BIG NEWS

noreply@blogger.com (dave) — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:33:00 +0000

The Green religion

Mike Moore writes that a British judge has determined that employees can take their employers to court on the grounds that they were discriminated against because of their views on climate change. The judge ruled that an employee's green views should be protected under legislation that makes it unlawful to discriminate because of someone's religious beliefs.

Does that mean if your Green beliefs are based on a Christian religion, and you are successful in court, that you get double reparation because they have discriminated on two grounds? Even if God exists and climate change doesn't.

noreply@blogger.com (dave) — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:17:00 +0000

So did we need to remove Section 59?

A woman who assaulted her three children over a 21 month period with weapons that included a jug cord, tent pole, belt and wooden spoon during various incidents in Napier, Gisborne and Invercargill has been jailed for 3 and a half years. One of the people hit was a one-year-old boy.

So cases like this is why why section 59 of the Crimes Act, removing the defence of reasonable force for correction, had to go from the statute books, right?

noreply@blogger.com (dave) — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:37:00 +0000

Nobody wants to be Labour's leader

Phil Goff' support has halved in the latest ONE News Colmar-Brunton poll. Only 5% like Goff, and that was before the awful speech last week. Shane Jones doesn't want to be Labour's leader yet. National is on 53%, Labour slips back to 31%, the Greens bounce back to 7%, the Maori Party's on 3% and ACT on 2%.

If Goff's support drops any further, it will be within the margin of error. When did that last happen to any National or Labour leader? Perhaps its time for Charles Chauvel to run a Facebook campaign for a leader. I hear Chauvel is quite good on Facebook.

noreply@blogger.com (dave) — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:42:00 +0000

Disabled for life for wetting his bed

This story highlights either why some people are not able to be parents, don't deserve to be parents, or should not have so many kids. Or all three. And when "faith healers" tell abusers like this woman to get an ambulance, they are obviously not faith healers.

Abuse like this is sickening. And its got nothing to do with section 59 of the Crimes Act, either.As far as I know, no Samoans have used or succeeded in using the defence when brought before the courts because such people don't discipline their kids, they abuse them.

noreply@blogger.com (dave) — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:49:00 +0000

Goff’s Nationhood speech

Rather than do an immediate post on Goff’s Nationhood speech, I thought I’d wait rather than attack Goff for a racist speech that Shane Jones vetted before delivery.

What Goff appeared to want to do is open up a split within the Māori Party at the same time as divide a wedge between the Māori Party and National. He wanted to play the race card, but in a non-racist way. His speech was not racist like Brash’s 2004 Nationhood speech, but Goff pulls on the same strings, articulating a latent belief that Māori were getting special treatment at the expense of other New Zealanders.

Goff may be correct in calling the emissions trading scheme a “shabby “political deal, (twice), but it is a bit rich saying that it will harm New Zealanders for generations to come when he has said that Labour will repeal the ETS when in power, thus minimising that harm.

Goff attacked John Keys leadership, saying it would lead to a country with "one New Zealander turned against another, Maori against Pakeha". Yet Labour has led the way on this. In addition, it has now withdrawn an offer to create enduring consensus over the Foreshore and Seabed legislation.

Perhaps Goff wants to see the Māori Party destroyed - hence the hope of engineering that destruction - as he sees it as the only way Labour can form a government in 2011. Like Helen Clark before him, he could well be willing to reopen wounds in race relations to gain power, and use the race card to expose any rifts between National the Māori Party as they appear, in the hope that NZ First will come back in 2011. And that is a real pity.

Sure, the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process should not be used as a basis for privileged treatment of certain iwi, thus causing disagreement among Māori - but Goff’s speech was not exactly about kotahitanga either. His unsubstantiated implication was that Key’s lack of criticism of Harawira’s mofo comments was because he wanted to get this “shabby political deal” enacted.

Goff’s comments that the Foreshore and Seabed legislation that deprived Māori to go to court was ‘working well’ is contrary to Labour’s submission to the Foreshore and Seabed Ministerial review. It’s a U-turn in Labour policy. Warning that repeal would make ‘wounds fester’ was a politically irresponsible statement to make, given that it was Labour who did the wounding that initiated the formation of the Māori Party.

