food is essential, so we can only reduce those emissions so far. Avoiding a collapse in global food supplies means solving the climate crisis, which in turn requires the rapid decarbonisation of the economy while planting forests to offset (and ultimately draw down) what we can't cut. And that requires policy change on a national and international level. So the most important individual action you can take is to vote for that change, and to vote out politicians, parties, and governments who oppose it.

94-23

The Abortion Legislation Bill just passed its first reading, 94-23. Its a far bigger margin than I expected, even allowing for the Winston factor, and it reflects the overwhelming support there is in this country for reform. but that support isn't a new thing - it has existed for literally decades. Which invites the question: why has it taken our chickenshit politicians so long to get around to this?

Submit!

The Justice Committee has called for submissions on the Referendums Framework Bill. The Bill does what it says on the label - establishes a framework for referenda. Things you may want to address in your submission:

• Whether the bill should apply only at the 2020 election, or whether it should establish a permanent framework to enable the government to consult voters more often;
  
• Whether Cabinet should set referendum questions, or whether they should require the approval of Parliament;
  

Submissions can be made online at the link above, and are due by 16 September 2019.

Time to repeal the Anadarko Amendment

The Thompson and Clark / MBIE spying scandal continues to result in fallout, this time in the form of a report on the implementation of MBIE's "Operation Exploration", its internal operation to enforce the infamous Anadarko Amendment which criminalised protests against the oil industry. MBIE's enforcement operation was tainted by the involvement of Thompson and Clark, and so after SSC told government agencies not to work with private spies, the entire operation was reviewed. The full report is here, but the key findings are:

• MBIE's risk model treated democratic protest as an imminent, severe threat - basicly as piracy or terrorism. This led to a focus on spying on protest groups. MBIE staff interviewed for the report admitted that the risk was "overblown".
  
• MBIE's plan for reducing risk i.e. protest focused on boosting the social licence of the oil industry - basicly, conducting and disseminating oil industry propaganda.
  
• MBIE staff believed the Anadarko Amendment was "not a deterrent to interference, but a motivator for some organised protest entities, increasing the likelihood of on-the-water protest actions". The entire thing was counter-productive anyway.
  

The report recommends reforming the governance of "Operation Exploration", because that was its terms of reference. Instead, it would be much easier to simply repeal the Anadarko Amendment, ending both its direct affront to democracy and its encouragement of anti-democratic behaviour by the state.

"Blindsided"

So, Winston Peters is defending his last-minute demand for a referendum on abortion by claiming he was "blindsided" by the bill. Really? The bill is a government bill. It has been working through the cabinet approval process since December last year. As part of that process, NZ First was consulted, given the chance to negotiate amendments, and agreed to the bill. And here's a report from May on that [paywalled; depaywall script]:

Justice Minister Andrew Little confirmed he expected to be able to make an announcement in the next few weeks, after reaching agreement with NZ First this week.

[...]

NZ First minister Tracey Martin confirmed that on Tuesday this week, the party's caucus had agreed to the reform going to Cabinet. "It's now finalised, and the Cabinet paper is on its way up to Cabinet."

The Government's response to a Law Commission paper on abortion reform is now almost six months overdue, partly because NZ First has baulked at treating it as a government measure, given it was a conscience vote.

Martin said she had taken the precaution of getting the NZ First caucus to agree to it to make sure it was not gazumped at the last moment, as had happened to Labour's plans to repeal the "three strikes" legislation.

And here's a further report from last month, in which Andrew Little talks about "very helpful" discussions with NZ First.

This bill was consulted on. It was approved by the NZ First caucus. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide who is acting in bad faith here.

Waikato's dirty farmers

Five years ago, the Waikato Regional Council ended aerial monitoring of dairy farms, ostensibly because it caused stress to the poor sensitive little farmers. What were they stressed about? Being caught breaking the law, of course:

Waikato's dairy farmers again delivered a grim record of environmental compliance for the region.

The return to aerial monitoring has revealed the extent of dirty diarying.

The latest effluent compliance statistics from the Waikato Regional Council show significant non-compliance continued to be a problem with 13 per cent (121 farms) of the 936 farms monitored during the 2018-19 season falling into that category.

Of the farms monitored, 497 (53 per cent) were categorised as as 'high risk', due to previous significant non-compliance or past issues with effluent storage.

Twenty farmers are now being prosecuted, and another 45 have been issued abatement notices. Others have been warned or issued infringements. And hopefully all of that will force them to clean up their act. But it speaks volumes about the honesty of the industry that their kneejerk response to environmental problems is to oppose monitoring and enforcement, rather than own their problems and correct them. Like the fishing industry, it seems that a significant proportion of dairy farmers are simply criminals. And we should treat them like that, until they prove otherwise.

