Not going to post on any other topics for a wee while. While issues such as Capital Gains Tax, legalising cannabis, natural gas etc are all important issues, they pale into insignificance with what has happened in Christchurch.

I think it is a time for reflection.

So I’ve postponed all the posts I had scheduled for the weekend. Normal service will return at some point of course.

The death toll in the terrorist attack on two Christchurch mosques has been confirmed at 40, with a further 20 injured.

There are so many victims, it is hard to know where to begin.

• 40 New Zealanders are dead, when they were peacefully at prayer. They were slaughtered because of their religion.
• At least 40 families have a lost fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, children etc. The family members will never fully recover. Their lives will never be the same again.
• Every Muslim in New Zealand will be reflecting that this could have been them. This was a slaughter of innocents based on their religion. The main gunman said he considered Dunedin also, and Ashburton if he could make it. He didn’t care where so long as it was a mosque. New Zealand as sadly joined other countries where armed Police now have to protect places of worship
• People in Christchurch are mourning. Their city has been through enough. No place deserved this, but it seems especially unfair Christchurch gets to suffer again. Few people in Christchurch won’t know someone directly affected.
• And of course everyone in NZ is affected also. One of the worst terrorist attacks in the world has happened in New Zealand. It will change us and affect us.

For now we are mourning. There will come a time when the focus will be on how did this happen, and how do we stop it happening again. How did they get guns? Could they have been detected early? How were they radicalised?

But now now we mourn and hopefully reject extremism. Any ideology that doesn’t value human life and justifies the deliberate killing of innocents is simply evil.

UPDATE: 49 now dead

Stuff is reporting that a man entered a mosque in Christchurch and shot people there.

This is terrible. Everywhere should be safe from gun violence, but especially places of worship.

Thoughts go out to everyone affected. One can only hope and pray for those caught up in this.

UPDATE: There are reports that up to 30 people may have been shot. I am feeling physically sick as I type this, that this has happened in New Zealand. Part of our innocence has died today.

Stuff reports:

A Government Minister has said Sir Michael Cullen’s payments as chair of the Tax Working Group after the body has disbanded is “peanuts” and suggested the former Deputy Prime Minister should be paid more.

Willie is touch with the families earning $20 an hour by describing $1,000 a day as peanuts.

I have no problem with Cullen being paid $1,000 a day as TWG Chair when there was a TWG. He was being paid to lead a group of people to design a Capital Gains Tax – a highly expert task.

What I have a problem with is having him paid $1,000 a day to shrill for the Government and attack their opponents. That is outrageous. He shouldn’t be paid even $20 an hour for that, No one should be funded by the taxpayers to be a Government shrill.

Pleased to announce New Zealand’s newest blogger is Sir Bob Jones. He is blogging at nopunchespulled.com.

This is Sir Bob unfiltered with no editor or lawyer in between him and the publish button. I look forward to many amusing reads.

Newshub reports:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has issued New Zealand First MP Shane Jones a public telling off for appearing to question the integrity of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO). 
And not only that: she has given her entire Cabinet a dressing-down. 
“My expectation is [that] ministers focus on doing their jobs and not on National,” the Prime Minister said on Thursday. 

Jones, the Regional Economic Minister, on Wednesday risked breaching the independence of the Serious Fraud Office which is investigating National Party donations. 
“We will study every single step they take to ensure, because it’s the National Party, it’s not whitewashed,” Jones said in Parliament. 
Ardern on Thursday made it clear to the public Jones was in the wrong.
“The SFO absolutely have operational independence and that must be maintained,” she said. 

Okay so Ardern has said Jones was wrong and has “told him off”. Now normally the Minister will apologise, say they were wrong and be penitent but …

But Jones is far from penitent.
“I have every right as a Parliamentarian to have high expectations of the SFO,” he told media on Thursday. 

So he is basically giving the finger to the Prime Minister. And he knows he can do this because …

And New Zealand First leader Winston Peters is not phased. When asked if he reprimanded Jones on Wednesday, he replied: “Why would I need to do that?” 

It is clear that the Prime Minister has no actual control over Ministers not in her party.

Could you imagine that happening with Clark? with Key? Not in 1,000 years.

Politik reported Marama Davidson on Morning Report:

“I’ll be really, really clear. I don’t think it’s appropriate to have surpluses while we have floodings happening in countries, where we’ve got floods happening, where we’ve got homelessness, I don’t think it’s appropriate that we’re holding onto surpluses in that way.”

