The Guardian reports:

The US defence secretary, Mark Esper, warned that US alliances including the future of Nato were in jeopardy if European countries went ahead with using Chinese Huawei technology in their 5G networks.

Esper also warned future intelligence cooperation would be at risk, as the US would no longer be certain its communications networks were secure.

His remarks at the Munich security conference on Saturday, bolstered by similar warnings from the US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, remove any doubt that the US sees finding an alternative to Huawei as central to its own security.

The US is being explicit that it will retaliate against countries that use Huawei. So let’s not pretend any decision made by the NZ Government is not being influenced by this pressure.

Newsroom reports:

His own Labour tribe, including the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, and cabinet ministers and numerous MPs old and new, was there in force, with both Green Party co-leaders and the leader and two ministers from NZ First. The Labour list was a roll call of the past four decades: Jim Sutton, Rick Barker, Ross Robertson, Trevor Mallard, Annette King back from the High Commission in Canberra, Bob Harvey, Maryan Street, George Hawkins. There was Richard Prebble from the deep Labour past and Phil Goff from the Independent present. Helen Clark was overseas. 

There were mandarins, officials, lobbyists, High Commissioners and veterans. Most of all there were mates. 

But the breadth of Moore’s political history and impact, and personal warmth and relationships, was most evident by the blue party grandees who came to pay tribute: National leaders Sir Jim McLay, Jim Bolger, Dame Jenny Shipley, Sir Bill English, Don Brash, Sir John Key, and Simon Bridges. 

Beyond them, there seemed to be almost as many National MPs as Labour: Sir Don McKinnon pushing Paul East in his wheelchair, Sir Lockwood Smith, John Luxton, Murray McCully, Simon Power, Katherine Rich, Philip Burdon, John Banks, Gerry Brownlee, Scott Simpson, Chris Bishop and Paul Goldsmith.

Great to see so many MPs and former MPs there from across the spectrum.

I think all seven living National Party leaders attended. As best as I can tell from the story, there were two Labour leaders there and four not there.

The Green Party Campaign Director e-mail:

Kia ora

I won’t lie, the last two polls aren’t looking good for us. Last night’s poll marks the second in a row that indicate we are at risk of falling below the 5% threshold.

So the Greens are warning their supporters they are at risk of being wiped out. What they need isn’t more money, but more spines to stand up to Winston.

No minor party in the history of Aotearoa has ever entered government and then returned to parliament at the next election.

That is false on pretty much every level. United Future, ACT and the Maori Party have all been in Government and been returned at a subsequent election. So has the Jim Anderton Party.

The NZTU released:

After pressure from the Taxpayers’ Union, Education Minister Chris Hipkins has now confirmed he will close Tuturumuri School – a taxpayer-funded school with a roll of zero.Last week, the Taxpayers’ Union visited Tuturumuri and made inquiries with the Minister’s office. As of Friday, Minister Hipkins was still considering the matter. Then yesterday, just hours after the Union publicised the story, the Minister confirmed to media that he is closing the school. He apparently told staff earlier in the day.Taxpayers’ Union spokesman Louis Houlbrooke says: “This decision is a belated victory for taxpayers and common sense. The Minister has spared himself serious embarrassment by getting this matter sorted just days after we started asking questions.”

Yep the school had zero students but four staff! If it were not for NZTU pressure, the school may have remained “open” for many more months.

There’s an article on The Spinoff (of course) calling for school mufti days to be renamed because of the colonial connotations! The buzz words in the article are wonderful. They include:

• subjugated culture
• cultural appropriation
• British imperialism
• Entitled officers
• militaristic language
• Anglo-Celtic dominance

I look forward to the Greens introducing a bill in Parliament banning the term “mufti day” in the public sector!

The ODT reports:

The Government is investigating whether it should give the Minister of Energy power to “reallocate electricity or gas in situations of acute electricity or gas shortage.”

The move has alarmed the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand, which suggests it would be ironic if the Government’s 2018 ban on offshore oil and gas exploration were to cause ministers then to intervene and claim there had been “market failure” because of a shortage of natural gas supplies.

The proposal is buried deep in a paper taken to the Cabinet by the current energy minister, Megan Woods, on December 11 last year and released proactively late last week. It covers a wide range of recommended actions aimed at alleviating energy poverty and keeping an eye on how the fast-changing electricity market develops.

The one-line reference suggests ministerial intervention could be developed aa “low-impact option” in the event of “market failure”.

“A possible option is the provision of emergency powers to reallocate electricity or gas in situations of acute electricity or gas shortage.”

