The Press reports:

Greenpeace New Zealand is fighting to gain charitable status after it was turned down by the Charities Commission for advocating peace and indirectly encouraging illegal activity.

I can’t say I am surprised by the decision. Greenpeace is a multinational lobby group, not a charity.

Greenpeace executive director Bunny McDiarmid said the environmental group had appealed against the commission’s decision to the High Court, where it would be heard in August or September.

“We think it’s worthwhile challenging this decision,” she said. “I think it’s an interesting debate that societies should have … around what is a charity and whether the law from 100 years ago is still relevant today.”

The rejection means Greenpeace could lose income tax exemption, which is granted only to registered charities, although people will still be able to make tax-free donations to the organisation.

McDiarmid said Greenpeace still had income tax exemption pending a court decision, but losing the status was not why it was challenging the commission’s ruling. “That doesn’t make much difference because we’re not a business.”

The commission’s decision in April found Greenpeace’s promotion of “disarmament and peace” was pushed in a political, rather than educational, way.

Highly political I would say.

Charities Commission chief executive Trevor Garrett said organisations that dabbled in political advocacy, but were primarily community-focused, such as Plunket, were safe, but those with an overt political role were not charities.

A sensible distinction.

The Herald reports:

The family of Auckland woman Folole Muliaga plan to sue both Mercury Energy and Middlemore Hospital over the mother of four’s tragic death.

Legal papers are to be filed at the Auckland High Court seeking financial redress from Mercury and the hospital regarding Mrs Muliaga’s death, which followed power being cut to her Mangere home in 2007, Fairfax media reported.

Mrs Muliaga, 45, a morbidly obese woman, was using a mains-powered oxygen machine and died three hours after a contractor to Mercury Energy disconnected her power over an unpaid bill of $168.40.

In findings released in 2008 following an inquest, Coroner Gordon Matenga found that the action of cutting Mrs Muliaga’s power on May 29 2007 was a factor in her death.

It was a factor, but not the only factor. There was fault on many sides. Mercury was too zealous in cutting power off for late payments (the Muliaga’s had been making partial payments), but also the family didn’t take actions which could have saved her life once the power was turned off.

If it goes all the way to trial, I’d say the outcome is far from certain.

Judith Collins announced on Friday:

Dr Walter Sofronoff QC, Solicitor-General of Queensland, has been appointed Special Counsel to the Judicial Conduct Panel to inquire further into complaints against Justice Wilson, Acting Attorney-General Judith Collins said today.

The Attorney-General must appoint and instruct a person to act as Special Counsel in an inquiry by a Judicial Conduct Panel, as set out in the Act.

At the hearing the Special Counsel presents the allegations about the conduct of the judge concerned, and may make submissions on questions of procedure or applicable law that are raised during the proceedings.

An overseas appointment is logical. Few NZ lawyers would want to effectively prosecute a Supreme Court Justice, that they may have to appear before in future if he retains his job.

What I find interesting is that this appointment was announced, despite the lodging of a judicial review application by Justice Wilson. I may be reading too much into it, but to me that suggests a determination to move forward with the panel.

This may necessitate Justice Wilson trying to injunct the panel, until his judicial review is completed.

The HoS supplies another nail into Len Brown’s coffin – and once again Brown is supplying them:

Supercity mayoral candidate Len Brown has considered pulling out of the race because of the impact on his family, he has revealed in an emotional interview.

He said only Jesus Christ had withstood such a high level of scrutiny as him, and come out clean. If ratepayers demand that he identifies who he meets with, then he will quit as Manukau mayor.

Oh for fuck’s sake, I can’t stand such preciousness. Oh woe is me, like Jesus I am persecuted for my sins type crap. The fact is the so called high level of scrutiny is nothing. If he really can’t handle basic transparency and accountability, he needs to find a new job.

Tens of thousands of people with business credit cards have managed to avoid ever buying their groceries and a hi-fi system on them.

