George Will looks at Jeremy Corbyn in the Washington Post:

That year, Corbyn was elected to the House of Commons. He spent his next 32 years opposing the monarchy; writing columns for a communist newspaper; expressing admiration for Hugo Chávez, whose socialism propelled Venezuela toward today’s chaos; proposing that taxpayers should be permitted to opt out of paying for Britain’s army; advocating that Britain leave NATO and unilaterally scrap its nuclear deterrent; blaming NATO, meaning the United States, for Vladimir Putin’s war against Ukraine; calling the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah “friends”; appearing with and funding Holocaust deniers and other anti-Semites; criticizing China’s Communist regime for deviationism in accepting some free markets; demanding that Tony Blair, the only Labour leader since 1976 to win a general election (three of them), be tried as a war criminal (for supporting the Iraq War); praising Iraqi insurgents killing Americans; and calling the killing of Osama bin Laden a “tragedy.” Along the way, Corbyn got divorced because his wife insisted on sending their eldest son to a selective school whose admissions policy recognized merit.

If UK Labour had a different leader, they could be capitalising on the in-fighting within the Conservatives on the EU. But they remain unelectable.

“Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.”

– Claude Frederic Bastiat

The quote of the week is brought to you by the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union. To support the Union’s campaign for lower taxes and less government waste, click here.

A guest post by David Garrett:

 Why were Moko’s killers’ charges reduced to manslaughter?

It is now almost a month since it became publicly known that the people who stomped and bashed and strangled little Moko Rangitoheriri to death over a two week period had had their murder charges reduced to manslaughter, to which they no doubt very gratefully pleaded guilty. Despite commendable media scrutiny, the public are still none the wiser as to  how this seemingly inexplicable decision came to be made.

And inexplicable it is, to a number of senior  criminal defence barristers I have consulted. The statement of facts has now been leaked. I am told it is a dreadful tale of lengthy abuse and multiple life threatening injuries, any one of which could have caused Moko’s death.  There is absolutely no doubt that all  of those injuries were inflicted by Tania Shailer and/or her boyfriend David Haerewa. Unlike the Kahui twins’ debacle, no-one else is in the frame.

One early story quoted “a family member” having been told by the Crown Solicitor in charge of the prosecution that because Moko did not die immediately, but later in hospital, a murder charge could not be pursued. The Crown Solicitor emphatically denies that any such conversation took place, and confirms that any such downgrading of murder charges  to the lesser charge of manslaughter must be approved by the Solicitor General, and that is what happened in this case. In other words, the buck stops with the person effectively in charge of all Crown prosecutions, the Solicitor General Una Jagose. But neither she nor anyone from her office are talking.

I am aware of many media enquiries being made seeking an explanation from Ms Jagose. Apparently more than one reporter now cannot speak to anyone  at the Solicitor General’s office, let alone the woman herself. When I called seeking an e-mail address for her I was grilled as to who I was, and why I wanted it.  In my view this is outrageous – it should not matter if I was the barrister from Auckland that I am, or a concerned truck driver from Timaru.

The Solicitor General is a public official, not the Queen. She is appointed to fill the highest non political legal office in the land.  It is ultimately she who provides legal advice to  the government, and oversees all serious criminal prosecutions. It is to her we entrust the prosecution of the evil persons among us who commit heinous crimes, rather than take the law into our own hands. She ought to be accountable to us,  the people on whose behalf she acts.

She is not a Judge. It is an important constitutional convention that Judges occupy an exalted status above the rest of us – both barristers from Auckland and truck drivers from Timaru. No-one writing to a Judge  seeking an explanation for a sentence will get a reply. If the writer of such a letter was a lawyer, he would probably have a complaint laid against him with the Law Society.

But there is a very important difference between the decisions of  Judge and the decisions of a Solicitor General.  Judges issue sentencing notes which explain in sometimes tedious detail how a particular sentence was arrived at – an addition for this aggravating factor,  a deduction for that supposedly mitigating factor. Here we have absolutely nothing from the Solicitor General – no explanation, not even a statement.

It is not as if this explanation will come on 27 June, the day Shailer and Haerewa receive their now unavoidably inadequate sentence. The Judge will simply see the summary of facts, and be told that the Crown has accepted a plea of guilty to manslaughter. Neither he nor any other Judge has had any involvement  with the plea bargain which has preceded the fait accompli he will be presented with. It is very unlikely he will even comment on it.

