Stuff reports:

Flinching when he heard himself described as a man who used power to prey on women, Harvey Weinstein was arraigned on Friday (Saturday NZ Time) on rape and other charges in the first criminal prosecution to result from the wave of allegations against him that sparked a national reckoning over sexual misconduct.

They may struggle to find a jury which can hear the case!

More than 75 women have accused Weinstein of wrongdoing around the globe. Several actresses and models accused him of criminal sexual assaults, but many of the encounters happened too long ago for any prosecution. Film actress Rose McGowan said Weinstein raped her in 1997 in Utah, “Sopranos” actress Annabella Sciorra said he raped her in her New York apartment in 1992 and Norwegian actress Natassia Malthe said he attacked her in a London hotel room in 2008.

The Herald reports:

Transport Minister Phil Twyford has received official advice to do more work on using buses instead of modern trams from downtown Auckland to the airport – a move that could save taxpayers as much as $2.5 billion.

But the minister, who says trams to the airport has a preliminary estimate of $3.7b, has rejected the idea of running buses on a dedicated corridor. Officials have put a cost of $1.2b to use advanced buses to the airport.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Twyford made an election promise last August to build modern trams, or light rail, from the CBD to the airport and from the CBD to West Auckland. The latest cost estimate for the project is $6b.

Papers obtained by the Herald under the Official Information Act show Twyford was advised by the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) shortly after coming to office in November to look further at advanced buses to the airport before finalising the preferred mode.

Officials said new transport technology was evolving quickly and narrowing the difference between the levels of service and capacity between advanced buses and modern trams, citing an example being tested in China.

“These technologies (of the buses) have the potential to deliver light rail performance at lower cost due to less track and fewer overhead infrastructure requirements.

Labour and Greens have an obsession with rail. Often bus lanes and the like can’t deliver far better public transport for less money.

The trouble with rail is it is so inflexible. It costs hundreds of millions to change a route. Buses can easily be rerouted. And the future will be self driving public transport vehicles that can pick you up from your home and deliver you to your destination.

Stuff reports:

The newspaper exit poll indicated overwhelming support for change. The survey by pollster Ipsos-MRBI says 68 per cent of voters backed repeal of the ban and 32 per cent opposed it. The pollster says it interviewed some 4,000 people and the survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 1.5 percentage points. The poll is only a prediction.

The exit poll is in line with pre-voting polls.

Earlier polls have had yes leading by margins of 11% to 40%. It was always going to be a case of how big a win.

The margin for yes for various demographics is interesting:

• Men +30%
• Women +40%
• Under 25s +74%
• 50 to 64 year olds +26%
• Over 65s -20%

Not a huge difference between men and women voting. All age groups strongly in favour except over 65s.

It has been conventional wisdom for the last few months that the Democrats will retake the House. They have done very well in special elections and have had a huge lead in the generic ballot.

But things are getting tighter.

This is the RCP average of the polls of the generic ballot.

The Democrats had a 13% lead at the beginning of 2018. It is now just over 3%.

The Cook Report looks at the likely seats based on safe, likely, lean and toss-up. at each stage the numbers are:

• Safe – Dems 179, GOP 155
• Likely – Dems 191, GOP 185
• Lean – Dems 198, GOP 212
• Tossup – Dems 200, GOP 235

So the Dems need all the tossups and some of the leans to go their way. That is possible but needs a big surge. A 3% generic ballot lead is not enough. However the ballot may not take account of enthusiasm. Dems may be more motivated.

But if Justice Kennedy announces he is retiring from the Supreme Court, then GOP voters will be very motivated to turn out for Senate elections.

Hamish Rutherford writes:

When the Government signalled plans to introduce a special fuel tax in Auckland, transport officials warned Transport Minister Phil Twyford that such a measure had been tried before and failed. At least twice.

For all the good intention – that motorists benefiting from major transport projects pay their share – there is little that can be done to prevent the impact of the tax increase spreading across the country.

This is key. The petrol companies may well treat the 11.5 cents a litre extra tax in Auckland as a sunk cost and charge four cents a litre more nationwide.

But there are signs that rather than spilling over when the tax comes into force, that the sharp price increase in recent weeks could be price spreading in anticipation of the price increase.

Yep once a future cost is known, it is often factored in early.

This has all happened before, suggesting Governments never learn.

During the early 1990s, New Zealand had a regional fuel tax, but it was abandoned as the impact spread across New Zealand.

The Government passed legislation for another regional tax in 2008, but never introduced it because of fears of price spreading.

We know this because it is contained in a very clear warning to Twyford about what could happen to his increase.

