As job losses have occurred in the media sector, the media have done story after story about how devastating this change is for journalists and their families, and the need for empathy.

And then after Melissa Lee loses the broadcasting portfolio, the NZ Herald runs the following:

Calling it insensitive is putting it lightly. And people wonder why not everyone is upset with media job losses.

Max Salmon writes:

Last week the Commerce Commission announced its concern with a proposed merger between Foodstuffs North Island and Foodstuffs South Island. Their concern is a decrease in competition in the market.

It sounds crazy when you first hear it, but it’s even weirder when you see what the Commerce Commission is actually worried about.

At first glance it’s ludicrous. It isn’t like there are vast numbers of inter-island shoppers, ferrying and flying between north and south to secure precious grocery bargains from the New World on the other side of the Strait. Price differences between Tauranga’s PAK’n’SAVE and Dunedin’s New World won’t lead to many shopping trips.

It does indeed seem ludicrous. I won’t travel to another suburb for cheaper prices, let alone another island!

But that isn’t what the Commerce Commission is worried about. They worry instead that the combined entity will be too efficient. It will be able to purchase in bulk for both islands, passing some savings along to consumers, and making life harder for their suppliers.

So the Commerce Commission is worried about a merger than might result in lower prices for consumers!

1 News reports:

Melissa Lee has been relieved of the role of Media and Communications Minister, while Penny Simmonds has also lost her disabilities portfolio.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has explained the change saying due to significant challenges in each portfolio they should be held by senior Cabinet ministers.

It follows controversies and pressure in both ministers’ portfolios in recent months.

Paul Goldsmith with take over from Lee, and Louise Upston will take over for Simmonds.

“It has become clear in recent months that there are significant challenges in the media sector. Similarly, we have discovered major financial issues with programmes run by the Ministry of Disabled People,” Luxon said in a statement.

“I have come to the view it is important to have senior Cabinet Ministers considering these issues.”

This is a level of performance management we have not seen before. To have Ministers lose portfolios after just six months for sub-par management.

This will send a (good) chill up other Ministers they they need to perform at a very high level, otherwise they may also lose challenging portfolios, or worse.

Makes a change from the last Government when woeful Ministers were kept on for years and year and years. Not saying that these two Ministers are woeful – far from it. Just that Luxon is holding a much much higher level of performance expectation than other PMs.

The World Tribune reports:

“EU DisinfoLab, which receives grants from George Soros’ controversial Open Society Foundations, is now testing the water regarding ‘repurposing’ of an ICANN security operation set up to combat malware, spam, phishing, etc., and turn it into a tool against ‘disinformation sites,’ ” Didi Rankovic reported for Reclaim the Net on April 9. …

And, according to EU DisinfoLab, Rankovic added, “who better to wipe out whatever domain name is deemed to belong to a ‘disinformation site’ than a DNS registrar – and ICANN is the top authority for them all.”

ICANN’s Domain Name System Threat Information Collection and Reporting (DNSTICR) was used during the pandemic to identify domain names that contained terms related to Covid, “but the goal was to find out if the sites abused the keyword(s) to mask phishing or malware proliferating operations, rather than to ‘moderate’ any type of Covid-related content,” Rankovic noted.

EU DisinfoLab is looking to use a system based on DNSTICR to allow for reporting of “genuinely open-and-shut (disinformation) cases” to registrars for removal.

What authority would decide what’s a “genuinely open-and-shut case”?

DisinfoLab’s idea: registries or registrars could “grant media trade associations ‘trusted notifier’ status.”

Give media organisations the power to have ICANN remove domain names from the Internet that the media organisations label disinformation. What a horrifying proposal.

Ranapera Taumata is a Third Striker.  He murdered his girlfriend in 2019 by beating her to death with his bare hands. The Judge summarised:

Over the next 17 minutes or so, inside the sleepout you inflicted a prolonged
and violent assault on Ms Hira, rendering her unconscious and injured. At about
1.15 am you dragged her outside; she appeared to be unconscious. You tossed her to
the ground. You then proceeded to throw items of clothing and bedding outside around
where her body lay. A few minutes later you again grabbed her and dragged her by
the hair back into the sleepout. …

A post-mortem examination the next day determined the cause of her death
was head injuries. They were described as a subdural haematoma from blunt force
trauma. She also had rib fractures, a number of bruises, and abrasions to her body.

