Kiwiblog

Was a small crowd but a fun night at Back Benches last night. All the MPs were relaxed and did well, but I do have to say that Shane Jones was bloody funny.

You can view the episode here, but some classic lines from Shane were:

Been back down to the West Coast. You know its a bit problematic when every third person is reminding you “Hey Jonesy we didn’t like being called feral”.

Much better than denying she ever said it as Goff did.

Found a local pest in the form of Mr Auchinvole, so 1080 has been deployed.

Chris Auchinvole is the National MP.

send a search party to Boni Beach and bring them all home

Talking about missing fathers.

Getting local government leaders in Auckland to agree on anything is not for the faint hearted

On transport in Auckland.

You’ve got the Brown Haka party in the South, teh Greens and the petrol heads in the West and the South Africans in North Shore – I’m sure it will all come together.

A unique way to describe the different parts of Auckland!

Finally we had this classic after a video clip of Phil Goff pouring a pint of beer with a huge (over half the glass) head on it:

The last boss we had, you didn’t joke about her head, or you lost your own.

That one brought the bar down.

On Breakfast this morning, Phil Goff said that Helen Clark never called Coasters feral inbreds, after Paul Henry referred to not all Coasters being feral inbreds, as your predecessor called them. Goff said:

I think that was unfair to Helen, I don’t think she ever used those words.

If you go back and check your records, you will find that’s wrong.  People put those words into her mouth.

Now this happened in 2000. I can’t find an original story, but I did find a 2002 NZPA story that provides some quotes:

Prime Minister Helen Clark made her first return to the West Coast today since she described some pro-logging West Coasters as “feral” and compared them to lynch mobs.

Her comments in early 2000 came as the Government ban on the logging of all native trees had emotions running high in the area.

Miss Clark said at the time she had been in a room where someone had talked about shooting conservationists up trees like possums caught in car headlights.

“It’s a bit (like a) Kentucky area (in the southern United States),” she said, adding she did not like “lynch mob mentalities”.

Attitudes of some on the West Coast could be “fairly feral“, she said.

So she definitely said feral, but maybe said they were a southern lynch mob rather than inbred? Not sure that is much better!

Does anyone have the original West Coast Times story?

1. Liberty Scott responds to No Right Turn on why the regional fuel tax was a bad idea.
2. Kiwi Pundit blogs a BBC poll from Iraq where “Eighty-four percent of Iraqis now rate security in their own area positively, nearly double its August 2007 level. Seventy-eight percent say their protection from crime is good, more than double its low. Three-quarters say they can go where they want safely – triple what it’s been.” I seem to recall Obama arguing against the surge saying it would not work.
3. David Beatson blogs at Pundit on the latest woes in Corrections.
4. Steven Price lambasts the same Corrections Department for their failure to be able to provide basic information under the OIA. They could not even answer the question “How many positive drug tests were there at Auckland prison in the last year” claiming that answering this would require substantial collation or research. This suggests they are either incompetent or lying.
5. Not a blog item, but Pauline Hanson’s ex husband has confirmed the photos published are not of her. Hanson may now win the by-election in a sympathy vote.
6. Annie Fox proposes a monthly Bloggers Bar Bash in Auckland – the first Thursday of every month starting at 6.30 pm at Galbraiths.
7. Stephen Franks proposes that shareholders not Directors should approve Directors Fees.
8. Barnsley Bill is suspicious that 11% of The Standard’s Alexa traffic comes from India. I’m not – it is probably just all the call centre staff there who work for NZ companies!

Garth George writes about John Key:

In several classrooms, Mr Key, with his easy, seemingly ingenuous, almost childlike affability, connects with the children in a way few adults can, say long-time teachers.

He is fascinated with the interactive whiteboards for which Owhata Primary is noted, uses one to draw a picture of the Beehive with an arrow pointing at his office, takes a genuine interest in the children’s work and answers innumerable questions.

And, on Tuesday, he sent a message to the kids at Owhata Primary during his weekly appearance on TV One’s Breakfast show, which he’d been asked, but hadn’t promised, to do.

John Key is a Prime Minister whose like we have not seen. I’ve met many of our PMs over 50 years as a newspaperman – among them Holland, Holyoake, Marshall, Muldoon, Rowling, Clark – and none has had the easy, almost ingenuous, even childlike informality he displays.

Perhaps it’s because he is not yet a seasoned politician.

