Cameron Bagrie writes:

Steven Joyce is going to be proved right. There is a fiscal hole and a softening economy is making it wider.

I don’t like the term fiscal hole. Good policy should dominate over strict debt targets and economic cycles come and go which are often beyond government control.

But the Labour-led Government’s fiscal hole is looking deeper by the day – and bigger than the $11.7 billion of additional borrowing that Joyce identified.

Growth is weaker, the Government is already borrowing creatively to the tune of $6.4 billion via Crown entities (keeping it out of core government net debt metrics) and spending demands are headed one way.

That combination will pressure its fiscal position.

So what has changed:

Before the election there was broad agreement from economists, myself included, that there was no fiscal hole in the Labour’s fiscal plan.

The lack of money left in the kitty post the 2018-Budget raised issues of credibility, but the fiscal parameters were technically achievable.

It wasn’t going to be easy, but it was possible, so the Government was given the benefit of the doubt.

But the picture is changing and the Government’s ambitions are looking more and more like pipe dreams.

The assumptions were heroic. If economic growth was massive, then Labour might have made it. But now chickens are coming home to roost.

Carrick Graham has sent me a response he received from the Auckland DHB to his OIA request about a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority.

They decline to release the information because basically they don’t like Carrick. They point to a profile saying he represents certain clients there is no public interest in releasing the information to him.

This is absolutely outrageous. Imagine the precedent this sets – the Government can decide who they will and will not release information to.

The only criteria should be whether the documents sought should be released under the OIA, regardless of whom is asking.

Apart from being an appalling decision, it is also a stupid one. It will incentivise people to not do OIA requests under their own names, but to ask others to submit for them.

I hope the Ombudsman gives Auckland DHB a massive kick in the backside for this.

https://www.scribd.com/document/385785500/20180613-101-OIA-Response-Ltr-C-Graham

Newshub reports:

Conservation Minister Eugenie Sage wants Kiwis to be reintroduced to urban Wellington – and she’s suggested locals should stop owning cats in order to achieve the goal. …

But the Conservation Minister has suggested there’s another predator that needs to be dealt with: cats.

“I think gradually we’ll see people recognise that having wildlife thrive will mean having cats inside – and when your cat dies, then potentially not replacing it.”

Rats, possums and stoats kill around 25 million birds a year and cats only around one million.

But if the Greens also want cats to go as an introduced predator, what about humans?

Surely to save the birds we need to stop breeding humans. Keep the current ones inside and when they die don’t replace them.

CNN reports:

Conservative activists Candace Owens and Charlie Kirk were accosted at a Philadelphia restaurant on Monday by protesters from a local antifa group. …

Videos posted by Owens, who is black, and Kirk on Twitter depict an angry scene in which protesters recite chants such as “f— white supremacy,” “no good cops in a racist system” and “cops and Klan hand-in-hand.”

In one video, Owens remarks to a black police officer that it is “bizarre” to her that “there are a bunch of white people saying ‘no racists,’ or ‘no good cops,’ when every single cop here is black.”

Stuff reports:

The nurses’ union is ignoring calls to release the results of a secret ballot that endorsed Tuesday’s pay deal.

Members of the New Zealand Nurses’ Organisation (NZNO) are infuriated at the union’s acceptance of the District Health Boards’ collective agreement, and are doubtful of a claimed “overwhelming” majority decision.

It’s incredible that the results of the ballot are hidden from the union’s own members.

National should put up an amendment to the current employment law bill to require unions to disclose the results of all ballots. You may get NZ First voting for it.

Unions get massive powers through state legislation. With those powers should come accountability. If the state grants unions these special powers, then the state should also insist on some accountability.

UPDATE: The NZNO has bowed to pressure and released the results. But really this should be automatic. Members shouldn’t have to wage a campaign just to get transparency.

Stuff reports:

Police Minister Stuart Nash says he isn’t mates with under-fire cop Wally Haumaha, but he admits referring to him in a jokey gym video. …

Now it has emerged that Nash had enough of a personal relationship with Haumaha to call him out in a jovial video he posted of himself working out in the Parliament gym.

The April 25 video, posted to Nash’s Facebook page, is captioned: “Peeni Henare, Wally and Alf – just calling those out who doubted… all in the name of trying to keep the ageing body in some sort of shape. Hard work on a parliamentary diet :-)”

This suggests a pretty strong personal relationship if you tag someone in a video. The Minister of Police will of course know all the senior Police officers, but you’d expect the relationships to be professional.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was in Porirua, announcing a new mental health facility when she was informed of the apparent “matey” relationship between her police minister and Haumaha.

She said she was frustrated at these details being “drip fed” through the media.

Well if they had done a proper quick inquiry in the first place, then they wouldn’t have these problems.

Ardern would also not be drawn on whether she had been informed the pair may have been friends before the appointment of Haumaha.

She said she did not know how close they were, or whether their relationship could even be described as “friends”.