So this is known, but the Government ignores it. Motorists in Invercargill, Napier and Palmerston North will be paying more for their driving, in order to fund light rail in Auckland.

But given how stark the warnings were, the regional fuel tax simply looks dishonest. The Government should admit it will not work, replace the regional tax with a smaller nationwide one and drop the charade.

Will they listen?

The Herald reports:

Tech giant Google is under fire for “thumbing its nose” at the courts by refusing to take down online content which breaches court orders.

In high-profile cases covered by the Herald in recent months, Google NZ along with New Zealand’s major media outlets have been served with orders which suppress details and require the removal of content that infringes on privacy or fair trial rights.

However, Google says it’s “not in the business of censoring news” and won’t comply because its search engine is bound by the laws enforced at its home, the Googleplex, in California’s Silicon Valley.

The result means some information suppressed by New Zealand’s courts can be revealed in a Google search.

The problem with demanding that Google be bound by NZ law, is you are also effectively demanding it be bound by Iranian law, Zimbabwe law and North Korean law. It becomes lowest common denominator.

However, despite having an Auckland office, Google NZ said it couldn’t remove details of the stories from its searchable records.

In an affidavit to the court, Google NZ software engineer Joseph Bailey, wrote: “Google New Zealand Limited has no ability to comply with the interim orders.”

He explained that the Google search engine, Google LLC, was a separate legal entity incorporated in the US, meaning New Zealand’s courts and laws held no power over it.

Google NZ is basically a sales office. It has no say on how Google operates in NZ.

Newshub reports:

Newshub can reveal Phil Twyford may have broken another serious aviation rule.

His ministerial responsibilty for civil aviation was taken off him on Thursday after he admitted using a cellphone on a flight.

But now he’s being accused of breaking another law by standing up out of his seat as the plane was moving to the runway.

National’s Judith Collins has made the claim saying the rule was broken on the same flight from Wellington to Auckland on Budget Day – May 17. 

“Not only did Phil make a call when the plane was taxiing but he also got up afterwards out of his seat,” Ms Collins told Newshub. 

Just a week after the flight the Transport Minister appears to have a case of brain fade – he can’t remember. 

“I have no recollection of that, no recollection at all.”

“I’m not saying that I didn’t I just honestly can’t remember I have no recollection that I did stand up. It seems to me unlikely,” he said. 

Ms Collins said the information had come from the same source who informed her of the original breach of the rules. 

“The information has clearly been completely correct to date, so…,” she said. 

Twyford also doesn’t recall exactly what was happening when he made the phone call on the plane.  

Poor Phil is having a bad week. He’s also had Matthew Hooton dissect the Kiwibuild farce.

The Herald reports:

New Zealanders may get the opportunity to vote on legalising cannabis and voluntary euthanasia at the same time, possibly as early as next year.

Labour agreed to hold a public referendum on legalising cannabis for personal use at or before the 2020 general election as part of its confidence and supply agreement with the Greens.

The Government now says it could be held ahead of the election to make sure it did not overshadow the election campaign.

Parliament is also considering a bill to legalise voluntary euthanasia, and NZ First has said its support is conditional on a binding referendum on the law change.

The bill’s sponsor, Act Party leader David Seymour, has agreed to that proposal, though it will still need majority support in Parliament to proceed.

Justice Minister Andrew Little said there could be some benefits to holding two referenda at the same time.

That could be difficult to do, if they are to be held in 2019.

The euthanasia bill only gets reported back 31 March 2019. The third reading could well not be until August or September. If the law triggers a referendum that would make it hard to do it before the end of 2019.

NZ First leader Winston Peters said today that he wanted the cannabis referendum to be binding on the Government.

But Little said neither of the referenda were likely to be binding: “We don’t typically do binding referenda in this country.”

Both referenda should be binding. CIRs by their nature are not binding, but Government instituted referenda have pretty much always been binding.

So Little is quite wrong when he says we do not typically do binding referenda.

Stuff reports:

A lucrative free trade deal with the European Union is taking the next step after the European Union agreed to launch formal negotiations with New Zealand and Australia.

A deal with the EU is considered one of the holy grails for New Zealand – potentially worth billions of dollars.

Trade Minister David Parker said a deal with the EU would be “very, very significant”. The talks open the way for a free trade deal with one of the largest economies in the world.

This is very welcome.

However we should be realistic that the EU is in fact quite protectionist with huge agriculture subsidies and quotas and we are not going to get a pure FTA which will simply allow us to sell whatever we want to whomever wants to buy it.

Stuff reports:

An international team of investigators says that detailed analysis of video images has established that the Buk missile that brought down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 nearly four years ago came from a Russia-based military unit.

