Helen Clark used to run New Zealand. She then went on to running the UN Development Program.

Now her main activity seems to be picking fights with Eden Park.

She’s obviously bored and needs a job.

To spare us the daily headlines about what Helen has tweeted on any issue, I propose Jacinda gives her a decent job to keep her busy.

Why not Ambassador to the US? They are huge on hierarchy so nothing works better than a former PM. She gets to be called Prime Minister Clark for her duration there.

She managed to work with John Howard really well, despite their political differences (something this Government seems incapable of doing) so am sure she could work with Donald Trump.

So someone should start a petition demanding Jacinda appoint Helen as our Ambassador to the US.

Newshub reports:

The Government has stalled on plans to double New Zealand’s refugee quota – and it’s because of the housing crisis.

Immigration Minister Iain Lees-Galloway says Aotearoa need to sort that before it thinks about welcoming more refugees.

So yet another broken promise.

Labour have been saying there is a housing crisis for the last six years. So they knew all about it when they made their promise to double the refugee quota.

The Guardian reports:

The EU gave the British negotiating team a torrid time at the first presentation of the UK’s white paper on the future relationship during this week’s talks, the Guardian has learned.

Led by Michel Barnier’s deputy, Sabine Weyand, the EU’s team of officials picked apart the most contentious parts of the paper as it was presented by Olly Robbins, Theresa May’s chief Brexit adviser, leading to increased concerns on both sides that a no-deal scenario is moving from possible to likely.

“The white paper is not going to form the basis of the negotiations,” one senior EU diplomat told the Guardian. British government sources, in the wake of the latest talks, admitted growing despair over what they regard as the intransigence of their EU counterparts.

No deal is better than a very bad deal.

NewstalkZB reports:

Regional economic development on the West Coast needs to include mining, according to Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones.

Jones talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk. His party put in place a Government that is hostile to the extractive industries.

“The extractive sector will not be written out of any script of regional development that I or the party I belong to are a part of,” said Jones, a New Zealand First MP.

“Just as the oil and gas reforms in Taranaki left intact people’s existing use rights, I am imagining any future changes to the mineral regime will not have an adverse impact on people’s existing use rights.

This is bullshit. Firstly the oil and gas reforms did demolish existing use rights. That is because there are three sorts of permits you can hold. They are:

1. Prospecting
2. Exploring
3. Mining

A prospecting permit is a non-exclusive permit to survey an area to try and locate areas which are most likely to have oil or gas. Companies with prospecting permits sell the info they obtain to companies who want to get an exploration permit.

The Government has ruled out any future exploration permits which means the prospecting permits are now useless. They have no customers to sell to. They invested millions in prospecting permits in good faith.

Jones said a balance needed to be struck between conservation and mining.

Jones voted for the Greens to be in Government, meaning a Green Party Minister now decides all applications for mining on conservation lands. There will be no balance.

“Stewardship land has been lying around since Rogernomics times and any changes to stewardship land will be a change of policy agreed to by the entire Government.”

The PM has already said that no mining will be allowed on any conservation land. This is a major policy shift but it has already occurred and Jones did nothing to stop it.

News.com.au reports:

New Zealand Justice Minister Andrew Little claims that Australia is breaching human rights with its hard-line deportation policy. But Mr Hawke dubbed this “irresponsible”.

He took to Twitter during the night of the program to express his disappointment in Mr Little:

“Disappointing to see the NZ Justice Minister fail to use his TV appearance to remind people who are NZ citizens here to obey the laws of Australia. Obeying the law and not committing serious offences is the best way to not be deported.

Almost all the criminal deportations in the assault & domestic violence cohorts are shocking violent crimes. Many have multiple convictions & offences. Many had multiple ‘warnings’ about future deportation. Our Gov makes no apology for deporting serious & violent criminals.”

Don’t bash people in Australia and you won’t get deported. Pretty simple really.

During his Sky News interview Mr Hawke had a direct message for Aussies living across the Ditch.

“We would as the Australian Government say to citizens in New Zealand, ‘Well you must obey the law, and if you don’t obey the law you may be deported back to Australia.’

“We’d like to hear the same message from the New Zealand Government.”

No chance it seems. Those being deported are the victims of the nasty Australian Government, according to our Government.

Liam Hehir writes:

Not long ago, an activist telephoned me about a column I had written poking fun at the Government for relying on so many “working groups”. It started with a demand to know why I had been allowed to publish it. The shrieking quickly progressed to obscenity and then to talk of unmentionable, violent things happening to myself and my wife. When I hung up, the activist continued trying to contacting me to resume the tirade.