Just think about this. The Green co-leader says we should be borrowing money and running a deficit because there is flooding in other countries.

This shows that there is no limit to how much the Greens want to tax New Zealand taxpayers. Basically her argument is that if anyone anywhere in the world is struggling, we should tax ourselves more and spend more to fix it.

The Herald reports:

A South Island teacher has admitted sexually assaulting a schoolgirl more than six years ago.
The teacher, in his 60s, touched and forcibly kissed a 9-year-old girl in 2012.
She was scared and when she tried to run away, she noticed the man’s exposed penis, the Greymouth District Court heard today.
The man earlier admitted a charge of doing an indecent act on a 9-year-old child between August 31 and September 30, 2012.

At court this afternoon, he was sentenced to six months of community detention and will be subject to extensive supervision, with special conditions, for two years. …

The man was given credit, and a reduction in sentence, for an early guilty plea, previous “impeccable character”, no history of offending, being assessed a low risk of reoffending, and the offending being deemed at the lower end of the scale of the charge.
He has not been placed on the Child Sex Offender Register.

How is this man not placed on the child sex offender register?

The man claimed he had no intention of exposing his genitals but rather it was “an accident involving clothing”.

Oh so he just got so excited from kissing the nine year old, it just pushed its way out.

He’s in his sixties, he was her teacher and he was sexually attracted to a nine year old, and acted on it. Again how does this not qualify for the child sex offender register?

The Herald reports:

Green Party co-leader James Shaw was punched in an unprovoked attack on his way to Parliament this morning.

Shaw, 45, was attacked by one person; he was grabbed and received a knock to his face.

Police have arrested a 47-year-old man over the attack. The police statement did not identify Shaw as the victim.

The victim was assaulted in Glenmore St, Kelburn at 7.50am outside the entrance to the Botanic Gardens. …

A spokesman for the Green Party said Shaw was punched in the face and suffered a black eye in the attack.

Shaw, who was walking to work from his Kelburn home, was attacked by the man who stepped out.

Luckily, two passersby stepped in after the attack. He continued on to work and attended a meeting before going

The spokesman said he then went to hospital for an assessment given he had received a blow to the head.

Shaw was not robbed and the spokesman said there didn’t appear to be a motive for the attack.

This really disgusts me. Unprovoked attacks are nasty cowardly things. The person responsible should face serious consequences for this.

If the attack on Shaw was because of his role as an MP, it is arguably even more serious. No MP should have to worry about being assaulted because someone disagrees with their politics. It is a form of attack on our democracy.

James is a really nice guy and one of the most inoffensive people in politics. It is unthinkable that he would have done anything to provoke this. It really sounds like a cowardly assault.

I hope his injuries are not serious and he is back at work soon.

IMPORTANT UPDATE: See correction and apology of 26 March regarding Jon Stephenson.

In April 2018 I blogged on the Operation Burnham inquiry:

Will Hager and Stephenson accept the findings of the inquiry, or only if they back their allegations? Will they apologise to NZDF if an inquiry finds their allegations are incorrect?

Of course I knew the answer to my own question. They are already attacking the inquiry and setting themselves up to reject it as the evidence is not backing their version of events.

Andrew Vance reports:

Manning is representing the injured villagers and relatives of the deceased and mounted a powerful defence for proceedings to be held in the open, in front of the inquiry chairs in November.
She argued the process was focused on the reputation of the Defence Force and not the ‘right to life’ obligations New Zealand had towards the victims.
Those international obligations mean states must investigate unresolved killings, especially where their agents may have been involved. But her arguments were dismissed as not relevant to the terms of reference for the inquiry.
On behalf of the villagers, Manning had launched legal proceedings in 2017. Those were put on hold to allow the inquiry to play out.
Manning has called a press conference at her Auckland law offices on Thursday. It’s understood legal action is once again on the table.
That would demonstrate a massive loss of faith in the inquiry.

They’re not interested in evidence.

If the inquiry finds that the allegations are false, it is clear the proponents of the allegations will simply reject the findings. This is the first step in softening us up for that.

So the inquiry is looking to be a huge waste of time and money because one side is never going to accept any result they don’t like.

I don’t think it would be unfair to conclude that the current Government is displaying arguably the most thuggish behaviour we have seen, since Muldoon’s time.

