Derek Cheng writes:

National would be expected to come up with something juicy with the financial freedom – $300m to $500m a year – that would flow from axing the Government’s fees-free scheme.

And Education Saver certainly is that – an account for every Kiwi from the start of primary school that would see an annual Crown contribution, with possible contributions from parents or businesses.

Singapore has schemes like these for health and education. The idea is that if the account is in your name and control (and is limited) you will be far more careful in choosing how to spend it, than if it is simply a taxpayer subsidy.

The Herald reports:

Women MPs of colour and across four political parties are banding together to ensure female genital mutilation is illegal in New Zealand.

A bill to clarify the legal definition of female genital mutilation has been introduced to Parliament and is jointly sponsored by Jo Hayes (National), Priyanca Radhakrishnan (Labour), Jenny Marcroft (New Zealand First) and Golriz Ghahraman (Green Party). …

Ghahraman said that New Zealand did not currently ensure all practices of FGM were illegal.

“We know this has been falling outside of New Zealand law. No form of mutilation is acceptable. It is an abuse of girls and women.

I couldn’t agree more. No child should be mutilated.

Andrew Little announced:

An important safety valve has been added to New Zealand’s criminal justice system with the third reading of the Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill today.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) will investigate claimed miscarriages of justice.

“We’ve seen how our justice system can very occasionally get things spectacularly wrong, even with rights of appeals, and there needs to be a chance for the innocent on the right grounds to seek a final review of their case. The CCRC is an important mechanism to enhance the independence, timeliness, quality and fairness of investigations into miscarriages of justice,” Justice Minister Andrew Little says.

“If the Commission finds there is a miscarriage they will refer the case back to the Court of Appeal to reconsider whether the convictions should stand or fall.

I’ve long supported having such a body. Good on the Government for acting on this.

The House voted to pass the law allowing voluntary euthanasia in New Zealand by 69 to 51 last night. It’s a momentous occasion, even though the law won’t come into force until a year after a referendum to confirm or overturn it.

I’ve been involved with the campaign to pass it, and it was satisfying to see it pass the third reading with an 18 vote majority. But its not the same feeling as when same sex couples were allowed to marry.

The latter was about allowing a few hundred thousand New Zealanders to marry the person they love. This is about allowing people to get assistance to end their lives because they have a terminal illness. Having people we love die is always very sad. The bill gives people a choice, but it doesn’t change the inevitable outcome for those with a terminal illness.

The other way I see this bill as different is that I understand why some are opposed to it, in a way I didn’t with same sex marriage. Allowing gay couples to marry didn’t harm anyone else. But allowing the state to authorise an assisted death does have potential harm. It is quite legitimate to worry about safeguards, about process, about coercion etc.

Overall I think the law change (if confirmed) will do far more good than harm. I think the safeguards and process are robust and the eligibility criteria is narrow. It will give people with less than six months to live the dignity of being able to make a choice as to how their final days go.

It is a huge credit to David Seymour that he got this law through Parliament. Four other MPs before him have submitted similar bills and they were either defeated or not drawn.

David is the sole ACT MP. Normally a bill will have been approved by a majority of a party’s caucus so you start with at least 30 or so votes locked in. But David started with just one vote – his own. He had to persuade and convince 68 other MPs to vote with him. He didn’t do that alone (and I will blog on others who helped in a seperate post) but he did do it.

MPs who voted for the bill have told me that David didn’t pressure or hector them. He met with them, he explained it. He worked tirelessly lobbying his colleagues.

He also kept a huge focus on what changes are needed to ensure at least 61 MPs voted for it. The old saying is perfect is the enemy of good. Rather than die in a ditch over eligibility, he made the changes needed to keep the Greens and NZ First on board.

I thought David was especially good during the committee of the whole stage. As the select committee failed to make substantive changes, he had to get them made at that stage. It was a very very long debate with scores of amendments. David spoke often, responding to point after point, in a way rarely seen by an bill’s sponsor.

People often wonder if one MP can make a difference, especially an MP in a caucus of one. David has shown you can.

Don’t think I need to add a comment on this, as it speaks for itself.