Of the 192 card holders at Manukau City Council, 95% of them managed to supply legal tax receipts for their credit card purchases. Len Brown was responsible for 13 of the 25 instances where no legal receipt was included.

This is not a Jesus type level of cleanliness needed – this is basic accountability.

And claiming he will quit as Mayor rather than reveal who he meets with – that just makes me incredibly curious about why he will not reveal who was at the $810 dinner.

You see no one is demanding to know who comes to see him in his office. No one is demanding to know who he chats to at a bar or even has coffee with.

But if he is going to spend $810 of ratepayers money at a dinner, then the ratepayers do have the right to know who he shouted to dinner with their money.

The mayor insisted he had no obligation to disclose who he had taken to dinner on public money, and that criticism of his spending was a Citizens and Ratepayers “smear campaign”.

Now he tries to play the victim card. It was the Sunday Star-Times (NZ’s most left wing newspaper) that asked all the Mayors in the region for details of their credit card spending. Not C&R. The problem for Brown is he had used it inappropriately and had also failed to keep proper documentation. They are legitimate issues for him to be held accountable for. And he has been the person most responsible for turning what should have been a one day news story into weeks of bad headlines.

And he has utterly refused to identify who he and mayoress Shan Inglis hosted at their table for an $810 fundraiser dinner at Volare restaurant in Manurewa.

He had good reasons for refusing to identify his guests, he said.

“It is against my principles. I am fighting back on what I believe are they key issues of this campaign and what people are vitally interested in.”

He shouted: “I clearly don’t give a damn about this stuff.”

“It’s critical for me as a point of basic principle as a leader and mayor of the city.

“I sit in this room. I don’t tell anybody I am having an interview with you today. It is between you and me. It is totally confidential.”

He said there was no requirement for him to disclose who he spent council money on.

Well the media have reported that in fact the Manukau City Council policy does require disclosure of who was at the dinner, as they paid for it. I mean this is seriously outrageous to say that he can spend unlimited money on dinners for people, and there is no obligation to reveal who.

“Transparency is not a perfect thing,” he added.

“Transparency doesn’t just happen in a perfect world. You have to measure that up against other significant principles and that’s what I’m doing and I will live or die on that.

“If people make a judgment and say, ‘we all agree you should tell everybody who you are seeing all the time’, then I’ll say, ‘that’s it – I am not the mayor any more’.

Again a red herring. People are not asking to see his diary.They are not saying reveal everyone you meet. They are not saying tell us about every conversation you have.

They are asking who he spent $810 of ratepayer money on at the dinner.

Now I can only think of two explanations for Brown’s behaviour in refusing to reveal who was at the dinner.

The first is that he is just really stupid and doesn’t understand the difference between revealing who you talk to is not the same as revealing who you shout out for dinner at the ratepayers expense.

The second is that he desperately does not want to reveal the names of those at the dinner, because it would be damaging to him.

On why voters should trust him: “I will always front up. I will give you the straight answers, always with a limit.”

Oh let that be the campaign slogan – I will give you straight answers – but always with a limit.

The SST reports:

Labour leader Phil Goff last night confirmed his daughter had appeared in an Australian court after being caught with drugs in her bra – but escaped a criminal record.

Sara Goff, 25, had her case called earlier this year at Downing Centre Local Court after being nabbed with four Ecstasy tablets outside a New Year celebration. She did not front in person but instead entered a written guilty plea.

I feel very sorry for Sara Goff. This would normally never make the media, except for who her Dad is. She has my sympathy, as does her father on this matter. It is not always easy being the child of a politician.

I’ve not met Sara directly, but we have some acquaintances in common, and I’ve never heard anything but nice things about her – very down to earth, and enjoys socialising.

The Sunday Star-Times can reveal Sara Goff, an Agriculture and Fisheries Ministry policy analyst, was stopped as she entered the main entrance of the Fuzzy Field Days Festival dance party in north Sydney’s domain at 2.22pm on January 1 by Senior Constable Matthew Pople.

