NB: See final update at the bottom over the incorrect transcript sent by the PMs Office to me.

The Herald reports:

Jacinda Ardern insisted in an interview today that Clare Curran’s job as a minister was safe – despite the Prime Minister accepting the errant MP’s resignation the night before.

The under-fire Curran has quit as a minister, saying the pressure on her had become “intolerable”. She becomes the first casualty in the Ardern administration.

Ardern said in a radio interview with Newstalk ZB’s Chris Lynch recorded at 8am this morning that Curran’s job was safe.

But it has now emerged the errant minister told Ardern last night that she would quit – and Ardern accepted her resignation.

“Clare Curran contacted me last night to confirm her wish to resign as a minister and I accepted that resignation,” Ardern said today.

The Prime Minister told a blatant lie to Chris Lynch. She said Curran’s job was safe despite having accepted Curran’s resignation the night before.

This is a different situation to the more general one where a PM will always say they have confidence in a Minister until they don’t. That doesn’t apply once you have actually received or accepted a resignation.

Ardern knew when she spoke to Lynch, that she would be announcing Curran’s resignation later today. She misled him and listeners by saying Curran’s job was safe.

Not only is it a bad look for the PM to deliberately lie, but it also exposes the poor political management. They should have announced the resignation last night or first thing this morning, before the PM had to do any media.

UPDATE: The PM’s Office have contacted me to say that the Herald story summarised the PMs comments on radio incorrectly. The PM never explicitly said Curran was safe, just that she was not sacking her. I will post the transcript once I have it. So have updated the headline

If correct it is a deception, not a lie. Still very bad political management to split hairs and say on radio you are not sacking your Minister when you have already accepted their resignation. But not the same as saying they are safe.

Ironically what this confirms is that the PM doesn’t think anything Curran did was sackable and that she still had confidence in her as a Minister, if Curran wanted to continue.

The transcript is:

CL: Have you considered cutting ties with Clare Curran? Some would say she’s a liability.

JA: Keep him mind that she didn’t put a meeting in the diary and she lost her position in cabinet for it.

CL: Are you considering firing her?

JA: No, because I think she’s paid a price. I have huge expectations of my ministers and those in the ministry but I also accept that from time to time they will also have bad days. I have to kind in mind that we do want to make sure that we don’t set the bar so high that you have the situation that if you show a bit of human frailty you lose your job over it.

Again pretty bad judgement to say no I’m not considering firing her, when you have already accepted the resignation. It’s deceptive and misleading, but not a blatant lie.

If the PM really stood by what she said on the radio, she would have refused the resignation.

UPDATE2: I am now going back to my original conclusion. The transcript sent through from the PMs Office missed out key words. I just assumed the transcript was correct.

Below is the transcript sent to me by the PMs Office, and in bold are the words missed out.

Have you considered, have you considered as Prime Minister cutting ties with Clare Curran? because Some would say she’s become a liability to your Government. Keep him in mind that she didn’t put a meeting in the diary and she lost her position in cabinet over for it.

Are you considering cutting ties with her, firing her? No, because I think she’s paid a price. Right. I have huge expectations of my ministers and those in the ministry but I also accept that from time to time they will also have bad days. I have to kind in mind that we do want to make sure that we don’t set the bar so high that you have the situation that if you show a bit of human frailty you lose your job over it.

You can check this out at the audio here.

Now the words left out in the second paragraph change things significantly. Ardern was not simply asked are you firing her. She was also asked are you cutting ties with her. And when you have already accepted their resignation, the only accurate answer is yes.

I am very unhappy that the PMs Office sent me a transcript that was inaccurate. I didn’t verify it. I will be very very generous and assume they didn’t think the editing was significant (I note there were some other minor variations)  but leaving out the second “cutting ties with her” was a critical omission.

Clare Curran has resigned as a Minister just hours after the PM was backing her.

It seems to be a genuine decision on her part, rather than Ardern sacking her. I guess she just decided that she was too politically damaged to be effective in her portfolios.

A tough day for Clare. As I blogged earlier today, she is a good person who is passionate about ICT/Comms and worked hard to make a difference. But her judgement did let her down repeatedly.

Kris Faafoi picks up Broadcasting and ICT which is sensible. Has been a good Minister to date.

However he remains outside Cabinet. I guess they are waiting to see if Whaitiri is sacked before doing a wider reshuffle.

Richard Harman writes at Politik:

In a week which has already seen Winston Peters and New Zealand First go it alone on refugee policy, Peters surprised western diplomats in Wellington yesterday with a low key response to the naming of the Russian agents responsible for poisoning the former KGB agent.

