The Herald reports:

The Human Rights Act already includes provisions that cover both civil and criminal liability in relation to incitement of racial disharmony. However, there is a extremely high threshold – which in some instances requires the consent of the Attorney-General – before a prosecution can be laid.

It should be a very high threshold – basically inciting violence or hatred. For example advocating assaulting gays, executing Jews etc.

It acknowledged concerns about the adequacy and extent of current legislation.

“Freedom of speech and expression are really important human rights. But most rights are not absolute and we also have to remember that with rights come responsibilities,” a spokeswoman said.

“We need to make sure our laws strike the right balance between protecting the right to freedom of speech and appropriately ensuring that we protect the right to personal security and safety so that people do not suffer actual harm.

“We are not talking about hurt feelings or offence, but situations at the very serious end of the spectrum where serious damage or injury is caused.”

If there is no intention to ban speech that merely offends, then the current law is entirely adequate.

But civil liberties advocate Thomas Beagle said sometimes democracy could be painful and any new hate speech laws should promote more and better speech rather than suppress it.

The answer to bad speech is more speech, not less speech.

If a holocaust denier wants to give public lectures on why he or she thinks the holocaust never happened, then they should be allowed to. And I should be allowed to protest outside the venue (but not disrupt it), or ask questions, or criticise them, or mock them.

He wanted free speech in New Zealand to be genuinely free, even when those views may be unpopular or vilified by others and even when it offends.

There is no virtue in defending popular speech. The virtue is in defending speech we find offensive and believe is entirely wrong.

Stuff reports:

If she is wearing your threads, Cabinet rules allow designers to cash in on Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern on social media. But they must call her the Labour leader, or only by her name – not refer to her ministerial warrant.

Ardern, an avid follower of New Zealand fashion, has spent time in the front row at New Zealand Fashion Week, and is friendly with a few local designers.

Luxury clothing label Harman Grubiša was called on by the Prime Minister to create her outfit to meet the French president Emmanuel Macron. They have used the images of Ardern in their clothes to promote their brand across their company’s social media accounts.

And jewellery designer Cathy Pope has also used Ardern’s image in social media accounts.

A spokeswoman said  that where the Prime Minister’s Office learnt that her image was being used in such a way, they would ask for such marketing to be stopped. Often that meant simply tweaking the language so it was not seen as her endorsing whatever the product is.

But on Sunday, both companies were still displaying Ardern’s image wearing their clothes, identifying her in her capacity as prime minister.

It can be a fine line between promoting and endorsing.

But political pundit David Farrar says the use of her image is not quite cut and dry. 

The Cabinet Manual, which sets out rules for Ministers of the Crown, talks about endorsements of products and services. Photos of a minister may not be used to endorse a product.

Farrar acknowledged the designers should not be expected to know the rules set down in the Cabinet Manual.  “It’s a bit ridiculous to say you can’t use photographs of her wearing clothes. You need to wear clothes every day. I suspect the Royal Family run into this problem all the time,” he said.

“It’s a hard one to police, but having said that there may be implicit endorsement coming through.”

Farrar noted that all that may be needed is a tweak to language – the title of “prime minister” should not be mentioned, but the name “Jacinda Ardern” still can be.

Stuff approached me on this story. I actually semi-defended the PM and said that she can’t stop designers highlighting the fact she may be wearing their clothes.

I also said there is a line between wanting to promote NZ brands overseas, however not endorse a particular company in the NZ domestic market (as that is unfair to their competitors).

In the end all that may be needed is for the PMO or DPMC to ask those companies using her image, to make clear it is not an endorsement. I know this has happened in the past.

The Herald editorial:

The 10-year budget the Mayor Phil Goff will probably get passed by the Auckland Council today invites easy criticism. It fulfils his 2016 election promise to keep annual rate rises to no more than 2.5 per cent. But on top of that there will be a new dedicated rate for upgrading the city’s drains, another for environmental problems such as kauri dieback and the regional petrol tax for scheduled transport projects.

It is the total bill that matters to ratepayers and the mayor will not expect much praise for keeping the letter of his promise rather than the spirit.

Hopefully in 2019, they won’t be fooled so easily.

The fuel tax, for example, would be more palatable if it were to be tied to the cost of the central rail link now under construction. But the tax turns out to be dedicated to almost everything but that project, for which the council may still need to find a source of finance for its contribution.

