Barton Deakin announced:

Barton Deakin Government Relations to open first New Zealand office 

Australia’s leading government relations firm Barton Deakin is set to open its first New Zealand office in Wellington next week. The New Zealand office will be headed by Jenna Raeburn, who has recently departed the office of Hon Gerry Brownlee.

“We have a unique offering in the New Zealand Government Relations market. Barton Deakin will be a truly trans-Tasman company, with a focus on one side of politics, specialising purely in government relations. This offers our clients particular advantages that have not been available in New Zealand before,” says Ms Raeburn. 

“It makes sense for our Australasian and global clients that they have a one stop shop for government relations across Australia and New Zealand. We also offer a brand new breadth of service to New Zealand companies looking to do business with the Australian government, and vice versa.

“Barton Deakin is proudly aligned with Liberal and National Party Governments and Oppositions – it is not a bipartisan firm. Our approach is highly specialised and focused on helping clients to build strong relationships with government.”

This is an interesting development.

I know Jenna of course – have been friends since she was 18 years old (and spokesperson for Keep It 18).

It is a new development for NZ to have a government relations firm that deals with one side of politics only. It is relatively common in other countries such as Australia and the US. The approach has pros and cons – a firm that deals with one party only may be more trusted by members of that party. However the flip side is you won’t get any traction with parties on the other side.

In Australia and the US, both the main parties almost always hold government somewhere. In NZ, we have no state governments, hence why this model hasn’t been tried here before. But I can’t say a change of government looks likely any time soon, so its good time to establish a branch here.

The Herald reports:

RSAs won’t have to apply for a special licence to serve a tipple to veterans on Anzac Day morning after a change to the law was fast-tracked.

Opposition parties supported the changes – but were critical an alcohol law passed in 2012 had meant RSAs faced an expensive licensing process.

The member’s bill was put up by National MP Paul Foster-Bell at the request of the RSA, and amends legislation which requires RSAs to get a special licence, costing about $500 each year, to serve alcohol before midday on Anzac Day.

Good to see the RSA clubs spared the cost.

We have a growing problem with the alcohol licence bureaucracy. The Police are using the licence process to try and impose their views on licensees. They are telling license applicants that unless they agree to whatever the Police demand, they will oppose their licence. And their demands range from earlier closing hours to only stocking types of alcohol the Police officer agrees with.

The NZ Initiative says:

Amid calls from politicians and civil society to lift the refugee quota, The New Zealand Initiative is urging government to take note of Canada’s system that allows private groups to sponsor refugees.

In New Zealand, the government explicitly limits the number of refugees that are allowed into the country each year, reflecting in part the direct costs of the process that are borne by the state.

The limit, which has not changed in 29 years, prevents community groups and charities from taking in additional refugees above the quota. While community groups do excellent work in helping new refugees to settle in New Zealand, those who are willing and able to do more are not allowed to do so.

In Canada, private groups can raise funds to sponsor the admission of additional refugees above the official quota. Over the past five months, almost 9,000 additional refugees have been able to resettle in Canada as a result of this policy.

“Much of the debate around refugees has focused on quotas, but even if it were doubled, efforts by charities and community groups to help more of these desperate people are likely to be constrained,” said the Initiative’s Executive Director Dr Oliver Hartwich.

“Canada’s example shows that there is a smarter way of doing things. That you can have a quota system, and also bring in more refugees above this limit by tapping into private philanthropy. This is a policy that we think is worth investigating.”

I agree. Have a quota for taxpayer funded places, but allow churches and charities to sponsor places on top of that. A win-win.

The Herald reports:

New Zealand’s internet speeds continue to get faster, according to an international report on broadband speeds.

The Akamai State of the Internet December 2015 report found that in the past year average broadband speeds rose from 7.3 Mbps to 9.3 Mbps, representing a 27 per cent increase in speeds for connected New Zealanders.

New Zealand has improved by two places in the rankings since 2014 to now be 41st in the world for average fixed line connection speeds.

Communications Minister Amy Adams said that in 2008, average broadband speeds were around 2.7 Mbps and by the end of last year speeds had tripled.

The decision to go with a fibre to the premises roll-out, rather than fibre to the node and then copper, was an excellent one. Australia has really fallen behind us, and having fibre to the premises future proofs us.

I can’t wait for my home to get fibre – due later this year. We have the old Telstra-Clear cables which are pretty good, but not as good as the fibre in my last place.

