On the 18th of September in Parliament:

Hon Simon Bridges: Has she had any conversations, emails, or texts with Derek Handley since she’s been Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, to answer with some accuracy, I would want to go back. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My best recollection is that I received, some months ago, a text from Mr Handley mentioning the Chief Technology Officer role, which I do not recall directly engaging with, as that would not have been appropriate.

The correct answer would be there have been 11 texts between Mr Handley and myself – seven from him, and four from me, plus an e-mail.

Hon Simon Bridges: Were the conversations, emails, or texts with Mr Handley about the role of the Government’s Chief Technology Officer, and if so, what was discussed?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I can rule out any direct verbal communication. I haven’t spoken with Mr Handley in at least a year, maybe two. As I say, my best recollection is I received a text message that I didn’t directly engage in. For all other platforms, I would want to go back and check, but I don’t recall directly communicating in regards to that role.

Actually she did engage. He said he was looking at the CTO role and asked for her e-mail address so he could send through his thoughts on the role, She responded with her e-mail address and he sent his thoughts through.

Then on 19 September, which is after she has had a chance to check all her communications:

Hon Simon Bridges: What did Derek Handley’s text message to her say?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker, I would have to go from my recollection. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: But I can off the back—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat. This is a matter of some seriousness. It’s a matter which I’ve had a number of representations on and I’m told that the House takes it seriously. I want to be able to hear the answer.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker, I would have to go from my recollection. But my recollection is that he mentioned that the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) role had been mentioned to him. Again, as I said, I did not directly reply to that message, and it was received in April.

But she did directly reply to that message. She replied with her e-mail address for him to send his thoughts on the role to.

Hon Simon Bridges: Did she flat out ignore his text—not even an emoji?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker, I did not even send an emoji.

She didn’t ignore the text. She replied to it with her e-mail address.

Hon Simon Bridges: Was there more than one text from or to Derek Handley from the Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The text that I received, again, as I said, was in April. I did not directly reply to that text message on that day or engage with him on the CTO role. On the CTO role, I did not engage with Mr Handley via text message.

She avoids saying there were 11 texts in total. And she did reply to that text message on that day. He sent it on 25 April at 9.33 am and she replied with her e-mail address at 12.03 pm.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, were there any other texts between the Prime Minister and Derek Handley?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker, as I acknowledged the very moment I was asked this question, I have known Mr Handley for a number of years and have had correspondence with him for a number of years.

Hon Simon Bridges: What other communications by any medium—Gmail, WhatsApp, and the like—were there between the Prime Minister and Derek Handley?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker, as a consequence of the member’s question, I have had my office check. Mr Handley sent me an unsolicited email to my private email on 7 June, which I did not open and which I did not reply to. I’m advised by my staff that it informed me that he’d submitted an application for the role. But, again, it was not something I opened, saw, or replied to.

She says her office checked yet she fails to say there were 11 texts since April and the e-mail wasn’t unsolicited. He asked her for her e-mail address and said it was so he could send through starter thoughts on the CTO role, and she sent her address to him. That is hardly unsolicited.

So did the Prime Minister mislead the House? What do you think?

Audrey Young is unimpressed. She writes:

It is becoming a habit – for the second time in three weeks, National leader Simon Bridges has accused Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern of misleading the public.

This time she has also been accused of misleading Parliament as well as the public and Bridges has demanded she correct her statements.

Ardern put up a strenuous defence on both counts that there was no need for corrections.

In both cases she was technically correct that she did not tell a lie but in both cases she omitted information that gave an impression that turned out to be wrong. It is becoming a habit.

Anyone listening to the House would have thought she had not engaged with Handley at all. To the contrary she was saying she would check with her staff to see if they could find a job for him, and supplied him her e-mail for him to send through his thoughts on the CTO role.

Until now, the fiasco, mainly over an undisclosed meeting, had reflected badly on Curran but the contagion has spread to Ardern and made the Government look amateurish.