The proposal has raised immediate concerns with PEPANZ, which sheeted the potential for shortages of natural gas – the fuel routinely used to generate electricity when wind and hydro-electric resources are not available, along with higher carbon-emitting coal, which has been used more heavily to generate electricity during the past two years due to tight gas supplies.

“It would be very strange for the government to ban offshore exploration for gas on one hand, and then to be so concerned about shortages,” said John Carnegie, PEPANZ’s executive director, in talking points released to BusinessDesk.

Yep the Government bans offshore exploration and then uses that as a reason for having to possibly intervene because there may be gas shortages!

Mickey Mouse wants his hat back.

One News reported:

An Auckland restaurant has had its windows smashed in two attacks since it hosted an ACT Party function on Waitangi Day – and its owner believes the attacks were politically motivated. 

The incidents took place over the weekend. 

Eden Bistro owner Sang Cho said it appeared a slingshot was used with a marble for the first incident, and the second “looked like they used some sort of rifle according to the CCTV footage”.

“Luckily, it happened in the middle of the night and no one was here, but I’m worried about my patrons that might come in,” he said. “They might be worried they might get fired at.”

He believes the attacks were linked to ACT leader David Seymour’s state of the nation address on Waitangi Day last week, during which he spoke out against the “hate speech regime”, firearms laws and the persecution of landlords.

Mr Cho said a neighbour told him that “about four o’clock in the morning he heard someone yelling out, ‘F*** ACT Party, f*** David Seymour!'” 

Mr Seymour said there is “no place for violence or vandalism in New Zealand politics” and Mr Cho “certainly doesn’t deserve to be caught in the crossfire”. 

“I understand these losers have left a bit more evidence than they realise and I would like to debate them on the issues outside Auckland Central Station,” Mr Seymour said. 

I hope the Police catch those responsible.

Data is here.

Labour claimed their families package would be trasnformational and make a huge difference to poverty.

Well the data out this week shows the number of households in “poverty” (low income) is the same in 2019 as it was in 2016 and the number of households that are materially deprived is higher in 2019 than 2016. Basically the changes between 2018 and 2019 are of the same magnitude as occurs most years.

List MPs David Carter and Nicky Wagner announced they will retire at the election, as well as Invercargill MP Sarah Dowie.

This takes a but of pressure off the list, noting Paula Bennett said she is going list only. So if National gets the same number of seats as last time, all existing List MPs can be accommodated and room for at least one more.

Will be interesting to see who stands for Invercargill. It is a moderately safe seat, but not one to be taken for granted.

I’ll especially miss David Carter. Apart from having known him for 25 years, we have twice ended up running marathons together (New York and Queenstown).

Stuff reports:

The legal tests for abortions after 20 weeks has been made more restrictive in the proposed abortion legalisation bill. …

Originally this test would just be that a doctor believed it was necessary to preserve the wellbeing of the mother. Under the new test that medical practitioner would have to consult another medical practitioner.

So for the very few abortions after 20 weeks, the process is not much changed from the status quo. The big change is for abortions before 20 weeks, where there will be no hoops to jump through anymore, which is good.

Other areas of the bill came through with minor changes, such as safe zones outside clinics where protest could be banned and conscientious objection measures. …

I’m against so called safe zones, or no protest zones. I don’t like people who protest outside abortion protesters but they should be allowed to do so.

There was a push by Green MP Jan Logie to change the term “women” in the bill to “pregnant person”.

A terrible blow against all the pregnant men out there.

NZ First have now predicated its support of the bill on a referendum being attached, as it was for the End of Life Choice bill. 

NZ First MP Darroch Ball has filed an amendment to this effect but it is unlikely to pass as the vast majority of the House do not believe a referendum should be used.

There will not be a referendum.

Danyl McL writes:

But last week the dark gods of politics seemed to go out of their way to endorse Simon Bridges’ decision to rule out Winston Peters from a future National-led coalition. Bridges has been rewarded with a Serious Fraud Office investigation into the New Zealand First Foundation and more murky allegations around the same foundation showing that it’s been quietly taking donations from the racing industry, while Peters is the sector’s benevolent minister of racing. There have been two polls showing National ahead of Labour and New Zealand First out of parliament, and Bridges is slowly clawing his way up the preferred prime minister ratings.

And Peters himself has rewarded Bridges by performing as the absolute worst version of himself, indulging in classic Peters-style antics, drowning out the prime minister’s electorally vital attempts to remind the voters how much she believes in kindness, forcing her to declare that yes, she still stands by him, absolutely she trusts him, no further comments please; making her look weaker every day.

