Time to end discrimination in schools

While we're on the subject of court cases, the Office of Human Rights Proceedings will take IHC's case over systematic discrimination against the disabled in the education system:

The rare step is a significant milestone as IHC seeks a declaration that the Education Ministry and schools are treating intellectually and physically impaired pupils unlawfully.

If IHC is successful, the Government could be found in breach of the Human Rights Act and face orders for compensation.

It is nearly four years since the complaint was first lodged with the commission. The stage is now set for years more legal action and appeals.

IHC claims the state education system is failing pupils with special needs and illegally denying them the right to an education at their local schools.

While the article talks about compensation, that's not the point. The aim is to get the government to end these practices by schools, not merely compensate their victims. Even if the practices are permitted by law, there's still a remedy, as the Human Rights Review Tribunal can issue a declaration of inconsistency, which requires a response to Parliament.

From the article, its pretty clear that what the schools are doing is both immoral and illegal. The government should settle and fix the problem as quickly as possible. But that would cost serious money, so instead they're going to squander millions of dollars of taxpayer's money fighting a losing case, simply in the hope they can outlast their victims.

Abortion back in court

New Zealand's abortion laws are back in court today, with Right To Life New Zealand's appeal against the Abortion Supervisory Committee going before the Supreme Court. At stake is whether the Abortion Supervisory Committee has the power to second-guess the clinical decisions of medical professionals in certifying abortions - and ultimately whether women can access abortion at all:

Success for RTL on this front would almost certainly curtail abortion access in New Zealand. Opening medical decisions up to review by a politically appointed statutory body (the Abortion Supervisory Committee), would, at the very least, have a chilling effect on certifying consultants. How many will want to take on the job knowing political appointees will be looking over their shoulders?

Last year, in the wake of the Court of Appeal decision, I was confident Right To Life would lose. But the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand is not so confident. And when they're worried, we should all worry.

Of course, we wouldn't have this problem if Parliament had stepped up and passed an abortion law fit for the 21st century, rather than a 70's relic aimed at shaming and stigmatising women. But apparently, that's too much to expect from our cowardly politicians.

Key endorses cronyism

The Herald picks up the Wayne Mapp crony appointment story today, and adds a startling fact:

Prime Minister John Key said he was happy with the process and the quality of the candidate.

So, Key is happy for people to be appointed to a powerful, well-remunerated government body with no advertisement, no interview, no shortlist, basically no process to see if they really are the best candidate for the job. I guess this is what he calls "higher standards of government".

Freedom of religion wins in Whanganui

The Whanganui District Council has abolished its opening prayer. Good. As I noted when this issue was first raised last year, councils (and Parliament) having formal opening prayers effectively hijacks a state body to endorse the private religious views of its members. It sends a clear message to those who don't share those views that it is not their council and that they are not real members of the community - a point Whanganui's Christian councillors would grasp if it was a black mass or Muslim call to prayer being held before every meeting.

As for the compromise of a separate, informal prayer session before meetings, that's perfectly reasonable. What councillors do on their own time is their own business. The problem isn't that they pray; its that they hijack a body which should be religiously neutral to do so.

Whanganui took this action to avoid a costly court case after mediation by the Human Rights Commission failed. Which raises the question: who's next? Other councils - and Parliament - are endorsing particular religions this way. Every single one of them is open to the same challenge on the same principles. The question now is whether they follow Whanganui and do away with their prayers voluntarily - or whether it will take a formal complaint to do so.

[Hat-tip: Atheist Bus Campaign]

Correction: Mapp's nomination

In yesterday's post on Judith Collins' brazen cronyism, I said, based on this email [PDF], that Judith Collins had nominated Mapp for his crony-post at the Law Commission. I've since had an interesting discussion with the Ministry of Justice, who handled the nomination. The upshot: while Mapp's details and CV were passed on by Collins, Justice regarded it as a self-nomination. According to them, Mapp basically nominated himself!

I'm going to do some more digging into this. Information in Minister's heads is official information, and subject to the Act even though it is not in written form. So I can ask Collins about the "discussions" referred to in the email, when they took place, and whether Mapp asked her for the job or she asked him to do it. The answer should be fascinating...