By itself this is nothing. But it is unhelpful when there is an inquiry into his appointment.

Damn Massey University!

I was busy enough as it was. I have a 20 month old boy to co-parent. I have a polling company to run. A (taxpayers) union to govern. A blog which needs five to ten articles a day plus I am already involved in three campaigns on topical issues. More than enough.

So when the Free Speech Coalition was formed around Phil Goff’s stupidity, I didn’t join. Hell, I didn’t even donate. I blogged a couple of articles in support, but was really happy to leave this fight to others.

But having the Massey Vice-Chancellor ban a former leader of the National Party (and one of my former employers) from speaking on campus has shown this issue is too important to leave to others. So I have joined the Free Speech Coalition, and urge others to do the same.

The FSC has announced:

The Free Speech Coalition has resolved that, contingent on raising sufficient funds, it will be issuing legal proceedings against the Vice-Chancellor of Massey University. …

“At the same time, we continue to engage Auckland Council in the High Court for their capitulation to the thugs. We face significant legal costs, but are advised that the marginal cost of bringing Massey into our case will be lower than for someone launching independent action.”

Dr David Cumin, another member of the Free Speech Coalition, says, “With Massey University refusing to back down on barring Don Brash from speaking on campus, it is clear that free speech issues are not going away. Many supporters of the cause have contacted us to urge the Free Speech Coalition to become permanent. We have now resolved to incorporate as a permanent group.”

The FSC is keen to get support (and money) from people on all sides of the political spectrum. Free speech advocacy should belong to everyone.

“New Zealanders are welcome to join and donate to the coalition at https://freespeech.nationbuilder.com/join.”

Go and join up.

I support the legal action as it should result in a good precedent. But I think we need more than this. I plan to propose to the Free Speech Coalition (they may agree or disagree) that the FSC launches a Boycott Massey Campaign.

We’ve already seen online (unscientific) surveys showing 85% of people say this decision makes them less likely to want to study at Massey.

It is only by making the University Council realise the damage the decision has done to them, that they might step in and reverse the ban and arrange an apology. I don’t want the VC sacked. I just want the ban gone and an apology to Dr Brash.

So how would a Boycott Massey Campaign work. Here’s what I plan to propose:

1. Have a dedicated website for it where people can sign up in support and download material for distribution. Allow them to leave public comments on why they are supporting the boycott. Have registered boycottmassey.ac.nz as a potential address.
2. Have a Boycott Massey graphic that people can download and use on their social media profiles to show how much support there is.
3. Target secondary school students by urging them not to study at Massey as the institution doesn’t believe in allowing them to hear diverse views. Ask students to share the boycott material on social media using their school groups etc. Have a brochure that secondary school students can download and distribute to their friends. On the website list every major degree at Massey, and what other universities offer that degree (with links to them).
4. Target their donors. The Massey University Foundation has members such as Tony Ryall and John Luxton. See if they will suspend involvement until the ban is lifted as surely they can’t in good conscience fundraise for a university that bans one of their former leaders. Contact the major donors listed at https://foundation.massey.ac.nz/file/annual-reviews/Annual-Review-2016.pdf and ask them to refuse to give further until the ban is lifted.
5. Target the rating agencies. Write to QS World Uni Rankings, Top Universities and the Times Higher Education Rankings and inform them of what Massey has done. You might expect a former opposition leader to be banned from speaking in some authoritarian country in the third world, not in New Zealand.
6. Target guest speakers. Ask people not to speak at Massey until everyone is free to speak at Massey. I’ve already had one guest lecturer cc me his e-mail declining to guest lecture this year.
7. Enlist Massey students. MUSA have to their credit opposed the ban. Urge them to advocate to the University Council that a refusal to back down and apologise will damage their prospects as it devalues a Massey degree.
8. Target graduates. Some have already offered to return their degrees. Have a section on the website where Massey graduates say they no longer recommend going to Massey and how the VC’s decision has undermined their Massey degree.

I’d rather not have to spend scores of hours working on a boycott campaign. But this action sets too horrible a precedent. It would be unacceptable for anyone to be banned from speaking (if invited, as Brash had been) but to ban a former opposition leader whom almost 900,000 people voted for is an attack on free speech that is probably unprecedented for a university in the developed world.

Some things are worth fighting for, and this is one of them.

The Herald reports:

Three women working on a joint justice project walked out of Police National Headquarters and refused to return because of Wally Haumaha’s alleged bullying behaviour towards them.

The policy analysts – two from the Justice Ministry, one from Corrections – were based at PNHQ in Wellington working in the Māori, Pacific, Ethnic Services division run by Haumaha, a superintendent at the time.

They were excited to be working on the cross-sector project, which started in October 2015, to improve “justice outcomes” for Māori, who are over-represented in arrest statistics and the prison population.

A number of alleged verbal bullying incidents, including a particularly heated exchange in which one of Haumaha’s senior staff intervened, contributed to the three women leaving PNHQ in June 2016 feeling “devalued and disillusioned”.

