CASE NO: 2639

ADJUDICATION BY THE NEW ZEALAND PRESS COUNCIL ON THE COMPLAINT OF TANYA TOAILOA AGAINST KIWIBLOG

FINDING: NOT UPHELD WITH DISSENT 8:1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED BEFORE DECEMBER 18, 2017

Overview

On 8 November 2017 the online commentary site Kiwiblog published a contribution by David Garrett headed “Guest Post: Pasifika is Bollocks”. The post was made after the recent Tongan/Samoan rugby match and the associated public disturbances including fighting between Tongans and Samoans, as reported in the media.  Among other points made, the guest post stated “Samoans and Tongans hate each other with a vengeance”. It also claimed the recent events described above disproved the implications of the term “Pasifika”, i.e. that underneath cultural differences, Pacific Islands people are all one big happy family.

The Complaint

Tanya Toailoa says the guest post is inflammatory, racist and irresponsible. She notes that assertions made by the piece are factually wrong i.e. that all Samoans and Tongans hate each other; and that they all are aware of historical reasons for Tongan/Samoan enmity. She does not accept that the article is acceptable, is fair comment or ‘just an opinion’. She wants the article removed from the site. The complainant cites two Press Council Principles: Comment and Fact; Discrimination and Diversity.

The Response

David Farrar, editor of Kiwiblog, says that from time to time he publishes guest posts offering a variety of points of view. This does not mean he, as editor, agrees with all the opinions expressed, as in this case.

He responds that in relation to Principle 4, Mr Garrett’s article is clearly an opinion piece, and that no reasonable person could regard his assertions as factual. Principle 7 provides that race is a legitimate subject for discussion where relevant, and the context of the piece was extensive media coverage of Tongan/Samoan disturbances.

Mr Farrar says his offer of a right of reply to the complainant was the appropriate response to the complaint; and believes agreeing to the complainant’s request for removal of the article would have a chilling effect on the ability of publications to allow strong opinions to be expressed.

Discussion and Decision

A search of the Internet reveals that there are traditional stories of past Tongan and Samoan rivalry, and unverified accounts of recent incidents, including some involving rugby matches. Apart from that is hard to find a basis for Mr Garrett’s surprising claim that Tongans and Samoans hate each other. In fact he contradicts himself by noting “you would never know it at pan-pacific gatherings – at least until cocktail hour”. Mr Garrett’s guest post is unpleasant, grossly exaggerated and provocative for many readers and possibly intended to be so. It is not surprising that many people commented online about the guest post, both positively and negatively.

Sporting events worldwide can provide an emotional environment where racial prejudices are revealed and unruly behaviour occurs. The Press Council believes the media are entitled to report these occurrences, and commentators to express their opinions. The complainant certainly has a legitimate contrary opinion to Mr Garrett. She has been given the opportunity to express that in a balancing Kiwiblog opinion piece, but has to date not taken that up.

On Principle 4, Comment and Fact, the Council believes the article is an opinion piece and marked as such by the heading “Guest Post”. The contentious statements in the guest post are assertions, and we accept the editor’s submission that they are clearly Mr Garrett’s opinions. The facts of the historical basis and recent history of Tongan/Samoan rivalry are publicly (although perhaps not widely) known and do not appear to be contested.

The Press Council Principle 7 notes that issues of race are legitimate subjects for discussion where relevant.  In this case Samoan/Tongan sporting rivalry was an essential part of the news story sparking the opinion piece. Given this context, we consider that dealing with the Tongan/Samoan issue in an opinion piece could not be considered gratuitous emphasis on race.

The complaint is not upheld, with one member Hank Schouten dissenting from this decision.

Press Council members considering this complaint were Sir John Hansen, Liz Brown, Jo Cribb, Tiumalu Peter Fa’afiu, John Roughan, Hank Schouten, Marie Shroff, Christina Tay and Tim Watkin.

An interesting Court of Appeal case on the roles of lawyers appointed to assist defendants who choose to represent themselves.

Ten years ago there were fewer than 10 such cases a year where a lawyer was appointed as an amici (friend of the court) and in 2015/16 there were over 140.

