Stuff reports:

Jake Millar, founder of startup businesses Unfiltered and Oompher. has died in Kenya.

Millar set up the business as a teenager and received millions of dollars in investments from high-profile businesspeople. It was estimated to be worth $360 million in 2019.

But it was announced this year that he had sold the business to Crimson Education for $120,000 in cash and shares in a deal that is understood to have upset investors.

Former National Party leader Don Brash was interviewed by Millar as part of the Unfiltered project and has been in regular contact with Millar over the years. He said he was shocked at the news of his death.

“He had visited New Zealand early this year and I’d seen him several times then .,. but clearly things went wrong.”

This is very sad. Jake has immense potential, and has died so very young.

Like many entrepreneurs he had experienced great success and failure. There are few entrepreneurs who do not fail at some stage. Risk is always tied to reward.

Crimson Education chief executive and co-founder Jamie Beaton said he still remembered his first meeting with Millar, a virtual one via Skype in 2013.

“His searing ambitions – to be prime minister, to build transformative companies, to explore life to its fullest – radiated.

“I remember leaving the call feeling totally wowed. New Zealand too often suffocates ambition in its young people, but Jake burned bright. I had never met anyone in New Zealand like Jake Millar.”

Beaton praised Millar’s ability to knock on the doors of some of the most successful people on the planet, such as Virgin founder and billionaire, Richard Branson.

“I bet on Jake and I would keep betting on Jake because with Jake the question is never ‘if’ but ‘when’.”

My condolences to Jake’s family and friends.

Andrew Geddis writes:

I’m not alone in regarding this lawmaking process as being a “constitutional disgrace”, as my VUW colleague Dean Knight has so appositely put it. I mean, let’s go back to the last time we had major legislation put in place to govern the creation of a new system of Covid controls – the enactment of the Covid-19 Public Health Response Act 2020, back in the now-halcyon days of our first national lockdown. At the time, I criticised the “ridiculous speed” with which it became law after the bill had been made available for some comment 18 hours before its introduction and then debated over a full two-day period. Now, having had the chance to reflect on that lawmaking process, the government appears to have decided on a “more cowbell” approach and moved even more quickly when enacting its new Covid-19 Response (Vaccinations Legislation) Bill.

So having abused urgency last time, they are now ramming major law changes through at even greater speed.

Remember, this is a bill that authorises the government to set constraints on who can and cannot take part in large parts of social life for the foreseeable future, that specifically permits it to require people in certain occupations to be vaccinated, and that is going to authorise other workplaces to decide if their employees have to be vaccinated or else lose their jobs. It’s getting pretty close to effectively mandating that people accept a vaccination, even if it isn’t imposing direct penalties on them for not doing so. 

That may well be fine to do. I’m double-vaxxed, my kids are/will be when the age limits shift, and the science is the science. But, still, legislation that allows the state to say “put this in your body or else largely forgo social interactions” is a big step. And it’s one that ought to be taken with due respect; given time for proper scrutiny and debate, with input from an informed public.

Worse of all, those who will lose many rights under this law, are not even being allowed to submit on it. No wonder they become angry and do marches that breach lockdown rules.

Indeed, if you were trying to construct a lawmaking process to set off the conspiracy minded and undermine the social licence needed for success, it would look something like this. Hide the information that’s informed your legislation, introduce it at the very last moment, whip it through the House overnight, and present it as a fait accompli the next day.

Exactly.

A guest article by Graham Adams:

Renowned psychologist Steven Pinker marked the death of his former teacher New Zealander Michael Corballis with a laudatory tweet. NZ’s Royal Society — of which Corballis was a Fellow and recipient of its most prestigious award — still hasn’t hasn’t provided an obituary after putting him under investigation for his views on mātauranga Māori. Graham Adams reports.

After Auckland University emeritus professor Michael Corballis died on November 13, the celebrity scientist and public intellectual Steven Pinker tweeted to his 736,000 followers:

“Sad to learn of the death of cognitive psychologist Michael Corballis, who taught me stats at McGill (I cite his lectures in Rationality) & did brilliant work on handedness, mental rotation, & [evolution] of lang. Also urbane, charming, witty, irreverent.”

