Colmar Brunton poll – October 2018

Colmar Brunton were polling for 1 News as the Jami-Lee Ross mess unfolded last week, so it is  snapshot of support that won’t give anything like a clear indication of ongoing effects on party support.

But it is what it is, at a volatile time.

  • Labour 45% (up from 42%)
  • National 43% (down from 45%)
  • Greens 7% (up from 6%)
  • NZ First 5% ( no change)
  • ACT 0% (down from 1%)
  • Maori Party 1% (no change)

This looks remarkably not bad for National considering the week from hell they have just been through – but it may be too soon to measure the full effect of all of this.

The poll was conducted from Monday to Friday (15-19 October 2018).

The last poll was taken from 28 July to 1 August 2018.

Since the election up until this poll Colmar Brunton had:

  • National 46%, 43%, 44%, 45%, 45%
  • Labour 39%, 48%, 43%, 43%, 42%
  • Greens 7%, 5%, 6%, 5%, 6%
  • NZ First 5%, 2.6%, 5%, 4.2%, 5%

Preferred Prime Minister:

  • Jacinda Ardern 42%
  • Simon Bridges 7%
  • Judith Collins 5%
  • Winston Peters 4%

Last poll details and polling history since the election.

Ardern on political donations

Jacinda Ardern has been interviewed on RNZ this morning on political donations.

Zhang Yikun has attended a Labour fundraiser, in Sept 2017, Ms Ardern acknowledges. “If he’s made any donations that’s declarable, we would’ve declared it.”

“I make a point of not being involved in donations to the party.” Ms Ardern says she’s met Zhang Yikun at a number of events but doesn’t know him personally.

Parties would be mad to not comply carefully with current rules over donations. Despite claims by Jami-lee Ross there is no evidence that they don’t comply.

“We do not have a practice of splitting donations to avoid them being declared,” Ms Ardern says. “I would love an environment where we didn’t have to go out & fundraise & seek donations.”

Ms Ardern could introduce state-funding of parties to scrap political donations, but her question is if there’s mandate. “It would be much easier political environment if we didn’t have campaigning, fundraising, but that would mean it’d go back on the public purse.

The Greens have jumped on their state-funding crusade again, but there seems little inclination from Labour or National for any significant changes to how donations are regulated and managed.

Craig v Williams strike out attempt fails

This is another chapter in the widening litigation after Colin Craig was attacked via Whale Oil and Craig retaliated via a media conference and a nationwide mail-out of a pamphlet.

Craig is counter claiming defamation against Jordan Williams in a parallel case to the original claim Williams made against Craig.

Williams v Craig

Williams took Craig to court for defamation. Williams won and was awarded a record amount by a jury. However this was overturned by the judge. Wrangling on this case recently got as far as the Supreme Court, and remains unresolved.

Craig v Williams

Meanwhile, Craig also later filed separately for defamation against Williams.

This differs from the Craig v Slater v Craig claim and counter-claim which were heard at the same time (early last year, still no judgment).

Earlier this year Williams applied to the High Court for:

(a) striking out the plaintiff’s (Mr Craig’s) claim as an abuse of process;

(b) if the proceeding is not struck out, transferring the proceeding to the Wellington Registry of the Court; and

(c) if the proceeding is not struck out, ordering Mr Craig to provide security for Mr Williams’ costs

Williams partially succeeded but largely failed.

The claims made by Mr Craig

[4] On 29 May 2017, Mr Craig filed this proceeding (“the Craig proceeding”) against Mr Williams, alleging that Mr Williams made defamatory statements about Mr Craig in the period between 26 May 2015 and 26 June 2015.

[5] Mr Craig’s statement of claim pleads six separate causes of action, each relating to statements allegedly published by Mr Williams.

Conclusions on the strike-out application:

[99] In my view, the issue of whether Mr Craig sexually harassed Ms MacGregor (by means falling short of sexual assault) has been conclusively determined against him in the Williams proceeding.

The causes of action and parts of causes of action that argued whether Mr Craig sexually harassed Ms MacGregor were all struck out.

[128] The pleaded meaning that Mr Craig had sexually harassed Ms MacGregor will be struck out, for the reasons discussed earlier.

But other parts of five of the six claims were allowed to stand. Craig was directed to file and serve an amended statement of claim.