His response did not accuse Russia of the poisoning nor did he make any reference to joining international efforts to take reprisals against the country because of the poisoning.

It stood in marked contrast to a much stronger statement from Canberra.

And once again it raised questions as to why he so frequently appears soft on Russia. …

The issue is about a former KGB agent, Sergey,  and his daughter Yulia, Skripal who were poisoned with a toxic nerve agent, Novichok earlier this year.

More recently another woman died and her partner was hospitalised after contact with the nerve agent.

The incidents happened in the English town of Salisbury.

British Prime Minister Theresa May told the UK House of Commons on Wednesday that a forensic investigation had now produced sufficient evidence for the independent Director of Public Prosecutions to bring charges against two Russian nationals, Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov for conspiracy to murder Sergei Skripal and the attempted murder of him and his daughter.

“The Security and Intelligence Agencies have carried out their own investigations into the organisation behind this attack,” said May.

Based on this work, I can today tell the House that, based on a body of intelligence, the Government has concluded that the two individuals named by the police and CPS are officers from the Russian military intelligence service, also known as the GRU.

The GRU is a highly disciplined organisation with a well-established chain of command.

So this was not a rogue operation. It was almost certainly also approved outside the GRU at a senior level of the Russian state.

Despite that assertion by May, Peters made only a veiled reference to the role of the Russian state in being responsible for the attack in his statement on the matter issued yesterday morning.

 “Prime Minister May has indicated that the UK authorities have undertaken a careful and systematic inquiry,” he said.

“The UK announced that after a thorough criminal inquiry the independent Crown Prosecution Service has sufficient evidence to bring charges against two Russian nationals.

“We said from the outset of Prime Minister May announcing this investigation that we should wait for it to be completed to draw our conclusions, and we have.”

The rest of the statement reiterated New Zealand’s support for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons.

This contrasted with Australia’s response which came in a joint statement from Prime Minister, Scott Morrison and Foreign Affairs Minister, Marise Payne.

They said that the (British) investigation had found that two Russian military intelligence officers were responsible for this attack.

“The investigation also concluded that the Russian leadership authorised the attack,” they said.

“The results of the UK Police investigation confirm Russia’s culpability for this heinous attack, in clear and direct violation of international law.

“Australia shares the UK’s anger and outrage at this dangerous and deliberate act by Russia, which also puts at risk the British public, police and other first responders.

“We are in lock step with the UK on the importance of holding Russia to account and reaffirm our support for calls on Russia to fully disclose the extent of its chemical weapons programme.

“The Australian Government is in close consultation with the UK Government and other partners. We are committed to acting with our allies and partners to deter further Russian violations of international security.”

POLITIK understands that the British noticed the difference between the Australian and New Zealand statements and were, to quote one source, “pissed” at Peters’ response.

This is part of a long standing pattern where Peters defends Russia, or minimises what they do.

France, Canada, the US and Germany have all strongly backed the UK conclusion. They did a joint statement saying:

Their statement said they had full confidence in Britain’s assessment that the two suspects were members of Russia’s GRU, and agreed that their operation was “almost certainly” approved at a senior level of the Russian government.

These are the words Winston can’t bring himself to say. That the poisoning was almost certainly approved by the Russian Government.

So Donald Trump takes a much harder line on Russia, than Winston does.

The question one has to ask is why?

And I’m not the only one wondering what the answer is. I’m sure the UK Government is, as well as many others.

The Herald reports:

When Penny Bright rang to say she had been dying and might yet continue to do so, her voice was weak and she struggled at times.

“David Bloody Fisher,” she said, her usual greeting, but it was faint. Her Warship – as she likes to call herself – usually bellowed down the phone.

She was about to turn 64. The day of her birthday was the day she was supposed to die, according to doctors when she turned up at Auckland City Hospital on August 31.

As if Penny Bright ever listened to anyone with authority.

But here was Penny fighting a battle that everyone loses eventually and she knew it.
“I’ve never felt less energy or more tired in all my life,” she says.

But who’s going to do our democracy now, I asked her. For years I had watched with bafflement and some wonder at Penny’s determined fight against infringements on citizens’ rights.

Penny is delightfully mad. I will miss her.

She has been a long-time commenter on Kiwiblog. She has made over 6,000 comments from 2010 to August 2018. Always fought her corner and stayed calm, even when others yelled at her to pay her rates.

One can disagree with her tactics, but still welcome her unrelenting focus on fighting for better transparency at Auckland Council.