New Zealand’s broadband according to Akamai State of the Internet report:
• Average speeds rose from 7.3 Mbps in 2014 to 9.3 Mbps in December 2015
• Peak connection speeds increased to 42.8 Mbps, a 25 per cent increase on the previous year
• The number of New Zealanders with access to broadband speeds over 15 Mbps has almost tripled over the last year
• New Zealand has improved by two places in the rankings since 2014 to now be 41st in the world for average fixed line connection speeds
• Average mobile connection speeds in the last quarter of 2015 were 7.4Mbps
• Peak mobile speeds reached 75.4 Mbps, and 88 per cent of connections were above 4 Mbps.

Most of us can probably remember when speeds were in Kbps not Mbps. Hell I can even recall bps – the old 2400 modems!

A guest post from the PPTA:

Earlier this year the Secretary of Education, Peter Hughes, had his regular grilling by the Education and Science Select Committee.

Maurice Williamson, who’s not usually the most engaged MP on the committee, asked a question along the lines of “In all the years I’ve been an MP I’ve had principals come to me complaining about the Ministry of Education giving them pointless paperwork that doesn’t help students or make schools run any better. What’s the Ministry doing to address this?”

Hughes, as usual, gave a reassuring and well organised answer which placated Williamson and sent a ‘no story here, move along’ signal to the media.

But as this piece from Jo Moir in the Dominion on Saturday showed, schools, and in fact anyone else who works with kids, are potentially facing a blizzard of paperwork in the next few months, and it’s exactly the sort of bureaucratic, box ticking nonsense that will send principals howling to local MPs like Williamson, and for good reason.

Its genesis is the “Children’s Action Plan Directorate” and the “Children’s Workforce Core Competencies Framework”, which emerged from Paula Bennett’s 2012 White Paper on Vulnerable Children.

The draft framework, which is going through final consultation at the moment, contains six domains, 30 indicators and five tiers, describing what everyone who works with kids, from volunteer cricket coaches to paediatricians will have to know and do – and as the document says, these competencies will be “mandated” and “measured”.

Along with those in Dominion Post, a few other examples of the indicators include:

‘Understand the effects of non-verbal communication such as body language, and that different cultures use and interpret body language in different ways’

‘Understand the content of the core competencies framework and can apply the descriptors in self-assessment…’

‘Understand relevant global policy and national legislation to protect children, including the UN declaration on the Rights of the Child, the Vulnerable Children’s Act…’

And pages and pages more of this.

Like rather a lot of what this government is up to, it’s an interesting exercise to consider what the National Party would be saying about this if Labour was in power and doing the same thing.  Key’s speeches in 2006-2007 were peppered with “suffocating Wellington bureaucracy” and “over regulation”, and he wasn’t promising more of it.

A few months ago the Rebstock-led report on CYFs, welcomed by Minister Tolley and about to be responded to with sweeping changes, included a main recommendation about “allowing staff to use their professional judgment … to support children based on clear principles, rather than rules, compliance and time-driven practice.” The contrast with the ‘competency framework’ is stark.

But most unfortunately, it’s hard to find anyone who works with kids who believes that this is going to help. Many teachers, nurses or others who work with young people could do with training to know what to look for in terms of signs of illness or abuse, and what to do about it. But this checklist doesn’t offer that. 

Instead it seems to be the approach that public servants take when they don’t have enough funding to do anything really worthwhile, but do have just enough to hold some meetings, print a few pamphlets and make a website – and then pass the work onto people who are already far busier than they are.

I think everyone agrees we need to do better in protecting vulnerable children. But whether this framework is the answer is quite another issue.

The LA Times reports:

Los Angeles entrepreneur Elon Musk has built a multibillion-dollar fortune running companies that make electric cars, sell solar panels and launch rockets into space.

And he’s built those companies with the help of billions in government subsidies.

Tesla Motors Inc., SolarCity Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX, together have benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support, according to data compiled by The Times. The figure underscores a common theme running through his emerging empire: a public-private financing model underpinning long-shot start-ups.

“He definitely goes where there is government money,” said Dan Dolev, an analyst at Jefferies Equity Research. “That’s a great strategy, but the government will cut you off one day.”

So he has become a billionaire through corporate welfare.

And the other beneficiary of this welfare is wealthy car owners:

Charles Lane of the Washington Post said: “Tesla owes its survival to subsidies from taxpayers, who are usually less well-heeled than its plutocratic customers.” The average household income of Tesla owners is $320,000, according to Strategic Visions, a consumer research company.