Guyon Espiner reports:

A mysterious foundation that loans money to New Zealand First is under scrutiny, with a university law professor saying although it’s lawful, it fails to provide the transparency voters need in a democracy.
Records show New Zealand First has disclosed three loans from the New Zealand First Foundation. In 2017, it received $73,000. Then in 2018, it received a separate loan of $76,622, in what the Electoral Commission says was a loan executed to “replace the first loan”. In 2019, it received another loan for $44,923.

NZ First are using a loophole to hide their donors.

If you donate to an external organisation that then donates to a political party, then the law requires you to name the ultimate donors who supplied the money.

But the law on;y applies to donations, not loans. So what NZ First has set up is that its donors give money to the NZ First Foundation, and the Foundation loans money to NZ First, meaning no disclosure.

New Zealand First’s party secretary, Liz Witehira, said she knew nothing about it.
“I don’t know and I don’t need to know,” Mrs Witehira told RNZ.
“I understand there was a loan prior to my time but I didn’t have anything to do with it. I have not been involved in any loans since I have become the secretary general.”
Under electoral law, only the party secretary can enter into a loan on behalf of a political party.
Electoral Commission records show Mrs Witehira signed an Electoral Commission document – Return of Party Loan Exceeding $30,000 – on 26 April.
That document says New Zealand First received a loan of $44,923 from the New Zealand First Foundation on 24 April 2019.

RNZ asked Mrs Witehira for an explanation and she responded by text: “I haven’t signed any loans. Get your facts right.”
After being provided a copy of the Return of Party Loan document with her signature on it, she said, “There’s nothing further to explain. One entity provided a loan to another entity. It was documented, declared and repaid.”

So the party secretary lied.

The only information known about the foundation is the names and addresses of the two men who are trustees. They are Brian Henry, who acts as a lawyer for the New Zealand First leader Winston Peters, and Doug Woolerton, a former New Zealand First MP.
When contacted by RNZ, Mr Henry said, “There is nothing to talk about. That’s the end of the conversation,” and hung up.
As well as his role as a trustee for the New Zealand First Foundation which loans money to the party, Henry is also the “judicial officer” for New Zealand First. The position means Mr Henry gives legal advice to the board of the party, serves as a member of the constitution committee and chairs the disputes committee.
Mr Woolerton left Parliament in 2008 and now runs a lobbying firm. His company is called The Lobbyist and its website offers media strategies, services in “drafting changes for legislation” and “personal introductions” where appropriate.

So businesses donate money to a foundation run by Winston’s lawyer and a former MP who is now a lobbyist who says he can draft changes for legislation and do introductions.

Mr Woolerton said RNZ should contact National and Labour about their funding because they used similar structures.
Labour said it didn’t have any arrangements similar to the New Zealand First Foundation and didn’t take loans to fund the party.
National said it had an entity called the National Foundation which gathers money for the party. A spokesperson said it didn’t loan the party money and all donations to the National Foundation were treated as donations to the National Party and the ultimate source of funding was disclosed in its return.

So Woolerton is wrong. Only NZ First operate in such a way to hide the ultimate donors.

Prof Geddis believes that given the role of New Zealand First in government it was particularly important to know where the party funding came from.
“We want to know that so that we can then trace any public decisions that this party and its ministers are making back through and see, is it benefiting people who’ve helped fund them? And that’s a fundamental question in any democracy.”

If this was National, Labour and Greens would be calling for law changes and for an investigation. But as it is the party keeping them in power, they’ll look the other way.

The Herald reports:

A Wellington regional councillor has found a home in New Zealand’s newest political party after he says he was “shafted” by the Greens. …

Lee successfully ran on the Green Party ticket for two terms as a Wellington City councillor.
But when he set his sights on the regional council this year, he lost the party’s endorsement to Thomas Nash, leaving Lee shocked.
“I felt quite betrayed because I committed a lot of time, energy and money to the party.
“There was a feeling that a ‘greener person’ was a better candidate, but I was very disappointed at being shafted by my own party”, Lee said at the time
He also said politics was the art of compromise and felt the Green philosophy was “zero compromise”.
“It’s better to get a few wins for the greater good rather than to die in a ditch over very ideological issues.”

No wonder he did badly in the Greens.