Her political battles have been her life, and as they both come to an end, may she go well into the night.

The Herald further reports:

Former Auckland City Mayor John Banks has expressed his admiration for activist Penny Bright, who is gravely ill in Auckland Hospital.

Banks told Herald he is thinking only kindly of Bright at this time and very sad to learn she is so unwell. …

Banks said he had no animosity towards Bright, but “admiration for her braveness in her stand for the matters she cared deeply about”.

“It will never be said she didn’t keep us on our toes and made us have second thoughts about the things she stood for and stood against. With all her many crusades she never left us in any doubt,” said Banks.

Nicely said John.

Newshub reports:

Clare Curran has no credibility left as an MP and the Prime Minister should take appropriate action, says The AM Show host Duncan Garner.  …

“What more does the Prime Minister need to sack embattled, flustered minister Clare Curran?” Garner said. 

“What are you trying to hide Clare? Who knows?”

“Curran no longer passes the test as a minister, does she? Her credibility, crucially, has gone. She can’t be trusted and she’s a liability for the Government,” said Garner, before labelling Ms Curran a “walking wounded target”. 

As Duncan says, a test of leadership.

And in another Newshub story:

Newshub political editor Tova O’Brien says it was a “catastrophic” performance from the Minister, who has already been stripped of two portfolios and removed from Cabinetafter failing to record private meetings.

“Clare Curran stumbled and fumbled over questions she couldn’t answer, simple questions she couldn’t understand,” O’Brien told The AM Show.

“She had to have them repeated for her. At one point the Speaker of the House Trevor Mallard had to swoop in and rescue her and buy her time so she could catch her breath.”

He later had to force her to answer a question, which she again stumbled over. O’Brien says her response was an “appalling display” from an MP.

She says Ms Curran’s continued role in Government after her many scandals isn’t a good look for Labour.

“This is a woman who was the Minister for Open Government and she got busted twice having secret meetings with people. She’s still the Minister of Communications and she can’t even communicate simple answers to the Parliament about her communications.

Again it’s the PMs call.

Has been made worse by the fact the embattled Minister skipped question time on Thursday, which aggravated the press gallery.

I actually feel sorry for Clare Curran. Having a shocker day in the House is hard on you, and does knock the confidence. And I worked quite a bit with Clare when she was in opposition. She did take a genuine interest in the ICT portfolio, worked hard to get on top of the issues, and is passionate about the importance of the sector. I’ve always found her well intentioned, nice on a personal level, and it must be horrible going through all this.

But Parliament is a tough environment and Labour never held back when a National MP was in trouble. As someone pointed out on Twitter, Labour tried to crucify Todd Barclay (also a really nice guy) for a stupid mistake, and even get him arrested.

A senior Trump administration official (which means someone personally appointed by Trump) has written an op-ed confirming how bad things are. They write:

Newshub reports:

The Prime Minister appears to have caved into Winston Peters over the Government’s pledge to increase the refugee quota – putting the plan to take an extra 500 every year in jeopardy.

That’s despite the government already funding two new accommodation blocks to house them.

Ms Ardern arrived in Nauru to an environment of confusion over her Government’s refugee policy, courtesy of Winston Peters.

“We’ve always been very clear that the things that both NZ First party, Greens and Labour have formed commitment around sit within the confidence and supply agreement, the Coalition agreement, everything else – we go through a process of elimination,” Ardern told reporters.

Since being elected, the Immigration Minister has consistently said he’ll raise the quota in this term of Government.

The Government even made a cash commitment to the quota, spending $14 million in this year’s budget to support two new accommodation blocks at the Mangere Refugee Centre to support the increase in the refugee quota to 1500 a year.

But on Monday, Mr Peters turned that on its head.

“We never made a commitment to double the refugee quota,” he said.  

The Prime Minister appears to have caved to Winston Peters, throwing her immigration minister Iain Lees Galloway under the bus.

“He’s always expressed a personal commitment to increasing the refugee quota, and that’s something that was a Labour policy – but we’re in a coalition government, everything sits outside those agreements. We use Cabinet process for that,” Ms Ardern said.

So Mickey Mouse. The Minister announces it. The Budget provides funding for it. But then Winston says he’s against it, and the PM gives in to him.

When Labour and NZ First signed their coalition agreement, it was reported that the understanding was that NZ First would support the pre-election Labour manifesto or policy programme, unless the coalition agreement said otherwise.

Alex Tarrant (now a senior press secretary to Grant Robertson) wrote in October 2017:

Interest.co.nz was told that, if there was no mention of a Labour Party election policy in either document (ie that it would or wouldn’t go ahead), then the inference is that the policy would go ahead.

