Winston appears to be back where he started – as I recall 1989: fighting defamation but this time it’s a chap who runs a different sort of business to that in which Selwyn Cushing was involved. (1)
And then there was the incident involving Siminovich Fisheries – early Twenty First century.
At a point in time after my nine years in parliament, when I was a shareholding director of a Vela Group company and Winston Peters said utterances deemed to have been defamatory by Peter Simunovich and Vaughan Wilkinson, (2) I was “called back” from Australia by Philip Vela to; “sort the problem”.
I did. I obtained a written apology from Winston and gave that to Simunovich CEO Vaughan Wilkinson who then ran the apology on TVNZ.
That the apology was made known appeared to really upset Winston and it set a barrier between Winston and Simu. I was in the middle.
This was a barrier which “others” presumably did not take into account, when the false allegations of corrupt practice were made in what became known as, the Scampi Affair.
This time however, Winston was on the other side, claiming defamation of his character. Ironically, he was on the same side as Simunovich – but not as a joint plaintiff.
The culmination of this saga for Simunovich, resulted in NZ Heald capitulating and TVNZ failing to sustain its false allegation, resulting substantial damages. (3)
Today, it seems as if Winston has another issue with alleged defamation – this time potentially as a defendant against claims being made by Mongrel mob Leader, Mr Tam. (5)
As I have a “rapport” with a gang leader – Head Hunters – (4), perhaps I might be “called back to sort the problem?”
Always willing to help.
PS “Rapport” defined in the circumstances of the video means:
“I was accepted as a guest speaker to address the issue: “Rule of police” v “Rule of law.”
It should not be misconstrued in any shape or form to imply that I am involved with” gangs” (although some would say Red Squad was a “gang”) or that I have sympathy – although I do have an in depth understanding of how gangs evolve and perpetuate – as a result of twenty-one years front line exposure as a cop and from academic studies.
Ross Meurant, graduate in politics both at university and as a Member of Parliament; formerly police inspector in charge of Auckland spies; currently Honorary Consul for an African state’ Trustee and CEO of Russian owned commercial assets in New Zealand and has international business interests.
Holmes and I were sitting enjoying a quiet pipe at 221B Baker Street on a cold winter afternoon when we heard a knock on the front door. A muted conversation could be heard, followed by Mrs Hudson presenting herself at our sitting room door and informing Mr Holmes that a Dr Dusty Rose-Paddock wished to have an urgent interview with him at the earliest possible moment.
“Well,” said Holmes, “There is nothing pressing engaging us at the moment so please, Mrs Hudson, show him up”. A well-dressed gentleman was shown in and Holmes introduced us. “Now, Dr Rose-Paddock” said Holmes, “Please inform us of this urgent matter upon which you wish to consult us”.
“Well, Mr Holmes, I am most grateful for you agreeing to see me. I wonder if you could assist me in solving a most pressing problem? I am a medical man. My interest is infectious diseases. I occupy an important position in a large government department. What I have to say to you is top secret and must remain strictly confidential. It is no exaggeration to say that the very survival of the state as we know it is at stake”.
“Rest assured’’ said Holmes, “Anything you say to us we will go no further”.
Dr Rose-Paddock took a deep breath and said, “It is like this. There has been an outbreak of an infectious disease in government departments and amongst the government executive. As best we can tell the disease has been caused by a small microbe, just recently identified as Bacillus incompetens. It causes a disease called incompetitis. There is as yet no effective treatment”.
Watson,” Holmes interjected, “Have you heard of this microbe and its’ disease?”
“No,” I replied, “It must be something new”.
“Indeed it is” continued Dr Rose-Paddock. “The origin of the disease remains open to question but it may have originated in the miasma which frequently hangs in the air in government committee rooms. The symptoms occur after an incubation period of some 5 days or so and is manifest by an increasing level of bureaucratic incompetence, combined with a compulsive desire to make public announcements to the media and a refusal to accept any reasonable advice. The condition may progress to death. It is clear from the cases so far that the risk of severe disease and fatality is directly related to the level of incompetence of the individual prior to infection. Highly incompetent individuals are highly likely to develop severe symptoms and die. Very competent individuals at the most develop a mild illness lasting a few days and recover fully. I speak confidentially, Mr Holmes and Dr Watson, but most government employees at a high level are incompetent to a greater rather than a lesser degree. Regrettably, this applies to Ministers and, unfortunately, our Prime Minister. In an effort to control the disease we have quarantined nearly all of the government executive and the Prime Minister has been confined to the Beehive for the last week. We had hoped that case numbers would drop and indeed amongst the cohort considered most likely to develop the disease these numbers have tended to reduce. Our problem is that we now have mystery cases. These are cases that appear to have had no contact with any of the infected members of the executive or government. Worryingly various journalists and television commentators have developed the disease. The mode of transmission from the government executive and government bureaucracy to members of the media remains a complete mystery. It is absolutely vital, Mr Holmes, that we find the mode of transmission and stop it. Therefore, I have been asked to approach you to see if you would investigate and assist us.”
Holmes refilled his pipe, “Well, Dr Rose-Paddock, the case certainly has aspects of interest and I shall investigate forthwith, assisted by my colleague Dr Watson.”
Dr Rose-Paddock’s relief was palpable and he explained that pressure of work made it necessary for him to excuse himself immediately.
After he left Holmes looked at me and said, “Watson, what did you observe?” I replied that Dr Rose-Paddock seemed a perfectly decent sort of chap and obviously very worried.
