Newsroom reports on a number of problems with the 2018 census.

The bottom line is:

Yesterday’s media statement said Stats NZ was delaying its first release of data from October to March of next year because of lower-than-expected response. The department’s “interim calculations” showed at least 90 percent of people had “full or partial” information in the census, down from 94.5 percent five years ago.

That means about one in 10 people didn’t take part, which has been described by University of Auckland professor of statistics Thomas Lumley as a “very serious” drop, The Spinoff reported.

A 10% non completion rate is unacceptable. It would not be unfair to say this is a failure by Stats NZ which has real consequences.

The statement said data for “small populations, subgroups and small geographies” will be “improved” and the quality of census data would be supplemented with administrative data.

Not good enough. This is why we have a census.

The Minister of Statistics should call for an independent review of this failure, to ensure the next census has a much higher participation rate.

Also we should not be given spin for months about how great the census went and then find out only now, how bad the participation rate was.

The last Australian census had a 96% response rate. They regarded 93.3% as the minimum required.

The Canadian census had a 98.4% response rate.

A better way to look at it is the non response rate. In Canada is was 1.6% and in NZ it was 10% – six times higher.

Stuff reports:

“Hillary Clinton is up to something.”

So says Michael Goodwin in the NYPost, who believes that all the political signs point to a potential 2020 run by the failed, two-time candidate.

Goodwin’s case is pretty direct: There’s no clear front-runner, she’s got a seasoned campaign team, she’s raising tons of money and giving it to progressive groups (the same BernieBro’s who opposed her in 2016’s primary), and the large field would let her take advantage of the “Trump” dynamic in the primary:

“A crowded, diverse field diminishes the chances of anyone knocking her off. Recall how Trump outlasted 16 GOP rivals by having a committed core of supporters that grew as the field shrunk. Clinton could be in a similar position — unpopular among many, but also unbeatable by a single opponent,” Goodwin writes.

I doubt anything could make Trump happier than Clinton being the Democratic nominee again.

There is indeed no front runner though. The top six candidates on prediction markets are:

1. Senator Kamala Harris, 19%
2. Senator Bernie Sanders, 16%
3. Former VP Joe Biden, 14%
4. Senator Cory Booker, 10%
5.  Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, 10%
6. Senator Elizabeth Warren, 10%

Personally I think the Dems would be best to nominate a Governor with an actual record of achievement. It should be someone who has done more than make angry speeches against Trump.

The Herald reports:

A judge has dismissed indecent assault charges against a man, accepting he was sleepwalking at the time after getting drunk.

The Herald on Sunday can finally reveal the story of Tristan Corey Scott after fighting to have his name suppression lifted.

It is the fifth known case where sleepwalking or parasomnia has been used as a defence in a New Zealand court and it is cropping up more around the world.

I’m incredibly sceptical. It seems like a get out of jail card to me.

But the mother of the two teenage girls who were indecently assaulted in the latest case told the Herald on Sunday the verdict was “atrocious”.

The teenage girls, who were sleeping in separate bedrooms, gave evidence that they awoke to find Scott in their rooms, touching their legs, according to court documents.

Even if he was sleep walking, sleep groping is another matter.

The court heard that Scott, who lives in Wellington and works in IT, had been drinking heavily.

Scott, 35, has a previous indecent assault conviction from 2011 after pleading guilty to molesting a woman who was also asleep in her bed. He had been drinking alcohol prior to the incident.

This and a third alleged instance that did not result in charges, in which Scott entered a darkened house uninvited, were cited by police as showing a propensity to enter rooms where women were sleeping.

The fact he had a previous conviction for indecent assault, says a lot.

But Scott’s lawyer argued that the earlier incidents could be other examples of parasomnia.

Or it could be examples of when he gets drunk he tries to feel people up.

District Court judge Jim Large found that the girls were indecently assaulted by Scott, but dismissed the charges saying he was not conscious of what he was doing because he was in a state of automatism by way of parasomnia, caused by excessive drinking.

So now everyone who gets trollied will say it was parasomnia.

