The Herald reports:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says she did not decide to ban future regional fuel taxes on the fly yesterday, and Government ministers – including Phil Twyford and Shane Jones – should have already known about it.

Her comments follow Transport Minister Phil Twyford suggesting to Radio NZ this morning that he only found out about the ban yesterday, just hours before Ardern publicly ruled out any more regional fuel taxes while she is PM.

Ardern also suggested that Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones, who only found out about the pledge yesterday, should have known about it earlier.

Twyford sought to clarify this afternoon by saying he has known Ardern’s position since the beginning of the year – yet did not pass that information on to several local authorities that have expressed an interest in a regional fuel tax.

In June the Government passed a law to enable Auckland to implement a regional fuel tax and allow other councils to follow suit from 2021.

Okay if the PM is telling the truth we have to believe the following:

1. She made it known at the beginning of the year that she didn’t want any more regional fuel taxes
2. Despite this, her Government passed a law in June explicitly allowing more regional fuel taxes
3. Her Minister of Transport knew there were to be no more regional fuel taxes, but never mentioned this to local authorities that wanted to implement one

It’s about as plausible as Saudi Arabia’s claim that Khashoggi died in a fist fight.

by John Stringer. #8 Maori.

Quite fascinating comments by US VP Mike Pence on China. Some extracts:

But I come before you today because the American people deserve to know that, as we speak, Beijing is employing a whole-of-government approach, using political, economic, and military tools, as well as propaganda, to advance its influence and benefit its interests in the United States.

China is also applying this power in more proactive ways than ever before, to exert influence and interfere in the domestic policy and politics of this country.

Not just in the US.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, we assumed that a free China was inevitable. Heady with optimism at the turn of the 21st Century, America agreed to give Beijing open access to our economy, and we brought China into the World Trade Organization.

Previous administrations made this choice in the hope that freedom in China would expand in all of its forms -– not just economically, but politically, with a newfound respect for classical liberal principles, private property, personal liberty, religious freedom — the entire family of human rights. But that hope has gone unfulfilled.

They have done economic reforms and there has been improvement in other areas. But it seems to have stalled.

Beijing now requires many American businesses to hand over their trade secrets as the cost of doing business in China. It also coordinates and sponsors the acquisition of American firms to gain ownership of their creations. Worst of all, Chinese security agencies have masterminded the wholesale theft of American technology –- including cutting-edge military blueprints. And using that stolen technology, the Chinese Communist Party is turning plowshares into swords on a massive scale.

China now spends as much on its military as the rest of Asia combined, and Beijing has prioritized capabilities to erode America’s military advantages on land, at sea, in the air, and in space. China wants nothing less than to push the United States of America from the Western Pacific and attempt to prevent us from coming to the aid of our allies. But they will fail.

That is an very harsh statement, and coming from the VP. This really does represent a huge shift in US policy.

Hamish Rutherford writes:

Throughout her first year in Government, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has had a small but difficult decision that she has been unwilling or unable to make.

Should a man who was once one of the most influential and celebrated figures in Māoridom, who was honoured for his services to Māori, be stripped of his knighthood?

Although difficult, Ardern’s refusal to deal with the issue of Sir Ngātata Love’s knighthood may hurt the credibility of the honours system in general.

At a minimum, Ardern’s credibility will be in question if she takes a position on any call to revoke a knighthood in the future.

Her refusal to decide has been a de facto decision that he keeps the knighthood.

“It has been very rare for honours to be cancelled,” Key said in 2013. “In those cases where it has occurred, it has often been because the actions that led to the cancellation were in the same area as that for which the original honour was awarded.”

If that was the test, then Love, who was knighted for services to Māori and then convicted of defrauding his iwi, would appear to meet it.

I think that is a fair test – was the action in the same area as the original honour. And in this case it was, and so Love should have lost his knighthood.