The Court of Appeal decision should reverse this trend. They found:

• We expect that standby counsel appointments should be exceptional. A defendant’s decision to self-represent must be respected and in ordinary cases a fair trial should be possible without standby counsel.
• Rarely if ever should a defendant’s former counsel be appointed amicus
• Former counsel should not normally be appointed standby counsel either.

It seems there has been a pattern where a defendant sacks his counsel just before a trail starts in an attempt to delay the trial. They know the former counsel will probably end up being appointed their standby counsel to help them, so little reason not to.

This ruling should discourage that. If you sack your lawyers and choose to represent yourself, you will be on your own unless you are found to be incompetent of being able to represent yourself. Incompetent is not the same as merely being inferior to a lawyer.

HDPA writes:

Five days to go. If you are counting down to the Christmas break, spare a thought for the Government.

It has been slogging its guts out for weeks, but it hasn’t paid off.

Slogging its guts out? They have had so few bills to pass they started filibustering their own bills to try and cover up!

Which is a surprise, because the last two new Governments — John Key’s and Helen Clark’s — had much bigger jumps in support after their first election wins.

Labour went up 2% while the previous Governments got 11% bounces in the polls.

The stuff that was going wrong was the past few weeks’ constant trickle of little mistakes: Kelvin Davis floundering as Acting PM, Shane Jones surprising the actual PM with his Work for the Dole idea, Stuart Nash messing up his first speech on his first Government bill in Parliament, Chris Hipkins messing up his first vote in Parliament. It’s a lot of oops in a short time.

Will Kelvin ever be allowed to be Acting PM again?

Then there are a billion trees to plant, 100,000 kids to lift out of poverty and 100,000 houses to build. No pressure. Those are a lot of very precise goals that will be held like tape measures against the outcomes.

They are already 1,431 houses behind and 14.3 million trees behind!

Winston Peters announced:

Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters has announced that Mr Ross Ardern will be the next Administrator of Tokelau. …

“Mr Ardern’s experience as a High Commissioner, his extensive understanding of the Pacific, and distinguished career with New Zealand Police make him an ideal candidate for this role and I have no doubt he will make a major contribution to the relationship between New Zealand and Tokelau,” Mr Peters says.

Mr Ardern is currently New Zealand’s High Commissioner in Niue and has previously served as Niue’s Police Commissioner and as New Zealand’s Police Liaison Officer for the Pacific based in Samoa. He is expected to take up the role of Administrator in early 2018 and will be based in Auckland.

This is a very good appointment. Ross Ardern has served the public well for many decades and is well qualified for this role. The fact his daughter is Prime Minister should not disqualify him for such appointments.

The year is almost over, so it is time for nominations for the annual Kiwiblog Awards. The nomination categories are:

• 2017 Minor Party MP of the Year
• 2017 National MP of the Year
• 2017 Labour MP of the Year
• 2017 MP of the Year

Make your nominations in the comments (free free to say why) and next week I’ll start a vote based on the most popular nominations.

You can nominate a current MP or an MP who left Parliament during the year.

The winners in 2015 (forgot to do them in 2016) were David Seymour. Bill English, Kelvin Davis and Davis Seymour.

Guy Williams writes:

When Metiria Turei stood up and made her now infamous speech, arguing that we need to change the welfare system and the narrative around those at the bottom, I was proud. It was about time.

It was also a ludicrous political strategy, and a surprising admission for a politician to make. She told us she was a young single mother so desperate, that she lied to get more money from WINZ to support her family. …

People called her a liar. She tried to respond: “I know, I’m the one who told you that! I did a speech admitting that on the news and everything! That was my point!” 

Criticism is always understandable, and the backlash was poorly managed, but this was something else. Why were people so incredibly angry? Do people really think she’s a criminal? Or a danger? A fraudster!

To me, the more she’s called a fraud, or a cheat, or a criminal, the more I feel like that reinforces the point she was trying to make. Many said that her controversy overshadowed the message, and for most New Zealanders it probably did. They’ll see the headlines and remember her as just that MP who did the “benefit fraud”, but to me, she’s a bit of a hero. 

