Grant Davidson of Skills Active Aotearoa writes in the Herald:

Let me let you in on a secret. Last election I voted Grant Robertson and Labour. You see, I am one of the 30 per cent of voters who are not firmly aligned to any one party or ideology, but look at the merits of the policies on offer each election.
The promises that attracted me were open and transparent government and an investment focus that’s not just about financial returns, but also people, the environment and wellbeing. In light of those promises, the Government’s proposal to reform vocational education, and the way Education Minister Chris Hipkins is going about it, are shocking.

The open and transparent promise has become a sick joke.

First, after some initial information gathering by officials, we were told the minister was merging the vocational education review with a review of polytechs. That was in mid-December. Then no more news until the minister invited us to Parliament on February 13.
There he served up a single reform proposal to merge all 16 polytechs into a single mega-polytech, delete the well-performing industry training organisations and shift their 145,000 trainees and apprentices to this new mega-polytech. To cap it off, we got just six weeks to consult with our industries and provide feedback.
Sounds like a done deal to me.

As the proposal reflects the Minister’s wishes, it is hard to see it not occurring.

None of the papers given to us clearly define the problem this is trying to solve. There are no options considered. No detail of how it will work. No measures to judge the success of the solution. No costings either, and a careful review of Cabinet papers reveal Treasury is concerned because it hasn’t been able to carry out financial impact modelling.
We are told the current system is broken and that industry wants a better system. We asked for data on what is broken and which workplaces and industries were surveyed. Out of dozens of industries our sector serves, we find there were “conversations” with only 22 workplaces and these only represented three industries. The entire vocational education sector is being disrupted based on that sample, probably selected on the basis of known gripes.

Hardly a scientific sample.

We have a process that pushes a unilateral solution to an undefined problem and rushes this through so that it neglects fundamental rights such as Treaty obligations.
This is not democracy, and it is certainly not good business practice.
It is not open and transparent government.
It is not treating people well according to any definition of a living standards framework.
The minister said last week, “Those who are engaging constructively are really going to help shape the proposals that we’ve got.”
This reads like a veiled threat.
All of us are engaging with our stakeholders constructively in these proposed reforms.
It’s just that some of us have other ideas on how to create a better vocational educational future and those ideas are unpalatable to a blind ideology.

We want to hear from you as long as you agree with us.

A columnist at the Telegraph writes:

How can we … prevent another atrocity like the one in Christchurch? As I have watched New Zealanders of all faiths mourn, this has been the question on my mind. So far, few of the answers offered have come close to the truth.
What the massacre revealed was the need for a clear understanding of the weaponisation of ethnic, religious and political identities that is going on throughout the world. This was [the killer’s] evil aim: to contribute to a polarisation of the West – and to a parallel phenomenon in the Muslim world. His actions, which eerily resemble those of Isil and other Islamist terror groups, were calculated to intensify the hostility and suspicion that already exist towards Muslims in the West. They were also designed to elicit a response from Islamists and so encourage a cycle of retaliatory violence.

I agree that his attack is like those of ISIS – designed to cause further hostility and conflict.

The truth, we recognise, is that jihadist doctrine, goals and strategy can be traced to specific tenets of orthodox, authoritative Islam and its historic practice. This includes those portions of Shariah that promote Islamic supremacy, encourage enmity towards non-Muslims and require the establishment of a caliphate. It is these elements – still taught by most Sunni and Shiite institutions – that constitute a summons to perpetual conflict.

It is our firm view that, if Muslims do not address the key tenets of Islamic tradition that encourage this violence, anyone – at any time – can harness them to defy what they claim to be illegitimate laws and butcher their fellow citizens, whether they live in the Islamic world or the West. This is what links so many current events, from Syria to the streets of London.

There is a desperate need for honest discussion of these matters. This is why it worries me to see Western political and intellectual elites weaponise the term “Islamophobia,” to short-circuit analysis of a complex phenomenon that threatens all humanity. For example, it is factually incorrect and counter-productive to define Islamophobia as “rooted in racism,” as proposed by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims. In reality, it is the spread of Islamist extremism and terror that primarily contributes to the rise of Islamophobia throughout the non-Muslim world.