It is simply not right for the Solicitor General to maintain an imperious silence in her office in Wellington. Politicians explain the reasons for their support of  or opposition to laws being passed in parliament. Judges explain the reasons for their decisions in open court for all to hear, and in their sentencing notes. If there is  a reason or reasons  for this seemingly inexplicable decision then let’s hear it.  The people ought not to be treated with such disdain. They have a right to know.

The Washington Post reports:

Democrats and Hispanic activists said Friday that they are increasingly alarmed by a spate of violence at Donald Trump rallies instigated by anti-Trump protesters, fearing that the incidents — widely viewed on television and social media — will only help the GOP candidate and undermine their attempts to defeat him.

They’re right. The average voter is repelled by protests than are violent. They figure that the right side to be on is the opposite side to the violent protesters.

The latest flash point came Thursday in downtown San Jose, where a demonstration outside a Trump campaign rally quickly escalated out of control. Several protesters assaulted Trump supporters, ripped pro-Trump signs away from them and stomped on vehicles in the area. A flurry of video clips circulating Friday morning showed bystanders who sustained bloody injuries.

If Trump wins, he should thank the protesters for their help.

“We wrapped up, everybody was cheering like crazy, and they walk out and they get accosted by a bunch of thugs burning the American flag,” Trump said, adding for emphasis: “And you know what? They are, they are thugs.”

Assaulting people and burning the US flag – no wonder people are worried about the impact.

The Guardian reports:

Swiss voters have overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to give the entire population of the country enough money to live on, according to exit polls.

A projection provided to the public broadcaster RTS said 78% had voted against all Swiss citizens, along with foreigners who have been residents in Switzerlandfor at least five years, being given a universal basic income, or UBI.

Supporters said providing such an income would help fight poverty and inequality in a world where good jobs with steady salaries are becoming harder to find.

Critics have called the initiative “a Marxist dream”, warning of sky-high costs and people quitting their jobs in droves, to the detriment of the economy. “If you pay people to do nothing, they will do nothing,” said Charles Wyplosz, economics professor at the Geneva Graduate Institute.

It is a Marxist dream, and one NZ Labour is looking at. It would result in huge huge tax increases.

Good to see the Swiss so sensible.

Paul Little writes in the Herald:

On a brighter note, Labour and the Greens are hooking up. Analogies to a marriage were quickly drawn at this exciting news, and they couldn’t be more apt. It was like when you hear that your cousin who everyone had given up on ever seeing hooked has finally got engaged, and then you find out it’s to the village idiot.

So which party is the cousin everyone had given up on and which party is the village idiot?

My pick is the Greens are the dateless cousins, as they have never got into Government. and that makes Labour the village idiot by default?

The full list is here. The Dames and Knights are:

DNZM

To be Dames Companion of the said Order:

The Honourable Ellen Dolour France, of Wellington. For services to the judiciary.

Ms Karen Margaret Sewell, QSO, of Wellington. For services to education.

KNZM

To be Knights Companion of the said Order:

Mr Robert George Mappin Fenwick, CNZM, KStJ, of Auckland. For services to conservation and business.

Mr Michael Friedlander, CNZM, of Auckland. For services to philanthropy.

Mr Christopher Robert Mace, CNZM, of Auckland. For services to science and education.

Mr Matiu Nohorua Te Rei, of Wellington. For services to Māori.

The Honourable Ronald Leslie Young, of Greytown. For services to the judiciary.

Very pleased to see Rob Fenwick honoured for his lifetime of work for conservation causes.

The Economist says we need to fight back against three threats to free speech. They are:

Free speech is under attack in three ways. First, repression by governments has increased. Several countries have reimposed cold-war controls or introduced new ones. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia enjoyed a free-for-all of vigorous debate. Under Vladimir Putin, the muzzle has tightened again. All the main television-news outlets are now controlled by the state or by Mr Putin’s cronies. Journalists who ask awkward questions are no longer likely to be sent to labour camps, but several have been murdered.

Sadly many countries do not have free speech or free media.

Second, a worrying number of non-state actors are enforcing censorship by assassination. Reporters in Mexico who investigate crime or corruption are often murdered, and sometimes tortured first. Jihadists slaughter those they think have insulted their faith. When authors and artists say anything that might be deemed disrespectful of Islam, they take risks. Secular bloggers in Bangladesh are hacked to death in the street (see article); French cartoonists are gunned down in their offices. The jihadists hurt Muslims more than any others, not least by making it harder for them to have an honest discussion about how to organise their societies.

This is a growing threat and leads to a lot of self-censorship.  A newspaper should treat a cartoon of Mohammed in the same way as a cartoon of Jesus. But we know that only one of these would result in death threats, so newspapers self-censor.

