Vindicated

So, the Hit and Run inquiry has reported back, and found some appalling shit at NZDF and NZSIS. And while they quibble a few of the details - the name of a dead child - they basicly uphold Hager and Stephenson's version of events. The SAS went to those villages. Civilians were killed. A man was beaten by NZ soldiers and then handed over to the Afghans and tortured. And then, to cap it all off, NZDF misled the people of New Zealand and its own Minister about this, in a shoddy effort to protect the reputation of a unit of professional killers.

I have not read the full report yet. But a few things which stand out from the media coverage:

• The inquiry exonerates the killings as collateral damage in a "legitimate" military operation. An establishment inquiry which didn't even talk to the victims was never going to do anything else. Meanwhile, while they play legal games over the laws of war, the key fact - NZDF killed civilians - is swept under the carpet. But we should neither forget nor accept it.
  
• A number of SAS and NZDF officers are named as having misled Ministers and the public, or as effectively looking the other way on past deceit. Which obviously undermines the principle of civilian control of the military, striking at the heart of our democracy. These people need to be held accountable, dishonourably discharged and stripped of their honours, pour encourager les autres. Careers need to end over this, otherwise there is no incentive for NZDF not to do it again in future.
  
• The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has found a sucking moral void at the senior levels of the SIS, whose response to credible reports of torture raised with them by their subordinates was to use the "intelligence" and say nothing about how it was acquired. These people also need to be held accountable for their failure to uphold kiwi values. They need to be fired, stripped of their security clearances, and never work in government again. Because someone who looks the other way on torture is unfit to be a human being, let alone a public servant in a position of trust.
  
• Wayne Mapp's extraordinary admission that he just "forgot" about civilian casualties is absolutely damning, and shows that he should never have been a Minister. But it also highlights a problem with a culture of secrecy and oral-only briefings which enabled this to occur. NZDF and SIS love the mystique of "too important to commit to paper", but if something is important enough to tell the Minister, it is important enough to write down and give to them so they don't forget about it in future. And if an agency doesn't want to write it down - that is, document it for future investigation, not to mention comply with their legal obligations under the Public Records Act - Ministers should immediately assume manipulation and start asking pointy questions. The problem, of course, is that Ministers often are willing to collude in poor record-keeping (AKA "crime") if it keeps their names off controversial material. Which is why we need robust, independent random audits, and a few prosecutions, again pour encourager les autres. Because if we let agencies and Ministers disappear stuff down the memory hole this way, they get away with e.g. killing children, and we all lose.
  
• Pretty obviously, NZDF would find it a lot harder to kill children if we weren't constantly involved in other people's wars. The best way to stop it from happening again is to not fight such wars. And the best way of doing that is to make them incapable of doing so. Take their toys away, and disestablish the SAS, and we'll be a lot safer.
  

Will any of this happen? Not if NZDF can help it. But to point out the obvious, there's an election coming up. We should demand candidates hold NZDF and SIS accountable for their actions. If they refuse, we should vote for someone who will.

Places to go, people to see

While there's news today, I'm off to Wellington to attend Armageddon on the weekend. Normal bloggage will resume on Monday.

Close Motunui too

Low methanol prices and unclear gas supply are threatening the future of foreign nultinational polluter Methanex's Traranki methanol production facilities:

A long term “softening” in methanol demand could have a considerable impact on Taranaki if it contributed to methanol producer Methanex quitting the region, New Plymouth MP Jonathan Young has warned.

Methanex has recently cut production at its Taranaki plants because of a weakening in methanol prices and a tightening supply of natural gas, industry news service Business Desk has reported.

Production at the plants is understood to be at 85 per cent, or 1.9m tonnes annually for 2020.

Cue the local National MP whining about jobs and exports. But as with Tiwai Point, its worth asking: is Methanex actually worth anything to New Zealand? And as with Tiwai Point, the answer is "no".

According to this article from last year, Methanex directly employs "270 staff through four sites - Motonui [sic], Waitara Valley, and Port Taranaki - and a small team in Auckland". These are high-paying jobs, with base salaries of $100,000. In addition, it indirectly supports 700 jobs for maintance contractors. So, call it a thousand jobs all up for a nice round number.