The Harvard University professor of psychology expressed similar sentiments last December when Corballis published his autobiography, “Adventures of a Psychologist: Reflections on What Made Up the Mind”, which tracked his brilliant career from growing up on a sheep farm in New Zealand to teaching at McGill University in Canada before returning to Auckland University.

Pinker: “Michael Corballis is among the world’s deepest and most creative cognitive scientists, and he illuminates every subject he takes on with insight, wit, and charm. We’re fortunate that he has stepped back to and applied these gifts to the science of mind.”

Five years ago, the Royal Society of New Zealand thought very highly of Corballis too. In 2016, it awarded him the Rutherford Medal, its most prestigious award, for his work on brain asymmetries, handedness, mental imagery, language, and mental time travel.

The award — named after Ernest Rutherford, our most famous scientist and Nobel laureate, who pioneered the orbital theory of the atom — bestows a medal and prize of $100,000.

In its statement, the awards panel outlined Professor Corballis’s achievements: “He is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Association of Psychological Scientists, the American Psychological Association and the Royal Society of New Zealand.

“He is an Honorary Fellow of the International Neuropsychology Symposium and the New Zealand Psychological Society. He was awarded the Shorland Medal from the New Zealand Association of Scientists in 1999, a James Cook Research Fellowship from the Royal Society of New Zealand in 2000 and the Hunter Award from the New Zealand Psychological Society in 2006.”

The panel also noted: “Professor Corballis has written a string of popular books including: The Lopsided Ape, From Hand to Mouth, The Recursive Mind, Pieces of Mind and The Wandering Mind. These titles have made the latest thinking on difficult topics such as the origins of human language, mental time travel and the question of human uniqueness easily accessible to a broad audience.” 

Some senior academics say Corballis was the best chance Auckland University has ever had to snare a Nobel Prize given that he was arguably the leading authority in the world on left-hemisphere / right hemisphere issues in neuropsychology.

Yet — despite having awarded him the Rutherford Medal — a full fortnight after his death the society had still not written an obituary.

Unfortunately, Corballis had lately been relegated to zero from hero. His crime was effectively one of heresy.

At the time of his death, he was being investigated by the Royal Society — along with two other Fellows, Professors Robert Nola and Garth Cooper — with a view to expulsion.

They were among seven eminent professors who signed a letter published in the Listener in July that objected to mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) being given equal status in the school science curriculum with what an NCEA working group referred to as “Western” science.

The Royal Society quickly denounced the professors: “The recent suggestion by a group of University of Auckland academics that mātauranga Māori is not a valid truth is utterly rejected by Royal Society – Te Apārangi.

“The society strongly upholds the value of mātauranga Māori and rejects the narrow and outmoded definition of science outlined in The Listener letter to the editor. It deeply regrets the harm such a misguided view can cause.”

What was baffling about the society’s statement — apart from the fact it felt moved to make one at all — is that it appeared to be responding to a letter the professors hadn’t actually written.

They never said anything that implied mātauranga Māori isn’t a “valid truth” — whatever that means — but simply that, in their opinion, it isn’t science.

The professors also upheld “the value of mātauranga Māori” in their letter, stating that, “Indigenous knowledge is critical for the preservation and perpetuation of culture and local practices, and plays key roles in management and policy.”

They also acknowledged that “Indigenous knowledge may indeed help advance scientific knowledge” — even if “it is not science”.

The society’s assertion that the professors were using a “narrow and outmoded definition of science” also seems odd given that the society itself didn’t go as far as to claim mātauranga Māori is scientific — even if its statement implies it might be able to be roped into a more expansive and more modish view of science than the one the professors hold.

The society has dropped its charges against Corballis posthumously but Professors Nola and Cooper are still in its sights.

Unsurprisingly, the issue is causing deep divisions within the Royal Society.

The Wellington branch of the society wrote last week on its website (in a post that now appears to have been deleted):

“Our view is that the seven experts gave their professional opinions in good faith and with which nobody is obliged to agree. However, in the subsequent debate they have been accused variously of racism, protection of their privilege and advancing a narrow and outmoded view of science.

