National MP Nuk Korako writes:

The Māori seats were established to provide a means for Māori to be represented in Parliament until we could sit equally with Pākehā and be elected into Parliament as of right and as of merit.

And we are.

Look around the House today. Every political party is led by Māori – seven of the nine party leaders and deputies are Māori. We have more than 20 Māori in Parliament across the five parties.

Not just slightly more than 20. Maori TV said there are 29 MPs out of 120 of Maori descent. Might be 30 since the Northcote byelection.

This is actually a huge over-representation compared to their share of the adult population. That’s 25% compared to 12.3% so double.

And 78% of those in leadership roles are of Maori descent.Would any other indigenous minority in the world be able to boast such a figure?

Already most of us Māori in the House today are here not through the Māori seats, but through general electorate seats and because our parties back us to be here as of merit.

And our representation in the House today did not require the entrenchment of the Māori seats.

And our continuing representation in the House will not require the entrenchment of the Māori seats.

If the seven Maori seats were abolished then there would still be more Maori MPs in Parliament than their share of the adult population.

Unlike NZ First MPs who campaigned vociferously against the seats but have now changed their mind, we remain committed to our belief that seats are based on merit and Māori, like MPs from other backgrounds, are there on merit.

Winston’s bottom line was emptier than Chloe of Wainuiomata.

In an interview with the Herald Green MP Golriz Ghahraman says:

7 When did the trolling start and what do you know about these people?

The trolling began immediately after I announced my candidacy for Parliament. They tend to fall in two camps; one camp is the Dirty Politics commentators who are being paid to take a certain position. 

I’m not sure if she is referring to me, but when she announced her candidacy I welcomed it:

Great to see a refugee do so well in New Zealand they gain a Masters from Oxford and want to stand for Parliament. There will be many areas where I disagree with her, but I welcome her candidacy.

The Greens are certainly doing far better than Labour in attracting young talented New Zealanders to stand for them.

I only criticised Ghahraman when it turned out months later that her biographical claims were misleading (her own leader repeated false claims).

This isn’t trolling. It’s called holding MPs to account.

I’ll also give Ghahraman credit. During the period late last year when I was criticising her over her biographical claims, we were at a function together. She came over introduced herself, and we had a pleasant chat for 20 minutes or so (to the distress of her partner who kept complaining she was spending too much time talking to the one person in the room who would never vote for her!). I thought that took guts, and told quite a few people I was impressed she did so.

I have continued to criticise her when it is warranted, and I have also agreed with her occasionally.

And as I have stated many times, no one pays me a cent to blog anything.

The Herald editorial:

Launching Māori Language Week, the Prime Minister visited Wellington High School yesterday where a student asked whether she though this country would ever have a Prime Minister who could speak Māori. She said she wished she could have been the first.

How short people’s memories are. The last Prime Minister could speak Māori. Stuff reported in 2017:

Prime Minister Bill English’s three minute korero in Te Reo on Monday was nothing short of impressive and it took only a few conversations with locals at the Pa who witnessed it to understand just how significant the gesture was.

As one young man pointed out, it means a lot when someone as busy as the Prime Minister can come to our home and talk to our people in our language.

English wasn’t fluent but said he could follow around half the conversations in Maori.

The Listener also reported:

English displayed a surprisingly deep rapport with Maori when, on Waitangi Day, he went to Auckland’s Orakei Marae and delivered a fluent speech in Maori, in which he spoke directly to Joe Hawke, who in 1976-78 led a 506-day occupation of Bastion Point. The occupation came to symbolise the deep grievances of Maori over land issues.

English has been quietly taking informal lessons in Maori for years. His guide has been his long-time adviser Amohaere Houkamau, who has encouraged English to travel more often to marae and to engage with iwi. “It gave him more exposure to that cultural setting and he developed greater confidence,” Houkamau says of English, whom she now ranks as the most fluent Maori speaker of all of non-Maori in Parliament.

The Herald has a short memory.

The Herald reports:

John Banks took the frail hand of his old foe Penny Bright at her bedside in Auckland Hospital today and held it for a good 15 minutes.

“I haven’t met anyone with more fight than you,” said Banks, who knew he was in her good books when she telephoned and referred to him simply as “John”.

“Whenever you referred to me as John Banks I knew I was in trouble,” said the former mayor of Auckland City Council. 

A very nice gesture from Banksie.

