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.

I’ve been thinking more on Jami-Lee’s admittance to a mental health facility.

Normally anyone who gets admitted will not have media stories about it.

Now I quite accept that due to the furore of the last fortnight that of course media had to report this particular admittance. You couldn’t ignore it. So no criticism of what has been reported.

But I don’t think there is any public interest in doing further stories, until such a time as Jami-Lee wants to say something. That might be in a week. Or it might be further down the road.

I don’t think it is conducive to his recovery to have daily stories updating people on whether he is still “inside”, or having comments from others about him.

There will potentially be events which will be newsworthy, such an action under the Electoral Act. But outside such events, I think the dignified thing to do will be to show some restraint and let Jami-Lee get support and treatment. We don’t need to know details. We don’t need to know if he has been discharged or not. If Jami-Lee wants us to know, then that is different.

Of course at some stage there needs to be some decisions and they will be newsworthy. But until then, let’s focus on allowing someone to get well.

News.com.au reports:

AS THE Liberal Party’s hopes of a dramatic comeback win in Wentworth fade, it is turning on itself.

Answers at 5 pm

Labour Day commemorates the struggle for an eight hour working day for New Zealanders.

You should honour Labour Day by joining a union.

Join The Taxpayers’ Union.

It’s the only union in New Zealand fighting for workers to keep more of their pay.

I helped set it up as New Zealand had thousands of groups that argue for tax increases and higher spending. There was no group advocating for taxpayers who fund all the spending.

So if you’re a New Zealander worker who wants to keep more if their pay packet, join the only union that will fight for you to pay less in tax.

A lot of people (including some MPs) are jumping to conclusions that because the media have reported Jami-Lee Ross was taken into mental health care by Police, that he has been committed, or more formally had a compulsory treatment order.

I don’t know any details around what has happened, but I do know it is not uncommon for Police to take people to a mental health facility. It doesn’t mean someone is going against their will.  Unless there is some sort of official statement (and I presume only JLR could authorise one, or someone he nominates), then public speculation is unhelpful.

A few people have also been raising whether what has happened causes a vacancy under the Electoral Act.

Even if there has been a compulsory treatment order (and the Police can’t issue those, a court does) there is no vacancy for at least six months. The basic procedure is:

1. Speaker of the House appoints a medical practitioner who will visit the MP, along with the Director-General of Health, and report to the Speaker if they consider the MP is “mentally disordered”
2. If so, then in six months time the medical practitioner and DG again assess the MP and only if they still conclude the MP is “mentally disordered” is a vacancy created

But again it is highly highly unlikely that there has been such an order. People are misunderstanding the reference to the Police being involved.

NewstalkZB reports:

Jami-Lee Ross has been taken into mental health care

Newstalk ZB can confirm the rogue National MP was taken in by police.

He was taken to a facility in Auckland.

This is sad, but not entirely surprising.

I hope Jami-Lee gets excellent support from both medical professionals, but also his friends. He has obviously been under a huge amount of stress. Everyone wants to see him well.

It is also a good time for everything to cool down a bit, and as I blogged a few days ago reflect on the huge damage done to multiple people during this saga.

No 1 Heidi Heitkamp:

Several women who were erroneously named as sexual assault survivors in an open letter by the North Dakota Democratic senator Heidi Heitkamp are considering taking legal action over the blunder, according to social media.

“Heidi Heitkamp’s political agenda has interfered with, or downright ruined, our lives,” said one of the affected women in a Facebook post announcing the possibility of a lawsuit. …

The letter, placed as an ad, listed more than 100 undersigned North Dakota women without obtaining their consent to either the contents of the letter or to be named. Some of the women named said they weren’t victims of domestic violence, sexual assault or rape, as the letter claimed.

“A lot of these people listed, including me, did not give anyone permission for our names to be posted,” said another one of the women named in a Facebook post. “I don’t even support Heidi Heitkamp and I am not a domestic abuse survivor.”

They listed 100 women as signatories to a letter without their consent or even knowledge, and outed them as sexual abuse survivors. Huge blunder.