But the teenagers’ mother does not believe that Scott suffered an episode of parasomnia, which meant he was incapable of knowing what he was doing.

“For me, he just got drunk to the point he did things he shouldn’t have.”

Her daughters were disappointed, she said.

As they should be.

Police told the girls’ mother that the prosecutor took issue with aspects of the decision relating to parasomnia and wanted to appeal to the High Court but following a review by the Deputy Solicitor General this did not proceed.

Why?

Stuff reports:

A new commission to review alleged miscarriages of justice will go to Cabinet within weeks, after a series of delays and questions over funding.

The Labour-led Government promised a Criminal Cases Review Commission in its coalition agreement with NZ First last year. The Greens also back the proposal.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern called for such a body “to fix the flaws in our justice system” in 2016, following a $2.5 million compensation payment to Teina Pora for more than 20 years of wrongful imprisonment.

Atleast Pora eventually got out and was compensated under the current system. I’d say the Peter Ellis case is a better example of why we need a Criminal Cases Review Commission.

But documents released under the Official Information Act show setting up the Commission has been beset with delays. Justice Minister Andrew Little has now pushed back the establishment to July 2019.

“The bill is well underway. Whether it will be this month or next month for Cabinet consideration I’m not quite sure. It has to be in the House this year. I expect it will be fairly soon,” Little told Stuff.

“We did a re-appraisal, and a more realistic timeframe for the Commission to open is July next year. That’s what we are working to.”

That sounds reasonable.

The Herald reports:

A group of New Zealanders behind a free speech campaign are proposing to take Auckland Council to court after successfully raising $50,000.

The Free Speech Coalition started its fundraising efforts following the Council’s decision to ban two Canadian far-right speakers from presenting at Council-owned venues – resulting in them cancelling their tour of New Zealand.

Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux were due to speak next month at the council-owned Bruce Mason centre on Auckland’s North Shore but Auckland Mayor Phil Goff made the decision to deny them access to city venues. …

Chris Trotter, who is supporting the Coalition, thanked every New Zealander who supported the cause.

“We had hoped to raise this money by 5pm Friday. However, within the first day of this campaign we have been completely swamped by people pledging money to the cause – from $5 to $5,000.”

Melissa Derby, another supporter, said they looked forward to setting a strong legal precedent.

“That shows the use of publicly-owned venue cannot be dictated by the political whims of those in power,” she said.

“For us this is not about helping these particular speakers, but in defending the rights of all New Zealanders to express and hear controversial views.”

The largest single donation was $5000, the next largest was $2500. In total, there were more than 700 donations in the last 24 hours.

That is a stunning result. And thank you to all the Kiwiblog readers who donated. I’m not part of the Coalition, but I am a supporter of their fight to defend our rights.

TOP announced:

The Board of The Opportunities Party (TOP) has decided to request that the Electoral Commission cancel TOP’s registration as a political party.

No surprise.

“The voting public demonstrated that best practice, evidence-informed policy is not of significant concern when deciding elections. When 20% of the vote moves in 48 hours simply on the back of a change of leader, with no improvement at all in policy being offered, what makes the New Zealand voter tick is clear.”

Telling the public they are dumb is not a good strategy.

Politics has always been about more than policy. Leadership is important. Without good leadership, policy is just words on paper.

The Herald reports:

Up to 8000 people will have procedures rescheduled ahead of Thursday’s nurses strike and hospitals are ramping up preparations to make sure they can treat those who are in urgent need.

Thousands of nurses, midwives and healthcare assistants voted to walk off the job on Thursday for the first time in 30 years after rejecting the latest pay offer from the district health boards (DHBs).

Capital and Coast chief medical officer John Tait, speaking on behalf of health boards around the country, said between 6000 and 8000 elective procedures would be deferred.

I guess this is what happens when pre-election rhetoric meets reality.

I never thought I would say this, but can we keep Winston on as Acting PM?

If we have to have a Labour-NZ First-Green Government, it is more tolerable with Winston calling the shots.

