Fran O’Sullivan reports:

The Prime Minister has effectively cold-shouldered top businessman Rob Fyfe, who worked without pay for eight weeks as business liaison at the peak of the Covid-19 crisis.

On May 18, Fyfe wrote to Jacinda Ardern letting her know that after eight weeks embedded in the Wellington Covid-19 operations command centre he proposed to return to his Auckland home.

Fyfe confirmed to the Herald that three weeks on the Prime Minister has yet to acknowledge his letter.

Nor has Ardern thanked him for the leadership he and his private-sector team brought to organising vital personal protection equipment for frontline health staff, ventilators and a world-class contact tracing app to cover clear inadequacies within the New Zealand health system.

Real kindness in action there.

I need to rest for a couple of days to help recovery after a minor surgical procedure today. So don’t expect any blogging from me until Monday.

Enjoy the weekend everyone!

The Herald reports:

Scientists are pushing for an official inquiry into New Zealand’s response to Covid-19, arguing it would better prepare the country for the next big crisis.

While the Government launched an inquiry into urgent legislation it used to implement its alert level system and lockdown, it hasn’t announced an independent probe into its wider response – something Act leader David Seymour has repeatedly called for.

Now, a group of Otago University experts have also asked for one, pointing out that while New Zealand had done an “extraordinarily successful job” of stopping the virus, a wide-ranging inquiry was still critical.

The scientists – professors Michael Baker and Nick Wilson, Associate Professor George Thomson, and Drs Jennifer Summers, Amanda Kvalsvig and Matt Boyd – argued the country needed to know the effectiveness of the various pandemic controls, and if they could be improved in the short and longer term.

This is a no brainer. The cost to the country of the response to Covid-19 is around $140 billion of extra borrowing. Anything less than a Royal Commission of Inquiry into our response would be farcical.

Mike Hosking writes:

So the day of reckoning, or at least a day of reckoning, has arrived. The jig is up.

Andrew Little, the Minister in charge of Pike River, fronts the appropriate select committee and reveals what most of us had worked out well before they ever entered the mine.

The retrieval of bodies is no longer practical. The simple truth, a decade on, is that the retrieval of remains was never practical.

Little perpetrates the con a little further by suggesting that the main reason they are still there, apart from perceived political gain, is to gather evidence for the crime committed. …

If it needs to be stated, let me state it again, there is no evidence, there will be no evidence, and there will be no charges. I called it in the CTV Building destroyed in the Christchurch earthquake, I call it on Pike River.

The chance that there will be some sort of evidence in the drift, 10 years on, which would allow the Police to file homicide charges is beyond miniscule. The $50 million spent will achieve zero.

The Guardian reports:

An episode of Fawlty Towers famous for coining the phrase, “Don’t mention the war!” has become the latest “classic” British television programme to be taken down from a BBC-owned streaming service, as broadcasters continue to conduct a reappraisal of old British television content.

The episode of the 1970s sitcom – in which John Cleese as Basil Fawlty goose-steps around a Torquay hotel while shouting the phrase – was recently removed from the BBC-controlled UKTV catch-up service.

What a bunch of cowards. This is arguably the funniest episode of the series.

The culture fascists are winning.

Here’s the episode in full for those who want to enjoy it again. ‘

UPDATE: The video won’t play on embedded sites but click on the link to play it within Youtube.

The Herald reports:

The identity of a man who threatened to kill former National Party leader Simon Bridges and his children and “feed them to the pigs” can now be revealed.

Hohepa Waenga, 20, from Te Teko, pleaded guilty to a charge of threatening to kill in the Whakatāne District Court today through his lawyer.

Waenga sent a private Facebook message to Bridges, the MP for Tauranga, on April 22, according to court documents.

About 3pm that day, Waenga was drinking with an associate at a Kowhai St address in Whakatāne.

The pair were watching a debate between Bridges, who at the time was the National Party leader, and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and the debate angered Waenga.