This makes sense. Labour is the party that got 37% and NZ First got 7%. You expect the major party to get to implement its policy programme, except where you have negotiated a different outcome in the coalition agreement.

Winston has upended this. He has now said that Labour can’t implement any of their policies, if he disagrees with them. This means that no Minister can speak for the Government, unless Winston has pre-approved it.

This is a different case to Three Strikes. Labour did not have clear pre-election policy to repeal Three Strikes. So there was no expectation that NZ First would support it.

But increasing the refugee quota was a very clear policy by Labour. NZ First didn’t seek a change in the coalition agreement. Labour quite rightly assumed they had a mandate to implement it. They even provided funding for the extra accommodation. But Winston has now changed the rules of the game, and Ardern is too weak to play his bluff.

A guest post by David Garrett:

A week or so ago  a fellow sufferer of long term mental illness made the papers. Due to her personal circumstances – amplified as is always the case by her illness – she was suicidal and sought help at an Emergency Department. She was “assessed” – if one can call her apparently cursory examination an assessment – by a nurse who apparently had little or no experience dealing with the mentally ill. This nurse decided the woman  did not warrant hospitalization, and sent the her away. I only hope that the lack of follow up to the initial story means she is still with us.

Suicide, particularly by those with mental health problems, is a massive problem in this country. In 2015, apparently the most recent year for which  figures are available, 527 people took their own lives in New Zealand. That same year, 319 people lost their lives on the roads. In other words, our suicide rate is getting close to twice the rate of road deaths.  But while we hear constantly about “road carnage”, and individual tragic  crashes lead the news, by comparison very little is heard about suicides, until a prominent person like Greg Boyed dies, apparently by his own hand. In my view, this is a national tragedy, and one that cries out for government attention.

And suicide arguably affects far more people than road deaths. I read this morning of a young woman whose father killed himself six years ago. She now suffers from depression and anxiety, and is plagued by suicidal thoughts herself. This is very common – the children of suicides are three or four times more  likely to also end their lives this way. Put another way, while roads deaths are a tragedy leaving pain and loss in their wake, suicide can be seen as  a form of intergenerational mental illness in which one tragic death frequently leads to others among those in the next generation who are left behind.

In my own situation, things were pretty well controlled for 30 years by successively better anti-depressant drugs. I was able to keep my malady from all but my family and very close friends. That changed dramatically in September 2010, and since that time, I have contemplated ending my life a number of times. It has never gone any further than contemplation, in large part because of my awareness of the probable effects of my actions on my much loved children. They already have a hefty  dose of Garrett genes – that is more than enough for anyone to cope with.

I am lucky – I have never had to put myself in the hands of an unqualified ED nurse. I have a number of people I can call upon who would drop things at a moment’s notice and come to my aid and give comfort if I asked them. But I have certainly felt the very same distress as the young woman I read about.

If this government really wanted to make a difference, instead of setting themselves the ludicrous goal of freeing 30% of  prisoners – all of whom absolutely deserve to be in jail –   they could aim to reduce deaths by suicide by 30% over the  same 15 year  time period. They wouldn’t even need to set up yet another working group. Mental health professionals would  tell them that there aren’t enough acute mental health beds, there aren’t enough trained psychiatric nurses, and there aren’t enough psychiatrists. There is both the problem and the solution,  without spending a dollar on consultants.

Yes, reducing suicides by 30% would be expensive, probably very expensive.  New buildings and trained staff cost money. Hiring trained psychiatrists from overseas would not be easy or cheap. Neither would persuading  medical students now in training, or GP’s at the beginning of their careers to train as psychiatrists. But in terms of public benefit, and “bang for buck” of taxpayers’ money, the return on investment in more people and more beds in the mental health system would be massively better than releasing dangerous prisoners into the community in the pursuit of an ideologically driven fantasy. A fantasy  that would put 30% of prisoners back in the community, where they can create more victims.

Rather than eventually being known as the government that caused a  huge  jump in criminal victimizations, it could become the government that faced up to a massive public health problem that has only got worse since the ill fated drive to close institutions and put the mentally ill into largely non-existent  “community care” began in the early 1990’s. The First Labour Government introduced a health system in which everyone, regardless of their income or station in life, was entitled to free hospital treatment. For all its creaks and strains, that system is now accepted as being part of our birthright by all political parties right across the spectrum.