The fuel tax would not be needed if the Council was more efficient.

Stuff reports:

The Government’s plan to require foreign firms to collect GST on goods they ship to New Zealanders from October next year – its so-called “Amazon tax” – is suddenly in genuine trouble.

Australia is the canary down this particular coalmine, and right now that canary is looking pretty poorly. …

Amazon has decided that rather than go to that trouble, it will instead block Australians from buying products through its main website.

Instead, Australians will only be allowed to shop at Amazon Australia, which for years at least looks set to offer only an inferior range of goods at higher prices.

Amazon Australia has just 10% of the products of the global Amazon.

We may be even worse off in NZ. There is no NZ Amazon store. So the local Amazon tax may see Kiwis unable to buy anything at all off Amazon.

Matthew Hooton writes:

Fifteen years after Don Brash’s Orewa speech restored National’s fortunes and 12 years since the launch of John Key’s smiley-wavy alternative, the party continues to poll at 45 per cent, just a couple of points away from governing alone.

Such high polling over many years and three leadership changes is near miraculous. Whatever is said about the lost opportunities of Key’s Government, neither he nor Steven Joyce can be accused of leaving National’s brand in anything other than outstanding shape.

Neither Jacindamania nor Labour’s $20 billion Budget spend-up has dragged more than a vanishingly small number of voters across the crucial blue-red line.

National is polling almost exactly the same as before Ardern’s elevation in August. In polling terms, she has done nothing but cannibalise her left.

It is astonishing that National continues to poll so high, despite both a leadership change and going into Opposition.

Here’s what the major opposition party has been after around six months of a new Government under MMP:

• 2009 – Labour at 31%
• 2000 – National at 32%

Ardern will be as aware as anyone how vulnerable she is.

Modelling, published on the Labour-aligned The Standard of 2000 potential election results derived from this week’s polls, suggests she has no more than a 50 per cent probability of a second term.

Push through their catch and release policies for repeat violent offenders and it will be much less than 50%.

The Coalition’s measurable promises of a billion trees, $3 billion for the regions, a net 100,000 new houses and materially reducing child poverty as measured by the Children’s Commissioner are all set to fail. As it becomes impossible to hide the lack of progress on these fronts, expect ministers to cut corners and for scandals to arise.

And zero road deaths and zero suicides!

The Herald reports:

Strikes and lockouts will be banned during bargaining negotiations under the Government’s new Fair Pay Agreement collective bargaining system.

This sounds good but in fact it is very bad. What they are not mentioning is that the industry agreements will be compulsory through arbitration. Strikes are bad. But at least with a strike you still get to make a choice as an employer about accepting the agreement or enduring the strike action.

Labour’s policy is for an arbitrator to be able to impose an industry agreement on an industry if the employers and unions can’t agree. This is a radical change to the decades old principle that no party should be able to be forced into an agreement.

Former National prime minister Jim Bolger will chair the working group set up to make recommendations on its design.

It’s a return to 1970s labour laws, so who better than the 1970s Minister of Labour!

I have huge affection for Jim Bolger, but I should point out that his personal politics today seem not that far removed from say Helen Clark’s. The last time I heard him speak, most of it seemed to be denouncing neoliberalism.

Who is on the working group?

• Rt Hon Jim Bolger – 35th Prime Minister of New Zealand, former Minister of Labour
• Dr Stephen Blumenfeld – Director, Centre for Labour, Employment and Work at Victoria University
• Steph Dyhrberg – Partner, Dyhrberg Drayton Employment Law
• Anthony Hargood – Chief Executive, Wairarapa-Bush Rugby Union
• Kirk Hope – Chief Executive, BusinessNZ
• Vicki Lee – Chief Executive, Hospitality NZ
• Caroline Mareko – Senior Manager, Communities and Participation, He Whānau Manaaki o Tararua Free Kindergarten Association
• John Ryall – Assistant National Secretary, E tū 
• Dr Isabelle Sin – Fellow, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research, and Adjunct Senior Lecturer at Victoria University of Wellington
• Richard Wagstaff – President, New Zealand Council of Trade Unions

I’m unsure of the wisdom of having business representatives take part in a working group, whose job is to bring back 1970s national awards. Would union representatives take part in a working group whose job it is to abolish the minimum wage for example?

I guess the logic is that things will be even worse if they don’t take part constructively. But they need to be careful that their involvement isn’t seen as indicating the business community wants a return to national awards.