Waenga sent Bridges the message: “F*** you you ball head I’m going to kill your kids and you and feed them to the pigs you little b****”.

When spoken to by the police, Waenga admitted the events and in explanation stated he was angry at Bridges because he liked Jacinda.

That is so vile and disgusting. Death threats against MPs are bad enough but to explicitly threaten to kill his children is probably the worst thing you can say to a parent.

Ebbers also handed up a letter of apology which she said Waenga had written himself.

She urged Judge Ingram to continue name suppression, arguing publication of his name prior to sentencing could interfere with the restorative justice process.

Both police prosecutor Grace Collett and the ‘Bay of Plenty Times’ opposed name suppression, and Judge Ingram agreed to lift the order.

The judge told Waenga that it was in the “interest of everybody” to do so now.

He said Waenga having fronted up with a letter of apology in which he expressed remorse for his “dumb decision” was an important part of a restorative justice process.

Judge Ingram convicted Waenga on the charge and remanded him on bail for a restorative justice meeting and sentencing on August 5.

Name suppression would have been an outrage. His threats to kill Simon and his children carry a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment. It is a very serious offence.

NewstalkZB reports:

Comedy series Little Britain’s been pulled from UK streaming services – in the wake of anti-racism protests worldwide.

Hollywood classic Gone with the Wind has also been pulled from a US streaming service and long-running reality TV show Cops has been cancelled after 31 years.

This really is PC madness.

No doubt Friends will be banned soon for portraying Carol in a bad light.

The latest Gallup poll (the longest running series in the world) has Trump’s approval down 10% from 49% in April to 39% in May. His approval rating for the economy has also dropped from 63% in early 2020 to 47%.

Even if people think a particular poll is biased, this doesn’t matter in terms of the trend. A 10% drop is a 10% drop.

So how does Trump’s approval on Day 1231 of his presidency compare to other Presidents in Gallup polling.

1. Eisenhower 71%
2. Nixon 62%
3. Reagan 55%
4. Clinton 53%
5. Bush 43 49%
6. Obama 47%
7. Johnson 46%
8. Truman 40%
9. Trump 39%
10. Carter 38%
11. Bush 41 37%

Those in bold were re-elected. Carter and Bush 41 were defeated and Johnson pulled out.

The only President who won while polling at Trump levels was Truman who was at 40%

Barry Soper reports:

Borrowdale, a former legal draftsman at Parliament, is seeking a judicial review of the lockdown handling. The case is scheduled to be heard in the High Court at Wellington next month and it’s understood in a relatively rare move there will be a full bench of judges hearing the matter.

The court last week heard from the Auckland District Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association, which wanted to become involved in the case.

A judge also wanted to give the Law Society the opportunity to become involved and gave them until today to declare its intention, which the society has now done.

It’s expected the intervention will give specialist grunt to the case being mounted by Borrowdale.

This is a very important case. It is not about whether the lockdown was a good idea, but about whether it was done legally. The rule of law underpins our country.

Andrew Lilico writes:

Few, if any, great figures of the past led unblemished lives. All of us are sinners, and great men and heroes are no different. Another Westminster bridge statues is of Boudicca and her daughters. During her famous rebellion, Boudicca’s forces impaled the noblest women they captured on spikes, with their breasts cut off and sewn to their mouths. Should we tear down her statue lest folk think that is what we are celebrating about her? (Actually, in her case, it kind of is…)

What about Nelson? He was a flawed man in many ways. Indeed, his adultery with Lady Hamilton is notorious. A Guardian article on Tuesday said we should tear down his column because in the Lords he opposed parliamentary measures to curtail slavery and the slave trade. But quite obviously Nelson’s column is not there to celebrate or approve of his being an adulterer or a supporter of slavery. It is to commemorate his role in the navy, especially (though not solely) at the Battle of Trafalgar, our defeat of the French and the defence of our lands from over-run by hostile invaders. …

Sure – Churchill in the early 1920s used gas attacks and carpet-bombing of civilians in Iraq. Sure — Nelson supported slavery. Sure — Boudicca tortured prisoners for sport. Sure — David murdered one of his own bodyguards to cover up his adultery. In some of these cases we have statues to remember these terrible deeds though not to laud them. In other cases we have statues to remember other great deeds these people did despite their flaws.