“One of them, Professor Douglas Elliffe, has resigned as [acting dean of science]. Whether this action was voluntary or forced upon him is not clear.”

Theoretical chemist Peter Schwerdtfeger added a comment. He is a German scientist, who holds a chair in theoretical chemistry at Massey University in Auckland. He is the Director of the Centre for Theoretical Chemistry and Physics, is the head of the New Zealand Institute for Advanced Study, and is a former president of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, one of Germany’s premier scientific and research institutes.

He was awarded the Rutherford Medal in 2014.

Schwerdtfeger: “This witch hunt against the authors of the Listener article has to stop immediately. And shame on those who are drawing the racist card without even having allowed for a much needed and timely discussion on the involvement of mātauranga Māori in science teaching.

“Many of my colleagues are too scared to speak out because they are attacked by the post-modernist ideologists. As a (yet) Fellow of the Royal Society, I am deeply embarrassed and shocked about this investigation, and perhaps a review of the Royal Society NZ is required to avoid leaving a sizeable stain in their history books.”

It is an open question whether the Royal Society can survive this scandal. Like  other organisations that have abandoned their founding principles for more fashionable standards, oblivion and irrelevance awaits.

As the Wellington branch pointed out, “There can be little doubt the society has breached its own Code of Professional Standards and Ethics toward the seven letter signatories.

“In particular, its Code states that:

1. justice requires that people are treated fairly and equitably
2. respect for persons means respecting an individual’s right to make choices and hold views, and to take actions based on their own values and beliefs
3. duty of care describes the obligations that a reasonable person owes to others who may be affected by their acts or omissions.”

Perhaps what is particularly telling about the nature of this “witch hunt” is that it has been reported that three of the five complainants to the society dropped out when it became clear they would have to be identified for the inquiry to proceed.

It seems they were happy to help damage others’ careers and reputations anonymously but not quite as keen to put their own on the line by coming forward in public.

In contrast, in an interview with Kim Hill on RNZ on Saturday, Pinker made his own position very public.

“Silencing or punishing someone for an opinion runs counter to reason. … No one is infallible; no one is omniscient. The only way our species has been able to do anything worthwhile is by voicing opinions and allowing them to be criticised…

“If you’ve got a regime where merely voicing an opinion gets you silenced or punished then we’ve turned off the only mechanism we have of discovering knowledge. It is a way of locking ourselves into error…

“If we have a regime that can subject someone to an investigation based on an opinion, we know from history that’s the way totalitarian autocracies work and oppressive theocracies work.

“We know that the countries that have done well — the liberal democracies — have had freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry.” Later in the interview, Pinker made it explicit who he was referring to as having been silenced: “My beloved former professor Michael Corballis…”

NewstalkZB reports:

An independent expert group told the Government in September that the borders cannot start to reopen until vaccination coverage was “well over” 90 per cent and the shortfall for Māori was addressed. 

A September 23 letter from Sir Brian Roche, head of the Government’s independent continuous improvement group, also said bolstering testing and contact tracing was an urgent priority, and the Delta outbreak had shown a “very poor level of preparedness of hospitals”. 

So vaccinations were a fail, testing was a fail, contact testing was a fail and hospital preparedness was a fail – but otherwise everything was great!

Roche said more movement across the border was “essential … to address escalating economic and social harms”, including alternatives to MIQ and more saliva testing and rapid antigen testing. 

Roche has previously implored the Government for more widespread use of different testing methods, including in a report from September 2020. 

So 12 months later, still little progress.

Hamish Rutherford reports:

A review into why tens of thousands of households faced power cuts on the coldest night of the year found it only happened because Transpower did not understand how much demand was happy to be shut down. …

On August 9 around 34,000 households had their power turned off, after Transpower instructed local lines companies to shed load to prevent wider outages.

Initially, attention focused on record electricity demand and the behaviour of generators, with thermal power stations operated by Contact and Genesis not running on the evening in question.

Energy Minister Megan Woods initially claimed “commercial decisions” were behind the problem.

So Woods blamed the partially privatised generators and the market.