Wilbert Paulissen of the Dutch National Police said Thursday that the missile was from the Russian military’s 53rd anti-aircraft missile brigade based in the Russian city of Kursk.

Paulissen was speaking at a presentation of interim results of the long-running investigation into the downing of flight MH17.

The passenger jet was headed from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, when it was was blown out of the sky over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014.

That can’t be right. Winston insists there is no proof Russia was involved.

The Herald reports:

Transport Minister Phil Twyford has apologised and offered his resignation to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern as Transport Minister after making a phone call on a plane.

Twyford has lost responsibility for the Civil Aviation Authority after the incident on a domestic flight.

Twyford made the call after the aircraft doors had shut in preparation for take-off.

“I recognise that I made the call when I shouldn’t have,” he said in a statement.

“This is inappropriate for anyone, but particularly inappropriate for me as Transport Minister. I apologise unreservedly.”

“I have apologised to the Prime Minister and offered my resignation as Transport Minister.

“She has declined my offer but chosen to transfer my responsibility for the Civil Aviation Authority to Associate Transport Minister Julie Anne Genter.

Now I don’t think this is a resignation event. But a Labour MP called Phil Twyford apparently does. Because in 2014 when Gerry Brownlee also breached aviation security, RNZ reported:

Labour transport spokesperson Phil Twyford said John Key had been too quick off the mark in deciding not to accept Mr Brownlee’s resignation and should have waited for the outcome of the CAA investigation.

So if Twyford says Brownlee should have been stood down until a full investigation is completed, surely the same should apply to him now?

Mr Twyford said it was important Mr Brownlee was held to account, and pointed to the prosecution of John Banks when he was Police Minister for using his cellphone during a flight.

“Well I think it’s very important, for the public, that politicians are seen not just to make the laws but to follow them, as well, and that’s a pretty fundamental principle of our democracy.”

And here Twyford is basically demanding prosecution.

Again I don’t think this is a resignation offence. But Twyford has created the rod for his own back by his demands for Brownlee to be stood down in 2014. What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander.

Also of interest is Twyford didn’t own up to this when it happened. It was only when Judith Collins asked him a question about it, that he did anything.

Matthew Hooton writes:

For those asking, yes, Todd Scott filed a Statement of Claim against me in the High Court today. He alleges that it was negligent for me to have sent NBR the column I did about Steven Joyce. Consequently, despite the column having been published in the NBR after being read and subedited by several NBR staff including editor Duncan Bridgeman, Todd says I should have to pay some or all NBR’s costs and any losses it suffers from Mr Joyce’s litigation. I understand these are now many tens of thousands of dollars.

This is a very novel legal move. If media owners are able to seek financial redress from reporters, journalists and other contributors for supplying material that might later be found to be capable of having a defamatory meaning, despite being subedited and published by the publication itself, it would have a chilling effect on journalism in New Zealand. No one in the NBR or any other newsroom would be safe from an angry owner who later came under legal and financial pressure.

Novel is one word for it. It certainly will make people think twice about writing for a publication if the publication then sues you for your writing.

Stuff reports:

National leader Simon Bridges is using the details of a gruesome murder to try to drive a wedge between Labour and NZ First on law and order.

Last year, Justice Minister Andrew Little said he would repeal the three strikes law, which he says is not working. Only two people – Raven Casey Campbell and Kingi Ratima – have been convicted of a third strike, but both had their sentences mitigated, giving them the chance of early parole.

And on Tuesday, Little said Cabinet had given approval for Little to consider a “package” of criminal justice system measures, including changes to the three strikes law, bail laws, and parole laws.

But National says the three strikes law, which is aimed at having more repeat offenders serve their maximum sentence, needs to stay in the name of public safety.

Little may become know as Let Them Out Little. It is very clear that he wants to make it easier for dangerous criminals to get parole and bail. Never mind the shocking history of further violence done by people out on parole or bail.

The way to reduce prison numbers is to reduce reoffending. It is not to simply let recidivist offenders out early to commit more crimes.

AFP reports:

Venezuelans, reeling under a devastating economic crisis, began voting Sunday in an election boycotted by the opposition and condemned by much of the international community but expected to hand deeply unpopular President Nicolas Maduro a new mandate.

Maduro, the political heir to the late leftist firebrand Hugo Chavez, has presided over an implosion of once wealthy oil producer Venezuela’s economy since taking office in 2013.

Hyperinflation, food and medicine shortages, rising crime and broken water, power and transportation networks have sparked violent unrest, and left Maduro with a 75-percent disapproval rating.

If that is what he managed with socialism in his first term, imagine what he can do in his second!

