Stuff reports:

An international ratings agency has kept New Zealand’s credit status at the highest possible level.

Moody’s Investors Service has affirmed the Government’s triple-A issuer rating with a stable outlook and said it was in a strong fiscal position compared to other countries.

“We expect New Zealand’s economy to be among the fastest growing Aaa-rated economies in coming years,” it said.

Factors behind the rating included New Zealand’s economic resilience against overseas and domestic shocks, which remained “very high, supported by strong growth”.

The country was also praised for its “proactive” policies, a vigilant central bank and stable political system which meant it had effective tools to “shoulder downside scenarios”.

Moody’s noted that strong population growth had bolstered the economy’s potential and that longer term, its growth could be higher than many other Aaa-rated countries.

We are one of the very few developed economies to have the books back in surplus, and be paying our way.

The Herald reports:

The National Party’s Whanganui electorate delegates have chosen Whanganui lawyer Harete Hipango to contest the September election.

She will go up against Labour’s Steph Lewis and the Greens’ Nicola Patrick.

Speaking on Sunday afternoon, after the voting in the party’s “rigorous and thorough” selection process, Ms Hipango said she felt humbled and very privileged to be chosen.

She plans to transition out of her law duties to campaign full-time for the Whanganui seat.

Politics has always been part of her life, and she intends to make it her career – it will be “embarking on a new adventure”, she said.

Current Whanganui MP Chester Borrows – who has held the seat for National for 12 years but who is quitting politics at the end of this parliamentary term – said it was the first time the party had chosen a Maori woman to contest a seat it held.

“I think that says a heck of a lot about Harete as a candidate.”

The delegates had an excellent field to choose from, he said: Former Wanganui Chronicle general manager Andy Jarden, Whanganui dentist and district councillor Hadleigh Reid and South Taranaki farmer Warwick Fleming.

Congrats to Harete for winning against a tough field.

Chester had a 4,505 majority. If Labour were stending Hamish McDouall again (he is now Mayor) then I think it could have become a very close race. But I think Harete should comfortably hold the seat.

A guest post from the PPTA:

Seclusion

seclude, in relation to a student or child, means to place the student or child involuntarily alone in a room from which he or she cannot freely exit or from which the student or child believes that he or she cannot freely exit

This definition of seclusion, under which it has to meet all three tests is at risk of not actually banning the seclusion rooms that it is designed to prohibit.

To counts as seclusion and be banned it requires all three elements: 1 involuntarily, 2, alone 3 can’t exit or believe they can’t exit.

The question is what does it mean to be ‘involuntarily placed’? Is it involuntary if a student is told to go somewhere and does it, even grudgingly?

The implication of this is that anything that a teacher tells a student to do which they then do is involuntary – i.e. get out your books, go to assembly now etc…

The other contestable phrase is ‘believes that he or she cannot freely exit’. The extent of teachers’ authority  is also in question here – does a teacher telling a student that they cannot leave a room (even until a certain condition is met) mean that they ‘believe they cannot freely exit’?

By including the arguable phrases ‘involuntarily’ and ‘believes that he or she cannot freely exit’ the definition of seclusion is opened up to legal challenge and lacks clarity for schools.

In some situations schools could interpret this to mean that as long as they do not physically place (i.e. drag, lift, carry) a student into a room then they can continue to seclude (i.e. it must have been voluntary as the student willingly walked in her/himself), and in others they may assess that they cannot even use a withdrawal room, as telling a student to go to a room and stay there until a certain condition is met means that they cannot freely leave.

This definition is a mess, and while the sector may have agreed it for use in guidelines that is quite different from agreeing to it in law. We did not expect that it would be written into legislation when we were developing the guidelines and such a statement from the Government does not recognise the majority of submissions from the sector to the Select Committee that were opposed to the proposed definition.  

