UPDATE: CNN is now reporting that 51 people including seven children have died in the Oklahoma tornado earlier today.The link here has a cellphone video of the twister; it's truly frightening to see the power of a massive tornado in full flight. **********************
We heard reports this morning of a massive tornado in Oklahoma City. Whilst initial reports were suggesting that two people had died, and around 20 had been injured, the latest reports suggest that the toll will be far higher than that; ABC reports:The Oklahoma Medical Examiner's Office says 37 people have been killed by a tornado that hit suburban Oklahoma City on Monday afternoon. Spokeswoman Amy Elliott says the death toll is expected to rise. Elliott didn't know how many of those killed were children.
It looks as though an elementary school in Moore, Oklahoma City has taken a direct hit from a tornado that was more than half a mile wide in places. Some news reports are suggesting that this is on a par with the most severe tornado ever recorded, that which struck Oklahoma on 3 May 1999.Our thoughts and prayers are with all those who have been affected by the growing tragedy.
Sometimes, politicians make mistakes, and have to back down. Hekia Parata has done that today; The Press reports:
Salisbury School has won its year-long fight to stay open.
Education Minister Hekia Parata, who visited the school in Richmond this morning, has confirmed it will remain open.
A year ago the school learnt it could face closure at the end of last year, as the Ministry of Education came up with a new plan for special education involving an intensive wraparound service for students.
Salisbury then employed more than 70 staff and cared for 43 girls with complex needs from around the country.
The school took its fight to the High Court and in December Justice Robert Dobson decided the move to close Salisbury and place the girls in Halswell Residential College in Christchurch was unlawful and did not take into account the girls' safety.
Salisbury board of trustees chairwoman Helen McDonnell said the announcement was an acknowledgement of the integral part the school played in the special education sector.
The school found out about the visit late last week, but she had assumed the minister would be coming to deliver bad news.
Halswell would remain a single-sex school, with a provision to enrol up to five girls.
A single board for the residential school network would be established, and Salisbury would now have the opportunity to consult on the proposal, she said.
In a letter to Salisbury's board, Parata said: ''I am concerned to provide certainty and stability for the residential schools network, and accordingly, I want to confirm the statements I have made in Parliament and publicly, that Salisbury will remain open, and all three residential special schools will make up the network of provision.''
We know several families who have girls at Salisbury, or who have had girls attend there in the past. All of them have nothing but praise for the school and its staff.The High Court ruled the closure of Salisbury at the end of 2012 unlawful. Hekia Parata, having made the decision to close last year has taken that decision on board, along with submissions from the school's staff and community, and this time around she has made the right decision.
It is significant too that Ms Parata announced the decision in person at Salisbury School today. She and her Ministry have been widely criticised for the manner in which school closures have been communicated in the past. She has done the right thing by communicating the good news directly today.
Salisbury School should not have been threatened with closure, and Hekia Parata's back-down today in confirming that the school's future is secure is a worthy back-down.
TVNZ's Head of Maori and Pacific Programming and Q+A presenter Shane Taurima is seek Labour's nomination for the Ikaroa-Rawhiti by-election; the Herald reports:TVNZ's Shane Taurima has confirmed he will seek Labour's selection for the Ikaroa-Rawhiti by-election, saying the late Parekura Horomia had approached him about standing in the past and he was now ready to "return home.''
Mr Taurima, who is the head of Maori and Pacific Programming at TVNZ, will go up against at least two others to contest the seat for Labour including district councillor Henare O'Keefe and Ngati Kahungunu chief executive Meka Whaitiri. It is expected to select the candidate this weekend.
Mr Taurima, who is of Ngati Kahungunu and Rongomaiwahine descent with connections to Ngati Porou has been a journalist for 18 years, including as a presenter for TVNZ programmes Marae, Te Karere and political show Q+A.
Mr Taurima said Mr Horomia had urged him to stand for Parliament at least twice, before both the 2008 and 2011 elections.
"Given my career choice and the absolute need to be impartial, apolitical and professional, I would politely decline his approaches and he respected me for that.
It wasn't my time back then. I wasn't ready. But I am ready now.''
A spokeswoman for TVNZ said Mr Taurima had resigned from Q + A and was now on leave from his other broadcasting roles.
Born and raised near Napier, Mr Taurima said he had lived in the electorate most of his life - from Napier to Upper Hutt - before moving to Auckland four years ago.