Grant Robertson had to correct an answer in the House today he gave last week on Clare Curran’s emails to Handley and Woods had to retract a suggestion that the severance contract with Handley may have been subject to a confidentiality clause.

Acting Prime Minister Winston Peters swore blind Ardern was blameless of anything and everything.

True, she will not have to correct any answers she has given to Parliament.

But that is almost irrelevant because even if she did, it would not undo the damage she has done to herself.

Yep.

Jarrod Gilbert writes in the NZ Herald:

Massey has recently made an interesting decision. Instead of being a university, it has decided to be a joke. …

Thomas’ emails show that she is no fan of “racist” Brash and as soon as she heard he was coming she began plotting how to cancel the event.

One of her ideas was to restrict funding to the students’ association. In itself that is utterly extraordinary. It’s also a pretty creative playbook for somebody claiming to have given no mind to cancelling the event.

Her desire to use the funding of student associations and clubs to prevent them from hosting speakers she disagrees with has led to MUSA declaring it has no confidence in her and NZUSA condemning her. Even NZUSA have a greater commitment to free speech that the Massey Vice-Chancellor, saying:

‘We should be able to have robust debate on campus with people we disagree with, including our university leaders. But to consider cutting funding to a group that disagrees with your actions is just foul play,’ says National President Jonathan Gee.

‘While we do not agree with Don Brash’s views on race and many other issues, we support the right to free speech. As the critic and conscience of society, universities should be the bastions of that, not undermine it,’ says Massey University Students’ Association (MUSA) President Ngahuia Kirton.

Bravo MUSA and NZUSA. Back to Gilbert:

But even if Brash’s talk was more controversial, he should have been allowed.

At his worst, Don Brash is not a direct threat to order or to individuals. At his worst he’s mild compared to Australian politicians, not as extreme as some of our own, and a gentleman compared to the US President. If Brash is where we draw the line on free speech at a university, it’s a precedent that will exclude swathes of people.

This is a key aspect. The culture wars in the US have tended to be over speakers who are intentionally provocative such as Milo and Ann Coulter. Don Brash is a million miles away from them in terms of rhetoric.

Winston Peters have said far more inflammatory things than Don Brash ever has. Will Massey ban the Deputy Prime Minister from speaking?

Massey is free, of course, to allow their VC to be the arbiter of who students and staff are allowed to listen to, but let’s be clear they will not be a university.

They will be a chamber of propaganda run by the tastes of whoever is in charge. That idea used to be an anathema to liberal thinking, yet for many – including many who should know better – it is becoming a comfortable default. We know what’s best for everyone is as pompous as it is dangerous.

Sadly the Massey Council seem to regard their role as governors to be to back their chief executive regardless of the damage it does to Massey.

Make no bones about it, none of the above means having to agree with or like Don Brash. Nor is it an attack on Thomas’ commitment to Māori. Nothing I have said is mutually exclusive to those issues. It isn’t one or the other.

If you have a firm view on Brash then battle with ideas or express yourself in protest. These are the weapons of a university.

I call on my Māori academic colleagues to speak out. To assure people that kaupapa principles and Māori partnerships with education institutions don’t mean that free speech is stifled, that race relations issues can’t be debated, or that we can only hear from people who hold certain views.

Because, if this is the case, partnerships with Māori are much less likely to occur.

If being a Treaty led university means that no one on campus is allowed to have a differing view on the Treaty of Waitangi, I can’t see other universities rushing in to do the same.

The Herald reports:

Acting Prime Minister Winston Peters says he is not able to recall who invited him to a celebration for Deputy Commissioner Wally Haumaha last year.

This is despite telling Parliament last month he was invited to the event by “the Government of the day”.

Speaking to reporters at Monday’s post-Cabinet press conference, Peters was unable to recall where exactly his invitation to the event had come from.

Just a month earlier, he told Parliament a different story.

“It is true that I was invited to the marae to celebrate the appointment as an assistant commissioner of police of Wallace Haumaha by the then Government of the day,” he told Parliament.

But documents, obtained under the Official Information Act reveal the event was organised by Waiteti Marae.