Instead it appears that it was simply a difficult and sensitive decision which the Prime Minister could not bring herself to make.

In an age of heightened accountability for our mistakes, Ardern may come to regret her inaction.

It means she has set the bar so low, it is now nearly impossible for her to remove an honour from someone.

But Love was convicted of defrauding his own people, was sent to jail and refused to accept wrongdoing or apologise to his victims.

If that does not meet the test of whether someone should lose their knighthood, it is hard to imagine how Ardern will mount a case for someone else to.

So much for a Government of high standards.

Mark Mitchell released:

The income tax of four minimum wage earners for a full year was spent on setting up three tables at the Government’s $1.6 million Criminal Justice Summit, National’s Justice spokesperson Mark Mitchell says.

“The breakdown shows that $20,278 was spent on ‘setting up and dismantling the registration desks at three locations in the lead up to the summit.’

“How on earth can it cost $20,278 to set up three desks? I’ve called and checked with the venue and they would have provided tables for free. If they really needed to be hired, trestle tables are available for as little as $10 each.

$20,000 to set up three desks. Waste you can only get when taxpayers pay.

After over a year and a half of waiting the judgment is out in the Craig vs Slater defamation case and Colin Craig failed to get even one cent in damages.

It is basically a technical draw. Craig failed in all but a couple of his 15 claims and got zero damages for the others. In the counter-claim the court found Craig has said false things about Cameron Slater but got no damages also as he was responding to an attack which gave him qualified privilege.

Colin Craig initiated this action, and may be regretting it somewhat now. There are some damning findings in the judgement. Some extracts:

• Mr Craig was guilty of moderately serious sexual harassment of Ms MacGregor, on multiple occasions from early 2012 to 2014 by telling her that he remained romantically inclined and sexually attracted to her, and that those expressions of his views were
  not welcomed by Ms MacGregor at the time they were communicated to her.
• I have also held that the reputational damage which Mr Craig suffered throughout the events traversed at length in this judgment resulted almost entirely from his own actions. To the extent, if any, that his reputation suffered further damage because of the two defamatory statements for which I have held the defendants to be liable, I am more than satisfied that the declarations that he was defamed in that way provide adequate vindication. I conclude, therefore, that Mr Craig is not entitled to an award of general damages to compensate him further for such damage.
• I have held that I do not accept that Mr Slater spread lies about Mr Craig; or made up allegations about him; or gathered information that he knew was fake or untrue; or published material on Whaleoil knowing it not to be true.
• I have held, therefore, that Mr Craig’s defence of truth to Mr Slater’s counterclaim fails
• I find that the untrue statements in the Dirty Politics and Hidden Agendas booklet were made on an occasion of qualified privilege in reply to an attack on him by Mr Slater and that the privilege was not lost. On that basis, Mr Slater’s counterclaim in defamation is dismissed.
• As Mr Henry exposed in his cross-examination, however, Mr Craig’s attempt to promote the one-page “Things I am Doing” document as a precursor to the 7 February 2012 letter was patently false.
• I observed Mr Craig’s demeanour closely while he was being questioned about
  these matters, and noted his evasiveness and prevarication until it became untenable for him to maintain his earlier positions.
• I am satisfied that Mr Craig intended to mislead the board into believing that Ms MacGregor’s allegations of sexual harassment were a product of her infatuation with him and without foundation.
• But because I have held the allegations about that behaviour to be true, the reputational damage suffered by Mr Craig leading to his political demise resulted not from any untrue statement by Mr Slater about those matters but from the fact that Mr Craig acted as he did.
• It scarcely needs to be said, therefore, that the reputational damage which
  Mr Craig suffered throughout the events traversed at length in this judgment resulted almost entirely from his own actions.
• To the extent, if any, that his reputation suffered further damage as a result of the two statements for which I have held the defendants to be liable, I am more than satisfied that the declarations that he was defamed in that way provide adequate vindication.

