I’ve blogged at Curia the latest poll (Roy Morgan). It basically reverses the previous month’s poll. Seat projection is CR 57 and CL 51 so NZ First would hold the balance of power.

The Herald editorial:

The Labour Party surprised many people last week, and dismayed some of its own supporters, by advocating the complete abolition of boundaries on urban expansion.

Its housing spokesman, Phil Twyford, endorsed the Government’s view that boundaries imposed by the Auckland Council have been a major contributor to the escalation of house prices. His announcement was timed to get in ahead of an urban development directive to councils expected from the Government soon, possibly in the Budget on Thursday. But Labour’s proposal goes further than Mr Twyford believes the Government’s national policy statement is likely to go.

“What we are calling for is the abolition of the urban growth boundary, not softening it, not making it more flexible,” he says. “And not just doing what the Auckland Council advocates, which is periodically adding in more parcels of land zoned for development. All that does is feed the speculative land market.”

I hope the Auckland Council listens, but I fear they won’t. And Phil Goff is refusing to back the policy, which is a bad sign.

The main condition is that development on the urban fringe must pay the full cost of the additional infrastructure they need and the party has proposed an interesting method by which this could be financed. It wants the Auckland Council to be allowed to issue infrastructure bonds that would be repaid from rates levied on the newly developed properties.

Developers are already charged for the cost of connecting their subdivisions to a city’s services but Auckland planners have long opposed urban sprawl on the basis of its infrastructure costs, so clearly those costs have not been fully covered in developers’ contributions. Infrastructure bonds could fill the gap. In fact, they could permit more amenities to be built in these new communities than have usually been provided from development levies because bonds are effectively a loan to future residents whereas development levies are built into the upfront cost of houses. …

Infrastructure bonds would enable those savers to share the gains from housing the population boom without pushing up house prices. The bonds might also attract some housing investors, reducing their demand for houses and slowing the rise of prices. New Zealand offers few investments as safe as houses and has an unsatisfied demand for bonds as secure as these. Labour is thinking well.

I agree. I like their policy on bonds rather than developer contributions up front.

There’s been another poll out showing Trump ahead. It is of course early days, but it does show that Trump is consolidating his support.

This poll is the ABC/Washington Post poll – normally one that is highly reported.

Some interesting aspects:

• Trump net favourability -17%
• Clinton net favourability -16%
• 51% say they want a third choice
• Independents – Trump +13%
• Moderates – Clinton +10%
• Whites – Trump +24%
• Non-Whites – Clinton +48%
• Men – Trump +23%
• Women – Clinton +14%
• Under 40s – Clinton +8%
• 40 to 64s – Trump +8%
• Over 65s – Trump +3%
• North East – Clinton +6%
• Mid West – Clinton +4%
• South: Trump +10%
• West: Tie
• Urban: Clinton +21%
• Suburban: Trump +10%
• Rural: Trump +35%

Have just read the NZ First minority view on the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill. It is literally gibberish:

New Zealanders work the second longest hours in the OECD.

New Zealand First does not support the amendments presented to the Commerce Committee.

We note that New Zealand has some of the most liberal shop trading hours in the world with only 3.5 days annually restricted and absolutely no restriction (aside from certain sectors) on opening hours.

Fundamentally the main purpose of the bill was, initially, to allow councils to consult with their communities regarding Easter Sunday shop trading, with employees given the opportunity to decline work without repercussion. However this has unintended consequences on employees and employers.

Example: Because any employment history must be disclosed, during the recruitment process.

A majority of submitters were, however, opposed to this. It was discussed that by allowing for policy provisions, rather than a bylaw, this concern would be adequately addressed.

Maybe a cat jumped on their keyboard?

NBR reports:

The commercial fishing industry has accused a German activist-academic of waging a “determined anti-fishing agenda” in events surrounding the release of a research paper this week.