538 has Heitkamp 3% behind on their classic model and 8% behind just based on the polls.

And looking to 2020, Elizabeth Warren may have destroyed herself as a presidential contender by doing a DNA test to prove she is part Cherokee.

It’s hard in the era of Trump to get more attention — and negative attention — than the occupant of the White House. But Elizabeth Warren managed to do just that these past five days. …

Back to the video, in which Warren speaks on the phone with a renowned geneticist at Stanford University, who tells her that the results of her DNA test “suggest that you absolutely have a Native American ancestor in your pedigree.” The estimates of how much Native American heritage Warren possesses ranged from 1/64th to 1/1024th.

So how far back do we go for 1/1024th:

• 1/2 – parents
• 1/4 – grandparent
• 1/8 great grand parent
• 1/16 great great grand parent
• 1/32 great great great grand parent
• 1/64 great great great great grand parent
• 1/128 great great great great great grand parent
• 1/256 great great great great great great grand parent
• 1/512 great great great great great great great grand parent
• 1/1024 great great great great great great great great grand parent

So Warren is claiming she is Native American based on a possible ancestor who was probably born between 1650 and 1770!

The bigger problem for Warren is that, outside of her innermost circle of advisers, Democrats were left cold by her attempt to show that she could shore up her one glaring weakness going into 2020.

“Argue the substance all you want, but why 22 days before a crucial election where we MUST win house and senate to save America, why did @SenWarren have to do her announcement now?,” asked Jim Messina, former President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign manager. “Why can’t Dems ever stay focused???”

Stuff reported:

New Zealand women’s apathy towards to the dangers of drinking during pregnancy is strengthening calls from health professionals for mandatory labelling on alcoholic drinks.

Research published in the New Zealand Medical Journal earlier this year found almost a quarter of women involved in a cohort study continued to drink in their first trimester despite knowing they were pregnant.

The Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation, made up of health and primary industry ministers representing the Commonwealth, Australia, and New Zealand, will meet on Thursday to vote on a proposal to make danger stickers mandatory on booze. …

But Brewers Association of New Zealand executive director Dylan Firth said the proposal seemed odd, given most alcohol companies already displayed warning labels on their products.

The association, whose members DB Breweries and Lion produce more than 80 per cent of New Zealand-brewed beer, made changes to labelling a few years ago warning of the dangers of drinking during pregnancy.

I haven’t got a problem with pregnancy warnings on alcohol. I note they are very common already.

But I am far from convinced they have any beneficial impact.

First you’d have to believe that there is a knowledge gap, in that pregnant women don’t already know they shouldn’t drink while pregnant. Considering this is hammered home in almost every pregnancy publication there is, I’d say it is very well known.

Second you’d have to believe that having a small pictogram on a bottle will cause a woman to suddenly realise she shouldn’t be drinking, and stop.

“The Ministry of Health estimates that one in 100 babies is born with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) and that’s caused by exposure to alcohol in the womb. We think it’s ridiculous to argue that warnings are unnecessary or that the tiny warnings currently on the back of less than half of all alcohol products are sufficient.”

It is tragic when babies are born with FASD. But I’m not sure the issue if the mother doesn’t know she shouldn’t drink, more she doesn’t care.

The Washington Post reports:

The Saudi government acknowledged early Saturday that journalist Jamal Khashoggi was killed inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, saying he died during a fistfight, but the new account may do little to ease international demands for the kingdom to be held accountable.

This is the same Government that said he had left the consulate safely. They were lying then and are lying now.

The Saudi statement comes as the kingdom is facing unprecedented political and economic pressure to disclose what happened to Khashoggi, a critic of the government and a contributing columnist to The Washington Post. But it is unclear whether the Saudi explanation — which clashes with details provided by Turkish investigators and makes no mention of the crown prince — will be enough to satisfy foreign leaders, global business executives and U.S. lawmakers pressing for the perpetrators to be brought to justice.