Nearly all our Prime Ministers until now have served long apprenticeships as MPs and Cabinet ministers in the hothouse environment of power and have acquired that veneer of superiority, an aloofness, common to the political elite.

Why I find Garth’s observations very interesting, is that much the same point was made to me last week by a couple of gallery journalists. They said that what they liked was that Key had not changed since becoming Prime Minister.  He hadn’t become aloof.

John Key is an enigma, for behind that friendly and smiling exterior there must lurk a needle-sharp mind and a spine of steel. You don’t survive, let alone succeed hugely, in the vicious game of international finance without those attributes.

Indeed. And once he makes a decision, he doesn’t tend to doubt it.

I have, over my career, watched a number of decent, honest blokes be corrupted by the foetid atmosphere of parliamentary politics – some even flagged it away – and it will be interesting to see just how long Mr Key can maintain his unaffected, ebullient, man-of-the-people mien.

Let’s hope it’s for many years to come, for it is as refreshing as a cold drink on a hot day.

The system does grind down over time. I suspect the next election is when the pressure will really come down.

ACT MP John Boscawen has said:

ACT New Zealand MP John Boscawen today announced that he will introduce a Private Member’s Bill to amend the controversial Anti-Smacking law inflicted on New Zealanders by Labour and the Greens in 2007. …

“While addressing the concerns of those who felt that the original section 59 of the Crimes Act was too vague, my amendment to the law will protect from criminalisation those parents who use a light smack for the purpose of correction.

“The amendment will change the Act so that: it is no longer a crime for parents or guardians to use reasonable force to correct children; there are clear statutory limits on what constitutes reasonable force; parents and guardians have certainty about what the law permits; it is no longer reliant on police discretion for the law to be practical and workable.

I have not seen the bill and am interested in what the exact wording will be.

What I would do is base the bill on the Borrows amendment. This allows reasonable force for correction (in addition to the current grounds of preventing harm, preventing crime, prventing offensive or disruptive behaviour and performing normal daily task incidental to good parenting) but places severe limits on what is reasonable force compared to the previous law.

Specifically it excludes force if:

it causes or contributes materially to harm that is more than transitory or trifling; or any weapon, tool or other implement is used

Now National voted for the Borrows amendment at the committee of the whole stage. So if John Boscawen gets his bill selected from the ballot (which may never happen) I think they would feel obligated to vote for it.

And if you put aside the zealots who think they should tell every parent in NZ how to raise their family, most reasonable people would acknowledge that the Borrows amendment would deal with 99% of the cases which have caused concern (the horse whip case etc) without criminalising hundreds of thousands of parents.

Note Curia (which I own) conducted the poll for Family First (on our normal commercial terms) on this law which was released yesterday (and is covered at Curiablog). I had no idea that John was planning a private members bill on this issue, and only found out when I saw his press release.

UPDATE: Sue Bradford has attacked me for the poll, and says it does not align to other polls. Now the 80% opposition to the law has occurred in numerous polls by numerous organisations and I totally reject the suggestion the questions are slanted. In fact the question even goes so far as to mention the Police discretion in the law – yet the public still say they do not support it.

Bradford points to a UMR poll for the Children’s Commissioner which had 43% support the law change and only 28% opposition. But unlike the Curia poll which actually asked people about the specific law change, the UMR poll just asked people if they supported the law change without describing it to them, and further asked them after they had asked them “Should children be entitled to the same protection from assault as adults”. The order of questions is very important and in the poll Curia did we asked people about the law change before asking any other questions.

The question Curia asked was:

In 2007, Parliament passed a law that removes a defence of reasonable force for parents who smack a child to correct their behaviour, but states the Police have discretion not to prosecute if they consider the offence was inconsequential. What is your view of this law?

I am extremely confident that the number of New Zealanders who oppose this law is much greater than 28%.

Kudos to the IRD for their attitude:

If putting off paying tax is what a company needs to do to survive, then it should, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue says.

IRD is urging businesses to get in contact at the earliest opportunity if they are having trouble meeting their tax obligations.

Bob Russell said the department could ease the burden in a number of ways, such as agreeing to payments in instalments and waiving penalties.

Tax payments can be challenging for some businesses, especially that you often have to pay tax on income before you have always received it all.

However be aware you will still have to pay interest, and IRD interest will be more than what you can borrow comercially for.