(BTW, top marks to the Ministry of Justice, who responded to my OIA in less than 24 hours. That's how it's supposed to work!)

Good idea, poor execution

Over the weekend, Labour leader David Shearer released his new Member's Bill, aimed at restricting land sales to foreign buyers by requiring that it bring substantial benefits that otherwise would not occur. Its a good idea, which makes it clear that foreign investors must actually invest here, rather than simply engaging in parasitic rent-seeking. Unfortunately, as pointed out by Alex Tarrant on interest.co.nz, it is undermined by sloppy drafting. The problem? Replacing the existing section 17 of the Overseas Investment Act with a new one focused solely on jobs and exports. This necessarily eliminates other criteria we currently impose on foreign buyers of rural land, such as conservation, improved walking access, and public access to beaches. It also eliminates the power to set further criteria by regulation. While increased jobs and exports are a vital part of the equation when it comes to foreign investment, these other matters are important, and their presence in the Act has brought substantial recreational benefits to ordinary kiwis.

This isn't good enough, and it makes the opposition look incompetent. Its good that Labour are thinking about this issue, but I'd like them to make a decent job of it. As it stands, they just look half-arsed. And who wants to vote for a half-arse?

As for how to fix it, it's pretty simple: put those stronger jobs and export criteria in s17(2)(a), with the clarification that minor technology changes or export increases are not enough appended in a new subsection (3). Problem solved. The question is whether Labour will actually fix it, or whether they'll pig-headedly push on with a bill which is unfit for purpose, simply to avoid admitting they made a mistake.

Submit!

The Ohariu Citizens' Select Committee is calling for submissions on the government's asset-sales programme and the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA). This is not a Parliamentary committee; its an independent body set up by people in Ohariu outraged by local MP Peter Dunne's support for these issues. They want to see what people in that electorate think of them, with the aim of changing Dunne's mind. If you want to submit, you can send short (200-word) comments by email to save.our.soes@hotmail.co.nz. Alternatively, you can snailmail comments to:

Ohariu Citizens' Select Committee
P O Box 13 367
Johnsonville
Wellington

You can also present your opinions to the Committee in person at 7:30pm on Thursday the 22nd of March, at the Johnsonville Community Centre. If you'd like to do this, then email the above address to set up a timeslot.

This is an interesting exercise in grassroots participation, something we don't see a lot of these days (to the detriment of our democracy, and the advantage of our politicians). So, if you have an opinion, speak up. At worst, Dunne will ignore you - but then everyone will know that he has, and be able to vote accordingly.

Scooped!

So, I post a big OIA story, and then discover I've been scooped by NewstalkZB. That'll teach me to leave things till Monday. As for the substance, they've missed the lying to Cabinet and the fact that Mapp was nominated by Collins, but they've got the core problem:

Papers released under the Official Information Act show six other names were put forward for the role last September.

However Justice Minister Judith Collins decided not to check their availability when making the final decision in January, and put Dr Mapp forward as the only candidate.

Appointments to positions like this are supposed to be on merit and made by a contestable process. Collins' shoulder-tapping cronyism was the very opposite of that.

As for accountability, Collins of course is refusing to answer questions from journalists, pretending that its about the appointee rather than her own lack of process. But while she can dodge the media, she can't dodge questions in the House. The only question is whether someone wants to grill her over it.

Judith Collins' brazen cronyism

Last month, Justice Minister Judith Collins appointed former National MP Wayne Mapp to the Law Commission. It looked like a crony appointment, so I submitted the usual OIA request, seeking information on whether the appointment process had followed the SSC guidelines [PDF]. I received the response back on Saturday, and it paints a dismal picture of brazen cronyism.

First, some context [PDF]. The Law Commission needed to make an appointment because one of their members was retiring on 31 January 2012, and another was sick (this member has subsequently died). Statutorily, they're required to have at least three members, and while it doesn't affect their functions if they fall below this number, it looks bad. So back in September they wrote to then Justice Minister Simon Power, floating some potential appointees (none of whom had actually been asked whether they were available) and recommending a short-term appointment. While the names of the prospective appointees have been redacted for privacy reasons, its pretty clear that Wayne Mapp was not one of them. In accordance with the caretaker convention, Power deferred the decision until after the election (and his retirement).