“Yes,” said Holmes, “But did you not notice the Saville Row suit, the handmade silk shirt, the gold Rolex and the Lobb shoes? Dr Rose-Paddock is a man of considerable means, highly unusual for a civil servant, even one occupying a senior position.”
When I started writing this, it didn’t have my name on it. Why? To protect my career, to protect my family, to try and protect myself from the online harassment, bullying, smears, and lies currently being spread by supporters of sex self-ID in New Zealand. Specifically, some Green and Labour MPs and the gender ideology activists that support them.
But that’s changed because I will no longer hide while Beth Johnson, Daphna Whitmore, Ro Edge, and other courageous women from Speak Up For Women (SUFW) and Save Women’s Sports Australasia continue be the targets of sexist and misogynistic attacks, mistruths, and defamatory comments, which they have endured for three years. Why? Because they think that sometimes biological sex matters in life and in law and that women and girls’ sex-based spaces, facilities, services, sports, and opportunities should be protected.
It sounds like the dullest of dull pieces of government business. It is anything but. This SOP will remove the current Family Court process for changing sex on a person’s birth certificate and instead allow any person to be able to change their sex by self-declaration, without any verification of their authenticity or legitimacy.
In 2019, the Select Committee tried to slip in sex self-ID after public consultation on the Bill had closed. That was stopped by Hon Tracey Martin after she received Crown Law advice that raised a number of policy and legal issues. This time, in their attempt to get sex self-ID through with the least possible attention, the Select Committee opened and closed consultation in less than three weeks (NZ standard 4-6 weeks, in the UK the consultation period on the equivalent legislation was four months). The entire public consultation period was while the country was in a COVID-19 lockdown.
Despite this over 6,600 submissions were received and initial analysis is that approximately 70% of submitters are opposed to the sex self-ID proposals in the SOP.
Regardless of your views on sex self-ID, Labour and Green MPs are harming democracy
Select Committees are supposed to be a place where MPs across Parliament listen to members of the public and genuinely seek to make laws better, or at least understand peoples’ views on proposed legislation. It is often the only opportunity the public have to be included in the law making process. Information about appearing before a Select Committee on Parliament’s website states, “Making an oral submission to a Select Committee at Parliament doesn’t need to be an intimidating experience, even if it’s your first time,” “Don’t feel nervous” and “Everyone here is really interested in what you have to say.”
During her submission Deborah Russell and Rachel Boyack can be seen openly smirking and laughing. When it came to questions, Ms. Johnson wasn’t asked a single question about the content of SUFW’s submission or the concerns it raised. Instead Deborah Russell, Elizabeth Kerekere, and Rachel Boyack challenged SUFWs right to submit, asserted her submission was “transphobic”, and grilled Ms. Johnson about whether she knew about the Women’s Refuge transgender policy for reasons that remain unclear.
This wasn’t a one-off. As people spoke to their submissions that entire day Deborah Russell, Elizabeth Kerekere, Rachel Boyack, and Louisa Wall gushed over and praised submitters who support of sex self-identification and lectured, patronized, belittled, and sneered at those who oppose it. And then came this Facebook post…
Let’s unpack what Dr Kerekere says here:
She infers that anyone opposing either the Conversion Therapy or BDMRR sex-self ID SOP wants people in the rainbow community to be hurt;
She states that groups opposing sex self-ID are “anti-trans hate groups”;
She then posts a link to an article about SUFW’s oral submission and a screenshot that clearly shows the name and photo of Beth Johnson, a private citizen, making her a target of harassment and abuse; and
Says anyone who opposes sex self-ID are “haters” and “transphobic” who deny the humanity of trans people.
As per usual, Dr Kerekere talks about “misinformation and debunked research” but she has never, not once, provided a detailed rebuttal to support her claims. Instead she retreats back to simply representing any concerns that she doesn’t like as “transphobic” in an attempt to shut down discussion and debate, and intimidate others from engaging in democracy.
Not only is the use of her platform as an MP to bully members of the public breath taking but so is the cognitive dissonance given that in her own thesis she states on page 82 that: “There is not yet evidence that Maori had diverse gender identities or that takatapui played specific roles in pre-colonial times”. This post was followed up by Deborah Russell who, on Twitter a few days later, shared her view that people submitting to the Select Committee (presumably those saying things she didn’t like) should just f*ck off.
Dr Russell later tried to back pedal claiming that the tweet had been in reference to a specific submitter commenting on her turning off her camera one minute into their submission so she could stretch her back. But that clearly isn’t the case.
Politicians are quick to lament peoples’ lack of participation in democracy, be it voting in elections, being involved in political parties, or being part of the law-making process. Well why would they bother when some MPs hold people with views they don’t like with such public contempt? I know at least two women who submitted on this SOP who intended to submit in person that have now withdrawn because they do not feel up to facing the malice, condescension, and hostility that they know they will likely receive from these Labour and Green MPs. Another has asked her husband to do her submission on her behalf as she believes he will be treated better as a man than she will be. Sadly, she is correct. Every person that I have watched MPs treat with hostility and contempt has been female.
It should not take bravery to participate in democracy. It should not take great courage to spend five minutes in front of a Select Committee and talk about a proposed law. And no citizen should ever have to fear an MP using their social media platform to name, attack, and bully them because they express an opposing view.
The facts the Labour and the Green MPs don’t want people to know
There is already a process through the Family Court for people to change the sex on their birth certificate. This process balances the interests of people who have taken significant steps to live life as the opposite sex with safeguarding by requiring evidence from an independent third party.