IRD charged use-of-money interest – currently 9.73 per cent, having dropped from 14.24 per cent as part of the Government’s small-business relief package – and it was not opposed to companies considering that as a banking facility if they needed to for a time.

“In fact we might think that that’s a good strategy for them if they come and talk to us and get into an instalment arrangement,” Russell said.

“We’re prepared to wait a little while, the interest will accrue but the penalties can be turned off while they do the things they need to do to survive and get past their difficult time.”

Very reasonable.

The Herald reports:

The Act MP who designed the proposed three strikes law says National has expanded it to include offences like bestiality in a “Machiavellian” attempt to make it look unworkable.

National has toughened the law by adding 20 crimes like bestiality, incest and acid throwing to the list of “strike offences” that could see a repeat offender sentenced to life imprisonment with a 25-year non-parole period.

But hardline Act MP David Garrett said many of the new offences arguably did not justify a life sentence and were possibly an attempt to undermine three strikes.

“It may be a Machiavellian move by National designed to sink the three strikes provision. Many will say incest, for example, while a deeply unpleasant offence, should not be a reason to send someone to jail for 25 years.”

Good to see there is agreement on that. But I don’t think it is so much designed to undermine three strikes, as that National is focused on the second strike – what offences should mean you do not get parole if you get a second conviction of over five years.

Justice Minister Simon Power said Act had actually agreed to the expanded list of offences.

Mr Power said the list was designed to fulfil National’s own parole policy, which would deny parole to those convicted of a violent offence punishable by five years or more if they had committed a similar offence before.

Mr Power said when three strikes was merged into the bill, “as part of that process Act offered to adopt our list of offences, and we accepted.”

The problem faced here is that you want the second strike (no parole) to cover a much wider range of offences than the third strike (life with no parole for 25 years at least) because the third strike is so severe.

I think there is a workable solution to this, that also overcomes some of the Bill of Rights issues around someone given a 25+ year sentence for an offence that normally has a maximum sentence of say 10 years.

I would change the third strike from life (with no parole for at least 25 years) to being the maximum penalty set down for that offence (with no parole if a finite term).

So what you would have at each stage

1. Normal sentencing and normal parole
2. Normal sentencing and no parole
3. Maximum sentence and no parole

What are the maximum sentences for the various crimes that National wants included:

• Sexual violation – 20 years
• murder – life (so non parole of at least 25 years on 3rd strike)
• attempted murder – 14 years
• manslaughter – life (so non parole of at least 25 years on 3rd strike)
• wounding/injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm
• aggravated wounding/injury – 14 years
• aggravated assault – 3 years
• assault on a child – 2 years
• cruelty to a child – 5 years
• using a firearm against a law enforcement officer – 14 years
• committing a crime with a firearm – 10 years
• Compelling indecent act with animal – 14 years
• incest – 10 years
• acid throwing – 14 years
• robbery – 10 years
• aggravated burglary – 14 years
• kidnapping – 14 years
• indecent assault  – 7 years
• attempted sexual connection with a family member who is under 18 – 7 years
• abduction for purposes of marriage or sexual connection – 14 years

This would still provide for very harsh penalties for the third strike, but would not treat murder the same as wounding. Take rape as an example.

The starting point for rape (off memory) set by the Court of Appeal is seven years. So a rape with no aggravating factors would get seven years and with parole the rapist would be out in four years and eight months.

Now if he raped again, the court might give him ten years for the second strike. And no parole means he would serve ten years – double the first strike.

And if he raped a third time, when it is an automatic maximun penalty of 20 years with no parole.

Of course he might get preventative detention also, but that is not guaranteed.

I think this would be a win win. ACT still gets a three strikes law and a major win. The Bill of Rights issues over getting 25 years for an offence set down in statute as having a maximum sentence of say 10 years are dealt with, and most importantly hardcore repeat offenders stay behind bars for much much longer.

Possibly there is still some small aspect of humanity within Josef Fritzl, as he has now pleaded guilty to all charges on the third day of his trial.

This at least spares his family any further testimony.

There can be no doubt what the sentence must be. He must be sent to prison for such a long period that there is no possibility he will ever be released before he dies.

And the family no doubt will at some stage be given new identiies and try to build a new life.  I wonder if there will be any place in Austria where they will not be recognised. Maybe they will move to New Zealand!

We often use the word evil too liberally. But with Josef Fritzl, evil almost doesn’t go far enough to describe him.