Restraint

physically restrain, in relation to a student, means to use physical force to prevent, restrict, or subdue the movement of the student’s body or part of the student’s body

 

1)

A teacher or authorised staff member must not physically restrain a student unless—

(a)

the teacher or staff member reasonably believes that the safety of the student or of any other person is at serious and imminent risk; and

(b)

the physical restraint is reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

 

Situations this could lead to:

1. A student squirting a fire hose into a classroom won’t be able to have the hose taken off them, as it is unlikely to be putting safety at ‘serious and imminent risk’
2. A student steals a device from another student and then goes to walk out of the classroom. The teacher cannot stand in the doorway and block them leaving.
3. A student is hitting cars parked in the school carpark with a stick. A teacher cannot grab the stick off them.
4. A student has a tendency to get angry and damage property. The principal and parents have an agreement that a trained staff member can restrain the student until the parent arrives when this happens. This won’t be able to happen in future.

 

The greatest irony is that in the first three of these situations while a teacher cannot intervene, a member of the public could.

Teachers are already very cautious about exercising physical restraint, and there are a maximum of 1-2 cases a year (out of around 50,000 teachers in schools) which lead to complaints to authorities about it. There is no evidence to suggest that this is an area which needs new legislation.

I tend to agree with the PPTA that the solution here, may be worse than the problem.

The Taxpayers Union has released:

The Government’s failure to index tax brackets to inflation since 2010 now costs the average Kiwi income earner almost $500 each year according to a new report released today by the Taxpayers’ Union. The report, “5 Options for Tax Relief in 2017”, models five options to deliver meaningful tax relief packages which could be part of Budget 2017 with fiscal implications of $3 billion or less.

With Labour now saying they will keep spending under 30% of GDP also, they should also be supporting tax cuts for hard working New Zealanders.

The five costed options are:

1. A tax free threshold for the first $13,000 of income
2. Eliminate the 30% tax bracket, so the 17.5% rate applies from $24k to $70k
3. Eliminate the top tax bracket so top tax rate of 26% applies to all income over $48k
4. Increase all tax brackets so bottom is up to $25k, second bottom from $25k to $64k, third from $64k to $100k and top above $100k
5. Cut company tax rate to from 28% to 13%

The report looks at the pros and cons of each option, and the impact it would have on four typical families or taxpayers:

1. Average worker earning $57,000
2. Family with two children on $100,000
3. Low income worker on $35,000
4. Professional earning $120,000

The report also calls for tax brackets to be indexed against inflation.

I’m delighted that Labour and Greens have signed up some Budget Responsibility Rules. This represents a huge shift for the middle ground of NZ politics.

For the last 20 years or so the parties of the left have campaigned on tax increases and massively increased spending. Now Labour and Greens have said that will keep government spending to under 30% of GDP.

In 2008/09 Labour left office with core crown expenditure at 35.5% of GDP.  It took a massive effort by National to get it down to under 30% by 2015. Labour and Greens opposed pretty much every one of those spending cuts or restraints yet now they are saying they will stick to a similar expenditure level. Again, this is a huge shift, and a massive victory for the forces of fiscal conservatism.

What is the difference between spending 30% and 35% of GDP? Around $12 billion a year.

No wonder the CTU is pissed.

Now it isn’t a bulletproof pledge, and I’ll go through the details. And NZ First has not signed up, and there is no way Labour and Greens can form a Government without them, so they may use that to escape their pledge. But even with those caveats, this is a welcome step for them, after nine years of calling for nothing but extra spending, they have pledged to keep the share of the economy the state spends to the same level as National has got it after eight years.

So let’s take their pledges in turn:

1. The Government will deliver a sustainable operating surplus across an economic cycle.

An OBEGAL surplus indicates the Government is financially disciplined and building resilience to withstand and adapt to unforeseen events. We expect to be in surplus every year unless there is a significant natural event or a major economic shock or crisis. Our surpluses will exist once our policy objectives have been met, and we will not artificially generate surpluses by underfunding key public services.

A guest post by David Garrett:

On 16 March 2017, Justice Wylie decided that  denying convicted paedophile and murderer Philip John Smith his hairpiece was a breach of his “human rights”; more particularly, his  right to “self expression”. I know nothing of Justice Wylie or his antecedents, and if I did, I would be very loathe to comment on them, for obvious reasons. But surely this decision prompts – at the very least – a discussion on just what “rights” prisoners in New Zealand jails should enjoy?

