A guest post by David Garrett:

The Battle of Britain was  fought eighty years ago next year

Eighty years ago, on 1 September 1939, World War II began when Germany invaded Poland, and refused a British ultimatum to withdraw from that country. Eighty years ago next year is the anniversary of the first and last major battle to be fought in the air: the Battle of Britain. Because of advances in technology – most notably drones and precisely targeted missiles – there was never and  will never be a battle like it again.  While revisionism among historians means its significance is arguable, for me it was one of the most decisive battles of all time, and  probably prevented a successful invasion of Britain by the Nazis.

By the (northern) summer of 1940, Germany under Hitler had experienced nothing but victories. The low countries were overrun in days; after Germany attacked France on 10 May 1940, Paris was in their hands five weeks later. Between 26 May and 4 June, the “Miracle of Dunkirk” saw more than 300,000 British and French forces – minus almost all their equipment – evacuated from the beaches. The inability of the Luftwaffe to prevent such numbers escaping was arguably Germany’s first setback of any significance.

While Hitler’s true intentions regarding an invasion of Britain are now hotly debated among revisionist historians, in my view Hitler’s intention was undoubtedly to invade Britain following  what he saw as its  arrogant rejection of his various “peace offers”. Whether an invasion would have been successful given the Royal Navy’s unquestioned control of the sea is a much more arguable question – it may well be that such an attempt would have failed as had every other attempt to invade across the channel since 1066. What is unarguable is that before such an attempt could be made, Germany had to wipe the RAF from the skies, and achieve total air supremacy. In June and July 1940,  that  they would so do  seemed a foregone conclusion.

The British began the battle outnumbered 4:1 in aircraft. Both sides had superb fighter aircraft: on the British side the famous spitfire and hurricane, on the German the Me Bf. 109 E . One could write a book about the various strengths and weaknesses of both sides’ aircraft; suffice it to say that taken overall, I believe both sides had machines of roughly the same caliber. Where one had – say – a slight advantage in speed, its opponent was slightly more maneuverable.

Against German superiority in numbers, the British had a number of advantages, most notably radar, which although still rudimentary, was much better than the German. In addition, radar was primarily a defensive weapon at that time; it gave the British the crucial 20 minutes or so warning that an attack was imminent – long enough, all going well, for the spitfires and hurricanes to take to the skies to meet the invader.

Another major British advantage was simply that the battle was fought over its own soil – downed RAF pilots stood a better than even chance of surviving to fight another day, while German pilots – if they survived – became prisoners.  Another related advantage was time – the German fighters only had enough fuel for 15 minutes or so over England before they had to break off and retreat back across the channel. On the British side, it was not uncommon for pilots to undertake two or three sorties per day. At the height of the battle, on 15 August, some pilots flew 7 sorties in one day.

A crucial advantage on the British side was the way the battle was fought, largely under the hand of New Zealander Air Marshal Sir Keith Park. Park directed the operations of 11 Group, Fighter Command, whose aircraft were the closest  to the channel, and who bore the brunt of the fighting. Although Park’s contribution was recognized at the time, it is only perhaps in the last 10 or 15 years that its significance has been fully appreciated.

In 1947, Lord Tedder, Chief of Air Staff, said of Park:

“If any one man won the Battle of Britain he did. I do not believe it is realized how much that one man with his leadership, his calm judgment, and his skill, did to save not only this country but the world”

Nowadays, revisionist historians argue that the last part of that statement is hyperbole, and that the various undoubted obstacles other than  the RAF which  existed to frustrate any invasion would have put paid to it. As I have said,  I myself believe that if the Battle had been lost, Hitler would undoubtedly have attempted an invasion; whether it would have been successful can never be known, and will always be a matter of debate.

 There is certainly plenty of evidence that an invasion would be attempted once air supremacy had been achieved. Europe was scoured for barges which were either already  suitable or could be converted for use as troop carriers. There is evidence of training for water borne landings on a hostile coast. It is also important to realize just how weakened Britain by then was – while 300,000 members of the BEF had been successfully evacuated from Dunkirk, for the most part the British army was left without military equipment, particularly artillery and tanks. Almost all of that had been left behind in France.

But back to the Battle. The leader of the Luftwaffe, Reichsmarshall Herman Goering, made two major blunders which together, arguably lost him the battle. The first was his complete failure to appreciate the crucial role of radar, then almost exclusively a defensive weapon –  which assisted the  British to precisely identify their target,  direction height and numbers – when they were still a long way off.

On 12 August 1940, the day before the battle began in earnest, the Luftwaffe attacked the British “chain home” radar stations around the south coast. Several were badly damaged, and one put out of action – but not for long. Crucially, those attacks were not repeated. Unlike Goering,  Park’s boss, Air  Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding  fully appreciated radar’s significance, and set up what was the world’s first integrated air defence system; radar and observer stations linked to Fighter Command’s headquarters. The crucial 20 or 30 minutes warning radar gave enabled the fighters to be scrambled to meet the German invaders. And scrambled again if necessary.  As the battle wore on, the German pilots became demoralized because the RAF always seemed to be waiting for them.

