Newshub reports:

Eighty-three percent disagreed or strongly disagreed that the system is safe for victims, while 77 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed that victims’ views, concerns and needs are listened to during the justice process.
Finally, 79 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed that victims have enough information and support – excluding family and friends – during the process.

The Government seems to think the real victims of the justice system are the prisoners and desperately wants to have fewer criminals in prison.

But the real victims are the ones who say the justice system is failing them. To have four out of five victims say the system doesn’t give them enough info, doesn’t make them feel safe and that they are ignored is a terrible indictment.

Have a look at Page 74 of the TEC advice on the Government’s mega-merger of vocational training. Here’s what they say are the inherent likelihood and impact of the reforms:

• Workplace disruption – almost certain to occur and extreme impact
• Participation in vocational education – almost certain to drop and major impact
• Needs of industry and employers – almost certain not to be met and extreme impact
• Needs of regions – almost certain not to be met and extreme impact
• Uncertainty of costs and benefits – almost certain and extreme impact
• New model doesn’t meet desired outcomes – likely to occur and extreme impact.

This is the most damning risk assessment I can recall. They say it is almost certain to fail in every significant area, and even with optimistic mitigation strategies the major failures are still rated likely and with major impact.

Incredible that Cabinet signed this off, if they actually read the advice.

Ben Thomas writes:

Genter refuses to release the letter, saying it was sent in her capacity as Greens transport spokesperson, not as a minister of the government. This would mean that there were stronger reasons to refuse release under the Official Information Act and would also give Genter carte blanche to reject questions in parliament, since they would relate to “party” business, not her actions as a minister.
However, in an extraordinary display in the House yesterday, she admitted that the letter was written on her ministerial letterhead – in every formal sense, it was composed by the associate transport minister, not by Julie Anne Genter, Green MP.

This is key – she wrote as Associate Minister.

But Genter has taken the “different hats” doctrine to its absurd conclusion: that even when she sits down in a hat that says “associate minister of transport” and drafts a missive on ministerial letterhead about ministerial business, she may be wearing another, smaller hat underneath that says “none of your business, voters”, and we just have to take her word.
What Genter’s MacGuffin reveals about the government’s soul is that ministers no longer even feel the need to go to the effort of slickly juggling formal rules to avoid accountability or transparency. Peters himself sent out a government press release last year as deputy prime minister, and later refused to answer questions about it because he claimed he had meant to send it in his capacity as party leader.
What it has showed is that this government has not just failed to arrest, but has exacerbated the two decade long slide away from accountability, to the point where offices through incompetence or apathy seem unsure as to which hat they are wearing at any given time. It’s increasingly looking like the emperor isn’t wearing a hat at all.

From most open and transparent to least open and transparent ever.

A huge majority at first reading to amend the laws around abortion. I doubt the proposed changes will have any impact at all on the number of abortions – it is simply a matter of whether women can self-refer to a provider or continue the status quo of having a doctor certify (which they almost always do) that they need the abortion for psychological reasons.

The vote by party was:

• National 33 of 55 in favour
• Labour 42 of 46 in favour
• All NZ First. Greens and ACT in favour

It was a very emotional debate, again as conscience issues often are. Some extracts:

Paula Bennett:

None of those decisions have been in any way, shape, or form taken lightly, done without considerable pain and thought and acknowledgment of all that they are going through. To then have to sit there and make a call, that, actually, they have to then perhaps go through what could be a mental health issue or try and come up with an excuse that is beyond the actual trauma that they are already going through, in my mind isn’t right, and it is for that reason that I believe it should be taken out of the Crimes Act and be considered as a health issue.

Jo Hayes:

My contribution is actually focused on me as a Māori woman and the way that I was raised. I was brought up with values that a woman’s body is tapu and should be respected that way always—where her body is referred to as whare tangata: the sacred house, where we are conceived, where we are nurtured, and where we are born from. Where the generations of whānau that stem from whare tangata, and when we grow too old to be able to carry on with having children, that our sons and our daughters will be able to carry on our blood, our name, our whakapapa through our mokopuna. Where the hongi tells of the act where the god Tāne breathed life into his clay-moulded woman Hineahuone, and she came to life and became his wife and bore his children: the sanctity of life immemorial.
All of these acts of preserving the tapu of women, yet today that seems irrelevant and it’s sad. We have heard and will continue to hear that women have a choice. Believe me, I’m all for choice. But, for me, the most dangerous part of choice in this proposed legislation is a woman’s choice to self-referral for an abortion. To me it is a slippery slope, and one we need to be very, very careful of, should this bill go through.