In the interim, according to the Law Commission advice [PDF]

a nomination was received from Hon Dr Wayne Mapp. Dr Mapp's curriculum vitae was also forwarded.

Collins appointed him for the maximum term of five years. No position description, no advertisement, no interviews, no shortlist, no process. His name was given to the Law Commission, and he was appointed. Is that simple.

So who gave Mapp's name to the Law Commission? Why, Judith Collins did [Note: see correction here]. So she imposed her candidate on the Commission, without following any proper process. I guess she's been learning from Brownlee.

But it gets better. In her response to me [PDF], Collins justified her failure to follow SSC guidelines as follows:

The SSC guidelines to which you are referring are designed to ensure Ministers receive consistent information on candidates being recommended for appointment about whom they often have no prior information. The guidelines are just that. It is wholly up to Ministers to determine to what extent the guidelines need to be applied in any appointment process or part thereof.

In the case in point, the appointee was well known to Ministers and is respected for his abilities.

Or, in English, "the rules don't apply to cronies". Interestingly, despite this response, she told her Cabinet colleagues [PDF] that

I can confirm that an appropriate process has been followed in selecting the proposed appointees [sic] in terms of the State Services Commission (SSC) guidelines. Alternative options for identifying candidates were considered.

The paper trail tells a different story. The process was not followed, and there is no evidence that alternative options were considered. This was a crony appointment, pure and simple. And we should not tolerate it in our public service.

New Fisk

Condemn me, but get your facts right first

Shearer gets off the fence

On Saturday, thousands of people turned out to show their support for striking Ports of Auckland workers, sending a powerful signal to both port management and the council. Among them was Labour leader David Shearer, who finally seems to have got off the fence and announced his backing for the union:

Labour leader David Shearer, joined by caucus members David Cunliffe, Andrew Little, Parekura Horomia, Charles Chauvel and Moana Mackey, marched as did Mana Party leader Hone Harawira and the Green Party's Denise Roche.

Shearer said it was still possible for the workers to find resolution with the port. He said the parties needed to resume mediation. Among the issues, he said the port needed to consider its drive for a 12 per cent return which would be "very difficult" to achieve simply by placing pressure on staff.

Not that this is getting him anywhere with the New Zealand Herald, who are having a field day over his past comment about "not taking sides". Which perfectly illustrates the problem with being a fence-sitter: even when you make your mind up over where you stand, you get no credit, and no-one appreciates it. Your enemies call you a hypocrite, your friends doubt your commitment, and both see you as weak and vacillating. Just like Phil Goff.

Meanwhile, while the local noise is useful in pressuring the Auckland Council to rescind its insane profit requirement and reign in its rogue management, the real battle is happening overseas. Also on Saturday, dockworkers in Sydeny refused to unload a ship loaded by scab labour at Auckland, and the US International Longshore and Warehouse Union have said they will do the same. The message is clear: dock in Auckland, and your ship will never be unloaded anywhere again. Which means ships will avoid Auckland, until the port company makes a decent settlement with the union. A sane port company would settle at this point (hell, they would have settled long ago; its not as if the union has been unreasonable here). A responsible council would insist on it to protect the value of their asset. The question now is whether the Auckland Council are going to let Tony Gibson's psychopathy utterly destroy the value of a public asset. And if he's intent on going down that path, they should take the appropriate measures to sack him and get someone more reasonable who will be a better trustee of the people's port.

Saving the whales

Japan's whaling fleet is going home early for the second year in a row. And they're quite clear about who is responsible: Sea Shepherd:

Japan has ended its whaling season with less than a third of its annual target, said the country's Fisheries Agency.

The whaling ships headed home from the Antarctic Ocean this week with 266 minke whales and one fin whale, falling short of its quota of about 900.

The agency blamed "sabotage" by anti-whaling activists for the shortfall.