First issue on which he did well was on Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern where he said:

“Had we been asked… we’d have allowed them to come on the basis of free speech,” Mr Peters said in a post-Cabinet press conference on Monday.

“It’s one of the most fundamental freedoms that we have and we should be very careful who we expel on that cause, because the downstream historic record on that has been just disastrous.

Imagine how different the response would have been from Ardern. No way would she have said that. It would have been sopping wet stuff about needing to make people feel safe from people who say upsetting things etc.

Now as Peters is Acting PM, it is pretty unlikely Immigration NZ is going to refuse them visas. So good one Winston.

Then to top that, we have his response to the DHBs demanding a sugar tax:

Acting Prime Minister Winston Peters says he does not agree New Zealand should have a sugar tax, as suggested by the chair of two New Zealand DHBs, saying “people are capable of looking after their own lives”. …

Speaking this morning to TVNZ 1’s Breakfast today, Mr Peters said he does not support the introduction of a sugar tax, because “people are capable of looking after their own lives”.

“It’s a matter of education, it’s not just sugar – it’s a whole range of other things,” Mr Peters said.

“If we want to turn back the potential tsunami of obesity that’s coming, let’s be frank and open and look at a whole lot of products that are not good for people and try to turn people around by education.

The Herald reports:

The forced closure of an South Dunedin bar is an attack on its patrons, the publican says.

Following a hearing last month the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (Arla) has cancelled the Heffs Hotel’s on-licence and publican Stephen Clark’s managers licence.

Police alleged patrons were intoxicated and were argumentative and abusive when they visited the bar in March after an anonymous tip-off.

Last year the bar was forced to close for a week and Clark and duty manager at the time Jessie Matheson were banned from selling alcohol for six and eight weeks respectively.

There was a solemn mood in the bar when the Otago Daily Times visited yesterday, with many patrons saying they were devastated by the decision.

If a liquor outlet constantly violates the laws around alcohol sale, then it should and will lose its license. If you read the decision you’ll find:

• two previous suspensions
• a gang brawl on the premises
• has opened outside licensed hours
• the owner/duty manager intoxicated while in charge of the bar
• duty manager has no certificate
• on one occasion the duty manager was the cleaner!
• no food on the menu could actually be supplied, just five heat and eat meals
• the entire bar being full of intoxicated people after hours

At the second suspension, they were warned another strike would probably see the license cancelled.

The Free Speech Coalition has announced:

A crowd funding campaign has been launched to raise money to bring judicial review proceedings against Phil Goff and Auckland Council for their banning of speakers Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern at Council-owned venues.

A ‘Free Speech Coalition’ will collect funds for the legal action, and return them if the fundraising target is not met. The Coalition has been advised that the cost of engaging lawyers and proceeding with urgent legal action will be approximately $50,000.

New Zealanders who value free speech can pledge money to this cause at www.freespeechcoalition.nz.

With a few emails over the weekend, a dozen donors have already pledged nearly $5,000. This positive response has given the Coalition the confidence to open the campaign to the general public.

A supporter of the Coalition, Melissa Derby, says, “Standing up for free speech means standing up for speech you and I may personally find repugnant. We do not endorse these particular speakers’ views, but the general principle that people should be able to share, and be exposed to, controversial ideas.”

“Banning a pair of populists that together have over a million Youtube subscribers sets an extraordinary low bar for state censorship.””

“Council facilities, paid for by the general public, should operate as common carriers for people of all political views. They should not discriminate based on the personal views of politicians, nor should their use be subject to the whims of those who would threaten violent protest.”

Chris Trotter, who is also supporting the effort, says, “We accept the case for blocking genuine hate speech, such as incitements of violence or other illegal activity. But curbing free debate under threat of disruption is neither desirable nor acceptable in a free and democratic society. Truth is not afraid of trigger-words. Truth does not need a safe space. Truth is not a snowflake. Truth can take the heat and most certainly should not be forced to vacate the kitchen in the face of a couple of Alt-Right populists and a politically-correct Mayor.”