It shouldn’t. He was lured into the Embassy, and it seems he had his limbs cut off him while he was still alive. A barbaric torture and execution.

Turkish investigators had concluded days ago that Khashoggi was killed and dismembered by a Saudi team dispatched to Istanbul. U.S. officials have said that Turkey has audio and video recordings providing evidence that the journalist was interrogated and killed inside the consulate and his body cut into several pieces.

If Saudi Arabia wants to act like North Korea, it should be treated the same way – a pariah state.

Nor has Khashoggi’s body been recovered, and the Saudi statement did not address what happened to it.

There won’t be an autopsy of course.

The preliminary investigation conducted by the prosecutor found that the “suspects” traveled to Istanbul to meet with Khashoggi as he had expressed an interest in returning to Saudi Arabia, the official news agency said. Discussions that took place “developed in a negative way” and “led to a fight and a quarrel between some of them and the citizen,” it said. “The brawl aggravated to lead to his death and their attempt to conceal and cover what happened,” it said.

It’s such a pathetic attempt to cover up. You don’t send 15 assassins to meet someone.

Tracy Watkins writes:

The last week has been like a crazy bull run; MPs and the media ricocheting from one moment of madness to the next as Ross leaked tapes and texts in an attempt to smear Bridges.

Ross failed spectacularly in his first attempts. If anything, the latest tape – where Bridges confronted Ross with allegations of bullying and harassment – did more to show the National leader as an honorable man than an army of spin doctors could manage.

And the text messages before that showed Greg Hamilton to be a very diligent General Secretary. They are almost the opposite of smoking guns.

But Ross won’t stop now; he is remaining in Parliament, precisely so he can continue to wreak havoc under the protection of Parliamentary privilege.

I doubt he will be doing any work for constituents. He won’t be scrutinizing legislation. He won’t be doing policy. He wants to remain funded by the taxpayers so he can use parliamentary privilege to repeat gossip.

There will be no limits – in an interview on Newstalk ZB late Friday, Ross named a female MP as one of the women he had an affair with, and threatened to lift the bedsheets on others.

He named her on air!! Luckily it was bleeped out.

Ross is in a unique position to follow through on his threats to burn the house down. He was one of Simon Bridges’ closest friends in Parliament. He was the party’s senior whip. He knows where the skeletons are buried because it was his job to bury them. He was also the party’s bagman, one of its biggest fundraisers.

He is a man who prizes leverage. He accumulated secret recordings and text messages. He tried to prod his colleagues into bad-mouthing the leader, and many realise with hindsight that he was probably recording them.

And all because he was “only” promoted to No 7.

The texts and recordings released so far by Ross have failed to prove any of his claims of electoral fraud. The reverse, in fact – they exonerate National and Bridges.

But political donations are a murky pool. Some of the mud will stick over his allegations of dodgy donations and big money in politics.

No one knows how many more recordings and texts there are. But having failed at dragging Bridges down, it is clear the next round of releases from Ross will be uglier and even more personal.

I think Bridges is coming out of this stronger now, but National itself is now being damaged. Having failed to get Bridges he now seems to want to destroy the party.

A slow drip feed of scandal with Ross remaining in Parliament is the nightmare scenario for National.

Far better to end things cleanly in Botany, where Bridges would be assured of taking National to a huge win in a by-election.

Bridges could expect a huge sympathy vote for the act of treachery by his MP and former friend. Likewise, there would be a huge backlash against Ross for his ugly and destructive behaviour.

I agree. Use the waka jumping law. Labour campaigned against tax cuts but they didn’t all refuse their tax cuts and hand the money back. National never said that that every use of the waka jumping law would be bad. They said that it was a law that could allow a bad party leader to expel good MPs. And it could. It is why it should not have been passed. But it also allows a good party leader to expel a bad MP. And this is the case they now have. If you have a tool, you use it – if you are using it for the right reason.

National has no good options in dealing with JLR. The question is which is the least bad option.

Of course the best way out would be a truce. If somehow JLR and National can find a way forward that would be a good thing. But the problem is that JLR has so damaged himself I’m genuinely not sure what National can do to reverse the harm he caused himself. But if he has a proposal, then it should be considered.