The Sixth Labour Government could become as notable as the first, by recognizing the massive unmet need for mental health facilities and  treatment  in this country, and for beginning  to fix it. Unlike many of their other schemes – most notably the aim to reduce the prison population – putting money and resources into mental health is guaranteed to  have a huge and measurable  positive benefit, both  for those presently suffering mental illness and for  their children.

The Herald reports:

A bill entrenching the Māori seats into New Zealand electoral law – requiring a 75 per cent majority of Parliament to get rid of them – has passed its first reading in Parliament because it was supported by New Zealand First, which opposes the Māori seats.

Not just opposes them. Winston said it was a bottom line to get rid of them. Nick Smith points out:

“The NZ First policy to abolish the Māori seats was announced as a bottom line of the party by Winston Peters who described them as ‘separatism’, that they ‘had had their day’ and ‘had to go’.

“Mr Peters stated in April ‘That entrenching the Māori seats was not part and parcel of any coalition agreement’ and Shane Jones ruled out voting for it saying ‘I don’t know anyone in our caucus who is going to vote for the entrenchment.’

Yet now the entire caucus has voted for a bill to entrench them.

They claim it is so an amendment can be made later on, seeking a referendum on the seats. But that was not their policy. Their policy was clear cut – they had to go.

Luckily the bill is doomed anyway as to entrench the seats with a 75% threshold means there has to be a 75% majority in Parliament for the bill at the committee of the whole stage. National is opposed, and hence the bill will eventually fail.

Stuff reports:

Curran stumbled over her answers in Parliament’s debating chamber, as she was forced to admit that Government business was conducted on her personal email. She was not forthcoming with a response about why she used her Gmail account for official business from “time to time”. 

Asked “what Government business has she conducted via her Gmail account”, Curran appeared flustered and claimed she’d answered the question before being told by the Speaker she had to answer it directly – she then required Lee to ask it again. 

Curran answered: “To the best of my recollection, um, ah, ah, I haven’t, um, I haven’t used my, um I’ve answered um OIA, ah, ah, OIA responses and personal, um and parliamentary questions correctly and to the best of my recollection, um, ah, you know, that, that has, that’s what I’ve done.”

Now if you have no idea what Curran said, you are not alone.

That moment when the sign language interpreter has absolutely no idea what Clare Curran is saying. Join the club! #nzpol #NZQT pic.twitter.com/snlSULRYzB

— Christopher Bishop (@cjsbishop) September 5, 2018

Anyway we sort of now know Clare Curran is using Gmail to do official Government business. Is this is a good or a bad thing. I know, let’s ask Clare Curran about it. Stuff reported in 2012:

Labour’s information technology spokeswoman Clare Curran said she was “bemused” to learn the minister was having emails forwarded to a private accounts.

“There are questions to be answered.”

If it was easier for the minister to access a private account when he was overseas, that was an issue that needed to be addressed by Parliament’s information technology department.

But it was concerning if there was another reason, she said.

“What sort of correspondence would be going on between a minister and officials through a private account that wasn’t subject to the Official Information Act?”

So what would 2012 Clare Curran make of 2018 Clare Curran?

Audrey Young writes:

It has been one step forward, and three steps backwards for Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern as she seeks to establish some momentum for the Government since her return from leave.

Shane Jones, Helen Clark and Meka Whaitiri have all put the brakes on some of that momentum this week in their own ways.

In doing so, they have also allowed Ardern’s critics to portray her as a weak leader.

Don’t forget Curran also.

The revelations by Newsroom back in March about incidents at the boozy summer camp in February have been without a doubt the lowest point at Ardern’s leadership and the only glaring example of weak leadership.

It is still unbelievable that Ardern did not expect her senior party officials to have informed her of the serious allegations, did not publicly admonish officials for failing to do so and did not believe any of the young people’s parents should have been informed.

Comparisons were made at the time – including by me – between Ardern’s expectations and what Helen Clark’s would have been.

Unhelpfully for Ardern, Clark reminded the public this week of those differences in saying heads would have rolled.

Labour’s response to the issue was far far weaker than Russel McVeagh’s.

The Speaker has tabled a report which proposes a massive massive increase in funding for MPs, almost all of it to benefit Government MPs.

We’ve got the Government turning down a 3% pay rise, which is chicken feed compared to the 20% increase in funding that has been proposed for them.

