Stuff reports:

Disproportionate rates of bullying, poor classroom environments and truancy could be reasons student achievements are in a “worrying” decline.

A global education report showed an overall decline in New Zealand’s level of reading, mathematics and science since 2009 – equating a loss of about 3/4 of a year’s worth of a student’s schooling against 2009 results.

Ministry of Education Evidence, Data and Knowledge deputy secretary Dr Craig Jones said the results were cause for concern.

Data pointed to key issues in New Zealand’s education system including an alarming rise in bullying, gaps between high and low achievers, drastically deteriorating attitudes toward reading, a rise in truancy, poor learning environments and a negative attitude toward school.

They are indeed cause for concern. I’m not convinced it is just about bullying and truancy even though they are factors. I think the curriculum needs to focus more on reading, maths and science.

The Government has released details of the draft Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill.

At the election there will be an indicative referendum on whether or not people support the bill. After the election, the bill mayor may not be considered by Parliament and may be amended also.

So what are the main details of the proposed regime:

• A minimum purchase and used age of 20;
• Ban on all marketing and advertising of cannabis products;
• Requires harm minimisation messaging in the retailing of cannabis;
• Prohibits consumption in public places and limits use to private homes and specifically licence premises;
• Limits sale of cannabis to specifically licenced physical stores (not online or remote sales);
• Strict controls and regulations on the potency of cannabis;
• Establishes a state licencing regime that all stages of the growing and supply chain are licenced and controlled by the Government, and will limit the amount of cannabis that is allowed to be grown.
• A purchase limit of 14 grams per person per day
• A limit of four plants per household
• Up to four years imprisonment for selling to someone aged under 20

To me it looks a pretty robust regime that should be an improvement on the status quo.

Radio NZ reports:

Community and Voluntary Sector Minister Poto Williams hasn’t read a damning report into the Hepatitis Foundation’s extravagant spending and wasn’t aware her department was refusing interviews.

Some might say this shows the Minister isn’t on top of her game but I am sure it is just the pressure of work.

I mean in the six months she has been a Minister she’s put out a total of three press releases.

Andrew Little announced:

The Government is taking action to protect New Zealand from foreign interference in our elections by banning foreign donations to political parties and candidates, Justice Minister Andrew Little announced today.

No they’re not. His very first line is a lie.

Foreign donations over $1,500 are already banned. They are merely changing the level from $1,500 to $50. The level is a de minimis level recognising that it isn’t practical to check the residency status of every single person who say attends a dinner, or makes a minor donation.

As far as I know the number of donations between $50 and $1,500 from foreign individuals to political parties is near zero. The change is cosmetic.

$1,500 was probably too high. $50 is too low. But either way it is not a new ban. It is a mere change in threshold.

The real issue with this bill is that the Government has said it will pass it through all three stages today under urgency. That is outrageous. There is no reason it should bypass select committee scrutiny and shame on the Greens for supporting ramming it through under urgency.

Some Government apologists have tried to claim it must be done under urgency tonight to stop a rush of mythical foreign donations flowing through before the law takes effect. But the apologists haven’t even read the bill. It doesn’t take effect until 1 January 2020 so passing it tonight under urgency still means you could have the imaginary flood of donations occur.

The other thing worth noting is that this law change doesn’t stop the NZ First Foundation from receiving unlimited foreign donations, and then using those funds to loan money to NZ First or possibly pay expenses on their behalf. If the bill went to select committee an amendment could be considered that would extend the ban (over a certain level) to foundations established by political parties to fund them.

But Labour and the Greens don’t want to do anything about any foreign donations to the NZ First Foundation, so they’re rushing it through under urgency. Shame.

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has warned New Zealand to “never underestimate New Zealand First”, as her party grapples with its lowest poll numbers in two years. …

Speaking to 1News this morning, Ardern warned “never underestimate New Zealand First”.

If NZ First increased its vote by just 1 per cent, it would be back in Parliament.

National Leader Simon Bridges said that Ardern’s comments this morning indicated that Ardern was “effectively saying she’s banking on NZ First at the next election”.