Third, the idea has spread that people and groups have a right not to be offended. This may sound innocuous. Politeness is a virtue, after all. But if I have a right not to be offended, that means someone must police what you say about me, or about the things I hold dear, such as my ethnic group, religion, or even political beliefs. Since offence is subjective, the power to police it is both vast and arbitrary.

Nevertheless, many students in America and Europe believe that someone should exercise it. Some retreat into the absolutism of identity politics, arguing that men have no right to speak about feminism nor whites to speak about slavery. Others have blocked thoughtful, well-known speakers, such as Condoleezza Rice and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, from being heard on campus (see article).

I’m glad they included this, as it is a huge and growing issue, especially on campuses.

The threat to free speech on Western campuses is very different from that faced by atheists in Afghanistan or democrats in China. But when progressive thinkers agree that offensive words should be censored, it helps authoritarian regimes to justify their own much harsher restrictions and intolerant religious groups their violence.

And they do.

Blasphemy laws are an anachronism. A religion should be open to debate. Laws against hate speech are unworkably subjective and widely abused. Banning words or arguments which one group finds offensive does not lead to social harmony. On the contrary, it gives everyone an incentive to take offence—a fact that opportunistic politicians with ethnic-based support are quick to exploit.

Incitement to violence should be banned. However, it should be narrowly defined as instances when the speaker intends to goad those who agree with him to commit violence, and when his words are likely to have an immediate effect. Shouting “Let’s kill the Jews” to an angry mob outside a synagogue qualifies. Drunkenly posting “I wish all the Jews were dead” on an obscure Facebook page probably does not.

Very good examples. The response to the latter should be exposure and criticism, not criminal prosecution.

However, any public college, and any college that aspires to help students grow intellectually, should aim to expose them to challenging ideas. The world outside campus will often offend them; they must learn to fight back using peaceful protests, rhetoric and reason.

These are good rules for everyone. Never try to silence views with which you disagree. Answer objectionable speech with more speech. Win the argument without resorting to force. And grow a tougher hide.

Hear hear.

Stuff reports:

If you think that’s a stretch (and Peters has run with conspiracy theories on less), here’s another theory that’s been doing the rounds much longer.

It is that Peters will only retire after he has fulfilled his ambition of one day being prime minister. It’s even said to have been put on the able in NZ First’s protracted negotiations to form a government in 1996.

Election night 2017 might be now or never for Peters, given he will be 72 by the time the next election rolls around.

Which is why the Labour-Greens cooperation agreement announced this week might be the game changer everyone is talking about, but not in the way they think.

Because it may bring Peters’ dream within his grasp.

Let’s say the election delivers a result of National 45%, Labour 23%, NZ First 15%, Greens 10%.

NZ First holds the balance of power. Peters demands to be made PM. National says no. A party on 45% is not going to give up the top job. Labour however has just 23%. They are desperate to be in Government. Bang you have Winston as PM.

Stuff reports:

Wellington Airport is playing down a report showing many wide-bodied aircrafts could not operate efficiently into the capital even with a $300 million extension.

On Friday it emerged that an expert report included in its resource consent application showed that a number of Boeing and Airbus planes which were looked at could not take off safely if full of passengers, even after its runway was extended 355 metres.

Wellington Airport has claimed its plan to extend the runway into Cook Strait could allow direct flights from North America and Asia into the capital.

But a report it commissioned from Astral Aviation Consultants claimed that no aircraft could take off with a full passenger payload to Beijing in wet conditions, while only one aircraft type – the A330-800NEO – could reach Los Angeles Airport full of passengers if taking off from a wet runway.

Here’s the length of various airport runways in NZ:

1. Auckland L 3,635 metres
2. Christchurch 3,288 metres
3. Auckland R 3,108 metres
4. Invercargill 2,210 metres
5. Wellington 2,081 metres

So Wellington with the extension would be longer than Invercargill but still a lot shorter than Christchurch or Auckland.

Stuff reports:

A second student loan arrest is causing borrowers overseas to become sick with worry, the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations says.

NZUSA president Linsey Higgins said people who have got in touch since the arrests are “terrified” and “at their wit’s end” following the arrest of a woman at Auckland Airport on Tuesday.

It’s very simple – they should contact IRD and arrange to start paying back their loans. It doesn’t have to be a lump sum. IRD will be flexible so long as they are making some effort. But if you refuse to make any repayments at all, well then there are consequences.

Newshub reports:

Metiria Turei appears to be at odds with her Green Party co-leader James Shaw on whether they would work with National, under questioning from Paul Henry.

