The Taranaki Daily News reports:

An Eltham man escaped a drink-driving conviction yesterday by arguing police had not given him a phone book to call a lawyer. …

The judge found in favour of George Oliver’s contention in the Hawera District Court that police may not have done enough to contact his lawyer of choice.

Prominent lawyer Peter Brosnahan, well-known for success in this field, claimed a Stratford policeman lied to cover up a lack of process in the case.

At the Stratford police station on January 6, Oliver, 74, blew a breath test reading of 537mgs.

He had earlier specifically asked for Mr Brosnahan but neither he or constable Shaun Darth knew his phone number.

The contentious point was whether or not Mr Darth then offered Oliver a phone directory to contact him.

“Have you ever heard of 018?,” Mr Brosnahan asked.

“No,” Mr Darth said.

Mr Brosnahan: “You said you’ve never heard of 018 Telecom service?”

Mr Darth: “That’s correct.”

I find that incredible.

During cross-examination Mr Darth admitted he had created the job sheet, in which he said he had offered a phone book, months after the arrest.

Oh dear, oh dear. That is not good.

Judge E. Blaikie dismissed the case.

“I’m not saying there had been untruths told by the constable but there are some factors in his evidence that have left me unable to determine the factual situation beyond a reasonable doubt,” he said.

The Judge is being diplomatic I’d say.

In a few hours it will be Prime Minister Julia Gilliard. iPredict have her at 96% and the bookies at $1.20.

The numbers are flocking to Gilliard and there is now pressure on Rudd not to force a ballot. Even the Treasurer has gone to her side.

So how did Kevin Rudd go from almost the most popular Prime Minister in a generation, to being the only Prime Minister ever to be rolled in their first term of office?

An essay last Thursday by Alexander Downer has some answers:

Members of the Federal Parliament all know each other; not necessarily well, but at least a little. Over the past 20 years, few, if any, MPs have been less popular than Kevin Rudd. All politicians are at the very least a trifle vain. They like to be the centre of attention, to be in the media, to be ‘consulted’. There is barely an exception. All of them think they are a bit better than they really are. Nearly all of them are ambitious, many furiously so. But on all of those counts, no one in recorded Australian political history has ever exceeded Kevin Rudd.

And this very much includes his own Cabinet and Caucus. There was respect but never popularity.

What MPs didn’t like about Rudd, the backbencher, and Rudd, the shadow minister, was his conceit and vanity. On 9 September 2004, an Islamist fanatic tried to blow up the Australian embassy in Jakarta. I was in Victor Harbor that day when the ambassador rang me directly on my mobile to tell me the terrible news. I told my staff we ought to go immediately to Jakarta and to take the head of the AFP, DFAT officials and intelligence people as well. We needed a VIP plane to load our officials in Canberra, fly to Adelaide to pick me up and push on to Jakarta. We could be there before bedtime.

I told John Howard of my plans and he said I ought to also take the opposition spokesman for foreign affairs, who happened to be Kevin Rudd; this was, after all, during the election campaign. Indirectly, I let Rudd know he was invited. I drove to my office to prepare for my departure. There was a message to call Rudd. He was furious. The f***ing VIP plane wasn’t going via Brisbane to pick him up. It f***ing had to. He ordered me to change its f***ing flight schedule.

I explained two things to him. First, the plane was too small to add him and his staffer unless we offloaded the AFP Commissioner or the intelligence officer. I wasn’t prepared to do that. Secondly, to travel via Brisbane would add hours to the journey. Instead, we would pay for a commercial flight for him.

This was not met with grace. A fusillade of abuse, much of it with sexual references, ensued, and then a demand that I tell him the flight schedules from Brisbane to Jakarta. ‘I am not,’ I crudely said, ‘your f***ing travel agent. DFAT will help you.’

The point is clear: people at the embassy had died, we needed to get the Indonesians onto the case to establish who the culprits were, we had to show support to the embassy staff at this time of crisis. It wasn’t about me and it certainly wasn’t about the shadow minister for foreign affairs, Mr Kevin Rudd. But for the member for Griffith it was about one thing: himself.

This is an incredibly telling story. It fits very much into the essay by the leftish David Marr on Rudd.