What do these jobs cost us? As noted above, Methanex is currently producing 1.9 million tons of methanol a year. As a highly-emissions intensive industrial activity, it is entitled to a carbon subsidy on 90% of its production, of 0.7854 tons of carbon per ton of methanol. In addition, because export of methanol is considered a "removal activity", it gets another 1.375 tons of carbon for each ton of methanol it exports. That gives a total carbon subsidy of 2.01 tons of carbon per ton of production, or 3.825 million tons. And plugging in the current carbon price of $33.60, it turns out we're subsidising them by $128.5 million a year. For a thousand jobs, that works out to $128,500 each, every year (and that amount is only going to go up, as carbon prices increase).

As with Tiwai Point, it appears the economic "benefit" of having Methanex in Taranaki actually boils down to "carbon subsidies". And as with Tiwai Point, it seems we'd be better off if we just let it die, and instead invested those subsidies for a decade in retraining and the creation of clean replacement industries which would provide good jobs without destroying the planet.

Drawn

A ballot for two Member's Bills was held today, and the following bills were drawn:

• Adverse Weather-affected Timber Recovery on Conservation Lands Bill (Maureen Pugh)
  
• Accident Compensation (Notice of Decisions) Amendment Bill (Paulo Garcia)
  

(These were incidentally bills 3 and 2. Which sounds like someone didn't shake the biscuit tin very well...)

Both these bills will be voted on by the next Parliament. And in the case of Pugh's dirty piece of environmental pillage, hopefully voted down.

And that was the last ballot for the term. With a new parliament, there'll be a different balance of parties, and different ballot dynamics. Which will hopefully mean less of the law and order bullshit we've seen this term.

Rediscovering their principles

Back at the beginning of this government, the Greens made a foolish decision to support the Electoral Integrity Act - demanded by Winston Peters to keep his own backbench in line as part of his coalition deal with Labour - as an act of good faith within the coalition. It compromised their principles and pissed off a lot of their supporters (including me), and in exchange they got nothing. Having depended on their good faith to get his protection racket through, Winston then merrily shat on and thwarted the Greens' agenda for the rest of the term.

So last night, when the Electoral (Integrity Repeal) Amendment Bill, it was time for a bit of utu. The Greens happily voted for it to go to select committee, leaving it for the next Parliament (hopefully without Winston) to decide. And Winston predictably hit the roof:

Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters has called the Green Party “unstable and untrustworthy” after the party banded together with National to start an attempted repeal of the waka jumping law.

Well, maybe if he'd responded to their act of good faith in kind, and treated his partners with some respect, rather than publicly shitting on them at every opportunity, they'd have gritted their teeth and voted differently? But bluntly, this government is over - it has four sitting days left to run. And in the unlikely event that NZ First is back in Parliament next term and in a coalition relationship with the Greens, it is very clearly going to be a different one.

Kindness wins after all

Last week, after Judith Collins announced that National would be cruel and vicious to kiwis caught overseas by the pandemic, and rob them at the border if they returned home, Labour looked like it was falling all over itself to cry "me too". But now, it looks like kindness has triumphed after all: there will be border fees, but only for people who leave New Zealand after the law passes, and for some people on temporary visas (basicly "essential" workers; families of returning kiwis will be exempt). This is a position that there's widespread support for - frankly, if you leave NZ now to go on holiday or some money-grubbing business junket, then you're not just a fool who is risking your own life, but someone who is deliberately choosing to endanger us all by potentially bringing the disease back with you. Deterring such stupidity is reasonable. But charging kiwis caught overseas was never just, fair, or reasonable, and I'm glad the government has backed away from it.

But its also worth noting that this victory belongs fairly and squarely to the Greens. Winston wanted to charge everyone. Jacinda Ardern - who supposedly wanted to govern with kindness - initially wanted to do the same. By standing firm and denying a majority for such viciousness, the Greens have given us a better, kinder policy.

