Stats NZ reports:

The Government Statistician and Chief Executive of Stats NZ, Liz MacPherson has resigned following the release of the Report of the Independent Review of New Zealand’s 2018 Census.
“As leader of this organisation, I take full responsibility for the shortfalls identified in the report,” said Ms MacPherson.
“We were too optimistic, placed too much emphasis on the online census, and did not have robust contingency plans in place for when things started to go wrong. When that happened, problems were not escalated to a higher level. We also failed our Treaty partners because we did not convert engagement with Māori into actual census responses.
“Put simply, we didn’t make it easy enough for everyone to take part and that will be a key focus for the next census.
“As the reviewers say, we got some things wrong at a time of great change during the switch to a more digitally-focused data collection approach. I accept the findings. We let ourselves and New Zealand down.

Kudos to the Government Statistician for taking accountability for this. It is the right thing to do.

The independent report notes:

To do so, respondents must be provided with the tools they need to participate. In cases where mail service is not available, a census worker visits the household and leaves the material that allows respondents to participate in the census (list-leave). As such, paper is an important component; however, its value was underestimated. There was too much focus placed on the digital-first approach due to factors described above. This is evidenced by the decisions to remove paper and then contact from list-leave operations. This made it difficult for a significant portion of the targeted sub-population groups and special dwellings to complete the census.

Also a key finding:

Leadership at the programme level lacked strategic direction and effective programme management. The programme struggled with project integration throughout the census life-cycle. There was a strong operational focus with optimism bias in reporting to external reviews and within the census governance. We could not find evidence of escalation of key decisions beyond the programme team to the relevant governance boards, including the ELT.

Hopefully the next census will go much better.

Stuff reports:

A teenager was spared jail for rape after a court heard he had a promising career as a sportsman ahead of him.
The now 18-year-old, who has previously represented New Zealand on the world stage, admitted charges of rape and sexual violation in the Auckland Youth Court.
But he will not be jailed after a judge took into account his “outstanding talent” when sentencing him for sex attacks on two teenage girls.
The teenager has automatic name suppression and, aside from his record noting the Youth Court appearances, faces no punishment.

He’s raped and assaulted two girls and he gets permanent name and not even a slap on the wrist – all because he is good at sports.

That is sickening.

I’m not saying he should go to prison. But to face no punishment at all is terrible, and no one should get name suppression for serious violent or sexual offending if they have been found guilty. How can other girls or women be protected from him, if they don’t even know what he has shown a propensity for?

The victims must feel terrible that after what he did to them, he gets off totally. Not even community service, a fine, home detention etc. He gets zilch all because he is good at sports.

The Crown must appeal this travesty of a sentence.

The Herald reports:

The Associate Transport Minister will also be looking to spruce up her stationery to avoid confusion over whether she’s corresponding in her ministerial capacity or as a transport spokesperson for the Green Party.
The letter Genter sent to Transport Minister Phil Twyford in March this year regarding Let’s Get Wellington Moving has landed in the House again this week.
The biggest, and somewhat confusing, revelation to come out of Question Time today was when Genter confirmed the letter was written in her capacity as Transport spokesperson for the Green Party.

For days she’s been answering questions in the House about the letter in her capacity as the Associate Transport Minister. Not to mention previous answers to written parliamentary questions in that capacity too.
Today she said the letter “highlighted the Green Party’s position on aspects of the transport project”.
The water was further muddied when National’s Transport spokesman Chris Bishop asked whether or not the letter was sent on ministerial letterhead.
“As it happens I had only one type of letterhead but that is something I will be changing”, Genter eventually conceded.

Firstly that is incorrect. All MPs have unlimited supplies of standard parliamentary letterhead which they can use when corresponding as an MP.

Genter both used ministerial letterhead but also signed it as Associate Transport Minister. Yet she refuses to accept any accountability for this.

Contrast that to Nick Smith. Nick Smith in 2012 resigned as as a Minister. Why? Because he had written a letter of support for a friend in her ACC claim. And he wrote it on his ministerial letterhead, instead of his parliamentary letterhead. That mistake was enough to have him lose all his portfolios.

