New Fisk

Israeli teenagers' funeral: It is obscene when either side kills children – not only Palestinians

Dysfunctional

Yesterday SSC released its Performance Improvement Framework Report for the New Zealand Intelligence Community (SIS, GCSB, NAB, and bits of DPMC). The short version? Our spies are completely dysfunctional:

A dismal picture of New Zealand's intelligence services has been painted in an official report which has urged greater transparency and says huge change is urgently needed.

It says the intelligence agencies are unclear about what their priorities are while tolerating poor performance and questionable work quality.

[...]

It specifically withheld an assessment on the GCSB and NZSIS ability to reach its performance targets, saying doing so would place the security of New Zealand at risk.

But it did say there was a "huge amount of change to be undertaken" and it needed to happen with "urgency".

A declassified version of the report painted a grim picture of the work our spies were doing, saying "national security and intelligence priorities are inadequately defined".

In short, they don't know what they're doing, they don't know why they're doing it, and they're not doing it well. NZSIS can't do its core job - security vetting - in a timely fashion, GCSB can't even count, and they hate each other. Plus they've got poor financial management practices and no idea of how much stuff they own to boot.

And then they wonder at the level of public hostility: its because we doubt their purpose, see their intrusive powers as unjustified, and view them as useless muppets who have never done the job they're supposed to. If the entire NZIC was shut down tomorrow we wouldn't notice and wouldn't care. And that I think is the most powerful argument for doing so.

Overstretched

The Office of the Ombudsman issued its Statement of Intent yesterday, setting out what they plan to do over the next five years. we've been hearing a lot recently about how the office is failing to deal with the deluge of complaints it must now handle, and the Statement of Intent confirms it. Here's their projected performance targets for handling OIA complaints:



Spot the difference: their budget target - on which their budget is based - underestimates demand by 75% or more. It's a similar story for Ombudsman's act complaints: they have a target of 8,000 contacts/complaints a year, and they're actually dealing with 11,000. Which is why people are waiting years to have their complaints resolved. Further down they note that

there is a risk we will not be able to meet stakeholder expectations of the time taken to complete the complaints and other contacts we receive.

Timeliness is often critical to complainants and significant failures in this regard carry the risk that people will choose not to turn to us or, if they do, the outcomes we can achieve will not be relevant, useful or appropriate.

No shit. OIA requests are often highly time sensitive. If you have to wait two to five years to get an effective response, there's simply no point asking. And that has unpleasant implications, not just for transparency, but for confidence in our system of government overall.

But its not just complaint-handling which is underfunded. The Ombudsman also has a vital role in inspecting places of detention to ensure that detention conditions are humane. And there the targets are similarly dismal. They have a target that only 80% of their recommendations in this area are accepted. Given that these are recommendations to end inhumane treatment, I'd expect that target to be 100%. Then there's this:

There are also approximately an additional 130 aged care facilities with dementia units that may fall within our designation in respect of health and disability places of detention. If so, we would need to seek additional funding in order to conduct regular inspections of these facilities.

Yes, they're not even funded to inspect every class of detention facility - which means inhumane treatment may be going undetected and uncorrected.

These are serious problems. And the root cause behind most of them seems to be underfunding. The Ombudsman is our watchdog against the government. If we want it to do that job effectively, its needs to be funded properly. But what politician would ever want to do that?

Fiji: Intimidating democracy

Fiji will be holding elections in three months to return the country to democratic government. But the military is clearly worried that their candidate - dictator Voreqe Bainimarama - might not win. So they'll be sending soldiers to political meetings to "monitor" them:

Fiji's military chief Mosese Tikoitoga says military officers will attend political gatherings as the military needs to be informed of political parties' manifestos.

The explanation doesn't wash. party manifestos get published, and parties campaign on their contents. If the military wants to know what's in them - something a democratic military has no legitimate interest in, I might add - then all they need to do is read the papers. Sending soldiers has only one purpose: to intimidate the opposition, and make an implicit threat of another coup if the "wrong" party wins.

Australia returns refugees to persecution

Non-refoulement is a key principle of international law, which forbids the return of a victim to their persecutor. Its encoded in both the Convention Against Torture and the Refugee Convention. But in its efforts to shut out refugees, Australia is now abandoning it:

Tamil asylum seekers believed to have been intercepted on astricken fishing vessel off Christmas Island might be forcibly returned directly to south Asia by the Australian government.

Immigration Minister Scott Morrison said on Monday night the government was prepared to talk with any country to enforce its policy of stopping boats from reaching Australia.

If the asylum seekers are in Australian custody, they are being held without communications. The last contact made by satellite phone was at the weekend.

Removing the asylum seekers from Australian territory would be illegal under international law.