"My grandparents sent me off to the big smoke to get experience, skills and knowledge. They said the time will come when you return home and put it to good use for the betterment of the people. That time has come.''
Whilst we have no doubt that Mr Taurima would be a good fit for Labour, especially if he previously had the support of the late Parekura Horomia, there's one slight problem; check these tweets out:We strongly dislike txt-speak, but to translate the top one, we believe that it says "Taurima said last week that he is not and has not been a member of the Labour Party". That could cause a delicate dilemma, because the New Zealand Labour Party's very own rules are explicit as to candidate selection; refer to #251 below:If what Shane Taurima told John Drinnan from the Herald last week is correct, Shane Taurima does not qualify to stand for the Ikaroa-Rawhiti nomination. The NZLP rules of course leave the party with an "out" in that the NZ Council can grant a waiver. We saw that in the Mana by-election in 2010 when Phil Goff's press secretary Kris Faafoi suddenly won the Labour nomination for the safe Labour seat ahead of the LEC's choice, Josie Pagani. The nett result of that decision was that Faafoi turned a 2008 majority of 6155 to a very close contest, only beating off Hekia Parata by 1406 votes, narrowly avoiding a real embarrassment for the party.We doubt that Labour's grip on Ikaroa-Rawhiti will be tested, as there will still be an immense amount of goodwill towards the late Parekura Horomia. But transporting in a candidate who does not have a strong local support base could cause Labour problems next year.But it begs the question; should political parties be able to drag someone in off the streets who has no previous background with the party? In this case it's the Labour Party, but it is not a problem which is limited to them; most parties in the current Parliament have engaged in it to some degree. And why have a rule like #251 at all, if it can be so easily circumvented?It also begs the question which we pose with tongue in cheek; when a journalist becomes a politician, is it an upward or a downward move in terms of their public perception?
The Herald's editorial this morning will not make pleasant reading for senior members of the Government. But that's not a bad thing; check this out:
On any number of counts, the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill represents a particularly sorry piece of law-making.
Both its content and the manner in which it made its way through Parliament warrant the strongest criticism. The bill, which allots $23 million annually to people who care for disabled adult family members, was passed under urgency, denying public input through select committee hearings. To add insult, official advice from the Health Ministry on the legislation was heavily censored, with whole sections of the 28-page document blacked out.
The legislation's contents see the Government again exercising its impulse to clear the decks when it comes across a situation that is out of the ordinary. In the process, constitutional niceties are dispensed with. The courts can be over-ridden and the checks and balances that should circumscribe Parliament are removed.
In this instance, the Government is responding to a Court of Appeal decision that its policy of not paying family carers to provide support services to disabled family members constituted unjustifiable discrimination on the basis of family status.
The legislation limits the liability of the Government. Payments of the minimum wage are limited to adults assessed as having high or very high needs. It is estimated that the cost would jump to $65 million a year if payments were extended to all carers and all disabled adults.
In the normal course of events, those rendered ineligible by the legislation would surely mount a legal challenge to see if the Government's policy complied with the verdict of the Court of Appeal. But under the legislation people can no longer bring unlawful discrimination complaints about the new law or any family care policy to the Human Rights Commission or take court proceedings. In the words of the Chief Human Rights Commissioner, David Rutherford, "This sends a chilling message to anyone seeing litigation as a road to solving issues relating to the protection of their economic and social rights."
Unsurprisingly, the Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson, found that the clause in the legislation which prevents carers from making a legal challenge breached the Bill of Rights Act because it limited the right to seek a judicial review. Not extending payments to all family carers could also be a breach of the Bill of Rights Act, he said. The Government, intent on limiting future claims, ploughed on regardless.
It's not a good look for the Government to be in conflict with its Attorney-General. Nor is it a good look for legislation to be rushed through under urgency, which should be used sparingly. Hurried legislation is seldom good legislation.John Key has defended the Government's position however; Stuff reports: Prime Minister John Key is defending new legislation that prevents people taking legal action against the Government, saying it is constitutional and necessary.
A bill legislating for the payment of family members looking after disabled adults was adopted by Parliament under urgency at the weekend.
It followed a Court of Appeal ruling against the Ministry of Health policy excluding family members from payment.
Critics say a clause in the bill preventing family members taking further legal action is unconstitutional.
Concerns have also been raised about the bill's regulatory impact statement, much of which is blacked out because it is "legally privileged".