Also of interest is the approach Justice Toogood took to sexual harassment:

Where a sexual harassment complaint involves an allegation of intentional sexual conduct or language and there is a power imbalance favouring the perpetrator over the complainant, it is reasonable to draw a rebuttable inference that the sexual conduct or language was unwelcome, whether the complainant objected at the time of the alleged harassment or not.

So basically when there is a power imbalance the starting position is to assume the sexual conduct or language is unwelcome. That seems very reasonable. If there is not a power imbalance, then you don’t necessarily start with that presumption.

The Judge found that at the very beginning the relationship wasn’t sexual harassment more a mutual infatuation, but from 2012 onwards it was harassment. Some of the details are rather, well, ….

Mr Craig said that he fell asleep on Ms MacGregor’s lap on at least three
occasions, on two of which Ms MacGregor sang Christian worship songs to help him get to sleep.

Onward Christian soldiers marching as to war!

Anyway the next step will be to see if Craig or Slater appeals, and also if either party is liable for the costs of the other.

The fact the Judge has ruled that MacGregor was sexually harassed by Craig could prove important for the other case where he is suing her for defamation.

While a technical draw the fact the Judge found that Craig falsified evidence, lied in court, did sexually harass MacGregor and is responsible himself for the damage to his reputation is quite damning. And Slater is found to have got a couple of things wrong but did not lie or say things he knew to be false.  So I’d say he’s very happy with the judgement.

Real Clear Education reports:

Anti-Kavanaugh activists were caught red-handed last week in a scheme to award academic credit at the University of Southern Maine (USM) to students who joined an effort to intimidate Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) into voting against the judge’s confirmation. On the event page posted by the university’s Community Outreach Coordinator, Gabriel Demaine, students are asked if they are “willing to get arrested” after being bussed to Washington D.C. “to join activists, political action groups and social justice organizations to meet with Sen. Collins,” and “rally up around the FBI investigation of the Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh.”

Amazing. Course credits for getting arrested at a protest.

When the story of this misuse of the public university came to the attention of the Maine Republican Party, it protested and the university president, Glenn Cummings, hastily announced that the course was canceled. President Cummings’ chief concern was that the course “was not appropriately reviewed.” He did, however, also acknowledge that “taxpayer funded institutions must be non-partisan” and “institutionally impartial.”

But the course, titled “Engaged Citizenship,” was not a strange outlier at the University of Southern Maine. Indeed there are thousands of such courses, funded by taxpayers, at public universities across the country. “Engaged Citizenship” stood out because it happened to hit at a moment of heightened public attention to political extremists twisting civic norms to seek partisan advantage. 

So there may be hundreds of courses like this. Any equivalent in NZ?

by John Stringer. #8 Maori.

Simon Bridges released:

National Party Leader Simon Bridges has welcomed the Prime Minister’s forced backdown on her regional fuel taxes, and called on her to overturn her excise increases and remove the regional fuel tax imposed on Aucklanders.

“After pressure from the National Party over her Government’s decision to impose more and more new taxes on record petrol prices the Prime Minister has today finally backed down and ruled out rolling the regional fuel tax out beyond Auckland while she is Prime Minister.

“This is in spite of her Government introducing legislation which would have enabled the 11.5 cent per litre regional fuel tax to be rolled out around the country from 2021. It has already been imposed on Aucklanders.

“Fourteen other councils had already started discussions with the Government saying they wanted the tax and will be surprised to hear about the Prime Minister’s backdown today.

This is a big backdown by Ardern. They passed a law specifically to allow them to roll out regional fuel taxes around the country. And now Ardern says no more taxes while I am PM. Well why did they pass the law in the first place?

This shows they are worried by the backlash over increased fuel prices. This may cauterise the wound a bit, but they are still vulnerable as New Zealanders know the Auckland fuel tax has in fact led to price rises over the whole country.

JAMES, Billy T. comedian

LOVELOCK, Jack. 1500m & mile champ.