Sri Lanka is a torture-state whose government committed numerous war crimes during its civil war. The government use rape and sexual violence to brutalise the Tamil population. Returning people to a government which does this is a clear violation of international law, and makes Australia responsible for these refugees' subsequent treatment. But Australia's racist government doesn't care.

"Talking about the things that matter"

There's been appalling news today about the housing crisis, with the $34.53 increase in the annual average (not median) massively outstripped by a $38,000 increase in the average house price. So naturally Labour is talking about resurrecting the Moa:

Trevor Mallard continues to push his idea that moa may one day roam in Wainuiomata, despite his leader saying the "moa is not a goer".

Labour's Hutt South MP presented the idea to 30 or so businesspeople at a development breakfast in the Lower Hutt suburb Wainuiomata.

While admitting it sounded "a bit Jurassic Park", Mallard said scientists had been making progress on techniques for using recovered DNA from extinct animals to reconstruct new life. Moa could return to the bush of Rimutaka Forest Park, he said.

If this is their idea of "talking about the things that matter", then its no wonder they're losing.

(I've got nothing against Moa, and I think de-extinction would be an interesting scientific project. But FFS. If you don't want the media to stop focusing on this sort of thing, you should stop offering it to them on a silver platter).

Why is John Key covering up for American murderers?

Last night, Native Affairs screened an important piece by Jon Stephenson investigating the aftermath of a 2010 revenge raid by the SAS in Afghanistan in which civilians were killed (apparently by a trigger-happy US helicopter crew). Our government has consistently refused to acknowledge any civilian deaths during the raid, despite the Afghan Human Rights Commission and their own ISAF allies reaching the opposite conclusion. Its pretty obviously a self-serving position designed to protect the reputation of the NZDF and toady to its American "friends", who define any dead Afghan as an "insurgent" (meaning civilian casualties are zero by definition). But the result is that then-defence Minister Wayne Map and now Prime Minister John Key (who signed off on the mission) have lied to us about our military's involvement in civilian deaths.

When given a choice between believing John Key, who wasn't there, and the Afghans who were and have the photos of the dead and scars on their bodies to prove it, I think its a no-brainer. Our government should acknowledge its role in this war crime. And it should acknowledge the dead and compensate their families. Its the lest we can do. And if we don't, we can blame John Key when the terrorists come knocking.

So much for the "neutral" monarchy

The myth of the neutral monarchy has been looking increasingly threadbare of late. And over the weekend, it got another nail in its coffin:

Prince Charles lobbied Tony Blair's government to expand grammar schools, also exerting pressure over issues including GM food and alternative medicines, according to interviews with ex-ministers collected for a BBC documentary on the prince's political activism.

The prince openly tried to change the mind of the then education secretary, David Blunkett, on grammar schools, Blunkett told The Royal Activist, a Radio 4 programme broadcast on Sunday.

"I would explain that our policy was not to expand grammar schools, and he didn't like that," said Blunkett, who held the post from 1997 to 2001. "He was very keen that we should go back to a different era where youngsters had what he would have seen as the opportunity to escape from their background, whereas I wanted to change their background."

"The monarch stays out of politics" is the central bargain of Westminster democracy. If the monarchy isn't interested in keeping to it, then its time we did away with the institution and consigned it to the dustbin of history where it belongs.

More cronyism

There's an election coming up, so it must be time for the government to make some more crony appointments! Steven Joyce announced a bunch of CRI board appointments today, including Jeff Grant at AgResearch and Andrew von Dadelszen at Plant & Food. However, he's missed some pretty significant information from the bios: Grant is a former National party MP, while von Dadelszen is or was chair of National's "BlueGreens" group and is married to Simon Bridges' electorate agent. I guess one taxpayer salary just wasn't enough for them...

A law unto themselves

US mercenary company Blackwater (now Academi) has a dodgy reputation, being involved in murders and the massacre of civilians in Iraq. They managed to get away with it for two reasons: firstly, because they claimed to be subject to US rather than Iraqi law. And secondly, because they threatened to murder US investigators:

Just weeks before Blackwater guards fatally shot 17 civilians at Baghdad’s Nisour Square in 2007, the State Department began investigating the security contractor’s operations in Iraq. But the inquiry was abandoned after Blackwater’s top manager there issued a threat: “that he could kill” the government’s chief investigator and “no one could or would do anything about it as we were in Iraq,” according to department reports.

American Embassy officials in Baghdad sided with Blackwater rather than the State Department investigators as a dispute over the probe escalated in August 2007, the previously undisclosed documents show. The officials told the investigators that they had disrupted the embassy’s relationship with the security contractor and ordered them to leave the country, according to the reports.