Tracey Martin:

I reported back to the New Zealand First caucus a number of times over those months around progress. At no time during those negotiations did the New Zealand First caucus raise the issue of a referendum clause or instruct me to raise that topic with Minister Little, and so at no time over those months did I raise it with him.
On the afternoon of Monday, 5 August, I did a pre-recorded interview with Jo Moir of RNZ. Ms Moir asked several questions around the process followed by myself and the New Zealand First caucus. She posed a question regarding a referendum clause, and I answered honestly, as I am wont to do. That interview was played the following morning, Tuesday, 6 August, and it included my comments regarding a referendum clause.
There are some who believe I work in a dictatorship. They could not be further from the truth. Any New Zealand First MP can raise an issue at our caucus and seek majority support for a position on that issue. At the New Zealand First caucus meeting which began at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday, 6 August, a member of the New Zealand First caucus requested that they put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to insert a referendum clause into the legislation, in line with the New Zealand First historical position on this issue. He received majority support from the caucus.

An appalling treatment of Tracey Martin by her caucus. They had months to raise the issue of a referendum and not one of them did so. Only after months of negotiation do they undermine her and demand it at the end.

Jacinda Ardern:

Many hold personal views; many have personal experiences. I am one who takes a very simple perspective: that in spite of those personal views, who am I, who is this House, to determine anyone else’s reproductive rights? So, in my view, you can have a deeply held personal view—and, in fact, it can be deeply entrenched and religious; I myself grew up in a religious household—and I will defend, always, your right to hold that view, but I will draw a line when holding that view then impedes on the rights of others. Currently, it does impede on the rights of others. It is not a legal act for women to tell the truth when they seek an abortion in New Zealand. I’ll say that again: women feel like they have to lie to legally access an abortion in New Zealand.

Good speech.

Ian McKelvie:

You see many sad things in life. Some of the saddest I’ve seen result from incest, from women being raped, some even by their fathers. Those women particularly, as Mrs Tolley said, who live in isolated parts of New Zealand struggle seriously to get any kind of service. Those children who are then born as a result of that action often in life become statistics. I think you can see nothing sadder than that in life. So those reasons are the reasons that I support this legislation. I also strongly support the better provision of health services to those women who require abortion and this type of treatment. I think their safety and wellbeing is paramount.

Louise Upston:

And I want to use an example to explain why I’ve wrestled with why this is just being considered a medical procedure. I was told in my 20s that I’d probably never have children. I had some fairly major health issues so I was on fairly heavy-duty drugs that required me to take contraceptives at the same time. I then found at 11 weeks that I was pregnant and told that I absolutely must terminate because of the drugs I’d been taking. And I wasn’t sure. So I was then told by the specialists if I was carrying a boy then absolutely I must terminate—the risk of serious abnormalities and disabilities was so great. So I carried on with chorionic villus sampling, was told I was carrying a boy, and in an addition they had identified genetic abnormalities.
So now it seemed to me in terms of what the medical profession was telling me I had no choice. But actually—and with a genetic abnormality; it’s similar to Down’s syndrome—they told me that they would perform the abortion up to 24 weeks. So I thought, “I’ll go through the process. I’ll go through exactly the same process that any other woman in that situation who’s deciding whether or not to end a pregnancy would go through.” And at the end of the day, I made my decision and decided not to terminate.
I have a 21-year-old son who is a gorgeous, strapping, healthy boy who is 6 foot 5. So, yes, when we talk about it being a medical procedure, it’s actually a bit more than that, and if I had trusted and fully put my faith in the medical professionals, I wouldn’t have had 21 years with the most adorable boy that ever has been.

Judith Collins:

My mother, though, obviously like Ginny Andersen’s mother, like me, had pre-eclampsia and was, you know, almost dead from my sister before me, and when she was pregnant with me at the age of 39, and I was her sixth child, the doctors recommended an abortion. Many years later, people have thought that they should have gone with that option

Some self-deprecating humour from Judith.