Look at what we have so far:

1. Shane Jones threatening to smear a journalist who reports on his conflicts of interest
2. Ron Mark telling a veterans group they have a responsibility to vote for NZ First as he got them funding
3. Shane Jones pressuring the SFO to go hard on National
4. A NZ First Minister sending a backbencher in to tell an electorate MP to withdraw from involvement in a community project or it won’t get funded
5. Shane Jones attacking the head of Spark for making a statement on the GCSB blocking their use of Huawei, despite the fact Spark was 100% obliged by NZX rules to disclose market sensitive information and hence had no choice

The Prime Minister says that she thinks politics needs to be more kind. Yet she does nothing about Ministers who act like thugs.

Stuff reports:

Former Labour MP Chris Carter is to represent the party which once ousted him, in this year’s local body elections.
Carter will stand as one of eight Labour team members for Auckland Council’s Henderson-Massey Local Board.

I am sure he will get elected.

His parliamentary career ended in controversy, ironically under the Labour Party leadership of Phil Goff, who is now Auckland’s mayor.
Carter and two other MP’s were demoted by Goff in June 2010 after the release of credit card records for ministers in the former Labour government showed personal spending, and Goff criticised the MPs’ travel costs.
The rift deepened a month later over a letter he circulated about fellow MPs questioning Goff’s leadership, and he was expelled in July from caucus and in October, the party.

Presumably his membership has been restored.

I quite like the idea of Goff and Carter as sort of colleagues again, if they are both elected.

Stuff reports:

Several Christchurch city councillors have questioned why Mayor Lianne Dalziel failed to publicly disclose a potential conflict of interest over family connections to water bottler Cloud Ocean Water.
Dalziel held talks with elected members on Tuesday to explain her situation after Stuff revealed a law firm run by her husband, Rob Davidson, is representing the China-owned firm and offered to use long-standing political connections to lobby politicians on its behalf.

Now it is important to note that it appears no lobbying actually happened, and both Dalziel and her husband seemed to be unaware that a staffer at Davidson’s firm made this offer.

But it is still of concern that someone at Davidson’s law firm thought it was appropriate to boast of their political connections (married to the Mayor and father of a Councillor) to a client.

Scoop reports:

MPs in UK’s House of Commons this morning have rejected British Prime Minister Theresa May’s amended Brexit deal.
Mrs May managed to secure “legally binding” changes to the deal during a meeting with the EU yesterday that were intended to soothe UK Brexiteers in parliament.
However, many pro-Brexit Tories and the Irish DUP – which props up the coalition government – said the changes did not go far enough and that they would vote against the deal.
MPs have now done so, voting 391 to 242 against the deal in the House. It’s not as large a defeat as when they shot it down in January by a margin of 230.
Following the latest rejection today, a further vote is slated for tomorrow on whether the UK should leave the EU without a deal.
If that no-deal option is rejected, MPs could get a vote on Friday on whether to request a delay to Brexit from the EU.

Sadly I now think Brexit may never happen, which will cripple the Tories and bring a Brexit party into Parliament.

There is little doubt Parliament will reject a no deal Brexit and go for a delay. But I can’t see there being a much different deal in a couple of months.

Newshub reports:

Newshub has obtained a video of Ron Mark seemingly pitching for votes at an event he attended as a minister. National’s accusing him of threatening to pull government funding if his party didn’t get votes.

Mr Mark is both Defence and Veterans Affairs Minister and a NZ First MP – and it seems the lines are bit blurry.
In December he gave a speech to No Duff – a charitable trust that offers support to veterans. The Minister slipped on his NZ First hat talking about his party’s polling and calling attendees out for their lack of support.
“To be perfectly honest, when I look at the polling results of my political party New Zealand First, then the veterans, the Defence base, you guys haven’t supported us. At all,” he said.

This should be a sackable offence as the Minister also told the attendees that the $25,000 grant they got from the Government was due to him personally and that they should recognise that and the responsibility that comes with it – ie to vote for them.

If he was a Minister in any other Government, he would be sacked for those comments.

This is not far off stand over tactics. Ministers should not be going to events to complain that not enough people there voted for their party and that the grant they got was due to him personally and imply it obliges them to vote for his party.

Stuff reports:

Former National MP Jami-Lee Ross says the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is tracking an alleged $100,000 donation to the National Party back through multiple bank accounts. …

Ross told media he didn’t “know” more than they did but based on a number of conversations with police he understood the SFO were attempting to track the alleged donation back through its smaller parts to an original donor.
“I understand there is some work that is being done or has been done in relation to tracking the money backwards through different bank accounts,” Ross said.