Currently a person who wishes to change the sex on their birth certificate is not required to pay any fee, has access to a dedicated email address for support, does not need a lawyer, and does not need to appear in court. The one thing that is asked of them is evidence that they have taken medical and other steps (not necessarily surgery) to live as the opposite sex and intend to continue to do so.
I, and everyone else I know who opposes sex self-ID, support this process. What we do not support is any person, for any reason, being able to change their birth certificate to state they were born the opposite sex based on nothing more than their own self-declaration.
If you want to understand what the concerns with this SOP are, please read on. These are excerpts taken from my written submission. These are the people and the extreme ideology that Elizabeth Kerekere and her MP “allies” think deserve more priority and protection than women and girls.
SOP 59 will protect criminal offenders and distort public discourse and records
[Note: in the below I use sex-based pronouns for male sexual offenders – as they are male crimes]
In one of the most heinous crimes of recent times in New Zealand, Shane (Ashley) Winter kidnapped, tortured and murdered Dimetrius Pairama. Her torture included being stripped naked and having her genitals burned by a makeshift blow torch. The media repeatedly and consistently referred to Winter as a “woman” and “she” or “her” intentionally misleading the public to believe that this barbaric and horrific crime was committed by a woman and a man. In fact it was committed by two males, with Winter being the ringleader.
And Winter is not the only male offender in New Zealand to claim that he “identifies” as a woman. There are also (among others), most consistently referred to in media reports as women and/or she/her:
Alex Aleti Seu, who identifies as a woman, was convicted in 2017 of indecent assault and sexual violation. Seu used his “female” penis to sexually violate his victim to the point that he inflicted severe rectal injuries. Seu has had parole denied multiple times due to his very high risk of reoffending and sexual deviant lifestyle and sexual compulsivity;
Pierre John Parsons rendered a 12-year-old girl unconscious, stole her clothes for his own cross-dressing purposes, then raped her. He was recently caught with child sexual abuse material and blames his “gender issues” for much of his offending; and
Shelley Lee Williams has over 60 convictions. In 2019 Williams was granted parole “given the difficulties of the prison setting for her” as a result of identifying as transgender. Williams time on parole was short lived when after two months he went on a crime spree that included sexually assaulting a police officer.
Under this SOP, every single rapist (or any other male offender for that matter) in New Zealand would be entitled to change his sex to “female” on his birth certificate and be recognized as such. This would not be a change with no ramifications. Instead, it would result in Corrections being required to house them in a female prison as per their policy that states“If staff have a copy of the birth certificate that specifies the prisoner’s sex, the prisoner must be placed in a prison that manages prisoners of the sex specified on the birth certificate” [emphasis Corrections].
This legislation gives predatory males access to some of the most vulnerable women in New Zealand, as well as reduced security as there are no maximum security female prisons in New Zealand. This is because there are very few female prisoners who have been convicted of violent crimes. Instead, the overwhelming majority are known to have suffered from severe and significant male violence in their lives.
Under current policy it would also result in any future crimes they commit being recorded as being committed by a woman, significantly distorting sex-based crime statistics. For example, as of December 2020 there were zero (0) females in prison for rape.
For every male who is enabled by this SOP to state he is female and is subsequently convicted of rape or other sexual crimes or homicides, there will be an exponential increase in the number of “female” rapists, sexual offenders, and/or murderers in New Zealand.
The public have a right to know the truth about crime, and accurate sentencing and reporting is necessary for a cohesive and functioning democracy.
International evidence already demonstrates the dangers of allowing self-ID
In the UK since the introduction of self-ID the prevalence of sexual abuse by “female” offenders has increased by 84%. The media reported the increase, but consistently failed to mention that these statistics, by virtue of self-ID, were now distorted by the inclusion of male sex offenders who “identify” as female.
Additionally, as in New Zealand, the UK media consistently now report violent sexual crimes perpetrated by men as being committed by women. As Nicole Williams of Fair Play for Women states, Obscuring male-pattern crime only benefits one group; and it’s never the victims… Why bother to collect data that can’t be used for its intended purpose or claims to be something it isn’t? Bad data is worse than having no data at all. Statistics should inform not confuse.’
Other impacts of sex self-ID internationally are also consistently undermining the rights of women and girls to sex-segregated spaces and services. For example:
In September, Sophie Grace Chappell, a transgender activist campaigning for self ID law in the UK stated, in response to a question about the risk of women being murdered if males were allowed to self-ID into their spaces: “It wouldn’t matter if there was a slight spike because these things can be fixed.” Let me repeat that. According to one of the UK’s leading proponents for sex self-ID it wouldn’t matter if there was a slight spike in women being murdered as a result of legislating to allow males into their spaces because murdered women can somehow be fixed;
In August 2021, the Telegraph reported that it had analysed policies from over 20 NHS Trusts, and found that they have issued guidance specifying that patients can choose the ward, toilets, and shower that align with their “gender identity”. Those who complain have been labelled “transphobic.” One hospital group withdrew medical treatment from female patients who did not accept males being placed on women-only wards. A mental health trust has suggested that women who object should be put in seclusion and long-term segregation. Guidance also states that male sex offenders are to be placed on women-only wards if they choose and that, “risk should be managed”. Nurses who object have reportedly lost their jobs and staff are now too scared to raise safeguarding issues;
In 2021 California passed a law requiring that prison inmates be housed in the prison of the sex of their “choice” regardless of their crimes, including the rape and murder of women. Female inmates have been reported as being “terrified” and reported sleeping in shifts to try and protect themselves from male violent sexual offenders. Following the reported pregnancy of one inmate, prisons have now started distributing condoms as a response to the inevitable result of placing male rapists into female prisons;
In the UK women’s refuges have lost funding from councils for declining to allow male-bodied people who self-identify as women into their spaces in order to preserve the emotional and physical safety of women and children who have suffered male violence.