The Herald reports:

Cabinet has approved the final scope of the Crown-Māori Partnership portfolio and agreed to the establishment of a new agency to support the Crown to be a better Treaty partner, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Crown-Māori Partnership Minister Kelvin Davis have announced today. …

The final scope of Kelvin Davis’ portfolio includes responsibilities to:

• Ensure the Crown meets its treaty settlement commitments; 
• Develop engagement, co-design and partnership principles that ensure agencies generate the best solutions; 
• Ensure public sector capability is strengthened and engagement of public sector agencies with Māori is meaningful; 
• Provide an independent cross-Government view on the health of the Crown-Māori partnership; 
• Provide strategic leadership and advice on contemporary treaty issues.

We already have an Office of Treaty Settlements, Te Puni Kokiri, a Minister of Maori Affairs and a Minister of Treaty Settlements. I fail to see what a new agency and Minister will do except duplication.

The Herald reports:

Kiwi households are the biggest losers when it comes to the increasing cost of electric power, with prices having surged by almost 80 per cent since 1990.

So when did prices increase the most. Let’s look at it by three year terms:

• 1993: 18.1%
• 1996: 15.3%
• 1999: 8.3%
• 2002: 7.6%
• 2005: 23.8%
• 2008: 22.9%
• 2011: 10.6%
• 2014: 12.1%
• 2017: 4.7%

So the two biggest increases were between 2002 and 2008. The smallest increase has been from 2014 to 2017.

The document points to a two-tier market forming where those who actively shop around for better deals benefit from competition, while those who don’t, end up paying higher prices. The average gap between the cheapest retailer’s price and the incumbent retailer’s price has soared to about 50 per cent since 2002.

So the major issue is education. Shop around.

by John Stringer

It’s being described as the biggest turmoil in Christchurch local body politics since CEO Tony Marryatt’s golden handshake back in 2011 that cost many city councillors their seats.

I speak of “Eastgate.” No, not the east side Christchurch mall in Linwood, but the kerfuffle between Council (alleged) ‘staff’ and Cr David East (Coastal) and his fellow Coastal-Burwood community board politicians.

I grew up in Burwood. But its real claim to fame, is being one of the peas in that pod of devastated eastern suburbs neglected post-earthquakes. Y’know, that mayor Lianne Dalziel was once MP of (“Chch East”). Liquefaction, sand, derelict homes, wastelands of emptied streets and red zones and feral cats.

Mike Yardley, writing for STUFF/Press yesterday, opined…

“Councillor David East and three community board members, Kim Money, Tim Sintes and Darrell Latham, now find themselves the subject of Code of Conduct staff complaints and pending disciplinary action.”

This has surprised many fatigued Christchurch residents as somewhat heavy-handed and rather reactionary by their Council. The more cynical are wondering, what is the CCC machine trying to distract ratepayers from? There are disciplinary hearings, threatened lawsuits, and Cr East has been stood down as chairman of an important regulatory committee (he’s a very experienced local body councillor) by the mayor.

The main issues are these:

• There is a Christchurch Replacement District Plan (born Dec. 2017).

• Eastern suburban politicians have been pushing for special dispensation for eastern ratepayers regarding building activity due to their unique circumstances, an RDA or “restricted discretionary activity.”

• There was an Independent Hearing Panel led by Sir John Hansen and Environment Court Judge Hassan who sat to consider, among other things, that building restrictions for eastern landowners were “too onerous.”

• Cr East and other community leaders developed a policy which went forward to the IHP in drafts to help inform deliberations. At some stage “someone” removed a vital policy – the “omitted policy;” it is alleged therefore the IHP was not fully informed.

• Sir John replied to Cr East in a letter, saying “My understanding is that while the RDA rule is included in the plan, the policy was at some stage omitted from the planning provisions.” He also said,“If this matter had been brought to our attention we [the IHP] would certainly have added the policy back into the plan. It would appear that the omission of the policy was known before our jurisdiction ceased.”

• The issue is WHO or WHAT omitted the policy from the plan which now affects planning consent rules for eastern developers and residents.

It has become an issue of transparent channels of power affecting ratepayers and their money (such as people paying for consents but getting turned down for various building activities). This Southshore couple in the area being discussed, is an example.

It then gets messy.

• Eastern poli.s have for sometime used internal CCC channels to try and address these issues. They feel frustrated and stonewalled. So Cr East eventually called a press conference. Taking that action is very against his character and was not done lightly.

• The take away line was “tampering” (someone tampered with the policy) which threw a feral cat in amongst local body stuffed pigeons.

• CCC machinery then rounded on that “breach” (poli.s going public rather than utilising internal processes) which distracted from the serious allegations Cr East and his eastern posse had raised on behalf of their long-suffering residents. Yardley again, “Council hierarchy wasted no time circling the wagons and rounding on the four members. It’s prompted East to return fire against council staff, filing complaints over what he claims were intemperate character attacks on him.”