Notwithstanding the “home” advantages, and the courage of the pilots and the ground controllers behind them, mostly women,  by the 24^th of August things were dire: the British losses were mounting and crucially, the airfields in the south  were being damaged faster than they could be repaired. But on the 24^th of August providence intervened. A German squadron of bombers became lost, and bombed London – the first ever bombing of a non military target in the battle.  Churchill immediately retaliated by ordering an attack on Berlin the following night. The damage done was immaterial, but the attack enraged Hitler and led to a switch from bombing airfields to bombing cities.  After the failure to appreciate the importance of radar, it was the second major strategic  blunder.

On 17 September, Operation Sealion, the planned invasion of Britain was postponed indefinitely, while the Battle of Britain morphed into what became known as the Blitz – London was bombed for fifty nights in succession in what proved to be a futile attempt to break the British will to fight on.  

As I have said, whether Operation Sealion would have even  been attempted remains  a question worthy of debate. Whether it would have succeeded in landing troops in sufficient numbers is equally debatable. What is probably unarguable is had Sealion succeeded in doing so, Britain would have been knocked out of the war, if only through sheer force of numbers. A seaborne invasion would almost certainly have been combined with attacks by paratroops, as occurred later in Crete, and again by the allies in June 1944 before D Day.

There are no New Zealand Battle of Britain veterans left, and when I last checked, there were fewer than five alive in the world. Eighty years on, such veterans would all now  be aged 100 or more. In addition to Park, we as a nation  have every reason to be proud. Despite a population one fourth the size of Australia’s, we had more “aces” – those pilots  who shot down five or more aircraft.

Overall, the British  losses dwarfed those of Bomber Command over the following  five long years; Bomber Command lost more aircrew in one raid  than were lost in the entire Battle of Britain. Nevertheless, Churchill’s famous quote then remains as true now as it was then:

“Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few”

Stuff reports:

Allegations that senior Christchurch City Council staff manipulated reports and deliberately kept negative information secret were not taken seriously by the former chief executive, a damning report has found. 

The leadership and culture at the organisation, including its senior leadership team, has been heavily criticised by chief ombudsman Peter Boshier in a report investigating openness and transparency at the council. ​

Some specifics:

“Council staff raised concerns with me about various methods employed by some members of the executive leadership team to keep negative information about the council form the public and/or elected members.

“These methods allegedly included manipulating or removing information from reports, project reporting not occurring, staff being told not to record information or to keep information in draft form.”

And the response from the Mayor:

In a statement, Christchurch Mayor Lianne Dalziel said she was 100 per cent supportive of the work being done to improve the Council’s official information practices.

“We are absolutely committed to the principles of openness and transparency that underpin the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act.”

Except you weren’t. The opposite was the case.

Stuff reports:

The appointment of prominent transport blogger and architecture photographer Patrick Reynolds to the board was controversial.

He had been mocked for his lack of governance experience at the time he was appointed and drew the ire of Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters, who was not impressed by two-year old tweets attacking him and his party, NZ First. 

The documents reveal that Reynolds self-nominated as a potential board candidate on February 11 of last year. 

His nomination was picked-up by Ministers who appear to have championed it despite the Ministry of Transport repeatedly leaving him off lists of preferred candidates. The Ministry didn’t include Reynolds in its list of preferred candidates, even after interviewing him. 

In the middle of the process of Reynolds being appointed to the board, around the time interviews were being conducted, he went out to dinner with Twyford and Associate Minister Julie Anne Genter at Wellington’s Ortega Fish Shack. 

In replies to written questions, Twyford has said that the NZTA board was not discussed at dinner, despite Reynolds being in the middle of the appointment process. 

Bishop, who received the documents under the Official Information Act said it stretched “beggars belief” that Twyford and Genter did not discuss the board appointment process at dinner with Reynolds. 

“You’ve got a situation where they’re right in the middle of appointing him, they go out for dinner with no officials present and no notes taken and they have a fish dinner at Ortega – it’s very fishy business going on here,” Bishop said. 

So Reynolds self nominated (something you’d probably only do if someone suggested it to you). He wasn’t on the short list of candidates. He had dinner with Twyford and Genter and then got appointed but they claim they never discussed it with him.

Inconceivable!

Radio NZ reports:

The fate of RNZ and TVNZ may soon be in the hands of Cabinet ministers, with a proposal to disestablish both broadcasters and create an entirely new public media entity.

In principle this could be a good thing. But there are significant challenges.

The advisory group concluded the status quo was “unsustainable” and “collectively recommended the government agree to disestablish TVNZ and RNZ and to establish a new public media entity”.

There are guidelines for how it would operate, including having a “clearly defined public media mandate and purpose, with the core functions of a globally recognised public media entity”.

It would provide public media services across a variety of platforms, “some of which may be advertising free”. TVNZ earns revenue from advertising but RNZ is commercial free.

The new entity would have a “mixed funding model” that would be funded both directly from the Crown, and from a range of “non-Crown” sources including advertising, sponsorship and subscriptions.