SEDDON, Richard Dick. NZ Premier.

FRASER, Peter. 24th NZ PM.

UPHAM, Charles. Double VC.

RUTHERFORD, Ernest Lord. Split atom.

KEE, John A. Rebel Socialist MP & author.

WAITITI, Taika. Film director.

BAXTER, James K. NZ Poet.

The Herald reports:

A Kiwi mum is launching a legal battle today to keep her child in New Zealand after the Australian father filed papers requesting her return.

The 25-year-old New Zealand woman arrived in New Zealand from the Gold Coast in January with her six-year-old daughter, and set up a new life in Christchurch, where her parents lived.

But last Wednesday the mother was served documents under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, stating the father wanted their daughter returned to Australia.

Under the Hague Convention, if it is found that a child was “wrongfully” removed from a country, they must be returned to that country if the case comes to notice within a year of the “abduction”, unless there would be grave risk to the child or certain other conditions are met.

A father has the same rights as a mother to be with his child. When they split up they either have to amicably decide where the child lives, or get a court to decide. What you don’t do is just take your kid to another country or even city, without the consent of the other parent,

The mother told the Herald she did not think she had wrongfully removed her daughter and that she considered returning her would raise a grave risk to the child

What she thinks is not the test. It is what she did.

The mother was not in a relationship with the father, but had been living on and off with him throughout her daughter’s life, including up until their departure date.

So they were living together and then she just disappeared with the daughter.

They had no family support in Australia, apart from the father, and as the mother was not an Australian citizen, her access to governmental support was much less than in New Zealand.

She was seeking employment in New Zealand but for the meantime was on a benefit here.

If she had to return to Australia she would not have any housing or employment options.

“We wouldn’t have any other options.”

Again the decision on where the daughter lives has to be a joint one, or one a court arbitrates. Did she consider talking to the father and seeing if he would move to NZ?

Luke Appleby at One News reports:

I guess it depends if you’re the one buying a new personalised plate for your much-loved car – or the only company in the country legally allowed to sell one.

I’ve always thought personalised plates a bit of a rip off. Most motorists can barely afford enough petrol to get down their driveway, let alone paying a thousand bucks for a novelty decoration.

It can cost you anywhere from $169 to more than $1400 to buy a new personalised plate – and right up into thousands for some of the more rare ones.

For example – ‘R1POFF’ will run you about $1000, while a remake of your existing government plate with a different colour or design goes for about $169. We just accept that’s what these plates cost.

But many don’t seem to realise that the personalised market in New Zealand is a government-commissioned monopoly.

The BBC reports:

Joachim Ronneberg, the Norwegian resistance fighter who sabotaged Nazi Germany’s nuclear weapons ambitions during World War Two, has died aged 99.

In 1943, he led a top-secret raid on a heavily-guarded plant in Norway’s southern region of Telemark.

The operation was immortalised in the 1965 Hollywood film Heroes of Telemark, starring Kirk Douglas. …

The men parachuted on to a plateau, skied across country, descended into a ravine and crossed an icy river before using the railway line to get into the plant and set their explosives.

“We very often thought that this was a one way trip,” he said.

After the explosion, the men escaped into neighbouring Sweden by skiing 320km (200 miles) across Telemark – despite being chased by some 3,000 German soldiers.

With a wry smile, Ronneberg described it as “the best skiing weekend I ever had”.

The operation, coupled with US air raids the following year, led the Germans to abandon their plans and was later described as the most successful act of sabotage of World War Two.

Awesome. He skied for over 300 kms while chased by 3,000 Nazis. And got away.

Liam Hehir writes:

Few National Party people emerged from last week with a lot of credit, but Christopher Finlayson is one who did.

One of the subjects of the leaked telephone discussions between leader Simon Bridges and renegade MP Jami Lee-Ross, the former attorney general responded with class and dignity.