The second paragraph is simply astonishing: a US company explicitly threatened to murder US officials, and other US officials backed them. No wonder Blackwater felt bold enough to kill with impunity in Nisour Square.

New Fisk

Syrian ‘moderates’ aren’t so moderate in Iraq
How on earth can Israel tolerate this filth from B’nai Brith Canada?

National's "big plan"

So, National has revealed its "big plan" for the election: spending the money made by selling stolen state assets on roading projects in National or National-targeted electorates:

National is defending a new $212 million road transport package, saying the party is not trying to buy votes in the regions.

Prime Minister John Key announced plans to use cash from the sale of state-owned assets to upgrade 14 roads across the country.

Two of the projects would benefit Labour-held electorates - Palmerston North and West Coast Tasman - which National are targeting. But a number also fall in safe National seats, such as Taranaki and Clutha-Southland.

[That story is incorrect; the Whirokino Trestle Bridge is in the Otaki electorate; West Coast-Tasman is an obvious National target which they hope to win back]

So, they're basically stealing from everyone to provide pork to their supporters. In the process, they're wasting money by replacing bridges upgraded this year. But while the apparent target is National voters, the real beneficiary is National's donors in the trucking industry: as TransportBlog points out, the projects are primarily focused on upgrading bridges to take the super-heavy trucks National has allowed on our roads.

In the 2011 election campaign, the Road transport Forum (the trucking lobby) gave $30,000 to the National Party and $5,000 each to Bill English, Judith Collins, Joanne Goodhew, Todd McClay, and Phil Heatley. I guess they got what they paid for.

Fixing Christchurch

Labour has announced another part of its package to fix Christchurch: an immediate crash home-building plan:

A Labour government would build 100 "high-quality modular" houses for Christchurch in its first four months and have a further 300 of its Kiwibuild homes ready within six months.

The commitment is part of a plan to build 10,000 affordable homes in Canterbury, addressing what Labour housing spokesman Phil Twyford calls the broken free-market "tweaking" of planning laws in National's rebuild.

[...]

Fewer than 1000 of the 12,000 to 15,000 houses needed in Canterbury had been built after three and half years, he said.

Only 25 per cent of the state house repairs has been done, and of the 700 state house rebuild that had been promised a year ago, only 29 had been completed.

The market has failed, so the government has to step in. Its that simple. As for why the market has failed, there's the ongoing insurance problems of course, but perhaps this also has something to do with it: wages for builders, plumbers, and the other workers required to rebuild Christchurch haven't kept pace with the living costs there. Or, to put it another way, the construction industry is simply pocketing increased rebuild costs.

In this context, Labour saying they'll bring workers in from overseas if necessary looks like a betrayal. There are workers here. They're just not paid enough to work in Christchurch. Importing people with lower living standards expectations isn't a solution to that problem - it just creates more exploited, desperate people. And that doesn't sound like a very labour-oriented policy to me.

Who'd have thunk it?

By advocating for a controversial policy, Labour has managed to win public backing for it:

Once regarded as a political poison, public opinion has moved in favour of Labour's capital gains tax since it was announced three years ago and support for idea has moved well ahead of the party's own popularity, according a recent Herald Digipoll.

Numbers backing the policy, which is Labour's primary weapon to curb rising house prices, is particularly strong in Auckland where first home buyers have borne the brunt of those increases.

Its still not strong majority territory, unlike e.g. the health and education systems or the principle of progressive taxation. But for a policy long considered a "third rail" of New Zealand politics, its a significant shift.

This shouldn't be surprising - National and the Greens have been doing this for years (and Labour's adoption of the capital gains tax is in part because the Greens had laid the groundwork by pushing for it). But it ought to put paid forever to the idea that parties are just "logs floating in a stream" which must go with the flow of public opinion because they are unable to affect it. Weak parties are. But if Labour stops being scared of its own shadow and afraid of its left-wing heritage, it can actually change things, and build the majorities it needs to govern.

So much for Ruataniwha

Yesterday, the Hawkes Bay Regional Coucil voted to invest $80 million in the Ruataniwha dam. Today, the board of inquiry upheld its resource consent decisions, effectively shitcanning the project:

The Board of Inquiry into the Ruataniwha Dam has upheld strict conditions which the Hawke's Bay Regional Council has said makes the $600 million water storage project unworkable.

The board has just issued its final decision, confirming nitrogen leaching levels from agriculture at 0.8 milligrams per litre, which would ensure the ability of rivers to sustain life.

The council has acknowledged the Tukituki River already significantly exceeds that limit, and it appears that would leave no room to further intensify agriculture in the catchment.

And that, hopefully, is that. Or will HBRC and the farmers demand National pass a law under urgency to allow them to pillage this river, just as they're doing for the West Coast forests?