The University of Auckland research paper,Reconstruction of Marine Fisheries Catches for New Zealand (1950-2010), also known as the Simmons report after its lead author, was embargoed for release at 9.30am on Monday.

(NBR did not receive a copy of the report but was alerted to it after a flurry of media statements supporting it from the Greens, etc.)

All the opposition parties had their statements ready to go, indicating that the academics involved had been working with them on it by giving them advance copies.

Seafood NZ chief executive Tim Pankhurst says the report was widely circulated among opposition parties and Greenpeace at the weekend. He issued a detailed response soon after the embargo was lifted.

I don’t have a problem with this, but when others do it, some on the left call it dirty politics.

Mr Pankhurst says the German environmental organisation NABU was aware of the Simmons report’s contents a month before its release and told Seafood NZ as much.
 
Its spokeswoman, Dr Barbara Maas, visited Seafood NZ on April 14 and warned she also had evidence of alleged collusion between the MPI and the fishing industry; that she had a copy of an internal MPI document allegedly confirming that there was reference to it in the Simmons report; and she would make her claims public when the report was released.

“She further claimed she had 105 international conservation organisations ready to back a call for a boycott of New Zealand seafood if dolphin protection was not increased,” Mr Pankhurst says.

“Dr Maas first called for such a boycott in 2012 and again in 2014 but gained no traction, given the extensive protections in place and no Maui [dolphin] captures.

Dr Maas has been trying to get a boycott against the NZ fishing industry for years and years – at least seven. And the media report this as something new, as we see in the Herald:

Fast food giant McDonald’s has been being urged to stop sourcing its fish from New Zealand waters following the leak of a confidential report which revealed the unreported capture of a rare dolphin.

The leaked report of an investigation in 2013 by the Ministry for Primary Industries, titled Operation Achilles, also revealed New Zealand fishing boats had illegally dumped large amounts of healthy fish — a finding which prompted the ministry to launch an inquiry this week.

McDonald’s sources some of its fish for the Filet’O’Fish burger from New Zealand waters, and environmental campaigners are now urging it to drop New Zealand fish from its menus.

“We are not attacking McDonald’s,” Nabu International spokeswoman Barbara Maas said. “They have a huge opportunity here to do the right thing and bring about some real change in the New Zealand fishing industry — they could say they saved the Maui’s dolphins, and how good would that be for their brand?”

The group will soon launch a campaign which includes billboards with the message: “Buy New Zealand Fish Get Dead Maui’s Dolphin Free.”

All part of the co-ordinated campaign against the NZ fishing industry.

NBR continue:

“The Seafood NZ response to Dr Maas’ latest claims was that it was beholden on her to produce evidence of such serious allegations. Her threats amounted to economic sabotage, if not blackmail.”

Egged on by opposition parties.

The Herald reports:

Customs will likely get powers requiring a person to provide a password or access to their electronic devices – but a threshold such as suspicion of criminal activity will have to be met.

Customs Minister Nicky Wagner today announced that the Government has agreed to a series of proposals that will modernise the Customs and Excise Act, and a Bill will be drafted for introduction later this year.

When proposed changes were released by Customs in a discussion document last year, a particularly controversial area was about access to electronic devices.

Currently, when Customs examines a person’s electronic device the owner is not legally obliged to provide a password or encryption key.

The agency says if people refuse, it can leave no way to uncover evidence of criminal offending even when officers know the device holds that evidence.

Customs’ preferred option was to require passwords for electronic devices without meeting a threshold, such as suspicion of criminal activity.

Critics of the proposal, including the NZ Council for Civil Liberties, have cited what they see as serious workability issues around the proposed change to require passwords, including the fact a person can have documents or files in cloud storage, meaning they will not be kept on an electronic device.

Today, Ms Wagner said that would not happen – but in some circumstances people would likely be required by law to provide passwords.

“The Government has agreed in principle that Customs needs to meet a statutory threshold before examining electronic devices. We have asked Customs to do further work on what this would look like in practice and report back prior to introduction of the Bill.