It has long been a left wing mantra that here in Godzone, prisoners are sent to jail “as punishment, and not FOR punishment”. Decoded, that clause means that the punishment handed down by a Judge is limited to the deprivation of liberty – the loss  of the right to take the dog for a walk, buy an ice cream at the dairy, and have a beer on the deck in the evening. All other human rights supposedly  remain unaffected: now  we see the right to “self expression” being specifically preserved in the form of the right to wear a hairpiece which was employed as part of a disguise used to  escape lawful custody.

The right to “self expression” appears to be one with few boundaries: recently I saw a UK documentary in which vandals quite openly said that trashing public and private property should form part of their right to “express ourselves”. Rather than guffaw in amazement, the interviewer nodded wisely, and appeared to think that was a reasonable argument.

Well, my view is very different.  Fifty  years ago – which of course is an eternity to millenials – bouncing a cheque was considered to be a shameful thing which warranted a short prison sentence. As recently as 1974, Elton John’s then manager served a 30 day sentence in Mt Eden for assaulting journalist Judith Baragwanath. (His sentence was confirmed on appeal).  

Forty odd years later, it is extremely difficult to get sent to prison: on average a prisoner has appeared before the courts  eleven times – that’s eleven appearances, not eleven charges – before he is sent to jail. Therefore, it is fair to say that prisoners are, with very few exceptions, what used to be called “bad bastards.” So what human rights should those bad bastards enjoy? I do not believe that liberty is the only thing prisoners should lose.

Commenters on Kiwiblog frequently argue that the worst  murderers should forfeit life itself; that capital punishment is the only just penalty for deviant humans such as Philip John Smith. The reality is that there will never be a restoration of capital punishment in New Zealand, no matter how egregious the offence, or how certain the offender’s guilt.  I have on other occasions set out the reasons for my view that it would be inappropriate – and indeed counter productive – if murderers  here faced the death penalty, even as a discretionary sentence.

But that is an entirely different issue from what rights are appropriate for prisoners of the New Zealand justice system. Given the reality – that to be sent to prison one usually  has had to be convicted of numerous offences, often involving violence – I nail  my colours to the mast, and say that a prisoner’s rights should be substantially fewer than those of other members of the community.

Prisoners used to be distinguished by what they wore: their uniforms were either arrows (never quite got the rationale behind that) or horizontal stripes; either way, the intent was to make them immediately distinguishable  from law abiding members of society, both within the jails and  if they escaped. Prisoners used to have their heads virtually shaved – today’s equivalent of a “number two”. So long as they behaved, they were fed adequately – somewhat better than prisoners of war – but put on “Number One Diet” if they misbehaved.  Prisoners who were determined to buck the system could find themselves in solitary confinement, potentially for many months.

So here we are, fifty or sixty years later. Prisoners wear what they like. The prison barber will cut their hair as they wish. There is no solitary confinement, or Number One Diet – that would breach the prisoner’s human rights. As of 16 March 2017, bald prisoners’ human rights include the right to wear a hairpiece – even if the wearing of that rug aided their escape.

In my view, the case of Philip John Smith and his hairpiece should prompt a wholesale review of the doctrine that deprivation of liberty is the only punishment prisoners should suffer. It is my personal view that prisoners should leave a whole suite of “human rights” at the prison gate: they have by their actions, disqualified themselves from the right to wear what they like; from the right to have their hair cut as they wish; the right to have their food fads indulged;  from the right to assuage their vanity by the wearing of a hairpiece.

Establishing a set of prisoners’ rights would legislatively be very simple: an Act setting out what those rights were, and an amendment to the Bill of Rights Act (BORA) that made it subject to the Prisoners’ Rights Act. But while the enabling legislation would be simple and short,  the change in culture would be huge – the last two generations before the present have grown up with a focus on their extensive and inalienable rights – and being “non judgmental” is seen as  perhaps one of the most important.

The corollary of that is that prisoners are seen by many as being individuals who just need  help support and compassion – and perhaps a dose of religion – in order to become good citizens. Sadly the reality is, in my view, very different. In short, and with very few exceptions, most prisoners – and almost all of those who have been to prison more than once – will keep offending until age wearies them of incarceration, usually by their 40’s.

