Stuff reports:

NZ First Minister Tracey Martin, speaking to Stuff about running in the Wellington electorate of Ōhāriu, said she was excited to challenge the white guys who currently dominate the seat.
“It won’t be a surprise to you that I’m a feminist. I quite like the fact that there are two of these white guys that have got a particular patter going on in Ōhāriu and I’m certainly not a white guy,” she said. 

An unusual rationale for standing there.

NZ First got 1,500 party votes last time in Ohariu and only 750 candidate votes. Martin may attract more candidate votes than the previous candidate, which could be very helpful to National’s Brett Hudson as she is far more likely to take them from the left side of the spectrum.

The majority is only 1,051 so Martin’s candidacy should definitely help National’s attempt to win the seat off Labour.

Newshub reports:

Associate Health Minister Julie Anne Genter says if National goes into the next election promising tax cuts, it’ll be at the expense of the fight against measles. 
More than 1800 people have been infected with the highly virulent disease in the present outbreak, about 1500 of them in Auckland alone. Measles has the ability to weaken the body’s immunity to other diseases and can even be fatal.  …

Asked if the initial response here in New Zealand was too slow, Genter blamed a lack of funds initially available.
“This sort of thing takes time to build up. Our readiness to preparedness to respond is actually several years in the making, and that’s why it’s so important… to properly fund our health system,” said Genter.
“Anyone campaigning on tax cuts is basically promising that we’ll run down public services in the future, because the reality is New Zealand – to be like other developed countries with good levels of services and infrastructure – needs to be able to pay the people who do that work, needs to be able to hire the people who go out and do the immunisations.”

What a load of crap.

Her Government dropped having a health target for vaccinations and has seen immunisation rates drop after years of increasing.

Her Government has also just declared a $7.5 billion surplus.

What Genter doesn’t get is money doesn’t achieve results unless you have competence to go along with it.

Thomas Coughlan at Stuff reports:

Another flagship Labour policy, Auckland’s light rail, is in crisis as deep divisions are revealed over a potential cost blowout of billions of dollars amid delays.
Firms involved in the project say the problems have cost them millions of dollars and are wrecking New Zealand’s business reputation.

So a total clusterf**k.

Newly elected Labour leader Jacinda Ardern labelled the plan “a game changer” and said it would be partly funded by petrol taxes. She promised to have it extend to Mt Roskill within four years of taking office.

And we’re halfway there.

Since the election, the project has been dogged by delays – delays that businesses say have cost them millions of dollars. Meanwhile, Treasury has warned the Government that getting it wrong could see the cost of the $6 billion project balloon like Edinburgh’s light rail, which took six years to build and cost twice its initial estimate. An NZTA source has confirmed this is still a possibility for Auckland’s light rail.

Has Labour ever costed a policy accurately?

In August the Government said work wouldn’t even start in 2020, as it still had to weigh up who would build and run the scheme, NZTA, its own transport agency – or the NZ Super Fund, which made a surprise, unsolicited offer to build and run the project in April last year.
Stuff can reveal that Transport Minister Phil Twyford –  previously at the centre of the Government’s Kiwibuild debacle – was warned by officials the unannounced NZ Super Fund bid wasn’t up to scratch. In fact, the initial bid was just six powerpoint slides.

They’re delayed things for a year based on a six powerpoint slide bid? How incompetent can you get.

I was once on a board which had a subsidiary ask us to approve a major transaction for a new registry system, as it just hit the threshold for a major transaction. They tried to get us to approve it based on some powerpoint slides. We told them to go away and come back with a proper proposal and justification.

That was for a one million dollar project, not a six billion one.

Newsroom reports:

Court documents have confirmed New Zealand First leader Winston Peters was sent a letter by officials four years into his seven-year overpayment of national superannuation asking him to check details he had supplied, including that he was ‘single’.
He continued to receive the higher rate of superannuation for ‘single, shared accommodation’ rather than his actual ‘de facto relationship’ for three further years.

So Winston’s lawsuit has led to the public learning that not only did Peters incorrectly apply for the higher single rate of NZ Super, he was written to about it and never told them he wasn’t single.

Chief High Court Justice Geoffrey Venning has now ordered Peters to supply answers by Friday to several questions he had not adequately addressed. 
He also ordered Peters to pay “modest” costs over this round of the case. “It has to be remembered that the application is against the background of a failure to provide answers in the form required by the rules initially.”

Judge has slapped some costs onto Winston for trying to dodge questions.