[129] I do not consider there is a sufficient basis to strike out the other pleaded meanings, both of which are concerned with sexual harassment of women other than Ms MacGregor.

Williams also asked that the proceedings be struck out due to the existence of other proceedings. This was declined.

[159] Mr Williams points to numerous Court proceedings Mr Craig has now filed against a number of parties, including Mr Slater, Ms MacGregor, and Mr Stringer. It appears that all of these claims relate broadly to the same series of events in 2015.

[160] I do not think I can make anything of these other claims in the context of the present application. I did not receive any detailed submissions on the nature of the other claims, and I have no basis for finding that they were unnecessary or improper, or otherwise an abuse of the Court’s process. I am dealing here with a strike-out application in respect of this one proceeding, and I think it would be dangerous to conclude from the fact that there are a number of other proceedings commenced by Mr Craig that this proceeding was commenced for an improper collateral purpose, or was otherwise an abuse of the Court process. I decline to strike out the Craig proceeding on the basis of the existence of these other proceedings.

Williams also applied for an order for security of costs. This was dismissed.

Williams also applied for an order transferring the proceeding to the Wellington registry of the Court (from Auckland). This was dismissed.

Craig has failed to re-litigate findings that he sexually harassed MacGregor, but otherwise he successfully opposed Williams applications.

So this means that as well as Williams versus Craig continuing on it’s way through the courts, Craig versus Williams is now also able to proceed.

Full judgment here

 

Jami-Lee Ross ‘improving’, uncertainty over future

Jami-Lee Ross is said to be improving after surviving a “very real situation” on Saturday night and being sectioned and admitted in mental health care, but it will likely take time to find out what impact this will have on his future as a now independent electorate MP after the National caucus ejected him last week.

The Mental health Foundation is disappointed in how Ross’ mental health situation has been described and discussed in media including social media, and says it is necessary to separate political decisions from mental health problems – but this may not be simple given that Ross’ political decisions have been obviously influenced by his mental health situation.

NZ Herald – Jami-Lee Ross improving, getting the mental health help he needs – friend

Botany MP Jami-Lee Ross is improving but remains in the mental health wing at Middlemore Hospital, after surviving a “very real situation” on Saturday night, a friend says.

Concern for Ross’ health has amplified since he was picked up by police on Sunday and sectioned to a mental health facility.

“He’s a bit rough at the moment, but getting the help he needs. He’s in good care. Staff are wonderful,” said the friend, who did not want to be named.

“This was definitely not attention-seeking. It was a very real situation he was in on Saturday night,” the friend added.

It could take some time before we know what will happen from here.

Ross will continue to hold the seat of Botany unless he resigns, National leader Simon Bridges uses the waka-jumping law (a process that takes at least 21 working days), or Ross is deemed unfit due to mental health reasons (a process that takes at least six months).

The friend said there had been no discussion about whether he might resign, as Ross had “more important things” to think about at this stage.

Following Ross’ admission to hospital, several steps need to occur before Speaker Trevor Mallard would be notified that an MP was the subject of a compulsory treatment order.

Mallard said he had not received any such notice, but constitutional lawyer Graeme Edgeler said informing the Speaker was the last step in a process that could take weeks.

It was standard practice to take five days to make a mental health assessment, Edgeler said.

“But if the five days isn’t enough, it can be extended to 14 days. If those have happened and they still wish to compulsorily treat someone, they then ask a Family Court judge.

“If the judge makes a compulsory treatment order or an equivalent order, at that point the court notifies the Speaker.

“It would be exceedingly unlikely for a court to be involved at this early stage.”

If the court issued a compulsory treatment order, the Speaker would then ask the Director-General of Health and a medical practitioner to assess if the MP was considered “mentally disordered”.

If so, a further assessment would follow six months later. If the patient was still unwell, the Speaker would be obliged to inform the House and vacate the MP’s seat, triggering a by-election.

So unless Ross resigns the uncertainty looks like extending well into next year.

Early last week Ross said he intended resigning from Parliament on Friday, but on Friday he said he had changed his mind and would remain in Parliament.

It’s hard to see how Ross could function effectively now as an electorate MP, and he is likely to have lost a lot of support in Botany. Even if he recovers mental health-wise he would also have difficulty operating alone and discredited in Parliament.