He has over 20 criminal convictions as an adult including five family violence convictions, assault with a weapon and aggravated robbery.  He is believed to have multiple convictions as a Youth offender, including for aggravated robbery.

Under the Government’s proposed re-introduction of Three Strikes 2.0, he will be on a clean slate.  His prior strike offences count for nothing, and he is a zero striker.

Just as bad, under the Government’s proposed Three Strikes 2.0, Ranapera Taumata would not qualify as a Third Striker at all!

This is because it is proposed that a person would only be a third striker if they had been sentenced to more than 24 months imprisonment for both his first and second strike offences.

For Ranapera Taumata’s first strike offence – an aggravated robbery – he was sentenced to 8 months home detention.

For Ranapera Taumata’s second strike offence – a robbery (which he committed while on prison release conditions) – he was sentenced to 20 months imprisonment.Neither meet the Government’s threshold to be considered a striker AT ALL!

When the new Three Strikes law is released, we need to lobby Parliament to ensure it is an effective regime that doesn’t give third strikers a clean slate, and doesn’t make it that crimes such as aggravated robbery don’t qualify as strikes if the Judge gives a light sentence.

In Judge Geoff Rea’s sentencing of Taumata’s first strike, he said: “You have got an appalling Youth Court record. If you were being sentenced on that basis, quite frankly, the time would almost be there to throw the key away on you.”

Instead we’re wiping out his previous strikes, and making it easier for him to avoid future strikes.

This is the first of what will be a series of posts to highlight how lenient the proposed new Three Strikes Law will be and how it will result in many violent recidivist criminals not getting strikes at all.

Over the years I’ve had various Wellingtonians approach me about setting up, or getting Jordan and the Taxpayers’ Union to set up, a dedicated Wellington ratepayer pressure group to fight for more fiscal prudence and better governance in our city.  Jordan and I have always turned away the efforts as nine times out of ten, they are usually some sort of attempt of a council ‘ticket’ rather than an independent watch-dog type organisation.

Wellington has been in a funk before. In the 1970s and 80s it was arguably the least ‘cool’ city in New Zealand.  As Mark Blumsky used to quip, for him success was avoiding people’s heart sinking when they found out their Ansett “Mystery Weekend” was to Wellington.  And, to be fair, it was turned around.  A string of good mayors and Council leadership (think Fran Wilde, Kerry Prendergast, and Mark Blumsky) were able to develop what became branded as “Absolutely Positively Wellington”, “the coolest little capital”, and “the middle of middle earth” successively, by driving through sensible projects like the Cake Tin, a remodelled waterfront leveraging off the building of Te Papa, as well as attracting events that added to the culture and liveability of the city.

But we are back in the funk. Instead of leading, our City Council is squabbling, failing to deliver basic public services and infrastructure, and financially mismanaging itself. Our near-bankrupt Council can’t even keep the water flowing, and nearly half our water is lost to unattended leaks as residents of our capital city were asked to stockpile emergency rations over the summer.

A ‘right wing’ group or ticket isn’t necessary – just a return to sensible civic leadership and a half decent Council which is willing to make the tough calls we need to get Wellington’s financial health, transport, and cultural mojo back.

I was involved on the periphery of the formation of the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance (when I was on the board of the Taxpayers’ Union, we gave Jordan a leave of absence to set it up). Although the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance spun out of the Taxpayers’ Union it has never been particularly ideological and attracts considerable support even from Auckland’s most Labour-aligned suburbs.  It just goes to show that wanting to see increased transparency, less waste, and better quality governance at Wellington’s town hall isn’t an issue of left or right.

So, as a Wellington ratepayer, I’m putting the call out there for expressions of interest to help to set up a Wellington ratepayer group to:

1) Unite Wellingtonians against unaffordable double digit rate hikes year after year due to massive projects like the $330 million town hall redevelopment (costing over $4,000 per household).

2) Fight back against the hundreds of millions of dollars wasted on pet projects such as corporate welfare for Reading Cinemas whilst basic infrastructure like roads and water pipes are left to crumble and rot.