The secret telephone recording listed Finlayson among a number of MPs who would be encouraged to leave Parliament to make room for new blood.

Asked about it following the release, he declined to take offence and simply noted that these things happened.

A great response indeed. People in political parties are constantly talking about who might leave, and who might come in.

He acknowledged, as most honest people would, that he has said things in the past that he is glad nobody had secretly taped.

I doubt there is anyone who would not look good if they were secretly taped.

A very accomplished lawyer – he argued before the Privy Council seven times – Finlayson entered Parliament in 2005.

He had long been involved with National before then, having joined it when he was still in high school. This probably explains why somebody so cultivated could also be so at ease and popular at regional party conferences. He is no partisan blowhard – but it is clear Finlayson is a party man through-and-through.

Chris was a Party Regional Chair, and I was very proud to be his Deputy Chair.

The careers of people like Finlayson are also one of the redeeming features of MMP. A list MP for the duration of his career, Finlayson stood five times in safe Labour seats. If by some fluke he had ever won an electorate, he probably would have demanded a recount.

That was the standing joke about Chris.

A Queens Counsel, he can pick up his legal career where he left it and continue to find meaning in doing something he loves. We should all be so lucky.

Finlayson’s time in politics was a period of service in his life. It has not been the exclusive focus of his career and ambition, so he has had the freedom to begin and end it on his own terms.

Chris would have taken a huge pay cut to be an MP. His motivation has been public service. And he has left behind a big legacy. He has also appointed a huge number of Judges.

At the end of the last Government he had appointed:

• Every member of the Supreme Court except the Chief Justice
• All 10 members of the Court of Appeal
• 37 of the 46 High Court Judges

It’s Heritage Week II.  How did you go wth the famous NZ women yesterday?  Try the men. Answers at 5 pm

The Herald reports:

Justice Minister Andrew Little is considering looking into changes to the way political parties are funded, and areas such as donation transparency could be part of the discussion. …

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said she would love to see a scenario where political parties didn’t have to fundraise.

Labour don’t want parties to have to fundraise. They want taxpayers to fund their party. Rather than spend taxpayers money on schools and hospitals, they want it for themselves.

They want a system where you are forced to fund parties you hate. A system where parties don’t have to worry about keeping members and supporters as the taxpayers will fund them.

At the moment we only have taxpayer funding of MPs in Parliament, plus a small amount for broadcasting expenses in election campaigns.

What Labour is talking about is where the taxpayer hands over millions of dollars a year to political parties, for them to spend as they like.

Unless people make a fuss about this, Labour and Greens will try and do this. It is up to us to stop them.

National supporters seem to be very loyal. The One News Colmar Brunton poll was taken during a week where an MP was expelled from caucus, accused the leader of being corrupt, and then multiple allegations of abuse and bullying were made against the (former) National MP.

Despite being taken during an absolutely terrible week, National’s support dropped only 2% to 43%. Labour up 3% to 45% and Greens at 7% and NZ First at 5%.

It’s actually an astonishing result. Of course it is a good result for Labour and Greens, but people were claiming National would be down in the 30s. If National can cauterise the wounds from the last week, then they have a great level of support at 43% to build up on.

43% is a loss. 45% is a loss also. But above 45% and you’re competitive. And NZ First is on 5%, so knock then under 5% and then 45% may even be a win.

Simon Bridges is also down 3% as Preferred Prime Minister. Again not surprising as one of his (former) MPs said he was a criminal and complained to the Police about him. Once the Police have dealt with that complaint, he has the opportunity to build up support.

BATTEN, Jean famous aviator.

HILL, Kim, RNZ interview diva.

ANGUS, Rita, NZ painter.

MANSFIELD, Katherine, NZ writer.

HUNTER, Rachel, ex-wife Rod Stuart, ice-ceam eater.

MARSH, Ngaio, Theatre writer, ‘Queen of Crime.’