Marr is probably right. The secret of what Rudd is all about lies in his childhood. That’s probably true of all of us. Something happened then which made him determined one day to be famous. He has succeeded — spectacularly. But like all people who seek fame for themselves at the expense of others, his fame will eat him up. Fame fed with substance can make a person great. Fame alone will destroy you.

It has taken an incredible three years for the Australian public to realise who their national leader really is. I sat with a Labor luminary having a late-night drink in June 2008. He turned to me and said: ‘Mate, one day the Australian public will grow to hate Kevin Rudd as much as I do.’ That day has arrived.

It is going to be a fascinating day. I am spending it with various Federal Liberal Party people. For them it may be mixed emotions. They will be celebrating the fall of Kevin Rudd. It is no mean thing to put enough pressure on a Government (mind you a lot was self inflicted) that they roll the Prime Minister.

The downside for my Liberal friends is that Gilliard is not Rudd. She will have a honeymoon, and that could well last past the election. On the other hand she has to deal with some nasty messes left behind by Rudd such as the resources super tax.

Reuters reports:

US President Barack Obama has fired top Afghanistan commander General Stanley McChrystal over inflammatory comments that angered the White House and threatened to undermine the war effort.

Obama relieved General McChrystal of his command after a private, 30-minute meeting at the White House and named General David Petraeus, commander of the US Central Command, to replace him, a senior administration official said.

That’s a smart decision, Petraeus is well regarded. Ironically it is technically a demotion for Petraeus, but I suspect he won’t mind being closer to the action.

Republicans love Petraeus. If things do not progress well in Afghanistan, any other appointment could have seen greater attacks on Obama’s strategy.

The Herald reports:

Yesterday a 24-year-old Pacific Island woman, who did not want to be named, told the Herald she had been pressured into giving a sample at Auckland Central police station earlier this month.

She was driving in Grey Lynn without a licence and was stopped by police, and then taken to the station.

“An officer wanted me to give a DNA sample. I told him I didn’t want to do it, but he told me if I wanted to go home quickly, then I would have to give the DNA,” she said.

“He said all the officers were doing it and were trying to get everyone to do it in case I was raped or murdered, so they could identify my body. I felt violated and like I had no rights, like I was forced to do it and they could have done anything to me if I didn’t do it.”

The woman, who is facing a charge for driving while forbidden, said she did not remember the names of the officers, but she would discuss laying a complaint with her lawyer.

This allegation should be investigated. The Police file will reveal the names of the officers.

Merilyn McAuslin told the Herald her son was under duress when he gave a DNA sample in 2005, when he was 17 and in high school.

He was out with friends, one of whom graffitied a building, and their car number plate was reported.

When he went to the Newmarket police station with his mother, he was intimidated by an officer to identify the person who had done the graffiti.

He started to have a panic attack and was taken outside for some air and water. Mrs McAuslin said within a couple of minutes, a female police officer said a driving charge against her son would be dropped if he gave a DNA sample. “She got the DNA in a real moment of weakness for us.”

This case is five years old. I have some doubts over this, as the mother uses the terms”intimidation” in regards to her son revealing who did the graffiti. And why stay quiet for five years?

However the first case happened just this month, and people arrested for driving without a licence shouldn’t be coerced into giving DNA samples.

But there are two sides to every story – the Police can request samples. Where it becomes improper is if they attach consequences to a refusal to voluntarily comply – that turns it into coercion.

What a day to be in Canberra. The coup against Rudd has taken place at record speed. The moment I heard the NSW Right had gone to Gilliard, I figured it was all over.

Rudd about to hold a press conference, so we will hear soon.

Rudd has confirmed Julia Gilliard has challenged him and he has called a vote for 9 am tomorrow.

Rudd is fighting to stay on, but I know from experience that once a leadership challenge goes to a vote, the leader almost always loses as they are judged so wounded they can not win a general election.

If Gillard wins, she would be wise to not try and govern for a few months as PM, but say she has asked the GG for an immediate election, and asked Rudd to carry on as caretaker PM until the election. She can look democratic by claiming she has been elected Labor leader, but now wants the Australian public to elect her Prime Minister.

