The Herald reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s look at what the VC said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stuff reports:

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

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

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

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

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

Stuff reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stuff reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barry Soper writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Roughan writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How this works in Europe under the GDPR is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Herald reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TVNZ report:

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

This MBIE briefing on tourism explicitly raises the idea of a toilet tax with ratepayers paying a tax based on the number of toilets they have.

So even our shit is going to be taxed!

Politik reports:

Broadcasting Minister Clare Curran is to review the “future direction” of Television New Zealand. …

She said the initiative would include recommendations for “greater collaboration between, and efficiencies from, publicly funded media organisations, including the future direction of TVNZ.”

Options could logically range from selling it through to de-commercialising it so that it became a public broadcaster like Radio New Zealand but Curran was unwilling to speculate on what might be on the table.

Selling TVNZ should be a no-brainer. It is not a public broadcaster and never will be. In a decade or so it might be worthless. The Government should sell TVNZ now and put the proceeds towards public broadcasting.

Some great sessions at Quora with Robert Guest, the Foreign Editor for The Economist on free speech. Some extracts:

Incitement to violence should be banned. However, it should be narrowly defined. If you lead an angry mob to my house and shout: “Let’s kill Robert Guest”, that qualifies. If you hate something I’ve written and tweet “Robert Guest is an idiot and I wish he were dead”, that is a disagreeable thing to say but it should not be illegal, because you’re not seriously expecting anyone to harm me.

The test is: does the speaker intend to encourage those who agree with him to commit violence, and are his words likely to have that effect in the near future? If not, it’s not incitement to violence. So, for example, if you say something offensive about me and I react by smashing a window or punching you in the face, I’m the one whose conduct should be illegal, not you. Other people’s words are never an excuse for violence.

We once summarised our views on free speech with four short, robust rules: “Never try to silence views with which you disagree. Answer objectionable speech with more speech. Win the argument without resorting to force. And grow a tougher hide.”

Trying to prohibit speech on the basis that someone in an audience might feel hostile about someone else and might go do something is not justified.

There was once a time when you could be put to death for saying the wrong thing about Christianity. About a mile from my home in England is a memorial to seven Protestants who were burned at the stake in 1521 for heresy. But these days the biggest fears concern the discussion of Islam.

In 1989 Iran’s theocratic ruler, Ayatollah Khomeini, called on Muslims everywhere to kill Salman Rushdie, a British writer, for a novel that the Ayatollah claimed insulted Islam. (It is highly unlikely that he read it.) Since then, some radical Islamists have decided that it is their duty to murder people who are rude about their religion. Most Muslims don’t take this view, but it doesn’t take many violent zealots to chill discussion. Tim Garton Ash, in his book “Free Speech”, calls this the “assassin’s veto”. It is very effective. When the creators of “South Park” wrote a satirical musical called “The Book of Mormon”, Mormons took it in good humour. But no one would dare to stage such a production about the Koran.

Could you imagine the death toll if someone did a satirical musical based on the Koran!

Some governments want to see a ban on insulting religion written into international law. This would be a terrible policy. A religion is a set of ideas. It should be open to debate and satire, just like any other set of ideas.

Couldn’t agree more.

This shows the number of strikes and days lost due to strikes since the 1920s.

Labour is wanting to legislate for a return to the national awards we had in the 1970s.

The Government is having an inquiry into the Deputy Commissioner of Police because he was a friend and supporter of Clint Rickards, who was accused of rape.

The argument seems to be that supporting Rickards was such a bad thing to do, it makes him unsuitable to be appointed by the Prime Minister as Deputy Police Commissioner.

Well if that is the case, well what does this story from 2009 mean:

In an interview with broadcaster Willie Jackson and aired today on Radio Waatea, Mr Rickards listed his backers as including Youth Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta, Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples and Maori Affairs Minister Parekura Horomia.

“I’ve certainly received support from Nanaia Mahuta – Nanaia has been very supportive and I’m thankful to her for that,” he said.

Does this mean the Government also needs an inquiry into the decision of the Prime Minister to appoint Nanaia Mahuta?

Stuff reported in June:

Auckland mayor Phil Goff’s assertion that he swiftly “removed” a staff member for leaking information, doesn’t match the former employee’s version.

The ex-employee told Stuff they had not leaked, not been accused of leaking, and left amicably in Goff’s second week to take up another job as previously arranged.

Goff claimed that he “removed a staff member within days of being made mayor” during an interview with Stuff on Thursday. The mayor did not identify the former staff member. 

I’ve been looking into this, and have now seen several documents that conclusively back up the former staffer, and disprove Goff’s claims.

The documents I have seen are:

1. A redundancy form for the employee in question with a termination date of 31 October 2016
2. A departure form for the employee in question which states redundancy as the reason for leaving
3. A letter from the Chief of Staff dated 6 October 2016 (dated two days before the election) that states the employee will finish work on 31 October 2016 and acknowledging that if Goff wins the employee will make himself available for a couple of weeks until 31 October
4. A final pay slip showing redundancy termination payment

So there is absolutely no doubt that the staffer was not “removed” by Goff, as Goff claimed. The staffer was on a contract that expired with the former Mayor. He agreed to help out for two weeks if Goff won, and did so. He left as scheduled on 31 October, which is the date that had been agreed before Goff was Mayor.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Funding for a ground-breaking mental health scheme to ease strain on emergency services has been axed by the Government. 

An $8 million co-response service would see a mental health worker attend all crisis calls along with police and ambulance staff. Officials believed it could slash the number of mentally ill people being locked up in police cells by as much as 75 per cent.

But Health Minister David Clark has dumped the programme, which was due to begin in September.

It comes a week after Stuff revealed the Government dropped extra funding for cochlear implant surgeries.

Labour has billions of dollars for good looking horses, diplomats and students, but cuts funding for mental health response teams and cochlear implants.

It is all a question of priorities.