Tesla buyers have also raked in $38 million in California government rebates (they receive a $2,500 rebate for each Tesla bought) and $284 million in federal tax incentives (they receive a $7,500 federal tax credit for each purchased Tesla).

The Los Angeles Times calculated that Elon Musk’s three companies, Tesla Motors, SolarCity, and SpaceX, combined have received a staggering $4.9 billion in government support over the past decade. As Kerpen noted: “Every time a Tesla is sold . . . average Americans are on the hook for at least $30,000 in federal and state subsidies” that go to wealthy Tesla owners. This is crony capitalism at its worst.

It’s almost obscene.

Not content with Dr Cullen slapping them down, the Greens are persisting with some nonsense arguments. James Shaw blogs:

It will be easier for the Super Fund and the ACC Fund to sell off their shares in Kiwibank than it would have been for the government to privatise the bank. These funds’ decisions aren’t made by ministers, whereas with 100 percent Government ownership ultimately any decision to privatise Kiwibank would have been made around the Cabinet table.

Part of the deal will be that ACC and the Super Fund can’t sell their shares for at least five years though. After five years, the Government will have the have the first right to buy back Kiwibank shares if the Super Fund and ACC want to sell them. And Bill English has promised to exercise that right if it comes down to it.

But Bill English almost certainly won’t be the Finance Minister in five years’ time. Labour and the Greens have both promised we’d buy Kiwibank back if there’s a threat of it being privatised. But who knows what a future National Government might do?

It amazes me James can not see the flaw in his argument.

Under the status quo any decision to privatise Kiwibank would be made around the Cabinet table.

Under the Cullen proposal any decision not to buy any shares offered by the two funds would be made by a future National Government. And how do Governments decide things? Around the Cabinet Table!!

1/10 for logic.

That’s the billion dollar question. NZ Post will get about $495 million for selling Kiwibank shares. But we’ve done the numbers and if Kiwibank keeps growing the way it has in the past (and we hope it does), then those shares will be worth between $800 million and $1.1 billion in five years’ time.

So basically selling 45 percent of Kiwibank for $495 million today could mean buying it back in five years for double that amount.

This argument is even worse!

James is worried Kiwibank may be successful and grow in value. So any future purchase of shares would cost the Government more to buy them back.

But they will be buying them off two funds they 100% own!!

Let’s say the shares cost $400 million more. NZ Super Fund and ACC gain $400 million and the Government spends 400 million (more). The net change for the Crown is zero!

Sounds like the worst pawn-shop deal ever.

Sounds like the worst financial argument ever.

Probably not. Kiwibank’s problem is that it needs capital to grow, so it can compete with the big Aussie banks. The Government’s new plan won’t actually see Kiwibank get any new capital right now.

The proceeds from the share sale will go to NZ Post, and NZ Post will give most of them back to the Governmentas a special dividend. If Kiwibank wants more capital, it’ll need to ask for some from its new shareholders, the ACC and Super funds.

Missing the point that they have lots of capital to spare if they think it is a good investment. NZ Post does not.

From The American Catholic.

North Dakota looks nice. You can pop over the border to Canada. It has low population density and low unemployment.

Nice weather in summer but very cold in winter.

Stuff reports:

A former councillor has regained his seat – despite not even knowing his hat had been put in the ring.

Greater Wellington regional councillors have appointed Daran Ponter to replace Fran Wilde, but the news surprised Ponter, who found out only after the vote.

The decision on Wednesday came as the council mulled whether to replace former chairwoman Wilde, who quit before the end of her term.

Under law, they could have left her seat vacant, held a by-election or appointed somebody to the role. 

There are only about four council meetings left before the next council elections, in October. If a sitting councillor resigns within 12 months of the elections, councillors are entitled to fill the vacancy without asking voters.

It’s outrageous they have appointed someone so close to the next elections.

Councillor Judith Aitken moved the seat remain unfilled, saying there was little time left in the term, and appointing a candidate would give that person an unfair advantage in the elections.

However, colleague Sue Kedgley proposed they appoint Ponter, who lost his seat in the 2013 elections after spending a term on the council.

It came three days after Ponter announced he was standing on the Labour Party ticket to reclaim his seat in October’s elections.

So be very clear – it is about allowing him to campaign as an incumbent.

