I want people to understand that not only did the Greens vote for the waka jumping bill, they voted against every amendment put forward by National. Many of these amendments would have made the bill slightly less undemocratic. A principled Green Party would have voted for them. But they sold out as poodles to Winston.

Here’s what they voted against:

• Allowing any expulsion of an MP by a leader to be subject to judicial review
• Mandating any vote in caucus to expel an MP be by secret ballot
• That parties are required to have rules around expulsion of MPs and that they be registered with the Electoral Commission
• That party rules around how an MP is expelled that are changed don’t take effect until the next Parliament
• That the names of the MPs who voted in favour of expulsion (if not a secret ballot) be required as part of a statement
• That the notice from a party leader expelling an MP be published in the Gazette within five working days
• Increasing the threshold for expulsion from 75% of MPs to 95%

So the Greens voted against secret ballots, against judicial review, against party rules around expulsion being made public and against a higher threshold.

Remember this when they start lecturing on democracy.

The Herald reports:

The incident involving former Government minister Meka Whaitiri and a staff member allegedly left bruising to the upper right arm of the staffer and photos of bruises were produced to the inquiry, a draft report leaked to the Herald shows.

The incident occurred because Whaitiri was unhappy at not having been alerted to a photo opportunity at a media standup with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern during a lunch break at a function in Gisborne.

A missed photo opportunity. How horrific. I guess for this Government, nothing is more important.

The staffer originally told the inquiry that Whaitiri had pinched her arm but changed that to grabbed.

“It was hard and it scared the living daylights out of me,” she said.

In other parts of her evidence, she said: “She was definitely angry, and was definitely mad that I had screwed up. It scared me a lot and I didn’t want to return to that [work environment].”

The Herald editorial:

There can be no doubt the Derek Handley saga is a train wreck that is now threatening to derail confidence in the Government. …

However, yesterday the PM found herself having to fend off accusations she had misled Parliament over her own communications with Handley, Finance Minister Grant Robertson was forced to correct his answer in Parliament over emails between Handley and Curran, and new Digital Services Minister Megan Woods was clearly forced to finally call Handley to apologise for the “impact this has had on him and his family”. She also had to retract her statement there had been a confidentiality agreement with Handley over his financial settlement.

What a shemozzle.

So four different Ministers have misled Parliament, either by accident, or deliberately – Ardern, Robertson, Curran and Woods. That must be a record for one issue.

The public needs to be confident there is no political interference in a public appointment. And what about the Government’s assurance it was going to be more open and transparent? At least one commentator yesterday said Ardern had been “economical with the truth”.

This is a serious black mark for the Government. The overall unease around communication, competency and transparency over this issue is now raising questions about the PM’s leadership and the Government’s integrity in general.

I’ve been listening to a podcast on the Clinton impeachment.

Clinton still maintains he never ever told a lie about having sexual relations with Lewinsky as he claims she had sexual relations with him but he did not have sexual relations with her.

It seems the sort of pin pricking argument Ardern now uses to say she didn’t mislead the House on Handley and didn’t mislead the public on NewstalkZB when she denied cutting ties with Curran.

Stead Nuku has become a third striker. Is he some poor shoplifter being given a disproportionate sentence? Let’s look at his case.

Strike 1 – assaulted a prisoner in the exercise yard. As the victim was lying on the ground, he kicked him. He then wrenched his arm in an arm lock, causing it to break. He also tried, unsuccessfully, to break his legs and other arm.

Strike 2 – assaulted prison officers with sharpened implements.

Strike 3/1 – approached another prisoner from behind with a large metal
shank, hidden in cloth. Used this to strike the victim to the head. Victim suffered five lacerations to his head, ranging from one to four centimetres in size.

Strike 3/2 –  approached another prisoner from behind with metal shank. Stabbed the victim with it repeatedly. Stabbed the victim not fewer
than 12 times. Inflicted seven wounds to his back; four to his arm; and one behind his ear.

The three strikes law means for his third strike he gets seven years without parole. The Judge says otherwise he would have got five years and one month and a non parole period of three years and five months.

As it happens both sentences are trumped by the fact he got preventive detention, so is indefinitely jailed until he is deemed safe (but thanks to three strikes no less than seven years away). That is because this 26 year old has a massive 68 convictions as an adult (and five before that).  17 of the 68 convictions are for violence.