Member's Day

Today is a Member's Day, the last of the Parliamentary term. First up is the second reading of Ginny Andersen's Holidays (Bereavement Leave for Miscarriage) Amendment Bill (No 2), which should go through easily. Second is Jacqui Dean's Local Government (Customer Focus) Amendment Bill, which adds random management-speak to the Local Government Act. Third is David Carter's Electoral (Integrity Repeal) Amendment Bill, which does exactly what it says on the label. This bill is a dilemma for the Greens, who supported Winston's protection scheme in violation of their principles to get along in coalition (and then got nothing for it). Hopefully we'll see them rediscover their principles, and vote it to select committee so the next Parliament can decide whether it still wants this law (also, it would be a nice parting "fuck you" to Winston, and payback for all the times he has abused their generosity in being good team players). Finally, there's the final stages of the joint Crimes (Definition of Female Genital Mutilation) Amendment Bill, which has broad cross-party support and will be whizzed through everything in one debate.

There should be a final ballot for one bill tomorrow, and that will be it for the term, as far as Member's Bills go.

A once-in-a-generation change

Back in 2019, the government asked for a comprehensive, independent review of the Resource Management Act and associated legislation. That review has now reported back and recommended a complete repeal and re-enactment. Despite the headlines, this is not a "scrapping" - we're still going to have a resource management law, with planning and consenting functions. But who does what, and what legislation its in, will change.

The actual report is over 500 pages long, so it will take time for everyone to digest. But looking at the consenting chapter, all those RMA-haters who complain about "red tape" and process (AKA local democracy) are unlikely to be happy. There will still be planning rules forbidding them from doing whatever they want. If they want to do things, they will still need to submit information on what they want to do and its environmental impacts to local councils. If their proposal is controversial or has significant impacts, they will still have to be publicly notified and seek submissions. They will still have to pay attention to Māori interests. The big thing that will change is that plans will be clearer (well, that's the intention anyway) about what is allowed and what is not, public notification requirements will be specified in advance, and a Māori voice will be built into the system. Oh, and "existing use" rights (e.g. old irrigation consents) can be rolled back and there'll be new attention paid to cumulative effects. This isn't a relaxation by any measure.

Oh, and the panel told the government firmly that they need to sort out water ownership with Māori, and that the current fudge (where the government sticks its fingers in its ears and says endlessly "no-one owns water" while ignoring the entire history of this country) is fucking everything up and that the government needs to reach a settlement ASAP.

The last time any government took this sort of look at planning legislation was in ~1990, and its what gave us the RMA. If acted upon, this report is likely to change our planning regime for a generation. The next Parliament will be doing this, so think about that when you vote.

Interfering with the watchdog

Britain's spy agencies are supposedly overseen by various watchdogs, including the investigatory powers tribunal. But it turns out that MI6 at least has contempt for those watchdogs, and attempted to interfere with the operations of the tribunal by concealing evidence from its judges:

MI6 has been accused of “inappropriate interference” after two of its officers allegedly asked a chief clerk at the investigatory powers tribunal to conceal secret material relating to the agency from its presiding judges.

The spy agency was forced to apologise after the incident, which took place in relation to a court case about whether fellow agency MI5 can authorise informants to participate in murder, torture or other serious crimes.

The embarrassing episode occurred in March 2019 but can only be reported now after a special hearing on Monday of the tribunal, which oversees complaints against British intelligence.

The two spies had rung the tribunal secretary and according to her claimed that “various inspection reports” about MI6 had been provided in error to the tribunal and said they had unspecified concerns in relation to the material.

They then allegedly tried to ask the official if she would in effect conceal them from the tribunal’s president, Lord Justice Singh, or its other presiding members, who are all senior judges and lawyers.

The spies have been forced to apologise. But it makes it clear that Britain's "watchdogs" normally only see what the spies let them see. Which makes you wonder how they can do their job properly at all.

No extradition to tyrannies

Last month, China imposed a new "national security law" on Hong Kong. The law imposes a penalty of life imprisonment for secession, subversion, and "colluding with foreign forces" - which basicly means peacefully advocating for democracy or independence. It has been used to crush peaceful protests and interpreted by the government as outlawing attempting to win democratic elections. In other words, it effectively ends Hong Kong's already limited democracy.