I’d be wary of assuming this is correct, but if so this may shed some light on what the issues are.

The key issue may be whether the donations were a contribution or just bundled.

Bundling is entirely legal. It is where one person arranges a number of people to make a donation. The lower the donation limit the more often this happens – it is very common in the US where the limit is $2,300 so the emphasis goes on people who can persuade others to donate.

So if an individual donates $15,000 and persuade six of their friends to also donate $15,000 that is entirely legal, and none of the donations exceed the disclosure limit.

But if the individual gives $15,000 each to six of their friends, and they donate that money claiming it to be their own – that is not kosher, as they are required by law to disclose any contributors to their donation. The Electoral Act defines a contribution as:

means any thing (being money or the equivalent of money or goods or services or a combination of those things) that makes up a donation or is included in a donation or has been used to wholly or partly fund a donation, and that—
(a) was given—
(i) to the donor; or
(ii) to a person who was required or expected to pass on all or any of its amount or value to the donor, whether directly or indirectly (for example, through one or more intermediaries, trustees, or nominees); and
(b) would have been a donation if it had been given directly to the candidate or party; and
(c) was given in the knowledge or expectation (whether by reference to a trust, agreement, or understanding) that it would be wholly or partly applied to make up, or to be included in, or to fund, a donation

So if these donations to National were funded by someone other than the listed donor, potentially offences have been committed. Also if the money isn’t their own they could also be deemed a transmitter.

But what is interesting is who may have liability.

S207C(2) requires a donor to to disclose to the party if the donation was funded by a contribution. So the obligation is on the donor to disclose.

There is also an obligation on a candidate and/or a party secretary to refund a donation if they have grounds to believe a donor has not complied with S207C(2).

Now even if these donations were funded by a contribution, I’ve seen nothing to suggest the party secretary had any reason to think so. In fact the material released by JLR shows the party secretary went out of his way to gather authenticated details of the donors, namely their name, address and that they were on the electoral roll.

The obligation on a candidate could be interesting as they were donated into the Botany electorate bank account. And who was the candidate for Botany? JLR. He is probably okay as it seems they were a party donation, not a candidate donation. But could still be interesting.

The other issue for JLR might be whether he is a transmitter. A transmitter is someone who transmits a donation to the party secretary on behalf of the donor. If JLR passed on the donations from the Botany electorate to HQ, then he may be deemed a transmitter. And a transmitter is required under 207E to disclose if they knew of any contributors. This section could well apply to JLR.

Now what are the fines for an offence. A donor who doesn’t disclose can be fined up to $40,000.

A transmitter who doesn’t disclose can also be fined up to $40,000.

A party secretary must disclose any contributors to donations under S210(1)(b) and if the return is false is guilty of a corrupt practice if knowingly false or an illegal practice unless they can prove they had no intention to misstate took all reasonable steps to ensure the information was correct.

So in summary:

• Whether or not there has been a breach depends on if the individual donors were donating their own money, or donating on behalf of someone else
• If there were contributions to the donations, the major liability rests with the donors who clearly knew this. They face the most trouble.
• If JLR is deemed either a candidate or a transmitter under the Act, he may face liability also as he says he knew they they may have been contributions
• The party secretary does face a strict liability offence if any donation return was incorrect, but he has a defence of having taken all reasonable steps. Also worth noting the annual return has not yet been filed, but if these donations did originate from one person, they the over $30,000 donation return should have been trigerred
• As far as I can see Simon Bridges does not face any real legal liability unless there was some sort of evidence that he actually orchestrated the whole thing, in which case general provisions in the Crimes Act about being a party to an offence could take place.

So in terms of legal liability, JLR would appear to be in significantly greater danger than Simon Bridges, if he is deemed a transmitter.

Hamish Rutherford writes:

There is a degree of rough and tumble in journalism and, if you’re going to give it out, you have to take it.
But this week vague claims were made which were quite troubling.
On Monday, in an interview with Morning Report, Shane Jones, possibly the most forceful personality currently in New Zealand’s Parliament, described me as a “bunny boiler”.
Whatever he means by that, I would have happily let that pass. Much of the reaction has been fun. I never imagined I would have to explain those sort of cultural references to my parents, themselves avid RNZ listeners.

Friends, colleagues, and others I barely know, have taken delight in sending weird and wonderful messages.
But Jones also described me as “unethical”, a more serious claim which he has not clarified, despite implying that he might use parliamentary privilege to say more – an ancient right MPs have to say literally whatever they want without legal repercussions, so long as they say it in the House.
It is an ancient and important right. But I understood, at its core, was the need to promote free speech, not to stifle it.