You then had a war on two fronts: alleged internal tampering; poli.s not following process. One seems small cheese in comparison with the other.

Mike Yardley again, “East’s dramatic press conference last week has served its purpose. It has forced the council’s hand to front up…” 

The word “dramatic” relates to the press conference inference it might have been Council staff who were responsible, which is what others believe motivated the disciplinary actions and censure to descend so quickly on the east by officials.  But East never made that direct allegation and named no names. However, C&B community board chair Kim Money did. Council staff “openly admitted at a meeting last month that they had deleted the clause from the plan’s final draft.”

It gets more murky, in that Council staff knew the policy was not in the IHP draft when it should have been, so allegations are that they took no action to correct that fault as professional civil servants.  This has led some to believe ‘interests’ did not want to correct the error as it de facto served other interests. Yardley accused the Council of perceived “spitefulness;” not helped by inferences being made against Cr East’s character that prompted talk by the mild mannered Councillor of legal action.

Yardley is right.  “In the interests of trust, confidence and accountability, the public is owed an explanation” [about how/who removed the policy].

To that end a series of public meetings are called, for last night and tonight, to lay out the issues transparently. “District Plan Omission,” “How This Affects Us” (eastern ratepayers); “Recent Media Release” (Cr East’s presser last week). Fliers have been printed. The predominant tone of the public response is one of rallying behind their local politicians, now viewed as champions against an oppressive ‘Nanny State’ bureaucracy.

That might set a tone for the 2019 elections; the beginnings of an anti-Council sentiment along the lines of the Marryatt tsunami that swept several elected politicians away and brought in a fresh regime under Lianne Dalziel now on the flip side holding a different baby.

As the public now climbs into this local body debate via the public meetings, we shall see if there is any clarity, or whether trenches get dug, artillery is rolled in, and a war on two fronts beds down for a long attrition.

Reporter Chris Lynch, to whom PM Ardern made the obfuscated ‘Clare Curran wasn’t sacked’ (when she’d already resigned) comments the day before, had this clarifying video with David East on ZB.

Jo Moir reports:

The government was forced to halt a planned announcement about its Crown/Māori Relations portfolio after New Zealand First raised last minute objections.

It’s the latest in a string of incidents where New Zealand First has pulled its support for Labour-led initiatives at the 11th hour.

Media were briefed and invited to attend an announcement by Crown/Māori Relations Minister Kelvin Davis and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern on Monday, where the new agency was set to be unveiled following sign-off at Cabinet.

But Ms Ardern and Mr Davis had to roll back the announcement after NZ First refused to support it.

It seems obvious that Labour and NZ First are not talking to each other, despite being together in Government for a year.

What this means is that you can’t actually believe anything a Minister says the Government will do. In question time this was teased out:

Hon Simon Bridges: So is it her Government’s policy to increase the refugee quota of 1,500 or is that simply a personal commitment of Iain Lees-Galloway?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said many times before, all policies of this Government are contained in the confidence and supply agreement, the coalition document, the Speech from the Throne. All other policies go through a Cabinet process.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will the Government abolish starting-out wages by October 2018?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: A third time. Look, it’s clear that we have established policy between this coalition Government that’s set out in the public domain. Everything else goes through a Cabinet process. Now, I know the member continues to be jealous that he is not on this side of the House in the position to make the changes that this Government has made, and that we have achieved in one year more than that Government achieved in nine, but we stick to a process.

Hon Simon Bridges: So when Iain Lees-Galloway said in December in a ministerial press statement that the Government will abolish starting-out wages by October 2018, was that just a personal commitment?

This is astonishing. The Prime Minister can’t actually say if two major policies announced by Ministers are in fact Government policy.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can we no longer believe ministerial press statements unless they’re signed off by Mr Peters?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No—ridiculous.

Actually that seems to be the only conclusion one can draw.

RNZ further report:

It’s understood the lines of communication between Labour and NZ First are still not clear almost one year into the coalition arrangement.

RNZ has been told the two parties are at odds over whether NZ First was properly consulted over such policies.

Either Labour Ministers are failing to consult NZ First, or they are consulting them and NZ First is reneging at the last minute.

Either way, it shows that the two party leaders have failed to have an open dialogue.

The Government on Tuesday moved for an extended sitting to be held on Wednesday morning from 9 am to 1 pm. Governments do this because they have so many bills they want to get passed, they need the extra sitting time to do it.

But in another display of incompetence, the extended sitting ended at 10.48 am because no Minister was ready to take a call on one of their bills.

Now this stuff is not rocket science. The Office of the Leader of the House prepares (or did under National) a running sheet that tells the Whips and Ministers when they have to be in the House, and even what to say. It’s just basic scheduling.

