Should we be concerned?

I am passionate about science and I am also fairly interested in public policy.  It’s with this dual interest that I am warily watching the sacking of New Zealand’s renowned climatologist, Jim Salinger.

I am not naive and I understand the tension that exists between the political world and scientific evidence.  As much as we like to think public policy is based on evidence, it seldom is.  Because of this, the boundary between evidence-based science and politically-motivated public policy is often uncomfortable.  Climate science is one of those topic areas where the science is now reasonably clear and where serious scientific debate remains only around marginal issues.  By contrast, the political debate around climate change is fraught with confusion and is punctuated by a decided lack of evidence (on all sides).

New Zealander, Jim Salinger, is one of the World’s leading scientists on climate change.  He was part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that helped pull together a broad scientific consensus on climate change and provide clear and unequivocal advice to governments on the scope and scale of the problem.  For its work, the IPCC received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. So, by extension, Salinger is one of those few New Zealanders who can lay claim to being a Nobel Laureate.

Jim Salinger was sacked allegedly for breaching the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research’s (NIWA’s) media policy.  Apparently he spoke to the media without NIWA’s authority and this breach was deemed to be “serious misconduct” resulting in his dismissal.

I don’t know the ins or outs of this action.  But on the face of it, it does seem a little harsh. On the other hand, public officials need to be very cautious when speaking to the media and ensure they have explicit authority to do so.  This is particularly important when you are a person of some standing where there is a potential risk your public profile means any private comments may be attributed to your employer.

However, I can’t help but feel a bit of disquiet about this issue.  I am always a bit leery when senior officials are sacked more because I know how hard it is (i.e the steps required to make it happen).

I do not know enough about the history of the relationship between Dr Salinger and NIWA to know whether the alleged misconduct was all that was involved in this sacking or whether there’s a deeper history. So, I am not quick to judge this as being a politically motivated sacking as some politicians and lobbyists like Greenpeace are suggesting. It pays not to judge on half the facts.  However, my passion for science leaves me hoping that Dr Salinger wasn’t sacked because the science he has been discussing happens to sit uncomfortably with the public policy rhetoric.  I’d like to think that kind of thing wouldn’t happen in New Zealand.

Stating the obvious – at last!

President Obama moved yet another step further away from the “end of days” fervour of his predecessor’s administration and today, in a (secular) country with a majority of Muslims (ie Turkey) confirmed finally  that America was not at war with the Islamic World. It’s a simple statement, but one that is long overdue.

Bush’s “War on Terror” could have been similarly framed from the start to avoid the excesses of Islamophobia. But it seems demonising 100+ million people was all part of the black and white rhetoric of Bush’s febrile brand of religious infused war-mongering.

Hopefully, the polarity Bush created between the US and Islamic countries can be undone and, instead of disdain, the US will find real help in the Middle East to stop those who mean it harm.  Meanwhile, the US can re-focus away from trying to live out the Armageddon and focus on much overdue domestic, environmental and economic issues.

Personally, I look forward to the World’s most powerful nation doing something positive in the World rather than acting like a global playground bully.

Hurrah for the Speaker

Perhaps the most exciting development in New Zealand’s parliamentary politics in recent years has been the selection of Lockwood Smith as Speaker.

Smith is an unlikely choice as parliamentary hero. As an MP, minister and Opposition Spokesperson Smith was hardly at the bleeding edge. More, I suspect, what his colleagues would call a bleeding nuisance.

In fact, Smith’s entire history in Parliament has been a little improbable.  For those of us of a certain age, Lockwood will forever be the host of the TV quiz show,  It’s Academic W3.  His chiseled good looks,  dapper sartorial style and his day-glo grin seemed better suited to TV land but oddly out of step with the endemic drab seriousness of Parliament.  As a consequence, Smith was frequently derided as a “celebrity”, which, as Obama found out during the presidential elections, is supposedly one of the worst things you can say about a politician.