This is what many have missed. He didn’t just call a journalist a name, but he threatened to dish dirt on him under parliamentary privilege.

The fact that no-one from the Government has properly shot down Jones’ threat to malign me in Parliament will not deter me.
But it should be a chilling warning of the potential consequences for anyone planning to question this Government’s integrity.

You highlight a Minister has misled Parliament, and he threatens to smear you in the House, and the PM does nothing.

The Herald reports:

Meanwhile, Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson has gone further than her party’s policy on a capital gains tax, saying she was open to a debate on whether it should apply to the family home.

There really is no end to what the left want to tax.

People should think about the next election. Even if NZ First stop some aspects of the proposed CGT for now, you may have a Labour/Green Government after the election. Then all bets are off and they may be coming for your family home.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern will not commit to returning revenue raised through a capital gains tax through tax cuts, despite the Government asking for options to do so from the Tax Working Group.
Speaking to reporters at the her weekly post-Cabinet press conference yesterday, Ardern was asked whether she was committed to making any capital gains tax revenue neutral.

So it is looking more and more like an old fashioned tax grab.

Hamish “bunny boiler” Rutherford reported in 2015:

Winston Peters says taxpayer cash is being used to grow large private companies rather than develop infrastructure.
As part of his campaign for the Northland by-election, the NZ First leader visited the site for the planned Manea, footsteps of Kupe complex in Opononi, Hokianga. …

Peters said Manea – to be chaired by former Labour MP Shane Jones – would expand the tourism infrastructure in an area in need of development, but the TGP was instead focused on helping international airports attract more visitors from China.

So Jones is trying to claim he was never going to be Chair, someone just wrote his name down on a piece of paper without his knowledge. Yet here in 2015 Winston (before Jones had joined NZ First) is referring to Jones as the designated Chair.

The Herald reports:

Caracas began going dry Monday as Venezuela’s power crisis put utilities out of commission, risking supplies for 5.5 million people, many of whom found themselves reduced to carrying buckets of filthy river water.
Service, intermittent in normal times, was scarce to nonexistent in large swathes of the capital and experts saw little reason for hope. Caracas is 900m above sea level and water comes from the Tuy system of reservoirs and pumping stations below. Those depend on a reliable electric supply of 2,000 megawatts, said Norberto Bausson, who was the head of state utility Hidrocapital in the 1990s.
“As of this morning, this system hasn’t been restarted yet,” Bausson said Monday. “The supply of water for the city is at risk.”
The power crisis — and now the water crisis — are testing the hold of strongman President Nicolas Maduro. Opposition leader Juan Guaido is trying to topple him after a re-election widely viewed as fraudulent and using as his main argument widespread deprivation after six years of Maduro’s rule. Hunger is widespread in the nation. Its infrastructure has decayed to critical levels.

The socialist quest for equality is doing well. What is more equal than no-one having food, no-one having medicines, no-one having power and no-one having water. Perfect equality.

Radio NZ reports:

Yesterday on Morning Report Mr Jones criticised Stuff journalist Hamish Rutherford who had covered the original story, calling him a “bunny boiler” – a reference from the film Fatal Attraction meaning someone who acts vengefully after being spurned.
Jacinda Ardern told Morning Report it would not be appropriate for Mr Jones to launch an attack on Rutherford.

Not appropriate? Is that it? Imagine if a National Minister had called a journalist a “bunny boiler”. You’d have an Action Station petition. The Media Freedom Committee would be issuing statements of outrage.

She said she spoke to Mr Jones yesterday, and it would be up to him and the Speaker of the House to decide whether his answers to Parliamentary questions on meetings he has attended need correcting.
In an answer to a Parliamentary question in April 2018, Mr Jones said he had had no formal meetings about the project since becoming a minister.

His answer was clearly incorrect. Some people might expect a Prime Minister to tell a Minister to correct the record, rather than leave it up to him.

Ms Ardern was asked how Mr Jones’ situation was different from former government minister Clare Curran, who was demoted and subsequently quit her ministerial portfolios after failing to disclose separate meetings with then RNZ head of news Carol Hirschfeld and tech entrepreneur Derek Handley.

The answer is that Ardern can’t sack Jones unless Peters agrees and hence NZ First Ministers have a lesser standard of conduct.