I praised Labour yesterday for their campaign of insulating houses as being a good issue to campaign on. I thought it showed a sign of getting more clever about opposition.

But then Phil Goff attacks John Key for saying those who can afford to do so, should donate their tax cuts to charity, spewing forward class hatred:

“It smacks of the old aristocracy to say ‘we will make things worse for the low-income people and then, out of the generosity of my heart, I will call on other well-heeled people to donate theirs to charity’.”

First of all Goff is factually wrong. No one is worse off due to the 1 April tax cuts. A worker (without kids) on $20,000 gets $10 a week more. A worker on just above the average wage gets $18 a week more. Even pensioners get an increase.

But this is not a debate about tax cuts. It is about perceptions. 90% of NZers will cheer the PM saying donate more to charity if you can afford to do so. And Goff attacks the idea as “old aristocracy” or no doubt Tory charity. Stupid stupid stupid.

What Goff should have done is something like:

“I absolutely support the call for New Zealanders who can do so, to donate more to charity to help those who are struggling. But we should not just rely on philanthropic individuals, and the Givernment needs to be doing more to help those struggling such as adopting our plan to insulate every household in NZ to lower power bills and reduce ill health”.

This would have meant Goff doesn’t look to be sneering at those who do donate. It would have not looked like a petty swipe at a hugely popular PM (you do those when he is less popular!) and it would have looked constructive.

Most of all it would have reinforced the insulation campaign. You need to do more than just have a website. If Labour want it to be effective, they have to repeat it as often as possible so every NZer knows Labour wants to insulate every home in NZ. People only remember something after they have heard it close to a dozen times.

I wish I could invoice someone for this free advice

Labour Politician Helen Clark has appeared in court after being arrested for drunk and disorderly behaviour:

… Labour MP accused of being drunk and disorderly in a hotel told police they were ‘pigs’ when she was arrested, a court heard today.

Helen Clark, 54, denies using threatening words and behaviour and being drunk and disorderly in the Great Northern Hotel …

Then she allegedly said to officers: ‘I remember in the Seventies when police were referred to as pigs. That’s what you all are, pigs.

‘Look everyone, I’m being arrested by pigs.’ …

Bar staff had noted that her speech was slurred and had refused to serve her any more alcohol.

Miss Allison said Clark had responded with abuse.

The court was told that Clark had said: ‘Why am I being treated like this? Why am I treated like a ****? I have been humiliated.’

She had added: ‘Who is the bitch giving orders… you, you, calling me drunk?’

Miss Allison said attempts to calm Clark had failed.

Clark had told a member of the wholesale staff: ‘Don’t patronise me… **** off.’

Kiwiblog will provide updates to the court case as they occur.

John Key has given a speech to a CTU conference on productivity. Some extracts:

Getting the representatives of employers, workers, and Government around the table and constructively working together is something I want to encourage and continue.

Yes, there’s plenty we disagree on.   That will probably always be the case.

I fully expect unions to continue to oppose some Government policy and for business and employers to do the same.  Employers and employees will naturally come to loggerheads on occasion.  And, I reserve the right to criticise the approach and ideas of business, or unions, from time-to-time.

But the sum of our disagreements is no match for the weight of what we can achieve together.

I’m trying to imagine Michael Cullen delivering this speech to the Business Roundtable “rich pricks”

The question is: how do we go about lifting those wages?

One argument says that the Government should simply raise the level of the minimum wage.

And yes, that’s a small part of the answer.

That’s why, even in the midst of extremely challenging economic conditions, the National-led Government lifted the level of the minimum wage this year.

But, in reality, lifting the minimum wage rate will only take workers so far.

If we are to see New Zealanders paid better across the board, to assure them of enduring  employment opportunities, and if we’re to ensure workers can aspire to wages that keep pace with their increasing  efforts and abilities, then simply raising the minimum wage is not the answer.

In the end, it is productivity that drives wages.

So the answer is to ensure that businesses are more productive, and more profitable, and that employers are therefore able to pay their workers better and improving wages.

Productivity and profit are not bad. You need to grow the cake to share it.

New Zealand is a small open economy and this downturn has serious implications for us.

The effects can already be seen. Falling export volumes. Lower growth rates. Struggling businesses. Climbing unemployment.

Faced with these facts, and the dire predictions in the media, it’s tempting for all of us to throw up our hands in despair.

But it’s my sense that New Zealand is in fact in a much better position to weather the global economic storm than many other countries.