Yep, what a hero.

Williams glosses over a key point. Turei didn’t just lie back in the 1990s about her income. She lied in 2017 about her situation back then. Her claims of desperation and a starving child did not hold water as the father’s family were very invested in the child’s wellbeing. She implied they were a family of deadbeats who left Turei unsupported. When they approached Radio NZ to put the record straight, that is when she resigned. She couldn’t afford to have them speak publicly about how much support she got from them.

She took her chance, and while she was a long way from sticking the landing (she fell off the landing pad, cartwheeled into the stands and knocked over the hotdog stand), she helped spark the most significant political change of the past nine years, and she helped open peoples minds and hearts towards our treatment of our poor. I hope people will remember her kindly, and that’s why Metiria Turei is my New Zealander of the Year.

It is amazing the bubble some people live in.

Stuff reports:

Seven Sharp hosts Mike Hosking and Toni Street have quit the programme but the show will live on.

TVNZ is determined to move steadily on with its 7pm show, promising to return with a refreshed Seven Sharp in January. Sources tell Stuff Breakfast presenter Hilary Barry is likely to lead the new show.

Announcing their move, Hosking said Street had decided to leave the show and he chose to follow suit.

He said he tried to leave the show a few years ago, but stayed on for the election. 

“And so, when Toni said she’s gone, I thought I’m gone too because we had a good team. This has been one of the best,” he said. “We thought what better thing can you possibly do after four years than carry on seemingly forever or leave on a high.”

Going out on top is always a good thing. It will be interesting to see what the ratings do next year with new hosts.

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is being used as a poster-child for Marxist ideas in a prestigious British medical journal.

Oh excellent. As we all know Marxism is great for health outcomes. Well apart from the 100 million killed by it.

In a November editorial for The Lancet, editor Dr Richard Horton discusses the impact of Marxism on the health sector. He doesn’t actually call Ardern a Marxist, but suggests that she has opened the door for Marxist ideas to be debated.

Imagine if this was about a National PM, and the story said the PM wasn’t called a fascist, but has opened the door for fascist ides to be debated.

It’s not the first time Ardern has been associated with the legacy of Karl Marx.

Newstalk ZB host Leighton Smith made similar observations after watching a speech from 2009 when Ardern headed the International Union of Socialist Youth, where she used the word “comrade” several times.

“Comrades this, comrades that. Comrades means something,” Smith said.

“She said this morning it doesn’t mean anything, it’s just – I’m sorry, it does. Comrades means something. It is actually a Marxist term. And you don’t pick that sort of thing up because you’re not a Marxist.”

I don’t think Ardern is a Marxist. But I think she is at the socialist end of the spectrum. I mean after all she was the global head of Socialist Youth.

Stuff reports:

The Opportunities Party (TOP) is facing a mass exodus as leader Gareth Morgan and three others step down.

TOP would still contest the 2020 election, but Morgan will not be at the helm.

Morgan is stepping down as the formal leader, but as far as I can tell it will remain his party. He will decide the policy, and will fund the party. It will be like the Internet Party where Laila Harre was the nominal leader but it was still Dotcom’s party.

The same day Morgan announced his resignation as leader, deputy leader Geoff Simmons also stepped down, along with Ōhāriu candidate Jessica Hammond-Doube and Waitaki candidate Kevin Neill.

Hammond-Doube did well in Ohariu and was well regarded.

Neill called the party a “dictatorship”, run by Morgan, and said he could not work in a party that did not have open, transparent discussions.

Fair enough.

DPMC has details of the delegations for the 28 Associate Ministers. I find these interesting as it tells you if they have been trusted to do significant work in the portfolio, or if they are there just to sound useful.