For example, the judge found Peters’ answer to the Crown lawyers’ question of “As at March 18, 2014, were you living with Ms Janet Trotman in a de facto relationship?” was “general in the extreme” and “is to be answered”.
He also had failed to answer the Crown’s question on whether he had contacted MSD after the 2014 letter. Justice Venning ruled: “The applicant is entitled to a clear answer as to whether Mr Peters did contact MSD in response to the letter. The interrogatory is to be answered.”
Further, Peters had not answered if he told MSD officials at their office in Ellerslie on July 26, 2017, that his claim on his original superannuation application that he was ‘single’ was incorrect. “The question is to be answered,” the judge said.

All important questions.

Another, related question, of how many times Peters “had refused to receive a briefing under the no surprises policy from a chief executive or official” did need to be answered as it had received an inadequate answer from the politician.
Peters’ lawyer Brian Henry had tried to argue that “there are no clear instances where the plaintiff had been involved in the rejection of a ‘no surprises’ disclosure that spring to the plaintiff’s mind.” The judge said it must be answered directly.

This is important as Peters in insisting National Ministers should have refused a no surprises briefing, yet it seems he never did so himself of course.

Fox News reports:

Former Defense Secretary James Mattis poked fun at himself and President Trump at the 74th annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner in New York City on Thursday night, a day after the president called Mattis “the world’s most overrated general.”

Mattis was of course picked by Trump to be Secretary of Defence. He joined the Marine Corps at age 18, was a 2nd lieutenant at age 21. At age 40 he was a lieutenant colonel in Operation Desert Shield. At age 53 he commanded the First Marine Division in Iraq as a Major General. After that he was made a full General and NATO Supreme Commander for Transformation, US Joint Forces Commander and US Central Command Commander.

So how did he respond to Trump’s insult?

Mattis, who resigned last December after clashing with Trump on the president’s Syria policy, said he was honored by the “overrated” remark because Trump “also called Meryl Streep an overrated actress.”
“So I guess I’m the Meryl Streep of generals,” Mattis joked, “and frankly that sounds pretty good to me.”

Superb.

The Herald reported:

A security breach at Wellington Airport thanks to a passenger blunder is causing delays and a lounge evacuation.
A passenger “re-entered a screened area by going back through the exit doors after disembarking a flight” this morning, a spokesperson said.
“This means the entire lounge has had to be evacuated and all passengers are now being rescreened.” …

Local man Glenn Dwight said he was on his plane waiting to leave when the breach happened, and all the passengers had to be removed from the plane and rescreened.
He had been waiting at least 50 minutes and was still in the security area.

It is idiotic that because someone went through a wrong door, you force two entire flights to disembark.

I’m quoted in the article. I wasn’t on those flights but was part of the 200 metres security queue as they forced hundreds of people to go back through security again.

Someone should do a cost benefit analysis of domestic security screening. Has a single incident actually been prevented through screening?

Surely it is time for us to give up on the UN Human Rights Council and follow the US by withdrawing funding for it. It is a farce.

Rachel Stewart has resigned as a Herald columnist as they wouldn’t run this column.

The Herald has a right to censor its columnists, but they can’t expect the columnists to keep writing for them if they do. And the public should be aware The Herald now deems certain topics as verboten.

Newshub reports Phil Goff:

So will you support STV for council elections? Will you support getting the DHB elections off the ballot?
I am utterly unconvinced that electing the District Health Boards is a meaningful exercise. And I say that because I’m really well informed, but have I ever read anything in the paper about a decision made by the District Health Board? Do I know who the people are in most instances? No. And I’m the ultimate political junkie.

Goff is absolutely right. DHB elections are a farce and in fact lead to less accountability, not more. They should be scrapped.

Stuff reports:

Three is not suddenly up for sale. It has always been for sale but it came as a package deal with radio.
MediaWorks has finally accepted the integration of its radio and television businesses has failed. Putting Three on the block in a distressed asset sale will not give it much of a financial windfall.

People are demanding the Government do something. The Government should do nothing.

Not because I think it is a good thing TV3 may close. I’d be very sad if it does, especially for the many great people who work there.

But you can’t change the reality that TV channels are no longer a particularly useful valued commodity in the Internet age. Programmes are. Staff are. But not channels.

There is still a huge market for television programmes and money to be made in production. But the era of channels is dying. People now watch programmes, not channels.

TVNZ also has a limited life span as a commercial broadcaster. However if TV3 fades then they will be eligible to pick up more NZ on Air funding. But if TV3 goes, I would question if we keep NZ on Air in its current form.

If TV3 goes, I’d say time for the Government to bite the bullet and wrap up all the public broadcasting money into one entity – a combined television and radio public broadcaster. This would encompass all the funding for NZ on Air, Radio New Zealand and Maori TV.