But a review by former Labour MP Pete Hodgson and technical adviser Erik Westergaard concluded that irrespective of the demand and availability of generation, there was no need for the cuts to happen at all.

“Forced disconnection of household electricity was entirely avoidable,” the report said.

Hodgson and Westergaard found that there was enough “discretionary load” – effectively users prepared to turn off if the system needed it – to cope in the circumstances, but Transpower did not understand what it had at its disposal.

So the fault was entirely with the state owned monopoly.

Will the Minister apologise to the generators?

Newsroom reports:

The Government won’t require businesses to make sure that vaccine certificates are actually legitimate under the traffic light system, leaving the door open to widespread rule-breaking, Marc Daalder reports

Director-General of Health Ashley Bloomfield says the rules of the traffic light system could be circumvented because businesses aren’t required to verify the legitimacy of their patrons’ vaccine passes.

Under the new system, a wide range of venues – from restaurants to pubs to gyms – will have capacity limits if they allow unvaccinated people to enter. Those which require proof of vaccination will generally be able to operate without limitation (except at the red setting, in which they’ll be capped at 100 vaccinated patrons).

The Government released on Tuesday a verifier app that can scan any vaccine pass to determine whether it is legitimate or forged. But businesses won’t be required to use this app and could instead let customers in after only looking at their passes.

All those enterprising students who make fake IDs so people can drink underage will make some good money selling fake vaccine passes.

It seems very stupid to not require businesses to verify the passes.

The Herald reports:

Labour Minister David Clark was sent a key Pfizer letter on June 30 last year, in which the drug company pressed the head of New Zealand’s “vaccine taskforce” to meet and discuss its vaccine candidate.

Taskforce officials, however, were not equipped at the time to begin talks with the drug company, and over six weeks elapsed before a first meeting took place.

The Cabinet finally armed the taskforce with funds both to contract specialist negotiation expertise and to make vaccine purchases on August 10; officials signed a non-disclosure agreement with Pfizer on August 13 and a first meeting with the company took place the following day, on August 14.

Clark, the then Health Minister, refused to answer questions about the letter, including whether he read it at the time and whether he made any effort to hasten the readiness of the taskforce to begin meetings and negotiations with the drug company.

You’re the Minister of Health. You’re in the middle of a global pandemic. The company developing the most promising vaccine wants to meet with your Government, and you do nothing for six weeks. Incredible.

The Government did a significant document dump yesterday. Of course yesterday was Friday, Parliament has risen on Thursday afternoon for a one-week recess before the final sitting block of the year, and most in the media were obsessing over the latest woes within the National Party. It was the perfect time to dump documents!

That was, until Newshub found something:

Newshub can reveal Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield advised the Government “the rest of New Zealand could move to Alert Level 1” back in September. 

The Government dropped a heap of documents related to the COVID-19 Delta outbreak response on Friday, revealing behind-the-scenes advice from the Ministry of Health that informed alert level decisions. 

In a document dated September 12, Dr Bloomfield advised Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and her Cabinet that Auckland could shift to alert level 3 while “the rest of New Zealand could move to Alert Level 1”. 

He advised the shift down the alert levels despite 43 new community cases of COVID-19 announced that day, more than 2260 active cases in the community, and just 63 percent of the eligible population fully vaccinated. 

“I consider that the outbreak in Auckland is becoming contained,” Dr Bloomfield wrote in his advice. “Cabinet could agree to move the rest of the country to Alert Level 1, pending no escalation in Auckland’s COVID-19 risk.”

The Government did not shift the rest of the country to alert level 1, which basically lifts all restrictions except for the border. While it would have been welcome news from hospitality businesses, the rest of New Zealand has been kept at alert level 2. 

The Government did, however, shift Auckland down to alert level 3. 

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2021/11/director-general-of-health-ashley-bloomfield-proposed-rest-of-new-zealand-move-to-alert-level-1-in-september.html

I can remember at the time the PMK making a comment that her Government would only allow a one level difference between Auckland and any other area, including the South Island. That was despite the growing chorus of pleas, especially from areas where there was no Covid, such as the South Island, which had been Covid-free for almost a year!