There are inequalities in society which are gender based. With some of them women are disadvantaged and with some, men are disadvantaged.

I’m all for reducing inequalities for women such as the gender pay gap, and the fact many more women get sexually harrassed and assaulted etc. This post is not an argument against that.

But there was a quote I saw along the lines that if there is an area where women face disadvantage, you get massive public campaigns about it. But in areas where men face disadvantage, there is a near total absence of activism or publicity.

This rang true to me. The gender pay gap for example gets massive publicity. Scores and scores of articles on the fact the average hourly wage for women is around 9.4% less than for men. Huge global campaigns on this. Government action statements etc.

How often do we see this for an area of male disadvantage? Very rare. This got me wondering how many areas are there where men do worse compared to women? So I started doing research. And you can see the results below.

So when people start going on about male privilege, maybe it would be nice to have some balance about all the areas where men have really bad outcomes.

Where are the ministries, the taskforces, the campaigns for these areas?

I’m not saying that overall women are more advantaged than men. It’s not a competition. What I’m saying is that there is a huge disparity in how we talk about areas of male disadvantage. As a society we are almost silent on it, while on issues such as a 9.4% pay gap we have endless publicity.

So here’s the areas to date I have identified where men or boys in New Zealand are disadvantaged.

Education – Secondary

• 11% less likely to get NCEA Level 1
• 7% less likely to get NCEA Level 2
• 14% less likely to get NCEA Level 3
• 25% more likely to leave school with no qualifications
• Twice as likely to be a high (special) needs student
• 27% less likely to get UE
• Three times more likely to be stood down, suspended
• 5 times more likely to be excluded or expelled

Education – Tertiary

• 42% less likely to be in tertiary education
• 36% less likely to obtain a diploma
• 37% less likely to obtain a bachelors degree
• 25% less likely to get Honours
• 37% less likely to get Masters
• 26% less likely to get a PhD

Crime

• Twice as likely to be a victim of homicide
• 43% more likely to be assaulted by a stranger
• Twelve times more likely to be in prison
• Five times more likely to be sentenced for a crime
• Eight times more likely to be sentenced to prison

Health

• Seven times more likely to commit suicide
• Six times more likely to be subject to a mental health compulsory treatment order
• Seven times more likely to be a mental health special patient
• 113% more likely to be a hazardous drinker
• 67% more likely to drink drive
• Twice as likely to be a user of hard drugs
• 10% more likely to get cancer
• 74% more likely to have coronary heart disease
• 31% more likely to have a stroke
• 270% more likely to have gout
• 11% more likely to have diabetes
• Ten times more likely to have HIV/AIDs
• Four years shorter life expectancy
• 24% more likely to be a smoker
• 11% more likely to be obese
• 28% more likely to have high blood pressure
• 33% more likely to have high cholesterol
• 46% more likely to have an intellectual disability
• 22% more likely to be hearing impaired

Work

• Twice as likely to be injured at work
• Three times as likely to be seriously injured at work
• Twenty times as likely to be killed at work

General/Other

• Three times more likely to be deported
• 2.1 times more likely to have a fatal accident
• Four times less likely to gain primary custody of children
• Five times more likely to have to be paying child support
• 10% more likely to be homeless
• 28% more likely to be injured in a car crash
• 130% more likely to be killed in a car crash
• Four times more likely to drown
• Seven times more likely to be autistic
• 24% more likely to have Down syndrome
• Five times more likely to have ADHD as a child
• 30% more likely to be an infant death

Quite chilling when you read the whole list.

Hamish Rutherford reports:

The Cabinet has made no decision on ending oil exploration, documents being released today will show, with April’s announcement made on the basis of a political agreement between the coalition parties.

On April 12, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern led a group of ministerial colleagues into the Beehive theatrette to confirm news that the Government had decided it would offer no new offshore permits for oil and gas exploration, with onshore permits offered in Taranaki for as little as three years.

Although the news was delivered by ministers affected by the decision and in a forum usually used to discuss decisions made by the Cabinet, politicians made the decision in their roles as party leaders.

Today the Government will release a series of documents generated in the making of the oil and gas exploration decision, but it has already confirmed to Stuff that no Cabinet paper was created and that the Cabinet has not voted on the matter.

Wow. I suspected that the Government made this decision with minimal input from officials. I never thought they were so arrogant that they actually had not just no inputs from officials, but they didn’t even have a paper go to Cabinet.