Abortion reform has the numbers

The Abortion Legislation Bill will have its first reading tomorrow, and while NZ First is making noises about a referendum, it appears the bill will pass regardless of what they think:

The Government's abortion bill will pass its first hurdle with an overwhelming majority, with or without NZ First's support.

Stuff has spoken with a majority of Parliament's 120 MPs, 67 of whom said they would support or be likely to support the Bill at its first reading on Thursday.

Just seven said they would vote against it, with another four indicating they would be likely to vote against. Another 12 were still deciding, alongside NZ First's nine MPs who are refusing to confirm their position.

Overall they're expecting the bill to pass with at least 73 votes. NZ First's votes are not needed. Which means their last-minute demands for a referendum can be safely ignored.

Standing up for kiwi values

Last week, the ongoing democracy protests in Hong Kong saw a pro-Hong Kong student assaulted at the University of Auckland. The Chinese consulate in Auckland followed this up with a press release "express[ing] its appreciation to the students for their spontaneous patriotism" - effectively condoning the assault and inciting further violence in New Zealand. Now, MFAT has told the Chinese government that this is not acceptable:

The Government has rebuked China over its recent comments and actions where it sought to suppress freedom of speech and voiced support for violent opposition to Hong Kong protestors in New Zealand.

On Monday, Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials met with Chinese Government representatives in New Zealand to reiterate that freedom of expression would be upheld and maintained, which included on university campuses.

This is a significant move for a Government that has largely spoken generally about foreign interference and about democratic principles, while avoiding specifically mentioning China’s behaviour in recent years under an emboldened president.

Good. In China they might beat people for peacefully expressing their views, but that is not how we do things in New Zealand, and trying to incite such actions goes well beyond diplomatic norms. Arguably, its a crime, which makes the Consul-General party to any further assaults. And if there are further assaults, we should hold Chinese diplomatic staff responsible for their incitement, declare them persona non-grata, and deport them.

Climate Change: The double benefit of forestry conversions

Rural communities are wailing about forestry conversions "taking land out of production" and putting it into locking up carbon. Its driven purely by economics: there's more money and lower costs in carbon than in sheep or beef, and if carbon prices rise, there'll be more net money than dairy even. But while they're all worrying about the threat to their rural lifestyle, there's an obvious benefit too:

Tararua District mayor Tracey Collis has seen 13 farms in her district sell in the past year. Everyday she is contacted by a worried constituent.

[...]

Collis estimates the sales represent 47,500 sheep and 20,500 cattle gone.

And at 2 tons CO2-equivalent per beef cow and 300 kg per sheep, that's over 55,000 tons of emissions we won't have to worry about every year. Better, as it is methane, the effect is even more significant, because methane is a hugely-powerful (but short-lived) greenhouse gas, and exactly the gas we need to focus on cutting. The carbon price of those avoided emissions is already $1.375 million, and if prices are allowed to rise, it won't be too long before their value exceeds the $1.7 million annual economic activity of the farms they have displaced. In other words, simply shutting down those farms is likely to be more beneficial to the local economy than letting them continue to operate. And that's without even considering the value of the carbon stored.

Looked at like this, the message is clear: the sooner marginal farms shut down and are converted to trees, the better off we'll all be.

A referendum on abortion?

This week, the government introduced its (underwhelming) Abortion Legislation Bill. And despite having negotiated the text of the bill through the coalition process, Winston Peters is now suggesting that he will demand a referendum on it:

NZ First leader Winston Peters has hinted that his party may only support the Government's abortion changes if they go to a binding referendum.

This last-minute positioning - after months of negotiation with Labour - has angered Justice Minister Andrew Little, who said any such position would be completely new to him.

Peters on Tuesday refused to clarify how his party would vote on the bill, which is up for its first reading on Thursday, or whether it would be a party-position or up to individual MPs.

NZ First MP Clayton Mitchell had suggested to media that the way NZ First considered the issue should go to the public.

This is a vile idea. Abortion is a matter of fundamental rights, and like marriage equality or torture or freedom of religion is simply not something we should be having referenda on. What part of "her body, her choice" remotely suggests you or I getting a vote about it? The whole point of law reform is to get other people out of that decision entirely.

The good news is that the bill is a conscience vote, and I don't think there's a majority there for a referendum. And if he tries throwing his weight around within the coalition over this, the Prime Minister should call his bluff and call an election on the issue.