The details will make your blood boil. They overwhelmingly benefit the Government. The major changes proposed are:

• List MPs to get the same funding as Electorate MPs. 34 of the 49 List MPs are Government MPs. It is a huge boost for Labour, Greens and NZ First. It is also wrong as Electorate MPs have far greater demands on them. They represent an actual constituency and need extra staff to deal with all the constituent issues. Many List MPs do very little constituency work, and any extra funding will go on advertising and campaigning.
• Parties won’t lose funding if they lose MPs at an election. At the moment a party gets funded based on their actual number of MPs. Totally sensible. This report proposes a gerrymander where National and Labour get guaranteed 38% of the funding regardless of their number of MPs, and NZ First and Greens get 8% minimum, again regardless of their number of MPs.
• Also outrageous is it proposes Ministers get extra staff. Ministers already get totally funded for their staffing needs through Ministerial Services. And the number of staff is already 13% higher than the last Government. This report proposes each Minister also get an additional staffer funded through The Parliamentary Service. So a huge boost of 30 more staff for the Government. It also may allow Ministers to avoid the OIA by having one of their staff working for The Parliamentary Service instead of Ministerial Services.
• And bad enough this $13 million increase in funding for MPs, but they want to have it get even bigger every year. They recommend an automatic 3.3% to 3.7% increase every year, which means Parliament will be the only public sector organisation that doesn’t have to make a business case to justify extra spending.

This proposal is a huge rort designed to massively increase funding for Government MPs.

And it is the Government that effectively decides whether or not to accept the recommendations.

They will vote to give themselves this massive boost in taxpayer funding, unless the price for doing so is too high. Taxpayers and voters need to demand that the recommendations in the report not be adopted. How dare MPs consider giving themselves 20% more resources when they say there is so little money for schools and hospitals.

So be prepared to make this a real battle. If the Government moves to give themselves 20% more resources, we have to make sure every voter in NZ knows what their priorities are – more money for List MPs.

The Herald editorial:

Perhaps the most concerning facet of the Government’s latest ministerial embarrassment was a comment yesterday from a former Labour Party president, Mike Williams. He told Newstalk ZB the incident reflected a lack of training for those appointed ministers. “I think it’s probably lack of supports,” he said. “Ministerial Services don’t seem to think it’s their job to give these new ministers basic instructions on staffing.”

It certainly should not be the service’s job. It shouldn’t be anyone’s job to give a minister basic instructions in how to manage a small staff. Voters and taxpayers have a right to expect that all of the people a political party offers for election — let alone those chosen to be ministers in a government — possess the personal qualities needed at any level of leadership.

Support and training is given to Ministers. The Cabinet Office and Ministerial Services provide advice and support.

Also traditionally the PMs Office plays a key role. If a Minister is struggling, the PM’s Chief of Staff may arrange for a senior Minister to mentor a junior Minister. Or they may assign more staffing support. Or they may tell the Minister they need to pull their head in.

This is part of being a competent Government.

Some of the MPs promoted to lower ministerial ranks these days are hardly known to the public. Few outside her home region probably knew we had a minister named Meka Whaitiri until Thursday’s announcement of her suspension while an investigation is held into an alleged altercation with a new staff member. But it turns out that before being elected to Parliament from Ikaroa-Rawhiti she was chief executive of the country’s third largest iwi, Ngati Kahungunu, for four years.

That suggests she has some experience in dealing with staff. Nor is she new to the culture of the public service and the Beehive, having been a senior adviser to a previous Minister of Maori Affairs. 

And she is a staunch unionist, which should mean dedicated to being a good employer.

Willie Jackson has blogged a response to my blog post fisking the employment stats he cited on The Nation.

Good on Willie for responding. Nice to see a Minister blogging. But he may have made things worse for himself. Let’s go through his points:

This morning on that great bastion of National Party propaganda, Kiwiblog, David Farrar wrote a very unbalanced and quite frankly sloppy article titled “Willie wrong on almost every stat”.

We can’t stand by and allow this nonsense to go by without a response and it needs to be called out for what it is, which is downright lazy racial stereotyping.

Umm, I’m not sure how pointing out the Minister of Employment has his stats wrong is racial stereotyping, let alone lazy. It took me at least five minutes hard work.

The figures I used on The Nation are correct and I stand by them. I used the recent HLFS survey and compared them to the same point in time as last year, and I used the seasonally adjusted figure, which removes the quarter to quarter volatility that occurs with the figures that David has used.

So Willie has said he didn’t compare the latest figures to the end of the last Government, but to a year ago. That means he was taking credit for the improvements in the third and fourth quarters of 2017.

And he is right that you should use the seasonally adjusted figures. That is what I used, where available. But that means you can compare a June figure to a December figure.

Now let’s look back at exactly what Willie said:

When I came in, into the portfolio, I inherited 4.9 per cent

Now he didn’t say it was 4.9% a year ago.  He said he inherited 4.9%. He didn’t. He inherited 4.5% or if you are generous 4.6%.