Yes, we are in for a rough period ahead.  I don’t doubt that.  To argue otherwise would be to ignore the obvious links between our fortunes and those of the wider world.

Basically the whole world is going to have reduced standards of living.

Let me finish by saying that in recent times the CTU has shown leadership in New Zealand’s fight for economic growth.

You’ve been prepared to work with the Government, and with employers, to find solutions.

I want to keep building on that relationship.

There is a lot to gain from each of us understanding each other better, from working out what we have in common, and deciding where we can deliver more together.

I absolutely share your vision for a more-productive, higher-wage, higher-skilled economy, producing goods and services valued throughout the world.

And I look forward to working with you to make that vision reality.

Such nice words after the CTU spent $100,000 attacking him in the election!

A reader e-mailed in last week:

I was at the High Court yesterday watching the David Bain case, and I could see the laptop screen of one of the Crown’s lawyers and I could note that at the time when I looked he was reading your blog

That’s quite cool. Would be cooler if the Judge was reading it also

Talking of the Bain case, I am finding bloody useful the detailed blogs done by the NZ Herald on each day’s proceedings. Not as good as live streaming, but gives you a much better idea of the evidence that just one short story at the end of the day.

I’m actually using the Herald blogs to compile two documents. One is what you have to believe that Robin did it, and one is what you have to believe that David did it. I plan to blog them once the jury retires!

The Electoral Commission has published the details of spending by registered third parties in 2009. From largest to smallest they are:

1. CTU $104,110
2. PSA $71,304
3. Free Speech Coalition $29,491
4. Dairy Workers Union $16,740
5. NZ Meat Workers Union $8,571
6. EPMU $5,690
7. Maritime Union $3,282
8. Vote for the Environment $1,296
9. NUPE $1,285
10. Health Cuts Hurt $293

So the total union was a bit over $200,000. And nine out of ten third parties that spent money were clearly left wing – in fact the FSC was the only expenditure from the right. So again when the left go on abour big money in politics, remember the left spent six times as much.

Some interesting details in the individual returns. The CTU spent $35,000 on 300,000 flyers (the real cost would have been all the paid union staff distributing them) and they spent just over $20,000 on their You Tube ads attacking Bill English and John Key. Also Labour approved $47,000 of their costs reminding us of how closely linked they are.

Seven unions donated money to the CTU for their campaign – the largest was the PPTA at $50,000.

Interesting the two unions that both spent over $30,000 had qualified audit reports in which they say they can not form an opinion as to whether the returns are correct. The EFA is such a bad confusing law, that the Auditors said they can not know if the law has been complied with. And this is no surprise – the Institute of Accountants warned of this before it was passed, and Labour and Greens ignored the advice.

The Dairy Workers Union appear to have misunderstood the donations return. It is meant to be for them to list what donations they received. Instead they have listed the donations they made – $10,000 to CTU, $12,000 to Labour and $3,000 to the Greens.

In May we will get to see the donations returns for the political parties.

Labour’s campaign website called Healthy Homes Healthy Kiwis is a sign they are starting to learn Opposition. It is a sensible and good move for them, as compared to reminding everyone of how badly they stuffed up ACC.

This campaign is asking the Government do something positive – a nationwide insulation project.

While it is asking for money to be spent – it is one off money, which for me is far preferable to something that permamently increases annual spending (such as increasing superannuation floor from 65% to 66% of average wage). And there are some strong arguments that insulation pays for itself with lower power bills, lower health costs etc.

There is still a very legitimate debate about whether the Government or householders should pay for the cost. But it is well timed as a possible infrastructure project during the recession. And the Government is already doing it on a lesser scale with state houses.

Labour of course do not mention on the site that while they agreed to do it in 2008 with the Greens, they never set aside funding for it.

But overall it is a pretty good choice of issue for their first campaign.

On Backbenches tonight:

1. National MP Aaron Gilmore
2. Maori MP Rahui Katene
3. Labour MP Shane Jones.

The topic is Bullies and Books.

As usual starts just after 9 pm at the Backbencher or on TVNZ7.

Up until now I have only blogged details of NZ polls at Curiablog.

I plan to also do at least a couple of blog posts a week highlighting interesting overseas polls, or commentaries based on polls. Also to cover stories about polling itself.

Just done a short post quoting Scott Rasmussen on Obama’s poll numbers.