Stuff reports:

Smash-hit Kiwi film Boy has been illegally uploaded on to the internet, potentially slashing the earnings of its investors.

Boy is a great movie. I went to see it at the cinema and blogged about it here.

It is a shame it has been placed on the Internet, but not surprising.

The Taika Waititi-directed flick has had huge box office success, going on to gross $8.4 million at the box office since its release in March, placing it third on an adjusted list of all-time New Zealand film takings.

Worth noting this. Despite the downloads, it has been very profitable.

However, with it yet to be released overseas and on DVD, its availability online is expected to curtail its future earnings.

And this is why of course people placed it on the Internet – there was absolutely no legal way anyone overseas could pay for it and view it, and no legal way anyone in NZ could buy it to view at home.

The days when movie companies can release it for cinemas, but not for individual purchase is fast dying – just as the days when we had to wait six to 12 months to see a US block buster in NZ cinemas have faded.

The world is now one global market. Try and maximise revenue by only releasing it to one segment of the market, and the response is entirely predictable – it only takes one person out of five billion or so to place it online.

Boy has been a fantastic success. Kiwis overseas have heard about it and want to view it. When you make it impossible for them to pay to see it, no surprise that they will turn to the only way they can see it – file sharing.

The last time a Kiwi film was illegally copied, it cost investors about $1 million.

Jesus, I wish media would not print assertions as fact.  Assuming that every downloaded copy is a lost sale is economic lunacy.

The Herald reports:

The tiff between General Stanley McChrystal and the White House is the most extraordinary airing of military-civilian tensions since Harry Truman stripped Gen. Douglas MacArthur of his command a half-century ago.

Which doomed any chance of Truman standing again for President. Mind you he was justified – MacArthur was a great general and leader, but he was refusing to follow orders.

The White House summoned McChrystal to Washington to explain disparaging comments about his commander in chief and Obama’s top aides. The meeting, set for tomorrow, is a last-ditch moment for the general once considered the war’s brightest hope.

If not insubordination, the remarks in a forthcoming Rolling Stone magazine article were at least an indirect challenge to civilian management of the war in Washington by its top military commander.

The comments are pretty much inexcusable. The military are sworn to not be partisan and to be loyal to their elected Commander in Chief.

However if Obama sacks McChrystal, he may doom his own strategy for Afghanistan. It will be fascinating to see what he does,

Dutch News reports:

The Frisian villages of Dongeradeel and Dantumadiel have come up with a novel way of cutting spending on welfare payments – encouraging jobless women to find a rich man, the Leeuwarder Courant reports on Tuesday.

The local social service departments are paying for the women to have a make-over in the hope they can hook up with a rich husband to support them, the paper says. If 70 women find a new husband, the council can save €400,000 on welfare payments.

The councils are putting €1,400 into each woman to have her hair done and get help with her image. They will also get their wardrobe updated and tips on social skills and presentation.

I await the announcement of a pilot here, by Paula Bennett!

I’m in Canberra until Sunday, so posting frequency may be diminished.

While I have been many times to Australia, this will be my first ever visit to Canberra.

The Dom Post reports:

Labour has confirmed that Te Atatu MP Chris Carter is the only nomination for the seat, meaning he is soon likely to be ratified as a candidate for the 2011 election.

Cheers around the Beehive can be heard welcoming this news.

As the only candidate, Mr Carter would now face a confirmation meeting run by his local electorate committee, including a question and answer session, a speech and a formal motion of confirmation.

Maybe the electorate committee will hold him to account?

Mr Carter’s long-time partner, Peter Kaiser, is the electorate chairman in Te Atatu.

Maybe not.

Clarke is superb.

Quiz is here. 43 seconds. A couple of obscure ones. Also one question is missing the last few words, but it still makes sense if you know the issue.

The 45th Otago Foreign Policy School is on from Friday 25 to Sunday 27 June.

China’s rise and future role on the world stage will go under the spotlight at the University of Otago’s 45th Foreign Policy School later this month. The event gathers together leading national and international China scholars and New Zealand diplomats, policymakers, business people and members of the public.