Now it has been revealed that this was the decision of the Prime Minister and her Cabinet, and counteracted the advice received from her most senior health official and advisor, Dr Ashley Bloomfield, the Director-General of Health. Do the PM and her Ministers think they know more about medical issues than Dr Bloomfield and his team of health professionals from the Ministry of Health?

The consequences of keeping all of New Zealand south of Waikato in Alert Level Two have been significant. Businesses have gone under, especially in the hospitality sector. Numerous events of significance have been cancelled; the Horse of the Year in Hawke’s Bay was cancelled, costing the region an estimated $5 million in revenue. Cup and Show Week in Canterbury went ahead, but without spectators. Dozens of other sporting, cultural and community events have been cancelled, which had the PM and Cabinet accepted Dr Bloomfield’s recommendation, could have taken place. And through it all, people’s wellbeing has suffered.

Could this have been avoided, had the Government followed the advice of Dr Bloomfield and his team? I’m sure, much of it could, but instead businesses have suffered, the level of stress being experienced by business owners around the country has been magnified, and losses incurred during this period will, in all probability, never be recovered.

Sadly, the next opportunity to publicly interrogate the Prime Minister about this will be her post-Cabinet presser on Monday. And of course the major item on the agenda there will be the move to the Traffic Light system at the end of next week. So she and her Ministers are likely to escape scrutiny for a decision which has negatively affected more than two thirds of New Zealand’s population. So much for the Team of Five Million, and Be Kind!

Issues like this, and the report of Sir Brian Roche which was made public yesterday (which was highly critical of the Government’s preparedness for the Delta outbreak) reinforce the need for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Government’s complete response to the Covide-19 pandemic, covering the period from 1 January 2020. The pandemic has been the single most expensive episode in New Zealand’s history, and deserves the intensive, independent scrutiny that a Royal Commission, with wide Terms of Reference would provide. National and Act have already asked for a Royal Commission, but their calls to date have fallen on deaf ears.

Criticism of the Ardern Government has increased markedly in the last six months or so. Could an issue like Cabinet’s “we know best” decision in September actually be a rallying cry for all of those who are dissatisfied with the Government’s handling of the Covid pandemic, and in particular, the ongoing restrictions imposed by a government which has desperately clung to a level of control over its citizens, which even their top medical adviser believed was unjustified?

Kudos to Zane Small from Newshub for making this story public. Is it too much to hope that other media outlets might pick this up, and ask the Prime Minister some very direct questions?

AP report:

Three men were convicted of murder Wednesday in the killing of Ahmaud Arbery, the Black man who was running empty-handed through a Georgia subdivision when the white strangers chased him, trapped him on a quiet street and blasted him with a shotgun.

I don’t know why so many of the left in the US were focused on the Rittenhouse case, rather than this one. On the facts Rittenhouse had a solid defence of self-defence. But this case is very henious.

Arbery’s only crime that day was being black and running. For some reason these three men decided he was a criminal and chased him down in their trucks, confronted him and shot him.

In the Rittenhouse case Rittenhouse was being chased by the men he shot. In this case they were chasing Arbery, and caused the confrontation.

Newshub reports:

The Government is throwing open the borders, first to Kiwis then foreigners. Australia is first, with double vaccinated Kiwis there able to come home from 11:59pm on January 6. 

Kiwis in other countries will be welcome from February 13, and fully vaccinated foreigners can come to New Zealand from April 30. 

Why in God’s name do NZers who have been double vaccinated have to wait almost three more months to be able yo travel home?

Public health experts have told us that they pose less risk to us, than NZers already here.

Labour is the grinch who stole Christmas, from Kiwi families who are seperated.

The latest Newshub-Reid Research poll asked: “Should double vaccinated, negative-tested returning Kiwis be allowed to skip MIQ and isolate at home?”

A very strong majority, 73.1 percent, said yes. Just 19.8 percent said no, and very few didn’t know. 

So only one in five back Labour’s policy.

“That is the sort of thing that could potentially see an exponential growth in cases,” Hipkins said. “As we do this, there’ll be significantly more movement at the border.”