So what do I think prisoners’ rights should be? Obviously the right to be adequately housed and fed – but “adequately housed” should not include underfloor heating in cells. If pensioners have to go to bed early in the winter because they can’t afford heating, why the hell should prisoners be better off? Prisoners ought to have the right to prompt and adequate  medical care – but not access to more than basic dentistry. Many ordinary working people cannot afford to get a root canal or a crown, and thus have an extraction – once the pain becomes unbearable. Again, why should prisoners have it any better?

Prisoners should once again have to wear distinctive uniforms, both to reinforce their status, and to make them easier to catch if they grow tired of accommodation courtesy of Her Majesty. They should again have number two haircuts. They should again face meaningful punishments within jail for breaking or disregarding the rules.

I do not expect any of this to happen – I believe our society has gone too far down the road of soft treatment of those who break its rules, and towards a focus on rights to the exclusion of responsibilities. But let us at least have a debate about it.  If a declaration by a High Court Judge that  to wear a hair piece used as part of a disguise facilitating an escape is a “human right”  does not prompt us to reconsider prisoners’ rights, surely nothing else will.

From the NZ Defence Force:

NZDF STATEMENT ON HAGER/STEPHENSON BOOK

The central premise of Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson’s book, Hit and Run, is incorrect, says the Chief of Defence Force, Lieutenant General Tim Keating.

NZDF troops never operated in the two villages identified in the book as having been the scene of combat operations and civilian casualties.

Since the release of the book, the New Zealand Defence Force has spent considerable time reviewing the claims contained in it, despite the allegations of civilian casualties being the subject of a NATO investigation in 2010.

Upon review of Hit and Run, it is evident there are some major inaccuracies – the main one being the location and names of the villages where the authors claim civilians were killed and property was destroyed wilfully during a New Zealand-led operation.

The villages are named in the book as Naik and Khak Khuday Dad, but the NZDF can confirm that NZDF personnel have never operated in these villages.

The authors appear to have confused interviews, stories and anecdotes from locals with an operation conducted more than two kilometres to the south, known as Operation Burnham.

The villages in the Hager and Stephenson book and the settlement which was the site of Operation Burnham, called Tirgiran, are separated by mountainous and difficult terrain.

The NZDF has used the geographical references in the book and cross-referenced them with our own material.

During Operation Burnham, New Zealand was supported by coalition partners, which included air support capacity as previously reported.

The ISAF investigation determined that a gun sight malfunction on a coalition helicopter resulted in several rounds falling short, missing the intended target and instead striking two buildings.

This investigation concluded that this may have resulted in civilian casualties but no evidence of this was established.

Hit and Run does not prove civilian casualties were sustained in the village where Operation Burnham took place.

The NZDF reiterates its position that New Zealand personnel acted appropriately during this operation and were not involved in the deaths of civilians or any untoward destruction of property.

The NZDF welcomes anyone with information relevant to Operation Burnham to come forward and be assured that any allegations of offending by NZDF personnel would be taken seriously and investigated in accordance with our domestic and international legal obligations. 

ENDS

This is very interesting, to say the least.

Photo sent in by a reader.

Captions below. As always funny, not nasty.

The Herald reports:

Havelock North resident David Elliott has been chosen as the Nationa Party candidate for Napier in the upcoming general election.

Mr Elliott, who was beaten by Hastings mayor Lawrence Yule for the Tukituki National Party nomination earlier in the year, saw off competition from local businesswoman Deborah Burnside to secure the right to challenge incumbent Labour MP Stuart Nash for his seat.

The nomination was confirmed today.

Born and raised in Hawke’s Bay, the Cathay Pacific airline pilot returned from Hong Kong to live in the region in 2010. 

Stuart Nash holds the seat with a 3,850 majority. However National won the party vote by 8,500 votes so could be an interesting seat to watch.

Stuff reports:

Serco has banned Brian Tamaki’s son-in-law from offering a Destiny Church outreach programme at its South Auckland prison.

The surprise move has upset former inmates who benefited from the programme, and prompted a case manager at Kohuora Auckland South Corrections Facility to resign in protest. …

Warren is the national director of Man Up, a Destiny programme which is focused on empowering men to be better fathers and partners.