No Right Turn is claiming that National has given an edict for 10% spending cuts across the board. I don’t know if he is deliberately misrepresenting the situation, or genunely does not know the difference between identifying potential savings/cuts and automatically cutting them.

The actual article he quotes, makes it clear the Government has not mandated 10% cuts:

The Government has denied having an overall target for cuts from its current “line-by-line” review, and the advice to public sector chiefs stops short of saying cuts of that magnitude will be made.

What the Government has said is:

Using your detailed knowledge of both the department and sector … can you identify the spending that delivers the lowest value for money, say, the bottom 5 per cent and 10 per cent.

To be honest this should happen every year, not just in a fiscal crisis. The scandal is that this never happened under Labour it seems.

This is not saying every programme in that bottom 5% or 10% will be cut. Iit is saying we want you to go through those programmes of the lowest value so we can then discuss which ones remain and which ones do not.

Anyone who has ever worked in the real world will have been through such an exercise themselves. Even non profits regularly do this – identify the lower priority programmes so a decision can be made on whether to do them or not.

If No Right Turn’s hysteria is correct, then every Government Department will have 10% less funding in the budget in May. I would be willing to bet that not a single Department will have 10% less funding.  English has said that generally the cuts have been around 1% to 2%.

NRT also tries to keep repeating the lie that one has to cut this spending to pay for the tax cuts:

And all so National’s rich friends can get their tax cuts.

And again this is not true. National’s tax cuts were fiscally neutral due to the reduction in KiwiSaver subsidies.

Finally we have the best comedy line of the week:

contrary to the right’s propaganda, there is precious little fat in the public service to trim

Hilarious. NRT should try talking to some peopel who actually work in the public service. They are full of stories about waste and fat.

The Dom Post editorial looks at the upcoming meeting on the causes of crime:

f the Government crime seminar next month is to be more than just a talkfest, rare honesty will be required of the participants. …

New Zealand likes to portray itself as a model of good race relations. For many, that is the reality. For some, it is not.

There is a burgeoning underclass in New Zealand, whose members prey upon their neighbours and accept no reciprocal obligation for the assistance they receive from their fellow citizens. A disproportionate number of the members of that underclass are Maori.

In recent times it has become fashionable to blame the over-representation of Maori in crime statistics on poverty, poor education and unemployment. The arguments have a degree of validity. Maori are over-represented in all three categories.

But poverty in this country is a relative concept. New Zealand’s poorest live like kings compared to the poor in Third World nations who do not have a welfare state to provide them with homes, meals and pay television.

Here poor education is not an inescapable reality, but a matter of choice. Every child is entitled to a subsidised education in a system that bends over backwards to acknowledge cultural differences. Those who fail to take advantage of it have only themselves, or their parents, to blame.

And, for those who have not noticed, the unemployment rate is low. That may be changing but, for the past few years, jobs have generally been available to all who want them.

It is indisputable that Maori were robbed of their lands and treasures by colonial settlers, but to continue blaming the ills of today on events that occurred 150 years ago is to perpetuate a way of thinking that is of no benefit to Maori or non-Maori.

In recent decades, governments have gone to great lengths to restore tribal mana and create an economic base for Maoridom by making recompense for Treaty breaches.

They have succeeded to an extent. Tribes that have settled claims are restoring tribal assets, investing in job-rich industries and the education of their young. A Maori elite is emerging.

But there is scant evidence that the process is having any impact on disaffected young Maori who are attracted to the loser culture of gangs.

If Mr Power’s conference is to succeed, it will require Maori leaders such as Dr Sharples and his co-leader Tariana Turia to take ownership of the problem. The solution is not to throw yet more money at those who believe they have an inalienable right to prey upon and sponge off their fellow citizens. It is to engage them in building a better future for themselves and their children.

I think the solution will take at least a generation, and will need greater intervention at an earlier age with dysfunctional families.

The Herald reports on the problems caused by Hone Harawira’s advocacy for his nephews who are charged with assaulting John Key.

Mr Harawira is the uncle of the two brothers charged with assault and has publicly supported them in their court trial, including calling for the matter to be dealt with outside the court and for Mr Key to meet them.

I think it would be entirely inappropriate for this to be treated any differently than any other crime of this nature. It is illegal to grab and jostle someone like they did. You are allowed to protest but you are not allowed to assault.

Sharples and Tria have said:

But they did not add their support to Mr Harawira’s, saying they had no tolerance for violence and were “greatly concerned about the assault against the position of Prime Minister”.