Newsroom has an article with two more stories about JLR. They both worked in his out of Parliament office, and again it is pretty hard reading as they tell their stories.

Some are saying that National should have known all this years ago and deselected JLR. It is a fair question about whether National could have done more. But it’s not as simple as some claim it is. A political party is not a business where everyone is hired by one CEO and can be fired by them.

So I’m going to talk about some of the challenges involved, but also an idea for National to consider, so that there are greater protections in future.

Firstly don’t underestimate how even people close to someone can really not know them. As an example around 15 years ago when I was active in National, there were a couple of volunteers who I would have said were the loveliest couple I knew.  Salt of the earth. People wanted him to stand. He was universally liked.

Then his wife was found dead in suspicious circumstances (no charges were ever laid). It turned out they had terrible rows, he had affairs with staff and was investigated for burning down a building for insurance. And he may have killed his wife (again no charges laid, and I hope he didn’t). Everyone who knew them were stunned by the revelations. Also note I am not comparing JLR to what happened here. Just saying that you can’t assume behaviours that get exposed were apparent early on.

Secondly the different women who have had bad experiences with JLR, were in a number of different roles. And unlike a business, who deals with “disputes” is quite different and sometimes unclear.

• OOP staff should go to The Parliamentary Service. But unlike staff in Parliament they don’t know them well. It is very isolated in an MP’s OOP office and you don’t get to interact with colleagues like people do in Parliament.
• Katrina Bungard was a party member and local government office holder (but not for National). There is no clear reporting mechanism for what you do if you have a problem with an MP. Going to the President was a good call and she was happy with how he acted. Some may go to a Regional Chair.
• If you are an MP and have problems with another MP, you’d normally go to the Chief Whip. And yeah, we all know the problem there. You could then go to the leader but considering the nature of what happened, you might not want to spill all. It was deeply personal stuff.
• Staff in Parliament should go The Parliamentary Service or the NLO Chief of Staff.

A third factor is that selections are done by the grass roots in National, not by the hierarchy. The board veto is really meant for cases such as criminal wrongdoing.

A fourth factor is that politics can be a bruising arena. A number of MPs are known to go through quite a few staff. We just saw that with Meka. It is a high stress environment. This is not to excuse such behaviour. Most MPs have staff who love working for them.

Even in the wider party the internal politics can be bruising. When I was a campaign chair I felt quite bruised and betrayed by a senior office holder who was constantly denigrating me. It actually led to me pulling out of all elected positions, after 20 years service (and I have never gone back). and the person denigrating me was a woman, so it’s not all bullying men.

Also don’t assume the MP is always wrong if there is a dispute with party members. I’ve seen members complain about an MP, when it is their behaviour which has been sub-standard. Political parties always have internal tensions between individuals.

If even half of what has come out now about JLR had been known, then I am sure (or hope) that interventions would had happened earlier.

But they didn’t, and that is a problem that National should acknowledge and look to see how they could improve things.

The idea I have is a single point of contact for complaints. This could be used by anyone who is a party member, candidate, MP, staffer or parliamentary staffer. They would probably have to be someone at Party HQ.

Their job would be to hear any issues that people have. It would be confidential,so that the person who approaches them doesn’t need to be named or known to anyone else. They could then take the complaint and pass it on to the appropriate person – that might be The Parliamentary Service, the NLO Chief of Staff, the Chief Whip, a Regional Chair, the Party President etc. They can have a quiet word about behaviour, or treat it more formally depending on the severity.

This would also allow that complaints officer to see early on if a particular MP or party member has a pattern of complaints that would suggest significant intervention is needed.

This would not be a substitute for staff going directly to their employer for employment issues. More a complementary service.

It wouldn’t solve all the issues either. There is no magic wand.

I don’t think National is to blame for what JLR has done. But I think they can look at what has happened and conclude that they want to reduce the chances of such stuff in future, and look for what changes they can make.