Titled “China’s Ascent: New Superpower or New Global System?” the School is being held in association with the New Zealand Contemporary China Research Centre at Victoria University of Wellington. The gathering takes place at Dunedin’s Salmond College from 25-27 June. …

“Among the key questions to be tackled at the School is ‘will a new China fundamentally change the rules of the game in the global system, or will China simply become another great power using the traditional tools of money, force and diplomacy’?,” Professor Patman says.

New Zealand-China relations are the focus of a roundtable composed of leading Chinese academics and New Zealand figures including Wellington Regional Chamber of Commerce CEO Charles Finny and journalist and analyst Colin James.

The School’s opening address will be given on the Friday evening by Minister of Foreign Affairs Hon. Murray McCully.

The keynote address, ‘China’s Global Identities: the Schizophrenic Superpower’, is being presented by Professor David Shambaugh of George Washington University. Professor Shambaugh is an internationally recognised authority on contemporary Chinese affairs and the international politics and security of the Asia-Pacific region.

How very timely.

The full programme is here and you can register here.

Some common sense from Phil Goff on the China protest issue:

Labour leader Phil Goff said there mistakes on both sides.

“The Chinese security guard had no right to seize the flag from Russel Norman. There is an absolute right of peaceful protest in this country that we must uphold.”

And I agree. They had a right to stop Norman from advancing any closer, but they had no right to try and hide his flag. They were clearly wrong to do so.

But Mr Goff said Dr Norman could have acted with more restraint.

“Did Russel Norman behave with the dignity you might have expected of an MP? I think he might have learned from (former Greens leader) Rod Donald’s lesson of standing back, giving a bit of space, making the point, but not being confrontational.”

Exactly. He was advancing on the Vice-President and got very very close to him. If he had done what Rod Donald did, then the fracas would never have happened. The suspicion is that maybe he did it deliberately.

Mr Goff said there needed to be a clear protocol allowing peaceful protest but at the same time giving space and dignity to visitors.

Yep. If MPs wish to protest on the forecourt they have every right to. But they don’t have the right to impede the right of overseas leaders from entering buildings, or to be so close to them they represent a threat to their dignity (such as having a flag thrown over them) – NZ in fact has an obligation under Article 29 of the Vienna Convention:

The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The receiving State shall treat him with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity.

This is why John Key apologised – not for the protest by Norman, but the failure in security that allowed him to get within spitting or throwing distance.

He said there was some confusion which could have been avoided on Friday.

“A quiet word beforehand between Russel Norman and the diplomatic police could have set a situation where a protest could have been made without the incident occurring.”

Exactly. Bravo to Phil Goff for taking a fair approach on this.

Trevor Mallard blogged:

There was some publicity recently about Jonathan Young’s carelessness in relation to his declaration of pecuniary interest.

This week it is all about the hapless Chris Finlayson who is already in serious trouble for the way he kept on changing his description of his relationship with a Supreme Court judge in whose favour he intervened.

Trevor calling Chris hapless is a bit like me calling Usain Bolt slow.

Now it has emerged that Finlayson helped set up a company in 2006, after he became an MP,  and became a director then and has failed to declare it on any return since that date.

Trevor goes on to declare that Chris must stand down as Attorney-General due to this issue.

I’m amazed after the incidents of 2008, any Labour MP who was an MP in 2008 ever has the decency to try and talk with credibility about the Register of Pecuniary Interests. Hypocrisy is not an adequate term to describe this. It is more akin to the CEO of BP going lectures on environmental protection and good public relations.

In case anyone has forgotten let me remind you that every single Labour MP voted that Winston did not breach the rules of the Register when he did not declare a $100,000 personal donation from Owen Glenn, and also tens of thousands of donations from the Velas.

Even worse, Glenn was seeking appointment as a Consul, and the Velas had racing interests which benefited greatly from funding for the industry (such as prizes) which Winston got Labour to agree to.

Now this was exactly what you have a Register for – the abuses uncovered by the Privileges Committee (with help from the SFO) were as severe a conflict as one can have. Undisclosed personal donations from people you were championing.

And what was Labour’s response to the compelling testimony and proof, that exposed Winston as a liar and have broken the rules? They voted against the recommendation of the Privileges Committee, and oh yeah banked $100,000 cheque from the Velas a few days before the 2008 election, when it would not have to be declared until afterwards.