So it was a lie that he had been invited by the Government of the day.

So if the Marae organised the event, they probably invited Peters. And who is the Marae Chairman?

It’s Wally Haumaha.

Paul Glass writes:

New Zealand business confidence has fallen to levels last seen during the Global Financial Crisis.

While the magnitude of the decline is hard to explain, as economic conditions are clearly far better than during the GFC period, the direction is far easier to understand.

Some commentators have blamed the decline on businesses not getting the Government they expected or wanted.

I think that is far too simplistic and what we are seeing is that businesses are growing increasingly concerned about the coalition Government’s lack of clear strategy and poor execution of policy. We are clearly experiencing management by an unwieldy committee.

New Zealand has been blessed for much of the last two decades, under both Clark and Key, for having political leaders who were more pragmatic and less ideologically driven than the current lot. Remembering that financial resources are scarce and that expenditure needs to be prioritised, let’s look at coalition execution around a number of policies.

Policy: Free tertiary education

Cost:

$1.5 billion over 3 years

Execution:

Who knew that this was one of the most pressing issues facing New Zealand but the Coalition government clearly decided it was and announced $1.5b of funding straight after the election.

The Herald reports:

Government officials have estimated that the cost to New Zealand of banning new offshore oil and gas exploration permits will be $7.9 billion between 2027 and 2050.

Money flushed down the drain.

PEPANZ point out:

Ending offshore oil and gas exploration could cost New Zealand taxpayers up to $23.5 billion and increase emissions at the same time, according to staggering new figures released by Government officials today.

The Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand (PEPANZ) says it is time for a re-think on plans to end new offshore exploration.

“The Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIS) shows that ending new offshore permits is a disastrous policy for New Zealanders, likely to cost the Crown $7.9 billion in lost revenue and potentially up to $23.5 billion,” says PEPANZ CEO Cameron Madgwick.

“Importantly, this is only a part of the picture. Company profits could also reduce by billions which will cost jobs and investment into New Zealand, and the wider economic costs have not even been modelled.

“At the same time, it is considered more likely to increase greenhouse gas emissions than reduce them. It’s hard to think of a worse overall outcome.

“As well as the lost revenue it will mean higher energy prices for New Zealand homes and businesses, increasing the cost of living and destroying jobs.

This really takes the gold medal in terms of destructive policies. In summary the Government’s own officials say:

• Up to $23 billion lost revenue for taxpayers
• Fewer jobs
• Increased greenhouse gas emissions
• Higher energy prices

What a smart Government we have.

Derek Handley released:

In the month since Clare Curran’s demotion from Cabinet, there has been continued questioning and speculation over a series of communications that took place and what role they may have
played in the appointment process for the Chief Technology Officer. I felt throughout that the right thing to do was to refrain from commenting as I did not see it as my role to clear up concerns regarding a Government process or contents of related communications.

However, the resulting vacuum has fueled speculation and demands to see emails and texts between myself and Clare Curran and Jacinda Ardern. The Government has chosen not to fill that vacuum.

In the interests of drawing a line on this issue, today I am releasing a detailed timeline of events and all of the emails and texts between myself and Clare Curran, and myself and the Prime Minister about the role and my move back to New Zealand.

These communications clearly demonstrate there was nothing untoward or inappropriate. In fact as stated in the State Services Commission’s own review, a “suitably robust process” was
followed and the February meeting between myself and Clare Curran “did not prejudice the process”.

To this day, I have still not had any communication from the Government explaining why the role which I was appointed to was withdrawn. Neither have I heard personally from Minister
Hipkins, Minister Woods or the Prime Minister during this challenging time, which has been disappointing from a Government that highlights compassion and kindness as hallmarks of their leadership.

Handley really has been done over and the communications don’t show anything inappropriate from his part. Both Hipkins and Woods refused to even speak to him on the phone to tell him they were rescinding the contract, which is pretty gutless.

Every New Zealander takes their job seriously and personally. Under whatever circumstances an employment arrangement is started or ended, openness, communication, empathy and concern are basic principles to doing so with dignity and compassion. They are also the strongest expressions of the culture and values of the employer.