Labour still sees the Māori Party as the last cab off the rank. Now that the party is bleeding supporters who are looking for another cab; will they go to a party that is happy to exercise wedge politics to open up a boiling pot in race relations, ask questions and demand change in Māori Party leadership, or be politically apathetic.

Goff, in trying to articulate concerns about emerging problems seems unable to offer practical solutions to problems in race relations and unfair treatment.

But that’s what is needed now. Extending a narrative to touch a nerve for short –term exposure is not going to do much. Labour needs a new leader - and quickly.

noreply@blogger.com (dave) — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:33:00 +0000

Hone Harawira is an "utter irrelevance"

Would be interested to see what others think of Gerry Brownlee's views on Hone Harawira:

Hone Harawira is an utter irrelevance.... a lowly backbencher of no account whatsoever.

Is Harawira an effective MP or is he an irrelevance?

Also, what was Phil Goff trying to do here? There will be a lot of comment around the blogs and talkback on this speech. What a mistake.

noreply@blogger.com (dave) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:01:00 +0000

Labour will repeal National's ETS: Goff

Phil Goff has confirmed that a future Labour government will repeal Nationals Emissions Trading Scheme - just like National confirmed, before the election, that it would repeal Labours Electoral Finance Act. Goff says the deal is at the expense of taxpayers.

“If you are only looking at the narrow pork barrel politics of your own business and not the overall well being of the community, Maori and Pakeha, you’re not worried about the taxpayer who’s paying for it and you’re not worried about the legal opinions that are ignored to suit a dirty political deal, you might say that.

noreply@blogger.com (dave) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:24:00 +0000

Democracy or demoCoskrie?

There’s been a few rumours running around about the March for Democracy held during the weekend. A little one was there was only 1000 at the march. The biggest one was that $450,000 was spent on it. As David Farrar notes, spending an average of $100 a head to get 5000 or so marchers is not an encouraging turnout when $450,000 was spent.

Except $450,000 was not spent.

I was told by Family First's Bob McCoskrie, one of the march organisers, that the amount was around $200,000; so it was closer to $40-$50 a head for the march. The aim of the march was to protest against the government’s lack of responsiveness to certain referenda that got a high percentage of support for change.

March funder Colin Craig, who also supports Act MP John Boscawen's members bill aiming to alter smacking laws, was asked by a a TVNZ reporter what he hoped to achieve:

"What is your main agenda here? What do you want to see changed?"

"What I want to see changed is I want to see the government of New Zealand listen to large votes from the people of this country."

"Does that mean you want to see citizens initiated referendums become binding?"

"I don't have that agenda."

Craig may publicly deny he has that agenda, but he certainly supports that opinion: he wants to see citizens initiated referenda become binding. All the people in the organising committee for the March for Democracy are united in that view. Perhaps Craig's response was an understanding that binding citizens initiated referenda are unpopular with decision -makers, and he didn’t want to admit that the march was framed as one promoting democracy to purposely avoid the less palatable framing of binding referenda. Furthermore if a significant majority of votes - lets say two-thirds - support a certain position, many, if not all march organisers consider that the wishes of the people should trump representative democracy, even if the aggregate wishes of the people are in conflict with what parliament determines to be the voters’ best wishes.

In other words, in these situations, unlike Auckland Law School lecturer Richard Ekins, they believe that Parliament should be told how to legislate. Furthermore they believe that Parliament should be accountable for these laws, even when passing laws based on biding referenda that they don’t agree are in the best interests of those whom they are representing.

Although McCoskrie told me that a referendum with two-third’s majority support should be translated to legislation irrespective of the size of the turnout, he was less clear, when prompted, as to what he expected the Government to do if 28 percent of voters participated in a referendum and of those, a higher percentage wanted a law change. That is not a mandate for change. Perhaps that is why the March for Democracy focused on referenda that both had larger turnouts and achieved more than 80% of the vote. It looks a bit silly promoting binding referenda when fewer than one in three voters participate.

Despite what some have said, McCoskrie has not turned his back on proportional representation. He doesn’t want to go back to First Past the Post: neither does he support MMP as it currently stands. His electoral system preference is STV. This is perhaps because, as he admits, he hasn't yet thought through the changes that can occur to make MMP work to his liking, and STV is more likely to eliminate vote wastage. His bugbear is that too many representatives are getting whipped for conscience votes. He clearly sees a distinction between getting whipped by party leaders and getting whipped by referenda voters, but considers that a good whipping by voters is more democratic than one by a party whip.