So pardon me while I vomit up, as I see any Labour MP thinking they have any integrity on this issue. It was a low point for parliamentary integrity – and not a single Labour MP had the guts to vote with their conscience.

Anyway back to Trevor’s allegations, I quote from a statement put out to those inquiring:

Since 2006 I have been a  director and shareholder of Te Puhi Trust (2) Limited, with two other directors.

The incorporation is a corporate trustee for a family trust. The incorporation owns no assets – Te Puhi Trust (2) limited exists only to be a trustee for the family trust, Te Puhi Trust (2), whose beneficiaries are the family and charitable causes.

I have no pecuniary interest in any of these entities, as confirmed in a letter from the trust’s lawyer today. Accordingly, I did not declare the directorship of the corporate trustee for the family trust as a pecuniary interest on the Register of Pecuniary Interests. There is no precuniary interest.

I have sought advice this morning from the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests as to whether a directorship with no pecuniary interests should be declared on the Register of Pecuniary Interests. I expect to have an answer tomorrow.

Now it is possible that the Registrar may say this should be disclosed, but if this is the case this is a technical breach which involves no possible actual gain by not having declared it. If Winston was a 95 on a 1- 100 seriousness scale, this is around a 2 or 3.

Trevor compares the issue to the problems David Parker had in 2006. Now I will agree that the A-G needs to be held to a higher standard of accountability than a normal MP. But the problem David Parker had is that his declaration that a company had resolved not to have an auditor was disputed by an aggrieved minority share holder who said this declaration was false as he had not agreed. It later transpired that the aggrieved share holder was no longer a share holder, but Parker actually thought he was a share holder when he signed forms saying share holders had unanimously agreed. But his case had an alleged victim claiming disadvantage.

Anyway let’s enjoy the hypocrisy of Labour claiming there is no need to disclose $100,000 donations towards your personal legal fees, but that you do need to disclose a non-pecuniary directorship.

Just discovered the 2010 failed states index. NZ is in 171st place, or 7th least failed. The 10 least failed states are:

1. Norway
2. Finland
3. Sweden
4. Switzerland
5. Ireland
6. Denmark
7. New Zealand
8. Australia
9. Netherlands
10. Austria

The top 10 failed states are:

1. Somalia
2. Zimbabwe
3. Sudan
4. Chad
5. Congo
6. Iraq
7. Afghanistan
8. Central African Republic
9. Guinea
10. Pakistan

Darien Fenton blogs at Red Alert:

Today I went to support the locked out staff at Auckland’s 4.5 star hotel, the Rendezvous – that’s the staff who keep the hotel clean and help provide an enjoyable stay for hotel guests.

I have to say I don’t like employers locking out staff as a way to solve a pay dispute, just as I think strike action over pay disputes should be a last resort also.

From an employers point of view, there is even less reason to do a lock out. If one can’t settle a pay dispute, then the existing terms and conditions carry on. So locking staff out has a certain bullying factor to it.

This trans-national hotel chain is offering a measly pay increase of 1.5% from now (no backdating) for two years until 2012.

1.5% over two years isn’t a lot. However would have been useful for Darien to specify what their current rates are, so one can judge in context. Also of interest is how profitable that hotel is. If the hotel is losing money, then that might explain it.

The last pay increase was in January 2008 so the workers have already been 18 months without a pay increase. And there’s a catch. The employer wants the workers to give back one day’s sick-leave, to increase the costs of staff parking and remove a subsidy for health insurance.  The Rendezvous says this is the final offer and the workers have been locked out from their jobs until they accept it.

As I said earlier, I don’t like employers who lock out staff to try and force them into accepting a pay offer. Again it would be useful to have more precise details of the “claw backs” such as how much sick leave is there currently, what is the current cost of staff parking and the current health insurance subsidy.

Look at these workers.  Are they militants?  Are they highly paid?  I don’t think so.  One housekeeper told me that she is expected to clean 18 rooms a day – an increase in 4 rooms since the Rendezvous took over the former Carlton Hotel.  Isn’t this a productivity increase?  Isn’t this supposed to deliver better wages?