The timing was near perfect in terms of ruling Peters out. I recall several commentators scoffing that it was a hasty or bad decision by Bridges. Doubt they think that today.

I’m not sure one can actually refer to Ardern as the Prime Minister anymore. It is clear she has no control over NZ First Ministers and is unable to do anything when they break Cabinet rules, apart from lamely suggesting they should read the Cabinet Manual (advice she should take herself).

It is more like she is a co Prime Minister. She has control over some Ministers, but not all. And while she can veto policy decisions, so can Winston.

So Bridges is attacking extremely unpopular things, like organised crime and the deputy prime minister, targets that his political opponents (sometimes rather bafflingly) support. This redefines the choice architecture for swing voters. Their decision is not “Jacinda versus Simon”, but rather: “Whose side are you on: Simon Bridges or the Mongrel Mob?” Or “Do you prefer a government with Winston Peters’ endless scandal and drama and inane nonsense, or one without?”

I wonder which of those two is more unpopular?

And the Green Party under Russel Norman and Metiria Turei was an anti-establishment party (Turei described it as “an anti-establishment party in the heart of the establishment”), critiquing the security services, the political donation laws, the lobbyists swarming around the last government (and now this one) like bluebottles to a dead cat. This was politically popular – the party once polled as high as 18%, and its internal research showed that as many as a third of New Zealanders were potential green voters. But now the Green Party occupies an ideologically incoherent space bounded by technocratic centrism and campus wokeness, characterised by an obsequious, fawning fear towards Peters and New Zealand First. On current polling it’s not at all certain they’ll be returned to parliament.

This comes from a former member of their national campaign team.

Stuff reported:

For more than half a century, governments all over the world trusted a single company to keep the communications of their spies, soldiers and diplomats secret.

The company, Crypto AG, got its first break with a contract to build code-making machines for US troops during World War II. Flush with cash, it became a dominant maker of encryption devices for decades, navigating waves of technology from mechanical gears to electronic circuits and, finally, silicon chips and software.

The Swiss firm made millions of dollars selling equipment to more than 120 countries well into the 21st century. Its clients included Iran, military juntas in Latin America, nuclear rivals India and Pakistan, and even the Vatican.

But what none of its customers ever knew was that Crypto AG was secretly owned by the CIA in a highly classified partnership with West German intelligence. These spy agencies rigged the company’s devices so they could easily break the codes that countries used to send encrypted messages.

Best purchase ever I’d say.

Of course this means we should be somewhat sceptical when the US Government says don’t use Huawei because there may be backdoors, when in fact the biggest user of backdoors is the US Government!

Stuff reports:

Public health officials are denying Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s claim human waste breached the walls of south Auckland’s Middlemore Hospital. …

CMDHB, which in 2019 said such claims were untrue, has now responded to the prime minister’s statement.

“Despite the dramatic language used previously around sewage issues at Middlemore Hospital, the sewage leaks were small,” a spokeswoman said.

She confirmed one incident in the Scott Building in November 2017, but said it was the result of a cracked sewer pipe joiner.

Pipe joinery also required replacement in one of Middlemore’s retail areas in October 2017.

However, there was “no sewage spilling into the building” and leaks were “immediately repaired”, CMDHB’s spokeswoman said.

Ardern has been told many many times her claims are false. Yet she keeps repeating them – just days after she claimed she wanted a positive truthful campaign.

The Independent reports:

Rebecca Long-Bailey has vowed to change the law to prevent women’s refuges excluding trans women, telling Labour members to “stop having this debate”.

I trust women’s refuges to decide for themselves whom to admit. Campaigning to change the law so they can’t decide is unlikely to be a vote winner.

So hey will be great if Long-Bailey wins. That should keep the Conservatives in until 2030.

There should be no doubt that NZ First goes out of its way to hide the identity of its donors. The NZ First Foundation, like the Spencer Trust, was set up to hide the identity of its donors from the public, and probably from the party organisation also.

Anyone who thinks this is not the intention is naive. Just take a look through the donation records since 1997.

Since 1997 the Greens (a similar sized party) has declared 193 donations that were over the disclosure limit of the time.

By comparison, NZ First has disclosed just nine donations over 22 years. In fact since 2008 they have not disclosed a single donor, except two MPs.

The failure to declare donations is not a mistake, or a bug. It is intentional. It is in their culture and their DNA. This is not an administrative issue – this is clearly deliberate. We already have the previous proof of the false donation returns in 2005 to 2007 due to the Spencer Trust and the lies told over the Owen Glenn donation.