FRAME, Janet, NZ writer, suffered psychiatric hospitalisation.

CAMPION, Jane, NZ movie maker (The Piano etc).

COOPER, Whina, Maori wahine kaumatua.

The Herald reports:

New Zealand could be a step closer to increasing the minimum residency required to get New Zealand Superannuation after a bill proposing an increase from 10 to 20 years was drawn from the parliamentary ballot.

New Zealand and Australia currently have the lowest residency requirements in the OECD at 10 years for eligibility to the state pension while the average across the OECD is 26 years.

But a bill put forward by New Zealand First MP Mark Patterson could change that, if it gains support from other political parties.

Patterson’s bill proposes raising the minimum residency from 10 to 20 years after the age of 20 – meaning a childhood spend in New Zealand would not count towards the qualification.

I think 10 years is too short a period to qualify for NZ Super. So the bill should be supported.

The Daily Mail reports:

The BBC has more than 400 transgender staff, a confidential internal survey has revealed.

The figure represents more than one in 50 of the workforce – about four times higher than the proportion in the population at large.

That is an astonishingly high figure.

Using personal information about BBC staff that ‘only a couple of people would ever know’, Mr Ogungbesan also revealed that 11 per cent of BBC employees were lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. 

But he said he did not regard the BBC as diverse enough, claiming more lesbians were needed.

I suspect the most under-represented group within the BBC isn’t lesbians but Conservative supporters. The diversity quotas brigade never seem to want political diversity.

The Herald reports:

The Government is condemning “in the strongest possible terms” the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi operatives.

“Those responsible for his death must be held accountable,” Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters said in a statement. …

An investigation by the Saudi Government’s general prosecutor has now found that Khashoggi was in the consulate when a quarrel broke out, escalating to a fatal fight.

Peters said: “While this is an important admission, the killing by government operatives is deeply disturbing. Many questions remain unanswered.” …

The disappearance created a diplomatic rift between Saudi Arabia and the West, with many international firms pulling out of a high-profile investment summit, the Future Investment Initiative conference, due to take place later this month in Riyadh.

Trade Minister David Parker said that New Zealand officials will not attend the conference.

The official story is an obvious fabrication. What I find amazing is they had almost three weeks to come up with it, and couldn’t do anything better.

The Herald reports:

Unlikely bedfellows the National Party and New Zealand First are working together to put peddlers of synthetic drugs behind bars for longer – possibly up to 14 years.

The Psychoactive Substances Amendment Bill, which would increase the maximum jail time for supplying synthetic drugs from two years to eight years, passed its second reading in Parliament last week.

National and New Zealand First supported it, while Labour, the Greens and Act opposed.

But NZ First justice spokesman Darroch Ball said his party’s ongoing support depended on National backing an amendment to boost the maximum prison sentence to 14 years, in line with penalties for Class B drugs such as morphine, opium and ecstasy.

“I would be very surprised if they didn’t support it,” Ball told the Herald.

The bill’s sponsor, National MP Simeon Brown, said the caucus would have to discuss the 14-year prison penalty.

“There’s certainly an argument that [suppliers] need to be taken seriously, so we’re on the same page and we will discuss where to from here.”

The status quo for synthetic drugs is obviously unacceptable. Almost 50 people have died from them.

I’m not convinced this bill is the solution though. I think in the short term it may drive down production by scaring off some producers. But you may get unintended consequences such as the gangs moving in and producing them.

Labour and Green MPs all acknowledged the social destruction from synthetic drugs, but pointed to police evidence that increasing penalties would not make any difference.

Ball even agreed that the bill was not perfect and would do little to stop the harm from synthetic drugs.

“Will it stop all of those deaths? Will it stop all of those people from becoming addicted? Probably not,” he said during the second reading.

“But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be taking a hard stance on those manufacturers and those dealers.”

The war on drugs for the last few decades doesn’t seem to have worked so well.