3) Force back the curtains on our local democracy by giving ratepayers the tools you need to easily submit your views on the Council’s often cloak-and-dagger public consultations.

4) Hold Councillors to account for the decisions they vote for, so residents can make        informed choices at the ballot box in 2025.

I’m asking for expressions of financial support (to cover the set-up and the first few months of operating) and for volunteers.  After crunching the numbers, we think it’ll need $56,000 to properly get it off the ground (that includes initial invites for ratepayers to join-up) and are looking for that sort of level of support before we commit to taking on the challenge. None of that goes to me – I am a volunteer in this, because this is my home, and I want a better city.

If this is something you would be interested in, please drop me a line on team@wellingtonratepayers.nz or pledge an amount on the webpage (www.wellingtonratepayers.nz)

This is an all or nothing project. If not enough Wellingtonians are motivated to help right the ship and we don’t raise enough money to get this off the ground, then there is no point in starting a half-hearted project that is unlikely to be effective.  On the other hand, if successful, it could make a huge difference to smarten up the Council, and our City. And that would be good for more than just our rates bills!

Click here if you’d be willing to chip in to start the fight back

Newsroom has won in the Court of Appeal over whether it can make available its video exposing the then practice of reverse uplifts because the faster parents were the wrong ethnicity.

A key quote:

The story was unquestionably one of significant public interest, as evidenced by the impact it had on the Minister and the suspension of the practice of reverse uplifts. It is reasonable to assume that the suspension of Oranga Tamariki’s practice would not have happened — or at least would not have happened so quickly — had it not been for the powerful impact of the video. It was powerful precisely because it depicted the real life effects of the reverse uplift policy and the associated raw emotion. Clearly too, the foster parents’ concerns about the way they were treated by Oranga Tamariki were valid and worthy of ventilation. The right of freedom of expression must encompass not only the rights of the media but also the rights of the foster parents to tell their story and the right of the public to hear it.

This is a win for media, but also for the foster parents.

Nicole McKee announced:

The Government is delivering on its commitment to bring back the Three Strikes legislation, Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee announced today.

The return is welcome in principle, but what is being proposed is actually pretty weak and even ineffective.

Cover the same 40 serious violent and sexual offences as the former legislation, with the addition of the new strangulation and suffocation offence;

They seem suitable offences to include, so that change is good.

Introduce a new requirement that the Three Strikes law will only apply to sentences above 24 months;

This will gut the law, and result in around 75% of violent and sexual offenders not getting strike offences. It will also incentivise judges to always do sentences of below 24 months where possible top avoid a strike.

There is an arguable case that the third strike (the one that gets you the maximum sentence without parole) should require a level of offending that is significant enough for a custodial sentence. But to apply that criteria to the first and second strikes will massively reduce the number of strikes, and hence the deterrent effect desired. Remember the first strike gets no extra penalty – it is the warning about future offending.

Extend the use of the “manifestly unjust” exception to allow some judicial discretion to avoid very harsh outcomes and address outlier cases;

This is going the wrong direction. Judges have already used the manifestly unjust provisions to undermine the law and avoid third strike sentences in the majority of third strike cases. If anything the judicial discretion should be restrained further by stating that use of manifestly unjust should be very very rare.

Also the new criteria to not have strikes for sentences of under two years, would remove the need for greater judicial discretion. So the combination will make the law pretty ineffectual.

Provide a limited benefit for guilty pleas to avoid re-traumatisation of victims, and to improve court delays; and

It is sensible to have this incentive, so a say 20% discount for guilty pleas would mean the sentence for a third strike rape would still be 16 years which would be significant.

See that people who commit murder at second or third strike receive an appropriately lengthy non-parole period.

Well the old law had life without parole, so this will reduce it – but we don’t know by how much.

The Minister intends to bring a draft bill and paper to Cabinet by the end of June, and to introduce the bill to the House soon after that.

The worst change hasn’t been mentioned at all. I understand the new Three Strikes law will reset all the serious violent and sexual offenders who got strikes under the old regime back to zero. This will send out an awful message, and also mean that it will take ages for any deterrent effect to take effect as everyone will be starting at zero again.

I would encourage everyone to engage with the legislative process to demand an effective Three Strikes law, not a weak one.