People power wins the night

Last night the police dramatically incresed their numbers at Ihumātao, shoving over protestors and threatening them with arrest. Despite police talk about the need to maintain "public order" and prevent a "breach of the peace", there appeared to be absolutely no justification for this: the protest camp is, was, and always has been orderly and peaceful. The only people not being peaceful were the police.

The good news is that it ended happily: the protesters put out the call, people showed up, and the police were forced to leave, their dirty midnight attempt at eviction a failure. People power won.

Questions now need to be asked, not only of the police, but also of the Prime Minister. Does her commitment that the protesters will be allowed to remain mean nothing? Is she dealing in bad faith here? At the moment, it looks like she is - and her continual attempts to imply that the protesters are somehow violent only adds to this perception. She is going to pay a price for that at the ballot box next year.

17,000 employed under Labour

The labour market statistics have been released, and unemployment has dropped again to 3.9%, the lowest level in 11 years. There are currently 109,000 people looking for work - 17,000 fewer than when Labour took office.

This drop in unemployment has been combined with workers getting their biggest payrises in a decade, thanks to a big increase in the minimum wage and several large government settlements. We're also seeing unions able to effectively fight for workers' rights and win. And the longer it continues, the better.

Government of disappointment

Today's abortion reform announcement is just the latest in a long line of disappointing decisions or outright failures from the Labour government. The 90-day law. KiwiBuild. A capital gains tax. Climate change. Every time they make one of those decisions, we hope for better next time. No repeal of the 90-day law? At least they'll build some houses. No mass house building programme? At least they'll give us a capital gains tax. No capital gains tax? At least they recognise climate change is "my generation's nuclear free moment". Chickenshit on climate change? At least they'll deliver on abortion. But I think we need to admit it: this is a government which is not going to deliver. It is not going to meet expectations. Instead, their central policy is disappointment. Disappointment at their failure, disappointment at their cowardice, disappointment at what they could have done - but chose not to fight for.

That's the central problem, and its been apparent for a while: Labour doesn't fight. You can argue about why that is - the coalition, Labour's internal conservatives, its fear that someone might call them "progressive" or "liberal" or "socialist" and its belief that those are dirty words rather than ones to wear with pride - but to be honest, I don't actually care. I am not a member of the Labour Party, and it is not my responsibility to solve their problems. All I am interested in is results. And looking at those, this government is a failure. It promised change, and it has delivered the status quo. It promised hope, and it has dashed those hopes, every time.

This government is just one disappointment after another. And the obvious question that needs asking is why would anyone vote for that?

No doubt this will attract an angry storm from Labour hacks and apparatchiks, presenting Simon Bridges as a cross between Satan and the Christchurch shooter, and crying angrily that if people don't vote Labour, they'll get National. Which I guess is Labour's answer: we should vote for them (and protect those apparatchiks' jobs) out of fear. This ugly behaviour just makes them look like an abusive, controlling partner, and it just results in the same question: why would anyone vote for that?

Labour chickens out on abortion

When she was standing for office, Jacinda Ardern promised she would take abortion out of the Crimes Act. Labour followed up on that by referring the issue to the Law Commission, which duly produced a series of options. Health professionals were crystal clear in supporting complete decriminalisation. But instead of that, Labour has taken the most conservative option, then made it worse, imposing a test for women to access an abortion after 20 weeks. Such abortions are almost always performed for medical reasons, and so should be a health issue, but instead Labour is going to make women continue to endure the wagging finger of society if they need proper medical care.

While the bill is obviously an improvement on the status quo, the additional test is simply bullshit, and another example of Labour chickening out. They promised to listen to medical professionals, and they haven't. While a technical delivery on their promise, its a substantive failure.

The bill will get its first reading this week, and go to select committee. While this is a conscience issue, the select committee will reflect the government's agreed position with its coalition partner, so we won't see substantive policy change there. If we want that, then someone will have to try and amend the bill at the committee stage to remove this odious provision and make abortion a purely medical decision. The question is whether Labour MPs will support that, or whether they will refuse to in order to avoid upsetting their bigot rump and their conservative coalition partner.

A stillborn policy

The Greens used their party conference over the weekend to push for a rent-to-own scheme, where people would be able to work towards home ownership by renting from the government. Its a sensible policy, and one which could make a real difference to home ownership rates. But its also basicly stillborn. Why? Because the first step is "the government builds a home", or works with an NGO to do so. Which means (quite sensibly, because its a long-term investment) "the government borrows money to build a home". And that is something that Labour, the Greens' coalition partner, has basicly ruled out.

