Stuff reported:

The victim of a prolonged harassment campaign by a Dunedin government employee has spoken of the fear that almost drove him to take his own life.

Dunedin businessman Daniel Pryde waived his right to name suppression after Jeremy Buis was sentenced in the Dunedin District Court on Friday.

Earlier this week he shared his account of the two-and-a-half year harassment. 

“I really thought someone was watching and was going to shoot me,” he said.

The campaign was incredibly nasty and all over a parking stoush. Buis continued with the campaign even after his arrest. His actions seemed to verge on psychopathic.

And for that reasons it is stunning the court has suppressed details of his employer. There is huge public interest in knowing this. (No, do not speculate or hint at it in the comments – this is not Reddit).

The sentence of 200 hours community work is laughable and an insult.

The Crown should appeal both the sentence and the suppression of his employer.

Stephen Daisley writes in The Spectator:

For the benefit of Sky News, standard Christian doctrine says gay sex is a sin. It’s the sin that gives sinning a good name. There ought to be a stewards’ inquiry into why it didn’t make it into the Ten Commandments. But, yes, it’s one of those trespasses we ask to be forgiven. 

Sky’s Darren McCaffrey demanded to know Tim Farron’s view on the matter at a Lib Dem event on Monday. In case you’re wondering, Farron hasn’t proposed banning the love that once dared not speak its name and now won’t shut up about it. Nor does he want to roll back any of the gains the gay rights movement has made in the last 20 years. In fact, he has criticised equal marriage legislation for failing to accommodate the rights of trans people and wants to see the ‘spousal veto’ scrapped. 

But Farron is a Christian and, worse, one of those ones who actually believes it all. …

This is not journalism, it’s bloodsport for secularists. Farron is not proposing a single policy that would adversely impact LGBT people. He is not being asked to clarify his political principles so much as repudiate his faith. It is an ugly business and one that will be causing Farron acute anguish, something which his pursuers must know. The sight of talented broadcasters reduced to tormenting a politician for his religious affiliation makes for unpleasant viewing.

It has been truly nasty seeing the media demand Farron give his religious views, rather than his political views.

The hounding of Tim Farron reflects the metropolitan prejudices of so many journalists and the social and professional circles they move in. Few are the Sunday brunches in Shoreditch that must be arranged around church services. That helps explain why some questions of faith and ethics are posed and others are not. Reporters are not asking abortion-supporting MPs whether they think a foetus is a baby while inside the womb. No news channel reckons the election turns on a gay MP’s musings on promiscuity and unsafe sex. No Muslim MP has been invited on Andrew Marr to explain how Mohammed flew to Jerusalem on a winged horse given to him by the Archangel Gabriel.

Exactly. It is only Christianity which journalists can find it safe to mock and ridicule.

Claire Trevett profiles Mark Mitchell:

Monday was a very good day for Mark Mitchell — he was promoted to Defence Minister and his runaway dog Stig was found after five days AWOL.

Mitchell made a video for his Facebook page to mark the occasion. He spoke of the privilege and honour of being in Cabinet but spent most of the time talking about the return of Stig, a black Labrador his family had since it was a puppy in 2011.

Pets are family, and losing one (even temporarily) is awful.

Mitchell, 48, is a genial, unassuming bloke who looks like a big softie. Do not be fooled. A former police Dog handler, he spent 14 years in the Police Force, dealing with the Mongrel Mob in Gisborne and getting painfully acquainted with the blade of a samurai sword in Rotorua.

He quit in 2003 and intended to pursue a gentler career training polo ponies. Instead he ended up in the Middle East, working in the volatility of Iraq in 2004 straight after the invasion of Iraq by US-led forces.

All up he spent eight years in the Middle East, first working for a British contractor providing security to the Coalition Provisional Authority and training Iraqi security forces. …

Mitchell eventually set up his own security firm based in Kuwait but working across the Middle East and further afield, where he developed expertise in kidnap and ransom negotiations, as well as extricating hostages.