“Police charged [Goff] with one count of possession of a prohibited drug after allegedly finding four tablets, suspected of being Ecstasy,” New South Wales police spokeswoman Joanne Elliott confirmed.

Being arrested for having four E tablets is like being arrested for jay walking in my opinion.

A Sydney court official told the Star-Times community magistrate Lee Gilmour convicted Sara Goff, fined her $A500 and ordered her to pay $A76 court costs.

Goff lodged an appeal, understood to be on the grounds that a conviction would limit her ability to travel internationally, and New South Wales District Court judge Ronald Solomon reviewed the case and found “she had committed the offence, but dismissed it without recording a conviction”, said the court official.

Which was the decent thing to do. It would be horrific to gain a criminal conviction for possessing four lousy E tablets.

Speaking at Auckland airport yesterday Phil Goff confirmed his daughter’s arrest but said he was confident she had never taken drugs. “I can tell you something, that my daughter has never taken drugs, never taken drugs. I’m not challenging this [court document], she was discharged, she was not convicted.

This is a slightly strange line from Phil Goff, as the court documents show a guilty plea to possessing them, and a statement that the intention was to consume them.

“I’m not being naive as a father, I know she has not taken drugs apart from the legal drug of alcohol. People do make mistakes in their lives. Kids make mistakes in their lives.”

Sara Goff did nothing that hundreds of thousands other young New Zealanders have not done. It was perhaps foolish to take them in Aussie, where the cops are more hard line on this.

I’m trying to recall the last time someone in NZ got charged for mere possession of a few E tablets? I may be mistaken but I think the Police quite sensibly don’t see this as a priority area.

The HoS reports:

A top TV star unleashed a racist outburst at a high-profile media event this week – claiming that “Jews were expendable”.

David Fane, one of the creators of bro’Town, told an audience including Jason Gunn, Mike Hosking, Kate Hawkesby and John Tamihere, that “Hitler had a right” and HIV sufferers deserved to be “roasted”.

Now I am quicker than most to condemn anti-semitic remarks, but I do not think in this case he was being anti-semitic. Read on:

Fane made the tirade on Wednesday night at the inaugural Radio Roast at the exclusive Northern Club in Auckland.

He said: “You are the worst motherf*****s in the world, you agency guys,” referring to advertising bosses in the audience.

He said: “I want to eat you, but I won’t because I don’t want to get HIV. Would you roast an HIV person? You’d roast them because they’re expendable. Like the Jews. Hitler had a right, you know.

“You’ve all got f****** Aids, c****!”

I’ve bolded the key point – it was a roast. If people don’t know what roasts are like watch any of the celebrity roasts on Comedy Central. They consist of comedians going out of their way to be as offensive as possible to the guests and audience. What Fane said there is mild in comparison to some of the celebrity roasts on TV.

The outburst has sparked outrage in New Zealand’s Jewish community and among Aids health advocates.

New Zealand Jewish Council president Stephen Goodman demanded that Fane and his employers apologise.

He said the speech had parallels to Mel Gibson’s anti-Semitic outburst in 2006.

“It is a very anti-Semitic statement,” said Goodman. “While we wish to preserve the rights to freedom of speech he went over the line.”

Goodman said the comment was heightened by the fact Fane was a role model.

“He is entitled to hold his own opinion and if this is what he truly believes, he should just keep his mouth closed.”

No he should not apologise because (unlike Mel Gibson) he was not expressing his beliefs. What he said was not his own opinion – it was deliberately offensive humour as part of a roast.

Now people may not like roast humour – but they can choose not to go to it, or watch it. But there is a big difference between offensive humour and true anti-semitism, racism etc.