Genter however won’t accept any accountability for her actions. She wrote to Twyford as the Associate Minister on ministerial letterhead, yet still won’t release the letter,

Stuff reports:

A Hamilton teenager having an argument with his mother gave expression to his anger by going to the house next door and punching a 71 year old to the ground.
Damien Kayden Collins, 17, was sentenced to four months of home detention when he appeared in the Hamilton District Court on charges of assault with intent to injure, threatening behaviour, wilful damage and common assault.

He has a fight with his mum, and his response is to assault the 71 year old living next door.

He’s damn lucky to get home detention. It does show though that prison is generally a last resort, despite people claiming NZ sends too many people to prison for minor offences.

The wilful damage and common assault charge stemmed from an incident in Hamilton on March 3 involving Collins’ uncle and his uncle’s girlfriend.
The teenager had demanded his uncle drive him to the shops, but his uncle refused. Collins responded by walking over to his uncle’s car and kicking the tail light out.
As the couple tried to drive away, the teenager kicked the car again. The girlfriend got out and confronted him, and Collins threw his bag at her and pushed her. 
Eventually the couple managed to drive away. Collins later told the police he kicked the car because he thought they were trying to hit him with it, and he pushed the woman because she was attacking him.
Two weeks before his sentencing date Collins breached his bail conditions and he had spent the last two weeks in custody.

I suspect that sadly we will be hearing more about Mr Collins in future.

Results to date have the Clintons in 1st place, Epstein 2nd, The Trumps 3rd, His victims 4th and God last.

The Herald reporting:

The Government will consider overturning a ban on prisoners from voting in light of a scathing report that said it had disproportionately hurt Māori and breached the Crown’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations.
But any change would need the support of New Zealand First, which has previously stymied justice reforms, blocking Justice Minister Andrew Little’s plans to repeal the three strikes legislation.

I really hope the Government does try and overturn the ban. The campaign against it will be devastating to Government parties.

Imagine scores of ads profiling particular prisoners, their heinous crimes, and all reminding people Labour, NZ First and Greens want to give them the vote.

Imagine the interviews with victims of those in prison, and what they think of their assailants being given the vote despite having committed dozens of crimes.

Newshub reports:

Simon Bridges has called on Ihumātao protesters to go home so houses can be built.
The National leader claims Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern set an appalling precedent by halting construction and needs to right the wrong.

There were several tense moments on the front line at Ihumātao this week, including protester Anikaaro Harawira-Havili caught racially abusing an officer after police numbers swelled and things turned sour.

Shows that racism has many homes.

Bridges believes Ardern has given protesters the wrong idea.
“The fact that the Prime Minister has halted the building, she’s allowed things to escalate. Yes it was happening before but she’s given it a profile and significance,” he says. …

So as the protest enters its fourth week, the Opposition leader is making his views on the Ihumātao dispute clear.
“It’s time to go home so we can see houses being built,” Bridges says.

Including houses for members of the local Iwi.

The Herald reports:

John Tamihere says as Auckland’s mayor he would create an 0800 JACINDA hotline to call if residents see rough sleepers or beggars.
Anyone who called the number would find a “person all loving and caring that knows everything about your wellbeing” on the other end, he said. A social worker would then be sent to work with the beggar.
Homeless people causing a “nuisance” by sleeping rough would be asked to go with the social worker – or find themself in breach of the law, Tamihere said this afternoon as he released his begging and homelessness policy in the run-up to October’s election.

I’m laughing at calling it 0800 JACINDA. I’d bet a large amount of money Matt McCarten came up with that idea.

The breakdown by ethnicity of how people voted on the abortion legislation is interesting. It was:

• Asians 50% for, 50% against
• Europeans 84% for, 16% against
• Maori 81% for, 19% against
• Pasifika 50% for, 50% against

So very similar proportions in favour amongst European and Maori MPs, while Asian and Pasifika MPs were split 50/50.