“Labour-NZ First tied at the hip. It’s becoming increasingly clear; a vote for NZ First is a vote for Labour in Ardern’s eyes.”

That is the message that needs to go out. A vote for Winston is a vote for Labour.

In fact, Ardern took aim at the Colmar Brunton poll and said it has consistently underestimated Labour.

She said that has been a constant issue with the poll.

This is absolutely wrong.

Here’s the last four pre-election CB poll and the actual results:

• 2017: 37% poll vs 36.9% election
• 2014: 25.2% poll vs 25.1% election
• 2011: 28.0% poll vs 27.5% election
• 2008: 35.0% poll vs 34.0% election

In every election the ONCB poll got Labour dead right or had them slightly higher than the election.

So again the Prime Minister is flat out wrong and is generating fake news with her claims.

Jordan Williams has released:

Last week I signed an agreement apologising to Colin Craig, and agreed to pay him a confidential amount in full and final settlement of the civil litigation matters between us.  A copy of the statement is below.

After the jury vindicated me, Mr Craig appealed to the Court of Appeal, and then again to the Supreme Court.  They told me I had to start again, through no fault of mine or my lawyers. They said the judge erred in her summing up. But the courts do not pay for the error or the repetition.  The first trial plus appeals cost our side more than the original jury award to me.

My options are to settle however much it sticks in the throat, go bankrupt, or incur huge debt to fight on. With the comments the appeal judges have made about limits to damages in defamation, no one rational would go for the retrial.

Even if I was irrationally set on it, and found someone to fund it as a matter of principle, I can’t justify forcing Rachel MacGregor, or my family, through a repetition. I have too much positive to get on with, to justify more years embroiled in events nearly five years past.

Apologising to Mr Craig for the matters I did get wrong is the proper thing anyway.  For example, there was no evidence of what others called ‘sexts’, though there were inappropriate comments and love letters.  I am sorry about getting those details wrong. I don’t think they include anything that changes what three courts have now found. The $1.27million awarded by a jury in my favour was quashed largely because Mr Craig’s lawyers convinced three Supreme Court judges that it is possible Mr Craig genuinely believed that he did not sexually harass, despite the findings of other courts, and not just the jury.

I am confident another jury that listens to the evidence would come to similar conclusions as the first.  But it would cost as much again. Now that we know how the courts interfere with jury damages I can’t afford another trial however justified it might be.  

I was 29 when this case started.  If I had not proved Mr Craig’s allegations about my honesty false, they would have followed me all my life. Some of them were incompatible with continuing in a profession that needs trust.

Rachel MacGregor has given evidence multiple times. Mr Craig once looked at her and said he ‘set aside one million dollars and he was going to destroy her’*.  Up against deep pockets and attitudes like that, and with a Court system so unwilling to say ‘enough is enough’, I can’t possibly win. 

So instead I’ve had to say “enough is enough”. I will borrow what I have to pay, and get on with life.

* line 24, page 811, Craig v Slater, Notes of Evidence taken before the Hon Justice Toogood.

Apology by Jordan Williams to Colin Craig and Family

I wish to apologise publicly for the untrue statements I have made about Mr Craig.

In late 2014, Ms MacGregor, Mr Craig’s former Press Secretary approached me making various allegations about Mr Craig. Some of the allegations were serious and I decided to pass these allegations on to others within the Conservative Party and ultimately to Whale Oil.

I am now aware that a number of statements I made to others about Mr Craig were not true.

I deeply regret what has happened and my involvement in spreading those allegations. I apologise to Mr Craig and his family unreservedly.

I will not be continuing my legal proceedings against Mr Craig. I have personally apologised to Mr Craig and agreed to make a payment to him. He has accepted my apology and so has agreed to end his legal proceedings against me. 

ENDS

I think settling the case is the right thing, even if doing so has come at a cost to Jordan. It would have been unfair to subject Rachel MacGregor to another trial, so this settlement allows as least this part of the multiples cases around Colin Craig to come to an end.

Also Jordan has just become a father a few weeks ago. His priority now should be on his family, without the stress of ongoing litigation. So glad to see him bringing this to a close.