That "sabotage" - really vigorous, confrontational protest - has saved the lives of at least six hundred whales this year. In the process, they've made the Japanese whaling fleet that much more uneconomic, and hastened the day when the "scientific" whaling programme ends for good. I'd call that a success.

Pike River and Schedule 4

Solid Energy has bought the Pike River mine. The government is welcoming the move - but I expect that's because they haven't looked too hard at what Solid Energy plans to do with it:

A year ago, Elder warned necessary preliminary work ahead of any fresh coal extraction at Pike River following the explosions could take years and cost $50 million to $100 million.

At the time he confirmed the miner's interest in Pike River and was "almost certainly the only company with the credibility, knowledge, experience and track record to mine the resource safely and economically".

[...]

State-owned Solid Energy, if successful with a bid, would likely look to develop the mine in a joint opencast/ underground approach, Elder said at that time.

It would need to get part of the surrounding land removed from schedule 4 protected conservation land for an opencast operation which would be in difficult access and resource conditions.

(Emphasis added)

So, have their plans changed - or has a state-owned enterprise really just spent millions of dollars of our money speculating on whether they can dig up our national parks? And if so, do they have government backing or not?

National's New Zealand

A stagnant economy. Soaring unemployment. Lockouts to reduce working conditions. And now, families reduced to living in garages because Housing New Zealand has abandoned them:

Lori Hiroti, 27, and her three children, Temorehu, 9, Arreis-Jayde, 4, and Hoani-Puru, 3, have been living in their aunt's state home garage for the past month after accommodation with family north of Huntly became unavailable.

Miss Hiroti has outstanding Housing NZ debt which she was paying off regularly, but she said with three children living in a garage, she felt Hamilton's Housing NZ staff should have taken her situation more seriously, and helped her rather than "being patronising".

HNZ yesterday apologised to the family and arranged an urgent needs assessment to be done today – a day after the Waikato Times got involved.

No-one should be forced to live like this in New Zealand. Stopping this sort of poverty is why we have a welfare system and a housing system. But instead of helping them, Housing New Zealand served notice on the relative who had taken them in, ordering them out on the street. Its totally heartless. But its just how our public services operate now under National.

Pardons

There's a bit of a debate in the UK at the moment over whether mathematician Alan Turing - who killed himself in 1954 after being convicted of homosexuality - should receive a posthumous pardon. The government had previously refused on the grounds that it was inappropriate to pardon someone who was "properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offence". But now it seems they will look at it again.

Meanwhile, the obvious question remains unasked: why stop at Turing? The "crime" he was convicted of - consensual sex acts with another adult of the same gender - should never have been an offence. But he wasn't the only victim of this unjust and immoral law. Thousands of other UKanians were legally persecuted in this way, and they carry the shame of conviction to this day. Isn't it time that shame was erased? Isn't it time British society admitted it was wrong?

But it doesn't only apply to the UK. Until 1986, gay New Zealanders were prosecuted under a now-expunged section of the Crimes Act. Those convictions still stand, and their victims are wearing them for the rest of their lives (they are not covered by clean slate legislation unless the victim goes to court to have them expunged). Again, isn't it time we erased that shame? Isn't it time we apologised?

A pardon for one person is symbolic, but it allows the legacy of past persecution to continue. If we're serious about having been wrong, if we want to really show that we've changed, then its time we made amends.

How to stop privatisation

Back in December, David Cunliffe made some noises about reversing National's privatisation, saying that a future Labour government would simply buy back stolen state assets. Then, in a typical display of Labour chickenshitness chickenshittage, he backed away from it, for fear of offending international markets.

But when our assets are being stolen by the 1%, offending international markets is exactly what the opposition needs to do.

Privatisation can be stopped fairly easily: all the opposition has to do is announce that the deals will not be respected, and that "investors" (parasitic speculators seeking a stream of monopoly infrastructure rents) will lose money. Announce that any stolen company will be fully renationalised, at either the sale price or market value, whichever is lower, less any unreasonable dividends extracted in the meantime. Suddenly, buying SOE shares becomes at best a low-interest loan to the government (or a loss, if the companies subsequently perform poorly). Institutional investors will seek higher returns elsewhere. Even if some fools buy in, they will do so at a much lower price, removing any pretense that the sales are to the economic benefit of New Zealand, and deterring the sales from going ahead in the first place.