Also if I wanted to be picky I would point out that in June 2017 it was 4.8%, not 4.9%.

Farrar has compared the unemployment rate for December 2017 which was 4.5% to the September 2017 figure which was 4.6% and then states as fact there was no drop. Actually had he compared it to the same point as 12 months ago when it was 5.3% as I have done he would see there has been a significant difference. This is the danger when you cherry pick the figures you use.

Yes unemployment did drop from 5.3% in December 2016 4.5% in December 2017. A drop that happened under National. So thanks Willie for highlighting how much unemployment dropped under National and how it has stayed stagnant under Labour.

I am the Employment Minister for all New Zealanders and I stated that as fact, and we are doing tremendous work, but you cannot escape the fact, that Māori, Pacific Islanders and Women are all considerably higher than the general population so of course this Government should be focused on reducing that deficit.

I don’t disagree with that. My post pointed out that the unemployment rates for Maori and PI actually increased in 2018, not decreased. I support Willie in his aim of having them come down. He may find some of his Government’s policies though won’t help his aim.

The Herald reports:

Weeks after Auckland drivers were hit with an 11.5c per litre regional fuel tax, more than half of Aucklanders in a survey said the new charge was a bad idea.

Fifty-seven per cent of the small sample of Aucklanders in the poll done by research firm Ipsos disagreed with the decision to introduce the tax. This was more than double the 22 per cent who supported the tax, while 21 per cent said they didn’t know or neither agreed nor disagreed.

These results mark a collapse in support since a Colmar Brunton poll, done before the tax was introduced, found 52 per cent support among Aucklanders, with 43 per cent opposed.

What Aucklanders say in the polls about the regional fuel tax
Colmar Brunton (released in April, before tax introduced)
• Support: 52%
• Opposition: 43%
Ipsos (poll done in late July, after tax introduced)
• Support: 22%
• Opposed: 57%

You have to be careful comparing polls from different companies which may have had different questions. But when the support falls from 52% to 22%, that is definitely significant.

This graph shows headline petrol prices since 2010. Over the last year the price has gone up over 40 cents a litre. For a 50 litre car that is an extra $20 per tank.

Good news from the latest survey of Year 10 students by ASH.

Since 2001, the following changes:

• Number who have ever smoked gone from 65% to 18%
• Number of regular smokers gone from 25% to 5%
• Number of daily smokers gone from 14% to 2%
• Number of Maori daily smokers gone from 26% to 5%

A lot of the change has been in just the last ten years. The daily Maori smoking rate for Year 10s has gone from 18% to 5% and for all Year 10s from 7% to 2%.

It is very hard to kick smoking once you start. So having fewer kids start smoking is a very good thing.

The Herald reports:

The Housing Minister plans to override Auckland Council and scrap the Unitary Plan in specified parts of Auckland.

The Government wants more houses built, more quickly, and does not trust that the council has the planning processes in place to deliver.

Twyford is probably right.

Housing and Urban Development Minister Phil Twyford discussed the new plans this week in an exclusive interview with the Herald. He said he is taking a proposal to Cabinet “very soon” to change the way key developments are planned.

Twyford plans to establish a new Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, and in Auckland he will set up an Urban Development Authority (UDA).

An Urban Development Authority has merit. It will be focused on making sure enough houses are built in Auckland.

Stuff reports:

Anonymous benefactors have paid the bill of about $170,000 so Hamilton woman Abby Hartley can be flown back to New Zealand from Bali, where she is in a coma.

National Party leader Simon Bridges said the New Zealanders who paid the invoice for the medical evacuation had approached him in the middle of last week, wanting to help. He contacted Hartley’s husband Richard and, during several conversations, was able to facilitate the payment.

Incredibly generous.

Hartley’s family has also raised $237,602 through a Givealittle page. Bridges said any of that Givealittle money left over would be used to reimburse those people who paid for the medical evacuation.

There was some uncertainty around Givealittle donations, and it took time to collect, Bridges said. Hartley would also be facing significant medical bills.

He wasn’t sure when the mother-of-two would return to New Zealand.

“There are medical issues about when safely and optimally Abby can go,” Bridges said. “I don’t know if that’s going to be sometime this week, or a bit longer.”

With the medical evacuation paid for, it would now only be the medical factors that would determine when she travelled.

Hopefully she can travel soon.

Stuff reports:

Embattled Labour MP Meka Whaitiri will likely not be in Parliament this week, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says.