Stuff reports:

But another email noted the writer had received calls from Otago alumni “angry at the decision”. The response was likely to be worse than what the university received over Tuakiritaka, a reference to branding changes, the emailer said.

I had quite a few Otago alumni contact me, very upset also. Some even wanted to do a poll of alumni on the appointment, but there was no practical way to do this.

Meanwhile, another emailer wrote of the appointment: “They have made a very poor decision.”

Another emailer wrote: “As a former student I will not be donating another cent and will not be encouraging family to attend an institution that is seriously flawed from the top down.

“The university council should resign following this decision.”

The Council of course includes another former Labour Minister, and the Registrar is also a former Labour Minister.

But a former graduate was less forthcoming with praise, emailing: “I have left a significant amount of money to the university in my will. However I will be cancelling that.”

Ouch.

Another alumni, who had a history of sending offensive emails to the tertiary institution, wrote: “This must be one of the most gross and ridiculous decisions of the university to date.”

Some of that email was redacted, but the emailer added: “And to appoint such a failure of a politician to such an important post is ridiculous: a man who has virtually single handedly bankrupted our country, saddling every man, woman and child with crippling debt.”

Another former student emailed a list of questions under the OIA, including whether Robertson had been approached to put forward his candidacy.

One emailer expressed their concern, writing: “This is a continuation of the alarming trend of politicisation of the University of Otago, and is entirely inappropriate for an academic institution of your stature.”

The email noted Robertson’s lack of an academic background “reflects unbelievably poorly” on the university.

“Again, I am appalled by this appointment, which materially diminishes a once great academic institution.

“Shame on you.”

It is of course normal for a Vice-Chancellor to have a PhD and be an academic leader. A BA is not quite in the same league.

Another emailed to say they were rethinking their seven-figure bequest.

“However, my family especially, and I, would be very concerned indeed if this bequest were in any respect subject to any type or level of political influence, such as a person’s political identity, as opposed to benefiting individuals or groups solely on merit and academic excellence.”

That’s a lot of money being potentially lost.

Peter Dunne writes:

But Labour’s current woes do not lie at Hipkins’ door alone. He is being constantly embarrassed and let down by the ineptitude of those around him. His main role these days seems limited to tidying up the mess made by his colleagues.

In the last week alone, he has had to call out Peeni Henare, someone who really should know better, for reposting offensive cartoons about Act leader David Seymour on Instagram. Hipkins has also had to deal with more personally abusive comments about a political opponent, this time Melissa Lee, from Willie Jackson, someone who is clearly incapable of knowing better. Add to that the seemingly ingrained superciliousness and sourness of Ayesha Verrall every time she opens her mouth, and it is little wonder Labour still looks to be struggling to come to terms with why it was voted out so comprehensively at the election.

If my party suffered a 24% drop in their party vote, the largest in history, I’d be asking why.

Yet Labour is not without talent in its ranks who could be pushing its case far more effectively at present without the embittered baggage some are carrying. New finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds has been a shining performer. Her interventions so far have been positive, well informed, and largely constructive. Not only does she need to be seen more frequently as the modern face of Labour, but also she needs to be joined by other newer faces in the caucus.

Edmonds is good.

Hipkins’ major challenge is to rebuild the face of Labour so that it can present its message with integrity and credibility. Hanging on to negative and polarising figures such as Jackson and Verrall, and others who still believe the public had no right to boot them out of government, not only tarnishes Hipkins’ leadership but does little to persuade the public that Labour has indeed learned the lesson of its defeat.

Hipkins needs quickly to divest himself of such albatrosses if Labour is to shake off the failures of its recent past. They need to be moved on, at least to the distant backbenches, if not out the door and sooner rather than later. If he cannot or will not do that, Hipkins risks becoming today’s Bill Rowling – a genuine and well-liked nice guy who led the Labour Party nowhere for nearly nine years.

A fair comparison.

A guest post by a reader:

There has been much outrage this week over the deaths of aid workers from western countries in Gaza.

I use the word “outrage” deliberately to reflect the moral element of the stance of Arab nations, many western governments and much of the media.  The outrage is predicated largely on the assumption the act was deliberate or highly negligent and that therefore it is demonstrably true that Israel is a morally degraded and aggressive state and that ……… moral superiority resides with the Palestinians (the dots indicating that we are usually left to deduce that last point rather than it being explicitly stated).