Matt McCarten writes in the HoS:

After he defeated John Howard for the prime minister’s job the world swooned. Rudd was part of a new wave of intelligent, moderate social democratic leaders led by Barack Obama. John Key was also part of this new order.

But governing successfully, and winning campaigns, require two different skill sets.

Obama is struggling with that predicament. Fortunately for this Government, Key has made the transition seamlessly.

Rudd, however, has been a train wreck, stuffing up one policy after another.

Rudd’s arrogance and flip-flopping put him offside with the electorate.

And he had never been popular with his colleagues.

You have to hand it to the Aussie Labor Party: if its leaders don’t perform, they are quickly and efficiently dispatched.

The party’s had a string of leaders in recent years and if new leader Julia Gillard can’t save it from electoral defeat in a few months it will shaft her, too.

The party’s New Zealand parliamentary counterpart doesn’t have the same ruthless survival instincts to oust its leaders when it can’t win.

Our Labour MPs, in their hearts, knew Helen Clark couldn’t win the last election and know Phil Goff can’t win the next one.

But, as they did with Clark, they’ll go into denial and pretend that as long as they plod along they’ll still have a chance.

Ouch. Tough words.

Unfortunately, softness on the left isn’t restricted to national politics. Questions are being raised about its standard bearer Len Brown’s durability in the Auckland mayoral campaign.

Until this month he looked unassailable. But his stumbling over his credit card use made him look weak. His key advisers, by blaming his problems on a media beat-up, make him look like a whiner. No one votes for a victim.

Anyway, it’s legitimate for the media to put him under scrutiny as voters do want to know whether he’s up to job. His responses tell us a lot about what sort of person he is.

Brown has a winning way with voters face-to-face but he does have to convince us he can be a capable chief executive, given some of the recent spending in Manukau City.

Brown had better lift his game because other contenders are starting to smell opportunity.

Theatre director and actor Simon Prast’s entry into the mayoral race on Friday helps the right wing’s strategy of encouraging a split to the anti-Banks vote. Prast should be able to garner up to 10 per cent of the vote, and that will harm Brown.

I assume there will be more “celebrity” candidates. More worrying for Brown, though, is a strong rumour that a poll has been commissioned to test Stephen Tindall’s chances.

I’ve been hearing Labour are starting to panic over the Brown candidacy, and are looking around. If Tindall enters, they may swap their support to him.

The Daily Telegraph reports the latest essential research:

A survey of 50 members of the Society for Sex Threapy and Research, who counsel and treat couples with sexual problems, suggested the time range for adequate, too short and too long copulation.

Oh yay an official guide. And the times are:

1. Too short: 1 -2 minutes (no kidding!)
2. Acceptable: 3 – 7 minutes
3. Desirable: 7 – 13 minutes
4. Too long: Over 13 minutes

I wonder how much taxpayer funding in the UK went towards this research.

The headline:

Twittering public servants waste work of four

Public servants spend at least 8482 hours a year on Twitter, a Dominion Post investigation suggests – the equivalent of a year’s work for four full-time staff.

Later in the article we find:

Of those departments allowing Twitter access, most reported monthly use of five to 10 minutes per staffer.

So an average of 15 to 30 seconds a day. Jesus Christ – how does this qualify to be a story. I wish media would report news more rather than invent it.

The Dom Post reports:

Convicted  murderer Stephen Hudson is taking his jailers to court, alleging a breach of his human rights for seizing an issue of racy women’s magazine Cosmopolitan.

Hudson, 39, has filed High Court proceedings understood to relate to a 2008 copy of the magazine, which contains a lavishly illustrated article comparing natural breasts to those with implants.

Hudson was found guilty in November of murdering 22-year-old Nicholas Pike in the central North Island in March 2002.

Mr Pike’s body has not been found. His mother, Evelyn Pike, says Hudson’s court action sounds ridiculous. As a murderer he had given up his right to enjoy such material.