Like the Hon Louise Upston, my first pregnancy—well, my first pregnancy was a miscarriage. I miscarried during a court case. Can you imagine what that was like? I had to go back the next day to finish the court case—and people think this place is tough. These things happen. We women have dealt with it for generations, for hundreds of years. It is not a nice place for anyone to be with any pregnancy that is unwanted. But I do think we have to understand the reality. We have to support women when they’re going through this, and we have to have abortions, if they must be, early—as early as possible—and with less trauma as possible. 

And one of many personal stories.

The Herald reported:

Parliamentary workers who complained about inappropriate behaviour in the Labour Party are fearful, intimidated, and feel they have not been taken seriously, says National Party deputy leader Paula Bennett.
Bennett said she had been contacted by one of the women who made a formal complaint with the Labour Party, one of several who alleged bullying and sexual harassment about a Labour staffer working in the parliamentary complex.
“She had made formal complaints, as had a number of other people over many months, has not been taken seriously, has not had due process,” Bennett told reporters this afternoon.
“They’ve have been told to keep quiet about what’s going on, that it should be kept as an internal process, advised not to go to the police. They feel they are losing all options and actually losing hope.”

Bennett said she was told the complainants, some of whom worked in the Beehive and in the Prime Minister’s office, were feeling unsafe.
“They’re at the stage now where they’re seeing people having panic attacks, crying, really serious anxiety. They’ve taken the extraordinary step, because they feel they are not being listened to or taken seriously, to actually come to the deputy leader of the Opposition to hope they can be heard.”
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern confirmed on Tuesday that the party conducted an internal investigation into the complaints, but that process was now being reviewed independently following further complaints.
She added that anyone with complaints “of that nature” should go to the police.
The Herald understands there are 12 people who alleged improper behaviour, seven of whom laid formal complaints with the Labour Party. Four have since quit the party.
No disciplinary action was taken following the internal investigation, and the complainants had not laid any complaints with the police or with the Speaker, who is responsible for the health and safety of parliamentary workers.

Why has this been an internal whitewash within Labour, rather than treated as a workplace investigation?

I understand the person complained about is an employee of Jacinda’s Ardern parliamentary office. That makes it a matter for her and her office, not the party. The party is not the employer.

The fact Labour staffers are having to turn to Paula Bennett for support and assistance must give you some idea of how badly let down they feel by Labour.

UPDATE: Newshub reveals that the Labour Party General Secretary told the victims that they should avoid particular areas of Parliament!!

This is Labour’s solution – a no go zone for female staffers in Parliament!

Bug the bigger issue is why was this ever dealt with by the Labour Party General Secretary. He has no role in health and safety issues in the parliamentary precinct. Why was this not immediately notified to The Parliamentary Service as a health and safety issue?

Stuff reports:

Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters has lashed out at the Labour Party, saying the coalition partner has not acted in good faith.
Peters, the leader of New Zealand First, has also said that Justice Minister Andrew Little should not have been surprised to learn that the party would push for a referendum on abortion law reform.

That is significant – accusing Labour of acting in bad faith.

Little suggested on Newstalk ZB this morning that Peters had given him a personal assurance of support to repeal the three strikes legislation, but then back-tracked.
“If you wanna go back a year or so, and I’d been in a situation of asking Winston Peters personally about something, which then a different outcome resulted.”
He said he discussed the possibility of different referenda with New Zealand First last year.
“The issue came up, ‘What about abortion?’ and all the indications were that this wasn’t going to be called for by anybody.”
Asked if Peters had stiffed him, Little said people could characterise it how they wanted.

And Little basically saying you can’t trust Peters and not disagreeing that Peters stiffed him.

Stable Government!

Stuff reports:

Ben Harwood was just 18 when he signed up to buy a house in Burnside, Christchurch, and he’s a little miffed settlement was a few days after he turned 19.
It may not be a record, but it’s a huge achievement for a first-home buyer to get onto the property ladder within a year of leaving school.
And he did it all off his own bat, by working long hours at two jobs and saving

No parents paying for a deposit.