Also uncertain is whether Ross will resume his threatened attacks on National and whether he will try to ‘uncover the bed sheets’ in Parliament. He seems to be confusing consensual promiscuity, which appears to be common amongst some MPs and associated staff and journalists, and the harassment and abuses of power that he has been accused of.

Cameron Slater, who has been giving mixed messages about his involvement with Ross before he was committed to a health facility, has threatened a number of times over the weekend to reveal some sort of information – “Just wait and watch what happens this week.”

One might think both Ross and Slater have enough problems to deal with already without lashing out further – they both may have little more to lose politically given how toxic and isolated they have both become, but as has been demonstrated in the weekend they are at personal risk from the pressures they create for themselves.

 

0.5-2.0 metre sea level rise possible, more frequent floods

A ‘best case’ scenario of an average 0.5 metre sea level rise, with far more frequent extreme coastal water levels, would caause a lot of problems. A ‘worst case’ scenario is an average 2 metre rise, equivalent to ‘100 year floods’ every day. If scientists are wrong it could be less – or more.

Noted:  The impact rising sea levels will have on New Zealand

Under present projections, the sea level around New Zealand is expected to rise between 30cm and 1m this century as warming ocean waters expand, mountain glaciers retreat and polar ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica shrink. Even if global emissions were to stop today, more warming over the next few decades is inevitable, bringing a trail of storms, ocean surges, flooding and erosion.

The Ministry for the Environment says extreme coastal water levels, currently expected to be reached or exceeded once every 100 years, will, by 2050-2070, occur on average at least once a year.

Evidence is already piling up. Waihi Beach in the Bay of Plenty, Beach Road south of Ōamaru, and small seaside towns in Taranaki and the West Coast  all bear the signs of coastal erosion. Low-lying areas in Napier, Whakatane, Tauranga, Motueka, Nelson, parts of Auckland and Wellington have all been inundated by storms.

Just before Christmas, the Whakatane District Council declared 34 properties in Matata in the Bay of Plenty “unliveable” due to severe flooding risk.

“We are a coastal nation so we are going to get whacked by sea-level rise,” says GNS climate scientist Tim Naish, head of a new Government-funded programme set up to assess the magnitude and rate of sea-level rise. “We’re talking places we will not be able to live in because a so-called one-in-100-year flooding event becomes a daily event.”

Worst-case scenario, he says, is an average 2m sea-level rise by the end of the century. Best-case scenario, if we achieve the goals of the Paris climate agreement and keep temperature rise well below 2°C, is 50cm of sea-level rise.

A 2 metre rise would cause major problems for a large part of Dunedin, the reclaimed South Dunedin area. It would also stuff the Portobello road, parts of the road to Port Chalmers (which links the city and Otago province to the port) and also the road to Aramoana.

Stuff:  Coastal hazards report warns sea-level rises a ‘slowly unfolding red-zone’

The threat of rising sea levels has been likened to a “slowly unfolding red-zone” as a major Parliamentary report warns thousands of homes could become uninhabitable.

Environment Commissioner Dr Jan Wright released her national report on coastal hazards on Thursday, recommending a major overhaul of the way New Zealand prepared for coastal erosion and rising sea-levels.

She found Christchurch and Dunedin would be the cities most affected by future sea-level rises, resulting in potential damage costing billions of dollars.

In Christchurch, nearly 10,000 homes and 200 kilometres of road were less than 1.5 metres above the spring high tide mark, more than Auckland and Wellington combined.

Dunedin mayor Dave Cull said the report showed the city would likely be the “most extensively affected” by coastal hazards.

“We have an exceptionally large number of homes at risk, as well as infrastructure.”

The report found nearly 2700 homes, mostly in South Dunedin, were less than 50cm above the spring high tide mark.

This already impacts on many property values. Anything like a 2 metre average rise would also impact significantly on Mosgiel and the Taieri Plain, where floods are already common. The Momona airport runway would go under.

But we always have the option of arguing that nothing adverse will happen and doing nothing is fine.