They said MPs also had to be “mindful” not to be seen as interfering in the court process.

Indeed.

Now I have some sympathy that Hone feels a need to support his nephews, even though what he calls for is unacceptable. But it is not just Hone calling for this. Green MP Metiria Turei has blogged:

Well actually, the process of restorative justice could be well be the most constructive response. Giving these young men, passionate about Treaty issues, the chance to talk with the Prime Minister about why their passions run so high.

I sometimes wonder what plane of reality these people are on. Think about this – assault the Prime Minister as a method of protest and it will guarantee that you get a one on one meeting with him to to talk about your issue.

You’d have people trying to whack John to the ground at every street corner. Hell some of his backbench MPs will probably even throw a punch if it means that will get them a meeting without having to negotiate with his appointments secretary!!

I have always been amazed that there has been any controversy over the shooting of Steven Wallace. I’ve criticised the cops on many occasions, but not for shooting a guy who is trying to kill them.  If armed cops tell you to drop your baseball bat, and you not only refuse but you keep advancing on the officer proclaiming you are going to kill him – well I call it suicide by cop. He even continued to advance after they fired a warning shot .

Anyway the Independent Police Conduct Authority has spent almost a year doing a full review of what happened. This is the new IPCA which doesn’t just review internal police investigations but has the resources to independtly investigate.

The Herald reports on their conclusions:

• Steven Wallace engaged in a “lengthy and violent rampage” through Waitara armed with a baseball bat and golf club, “borne of an unexplained rage, which showed no signs of abating”.
• Constable Keith Abbott was justified in arming himself and using the gun within the law and police procedures.
• Mr Wallace had a history of violence.
• Constable Abbott had no other option available to him.
• No evidence supported rumours that Constable Abbott had been drinking at two social functions before the shooting.
• The lack of communication between Constables Abbott and Dombroski reflected the urgency of the situation they faced.
• Police should have done more for Mr Wallace after the shooting, when they refused to give him first aid and did not put a blanket offered by a witness over him. But even if first aid was provided it would not have saved his life.

The IPCA make it very clear that Wallace was not killed for breaking windows:

“Steven Wallace was shot, not because he had broken windows, or because he was resisting or escaping from arrest, but because Senior Constable Abbott had reasonable grounds to fear for his own life and for that of Constable Dombroski,” said Authority Chair Justice Lowell Goddard.

The full report is a 45 page pdf. I suggest people read it – it is very thorough. Fo those who think Wallace was just breaking some windows in a deserted area of town and no threat to anyone:

Steven then stopped on the corner of McLean Street and Domett Street, where he got out of his vehicle and began to smash glass panes in the surrounding buildings. As the taxi passed, after having dropped off its passenger, he crossed the road swinging a baseball bat and smashed the driver’s window as it drove past, giving the taxi driver the impression that he was aiming for the windscreen.

On two occasions, Steven also moved aggressively towards a car containing some young people who knew him. The driver left in a hurry each time.

At some stage, Steven also drove at high speed directly towards a security guard on a bicycle. The guard feared for his life and went immediately to the petrol station to report the incident.

The whole notion that the Police should have just left him alone to smash windows is farcical.  And when the Police did turn up:

Raising the club in both hands, he used it to smash the windscreen directly in front of Constable Herbert’s face. As she attempted to reverse away, Steven pulled the head of the golf club out of the broken windscreen and launched a second attack on the Police car, this time smashing a side window.

There is a world of difference between smashing a shop window, and smashing the windscreen of a car a police officer is sitting in. And at the scene:

Constable Dombroski’s evidence was that, after the warning shot had been fired, Steven Wallace appeared even more determined to get to Senior Constable Abbott, saying “You fucking arsehole, I’m going to kill you”.

Constable Dombroski said he did not fire any shots himself. However, believing that Steven intended to kill Senior Constable Abbott, he was preparing to shoot when Senior Constable Abbott fired at Steven.

I can’t think of how anyone can dispute the justification for shooting. Wallace is advancing on armed police, he has ignored a warning shot, he is closing the gap despite the Police retreating (he would be alive if he had stopped advancing on them), he is telling the Police he is going to kill them, and he has a weapon which would allow him to quite easily do so.

Constable Abbott has now been cleared by a police inquiry, a private prosecution, by the coroner and by the IPCA. Despite this the family remain hell bent on vengeance. For their own sake they should let go.