Donations can be made at www.freespeechcoalition.nz, or to the following bank account:
Free Speech Coalition
01-0527-0680196-00

No Right Turn also blogs:

Auckland Council apparently acted on this and cancelled their booking, ostensibly for health and safety reasons. Which is about as credible as Donald Trump saying his anti-Muslim ban wasn’t about religion. When the mayor of a city says they’ve given a direction, and what they want happens, I think we’re entitled to take their word for it.

The problem, of course, is that this is all illegal. Auckland Council is a body performing a public function and so subject to the Bill of Rights Act. Which affirms, among other things, both the right to freedom of expression, and the right to freedom from discrimination on the basis of political opinion. The Auckland Council’s actions are a prima facie violation of those rights and invite judicial review. And given Goff’s tweet, the outcome of such a review is likely to be ratepayer’s money spent on compensating Nazis for the breach of those rights, as well as an order that the council provide them with a venue (if they want one) on the same terms as any other customer.

Goff won’t care. Like police officers who beat suspects, he will face no personal consequences for violating these rights, and there’s no political downside for him because he’s picking on someone everyone hates. But we should care. Because if we let the mayor of Auckland decide what speech is acceptable in public facilities, then a future mayor may decide that they don’t like speech that we approve of.

Well argued.

Oranga Tamariki has 15 Community Response Forums whose job is to provide the Minister for Children (now Tracey Martin) with an independent view on how the Ministry for Children (Oranga Tamariki) is meeting its obligations in supporting any child whose wellbeing is at significant risk of harm now or in the future.

The CRFs are appointed by the Minister and meet several times a year.

In early June the Minister asked all the CRF chairs to come to Wellington for a meeting where she was to outline her priorities for the future direction of the CRFs.

The meeting was scheduled for the morning of Friday 5 July. On 4 July all the forum chairs assembled in Wellington. That night they held a meeting to discuss various issues and concerns they wanted to discuss with the Minister.

When they assembled the next morning at 9.30 they were told the Minister would not be attending. Having asked them all to come to Wellington to meet her, she stood them up!

Instead she sent officials to represent her. Those officials were, I am told, unable to tell the CRF chairs what the Minister expected of them nor give them any directions for the future.

So the meeting was a complete waste of time. It also would have cost probably over $20,000 in airfares and accommodation.

UPDATE: The Minister has said on Twitter she had a migraine, hence why she couldn’t attend. Fair enough. But why were attendees not told?

The Herald reports:

Charter school closures will have a disproportionately detrimental effect on Māori, educators Sir Toby Curtis and Dame Iritana Tawhiwhirangi say in a Treaty of Waitangi claim.

Curtis said most of the 1500 students at the charter schools the Government is shutting down were Māori, many of whom had enrolled to get a fresh start in education and get their lives back on track.

Six of the 11 partnership schools (Kura Hourua) had 87 to 100 per cent Māori rolls.

“The rights of these students to make that choice and the rights of parents and whanau to choose and support what’s best for their children are being taken away from them,” Curtis said.

Tawhiwhirangi said there had been a “total lack of consultation” with the schools and their students’ whanau.

“This Government has ridden roughshod over the futures of these young people in spite of claiming that they are placing a priority on helping our most vulnerable children.

“The evidence shows that Kura Hourua have been delivering very positive results for Māori students who for decades have been falling through the gaps,” she said.

Its putting ideology over evidence. The schools are delivering positive results for those who were failing in the state system. Labour’s answer is to force them back into the state system which failed them.

The Brexit Secretary David Davis has resigned over the Brexit plan agreed to by the Government. He (and many others) said that it would leave the UK still bound by most EU policies, yet be unable to influence them.

It is quite possible the Government may fall over this, or at least Theresa May could be goneburger. But if there is a change of leadership, the chances of an agreement with the EU will go from fairly slim to very slim. So it could be a hard Brexit.

Sadly the biggest beneficiary could be Jeremy Corbyn who may end up being elected despite his manifest unsuitability to be in charge of a fish and chip shop, let alone the UK.