And those are just a few of the many occurrences that proves how enshrining sex self-ID in policy, practice, and law prioritises male privilege and entitlement over female safety, dignity, fairness, privacy, and lived reality.
It is not “hateful” or “transphobic” to be concerned about the real-world impacts of legislating gender ideology into New Zealand law. It is not hateful to say that women and girls (females) are entitled to services, spaces, and facilities that exclude males (and the reverse), no matter how they identify. And no MP should ever use their position or platform to intimidate, belittle, or besmirch people trying to engage in our democratic process in good faith.
Stuff has an article (first in a series) on the issue of whether or not child support payments from fathers should be used to offset the cost of the DPB paid to their mothers. There are pros and cons to both the status quo, and the mooted change.
But you would not get to understand any of those pros and cons from the article. Every single person quoted in it is in favour of changing the law. There are eight people quoted in the article and all eight support a change. There was presumably no attempt made to get comment from someone who supports the status quo.
Ideology is different. The imperative is not what works but what is philosophically anointed. The Health and Disability System Review does not advocate abolishing the DHBs. It proposes collapsing some into larger ones, and giving them more central direction about what they should be achieving. Which is actually all the postcode argument calls for: a tilt towards more centrally directed co-ordination, not a new monolith.
The review was a substantial sounding of opinion and experience, and contained numerous interesting initiatives, many centred around local solutions for local needs. It did not recommend the Government’s creed of central control.
It is far from obvious that monoliths deliver the best public services, and no rationale for having one arises from the process to date. If there is any rationale beyond socialistic worship of state health hegemony, the Government would do well to identify it.
Labour certainly loves centralisation – polytechs, water, hospitals, national awards etc. The one thing in common is greater power to the centre.
Stunning admission from Caroline McElnay: She says 170-180 cases would put pressure on the contact tracing system. MoH has insisted for months (in the face of expert criticism and basic maths) that they have capacity for 1000 cases a day. #nzpol#Covid19#Covid19nz
— Marc Daalder ? Wear a Mask, Scan QRs, Vaccinate (@marcdaalder) October 14, 2021
This is very concerning as it is quite possible daily cases will be at that level in a fortnight or so. The slower contacting tracing is, the more community transmission there is, the more cases you have etc etc and it becomes a vicious circle.
There is no excuse for the lack of capacity. The Associate Minister of Health herself did the review (before she was an MP) stating we needed this capacity. Ministers should have been demanding reassurance on a regular basis that the capacity was there.
After boosters, elderly Israelis who are fully inoculated have just one fiftieth of the chance of COVID death compared to unvaccinated people in the same age bracket.
According to Health Ministry data for the last seven days of September, there were 6.43 daily deaths per 100,000 Israelis aged 60-plus. For older people who were vaccinated three times, the average was 0.13.
The statistics indicate that the shift from a two-shot to a three-shot regime has saved many lives. When elderly Israelis who are vaccinated twice get their third shot, they eliminate eleven-twelfths of the risk of death.
The daily deaths over the last seven days of September for the double vaccinated elderly was 1.5, compared to the 0.13 figure for the triple vaccinated.
Basically being double vaccinated reduces the chance of death by 75% but a booster shot reduces it further to 98% for over 60s.
We should start rolling out booster shots to any over 60s whose first two shots were over six months ago. Doing so will save lives.
“No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear. For fear being an apprehension of pain or death, it operates in a manner that resembles actual pain…”- Edmund Burke.
Kiwis are being robbed. Politics and the media are the accomplices. Do not underestimate how effective the weapon of fear is in these hands. In more normal times this Government would be struggling to register in the polls such is the incompetence, lack of delivery and arrogance. By any measure, only the most stubbornly loyal would, in non-Covid times, be willing to support such an utterly dismal performance. But fear “robs the mind…. of reasoning”.
The failure of this Labour Government in almost every area of its administration has no parallel in our history. Despite an 19% drop in support Ms Ardern and her motley crew are hanging on to over 40% in the last poll. Here is why. It’s the female, fear vote. Research in the US by the women’s oriented group, Leanin.org shows that during Covid “women are more than twice as likely as men to be experiencing physical symptoms of severe anxiety, such as a racing heartbeat (25% vs. 11%). More than half (52%) of women are having sleep issues, compared to about a third (32%) of men”.
Labour is supported by 50% more women than it is men. Take away the ‘fear’ factor and Labour would poll at 30% or less. The fear factor is highlighted every day. Ardern and Hipkins talk big numbers, threaten lockdowns, leverage the fear factor. They have their little band of media hungry, publicity seeking, “experts” to supply the bullets(when else would non-descript modellers ever get in the news) and a compliant media with its well-greased palm faithfully headlining fearful numbers every day.
Here is something weird. Fear and love, the dominant emotions are fuelled by the same hormone, oxytocin. They work together well. One leader does the fear, frowny face, scary numbers, “I reject…”, bad news and one leader with the boyish face, the ready smile, the funny one-liners does more positives. Now the oxytocin is flowing. Those feminine instincts are alerted.
Fear comes in many forms. Today a media cartoon appears with Judith Collins pictured on the edge of a knife. It is not funny nor is it subtle unless you want to convey something about knives and hurting people. It is the umpteenth cartoon featuring Collins negatively.