For those interested here is the submission I made to the Standing Orders Committee:

I propose that the conditions should be simplified as follows:

“(1)     Official television coverage of the House is made available on the following conditions:
Any broadcast or rebroadcast of coverage must comply with the broadcaster’s legal obligations.
Coverage of proceedings must not be used in any medium for—
(a)       political advertising or election campaigning (except with the permission of all members shown):
(b)       commercial sponsorship or commercial advertising.
Reports that use extracts of coverage of proceedings and purport to be summaries must be fair and accurate.
(2)       Breach of these conditions may result in a loss of access to official television coverage, and may be treated as a contempt and proceeded  against accordingly.”

So in essence I propose deleting the ban on political or election campaigning, and the requirement that extracts be fair and accurate.

The House is a forum where MPs debate legislation and policies. It is inherently political. To ban the use of footage for political advertising is hard to justify as a matter of principle, and unless there is a clear overwhelming reasons for a ban, permission should be the norm.

On a practical note, defining what is or is not a political or election ad can be challenging. Supporters of political parties often use footage from the House in social media memes. The current standing order makes this a breach.  Do we want the Speaker to be constantly deciding day in and day out, whether a particular use is or is not political?

The current controversy over the Deborah Russell video is a good example. One can make a case that it isn’t a political or election ad. As a fan of the classics myself, I actually think the footage shows Ms Russell in an excellent light, showing she is well educated, and can relate history to current times. Others may disagree. We should not expect the Speaker to be making such determinations.

In terms of the requirement that reports must be fair and accurate, I again don’t believe this is the role of the Speaker and/or the Privileges Committee to decide.

If an advertisement is unfair or inaccurate then we have an excellent self-regulatory regime through the Advertising Standards Authority to deal with these.

If the footage is used in an online media story, then the Media Council can deal with complaints of inaccuracy or unfairness.

If the footage is used by broadcast media, the Broadcasting Standards Authority can deal with complaints of inaccuracy or unfairness.

So in summary I would change the Appendix to read:

“(1)     Official television coverage of the House is made available on the following conditions:
Any broadcast or rebroadcast of coverage must comply with the broadcaster’s legal obligations.
Coverage of proceedings must not be used in any medium for commercial sponsorship or commercial advertising.
(2)       Breach of these conditions may result in a loss of access to official television coverage, and may be treated as a contempt and proceeded against accordingly.”
 
   
David Farrar

The Guardian reports:

Boris Johnson has insisted he is “very confident” that his Brexit deal will be approved by the House of Commons in a historic knife-edge vote on Saturday, even without the backing of the DUP.
“I want to stress that this is a great deal for our country, for the UK; I also believe that it is a very good deal for our friends in the EU,” Johnson said at the European council in Brussels, where EU leaders signed off on the last-minute deal.

UK Labour has demanded there not be a no deal. Now there is a deal, they’re against a deal. They stand for nothing except frustrating the will of the people.

If Boris can’t get the deal through Parliament, then there has to be an election.

Massey University announced:

Massey University has advised Speak Up For Women to find an alternative venue for its Feminism 2020 event. The University has received external advice on its health, safety and wellbeing obligations under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, and its duty of care to the University community, and has made the decision on these grounds.
The legal advice we have received is that cancellation of the event, as concluded by the report, is the only way to eliminate the risk to health and safety and to ensure that the University would not be in breach of its health and safety obligations.

What weasel words. First of all there is no obligation to eliminate risk, only manage it.

But more importantly this is again using health and safety as a pretext to stop people receiving views they want to hear, just because others disagree with it.

Massey University is committed to the values of academic freedom, the freedom of speech, and the freedom of expression, as values that lie at the very heart of the tradition of a university and academic inquiry.

No you’re not. You talk the talk but time and time again don’t walk the walk.

It is ludicrous to say that you are no longer allowed to even discuss trans-gender issues. Ironically the more ones tries to suppress speech, the stronger people will fight against it.

Personally I am supportive of people being able to change their gender identity both socially and legally. The mental health issues with being trans-gender are significant, and legislative and social changes which allow them to live a happier life are a good thing in my view.

But that doesn’t mean one should close down debate on where the boundaries are. There are legitimate policy issues around stuff such as:

• Should a change of legal gender (identity) be on demand, or have some sort of test
• Should biological sex trump gender identity in certain circumstances
• If a trans woman still has male sex organs and has been sentenced for sexual crimes, are these circumstances where they might not go into a women’s prison?
• Should trans women be able to compete in professional sports as women without restriction

Now Massey University has said they will ban a speaker who has a view on any of the above, which is different to their view. That is deeply chilling.

Stuff reports:

New Zealand First MP Clayton Mitchell is demanding an apology from security guards who booted him out of a Tauranga bar on Saturday night, describing them as politically-motivated “buffoons”.

So he thinks he was evicted because of his politics rather than being a dickhead?