Green Party MP Catherine Delahunty said Parliament had failed the families and the bill perpetuated existing discriminations.
But Mr Key believed the clause was legal, constitutional and necessary. It highlighted "a really challenging issue about where you draw the line between family responsibility and where the state should play a role".
It is good that the Government has addressed this issue, which has been festering for almost ten years. However the manner in which it has been addressed is far from ideal in our ever-humble opinion.Oppositions seldom get voted in. Changes in government are generally as a result of a voter backlash against the incumbent government. And an issue such as this can often be the catalyst for change.We hope that this is not the case for the John Key-led Government, but it is treading a knife-edge at the moment in terms of the 2014 General Election, and issues such as this ought be better managed. Perception is everything in politics, and governments which are perceived to be arrogant or out of touch eventually get a DCM from the voters. National has some redeeming to do.
The Warriors suffered their worst-ever NRL loss on Saturday night. What made it worse was that the 62-6 thrashing was delivered courtesy of the Penrith Panthers, coached by former Warriors coach Ivan Cleary. And as if to rub salt into the wound, two of Penrith's best players on the night were former Warriors; Lewis Brown and Isaac John.
Things have gone downhill fast at Mt Smart since Cleary's departure at the end of 2011. And Chris Rattue, never short of a word or two, wonders if it's time for heads to roll, or one head in particular; he opines:
Someone has to pay ... the Warriors' record 62-6 loss to the Panthers was the most embarrassing performance by a New Zealand sports team since our America's Cup boat almost sank. Once again, pass the bucket.
The humiliating loss is even worse considering Penrith aren't NRL heavyweights - they were wooden spoon favourites until a week ago. Man-for-man, the Warriors are superior.
As with Brian McClennan's team, players are giving up, a cardinal sin. Coach Matt Elliott has to take some blame for that because his publicly revealed search for new players has surely undermined the current ones.
He was never the right bloke. Elliott has a substandard NRL record, particularly in finals football. His two moderate wins in 10 games this season fits the trend. Under pressure, the Aussie will look for players overseas and wreck the junior development system.
If Elliott stays, juniors coach John Ackland will quit. Ackland's contacts and scouting ability make him more valuable than a failing first grade coach. The potential damage here could be catastrophic. When Ackland leaves, the problems will be compounded because he can work for rival NRL club(s) to tap New Zealand's best junior talent.
Elliott tried to blind us with BS, unfairly blaming match officials for previous results. Hey, Matt - we may be a league outpost but we ain't that stupid.
The team still does the Brian McClennan late fade, although not against the Panthers when they managed an 80-minute fade.
Rising stars Shaun Johnson and Konrad Hurrell are having their confidence wrecked. The players are culpable, absolutely, but the coach has to take some responsibility.
As eventuated in McClennan's reign, Elliott can't get the best out of Feleti Mateo who should be a fulcrum for attack, a-la how Ivan Cleary had him playing.
The owners must appease the masses, which won't be masses right now.
Last but by no means least ... instinct says Elliott isn't the man to lead this disaster of a club into the promised land. Hanging on to him will only prolong the agony.
Rattue makes some good points here. The loss to the Bulldogs last weekend was a flashback to the worst days of 2012 when leads were squandered week after week as the team nose-dived. And the week before that, the Warriors almost threw away an 18-point lead over the Gold Coast at Mt Smart, with only a Shaun Johnson field goal saving face and giving the side only its second win of the season.And the John Ackland situation is hugely important, as Rattue notes. Ackland has led the Warriors juniors to two NRL titles, and has proved hugely adept at identifying and developing young talent. His departure from the club would be a crushing blow and everything possible must be done to keep him there.Much as Rattue thinks that Matt Elliott should walk the plank, he doesn't believe that the coach will, and outlines why: Elliott comes across as someone who can talk his way in and out of most things. The owners - Owen Glenn and Eric Watson - haven't got much of a league clue and chief executive Wayne Scurrah is impotent compared to the hard-bitten, league-savvy bosses of old.
The owners talked up their club under Elliott. Melbourne's Craig Bellamy was their top target, and I understand Cronulla's Shane Flanagan was another approached. Having failed there, and perhaps elsewhere, they publicly enthused over Elliott so their ego now comes into play.
Elliott, in his first Warriors season, and can rightly claim his new broom has yet to take effect. If he survives, expect a fair few comings and goings.