He is married to Jamie Warren, daughter of Destiny leaders Brian and Hannah Tamaki.

Former inmate Billy Baggs was released from prison in November and said working with Man Up while behind bars helped him break the cycle of drugs, violence and gangs he had been stuck in for most of his life.

“It’s had a good effect on me and my whole family,” he said.

“Even my siblings and old associates are looking at Man Up now, because of the changes that I’ve made.”

I am no fan of the Destiny Church but I recognise they do so good works in their communities, and if their prison programme is beneficial to some inmates, it should be continued.

Stuff reports:

“When I went to the police station they took me to a cell and gave me a mattress. There were cockroaches crawling and biting me, I thought to myself this is similar to a police station in Afghanistan!”

It’s just after midnight at Auckland International Airport when Khalid, who we agreed not to name to protect his identity, arrived in late August 2012. He’d disposed of his passport during the final transit before reaching Auckland.

His eyes scan the arrivals area. He finds a policeman and declares he is here to seek asylum. “I was taken to Customs to be strip-searched. It was such a shock you know. Because of my religion, this is not something that I wanted to do,” he says.  …

Immigration officers asked Khalid why he’d left Afghanistan, the route he’d taken to get to New Zealand and what had happened to his passport. 

“At the end they said they’d let me know the outcome. I thought they’d let me go at this point but they told me they couldn’t let me walk around the streets.”

Khalid was told he’d be taken to prison.

“My expectation was when I provided some documents and told the truth I would be taken to a refugee camp but they sent me to the police station where I spent the night.” 

Maybe he shouldn’t have destroyed his passport.

There’s conflict in Khalid’s voice as he explains why he used a false passport to leave Afghanistan.

“I had a UK visa, I could have gone there very easily. But the encouragement of my aunt who was already in New Zealand helped make my mind up. I didn’t want to be disloyal to the embassy because as an employee I didn’t want to misuse the visa they had given me.” 

This is key. He had a visa to go to the UK.

Asylum in my opinion is not meant to be like normal migration, where you choose your desired country to go and live in. It is meant to be that if you flee across the border, you don’t get sent back to a country where you will be persecuted.

Information obtained through the Official Information Act revealed there are​ now 11 asylum seekers holed up in Mt Eden Prison; the average length of stay is four months.

According to Immigration New Zealand statistics there were 269 claims for asylum between  2016 and 2017; 71 of those claims were approved.

So around 20% of claims for asylum are found to be legitimate.

Bjorn Lomborg writes:

Those ‘environmentally friendly’ candles that many participants light? They are a fossil fuel — and burn almost 100 times less efficiently than incandescent light bulbs. (That’s why you won’t ever find a modern hospital using them instead of electricity). Using one candle for each switched-off bulb actually cancels out even the theoretical CO2 reduction; using two candles means that you emit more CO2.

Amazing how many suckers fall for Earth Hour every year.

Graeme Edgeler writes:

New Zealand has adopted the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This treaty forms part of New Zealand domestic law. As part of the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act, it makes a number of actions, long-recognised internationally as war crimes, express crimes under New Zealand law. A couple of these are in issue to this allegation. Section 11(2) of the Act, and Article 8(2)(b) of the Statute include the following as war crimes:

(v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;

(xiii) Destroying or seizing the enemy’s property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

The maximum penalty for someone convicted of a war crime is life imprisonment.

So these are very serious allegations.

Lots of people are saying that there appear to be war crimes. No-one appears to have appreciated what that means. It means we need an investigation into war crimes. In New Zealand, this is a job for the Police.

I think about this not only from the perspective of New Zealand legal obligation to investigate allegations of war crimes, and the right of victims of alleged war crimes to have those allegations investigated, and prosecuted, but also from the perspective of those who are alleged, even if implicitly, anonymously, or collectively, to have committed war crimes.

I agree with Graeme that the Police should investigate.

An inquiry cannot be allowed to interfere with a possible prosecution. The possibility that evidence heard by a commission of inquiry could be evidence that might be heard by a jury at a criminal trial (or more importantly, might be inadmissible at a criminal trial) could mean that there would need to be substantial suppression orders, lest the fairness of future criminal proceedings be threatened.