Now the usual suspects on Twitter who read this column would no doubt conclude that the author is himself an Islamophobe who is prejudiced against Muslims, and is racist etc etc. How dare he blame Islamophobia on Islamist extremism.

But before they tweet their angry 320 characters denouncing him, they might want to read the fine line of the column.

Yahya Cholil Staquf is General Secretary of Nahdlatul Ulama, the world’s largest Muslim organisation

Which is also a good reminder how obscene it is to regard all Muslims as being the same, defined only by their religion.

Mike Yardley writes:

Amid the public outpouring of profound sadness and goodwill for the Muslim community following the terror attack, the high-visibility presence of patched gang members at cordons and vigils has aroused much curiosity.
In the wake of such monstrous evil, is it not a little incongruous for the perpetrators of so much everyday evil to down tools for a touchy-feely time-out?
The television news media, in particular, has fawned over their gatherings outside mosques to perform haka, pay their respects and offer protection.
The Bandidos, the King Cobras, the Headhunters, Black Power and the Mongrel Mob have all turned up, en-masse.

People may be unaware but almost many gangs now have a media officer. They have reporters on speed dial and are very proficient at planting stories showing them doing nice things (such as protecting mosques).

I do not doubt their expressed empathy, sorrow and grief is genuine. I’d like to think they have been summoned by their better angels, rather than Hell’s angels.

But let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that gangland is suddenly seeing the error of their pernicious, destructive ways and is mass-converting into a pack of peaceniks.

The reality remains that they are responsible for a disproportionate share of violent crime in New Zealand.

I note that one of the Mongrel Mob’s chapters, The Kingdom, has decided to jettison its Nazi symbolism and its “sieg heil” rallying cry, in the aftermath of the Christchurch atrocity.
But the Mob will continue to “bark” like feral dogs.
The Kingdom’s president, Paito Fatu, reckons his chapter is transitioning away from violent crime, domestic abuse and drug crime. The Police Minister remains a doubting Thomas, understandably taking a “I’ll believe it when I see it” approach to such rhetoric.

I’ve been reading stories about them transitioning since the 1970s.

The police Gang Intelligence Centre recently put the national gang count at 5785 members and prospects, supposedly up 1500 on 2016. Gang members comprise 0.1 per cent of the population, but 15 per cent of all general firearms charges.
Forty four per cent of identified gang members had been convicted for firearms offences, as of 2016.

That seems remarkably high. If correct, it does suggest where the focus should go.

Apologies for missing yesterday

The Community Schools Alliance released:

Schools from around New Zealand are joining together to reject a proposal that would sever their accountability to local communities and hand direct control of schools to a new government bureaucracy.

The Community Schools Alliance, a growing group of 43 primary and secondary schools and Kura a iwi, launched a national campaign to raise awareness of the Tomorrow’s Schools Taskforce plan to replace direct parental involvement in schools with “Education Hubs”, and its implications for students. The campaign was kicked off with full -page advertisements in the New Zealand Herald and the Dominion Post, and will be supported by social media and a website for more information.

Under the plan, the “Hubs” appointed by Wellington would take over the responsibilities of individual schools’ boards of trustees elected by parents.

“The Hub plan would strip New Zealand’s world leading, community-led public education system of what makes it unique,” said Glen Denham, Principal of Massey High School in West Auckland.

“The Community Schools Alliance membership represents urban, regional and rural primary and secondary schools, from the whole range of decile areas. We are religious and secular schools, state and state-integrated schools, and kura,” Mr Denham said.

“The range of schools moved to speak up publicly about the Hub plan is so great because it threatens the diversity of the New Zealand education system itself,” said Pat Newman, Principal of Hora Hora Primary School in Whangārei

If I am not mistaken Pat Newman is a former Labour Party candidate. If a former Labour candidate is saying these proposals are really bad, that is significant.

On March the 14th I blogged on how I thought the Operation Burnham inquiry is looking to be a waste of time in response to a Stuff report that Deborah Manning and Nicky Hager were critical of the inquiry decisions to date and Manning was undertaking legal action against the inquiry.