Its the same reason why KiwiBuild failed: because Labour is too chickenshit to use the government's balance sheet to achieve its goals. It doesn't matter that its an investment in an asset, or that money is basicly free at the moment, or that the debt will be repaid by rents and the eventual sale of the asset - Labour just won't do it. They're too afraid of being called "socialist" or something. Or of being called financially profligate, even though the right will call them that no matter what they do. Michael Joseph Savage wasn't afraid to do it, and he made New Zealand a better place as a result. But now that Labour is just a collection of apparatchiks chasing jobs, their risk-aversion makes them incapable of delivering meaningful change. Which means that as long as the Greens are saddled with Labour, they'll be incapable of delivering change either.

Disappointing

Back in April, the Remuneration Commission allowed local authorities to pay childcare costs for councillors and community board members. It promised to be a significant step forward for local democracy, which would enable parents and would-be parents (as opposed to grandparents) to stand for council. But councils have to vote to adopt it, and the Hurunui District Council has refused:

A North Canterbury councillor at the forefront of a campaign for childcare subsidies for elected officials says she is disappointed her fellow councillors chose to vote against the policy.

The Remuneration Authority introduced a childcare option after Hurunui District councillor Julia McLean and Nelson City councillor Matt Lawrey raised the issue three years ago. The policy allows councillors and community boards to claim back up to $6000 a year, plus GST, to cover childcare costs so they can attend meetings or events on behalf of the council.

[...]

McLean was the only councillor absent from last month's Hurunui council meeting, at which it was agreed unanimously to reject a childcare allowance for the district's councillors.

Its a disappointing move, and invites the question: why does Hurunui hate parents? Why does it think they should have no say in local government?

Local government has a real problem with gerontocracy, which distorts policy in all sorts of ways (notably on climate change, but its also why local elections are an endless parade of cookie-cutter pensioners promising to "keep rates low"). It desperately needs to be more representative. But I guess if there's one thing you can rely on from political establishments, its that they will fight tooth and nail to lock out everybody else and prevent proper representation. And that is exactly what is going on here.

New Fisk

Lies and buffoonery: How Boris Johnson’s fantasy world casts dark shadows in the Middle East

Climate Change: Wellington expects to go under

What will climate change do to our capital city? The Wellington City Council has updated its projections, ditching its optimistic 0.6m estimate for sea-level rise in favour of a more realistic 1.5m. And the result is devastating:

Wellington City Council has unofficially ditched an optimistic sea-level rise scenario in favour of one that could see much of the central city and low-lying suburbs under water.

[...]

Under the new scenario, also outlined in the 2013 report, areas in line for "inundation" include much of the area around Westpac stadium, swathes through the central city, as well as lower parts of Oriental Bay, Evans Bay, Kilbirnie, Shelly Bay, Seatoun, and the South Coast bays.

It will mean that without massive mitigation measures - as extreme as reclaiming Wellington harbour east of a line between Freyberg Pool and CentrePort - the Harbour Quays will be in the inundation zone. It is here Wellington's $6.4 billion Let's Get Wellington Moving has its preferred route for mass-transit.

The old best-case scenario was almost-entirely limited to areas immediately beside the sea.

Wellington will basicly return to its pre-colonial shoreline. WCC has an interactive map here, and if you plug in 1.5m, you can see that the Beehive is beachfront property, with the new shoreline running along Thorndon Quay, Lambton Quay and Wakefield St. Parliament, Te Papa, the National Archives and the Green Parrot, along with a huge number of government agencies and private businesses, will all have to relocate. $6.5 billion of property will be at risk, and 2,000 residents displaced. And that's just in Wellington. Petone, Waiwhetu, Makara, Pauatahanui, and Kapiti are all going to be underwater as well.

Fonterra and the fossil fuel industry like to talk about the cost of climate change action, but the cost of inaction is having to relocate the entire CBD of our capital city (and others as well). And that's simply too much to risk.

Climate Change: NZ's subsidised polluters

Yesterday, the government announced that it planned to continue ETS pollution subsidies for our dirtiest industries until well beyond 2050, when we're supposed be carbon neutral. So who gets these subsidies, and how much are they?

The industrial subsidy scheme is laid out in s81 of the Climate Change Response Act 2002. Polluting industries get subsidised based on their production and an "allocative baseline" - basicly a certain amount of tons of carbon per ton of production. Highly polluting industries start at a 90% subsidy, while moderately polluting industries start at 60%. In both cases, this rate is reduced linearly at 1% each year after 2012, so they're currently getting 83% and 53% respectively. Which industries are highly-polluting and which are moderately-polluting, as well as the industry-specific subsidy rates are laid out in schedule 2 of the Climate Change (Eligible Industrial Activities) Regulations 2010.