It is literally Government by decree. You know the sort of thing the left used to hate Muldoon for.

Even worse this was not some minor economic decision. This was an unprecedented economic decision to ban an entire industry. To say there will be no future permits for any offshore exploration. It also implies that any current exploration is a waste of time, as there is no way the Government will allow them to trade an exploration permit for a drilling permit.

This huge decision was:

1. Not policy before the election for Labour or NZ First
2. Not included in the coalition agreement
3. Not made by Cabinet after due consideration
4. Not had any analysis done on the environmental and economic impact
5. Not consulted on in any way with affected companies

This is the way you expect decisions to be made in Venezuela, not New Zealand.

So why did they do it this way?

The Opposition has accused the Government of hastening the decision to allow Ardern to announce it on the eve of her departure for a high profile trip to Europe. Ardern flew to Paris the day after the oil and gas decision was made.

A spokesman for Ardern said the exploration permit announcement was usually made around the time of the oil industry summit and “had nothing to do with the prime minister’s trip to Europe”.

Of course it was all about her trip to Europe. The Government could have just made a decision not to issue permits for 2018/19 and got advice on the long-term issues. But they put PR ahead of responsible decision making.

In a statement, Ardern defended the handling of the decision, but said it was not how most decisions would be made.

This should scare business to the bone. Here we have the Prime Minister saying they may do the same in future. Which other industries will be closed down by executive fiat? All the PM has said is most decisions won’t be made that way. Business NZ should be demanding that the Government commit to never acting this way again (specifically acting with no consultation or advice) or they will cease constructive engagement with the Government. Otherwise they risk being patsies.

On Friday industry publication Upstream reported that companies which had conducted seismic testing on a speculative basis were planning a legal challenge to the Government’s decision, probably led by the Texas-based  International Association of Geophysical Contractors.

I’d love to see the Government in court explaining the process they used to make this decision.

This also highlights how much of a betrayal this is for NZ First voters. Winston signed up this ban without so much as an impact analysis. He sold out his provincial voters in a private agreement with Ardern and Shaw. It wasn’t even a case that the issue went to Cabinet, they considered the pros and cons, argued against but accepted the will of the majority. It is a total betrayal by NZ First, and one I suspect no amount of money for cathedrals will make up for.

An interesting Pew poll on religion in Western Europe.

91% were baptised Christian, 81% raised Christian, 71% still identify as Christian and 22% attend church at least monthly.

In every country except Italy there are more “non-practising” Christians than Christians who regularly go to church.

The five countries for practising Christians are:

1. Italy 40%
2. Portugal 35%
3. Ireland 34%
4. Austria 28%
5. Switzerland 27%

The top five countries for no religion are:

1. Netherlands 48%
2. Norway 43%
3. Sweden 42%
4. Belgium 38%
5. Denmark and Spain 30%

27% of Europeans believe in God as described in the bible. This is 64% of church attending Christians and 24% of non practising Christians.

42% of Europeans say Islam is fundamentally incompatible with their national culture and values. This includes 32% of those who have no religion.

The countries where people are most likely to say Islam is fundamentally incompatible are:

1. Finland 62%
2. Italy 53%
3. Austria 48%
4. Germany and Netherlands 44%

17% would not accept a Jew in their family and 24% would not accept a Muslim.

81% support legal abortion including 52% of church going Christians.

75% support same sex marriage including 58% of church going Christians.

70% are raising their children as Christian. This is 97% for church going Christians, 87% for non-practising Christians and 9% for non religious.

There are two huge dangers for the Government with its desire to repeal the Three Strikes law. The first is that the law is very popular.  Polling done in March by Curia found the following levels of support:

• All NZers – 68% support
• National voters 78% support
• NZ First voters 66% support
• Labour voters 63% support
• Green voters 48% support

The net support (support less opposition) is:

• All NZers +48%
• National voters +65%
• NZ First voters +39%
• Labour voters +38%
• Green voters +16%

But that is not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that if the law gets repealed, those who vote to repeal the law can be held accountable for crimes committed by second strikers released early.

With most law changes, you can’t know for certain that a law change led to that criminal being out on the streets. Changes to maximum sentences, to bail eligibility etc can’t allow you to conclude with certainity that the criminal who bashed or raped someone would have been in or out of prison before the law change. Because Judges and the Parole Board use discretion in deciding each case.