If May goes, the favourites to replace her (for now) are:

1. Michael Gove
2. Sajid Javid
3. Jacob Rees-Mogg
4. Boris Johnson
5. Jeremy Hunt
6. Andrea Leadsom

Daniel Ikensom from Cato writes:

The last 13 presidents of the United States — going back to Franklin D. Roosevelt, who signed into law the watershed Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act in 1934 — considered trade to be mutually beneficial for their fostering of economic growth and good relations among nations. Those presidents aimed to avoid trade wars and committed their administrations to reducing barriers, respecting the rules, and supporting the institutions of trade.

Trump sees the world differently. He has departed from more than 80 years of US trade policy continuity, charting a new and deeply troubling course. Although Trump is not the first president to blame foreign trade practices for problems real and imagined, he may be the first to believe that protectionism is essential to making America great. He is certainly the only head of state ever to tweet that “trade wars are good, and easy to win.” Trump’s trade policy is motivated by a toxic blend of ignorance, petulance and nationalist grievance.

When it comes to trade policy, Trump is the most left wing President in modern history. He is more protectionist than Bernie Sanders.

Unlike his predecessors, he sees trade not as a win-win proposition, but as a zero-sum game with distinct winners and losers. Exports are Team America’s points; imports are the foreign teams’ points; the trade account is the scoreboard. 

Which is totally wrong. Imports are not bad. Both exports and imports are good. Imports allow you to focus on areas where you have a competitive advantage rather than try and do everything yourselves.

In 2017, US goods imports totaled US$2.2 trillion — of which US$1.1 trillion were purchases of raw materials, intermediate goods and capital equipment — and US goods exports totaled US$1.5 trillion. If Trump were to impose, for example, a 10 percent across-the-board tariff on all imports, producer costs would rise by roughly US$110 billion (or 10 percent of US$1.1 trillion). Commensurate retaliation abroad would reduce US export revenues by roughly US$150 billion (or 10 percent of US$1.5 trillion). Together, the increased costs and reduced revenue would amount to a US$260 billion reduction in manufacturing-sector profits. Last year, the US manufacturing sector’s profits were US$550 billion, so a 10 percent import levy alone could end up cutting profits nearly in half.

Tariffs don’t protect many companies. They damage them as they increase costs.

For every US$1 that steel producers add to GDP, steel users add US$29; for every one job in steel production, there are 46 in steel-using industries. While Trump wants credit for “protecting” the steel industry with a 25 percent import tariff, he and his advisers downplay the adverse impact on steel-consuming producers.

Yep consumers get screwed.

Those who subscribe to Trump’s points of view — that trade is an “Us versus Them” proposition — probably think that the president is doing the right thing in subverting the institutions of global trade and provoking trade wars. More sycophantic supporters consider Trump’s strategy to be ingenious. Apologists who know better say that the president is merely fulfilling his campaign promises — and how refreshing is it that a politician is making good on his promises! All are complicit in the unenlightened, provocative and possibly unhinged trade policy that Trump has wrought.

Yep.

NewstalkZB reports:

Transport Minister Phil Twyford has been fined $500 for using his mobile phone while his plane was taxiing, the Civil Aviation Authority has announced.

The CAA had been investigating Twyford’s use of a mobile phone after the plane doors had closed and was taxiing for take-off during a flight from Wellington to Auckland in May.

Twyford had been issued with an infringement notice for breaching CAA rules relating to the use of portable electronic devices onboard devices.

“Mr Twyford stopped using his phone before the aircraft took off so his actions did not pose a significant risk to the flight. Nevertheless, he did breach the rule, has been issued with an infringement notice and is required to pay a $500 infringement fine,” the CAA said in a statement.

Seems fair. I don’t think what he did was that big a deal. The problem for Twyford is he made such a federal case of what Brownlee did, he got hoist by his own petard.

Rob Goodman at Politico argues that as Trump has broken so many norms, Democrats should do the same and abandon self-restraint in order to regain power. The possible actions are:

• Grant statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico
• break California in seven, with the goal of adding 16 new Democrats to the Senate
• Expand the Supreme Court and the federal courts, packing them with liberal judges
• Move to multi-member House districts to roll back the effects of partisan gerrymandering
• Pass a new Voting Rights Act, including nationwide automatic voter registration, felon enfranchisement and an end to voter ID laws
• Grant citizenship to millions of undocumented immigrants, creating a host of new Democratic-leaning voters

Those actions would indeed cement a liberal majority in the three branches of Government.

