Stuff reports:

Stuff reported on the row between councillor Tania Tapsell and mayoral hopeful Reynold Macpherson, which centres on an online post made by Macpherson on the Facebook page of the Rotorua District Residents & Ratepayers’ lobby group on May 14.
The post, a response to a video in which Tapsell encourages more young people to stand for council, is entitled “Beware the charismatic pitch of the Pied Piper”. 
“He has referenced me as a pied piper who lures away vermin and children and this level of hate speech is totally unacceptable,” Tapsell said.

Oh don’t be such a sook and harden up.

Having a political opponent call you a pied piper is not hate speech.

The post has been referred to the police by a confidential council committee.

Unbelievable. They should be charged with wasting Police time.

Stuff reports:

Nothing for business.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s pre-budget outing at the Grand Millennium Hotel in Auckland on Friday to an audience bursting with high-powered business types was unsurprisingly light on any mention of business.
“Nothing for business” and “disappointing” were common refrains around the room as the PM wrapped-up her holistic vision for next week’s first wellbeing budget.

I would have thought if you were speaking to a business audience about the Budget, you would at least spend a fair bit of time talking about businesses as they are the ones who generate the tax and the jobs that allow the Government to spend money.

Warren Green, chief executive officer of Active Roofing, summed up the sentiment.
“It was a bit disappointing,” he said.
“It was more like a Labour Party ideological fairytale. But she’s a great orator.”

What an excellent description of the PM – a great orator for an ideological fairytale!

Active Roofing has about 40 employees. It used to have a strong apprentice scheme. It doesn’t anymore, Green said. The Government’s choice to do away with the 90-day trial law put paid to that, he said.

The company had only let one person go under the law, but without it, and with the changes coming down the line to industry training, it’s just too big of a risk now. So they’re not doing it anymore.
“We’re hugely disappointed with the new training model,” Green said, “the existing model works.”

A small to medium employer suffers more from a bad hire.

Stuff reports:

On The AM Show on Friday, economist Cameron Bagrie said the Government was facing “fiscal challenges” after host Duncan Garner asked if there would indeed be a hole in the years ahead and the Government would need to borrow more.
“When Labour came into power and delivered their plan, they had spending front-loaded but they didn’t leave much wriggle room for the out years or the unexpected,” he told host Duncan Garner.
“Things such as teacher pay, public sector wage demands – I don’t think they factored that in and we know those demands are becoming pretty ferocious and they are pretty expensive.
“So they are going to need more wriggle room for 2021/2022.”
Garner said that had been Joyce’s view.

“He [Joyce] said what they haven’t taken into account are the wage demands or the pay rounds of Labour’s old mates… Joyce was right,” Garner said, to which Bagrie agreed.
“He is going to be right, technically I think his number of $11.7 billion – the real number is going to be a little bit bigger than that,” said Bagrie.

If after 18 months Labour has decided it may need to borrow an extra $15 billion in a possible second term, imagine how much more debt they may then decide they need 18 months into a possible second term. It might be $30 billion.

The Herald reported:

A young man has admitted a prolonged and vicious “racially motivated” road rage attack on a family in which he rammed their car off the road, sending two children flying through the air.

Yes he rammed a car with children in it. Why?

In March last year a Chinese-New Zealand family, including their two children aged 12 and 10, were enjoying a Sunday day out picking blueberries and driving around the Awhitu Peninsula near Auckland. …

Angered, Milne turned his car around and chased the family. He passed them at speed before doing a u-turn to cut them off.
He then confronted the family and demanded they pay for the damage to his car.
Milne, angry, shouting and swearing, also told them he belonged to a gang and was going to kill them.

So actual threats to kill. Not mouthing off online, but in person.

Milne ramped up his threats as he approached the family’s car with his blue-nosed pit bull dog.
Afraid, the family locked themselves in the vehicle, as Milne began hitting the car and yelled that his dog was going to eat the family.
The terrified family quickly fled again.
However, Milne’s racial rage would return.
After abusing the family, he drove to a nearby group of shops and vented his anger to several locals.
He said Asians were “taking over the country” and “f**king Asians” had damaged his car.
Milne also made a racist remark about the shape of the family’s eyes and said they had run away because he would get “the pieces of sh*t” deported.