“I can understand him complaining about it but don’t think he should be able to go to court over it. I suppose he has nothing else to do but be a nuisance and waste everyone’s time.”

Hudson’s appeal against his conviction and the 16-year minimum tagged to his life imprisonment sentence is due to be heard on July 22.

He has filed the court papers for the magazine case himself. The Corrections Department will not comment on the specifics. It has yet to file a defence.

One can’t stop someone from going to court, but I sure as hell hope he is not getting legal aid.

Part of Hudson’s argument is based on the “boobs on bikes parade” court case, in which a judge refused to stop a street parade of topless women riding motorbikes.

“He says that if young children can stand on the side of the road and see boobs on bikes why can he not see boobs inside,” his mother, Christina Billing says.

Because he killed someone!!!

Chris Carter has done his fake apology and will no doubt be kept on by Phil Goff. AMazingly he is standign again at the next election, so if you vote Labour you will be voting for Chris Carter to be a Minister again.

And as for the so called demotion, well he is ranked No 13 in a Caucus of 43. He is actually ranked higher by Phil Goff than Steven Joyce (No 14) is ranked by John Key.

Of Labour’s top 16, two were in Ministers for the 4th Labour Government, 13 were Ministers in the last Government and only one was not in the previous Executive.

By contrast, only seven of National’s 23 current Ministers were previously Ministers.

Being in Aussie has meant I’ve been able to see pretty much non stop coverage of the Gillard coup, which is much better than just seeing the highlights at 6 pm.

I was especially interested in Gillard’s press conference. Her performance can only be described as stellar. I’m one of those people who is always critically appraising speakers – often thinking to myself (or saying so to people with me) how an answer could have been made better.

I could not find a single fault with Gillard. Her answers, her tone, were all near perfect. She communicated her values and made it about Australia, not about her. I’ll give a couple of examples.

She was asked how did it feel to be Australia’s first female Prime Minister. Now Helen Clark (whom Gillard has some qualities in common with) had a burning life long ambition to be NZ’s first female Prime Minister. Everyone knew this. And she hated the fact Jenny Shipley bet her to it, so settled for New Zealand’s first “elected” female Prime Minister.

Gillard’s first response was a great joke – how she was also the first redhead to be Prime Minister and people can decide for themselves which was more unlikely.

But then she said that she didn’t enter politics to hit her head on any glass ceilings, but instead wants to keep her feet firmly on the ground.

Now that was superb. Cynically I wondered how many times and for how many months had she practised it. For she communicated that it wasn’t about her, it wasn’t about identity politics, it was about Australia.

Andrew Bolt also reviewed her press conference, and gives it a 9/10.

Gillard will be a far more formidable opponent to Tony Abbott, than Kevin Rudd was. That does not mean of course that she will automatically win.

There does appear to be some resentment over the method of her succession. Overnight online polls all showed people preferred Abbott over Gillard. However they are online polls and you can’t place reliance on them.

In a few days we’ll get the 1st set of phone polls. I’d ignore them also. What I will be looking at is the second set of polls in around three or four weeks time. That will give a better indication of what the change means to how people may vote.

Parliament this week passed the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill into law.

The bill amended the Policing Act to allow police officers to stand for local councils under the same rules as other state servants.

I supported the law change, and it was in fact in National’s 2008 election policy, so there is a mandate for the change. I believe Labour voted for the bill also.

So why am I unhappy? I am unhappy because the Government passed it through all three readings under urgency, without referring it to a select committee.

There are effectively two sorts of urgency. The most common use of urgency is merely to extend the sitting hours of the House from 6.5 hours a day to 12.5 hours a day. I have few problems with that, so long as the Government keeps question time going.

But urgency sometimes is used to avoid a bill going to a select committee, and to pass it into law within a day or two. This is a necessary power for bills that are genuinely urgent. Common use is excise tax changes and sometimes in the early days of a new Government it is justified so some policies can be implemented immediately.