Stuff reports:

Four years after the death of euthanasia campaigner Lecretia Seales, a bill legalising assisted dying is up for its final parliamentary vote on Wednesday night. Lecretia’s mother Shirley Seales talks to Henry Cooke about the journey to get here. …

Lecretia Seales was a Wellington lawyer who took the government to court over her wish to legally end her life on her own terms after a terminal brain tumour diagnosis.
She died in 2015, a day after a High Court judge ruled against her.
In his ruling, Justice Collins acknowledged that the current law made her suffer and “does not accommodate her right to dignity and personal autonomy” – but he said it was up to Parliament to fix this, not the courts.
Act MP David Seymour decided to do something, putting forward the End of Life Choice Bill into the member’s ballot.

And the third reading will start a 4 pm today and should finish around 8.30 pm.

She understands an instinctual worry about the consequences of legally assisted dying. Before Lecretia became ill, Shirley might well have been against euthanasia.
“I probably would have erred on the side of the people that say, ‘Life is precious. You can’t make these decisions’ and that sort of thing.”
But she says nobody who has watched a loved one go through a bad death retains such a view.
“Yes, some people have beautiful, peaceful deaths. Lecretia’s certainly wasn’t.”
“I lived with Lecretia and Matt [her husband, Matt Vickers] for some months looking after Creesh. My husband joined in the last few weeks, and her brother and sister were staying close by. The night that Creesh was dying, we didn’t even tell them because we didn’t want them to watch what was happening, it was awful.”
“I didn’t want that to be their last memory of Creesh.”

This law will give people like Lecretia a choice, one they don’t currently have. I hope it passes tonight.

Mediaite reports:

Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has sent an official communication to Hillary Clinton — through her attorneys — demanding the 2016 Democartic nominee retract her comment on Gabbard and Russia.
“Your statement is defamatory, and we demand that you retract it immediately,” the letter reads.
“In making the statement, you knew it was false. Congresswoman Gabbard is not a Russian asset and is not being groomed by Russia,”the letter said. “Besides your statement, no law enforcement or intelligence agencies have claimed, much less presented any evidence, that Congresswoman Gabbard is a Russian asset. This fabricated story is so facially improbable that it is actionable as defamation.”

I hope Gabbard gets an apology. One should be able to disagree on foreign policy without being called a Russian asset.

Newsroom reports:

Hughes said Peters was wrong on several elements of his evidence last week, including a practice Peters claimed ministers should follow in applying three tests before accepting ‘no surprises briefings’ from officials. Hughes said: “This is not how the no surprises briefing works. I’ve never heard of such an approach being followed.”
Peters was also wrong in his belief a caretaker government situation existed for three months before a general election, meaning no surprises briefings were ruled out. “No caretaker provision applied to restrict what I would otherwise provide to my minister leading up to the election,” Hughes said. 

So Peters just made that up.

Earlier, the commissioner said neutrality was fundamental to his role and those of other senior public servants.
“I’m confident nobody, not even my family, knows what my politics are. This is something I never discuss and I never ever let politics come into the decisions I make. Not once has anyone ever accused me of political partiality or anything close to it.
“I understand Mr Peters says I have acted contrary to the principles of political neutrality, of using the no surprises policy as a sham. 
“The allegations that I acted politically are untrue, and unfounded, and I absolutely reject them.”

The Deputy PM accused the most senior public servant of being a political hack.

Boyle, the last of the Crown defendants to give evidence, said he had served 38 different ministers from Labour, National, NZ First, the Māori Party and ACT as a chief executive between 2003 and 2018. 
The issues at play in the Peters case went to the heart of the public’s ability to have confidence in the public service. Neutrality was paramount, he said. “Mr Peters alleges that I breached the obligations of political neutrality, that he believes the use of no surprises was a sham by the officials.
“I totally reject that allegation. I had no political motivation in deciding to brief my minister. My over-riding concern was the accountability of the minister to Parliament, risks to the ministry, and questions about the integrity of the social security system.”

So Boyle has served 38 ministers from five parties, but also got smeared by Winston.

Boyle said there was no limit, as Peters argued, on public servants briefing ministers on operational issues in the departments. “That is absurd.”
“Mr Peters seems to be confusing ministerial knowledge of operational matters and ministerial involvement in operational matters. They are not one and the same.

Winston seems to be confused a lot.