Here’s the number of donations declared from 1997 to 2007 (The EC has summaries for that period) for each party:

1. Labour 159
2. National 86
3. ACT 42
4. Alliance 29
5. Progressive 13
6. Democrats 11
7. United Future 5
8. Maori 5
9. NZ First 4

NZ First was the third largest party for much of that time. Does anyone really think they had fewer disclosable donations than United Future?

So again the current scandal is not some anomaly. The party has a culture and history of non disclosure, well beyond any other party past or present.

Stuff reports:

The Government will change the law to let it step in over the top of the country’s electricity regulator amid concerns the power industry may still not be on the right track.

Energy Minister Megan Woods dropped the bombshell in a wide-ranging Cabinet paper that also set out a delay to controversial plans to phase out electricity tariffs aimed at low-usage customers, and a fresh review of institutions governing the industry.

This should be of huge concern. This will increase the chance of power shortages as once politicians meddle in the electricity market, the consequences are generally bad for us.

Radio NZ reports:

A lobbying firm run by a New Zealand First Foundation trustee pushed for a law change on behalf of a property development company, which then donated tens of thousands of dollars to the foundation.

Doug Woolerton, one of two trustees running the secretive foundation which has been bankrolling New Zealand First, took on apartment developer Conrad Properties as a client for his firm, The Lobbyist.

There is nothing wrong with being a lobbyist.

There is nothing wrong with being a party fundraiser.

There is a lot wrong with being both. The two roles should be ethically incompatible.

And there is even more wrong when your clients are also secret donors to the party you fundraise for.

Between July 2018 and January 2019 Conrad Properties, and entities which share the same two directors, donated $55,000 to the foundation in four amounts, which all fell below the public disclosure threshold.

Foundation records show deposits from Equity Growth for $10,000 on 18 July, 2018 and $15,000 from Mayoral Drive the next day. Both those companies have only two directors: Jamie Hutchens and Ben Dearlove of Conrad Properties.

On 15 October, 2018, Conrad Properties donated $15,000 and followed that up on 22 January, 2019 with another $15,000 donation – both were one cent shy of the disclosure threshold.

Let’s look at these three companies.

• Equity Growth Ltd – owned by K A Law Nominees Ltd, Directors Hutchens and Dearlove
• Mayoral Drive Tenancy Trustee Ltd – owned by KA Law Nominees Ltd and Robert Holden, Directors Hutchens and Dearlove
• Conrad Properties – owned by KA Law Nominees Ltd, Directors Hutchens and Dearlove

So the same directors and basically the same shareholders. The directors control the company and would make decisions on stuff like donations. This is important because of the Electoral Act. S207LA states:

(1) A person is guilty of a corrupt practice who directs or procures, or is actively involved in directing or procuring, 2 or more bodies corporate to split between the bodies corporate a party donation in order to conceal the total amount of the donation and avoid the donation’s inclusion by the party secretary in the return of party donations under section 210(1)(a).

(2) A person is guilty of a corrupt practice who directs or procures, or is actively involved in directing or procuring, 2 or more bodies corporate to split between the bodies corporate a contribution to a party donation in order to conceal the total amount of the contribution and avoid the contribution’s inclusion by the party secretary in the return of party donations under section 210(1)(b).

On the facts as they are known, those involved in the donations may have committed a corrupt practice as the three 2018 donations combined are $40,000 and should have been disclosed under both subsections of s210(1). The law explicitly says it is a corrupt practice to avoid disclosure by splitting a donation between two or more body corporates.

No doubt the SFO will be very interested in this. The parties of interest will be both those who directed the splitting (if it occurred) and anyone who procured it (if someone suggested it to them).

The SFO will need to have regard to the specific facts. Sometimes two or more body corporates with similar directors might genuinely donate independently. For example if say Fletcher Building made a $10,000 donation in February and Placemakers (owned by Fletchers) made a $10,000 donation in August, and the decision makers were quite independent, then probably no offence.

But as two of the donations occurred a day apart, it strongly suggests it was one donation split to avoid disclosure.

So what is the penalty for a corrupt practice? A maximum $40,000 fine and/or two years imprisonment.

Now again that while on the facts known, I think it is very likely the law has been broken, only the SFO can determine if a prosecution is warranted, and who should be charged. And a judge or jury would them determine guilt. So my comments are based on what has been reported, but is not saying any particular individual has broken the law. That is again for the SFO to determine.

Newsroom reports:

Former National MP Jami-Lee Ross is one of the four men charged by the Serious Fraud Office in the National Party donations case – alongside a Chinese community leader who reportedly gave $100,000 to the party, and two others.