Oh, and its extraterritorial, applying to anyone in the world. People in New Zealand who support Hong Kong independence, or just the right of all peoples to peacefully and democraticly determine their futures, are now criminals in China. And the Chinese regime could seek their extradition, because we have an extradition treaty with Hong Kong (we don't have one with China, for obvious reasons: its a tyranny, with the death penalty and no legal protections for the accused. Hong Kong's courts were, until last month, independent).

So I'm glad to hear that that treaty has now been suspended. It is inappropriate to extradite to tyrannies. And thanks to China's actions, Hong Kong now falls into that category. Unfortunately, this means that people who have committed non-political crimes may escape justice. But that's the price you pay for being a tyranny, I guess.

China will no doubt get shitty about this and punish us. But that's the price of having principles. And democracy and the rule of law are not principles New Zealanders are generally willing to surrender.

A tight timeline

The bad news: Jacinda Ardern still wants to bill exiled kiwis for returning home. The good news: it would require a law change, which the Greens won't back, so she'll need to go grovelling to National. The other good news: she's running out of time to do it.

This is the second-to-last sitting week before the election. The government basicly has six days to pass everything it wants done before then. They can get more time with urgency, but that just means they get this Friday as well. And a lot of that time will be eaten by stuff they need to get done before then, notably the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (due to come into force on 30 September), the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill (No 2) (due to come into force on 1 October) and the renewal of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act (which must be done by August 11). Plus there's a bunch of appropriations stuff to get through. The government could do it, but they'd need to use all-stages urgency, which is hardly going to help the legitimacy of the law. Alternatively, they could introduce it under urgency and send it to select committee for the next Parliament to pick up. Which means no billing until maybe December.

As for whether they will, Gerry Brownlee is asking them in Question Time today. So I guess we'll know by three o'clock what is going on. Unless the government tries to lie and dissemble to the people whose votes it needs. Which would be stupid, but the habit of trying not to answer anything in Question Time is deeply ingrained, and it may be difficult for them to break.

(And again: if you are a kiwi overseas and you don't like this idea, enrol so you can vote to punish the fuckers planning it. Your vote is a weapon. use it.)

A necessary challenge

Today a full bench of the High Court is hearing Andrew Borrowdale's challenge to the legality of the COVID-19 lockdown. That lockdown ended two months ago, so the point seems moot - but it was never about ending it. Instead, as Andrew Geddis points out, its about a key principle of our system of government: the rule of law. Our government must at all times obey the law and only exercise its powers within that framework. While it is happening after the fact, this challenge is a way of ensuring that that was done, an important check and balance. If it succeeds, there's no practical relief that can be granted (except to those actually convicted of breaking lockdown, who would have their convictions reversed and fines repaid). But we would still benefit from seeing better laws and processes in future. And if it fails, we get reassurance, which is worth something in itself.

So far, some of what the government has argued - that its orders were just "advice" - has been the sort of thing you expect to see on a Tui billboard. But the actual key point I think is going to be whether the Health Act actually allowed what was ordered. And on that front, the passage of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act suggests the government doesn't really believe that it did. But I guess we'll find out in three days - or however long it takes the court to make a considered decision.

Filling the policy void

So far, this has been a relatively policy-free election campaign. The government has been trying to keep a low profile, on the basis that anything they say will only piss someone off, so better to say as little as possible. When its not knifing its leader, National has promised roads, roads, and more roads, but nothing else. NZ First has made empty noises about Tiwai Point, but not actually said what they'd do. Nobody cares about ACT. But the Greens have stepped up to fill the policy void. We'd already had two hefty announcements from them, on wealth taxes and energy policy. And now they've released a 50-page policy document of their priorities in government, intended as a starting point for future coalition arrangements.

The actual policies are short, with the crunchy detail presumably to be provided in other documents as necessary. At the same time, its clear what they want to do, and it shows a coherent direction to their party. And there's a lot here that Labour should like, if it wants to do things beyond sitting on their arses and collecting their salaries next term. More sick leave. Default / opt-out union membership. Job creation and investment. Tackling poverty and the housing crisis. Plus of course climate change and decarbonisation - the big challenge we need to meet if we are to have a future.