This is unlikely to work. Such a model has been tried in the past with TVNZ and failed. You can be a public broadcaster or a commercial broadcaster, but not both. If the broadcaster is reliant on commercial revenue, it will act commercially.

It would operate as a not-for-profit, and would have “statutory protection for editorial and operational independence”.

You need more than statutory protection. That merely means Ministers can direct. But who would appoint the Board? Ministers! Who would decide its funding? Ministers!

If you’re to go down this path then you would need board appointments to be made only with the agreement of the Opposition. Also it would need funding independence such as a formula 0.05% of GDP ($150 million a year currently) so that parties can’t curry favour by promising more money.

All of this is happening against the backdrop of a commercial media industry struggling with diminishing revenues which are haemorrhaging advertising dollars to online giants Google and Facebook. That in itself presents a problem in a democracy – how to fund a robust news media.

Commercial players have been loudly critical of the current model and what they describe as a “polluted” and unfair playing ground.

It is quite likely this proposal would wipe out TV3. It would also mean just one newsroom replacing TVNZ and Radio NZ so you’d end up with one government funded newsroom dominating the NZ media industry.

I blogged yesterday on the huge credit that should go to David Seymour for getting the EOLC Act through Parliament. It was a massive battle and there were multiple points at which things could have gone wrong, and it would have ended in defeat. David showed one MP can make a difference.

But he would be (and was) the first to say that many other people deserve credit also. There was a significant group of people involved who all played a key role, and I want to recognise some of them here.

First is Lecretia Seales and her family, especially her widower Matt Vickers. Lecretia was literally a martyr to the cause. She could have just accepted her brain tumour and used her final months to be with family. But she fought for the right for her and others to have a choice as to how they die. Her court case provided the catalyst for having Parliament look at the law. And Matt and the rest of the family had to grieve for Lecretia while also fighting to change the law. They now get to see some good come out of her sad death.

Ruth Dyson is one of the best political operators I have seen. Ruth was absolutely formidable in everything she did from wrangling Labour MPs, to working with Ministers to minimise barriers for the law. If Ruth said “I’ll take care of that”, you knew it would be done. If the Government had more MPs like Ruth, they’d be doing a lot better. Ruth was critical in getting MPs who would rather not have a referendum to still vote for it, as the price for getting the law passed. There were also a dozen or more other obstacles that Ruth just effortlessly took care of.

Chloe Swarbrick and the Greens. The Greens were unusual in that they had party policy in this area. They made it clear what type of bill they could support and what they couldn’t, and kept to their word. They were also conscientious in not supporting SOPs that would make the law unworkable.

Maryan Street and the Voluntary Euthanasia Society. Maryan was invaluable in making sure the VES understood and was supportive of the EOLC Bill and that activists understood that a good bill which would pass was better than a perfect bill which would fail. The VES was the main outside group supporting the law, and ensuring a voice for those supporting a change. Maryan of course submitted a similar bill when she was an MP.

NZ First for supporting it in exchange for a referendum. The issue of a referendum was one of the hardest calls to be made. If the bill clearly had the numbers without a referendum then I suspect most MPs would rather have not had the referendum. But the vote of 69 to 51 shows that without the nine NZ First votes, it would have tied 60-60. One of the great mysteries of the last two years was trying to work out how NZ First would vote on third reading if the referendum amendment was defeated. Different MPs in NZ First said different things at different times. In the end the referendum amendment passed, which pretty much guaranteed the bill passing.

The 17 National MPs who voted for it. The majority of National’s caucus was against it, but National does well electorally because it is a party that has both conservative and liberal MPs. It encourages diversity of opinion. Chris Bishop, Andrew Falloon and Nikki Kaye especially put in hard work to get as many National MPs in favour as possible.

Russell McVeagh. This law firm had a group of lawyers spend hundreds and hundreds of hours working pro bono to get the law passed. Having a team of legal experts on call was invaluable. They helped draft the law, draft amendments, scrutinise amendments, compare regimes from overseas to NZ, brief MPs on how the law would work etc etc. They made a huge difference, and did it all without a cent of remuneration – because two of their senior lawyers were friends and colleagues of Lecretia. Well done Tim and Catherine and team.

Last but definitely not least, Brooke van Velden. Brooke is David Seymour’s Political Director and she was the staffer who managed the bill through all its stages. By managed, I mean did almost everything. Every meeting she would know the possible timetable for it, have the latest voting projections, be across every SOP, know the answer to almost every question. She even met numerous MPs one on one to take them through it (Some MPs wouldn’t meet with David but would meet with Brooke). She is a truly impressive political staffer and last election she was No 3 on the ACT Party List. If she kept that place and ACT got 2% at the next election, she would be an Member of Parliament, and that would be a very good thing.

Conscience issue bills are my favourite part of politics, because you get to work across party lines. People often think all MPs do is fight and squabble with each other, but when it comes to issues with no party whipping, you see MPs from National, Labour, Greens and ACT meeting regularly, working together for a shared goal, and also trusting each other. Long may it continue.

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.