Even longstanding National supporters are becoming convinced that Collins has failed and can no longer lead the party. They fear she could lose an election. Fear is robbing them of their reasoning. Watching Collins deliver National’s Covid recovery plan showed a very capable, strong, focused leader, confident in her own skin, relaxed, unflustered, happy and in control. Those who know her well are convinced she is Prime Ministerial material. Yet somehow that fear of another term with an unbelievably incompetent lot in control driven by young, immature, inexperienced journo’s aided by their artful editors is undermining the reasoning powers.
English was targeted – he had no charisma. Bridges was targeted – he couldn’t speak properly. Muller targeted himself. Collins has a huge target on her back, such is the anxiety her capabilities could outshine Jacinda’s. Swap Collins and the target moves too.
Knowledge conquers fear. Let the light shine in the darkness. Get the message out. Blogs cannot do it on their own. A new medium for reaching beyond TV1 news, Shortland Street and Breakfast is needed. An appeal to reason.
Our electorate is so dumbed down, so poorly equipped to think critically and to reason strategically that National needs to be straddling the centre. It has to package its message to attract middle New Zealand. Fear needs to be turned on its head. Fear that drives positive outcomes. Fear that low, failing education results create a bigger pool for gangs that raid your house, terrorise your street, feed drugs to your kids. But here is a policy that halts that trend.
Fear that your kids and grandkids will never get home to hug you, celebrate a milestone, support you when Pop passes on. But here is a policy that opens our borders.
Fear that covering the land in non-harvested trees kills jobs for your kids and destroys exports. But here is a policy that stops subsidising offshore tree planters.
Fear that hospitals without top quality nurses means suffering and limited service. But here is a policy that reinvigorates the health sector.
Fear that kindness without positive action is actually, cruelty.
Lockdown can be depressing. Depression is fertile ground for fear. Fear when there is no hope of something better emerging drives depression even deeper. It is time for strong, positive, uplifting messages conveyed to the electorate more strategically. Messages that stimulate oxytocin, especially female oxytocin.
A Nelson residential school for girls with high needs says it’s not their fault they have just three students.
They had 70 students a decade ago. To go from 70 to 3 will not be just bad luck,
Salisbury School is the only residential special school in New Zealand for girls. In 2012, Hekia Parata tried to close the school but was stopped by the court.
The school was set to be closed again before the then-new Labour Government saved it in 2017.
A decade ago the school had 70 students but that’s declined rapidly in recent years. Various changes have been made to enrolment criteria and processes but none seem to have made much difference.
The school is funded for 20 students and received almost $3 million in Government funding last year.
So because Labour put politics ahead of education, we have $3 million a year being spent on a school for three pupils. It’s like the Yes Minister episode about the hospital with no patients.
This shows the rolling average for Covid-19 community cases over seven days. The Government took Auckland out of Level 4 on 20 September and it is around a week after that the seven day average starts increasing.
The overwhelming rejection of the Three Waters reform model, by councils across the country, has dealt a major blow to the Government’s grand designs.
The radical proposal for all council water assets and services to be hoovered up by four mega-regional entities, with a multi-layered co-governance and operational board structure, has demonstrably failed to gather any semblance of a mandate.
But one of the biggest casualties from this beleaguered model could well be the body that purports to represent the interests of territorial councils – Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ).
How could a representative body with a core role of advocating for the interests of its member councils and the power of local representation trample all over its central purpose, in such breath-taking fashion?
There is profound dismay that LGNZ blithely signed a heads of agreement with the Government, in July, in exchange for a $2.5 billion cash support package to sweeten the sell to councils. Signing that agreement without the engagement or consent of its member councils was a flagrant breach of good faith.
It does seem that LGNZ have got this one wrong. Instead of communicating the position of the Councils to Government, they agreed to communicate the position of Government to Councils. No wonder many Councils are mad.
I don’t personally think withdrawal is the right answer. The better solution is to elect different officers at the next round of elections – ones that will ensure LGNZ sees it job as keeping Councils happy, not the Government.
I had a nice exchange this week with a student I taught in the mid-1990s. I had seen a profile for him on Linkedin that shows him to be in the middle of an extra-ordinary career in South Korea and sent him a quick note.
Me: Very, very impressive work history. Brilliantly done!
Him: Thank you Alwyn. Bit of a different path to take and if you’d told me 20 years ago I would be living in Korea married with 3 kids I would have thought you were crazy. I have never ever forgotten my economics class with you back at TBC. Your teaching style and genuine interest in the students left a mark on me. A story you told about a rugby ball getting stuck between the posts because of the angle even today sticks in my mind. Thanks for messaging!
Me: No problem. I have loved being a teacher/educator and do not consider I have ever worked a day in my life. I still have that ball – grazes on both sides. Took ages to get down.
My two older children and their wives have welcomed their first child within the last 12 months. I haven’t attempted to give much advice. They either saw things they liked in the way Karen and I parented and will apply them or they will find better ways. The only thing I wanted them to know is that you don’t have a “baby” – you are bringing a human being into the world and your life will be invested in their existence from then on. (As an aside – imagine what these two humans will see in their lives as, in all likelihood, they will live the latter part of their lives in the 22nd Century).
Before I became a teacher I was fortunate to encounter the writings of C. S. Lewis. I have by no means always been perfect and lived up to the ideal – but one quote is in my head every day with students:
“There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations – these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit.”
I have just read a remarkable book called The Brain by Stanford neuroscientist David Eagleman. It is not his explicit intent but the information he imparts about the brain and human capabilities makes it clear that a great deal of our parenting, all levels of education, and life expectations are very last century – if not the one before.