Stuff reports:

A libertarian politician wants to cut funding to universities that don’t protect free speech.

ACT leader David Seymour has announced he has written the Education (Freedom of Expression) Amendment Bill, taking aim at universities that don’t take the right steps to protect freedom of expression on their campuses, something Seymour has accused Massey University of doing by controversially refusing permission for Don Brash to speak at the Manawatū campus last year.

The bill says universities and tertiary education providers could have their funding revoked if they use the potential for mental harm to stop events or speakers on campus. It also says universities must create and uphold a code of practice that protects free speech.

Tertiary institutions are required by s161 of the Education Act 1989 to uphold academic freedom which includes the freedom of staff and students to state controversial and unpopular opinions.

If a university isn’t willing to do this, then it is right for this to have funding implications.

In a statement, Seymour said the risk of mental harm was being used as an excuse to cancel potentially controversial speaking events and universities were abusing their health and safety obligations to “deplatform” speakers.

“Avoiding mental harm to students has now become an excuse for universities to shut down free speech on campus. Students will not become confident, resilient adults if we turn universities into giant creches.”

One could use mental harm as an excuse to quash any controversial speaker.

Stuff reports:

A data breach has exposed the personal details of thousands of gun owners and led to police closing its firearm buyback platform. 

The details of more than 37,000 firearm owners, including the guns they possess and bank account information, may have been made publicly available, according to the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners (Colfo).

The gun lobby group said it had received the data from a supporter and has released some images obtained in the breach, with personal details redacted. 

Police confirmed the “potential privacy breach” on Monday afternoon. A member of the public has raised the alarm, a statement issued by police’s media team said. 

This is a massive massive blunder.

Any data breach that exposes credit card information is at the more serious end of scale.

But even worse is that this is a database of gun owners who have taken part in the buyback.

Now someone who takes part is highly likely to have only given up the guns they must, by law, so they will have other guns at home.

And the incompetence of the Police or Government has meant that criminal gangs might now have a list of gun owners they can target to steal from.

Also consider that the Government in proceeding with legislation to force every gun in New Zealand to be on a similar register operated by Police. So what confidence can people have that again their details won’t be exposed.

One News reports:

Labour’s support has fallen to its lowest in two years according to the latest 1 NEWS Colmar Brunton poll, and National and ACT still have the numbers to scrape together a Government. 

So how does this poll at the end of the middle year of Government compare with the same poll at the same time of the last two Governments?

• Governing Party – Clark Labour 45%, Key National 55%, Ardern Labour 39%
• Opposition Party – English National 39%, Goff Labour 33%, Bridges National 46%
• NZ First – 2001 2.7%, 2010 3.1%, 2019 4.0%
• Greens – 2001 6%, 2010 4.5%, 2019 7.0%

And how is the PM as Preferred PM

• Clark 2001 41%, Key 2010 56%, Ardern 2019 36%

Stuff reports:

A petition claiming Christchurch councillor Deon Swiggs’ bid for re-election was “sabotaged” relies largely on hearsay, an inquiry was told.

Legal action being taken by Swiggs’ supporters was being heard in Christchurch’s District Court on Monday as they fought to prove the electoral process during October’s local body elections had been compromised. …

The District Court heard on Monday that claims were being made by Swiggs’ supporters against five parties – McLellan, Christchurch City Council, the authority’s electoral officer Jo Daly, the Canterbury Youth Workers’ Collective and the Christchurch Youth Council. …

Two other claims – that allegations were released to the media by a youth group at a critical point in the election to sabotage his campaign, and that McLellan’s campaign team and supporters had orchestrated a “campaign of allegations and innuendo” against Swiggs – will still be heard.

This could be a fascinating case if it goes to a full hearing.

Tom Peck writes at The Independent:

To wonder whether Neil/Corbyn was as bad as Frost/Nixon or Maitlis/York is to ask the wrong question, really. Because the sheer agony of it could not be contained within the parameters of the simple TV interview format.