“I have never met a minister who did not want to be informed of something significant in their portfolio, either negative or positive. 
“The only time I can ever remember a minister genuinely angry was when they were surprised.”
He gave the example of a decision to continue the Crown car fleet with BMW when he was Secretary of Internal Affairs. The person responsible for ministerial services was the Prime Minister at the time, Sir John Key, who “was unhappy learning of the contract renewal via his driver”.

Heh I bet he was.

The socialist party in Bolivia tried to fix the recent election. The OAS concluded ” there were “clear manipulation” including altered and forged records with alterations and forged signatures, and widescale data manipulation”

Protests ensured and the Government lost the support of the Police and military and President Morales has now resigned.

The irony is he may have won a run-off election. If he hadn’t falsified the results to give himself a 10% margin, then the protests wouldn’t have erupted and he may have won a run-off.

But now he is forced out. Good riddance.

Stuff reports:

Climate Change Minister James Shaw considered taking the controversial methane target out of the Zero Carbon Bill and allowing it to be set by a commission, but NZ First would not support such a move.
The National Party pushed very hard for the methane reduction target to be removed from the Zero Carbon Bill, which it eventually voted to support anyway.
Methane is the main greenhouse gas emission from agriculture, and makes up roughly half of the warming that New Zealand’s emissions contribute to global climate change, primarily from livestock belching.
The target – a 10 per cent reduction on 2017 levels by 2030 and between 24 and 47 per cent reduction by 2050 – has been vehemently opposed by farmers.

So Shaw was willing to compromise on it, but Winston refused as he didn’t want to give National a win. So Winston prioritised sticking it to National, over the farmers of New Zealand.

Newshub reports:

Hannah Tamaki’s party Vision NZ has promised to ban the construction of new “mosques, temples and other foreign buildings of worship”, if elected. 

So basically she is saying that no religion outside Christianity is allowed a place or worship.

Presumably she means new synagogues would be banned. Also mandirs, gurdwaras and stupas.

And what next? How about destroying the ones already here? You could even do them all in one night. Maybe even make it an annual event and call it Kristallnacht.

Massey University has now got two policies around “freedom of speech. One general policy and one on invited speakers.

There is some good stuff in the general policy such as:

the freedom of expression, the freedom of speech and the freedom to associate are central to academic inquiry, as is the free and frank exchange of ideas

Good

It follows then that academic staff should not be prevented from including in their teaching materials items or content on the grounds that it may offend or shock any student/s, on the basis that this material is academically quality assured.

Also good that students may be offended or shocked.

Therefore, we affirm the centrality of certain freedoms – of speech and expression, and of association – as central to our University. We also affirm that these freedoms are contingent on ensuring that dialogue should be respectful and should not seek to disparage, marginalise, stigmatise or incite hostility.

This is okay also. I apply this test to Don Brash. People may disagree with what he says, but you can’t argue he “seeks” to incite hostility etc.

The University may itself apply restrictions in circumstances where they are necessary for the University: …

to safeguard the safety, health and welfare of its students, employees and other persons lawfully upon the premises or engaged in activities associated with the University

This is the dangerous part. Because we have seen multiple times that “safety” is now used as a device to censor views some students don’t like as they merely claim it makes them feel unsafe.

And now we turn to the invited speakers policy:

they have provided the correct information to the University so that the relevant University officer can fully consider possible risks associated with having this speaker at an event. Consideration will be given, but not be exclusive to, physical, reputational and mental harm to students, staff and/or visitors

So every invited speaker must now be approved in advance by a member of the SLT and they may be banned if they are deemed cause reputational harm or mental harm. This is so wide, that a VC could ban anyone at all under this policy.

So I’m pessimistic that these policies will enhance free speech. I think their impact will be to make it harder to have dissenting views heard. I hope I’m wrong, and time will tell.

An excellent story by Tim Murphy at Newsroom. Winston’s lies normally can’t be fact checked but thanks to the court case he initiated, they can be. Here’s the summary:

• Winston said it was “demonstrably false” he repaid $18,000 and that it was “way less” than that. He repaid $17,936.43 which is 99.6% of $18,000
• Winston said the over-payments likely started in 2013/14. They started in 2010
• Winston said in 2017 he asked to speak to the original staffer but she no longer worked there. In fact she worked in the same office in the same role.
• Winston claimed he paid interest on his under-payments. He didn’t.
• Winston claimed his payment was abated and he didn’t received his full super. In fact he was paid the full rate.
• Winston claimed MSD could not resolve how the “mistake” happened. In fact MSD said it was because he declared he was single.
• Winston claimed his form was incomplete as he had not ticked a box on his current relationship but in fact he has declared he was separated
• Winston claimed the form had been altered. It had not.
• Winston claimed the staffer he dealt with in 2020 was “very senior”. She wasn’t. She was a standard case manager.