That’s because he believes citizen self-interest trumps the self-interest of governing representatives. But as Robert Dahl would say, who governs?

noreply@blogger.com (dave) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:00:00 +0000

Interesting interview with Shane Jones on the ETS

Update And a fantastic speech as well. When is Shane Jones going to be the leader of the Labour Party?

noreply@blogger.com (dave) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:32:00 +0000

Name suppression: Now Key knows, everyone wants to know

Now that John Key knows the name of the entertainer whose name is suppressed, heaps of people who don’t yet know want to find out. They are using the Internet to do so.

John Key has made a mockery of our suppression laws by telling the country he knows who this man is. Meaning he has aroused the nations curiousity. No doubt he's relaxed about that. If he knows, why shouldn't everyone else? Why doesn’t he just put a law through (under urgency) stating that if people publicly name such people, it will not be in the public interest to proceed with a prosecution.

He’s done it before.

noreply@blogger.com (dave) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:17:00 +0000

How to announce new funding without providing new funding

Ann Tolley makes an announcement: $8 million boost for high-performing polytechnics

Tertiary Education Minister Anne Tolley has announced that 12 polytechnics and institutes of technology are to provide up to 700 new student places following an $8 million funding boost."This additional funding for 2010, part of the Government's Youth Opportunities package, will help these institutions cope with forecast enrolment growth"

Looks like the government is announcing new funding. But it is not new funding. Tolley made a similar announcement in August

An $8 million funding boost will help high-performing polytechnics and institutes of technology collectively provide up to 700 new places to help cope with forecast enrolment growth next year, Tertiary Education Minister Anne Tolley announced today.

"This one-off funding will be available to deal with expected increases in student enrolments in 2010 resulting from the impact of the economic downturn on youth employment opportunities," Mrs Tolley says.

It wouldn't have taken very long to write today's media release I`m sure. Just change "one-off funding" to "additional funding", to make it look like a one-off announcement of additional funding for polytechs that are not as high performing as they were initally made out to be - but still have caps on student numbers.

noreply@blogger.com (dave) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:01:00 +0000

Hone Harawira to stay with Maori Party

The Maori Party has announced that Hone Harawira is to stay with the Maori Party but be suspended from caucus for a while. I wonder if they`ll use his vote for the ETS legislation.

What we have is an MP who wants to stay with a party that passes legislation he doesn't agree with run by leadership aligned to a political party he doesn't like.

This is pure self-interest. Harawira doesn't listen to his party in terms of discipline, he doesn't listen to his constituents - whom he says he is answerable solely to - in terms of how he votes. So when he votes against his constituents wishes what do they do?

Nothing. What a bugger's muddle.

noreply@blogger.com (dave) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:07:00 +0000

The Māori Party and ETS

updatedIt is well known that the Māori Party has decided to vote for( as opposed to support) the emissions trading scheme, despite Rahui Katene and Hone Harawira being publically opposed to the scheme, as are many of those in the five iwi who this deal is proported to support. Harawira has said he only answers to his constituents.

Did his constituents support the ETS? This deal could be the make or break of the Māori Party. The party does not support the legislation. It is really the two leaders who are ministers telling the rest of the caucus how they must vote - and doing a really bad job justifying the rationale behind that stance.

Here's the Māori Party release. Here is the National Party release. Notice the macron over the "a" in Māori in the National Party release - but not in the Māori Party release. National is now not only dotting i's and crossing t's, it is even trying to macronise one or two media releases. But you'd think they`d do it consistently.

On 19 November Nick Smith signed his letter to Māori leaders Yours sincerely. On the same day he wrote anothe letter to the Iwi Leadership Group, peppered with Maori salutations, greetings and macrons. Four days later a letter started off "tena koe Tariana and Pita, (instead of tena korua)and concluded heio ano(that is all), whereas naku noa would have been perhaps more appropriate.

If Nick Smith is going to use a bit of Māori, perhaps he should do a crash course on the basics so he can get it correct. I wonder when he will be demoted?[ update particularly after this - how embarrassing.]

I’d like to recommend that all bloggers who support Nātional, particularly David Fārrar and WhāleOil, put a macron over the appropriate letter in the word 'Māori' in all blog posts ;-0.