Anyone idly flicking through the channels and alighting on BBC One at 7pm might have imagined themselves to have stumbled upon one of those old Japanese humiliation endurance game shows as featured on Tarrant on TV, but with the really cruel twist that there was absolutely no prize at the end. Quite the opposite, in fact.

For the sheer range and volume of horrors, it can only really be compared to a montage that has now been quite rightly taken off YouTube, featuring all the horrific injuries suffered by various contestants on Channel 4’s ill-considered extreme sports celebrity show The Jump.

The Conservatives should just run the interview in place of their closing address.

We would learn that he would stay neutral on Brexit and during his own second referendum he would just “get on with running the government”, which means there wouldn’t actually be anyone to lead the campaign to vote for his own deal that he had negotiated – which might seem rather odd

Believe it or not his policy is that he will negotiate a better deal with the EU than Boris Johnson, but then not campaign for the deal!

A letter from four academics to the Vice-Chancellors of the eight New Zealand universities:

Dear Vice Chancellor,

You will be aware of two recent incidents at Massey University that have attracted media attention and engendered public debate about the role of universities as venues for freely expressing, exchanging and contesting ideas.

The first was a decision to cancel the Speak Up For Women ‘Feminism 2020’ event, with “health, safety and wellbeing obligations under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, and … duty of care to the University community” cited as grounds for the decision. The second was the removal of posters supporting the pro-democracy protest movement in Hong Kong. The university’s communications manager cited “complaints from staff and students” as the reason for the decision to remove the posters.

These incidents follow a related one in 2018, when the Vice Chancellor of Massey University banned Don Brash from speaking on campus. When that decision was announced, security concerns were again cited as justification. However it became clear – on the basis of leaked emails – that this was a pretext, and that the actual reason was that the Vice Chancellor disagreed with Brash’s position on separate political representation for Māori.

The three Massey incidents are the first prominent cases in New Zealand of the phenomenon of ‘cancel-culture’ that has become commonplace on campuses in North America and the United Kingdom over the past several years. We see cancel culture as a direct threat to the fundamental mission of universities to foster free debate and a free exchange of ideas on campuses. As such, we are determined that it should not be allowed to gain a foothold in New Zealand.

The mission of universities to foster free expression and debate, when properly enacted, has two consequences of inestimable benefit. The first is that theories and ideas are winnowed and refined. This has a moderating effect on public discourse beyond the university and, often, enables sound input to public policy. The second benefit is to our students; through exposure to ideas that challenge and sometimes disturb them, they become more intellectually robust.

A common factor in a great many instances of ‘de-platforming’ on overseas campuses – and at least two of the Massey incidents – is that ‘safety’ is cited as a reason for banning or cancelling speakers. In some cases, the concern appears to refer to physical safety, typically because those intending to protest a speaking event have ostensibly threatened to use violence. Cancelling speakers on these grounds amounts to a ‘thug’s veto’ and hands victory to those who would use threats to silence others. While we recognise the responsibility of university administrators to maintain order on campuses, acceding to a thug’s veto is about as inimical to academic life as it is possible to be.

In other cases ‘safety’ concerns seem to centre on a purported potential for psychological, rather than physical, harm. In many ways, banning or cancelling speakers on the grounds that exposure to their ideas may cause psychological harm is even more insidious than surrendering to a thug’s veto.

In his acclaimed book, The Coddling of the American Mind, American psychologist Jonathan Haidt has argued – supported by a convincing evidence base – that children must be exposed to risk and challenge in order to build their resilience. Failure to do so in the name of keeping them safe at all costs does not result in them growing up to be happy, well-adjusted adults; rather, they are likely to become fragile, anxious and depressed. By the same token, if we seek to protect our students from challenging, difficult and even offensive ideas, we deprive them of potentially productive grist to their intellectual mills. Furthermore, we compromise the development of an ability to cope with a world in which they will encounter a vast range of viewpoints that differ – often greatly – from their own.

If we who are charged with equipping the intellectual leadership of the future, shield students from debate and discourse on the grounds that it may upset them, we leave them vulnerable to confirmation bias, peer-group conformity, unquestioning obedience to authority and all of those other human propensities that must be held in check if free and democratic societies are to be maintained. For these reasons we believe that failure on the part of academics to stand stalwartly for free expression and debate on campuses amounts to a dereliction of our duty.

