Quotes of the week

The Government we have today campaigned on delivering tax cuts to the people. They said that if they were elected, they would increase after-tax pay for the squeezed middle by shifting income tax brackets.

And they won. So deliver they must.One thing this country would do well to have is a return to old-school political values. Values that see a newly elected government doing everything possible, despite the odds against it, to honour the promises it made to the electorate.

Delivery against those promises, alongside our overall wellbeing, should be the standard by which a government is judged. –  Bruce Cotterill

Restoring faith in government means that a government keeps the promises on which it was elected. It means a government that prioritises work on the things that matter most to the majority of the electorate. Those things in all likelihood are education, health, crime, transport, and equality of treatment under the law. – Bruce Cotterill

We need a government that delivers on the above while watching the cost base and ensuring that every dollar of taxpayer money spent is spent well.

The last Government prioritised reckless but headline-grabbing promises in terms of housing, poverty, crime and health. They then filled government offices with thousands of additional bureaucrats to give the impression that they were doing something. They increased taxes and borrowed millions to pay for it all. And they ultimately achieved very little.

Most of us would want the opposite.

So now we have a government with a well-publicised and transparent list of things to do, a list that is shared with the public, updated quarterly, and with items that are ticked off in a public manner along the way. They’re seeking to reduce the number of people working in government departments to get the country’s cost base down. And, they’re trying to keep their promise to reduce taxes. – Bruce Cotterill

At a time when both the media and our politicians have major issues of trust, both groups need to double down on recovering the confidence of the people. The best way to do that is for government to be transparent, to honour their promises, and for media to report their activities with accuracy and openness and without distortion. – Bruce Cotterill

We can argue that tax cuts are a stimulus, making it more difficult in an economy that’s fighting inflation. And we can argue that tax cuts rob money from worthwhile government initiatives. Both are good arguments. But we have to remember that the Government was voted in with a series of policies that included the changes to our taxes.

It’s what they promised to do. – Bruce Cotterill

Government is meant to be about the people who comprise a community rather than the politicians themselves. Tax cuts are for the people. In this case, those people will primarily be low- to middle-income earners, the people who work hard all day for modest returns. As “tax bracket creep” has evolved, these people have seen their modest pay increases subjected to increasing levels of taxation for years. These people are the Government’s “core business” and they need and deserve some relief.

Taxation should be about collecting the minimum amount of money from all taxpayers, in a manner that is fair and equitable, in order to enable the delivery of essential and desirable services, firstly for our people to prosper, and secondly, so that we play an appropriate role in the international community.

It may surprise many to learn that the Government is not in business for the various interest groups with an agenda to run or a cause to champion. More and more is being asked of our government. There are already too many things that government does that they shouldn’t. – Bruce Cotterill

Indeed, the quickest way for our Government to get back on top of matters financial is to get out of the things we shouldn’t be doing. We have government bureaucracies that get bigger and bigger every year. In this writer’s opinion, the cost of that bureaucracy is the single biggest issue facing the New Zealand economy. – Bruce Cotterill

The quest for efficiency across government will need to be a multi-term focus if we are to get our cost base back to something that is sustainable. – Bruce Cotterill

Good government is not about building bureaucracies that get bigger and more expensive every year. It is about getting outcomes for the society that government is intended to serve. Big bureaucracies fall into habits of doing business with each other. That is not how outcomes are generated. We need a better, simpler and less costly way.

Thankfully, it feels like we have a government that is focused on finding that better way. I get the impression that Luxon and Willis, despite the odds that are against them, are trying desperately hard to deliver on their promises while making government more efficient. – Bruce Cotterill

However, if we are to recover a level of trust in our parliamentary system, and the politicians who occupy the House on our behalf, those politicians must act in the interests of the people who put them there.

And that means that they must, without exception, deliver on the promises they make. – Bruce Cotterill

Ironically, the media they wanted is, in many ways, the media they got. In place of the tyrannical editors of yesteryear, advancing without fear or favour the interests of the ruling class; the New Zealand news media of today boasts a troop of enlightened journalists dedicated to expanding social justice. The challenge now, for these wise members of the academy, is to explain why the media they wanted is not what so many of its readers, listeners and viewers wanted. – Chris Trotter

All the “summits” in the world will avail their organisers nothing, if all they are willing to listen to are their own fears. – Chris Trotter

I found the term “at risk” in this connection both odd and significant. By “at risk of becoming” was meant, presumably, statistically more likely to become. It is a term taken from medical parlance: for example, doctors speak of obese people (or increasingly of “people with obesity” or even of “people living with obesity”) being at risk of becoming diabetic, or of people with high blood pressure being at risk of having a stroke or heart attack.