In the article I referred to an earlier blog post where I queried if Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson would accept the findings of the inquiry if the findings do not agree with their allegations. I concluded this article showed they wouldn’t.

The way my article was worded using “they” implied that both Hager and Stephenson were attacking the inquiry.

Mr Stephenson has been in contact to point out that he has not in fact attacked the inquiry. I’ve gone back and re-read the Stuff article and he is absolutely correct. While it quotes Hager and Manning as being critical of the inquiry to date, it notes that Stephenson and the inquiry are still in discussion about sources.

It was wrong of me to lump Hager and Stephenson in together and to imply that Stephenson was attacking the inquiry, when has has not. And likewise wrong to conclude that he will not accept the inquiry’s findings.

I’m very happy to correct the record and apologise to Mr Stephenson for the inaccuracy in the original post.

I would also note that it only takes me two hours to do a correction and apology (e-mail was received at 4.45 pm), as opposed to eight months for certain other media outlets 🙂

The IEA has released data on CO2 emissions from energy for 2018. They note:

Despite growth in coal use, fuel switching between coal and gas accelerated in 2018, reducing the carbon intensity of global energy use. Driven by economics and policies, coal-to-gas switching avoided almost 60 Mt of coal demand, with the transition to less carbon-intensive natural gas helping avert 95 Mt of CO2 emissions. Without this coal-to-gas switch, the increase in emissions would have been more than 15% greater.

Climate change activists should be outraged by the Government banning gas exploration. Switching energy production from coal to gas is limiting the increase in CO2 emissions.

Increased generation from nuclear power plants also reduced emissions, averting nearly 60 Mt of CO2 emissions.

Food for thought.

One columnist has said the media hype over Trump and Russia is this generation’s version of the false intelligence that Saddam had WMDs.

Axios finds a staggering 533,074 articles on Trump and Russia.

The three main US networks devoted 2,284 minutes to covering allegations Trump colluded with Russia. That is the equivalent of 52 entire one hour broadcasts (based on 44 minutes of non ad time) on the one issue.

As if that is not enough good news for Trump, Michael Avenatti has been charged with trying to extort $20 million from Nike.

Trump’s greatest strength is the judgement of his enemies.

The Herald reports:

Images and video taken at the emergency conference of the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation (OIC), show Peters, who is 74, with his head slumped and eyes closed for extended periods of time. …

He did not, however, deny being asleep.
It is not the first time Peters has appeared to nod off at meetings.

Last week, Peters sat with his eyes closed and his head down at times while Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and a contingent of Ministers and MPs met Muslim community leaders following the mosque terror attacks in Christchurch.
A few weeks before that, Peters’ eyes were closed during a Security and Intelligence select committee hearing, also attended by Ardern.

So that’s basically three times in three weeks that Peters has fallen asleep while performing public duties.

Stuff reports:

On 5 August 2018, the Sunday Star Times published a story which made a number of incorrect statements about Hon. Tim Groser, and in particular about his decision not to seek an extension to his term as NZ’s Ambassador to the United States. These statements were repeated on the Stuff website.
Stuff accepts those statements were incorrect and unreservedly apologises to Mr Groser for those errors.
Mr Groser, a former Trade Minister, trade negotiator and diplomat, recently returned to NZ after successfully completing a term as Ambassador to Washington. The decision not to seek an extension to his term was made entirely by Mr Groser. 

What I find fascinating it it took almost nine months for Stuff to retract their story and apologise. Why did it take so long?

The Herald reports:

National leader Simon Bridges is calling for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terror attack that killed 50 people in two mosques on March 15.
He also said New Zealand’s security legislation needs to be reassessed with some urgency to ensure “New Zealanders are kept safe”.
Speaking to media last Monday, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern confirmed there would be an official inquiry into specific circumstances leading up to the terror attack.
It would look at what all relevant agencies knew or could or should have known about the individual and his activities, including the alleged gunman’s access to weapons and whether they could have been in a position to prevent the attack.