Aitken’s motion, supported by chairman Chris Laidlaw and Barbara Donaldson, failed. Kedgley’s motion won easily, despite the fact the man himself wasn’t even at the meeting.

Kudos to Laidlaw for voting against.

One News reports:

Anthony Davidson studied for one year at the Central Institute of Technology in Upper Hutt during 1994, before moving to Australia the following year.

He borrowed “about $7000”, and had no intention pay it back as interest ballooned the owed amount to $17,000 this year. 

No intention at all.

“I always knew that the loan was there but I didn’t really do anything about it until I saw on the news that the other bloke got arrested,” the father of three told ONE News. …

Mr Davidson had planned a family holiday to Wellington in January and said he thought “geez, I better do something about this, or that’ll be me next time I come over”.

“I’m going to have to get on top of this before I fly in or I’m going to look like an idiot at the airport,” he recalled.

The small business owner with a mortgage said he rang IRD and “told them everything”.

The Herald reports:

The rate of convictions is the highest in at least 35 years, prompting concerns from lawyers and a politician about the justice system’s soundness.

Statistics New Zealand figures reveal more than 83 per cent of adults prosecuted in court last year were convicted. The rate has risen in 10 of the past 11 years, and in the past two years has been the highest since 1980, the earliest data available.

Former New Zealand Law Society president Jonathan Temm said despite appearing to indicate a healthy justice system, the conviction rate was actually too high, with people being convicted incorrectly.

“It’s heading the wrong way. Our level should be constantly around the 75 per cent mark, and anything over 80 per cent is a reflection that people are pleading guilty to things that in the past they would not have been convicted of,” Mr Temm said.

I disagree.

In a perfect world the conviction rate of guilty would be 100% and the false conviction rate of innocents would be 0%. I don’t think one in four people charged are innocent, and that 75% is the “correct” conviction rate.

The rise in conviction rate coincides with the lowest number of people going through court nationwide since at least 1980. The figure has dropped almost 40 per cent since 2009 – from 127,000 prosecutions to fewer than 77,000 nationwide.

Labour’s police spokesman Stuart Nash said he was concerned about the sharp decrease. “It says to me that the police just haven’t got the resources to catch the bad guys.

Fewer prosecutions is a good thing if there is less crime. And the Victims of Crime survey shows a 30% drop in crime from 2008 to 2013. This is a scientific survey of 7,000 NZers, so is not influenced by Police resources, prosecution decisions, whether crime is reported etc.

Anne Tolley announced:

Social Development Minister Anne Tolley says Cabinet has agreed to major state care reforms and a complete overhaul of Child, Youth and Family to improve the long-term life outcomes for New Zealand’s most vulnerable population.

Good to see bold change. Tinkering won’t be enough.

The overhaul, which is expected to take up to five years to be fully implemented, will include:

• A new child-centred operating model with a greater focus on harm and trauma prevention and early intervention. It will provide a single point of accountability for the long-term wellbeing of vulnerable children, with the voice of the child represented in planning and strategy. A social investment approach using actuarial valuations and evidence of what works will identify the best way of targeting early interventions, to ensure that vulnerable children receive the care and support they need, when they need it.

• Direct purchasing of vital services such as health, education and counselling support to allow funding to follow the child, so that these young people can gain immediate access to assistance.  

• A stronger focus on reducing the over-representation of Maori young people in the system. Currently, 6 out of ten kids in care are Maori. Strategic partnerships will be developed with iwi groups and NGOs, and new ways of working effectively will be developed with qualified academics, social service providers, iwi and Whanau Ora. 

• Legislation will go through Parliament this year to raise the age of state care to a young person’s 18th birthday, with transition support being considered up to the age of 25. Cabinet has also agreed to investigate raising the youth justice age to include 17 year olds.

• Legislation will establish an independent youth advocacy service to ensure that the voices of children and young people are heard in the design of systems and services.

• Intensive targeted support for caregivers, including some increased financial assistance and better access to support services. For the first time, National Care Standards will be introduced so that there is a clear expectation for the standard and quality of care in placement homes.

If this is done well, and makes a difference, the impact on the community and those affected will be huge.

This bill by Chris Hipkins would abolish and close every charter school in New Zealand, forcing the pupils and parents who have chosen to enrol there, back into state schools.

Even worse, the bill retrospectively abolishes them from the 1st of January 2016.