Of course, being able to do any of it would require them to have some leverage, and that's looking unlikely on current polling as labour won't need them. But hopefully that will change, and we'll see a truly progressive government next term, rather than a bunch of essentially status quo managers.

This is dangerous for our democracy

I hardly ever comment on polls, because horse-race politics is superficial and boring and most changes are statistically meaningless and so unworthy of attention (let alone the excitement they provoke amongst mathematically illiterate political journalists desperate to fill airtime). But we've now had two polls in a row showing Labour receiving significantly more than 50% of the vote. If these polls are remotely accurate and nothing changes, this would allow Labour to govern alone. And as an MMP-era voter, I find that deeply unsettling, a return to the unbridled power of first-past-the post (and all the arrogance it implied).

Coalition government is a valuable check and balance in our MMP-era constitution. It ensures that policy has to be scrutinised by outside eyes before passage. Its endorsement by an outside (if allied) party adds legitimacy, while also hopefully improving quality. And of course there's the ultimate check and balance: having someone to pull the plug if the government goes off the rails. No MMP coalition partner has had to do that yet, but anyone who remembers Robert Muldoon and Roger Douglas should acknowledge its basic necessity. Majority government removes both those safeguards.

In 2002, we had a similar situation: a dominant government polling over 50% and a hapless opposition. Back then, voters responded by fleeing to the minor parties, who saw their fortunes increase significantly. And the result was a government which lacked a majority, but could do whatever it wanted by choosing the appropriate partner (or, more usually, two or even all three of them). But since then, our minor parties have suffered an ecological collapse. United Future is gone, and NZ First looks likely to follow. On current polling, we look likely to have a four-party Parliament after September - the smallest ever in the MMP era. And while the number of registered parties has picked up a little since last election - we will have 18, once the current three in train are processed - apart from the Māori Party there's nothing there that looks remotely likely to replace the ones we've lost. While fundamentalist christians, racists and conspiracy theorists love to start political parties, voters don't like to vote for them. Those with coherent ideologies seem too narrow to get the 5% necessary to enter Parliament, and are denied the access to capture public attention anyway (both Labour and National not wanting a return of the worm). Basicly, our political system is becoming narrower, while barriers to political competition remain high or are getting higher. And this is not healthy.

And yet, a majority of voters say they want coalition governments, and even major party voters don't want unbridled power (except National of course). In which case, maybe they should actually vote for that?

Reported back

The Finance and Expenditure Committee has reported back on its inquiry into the operation of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. As you'd expect, they find that the law was "necessary and appropriate", but would like to see a permanent replacement providing for health emergency powers as the Health Act is showing its age. They recommend a number of minor changes to be put in such legislation (which would be a long-term project, not something happening any time soon), including limits on who may be appointed as an enforcement officer, a Treaty clause, privacy protection and limits on entry into marae. On one of the big controversial issues - warrantless entry powers - they uphold the powers, on the basis of similar clauses in other laws (alternatively: old authoritarian legislation we haven't repealed yet). Though they do also say elsewhere they want better guidance on the "likely to contravene" standard which ultimately underlies those powers as it is is likely to allow police to order people to cease lawful activities (and to kick in their door to do so). But we're not going to see any immediate legislative change as a result; its all for that long-term bill.

The National Party has a minority report saying that the inquiry was a waste of time, but also should have been given to the Epidemic Response Committee where they had a majority. Its another example of their constant wrecking behaviour on this issue, which is turning the public off them.

This is how you deal with criminal fishers

In October 2018, Sealord's fishing boat Ocean Dawn repeatedly bottom-trawled in a Benthic Protection Area on the Chatham Rise. It was a crime which devastated a pristine marine environment. And today, they've been properly punished for it:

Sealord has today been ordered to forfeit a $24 million fishing vessel for bottom trawling in a protected area.

The company was also ordered to pay a $24,000 fine in Nelson District Court for trawling in a Benthic Protected Area.