Name suppression for Ross and his co-accused Zhang Yikun, Zheng Shijia, and Zheng Hengjia was lifted by the Auckland District Court on Wednesday afternoon after the latter trio applied to end the secrecy. Ross’ lawyers did not object. 

Ross was the originator of a complaint in 2018 to the police over a $100,000 donation he had publicly claimed showed his former party leader Simon Bridges was corrupt. The police referred the matter to the SFO but in January it was Ross, not Bridges or other National figures, who was among those charged.

It goes without saying that Ross and the others have yet to have their day in court, and we should hold off assumptions of guilt until after the trial.

But it is worth noting that as far as own goals go, I can’t think of a bigger backfire in NZ political history. You announce that you are going to the Police to lay a complaint about your former leader, and you end up being the one charged with imprisonable offences. You can’t blame this on some conspiracy of political enemies – it is a spectacular own goal.

Legal counsel for the three defendants Zhang, Zheng and Zheng issued a press statement saying:

“Our clients are fully aware of the public interest in this case and the need to respect the integrity of the New Zealand electoral system. It is for this reason they have asked for name suppression to be lifted and for the process surrounding the charges to be open and transparent.

“Our clients are proud New Zealanders and philanthropists. They were urged to follow a process and are now deeply disappointed at being caught up in a donation’s fiasco. They have supported numerous community groups over many years through fundraising activities and donations, including donating to many political parties and campaigns.”

This will be a very interesting case. If a $100,000 donation was illegally split up to avoid disclosure, then there should be serious legal consequences for those involved.

And again if what the SFO alleges did occur, what I would be interested to learn is whose idea was it. Why did they not just make $100,000 donation and have it disclosed? Dozens and dozens of other individuals make donations above the disclosure limit and are happy to be disclosed. The 2017 return for National has several dozen donors listed.

I’m not sure when the trial will be, but I will be very interested in the evidence.

Newshub reports:

New Zealand’s disabled community is outraged a controversial Australian philosopher who justifies infanticide is being allowed to speak here.

Peter Singer, who’s been described as the most dangerous man in the world, has argued it’s ethical to give parents the option to euthanise babies with disabilities.

“We decided that yes it was a reasonable decision for parents and doctors to make that it was better that infants with this condition should not live,” he says.

I think his views are terrible and horrible. I disagree strongly with them.

But I think he should be allowed to argue for his point of view, and that if people are silly enough to want to pay money to hear his views, they should also be allowed to.

And while the disabled community isn’t planning to stop him coming here they’re refusing to stay quiet.

“He has every right to freedom of speech, they have every right to host him. I have every right to protest and to counter his speech around disability,” Dr Hickey says.

An excellent response. Protest not censorship. Counter his speech with your own.

But some people Newshub spoke to today want his event axed.

“Yeah I don’t know if I’d be welcoming him here,” one person said.

“I think that’s horrific and terrifying,” another said.

Oh dear. A media story now includes the opinions of two anonymous people.

UPDATE: Sky City have cowardly cancelled the booking. As a private venue that is their right, but it shows what a culture of fear that now exists, and how cancel culture is so powerful.

John Armstrong writes:

When is Jacinda Ardern going to stop displaying all the backbone of a spineless jellyfish and start reminding Winston Peters who is the boss?

Ouch. Harsh. True.

Once it it became public that the commission’s findings had been passed to the Serious Fraud Office, Peters’ relinquishing of his status of Deputy Prime Minister ought to have been a mere formality, if only a temporary measure while the SFO determined whether everything was above board or whether prosecutions should follow its investigation.

And this is what Clark did – have Peters stand down.

With his party’s poll rating dropping the floor and Simon Bridges neutering New Zealand First by declaring National won’t be forming any kind of government which includes Peters’ outfit, he is currently a more prickly customer than ever.

He hasn’t got a lot of options. It would seem to be an opportune time to remind him of that. He is hardly in a position to pull down the Government.

That makes Ardern’s failure to talk tough appear even more gutless.

Exactly. The last thing Winston wants is an early election.

The revelation that he was party to the covert photographing and filming of journalists whose investigations of the New Zealand First Foundation have uncovered much to embarrass him and his party is a clear breach of the provisions in the Cabinet Manual covering the conduct expected of ministers of the crown.

To quote that handbook: “At all times, ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards. This includes exercising a professional approach and good judgement in their interactions with the public and officials, and in all their communications, personal and professional”.

Having by his own confession confirmed his failure to meet such high standards, Peters then issued a denial that he or his party had anything to do with any such dodgy behaviour.

It might be news to him, but Peters does not command a salary of close to $330,000 plus expenses for the purpose of making fools of the rest of us. Or himself for that matter.

Sadly it seems it does.