Just been reading up on the sad case of Dylan Laybourn at Bring Dylan home.

Dylan’s parents are both NZ citizens. The mother, who is also a Turkish citizen, went with Dylan, then aged four months, for a three week holiday in May 2007. She phoned from Turkey to say she is not returning home and will not return Dylan.

Stuff has an NZPA story from last October that reported:

Prime Minister Helen Clark has stepped into a custody battle over a New Zealand child taken to Turkey by his mother 18 months ago.

Four months after he was born in Auckland, Dylan Laybourn was taken to Turkey in May 2007 by his Turkish mother Gulsen for a holiday.

After she refused to return him, Dylan’s father Bruce visited Turkey twice and pursued government and legal avenues to try to get him back.

Under the Hague Convention on Child Abduction, any custody dispute should be heard in the child’s country of origin, in this case New Zealand, Mr Laybourn said on 3 News tonight.

However, Turkey did not recognise New Zealand’s membership of the Hague Convention in 2007 due to an oversight.

Mr Laybourn was told that then-Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters would not raise the issue when he was in Turkey earlier this year, and the legal case to retrieve Dylan had closed in Turkey because of the technicality over the Hague Convention.

“Diplomacy has done all it can, officials have done all they can, the legal obligations do not require Turkey to return the child unfortunately,” Miss Clark told 3 News.

“That’s why I have said I will personally take it up with the Turkish Prime Minister,” she said.

I am not sure what the technicaly is, but it will be appalling if the father loses his rights due to this, and I hope the NZ Government continues the work done by Helen Clark to get a satisfactory conclusion to this.

Labour just are not learning. Today’s hysteria is from Brendon Burns who says:

“We have seen the first step towards gutting TVNZ and selling it off to the private sector.”

National’s broadcasting policy is explicit:

Maintain state ownership of Television New Zealand.

Now Brnendon may not have noticed, but John Key is pretty fanatical about not breaking any of National’s manifesto promises. The first 100 days were focused on being able to tick off the 28 promises that were promsied for early action.

Labour need to learn that National is not going to sell any state companies unless it has an electoral mandate to do so. And if Labour keeps with the hysterical claims that are not going to come true, they need to be aware people will be reminded of those claims come the next election.

There are legitimate issues the Opposition can engage in around TVNZ, such as the level of dividend. But it is stupid to detract from those legitimate issue by inventing bullshit that has no credibility.

Colin Espiner blogs on Labour’s woes:

It’s recess here in Parliament. Labour is off on the West Coast “reconnecting with the community”, which is a nice way of saying it’s trying to find out why heartland New Zealand hates them so much.

Maybe that’s a little strong. Dislikes intensely. The West Coast went National for only the second time in 140 years last election, the last time being the rout Labour suffered in 1990.

And other strongholds such as Napier, New Plymouth and Auckland Central have also fallen.

Phil Goff should be an interim leader only, and would be if there was any serious challenger. But at this stage, there simply isn’t.

This is why I have money on iPredict that Goff will stay Leader during 2009. There simply is no alternative. His problems will arise when alernatives have developed.

And after a solid start to the year, it seems that Labour has lost its way somewhat. Its performances in the House have been lacklustre to say the least. Goff hasn’t been able to land a single blow on John Key in weeks.

Last week was particularly embarrassing. On superannuation, Goff seemed completely unable to hit the nub of the issue about National’s plans to cut contributions to the fund – to the point where John Key ended up both asking the question himself and then obligingly answering it.

Goff was a very competent Government Minister answering questions. But asking them is a different skill.

The only ones who can still needle National are Michael Cullen (normally on procedural issues, however, which aren’t much interest to anyone outside the Beltway), who’s off soon anyway, and Trevor Mallard, who’s – well, just annoying, really.

Heh.

It’s going to be a long road back, though, I think. There is talent further down the ranks, such as Jacinda Arden, Darren Hughes, Kelvin Davis, Clare Curran, Stuart Nash, and Maryan Street. But it will take time for them to gain enough experience to be genuine leadership contenders.

Cunliffe and Jones are the likely challengers at some stage, but neither option is seen as viable at this stage. In the not too distant future Little will be an option also.

I would not be surprised if one day Hughes rises to a leadership role – maybe Deputy. Street is a likely Deputy at some stage also. Colin has identified some of the new talent, but has missed out Grant Robertson who is also well thought of.