Urgency for pillage

As I write, the House is in urgency to pass a law through all stages - without select committee consideration - allowing the pillage of windblown timber from the conservation estate. Beyond the obvious abuse of the Parliamentary process, its also a perfect example of the mindset of this government and their view of conservation. Most New Zealanders see the conservation estate as a way of protecting valuable parts of the natural environment for their own sake or for the enjoyment of future generations. National sees it as something which just locks up valuable resources which could be looted by their donors and cronies. They look at windblown native forests and see money lying around waiting to be picked up, which will go to "waste" if left to rot. I look at it and see the nutrient cycle in action, a vital part of the natural processes in these forests, which needs to be protected if we want them to survive.

Forest & Bird's Kevin Hackwell has made a strong case against the law here. It will damage the environment, and it will probably damage the industry it purports to support. Unmentioned is that we will likely see the bulk export of pillaged native logs overseas. National's donors and cronies in the resource extraction industry will do very well out of this. As for the rest of us, our conservation estate will be degraded for their profit.

This is not conservation. It is pillage, pure and simple. And while National may pass a law, we'll hopefully see the environmental movement take direct action to stop it from actually happening.

Evidence: The NSA is funding the GCSB

Last week, The Intercept published details on the NSA's programs with partners to tap international communications cables. Most of the article focused on a program called RAMPART-A, which seems to involve Denmark and Germany, with each helping the NSA to spy on the other (while claiming to their own governments that their citizens are protected). But buried in one of the background documents - the US "black budget" for Foreign Partner Access Project - was this titbit:



"Second parties" means the rest of the Five Eyes: the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. And while most of it is through the UK (likely involving this facility and their transatlantic cable taps at GCHQ Bude), all parties are involved. So, we now have an NSA document which says that the US is paying "our" GCSB (something both the GCSB and their spy minister have refused to answer). As for what they're getting for their money, the obvious conclusion is access to data tapped from cables in the Pacific.

So, "our" spies take foreign money to work for a foreign power. Isn't there a very ugly word for that?

No freedom of religion in Nigeria

We take freedom of religion for granted in New Zealand. You can believe what you want, and its treated as a private matter between you and the uncaring universe. If you happen to believe different things from your family, they just have to live with it.

In Nigeria, things are a little different:

A Nigerian man has been incarcerated in a mental health institution by his family after saying he had lost his belief in God.

Mubarak Bala, 29, is said to have been forcibly medicated for "insanity" for nearly two weeks, despite a doctor's opinion that he has no psychological problems.

Campaigners are calling for his release and say the case highlights the fact that atheists are a persecuted minority in many African countries.

The Nigerian constitution affirms the freedom of religion. sadly, this doesn't seem to mean much in practice.

Equality comes to Indiana

Another day, another state's bigot-law is struck down by a federal court:

A federal judge struck down Indiana’s ban on same-sex marriage Wednesday in a ruling that immediately allowed gay couples to wed.

The court clerk in Marion County, home to Indianapolis, began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couple about an hour after U.S. District Judge Richard Young ruled that the state law violates the U.S. Constitution’s equal-protection clause.

“Same-sex couples, who would otherwise qualify to marry in Indiana, have the right to marry in Indiana,” he wrote. “These couples, when gender and sexual orientation are taken away, are in all respects like the family down the street. The Constitution demands that we treat them as such.”

Also today: Utah's appeal against a similar decision was turned down.

The turning tide has become a flood. And like the civil rights movement fifty years ago, it will sweep this bigotry away.

The "no-fly" list is unconstitutional

After September 11 2001, the US government created a "no fly" list of alleged terrorists who were not allowed to fly within or to the United States. The list now has tens of thousands of names on it, and has led to numerous cases wher einnocent people have been forbidden to fly. But today, a federla judged ruled that is is unconstitutional:

The U.S. government offers no adequate method for people to challenge their placement on its no-fly list, a federal judge ruled Tuesday in a case involving 13 Muslims who believe they're on the list.

U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown found people lack a meaningful way to challenge their placement on the list, which bars them from flying to or within the United States. She also said the 13 people who sued the government have been unconstitutionally deprived of their right to fly.

"This should serve as wakeup call to the government," said American Civil Liberties Union attorney Hina Shamsi. "This decision also benefits other people wrongly stuck on the no-fly list because it affords them (an opportunity to challenge) a Kafkaesque bureaucracy."

The US government now has to provide people on the list with an effective means of challenging the ban, and a summary of information being used against them.

Meanwhile, apparently the list is shared with 22 countries. Which invites the question: are we one of them? Wikileaks has shown that NZ Immigration has expressed interest in the list, so its quite likely that our government is collaborating in an unlawful blacklist to restrict freedom of movement.