I was one of those aghast at the original proposal, which gave Customs an unlimited power to search your laptops, tablets and phones – just because you were going through an airport.

Requiring a a statutory threshold before the power can be exercised, such as reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, is a lot better than what was originally proposed. But it will depend on exactly what the threshold is.

I’m still unconvinced that this power is needed at all. Customs needs to give some specific examples of why this power is needed, so we can assess it better.

I absolutely support the right of Customs to make physical searches of luggage and persons when you go through airports and the like. People can be smuggling in drugs, guns, biosecurity hazards etc.

But any material on your electronic devices is not the same thing. You can e-mail it or transmit it around the world regardless of where you are.

Vic Crone has announced:

Auckland Mayoral Candidate Victoria Crone says if elected Mayor, she will open the council books, introduce six monthly report cards and establish an Independent Budgetary Office. Ms Crone says she has floated the ideas with Councillors, professionals and members of the public, and they say it’s about time.

An Independent Budget Office

“I will introduce an Independent Budget Office (IBO) for more robust budget advice on strategic, long-term, and large-spend investments. This will include providing much needed cost-benefit analysis that is relevant and digestible for the Governing Body, local boards and the public.

“Council is no small operation with a huge average $6bn of spend annually in the 10-year plan so it has the ability to fundamentally change the way we live. But there is serious concern, particularly in the business community, around the strength of advice behind its large-scale multi-million dollar investments.

“Independent investment analysis with the IBO will ensure we are taking these decisions seriously and getting it right the first time. The non-partisan IBO will also carry out reviews to make sure these approved investment decisions are delivering the outcomes promised.”

With a spend of $6 billion a year, this is a good idea to have independent verification of budgets.

Opening council’s books

To help improve confidence and engagement, Crone says she will initiate a comprehensive transparency programme making council information publicly available in an easily accessible way.

“I’ll initiate a strong data programme that effectively opens council’s books at a line by line level. This information will be available to the public to search and analyse, covering any area of expenditure (excluding commercially sensitive data) as well as full reporting around employee and contractor numbers,” says Ms Crone.

“If we’re doing things right, we’ve got nothing to worry about. If we’re not, that’s motivation to sort it out so we get it right next time.”

This is something all local Councils should do (and the Government). Many states in the US do this, and some Councils in the UK. You allow citizens to scrutinise the payments ledger, which is a great way to discourage waste. If a transaction looks suspicious, then you can do a LGOIMA request asking for details of it. They call these Armchair Auditors Acts.

The Mayor’s Report Cards

Finally, Ms Crone says she will introduce Mayor’s report cards to help Aucklanders understand council’s role and the context of key priority issues for the city.

“Six-monthly Mayor’s Report Cards will update us on progress in our priority investment areas. Transport and housing are definitely issues of urgency that would be at the top of the list needing clearer key metrics on progress,” Ms Crone says.

“These are a cost effective and coordinated set of initiatives that will bring improved performance, transparency, trust and confidence, around the workings of Auckland Council and CCOs.”

For more more information see attached policy document or visit www.vic4mayor.nz/policy.

Also a good idea.

We have three candidates for Council (Crone, Thomas and Palino) all proposing specific policies to improve the Council. As far as I can tell Phil Goff has not a single detailed policy, and his platform appears to be simply to spend even more money than Len did.

Christine van Geyn writes:

Few things are as revealing of the underlying values of the current Ontario Liberal government as its most recent proposals for election financing reform. The proposals show an absolute lack of faith in voters, and a movement to replace the speech of civil society with government-controlled speech. All on the taxpayers’ dime.

The draft legislation introduced on May 17 includes a taxpayer subsidy of $2.26 per vote to political parties, and limits on speech by civil society groups without corresponding restrictions on government advertising.