So you shouldn’t do an inquiry and then a Police investigation. The Police investigation should come first.

I do not know whether allegations contained in Hit & Run are true, or whether the allegations, even if true enough to properly found a charge, are capable of being proved by admissible evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. But the Soldiers who were present, those who ordered them to take part, and everyone else involved at whatever level of the New Zealand Defence Force or the New Zealand Government has rights. And one of those rights is to have any allegations against them that need investigating, investigated by a competent authority, without improper pressure being placed on the investigator. They also have the right to have any decision over whether to lay a charge, decided only after a thorough investigation, and considering not only incriminating evidence, but evidence that tends to show their innocence. This is most likely to happen if any criminal investigation begins as soon as possible, and is not prejudiced by a full public inquiry.

I think Graeme makes a compelling case.

Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson have authored a book alleging war crimes; they’re not necessarily certain who, but the describe events that could amount to war crimes committed by New Zealanders. This has consequences.

When confronted with allegations of war crimes, New Zealand is obliged not just to find out what happened, but to investigate, and if appropriate, prosecute. But it would be wrong to pursue an inquiry that may prejudice the rights of those now under suspicion of committing war crimes. Commissions of inquiry do not investigate crimes. This is the job of the Police.

The Police should launch an investigation. They are the competent authority.

The Herald reports:

Labour has dropped support for legislation that would see public reserve land at Pt England developed for housing as part of a Treaty of Waitangi settlement with local iwi – labelling the move a “land grab”.

The 300 home development has emerged as one of the most controversial local issues in Maungakiekie in election year and Labour’s candidate Priyanca Radhakrishnan announced her party’s opposition to the development along with housing spokesman Phil Twyford.

Maungakiekie is a marginal seat and Radhakrishnan will be aiming to wrest it back off National after current MP Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga announced his retirement from Parliament. National’s candidate is Auckland Councillor Denise Lee.

Labour claim they will build 100,000 houses if elected. But everytime an actual housing development is proposed, they turn into NIMBYs and oppose it.

Nick Smith points out:

“The Point England housing development will provide 300 more families with a warm, dry home, enhance the recreational facilities and space for the surrounding community, as well as help settle Ngāti Paoa’s treaty claim and provide a site for a marae.

“This is a choice between land for houses or cows. Eighteen hectares of this site have been grazed by cattle for 30 years. Twelve hectares are to be used for housing. The area of open space accessible for public recreation will be expanded with this development.

“Labour’s contradictory positions on housing and cows are odd. They demand more homes be built but then oppose one housing development after another. They want fewer cows because of concern about water quality and greenhouse gas emissions, except in central Auckland on prime land like at Point England.

So Labour is putting cows ahead of human housing.

The Herald reports:

National has selected a 25-year-old commercial banker as its candidate in Pakuranga after long-serving MP Maurice Williamson quit politics.

And if Simeon Brown looks familiar to some voters it could be because of a past job – busking in the Botany Shopping Centre.

“I used to go busking at there with my clarinet. It was the best paid job I ever had, I remember once getting $100 an hour. I was only 14 at the time,” he told the Herald.

Brown is a commercial banking senior associate at Bank of New Zealand and is a member of the Manurewa Local Board.

His selection in the safe National seat means he is highly likely to become one of the youngest MPs in Parliament after September’s election.

Pakuranga has been held by Williamson since 1987, and he recorded a 12,867 vote majority at the last election.

Little doubt Brown will become an MP, and be the youngest National MP I’d say. He might be the youngest MP in the House, but that will depend on the Greens list ranking.

While he is young, it is good to see he has some experience in the private sector.

Stuff reports:

Labour leader Andrew Little will face defamation proceedings after the founders of a hotel chain rejected a late apology over accusations regarding a Niue resort deal.

Little has apologised unreservedly for his comments, after the deal was cleared by the Auditor General last year, and says it is “unfortunate” the case is still heading to court.

The trouble is he refused to do an unreserved apology for over a year and then only did it the week before the trial is due to start.

“Today I want to publicly apologise unreservedly to Mr Hagaman for any hurt, embarrassment or adverse reflection on his reputation which may have resulted from my various media statements.