The Herald reports:

Suppression orders handed out in New Zealand courts could soon be enforceable overseas, Justice Minister Andrew Little says.
Discussions with counterparts from Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States in London were constructive, he told Newstalk ZB.
“I had very positive conversations with the relevant ministers … about finding a way that New Zealand court orders can be enforced in those countries,” he said.
“We’re in the position now where officials in New Zealand will work with officials in those countries to see if we can find a mechanism by which those orders can be upheld.

This is not necessarily good news. What we shpuld focus on is the quid pro quo which will be making it an offence in New Zealand to breach overseas court orders. This means New Zealanders will face prosecution because of a US or Canadian court order.

Susan Edmonds and Rebecca Stevenson write:

If New Zealand wants to make sure to stave off a recession, the answer isn’t with the official cash rate. It’s with tax cuts. …

But if the Government really wants to pump up the economy and avoid the downturn that some predict is on the horizon, it does have options.
One of them would be to reduce taxes. The other would be to spend up large, and stimulate the economy through big projects. …

Tax cuts can be more effective than the OCR in several ways.
Lower-income people tend to spend the extra money they get, which then boosts businesses around them. 
They’re more likely, as economist Brad Olsen says, to choose to get pizza for dinner once every so often or to buy a present for the kids if they have a little more in their pay each week.

Very sound advice but this is a Government that hates allowing people to keep more of their own income. It would never do tax cuts.

Politik reports:

Greenpeace last night took a UN climate change report as a mandate to call for the halving of the New Zealand dairy herd — a move that would cost the country approximately $8.3 billion in lost exports.

No limits to their ambitions for destroying our economy.

Also if NZ did halve our dairy herd, it would increase global greenhouse gas emissions. You see demand for dairy is global, and will not reduce if NZ produces less. Other countries would merely produce more, and as we are more efficient it would in fact lead to greater emissions.

Newshub reports:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters says Māoridom must address issues of abuse towards children and women instead of accusing Oranga Tamariki of institutional racism.
Speaking at a New Zealand First public meeting in Tauranga on Thursday evening, Peters addressed calls for an end to the uplift of Māori children from their families by Oranga Tamariki.

“Oranga Tamariki is being accused of institutional racism for uplifting Māori children from their parents. Social workers are being harassed and threatened,” he said.
“The children uplifted from these circumstances are being called ‘New Zealand’s own stolen generation’. That is an insult to the Aboriginal Australian experience. An utter and total insult.”

Finally someone calling it straight. Of course any other MP saying this would be denounced as a racist.

But while Peters said “the odd [uplift] went wrong”, Māori children aren’t just randomly pulled from their families.
“The facts are that these children are being uplifted because they face perilous dangerous situations.
“There should be no apologies when Oranga Tamariki uplifts a child from an abusive, dangerous or otherwise neglectful environment,” Peters said to applause from the crowd.

Clap clap.

Stuff reports:

Auckland Council says it will continue to have a mayoral staff member involved in official information requests, despite criticism from the Chief Ombudsman.
Peter Boshier in a new review of the council’s performance, suggested the move to avoid “any perception of political influence”, repeating a suggestion made a year ago in a finding highly critical of delays by the council in responding to a request by this journalist.
In his July 2018 decision Boshier found no wrongdoing but “an undesirable lack of clarity” over the role of the mayor’s principal political advisor in a five-month delay to the release of a  report that had been commissioned by Mayor Phil Goff. …

The sticking point is the inclusion of a member of the mayor’s office staff on the council’s internal LGOIMA Review Group which meets each week to review all requests for information lodged under the LGOIMA legislation – local government’s equivalent of the Official Information Act.
“The Council’s view is that a mayoral office representative is well worth having on the review group, as they work right across the organisation and have knowledge of the location of information,” said Boshier.
“I acknowledge this point of view, but nonetheless urge Auckland Council to reconsider its position.”

So the Goffice is ignoring the Ombudsman. I would have thought someone from the CEO’s office would also be across all the work of the Council.

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?