I told the police about it. After a while, they sent me a letter saying they were on it. I’ve not heard anything since. As far as I know, nothing much has happened or will happen.

The growing intolerance to speech people disagree with.

Think about the phrase “fake news”. Today, you are most likely to hear it being used by United States President Donald Trump and his supporters to delegitimise opposition media. They have taken the concept, twisted it and made it their own.

Right now, the US government does not have the power to prohibit hate speech. But imagine if it did. How long do you think it would be before somebody like Trump started to apply the reasoning to his domestic opponents?

Those who want laws against so called hate speech will get a nasty surprise when those laws end up being used against them.

Those in favour of proscribing repellent views often fall back on the cliche that free speech laws do not protect “falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre”. In other words, some speech creates dangers to society. Accordingly, the state has a right, and indeed a duty, to protect its citizens from such speech.

Some people who use this metaphor know it originated with former US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. In my experience, however, very few of them are aware of the particular case that occasioned his analogy. They are usually surprised to learn it was made in the context of a judgment upholding the imprisonment of socialist activists who had distributed a pamphlet criticising conscription during World War I.

I did not know that. A good lesson from history.

In later years, that decision was largely overturned. In the intervening years, the US developed a more robust respect for the freedom of speech. New Zealand has developed a similar free-speech culture.

And the value of that culture isn’t that it protects racists and crackpots. It’s that it protects the humane and decent, who will not always hold the reins of power. The re-emergence of authoritarianism in continental Europe, where free-speech rights are less embedded, may well provide a warning here.

So should we accord liberal free speech rights to those with deplorable views? Yes. But it’s not to protect them from us. It’s to protect us from them.

Well said.

The Herald has the statement of claim filed by the Free Speech Coalition. Here’s some interesting aspects that show you how badly Auckland Council has acted.

• The decision to cancel was made before a health and safety plan was due to be submitted, showing that health and safety concerns must be phony
• One of the plaintiffs had already booked airfares from Dunedin to attend, so Goff’s actions have caused people to be out of pocket
• The organisers did not expect the venue to provide security. They are very experienced in providing security for events including several larger events in Australia
• RFA refused to engage with the organisers about their alleged security concerns
• Goff said on Radio NZ that it was his decision to cancel the licence but now claims it was made independently
• The organisers were unable to get a private venue at ASB Showgrounds as Goff is a vice patron of them

David Bennett released:

Corrections Minister Kelvin Davis advised Cabinet to adopt the previous Government’s plan to build 1500 beds at Waikeria Prison because it was ‘the only sensible plan’, but his colleagues ignored his advice, National’s Corrections spokesperson David Bennett says. …

“In a December 2017 paper also released yesterday, Mr Davis advised Cabinet that in recognition of the forecast shortfall, maintaining National’s plan was the ‘only sensible plan of action’ and recommended the Government implement the plan we had in place.

“But his colleagues ignored him and just six months later the Government recklessly went ahead with its dangerous plan to downsize the Waikeria Prison build by 1000 beds.

Incredible. They are deliberately building too few beds in prisons, so that they have to let dangerous prisoners out early on the grounds they prisons are overcrowded!

Also Stuff reports:

Double bunking in cells could increase the risk of prisoner-on-prisoner assaults and reduce rehabilitation opportunities at Waikeria Prison, a cabinet paper says.

Room sharing badly impacts inmates’ health, reduces rehabilitation opportunities, moves prisoners away from normalisation and can mean upping staff ratios, according to a paper Corrections Minister Kelvin Davis presented to cabinet before the Waikeria Prison plan was signed off. 

So they went for the option that increases assaults and reduces rehabilitation opportunities.

The guidelines for the minimum size of a two-person cell is 10sqm of living space, plus sanitary annex. The new cells, however, will be 9sqm. 

And they are going under the minimum recommended size.

The Herald reports:

A former Tauranga man claims he was repeatedly sexually abused as a teenager by Te Awanuiārangi Black.

The man, who spoke on condition he was not identified, told the Bay of Plenty Times he wanted to share a secret he had kept for many years.

The man, now aged in his 20s, said he was abused during regular visits to Awanui Black’s home. …

The former Tauranga complainant said he made a police complaint last Sunday in Auckland.

Now that an actual complainant has come forward, this changes things. It is good he has gone to the Police, and hopefully others will do the same if they were abused also.

The Herald reports:

Police are beginning to press their claims for better pay and conditions, with negotiations between their union and their bosses beginning this week.

Among the issues concerning frontline officers are recruitment, retention and pay.