I agree – greater productivity is what should lead to higher wages. Again, would be useful to have some stats on whether 18 rooms a day (I presume an eight hour day) is standard for the hospitality industry.

There’s a new site, where you can list births, deaths and marriages online for free.

Not much data there yet, but could become quite useful if it picks up.

Some readers may be interested in the Open Government 2010 (un) conference next week – on Monday 28 June in Wellington.

It’s an un-conference, which means the agenda is fluid – set by participants. It is free to attend, but you need to register in advance.

Steven Joyce will be doing an opening address, and other speakers or panelists include:

• Colin MacDonald, LINZ CEO
• Mirian Lips, e-Government Professor, VUW
• Zachary Tumin, Associate Director for Technology & Governance:The Ash Institute at Harvard Kennedy School
• Rodrigo Mizuno, Worldwide e-Government Managing Director:Microsoft Corporation
• Clare Curran, Labour IT/Comms Spokesperson
• Henk Verhoeven, Solution Architect:Intergen

If you have a passion for using technology to build a more open government, then consider registering to come along. Here’s one proposal I’d love a political party to adopt:

www.oia.govt.nz

The Government every day is releasing mounds of information under the OIA – but only to the person who thought to request it. I’d love to see a pdf of every OIA response put onto a central website – www.oia.govt.nz, so anyone can see the information released and use it. A good taxonomy and search engine for the site and it will be a gold mine.

The Herald hails the All Whites:

Hats off to Ryan Nelsen, the captain of the New Zealand soccer team.

Not only for the way he marshalled his side as the All Whites claimed a hugely significant 1-1 World Cup draw against Italy, the reigning world champion, but for his straight talking after the match.

Sport is replete with players who utter only polite noises. Nelsen told it like it was. Guatemalan referee Carlos Batres, who awarded the softest of penalties to the Italians, had had “stars in his eyes” and his partiality had ruined the game.

“If he’s the best that Fifa offer up then, gee whizz, I would hate to see the worst,” Nelsen said. …

Paraguay appears to be the best team in the All Whites’ pool. While many other countries have struggled, it had confirmed its standing as the second-best qualifier from South America.

If New Zealand is to advance to the knockout stage, probably nothing less than a victory will suffice. The odds will, once again, strongly favour its opponent. But who would now bet against the All Whites?

I’ll be in Australia for that game, and making sure there is no doubt the All Whites are not an Australasian team!

The Press defends the right to protest:

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman’s decision to protest at Parliament during the visit of Chinese Vice-President Xi Jinping was eminently predictable.

His party has long supported the free Tibet movement and highlighted China’s shocking human rights record. Just as his predecessor as the Greens’ male co-leader, the late Rod Donald, did in 2005 during the visit of another Chinese dignitary, Norman waved a Tibetan flag as Xi’s delegation arrived at Parliament. Norman did go further than Donald, who mounted a silent protest, by also calling out for democracy. But the attitude of New Zealand authorities in these two cases was quite different.

That is because Rod Donald did not advance on the VIP.

In 2005, police and security staff respected the right of Donald to protest and rejected calls from Chinese security guards to remove him. But no action was taken last Friday by New Zealand authorities when Norman had his flag taken from him by Chinese security personnel and a scuffle broke out. Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully later lambasted Norman, saying the Green MP had abused Parliamentary privilege and his actions were calculated to give offence.

McCully was half right. Norman’s protest was a stunt aimed at provoking the Chinese and to attract publicity for the Greens and the Tibetan cause, about which China is hugely sensitive. But McCully is totally wrong to accuse Norman of abusing his position. Unlike members of the public, whose protests at Parliament are carefully controlled, Norman is an MP who has the freedom of the building and its grounds.

Not total freedom. An MP can’t enter the offices of other parties without permission for example.

He was perfectly entitled to exercise his right to freedom of speech where he did. And if his position was perceived as a threat to the personal security, rather than just the sensitivities of the visitors, it is up to New Zealand authorities to take action.

I agree. The NZ authorities should have kept Norman from getting so close to the Vice-President. If he had remained at the foot of the steps of Parliament, I would have expected him to be protected. But he rushed up to the Beehive entrance, right up against the Chinese security guards.