But the three strikes law is all about removing that discretion. It is about certainty. So one will be able to say “This crime would never have happened if Politician A had not voted to change the law”.

Let’s take an example. Say a second striker is given a nine year jail sentence for a rape. Under the current law they must serve the full nine years. If the law is repealed, they can be let out anytime between three years and nine years.

If they get let out after say six years and then a month later rape someone else, it will be crystal clear that the law change allowed that rape to happen. It won’t be the fault of the Parole Board. It will be the fault of the MPs who voted to repeal three strikes.

If the law is repealed, it is almost beyond doubt that some second strikers will get parole and go on to commit horrible crimes while on parole. The MPs who vote to repeal three strikes will not know what hit them when this happens.

The Government would probably end up with less hazard to their MPs if they changed bail laws, because it will not be possible to conclusively say if someone released on bail would have got bail under the old law. But three strikes is about certainty, and there will be no dodging the bullets.

Another reason repealing three strikes is stupid, is because it will free up almost no prison space. First strikers do not server longer under this law – only second and third strikers. At best there are probably only 100 to 150 more people still in prison due to the three strikes law. Compare that to the almost 2,000 more due to the bail changes.

In fact as the reoffending rate of strike offences is down since the three strikes law passed, it is possible repealing the law could increase the prison population.

So in summary MPs who vote to repeal three strikes will:

1. Be voting against a very popular piece of legislation with both Labour and NZ First voters
2. Be making a law change that will allow victims to conclude with certainty that their assailant was only able to beat/rape them because of this law change
3. Will make almost no difference to the overall prison population

You would have to have an electoral death wish to vote for it.

Newshub reports:

Climate Change Minister James Shaw wants you to stop eating so much meat.

But he has no plans to make it compulsory, though a recent study found going vegan is the best thing a person can do for the environment.

Second term policy if re-elected maybe?

“Ninety-five percent of new Zealanders consume meat, and it is fairly obvious there is a lot of water, a lot of energy and a lot of land use that goes into protein production that way,” the Green Party co-leader told TVNZ’s Q+A.

“If somebody wanted to have an immediate impact, they could eat one less meat meal per week.

Protein is actually quite important part of a diet.

What we’re trying to do is to ensure that there’s settings right across the economy that make sure people are supported, that they’re really clear about the direction of travel, that there are sufficient incentives to support that transition, right?

This means they either want to tax meat, or pay you to be a vegetarian.

Mr Shaw says encouraging Kiwis to say no to beef and lamb won’t harm our agriculture-led economy.

“New Zealand has enough land to feed about 40 million people with current production methodologies. We know that the middle classes in China and India and in parts of Europe and so on, there is a huge demand for our food products.”

Bad logic. It is worse for the environment for us to export meat, than consume it locally.

The most efficiently produced beef takes 36 times more land to produce than peas, according to the research, and created six times the emissions.

No more steaks. Peas for you lad.

Vernon Neil Bugden is a rapist and second striker.  He is serving a 9 year sentence of imprisonment for raping (both vaginally and anally) a woman while participating in a prison “work to release” programme, operating “outside the wire”.  He committed his second strike offence while in prison serving his first strike sentence.

His first strike offence was for an attack woman using a knife and in which he choked and threatened to kill her.  This attack, for which he was convicted of wounding with intent to injure, was committed in breach of a protection order.  For that offending, he was sentenced to 2 years 8 months imprisonment.

Bugden has dozens of criminal convictions, many for violence against women. Earlier offending includes beating his pregnant partner so badly she miscarried her twins. He has violent convictions at least in 2003, 2010, 2011, and 2012.

Three strikes prevents him being released early by the Parole Board as he must serve his entire second strike sentence without eligibility for parole.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Justice Minister Andrew Little want the Parole Board to be able to let him out early to continue prey on vulnerable victims.

Under Three Strikes, Bugden will serve up to 6 years more than he could without Three Strikes, and women are safe from him until at least May 2023.

The Herald reports:

Landlords have a little over a year to insulate their properties as the Healthy Homes Guarantee Act comes into force — and sharks are circling.

Some insulation providers have been said to jack their prices up by the amount of government subsidy and then essentially offer non-existent discounts to cream the grant off for themselves. Or there is no subsidy available so the homeowner is effectively paying their own subsidy.