Which implies he is saying the Government does have have the values of dignity and compassion.

I’ve done a quick timeline of key messages below.

A couple of key things:

• The Prime Minister did respond to some of the messages from Handley and even said she would ask her team if they find a way to make use of him
• When the PM said on 24 August that the recruitment of CTO was in its final stages, she knew a job offer had been made and accepted and that Cabinet had confirmed the appointment four days earlier

Joel MacManus reports:

A Leith Street flat says University Proctor Dave Scott trespassed and stole their property when he entered their house while they were out and took several bongs/water pipes.

About three weeks ago, the proctor was visiting flats on Castle Street and Leith Street North to deliver letters about initiations. The entire flat was away, apart from one person who was asleep upstairs. The flatmates said the proctor let himself in through the unlocked back door, where he found several water pipes sitting out on a table and took them.

Because they weren’t home, the flatmates didn’t know what had happened to the pipes and assumed they had been robbed. They estimated the pipes were worth $400.

“We thought someone had stolen them, but then we thought that if anyone had done it around Castle/Leith someone would recognise our pipes as they are well known,” one flatmate said.

The proctor returned the next day, and told them that he had gone into their flat and confiscated the pipes. According to the flatmates, he told them that as long as they cleaned up the flat, he would let them off with a warning and wouldn’t take it to the police.

This is effing unbelievable. The university proctor not only entered private property without permission, but he then stole items belonging to the students. And to top it all off he threatens them with going to the Police. They are the ones who should be going to the Police.

Water pipes are legal for possession and sale in New Zealand as tobacco accessories. It is illegal to use them for smoking cannabis, but police very rarely prosecute.

A university spokeswoman said the proctor was “comfortable with the action taken,” because the pipes had been used to smoke cannabis and were left out in plain view. They also confirmed that the bongs have since been destroyed.

He’s comfortable with this? It doesn’t matter if they were in plain view. That doesn’t give him the authority to enter private property let alone remove private possessions.

Scott made headlines earlier this year when he issued an apology following the seizure of bundles of the “menstruation issue” of student magazine Critic.

He seems to have a serious problem. This looks to be a pattern.

The flatmates say they didn’t go to the cops because “we wouldn’t know how to explain it,” but Abe Gray, cannabis activist and owner of the Whakamana Cannabis Museum, said he would urge the flatmates to report the pipes stolen.

“The police don’t really charge people for drug paraphernalia now; it’s more the breaking and entering. I can see why they would be reluctant, but I would advise them to make an official complaint.”

Even though the proctor says there was evidence that the pipes had been used for cannabis, Abe says the proctor had no right to remove them, and should have called the police. “You know what the police would have said if the Proctor had called them and said there was a tobacco water pipe that may have been used to smoke cannabis in a student flat? They would have said ‘fuck off’.”

Impolite but not inaccurate.

Just as Massey and Victoria universities seem to be competing for who can piss their students off the most, Otago joins the competition.

Duncan Garner writes:

It’s the simple little things in politics that tell you everything you need to know. …

Labour has been rolled on an industrial scale over what appears to be the trivial matter of what to call this government.

But don’t be fooled, names aren’t trivial, and what people call you can reveal so much. 

So can you believe this? Can you believe Labour has actually agreed not to call this Labour-led coalition a Labour-led coalition, when it clearly is?

Labour got 37 per cent on election night, NZ First got 7. Labour has the prime minister’s role, Labour dominates the Cabinet positions, although losing two Cabinet ministers in the past fortnight has been messy.

The backroom arm-wrestle between the PM and her maker, Peters, gets more tense by the day.

That it’s now spilled into the public arena should infuriate Ardern, but she has nowhere to go. She is in the hands of the 7 per cent while the rest of us can’t believe how cunning Peters has been.

Yep Winston has forced Labour to ban themselves from referring to the Government as Labour-led. Effectively it is them implying NZ First is an equal partner with Labour despite getting 770,000 fewer votes.