This almost understates what Mark did. He set up the Threat Management Group of Agility Logistics, and grew it from eight to 500 staff. He was involved in over 100 hostage negotiations. Might be a useful skill if National ends up in coalition with NZ First!

That time in his life has attracted criticism from some, including Auckland Peace Action spokesperson Virginia Lambert who said Mitchell had been a “mercenary fighter during the bloodiest period of the US occupation”.

“Mark Mitchell not only went freely and willingly to fight in an illegal war of aggression, but he made a profit out of it. It is disgusting,” she wrote in a press release after the announcement of Mitchell’s position.

Such comments frustrate Mitchell, who says he was not a mercenary and has no qualms now about the work he did. “I wouldn’t change anything I’ve done. I’m… quietly proud, I’m not someone that shouts it from the rooftops — I’m a Kiwi after all. But I’m proud of the difference we made in people’s lives in terms of their security and ability to get on with their lives.”

He points to work he did such as opening mass graves with scientists from the Hague gathering evidence for the war crimes trial of Saddam Hussein. “When you’re opening mass graves and you’re finding the remains of babies clinging to mums, it’s a pretty clear reminder of the atrocities which were taking place. That was a very, very tough job for everyone involved. Instead of questioning why we were there, all it does is provide more resolve in terms of knowing there had to be changes made.”

Protecting scientists working to gather evidence of war crimes is something a peace group should be praising.

A fake news editorial from the Dominion Post:

That is partly because he has also set himself an onerous new target for reducing the national debt. The Government has been aiming for a level equal to 20 per cent of GDP for its time in office; now he proposes a new standard of 10 to 15 per cent .

The announcement by Steven Joyce clearly refers to net debt.

In 2008, a few months before coming to power, English could see this. Debt was 17 per cent of GDP, Labour was targeting 20 per cent, and he had no intention of trying to wrestle it down further.

But if you look at the 2008 Budget, it is gross debt that is 17% of GDP. Net debt in 2008 was 1% of GDP, well below the 10% to 15% proposed by Joyce.

So the failure of the Dominion Post leader writer to understand the difference between gross and net debt has resulted in a factually incorrect and misleading editorial.

Stuff reports:

Associate justice spokesperson for sexual and domestic violence Poto Williams said only 13 per cent of the sexual assault cases reported to police ended in a conviction and something needed to be done to address the “power imbalance”.

Labour would change the system so that a victim was believed as a starting point, and that an accused would have to prove consent – an idea rejected by National.

I thought Labour had dropped this policy, but it seems they have not. This is horrific and every civil libertarian out there should be condemning it.

If Labour becomes Government, then people accused of rape (where there is no question that sex happened, just consent) will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt they had consent or they will be convicted of rape and sentenced to up to 20 years in jail.

It will be presumed guilt upon accusation. Arguably their worst policy, and one that the media should be highlighting much more. It would change hundreds of years of criminal law that you are deemed innocent unless proven guilty. It will mean you are deemed guilty unless you can prove you are innocent.

One News reports:

Politico has a lengthy article on how much of a bubble the US media live in. They found:

• 90% of Internet publishing employees work in a county Clinton won
• 75% of Internet publishing employees work in a county Clinton won by over 30%
• 72% of Internet publishing and media employees work in a county Clinton won

So it is not deliberate bias, just that so many in the media live in a neighbourhood which is unrepresentative of the country as a whole.

It would be interesting to study NZ media and where they live. I suspect most NZ media will live in Labour held electorates despite Labour holding only 21 out of 64 general electorates.

Stuff reports:

A union says the new Pay Equity Bill will make it harder for women to gain fair pay, and is calling on Deputy Prime Minister Paula Bennett to make changes as Minister for Women.

NZEI Te Riu Roa said the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill introduced new stumbling blocks, which would severely limit workers’ ability to reduce the gender pay gap.

The bill was released for consultation last week, with submissions closing 11 May.

NZEI national secretary Paul Goulter said, at the moment, women who worked in a female-dominated occupation could measure their pay against any perceivably male-dominated occupation, with a job evaluation ensuring the two jobs measure up in terms of skills, knowledge, experience and responsibilities.