I have always told students that if they have learned to walk and talk they can learn Math, writing, reading of great literature, remarkable skills (carpentry, art, dance, music). It is not necessarily easy – learning something well requires significant purposeful practice. – but it is possible.
Eagleman states the importance of Parents as First Teachers:
“If developing brains are not given the proper “expected” environment – one in which the child is nurtured and looked after – the brain will struggle to develop normally. Without an environment with emotional care and cognitive stimulation the human brain cannot develop normally.”
For teachers/parents who have the opportunity to care for children who have missed that nurture there is encouragement:
“The brain can often recover, to varying degrees, once the children are removed to a safe and loving environment. … We know that the process of building the human brain takes up to 25 years.”
If parents/teachers ability label students in front of them – either with speech or in their own minds – they are negatively impacting to what may be a critical extent. Just as C. S. Lewis notes that “There are no ordinary people.” … there are no “thick” kids. They are incredible human beings with brains equipped and plastic – needing love, encouragement, guidance, knowledge and challenge.
In the same way – there is no such thing as an “appropriate pathway” based on some prematurely defined ability set. As the student communicated to me above … “if you had told me 20 years ago …”. I would have had no right to limit him – a true teacher’s role is to teach every child as if there are no limits … despite what may have gone before for that person.
The good news for us over 25 – Eagleman tells us is: “In adulthood our brain continues to change. Experience changes it. We can’t stop the process of aging, but by practicing all of the skills in our cognitive toolbox, we may be able to slow it down. We’re not fixed. From the cradle to the grave we are works in progress.”
Basically Newshub ran a story that described Speak up for Women as being anti-trans. It didn’t quote someone saying this, it described it basically as fact in their news story.
The response from Newshub was an interesting display of hubris. Newshub said it has a view that trans people are the gender they identify as, and hence anyone who disagrees with them on this is anti-trans and they can report them as being anti-trans as a matter of fact.
The Council found:
Newshub is entitled to adopt an opinion on this issue, but it should be clear when it is doing so. In this case an opinion was simply dropped into a news story as though it was an uncontested fact, with no indication that an opinion was being expressed.
A clearly correct decision by the Council.
But to my surprise four members of the Council dissented, saying:
They are of the view that those representing trans women have made it very clear that being a woman is an essential and integral part of a trans woman’s identity. It follows that to say a trans woman is not a woman, as SUFW does, is to deny that identity and devalue trans women. In reporting SUFW’s stance as anti-trans,Newshub may be reporting its own opinion, but it is also reporting the strongly-held beliefs of those most affected by SUFW’s stance. This is hardly a matter of opinion.
This is an intriguing stance. The minority basically say that as those representing trans women think SUFW is anti-trans, then they can factually be described as anti-trans. Let’s put aside for the moment that I am sure there is no 100% common view amongst transpeople on anything – Caitlin Jenner is an example of that.
But let’s that the view of the minority and apply it to another controversial issue. Let’s saw the Jewish Council of NZ regards John Minto’s outfit as anti-semitic because it calls for boycotts of Israel (and the Jewish people have a 2,000+ year history of such boycotts). According to the minority view, Newshub could describe John Minto as anti-semitic as an incontrovertible fact, and this would be fine as that is the view of the Jewish Council.
I think we can all agree that this would also be ridiculous. Whether John Minto is anti-semitic is a matter of opinion, just as whether SUFW is anti-trans. But what the minority members are probably saying is that if they personally agree with a description, then they think it is okay for media to use that description.
It is probably no a coincidence that none of the four dissenting members are from journalistic backgrounds. It should be an open and shut case that you do not report opinion as fact.
Sir John Key says he is “delighted” to hear the Government announce a “vaxathon” as part of the Super Saturday vaccination drive, an idea he raised in August.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern today announced the “blast from the past” telethon-style event would take place between 12-8pm on various TV channels.
It would include real-time data on how regions are going, prizes, information from experts and competition between towns and regions.
Key raised the idea in an interview with Mike Hosking in August, saying the Government should adopt a telethon-style approach to boost vaccination numbers and open up our borders by Christmas.
The vaxathon is a great idea. It will bring the community together, and be a lot of fun. Good to see the Government take up John Key’s idea. But actually he wasn’t even the first to propose it. On 29 July, Chris Bishop wrote:
Setting a target in and of itself will make a difference. Kiwis are good at getting behind national campaigns and striving collectively to reach a goal: think telethons, America’s Cup red socks, even buying a beach. Let’s put the “team of five million” to work and get in behind a national effort to reach a goal.
So good to see Labour adopt National’s ideas a couple of months down the track. Hopefully they will listen to Key on this part also:
Key said, however, along with these initiatives there needed to be targets for people to get behind, including a minimum vaccination level and a date from which the New Zealand borders would start to open up.
He said he would suggest December 1 and a rate of at least 90 per cent fully-vaccinated.
“The question is what happens if a region or the country never gets to 90 per cent?
“That is why you have to get people a clear date, but if you reach a target like 90 per cent before that date then you would do it then.
“If you don’t put a date on it, then people don’t know what’s the urgency.”
Grounded Kiwis File Judicial Review in the High Court
On Friday, Grounded Kiwis Group filed a judicial review claim in the High
Court alleging the Minister of Health, Minister for Covid-19 Response, and
Chief Executive of the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment
acted unlawfully and unreasonably in respect of the design and operation of
the Managed Isolation and Quarantine System (MIQ) system.
The group have engaged Paul Radich
QC and Lucila van
Dam, experienced public law barristers at Clifton Chambers in
Wellington, to act for Grounded Kiwis.