Then they can work on other phrases such as 'Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu'.

noreply@blogger.com (dave) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:24:00 +0000

Of course John Key was curious over high profile entertainer

John Key was curious. He wanted to know the name of a high profile entertainer that got name suppression. [ If you dont know who he is here's a clue. Key said he asked somebody he knew. Most likely it was a staff member in his office the name is so publicly known. Now he knows who this entertainer is, he is no doubt more relaxed about it.

Name suppression has go to the point when if I named him, I`d most likely be given a warning at most. The Law Commission has said that well-known people should still be able to argue for secrecy if publication of their name would cause "extreme hardship".

Given that half the country appears to know who this guy is, I very much doubt that publication of his name would cause him any additional hardship.

noreply@blogger.com (dave) — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:37:00 +0000

We want democracy

On Saturday, several thousand people marched in Auckland, many chanting "we want democracy".

This implies we don't have democracy. I`ll be posting on this sometime this week. But for now, consider this:

What is the democracy that the marchers wanted? What is democracy?
Update Heaps of pix here. The $450,000 reportedly spent on the march is more than the amount that the Kiwi Party, the Libertarianz, the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party and the Family Party spent on the 2008 general election combined.

noreply@blogger.com (dave) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:21:00 +0000

Maori seats and ETS

Could someone explain how the Maori seats are seen by National as special treatment, whereas horsetrading over the Emissions Trading Scheme with the holders of most of the Maori seats in a willingness to disproportionately benefit the Maori elite (and earlier the not-so-elite Maori) is not special treatment?

Another thing: Who does the Maori Party represent? Is it Maori, those who voted for the party, or some Maori,such as those involved with certain iwi groups, many of whose members voted for a party other than the Maori Party.

noreply@blogger.com (dave) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:27:00 +0000

Are blogs "journalism"?

As a former journalist, I think I know what journalism is. I have reported on candidates over three elections. I don't consider this blog to be journalism due to the fact that I don't often interview people and report on what they say. Neither does political journalist Audrey Young on her blog.

So why No Right Turn feels the need to claim that political journalism has hit a new low because Young blogs something that he sees irrelevant is beyond me. Perhaps the writer at No Right Turn expects political blogs run by bloggers who are associated with newspapers to be reporting on news gathering, and be held to the same standards and be of similar content as the content on the paper's front page.

Why should he?

noreply@blogger.com (dave) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:07:00 +0000

Submitting to Wellington City Council's district plan: The rubbishy treatment ratepayers get

As many know, I live in the Wellington region and the Wellington City Council is making changes to the District Plan, and have been asking for submissions. They are due on Friday week. I thought I`d do a blog post to outline how difficult it is for ratepayers to get any relevant information from the Wellington City Council to make an informed submission to a District Plan.

About three weeks ago we rang the council to get some information about the District Plan as it relates to our area.We got about 300 pages of information for just one simple request. I didn't have time to read them all, and even if I did, I had no idea whether I would find what I wanted to.

So I rang the council to see if they had any information on the council's web site. The contact person was unavailable , so I got through to someone and was told to look on a certain web page. That page had about 60 PDFs files, each having many pages. When I advised that I didn't have time to go through 60 PDF's I asked which PDF/s I should be referring to. They didn't know. So I asked them to send some material in the mail that would directly address what I wanted to submit to.

In the interim I thought I'd call the contact person on the page with all the PDF's . Perhaps that was the unavailable person who would know a bit more.I later found out indeed he is the main contact person. His name is Jeremy Blake. He wasn't just unavailable -he was on annual leave until near the date that submissions are due. Marvellous. Some "contact" person.

Anyway, I never got the material, so I rang the Mayors office. They said they`d get someone to ring me. Someone rang me back fairly promptly but that person had no idea what to tell me.

As it happens, today I received my copy of The Wellingtonian. There was an article on the "arcane" plan change process. Some residents associations have been complaining about the plan. The Councils response: Stop complaining and get on with making a submission.

Well, I had tried for 10 days and many phone calls to get some information to do so. As it stands, the Council have been useless.There has been just six submissions to the plan change that I would like to submit to, and three of those arrived in this mornings mail, according to the Council.

The District Plan affects thousands of residents. If this is the treatment the Council dish out to ratepayers after asking them to submit to the District Plan, no wonder they don't get many submissions when they call for them.