The Police Association has warned its members in its monthly magazine Police News that there could be some “torrid negotiations” ahead which it says it is well-prepared for.

The negotiations come at a time marked by industrial action in the public sector. Nurses have already been on strike, primary school teachers will strike next month, ACC senior doctors walked off the job this week, and MBIE and IRD staff have been on strike.

Legally, police cannot go on strike but Police Association president Chris Cahill warned Police Minister Stuart Nash that frustration may materialise in more staff leaving the force.

The Coalition Government has promised 1800 new frontline officers over three years but police say recruitment will not cover the “churn rate” of police leaving the force.

This will be very interesting, if an agreement can’t be reached.

As the Police can’t strike, the dispute goes to binding arbitration. But it is different to the normal arbitration which strikes a compromise.

The arbitrators are given a copy of the final offer from the Commissioner and the final demand from the Police Association and choose one of them in its entirety.

This incentivises both sides to make reasonable offers because if for example the union demand 30% pay increase, then the arbitrator will choose the Commissioner’s offer. But also if the Commissioner offers say just 1%, then the union demand would be chosen. So the nature of the arbitration means the two sides often end up close to each other.

But what will make it even more interesting is the pay rises for nurses and teachers. If they get 12% pay increases, then the arbitrators would look more favorably on a demand of say 15%.

An Orwellian column which pretends to support free speech, but in fact opposes it. And written not by a junior academic, but the Vice-Chancellor of Massey University. So much for universities being bastions of free speech.

Let’s look at what the VC said:

While I support Mr Goff’s decision, it has kicked off a tide of controversy and has again raised the issue of what differentiates free speech from hate speech.

She supports the Mayor of Auckland deciding what speech is acceptable. And she does a false dichotomy of claiming free speech is not the same as hate speech. This is wrong in law, and in practice. The Supreme Court has ruled that even speech as hateful as burning a NZ Flag is protected speech. Holocaust deniers are hateful but their speech is protected also.

The only speech not protected is basically direct incitements to violence.

The recent debate that swirled around the proposed establishment of Māori wards in parts of New Zealand including Palmerston North and the Manawatū District – home to one of Massey University’s campuses – came dangerously close to hate speech, mobilised in large part by the Hobson’s Pledge network.

This shows how repressive the VC’s views are. She says that opposing special wards on the basis of race comes dangerously close to hate speech. Outrageous.  Is opposing same sex marriage also dangerously close to hate speech?

So, when does free speech become hate speech and why should universities care?

When it directly incites violence. Not when it debates matters of public policy.

Freedom of expression is one thing, but hate speech is another. As a concept that has now entered common parlance, hate speech refers to attacks based on race, ethnicity, religion, and increasingly, on sexual orientation or preference.

A nonsense definition. If I attack Scientology as a crackpot religion, is that hate speech? If a feminist says that only biological females should be able to use a womens only room, is that hate speech? Is an MP saying we have too many Asian immigrants hate speech? If so, then she’d better ban the Acting PM from campus.

All of the above types of speech may be offensive to various people. But that doesn’t mean it is not protected speech.

Let me be clear, hate speech is not free speech. Moreover, as Moana Jackson has eloquently argued, free speech has, especially in colonial societies, long been mobilised as a vehicle for racist comments, judgements and practices.

So the VC thinks free speech is tool of colonialism and must be restricted.

Hate speech is repugnant, or as one American legal academic has stated, hate speech is “a rape of human dignity”.

Hate speech should be called out for what it is, especially when it incites violence against minorities.

Can the VC give an example of what sort of speech occurs in NZ that incites violence against minorities? She seems to think arguing against race based wards in local government almost qualifies.

The VC does make some good points in her column about universities are about making students safe for ideas, not ideas safe for students. But overall her column comes across as someone opposed to free speech, as she ludicrously considers debate on Maori wards to be dangerously close to hate speech.

Stuff reports:

New Zealand councils could lose responsibility for providing drinking water under a major reform of national water management, the Government has announced.

Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta said she is exploring whether dedicated water providers should take over, as recommended from an inquiry launched after the deadly Havelock North gastroenteritis outbreak in August 2016.

I support having dedicated water providers. This means of course we would not have 80 or so of them, but maybe a dozen. More efficient, and better quality.

Mahuta confirmed she has ruled out privatisation existing infrastructure, saying the need for it to remain in public hands remained a “core pillar” for the Government

Yes only the state can be trusted to poison people with bad water supplies.

Stuff reports:

In June, Nash said he was hoping to get NZ First on board with the idea. “We must work together,” he said.

But with Jones and NZ First’s outspoken opposition to cameras, it could put the coalition in a tangle. …

However, Nash told Stuff he has pulled back on plans after talking to industry people up and down the country. 