Despite the House returning from a two-week break on Tuesday, Ardern said the suspended minister would likely be working from her home constituency office throughout the week.

Whaitiri, who had been the customs minister, was stood down from all of her ministerial positions on Thursday night while an investigation is carried out into an issue between her and a staffer. …

It’s  alleged a physical altercation took place between Whaitiri and a member of her staff, which other media has reported as an assault.

Different sources have offered differing versions of events, but all allege Whaitiri got physical during the confrontation after yelling at the staffer.

The press secretary was a new addition to the office, which Stuff understands has gone through an entire rotation of staff during Whaitiri’s time as minister. …

Ardern said she hoped the investigation would take “in the order of weeks”.

Weeks?

A simple employment investigation should not take weeks.

Did the Minister get physical with her press secretary? Yes/No. If, yes – sack.

If Whaitiri were to leave Parliament, it would spark a by-election in her Māori electorate of Ikaroa-Rawhiti.

It seems some in her caucus already believe she is unlikely to return to the executive, with Labour MP Peeni Henare telling Māori Television’s Te Kāea the situation could be an opportunity for up-and-comers within the party.

“For example, Willow-Jean Prime and Kiritapu Allan, who would make excellent ministers. 

Not a good sign for her when her colleagues are already naming whom they want to replace her.

Newshub reports:

Winston Peters has poured cold water over the Government’s much-lauded plans to double the refugee quota to 1500, which would be a remarkable backdown on a key policy.

His announcement made in Nauru at the opening of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), seems to have taken the Prime Minister by surprise. …

National increased it slightly to 1000 per year in response to the Syrian refugee crisis, and the Government has promised to lift that to 1500 a year – a doubling of the original quota.

Though perhaps no one told Mr Peters.

“We never made a commitment to double the refugee quota,” he said.

That’s not what the Immigration Minister Iain Lees-Galloway said in July.

“It is still my intention to see an increase in the refugee quota to 1500,” he said at the time.

He reiterated that just two weeks ago in a press release celebrating Christchurch reopening as a refugee resettlement centre.

He said that would “go some way to help us achieve lifting our refugee quota to 1500 per year in this term of Government” – but Mr Peters is now dampening down that claim.

“We’ve agreed to take it to 1000… but we’ve made no announcement to double it,” he said.

Peters is humiliating Labour and the PM, especially by announcing this at the Pacific Islands Forum.

Radio NZ further report:

This appeared to be news to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.

“I would want to check the context of all of those questions [to Mr Peters], but as I’ve said that commitment still remains.”

Ms Ardern said the policy to double the quota was still on the table.

“We haven’t finalised all the details of that commitment, but that remains part of our policy.

“It hasn’t come through cabinet, that’s an accurate representation, but that is still a commitment that we have.”

Mr Peters argued there were other priorities.

“We’ve got 50,000 people who are homeless back home, and I can show you parts of the Hokianga and elsewhere, parts of Northland, with people living in degradation.

“We have to fix their lives up as well before we start taking on new obligations of the level that some people would like.”

It is very clear that the power in the coalition rests with Peters.

It is also very clear that this is not a cohesive Government with an plan for New Zealand. The contradictions appear daily.

The PM is introduced by the CEO of a major bank, and the next day Shane Jones is attacking her bank (and all other banks).

Even worse the PM appoints the CEO of Air NZ to chair her business advisory council, and the same day Shane Jones (a senior Minister) is personally attacking that CEO. What the hell is business meant to think?

The NY Post reports:

President Trump interrupted his Labor Day holiday to launch a raging mid-afternoon tweetstorm at Attorney General Jeff Sessions — apparently blaming him for last month’s indictments of a pair of “very popular” GOP lawmakers.

“Two long running, Obama era, investigations of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff,” he wrote, referring to California Rep. Duncan Hunter and New York Rep. Chris Collins, who were both smacked with corruption charges by the feds.

This is almost beyond belief.

Bad enough to have a President publicly attack his own Attorney-General.

But he is attacking him because the Department of Justice is prosecuting politicians for corrupt behaviour.

Trump seems to honestly think that that Department of Justice shouldn’t prosecute corruption if it involves members of his party.

He seems to think the job of Attorney-General is to protect the President, rather than uphold the law of the land and have it apply to all.

For those interested in the details, Hunter is accused of using $250,000 of campaign funds on personal expenses such as vacations in Italy.

Collins is charged with insider trading, with substantive evidence against him.

If the GOP loses those seats, the ones to blame are Collins and Hunter for their conduct. Not the Attorney-General for upholding the law.