Update: I later had a call from the Council after I rang the Mayors office. It was then I was told that the very information I requested was not sent, and most of what was earlier sent had nothing to do with what was asked for. So,glad I didn't read it then. Lets see if it arrives this time.

Update 2 It arrived, by email. It was a document which was buried in one of the manuals I had been sent but the Council couldn't tell me earlier where that document was among the 300 or so pages they sent, even when asked the first few times.I can now make a submission. I have also had a chat to Cr Andy Foster, who is the councillor clued up on such matters. He was actually most helpful with navigation around the Draft Plan.I asked him to extend the deadline for submissions. Unfortunately he didn't know all the rules around the extension process.

noreply@blogger.com (dave) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:48:00 +0000

A veto request to be ignored

The Legislation Advisory Committee has advised Mary Harris, the Clerk of the House to veto Larry Baldock's petition question which aims to bind citizens initiated referenda, because it would contradict the fundamental purpose of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, which provided for non-binding referendums.

On 29 October, Larry Baldock wrote to the Clerk [DOC] responding to an October 23 letter to the Clerk from legislation advisory committee chair Sir Geoffrey Palmer, in which he said:

The Committee’s view is that the wording of the proposed referendum is defective. Indeed that Committee does not think that these defects are capable of being remedied.... The question that is proposed, in all its ambiguities and circularity, is not in our view compatible with the legislation under which it is proposed to be conducted.

[T]he framers of the [1993] Act considered the questions and decided that indicative referenda could not be and should not be binding. So the question is outside the scope of the Act.

The Herald noted that the Clerk of the House must approve or reject the final wording for the vote. Slight problem: She can't reject the wording, as a petition question - irredeemably defective or otherwise - cannot be vetoed unless the question either relates to a similar referendum held within the previous five years, or an electoral petition.

But the question can be amended. So by December 9, Larry Baldock's question, Should Citizens Initiated Referenda seeking to repeal or amend a law be binding? or a form of it, preferably with " on Parliament" tagged on the end of the question, will be approved by the Clerk.

Baldock thinks the question can have its intent clarified through public debate and the petition process. But if he is not going to clarify his intent and how he wants Parliament to respond, before the first signature is sought, it is unlikely he will get the required signatures to force a referendum.

Binding referendums would bypass the legislative and select committee process.With binding referendums, we would have to vote on specific and detailed pieces of legislation, like they do in California to amend legislation, for example, such as aiming to bypass the legislature in attempts to abolish divorce laws.Yes, really. We could end up bypassing the legislative process to change the Marriage Act 1955 to allow for same sex marriage with enough public support.

Baldock would hate that.

noreply@blogger.com (dave) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:08:00 +0000

Beenie Man apologises for.. well, nothing really

Beenie Man is not happy for being withdrawn from the Big Day Out. He has issued this statement:

I sincerely made a promise to renounce violence towards others and went ahead to sign the Reggae Compassionate Act back in 2007. I have made numerous announcements regarding violence against gays most recently in Spain. We live in a diverse society, the haves, have-nots, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, light and dark skinned, homosexuals and heterosexuals. At times we wrongly ridicule each other for beliefs. One thing we have in common, we are all human beings and should strive for peace, equality and love. I want my music to bring people together and for them to dance, feel good and enjoy it. People sometimes may misunderstand my lyrics because of slang, metaphors, jargons and dialect; it is not intended to be harmful. In the past I offended others with offensive lyrics, I apologized then and now, I never took back my word. Our world is an interesting place filled with variety and we all have to respect others no matter what race, choices, culture or lifestyle. I am not a supporter of hatred and never was. The press sometimes exaggerate.

You can read the entire statement here.

noreply@blogger.com (dave) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 21:29:00 +0000

I can see Capetown now Bahrain has gone

Well, wasn't that a fantastic match last night. I was able to watch it live on the Internet. The last time we qualified for the World Cup, goal-scorer Rory Fallon was not even born and his dad was the assistant coach of the All Whites.Leo Bertos, who kicked the corner that led to the goal, was actually born on the very day of the 1981 game against Saudi Arabia that got New Zealand on the road to Spain in 1982.

Not only did we qualify for the World Cup for the second time ever, #AllWhites was the top trending topic on Twitter. That is some feat to get a New Zealand topic trending on Twitter but it confused the American tweeters somewhat, as they thought we were a little racist. When told that the All Whites were actually a football team, and the All Blacks were the country's rugby team they started to understand a bit, although they sniggered when told the national badminton team was called the Black Cocks.