He's inherited lemon signings - Todd Lowrie, the injury-hit Dane Nielsen and Thomas Leuluai are failing to make significant marks for one reason or another.
The union and league codes are not nearly as ruthless as soccer in ditching managers. What's the best approach? There's no way to truly quantify this, but union and league are overly forgiving and patient at times.
Ummmm, errrrr, struggling for more reasons. There certainly aren't any from the football field to use.
The "new broom" defence would seem to be Elliott's main defence. Comments that we have heard suggest that he is struggling to get players to adapt to his coaching and man-management style. But that excuse will only wash for so long, and the manner of the Warriors' defeat on Saturday night may well be the tipping point.
Rattue concludes:
Sack Elliott now and brave the main consequence, the growing image of a very unstable club. Elliott's team crossed a line against Penrith and there will be no way back. Control of the club must be wrenched from him before the long-term damage becomes terminal. The outlook already looks bleak enough, especially if Glenn and Watson start to nervously finger their wallets when the crowds don't turn up at Mt Smart.
Rattue is dead right here. All but the blindly loyal Warriors fans will vote with their feet and their wallets, especially if the Auckland weather is dodgy for the next few home games. Owen Glenn and Eric Watson know the reality of business; cashflow is king. When the turnstiles at Mt Smart stop turning and gate receipts start dropping away, they as owners of the club will be demanding change. They need only look at Manchester City, who sacked manager Roberto Mancini for guiding his team to runner-up in the Premiership, and losing FA Cup finalist. Maybe it's time for such decisive action from the Warriors' boardroom.
Mark "Junior" Waugh has ripped in to Australian cricketer David Warner and some of his mates; Stuff reports:
Commentator and former Test star Mark Waugh says opener David Warner is over-sensitive and immature, and some Australian international cricketers need to pull their heads in.
Waugh, reacting to the furore over Warner's abusive texts about News Limited journalists at the weekend, said it was not a “major incident”, but Warner needeed to change his ways.
“I mean it's not a good look for David Warner, I think it's the second or third time he's sort of tweeted out some words which haven't been that smart,” Waugh told SEN radio.
“He's got to learn from this. Its not the ideal situation you want to see from supposedly one of your senior players or one of the most important players in your squad.
"He's probably got to get a thicker skin really... As a player you're not going to get people telling you how great you are every day of the week.
‘‘There's times you've got to cop the good with the bad and I think he's had problems doing that so far in his career."
Cricket Australia spokesman Philip Pope said an independent commissioner, to be appointed today, would deal with Warner's tirade, a breach of rule six of Cricket Australia's code of behaviour dealing with conduct unbecoming. He expects a ruling later in the week. Sanctions, including fines, were at the discretion of the commissioner.
In the meantime, we were sent this yesterday by a social media friend:David Warner has been a bit short of runs in recent weeks. Maybe a bit more time in the nets and a bit less time on Twitter will see him rediscover his form before the back to back Ashes series; if the selectors or Cricket Australia want him, of course.
TVNZ had a story last night on the Greens' latest petition. The story included this snippet:
Kiwi rowing champ Rob Hamill spoke at the campaign launch this afternoon, and compared the issue to New Zealand saying no to nuclear power.
"I think it's time New Zealanders had a voice in the issue, because it's such a big issue for this country," he said.
Interestingly, TVNZ didn't think it was of any significance to mention a certain fact about Rob Hamill. Fortunately, the NZ Herald did:Olympic rower Rob Hamill and young champion surfer Mischa Davis have thrown their support behind a new campaign to protect what they say is a major threat to New Zealand beaches.
The duo joined forces today for the launch of the Green Party's bid to stop deep-sea drilling in New Zealand waters.
Mr Hamill, also a former Green Party candidate, said the Government could not be trusted to ensure risks were mitigated for exploratory drilling planned for the west coast of the North Island and the east coast of the South Island.
Now we don't know whether the Greens simply forgot to mention in their media releases that Rob Hamill was on their 2008 party list (although they certainly weren't publicity-shy in 2008!), or whether someone in the TVNZ newsroom thought that it was something insignificant, which didn't matter. We don't have a problem with people with a public profile for other reasons becoming involved with political campaigns. But let's make sure that any links are made known, and that the person in question, in this case Rob Hamill, isn't presented as some kind of neutral when they clearly aren't.