As not a single vaccinated traveler from Australia has tested positive in the last three months, and we already have 4,000 active cases of Covid-19 here, talking of an exponential growth in cases is hysterical bullshit.

This week on My Patreon:

• Monday: Exclusive Poll Results: Are NZers estimating risk of Covid-19 correctly
• Tuesday: Ipsos on the issues
• Friday: Why caucus rolled Collins

If you want to cheer yourself up, read the replies to this tweet as it gets mocked ruthlessly.

The fact that an actual human being thought they needed to apologise for this is sad.

We now have over 2,000 votes in the Kiwiblog reader survey for preferred leader and deputy leader for National. The results are:

Leader

1. Christopher Luxon 26.4%
2. Shane Reti 21.7%
3. Simon Bridges 18.2%
4. Mark Mitchell 7.4%
5. Chris Bishop 6.9%
6. Nicola Willis 6.7%
7. Erica Stanford 2.8%
8. Chris Penk 1.5%
9. Maureen Pugh 1.1%
10. Andrew Bayly 1.0%
11. Simon O’Connor 0.9%
12. Melissa Lee 0.8%
13. Gerry Brownlee 0.8%
14. Ian McKelvie 0.8%
15. Simeon Brown 0.6%
16. Todd Muller 0.5%
17. Harete Hipango 0.3%
18. Paul Goldsmith 0.3%
19. Nicola Grigg 0.2%
20. Michael Woodhouse 0.2%
21. Matt Doocey 0.2%
22. David Bennett 0.1%
23. Jacqui Dean 0.1%
24. Todd McClay 0.1%
25. Joseph Mooney 0.1%
26. Penny Simmonds 0.1%
27. Scott Simpson 0.1%
28. Barbara Kuriger 0.1%
29. Simon Watts 0.1%

Deputy Leader

1. Nicola Willis 31.3%
2. Erica Stanford 17.3%
3. Shane Reti 17.1%
4. Chris Bishop 6.6%
5. Christopher Luxon 5.2%
6. Simon Bridges 3.8%
7. Mark Mitchell 2.8%
8. Melissa Lee 1.7%
9. Simeon Brown 1.4%
10. Chris Penk 1.3%
11. Andrew Bayly 1.2%
12. Gerry Brownlee 1.2%
13. Nicola Grigg 1.2%
14. Paul Goldsmith 1.1%
15. Simon O’Connor 0.9%
16. Louise Upston 0.8%
17. Harete Hipango 0.8%
18. Maureen Pugh 0.7%
19. Jacqui Dean 0.6%
20. Todd Muller 0.6%
21. Barbara Kuriger 0.5%
22. Ian McKelvie 0.5%
23. Michael Woodhouse 0.3%
24. Matt Doocey 0.2%
25. Penny Simmons 0.2%
26. Scott Simpson 0.2%
27. Todd McClay 0.2%
28. Joseph Mooney 0.2%
29. Stuart Smith 0.2%
30. David Bennett 0.1%
31. Simon Watts 0.1%

So the six most popular choices for Leader are Luxon, Reti, Bridges, Mitchell, Bishop and Willis.

The four most popular for Deputy Leader are Willis, Stanford, Reti and Bishop.

In terms of potential combinations, the most popular combinations were

1. Luxon/Willis 11.2%
2. Reti/Willis 8.3%
3. Luxon/Stanford 5.4%
4. Bridges/Willis 4.7%
5. Luxon/Reti 4.7%
6. Reti/Stanford 4.2%
7. Bridges/Stanford 3.9%
8. Bridges/Reti 3.3%
9. Bishop/Willis 2.9%
10. Willis/Reti 2.8%
11. Mitchell/Willis 2.5%

So the preferred combination are Luxon/Willis followed by Reti/Willis and Luxon/Stanford

On Tuesday we’ll find out who caucus picks.

A guest post by David Garrett:

For anyone under 50 it is difficult to imagine the degree to which unions controlled the country during the 1970’s. Tell anyone in their thirties that almost without fail, every school and Christmas holidays one transport union or another paralyzed the country with strikes, and they think that at best you are grossly exaggerating matters, and at worst, simply making stuff up. I recently had cause to review a case which brought it all back to me.