A once proud party has agreed to lose its name because the ageing husband isn’t happy with who’s getting the credit. 

No wonder Peters is sensitive about who is leading the coalition. His popularity rose during his time in charge, and he doesn’t want ministers and the PM to add to the 51 times they have called it the Labour-led coalition in Parliament. 

So the name Labour is dead, put on ice, gone – well, for now anyway.  And anything Labour-led no longer exists and it must never pass anyone’s lips. And so far Labour ministers have been too scared to test the issue.

I asked Labour Party minister Kris Faafoi to repeat after me the following phrase on The AM Show: “I am in the Labour-led coalition.” He refused. Classic. 

How humiliating.

It actually beggars belief that Labour has dumped itself from this ruling coalition. It is no longer a Labour-led coalition. Well, it is, but Winston won’t have it.

When Winston barked, Labour’s conga line of weakness and wusses agreed.

Why on earth would you agree to losing your name and identity on the shop window when you’re running the show? Maybe when you’re not.

Winston gets all the power of the Prime Minister without the responsibility that normally goes with it. Genius.

Ali Mau writes:

When the news leaked that Colin Craig had filed a defamation suit against Rachel MacGregor in the High Court, without telling anyone (including Ms MacGregor) I’ll admit I felt a lot of things – including cold anger. That anger drove me to sit down immediately and bash out my thoughts.

I didn’t know Rachel very well then, but the gobsmacking injustice of Craig suing her was crystal clear. The steep imbalance of power and wealth between the two was clear. Craig had the money to keep going with court case after court case in defence of what was left of his reputation. Rachel had a life in tatters, and no money to fight with.

Like Ali, this lawsuit makes me angry. Rachel has suffered more than enough.

The effect of being repeatedly dragged into court has been immense; it has affected her physical and mental health, she was diagnosed with PTSD, for a long time she was unable to work, she became reliant on a sickness benefit.

All because she complained about sexual harassment.

When I wrote that first column back in 2017, many New Zealanders called me and wrote to me to offer their help. I hope they’re ready to dig deep for MacGregor – I feel justice may depend on it.

* This Givealittle page has been set up to help Rachel MacGregor pay her legal fees.

I urge people to donate.

Also worth reading this interview with Rachel.

The Herald reports:

John Tamihere has thrown down the gauntlet to Phil Goff – fix Auckland’s housing crisis or he will run for mayor and do it himself.

The prominent Waipareira Trust chief executive is setting himself up to challenge Goff for Auckland’s top job at next year’s local government elections.

He has described Goff as running a “dictatorship” which is doing nothing to help house those earning $80,000 a year or less and attacked Auckland Council as “arrogant”.

On Goff, Tamihere said: “He is enforcing inequality and it is the tale of two cities and he is building it.”

Tamihere could do very well. He appeals to those on both the left and right.

By John©Stringer, Christchurch. Answers tonight 5pm.

The Kiwiblog 2012 “Week That Waz” crossword is back!

The President of the Tertiary Education Union said:

With that in mind, let’s start focusing on how good it is to see the seriousness with which the Vice-Chancellor takes the responsibilities that result from actively acknowledging Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the foundation for the relationship between Māori and the Crown. I only wish she could have stuck to this position publicly at the time this debacle first surfaced.

The views the Vice-Chancellor was seeking to keep off campus have no place in Aotearoa New Zealand. They should not be encouraged, respected, nor accepted, especially not under the banner of free speech.

This is incredibly depressing, but not that surprising.

The TEU is the union representing many academics in NZ. It has in the past claimed to be a defender of academic freedom.

But it shows its true colours with this statement. They say that if you have a view against creating race based seats on local authorities, then you have no place in New Zealand and you should be silenced.

The arrogance of these people who believe that anyone who disagrees with them on issues around the Treaty of Waitangi is racist and should be silenced is nauseating. They don’t accept any views are valid but their own.

Chris Hipkins announced:

Cabinet papers will be proactively released, Minister of State Services Chris Hipkins announced today.