But as commentators continually wish to remind us, context is everything.

So let’s do a little simplistic analysis around whether or not Israel or Hamas is more morally reprehensible by asking a number of questions:

1. If the acts of barbarism of 7 October were deliberate and those of Israel this last week were also deliberate, is Israel less virtuous than Hamas?

2. If the acts of barbarism of 7 October were deliberate and those of Israel this last week were accidental, is Israel less virtuous than Hamas?

3. If the acts of barbarism of 7 October were accidental and those of Israel this last week were also accidental, is Israel less virtuous than Hamas?

4. If the acts of barbarism of 7 October were accidental and those of Israel this last week were deliberate, is Israel less virtuous than Hamas?

It can be seen that only under option 4 is moral outrage at the actions of Israel when compared to those of Hamas actually justified.  And of course Option 4 is off the table because it is clearly not possible for thousands of fighters to stream across a border to rape and kill “by accident” as that particular question would have us accept.

Moreover if as Israel contends the deaths were actually accidental then the moral element of continued outrage as between one side and the other in large part evaporates.

None of this is to detract from the tragedy of those recent deaths or the events as a whole.  None of it either is intended to make morally repugnant actions less so.  But it does help challenge the way in which the noise of moral outrage is so often deployed in unbalanced ways reflecting subtle or overt biases.

One final note to those who wish to contextualise Israel into moral opprobrium beyond the above snapshot of recent events; in other words those who say Israel got what was coming to it on 7 October for what has happened over many decades.  Exactly the same kind of analysis as above is possible with all the major wars and other actions fought over all those years.  It’s never been a morally one-sided conflict.  Fact is that at worst Israel is morally on the same page as the Palestinians and at best (as I would argue) it’s in a significantly better place.  But whichever way one wants to cut it, one-sided versions of Palestinian victimhood and moral superiority as a consequence do not wash.

d

Scotland passed a law against so called hate crimes. As you can see it is a very objective law.

What has been the result of this new law?

Almost 8,000 hate crimes were reported to Police in just one week. Scotland has much the same population as New Zealand, so how many more Police would we need if we had the same response.

Let’s say a police officer needs two hours to assess and deal with each complaint (on average). One officer could do 20 a week, so you’d need 400 more officers just to cope with the people complaining.

Steve Maharey writes:

This is what could be done.

Television New Zealand (TVNZ) is a commercial broadcaster running a programme schedule that, with some exceptions, has little to do with public broadcasting. It should be sold.

Trying to merge it with Radio New Zealand (RNZ) is a fool’s errand because the two entities are from different worlds. One is oil, the other is water.

The cash raised from the TVNZ sale should then be put into a trust that would oversee the expansion of RNZ into a 21st-century media organisation covering everything from broadcasting to social media and print. The new organisation should also receive funding from the Government via the trust.

It is vital the new organisation be independent of government. Any legislation should be free from the kind of instructions the previous Government loaded into its otherwise sensible and still-needed Public Interest Journalism policy.

I have long advocated selling TVNZ and putting the proceeds from the sale into public broadcasting. A senior Labour MP once told me that this is what National should have done, and I agree.

The problem is this is a solution that would have worked a decade ago, as TVNZ was more valuable then. Today a sale of TVNZ would probably generate very little capital because linear TV is dying.

Crucially, the new entity must not take advertising.

That money should flow to commercial media who will need to go through a major restructure.

Not having state broadcasters compete for advertising would help, but again the solution is ten years too late. Advertisers are abandoning media because simply it is less well targeted as social media where you can set exactly who views your ads.

A slimmed-down commercial media with more access to advertising dollars would make for a more viable model. It is possible that a government could help with this by limiting entry to the market.

No, no, no. The job of Government is not to protect incumbents.

Newsroom reports:

he tribunal is currently investigating the Government’s decision to repeal section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, which lays out the obligations of the children’s ministry in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi. Last week, the Waitangi Tribunal issued a summons to Minister for Children Karen Chhour when she refused to provide evidence behind the decision to repeal.