This is the second time in 12 months the Government has had a sitting adjourn due to incompetence. I don’t recall this happening even once to a previous Government.

The question it raises is how do you expect the Government can run the country competently, when they seem unable to even run their own parliamentary operations competently.

Richard Harman reports:

POLITIK understands that NZ First wants the right of employers to opt out of MECAs restored.

However, it is apparently prepared to compromise and have the right limited to provincial employers.

Some employers exempted is better than none, but you can’t really have employment law that discriminates based on where your business is located.

One political source told POLITIK that the dispute between Labour and NZ First over this could turn into a real “shit fight”.

Well if NZF roll over, they will struggle even more to make 5%.

In a lengthy and detailed submission to the Select Committee, the Council of Trade Unions said the ability of employers to opt out contravened International Labour Organisation conventions and was partly responsible for the decline in union coverage of workers in New Zealand.

So this isn’t about workers. It is about increasing union membership which in turns increases their finances and allows them to donate more to Labour or campaign for them.

This is why Labour won’t back down.

The Auckland Employers and Manufacturers’ Association in their submission complained that forcing multiple employers into what would in effect be a national award ignored the different characteristics of running a business in regional New Zealand compared with Auckland.

“There are many significant geographical differences within New Zealand, “ their submission said.

“Thus rates and conditions for Auckland are profoundly different to Southland.

“If a MECA was agreed to the employer in Southland would be disadvantaged in having to pay Auckland rates and conditions.

“The cost of running a business in Southland is significantly different from the costs of running a like business in Auckland.

Yep. It punishes smaller employers by forcing them to agree to the same conditions as large employers in large cities.

But if you think this is bad, wait until Labour tries to bring back national awards.

Judith Collins writes:

Unlike Australians, most New Zealanders do not face the annual nightmare of complex income tax returns. When I was Minister of Revenue, I strongly supported the view that the need for tax returns should be rare, not standard.

A capital gains tax is likely to change all that. Capital gains tax is known to require some very complex rules, have high compliance costs, involve filing lengthy tax returns and be very intrusive.

If we have a capital gains tax it should have as few exemptions as possible to minimise compliance costs. But even then it will probably mean hundreds of thousands of people who do their own tax returns will have to now hire an accountant.

The impact on the most vulnerable – those living in rentals could be disastrous.

The rental yield on houses in my electorate is maybe 2 per cent to 3 per cent. That is not an economic return for landlords.

Presumably it is the prospect of capital gains that has let landlords accept such low returns. Yes, tax speculators – the last National Government did that with the two year brightline test. But do not introduce a new tax that increases rents.

We’ve just purchased a new house and had to decide whether to sell or rent out our existing one. As Judith says, the rental return is very small – below the interest you pay on a mortgage. So renting a house out only makes economic sense if you think the capital value will increase.

There are numerous issues like this:

• Will farmers be taxed on the rise in the value of their farms and their livestock?

• Will a small business person be taxed on the sale of the firm on retirement?

• Will iwi face another land confiscation as settlement assets are taxed or will Māori get a special exemption?

• Will the family bach be taxed?

• Will the capital gains tax rate be the same as the normal income tax rates or like almost all comparable countries (such as Australia) will the capital gains tax rate be set at a much lower rate?

• Will amounts left in an estate on death be taxed under the guise of capital gains tax despite election promises not to have an inheritance tax?

All big questions.

A capital gains tax is obviously an internal issue within the Labour Party. David Cunliffe wanted it. Andrew Little was quick to remove it.

To appease Labour’s radical left it has come back to life. 

Time will tell.

Stuff reports:

A voluntary rental warrant of fitness scheme has accredited just three Wellington rentals in its first year, and completed less than 20 inspections. 

But those behind the Wellington City Council scheme don’t consider the low interest a failure, but an example of why a mandatory warrant of fitness (WOF) is required. 

Their dopey scheme is a total failure, and their response is oh lets make it compulsory then.

A very amusing video on how the left calling everyone who disagrees with them racist is a losing strategy.

The Press editorial:

The most feted New Zealand politician of the past week is one who has not been in Parliament for 10 years. While today’s members of Parliament grapple with the everyday compromises, disappointments and rare triumphs of political life, a former leader has taken on a new, Olympian role as an oracle who is above it all. 

Helen Clark’s book of speeches from a life in politics, titled Women Equality Power, was probably timed for the 125th anniversary of women’s suffrage in New Zealand. Its publication has led to Clark filling concert halls, bookstores and other venues up and down the country. Audiences have enjoyed her stories of determination and her wry commentary on the sexism of politics. 