During the run up to the most recent General Election, Smith made a couple of gaffes that seemingly sealed his future as, at most, a mid-bencher.  Then Smith was put up as Speaker.  A cunning move some no doubt thought.  In one foul swoop, Key moved a liability out of Cabinet without degrading his status as a senior member.

Smith’s appointment though turned out to be more significant  than a sinecure for an embarrassing MP.  Within days of his appointment, Smith showed a willingness to challenge process and re-write parliamentary procedure.  His first significant announcement was to change the Speaker’s Procession into the Chamber.  It was a small change in some ways but signaled Smith’s willingness to push against the status quo.

Then as Question Time unfolded for the first time under Speaker Smith, he once again showed a zeal for change.  He challenged ministers to answer straight-forward questions in a straight-forward fashion.  It was a simple direction but one dripping with significance.  If observers didn’t appreciate the importance of Smith’s words, the stunned looks on both sides of the House should have signaled its importance.

Speakers have generally avoided trying to judge the merit of a minister’s answer to questions put by the Opposition insisting that the question is “addressed”.   Smith pushed that envelope saying that it was an important function in a democracy for members of the Executive to be held to account for their actions.

Some have (uncharitably) suggested that Smith, one of the longest serving MPs in the House, was exacting a bit of revenge on the whipper-snapper ministers who managed to land a Cabinet role with no previous experience or maybe only one term in Opposition.  But I think that might be an unfair criticism.  Who knows what Smith’s motivation was if it was not, as he said, for the betterment of democratic accountability.

Despite the stunned looks of disbelief among Smith’s colleagues on the government front-bench, the new Speaker wasn’t giving the Opposition a free run.  Smith has also adopted an “advantage” strategy (to use a sporting analogy) where he lets political material slide (overtly political questions can be answered with political answers) and tries to keep the flow of Question Time moving.

I’ve been watching quite a bit of Question Time on the Web and on TV and, I have to say, I think Smith has so far displayed a high level of independence and neutrality.  Hopefully this continues.  Smith’s activist style has been long overdue, with no disrespect to previous Speakers.  New Zealand has few checks on its unicameral system.  I think we’ve done a good job in keeping a strong democratic tradition central to our parliamentary affairs.  But our system is so thin that it’s always vulnerable to failure.  Having a friend of democracy in the Speaker’s chair can only be a good thing.

Extending extended supervision

The government has just rushed through an amendment to the Parole Act which extends provisions relating to extended supervision introduced in 2003.  This extension was put through all stages in a rush but not formal urgency.

I did not really have a problem with the idea of extended supervision.  It seems to me that managing higher risk offenders in the community is consistent with public expectations of public safety while also de-emphasising incarceration as the means for achieving this over the long term.

The latest changes give the Parole Board the power to impose extended supervision conditions-including electronic monitoring-for up to 10 years following release.  While I can see the public policy logic of this as a sensible way of furthering the intended purpose of extended supervision, I do worry about some of the human rights issues this throws up.

Unlike many of my more liberal friends and colleagues, I don’t have a problem keeping bad people away from the community for very long periods of time.  In fact, I am quite comfortable with tough sentencing of those very risky and dangerous people. I also believe the parole process should be primarily focused on public safety and that conditions can and should be commensurate with the level of riskiness of the parolee.

However, I am concerned about the implications of incrementally mixing sentencing and parole.  Judges should be freer to hand down hefty sentences on those deserving it.  Similarly, the Parole Board should be able to hold people in prison or release on conditions to most effectively manage post-release risk.  But sentencing objectives and parole objectives ought not to be mixed.

I am a little worried that the recent emphasis on parole is drifting perilously close to sentencing. I think I would be more comfortable for courts to impose longer sentences than allow onerous post-release conditions to be imposed upon parole.  You achieve the same objective of keeping bad people away, but you don’t end up mixing sentencing and parole.

The fundamental problem with the approach taken in this legislation is that it effectively drifts into double jeopardy.  After having served the sentence decided by the court, a prisoner is then put on an extended period of onerous controls?  It doesn’t sound like being released from my perspective.  That it can go on for an extended period of time makes it problematic.