I do not believe there was a good justification for the bill to bypass the select committee stage. It doesn’t matter that it was inevitable it would be passed anyway as both National and Labour supported it. We, the public, were robbed of the chance to submit on it. The select committees are our voice.

Without an upper or second house, they are even more important. Bypassing them should happen as rarely as possible.

Some may argue it had to be passed in time for the local body elections. I agree, but it could have been introduced to Parliament earlier, or the Select Committee could have been given a shorter than normal (six months normally) period to report back.

Now this is a very simple bill for which there was an election mandate. But using urgency to bypass select committee sets a bad precedent, when it is, in fact, not urgent.

Labour used urgency to do some outrageous things – the worse being a retrospective amendment to the Electoral Act to save Harry Duynhoven after he invalidated his seat. This is a long way removed from that, but it remains a bad thing to do. The select committee process should not be seen as an optional extra.

The Herald reports:

Supporters of embattled financier Allan Hubbard are fighting to help clear his name and have kicked off with an advertising campaign. …

Half-page advertisements rallying support for the 82-year-old Timaru businessman will appear in the country’s three biggest newspapers over the next two days. The first appeared today in The Press newspaper.

“Allan Hubbard has helped many people and organisations over the last 50 plus years. He has donated some $200 Million over the last 15 years alone.

It is now our turn to help Allan and his wife Jean,” the advertisement reads.

The ad calls on people to email Prime Minister John Key or Commerce Minister Simon Power telling them what the Hubbards have done for them or to record their story on the Facebook fan page “Help Allan Hubbard”.

“Mr Hubbard has a long and solid reputation of meeting all his commitments and the officials in Government need to be made aware of the contribution the Hubbard’s have made to NZ organisations and citizens,” the advertisement says.

This is just an incredibly bad idea. One doesn’t decide criminal investigations on the basis of letter writing campaigns.

Like most NZers I have a very favourable view of the Hubbards. I hope they have done nothing wrong, no laws have been broken, and the statutory management regime proves unnecessary and is removed.

But I don’t know what happened, and neither do these people placing the advertisements. They have absolutely no ideas why the SFO is investigating the Hubbards.

Loyalty is one thing, and admirable. But blind loyalty is another thing. To launch a campaign to get the Government to stop action against an individual, when you do not even know what the details are, is irresponsible.

Sometimes you’re just in the right place at the right time

as always, clicking on the image will bring up the larger version

I was unimpressed with Auckland City Council’s decision to commission a history of the city as their parting legacy. I am even more unimpressed with Manukau City plans for spending $85,000 on a 10 day farewell party. At least he other expenditure will produce a book at the end of it!

Even worse:

News of the planned $85,000 blow-out follows revelations this week that about $50,000 was spent to send four executives – who have not been offered positions in the Super City – to a leadership seminar at a luxury resort in Queenstown last month.

Words fail me.

It is still an incredible achievement for the team that the bookies had ranked bottom to finish the pool play without having lost a game.

I hope they will all be staying up to watch the game!

The NZ Herald focuses on the topical Afghanistan:

Tensions between generals in the field and their civilian masters are a fact of life. Armed forces chiefs are able to focus solely on battlefield strategy and having the necessary manpower and resources.

The purview of politicians must be wider, not least in considering the popular appetite for war.

Not surprisingly, generals often become impatient at what they consider interference in the prosecution of a war. In moments of candour, they might convey their annoyance to well-trusted aides. Otherwise, they keep their counsel.

They know that if such sentiments become public knowledge, their position becomes untenable. Such is now the case with General Stanley McChrystal, the United States commander in Afghanistan.

And he has paid the price.

General McChrystal’s blunder is the more unfortunate in that his strategy is the best chance of achieving a stability in Afghanistan that will pave the way for an orderly exit.

His approach has eschewed lofty goals, such as embedding a model democracy, and concentrated on “Afghanising” the conflict through the rapid training and arming of Kabul’s forces.