“I have heard rumours I have a mandate to put cameras in – I don’t,” he said. 

“I know there are major concerns that need to be sorted before any talk around cameras goes ahead, and I don’t think the immediate introduction of cameras would work if it went ahead.

It was all set to go. NZ First killed it, to protect their donors. And have the Greens been staunchly denouncing the Government for putting corporate donors ahead of the environment? Have they organised petitions? Protests? Nope. They just get the perks of office and do nothing.

Stuff reports:

NZ First MP Shane Jones has savaged a proposal for a giant statue of Papatūānuku at Bastion Point, saying it is laughable Aucklanders are forking out for the work. 

Auckland Council has earmarked $1 million in its budget for the project, but Ngāti Whātua Ōrakei spokesman Ngarimu Blair said the idea was unformed and it was “early days”.

Stuff understands the idea for the statue, or pou, has been under discussion for 18 months by the Ngāti Whātua Ōrakei Reserves Board, which is chaired by the iwi, includes Auckland councillor Desley​ Simpson and co-manages the Bastion Point land.

But Jones, who is also Regional Economic Development Minister and Associate Finance Minister, ripped into the idea during an interview with Stuff on Monday.

“The notion that the ratepayers of Auckland should foot the costs for this cultural mimicry promoted by the Ōrākei hapū is risible,” Jones said.

If Shane Jones wasn’t Maori himself, he would no doubt be denounced as a racist for opposing ratepayer funding of this statue.

Auckland Mayor Phil Goff had enthusiastically backed the idea of a statue of earth mother Papatuanuku on land above the Waitemata Harbour.

“The pou has the potential to be an iconic symbol of Auckland. It will reflect the unique culture and identity of our city and be enjoyed equally by Maori, the wider community and international visitors to our region,” Goff said.

Councillors had seen a visual concept of the pou, during confidential workshops for the now-completed 10 Year Budget.

Jones said he was “astounded” Auckland Council had “spare change to give to Maoridom’s richest hapū” when the Government was supporting the city council’s ability to raise money through a regional fuel tax.

“The word Papatūānuku means earth goddess, what are they thinking erecting some massive planet? I would say to you, culturally speaking, their thinking is off the planet,” Jones said.

As has been said many times, there is no need for a regional petrol tax if Goff kept his word and found some efficiencies.

Barry Soper writes:

Jacinda Ardern promised her Government would be the most open and transparent the country’s ever seen, but they’ve failed.

The fallout from the country’s biggest industrial spat in the health sector in a generation put paid to that.

This time last week it was pretty clear nurses were going to go on strike. Surgery was being delayed in preparation for the walkout and district health boards were working to ensure no lives would be put at risk.

Meanwhile, the minister in charge of the whole shebang – David Clark – was busy packing his bags, along with his family, to take a holiday in Australia. If politics was about perception, this was not a good look. It gave the appearance of a minister who had a cavalier approach to his portfolio.

Now to be fair to David Clark, he has three young children. As a parent myself, I don’t think I’d cope flying by myself with one toddler, let alone three young ones. Clark not going would probably mean his whole family couldn’t go.

But it was his fudging of the holiday that made matters worse.

In his first appearance before the media, post the nurses’ strike, he explained his absence by saying he was always going to be here during the strike, but he had to transport his wife and family to Australia, presumably to ensure they arrived safely. This selfless politician was then virtually on the next flight a day later to rightly attend to his responsibilities.

He cancelled his holiday, he said, leaving the clear impression the family was left sunning themselves on the other side of the ditch. But it turns out his family accompanied him on his return flight home, which indicates to me he was fully intending to stay on holiday with them until he was told by someone higher up the food chain to get home and do his job.

Media always get annoyed when they feel they have been misled. This wasn’t a lie, but a false impression.

The hum from the spinning top in the Beehive was deafening. It was always the minister’s intention to be back in the country before the strike began and for its duration, he insisted.

Bollocks. If this Government wants to be taken seriously, it’s got to be what Ardern promised it would be: transparent.

No one would argue politicians, like everyone else, deserve a break with their families. But if Clark had really planned to be in the country before the strike began, why leave with his family just over 24 hours before they downed tools? It just doesn’t gel.

It’s – yet again – another instance from this Government of spin over honesty.

Harsh words from one of the longest serving press gallery journos.

John Roughan writes:

Mayor Phil Goff has decreed, “Auckland Council venues shouldn’t be used to stir up ethnic or religious tensions. Views that divide rather than unite are repugnant and I have made my views on this very clear. Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux will not be speaking at any council venues.”