The taxpayer subsidy of $2.26 per vote would give a total of $10.7-million in taxpayer money to politicians, with the governing Liberals receiving the most at $4.2-million. That’s $10.7-million that is not paying to build roads or bridges. It’s $10.7-million of your money that is not filling in potholes, assisting autistic children, or paying doctors’ salaries. You will be forced to hand over your money to political leaders for them to run attack ads and stuff your mailbox full of flyers.

This is what Labour wants in NZ. Because they are so unpopular that supporters have stopped donating to them, they want to force taxpayers to fund their party instead – as do the Greens.

The speech by Andrew Little this weekend was very revealing, but not in a good way. The Herald reports:

Mr Little said in the eight years under a National Government, the proportion of economic growth that went back to working New Zealanders in wages had dropped from 50 per cent to 37 per cent. Instead he accused National of favouring “those at the top” through policies such as allowing foreign trusts and tax on multinationals.

These are the same policies of course that existed under the last Labour Government, but lets ignore that for now.

Stuff further reports:

Little said just 37 per cent of economic growth had gone into the pay packets of working families since National came to power – down from over 50 per cent under the previous Labour government. 

That meant the average family had lost out on more than $13,000 under the Government, and would miss out on $50 a week this year.

The use of this statistic is rather revealing, as to both how desperate and also how ill informed Labour are. Three things I’d note:

1. In all my years of politics I’ve never known a voter to talk about the proportion of economic growth that goes to wages. 99% of NZers don’t even know such a statistic exists lets alone give a flying f**k about it. I’m not sure I’ve even hear of it before. It reeks of desperation in trying to find an obscure economic statistic that they can campaign on. Voters care about jobs, wages, hospitals, schools and families – not the proportion of economic growth that goes to salaries. Wages have in fact risen twice as fast as inflation in the last seven years.
2. Little seems to believe that the Government sits around the Cabinet table and determines what share of economic growth will go to wages. The Government does not create the economic growth and decide which sectors generate it and where. While policies have some small impact, the over whelming factor is decisions made by tens of thousands of businesses.
3. Use of this statistic goes against Labour’s efforts to show they understand the modern economy. They are effectively railing against entrepreneurs and innovation. Why might a smaller share of economic growth by going to salaries. Well companies like Xero and Uber. They’re great for the economy (and customers) but according to Little they are robbing working NZers of $50 a week.

So Labour have managed to look desperate, ill informed and backwards in one speech. That’s quite an achievement.

Claire Trevett reports in the NZ Herald:

The centrepiece was a very convoluted piece of research about the proportion of economic growth returned to workers. Labour had concluded New Zealanders were getting $50 less a week than they would have been.

It was effectively meaningless beyond showing what clever clogs they were to have worked out such a thing.

Maybe their staff were so busy working on finding this obscure statistic, that they didn’t have time to do due diligence on the home they claimed had 17 people living in it!

It also opened Little to questioning on how Labour would get that back into the pockets of those workers.

Ban tech companies?

Stuff reports:

Labour’s Invercargill candidate for the 2017 general election says National’s policies are failing Southland and she wants discussions on state housing, health funding and digital infrastructure in the city.

Dr Liz Craig, a public health doctor, was named as the party’s candidate on Friday. …

Craig is best known for her child poverty advocacy work. She was also Labour’s Clutha-Southland candidate in 2014.

A mother of two, Craig is married to David Craig, and lives between Dunedin and a small farm in Romahapa.

She plans to spend most of her time in Invercargill after her nomination and has been house hunting for an old villa.

In her spare time Craig is re-planting and restoring native trees in Romahapa and also studies Te Reo Maori at the Southern Institute of Technology.

Co-chair of the Invercargill Labour Party, Sue McNeill, said Craig was a candidate of high calibre and determination.

Labour leader Andrew Little said Labour’s nominees in provincial seats were quality.  

“I am looking forward to Dr Liz Craig joining our caucus in 2017.”