Criminality, and ultimately all human conduct whatsoever, is here conflated with disease, and thereby becomes a disease in itself. For example, I am at high risk of going into a bookshop and buying a book. I can no more help it than can a person with a family history of, say, gout, help having a higher-than-average chance of developing gout. Statistical chances rule the world, including the human world; besides which, for me at my age to buy more books is irrational, the sign both of a compulsion and an obsession—which, as everyone knows, are diseases. The only way that these diseases can be cured is for the government to give me so many books that I will no longer feel the compulsion to buy. –  Theodore Dalrymple 

Leniency is compassionate, severity cruel: such at any rate is the presumption of the intellectual middle classes, who, perhaps feeling guilty at their own good fortune, often inherited, by comparison with the classes from which criminals are usually drawn, find in making excuses for the latter, and in proposing lenient treatment of them, a way of demonstrating their generosity of spirit. I have rarely met such a person who has taken full cognisance of the fact that most of the victims of crime, as well as the perpetrators of it, are poor—relatively, that is. Most criminals are not great travellers: they rob, burgle and assault those around them, and since in the right circumstances they will readily admit that they have committed far more crimes than they have ever been accused of (borne out by, or compatible with, the fact that the police solve only a small proportion of crimes recorded by them), it follows that leniency is not necessarily compassionate, at least not if compassion is to be measured in part by its practical results and is not simply a warm, fuzzy feeling of self-congratulation at not being ungenerously punitive. – Theodore Dalrymple 

Welcome to another war of words between the greenies and the government over changes to the Resource Management Act.

With the poor old farmers stuck in the middle, just wanting the chance to be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to protecting the environment. And that’s what I think we should be doing.

You know how people have this concept of Mother Nature and how it’s all peace and love and milk and honey and bees buzzing and gentle rivers and all of that? It’s amazing, isn’t it, how quickly all that goes out the window if the milk and honey brigade don’t like something?   – John MacDonald

But, unlike climate activists and politicians, I’m willing to accept that things aren’t black and white. Which is why I think it’s time we just trusted farmers to do the right thing and let them get on with it.  – John MacDonald

Firstly, I’ve got friends who are farmers and every time I go and see them, I can see that they just want to do the right thing. But, instead, they’ve had governments and government departments behaving like helicopter parents and watching their every move just in case they do something wrong. And that’s nuts.

And secondly, show me a farmer who wants to poo in their own nest.

They don’t. And this is where the greenies lose it. Because if they think farmers want to destroy the natural environment on their properties for short-term financial gain, then they know nothing about how it all works.

Farms are businesses, yes. But they’re also assets. And why would anyone want to do anything to damage their asset? They wouldn’t.

And that’s why I think that, instead of pulling farmers to bits, we should be trusting them to do the right thing.   – John MacDonald

And if you think the Resource Management Act is how you sort out muppets, then you might want to think again. So, we can’t do anything about the muppets.  

What we can do, though, is say to the farmers who aren’t muppets, that we trust them to do the right thing – and leave them to it.  – John MacDonald

What’s happened today will shock a lot of people, because over the last few years we’ve got used to Prime Minsters just putting up with their ministers doing a bad job or behaving badly in public.

It took forever for Hipkins or Ardern to demote the under-performers, and they suffered for it – public opinion of them was tainted.

That is clearly not how Chris Luxon operates, and it’s a good thing.

Because who doesn’t want performance from the people that we pay to run the country? – Heather du Plessis-Allan

If the state does not spend more than it collects and does not issue (money), there is no inflation. This is not magic. – Javier Milei 

Surely we didn’t miss the irony on climate change?

On the day it’s announced we have reduced our emissions now for three years in a row, so good on us, the very next day Transpower, the people who get the electricity into your lounge, tell us yet again that this Winter has issues and peak load and demand might be problematic.  – Mike Hosking

Here is a simple rule of thumb; to not have enough power in 2024 is simply not good enough and it should be seen as an abdication of responsibility. 

The reason we don’t have enough is quite openly admitted. It’s because the renewables are not voluminous enough and not reliable enough to cover the growing demand. 

The transition hasn’t transitioned to the point where we can largely leave fossils behind. 