Goodness. The Bruce Mason has accommodated a number of events down the years that not everyone on the Shore would have welcomed, including, surprisingly often, the Labour Party’s annual conference.

Ethnic and religious tensions are only some of the subjects that divide public opinion. Are Auckland Council venues to be also closed to the anti-vaccination people, anti-flouridationists, advocates of euthanasia? They pose a more immediate risk to our public health and human life in my view, but I wouldn’t want them banned.

A town hall is supposed to be every community’s open forum. When televised election debates are styled “town hall meetings” it means they are at least pretending to be free and open to unscripted views of all sorts. In the last days of our 2014 election campaign the venerable Auckland Town Hall was the venue for Kim Dotcom’s ill-fated final rally, featuring an American left-wing journalist and leakers Edward Snowden and Julian Assange.

That was about as repugnant to many Auckland ratepayers as any event I can recall. Yet I heard nobody say they should not have been allowed to use the Town Hall and nobody suggested that by making it available, the Auckland Council endorsed what Dotcom and his guests were saying. This country is not afraid of free speech.

If I wanted to hold a public meeting whose aim was to criticise the Scientology religion, I’m pretty sure I’d be allowed to book any facility I want.

I blogged previously on my opposition to the court ruling in the EU giving people a right to be forgotten. This forces search engines to censor results to hide information that people claimed was outdated and embarrassing to them.

I mentioned there is a push for a similar right in NZ, but not quite the same thing. The Privacy Commissioner’s submission to the select committee is here and is dealt with on pages 28 to 30.  The recommendation is:

The Privacy Bill should include a new information privacy principle on the right to erasure of personal information.

How this works in Europe under the GDPR is:

individuals have the right to request their personal data be erased if:
a) the personal data is no longer necessary for the purpose which it was originally collected or processed;
b) the agency is relying on consent as the lawful basis for holding the data, and the individual withdraws their consent;
c) the individual objects to the processing of their data, and there is no overriding legitimate interest to continue processing it;
d) the agency has processed the personal data unlawfully;
e) the agency has a legal obligation to erase the data (for example an obligation arising from another Member State); or
f) the agency has processed the personal data to offer information society services to a child.

Few would argue with b, d, e or f. Even a is not hat controversial. But “c” could open up a minefield.

However I object less to a law that requires agencies to delete personal data, than a law which requires search engines to censor their results.

But having said that I’m still against, and here’s one reason why.

I often get requests from various people to delete a reference to them in an old blog post. Some of these are from over a decade ago. Often all I have done is link to and comment on a story in the media about them. But as I come up high in Google ranks, my post on them comes up high.

Off memory, I have always agreed to delete or edit the old posts or references. Unless I think they are an ongoing “threat” I’ll agree. But what is nice is they ask me politely. They don’t demand. If they did makes threats or demand, I’d probably be less inclined.

A law giving people a right to demand old information on them be deleted, is likely to result in people sending me lawyers letters demanding I do x or y, rather than simply asking politely. Plus I do reserve the right to say no, if I think it is in the public interest to keep an old post up. I don’t think people should have the right to take me to court because I posted on something in the public domain.

So while is proposed here is better than in the EU, I’m still far from convinced. And it would be such a major law change, I’d want its own consultation, not something added on at select committee stage to this bill.

The Herald reports:

Billionaire Elon Musk has labelled a British diver involved in the dramatic rescue of 12 trapped Thai soccer players and their coach a “pedo”.

The Tesla and SpaceX founder brought a mini submarine to Thailand, which he suggested could be used to get the boys out, but the idea was rejected by officials as “not practical”.

British diver Vern Unsworth, 63, a key member of the rescue team, shot down Musk’s idea in an interview about the ordeal with CNN. …

On Twitter, Musk responded to the reporter’s piece.

“Never saw this British expat guy who lives in Thailand (sus) at any point when we were in the caves,” Musk tweeted. …

“You know what, don’t bother showing the video. We will make one of the mini-sub/pod going all the way to Cave 5 no problemo. Sorry pedo guy, you really did ask for it.”

For some time on Twitter Musk has been acting stupidly. A lowlight was him argung with Michelle Dickinson (a nanotechnologist) as to whether nanotechnology was real or just a slogan.

But this is a new low. Calling one of the diving rescue team a pedophile just because he criticised the practicality of the mini sub Musk delivered.

When challenged on his accusation he doubled down and said “Bet ya a signed dollar it’s true”.

TVNZ report:

The trust will be receiving $8 million from the government to plant trees and create 60 jobs for the people of Northland.