 Cook Island Shipping v. Colson Builders [1975] I NZLR 422 involved the shipment of pre-fabricated building trusses from Whangarei to the Cook Islands for the construction of a new airport hangar. This was to be the first voyage of the Lorena, a Norwegian ship brought to New Zealand by a Norwegian crew, including a male cook and the wife of the Chief Engineer. That’s where the trouble started.

In 1971 the Cooks & Stewards Union were one of the most powerful unions in the country. Every holiday, almost without fail, they shut down the Cook Strait ferries, effectively cutting the country in half. They would go on strike for any pretext. If they weren’t striking, it was the seamen, or the union representing the officers. Without members of all unions working, the ships could not sail. But back to the Lorena.

After arriving in Auckland, the vessel was to proceed to Whangarei to load the building materials referred to above. As was the custom of the time, the Cooks & Stewards Union demanded that the Norwegian cook immediately be replaced by a member of their union. That in itself can hardly be objectionable; how they went about trying to replace the cook is almost unbelievable in 2021.

The Cooks & Stewards first tried to stop the ship sailing with the assistance of the Seamen’s Union, but relations between the two unions at that time were not good (unions often fought among themselves in the 70’s). So the Lorena arrived at Whangarei with the Norwegian cook and stewardess on board. The Cooks & Stewards were not prepared to let the matter rest, and I now quote verbatim from the judgment:

“…there arrived at the wharf two motorcars carrying a total of eight delegates from the Cooks & Stewards Union. They were in a belligerent mood. They were also in an advanced state of intoxication. Their first move to achieving settlement of the dispute [the judge must have had his tongue in cheek writing that] was to challenge Mr Harry Julian [the ship’s owner] to personal combat”

So, a bunch of pissed up union thugs arrive and immediately challenge the owner of the ship to a scrap. As the Judge wryly observed:

“Mr Julian was a veteran of industrial confrontation…he diplomatically avoided that initial phase of negotiations (sic.), and managed to persuade the delegates to discuss the matter more in harmony with the concept of industrial conciliation.”

The issue was somewhat complicated by the fact that the Norwegian stewardess was married to the Chief Engineer, and shared his cabin. While the Norwegian cook could be replaced by a New Zealander, the replacement of the stewardess would have required immediate rearrangement of the sleeping quarters, and the provision of a separate cabin for the New Zealand steward. The report again wryly notes that “Mr Julian agreed to pay some hundreds of dollars to the union representing the pay of a New Zealand steward for a month as an interim solution”. But that was not the end of the matter; again quoting from the judgment:

“In order to protect their interim position the Cooks & Stewards attempted to form a picket line on the wharf but this decision happened to coincide with the afternoon tea break of the watersiders, and no effective picket line could be formed.”

To those of us familiar with the milieu of the times one can deduce from reading between the lines that the watersiders weren’t on good terms with the Cooks & Stewards either, and the fomer  told the latter to fuck off when they tried to form a picket line on “their” wharf.

This case tells us a great deal of what industrial relations looked like when the unions had the kind of power they would just love to have again. It tells us that it was unremarkable for two carloads of pissed up union thugs to arrive and immediately threaten the ship’s owner with a scrap. It tells us that relations between unions were somewhat like alliances in the Balkan wars of more than a century ago; extremely fluid and often highly confrontational.

To those who think the above kind of bullshit was a relic of the 70’s I can assure you it was not. During a lull in oil drilling in early 1983, I took a job on the construction of the methanol plant in Taranaki. I became a delegate for the Engineers Union as it then was. It was only that which saved a demarcation dispute when I unthinkingly moved a strop out of the way – that was “rigger’s work”, and had it been anyone other than a union delegate doing it, a stoppage would probably have occurred. Because of the ever changing relations between unions, “demarcation” disputes happened all the time, frequently resulting in a stoppage of work.