We respectfully request that you, as the leader of a New Zealand university, make a public statement affirming your commitment to these core academic principles and values. We further request that you repudiate ‘cancel culture’ and affirm your university as a place at which free academic discourse can thrive, to the benefit of our students, our society and the future of democracy.

We refer you to the “Chicago principles”, which lay out the limits of acceptable expression at the University of Chicago, as follows: “The University may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the University. In addition, the University may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the University”[1].

Within those very broad limits, the University of Chicago has taken the view that all members of the university must be able “to discuss any problem that presents itself”, noting that, “although members of the University community are free to criticize and contest the views expressed on campus, and to criticize and contest speakers who are invited to express their views on campus, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe. To this end, the University has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it”.

We invite you to adopt the Chicago principles at your own university. Doing so would help to ensure that the spirit of free expression and debate that has given rise to the most prosperous and emancipated societies in human history, in which universities have traditionally played so vital a role, will continue to thrive, to the benefit of future generations of students and academics.

Best regards,

Dr Michael Johnston, Associate Dean (academic)
Faculty of Education, Victoria University of Wellington

Dr James Kierstead, Senior Lecturer
School of Languages and Cultures, Victoria University of Wellington

Emeritus Professor Cedric Hall
School of Education, Victoria University of Wellington

Dr Mandy Shaver, Lecturer
School of Interprofessional Health Studies, Auckland University of Technology

[1] https://provost.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/documents/reports/FOECommitteeReport.pdf

The Herald reports:

Some Wellington city councillors are spending 18 and 30 hours a week on paid employment on top of their role as an elected member.

The job is paid over $110,000 a year. That is clearly a full-time salary. No Councillor should be undertaking paid employment on top of that.

If the WCC role is indeed such that it can be done part-time, then the salaries should be much lower.

Councillor Iona Pannett reported back saying she spent 30 hours a week with her role as chief executive of Birthright New Zealand.

Councillor Fleur Fitzsimons reported she spent about 18 hours a week working as an in-house barrister and solicitor for the NZ Public Service Association.

Maybe candidates for Council should not just be forced to disclose which ward they live in, but whether or not they intend to have jobs on the side.

Who was the London terrorist who killed two:

Khan was one of nine members of an al-Qaida-inspired terror group convicted of plotting to bomb the Stock Exchange and build a terrorist training camp in Pakistan that was disrupted by MI5 and the police. He is also understood to have been a supporter of al-Muhijaroun, the extremist group which scores of terrorists were involved with, according to the anti-extremism group Hope Not Hate.

So he had a conviction for an attempted terrorist attack. So what was his sentence:

He was originally given an indeterminate sentence, with a minimum term of eight years in February 2012. This was replaced by a 16-year fixed-term sentence and an extended period on licence by the court of appeal in 2013.

So his sentence was for 16 years. But they let him out after seven.

Why?

Two people are dead because they did.

The irony is he started the attack after attending a conference on rehabilitating offenders!

Have a read of this excellent story at The Spin Off. It will leave you in no doubt that an anti 1080 group called Flora and Fauna of Aotearoa (F&F) fabricated or forged a document claiming to be a lab analysis of how some rats and mussels etc died on the West Coast. It is a superb destruction of the credibility of the so called lab analysis, and the result should be that no media anywhere ever quote something from F&F again.

Their report from an “independent laboratory” concluded the rats etc died from 1080, with 41 pages of “evidence”. The problems were:

1. Contradicted reports from both Landcare and Massey
2. The lab was not named, and they refuse to do so
3. The lab templates appear to be copied from the website of Virginia Tech
4. The results were hand written which is strange as residue analysis is a digital process
5. The lab managed to do testing protocols for three species for which no protocol exists
6. They claimed to have tested 15 samples in two days
7. It claimed the level of poison in the rats was 30 times the normal lethal dose and that starfish managed to imbibe a dosage level while underwater that was 10 times the lethal level
8. The fluorocitrate levels were ten times higher than the 1080 levels, which should be impossible as not all the 1080 converts to fluorocitrate
9. The testing protocol claimed to be used is unheard of
10. F&F published the results of the testing three days before the lab was supposed to have completed the testing
11. The lab claimed to have used a product from a supplier which the supplier stopped selling in 2015

If the group tries such a stunt again, I suspect they’ll end up facing charges for fraud.

