The Herald reports:

One of the tasks of the Government’s Small Business Council is to advise the Government on whether the Small Business Council should continue, which amounts to a classic Yes, Minister scenario, according to National.

The primary role of the 13-member Small Business Council, announced by Small Business Minister Stuart Nash in early August, is to develop a strategy to drive improvement and innovation in the sector.

It has a fixed term of one year to deliver results. With monthly meetings and an estimated cost of $135,000, that works out to more than $11,000 of tax-payer funding per meeting.

The council is made up of business leaders from the private sector including The Icehouse, Xero and Fonterra, Chamber of Commerce heads, tax experts and academics.

In response to questions from National, Nash said the council would report back in July 2019 with a “Small Business Strategy, advice on a segmented definition of small business, advice on the potential establishment of a small business institute and a recommendation on whether the Small Business Council should continue to exist, and if so, what its ongoing form and function should be”.

Let’s see if we can guess the answer. Yes we should continue, and we’ll need more money.

FINAL Heritage Week. Answers #9 Gay people.

Alan TURING. Genuius WW2 Bletchley Park Enigma codebreaker, chemically castrated for homosexuality, inventor of computer.

Colin MOYLE. NZ MP, ‘The Moyle Affair.”

Oscar WILDE, Irish Poet, imprisoned for sodomy with minors after his disastrous defamation trial vs Marquess of Queensberry (boxing rules). His lover Lord Alfred Douglas coined the famous phrase, “The Love that dare not speak it’s name.”

Peter HUDSON, NZ chef duo with David Halls.

Louisa WALL, NZ MP, gay marriage bill.

Truman CAPOTE, American author and critic.

J Edgar Hoover, Head of FBI.

Tim Barnett, NZ MP, prostitution reform bill.

David Halls, NZ Chef duo with Peter Hudson.

The Herald reports:

Trade Minister David Parker has been unable to secure an exemption from US steel and aluminium import taxes but says his officials will continue lobbying New Zealand’s case.

But Parker was not sounding optimistic about their chances of winning US trade officials over, telling the Herald “the longer it goes on without being resolved, the less confident we would be” of securing an exemption.

Parker spent the better part of this week in Washington DC “advancing New Zealand’s interests in reform of the World Trade Organisation (WTO)” as well as advocating for an exemption to US tariffs on steel and aluminium.

The tariffs were imposed in March this year – soon after, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern wrote a letter to US President Donald Trump pleading New Zealand’s case for an exemption.

Speaking from Ottawa, Parker said he had presented a “strong case” for New Zealand receiving an exemption but was not able to reach an agreement.

If things develop into a full trade war, then things will be much more serious for us.

But Parker said this was not a surprise, given trade officials advised him before his trip it would be unlikely the issue would be solved through face-to-face meetings.

“[This is] because no one else has been able to – be it [Japanese] Prime Minister Shinzō Abe, the Europeans or Mexico.”

This is misleading. Quite a few countries have gained exemptions. They include Japan, Thailand, Germany, the UK, Sweden and South Korea.

The Herald reports:

A bill that will establish a commission to focus on possible miscarriages of justice will be considered by a committee of MPs after passing its first reading in Parliament today.

Justice Minister Andrew Little’s bill, which passed without the support of the National Party, will establish a Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).

“This bill is an important commitment by this coalition Government to provide a much-needed safety valve to our criminal justice system,” Little said.

“The CCRC will focus on miscarriages of justice and is a direct response to concerns by many New Zealanders over wrongful convictions such as Teina Pora,” he said in a statement.

The CCRC will be an independent body to review convictions and sentences where there is a suspected miscarriage of justice.

It will be able to refer cases back to the appeal courts but will not determine guilt or innocence. It will replace the referral power currently exercised by the Governor-General under section 406 of the Crimes Act 1961.

I’m disappointed National voted against this bill. I think the proposed commission is a good idea and far superior to the status quo where a Government department reviews potential miscarriages of justice.

The Law Commission has proposed three options for future abortion law. They are:

• Under Model A there would be no statutory test that must be satisfied before an abortion could be performed. The decision whether to have an abortion would be made by the woman concerned in consultation with her health practitioner.
• Under Model B there would be a statutory test. The health practitioner who intends to perform an abortion would need to be satisfied that the abortion is appropriate in the circumstances, having regard to the woman’s physical and mental health and wellbeing.
• Under Model C, there would be no statutory test until 22 weeks of a pregnancy. After 22 weeks, the health practitioner who intends to perform an abortion would need to be satisfied that the abortion is appropriate in the circumstances, having regard to the woman’s physical and mental health and wellbeing.

Model B looks pretty close to the status quo, except you don’t need to go to two doctors.

Model C looks preferable, at this stage to me. Effectively it gives a pregnant woman a right to have an abortion up to 22 weeks, but after 22 weeks (when a birth may be viable) it restricts abortion.  Having an abortion at say 35 weeks should only occur, in my opinion, when there is danger to the mother or fetus.

Adrienne Stone writes in The Conversation:

It goes without saying – or at least it ought to – that freedom of speech should be a core value of universities. …

Because of this responsibility, universities should be guided by four fundamental free speech principles.

1. Unorthodox ideas should be welcomed and offensive ideas must be tolerated

2. Protest is crucial to the proper exercise of free speech rights on campus and should be permitted and facilitated

3. The university must protect the pursuit of knowledge

4. The university’s intellectual climate must be inclusive

They seem like good principles. Why not have a charter like this here.

It’s Heritage Week IV. Do You Know Your Nation?

by John Stringer.

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