“It would also assess if there were any impediments to the sharing of information, such as legislative or intelligence sharing challenges,” Ardern said.
She added the New Zealand SIS, GCSB, Police, Customs, and Immigration’s role in response, and leading up to, the shooting would be looked into.
Although a Royal Commission of Inquiry was on the table, Ardern was not able to confirm at the time if that was the route the Government would take.
But Bridges said this was the only suitable level of inquiry available to the Government.
Speaking to the Herald, he said although other inquiries could undertake the review, it wouldn’t have the “stature, the independence and the thoroughness of a Royal Commission”.

There are basically four types of inquiry. They are:

1. Ministerial inquiry – not a statutory inquiry, initiated by a Minister within their portfolio area
2. Government inquiry – established by a Minister into any matter of public importance
3. Public Inquiry – established by Order in Council into any matter of public importance
4. Royal Commission – appointed by the Governor-General (on advice of Cabinet) into a matter of the most serious public importance

There are also no differences in powers between the third and fourth options but in terms of status it is hard to argue against this being a matter of the most serious public importance so Bridges is right to argue it should be a Royal Commission.

New Zealand’s security legislation needed to change as well, Bridges said.
Project Speargun – a programme which would have scanned internet traffic coming into New Zealand – was abandoned in 2013 by the then-National Government after “vocal views against it”, Bridges said.
He added that this was because many of the critics were prioritising privacy over safety.
He said Speargun would have “given an extended degree of protection to all New Zealanders”.
A system called Cortex is now in place in New Zealand, but Bridges said it was much narrower and designed to protect institutions.
He would not, however, say if the Government’s decision to abandon the programme was a mistake.
“My view is everything has changed – I’m not pretending it’s easy – but where the line is now drawn has to be reconsidered.

Quite a few people have criticised the SIS and GCSB for not detecting the terrorist. The inquiry will look into this. But this will be a core issue – will those demanding he should have been detected be willing to give the security agencies greater powers to do so?

Is is worth remembering that one party in Parliament has policy to abolish both the SIS (subject to select committee review) and the GCSB.

UPDATE: Since writing this the Government has announced there will be a Royal Commission

Lloyd Burr at Newshub writes:

New Zealand had a seat at the top table in a huge room of leaders, officials, and diplomats from 57 Muslim-majority nations.
It was an emergency conference of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation to discuss the Christchurch terror attack, and Winston Peters had been invited to represent New Zealand. 
And he was asleep, for all the world to see. 

Not a good look.

If that wasn’t bad enough, Peters didn’t even go into bat for Kiwis during his meeting with Turkish President Erdogan. He may as well have been asleep then too. 
Erdogan had spent the previous week politicising the terror attack during his local election rallies. He played footage from the gunman’s camera, he disrespected our ANZAC soldiers, and threatened to send anyone who attacked Turkey back to New Zealand in coffins like their grandfathers. 
His actions were poorly judged, poorly timed, and targeted a sacred bond forged on the battlefield that defined both our countries. 

Taxi drivers and other locals who we talked to in Turkey apologised for Edogan’s comments, and were embarrassed by them.
And even though Jacinda Ardern said Peters would confront this issue when he was in Turkey, he didn’t. 
He didn’t even raise it. He didn’t let the Turkish President know we were brassed off, and hurt, and disappointed. It was the elephant in the room, and he was the ostrich – he ran away from it.

The PM has been doing a great job responding to the attack. The Foreign Minister has not.

When asked why, Peters either said he was invited by Turkey to be there, or that there was nothing to be gained from raising it, or that Erdogan’s comments were made in the heat of the moment after a tragic event.
He even said Cabinet had instructed him not to raise it. That doesn’t fit with Ardern’s comment that he would “confront” the issue. 
It was embarrassing as a Kiwi sitting in that press conference with the world’s media watching, listening to Peters brush it off like it wasn’t a big deal. 

Peters also claimed there was no need to raise it as Erdogan had stopped using the video. Barely an hour later he used it again!