This is what happened when Lower Hutt aged-care worker Kristine Bartlett won a landmark pay increase for the female-dominated industry earlier this month.

But the new bill said comparisons must be from within the business, similar businesses or the same industry first, if available and appropriate.

This seems entirely sensible and logical. Comparing two totally different industries should be the last resort, not the first.

Glenn Reynolds writes:

The other hallmark of constitutional illiteracy is the claim that the First Amendment doesn’t protect “hate speech.” And by making that claim last week, Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont and Democratic presidential candidate, revealed himself to be a constitutional illiterate. Then, predictably, he doubled down on his ignorance.

In First Amendment law, the term “hate speech” is meaningless. All speech is equally protected whether it’s hateful or cheerful. It doesn’t matter if it’s racist, sexist or in poor taste, unless speech falls into a few very narrow categories — like “true threats,” which have to address a specific individual, or “incitement,” which must constitute an immediate and intentional encouragement to imminent lawless action — it’s protected.

The term “hate speech” was invented by people who don’t like that freedom, and who want to give the — completely false — impression that there’s a kind of speech that the First Amendment doesn’t protect because it’s hateful. What they mean by “hateful,” it seems, is really just that it’s speech they don’t agree with. 

Well said.

The latest Roy Morgan poll is at Curia. Projects NZ First having the balance of power.

USA Today reports:

Three Islamic State militants setting up an ambush in a bitterly contested area of northern Iraq were killed by a herd of stampeding boars, local leaders say.

Sheikh Anwar al-Assi, a chief of the local Ubaid tribe and supervisor of anti-ISIS forces, told The Times of London the militants were hiding on the edge of a field about 50 miles southwest of Kirkuk when the boars overwhelmed them Sunday. Five other militants were injured, al-Assi said. He said the group was poised to attack a band of local tribesmen who had fled to nearby mountains since militants seized the town of Hawija three years ago.

“It is likely their movement disturbed a herd of wild pigs, which inhabit the area as well as the nearby cornfields,” he said.

Well done the wild boars.

Interesting observation from the Espiner interview:

She also has some fascinating observations about working with Winston Peters, who may again be a key coalition player after the coming election.

Shipley, who sacked him as Treasurer in 1998 as the first MMP government fell apart over the sale of Wellington Airport, offers bouquets and brickbats.

“Winston could have been Prime Minister but for want of himself. His complexity often got ahead of his capability. Watching him on a good day he was brilliant,” she says.

“He was an 85 per cent outstanding leader. And the 15 per cent absolutely crippled him because he would get so myopically preoccupied with a diversion that it took away his capability and intent on the main goal.”

Shipley also says that Peters, Deputy Prime Minister from 1996 to 1998, was excellent at absorbing information but sometimes simply hadn’t done the reading.

“I would make a personal judgement as he came into my office as to whether the envelope with the papers in it was either open or closed and it often would tell me the extent to which he had read what we were then going to discuss. I learned to both respect and manage it and on those days the meetings were short.”

Very astute insights.

Stuff reports:

The first shots of an electoral showdown in Christchurch have been fired after Ilam incumbent Gerry Brownlee was confirmed as the next Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Current city councillor Raf Manji, who will challenge Brownlee for the Ilam seat in Christchurch’s northwest at September’s election, has questioned whether Brownlee can remain an effective local MP while carrying out his new role.

Brownlee has refuted Manji’s comments, saying former foreign ministers have managed to do both jobs.

I thought I’d look at the Foreign Ministers under MMP and see how many were Electorate and List.

• 1996 Don McKinnon, List
• 1999 Phil Goff, Electorate
• 2002 Phil Goff, Electorate
• 2005 Winston Peters, List
• 2008 Murray McCully, Electorate
• 2011 Murray McCully, Electorate
• 2014 Murray McCully, Electorate
• 2017 Gerry Brownlee, Electorate

So for the last 21 years, an electorate MP has been Foreign Minister for 15 of the 21 years.