Less than 24 hours after announcing a marriage of convenience with Labour, Mr Shaw and Ms Turei have given differing opinions on cooperation with National, should it get them into power.

Mr Shaw says the party’s first preference is Labour — hence yesterday’s show-and-tell of the two parties’ memorandum of understanding.

“When we’ve cooperated, both of our polls have actually gone up — and when we haven’t cooperated, we’ve tended to take votes off each other,” he told Newshub this morning.

“Preference” is the key word here — Mr Shaw wouldn’t rule out National altogether, saying it’s up to the membership.

But Ms Turei says it is “absolutely definitive” the party is committed to removing National from power.

“Our 100 percent commitment is changing the Government because they are so terrible for this country,” she told Paul Henry this morning.

So Shaw says it is up to the members while Turei says it is up to her and no way.

RIP Muhammad Ali. He was and is The Greatest. The only other boxed who I think came close in terms of dominance was Mike Tyson at his peak.

The Herald reports:

The first person in the country caught with graphic terrorist propaganda will be sentenced in an Auckland court this morning.

Less than five months ago, Niroshan Nawarajan, 27, walked into Auckland’s US consulate wearing a black Isis T-shirt and asked if the building was “bomb proof”.

He was arrested by police walking down Queen St shortly after the premises had gone into lockdown.

Following a scuffle with officers, during which he repeatedly shouted “Isis is here”, they took him to Auckland central station for processing.

While Nawarajan was being searched, police found a hard drive containing videos, magazines and documents widely classified as propaganda.

On the drive was also a typed letter “which tends to promote or support acts of torture or the infliction of extreme violence or cruelty”, court documents say.

The man was charged with possessing objectionable material and his sentencing before Auckland District Court today is the first of its kind.

Offences under the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act are routinely seen in courts in relation to child pornography. Nawarajan will be the first sentenced over terrorism material.

He faces up to 10 years in jail after pleading guilty last month.

No doubt he will get some jail time to protect the community.  It would be interesting to learn how he became so radicalised.

A video entitled Massacre of the Shias is essentially 22 minutes of executions.

One scene highlighted as particularly graphic depicted a man allowed to kneel on top of a hill to pray before being shot twice in the back of the head.

“The camera closes in on his face as he lies dying and focuses on the blood spurting out from his cheek,” court documents said.

Nawarajan also had 12 electronic issues of Dabiq magazine, a “glossy” Isis-produced publication, one edition of which was found to contain several photos of a Jordanian pilot being burned alive and shots of his charred remains.

Charming.

On January 13, police were called about Nawarajan mumbling to himself outside the US consulate on Customs St East.

When he crossed the road to walk inside, he was heard to say “f***ing blow you up”.

Before police could get there he had inquired with staff in the building whether any Americans were inside and he was asked to leave after perusing the security area.

After Nawarajan left and the consulate was in lockdown, he was stopped by police.

When he refused to let a constable handcuff him, back-up was called.

The defendant aimed a kick at one of the officers and missed him with a punch before he was restrained.

After his arrest he told officers he hated police and would happily die for Allah.

“He also stated that he would kill for Allah, that he would shoot anyone, he would shoot police and that to kill him police would have to put a bullet in his head,” the summary said.

He seems somewhat demented. We are lucky that rather than actually try to kill anyone, he just made threats.

Stuff reports:

The SPCA and SAFE even struggled to get support from Labour at select committee with West Coast MP Damien O’Connor pointing out the injuries from rodeo were no different to those suffered on the rugby field.

“My experience of the rodeo is that the calf ran off very happy and I ended up in hospital, so I was the one who suffered harm, which is often the case.”

O’Connor said it made no sense that cage fighting “with its questionable ethics” was acceptable but it was rodeos that people were trying to ban.

“The injuries that might be listed (from rodeo) – broken bones, legs, necks, damaged eyes, torn muscles – that all happens on the rugby field….many of those animals in the rodeo live a lot longer than they would otherwise in a normal farming system.” 

As Damien says, it is not the animals that tend to get injured!

Guy said rodeos were an “important part of New Zealand society” and had been “functioning well here for 40 years”

“My concern around banning rodeos is where do you go next? Is it races, is it circuses, is it zoos?”

No doubt they are next.

Stuff reports:

Wellington might never solve its Basin Reserve traffic troubles, Finance Minister Bill English says – because it lacks a “progressive attitude”.

He said the Government was spending plenty of money on big road projects north of Wellington, and would fund them in the capital too, if the city could agree on a plan.