Alexandra Birt of Grounded Kiwis announced this action in an interview
with Radio New Zealand, and Paul Radich has also been interviewed about his approach to the
case, one he describes as “in the public interest”.
“At the heart of our claim is our view that the Government has failed to take
into account and protect the right of New Zealanders to enter New Zealand,” said Alexandra.
The claim alleges the previous ‘first-in-first served’ allocation system,
the current ‘lottery’ allocation system, and the emergency and group
allocation systems are in breach of section 18(2) of the New Zealand Bill of
Rights Act 1990. The claim also alleges that various aspects of the system
were not prescribed by law, and that the Minister for Covid-19 Response
breached the public’s legitimate expectation that he would develop a
sustainable, scalable model for isolation as a matter of priority.
To date, Grounded Kiwis has been supported by numerous lawyers and
volunteers from many countries around the world. Paul and Lucila have
prepared the group’s statement of claim on a pro-bono basis. On Friday, Grounded Kiwis launched a Give-a-Li
ttle crowdfund campaign to raise fund to take the case to trial. As a result of generosity of so many people
this campaign reached its $70,000 target in just 16 hours.
On Thursday 7 October, the Supreme Court issued the latest judicial assault on the Three Strikes (3S) law. In 117 pages of convoluted linguistic and legal gymnastics, it said what I could have in less than ten pages: that indecent assault being a strike offence was problematic, it had given rise to unintended results, and it should be removed from the list of 40 strike offences. The 40 strike offences are all offences involving serious violence for which the maximum penalty is seven years or more in prison.
Sadly nowhere in those 117 pages have any of the judges – their opinions are not unanimous on several points – found it appropriate to observe, as they certainly could have, that of the couple of thousand “strike” cases which have now come before the courts, there are only three that are truly problematic, and all of those are indecent assaults. Therefore if they were interested in seeing the law work better (in fact they, like the government, just want it gone) they could have recommended the removal of indecent assault as a strike offence. But I digress.
The judgment heavily relies on the supposed breach of the Bill of Rights Act (BORA) that is occasioned by third strike sentences – at least where a third strike is a low level indecent assault. While the Judges acknowledge that BORA is not a constitution like the American Bill of Rights, they have effectively given it that status – again, at least as far as cases like the present are concerned.
I must give credit here to my friend Graeme Edgeler, who opined 11 years ago – correctly as it has turned out – that indecent assault as a strike offence was going to cause problems because of the huge range of conduct which that offence encompasses: as Graeme put it at the time, everything from an unwanted pat on the arse to something just short of sexual violation.
The judgment just released is an appeal by one Daniel Fitzgerald, a serial low end sexual offender who apparently has mental health issues – but not to the extent, the Court found, that he was unaware of what he was doing. Nor was he unaware of the consequences of his actions (in fact immediately after the offence was committed he said “I’m in big trouble now”). He is simply unable to control his urges, and is to an extent more to be pitied than condemned.
All three of his “strikes” have been low level sexual assaults – grabbing women on the street and trying to kiss them and the like. His third strike offence – involving very similar conduct as his first two – involved him grabbing a woman in Cuba Street Wellington, and trying to kiss her on the mouth. She moved her head, resulting in the kiss landing on her cheek instead. Fitzgerald then shoved the woman’s friend who tried to pull him off the victim before another member of the public intervened.
Because of the “three strikes and the max” 3S regime, conviction for that offence in 2017 resulted – quite correctly – in a seven year sentence, that being the maximum for indecent assault. The sentencing judge – also quite rightly in my view invoked the “manifestly unjust” proviso – much abused in other cases, particularly murder – which meant that Fitzgerald was able to apply for parole, and thus not necessarily serve the full sentence.
It is notable that since the offence occurred in December 2016, Fitzgerald has applied for parole four times – and been rejected every time, because he is still seen as a risk to the public. All the judges who have considered his case are of the view – and I agree – that the proper place for Fitzgerald and offenders like him is a secure treatment facility and not prison. The problem of course is that all such facilities were closed 30 years ago. The only two alternatives now remaining to protect the public from people like him are prison, or for the truly “mad not bad”, a secure treatment facility like the Mason Clinic. The third option – letting him out each time he offends after serving a relatively short sentence – is not acceptable to me. All that does is create more victims – and one of these days his indecent assaults may not be “minor”.
Rather than contorting themselves at great and tedious length to condemn 3S, the judges would surely have been much better to highlight the fact that it is a lack of alternative facilities for men like Fitzgerald which is the problem, and not the 3S law itself. Being the highest court in the land, it would have been entirely appropriate for the Court to make recommendations regarding establishing proper facilities for men like Fitzgerald, or at least observing that they do not presently exist.
Let’s put this case in perspective. Since the 3S law came into force in June 2010, there have been about 13,349 first strikers, 640 second strikers, and only twenty-one third strikers. This pattern is exactly the same as transpired in California when their 3S law was passed 30 years ago: second strikers are a small fraction of the first, and third strikers a small fraction of the second. It is significant also that while 3S in California presaged a precipitous drop in offences of non-sexual serious violence, sexual offences were much less affected. While I am not a psychologist, I would opine that this is because sex is a fundamental human driver, while robbing liquor stores and bashing people is not. In short, it is much more difficult to deter people from acting on their sexual urges than from their thoughts of obtaining easy money through an armed robbery.