The Washington Post reports:

I argued last week that anecdotal stories about disillusioned Trump supporters were overdone. The fact is that, on a broad scale, Trump supporters say they aren’t disappointed. In fact, a poll showed they were more pleased than disappointed, by about five to one.

The Pew Research Centre released a poll showing very little buyer’s remorse among Trump voters. The poll showed just 7 per cent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say Trump has performed worse than they expected him to. Fully 38 per cent – five times as many – say he has performed better. 

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll confirms this – in spades. And, in fact, it shows more buyer’s remorse for Trump’s opponent in the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton.

And were the 2016 election held again today, it shows Trump would avenge his popular-vote loss.

While just 4 per cent of Trump’s supporters say they would back someone else if there was a redo of the election, fully 15 per cent of Clinton supporters say they would ditch her.

That 15 per cent is split between those who say they would vote for Trump (2 per cent), Gary Johnson (4 per cent), Jill Stein (2 per cent), and either other candidates or not vote (7 per cent).

The Democrats will need a very different candidate if they wish to win in 2020.

Yael Shochat writes at The Spinoff:

Two years ago, after 17 years living here, I received my New Zealand citizenship. Now I can say that I am proud to be both a New Zealander and a first generation immigrant from Israel. …

I was determined to make something of my passion for food. In the 14 years since I started running restaurants and cafes specialising in Middle Eastern and Jewish cuisine, I have not only employed hundreds of Kiwis and immigrants alike, but I’d like to think I’ve had a hand in contributing to the new culinary renaissance in this city and left it a more exciting place than how I found it.

To Mr Andrew Little, and to dear Jacinda, whom I consider a friend: you’ve been to my restaurant, Ima Cuisine, many times. You’ve shared my company and enjoyed my most beloved dishes – immigrant food from all over the Jewish diaspora, and Palestinian food, the indigenous cuisine of my country.

So the author considers Jacinda a dear friend. Which makes her next works more compelling:

What are we going to say to each other next time you come in? Are you going to give “compliments to the chefs”, half of whom are not welcome here under your immigration policy? Am I welcome here? I certainly don’t feel welcome now that you’ve promised to cut “tens of thousands” of immigrants.

And worse:

Right now I, my friends and peers in the restaurant industry are all crying out for kitchen and wait staff. Stopping immigration – while refusing to actually address the underlying causes of problems in the job and housing market – will mean I won’t be able to hire anyone. I won’t be able to cook for you anymore. Many other industries will also suffer.

So Labour’s policy will see many businesses close.

Now we come to the elephant in the room. Mr Little, Jacinda – you know my background, so you know I am descended from people who suffered greatly from similar policies. As has happened before, when times get tough economically, the first people to be scapegoated and to blamed are immigrants and diaspora. This happened in the early 20th century in Europe and we all know how ugly that got. Stopping immigration won’t solve our problems but it will create more. Stopping immigration will divide our country and make it less safe.

Policies such as yours are dog whistles, mostly inaudible messages of demonisation and othering used for political gain.

Again this is from someone who is a dear friend of Jacinda’s.

I understand that you are desperate for more votes this election, and sure, blaming immigrants for the ills of society is an easy way of getting them. So shift the blame on us as many have done before you. I just hope you’re ready to face the consequences.

They are desperate indeed, unable to get above 30% in the polls.

Stuff reports:

The court heard that Preston was introduced to the “social welfare lifestyle” in 2001, when she was just 16.

Judge David Ruth said she has been on the “benefit treadmill” since then.

Preston’s offending included forging letters purporting to be from a landlord and Walker’s mother to obtain benefits, knowing that the information was false.

She also received a new $600 fridge freezer from the ministry after saying hers was broken. She advertised the new fridge for sale for $780 through an online trading site on the same day.

Preston also started a job at a fast food outlet while receiving benefit payments.

She was convicted of three charges of obtaining by deception, three of forgery, and 21 of using a document for monetary gain.

A ministry investigation found that Preston and Walker had been living together “in the nature of marriage” throughout the offending, while both submitted documents stating they were single.