The three women told their managers, did not return to PNHQ, and continued working on the project from the Justice Ministry offices.

So they did tell their managers.

However, the police have confirmed an allegation of bullying was later made by a third party, although no individuals were named.

On behalf of police, Deputy Commissioner Mike Clement “immediately” contacted the Justice Ministry and Corrections to request more information and advise that the staff involved could make a complaint if they wished.

“No further information or complaints were forthcoming to Mr Clement from the agencies,” a police spokeswoman said.

So why was there no further follow up?

“In the absence of any formal complaint, or further information, the matter was unable to be taken further and therefore not escalated to the Commissioner.”

It doesn’t sound like they tried very hard.

The woman, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said no one told her Clement had been in touch with Justice or Corrections.

“Nobody told me about it. I’m like, wow, because we would have met with [Clement],” she said, when the Herald told her of the response from police.

“I will make a complaint now. We trusted management to deal with it and never heard back.”

She told the Herald the experience was “pretty bruising” and she was extremely disappointed to see Haumaha promoted to deputy commissioner this year.

His position is becoming more and more untenable.

While the police staff followed Haumaha’s orders without question, the team from Justice and Corrections would challenge him.

“We were fully supported by our own managers who advocated on our behalf when the working situation with Haumaha continued to deteriorate”.

The woman relayed a particular incident, which was overheard by other police and employees on the floor, whereby she and Haumaha had a heated argument where her job was allegedly threatened.

This ended only when one of Haumaha’s senior police staff intervened.

“Soon after this incident in a meeting with all the project team and police personnel, the team was basically told that if we weren’t with him we were against him and should stand down from the project”.

My way or the highway.

Haumaha was one of two names put forward by the State Services Commission following a recruitment process.

Because of the pending inquiry, Nash has refused to confirm whether Haumaha was the top-ranked candidate.

This is very interesting. The Deputy Police Commissioner is basically appointed by the Prime Minister. What if it transpires he was not the top ranked candidate, but Ardern appointed him regardless?

Stuff reports:

In an interview with Stuff, Zhou Black claimed Black was also involved in a child-sex ring allegedly including high-profile Māori men and wealthy philanthropists.

But Zhou Black can offer no proof, can bring forward no witnesses, can name no dates, provide no paperwork or other concrete evidence required by police to prosecute or a court to convict the eight men she alleges are in the child-sex ring.

I blogged that the allegations seemed over the top initially. Then someone did lay a complaint with the Police. But now this story raises huge doubts on Zhou Black’s allegations.

I don’t think anyone can know for sure what Black may or may not have done. But one can be sure that Zhou Black’s version of events is highly suspect.

At interview at the Tauranga hotel, she was assisted and supported by her friend and spiritual adviser Pīata Tiaki-Turi.

This should be a huge warning sign. People with spiritual advisers tend to be, umm looking for a polite word, umm less than reliable.

A high-profile Māori leader learned, from his daughter, that his name was posted online, by supporters of Zhou Black, as being part of the alleged child-sex ring cited by Zhou Black.

The man, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, heard the news at home that he had been accused of raping the daughter now telling him about the social media post.

“It’s sick. That’s my baby. I would never hurt my baby,” he said.

“One would presume and pray that if these women thought I was hurting my daughter like this, they would go straight to the police, or better yet, they would uplift my daughter to safety.

“But they didn’t. Their first reaction was to climb to the top of Mauao (Mt Maunganui) and make claims of this nature on live video.

Definitely the wrong thing to do.

Back in the Tauranga hotel, Zhou Black is weeping as she is asked by Stuffto provide evidence for each of the eight names she has provided Stuff alleged to be part of a paedophile ring.

Tiaki-Turi joins the interview by phone. She acts as Zhou Black’s spiritual adviser or matakite – someone considered to possess a supernatural ability to see visions of the future.

A better term for them is scammers or crooks.

Zhou Black is asked why an academic appears on her child-sex ring list.

“He’s a very wealthy man … He knew Awa through that time. I don’t know how long,” she says.

No victim had identified the academic.

“Got anything to add, sis?” Zhou Black asks Tiaki-Turi.

“Um, it’s just a connection that he has with a lot of the people associated to Awa,” Tiaki-Turi offers.

Sounding very much like the spiritual adviser is the driving force behind these allegations.

That fourth man was named because he donated money toward a teen who attended an overseas kapa haka trip.

Tiaki-Turi: “We think that could have been early recruitment.”

Wow I once donated money to Paige Hareb. That must have meant I was trying to recruit her.

A philanthropist made the list because he wanted to be a “great white whale.”

Tiaki-Turi: “That was really through all of those codes and [him] wanting to be the great white whale which is pretty much a myth, but when you put all those code words together, like a submarine shark – it comes up.

“It is a mythical shark, a great white. So that, based on who all these men are and linking to each other … He should not be discluded.”