At a sold-out event in Christchurch, she told former underling turned mayor Lianne Dalziel and a rapt, largely female crowd that “There’s no such thing as a glass ceiling, just a thick layer of men”. 

At times, it has been like seeing a former monarch in exile who believes she was somehow usurped or deposed and even feels under-appreciated. 

That’s a great analogy.

In this narrative, Clark’s failure to win the top job at the United Nations boils down to institutional sexism and an unwillingness to allow a strong leader to make dramatic changes to a stolid organisation, rather than any other personal or historical factors. A New Zealand-made documentary endorsed Clark’s version of events. 

Clark was always a long shot. I actually think she would have done a better job that most of the contenders. But she was from the wrong region, didn’t speak French, and had little support from members of the P5.

In that context, then, Clark’s input into the current travails of the party she once led seem unhelpful at best. Clark has said that she would have handled Labour’s infamous summer camp scandal differently. Under her watch, “people didn’t keep their jobs”, as she reminded us. 

Clark also praised aspects of Ardern’s leadership, including her approach to business confidence, but this clear indication from Clark that she would have expected heads to roll sent a strong signal. It cemented an impression, already developing in the public mind, that Ardern was weak and compromised whereas Clark had been swift and decisive. 

It was not helped by poor timing for Ardern. The reappearance of Clark, and the reminder of her steely resolve, coincided with a series of destabilising problems for the Ardern Government. Should Ardern have been tougher on underperforming minister Clare Curran? What would Clark have done about the allegations against Meka Whaitiri? Would Clark have allowed herself to be embarrassed on Nauru as Ardern was this week? 

It is almost beyond doubt that Clark would have sacked Curran and Whaitiri within days, rather than drag things out for weeks or even months.

And it is unthinkable that Peters would have undermined Clark on refugee policy as he did with Ardern.

As Sir Ray Avery has recently learned, Clark is also a formidable opponent with a ferocious intellect who may be remembered as the most competent and capable prime minister of the MMP era. But she risks being both underemployed and overexposed in her role as a “freelance political advocate”, and nostalgia for the days of Aunty Helen does the Ardern Government few favours.

The prominence of Clark seems to do two things.

For those who liked her, it highlights the weakness of this Labour Government in contrast to Clark’s one.

For those who were sick of her after nine years, it is like a bad acid trip, and makes people more anti Labour.

So Clark’s prominence is hurting Labour on both sides.

Which means we should in fact encourage her to stay as high profile as possible!

The Herald reports:

A vegan cafe owner who was issued an ultimatum to serve cow’s milk has generated 14,000 signatures of support, but will still close shop to walk the length of New Zealand barefoot in protest.

Morgan Redfern-Hardisty roused controversy last week after he revealed the community trust that controls his Cool Beans Cafe in Mangawhai insisted he serve dairy options on the menu.

Redfern-Hardisty had altered his menu on July 27 to exclusively plant-based products, including homemade oat milk for coffee, in an effort to reduce his environmental impact.

But the Mangawhai Activity Zone (MAZ) Charitable Trust that owns the land, premises, and pays all the overheads for Cool Beans Cafe, said amid public complaints he must include some dairy options.

As the Trust owns the land, buildings and pays the overheads, it is really their business, which he managed for them on a profit share.

If he wants to run his own cafe, and carry all the risk, then great luck to him. If he thinks he can make a dairy free cafe work, then he needs to find one where he’ll have sole ownership or control.

Redfern-Hardisty confirmed last week he still plans to end his business this Labour Day, October 22, because he refuses to make the choice between “taste and suffering”.

He did, however, raise questions over the true motives for the pro-dairy menu demands thrust on him, claiming MAZ only cited nine complaints.

Only nine complaints? That’s a lot of complaints, especially considering people would have had to contact MAZ to complain.

I suspect what many didn’t like wasn’t the fact there was no dairy but that he seemed to lecture people on their preferences. If you just had almond milk instead of dairy milk, and didn’t make a bog fuss of it, I doubt many would care. But he was using the cafe as a campaign tool.

“Mangawhai’s surrounded by dairy farms so there’s heaps of suspicion around that,” Redfern-Hardisty said.

“I don’t think the trust has received any donations from dairy money but I don’t know.

Oh please. I really don’t think the dairy industry is worried if one small cafe stops using milk.

“We have been extremely fair and generous and it is squarely his decision not ours that he changed from offering both dairy and vegan additives to coffee for our customers, to vegan only.”

Choice is generally a good thing, If you don’t want to give choice that is fine – but you need to have ownership and control of the business so all the risk is yours.

He says business is up 25 per cent since the menu vegan changes, and he’s had no complaints to his face.