Harwood, who is still just 19, works on a deep-sea fishing boat out of Nelson. He goes to sea for five weeks at a time, doing two five-week shifts back to back. Then he heads back home to Christchurch for five weeks, and works at his local New World supermarket. Then it’s back to Nelson and out to sea for the next 10 weeks.

That is hard physical work.

With all his mates into cars, rather than houses, Harwood admits he has had to make sacrifices: “The hard part is seeing my mates spend money on cars, and having to say no to a car I would have liked to buy myself.”

Given time I’d say he’ll be able to afford a nice car.

When Harwood had around $60,000 in the bank (all his own savings), he went house hunting and found a do-up in Burnside. He paid $242,000 for the house, was able to secure a mortgage and spent $35,000 renovating. 

“It needed a fair bit of work, but I could see the potential. A lot of people were turned away by the state of the house – there were holes in the walls, but I thought that wasn’t a big job to fix. The repairs were mostly cosmetic. Structurally, it was all good.
“I had the Gib replaced, put in a new carpet and painted. I also added a new bathroom and half of a new kitchen.”

Pretty impressive again for his age.

Harwood lives in the house when he is back in Christchurch, and has two flatmates to help cover costs. 
The teen says he is often asked if he is still living with his parents. “I say no, I have my own place and people don’t believe me. Then they ask me how they, too, could do this. I say if you’re determined to succeed and put your goals before anything else, then you can achieve them.”

Great role model.

Stuff reports:

The first person in Victoria to be granted a permit to end her life under the state’s new voluntary assisted dying laws, the 61-year-old was in a nursing home in Bendigo when she died on July 15.
“The last words she said to us were ‘I love you’,” her daughter, Nicole Robertson, 33, said.
“She was so peaceful and surrounded by love. It was the way she wanted to leave this world.”

Sounds dignified and peaceful.

Over the next five years, the cancer slowly invaded her body. It riddled her lungs and then her brain. She lost her vision and her ability to walk unaided.
Despite the best efforts of her palliative care team, her pain never eased and she was left bedridden. When the cancer spread to her liver in March this year, she ceased all treatment.
Kerry had piercing blue eyes that lit up when she laughed. But when her vision deteriorated, her eyes faded to a pale blue.
“She tended to just stare off into nothingness,” Nicole said. “Her pupils were kind of like pinpricks and she wouldn’t make any facial expressions because she couldn’t see what your face was doing. It was so heartbreaking and it was just so cruel.”

Cancer can be so hard.

Her playlist filled with songs by Nick Cave and her first love, David Bowie, hummed in the background as she ate a capricciosa pizza; her favourite meal.
Kerry requested to speak to each of her daughters separately. She told them how much they meant to her.
“Then she told us that she was ready,” Jacqui said.
“She left this world with courage and grace, knowing how much she is loved,” Nicole said. “For us, that was the greatest part, knowing that we did everything we could to make her happy in life and comfortable in death.”
Nicole and Jacqui said their mother’s death had reinforced their belief that terminally ill people who are suffering intolerably deserve the choice to end their own life.

Why would we deny this choice to people?

Henry Cooke at Stuff reports:

The Government’s abortion bill will pass its first hurdle with an overwhelming majority, with or without NZ First’s support.
Stuff has spoken with a majority of Parliament’s 120 MPs, 67 of whom said they would support or be likely to support the Bill at its first reading on Thursday.
Just seven said they would vote against it, with another four indicating they would be likely to vote against. Another 12 were still deciding, alongside NZ First’s nine MPs who are refusing to confirm their position.

NZ First have now said they will vote yes at first reading, so that is 76 votes in favour. Add in assumed yes votes and you have 82 votes and if they get 8 of the 12 undecideds they may make 90.

Stuff reports:

The Green Party confidence and supply agreement would have been put in jeopardy if a watered down Let’s Get Wellington Moving wasn’t accepted, city councillors claim.
A number of Wellington city councillors have revealed to Stuff the behind-the-scenes conversations that pushed the mass transport deal over the line in council chambers.
It comes as the Chief Ombudsman investigates Associate Transport Minister Julie Anne Genter’s ongoing refusal to release a letter relating to Wellington’s transport plans.
It is understood Wellington Mayor Justin Lester told a number of city councillors Associate Transport Minister Julie Anne Genter and another Green MP threatened to resign if councillors did not vote for the new mass transport plan and the Government would use the money elsewhere

So City Councillors were told the Greens had blackmailed the Government that unless any major roading project was axed, they’d walk.