The Cabinet papers will be released no later than 30 business days after a Cabinet decision. This process will be in place for Cabinet papers lodged from 1 January 2019, Chris Hipkins – who is also responsible for Open Government – said.

“This change is about being an open and accountable government.

“It will also make it easier for the public to understand government decisions and bolster the accountability of decision makers and advisors.

“Cabinet papers will be released within 30 business days of the Cabinet decision unless there is good reason not to publish. If we can publish it, we will.”

This is a good step in the right direction and a welcome move by the Government.

Individual ministers will have responsibility for releasing Cabinet papers, which will be subject to an assessment to decide if there are good reasons to withhold any of the information. For privacy reasons Appointments and Honours papers will be excluded.

What would be good is if Cabinet agendas are published also, so one can see if there were any papers not released.

Also would be good if the papers were released centrally on a (for example) oia.govt.nz website. Having them on each agency’s website makes it harder to know what is out there.

But again a good decision by the Government.

DW reports:

The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has overtaken the Social Democrats (SPD), the junior party in Germany’s governing coalition, in voter popularity to become Germany’s second-strongest party, behind Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives, according to the Deutschlandtrend poll by public broadcaster ARD.

The AfD moved up two percentage points since the last survey on September 9, bringing it to 18 percent — one percentage point more than the SPD, which lost a point. Merkel’s conservative CDU/CSU bloc, which has led German governments since 2005, also slipped a point to 28 percent, representing its worst result since the survey was launched in 1997.

AfD are benefiting from the backlash over immigration and refugees. Most people support some immigration and helping some refugees. But very few people believe in open borders where you just allow millions to flow into your country.

The poll results in total were:

Right Parties 55%

• CDU/CSU 28%
• AfD 18%
• FDP 9%

Left Parties 42%

• SPD 17%
• Greens 15%
• Left 10%

The AfD leader is Alice Weidel. She is 39 years old and has a PhD in international development. She is a lesbian who rails against political correctness. It is not impossible she could be Chancellor one day.

A fascinating open letter from the NZ Resident Doctors Association to the PSA:

Andrea Vance writes:

While female MPs were sipping orange juice at a celebratory Parliament breakfast, and their male colleagues were pinning white camellia to their suit lapels, it was sexist business as usual in the corridors of power.

Jacinda Ardern was distracted. She had too many papers crossing her desk. She was weak for not firing Clare Curran. 

Don’t think this is sexist? 

When Simon Bridges accuses Ardern of being distracted dealing with Winston Peters, his underlying message is: baby brain. It carries the scent of paternalistic condescension. 

Bridges might not even be conscious of it. But the words we choose infer things beyond what we intend.

No commentator ever suggested John Key had too much paperwork to deal with, even when he was struck down with one of his “brain fades”. 

He was not described as weak for letting foreign minister Murray McCully get away with using a private email account – and he got hacked.

Andrea basically says that words such as weak are only used to describe female politicians, not male ones.

A quick search of Scoop shows on 82 occasions a release or speech from Labour or the Greens has “John Key” and “weak” in it.

A couple of examples:

“Now that John Key is facing a similar donations scandal with one of his own Ministers, but refusing to act on it, he is showing how inconsistent and weak he is,” said Green Party Co-leader Metiria Turei.

That Metiria Turei being sexist against John Key.

John Key is showing his weak leadership and refusal to do what is morally right by not raising human rights abuses of New Zealand born Australians on Christmas Island with Malcolm Turnbull, Opposition leader Andrew Little says.

“This was a weak and gutless display in Parliament today from the Prime Minister. 

And Andrew Little also called John Key weak.

Prime Ministers are routinely called weak by Opposition MPs. To say it is sexist when the PM is female is, well, weak!

Winston Peters is running rings around her because that’s what Winston Peters has done to successive coalition partners. His disruptiveness is gender-neutral.

Yes and having Simon Bridges criticise her leadership as weak because of it is not sexist. In fact there is an interesting background when it comes to criticising weak leadership of PMs dealing with Winston.