This is about as racist as you can get. Disgusting stuff. I wonder why racism aimed at Asians tends to generate less outrage than other forms of racism?

Milne chased the family for about 7km and reached speeds of 140km/h, court documents show.
After catching the family he pulled up alongside them on the wrong side of the road and demanded the family pull over.
The family refused to stop, so Milne deliberately rammed their car, causing it to spin out of control, crash into a bank and flip in the air.

They’re lucky to be alive. I hope he gets a very long sentence.

The two children were violently thrown from the car during the crash after they had taken off their seatbelts because they were frightened of Milne and thought they might need to make a hurried exit from the car.
They landed on the road, narrowly avoiding a steep 100m deep ravine.
Despite the two children lying injured, Milne approached the car to continue his racist attack.
“Get out of the f**king car, I’m going to smash you! You f**king Asian c***! F**king Asians!” Milne yelled.

The kids are injured on the road, and he continues with his hate attack on them.

When Milne was questioned by police he said he could tell the family weren’t citizens.
He also said he presumed they were on an “illegal visa” and “Asian mafia” who had spent “two days in the country”.
Milne told police he was “at boiling point” when he saw the family drive past him at the shops and that “any Asian in general [he] wanted to hurt”.

NZ should have no place for this type of hatred and racism.

Stuff reports:

The Government’s offshore oil and gas exploration ban could force a rethink of Fonterra’s plans to switch some of its sites from coal to gas.
Several of the dairy co-op’s North Island manufacturing sites are coal-fired and planning was underway to convert them to natural gas or low carbon alternatives to coal.
However, in a submission to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, Fonterra said the Government’s decision not to issue any new offshore oil and gas exploration permits meant those plans may have to be reviewed.

It takes special genius for the Government to come up with a policy that is both damaging to the environment and the economy. Normally a policy has tradeoffs – its is good for one and bad for the other.

But this policy is the Forrest Gump of policies. Damages the environment and the economy!

Theresa May is set to announce the date of her resignation tomorrow, starting off the leadership contest to replace her.

The current probabilities based on betting odds are:

1. Former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson 40%
2. Former Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab 20%
3. Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt 9%
4. Environment Secretary Michael Gove 8%
5. Former Commons Leader Andrea Leadsom 6%
6. Home Secretary Sajid Javid 6%
7. Health Secretary Matt Hancock 5%
8. Defence Secretary Penny Mordaunt 5%
9. International Development Secretary Rory Stewart 5%

I have little doubt Boris would win the vote of members. But he has to finish in the top two of the caucus votes, to make the membership vote.

There are potentially three conservative or family values parties looking to fight the next election.

• The New Conservatives, the successor party to Colin Craig’s party
• The Coalition Party, led by Hannah Tamaki
• A possible Alfred Ngaro led party

Even if there was only one family values type party contesting the election, making 5% would be difficult. With two or even three parties competing, they are doomed to failure.

Their best bet would be to do what Christian Heritage and Christian Democrats did in 1996 and form the Christian Coalition with separate identities but a combined list. You get six MPs if you make 5% so each party would get two of the top six spots.

A long-awaited shared walk/cycleway between Petone and Wellington is a step closer.
Associate Transport Minister Julie Anne Genter will today unveil designs for public consultation on the Ngauranga to Petone shared walking and cycling pathway.

What I like about this cycleway is the following:

• Separate from traffic
• Spacious, so room for runners and walker also
• Doesn’t destroy car parks
• Scenic

The price is huge at $76 million, but I’d rather have an expensive well designed cycleway, that one which is dangerous and destroys local businesses.

Also this will be a major connector between Lower Hutt and Wellington. It should get a lot of use.

UMR’s Stephen Mills writes:

The re-election of the Australian Coalition government was a shock to pundits, pollsters and the parties themselves. A triumphant returning prime minister, Scott Morrison, said it was a miracle, and as a devout Christian, he may have even meant biblical.
Every reputable poll for nearly three years had Labor ahead. Not by much during the campaign but still not a single exception. One bookie (or prediction market as some like to describe them) paid out on a Labor win in the last week, losing A$1.3 million. And the one exit-poll pointed to a clear Labor victory.