WTF???

When some of the eight men learned of the reasons why they had been named on the list, they were horrified.

One contemplated suicide.

“I walked into a hui and the parents in the meeting snatched their children as I walked past,” he said.

“Once someone associates you with child-sex offending, you become poison, despite there being no evidence or truth. You are tried and convicted in the most public and unfair system – the court of social media.

Poor bastard.

This witch hunt is because of the affairs Awanui had on Ani and his will. But there are two sides to every story and let’s just say Awa was left a broken man when his wife had an affair with another teacher. (Zhou Black confirmed to Stuff she had an affair in 1999 which she disclosed to Black and her whānau. Tiaki-Turi said the affair happened because Black had emotionally left the marriage to Zhou Black)

“Look, we had affairs on our wives. Back in the early 2000s, yes, we were part of a group of guys, like an old boys’ network, that had each other’s backs with our wives.

“We slept with prostitutes and had one-night stands – with women, not children.

“Anihera knows about our [Facebook] group. She knows that wasn’t a child-sex ring.”

So there was a group of guys who cheated on their wives and had a Facebook group where they arranged sex with women. Not going to win them Husband of the Year awards, but massively different to pedophilia.

Newshub reports:

Green Party co-leader James Shaw is refusing to talk about his co-leader’s campaign to reclaim the C-word. 

Marama Davidson repeatedly used the word at an anti-racism rally attended by families last Friday, arguing that women need to reclaim the word typically used as vulgar insult. 

As there were families there with young children, it was not a good call on her part. Even if she was reading out e-mails sent to her, you should respect the fact kids were present.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern does not back her, saying she “certainly wouldn’t use that language”. 

Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters thinks it was wholly inappropriate of Ms Davidson to say it. He said it’s “appalling” and “terribly degrading”. 

National’s spokesperson for Women Paula Bennett is also fuming. 

She told Newshub: “She may want to reclaim whatever she likes [but] she doesn’t get to make that decision for other people’s children who were in that audience and I think it is absolutely appalling.” 

So Winston is busy chalking up win after win for his voters while the Greens are campaigning to reclaim the C word and voting for legislation they oppose.

Bravo to Chris Gallavin, a Deputy Pro Vice-Chancellor at Massey University. He has written this article dissenting from the censorship decision of the VC.

Hard to work out how senior an academic Gallavin is. Once upon a time only two academics had the chancellor part in their name – VC and Pro VC. Now it seems dozens get it.

As far as I can tell the hierarchy is:

1. VC
2. Deputy VC
3. Pro VCs
4. Assistant VCs
5. Deputy Pro VCs
6. Deputy Assistant VCs

Anyway Gallavin says:

Let me be clear, I do not agree with the political views on te Tiriti as expressed by Dr Don Brash. I do, however, believe the decision of Dr Jan Thomas, Vice Chancellor of Massey University, to cancel a speaking engagement of Dr Brash on our Manawatu campus this week, to be unequivocally wrong.

Strong but welcome words.

It is unfortunate, but the world seems to have lost the ability to disagree well. Civility in our discussions and debates over contentious issues seems to have been lost. We are increasingly polarised in our views with recourse to extreme positions in order to ‘prove’ or force our point. However, the answer is not to avoid difficult and, at times, confronting conversations. Rather, community leaders, and universities in particular, play a vital role in leading our communities in those discussions, as difficult as they may be, applying the principles of informed discussion, compromise, enlightenment of the points of view of others, and if all else fails, respectful disagreement.

Hear hear.

From what I can see, Dr Don Brash is not a proponent of hate speech. Is he polarising? Yes. Part of a small minority? Perhaps. Entirely illegitimate and without rational foundation for anything he says? Probably not. Massey does not dishonour its goal of becoming te Tiriti led by allowing onto campus those who disagree with our core principles. In fact, seen as an opportunity to model how we might disagree well, a skill so desperately needed in the world today, allowing space for us to talk with those who disagree illustrates incredible maturity and leadership.

Great to see a senior Massey academic dissent. I hope we see more. The Council of Massey are the only ones who can over-rule the VC and they need to be convinced that you don;t back your CEO when they are so clearly wrong.

The Herald reports:

A Whanganui High School event solely for Māori and Pasifika boys with boxing champ Joseph Parker has left parents outraged because of its alleged racial exclusion.

And Parker himself is considering pulling the plug.

The flier for the event stated Parker was coming to give a “closed motivational session for Māori and Pasifika boys” and their dads.

However, Parker said he had “absolutely no idea at any stage” the school planned to limit his visit on the basis of students’ race or gender.

Yet the school lied and tried to blame him.

McAllen and board of trustees chairman Randal Southee said the request had come from Parker for the talk to be closed and they were happy to oblige.

McAllen said he’d had only a few concerns raised about the talk being for just Māori and Pasifika boys.