“It used to be a good deal, but then the prices doubled, so when the government subsidy was applied, it made no difference at all,” says Andrew King, executive officer of the New Zealand Property Investors’ Federation.

When the Herald contacted property investor associations across the country, examples of price gouging and alleged fake subsidies emerged.

The Government is bad at recognising unexpected consequences. This policy is leading to price gouging by insulation forms.

Th Super GoldCard is a cash cow for transport operators.

There are five new Dames and three new Knights. They are:

1. Dame Catherine Healy, co-ordinator, NZ Prostitutes Collective
2. Dame Luamanuvao Winnie Laban, former Labour Cabinet Minister
3. Dame Charmian O’Connor, chemistry professor, former head of Federation of University Women
4. Dame Jules Topp, entertainer
5. Dame Lynda Topp, entertainer
6. Sir Hekenukumai Busby, waka craftsman
7. Sir John Rowles, singer
8. Sir William English, former Prime Minister

Congratulations to all those who got an honour.

Jim Rose writes in Stuff:

The new Government is deeply troubled by the 30 per cent increase in the prison muster since 2011. But nearly all those additional prisoners are gang members, who are now where they belong.

The number of gang members in prison has increased by 350 per cent since 2011; from 1051 in April 2011 to 3711 in April 2017 (see graphic). These are violent career criminals getting what they deserve.

What is important to note is that the number of prisoners without any gang affiliations has barely increased at all since 2011 – by 5 per cent, from 6020 to 6353. That is no crisis.

I would note that there is a difference between gang membership and affiliation, but regardless a useful analysis.

So when Labour says that we must cut the prison numbers by 30%, they aren’t talking about letting people out who are in jail for jaywalking.

On average, people must have committed 11 offences before spending their first spell behind bars.

And the average prisoner has over 40 convictions.

Mike Yardley reports:

Despite the first flash of winter’s fangs gripping NZ, it’s good to be home. I’ve spent most of May in Europe, where in France the talk on the street is not about royal weddings or abortion referendums, but strikes.

Are the French ever not striking?

In France, the mass show of union militancy is more about protecting the special privileges that have cossetted much of the public sector in a pampered parallel universe for decades. But they may have finally met their match in French President Emmanuel Macron.

All previous Presidents have basically failed to do significant reform.

A central plank in his election manifesto was to “unlock” the French economy and reshape the public sector, which employs one in five workers. And the unions are fighting back.

The spring of discontent started with Air France staging rolling strikes, despite staff being offered a 7 per cent pay rise over four years. The ailing carrier is drowning in debt, propped up by its alliance with KLM and the French Government’s ownership stake.

The French Economy Minister has just reiterated that without staff agreement to improve competitiveness, the airline “will simply disappear, because the state is not there to pay off the company’s debts”.

Sadly letting a union wiping itself out of existence by getting all its members redundant may be the only way they’ll learn.

Major public sector reforms aim to cut 120,000 state jobs from its 5.6 million workforce, while also blitzing the entrenched jobs-for-life culture and ludicrous retirement age entitlements.

The most formidable priority is to drag SNCF, the state railway company, into the real world, triggering the biggest shake-up to France’s railways since they were nationalised in 1930s. The reform is due to help the debt-ridden operator prepare for the onset of EU-sanctioned foreign rail competition starting next year.

Currently, SNCF trains cost 30 per cent more to run than Swiss or German trains, and the rail company has amassed debts of nearly NZ$100 billion.

Macron is proposing to bail out SNCF in exchange for rehashing the employment terms and axing the jobs-for-life special status.

Railway staff enjoy extraordinary privilege, dating from the days when workers shovelled coal into steam engines.

At present, most railway staff can retire on a gold-plated pension at 55, while train drivers and conductors can retire at 50-52 – compared to the national retirement age of 62. They also enjoy free train travel and subsidised housing for life.

You can see why they don’t want to give it up. Perks for life and a pension at age 50.

Since April, chaos has consumed train travel, with two days in every five being paralysed by rolling rail strikes. On Tuesday last week, a general strike saw the likes of street sweepers, librarians and teachers, join rail staff in paralysing France. After rampaging through spring, the rail strikes look set to stalk summer, too. But this time, it’s different.

Public opinion polls don’t back the unions and Macron is vowing not to join a long list of predecessors who capitulated to the revolt on the street.

Good luck to him.