Little looks silly when he says stuff like this. You can say they’d be a great MP etc, but stating as a certainty she will become an MP just looks deluded.

Here’s Labour’s record since 2005 in Invercargill:

• 2005: PV 14,369, EV 13,518, lost by 2,052
• 2008: PV 12,927, EV 12,750, lost by 6,664
• 2011: PV 9,296, EV 11,012, lost by 6,263
• 2014: PV 8,553, EV 10,044, lost by 7,482

Stuff reports:

Hamilton residents and New Zealand First supporters are among four groups which want fewer migrants allowed in the country.

In a recent Colmar-Brunton political poll, people were asked about the number of migrants the Government should let in to the country.

The results showed 42 per cent of those polled in Hamilton, wanted the Government to let fewer migrants in.

Other groups polled which also wanted fewer migrants included 38 per cent of those living in small towns or rural areas, 53 per cent of Maori and 40 per cent of New Zealand First supporters.

Overall figures showed just over half (51 per cent) of New Zealand voters polled believed the number of migrants being let in is about right, close to a quarter, or 27 per cent, said the government should let fewer in and nearly a fifth, or 18 per cent say the Government should let more migrants in. Four per cent said they did not know.

This is a good example of why one should be wary of reading too much into some poll breakdowns.

The poll is of 1,000 people. Around 3.5% of NZ live in Hamilton so I’d assume only 35 people from Hamilton were polled. That has a margin of error of around +/- 17%.

Stuff reports:

Mayoral candidate Phil Goff says the government needs to cough up more funding for Auckland infrastructure if it wants the New Zealand economy to keep growing.

So Phil Goff thinks the residents of Timaru should pay for the infrastructure of Auckland.

The city was at its debt limit and even modest rate rises would go nowhere near to raising the extra funds required.

Yep because the Council has been on an out of control spending binge – one Goff wants to continue.

“We are growing hugely and the government, if it wants an open population policy, then has to come to the party and make it possible to fund the infrastructure that population demands.”

Yes there are many more people in Auckland, but that means many more ratepayers. The Government provides certain infrastructure such as schools and hospitals. The job of the Auckland Council is to fund other infrastructure. And you know if they spent less time trying to tell people what they can do with their own trees, then they’d be more able to.

Stuff reports:

The Government has announced seven new charter schools will open in 2018 and 2019.

The new schools will expand the flagship ACT policy that saw five schools open, mostly in Auckland and Northland in 2014 – one of which, in Whangaruru has since been closed by the Education Minister – and another four in 2015. 

Good. Charter schools are not a magical fix, but the evidence to date is that they have been effective for hundreds of students who were failing in other schools.

Trans-Tasman writes:

On one level it is funny, the other level it is far from hilarious. To deal with the humour first: Labour Party leader Andrew Little and his backroom team – a team which tends to have a higher public profile than most Labour MPs – thought it would be a very good way to illustrate the housing crisis by staging a photo opportunity in the back streets of Otara.

Unfortunately Little went to the wrong place and stood in front of a house where the people were living in the car because the house was being renovated not because it was overcrowded. As an aside, for some reason at least one of the television channels chose not to mention this lapse in basic political competence. Others were not so gentle: the result being the Labour Party, once again, being unable to do the political equivalent of walk and chew gum at the same time.

Having worked for four leaders, I’m aghast at how incompetent the management was of this. Normally you would check out every detail in advance, rather than have an angry home owner deny they are over crowded.

David Garrett pointed out how it is normally done:

I am generally a “cock up rather than conspiracy” man…but you have to wonder if this truly was just a fuck up…

I recall in the 2008 campaign ACT pulling a stunt at Mt Eden prison based on one of our claims that, if 3S had been in place before they were killed (i.e. the killers would have been in jail at the time), “77 people would be alive today”…Rodney came up with the inspired idea of propping 77 coffin lids against the walls at Mount Eden prison, and laying it on for the cameras.