“I don’t understand why there would be any concern with it … because so many initiatives within schools are focusing in on Māori and Pasifika students.

“This is a real case of rather than just talking about it, actually walking it in terms of appreciating the opportunity we’ve been given and then being able to facilitate that.”
However, board of trustees member Piri Cribb said the request for a closed session had not come from Parker’s camp.

When asked why the school had said that, she replied: “Probably because that’s the easiest way to combat some of the horrible feedback and flak that they’re getting about the closed session.

New board chair needed – one that does not lie.

I understand the decision has been reversed.

Patrick Gower writes:

Now the teachers union and the Government are at war – we haven’t had a strike for 25 years.

I don’t blame the teachers here. They are a taonga and every one of them deserves more.

But I do blame the teachers’ unions and repetitive Governments for not having the courage or the imagination to introduce a teachers’ pay system fit for New Zealand in 2018.

A modern New Zealand needs a much more modern way to incentivise teachers to come in and stay in the job.

“Performance pay” is a dirty word and people seem to want to make it some sort of alt-right assault.

That seems like a lazy argument to me. This is not about politics anymore – it is about attracting and keeping good teachers.

People just don’t want to go into jobs where they get paid pretty much the same their entire lives and have to fight the Government every few years to get a halfway decent rise.

Dave Armstrong writes:

J’accuse! I do not wake up in the morning wanting to write about buses. Frankly, there are more interesting things in life. Like most Wellingtonians, I just want to get a bus if I need to without any drama. But it’s nearly a month now, guys, and your service is shocking.

If you were a bank I would be changing, if you were a tradesperson I’d be warning people not to use you, if you were on a 90-day contract I would fire you. But I can’t because you are the bustastrophe, the balls-up, the clusterbus known as the New Wellington Bus System.

Tell us what you think Dave.

We are now in our fourth week of “Not in Service”. The buses have not “settled in”, if the tidal wave of complaints on social media are anything to go by. These are, according to Wellington city councillor Dianne Calvert, “systemic not ‘teething’ issues”.

It seems we have a structural problem based on badly planned routes, badly written contracts and ridiculous timetables that make passengers feel as though services have been slashed. At the hub of the problem are hubs, which, while great in theory (try the London Tube or Paris Metro if you don’t believe me), need a critical mass of buses to work, and that mass isn’t there.

A good change programme would have included market research of customers and potential customers about what they want.

Chris Bishop writes:

I am due to speak to the Massey University Politics Club next Wednesday. I have today written this letter to the Massey Vice-Chancellor. Her decision to ban Don Brash from speaking on campus is highly likely to be unlawful and absolutely outrageous. Below is my full letter.

Dear Professor Thomas

I am writing to you about your recent decision to ban former National Party Leader and Reserve Bank Governor Dr Don Brash from speaking at Massey University’s Palmerston North campus at an event arranged by the University’s Politics Club.

I have also been invited to speak to the club and my talk has been arranged for next Wednesday 15 August.

Freedom of expression in New Zealand is protected in law by section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act. As Justice Anderson, as he then was, famously put it in Hosking v Runting, “Freedom of expression is the first and last trench in the protection of liberty”. The right has been described by the New Zealand Court of Appeal as being “as wide as human thought and imagination.” These quotes encapsulate the protections long given by the common law to free speech, also now protected in international and domestic human rights instruments.

Universities have traditionally been regarded as bastions of free speech and critical thought. In particular, section 162 of the Education Act 1989 recognises the special role of universities as “critic(s) and conscience(s) of society”, while section 161 specifically protects:
the freedom of academic staff and students, within the law, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions.

With this background, your reported comments outlining your rationale for stopping Dr Brash from speaking give me extreme cause for concern and I strongly urge you to reconsider your decision.
Let me take each of your reported statements in turn.

First, you have stated that “you support free speech on campus” but “the views expressed by members of Hobson’s Pledge, which Dr Brash supports, came dangerously close to hate speech.”

It is hard to know where to start on this somewhat nonsensical statement. Hate speech in New Zealand is traditionally regarded as being prohibited by sections 61 and 63 of the Human Rights Act 1993. If Dr Brash breaches those sections presumably he will be prosecuted under those sections. You essentially have chosen to appoint yourself as the arbiter of what speech qualifies as “hate speech” and what speech does not; replacing a careful objective judgment by a court with a subjective judgment by yourself.

In any event, even by your own admission you accept that Dr Brash only comes “close” to hate speech. If Dr Brash is not expressing “hate speech” (and absent a court order to that effect you have no way of knowing), then what is the rationale for his ban?

The views of the Hobson’s Pledge group, which you assert Dr Brash supports, are admittedly controversial but no more controversial than many other contentious issues of debate in New Zealand society. I put it to you that they no more qualify as hate speech any more than comments by prominent politicians like “two wongs don’t make a white” and well-publicised remarks that blame high house prices on people with “Chinese-sounding names.”