If if it that popular then he should set up his own exclusive cafe. The fact there were no complaints to his face suggests people were intimidated by his zealotry.

Redfern-Hardisty says he plans to walk the length of New Zealand barefoot, along the Te Araroa trail.

He is calling it “the barefoot walk for those who can’t talk” and hopes to raise funds to fight animal cruelty.

So he’s going to walk barefoot the length of New Zealand, because he had to serve milk. Whatever.

The Herald reports:

A Private Member’s Bill sparked by a fatal punch at a Kerikeri pub 15 years ago now has a chance of becoming law.

Northland MP Matt King’s Crimes (Coward Punch Causing Death) Amendment Bill was drawn from the Parliamentary ballot on Thursday, to the envy of fellow MPs who’ve been waiting three terms for a chance to create a new law.

The Bill would create a new offence covering serious assaults causing death, especially a punch to the head known as a ”king hit” or ”coward’s punch”.

So why is this needed?

It was prompted by an assault at Kerikeri’s Homestead Tavern about 15 years ago, when he was working as a police officer, in which a 60-year-old man from Te Tii was punched without warning in the side of the head by a man almost twice his weight. As the victim fell his head struck a bar leaner.

”He never got up,” King said.

So why not just charge them with manslaughter?

King said a new, stand-alone offence was required to send a message about the seriousness of that kind of assault.

He also knew of past cases in which juries had been reluctant to convict an offender of manslaughter even though a death had resulted. A new charge would offer an alternative to juries as well as defence lawyers who wanted to plea-bargain to avoid a trial.

The new charge would carry a maximum sentence of 20 years, placing it between wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (14 years) and manslaughter (life).

That seems a good rationale. If a jury is reluctant to give a manslaughter conviction, then this new offence could fill a useful hole.

However you need to be careful that it doesn’t accidentally result in offenders getting lighter sentences. If someone who would have had a manslaughter conviction gets charged and convicted of this offence, they may end up with a lighter sentence despite killing someone.

Anyone who kills someone in an unprovoked violent assault should face serious jail time.

The Herald reports:

A school fundraiser faces a battle with bureacracy to continue to sell alcohol after a medical officer objected to the event which has been running for 10 years.

The Napier District Licensing Committee will tomorrow hear an objection to plans to sell liquor at a suburban Hawke’s Bay school fundraising event.

The objection has been lodged by the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board against an application by Port Ahuriri School to sell liquor over the three-and-a-half hours of its Food and Music Festival in the school grounds on the evening of Friday, November 9.

It will be the fourth year in a row the selling of liquor at the event has been opposed by the board through Medical Officer of Health Dr Rachel Eyre, who argued the consumption of alcohol on school grounds in the presence of children was inappropriate.

The application was not opposed by the police and no concerns have been raised by Napier City Council licensing inspector Darryn Waugh.

Eyre said her view held it was inappropriate to have liquor on school grounds consumed in the presence of minors and this view was shared by Medical Officers of Health throughout the country.

Oh nonsense. It’s a food and music festival. There are problems with alcohol in this country but it isn’t parents having a glass of wine at a festival in front of their kids.

Do these interfering MOHs realise that shock horror most parents drink alcohol at home in front of their kids. Parents have wine with dinner. They have a beer at a bbq.

But this DHB spent God knows how much money preparing 700 pages of objection to this licence application. Hospitals are crying out for more money, and they spent their precious health dollars on this.

The PM was asked about the incorrect transcript at question time. Hansard reports:

Hon Simon Bridges: Who in her office provided the media with an inaccurate transcript of her interview with Chris Lynch?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think what the member might be referring to is a request that was made to my office to provide a transcript, which, I should point out, is publicly available. The interview was public. My understanding—I’m advised by my office that in providing that, they didn’t repeat one of the questions from the interviewer. That obviously would have been obvious if the individual who asked had listened to the interview that’s publicly available.

This isn’t correct. The PMs Office proactively contacted me because my blog was based on a Herald story which they said was an inaccurate reflection of the PMs comments, and was being changed. They told me the PM had merely said she was not firing Curran, rather than “her job is safe”.

They offered to send me through a transcript. I said that would be helpful, and they did. I edited my post in fact before I got the transcript, and then added it on.

And the bit that was missing wasn’t an entire question, but part of a question. It showed she wasn’t just asked if she would be firing Curran, but also if she was cutting ties with her.

Hon Simon Bridges: When did she first find out that her office had provided an inaccurate transcript of her interview?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Actually, I reject the premise of that question.

Is she saying it wasn’t inaccurate?