So back to the present. Labour intends to introduce what they are calling “fair pay agreements” which are little more than the old National Awards in drag. If they come to pass, as they probably will, they will immediately result in more union power than has been seen since the Employment Contracts Act was introduced in 1991. You can be sure that flinty eyed ideologues such as Andrew Little are positively salivating at the thought of the “brothers” – or I suppose in these quite different times the brothers and sisters – having the power to blackmail a ship owner (that month’s pay Mr Julian paid as a bribe was probably the equivalent of $10-12,000 or so today) in order to enable him, the ship owner, to meet his contractual obligations.

I believe I have said here before that unions most definitely have their place. As a onetime delegate for both the Labourers Union and the Engineers at different times ten years apart, I have seen both the best and the worst of unionism. If we end up with them having the kind of power they had in 1975 we will be in a very sorry place.

As we did last time there was a vacancy in the National leadership, we’re running an unscientific survey to see who are the preferred candidates of Kiwiblog readers.

The last I heard is there are at least four potential candidates for Leader and even more for Deputy Leader. To make sure we don’t miss out anyone who may stand, we’re listing every National MP except the immediate past Leader. You can vote for Leader and Deputy Leader at this link, or embedded below.

Vote early, vote once and I’ll publish the results in due course.

It is sad to see Judith Collins ends her leadership in such a messy way, even if partially self-inflicted.

Judith took over the leadership at a horrible time. The sense of crisis in National at having had a newly elected leader resign 55 days after being elected and just before an election was massive. Everyone was in shock, and it was clear that Judith was the only sensible option as leader.

She actually handled the election period very well. Her handling of the Falloon issue was near perfect. She beat Jacinda Ardern in one (inarguably) or two (arguably) of the debates. Any unforced errors from her (such as obesity) were minor compared to errors from other and the poor election result wasn’t a refection on her. If she hadn’t taken over the leadership, National could have had a worse result in 2020 than ever 2002.

Since then she did help clean up some issues of poor culture around the party, and in recent months stopped the once weekly torrent of leaks from caucus. There has also been some very good policy work under her leadership.

The last few months, and definitely the last few days, didn’t see Judith at her best and the removal by caucus was not surprising. But we should acknowledge her many contributions both as leader, and as a Minister.

Multiple media are reporting that Judith Collins has been rolled as the National Party Leader.

This seems confirmed. What is not yet clear is who is leader. Some media are saying Shane Reti will be Acting Leader until next week when caucus will vote between Mark Mitchell and Christopher Luxon.

I can understand caucus wants a bit of time to consider who should be the next leader, but personally I would try and resolve it earlier and maybe have another caucus tomorrow.

The National caucus is having an emergency meeting at 9 am today.

This will be the first time I can recall when caucus will be potentially voting on a new leader but we don’t even know who is standing.
Anything could happen from Collins remaining leader to Ian McKelvie becoming leader as everyone likes him!

Stuff reports:

Speaker Trevor Mallard has lashed the Labour Government for its urgent passing of Covid-19 “traffic light system” legislation, though he has allowed the law to be passed.

The Government on Wednesday passed legislation that would seriously curb the freedoms of unvaccinated people, in a 24-hour session of urgent lawmaking to ensure the Covid-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill was in place for December 3, when the new “traffic light system” of Covid-19 restrictions will come into force.

Opposition MPs, legal experts and the Human Rights Commission have all condemned the move as poor lawmaking, and law professors have questioned the Government’s broad drafting of the law.

“There has not been a more important piece of legislation passed by Parliament this year, yet we’ve done it in 24 hours without consultation,” Victoria University law professor Dr Dean Knight said.

It’s the second or third worst use of urgency in the last 25 years.

On Wednesday afternoon, as the bill headed into a third and final debate in the House, Mallard said the Government, and wider House, had failed to better scrutinise the bill.

“Urgency of this type used to be common. It isn’t any more for good reason, it resulted in bad law,” he said.

Mallard suggested the Government could have taken a day for each of the bill’s three readings, and included a shortened select committee process to hear public submissions in between.

He said the Government, which announced its plans for a “traffic light system” in October, should have made public its policy decision, legal drafting instructions and early drafts of the bill.

Very rare for a Speaker to condemn the Government like this, but quite justified on this occassion.