The “77 people would be alive today…” claim was based on research I had done following a series of OIA questions well prior to being selected to stand. Before he authorized the stunt Rodney grilled me on the basis for the claim, and demanded to see the OIA’s I had asked and the answers, to see for himself whether the claim stacked up. The stunt went ahead, and we got a lot of media mileage out of it.

All someone had to do to check this one out was have someone reliable go to the house and talk to the bloody occupants! Who didn’t take even that basic step, and why, I wonder? Surely they no longer have a job??

You can’t just blame the staff for this. Little as Leader needs to do what Hide did, and personally grill people to check that what they are about to do won’t explode in their faces.

Radio NZ reports:

Only about a quarter of all mathematics academics in Australia are female, and the university is now advertising three positions in its School of Mathematics and Statistics for female applicants only.

It is believed to be the first time it has limited applications to women only for permanent academic positions.

The intention is good, but the decision is bad. Excluding anyone on the basis of their gender is wrong.

Around 60% of university students are now female. Does this mean universities will start advertising quotas for male students to ensure 50% representation?

An interesting table from 538. Their focus was on why Sex in the City had such a low rating despite seven Emmys. The average of 7.0 was below the average of 7.3 for all shows.

It turns out women gave it an 8.1 but men a 5.8. This does not surprise me.

Looking at the table above, I’m not totally surprised that Game of Thrones is the top rated show, but am surprised it is top for both women and men.

Also a bit surprising that Dr Who rates higher with women than men.

The Globe and Mail reports:

The House of Commons erupted in chaos Wednesday as a New Democrat MP and her opposition colleagues accused Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of elbowing her in the chest during a confrontation prior to a key vote.

Ruth Ellen Brosseau said she was shocked by the encounter and had to leave the chamber as mayhem descended on the Commons floor, with Trudeau at one point in a face-to-face encounter with NDP Leader Tom Mulcair.

The incident, which took place amid the superheated atmosphere of a debate about doctor-assisted death, had MPs in an uproar as they shouted and pounded their desks in a display of antipathy rarely seen in the parliamentary chamber.

Footage from the Commons television feed shows Trudeau wading into a clutch of MPs, mostly New Democrats, and pulling Opposition whip Gordon Brown through the crowd in order to get the vote started.

As Trudeau turns around to pull Brown through, Brosseau can be seen reacting with discomfort.

“I was standing in the centre talking to some colleagues,” Brosseau told the House after calm was restored. “I was elbowed in the chest by the prime minister and then I had to leave.”

Outrageous behaviour. He grabbed an Opposition MP by the arm because he wanted a vote to start. The elbowing of Brosseau may have been accidental but what the hell was he thinking by doing what he did?

The Herald reports:

New Zealand has been rated as a world-leader when it comes to recognising the rights of the LGBT community, a step ahead of our neighbours across the ditch.

A map produced by ILGA, the international lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex association, shows how different countries are rated according to their laws regarding sexual orientation.

New Zealand is at the highest end of the scale for its recognition of same-sex unions, joint adoption and second parent adoption.

The full report is here, and an interesting read. Some extracts:

• 39% of countries (74 countries) make it a crime to have a same sex relationship
• Of those 74 countries all outlaw male homosexual relationships and 45 also outlaw female lesbian relationships
• Seven of those 74 countries are in the Pacific – Cook Islands, Kiribati, Nauru, PNG, Samoa, Solomons, Tonga and Tuvalu
• 13 countries (6%) have the death penalty for consensual same sex relationships – Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, Somalia, Mauritania, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Qatar, UAE, Iraq, ISIL
• Only 53% of countries have the same age of consent for same sex and opposite sex relationships
• Only 38% of countries prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation
• 22 countries (11%) allow for same sex marriage. A further 18 countries have civil unions or the like.

People will disagree or same sex marriage. But incredible to think 39% of countries still criminalise consensual adult relationships, and in 13 of them you can end up dead for it.