So it isn’t three strikes and you’re out, but 17 strikes.

The Judge notes:

You said you had wanted to be a “lifer” since the age of 18, and you admired prisoners who frightened other prisoners and guards. You said when you commit an offence of violence, you intend to cause the
victim “maximum damage”. You said also you owe “love and loyalty” to the Killer Beez gang.

Sounds like a poster child for why we should relax the bail and parole laws, eh!

In the House today, Chris Bishop said:

I can also reveal that Mr Haumaha was not the preferred candidate of the panel. The Cabinet paper proposing his appointment does not state that he was the preferred candidate, but he was appointed anyway by the Prime Minister. The big question is “Why?”, particularly in light of what happened next.

This is a big part of the mystery. Why was Haumaha appointed by the Prime Minister despite not being the preferred candidate?

Today I can also reveal that Winston Peters rang Wally Haumaha after the inquiry into his appointment was announced. He gave him assurances, or words to that effect, that things would be OK. That is deeply, wildly inappropriate. Mr Peters needs to explain who invited him to the marae, why he rang Wally Haumaha to assure him that things would be OK despite an inquiry into his appointment, and why he thinks Mr Haumaha should stay in the role while he is subject to two separate investigations, with a third on the way. Until those questions are answered, this scandal will continue to dog the Prime Minister and her Government.

If this is correct, this is huge.

We know Haumaha has multiple links to NZ First and was selected as a candidate for them in 2005.

Peters as Acting Prime Minister appointed a fellow NZ First Minister to be in charge of the inquiry into him. If Peters did assume Haumaha that “things would be okay” then his decision to appoint Tracey Martin is deeply problematic, to put it mildly.

UPDATE: Peters has put out a statement denying he rang Haumaha after the inquiry into his appointment was announced. It is unclear if he also held up a No sign.

Stuff reports:

Housing Minister Phil Twyford’s package of tenancy law reforms would likely drive up rents by causing some landlords to get out of the market, officials have told him.

Officials said while most of the tenancy law overhaul and other changes to the rental market considered by the Government would not have much of an effect on their own, their cumulative weight could lead some landlords to sell their properties to owner-occupiers.

Because owner-occupiers typically have less people in a house than renters, this could lead to a further shortage in rental properties – and higher rents.

This is not unexpected. The Government really doesn’t seem to understand that increasing costs leads to higher prices.

Stuff reports:

The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision not to allow Stuff Ltd and NZME to merge.

The full judgment has not yet been publicly released, but the court said in a public “minute” that the companies’ appeal against a Commerce Commission block on their merger had been dismissed.

NZME and Stuff Ltd have been ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

So the proposed merger has been found to be illegal under competition law by

• The Commerce Commission in a draft determination
• The Commerce Commission in a final determination
• The High Court
• The Court of Appeal

Time for them to give it up.

What will now be interesting is what happens when the Herald introduces a paywall. Will Stuff follow suit?

Stuff reports:

Woods said the analysis used by MBIE “does not take into account the fast pace at which the rest of the world is changing” with large emitting countries such as China and India making rapid progress to cut carbon.

I’m not sure which universe the Minister is in, but in this universe here’s the reality.

The FT reported:

China’s carbon emissions are on track to rise at their fastest pace in more than seven years during 2018, casting further doubt on the ability of the Paris climate change agreement to curb dangerous greenhouse gas increases, according to a Greenpeace analysis based on Beijing’s own data. Carbon emissions in the country, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, rose 4 per cent in the first quarter of this year, according to calculations by the environmental group based on Chinese government statistics covering coal, cement, oil and gas. If that pace continues it would be the fastest increase since 2011.

Zero Hedge reports:

In the latest sign that the French government is headed for a devastating political and economic crisis thanks largely to the government’s embrace of open borders, French President Emmanuel Macron has seen his approval rating plummet to just 29%, the lowest level since his presidency began in the summer of 2017, according to a recent Ifop poll, as voters have rebelled against Macron’s attempts to push through badly-needed pro-business reforms and his unwillingness to stem the tide of migrants pouring into the country from North Africa and the Middle East. 

Most people want secure borders. It’s one of the basic functions of the state – secure borders along with law and order.

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!