Rawiri David Wereta is a second striker.  According to the last High Court Judge who sentenced him in 2017, Wereta is currently serving a set of sentences totalling about 21 years for repeated serious violences.  His second strike offence was for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, committed on a fellow prisoner, for which he received a sentence of 6 years 9 months imprisonment.  He committed his second strike offences while in prison serving his first strikes sentences.

His latest sentence was for assault with a weapon after attacking another prisoner with a 30-40cm long ‘shank’ – prison slang for an improvised, sharpened weapon. After he nearly killed the prisoner by stabbing him 18 times, he did a shirtless victory parade of the cell block. Am sure he’ll respond well to rehabilitation eh.

His first strike offence was for the aggravated robbery of a suburban dairy, which he committed with his brother.  They attacked not just the employee on duty but also based a person outside the store into unconsciousness. For that, and other offending, he received a sentence of 10 years 6 months imprisonment.  Aggravated robberies of dairies can have devastating consequences for the victims. Apart from the obvious violence suffered, the psychological impact is often huge, and financially can be crippling on people often barely able to eke out a living from running their dairy, working long hours, 7 days a week.  When sentenced for this offending in 2013, the court had to have 13 police and security officers in court to ensure Wereta and his brother, who was also being sentenced, behaved themselves.  Both were heavily manacled for the sentencing.

Wereta has at least 68 criminal convictions stretching back to 1997.  He is or has been a member of Black Power and the Nomads gangs.  The judiciary considered imposing Preventive Detention on Wereta in 2014, but failed to do so.  Three strikes prevents him being released early by the Parole Board as he must serve his entire second strike sentences without eligibility for parole.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Justice Minister Andrew Little want the Parole Board to be able to let him out early to continue his violent offending in the community, rather than in the confines of prison.

Under Three Strikes, Wereta will remain in prison, ineligible for parole, until 2028.

An interesting survey of lawyers by the Law Society relating to harassment, stress and bullying. Some of the key data is:

• Net job satisfaction is +61% (81% satisfied, 18 dissatisfied)
• Work life balance satisfaction is +31%
• Managers care about my well-being +62%
• Job is very stressful +22%
• Time pressures are unrealistic -9%
• Major culture changes are needed -37%
• 31% of female lawyers have been sexually harassed at some stage, and 5% of male lawyers
• 5% of female lawyers have been sexually harassed in the last year
• 98% of sexual harassment towards women is done by men
• 74% of sexual harassment towards men is done by women (and 26% men)
• 52% of lawyers have been bullied at some stage.
• 6% of lawyers have been bullied in the last six months
• 52% of bullying was done by male lawyers, 31% by female lawyers and 17% both genders equally

Newshub reports:

Belgian authorities are facing questions over why a prison inmate, suspected of links to radical Islamists in jail, was let out for a day, enabling him to carry out what police called a “terrorist attack” in the city of Liege.

The justice minister, who oversees the prison service, said he felt “responsible” for Tuesday’s bloodshed in which two policewomen and a bystander were killed. The attacker was shot dead by police at a nearby school shortly afterward.

“The question of whether this man should have been given leave is striking because he killed three completely innocent people with a wish to kill himself,” Koen Geens told RTBF radio.

“I have to examine my own conscience.”

Interior Minister Jan Jambon said authorities were still examining the motives of Benjamin Herman, a 31-year-old Belgian drug dealer who had been in jail for years but was let out for two days on Monday to prepare for an eventual release in 2020.

But hey at least they reduced their prison population!

Stuff reports:

Television channel Three owner MediaWorks has warned the Government that commercial television could come under more pressure if it doesn’t consult widely and think through its plan to boost public broadcasting. …

But he cautioned that the free-to-air television market remained under a lot of pressure.

“To have the Government owning three TV channels – One, Two and Duke – with no public service broadcast imperative, competing against one independent broadcaster, means you are potentially jeopardising your one point of diversity of view.

“If you ended up in a situation in two or three years where Three didn’t exist and the only form of broadcast news was government-owned, with a commercial imperative, it would be a very unfortunate outcome,” he said.

We should be worried that the Government is dominating the airwaves. Look at the significant free to air public TV channels and private TV channels.

Government owned

• TV1
• TV2
• Duke
• Maori TV
• Radio NZ (planned)

Private

• Mediaworks (could fold)
• Prime

So if the Government wants to turn Radio NZ into a Government owned TV station, they should sell off TVNZ first. It is unhealthy to have so many stations government owned.