I’m glad this has got drawn from the ballot as it will remind people how Labour puts ideology and unions ahead of students. They want to close down schools like Vanguard, despite the fact they have 95% of Maori students achieving NCEA Level 1 – 22% higher than the NZ average. And their students come from some of the most disadvantaged and low decile areas.

It will be interesting to see if every Labour MP  votes for this bill, as some of their Maori MPs such as Peeni Henare and Kelvin Davis have praised the work being done by certain charter schools.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. ALASTAIR SCOTT to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received about the management of the Government’s major investment projects?
2. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with the New Zealand Medical Journal article dated 1 April 2016 which states research undertaken shows patients undergoing primary elective total hip and knee replacements in Otago in 2014 were more severely disabled than patients between 2006 and 2010; if not, why not?
3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
4. JAMES SHAW to the Minister of Finance: What estimates does he have of the cost to the Crown of repurchasing the New Zealand Superannuation Fund’s and ACC Fund’s shares in Kiwibank in five years’ time?
5. ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Social Development:What recent announcements has she made regarding Child, Youth and Family?
6. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement, “We have very strict obligations when it comes to disclosure and we meet those obligations. We’re always prepared to look and enhance those obligations and change those if there are recommendations.”?
7. PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister of Science and Innovation: What recent reports has he received about increased investment by businesses in research and development?
8. Dr MEGAN WOODS to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: What is the total number of complaints lodged with EQC in relation to the Canterbury Home Repair Programme, to date?
9. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister of Corrections: What initiatives has Corrections recently launched to support prisoners to lead a crime-free life on release?
10. STUART NASH to the Minister of Police: Does she agree with everything Prime Minister John Key has said about policing?
11. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister for the Environment: What action will the Government take to make sure there is enough clean freshwater for all New Zealanders?
12. SARAH DOWIE to the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector: What recent announcements has she made regarding support for communities?

National: Five questions on Government investments, CYF, R&D, Corrections and community support

Labour: Four questions elective operations, tax havens, EQC and Police

Greens: Two questions on Kiwibank and water

NZ First: One question on PM standing by his statements

Government Notice of Motion 3.00 pm to 3.40 pm

That a respectful Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General commending to His Excellency the alterations to the appropriations for the 2015/16 financial year in respect of Vote Audit and Vote Ombudsmen, and the appropriations and information for the 2016/17 financial year in respect of Vote Audit, Vote Ombudsmen, and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

This debate will be eight speeches of up to five minutes each so a maximum of 40 minutes.

Government Bills 3.40 pm to 6.00 pm

Te Pire mō Te Reo Māori / Māori Language Bill – committee stage continued

This bill repeals the Māori Language Act 1987 and Part 4A of the Broadcasting Act 1989 to establish an independent entity, Te Mātāwai, to provide leadership on behalf of iwi and Māori regarding the health of the Māori language.

• Introduced July 2014
• 1st reading: July 2014, passed unanimously but Greens and NZ First against (forgot to call for a party vote)
• SC report: February 2016, supported unanimously with amendments
• 2nd reading: March 2016, passed

There is no time limit for the committee stage but it is estimated to be a five hour debate as the bill has four parts and preliminary provisions to debate.

A Members’ bill ballot will be held at noon today. One bill will be drawn.

Proposed members’ bills may be viewed here.

The bills entered in the ballot are listed below.

The bills by party (Ministers excluded) are:

National – 23/34
Labour – 29/32
Greens – 14/14
NZ First -12/12
Maori – 1/1
ACT – 1/1
Total – 80/94

UPDATE: The Education (Charter Schools Abolition) Amendment Bill by Chris Hipkins was drawn.

The Herald reports:

Egypt’s Government is sending Cairo-educated imams to “take control” of New Zealand mosques and Islamic centres in a new drive to reduce radicalisation and counter jihadism.

The imams – trained at the ancient Al-Azhar University, regarded as the foremost institution in the Islamic world for the study of Sunni theology and sharia law – will spend up to three years working alongside local mosque leaders promoting moderate Islam and tolerance.

Good. The best way of reducing the extreme versions of Islam, is promoting moderate Islam. Despite what some think, there is a huge diversity of views within Islam.

“We don’t want anything to happen here like what has happened in Belgium, Paris, Madrid or London so we are sending imams to explain Islam and to take control of Islamic centres and mosques here.”