So, here’s the line for me. Save the planet all you want, even if it is futile given China and India aren’t as interested. But don’t get so hell bent about it that the heater isn’t on in July when its -3 degrees. That’s not a first world country and it’s not a first world approach.  – Mike Hosking

If we don’t have enough power now, how do we power EV’s? How do we power generative AI, the so-called future? It’s a future that requires 10x more power than a Google search.

Talk about cart before the horse.

When we still struggle Winter in, Winter out to do the basics we have allowed ideology to hijack reality.

That is not the future, of the future.  – Mike Hosking

My view is that the State should have nothing to do with broadcasting. The recent optics surrounding the Public Interest Journalism Fund which has given rise to the perception – I emphasise perception – that media were promoting Government messaging has done enormous damage to the media as an institution. It is best that the State cuts its ties with broadcasting in the interests of broadcasters and indeed its own interests. – David Harvey

I would put it like this: while increased wealth above a certain level is not guaranteed to increase happiness, or what is now routinely called human flourishing, attempts to limit wealth to that level are almost guaranteed to result in increased human unhappiness. –  Theodore Dalrymple

I take it that this implies that equality of opportunity is, or would be, a desirable goal: but on the contrary, it seems to me to be a terrible one, among the most terrible that could well be imagined. This is despite the fact that almost no one has a word to say against it. Equality of opportunity is as morally untouchable as grandmothers or kindness to animals. – Theodore Dalrymple

The formal equality of opportunity that we already have is the only form of it that is not inherently tyrannical. Nor is it real, actual equality of opportunity, since the life chances of people born in different circumstances are very different. This fact is not at all an argument against it, however, when one considers what real, actual equality of opportunity would entail.

In the first place, the complete absence of opportunity, provided it were evenly spread, would satisfy the demand for equality of opportunity. Perhaps it could never be entirely equal (someone would have to suppress all that opportunity, after all), but there is little doubt that, by comparison with our present situation, overall equality of opportunity would be increased by the maximal suppression of opportunity.

It is hardly to be supposed that anyone, except an aspiring totalitarian dictator, would want such a thing.  – Theodore Dalrymple

But how does inequality of opportunity arise? The first and most obvious cause is in genetic endowment. Differing genetic endowment is unfair, but not unjust. For example, I should like to have been born more handsome than I was, but there is no one I can blame for this unfortunate fact, and nothing that I can do about it. What goes for looks goes for other attributes too numerous to mention.

There is no way this genetic unfairness can be abolished, except by universal cloning to ensure that all start with the same genetic endowment. From the point of equality of opportunity, it does not matter whether that endowment is good or bad, for everyone would be in the same genetic boat. – Theodore Dalrymple

It is certainly not fair that some people are born into nurturing environments and others into the very opposite. Moreover, it is possible that if environments could be to some degree equalised, marginal differences would become more important. The only way to avoid the unfairness caused by environmental differences is to make the environment in which children are raised (now clones, of course) absolutely identical in all respects, the equivalent of a battery farm. Only thus can the famous level playing field be achieved. Such an upbringing, of course, would make North Korea seem like a school for individuality. – Theodore Dalrymple

On the other hand, it ought to be possible to provide every child with opportunity, though not equal opportunity, for example by instituting good schools that nurture talent and build character. How this is best done is a matter of trial and error, and of experience. No system will ever be so perfect that “no child will be left behind,” to use the cant phrase. But while trying to provide opportunity for every child suggests practical solutions, aiming for something impossible like equality of opportunity supplies an excellent alibi for failure to do whatever is truly possible to give every child opportunity: for what is mere opportunity as a goal when compared to equality of opportunity? Have we no ambition? – Theodore Dalrymple

I have since been crystal clear about my concerns that women are being erased in this debate, and have always been clear that women do not have, nor have ever had, a penis. – Gillian Keegan

For several years, trans activist lobby groups pushed the use of phrases such as ‘trans women are women’ as a tactic to silence debate and fair questions about how gender self-identification clashes with women’s rights.

“Many didn’t recognise the dangers of these slogans early on, including politicians who doubtless thought they were simply supporting a good cause. It takes guts to publicly change your mind. Women’s rights and the safeguarding of children are serious issues that need to be addressed with clear and accurate language. – Maya Forstater

They say that because they believe women to be less than men. A woman is "reduced" to her biology if you recognize than women are female humans, but womanhood is somehow "elevated" when men claim it for themselves. It becomes "more" because they take it away from women.

— 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐔𝐬 (@therestofus5) April 25, 2024

Dawn begins each day. Sunrise speaks to the promise of a better day. From a long-ago battlefield to this morning’s promise, we must leave this ground dedicated to making our worlds better. Then the men buried here will not have died in vain.