And in Australia normally the polls have been incredibly accurate.

The Liberal-National Coalition victory reinforced a golden rule of politics in a modern democracy that it is almost impossible to campaign on reforms in the greater national interest if they challenge vested interests and /or result in actual losers plus voters who think they are losers or even voters who think in time they may become losers.

Or in more simple English, you lose votes when you promise to take more money off people.

Former Liberal leader Tony Abbott, suggested a climate change driven realignment was underway with his party in trouble in wealthy urban seats but benefitting in suburban “battler” seats. He was dispatched by an independent, campaigning on climate change, and other Liberal blue ribbon seats in the wealthiest parts of Sydney and Melbourne wobbled but held.
But in regional Queensland there was carnage for Labor. Their one regional seat in North Queensland, Herbert, centred on Townsville, was lost and other regional seats held by small margins by Liberal and Nationals MPs registered huge pro-government swings and are now held by large margins. A critical election issue in these seats was on whether a large coal mining development by the Indian company Adani should go ahead.
The message was that jobs were more important in these seats than climate change.

For some reason people like the idea of being able to feed their family, through having a job.

Another clear lesson was reinforcing the long held dictum on consistency of political messaging. Basically, when you are about at the point of vomiting from having said the same thing thousands of times, voters are just picking it up.

This result rewarded an almost entirely negative campaign. The Coalition focussed exclusively on doubts about Labor’s capacity to manage the economy. This was dumbed down to Labor can’t manage money, which Scott Morrison must have said 10,000 times. The Coalition did not even try to make the case they deserved to win. They barely mentioned any policies.

And in NZ the Government has just said they may need to borrow an extra $15 billion!

Soft and undecided voters in focus groups in Australia and also in New Zealand have for years complained bitterly that political parties in campaigns just bag each other and they often declare they are so upset by this that they would vote for any party which just sets out its positive policies.
This result says that is nonsense.
Labour in New Zealand is somewhat constrained on this front by Jacinda Ardern’s branding as “relentlessly positive”. National Party strategists are not and may well run a similar negative campaign on economic management credibility in 2020, especially if the New Zealand economy has weakened.

A lot will depend on the economy.

Stuff reports:

In question time on Wednesday, Bishop claimed police recovered eight stolen guns by paying for them. Nash refused to answer questions relating to the topic, saying it was an open investigation before the court.
Bishop kept up the pressure up on Thursday, asking if it was correct the thief moved a skip bin next to a gate at the back of the station, jumped the fence, walked in an open garage door, stole the guns from a “poorly secured” exhibit room, then loaded the guns into his car.
He also asked why the guns were in an exhibit room instead of a firearms safe and if Nash had asked police if they paid for the return of some firearms.
Once again, Nash said he could not answer questions about an open investigation before the court.

If this version of events is correct, this looks like Keystone Cops.

Stuff asked police if Bishop’s claim about buying guns was correct and, if so, how much police paid.
Police were also asked what policy existed about recovering stolen goods by buying them, if the final three guns were still missing, if anyone else was being sought in relation to the burglary, if an internal inquiry was under way and when it may be finished, and if there was any more information to share with the public to help find the last few missing guns.
Stuff is yet to get a response.

The refusal to deny makes you suspect it is true.

Stuff reports:

The Opposition has claimed guns stolen from a Palmerston North police station were bought back by police.
National MP and the party’s police spokesman Chris Bishop made the claim on Wednesday but offered no evidence.
Police would not confirm or deny the allegation, saying they would not discuss specific matters relating to the ongoing investigation.

During Question Time, Bishop asked Police Minister Stuart Nash if he stood by statements of police in relation to the theft of 11 guns from the Palmerston North police station and if police paid for the return for some or all the guns that were stolen.

Surely this can’t be true? You steal guns from a police station, and Police pay you to get them back?

As various media outlets have refused to run an op ed from David Seymour defending himself, I have agreed to run it here.