Secondly, you have also said that “whether those views [Hobson’s Pledge] would have been repeated to students in the context of a discussion about the National Party may seem unlikely, but I have no way of knowing.”

Extraordinarily, by your own admission you actually have no idea what Dr Brash actually proposed to say at his address (and even admitted Hobson’s Pledge-esque views “seem[ed] unlikely”, but have gone ahead and cancelled the speech anyway. This is akin to prior restraint on speech which liberal democracies have rightly viewed with considerable distaste. While this is not totally analogous; the courts have traditionally been extremely reluctant to restrain speech prior to publication; for the very good reason that it “is a drastic interference with freedom of speech and should only be ordered where there is a substantial risk of grave injustice.”

Third, you comment that Hobson’s Pledge views are “certainly not conducive with the University’ strategy of recognising the values of a Tiriti o Waitangi-led organisation.” That view is certainly arguable, but most importantly I note you have made no attempt to balance the university’s commitment to the values of the Treaty of Waitangi with your obligations to protect freedom of expression under the Bill of Rights Act and your obligations under the Education Act 1989. No alleged commitment to “values” or cant about health and safety can trump statutory obligations.

Fourth, you claim that “Mr Brash’s leadership of Hobson’s Pledge and views he and its supporters espoused in relation to Māori wards on councils was clearly of concern to many staff, particularly Māori staff”. I appreciate and acknowledge that that is likely to be the case; but there are many instances in life in which people see and hear expression they disagree with. That is part and parcel of living in a liberal democracy. It is also worth noting that a great many New Zealanders also share Dr Brash’s views around Māori wards on Councils. New Zealanders are entitled to hold those views, in the same way that Dr Brash is entitled to express them.

Fifth, you appear to have banned Dr Brash on the basis that protests against him could have led to violence. In some ways this is the most outrageous comment you have made on behalf of the university, essentially applying a thugs’ veto to free speech. If speeches are to be cancelled after the threat of illegal violence by protestors against that speech; then surely you must see that the incentive is for violence to be threatened in order to for speech to be banned. The right response surely from public institutions, particularly universities, in circumstances like that is not to cowardly cancel speech on the grounds of “public safety” but stand firm in favour of the values of pluralistic democracy and diversity of opinion. Few things, if any, are more important than those values.

Finally, your actions are highly likely to be in breach of your statutory obligations. I have already mentioned the Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Education Act 1989. Section 57, reproduced below, of the Human Rights Act 1993 is also relevant (emphasis mine).

57 Educational establishments
(1) It shall be unlawful for an educational establishment, or the authority responsible for the control of an educational establishment, or any person concerned in the management of an educational establishment or in teaching at an educational establishment,—
(a) to refuse or fail to admit a person as a pupil or student; or
(b) to admit a person as a pupil or a student on less favourable terms and conditions than would otherwise be made available; or
(c) to deny or restrict access to any benefits or services provided by the establishment; or
(d) to exclude a person as a pupil or a student or subject him or her to any other detriment,—
by reason of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination.
(2) In this section, educational establishment includes an establishment offering any form of training or instruction and an educational establishment under the control of an organisation or association referred to in section 40.
21 Prohibited grounds of discrimination
(1) For the purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are:

The precedent you have set with your decision is extremely worrying and I urge you to reconsider it. The widespread outrage your decision has created should give you pause for thought.

I am due to speak at the university next Wednesday. It would seem hypocritical for me to cancel a speech in protest at your university’s seeming lack of commitment to free speech, and I am loathe to do so. However I have no real desire to speak at a university that prefers to preference the views of a tiny, angry minority who wish to shut down speech they disagree with rather than stand-up for academic freedom, critical thought, and the values of pluralism and liberal democracy.
I look forward to your reply.

Chris Bishop
MP for Hutt South

An excellent letter.

The Herald reports:

Hundreds of Kiwis are backing young woman’s petition to make organ donation mandatory in New Zealand as she desperately waits for a call telling her there is a match for the organs she needs.

Jessica Manning, 25, who has been has been told she will die within two years if she does not have a double organ transplant, is hoping the petition will start families talking about whether or not they want to be organ donors. More than 700 people had already signed it.

I don’t support it being mandatory, but I do support the wishes of the deceased being respected.

In New Zealand, even if someone indicated on their drivers licence they wanted to be a donor, their family could over-ride the decision.

Manning was pushing for a model which meant people would be presumed to be donors unless they opted out. But even if that did not go ahead, Manning urged the government to invest in more education about being organ donation.

However, Health Minister David Clark said premium consent was not a model he would be pushing and instead supported the Deceased Organ Donation and Transplantation National strategy that focused on the wishes of the donor’s family.

“Even if an individual makes it clear before their death that they wish to donate their organs, in New Zealand that person’s family/whānau have the absolute right to decline donation of their deceased loved one’s organs, and their decision must be respected.”

No they must not be respected. They don’t own the body of the deceased. The wishes of the deceased are what should be respected.