Al Jazeera reports:

The US-backed fighters in Syria have declared military victory over ISIL on Saturday, ending a four-year battle against the group that once held territory spanning a third of Syria and Iraq.
After weeks of heavy fighting, the tent camp where the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, or ISIS) fighters) had made their final stand in the village of Baghouz was bombed to shreds.

This is great news. ISIL’s credibility came from the fact it actually had territory (equal in size to Great Britain) and had established a state with a Government and billions of dollars of revenue. They attracted fighters from around the world.

There will still be some ISIL inspired terror attacks in future, but far fewer than before.

I’ve been monitoring ministerial staff numbers since 2008 as it useful to track if Ministers are loading their offices up with communications and political staff, at taxpayer expense.

In 2008 under Clark there were 286 staff. In 2017 under English there were 275. In 2018 Ardern had bloated it to 312 staff.

A count up of staff according to their January 2019 listing shows also 312 staff. But of interest is there are now two fewer Ministers. The average Minister employs 10 staff so you’d expect up to 20 fewer staff, but the level has remained the same.

The breakdown of staff is:

• Managers 33
• Communications 41
• Political 37
• Portfolio 146
• Admin 45

The SMH reports:

Michael Daley has vowed to remain as leader of the NSW Labor Party, amid the likelihood he will be challenged for the top job in the wake of Labor’s disastrous state election result.

Daley has only been leader for five months. He may not get to serve a year.

However, inside the Labor Party shock at the result had turned to anger by Sunday monring as it became apparent that Labor, in a best-case scenario, would win only two seats – Coogee and Lismore.
“People are ropeable,” one senior party figure said.

Up until a week ago, the Coalition had not led in the polls for 12 months. Labor were looking very likely to win or at least reduce the Coalition to a minority.

It shows campaigns do matter.

Over the weekend I reflected that arguably the Christchurch terror attack was the least successful terror attack I could think of.

I don’t mean unsuccessful in terms of killing people. Sadly he was successful there. The loss of life was appalling and we won’t forget the victims.

What I mean is that in terms of his objectives, he has been a miserable failure. In fact he has achieved almost the polar opposite of what he aimed to do.

He said that he decided to attack Muslims in New Zealand because (his words) they are the most despised group of “invaders” and attacking them will receive the greatest level of support.

Well he has achieved the opposite. He has done more to foster goodwill and empathy for Muslims in New Zealand, than many would have though possible. The 50 victims have been the human face of what happened. Almost $10 million has been donated to their families. Tens of thousands of New Zealanders have attended memorial services. The words of mosque leaders preaching peace and tolerance have been heard up and down the country. Muslim prayers have been said in Parliament, on television and radio.

Again this is the greatest backfire I can recall. The overwhelming reaction from New Zealanders has been the total opposite to what he wanted.

His other aim is to help incite global war by sparking revenge attacks against New Zealand. But again the opposite has happened. To the rest of the world, New Zealand has been the victim not the perpetrator. The response led by Jacinda Ardern has had New Zealand praised around the world. The President of Turkey did an op ed in the Washington Post praising her. Her image is being beamed onto the tallest building in the Middle East. The response of New Zealand as a whole, but especially Ardern, has seen New Zealand praised by most Muslim nations.

So once again he has scored an incredible own goal. He has probably done more to frustrate his own aims, than anyone else could have done on purpose.

That doesn’t lessen the tragedy for the 50 dead and their families. It doesn’t lessen the fear that many Muslims will have in having been targeted in this way. It goes without saying that we would all be better off if he had somehow been detected before he could launch his attack.

But the fact his hatred has backfired so massively in terms of his aims, is some comfort I hope.

The Herald reported:

New Zealand has received advice from a wide range of countries on how to improve its human rights, including from Venezuela, Russia, Syria and Myanmar.
The advice is included in the United Nations Human Rights Council draft report on New Zealand.

That’s lovely that Russia, Syria and Venezuela could share their expertise with us on how to improve our human rights so we can match their levels.

Russia wants New Zealand to consider not only a written constitution but wants to see the Treaty of Waitangi enshrined in law.
Venezuela wants the Bill of Rights Act to be given a constitutional status and it wants to see women and girls guaranteed a life free from violence.
Iran wants New Zealand to improve anti-discrimination legislation to ensure the protection of rights of ethnic minorities.
Belarus wants to see less over-crowding in prisons and better access of prisoners to quality medical services.