Britons have engaged in fell deeds throughout history. We have learned from them and hope to be better now. But we are not ashamed. Perhaps there are statues we should remove. But, by and large, ours is a history to be proud of — for all its many flaws.

We see this here also with some people calling for statues of Captain Cook to be removed etc.

I’m very reluctant to tear down statues of historical figures just because centuries later we judge parts of their lives more harshly.

There are some statues that probably never should have been erected in the first place, such as King Leopold. Killing 10 to 15 million Congolese in one of the worst periods of absolute rule shouldn’t get you a statue.

Today on 10 June 2020 The Herald reports:

The minister in charge of the Pike River Mine recovery effort, Andrew Little, says it is “just impractical” to expect the remains of all of the fallen miners to be recovered.

Instead, the re-entry efforts are now essentially solely focused on gathering evidence in the “homicide of 29 men”, Little told a select committee hearing this morning.

So Little say impractical and further:

He said bringing the remains home was no longer an objective of the re-entry – he said it was “just impractical” given the complex technicalities of the mine’s geography.

But in terms of recovery of human remains, Little said he has always maintained there is a very low probability of recovery.

Little says he has always said there is a very low probability of recovery! So why did he announce this a couple of years ago:

This government – and the three parties that make it up – committed to fulfilling the original promise made to the families of the 29 miners and workers: to do everything practicably possible to re-enter the drift to recover any remains

Did Little then say it was a very low probability? No of course not.

The Taxpayers’ Union announced:

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union has laid a formal complaint with the Auditor General regarding today’s full-page advertisements placed in a number of newspapers, including the NZ Herald and the Dominion Post, by the Government (pictured below). …

These advertisements are not primarily informative or educational, unlike earlier Government COVID-19 advertisements. Today’s ads have moved into the realm of thinly veiled political propaganda at the taxpayers’ expense.

‘Unite for the recovery’ is widely expected to be the central theme of the Labour Party’s 2020 election campaign. Only 102 days from an election, the public service should be vigilant to political masters using taxpayer-funded resources to support political messages.

Taxpayers should not be funding self-congratulatory messages.

David Farrier writes:

You might remember a while ago — back in 2016 — I wrote about the incredibly weird tale behind Bashford Antiques. It told the story of a New Zealand antiques store that became quite obsessed with clamping cars. It created such a kerfuffle it hit the 6pm news down here.

The reason it got out of hand is that people were being charged up to $760 to have their cars unclamped. Which is quite a bit of money for half an hour’s parking.

Now, if you’re not from from New Zealand: we had this weird legal loophole here, where if you parked on private property (say, a store’s car park), the business owner could put a clamp on your car, then demand whatever they wanted before they’d take it off.

Obviously, that law existed to discourage people parking in parks that weren’t theirs, but charges of $760 showed the system was being abused.

I wrote about the whole saga, drawn into a truly bizarre world of shadowy figures, alleged royal lineages, legal threats, court, and — to sum it all up — a bunch of weird shit… all leading back to one guy:

The guy is Michael Organ, also known as Count Michael Andrassy-Organe, and Prince Michael Organe-Schirinksi.

I can’t wait for the documentary. I’ve followed the saga over the years and it is just morbidly fascinating.

Stuff reports:

Police are scrapping Armed Response Teams after public feedback.

Police Commissioner Andrew Coster said on Tuesday Armed Response Teams (ARTs) would not be part of the New Zealand policing model in the future.

The decision not to roll-out ARTs following the six-month trial had been made based on preliminary findings from the trial evaluation, feedback received from the public, and consultation with community forum groups.

ARTs, part of the armed offenders squad (AOS), are armed and mobile to aid frontline officers, unlike the rest of the AOS which comprises officers on 24-hour call from a range of police jobs.