How nice of the Crusaders to pick a new logo showing two penises touching. Very daring of them.

Unless of course that wasn’t their intention, in which case they really should sack everyone involved with picking thew new logo for failing to spot the obvious.

Stuff reports:

National MP Jo Hayes has apologised for sending an abusive message to a man over social media, seemingly out of the blue. 

The list MP, based in the Christchurch suburb of New Brighton, left a message on Friday night to a Twitter post from June. The post was from a man celebrating his graduation from Massey University after seven years of study. 

“OMG Youre such a nasty person and i hope that people checking you out for future work will visit your twitter page and see how ugly you really are [sic],” Hayes posted at 10.59pm.

It was such a weird and ill-judged tweet that I can only assume it was done under the influence.

The tweet she was responding to was in no way political at all. I have no idea what would have triggered the tweet. Maybe it was intended for someone else or maybe he said something once that offended her (he did stand for Labour once). But regardless a very ill judged own goal.

Hayes did not answer phone calls from Stuff, but sent a text message saying “I should not have sent this tweet”.

“I will delete it and I’m sorry for any offence caused.”

Maybe MPs should have a five minute delay function built in for their tweets!

The Herald reports:

New Zealand First has invoked the “Agree to Disagree” provisions of its Coalition agreement with the Labour Party for the first time, which will allow it to publicly oppose the announced 11.46 per cent increase in tobacco excise from January 1.

The increase will go ahead because it has been passed by regulation.

But New Zealand First leader and deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters said the increase “disproportionately gouges the poor”, was placing unnecessary pressure on the New Zealand Customs Service and was a threat to the safety of dairy owners.

The policy had reached the limits of its effectiveness, said Peters.

“Studies show that the automatic tobacco excise increases are having less effect on reducing smoking rates, most particularly amongst the target groups of Maori and Pasifika,” Peters said in a statement today. …

Customs interceptions of smuggled cigarettes at the border had increased by 352 per cent between 2015 and August 2019.

On the substance Peters is correct. The policy is no longer effective.

For many years it was effective. The tax increases did help lead to significant reductions in smoking. But I think it is beyond dispute that a tipping point has been reached where suddenly the major impact has been to fuel the black market with raids on dairies a weekly occurrence and a huge spike in smuggling.

New Zealand First did not seek to block the regulation when it was discussed at cabinet, but it did not support it.

So in fact this is token opposition rather than actually having tried to stop it.

Stuff reports:

It was a little over two years ago when a trio of terrorists turned London Bridge into a kill zone as they ploughed a van into pedestrians and launched a deadly stabbing assault on the nearby Borough Market.

Terror returned to the bridge on Friday. It was just before 2pm when a man wielding a large knife and wearing what looked like an explosive vest sent a new wave of fear and confusion through the British capital.

But like the earlier incident, danger was met with extraordinary bravery.

Three different pieces of amateur footage suggest the attack could have been far worse had members of the public not intervened.

One video shows a scuffle on the pavement between the offender, nearly a dozen members of the public and heavily armed police.

As London’s iconic red buses drove past and confused pedestrians watched on, the attacker was pinned to the ground.

A man dressed in grey pants, a black coat and tie calmly pulled a large knife out of the scrum, put it in his right hand and slowly walked south out of harm’s way.

As before, Londoners show the right way to respond to terrorists – taking them on.

Almost a pity the Police intervened. The locals seem to have it under control, having subdued and disarmed him. I guess the Police had to assume the fake suicide vest was real, which is why he was shot dead. Would have been more satisfying to have him live to realise he didn’t terrorise those he sought to, but in fact the opposite. Brave Londoners running towards him to take him on.

Thoughts are of course with families and friends of those killed or wounded.