So who gets these subsidies? It will come as no surprise to learn that they are mostly foreign-owned multinationals, and are frequently being subsidised to retain dirty production methods rather than upgrade to clean ones. Here's some highlights:

• Aluminium smelting: There is just one aluminium smelter in New Zealand, at Tiwai Point. Its owned by Rio Tinto, a foreign multinational which makes nearly US$9 billion a year in profit. last year the smelter made an NZ$207 million profit. It produces 340,000 tons of aluminium a year, meaning that it received 2.86 million tons of carbon credits with a value of roughly $70 million. So, we're subsidising a profitable company by a third of their profit.
  
  What really stinks is that their direct reported emissions in 2017 (the latest year for which figures are available) were only 606,000 tons. So we're subsidising them roughly 4.7 times their actual emissions. This is supposedly as "compensation" for high electricity prices, but a) they don't pay those prices due to a sweetheart deal with Meridian (itself a subsidy); and b) their use of 13% of the country's entire electricity supply drives up prices for everyone else by forcing the use of expensive and dirty thermal generation to meet demand. So we're subsidising them $70 million a year to cause around 2 million tons of electricity sector emissions and drive up prices for everyone else. Whether this is a good deal for New Zealand is left as an exercise for the reader.
  
  
• Iron and steel making: There are two steel-makers in New Zealand: New Zealand Steel at Glenbrook, and Pacific Steel in Auckland. Both are owned by Bluescope, an Australian multinational which made a $1.6 billion profit last year. According to the Stuff article on New Zealand's biggest polluters, Bluescope admitted receiving a subsidy of 1.4 million tons of carbon in 2017, or roughly $35 million a year. That same article noted that Glenbrook was particularly dirty, emitting roughly 2.5 tons of CO2 per ton of steel produced, vs an international benchmark of two tons. So why are we subsidising them? If we want global emissions to reduce, the best thing that can happen is for Glenbrook to shut down, and for its production to be replaced by a cleaner factory overseas.
  
  
• Urea production: There is only one urea manufacturer in New Zealand: Ballance Agri-Nutrients runs a former Think Big plant at Kapuni, turning natural gas into nitrogen fertiliser which then pollutes our waterways. Unlike most of the rest of the polluters, they're actually New Zealand-owned, and made a profit of $71 million last year. According to their annual report, $6.6 million of that was "Government grants including NZ ETS credits". They have no direct emissions surrender obligation - urea production is not an ETS activity - so that's just a straight subsidy, as "compensation" for the ETS's effect on gas prices.
  
  Interestingly, Ballance has recently embarked on a joint venure to use a wind farm to supply hydrogen to its plant, as a replacement for natural gas. They're cleaning up their act. So why do we need to subsidise them for another 30 years again?
  
  
• Methanol production: Again there is only one producer in New Zealand: Methanex, a Canadian-owned multinational with an annual profit of over half a billion dollars. It produced 1.6 million tons of methanol at its three plants in 2018, which means they would have received 1.06 million tons of carbon credits, worth $26.5 million. And again, there's no direct surrender obligation - this is solely due to the ETS effect on gas prices. But wait, it gets better! Because methanol is an "embedded product", Methanex is entitled to receive credits for any methanol it exports as a "removal activity" (importing methanol, however, does not attract ETS obligations because it is not an "obligation fuel"). Methanex exports 95% of its production, and is given 1.375 tons of carbon credits for every ton of methanol it exports, so that's another 2.1 million tons, worth another $52 million. So all up, we're giving this hugely profitable, foreign-owned company over $75 million a year to burn natural gas and destroy the global climate.
  
  Do we need to do this? As Methanex's annual report points out, its production facilities in Canada and Chile already attract carbon charges. It has other production facilities in the US, Trinidad and Egypt, but its probably only a matter of time before some or all of them start having to pay their way too. In their submissions on ETS reviews, Methanex argue that the marginal methanol producers are in China and make it from coal, which is dirtier than their natural gas method. But China has just introduced an ETS, and while it does not yet cover methanol production, it will inevitably be expanded to do so. Predicating policy on the idea that this will not happen in the next thirty years seems like a mistake. Its also worth pointing out that there are other ways of making methanol (biosynthesis, from corn ethanol, or direct air synthesis), but thse are currently priced out of the market by dirty production. The best way of forcing polluters to innovate and scale up these methods is to stop subsidising dirty ones.
  

These are just some of New Zealand's subsidised polluters. There's a lot more - maybe some enterprising journalist could look them up? - but this post is long enough already. But it should be obvious that the case for continuing these subsidies is very weak indeed. We should not be subsidising these companies to continue their dirty activities. Instead, we should be cutting these subsidies off in no more than a decade, forcing them to innovate and clean up their act or go out of business. It is that simple.