I should point out that the PMs Office did apologise to me for the transcript, which was appreciated. In their apology they explicitly say it “wasn’t 100% accurate”.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is the Prime Minister disputing that a doctored transcript went from her office to media on Friday?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is insinuating that my statements weren’t accurately transcribed. My understanding is that the transcript—as so-called—didn’t include the full questioner’s details, rather than my answers. But, again, at the core of this issue is whether or not what I said was publicly available; it was, it was a radio interview.

I think calling it doctored is too harsh, and I haven’t. I do think (as is often the case) it is a stuff up, rather than malice. Someone junior probably typed it up and paraphrased it (there were a number of minor changes plus one significant change) and the senior staff didn’t check or realise it wasn’t a verbatim transcript. I don’t agree with most of the policies of this Government, but I know quite a few staff in the PMs Office and have always had respectful dealings with them.

Newsroom reports:

Former New Zealander of the Year Sir Ray Avery has laid a complaint against Newsroom.co.nz under the Harmful Digital Communications Act over a series of news reports on his background, products and promises.

Avery has told Netsafe, the legal agent for considering complaints under the Act, the reports have caused him serious emotional distress and amount to a form of digital harm – and wants Newsroom to consider removing them and to agree not to write further news stories about him. …

Newsroom co-editor Mark Jennings said: “This action is a misguided attempt to stop journalists highlighting important issues of public interest, by co-opting the harmful digital communications regime to try to keep investigative stories off the internet.

“We don’t believe this is what Parliament had in mind and we will oppose this tactic, on behalf of all news media. The public has a right to know, especially when it is being asked to donate money.”

Researcher and media commentator Gavin Ellis raised the spectre of someone using the Harmful Digital Communications Act to suppress news stories about themselves in his book Complacent Nation in 2016.

“My firm view is that this is a misuse of legislation which, unfortunately, was drafted too loosely to prevent this sort of complaint. I was told when I raised my concerns that the threshold (for accepting complaints) would be set high. This complaint, if accepted by Netsafe, suggests the bar has not been set high enough.”

Ellis, a former editor-in-chief of the New Zealand Herald and chair of the Media Freedom Committee, said complainants over news coverage had other ways of seeking redress. “Ray Avery has other regulatory and legal avenues that he can pursue. If he must, he should use them. This law was designed to curb cyber-bullying, not as an alternative to the New Zealand Media Council.”

I agree that the appropriate avenue for Sir Ray is a complaint to the NZ Media Council rather than using the HDCA.

It was one of the concerns about the HDCA that people may use it to stop stories that are critical of them.

I have no doubt the complaint will be unsuccessful, but it still imposes a cost on media to deal with it.

It does raise an issue about whether Netsafe should automatically accept every complaint, or whether it should decline to try and mediate when they see a case such as this one.

Matthew Hooton writes at RNZ:

Ms Ardern is under fire for the alleged $80,000 cost of her one-and-a-half day trip to Nauru for the Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ retreat and dinner.

More mysteriously, Mr Bridges was attacked for apparently spending a similar amount on land transport for his tour of 70 provincial towns. Newshub judged both matters worthy of leading its 6pm TV news.

Whoever is Prime Minister in some sense personifies New Zealand. We expect them to attend all the most important events from one end of the country to another.

She or he will be rightly criticised if they fail to speak at major industry conferences and award ceremonies, wherever they are held.

They are expected to visit a fair range of schools, hospitals, police stations, community projects, universities, early childhood centres, housing developments, factories, farms, orchards and other businesses to remain in touch with every aspect of the nation’s progress.

Which is why it is petty to criticise their travel expenses, as Labour often did of John Key.

All this comes at a significant cost but it is miniscule compared with the approximately $85 billion of spending the Prime Minister and Cabinet oversee each year.

Moreover, for military aircraft or VIP cars, the “cost” reported in the media is a mere transfer from one government account to another, with the exception of fuel and a bit of wear and tear. From the taxpayers’ perspective, it costs more if the money goes to Avis, Uber or Emirates.

This is a fair point – it tends to be a notional cost. The actual cost to the taxpayer of someone using VIP Transport is basically the petrol.

Part of the criticism of Ms Ardern is that her 757 is making a special trip back to New Zealand to pick her up, on account of her being a breastfeeding mum of a two-and-half-month-old baby.

But, for better or worse, Ms Ardern is our democratically elected Prime Minister and we pay what it takes for her to fulfil her duties, based on her individual circumstances.

This is hardly new. If a Prime Minister lives in Dipton, Ashburton or Te Kuiti, like Bill English, Jenny Shipley and Jim Bolger, their travel costs more than if they live in Parnell or Mt Albert, like John Key, Helen Clark and Ms Ardern.