Lester denies the claims, which councillors say were made in confidence and breaching that by speaking out will mean repercussions for them. 

Either Lester is lying or multiple Councillors have decided to lie in unison. Lester is of course an official Labour Party Mayor which means his loyalty is primarily to Labour, not Wellington.

Onslow-Western Ward Councillor Simon Woolf said he and about five other councillors were informed of the Greens stance during a private briefing with the mayor.
Woolf claims Lester told councillors “we’ve got the best possible deal we could get” and that Genter and another Green MP had threatened to resign, which would put the Government’s deal with the greens in jeopardy.

Woolf’s claims are backed up by other Councillors.

However, Lester denied the allegations, putting the “made up yarn” down to councillors having a go at the Greens and interested in publicity for the mayoralty race.
“There is no record of any conversation

Notice the weasel words “There is no record”. What Lester is saying is that you can’t prove it. Very different to it never happened.

When asked on Wednesday, if she had ever offered her resignation, Genter said, “no”.

Note the careful wording – she denies offering to resign, but not threatening to resign – two very different things.

Transport Minister Phil Twyford said Genter had never offered him her resignation

Again the focus is on offer, not threaten.

So now Wellingtonians know why they are condemned to a decade of growing congestion because the Green Party forced Labour to kill off any significant roading projects, and the Labour Mayor went along with them.

On 30 July Stuff reported:

A judge says he expects a public backlash after releasing a violent offender on intensive supervision for trying to kidnap a woman who was jogging in the street.
“No doubt there will be letters to the editor demanding my resignation,” Christchurch District Court Judge Raoul Neave said at Tuesday’s sentencing. “It won’t be the first time and it won’t be the last.”

The man he wouldn’t send to jail despite the violent kidnapping event was Marcel Geros.

Geros was convicted of attempted kidnapping and assault with intent to injure. In 2009 he bashed a 73 year old man, almost killing him.

Just one week later we read:

One person is on the run after fatally striking a pedestrian while fleeing police in east Christchurch.

And who is this man in the photo of this story?

Mr Geros again.

The story says he is not thought to have been in the van that killed the pedestrian, so the exact facts are unknown. But it is very clear that he has not reformed and the Judge made a very bad decision in not sending him to jail for the previous offending.

This may have been a preventable death.

NB: This post has changed from the original version

As you can see the OCR can’t fall much lower. While a low OCR is good for home owners (but bad for savers) the real risk is if there is another global or domestic recession. There is basically no room to use monetary policy to stimulate the economy.

Stuff reports:

Justice Minister Andrew Little says he will not be doing a deal with NZ First that would lead to a referendum on proposed abortion law reform.
On Tuesday, NZ First leader Winston Peters hinted that his party may only support the Government’s abortion changes if they go to a binding referendum.
Little said regardless of what NZ First did, he would not be doing a deal with them in exchange for a referendum, RNZ reported. Instead, he would rely on support from MPs from all parties to back his changes.

If Little doesn’t back down, I suspect it will pass first reading comfortably – even if NZ First vote against. It could get tighter for later readings though.

Newsroom reports:

A new poll shows that a nearly a third of New Zealanders know little or nothing about the Holocaust and less than half know that 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis. Mark Jennings reports.
Next year will be the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz but what happened there and in other Nazi death camps is drifting from our consciousness. …

In a poll of 1,000 New Zealanders taken last month, 27 percent said they knew little about the holocaust, 28 percent said they were unsure about how much they knew and 2 percent admitted to knowing nothing.
The figures for people aged between 18 and 30 show a grimmer picture. Half said they knew a little bit, 29 percent said they were unsure what they knew and 4 percent said they knew nothing.
Just 14 percent said they knew a reasonable amount and 4 percent claimed to know a lot about the Holocaust.

A sad trend of newer generations knowing little about the Holocaust.