Yet we live in a troubled world, the worst in memory.

We have emerged from a global pandemic a more divided world. Regional instabilities and the chaos they create threaten the security of too many.

So we must all do more. Demand more. And deliver more.  – Winston Peters

You will create your own memories and draw your own lessons from being here. But we must all come together, as people and as nations, to do more to honour those who paid with their lives. 

We must protect and care for our young. We must reject and resist those who seek to conquer and control. We must always seek the path of peace. 

Then, and only then, will the men buried here not have died in vain.  –  Winston Peters

Next ANZAC day I’d like to see the news cameras get out of the cities, and come experience an ANZAC service in Dargaville, or Taihape, or Lumsden. Because regardless of nonsense in Wellington, in rural New Zealand We Will Remember Them. – Mark Cameron

Divisiveness seems to be the new aim of the game. Race, political beliefs and religion are all motivators in separating our people. People are more concerned with being correct and proving a point… This is where we can learn more from our ancestors –

They stood as brothers to fight for us. They could see the purpose greater than themselves and put aside their petty arbitrary differences. It makes me wonder what could be accomplished if we could do the same? – Jared Lasike 

We don’t address racism by pretending white people can be black, nor is ableism solved by giving able-bodied people wheelchairs, so why are women and girls supposed to applaud their male imitators, centre them in language and hand over rights their foremothers fought for? 3/X

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) April 26, 2024

We stand up that weak arguments have their say so they can be shown to be weak arguments, and strong arguments have their say so they can be shown to be strong arguments. It’s a dangerous view that free speech needs to be held back from hurting minorities. The first thing free speech does is protect the minorities.

If we’re going to live in this idea that everyone gets to have a say, that in a democracy everyone gets to participate in society equally, then we’re going to have to accept that if you disagree with someone or you consider their perspective offensive, or harmful, or belligerent, they still get a say. We have to have confidence in the fact that society as a whole can discern error from truth. –  Jonathan Ayling

If students are not resilient enough or mature enough to be able to deal in ideas – even those that they find uncomfortable – then maybe they shouldn’t be at university. – Jonathan Ayling

"Paradoxically, the mere framing of this event has surfaced a depth of feeling and a polarisation of views on how we should proceed, that has made it challenging to even schedule a conversation about how to have challenging conversations." – Vice Chancellor Nic Smith

If we have…

— 🗣 Free Speech Union ✊ (@NZFreeSpeech) April 26, 2024

No man can become a woman. We need as a progressive society to be better at allowing individuals to be socially (because it’s society that’s dictating what is traditionally male/female characteristics) to be as masculine or feminine as they like. Again humans don’t change sex. – Sharron Davies

 

Quotes of the week

The Cabinet Manual means a minister cannot comment on the court sentencing of a man for a blatant assault – no matter how ridiculous and out of touch the sentencing is.

— Winston Peters (@winstonpeters) March 4, 2024

Gender-neutral facilities are a threat to the safety of women and girls because they create a private space hidden from the public view where assaults cannot be witnessed.

Whilst, of course, the vast majority of males do not mean females any harm, the few who do will inevitably seek to take advantage of the opportunity that gender-neutral facilities present to commit offences. – Miriam Cates

 I often look at what people buy and am appalled. It is almost as if they trusted nothing that had not been processed in a hundred factories and added to by a thousand chemicals. What they eat is natural only in the sense that everything that exists is natural. The products they choose may be given names suggestive of pastures, meadows, flowers, mountain ranges, and so forth, but the list of contents in microscopic letters on the back reads like an advanced textbook of chemistry, organic and inorganic. But at least all the purchasers have to do to prepare the stuff is to heat it up, which is about as far as their culinary skills extend. – Theodore Dalrymple

The very idea of a shopping list, incidentally, is now distinctly old-fashioned, implying as it does some kind of self-discipline rather than action on impulse, so that one might presume that the people who make—but also discard, whether deliberately or accidentally—shopping lists are of above average self-control. Most people seem to shop, at least in supermarkets, as if they were wandering about until inspiration emanating from the shelves struck them. Few are those who enter with a fixed purpose, adhere to it, and leave once they have bought what they set out to buy. – Theodore Dalrymple

As the fertility rate declines, so the number of dogs increases; and I have to admit that, these days, I myself find relations with dogs rather easier than those with humans, of almost any age. My impression is that people have become more difficult of late years, more complex in an uninteresting way, possibly because of the habit, not of reflecting on themselves, but of thinking and talking about themselves. Possibly my difficulty is part of the aging process, which in this case is mine; but never, so it seems, have so many people been so incompetent in the art of living, notwithstanding all the advantages they have enjoyed in their lives. – Theodore Dalrymple

The woke aren’t for unconditional diversity, equality and inclusion.