If we are lucky enough to elect a Franklin Roosevelt as our Prime Minister, he will come with the cost of getting his wheelchair on and off the plane.

A very good defence of the PM’s spending.

Stacey Kirk writes:

In the immediate hours following charges laid by the British Government against two named Russian spies, for the Novichok attack on the streets of Salisbury, New Zealand offered no formal condemnation of the Russian Government. It did come later, once it was asked for.

But it didn’t go unnoticed by the diplomatic community. It was a second offence after the Government was slow off the mark to quash plans to resurrect a Russian free trade deal, in the aftermath of the attack in March. 

Call it diplomacy, or perhaps put it down to the most British of manners, but considerable leeway was given to our Government this week as the UK waited patiently for a second statement to be released. 

“We very much hope that with the full intelligence briefing that the prime minister and deputy prime minister will have had, that they will be able to condemn in unequivocal terms, what has happened,” British Minister of State for Asia & the Pacific Mark Field said. 

“But I fully appreciate and understand there is a great desire for them to see the intelligence that is right and proper in the circumstances.”

Arguably something the minister should not have had to feel the need to say. The Government did condemn the attack once questions were put to them. But again, raised eyebrows where there needn’t be. 

Quite unusual that a British Minister had to publicly prompt our Government before it would publicly state that the Russian state was behind the poisoning.

Since Peters became Foreign Minister there have been half a dozen incidents where we have appeared sympathetic to Putin. Off memory they are:

• Desire to pursue an FTA with Russia
• Said no proof Russia behind downing of Malaysian Airlines flight
• Said no proof Russia interfered in US election
• Didn’t condemn Russia for the poisoning attack in the UK when almost every other Western country did
• Didn’t impose any sanctions on Russia
• Didn’t condemn Russia again when charges laid against Russian GRU agents for the poisoning

Now this is not a coincidence. Every single time there is a public issue about Russia, the NZ Foreign Minister is either on the wrong side of it, or has to be coaxed to get to the same position as the other democratic countries.

Three more columns lamenting the lack of leadership. First Barry Soper:

Politics is a tough business but if you answer questions honestly and in good faith you generally survive relatively unscathed.

And that brings us to the Prime Minister. In answer to a question on Friday morning, whether she was considering cutting ties with Curran, or fire her, Jacinda Ardern said no, she believed the minister had paid the price.

Yeah well the night before she’d accepted her resignation and the perception left from her comment was that Curran was safe.

That doesn’t reflect well on what was clearly obfuscation by Ardern – nor does this whole saga reflect well on her leadership. Curran committed what were two significant strikes, meeting secretly with people who sought to gain from her role in Government, she should have been fired after the first and after the second it was a no-brainer.

Yep.

Her bumbling confession about her use of her private emails to conduct government business simply added to her unsuitability to hold ministerial warrants.

Amazingly Ardern still insists that she had confidence in Curran to continue as a Minister.

Then Mike Hosking:

I assume no one is missing the irony that poor old Clare Curran could see what needed to be done, but her boss once again couldn’t.

And because of that it raises once again the question as to just what, in Ardern’s mind, you have to do to get sacked.

Bash up your press secretary maybe?

Now, in her mind Ardern might well still be sitting there this morning having convinced herself she is right, and we are all wrong. And that some sort of touchy-feely approach to discipline is the modern way.

But it doesn’t add up. You can’t, on one hand, stand there talking about the high standards you expect of your ministers, while on the other hand defending a serial offender and refusing to sack them and offering up excuses about having a bad day at the office.

The two don’t gel.

And Audrey Young joins in:

Jacinda Ardern is as much to blame as Winston Peters for the debacle last week over refugee numbers.

Both the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister should be admitting to their colleagues at tomorrow’s cabinet that they were equally culpable for creating a perception of Coalition chaos, and they should be looking for way to avoid it.

Peters was largely blamed for contradicting Ardern last week over a commitment to double the refugee quota.

In fact, she contradicted him – although that is a minor point.

He was interviewed first by reporters in Nauru and when the reporter substituted “Labour policy” for “Government policy” as though they were the same thing, like Pavlov’s dog he went into aggressive denial.

That reaction was then misinterpreted as Peters insisting there was no way he would ever in a million years ever agree to a refugee quota of 1500.

And the aggression to a television viewer appeared aimed at Ardern, rather than the press pack he was addressing.

A short time after Peters’ interview, Ardern was asked in Wellington if the Government was committed to doubling the refugee quota to which she foolishly said yes.

They were both unwittingly complicit in setting a trap for the other.

Maybe they should you know talk to each other, as they are meant to be PM and Deputy PM.