The Curia poll also posed a multi-choice question. How many Jews were killed in Europe during the Holocaust? Was it one hundred thousand, six hundred thousand, one million, two million or six million?
Only 43 percent of respondents got the right answer – 6,000,000.
For the 18-30  group that dropped to 32 percent. The director of Curia, David Farrar, expected a lot more people to get the correct answer.
“Even if you know nothing else about the Holocaust, you usually know this.
“If we simply asked people just to name the figure (number of Jews killed) you might expect 50 percent not to know, but this was multi choice and the next highest figure after 6 million was 2 million.
“We didn’t put 5 million, 6 million and 7 million to make it hard or anything, it was relatively easy to get the right answer.”

I was very surprised that so few people could get the right answer from a multi-choice list.

Stuff reports:

Nuon Chea, the chief ideologue of the communist Khmer Rouge regime that destroyed a generation of Cambodians, died Sunday, the country’s UN-assisted genocide tribunal said. He was 93.
Nuon Chea was known as Brother No 2, the right-hand man of Pol Pot, the leader of the regime that ruled Cambodia from 1975 to 1979.
The group’s fanatical efforts to realise a utopian society led to the death of some 1.7 million people – more than a quarter of the country’s population at the time – from starvation, disease, overwork and executions.

He was a hardline communist whose ideology led to the slaughter of a quarter of his population.

The Khmer Rouge were “autocratic, xenophobic, paranoid and repressive”. They did not believe in trade so refused to buy medicines which protected against malaria. They killed fellow citizens who wore glasses, because that means they might be an intellectual.

At the long-awaited Khmer Rouge trials, he told a court that he and his comrades were not “bad people”, denying responsibility for any deaths.

Evil to the end.

Barry Soper writes:

Did The Greens actually have buy-in to the promise by Jacinda Ardern to make her Government the most transparent ever?
If they did then they’re not living up to her promise. …

It’s the Cabinet door that appears to be firmly locked when it comes to the influence exerted by the Greens in Let’s Get Wellington Moving, which will be at snail’s pace for the foreseeable future when it comes to getting through the Mt Vic Tunnel on the way to the airport.
It seemed the prospect of a second tunnel was on track in the near future – until Associate Transport Minister Julie Anne Genter fired off a missive to her senior portfolio minister, Phil Twyford. Now the prospect of a second tunnel’s been put on the never-never and not surprisingly the National Party’s transport spokesman Chris Bishop wants to know why.
What did Genter say to Twyford to change his and Cabinet’s mind? There’s protocol for finding out what was said in a letter she sent to the minister.
If she sent it as a Green MP it seems it doesn’t have to be made public. If it was sent in her ministerial capacity, which she’s confirmed it was, then it does – it’s part of the public record, or at least it should be, given the context of the debate.

It is beyond belief they are still refusing to release it, considering there is no dispute she sent to as Associate Minister.

Wellingtonians are left speculating as to what influence the Greens have had in foiling the $6.4 billion transport plan.

Did the Greens threaten the Government unless they axed any meaningful action on congestion?

The Herald reports:

The Government has talked to other iwi about the possibility of the Crown buying back disputed land as a way to break the Ihumātao deadlock, Labour MP Peeni Henare says.
But the suggestion was rebuffed, with other tribes threatening to re-litigate their Treaty of Waitangi settlements if the buy-back plan went ahead, according to Henare.

If the Government blunders on this, they are going to destroy the settlement process and associated goodwill.

Henare’s comments came after an email was sent to academic staff at Victoria, saying some students had chosen to travel to humātao to protest. The email, by Vice Provost Stuart Brock and Deputy Vice-Chancellor Rawina Higgins said, “The University supports our students in this endeavour and we are asking all academic staff to be sympathetic to their absence.
“If necessary, please make reasonable accommodations for these students.”

I wonder if the university would be so accommodating if students wanted to skip lectures and tutorials to attend a conference on property rights?

Go to this Government website and you will see an official Government report summarising an official Hui, where the consensus opinion was that the Government should abolish prisons.

• Hui participants called for the abolishment of the current prison system.
• There is an immediate need to provide healing spaces for offenders.

Almost no mention of victims. All about the offenders.

It is also interesting how wrong assertions were reported as fact. A couple of examples:

The system at present relies on incarceration as the only means to hold people accountable for criminal behaviour.