I’m rating the delegations from A to E. An A means a very heavy workload with significant decision making. An E means you don’t have to do anything but give speeches or attend events on behalf of the Minister

• ACC, Clare Curran: A. Has to deal with all individual client issues which is a huge amount.
• Agriculture, Meka Whaititi: D. Basically just has animal welfare and walking access
• Arts etc, Grant Robertson and Carmel Sepuloni: E. No delegation at all.
• Courts, William Sio C: Tribunals
• Crown/Maori Relations, Meka Whaititi: E. No delegation.
• Education, Tracey Martin: B. Mainly Special Needs (which is very challenging) but several small areas
• Education, Kelvin Davis: C. Maori education.
• Education, Jenny Salesa: C. Pasifika education. PBRF. Integrated and private schools. School transport.
• Environment, Eugenie Sage: C. Waste, EPA, Marine protection
• Environment, Nanaia Mahuta, B. Water, biosecurity, Air
• Finance, Shane Jones, D-. No real delegations. Just assisting in some areas
• Finance, James Shaw, E+. No real delegations. Assisting on Green Investment Fund and sustainable development indicators
• Finance, David Clark, A. Assisting with Budget, expenditure control, OIO decisions, CRIs,
• Finance, David Parker, B. OIO policy, SOEs, Public Trust, monetary policy
• Health, Julie-Anne Genter, C. Has disability support services which is significant and a few minor areas such as population and women.
• Health, Jenny Salesa: C. Maori and Pasifika health, tobacco, gambling, HPA
• Housing, Jenny Salesa, B. Most operational issues delegated to her
• Immigration, Kris Faafoi, A. Delegated all individual decisions and appeals. Huge workload and many sensitive cases.
• Justice, William Sio, C. JPs and various small items
• Local Government, Meka Whaitiri, D. Dogs and offshore islands
• Maori Development, Willie Jackson, E. Cadetships
• Pacific Peoples, Carmel Sepuloni, E. Pacific disability issues and Pacific Arts!
• Social Development, Peeni Henare, E. Assist on Social Investment
• State Services, Clare Curran, C. Open Government
• Trade and Export Growth, Damien O’Connor. E. No delegation
• Transport. Shane Jones, C. Regional roads, Upper NI Ports
• Transport, Julie-Anne Genter, C. Walking, Cycling, electric vehicles, transport safety

The most interesting area is Finance. David Clark is obviously the de facto Deputy Minister of Finance. David Parker has some significant delegations also. But Shane Jones and James Shaw basically can’t order a coffee without the approval of Grant Robertson. They have basically no delegated authority except to assist in some areas.

So overall what are the level of authority delegated to each Minister who is an Associate. It is:

As: Clare Curran, ACC; David Clark, Finance; Kris Faafoi, Immigration

Bs: Tracey Martin, Education; Nanaia Mahuta, Environment; David Parker, Finance; Jenny Salesa, Housing

Cs: William Sio, Courts and Justice; Kelvin Davis, Education; Jenny Salesa, Education and Health; Eugenie Sage, Environment; Julie Anne Genter, Health and Transport; Clare Curran, State Services; Shane Jones, Transport

Ds: Meka Whaitiri, Agriculture and Local Government; Shane Jones, Finance

Es: Grant Robertson, Arts; Carmel Sepuloni, Arts and Pacific Peoples; Meka Whaitiri, Crown/Maori Relations; James Shaw, Finance, Willie Jackson, Maori Development; Peeni Henare, Social Development; Damien O’Connor, Trade and Export Growth

I received this letter by post. There was no name or address so I can’t verify the authenticity of it. However I have no reason to doubt the content as it fits the other exaggerations I have blogged on.

There’s a story here for an investigative journalist.

Important to note that as far as I can tell, Ghahraman has never directly lied about her work. She has grossly exaggerated it, and never corrected inaccuracies (including two speeches from her leader and her own profile on the Greens website), but no direct lies. She is not the first and won’t be the last MP to have an exaggerated CV. But the degree of exaggeration with Ghahraman seems at the extreme end of the scale.

The HYEFU forecasts out today look healthy, partly because global economic conditions have improved since the PREFU in August. The real test will not be the forecasts but whether the Government can actually restrict spending to the degree they have forecast.

The next four Budget Operating Allowances allow for $21.7 billion of new expenditure. The cost of the coalition agreement is $15.1 billion. That leaves just $6.6 billion over four Budgets for new spending.