Mr al-Wasimy said the imams were funded by the Egyptian Government and Al-Azhar, which dates back to 970 and in recent years has embarked on a global initiative to improve the image of Islam, promote tolerance, and battle radicalisation and recruitment of young Muslims by extremist groups. …

The Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand said it welcomed the “extremely positive” move after checking out the authenticity of the offer.

“We decided to accept their offer, especially as Al-Azhar is a very well-known organisation promoting moderate Islam,” said federation president Hazim Arafeh.

Sounds good to me.

Stuff reports:

Close to 100 government jobs will go as the Ministry of Justice introduces a compulsory work-from-home initiative, prompting concerns the move will snowball across other departments.

The ministry has confirmed a restructure will see 202 management and staff positions disestablished and 111 new positions created, along with fixed term positions as staff move to a “home environment” later this year.

In a statement, collections general manager Bryre​ Patchell​ said about 100 collections registry positions will move from office to home over the next 13 months.​

The restructure, which will mean specialist collections units at courts around New Zealand will close, is thought to be the first of its kind in New Zealand’s public sector.

Basically you don’t need an office to make phone calls.

Labour justice spokeswoman Jacinda Ardern didn’t buy the efficiency line, and said this came down to cost-cutting – at the expense of face-to-face service and staff morale.

“If they will do this for this department, they will do it for others,” Ardern said.

She feared staff were being forced into their homes away from supportive environments.

“It’s not being posed as something where they are being given the choice. If you are already working in a hard environment it’s a huge thing to have that person working in isolation.

“Overridingly, this is a cost-saving initiative.”

Once again Labour opposes an initiative that saves taxpayers money. Almost without fail they will back unions over taxpayers. They think the more money you spend on something, the better it is. There seems to be no concept of value for money.

Stuff reports:

Green Party co-leader James Shaw said the move opened the door to partial privatisation. 

“This deal makes it harder for the Government to use Kiwibank to drive competition in the banking sector, as the Green Party announced we’d do, because the Government can’t direct the Super and ACC funds in the way it could have directed Kiwibank,” he said.

The Greens announced last week they would inject $100m of capital into the bank, and allow it to keep more of its profits to foster a faster expansion. 

“The fact is the Government forced Kiwibank’s hand and today’s announcement will make it easier than it was before to move Kiwibank into private ownership.”

But Cullen said Shaw’s argument, that the Government was able to direct Kiwibank, was “completely incorrect”

“Kiwibank is a 100 per cent owned subsidiary of New Zealand Post but in terms of the Companies Act and Reserve Bank requirements it must act independently in terms of its activities.

“The Government cannot direct New Zealand Post, nor through New Zealand Post can it direct Kiwibank.”

It is a worry that James Shaw doesn’t even know this basic fact of company law.

It is also a worry that Shaw is complaining that politicians like himself won’t be able to make banking decisions.

Read this and weep:

A university student was threatened with being thrown out of a meeting after being accused of violating “safe space” rules – by raising her hand.

Imogen Wilson, the vice-president for academic affairs at Edinburgh University Students’ Association (EUSA), spoke out against safe space rules becoming “a tool for the hard left to use when they disagree with people”, following the incident last week.

Ms Wilson, 22, was subject to a “safe space complaint” over her supposedly “inappropriate hand gestures” during a student council meeting.

According to the association’s rules, student council meetings should be held in a “safe space environment”, defined as “a space which is welcoming and safe and includes the prohibition of discriminatory language and actions”.

This includes “refraining from hand gestures which denote disagreement”, or “in any other way indicating disagreement with a point or points being made”.

Utter madness. How about head gestures? Shaking your head to disagree must be banned also!

Strong wins by Cruz and Sanders in Wisconsin make both races a lot more interesting.

Cruz has beaten Trump by 18% (at 59% reported). This is well beyond recent polls.

What will be key is if he wins every congressional district. Trump leads in some rural areas. But if Cruz gains a relative 30+ delegates to Trump, it makes Trump getting a majority a lot harder, and equally he loses momentum. A contested convention is much more likely after today. Trump needs 59% of remaining delegates to get a majority – not impossible with some winner take all states.

Sanders is 12% ahead, which is again more than the polls.

It is still very hard to not see Clinton get a majority of delegates before the democratic convention, but the Sanders camp is arguing super delegates may change their minds. If they can stop her from getting a majority just from pledged delegates, they they may refuse to concede until a vote at the convention. You could have two contested conventions.