I’d love a law change to reflect this. Maybe something National could do now they are in opposition, and not so captured by the health bureaucracy.

Over the last five years deceased organ donations had doubled with a record 73 in 2017. Those donations resulted in 215 people receiving life saving heart, lung, liver, kidney and pancreas transplants compared to just 115 people receiving organs in 2013.

It is great to see this increase, but our overall donation rate is still well below most countries. Australia’s is 60% higher, UK twice as high, and US almost three times as high.

Liam Hehir writes:

My alma mater, Victoria University of Wellington, says it is also grappling with name baggage. It is losing money hand over fist, the claim goes, because potential enrollees are confused about the “Victoria” bit. Does it refer to the Australian state? The city in Canada? The waterfall in Zimbabwe?

To fix this, the university has decided, in principle, upon a “simplification” of its name. “Victoria” is to be expunged, leaving the name to be “the University of Wellington”. Bloodless, but more lucrative, the thinking goes. …

The decision has provoked a backlash on the part of alumni, most of whom were totally unaware of the pending decision. In fairness to the university, it had sought feedback through its e-newsletter and on forums such as LinkedIn.

My wife, also an unimpressed Victoria grad, was not happy with this form of engagement. It reminded her of that scene from The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy where the notification for the demolition of the hero’s house had been placed “on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘beware of the Leopard'”.

Even worse the Vic VC is saying the low level of submissions means there is little opposition, rather than they ran a flawed consultation process.

The Herald reports:

A law that gives children more protection against forced marriage is expected to pass with unanimous support in Parliament today.

The Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill aims to prevent forced marriages of mostly girls, aged 16 and 17 and considered minors by the state, by changing the requirement of consent from parents to a Family Court judge.

The change also applies to civil unions and de facto relationships.

Dozens of teens are married in New Zealand each year and Shakti NZ, a community organisation which works with migrant and refugee women of Asian, African and Middle Eastern origin, says it sees the damage done by forced marriage.

It is sad this law is needed, but it is. The extra step of the needing a Family Court Judge to consent should deter these forced marriages of under 18s.

There is arguably a case for the age of marriage to be 18, not 16. I guess as the age of sexual consent is 16, the age of marriage is linked to that.

The Herald reports:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters made a personal explanation in Parliament today in a bid to distance himself from Wally Haumaha, despite Peters speaking at an event to celebrate Haumaha’s promotion last year to Assistant Police Commissioner.

Peters said he had been invited to the event to mark Haumaha’s promotion under the previous National Government and that the Police had asked Peters to make a speech.

“I do not think that in any way compromises me,” said Peters.

This is avoiding the real question. Why was Peters asked to speak? Surely it was because Haumaha requested it. Which means they have a significant relationship.

It can’t just be because Peters is Maori. The then Deputy Prime Minister, Paula Bennett, is Maori and hence was the most senior Maori MP.

Haumaha has multiple links to NZ First. He was selected as a candidate. He is related to the Deputy Leader. He is very close to Tommy Gear, who is Peters’ closest confidante.

This is why no NZ First Minister should be involved with the inquiry, and the Herald exposes the red herring that it had to be Tracey Martin as she is Internal Affairs Minister:

The Internal Affairs staff provide administrative assistance to public and Government inquiries set up under the Inquiries Act 2013, but that does not mean the Internal Affairs Minister must set up each inquiry.

David Parker as Attorney-General, for example, set up the Government inquiry into the Operation Burnham.

It seems pretty clear Winston chose Martin as a loyal NZ First Minister, rather than Parker or Little. And Martin had 10 candidates to choose from, and chose an inquiry head who thought so highly of Haumaha (whom she had worked with) that she had publicly endorsed all his skills on Linked In.

The sad thing about all this is that the actions of the NZ First Ministers make Haumaha’s viability for the job more tenuous. I’m not sure his comments 14 years ago should disqualify him for the job. But the more NZ First tries to protect him, the more he looks like a partisan appointment, and the less confidence we have in the Police.

The best thing NZ First could do for Haumaha is for Martin to recuse herself. Otherwise he may end up being the victim of their attempts to run interference.

The terrible decision by the Massey Vice-Chancellor to ban Don Brash from speaking on campus has managed to unite almost everyone. The Minister of Education has said it was the wrong decision. Simon Bridges said it was appalling. Even Bomber Bradbury has condemned it.

The Dom Post editorial says:

The possibility of offence, the creation of innovation and the path of progress go hand in hand. And universities are so often vital vessels in their transportation. That a university, no less, a venue we so often look to for that cultural, political and academic disruption, would ban a speaker such as Brash, a former Reserve Bank governor and Opposition leader, is of great concern. We hope that other institutions will either distance themselves from such actions or make it clear they disagree.