“I have offered that apology to the Hagamans. I have also offered to make a substantial contribution towards the Hagamans’ costs; an amount I am advised, was greater than would likely have been awarded by the court.”

A substantial contribution suggests less than 100%. So after he has refused to apologise and they have spent $200,000 on legal fees, he then offers to pay a portion of those costs.

However, Little said his offers had been rejected, meaning the case would now head to court.

“That is unfortunate. I strongly believe everybody’s time, not least the court’s, could be better used.”

If he had apologised a year ago, it would not be going to court. The last minute offer suggests he is worried he will lose.

His criticism was aimed at the actions of the Government, and “intended to reflect no impropriety on the part of Mr Hagaman”.

That may not have been the intention, but his words were inflammatory. He said the decision stinks to high heaven. That strongly implied corrupt behaviour.

The Standard declared this to be a vexatious lawsuit that will be laughed out of court. The fact Little has now offered to settle suggests otherwise.

Stuff reports:

Hunt was enraged to learn that James, currently in year 7, would have to cut his hair or “find a different school,” despite having lived in the coveted Grammar zone throughout his schooling. 

Section 11d of the Education Act 1989 states that a person who lives in the home zone of a school that has an enrolment scheme is entitled at any time to enrol at that school.

So it is his “statutory right,” living in zone, to go to Grammar, she said in the letter. 

The mother doesn’t understand the difference between enrolment and continuation. Her son does have a statutory right to enrol at Auckland Grammar, but once enrolled and attending he has to obey the school rules. If he hits a teacher, wags school, refuses to wear the uniform etc etc, then he can be disciplined and even suspended.

A right to enrol does not mean you are exempt from the school rules.

James wears his hair long in memory of his late grandfather Paul Hunt – who was expelled from Freyberg High School, in Palmerston North, because his own shoulder-length hair broke school rules.

James’ grandmother, Anne Hunt, said James’ hair is important to him because it connects him to the grandfather he never got to meet. 

Hunt said James would be devastated if he had to cut his hair.

Then he can go to Selwyn College.

Hunt questioned why issues around identity and self-expression were at a standstill. 

“I wouldn’t allow James to attend a school that still applies the same rules that resulted in his grandfather’s expulsion fifty years ago,” she said.

Excellent – go to another school then.

As we mourn the deaths of four in London at the hands of an Islamist terrorist, it is worth remembering they were not the only ones who died this week as a result of Islamist terror attacks.

288 people in 13 countries were killed in 39 separate attacks this week. They include:

• A young child is blown to bits by a female suicide bomber in Bangladesh
• A pregnant woman is among five civilians gunned down in cold blood by Fulani terrorists in Nigeria
• An atheist is hacked to death by an angry Muslim over Facebook posts attacking religion in India
• A father and son’s throats are slit by a family member yelling ‘Allah Akbar’ in Paris
• At least ten innocents are claimed by a Fedayeen suicide car bomber in Somalia
• A man is tied up and shot to death for ‘cursing Allah’ in Syria

Stuff reports:

After 27 years of running Chappies Dairy in Wellington, owners Sandy and Ken Patel are shutting up shop due to declining business they say is partly due to the controversial Island Bay cycleway.

A lack of short-term parking outside their shop on The Parade in Island Bay has proved to be the “nail in the coffin” for their business, they say.

Four short-term parking spaces directly outside the dairy were removed to accommodate the $1.2 million cycleway, which was built between late 2015 and early 2016. It left the Patels with just a single car park.

So what will Justin Lester do? The cycleway is hated by the vast majority of the Island Bay community. Almost none of them are against having a cycleway – just against this particular design.

It should be scrapped until an acceptable alternative is agreed on.

That sentiment was echoed by a handful of dairy owners along The Parade, including Mersey St store owners Sanjay and Jayshree Patel.

“Nobody listened because they just wanted the cycleway so bad and now it’s our livelihood that is suffering,” Sanjay said.

The cycleway’s layout, which places cyclists between the footpath and parked cars, has drawn criticism from some who argue it has made The Parade too narrow for vehicles and reduced visibility for motorists entering and exiting driveways.

The Parade used to be a wonderfully wide and safe street.