The changing story of Khashoggi’s murder

Saoudi Arabia’s explanation of the disappearance of journalist Jamal Khashoggi has kept changing, but their foreign minister now admits that Khashoggi was murdered. However he says it was ‘a rogue operation’. It is difficult to accept any official Saudi claims given how much they have kept changing.

The Saudis gave up trying to deny they were responsible for Khashoggi’s death, and are now left trying to distance  Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman from any responsibility.

Saudi officials had first denied any knowledge of Khasoggi’s disappearance, despite video evidence of him going into their consulate in Istanbul and never being seen again. Under international pressure and condemnation they eventually admitted Khasoggi had died in the consulate but claimed it was as a result of a fight. The now concede he was murdered.

BBC – Khashoggi death: Saudi Arabia says journalist was murdered

Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir told Fox News “the murder” had been a “tremendous mistake” and denied the powerful crown prince had ordered it.

Khashoggi was last seen entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey.

The Saudis, under intense pressure to explain Khashoggi’s whereabouts, have offered conflicting accounts.

They initially said he had left the consulate on 2 October – but on Friday admitted for the first time he was dead, saying he had been killed in a fight. This claim met widespread scepticism.

Turkish officials believe Khashoggi, a prominent critic of the Saudi government, was murdered by a team of Saudi agents inside the building and say they have evidence to prove it.

Adel al-Jubeir’s comments, describing the incident as murder, are some of the most direct to come from a Saudi official.

“We are determined to find out all the facts and we are determined to punish those who are responsible for this murder,” he said.

“The individuals who did this did this outside the scope of their authority,” he added. “There obviously was a tremendous mistake made, and what compounded the mistake was the attempt to try to cover up.”

Khashoggi entered the consulate on 2 October. The denials and attempted cover up extended over 20 days, despite being told by US officials to end the crisis ‘quickly’ on 10 October.

NY Times (9 October): Turkish Officials Say Khashoggi Was Killed on Order of Saudi Leadership

Top Turkish security officials have concluded that the Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi was assassinated in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul on orders from the highest levels of the royal court, a senior official said Tuesday.

Business Insider: The Saudi crown prince reportedly couldn’t understand the outrage over Khashoggi’s killing

Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, the man suspected of ordering the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, could not understand why the Saudi journalist’s disappearance was such a big deal, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Mohammed bin Salman was shocked to see Khashoggi’s disappearance in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul provoke such international outrage, and he called the White House adviser Jared Kushner to ask why, the paper said.

Crown Prince Mohammed called Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and Middle East adviser, on October 10, The Journal said, eight days after Khashoggi disappeared.

Crown Prince Mohammed asked in English what the outrage was about, the report said, citing two people who were briefed on the conversation.

Kushner and John Bolton, the US national security adviser, reportedly told the crown prince in response that he had to solve the crisis quickly.

Kushner is close to Crown Prince Mohammed and – according to CNN – texts him directly sometimes on WhatsApp. He has not taken a public role in the US response to the Khashoggi crisis, but reports suggest he has advised Trump to stand by Saudi Arabia until the episode blows over.

If this is all true then unless Kushner and Bolton did not inform Donald Trump (that seems very unlikely) then Trump knew what was going on but tried to play down Khasoggi’s disappearance.

The Trump administration appeared reluctant to hold the Saudi leadership responsible for weeks after Khashoggi’s disappearance.

Trump has continued to tout billions of dollars’ worth of arms contracts struck between Washington and Riyadh, which he has repeatedly claimed could create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the US.

After Saudi Arabia acknowledged Khashoggi’s death, Trump told The Post that “obviously there’s been deception, and there’s been lies” in the Saudi explanation of the disappearance and death.

He must have known well before the Saudi admission.

But the president said he “would love if he wasn’t responsible,” referring to Crown Prince Mohammed.

Many of the 15 men identified in the Turkish news media as suspects in Khashoggi’s killinghave been seen in the crown prince’s entourage.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan promised that he would reveal the “naked truth”about Khashoggi’s death on Tuesday.

That could be embarrassing for both Crown Prince Mohammed and Trump (and also Kushner). They both at least look complicit in an inept attempt to cover up the murder.

Guardian (12 October) – Trump: Khashoggi case will not stop $110bn US-Saudi arms trade

Donald Trump has made it clear that whatever the outcome of the inquiry into the disappearance of the journalist from the Saudi embassy in Istanbul, the US will not forgo lucrative arms deals with Riyadh. The president says the possibility of Saudi Arabia sourcing its arms from Russia or China instead is unacceptable.