I am perplexed why this approach was taken.  Preventative detention gives courts the power to impose a indeterminate sentence for repeat or heinous offending.  This frees the Parole Board to release the prisoner when and if they’re convinced public safety is not an issue.  Alternatively, the court could impose a range of release conditions as part of the sentence.  This would ensure the measures are proportionate.

By leaving this to the Parole Board risks an arbitrariness to sentencing-like “sanctions” that I thought we, as a nation, were opposed to.

I guess I am saying I don’t have a problem with the “lock em up and throw away the key” concept.  I more have a problem with saying the sentence is a carefully calculated finite period and then, after having done that time, a prisoner is then subjected to “conditions” which are almost as onerous as the original sentence.  It just doesn’t seem just.

It’s the little things…

As the G20 economic conference drew to an end this morning, there has been a large amount of analysis and commentary from the media. But for me, it’s the little things that jangle my nerves (for good and ill).

I switched on the news channels and they were all carrying President Obama’s post-conference press conference.  While many focused on the substance of the meeting and the scope and nature of the agreements reached, I was struck by another slightly less important but nonetheless interesting aspect of this meeting: The President of the United States’ willingness and ability to take unprepared questions from the floor and respond in an intelligent and thoughtful way.

It may be only a little thing, but it’s a sign the Whitehouse now has a brain in residence and a President confident enough to invite questions from the floor and to respond to them coherently. This contrasts with the past eight years. President Bush rarely made such appearances and, when he did, they were usually carefully staged affairs.

President Obama is articulate and clearly intelligent.  His style at these conferences might be a little too slow and deliberate for fact-paced television “news” channels.  But what he lacks in sound-bites, he more than makes up with substance.  It’s refreshing to see a smart and confident leader respond in his own time and proffer direct and substantial answers rather than meaningless slop for the masses.

I’ve always been a bit ambivalent about the President.  I want to like him and there’s certainly lots to like.  But I worry that he’s “all mouth and no trousers”; as they say. But watching the guy handle himself this morning left me wondering whether there should be room for optimism about this guy.

The US Budget

The US government has released its 2009 Budget and it’s not pretty reading. Manufacturing employment down to WWII levels, consumer confidence reaches a 40-year low, health care costs are bleeding the nation dry and predicted to be 20 percent of GDP by 2017 and government spending exceeding income by more than a trillion dollar.  Optimistically, Obama is only looking to halve the deficit by the end of his first four-year term. This is no “back to black” Budget.

On the plus side, Obama’s administration is massively investing in critical areas of the US economy and society including a staggering (and real) spend up on infrastructure across the board from bridges to IT systems.  Obama’s going to green the economy and energy base.  He’s also investing heavily in education and throttling back the cost of healthcare.  It’s all ambitious stuff.

The spend up is a liberal wet dream. But the cost of this ambitious programme, coupled with the astounding legacy of fiscal incompetence left by the Bush administration is worrying.  Hopefully this massive gambit will pay off.  We like to rib our American cousins a bit.  But where America goes so does the rest of the World.  If Obama’s ambitious plan fails, we’re all in peril. Remind me why and how George W Bush escaped impeachment?

Was the 2004 US Presidential Election stolen?

I am reading a great book rather plainly and obviously titled, Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?.

The book starts with a simple idea: exit polling should accurately reflect voter intentions – given exit polls are taken almost immediately after an elector has voted.  Moreover, if there is a hidden variable (eg being ashamed to admit to voting for Bush) then this would generally manifest itself uniformly or in a predictable way.  What the authors look at are the massive anomalies that emerged in “battleground” states where Republicans ran the election processes.

The authors use an array of interesting data analyses to provide an answer to this simple question. And it’s fascinating journey. The sheer brazenness,  breadth and scale of the rorts are spectacular. Ranging from the usual kind of inter-party hijinks through to massive and cynical efforts to deny voters-particularly black voters-an opportunity to vote and to do this with horrifyingly efficient precision.  It’s an outstanding little book for those interested in democracy.