If we remove the three cases like Fitzgerald’s from the stats, what are we left with? Try though they most certainly have, the left wing media have been unable to come up with any equivalent of the American cases such as someone being sent to jail for life for stealing a set of golf clubs (the “sent to jail for life for stealing a pizza” case is an apocryphal story, which to the best of my knowledge never happened). In any event, such cases could never happen here because of the way our 3S law is framed.
The last “poor boy” case I recall being highlighted was that of one Elijah Whaanga, an unpleasant violent thug whose second strike involved the aggravated robbery of the victim’s cellphone, skateboard and a hat. The media – in particular RNZ – described Whaanga as “a playground bully” despite neither of his strike offences occurring in a playground, and the fact that Whaanga was aged 21 at the time of the second offence. They also conveniently failed to mention that Whaanga’s first strike offence – also an aggravated robbery – involved him kicking the victim’s teeth out, and stealing all his money.
For his second strike offence, Whaanga was given two and a half years without parole. The sentencing judge also warned him in no uncertain terms:
“When you next use violence or threats to steal a hat or a cellphone or a skateboard, you will be sent to the High Court and there you will be sentenced to 14 years without parole”
It would seem Mr Whaanga has learned his lesson; in any event he has not – so far as I know – been convicted of a third strike offence. Something the lefties never “get” is that you can be an illiterate thug and still clearly understand cause and effect, and it would seem Mr Whaanga has got the message.
The government has vowed to repeal the 3S law, and I have no doubt they will eventually do so – when they get around to it – despite the fact it is massively popular. In a poll done by our host’s company several years ago, even 45% of Green voters supported it. I thought that must be a typo, but it apparently was correct.
If the government was really interested in improving the law, rather than repealing it they would simply remove indecent assault from the list of strike offences. That would solve the problem the Supreme Court took 117 pages to address. But that won’t happen; instead ideology will triumph over the public interest with inevitable results. And if the judges of the Supreme Court are so keen on making law rather than interpreting it, they should resign their highly paid sinecures and stand for parliament. What they have been doing with three strikes is nothing less than a constitutional outrage – and I’m quite sure they well know that is so.
Update:
While I was writing this piece another case perfectly illustrating how judges are deliberately flouting the law was reported. This particular POS
stuck a sawn off shotgun up the noses of several different victims and assaulted and threatened others. He pleaded guilty to six charges of aggravated robbery which together constituted this third strike. The judge quite correctly found he had no option to sentence the offender to the maximum fourteen years for aggravated robbery – but then said such a sentence would be “crushing” for a delicate petal of his age, and therefore invoked the manifestly unjust proviso, meaning the prick can apply for parole in less than five years. This case and many like it mean the law as drafted and as passed by parliament never really had a chance to work as intended.
Drug company Pfizer pressed New Zealand government officials to meet and discuss its vaccine candidate in June of last year, some six weeks before a first meeting actually took place.
In a letter from Pfizer to Dr Peter Crabtree of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, the company described “actively scaling up our manufacturing capacity and distribution infrastructure”.
“We have the potential to supply millions of vaccine doses by the end of 2020, subject to technical success and regulatory approvals, then rapidly scale up to produce hundreds of millions of doses in 2021,” the letter, dated June 30 said.
However, in June MBIE was ill-equipped to pursue negotiations with vaccine-makers. It wasn’t until August 10 that the Cabinet appropriated any funds to either establish a team to negotiate advance purchase contracts with vaccine-makers or to fund such contracts themselves. MBIE confirmed that a first meeting between officials and Pfizer took place on August 14, 2020.
Incredible. You’re in the middle of a deadly global pandemic and the world’s largest drug company comes to you saying they’d like to meet as they are well advanced on a vaccine.
And instead of responding within six hours or even six days, they didn’t even respond for six whole weeks!!!
The Independent Review will look at elections rules such as:
voting age and overseas voting
funding of political parties
the length of the parliamentary term
the Electoral Commission’s recommendations on MMP:
changes to the party vote threshold
one seat electorate rule
ratio of electorate seats to list seats
the overhang rule
These are good topics to be looked at by an independent review, and it is pleasing these areas will not be subject to change until at least 2026. Any changes should only be made with wide bipartisan support.
“The next step with the Independent Review is to put together a review panel. The panel will report back by late 2023 with recommendations for change,” Kris Faafoi said.
“I will be consulting with all parliamentary party leaders and Parliament’s Justice Committee on the Terms of Reference for the review before they are finalised. I am also writing to these and other groups, such as Māori organisations, youth organisations, universities and the New Zealand Law Society to seek nominations for potential panel members.
The composition of the review panel will be critical.
“Some rules could be improved before the General Election in 2023. For example, we’re looking at improving the transparency of political donations to make it easier to see where the money is coming from.
“Another focus is looking at when people can move between the Māori Electoral Roll and the General Roll. At the moment Māori voters won’t be able move rolls before the 2023 General Election.
“This work is a commitment signalled in Labour’s 2020 Manifesto to protect the integrity of New Zealand elections, and it is also part of the Cooperation Agreement between the New Zealand Labour Party and the Green Party of Aotearoa.
“We are looking to make progress on the work before the end of the year.”
The change around when voters can shift rolls will do the opposite of protecting the integrity of elections. It will enable massive gerrymandering by allowing those of Maori descent to choose one roll for the purpose of determining the number of Maori seats and then swap to another roll at election time in order to influence marginal seat outcomes.
NZ Herald Deputy Political Editor Derek Cheng has written about the time he fell off a mountain. I recall seeing his photos on Facebook of his horrific injuries at the time, but never knew the full story until he wrote this piece.
Pleased to say Derek is recovered and back climbing mountains again.