He got 68% of the vote with a 48% turnout.

Venezuela is now in the fifth year of a recession. Maybe they’ll manage a decade.

The Herald reports:

Defiant Kāpiti Coast district councillor David Scott is refusing to stand down from his position despite being found guilty of indecent assault against a female council staff member.

The 71-year-old said he had received more than 100 messages of support from ratepayers wanting him to remain at his post.

The jury at a trial at Wellington District Court took three and a half hours to reach the guilty verdict today.

Being found guilty of indecent assault should be enough for any elected official to resign.

Being found guilty of indecent assault for behaviour at an official council function makes it even worse and more necessary to resign.

The indecent assault being against a Council staff member removes any doubt at all that David Scott should resign.

Scott said outside court that his family would be devastated by the verdict.

“I haven’t had any sleep for a year and two months.”

That is unlikely.

The Herald reports:

Open warfare has broken out after National criticised Speaker Trevor Mallard’s handling of Parliament and criticised him for telling the media a National MP had described PM Jacinda Ardern as a “stupid little girl” – a comment it says has never been proven.

National’s shadow Leader of the House Gerry Brownlee has written to the Speaker, saying National’s confidence in him was “significantly shaken”.

Brownlee questioned whether the Speaker had told media a National MP had called Ardern a “stupid little girl” in Parliament earlier this month, a comment that did not appear to be heard by anybody else and could not be heard on Parliament TV.

Mallard has now confirmed to the Herald he did tell a journalist he had heard that comment. “I was asked by a journalist what the comment was. I answered.”

On May 9 when the “stupid little girl” comment was said to be made in Parliament, Mallard had called for a National MP to apologise for a “very sexist remark” but nobody owned up and Mallard would not repeat the comment when Brownlee asked what it was.

It was inadvisable of the Speaker to tell a journalist what he thought was said. It ended up as a major story that went global, effectively smearing multiple National MPs. It is no surprise that National MPs are upset.

The Speaker would have been far better to have referred the journalist to an audio recording. As it happens no such comment can be heard on the audio recordings.

Brownlee said if Mallard had passed on such information it was unacceptable.

No National MPs had heard the comment in question and all denied saying it. “If the source is the Speaker that is unacceptable. The Speaker cannot go briefing the media against the Opposition.”

The Speaker may not have intended to cause such an incident, but by talking to the journalist he is responsible for a story that went viral.

It came on the same day National’s deputy leader Paula Bennett walked out of Parliament after the Speaker docked five questions from National because he took offence at a comment made by Brownlee while Bennett was asking questions of the PM.

Bennett later said she had done so out of frustration at Mallard’s system of docking questions when he was displeased with an MP because it was arbitrary and unpredictable and made it hard for the Opposition to do its job.

In his letter, Brownlee said National was concerned about Mallard’s running of Parliament.

“Your arbitrary taking of questions from the Opposition and the disruption to proceedings are seriously limiting our ability to do our job of holding the Government to account.”

Brownlee told media that system effectively meant the Speaker was determining the level of accountability the Government faced. “That’s not acceptable.”

I thought the innovation of adding and deducting questions for disorderly conduct was a good idea in principle. But in practice it is not working, and it is causing major upsets. A political party should be able to know how many questions it has to ask the Government. I think the Speaker needs to look at more traditional ways of dealing with disorderly conduct.

Stuff reports:

Supporters of a proposed euthanasia law say it should go further by allowing binding end of life directives from patients to doctors.

Directives made by people earlier in their lives would allow patients to make choices about whether or not they would want to die if left incapable of making that informed decision later in life.

As written the bill would only allow those who doctors could be certain were understanding the gravity of their decision would be allowed to make it, meaning patients with dementia were unlikely to be able to access it.

An end of life directive would give choice to people who get inflicted with dementia. It allows them, before they lose their mental faculties, to say that if I ever end up in a state where I have no ability to recognise anyone, remember anything, enjoy anything, that I wish to have my life ended. It recognises quality of life can be more important than quantity.

End of Life Choice Society campaigner and former Labour MP Maryan Street said end-of-life directives would make the bill much stronger.

“When people are of sound mind and they anticipate their death, which may be from any number of things, they may decide that a diagnosis of dementia, or advanced symptoms of dementia, are things that they do not wish to tolerate,” Street said.

The key thing is people should have the choice.

Questioned strongly by National MP Maggie Barry on how these symptoms would be recognised, fellow submitter and doctor Jack Havill said there were strong points that could be set and recognised.

“There are good strong endpoints of dementia. One is that you cannot recognise your family or friends. One is that you cannot swallow your food. One is that you cannot go to the toilet by yourself,” Havill said.