While Crown lawyers have said they will seek judicial review of the summons in the High Court, Jones and Seymour have broken rank to openly criticise the tribunal. …

In response, Te Hunga Rōia Māori / Māori Law Society wrote on Wednesday to Luxon and Attorney-General Judith Collins, saying Jones’ comments are likely to have breached Cabinet Manual conventions against influencing or criticising the judiciary.

“These comments are inappropriate and unconstitutional. The Cabinet Manual  provides that ministers must ‘exercise judgement before commenting on matters  before the courts or judicial decisions’ (clause 4.12) and that ‘Ministers should not  express any views that are likely to be publicised if they could be regarded as reflecting  adversely on the impartiality, personal views, or ability of any judge’,” co-presidents Natalie Coates and Tai Ahu wrote in the letter.

“Minister Jones’ comments directly bring into question the performance of the Waitangi  Tribunal, an independent Commission of Inquiry established by legislation that serves  a function akin to a Court and over which a Judge presides. The comments, which are  paired with a threat of executive review of the function and purpose of the Tribunal could also have a chilling effect and reflect adversely on Waitangi Tribunal decisions going forward.”

The Waitangi Tribunal is not a judicial body. In fact it is far from it:

• Only 5 of the 20 members are even lawyers
• Members are appointed by the Minister of Maori Affairs, not the Attorney-General
• Unlike judges who are appointed for life, members are appointed for three years terms – ie they are temporary appointees made by the Government of the day

So criticising the Waitangi Tribunal is not the same as criticising the Maori Land Court. They are different creatures.

An interesting circular by the Cabinet Office on how the coalition Government will operate. Some key aspects:

• All Ministers must be consulted as appropriate in line with their portfolio responsibilities, no matter which party they represent. Alongside the process of Ministerial portfolio consultation, political consultation will also occur where required. On some particularly significant or sensitive issues, the political consultation process between the parties may supersede the usual Ministerial portfolio consultation processes.
• Consultation between parties will be undertaken on all significant policy proposals and government appointments, and other sensitive or controversial issues – including implementation of the coalition agreements.
• All legislative proposals must first be consulted between National, ACT, and New Zealand First to ensure that there is sufficient parliamentary support for them to proceed.
• Ministers’ offices should advise all Chiefs of Staff of upcoming draft bills. Papers seeking approval for the introduction of bills should not be submitted to LEG until the Minister’s office has received confirmation from other parties that there is support for the bill to proceed.

Stuff reports:

House Speaker Gerry Brownlee is planning to cut back on the 4000 swipe cards which let people enter the Beehive without passing through security.

Parliament and ministerial staff, and members of the press gallery are among those with the access cards who have been police vetted. However, there are others who may have access to the cards but have not undergone the same vetting processes.

He raised it as one of the means in which Parliament was going to better deal with abuse, harassment and threats, which new Otago University research published on Wednesday revealed had increased on every measure – and was mostly aimed at women.

This seems a strange response to the problem of abuse of MPs. Presumably the abuse and threats and harassment doesn’t come from people who have a parliamentary swipe card. If it did, they would lose it.

The recent visit to Singapore by the PM has seen some commentators say we should have a defence posture such as Singapore’s where there is no defence treaty with the US.

This shows how seriously Singapore takes its ability to defend itself. We are barely spending 1% of GDP on defence and Singapore is almost spending 3% of GDP. If we don’t want to rely on others, we need to do more ourselves.

There have been two terrible attacks in Australia.

The first, was the stabbing of 18 people by Joel Cauchi, with six dying. The method of attack, plus the fact an infant was stabbed, had many think it was a terrorist attack. But it seems it was a combination of mental illness, and hatred of women. The stabbing of the infant especially is incomprehensible.

The only silver lining was the heroism shown by various people such as “Bollard Guy” and the Inspector who shot him.

Two days later six people were stabbed at the Wakeley Church, including Bishop Elmanuel. The attacker was a 16 year old boy who was angered by the Bishop’s criticism of Islam. Again so sad to think of a child who thinks killing people for their words is justified. His smiling as he was held down by a police officer basically caused a riot, as it was live-streamed.

But the silver lining is the Bishop, who said:

“I forgive whoever has done this act, I say to him, ‘You are my son, I love you, I will always pray for you,’ ” he said, adding he also forgave “whoever sent you to do this”.

So two terrible attacks showing both the worst and best of humanity.