Now consider he is our Deputy Prime Minister.

The Herald reports:

School boards look set to keep their powers when the Government finally unveils its decisions on the way schools are run tomorrow(.
Education Minister Chris Hipkins is believed to have abandoned proposals by a taskforce last year to transfer all the legal powers of school boards to about 20 new regional “hubs”.

Hipkins is not backing down because he is against the proposal. The taskforce was chaired by a Labour Party insider.

Hipkins is backing down because he knows he’ll lost the next election if he tries to replace every board of trustees in the country with regional hub boards all appointed by him personally.

However Waikato University education professor Martin Thrupp said the Government might still seek to achieve the goal of the proposed reforms – reducing competition between schools and achieving more equal outcomes for students – by pursuing the “substance” of the proposals without the contentious “form” of the hubs.

Yes they will still try to achieve their aim of having no good schools (all schools must be equal) through other means.

The Herald reported:

National MP Maggie Barry has announced she will not be seeking re-election and will retire from Parliament in 2020.
The former TV presenter has had held the North Shore seat for three terms.
Barry has also been at the forefront of opposition to the voluntary euthanasia bill, which is expected to have its third reading next week. The bill is expected to pass, which would send the issue to a referendum at the 2020 election.

I’ve gotten to know Maggie quite well, and like her. We have different views on issues like euthanasia, but she’s been a great member of National’s team. I’ll miss her.

Her seat has a majority of 12,716 so I imagine there will be strong competition for it.

Once upon a time I would have thought Sean Topham would be the next MP for North Shore, but I think he is too busy building a global company to stand for Parliament.

Phil Quin writes:

Since I loathe Donald Trump with the ferocity of a thousand suns – and regard the prospect of a second Trump term as just shy of apocalyptic –  it pains me to admit, just under a year away from the 2020 US presidential election, that he is probably slightly better than even money to win again. At the risk of this turning into a listicle, I have four reasons.

So what are Quin’s reasons for thinking Trump may win again. In summary:

1. The US economy is doing well
2. The Electoral College favours Trump. He could win a majority even if he gets five million fewer votes in the popular vote.
3. The Democrats have gone too radical with their $50 trillion health nationalisation proposals
4. The Trump campaign has huge money – over $300 million this year

Reasons No 1,2 and 4 are unlikely to change. So the key variable is whom the Democrats choose.

Stuff reports:

The National Party have selected former journalist and political staffer Nicola Grigg as its candidate for the Canterbury seat of Selwyn, the safest electorate in the country.
Grigg replaces outgoing MP Amy Adams, who is retiring from politics at the election after four terms.
The local party selected Grigg ahead of two other candidates – Simon Flood and local councillor Craig Watson.

I’ve known Nicola since she was a reporter for Radio NZ in Christchurch. She’s a very high energy and driven individual and I’m thrilled she won the nomination.

Selwyn is literally the safest electorate in the country with a majority of 19,639. So unless she guns down a superfluity of nuns, she will be a Member of Parliament next year.

The Herald reports:

New Zealand’s newest political party, Sustainable NZ, has launched today with a promise of increasing Conservation funding by $1 billion over four years in a bid to halt the extinction of native species.
Leader Vernon Tava said the funding could come from New Zealand First’s $3 billion provincial growth fund.

I’d much rather $1 billion was spent on conservation and biodiversity than trying to win Shane Jones a seat in Northland.

And he has endorsed the use of gene technology to help reduce predators.
He described the party as a “full-time environment party”.
“Until now, if you had wanted to vote for the environment, you have had to support a party that has been a clearing-house for New Zealand’s left-of-Labour activist movements, often putting social justice ahead of protecting the environment.”

As I understand it Sustainable NZ would work with either a National or Labour led Government, so long as that party would agree to their key environmental policies.

Their website is here.