This got me wondering what would a similiar program look like in NZ, if Labour or National decided to ram through massive electoral or constitutional changes on a bare majority.

Here’s what I’ve come up with so far. Feel free to add ones on in comments. These are not things which are desirable or popular. Just things that would give one side a significant advantage.

Labour

1. Spin off an affiliated Maori Party that contests the Maori seats but not the party vote, meaning they get a seven seat overhang.
2. Allow any citizen of a Pacific Island automatic citizenship and voting rights in NZ.
3. Lower voting age to 13
4. Allow all prisoners to vote
5. Establish an Upper House exclusively of Maori MPs, and no bill can be passed without its support
6. De facto compulsory unionism to increase funding for Labour
7. A fund to encourage voting where you get a $250 payment if you vote
8. Ban donations of over $20 to political parties

National

1. Spin off an affiliated Rural Party that contests rural seats but not the party vote, meaning they get a 15 seat overhang.
2. Ban anyone convicted of any crime in the last 15 years from voting
3. Ban non-natural persons (ie unions) from joining political parties or voting in them
4. Direct public service to offer public servants much higher salaries if they go onto individual contracts (which reduces funds for unions and hence Labour)
5. Require photographic proof of identity when voting
6. No representation without taxation – restrict the vote to those who pay income tax
7. Increase MMP threshold to 15%
8. Abolish spending limits for campaigns

Hopefully NZ will not go down the path of such partisan electoral or constitutional changes.

Stuff reports:

The Government has quietly cancelled extra funding for cochlear implants, despite a successful campaign for publicly-funded devices for every Kiwi who needed one.

Levin surf lifesaver Danielle McKay spearheaded the campaign after she waited three years for the surgery. She said the decision to slash the $6.5million funding boost was “shocking” and “disappointing.”

Health Minister David Clark refused to comment on the cut. But a spokesman confirmed that extra funding was not extended in this year’s Budget.

The Ministry of Health said there were 224 adults in line for a cochlear implant, and the average wait time was just over two years. But there are many more who still haven’t been officially accepted onto the cochlear programme.

I guess the Government needed the $6.5 million for free tertiary fees.

That was the position McKay, 23, found herself in last year, after three years of waiting for an implant. Despite a specialist telling her she had only a few months to save her hearing, when McKay contacted officials, she found she was only on a secondary review list.

So, the lifeguard launched a petition and teamed up with the YesWeCare health funding coalition. After she delivered the petition, with 26,643 signatures to Parliament, then Health Minister Jonathan Coleman stumped up an extra $6.5m in that year’s Budget.

It almost doubled the programme’s budget and allowed an extra 60 people to have the surgery. McKay underwent the procedure in October, although she had already gone completely deaf in one ear.

Now she’s furious others won’t get the same chance.

And she’s called on Clark to reconsider his decision. “No, it’s not right. It should be ongoing funding,” she said.

And the former Associate Health Minister comments:

As Associate Health Minister I launched cochlear implants programme in Wellington and saw the sensation and indescribable joy of people able to hear sounds and voices of their loved ones for often the first time. Extraordinary, and even more incredible that funding has been cut

— Peter Dunne (@honpeterdunne) July 7, 2018

It’s one thing not to provide extra funding in the first place, but to cut funding seems bizarre.

The Herald reports:

The promoter of a controversial Canadian pair accused of hate speech has cancelled their tour of New Zealand after Auckland Mayor Phil Goff denied them access to city venues. …

But promoter David Pellowe said the tour was instead cancelled when Goff moved to bar the pair access to Auckland Council venues.

He told Newstalk ZB there were no other venues available at this late stage and that all tickets would have to be refunded.