This equates to a mere $660 million per year as it is cumulative. So the effective allowances are:

• 2018 $660 million
• 2019 $1.32 billion
• 2020 $1.98 billion
• 2021 $2.64 billion

So each year there is only $660 million to cover all new policies, public sector pay rises etc etc.

If Grant Robertson achieves this he will be the most fiscally disciplined minister of Finance since Ruth Richardson. The last Labour Government increased spending by around $3 to $4 billion a year. National managed to get it down to around $1.5 billion a year.

If Grant Robertson can manage to restrict new spending to $600 million a year he could go down as a great Minister of Finance. But he may not be the most popular person with the CTU.

Two other issues of interest to me was KiwiBuild and the NZ Super Fund.

Treasury has said the forecasts model $2 billion of capital spending on Kiwibuild, but that the macro-economic impact does not depend on how many houses are built – just the level of the spend. They give an example that whether spending $1 million results in two houses or three houses doesn’t matter at a macro level, but it does matter from a policy success level.  This is Treasury politely saying they are definitely not perdicting $2 billion of capital will result in 100,000 new houses. Watch this space.

Labour has made a huge fuss about National not resuming contributions to the NZ Super Fund. However Labour is not resuming full contributions until 2020 either. They’re only putting in $500 million this year and $1 billion next year. I guess they are learning the reality of a tight capital situation.

Overall the economic forecasts are looking pretty good for New Zealand. We’re better off than almost all other OECD countries. But the test will be whether the Government can actually manage the fiscal discipline the forecasts are based on.

Stuff reports:

New Zealander of the Year Dr Lance O’Sullivan has said he would only take a leadership role with the Māori Party if it is a sole leadership role.

His statement comes after the resignation of party president Tukoroirangi Morgan, who has also called for co-leaders Te Ururoa Flavell and Marama Fox to resign to allow fresh talent to step up.

O’Sullivan is the front runner to become the Maori Party’s next male leader, but has said co-leadership is not the way to go.

“If I had an opportunity to have a leadership role, it would need to be in that sole leadership role,” he told Te Kāea. 

“I’m not a fan of co-leadership. I think you need a single leader and a single message coming through that’s strong and inspiring.”

Dame Tariana Turia, the party founder and its first female co-leader, does not agree with O’Sullivan. 

“In the end I hope we maintain the kaupapa of two co-leaders.  I think it’s very helpful to have male and female working constructively with each other,” she said. 

I agree with O’Sullivan that I think a sole leadership role works better for a party. But it is quite unusual to have a contender for leader say that he is only interested if the party does away with the co-leadership model they have traditionally had.

The Washington Post looks at the winners and losers from the stunning win for the Democrats in Alabama.

Winners

• Democrats’ Senate majority hopes – now only need to pick up two seats in 2018
• The #MeToo movement
• Democrats’ pulse in the Deep South – the first win since 1992
• African American turnout
• The gender gap – Moore won men by 13% but lost women by 17%

Losers

• President Trump – Moore’s 2nd biggest backer
• Stephen Bannon – Moore’s biggest backer
• Senate Republicans – lost half their majority
• Mitch McConnell
• Roy Moore’s surrogates

The End of Life Choice Bill (which allows terminally ill New Zealanders to choose euthanasia) has passed its first reading by 76 votes to 44.

It has been referred to the Justice Select Committee for submissions and consideration. The report back is going to set at nine months, instead of the normal six months, to reflect the high level of likely interest. I’m pleased it has passed, so that the public can now submit on it.

Some excellent speeches in the House, and some not so excellent. Bill English made an excellent speech against. I disagree with Bill on this issue but his argument was that the harm to society by allowing euthanasia outweighs the benefits to those who might use it.

Very good speeches in favour by David Seymour and Chris Bishop. I’ll blog later in the week some extracts from the best speeches for and against.

UPDATE: The vote by party was:

• Labour 37-9
• National 21-35
• NZ First 9-0
• Greens 8-0
• ACT 1-0

The Herald reports:

Australia’s deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce has sent a less than veiled message to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern about Manus Island: “Stay away from another country’s business.”