The joy of this strategy is that the opposition may not even have to go through with it. If you crash the price enough beforehand, even the government will be forced to admit that we are better off keeping these assets in government hands.

The question is which opposition party will have the courage and virtu to do this. Will Labour finally find its heart? Or will they again abdicate to the Greens (who can credibly announce the policy by pointing to their expected influence over a future Labour government)? The choice is up to them.

(And again, for those saying "oppositions can't promise to renege on their predecessors' deals, it would create uncertainty and offend international investors", fuck them. Governments do that to voters all the time, with dire personal and social results. Why should a pack of parasites, who don't even live here, be treated better than us by our own representatives? Democracy means accepting that the government can change, and policy with it. And that shouldn't be subject to the veto of having to be consistent with past bad decisions).

All down to Dunne

The government's Mixed Ownership Model Bill, allowing privatisation of our state-owned electricity companies, passed last night by a single vote. The culprit? Peter Dunne. Dunne likes to paint himself as the voice of middle New Zealand, but middle New Zealand overwhelmingly opposes this theft by the 1%. If you'd like to let him know that, then you can email him on p.dunne@ministers.govt.nz. Hopefully, he's still concerned enough for his political future to change his mind if enough people demand it.

Meanwhile, the bill is off to the Finance and Expenditure select committee, who have already called for submissions. The due date is Friday, 13 April, and you can submit online here. If you're not sure how ot make a submission, then the Office of the Clerk has a handy guide here. This may be a fait accompli, but what we can do is make the political cost clear to National. We can also delegitimise it, opening up space for opposition parties to announce how it will be reversed. Assuming any of them have the backbone, that is.

Finally

Speaker of the House Lockwood Smith has approved permanent funding to allow deaf MP Mojo Mathers to do her job. Good. But I'm still left wondering what took him so long. Mojo was elected back in November, and the House first met in December. That's four months in which the Speaker sat on his hands and did nothing (despite being able to call a meeting of the interim Parliamentary Services Commission at any time). Even once the issue was raised publicly in an effort to shame him into action, it took almost a month for him to do anything.

But at least its now solved, and there will be permanent funding to allow MPs to work regardless of disability. And it looks like Parliament TV will be captioned in the near future. But I'm still left with the feeling that its all taken far too long. This has not been one of Smith's finest moments, and it has eroded both his own mana, and that of the House as a whole.

Climate change: They don't care

Last year in Durban, the governments of the world ruined my future (and yours) by putting off further action on climate change until 2020. Now, it looks like our government isn't even bothering to adhere to that weak deal. The Durban agreement called for governments to submit information on how to strengthen global targets to the United Nations by February 28th. But today in Question Time, the government was forced to admit that it had missed that deadline. Nick Smith went on to say that National had no intention of increasing our reduction target from the (pathetic) 10 - 20% (but only if we are allowed to cheat) already offered. Which makes it plain: National does not care about climate change. Their policy is to do nothing until nothing can be done, while using it as an excuse to transfer hundreds of millions of dollars in pollution subsidies to their donors and cronies. In the face of the greatest challenge facing human civilisation, I think we deserve a bit more than that.

Len Brown's problem

Over on The Standard, Jimmy Reid gives an example of the problem Len Brown has created for himself over Ports of Auckland:

I delivered your leaflets in the rain. I erected your hoardings across Auckland. I phoned and canvassed support for you. I encouraged my friends to vote for you.

But it’s over.

Frankly, I find your protestations that you could not help the 292 sacked wharfies asking to be able to work to live and not live to work offensive. Don’t play the victim: your salary is too big.

By refusing to back the union and rein in Ports of Auckland's psychopathic management, Brown is burning his own base. And while he may be attracting new votes from the wealthy on the North Shore, there's rather fewer of them, and their money doesn't make up for feet on the ground. Next election, Brown is going to be abandoned by the people who put him in office. This may very well mean a right-wing mayor. But at least people will know where they stand, and they won't have to vote for a man who betrays them.