No recognition and no ability to feed or clean yourself.

The Seymour bill is quite conservative in that it doesn’t allow end of life directives. I personally would prefer it is amended to do so.

The Dom Post reports:

A 19th Century quote inviting people to a prestigious Wellington dinner has sparked calls of misogyny and a complaint to the Law Society.

That quote  – “the best party has women with a past and young men with a future” –  from 19th century French writer Honoré de Balzac was used by Gregory Thwaite in an invitation to an annual  dinner for the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs at the Wellington Club. …

Former lawyer Olivia Wensley, who has been vocal about sexual harassment in the law industry, was on Monday complaining to the Law Society, which she said needed to investigate.

I’m sorry but this is starting to look like the Spanish Inquisition.

A complaint to the Law Society because of a quote used in an invitation!!!!

Thwaite wasn’t even acting in his capacity as a lawyer. It was an officer of NZIIA. A complaint to them would be justified (and they are not happy with the invite), but to bring the Law Society into it is just idiotic.

If he happened to be a surgeon, would Wensley complain to the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons?

I’m not defending the quote. But to suggest this should be a something investigated by the Law Society is massive over-reach.

The ODT reports:

The Proctor and University of Otago Campus Watch staff have removed and destroyed hundreds of copies of the latest edition of Critic Te Arohi, the magazine’s staff have learned.

The cover of this week’s publication – the “Menstruation Issue” – depicted a cartoon of a naked person menstruating.

A University of Otago spokeswoman confirmed on Tuesday night the magazines were taken by Proctor Dave Scott after complaints were received from Dunedin Hospital and the Dunedin Public Library.

The Campus Watch team on duty on Monday night removed the rest of the magazines from stands around the university, she said.

“This was an assumption – rightly or wrongly – that this action needed to be taken, as the university was also a public place where non-students regularly pass through.”

It was a wrong assumption. The Critics are not the property of Otago University, so the actions of the Proctor and Campus Watch was effectively theft.

Campus Watch staff who spoke to Critic editor Joel McManus today about the missing magazines were initially unaware fellow staff had removed them.

Mr McManus said on Tuesday night he considered the removal to be censorship – something he believed went against everything a university should stand for.

“We stand by the content of the magazine, and believe it touched on a number of very important issues about period poverty and trans issues, as well as breaking taboos about a bodily function that half the population experience.”

The University has been very heavy handed and should apologise to OUSA and Critic.

UPDATE: The Critic Editor has penned a piece on what happened at The Spinoff. Well worth a read. A few salient points:

1. The Proctor never ever informed Critic of what he has done. They thought it was being stolen by a religious group or lone wolf. They never even considered it was the University itself.
2. The Vice-Chancellor, Harlene Hayne, had ironically actually e-mailed the Editor to say “this week’s issue of the Critic is particularly good”.  So the action wasn’t approved by the VC.
3. The digital version of the issue has now been read 9,000 times online thanks to The Streisand Effect

Stuff reports:

Auckland mayor Phil Goff’s decision to refuse councillors a full copy of a downtown stadium report has landed him in hot water with the Ombudsman. 

Goff was criticised earlier in the week for his handling of a $1 million pre-feasibility report from PwC which looked into the pros and cons of building a new stadium at Auckland’s waterfront.

Several councillors said the report could only be viewed in his office under supervision, leading several concerned councillors to hit out at the mayor.

One of those was Albert-Eden-Roskill ward councillor Cathy Casey, who confirmed the Ombudsman’s office had acknowledged a complaint she made about the mayor’s handling of the report and said it would investigate. 

“At the end of this term I will have had 24 years as a councillor. In that time I have never been treated with such disrespect as this,” Casey said.

Emperor Goff seems to think Councillors don’t have any right to Council information. Bad enough he spends a million dollars on this report without them even knowing about it, but now he won’t even give them a copy.

However Goff’s office said claims the report could only be viewed under supervision were simply “not true”.

A spokesman for Goff said councillors could see the full, un-redacted report anytime they liked – and several had come through without any issues. 

The only thing they dispute is whether a staff member is there in the office with you. They are not disputing that they can only read it in his office.

Councillor Efeso Collins said he was concerned by the lack of trust displayed by the mayor’s handling of the document. 

“It is not a high trust environment where we have to go up to the mayor’s office to view this report under the eye of his staff,” he said.

“I suspect he fears information could be leaked, but that is his issue. We are the elected members of Auckland. If he does not trust us with the findings, who will he trust?”

Denise Lee has a member’s bill which would help remedy this situation. It would enhance the right of Councillors to receive Council information.