Goff minutes earlier tweeted that council venues shouldn’t be used to stir up ethnic or religious tensions in a city that’s multicultural, inclusive and embraces people from all faiths and ethnicities.

“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.

“Let me be very clear, the right to free speech does not mean the right to be provided with an Auckland Council platform for that speech.”

So the Mayor now personally decides whose speech is acceptable, and can use an Auckland Council facility. Governments tend to own many large speaking venues so this in fact does massively restrict the ability of someone to do a public session.

Will Goff apply his new standard of not stirring up religious tensions to ban any speakers who support Hamas or Hezbollah?

Of course not.

All these precious snowflakes who can’t handle a 24 year old Canadian from exercising her speech in public.

No Right Turn makes the point:

Unfortunately, being insulted is just something people have to put up with in a free and democratic society, and our Supreme Court is on record (in Brooker v Police) as saying so. We have a right to freedom of speech in New Zealand, which covers not just the right of these racists to speak, but also the right of their racist audience to listen. Restricting that right pre-emptively requires a very high test: basicly an announced intention on the part of the speaker to incite a riot. If that test isn’t met, there’s no justifiable reason to prevent them from speaking. And as I’ve said in other cases, the answer to speech you don’t like is more speech, not less. If they’re giving a speech, then protest outside, and make it damn clear to everyone that kiwis don’t agree with their racism and Islamophobia.

The threshold for suppressing speech should indeed be that high.

But now Goff has unilaterally announced his own test, let’s keep him to it. If you ever see a booking for a Council facility which has a speaker from an organisation with a history of anti-semitism or supporting terrorism, then make sure we all know so we can demand Goff be even handed.

Stuff reports:

Inventor and philanthropist Sir Ray Avery fears opposition, including from former prime minister Helen Clark, could jeopardise a planned charity concert at Eden Park.

“It’s a fall from grace for her, she’s really come down to be a petty politician,” Avery said of Clark’s submission opposing planning permission for the Waitangi Day event.

Avery hopes $4 million can be raised from the concert, and linked fundraising events, to supply incubators he invented for premature babies in developing countries.

The event requires planning approval and has re-ignited opposition from some locals to Eden Park hosting concerts.

“The proposed charity element is not directly related to the concert nor specific to this venue in any meaningful or concrete fashion within the application,” Clark’s submission was reported to have said.

It’s a bad look to be seen to be against a charity concert, but the issue is more nuanced than that.

Successive applications to hold concerts at Eden Park have not succeeded. They are not permitted activities. This man’s concert could easily be held @MtSmartStadium where concerts are a permitted activity.

— Helen Clark (@HelenClarkNZ) July 4, 2018

Exactly. Residents have rights under RMA to object. Five previous applications to hold concerts there have failed. Now the ruse is to put up one in support of a charity = Trojan horse. @MtSmartStadium is popular & well accepted concert venue & should be used. @Scungo @tmurphyNZ

— Helen Clark (@HelenClarkNZ) July 4, 2018

Clark has a valid point that this would set a precedent for Eden Park, and concerts are permitted at Mt Smart, so why not hold it there. It could well be that Eden Park are wanting to use such a good cause, as a precedent.

But at the end of the day, hopefully some solution can be found so the great work by Ray Avery is supported.

The Herald reports:

Acting Prime Minister Winston Peters says he will not opt out of his taxpayer-funded winter energy payment on principle because he has built his political career on universality.

Peters, who earns around $330,000 a year in his usual parliamentary role of Deputy Prime Minister, is eligible as a pensioner for the winter energy payment for superannuitants and some beneficiaries.

The payment, of $450 a year for singles and $700 a year for couples or those with dependent children, began on Sunday as part of the Government’s Families Package.

Winston is on a very good wicket. His annual remuneration isL

• $334,734 salary
• $16,980 allowance
• $13,600 perks (as calculated by Rem Authority)
• $100,000+ parliamentary superannuation (he is on the old gold plated scheme)
• $16,035 NZ Super
• $450 winter energy payment

So all up Winston is getting over $480,000 a year from taxpayers. But that isn’t enough. He needs his extra $450.