Brash is used to a bit of mud-slinging. He once infamously tasted a bit of the brown stuff because of his views on race and racial preference. Thomas and Massey University have just thrown some themselves. But in the act of doing so they have covered themselves in more than a little dirt. And besmirched the free speech and academic freedoms they should be promoting.

If the Vice-Chancellor won’t back down and apologise, the University Council should intervene as the body obligated to ensure they uphold academic freedom.

Michael Reddell blogs:

Professor Thomas appears to regard such views –  and opposition to Maori wards on local councils (which have been defeated in most/all places where a referendum has been held on them) –  as simply illegitimate, and having no place in New Zealand, let alone on the campus of Massey University, an organisation founded and substantially funded by the New Zealand government and taxpayers.  She was terrified that Dr Brash might make some negative comment about Maori wards on campus and presumably no one at the university she manages could cope with knowing that somewhere on campus, an elderly former politician was expressing a view they might disagree with –  a view which, on this particular occasion, appears to be held by a fairly large chunk of the population.

Well summed up.

Massey is different: it is a public institution (establishment, funding, appointments to the council).  And if the (foreign) Vice-Chancellor of a public university thinks Dr Brash  –  who has given decades of public service to this country – shouldn’t be allowed to speak on campus, when invited by students (what, one wonders, would she do if one of the professors invited him to speak to a class?), you have to wonder who –  and which views –  are next in the line for a ban.  Dr Brash is prominent enough –  even if not always liked –  that there will be an outcry against his ban, while this sort of insidious censorship can be applied more broadly to less prominent people.

This move has backfired, but as Reddell says it may be used in future against less prominent people.

Her approach isn’t that of the courageous leader defending freedom and debate, but rather of aligning herself with the mob to veto the ability of student groups to invite speakers (ones uttering controversial views) to campus.  That sort of mobocracy, if allowed sway, would be the very antithesis of democracy as we’ve come to practice it in countries like ours (even Professor Thomas’s Australia) in the last couple of centuries.  Thugs and bullies rule, at the expense of those who respect the ability of decent people to disagree.   Thugs and bullies can come from either side of the political spectrum.  These days, in New Zealand (and other Anglo countries) they are almost all from the far-left.

Yep.

And Stephen Franks lays in:

The Free Speech Coalition’s next job seems likely to be to ask a court to tell us about the mystery safety-above-all provision that it appears Auckland Council and Massey University believe in.

This decision by the VC is so appalling it must be challenged.

Barry Soper is succinct:

Thomas says her Māori staff were offended by Brash’s leadership of Hobson’s Pledge, which she seems to think is akin to hate speech. Poor diddums.

If her staff are so precious that they can’t handle an argument against race based seats, they have no business working at a university whose mandate is to allow controversial and unpopular views.

We also have the Manawatu Standard News Director:

It seems Thomas is banning Brash because she doesn’t like what he says – an extraordinary position for a university leader. As Thomas herself says, university staff and students should be allowed to examine controversial and unpopular ideas.

A university that stifles debate, no matter how uncomfortable the subject matter, is undermining its reason for being.

So the local newspaper is also appalled. Yet the VC won’t back down, and is now backed be her Chancellor.

Nicola Willis writes in the NZ Herald:

A shiver went down my spine as I read Deborah Hill Cone’s opinion piece demonising early childhood education. Has she been into an early learning centre lately? Has she talked to families about the choices we make for the care of our kids?

If we are to believe her, all daycare is soul-destroying and parents who choose to use it are selfish and uncaring. Cue the eye-rolling of thousands of parents and teachers.

I had a similar reaction to DHC’s column.

We have Benjamin in an ECE for 24 hours a week. It is not a factory farm. There are only eight under twos there and it has been great for him. He has made friends with some of the other kids, he gets to do all sorts of activities we wouldn’t be able to do at home, and learns lot of stuff also (no it isn’t a baby sitting service – it is educational).

The teachers are awesome and I love hearing from them at the end of the day what Ben has been up to.

For us, ECE is the opposite of soul destroying.

I’m a mum to four kids aged 8,7, 5 and 2. Each attended a so-called “factory farm” for a period of their early years, or as we choose to see it: they attended an early childhood education centre. We continue to drop off our youngest daughter at one each day.

So I’m familiar with the knot of worry that accompanies families’ choices about childcare arrangements. Believe me I’ve sweated this stuff in the small hours. Am I a bad mother for returning to work? Will my children be scarred by being cared for by people who are initially strangers?

The first few weeks are tough especially when your kid gets upset as you leave them behind. But it normally only lasts for a few minutes. And now Ben looks forward to going.

In my role as National’s Early Childhood Education spokesperson I’ve had the privilege of visiting plenty of childcare centres and talking to lots of parents, teachers and experts about the choices families make about care for children under 6.

Quality early childhood education won’t damage your child’s psyche. Years of research and experience have given us clear evidence about this. What kids need is warm, responsive relationships with their caregivers – whether at home or elsewhere.

Quite the opposite of damaging, quality ECE can help your child for later in life.