The All Whites are going to be household names. New Zealand will be soccer mad next year and I think some people under 25 are going to be shocked at the extent of this football frenzy. It's going to be a boon for the soccer clubs, especially for the juniors. It was in 1982 when we were "on our way to Spain", and now we're on our way to South Africa. Bahrain coach Milan Macala has now been in charge of six national teams that did not make it to the World Cup.

Oh, and the All Blacks played last night.

noreply@blogger.com (dave) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 06:53:00 +0000

Biker did not make it home after protesting ACC levy increase

Ha, this is funny. Bikers were protesting how it is so unfair that their ACC levies are going up. Guess what one did on the way home?

He hit a car, fell off his bike, and got a suspected broken leg.

He will get ACC. Perhaps he should have taken his car, rather than being a good advertisement for why bikers should get higher ACC levies.

noreply@blogger.com (dave) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 03:45:00 +0000

Free speech, gay MP's and and Beenie Man

I'd never heard of Beenie Man until this week. Beenie Man is a Jamaican singer who has been invited to the Big Day Out.He is notorious for his lyrics and other statements promoting the killing of gay men and lesbians. Labour's Charles Chauvel has called for him to be banned from entering the country, deeming him to be a threat to security or public order because his lyrics will incite hostility.

Except, Chauvel is wrong. His lyrics will not incite hostility. The Big Day Out had already advised that Beenie Man will not be performing the offending songs, therefore his lyrics will not be an issue.I suspect Chauvel was fully aware of this, but would rather incite some hostility of his own.

For Chauvel, freedom of speech is less about the offensiveness under the law than it is about his own prejudices. I much prefer Green MP Kevin Hague's approach to this distasteful musician: He correctly calls the invitation shameful and is calling for the Big Day Out to withdraw its invitation. That approach is much more sensible than what looks like a bigoted approach from Chauvel.

Update The Big Day Out has cancelled Beenie Man for all the BDO's in Australasia.

noreply@blogger.com (dave) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:31:00 +0000

TIME looks back over 50 years

In 1959, TIME magazine published its first edition for Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific. The magazine looks back and lists the most influential people that shaped the region. The New Zealanders mentioned are: Peter Snell, David Lange, Peter Jackson and Helen Clark, Matiu Rata, Rob Muldoon, and Russell Crowe, Jane Campion and Peter Blake. You can read what they wrote by clicking the above links.

There's lists about a range of things, even the top 10 Sesame Street moments!

noreply@blogger.com (dave) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:37:00 +0000

Split in the Maori Party

updated

WIth reference to this, Maori Party bosses decided several days ago to ask Hone Harawira to leave the Maori Party.This is not just about one trip or the occasional swear word. He will be expelled from the Maori Party unless something changes drastically. He may well resign before he is pushed, and it will be interesting if a decision is made before Parliament resumes on Tuesday, if he resigns from Parliament - and most importantly, how the grass-roots will react.

Roll on the by-election?

Yet the chair of the Maori Party's Te Tai Tokerau electorate committee Rahui Kapa has said she believes Hone Harawira has done nothing wrong. She is on record as saying she thinks it was fine for Harawira to play hookie and go to Paris, because he " did the job". She is alone in the Maori Party leadership on this. When asked on Morning Report if she was " happy that Harawira lied to the party leader and went sightseeing in Paris...when he was paid to do something else", she said "I'm not unhappy". When specifically asked about the lie to Turia in pulling a sickie to go to Paris, she said that Harawira did not lie; instead saying that Turia was "misinformed".

She later said her loyalty was to the Maori Party, adding she did not know if she would follow Harawira if he was to become an independent. There is to be a series of meetings to discuss the proposal for Harawira to stand as an independent MP.

But saying your leader is misinformed is hardly the way to show loyalty to your party. There's kaupapa and tikanga to uphold, here, and Harawira's electorate committee, in supporting Harawira's actions and attitude, is in contrast to the national leadership, who oppose his actions. You can't run a political party effectively when a sizeable proportion has a public stance against party leadership, while defending and denying wrongdoing of their own MP.

The Human Rights Commission has received 721 complaints about Harawira, the most about any issue ever, and nearly twice as many as all complaints recieved last year.