Wellington “found it hard to want growth”, he told business leaders in Porirua on Wednesday, as evidenced by the drawn-out debate over how to solve congestion in the central city.

It was possible the city would never solve the Basin’s congestion woes, which were holding up construction of a second Mt Victoria Tunnel and hampering access to the airport and hospital, English said.

His comments came on the same day an independent report, commissioned by the New Zealand Transport Agency, pointed to a loss of “ministerial confidence” in Wellington City Council’s ability to deliver its cycleway programme.

When asked to elaborate on Thursday, English said his message to Wellington was that, if it could come up with an alternative solution at the Basin, the Government would probably fund it.

The lack of local leadership on funding a solution is apparent.

But it would not keep money sitting around forever while the city struggled to reach an agreement.

“Lack of money is not a problem for the bottlenecks in Wellington’s city infrastructure,” he said.

“There are large projects happening north of Wellington … and they’re all going ahead. The projects in Wellington city that could achieve those things aren’t going ahead, because the city comes to the conclusion that it doesn’t want them.”

In other words Wellington is missing out due to that lack of leadership.

Transport Minister Simon Bridges said he was optimistic a traffic solution would be found at the Basin that central and local government could live with, as well as the community.

But the longer those groups “muck around” finding a solution, the longer it will take to build.

The Government remained “pretty sceptical” about contributing towards Wellington Airport’s proposed $300m runway extension in light of the wrangling over the Basin, he said.

“My point is this: there’s no point whatsoever building a runway extension if you can’t get people in a taxi or a bus into the city in an efficient, streamlined way.”

If flying Wellington to Auckland, you spend more time in taxis than you do in the plane!

From Jim Rose.

They show Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I wonder what the overall sentiment in England is? My suspicion is that England will vote for Brexit but the other three countries will vote to remain, which will see remain win.

The Dominion Post editorial condemns the Queens Birthday Honours List and also names a few of those who they think do deserve the honour they got.

The only problem is that the list does not get published today. They have published their editorial condemning the list at least a day before the embargo.

This is a whooping big stuff up. How on Earth can you run an editorial like this on the wrong day?

There should be consequences for this, otherwise why should other media respect the embargo?

Stuff reports:

Legislation to raise the age of state care to 18 has been introduced to Parliament, and a replacement for embattled state carer Child, Youth and Family is to be in place by March.  …

That included a brand new agency to replace CYF, and a law change to allow vulnerable children to remain in care until they are at least 18, with the option to remain fully in care until they are 21.

CYF children will also be able to choose whether they keep support services until they are 25. Currently they lose all support they day they turn 17.

WIth the benefit of hindsight it seems bizarre that the day a kid is no longer 16, they lose all support. The kids in care have often had a miserable time, and allowing some flexibility with when they transition to looking after themselves seems very sensible.

Michael Reddell blogs:

Someone who has paid closer attention to some of the details of those provisions than I have pointed out to me recently clause 46(1)(c) of the Reserve Bank Act.    Under the provision, no one can serve as Governor, or Deputy Governor, once they are aged 70 or over.

This provision is quite old.  The legislation was passed in 1989, and life expectancy has increased by perhaps five years since then.  In addition, New Zealand legislation passed since then has prohibited compulsory retirement ages, unless they are specifically provided for in statute (as this one is).  There is a similar statutory age limit for judges.

I wasn’t aware of this provision and am surprised it exists.

You need an age limit for judges as they have a life-time appointment. But Governors are appointed to finite terms of up to five years, so why shouldn’t a 66 year old be eligible for a five year term?

The Act not only requires that no one can be Governor or Deputy Governor once they turn 70, but it also requires that first terms as Governor must be for five years.

There are, for example, two current and four former Deputy Governors who are still professionally active.

Peter Nicholl was Deputy Governor in the 1990s, before going on to serve as Governor of the central bank of Bosnia.  He is still apparently professionally active on the international central banking consulting circuit. But he is 72, and so barred from serving as Governor here.

Murray Sherwin succeeded Nicholl as Deputy Governor.  He is now chair of the Productivity Commission, and in many ways could be a very good Governor if he was interested.  But it appears that he is turning 65, probably next year, and so the age-70 limit could be a constraint.

Grant Spencer is a current Deputy Governor, and will have served in that role for a decade by the time Wheeler’s term expires.  Spencer has considerable experience inside the Bank, as well as decade in relatively senior roles at ANZ, but also appears to turn 65 shortly (the first academic publication I could find dated back to 1974).

Seems silly that such strong candidates are ineligible because they are now aged 65 or older.