Back in 1997 Jim Bolger was Prime Minister and Winston was Deputy PM. And the Northern Region of the Young Nationals had an excellent regular newsletter. Off memory it may have been called Northern Lights.

The July edition of that newsletter had a cartoon and story which portrayed the PM as drunk in the kitchen on whiskey while Winston and the “Tight Five” were running around playing havoc, stealing the cutlery etc. It was excellent Young Nats humour.

The newsletter caused a big stir as the Sunday Star Times got hold of a copy and ran it on the front page during the National Party conference. The Regional Chair of the Young Nationals was summoned to a brutal dressing down by not just the Prime Minister, but also the party president, the chair of the Rules Committee, the Chief of Staff, the Chief Press Secretary the Party General Secretary etc. He was told he was “the stupidest f**k who had ever lived”, had destroyed the conference, destroyed the Government’s unity etc and that as a consequence he must withdraw from the election scheduled the next day for Young Nationals President as him being elected would be seen as the Young Nats endorsing the cartoon showing Bolger as weak.

The Young Nats Chair in question took what would have been an incredibly intimidating brow beating for the best part of half an hour but stood his ground and refused to withdraw from the election. He said the newsletter was just light hearted humour and the Young Nats should get to decide who their own officers are. I was incredibly impressed with his stance as I would have been a quivering wreck if I had endured the same.

The next day at the AGM I am told there was a remarkable sight. The Prime Minister turned up to the Young Nats AGM. Party rules make the Party Leader a voting member of every committee and body, including Young Nats. So he used this obscure rule to turn up just to vote against this Regional Chairman, and even started lobbying others to vote against him. Young Nats were startled to have the PM in attendance as for the last ten years they had invited him to their conference and he had never been able to make it.

So who was the Young Nats Chair whose newsletter portrayed Jim Bolger weak for how he was dealing with Winston Peters? By coincidence it was a Simon Joseph Bridges.

Reuters reports:

The United States told the World Trade Organization on Monday it would block the reappointment of one of the WTO’s four remaining appeals judges next month, confirming trade experts’ fears of a crisis in the system for settling global rows.

U.S. President Donald Trump has railed against the WTO, calling it a catastrophe and a disaster. He has said the United States loses cases because other countries have most of the judges.

In fact, trade experts say, the United States has a similar, if not better, lose-win rate than other countries that have taken complaints to the WTO, and it has a rare privilege in that the judges on the WTO’s Appellate Body have always included one American.

Trump faces a barrage of disputes at the WTO against his trade policies, including global tariffs on steel and a tariff war with China. Since he came to power, Washington has blocked all appointments to the appeals chamber as existing judges’ terms end.

There are normally seven WTO appeals judges, but if Shree Baboo Chekitan Servansing, a trade judge from Mauritius, is not reappointed when his term expires on Sept. 30, only three will remain — the minimum for the system to function.

It looks set to break down finally when two more judges’ terms expire in December 2019, but it could seize up sooner if any judges need to recuse themselves from a case for legal reasons.

The TWO dispute resolution system is vital. It is what allows global trade agreements to be enforced. What the US is doing doesn’t just affect countries trading with the US, but every WTO member.

If the US cripples the appellate body, then (for example) Australia could once again start blocking our apples on spurious grounds. And it would be impossible for us to get a binding ruling preventing them from doing so.

The Herald reports:

Whether you believe this Government is to blame for the downturn, or that it is the victim of a political backlash, news that consumer confidence slumped to six-year lows in September is cause for concern.

The Westpac McDermott Miller Consumer Confidence Index released yesterday showed consumers are following the gloomy lead set by business owners this year.

Households are increasingly concerned about their financial prospects for the next 12 months.

The economists who conduct the survey say it is not clear whether this reflects the reality of a slowing economy or whether consumers are simply reacting to the highly publicised negativity of the business community.

Certainly factors such as the cooling housing market and rising fuel prices seem to be playing a part.

What is interesting is that the Government’s increase to WFF and benefits should mean consumer confidence is very high, as many households have had an income boost.

The fact it is at a six year low just after the increase in welfare payments is a concern.