“Let it be known, the public beating has not gone out of fashion.” So goes the quote from the movie Thank You for Smoking, as politicians attack the wildly unpopular protagonist, a tobacco lobbyist.
 
I’ve found those words to be true over the past week and it has strengthened my belief in the importance of freedom of expression.
 
To recap, I was asked about Green MP Golriz Ghahraman’s stance on free speech. In her own words “it is vital that the public is involved in a conversation about what speech meets the threshold for being regulated, and what mix of enforcement tools should be used.”
 
I believe that such an idea, and by extension politicians who promote it, is a danger to our free society. When asked about Ghahraman’s position, in the middle of a 15-minute radio interview, I responded that I thought she was a ‘menace to freedom.’
 
What has followed has been extraordinary. It has been a lesson in how beat-ups and witch-hunts occur, and why it’s so important that we retain laws that allow us to express ourselves freely. By Tuesday afternoon, I was being asked by media if I was responsible for Ghahraman requiring a security detail. It was clearly a rhetorical question.
 
Politicians, journalists and other establishment figures have lined up to denounce my comment.
 
National’s position is that being nice to people who threaten free speech is more important than defending freedom itself. The Greens have said it’s my fault that a few nutcases are threatening an MP. The Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians wrote, asking me to apologise for my comment. I should have known it was not a sincere gesture because the letter was duly released to the media who happily published it with barely a response from me. Other women MPs told me they’d known nothing about it. Surprisingly, Trevor Mallard went on TV and said I was a bully. The Speaker is supposed to be Parliament’s neutral referee.
 
A number of journalists have attacked me. The media should be the loudest cheerleaders for freedom of expression. Their job relies on freedom of expression, and freedom and democracy rely on the media doing their job.
 
Were it not for ACT, Parliament would be sleepwalking towards tighter speech laws. The media wouldn’t bat an eyelid. Only a few brave academics might raise their heads above the parapet.
 
There is something not right about this situation. If my comment endangered Ghahraman, then the response of media and politicians has multiplied its airplay exponentially. That response has been driven by the very people accusing me of endangering Ghahraman.
 
Because I do not think anyone should be endangered for engaging in political debate, I am reluctant to respond any further, but it’s difficult when the very people who say they’re concerned are using the situation to attack me politically. After all, the media cited a ‘source,’ then Ghahraman herself, when reporting the new security arrangements and attributing them to me.
 
My detractors believe that expressing a genuinely held view on an important issue makes me responsible for threats of violence. They are wrong. My comments do not come close to giving me such responsibility. And the current law is easily on my side.
 
This belief absolves the real perpetrators – those making the threats – of responsibility. It also introduces the worrying implication that some MPs are unable to fully participate or be criticised because there are violent threats. It’s a belief that allows violent thugs to set the agenda.
 
The response to my comment proves we cannot trust government to enforce hate speech laws. Imagine if the state had even greater powers to punish speech at its disposal. Some state agency would now be using that power to investigate and punish a sitting MP’s genuinely-held views.
 
Hate speech laws turn debate into a popularity contest where the winners get to silence views they don’t like by using the power of the state. Tighter restrictions on speech can only mean giving some agency the power to punish people for saying things that do not incite harm but are merely offensive or distasteful. In other words, what you can think is determined by what is popular.
 
ACT will continue to defend the critical principle that nobody should ever be punished by the power of the state on the basis of opinion.

Seymour used strong language about a political opponent (and they are not words I would use) but compare that to this tweet this morning:

Joking about running someone over because you don’t like their politics.

Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t have a problem with Williams’ tweet by itself. But I ask people to imagine this.

Think if the partner of a National MP tweeted about whether they should run over a Green MP. The media would be denouncing it as hate speech and inciting violence.

Ghahraman does have legitimate security concerns, based on the vile messages about lynching her on a private Facebook group. The people responsible should be held accountable.

The Herald reports:

The Government this morning announced that it will shift its debt target from a single figure to a percentage range.
Finance Minister Grant Robertson explained the Government is looking at a range of around 15 to 25 per cent of the GDP.
“Essentially, our current 20 per cent target falls in the middle of the new range that will exist from 2021/22 onwards,” Robertson said in a speech this morning to the Craigs Investment Partners investor conference.
The move potentially gives the Government more scope for spending in its second term – and policy promises in the 2020 campaign.