He also understands the importance of gaining a settlement with more pragmatic elements of the Taleban, thereby creating a political consensus. The present “surge”, which has achieved mixed results, is an attempt to accelerate that outcome.

The eminent sense in General McChrystal’s strategy means he has not been without his defenders. One of the more interesting was the much-maligned Afghan President.

A spokesman for Hamid Karzai said he believes General McChrystal is “the best commander the United States has sent to Afghanistan over the last nine years”.

A sad end to a fine career.

The Press looks at the breath testing of spectators for a school by rugby match:

The scene outside the front gate of Christ’s College on Tuesday was extraordinary.

Eight police officers were lined up administering breath tests to spectators arriving to watch the annual Christ’s College-Christchurch Boys’ High School rugby match. The police were required to enforce a zero alcohol policy imposed by Christ’s College for the match in an attempt to stop the drunken yahoo off-field brawling that has, over the last decade or so, become a feature of the encounter.

The policy seems to have been a success. For the first time in years, the game passed off without an outbreak of violence or indeed any untoward incidents at all. No-one was arrested or ejected from the ground, in a striking contrast with last year’s event which was, as Inspector Derek Erasmus observed, notable for “baton charges and multiple arrests”.

Something we have seen recently is that a huge amount can be done within the current Sale of Liquor Act.

The Dom Post opines on the departure of Sean Plunket from Radio NZ:

Broadcaster Sean Plunket has finally made good on his threats to quit Radio New Zealand National to seek fresh fields. Though his willingness to ask hard questions will be missed, his decision – a long time coming, given his testy relationship with his masters – will be good for him and might even be good for the company. …

Plunket’s departure, alongside suggestions that Robinson will retire within two years, gifts RNZ’s chief executive, Peter Cavanagh, and the board a rare opportunity. Does today’s three-hour mix of hard news and the odd joker work as well now, in a multi-media environment, as when the hour-long programme launched 35 years ago?

And the ODT finally comments on the China protest:

According to the police, a number of witnesses were spoken to after Green Party co-leader Russel Norman complained of assault by Chinese security agents attending the visit to Parliament by China’s Vice-president, Xi Jiping, last week.

Presumably, these included members of the force stationed at Parliament Buildings.

Police also studied film footage and photographs of the incident, and had sought, to no avail, to speak to the Chinese alleged to be involved.

It was concluded – quite swiftly in the circumstances – there was insufficient evidence to substantiate a prosecution.

This should be no surprise.

The prospect of the police mounting a sufficiently strong case was weakened as soon as it became clear that Dr Norman had apparently moved from his initial location at the foot of the steps to Parliament’s main building to the entrance of the Beehive to be very much closer to the point at which the vice-president passed, thus himself contributing to a degree to the predictable response by Chinese security guards charged with protecting their leader. …

The fact remains that he was allowed to have his protest – his “free speech” action was not suppressed and could be heard loud and clear, although it must be considered a certainty the Chinese security guards had not the faintest notion who he was.

Successive New Zealand governments have in the past decade or more routinely expressed concern – on behalf of Dr Norman and other protesters – to Chinese visitors about the infringements of human rights in China, while successfully maintaining a relationship that has resulted in China becoming our second largest trading partner.

That relationship is hardly to be jeopardised on the strength of one MP’s needless behaviour.

Working out rules for MPs (or others) protesting should not be difficult.

Should they be allowed in an area where they can be seen? Yes.

Should they be allowed in an area where the target of their protest can hear them? Yes.

Should they be allowed close enough to a VIP that they could seriously humiliate them by grabbing them, spitting on them, throwing or squiriting something at them – no.

So the question is merely how wide should the corridor be, which they can’t cross into. I’d say around 10 – 12 metres. You can protest very effectively still at that range.

Kevin Rudd’s Downfall – The best video clips are here

Someone did this quickly. One of the better ones.