This is totally wrong. There is diversion, fines, community service, community detention, home detention etc.

And prison is in fact by law the last alternative only to be used if no other sentence will adequately protect the community.

So we have an official report which is factually incorrect and calls for the abolishment of the prison system. Wonder how much this coast taxpayers?

Newshub reports:

Newshub can reveal the Labour Party has been forced to review an internal investigation into bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault by a Labour staffer.
It follows complaints the investigation process was botched and traumatising for the alleged victims. At least four people have resigned from official party roles and cancelled their membership as a result. 
The complainants say the party’s done nothing to improve its processes since the sexual harassment allegations at last year’s Young Labour summer camp.

Learning from your mistakes is what people expect. It seems in this case Labour has not.

Seven party members and officials laid complaints this year accusing a senior Labour staffer of unacceptable behaviour ranging from bullying and intimidation to sexual harassment and sexual assault.

Their complaints were investigated in March and no disciplinary action was taken. The man’s lawyer says the allegations were untrue.

Seven different people laid complaints, and Labour’s response was they were all wrong?

Complainants have spoken of panic attacks, vomiting and having to take days off work because they were so scared of the staffer.
At least four people have resigned from official party roles and cancelled their Labour membership.
“We consider these people our family, our whānau, and it’s really disappointing to see how we’ve been treated,” the complainant said.

Yet Labour took no action?

As far back as August 2018, Labour Party president Nigel Haworth was informed the staffer told a woman she was elected within the party because she “would be nice to sleep with”.
He was also told a senior ministerial staffer had warned an alleged victim that if she told anyone about the staffer’s behaviour she would be shut-down.
“It’s really disappointing to see the Prime Minister’s Office standing by,” the complainant said. “They all knew and nothing’s happening.”

It isn’t clear if the person is a Labour Party staffer or someone who works for a Labour Minister or MP.

It wasn’t until July 5 when the party president emailed complainants explaining that no action would be taken and that “there is no appeal process”.

Labour is the party of fairness!

UPDATE: It gets worse. The Herald reports:

Newstalk ZB political editor Barry Soper says the allegations involved not only sexual assault but rape, offers to pay for sex – and that there were 12 alleged complainants.
“What they’re saying is, the party is telling them not to comment. They say people incredibly high up are on the side of the accused in the Beehive,” Soper said.

12 complainants including one of rape and Labour’s conclusion was nothing to see here. Incredible.

Ardern would not comment on whether the alleged offender worked in her office, and said the matter was currently one for the party, and not an employment matter.
It was about the conduct about a member of the party, and not about the employer or workplace. The Prime Minister would not comment on whether the alleged culprit still worked for the party.

If the media are asking whether the person works in her office, that strongly suggests they do. That makes it more explosive.

As far as she was aware police had not been involved.

Why not?

“They talked about not just sexual assault but rape, they said that this person worked in the Beehive for two years, he was offering promotions for sex. They said there was a huge power imbalance, they said the person was well known to Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson.

“They said one victim was hospitalised, two were still working at Parliament, six others were junior party members and there were 12 victims in all.”

Wow. This is going to turn very toxic unless Labour can satisfy the alleged victims.

Todd Niall at Stuff writes:

One is a protest against lawful plans to build on land first settled about 1100AD.
The other is a plea from small retailers who say they are suffering from prolonged excavation for an underground rail tunnel.
In both cases, there is a political belief that the “system” has taken care of things, endured long past the point where real leadership was called for.

Two very different issues, both suffering from no leadership.

The small retailers continued to meet, gained media coverage, and got the backing of some councillors, local MP Nikki Kaye and the downtown promotion group Heart of the City.
By the end of July, Goff’s position began to change. The mayor would not countenance compensation, but had asked the government to jointly consider a “targeted hardship fund”.
What if the government does not come to the party? Stuff asked Goff. Does the council not have some responsibility for the welfare of the city?
This is how the mayor replied:
“I’m looking at doing this through the company responsible for the project – which is CRLL – and I’m looking at doing that in partnership with the co-sponsor of the project (government). That’s the appropriate way to deal with it.”
Neither Albert St nor Ihumātao are resolved. Whether the belated engagement of political leaders in both is sufficient remains to be seen.​