How can we say no to any of these proposals.

And Oman wants New Zealand to strengthen measures in the area of women’s empowerment and the promotion of equal opportunities for women.

Always amusing when a country which up until 2010 required a woman to get permission to marry to tell us we should have equal opportunities for women.

An interesting discussion on Radio Live about whether the Government will exempt Iwi from a Capital Gains Tax, as they may face a Treaty claim if they don’t.

What I found most interesting is the two Iwi who submitted said they support a CGT, but for everyone but themselves.

The Mueller report has been delivered to the US Attorney-General with no indictments against members of the Trump Family, and no charges laid which suggest there was collusion with Russia.

Certainly what has come out to date shows that Trump had terrible people around him, but that is nothing new.

I never thought collusion was likely because that would require a degree of organisational competence that the campaign didn’t seem to have.

This should kill any talk of impeachment, with the focus now on the 20 months until the 2020 election.

How are things looking? Well depends on who the Democrats select but here are recent net approval ratings around 800 days in:

• Bush GHW +77
• Eisenhower +54%
• Kennedy +47%
• Truman +40%
• Johnson +36%
• Bush GW +34%
• Nixon +14%
• Carter +8%
• Clinton +6%
• Ford +2%
• Obama +2%
• Reagan -8%
• Trump -11%

AP reported:

A decade after discovering natural gas fields off its Mediterranean coast, Israel is starting to feel the geopolitical boost.
Its newfound riches have fostered economic bonds with its neighbors, tightening relations with Arab allies, and built new bridges in a historically hostile region — even without significant progress being made toward peace with the Palestinians.
Last week’s inclusion of Israel into the Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forum in Cairo — a consortium aiming to cut infrastructure costs and lower prices — marked the first time Arab countries accepted Israel into such a regional alliance, sparking excitement in the country that its long-held hope of finally also making “economic peace” with Egypt and Jordan was fast approaching.
“I think this is the most significant economic cooperation between Egypt and Israel since the signing of the peace treaty 40 years ago,” Israeli Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz told The Associated Press during his visit. “The discovery of significant gas fields in the eastern Mediterranean has also political value because it brings all of us … together to cooperate with each other.”

This is very significant having Israel in a Middle Eastern economic alliance.

The forum, which also includes Cyprus, Greece, Italy and the Palestinian Authority, aims to emerge as a mini-OPEC of sorts and highlights how Israel has been leveraging its newfound gas reserves into a powerful tool to expand its immersion into a region that has increasingly come to see Iran and Turkey, rather than Israel, as their greatest rivals.
With the expected gas boon, Israel plans to wean itself off coal and emerge as an unlikely energy exporter — providing both an economic and political lift.
In the coming months, Israel will begin exporting gas to Egypt as part of a $15 billion deal signed last year to provide 64 billion cubic meters of gas over a 10-year period that will help turn Egypt into a regional energy hub.

Excellent. Countries that trade together tend to not get into armed conflict.

Politik reports:

A sign that the National Party membership want to see some changes in the party has come with news that there are now seven candidates seeking four positions on the party’s board.
The clear message is that changing the Leader last year was not enough.
More is needed.

I don’t see this as a bad thing. I think it is healthy to have lots of people wanting to be on the board. National is a party that is pro-competition.

Four of the candidates are sitting members of the board; Andrew Hunt, Alastair Bell, Glenda Hughes and Pat Seymour.
The three new candidates are Grant McCallum, Stefan Sunde and Paul Foster-Bell.

I know all of them. They’re all good people, and it gives the party a healthy choice.

Stefan Sunde, the former President of the Young Nats, told POLITIK that with the nomination process still in play he didn’t want to make any comment.
But party insiders say his pitch to members has been to press his Young Nat background as an asset in focusing on the younger vote which the party now finds a lot harder to attract since Jacinda Ardern took over the Labour leadership.

I’m not endorsing anyone but always good to see a young member stand for the board.