This would give the Government wriggle room to spend more – potentially up to $15 billion – based on the additional 5 per cent of GDP available to them.

Calling Steven Joyce, Calling Steven Joyce – I think we’ve found your $11 billion hole!

The Herald reports:

Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki will tomorrow launch a political party after weighing up a move into politics for “a number of months”.

Haven’t we suffered enough?

Stuff reports:

A member of parliamentary staff has been stood down following an historic allegation of assault.
Speaker Trevor Mallard said he was satisfied Parliamentary Service has moved to make the precinct safe. Mallard wants to thank person who came forward.

Tensions are high at Parliament after Mallard said on Wednesday morning that a rapist was working at Parliament. He said he gained the impression from a review into bullying and harassment by consultant Debbie Francis.
Ardern and other party leaders met with Mallard to discuss his remarks.
She would not be drawn on whether Mallard had taken the correct course of action, and said she was not frustrated by the remarks.

Having the Speaker declare that there is a rapist working at Parliament was very unwise. If charges are laid, his comments could be seen as prejudicial.

A lot of parliamentary staff are upset at the comments.

Newshub reports further:

Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters says the alleged serial sexual offender at Parliament is not an MP or Parliamentary staffer.
“It is not a parliamentarian and it is not a parliamentary staffer – that’s number one – all the parties are clear on this matter,” Peters said on Wednesday. 
“You just can’t go out and have an allegation where everybody’s now under scrutiny when none of them should have been.”

So how does Peters know who it is, or who it isn’t?

Stuff reports:

Parliament is a toxic workplace with a systematic bullying and harassment problem, a sweeping new review has confirmed.
Staff have reported a known minority of MPs who engage in “inappropriate behaviours on a regular basis” and were described as “various shades of s….”.
Some had “low people-management experience, poor self awareness and a big sense of entitlement”.

The full report is here. If you read it, you would be tempted to conclude everyone is a bully – MPs, Ministers, managers, colleagues and even the press gallery. Yes MPs or staff complained of being bullied by journalists.

I worked in Parliament for eight years, in three different roles – in a ministerial office, in an opposition office and in the neutral support service of Ministerial Services. Here’s my take.

First of all, most (as in over half) MPs and Ministers are great bosses. Their staff love working for them, and are personally and professionally loyal. Many remain friends after they leave. Some examples of offices where staff were really well treated would be Roger Sowry’s, Annette King’s, Paula Bennett’s, John Key’s, Tau Henare’s, Phil Goff’s.

You also have some MPs and Ministers who are okay bosses. They’re nice people, but they don’t always have experience in managing staff. Being a good boss does often require learning skills.

Then you have some MPs and Ministers who have tense offices.Most of the time it is a cool place to work, but when the pressure is on the MP can be very hard work. They see their career at stake if an issue isn’t managed well, and they freak out etc and it isn’t fun.

Finally you have some MPs or Ministers who are just really bad to work for. Not a lot of them, but there are some. They scream, they yell, they throw things, they belittle.

You also have some MPs who are sleazy – not necessarily to their own staff, but to others. In the 1990s there were quite a few. I have to say I think it is far far less today.

Now the problem is an MP isn’t an employee. They are an elected representative. So what do you do with the ones who are bad bosses?

Well in my experience they tend to have very high staff turnover. So one incentive you could introduce is regular reporting of staff turnover by MPs. A high turnover might be for quite valid reasons, but would signal there may be a problem and incentivise MPs to try and retain staff.

Of course sometimes staff are not up to the job. It is a difficult environment. And MPs should move them on. But you do that by using the irreconcilable difference clause, not by making life terrible for them.

It is also worth noting that many of the stories in the report are also about staff who don’t work directly for an MP,. They work in a support agency. Those issues need to be dealt with by the agency heads.

Another change I would consider is changing the employment structure in Parliament. At present MPs staff are technically employed by Parl Serv or Min Serv, but in reality their MP or Minister is their boss. Why not make each parliamentary party the legal employer of their staff, so they are incentivised to be good employers. Make the PMs Office the employer of all ministerial staff.