Joyce was sworn in again on December 6 after being forced to go to a byelection because he was found, unwittingly, to have New Zealand citizenship and dual citizens are ineligible to service in the Australian Parliament.

He hinted that what the Australian Government sees as interference in domestic policy could come back to bite her in kind.

Hipkins working on behalf of the ALP to nobble the Deputy PM of Australia was bad enough. But Ardern’s continual advocacy on Manus Island is being seen as political interference also. I doubt there has been such bad blood between the Australian and New Zealand Governments since Muldoon and Fraser.

Joyce said that Australia had a tough policy on boat arrivals to stop the thousands of arrivals and over 1000 drownings of people.

Arrivals by boat have dropped from 50,000 a year to zero. Drownings have dropped from 1,200 or so to zero.

Asked if New Zealand should back off, he said: “I think it’s best if you stay away from another country’s business. I find that’s because others will return the favour at a time that is opportune to them.”

“Let’s respect countries” sovereignty and let the sort out their own issues,” he said.

“And if you are going to talk to them at all, talk to them quietly and discreetly, off the record, not via telephone, not via TV.”

Governments normally work behind the scenes to try and sort issues out. Lecturing our closest friend in public is not a good strategy.

Mike Hosking writes:

There are certain issues, and euthanasia is right up the top of the list, that fire most of us up. We are one side or the other. There isn’t a lot of of gray in euthanasia. Victoria’s new legislation has changed the picture I guess; the Australian state is a very close and tangible example of what’s possible, and I am sure that experience and result will be wheeled out more than once.

But ultimately, and here’s your problem, this is all up to the politicians – and I’m not sure they’re the right people for it.

As much as we may believe that Select Committee means something, it’s limited. A committee might well have a welcome sign on the door, but the ears belong to people with agendas. More often than not, the submissions belong to a tried and true list of professionals who have been at the table before. It’s not really a Mum and Dad sort of place, it’s not really a town hall sort of vibe. In many respects, and call me sceptical, it’s a charade. It’s the illusion of democracy that on a good day may lead to some tinkering 
or minor adjustment of whatever it is they’re looking at. But if you’re looking for numbers, percentages, representation of genuine community mood, then this isn’t your forum.

Which is why it should probably go to a referendum.

I’m agnostic on a referendum. The public polls show overwhelming support for legalising euthanasia so a referendum would make change more likely, not less likely. But I’m also wary about setting a precedent about what does and does not go to referendums. I prefer a referendum to be on constitutional issue.

NZ First in the coalition agreement said they want a conscience vote on having the End of Life Choice Bill going to a referendum. Such an amendment would be done at the Committee of the House stage after second reading. I guess you’d do it by inserting a clause saying that the law only comes into effect if a referendum has over 50% of those voting, vote in favour of the law.

Nate Silver writes:

What we’re seeing in Alabama goes beyond the usual warnings about minding the margin of error, however. There’s a massive spread in results from poll to poll — with surveys on Monday morning showing everything from a 9-point lead for Moore to a 10-point advantage for Democrat Doug Jones — and they reflect two highly different approaches to polling.

That is a huge variation. Of course we saw similar in the last NZ election, except they did converge in the final week.

Most polls of the state have been made using automated scripts (these are sometimes also called IVR or “robopolls”). These polls have generally shown Moore ahead and closing strongly toward the end of the campaign, such as the Emerson College poll on Monday that showed Moore leading by 9 points. Recent automated polls from Trafalgar Group, JMC Analytics and Polling, Gravis Marketing and Strategy Research have also shown Moore with the lead.

But when traditional, live-caller polls have weighed in — although these polls have been few and far between — they’ve shown a much different result. A Monmouth University survey released on Monday showed a tied race. Fox News’s final poll of the race, also released on Monday, showed Jones ahead by 10 percentage points. 

Yes the Fox News poll has Moore 10% behind.

The voting closes at 2 pm NZDT. Results are likely to be known by 5 pm.

The Alabama race should not be close. Trump won the state by 30%. It last voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in 1976. If Jones win it is a huge upset.

If Moore wins, it helps Trump get his agenda through the Senate. However I doubt anyone will be rushing to be Moore’s benchmate.