Walker also continued receiving a benefit while working. He also received sole parent assistance while living with Preston and benefited from her fraud.

Hey the Government gives me money for nothing. I want more and more of it.

Mike Hosking writes:

But back to the unions and this claim for national wages.

As I understand the thinking, it would mean if you’re a bus driver or box builder you would be paid the same no matter where you work or who for.

I suppose I admire the cheek.

I guess in election year everyone is entitled to have a go at pushing a barrow, even if the barrow comes from 1971.

But the concept that as an employer of bus drivers or box makers you get told what you can pay is so absurd I’m surprised the perpetrators of the crime can argue it with a straight face.

Making it worse, it is reported Andrew Little likes the idea, mind you given his union credentials perhaps that should not be a surprise.

This would be the ultimate payback for the unions making Little leader – a return to the 1970s style national awards where the Government sets pay rates across entire industries.

But I would have thought having stepped into the new role of Opposition leader with the task of dragging your party into the real, if not modern, world, you might want to leave a few of the more fringe ideas behind.

What Labour must do this year is look credible, and if they think nationalising wages is credible then we can assume they’ve been taking tips from Jeremy Corbyn, who by the way will give them all the food for thought they could ever possibly want on June 8 by leading his party to a broad-based collapse based on the fact he fails to accept communism isn’t a vote-getter.

The only countries that vote for socialism are those that have never had it!

Wages are based on a variety of circumstances, and the main one isn’t what the Government or unions tell you to pay.

It’s location, product, profit margin, market size, competitiveness, experience, labour availability, the economy, the list goes on.

Exactly.

ITV reports:

The Conservatives appear to be on course to win the majority of Welsh parliamentary seats for the first time in more than 100 years according to an exclusive poll carried out for ITV Cymru Wales News.

The snapshot of voting intentions also puts Labour as losing a general election in Wales for the first time since 1918.

Amazing if it happens.

Also in Scotland, support for independence has dropped to 40% and only 26% support the SNP’s demands for another referendum before Spring 2019.

And election polls in Scotland show SNP down 6% from the last election, Conservatives up 15% and Labour down 10%. It is projected they could pick up 7 to 9 seats from the SNP as well as 10 in Wales.

Steven Joyce announced:

The Government will allocate $11 billion in new capital infrastructure over the next four Budgets in addition to spending already included in agency baselines, Finance Minister Steven Joyce says.

“We are growing faster than we have for a long time and adding more jobs all over the country,” Mr Joyce says. “That’s a great thing, but to keep growing, it’s important we keep investing in the infrastructure that enables that growth.”

Mr Joyce says that the focus will be on the infrastructure that supports growth, with capital investment in Budget 2017 being increased to $4 billion, including $812 million for reinstating State Highway One, north and south of Kaikoura.

“We are investing hugely in new schools, hospitals, housing, roads, and railways. This investment will extend that run-rate significantly, and include new investment in the justice and defence sectors as well.

The capital commitment in Budget 2017 will represent the biggest addition to the Government’s capital stock in decades.

“To put that into context, the net new capital allocated in the last four Budgets was $4.8 billion, of which $4.1 billion was funded through the proceeds of the mixed ownership model programme,” Mr Joyce says. “In Budget 2016 we were forecasting just $3.6 billion in new capital spend between Budget 17 and Budget 20 compared to $11 billion now.”

“The $11 billion is additional spend on top of investments already planned by the Government.

If you add the Government’s budgeted new capital investment together with the investment made through baselines and through the National Land Transport Fund – the total is around $23 billion over the next four years, or an average of nearly $6 billion per year.

So $6 billion a year of infrastructure and capital spending is a lot. The allowance for extra investment has effectively been tripled.

A reader sent me this. Interesting that Le Pen’s economic policies are basically all leftwing. Macron may call himself a centrist but his policies look pretty good. They include:

• Deregulate labour market
• End 35 hour working week
• Unemployment insurance rather than welfare
• Cut $10b of spending
• Tax cuts of $10b