ABC now has the Coalition at 76 seats. Labor has 65 and others six.

Of the four undecided the counts are:

• Bass – Libs lead by 467 votes with 88% counted
• Cowan – Labor leads by 757 votes with 79% counted
• Lilley – Labor leads by 1,113 votes with 79% counted
• Macquarie – Libs lead by 151 votes with 87% counted

So likely to end up with 78 seats. If so, this means the Coalition will have won seven seats off Labor, only lost one to Labor and Abbott’s seat. A stunning result.

The state by state swings for Labor were:

• NSW -2.1%
• Victoria +1.7%
• Queensland -3.7%
• WA – 2.0%
• SA +4.3%
• Tasmania -4.0%
• ACT -2.7%
• NT +2.8%

The likely Senate results are:

• Coalition 35
• Labor 26
• Greens 9
• Centre Alliance 2
• One Nation 2
• Conservatives 1
• Lambie 1

You need 39 votes to pass laws so the Coalition can do it with the four CR votes, plus a buffer of the Centre Alliance.

The Herald reports:

Police have laid further charges against alleged Christchurch gunman Brenton Tarrant this afternoon.
Commissioner of Police Mike Bush said a charge of engaging in a terrorist act under section 6A of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 has been filed.
“The charge will allege that a terrorist act was carried out in Christchurch on 15 March 2019 and follows consultation between Police, Crown Law and the Christchurch Crown Solicitors Office,” he said.

I think this decision is regrettable, and a mistake. Not because Tarrant isn’t a terrorist and isn’t guilty. But because laying this additional charge will fundamentally change the trial.

The 51 murder charges could be dealt with relatively simply. Are they dead, and did he kill them? The video evidence, some eyewitnesses and the pathology reports should be all you need.

But the terrorism charge will allow Tarrant to hijack the trial and turn it into propaganda for his beliefs. And he is already facing 51 life sentences, so a 52nd makes no practical difference.

The TSA defines a terrorist act as:

intended to cause, in any 1 or more countries, 1 or more of the outcomes specified in subsection (3), and is carried out for the purpose of advancing an ideological, political, or religious cause, and with the following intention:
(a) to induce terror in a civilian population; or
(b) to unduly compel or to force a government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act.

So you must prove beyond reasonable doubt that his actions were carried out for the purpose of an ideological cause and that it was intended to cause terror or force the Government to do something. I am sure they can make the case, but it will allow Tarrant to drone on about why he did it, in his defence.

by John Stringer.

There has always been a strong party vote in NZ amongst conservatives within the ‘christian’ ‘family values’ voting block. It was the first non-party grouping off the block to organise and contest the first MMP election. It traverses quite a diverse group of New Zealanders, all ages, multiple cultures (Maoris, Pacific Islanders, Chinese, etc) and transcends several religions, the non-religious, and ‘middle nz’ concerned about values and heritage or the intrusion of Nanny State into areas of private life (family discipline, sexuality, marriage etc).

Simon Bridges’ reticence on Botany and Alfred Ngaro today, is difficult to reconcile with the existing accommodation with David Seymour in Epsom, that delivers little, and the past arrangements with Peter Dunne, to cabinet level, over many election cycles. The average party list vote 1996-2014 is 3.918%. Given the trends in the USA, with an overtly Christian president and an Australian government returned with a pentecostal PM, how long can NZ dismiss the conservative vote in this country ?

1996 

Christian Coalition 4.33 

Conservatives 0.07

United 0.88. ) 5.28

1999 

Christian Heritage 2.38

United 0.54  ) 2.92

2002 

UFuture -‘the worm’  6.69 

2005 

United Future 2.67

Destiny 0.62  ) 3.29

2008 

United Future 0.87

Kiwi Party 0.54

Family Party 0.35  ) 1.76

2012 

United Future 0.65

Conservative Party 2.65 )  3.30

2014 

United Future 0.22

Conservative Party 3.97 ). 4.19

Average          3.918%

2017 

United Future 0.10

Conservative Party.     0.20 ) 0.30