[...]

In addition to the vessel Ocean Dawn being forfeit, the proceeds from the sale of the entire catch taken in the five offending trawls is also forfeit which amounts to $1,12294.13.

The captain and first mate were also convicted and fined. Hopefully it means they won't work in the industry again.

There will no doubt be appeals, but hopefully this penalty will stick. And its absolutely appropriate for a company which repeatedly violated a reserve. Hopefully it means that the fishing industry will get the message that this sort of criminality is not acceptable. And hopefully they'll start handing down similar penalties for catch fraud as well.

A victory for women

Last night, the Equal Pay Amendment Act 2020 was passed unanimously by Parliament. The Act updates the 1972 Equal Pay Act to create a bargaining framework for equal pay claims and hopefully avoid the need to take them to court. It doesn't go far enough - there's no pay transparency clause, for example - but should still be a massive improvement on the status quo,and can do down as something this government has actually achieved (I guess Winston didn't feel he could be that regressive and reactionary). And since it comes into force the day after it is signed, hopefully we'll see some quick improvement in the gender-pay gap.

Doing the right thing

The New Zealand government has done the right thing and granted journalist Behrouz Boochani refugee status:

Eight months after arriving in New Zealand, acclaimed author Behrouz Boochani has been granted refugee status.

The Kurdish-Iranian writer joins a small group of successful applicants – with almost two thirds of asylum claims rejected last year.

Gaining refugee status means he can stay in New Zealand indefinitely and can apply for a resident’s visa.

Peter Dutton will probably lose his shit over this, but fuck him, he deserves to be in The Hague. Protecting victims of concentration camps is exactly what refugee status is for, and if Australia has forgotten that, so much the worse for them. But Boochani is not the only victim of Australian cruelty; we should grant refugee status to everyone in the camps on Manus and Nauru and bring them here for safe lives in New Zealand. And if Australia doesn't like that, then fuck them.

And in the meantime, remember: don't buy Australian.

Drawn

A ballot for five Member's Bills was held today and the following bills were drawn:

• Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill (No 2) (Shane Reti)
  
• Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill (Louisa Wall)
  
• Lawyers and Conveyancers (Employed Lawyers Providing Free Legal Services) Amendment Bill (Sarah Dowie)
  
• Companies (Limited Partnerships Identical Names Prohibition) Amendment Bill (Gerry Brownlee)
  
• Corrections (School Notification of Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill (Matt Doocey)
  

I'll leave comment on the medicinal cannabis bill to the serious drug policy commentators. But Wall's bill will correct the mess David Seymour managed to make of abortion decriminalisation earlier in the year. I look forward to it passing.

None of these bills will be voted on before the election. Instead, it'll be for the next Parliament to decide on them. and hopefully that will be a Parliament with a strong majority against law-and-order bullshit.

Another environmental crime

A farmer in Te Anau has slashed and burned 800 hectares of native forest:

A Te Anau farmer accused of slashing and burning down 800 hectares of native forest in two years has been served with an interim court order to stop.

Southland District Council says Peter Chartres caused irreparable damage to flora and fauna when he cleared mānuka on his property to make room for pasture - ignoring an abatement notice in 2015 and multiple warnings he needed resource consent to clear trees older than 20 years.

Chartres denies he has done anything wrong and plans to oppose a permanent court order the council is applying for.

800 hectares of native forest isn't just a loss of native habitat and biodiversity - its a loss of carbon as well. Using the look-up tables, 800 hectares of indigenous forest of at least 20 years of age is at least 126,960 tons of carbon, worth at least $4.2 million at current prices (I wonder if he paid for it, or committed carbon fraud?). But its worse in the long-term, because at peak native forest soaks up well over a thousand tons per hectare. Which means this orc's destruction spree cost us at least 800,000 tons of long-term carbon storage, enough to soak up 1% of one year's emissions.

A court order is a good start. But acting without resource consent and ignoring an abatement notice is an actual crime, punishable by 2 years in jail and a fine of up to $300,000. This orc should be prosecuted. Or are farmers above the law?