Speaking to reporters at Parliament, Mitchell pushed back against allegations he and his friend had behaved badly, strongly denying claims he had accidentally hit a female staff member on the head with a glass and spilled his drink on her.
“That’s absolutely not true. That’s fake news. That didn’t happen,” he said.

In working out who to believe, it is worth noting Mitchell has convictions for assault and was found “unfit” to hold a bar licence.

The Tauranga-based MP also rejected claims that he or his friend had replied, “we are the law,” when it was suggested police could be called.
“I certainly didn’t say it. [My friend] didn’t say it. That’s just another fabrication,” Mitchell said.
“It’s politically motivated. We know the Young Nats are in behind, trying to stir something up here.”
In a brief statement, the National Party’s youth wing president Sam Stead said the issue had nothing to do with them.
“The Young Nats wouldn’t waste their time on an MP they’ve never heard of.”

God knows what Mitchell means by suggesting Young Nats were involved.

Standing alongside Mitchell, Peters encouraged reporters to watch video footage of the night before jumping to conclusions.
“We are so happy for you to see it that we ask you to turn up on Saturday night, have a good hard look at it, and then tell the public what you think,” Peters told media.
“It will show that your concerns and your alarmism is not justified in any way shape or form.”
Peters said he had not watched the video himself, but had been informed of its content by a person he trusted.

So Winston hasn’t watched the video but insists it clears Mitchell.

Numbers on the dole or jobseeker allowance were static for many years and then in the last two years have shot up by around 16%.

You don’t have to be a genius to work out that relaxing or removing sanctions and work tests have contributed to this.

Stuff reports:

The Government has shifted the goalposts in its promise to deliver more frontline police after what seems like a slip of the tongue by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.
It promised to “strive towards adding 1800 new police” over three years but in a game of semantics, it is now saying it will deliver 1800 new trained recruits by next month.
The move has drawn the ire of the Police Association who say it is not good enough and that the Government has broken its promise to police.

And to the public.

It will soon be easier to list promises the Government has kept, than those they’re dropped or changed.

Radio NZ reports:

Justice Minister Andrew Little is being bullish about new counter-terrorism legislation saying he’s not up for negotiating.

An interesting approach when you don’t have the numbers as the Greens oppose it.

In fact National has called Little’s bluff and said if he won’t even meet with them to negotiate, then they won’t vote for it at 1st reading.

Will Angry Andy stay angry and stomp and huff away or will he accept that in order to pass laws, you need to negotiate to get a majority

Radio NZ reports:

A high-profile Catholic woman says a bishop would not have had sex with a woman unless he loved her.

Does that mean that Cardinal Pell also loved his altar boys?

Joy Cowley, a celebrated children’s author of books like The Silent One and Nest in a Falling Tree, told RNZ the sexual relationship would have made Charles Drennan a better bishop.

If you have read The Thorn Birds, you might agree. One of the all time great novels on a Catholic priest who becomes a Cardinal but is more human and humane due to his failings, including his love for a woman.

She said she was defending clergy who acted on their sexual urges.
“How can you do this to a man for being human?”
The 83-year-old, who lives in Wairarapa and leads Catholic spiritual retreats, wrote an online post last week saying the case showed mandatory celibacy for priests should be dumped because it was unnatural.

I agree it is unnatural. Other Christian churches that allow their priests to marry seem to have far fewer sexual abuse cases.

“We know that a hungry man cannot be judged for stealing a loaf of bread,” she wrote.

Actually you can.

Ms Cowley wouldn’t say if she thought there was an appropriate age where a sexual relationship with a much older bishop would be okay.
“Probably early teens, I would say would be inappropriate,” she said.

Illegal would be the word you are looking for.

“You know, there’s one element you’ve left out, and that’s love. People fall in love. I don’t think this man would have had sex with anyone that he wasn’t in love with.”

I may be wrong on this, but I understand that some men have been known to have sex with people they are not in love with.

She said she was aware that the majority of priests had sex.

Remarkable if that is the Catholic Church.

Her hope was that Bishop Drennan’s case would cause a shift at the Vatican towards ending celibacy and being less judgemental of Catholics when it came to sex.

That would be a good thing.

The Spectator reports:

Thames Valley Police is appealing for witnesses following a number of public offences in Oxford.
Officers are investigating a large number of offensive stickers that have been placed across Oxford city centre containing transphobic comments. It is believed they started appearing in March 2019 within the High Street, Catte Street and Parks Road area.
Investigating officer PC Rebecca Nightingale based at St Aldates police station said: “Behaviour like this is not acceptable and we take incidents of this nature very seriously.

So the Oxford Police are investigating these stickers. What terrible thing did they say? Were they advocating violence? Where they inciting riots?

The stickers said:

“Woman: noun. Adult human female”

And:

“Women don’t have penises”

My God. Those responsible must be found and jailed.