The Chinese security guards were wrong to try and interfere with his flag, but he was also wrong to advance so close. He should have negotiated a position to stand at where he could be clearly seen and heard (if desired) but not within spitting distance of the Vice-President.

The Chinese officials who took the flag and scuffled with Norman probably had limited understanding of Norman’s rights as an MP. New Zealand security personnel still should have stepped in to protect him.

They did.

New Zealand does have a close and valued relationship with China. This has been shown by the recent free-trade deal with it and by the emphasis placed by New Zealand on its participation in the Shanghai Expo.

But these economic ties must not obscure the fact that there are differences between us and one of these is New Zealand’s strong commitment to human rights, including freedom of speech and the right to protest peacefully.

Instead of berating those who, like Norman, exercise these rights, New Zealand ministers should have firmly reminded the Chinese that in this country, unlike their own nation, these rights are sacrosanct and must be respected by foreign guests.

As John Key has pointed out there was a continual protest outside the hotel where the VP was staying, and no one interfered with their right to do so. It’s because those protesters stayed at a distance where they could not be considered a danger.

The Dom Post talks money and morality:

Yesterday The Dominion Post reported that a Napier church had taken at least $20,000 in donations from Whetu Abraham, a rest home resident. Those caring for him had tried to stop the donations, and rest home manager Lucy Dever believes what the Oasis Elim Church has done is unethical, immoral and un-Christian.

Mr Abraham says he gave the money because of his faith, and because of his simple understanding that “you help them, they help you”.

Church pastor Bruce Collingwood says the money was given willingly by Mr Abraham “out of his own heart”, and he was comfortable about taking it after he and Mr Abraham had talked about Mr Abraham’s financial and medical situation.

Others, including the church’s national body, are not.

The relationship between churches and money has been fraught ever since Jesus drove the moneychangers from the temple. …

There is no doubt the money Mr Abraham gave will help the Oasis Elim Church, but churches depend on their moral authority as much as their bank balances. For many, accepting large sums from a sick man who had little to begin with diminishes that authority to near bankruptcy.

And the ODT also praises the All Whites:

Yesterday, much of the nation discovered the round ball belongs to a sport that delivers heroes every bit as outsized as the oval one.

A good portion of the labour force turned up for work emotionally drained, sleep-deprived and running on adrenalin, having just witnessed the best performance – and result – from a New Zealand football side.

The heroics and hyperbole of the 1-1 draw with Slovakia were cast aside as the All Whites took on the might of Italy and held those fancied, fleet-footed, blue-shirted millionaires to a 1-1 draw. …

There is no bigger tournament in world sport than the Fifa World Cup.

To qualify is a mission in itself, full of its own pulsating dramas – witness the fateful decider with Bahrain at Wellington’s Westpac Stadium earlier this year, the Rory Fallon header for goal, the Paston penalty save.

The eyes of the world are upon this tournament as they are no other, even arguably, the Olympics, and in their spectacular form-upending results to date, the All Whites will have had those eyes turning in this direction …

In the lead-up to the tournament, website sbnation.com predicted the All Whites had “as much chance of advancing out of group stage as a paraplegic pig thrown into a tiger pit has of walking out of there unscathed”.

That quote should be read out to the team just before the Paraguay match.

The Press reports:

South Canterbury businessman Allan Hubbard says he is “absolutely gutted” at the Government’s move to take control of his business assets.

“I have done nothing wrong and I’ve got a clear conscience,” the South Island’s richest man said last night.

The Government placed Hubbard, 82, and his wife, Margaret, under statutory management on Sunday, along with seven charitable trusts and Aorangi Securities, which is also under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.

Hubbard is known for his frugal lifestyle and large charitable donations. He told One News that the Government’s action was “totally and utterly unreasonable”.

Allan Hubbard is known almost universally as one of the “good guys”. He has gone beyond what is required to help those who have invested in South Canterbury Finance etc.

However even those with good motives, can make bad decisions – and obviously the Securities Commission feels very strongly that intervention was needed.

Many people will be watching to see what emerges, especially the details of why intervention was needed.