“New Zealand police values our relationships with the different communities we serve, and delivers on the commitments we make to them.”

Coster said it was clear the response teams did not align with the style of policing that New Zealanders expected.

“We have listened carefully to that feedback and I have made the decision these teams will not be a part of our policing model in the future.”

Coster added he was committed to New Zealand police remaining a generally unarmed police service.

I think this is the right decision. Not because some people didn’t like them, but because there didn’t appear to be strong evidence that having them resulted in better outcomes.

Often the ARTs got involved in low level stuff, where armed officers were not needed.

On my Patreon I’ve blogged the results of Curia’s poll on what the public thinking of prioritising surgery by race, with breakdowns by age, area and party support.

Patreon subscribers voted two weeks ago on what they wanted to poll on, and this issue was the most popular choice.

Stuff reports:

Independent advice provided to the Government last year warned that the Reserve Bank’s plan to boost bank capital risked damaging the New Zealand economy.

A nine page memorandum was provided by consultant and former chief economist of Deutsche Bank NZ, Ulf Schoefisch, and concluded the regulator’s proposal to strengthen the country’s commercial banks “appears unnecessarily risky” and “appears to have been informed by low quality information”.

The advice was provided in mid-March, 2019 to David Parker, then economic Development minister and Carolyn Tremain, chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

So this wasn’t advice commissioned by the banks, but by MBIE. And the advice was that the Reserve Bank’s proposals were risky and based on low quality information.

One of the few benefits of Covid-19 is the proposals have been dropped for now. But they shouldn’t have needed a pandemic to stop them.

A new CNN/SSRS poll has Trump in real trouble. Even if you take into account the SSRS poll is normally 1.2% overly favourable to Democrats, it is still very significant.

• Trump approval 38% ( down 7% from May)
• Net approval is -19% (was -6% in May)
• Biden lead over Trump: 14% (was 5% in May)

Biden’s lead has shot up 9% in just one month and Trump’s net approval is down 13%. They are very significant.

The demographic breakdowns for the intended vote is also interesting:

• Men: Trump +2%
• Women: Biden +27%
• Whites: Biden +2%
• Under 45s Biden +23%
• Over 45s Biden +7%
• Non college grads Biden +3%
• College grads Biden +31%
• White non college grads Trump +16%
• Liberals Biden +88%
• Moderates Biden +28%
• Conservatives Trump +56%

Shouldn’t judge too much off one poll, but the key thing is the difference between May and June. It suggests the handling of the protests has backfired badly, especially the photo op with the bible in front of the church.

On the plus side for Trump, Biden has been near invisible, which is the best place for Biden. As Biden gets exposed to media more, his gaffes may surface more. Trump is a formidable campaigner and I expect the polls will tighten as the campaign gets underway. But Trump’s photo op was a disaster and he needs to find a way to move on from it.

The Spinoff reports:

Five minor parties have joined forces to challenge the big two parties – and the Electoral Commission – about their low allocation of public funding for election broadcasts. Alex Braae reports.

A coalition of minor parties has emerged to challenge the allocation of public funding for election broadcasts, the majority of which has been locked up by Labour and National.

Out of just over $4 million, the two party duopoly has claimed $2.5 million, leaving the rest to be fought over by the rest of the field.

Social Credit, the Māori Party, New Conservative, the Outdoors Party, and the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party have found perhaps the one issue all of them agree on – that small parties are not treated fairly in the allocation. They want an urgent law changed passed so that all parties who stood seven or more candidates at the last election get an equal share of the broadcasting allocation.

They should be grateful, not greedy. The idea that a party which got 806 votes should get the same broadcasting allocation as a party that got 1.15 million votes is nuts.

In fact the five whinging parties all did very well out of the allocation, if you measure it against the votes they got in 2017.

Social Credit is getting a massive $65 for every vote they received, compared to under $2 per vote for the four larger parties.

Of course the simplest way to make it even fairer is to abolish the allocations. Let parties raise their own money.