Vox (21 October) – “It’s not going to create or take away a single job”: why Trump’s excuse on the Saudis doesn’t hold up

When President Donald Trump explained over the past two weeks why he was reluctant to damage the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia over the disappearance and murderof dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi, he kept coming back to one reason: jobs.

“I don’t want to hurt jobs,” Trump said in an interview with 60 Minutes that aired last weekend, explaining that there are “other ways of punishing.”

“Who are we hurting? It’s 500,000 jobs,” he told Fox Business on Wednesday.

“I’d rather keep the million jobs, and I’d find another solution,” he said at a defense roundtable in Arizona on Friday.

But while there’s a multitude of reasons Trump might be hesitant to condemn the Saudi government, tens or hundreds of thousands of jobs from an arms deal with the Saudi government isn’t one of them — at least a legitimate one.

The White House has been conspicuously cautious in its reaction to Khashoggi’s disappearance, even after the government admitted on Friday that he was killed inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul earlier this month. Part of Trump’s explanation — beyond that it’s unfair to consider Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman “guilty before proven innocent” — is that a $110 billion arms deal would be at risk. Trump claims the arms deal will lead to thousands of jobs, and it’s a risk he’s not willing to take.

There could also be other economic reasons leading Trump to avoid destabilizing the relationship — including Saudi influence over the world’s supply of oil, which would be particularly crucial if the US imposes sanctions on Iran.

“What’s at stake is global oil price stability,” Ashley Peterson, a senior oil market analyst at energy advisory firm Stratas Advisors, told me. “Saudi Arabia excels at talking up and talking down the oil market.”

But:

“They have the oil card and the arms sales card, neither of which, to me, is particularly compelling in these circumstances,” Chollet, from the German Marshall Fund, said.

Beyond the economic factors in play here, there are also geopolitical considerations — it also goes into the broader context of the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the Iran deal.

As the New York Times’s David Sanger pointed out, Saudi Arabia is an important player in the United States’ plan to go after Iran. The White House is hoping the Saudis will help it keep oil prices from spiking when it reimposes sanctions on Iran, including cutting off Iranian oil exports.

As usual with international issues things are complicated. And in any case, arms sales to Saudi Arabia, oil and Iran are all interrelated.

The death of one journalist is just a nuisance – but it could become a very influential nuisance.

 

 

Media watch – Tuesday

23 October 2018

MediaWatch

Media Watch is a focus on New Zealand media, blogs and social media. You can post any items of interested related to media.

A primary aim here is to hold media to account in the political arena. A credible and questioning media is an essential part of a healthy democracy.

A general guideline – post opinion on or excerpts from and links to blog posts or comments of interest, whether they are praise, criticism, pointing out issues or sharing useful information.

General chat

“Is there any way we could have a thread for the more lightweight stuff like music and general chat?”

Do it here. Please no personal attacks or bickering. Anything abusive, provocative or inflammatory may be deleted.

Open Forum – Tuesday

23 October 2018

Forum

This post is open to anyone to comment on any topic that isn’t spam, illegal or offensive. All Your NZ posts are open but this one is for you to raise topics that interest you. 

If providing opinions on or summaries of other information also provide a link to that information. Bloggers are welcome to summarise and link to their posts.

Comments worth more exposure may be repeated as posts.Comments from other forums can be repeated here, cut and paste is fine.

Your NZ is a mostly political and social issues blog but not limited to that, and views from anywhere on the political spectrum are welcome. Some ground rules:

  • If possible support arguments, news, points or opinions with links to sources and facts.
  • Please don’t post anything illegal, potentially defamatory or abusive.

FIRST TIME COMMENTERS: Due to abuse by a few, first comments under any ID will park in moderation until released (as soon as possible but it can sometimes take a while).

Sometimes comments will go into moderation or spam automatically due to mistyped ID, too many links (>4), or trigger text or other at risk criteria.

Free speech is an important principle here but some people who might pose a risk to the site may be limited.

World view – Tuesday

Monday GMT

WorldWatch2

For posting on events, news, opinions and anything of interest from around the world.