How Clinton gets Sanders to concede is becoming quite an issue. There are now three seperate targets being bandied about for what she needs to achieve to win. They are:

A majority of all delegates, including super delegates

This is the normal target. There are 4,763 delegates. You need 2,383 to win. Clinton has 2,293 so she needs just 90 more out of the 939 remaining. She will obviously do this. This will however not occur until June 7 as only 79 delegates come up before then.

A majority of pledged delegates

Some in the Sanders camp say that it isn’t over until someone has a majority of pledged delegates. There are 4,051 pledged delegates. A majority is 2,026. Clinton has 1,768 so she needs 258 more out of 781 remaining. That’s just 33% of remaining delegates which is easy to achieve. This will also happen on June 7 as after that only DC remains on June 14,

A majority of all delegates, but counting pledged delegates also

Again some in Sanders camps says that as super delegates may change their mind, then unless Clinton can get a majority of all delegates, just with pledged delegates, then it is a contested convention. They say until the first vote you don’t know what they’ll do.

This is nonsense as 550 senior Democrats aren’t suddenly going to renege on their written statements and suddenly vote for Sanders. But Sanders can argue it is mathematically possible so hence he won’t concede. This will put pressure on Clinton to adopt more of his policies.

So by this argument Clinton needs 2,383 to clinch it pre-convention and you can only count the 1,768 to date she has pledged. So she needs to win 615 of the remaining 781 pledged delegates. That clearly won’t happen, so if that is Sanders line, he won’t concede.

In reality it will all be over on 7th of June. It effectively is over now.

Stuff reports:

“See you in court” – that’s the message from Scenic Hotel Group founders, the Hagamans, to Labour leader Andrew Little.

Little looks set to face defamation proceedings after ignoring an ultimatum and failing to apologise to the Hagamans.

In a statement from Lani Hagaman she said she would “see Mr Little in court” after he failed to retract and apologise his comments that a Niue resort deal they were awarded “stunk to high heaven”.

Little has written to Hagaman’s lawyers saying he has a “constitutional duty to challenge the actions of the Government over the expenditure of public funds”.

Little had every right to ask the Auditor-General to investigate. However by saying the tender “stunk to high heaven” he went well beyond what was advisable. He effectively accused them of corruption.

The Herald further reports:

In a statement released this evening, Lani Hagaman said she would “see Mr Little in court”.

“The reasons we’re taking defamation action have been widely reported in the media and I won’t be repeating his allegations that Earl and I find hurtful, highly offensive and totally false”, she said.

“While Mr Little may be entitled to call for an investigation there is a correct process in which to do this. In my opinion a public flogging is not the correct process.

“We’re incredibly disappointed he hasn’t apologised and retracted what he said.”

Again it isn’t the calling for an investigation which was an issue.

I was one of the hundreds or thousands who helped crown fund this documentary, which has had rave reviews, and even been promoted by Rolling Stone magazine. Hollywood Reporter reviewed:

When David Farrier came across social-media notice of a “competitive endurance tickling” event in Los Angeles, he thought he’d lit upon another amusingly weird topic for his lighthearted reports on New Zealand television. But the Donkey Lady, frog-eating survivalists and Justin Bieber were nothing compared with what the pop-culture journalist would uncover.

In the captivating and jaw-dropping Tickled, he and fellow first-time director Dylan Reeve chronicle an investigation that would take them down a rabbit hole of legal threats and private investigators, leading to a mysterious deep-pocketed exploiter of young men in the name of a fetish subculture. But the erotic-torture appeal of tickling (who knew?) is only a piece of the suspenseful puzzle. In its genial, low-key way, the film, premiering at Sundance, is a chilling account of cyberbullying, perpetrated on a disturbingly wide scale over many years.

I’ll be moderating the Q+A at The Roxy after the 8 pm showing on Monday 23rd, so if you want to see it in Wellington, come along to that session.

Links to tickets are on their website here.