They are for a certain kind of diversity, a certain kind of equality and a certain kind of inclusion – just like everyone else!

— Alice Smith (@TheAliceSmith) March 4, 2024

It is the vandals, not Captain Cook, who are blind. Their defacement of his statue is an emotionally immature and ill-educated act of copycat vandalism, probably influenced by the recent uprooting of his Melbourne statue. Smashing Cook’s face helps no one’s understanding of history and does nothing to allay the suffering of indigenous peoples as a consequence of the arrival of Europeans. His complex and controversial legacy in Aotearoa [New Zealand] is best addressed by having an explanatory caption beside the statue, complemented by smartphone accessible QR codes, providing a range of interpretations. Indigenous responses would be central to this. We should not forget that Cook is an art historically notable work by Christchurch’s own William Trethewey (1892–1956), who sculpted statuary honouring Kupe and fellow voyagers gracing Wellington’s waterfront, as well as a memorial statue of Sir Maui Pomare at Waitara, hardly the landmarks of racist colonialism. Cook must be repaired, retained and explained, otherwise our heritage is trash. – Mark Stocker 

Complaints against the younger generation are as old as civilization itself, but that doesn’t mean that they are always unjustified. And it seems to me that the younger generation of today is less attached to the notion of freedom of opinion than any of recent times. – Theodore Dalrymple

In the second place, it isn’t the function of the law to prevent anyone from feeling stigmatized, for this would be to prohibit a vast range of opinions and leave permissible speech at the mercy of all those sensitive souls who feel stigmatized by any criticism or opinion whatsoever. A society in which nothing and nobody were stigmatized would be unliveable, morally completely anarchic. – Theodore Dalrymple

Like all dictators, the 18,000 signatories believe that you can have any opinion you like so long as it is theirs.

In other words, this is a generation with dictatorship in its soul. The members of this generation, or many of them, think it will be their dictatorship (incidentally, I do not know what percentage of the signatories were women), but of course, dictatorships do not long remain faithful to the opinions of what used to be called the masses. They soon become the dictatorships of a few or even of only one. Those who censor others soon end up being censored.

It is not sufficient, however, to lament the state of the younger generation, tempting as it is to do so. History is a seamless robe, and the younger generation is, after all, largely the product of the older. Has the older generation, then, no responsibility for the situation? And if the older generation bears some responsibility, what about the yet older generation, that in turn formed it?

It would be fruitless to trace everything back to the Garden of Eden. What can be said, I think, is that we have failed to transmit the value of freedom of opinion to the young, perhaps because we have felt too secure ourselves in its exercise and have therefore come to take it for granted. But such freedom is not the natural condition of mankind; in fact, it is very rare. We are busily interring it.  – Theodore Dalrymple

No, the greatness Trump seeks to restore is the greatness of White America. The America that looks right through Native Americans, African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and all the other vibrant elements of the great American melting-pot – as if they don’t exist. The greatness of Christian America which, in spite of invoking “Jesus!” at every turn, conducts itself as though the New Testament does not exist. Trump’s people are seeking the greatness they passionately believe can be theirs only by putting “America First!” – and the rest of the world dead last. – Chris Trotter 

Even without the United States, Europe constitutes an unanswerable challenge to Russia’s imperial dreams. Half-a-billion strong, possessed of a technological and industrial prowess that far exceeds the Russian Federation’s, the nations of Europe have the capacity to become, in very short order, a truly formidable military power. Two of its nations (the UK and France) already possess nuclear weapons, Germany could easily become Europe’s third.

Are these, the unintended consequences of his geopolitical hubris, truly the outcomes Putin was anticipating when, on 24 February 2022, his armies shattered the hard-won peace of Europe? An enlarged Nato, Germany furiously re-arming, and the Poles dreaming of once again rescuing Europe from eastern invaders, just as John III Sobieski did outside the gates of Vienna in 1683.

The West is not beaten yet. – Chris Trotter 

 As every single major political party has taught us while in opposition, you can only get elected or have any hope of convincing people you’re worthy of their votes, if your caucus is unified.

While Labour MPs – actually in the parliament – are holding it together by a thread, it’s former MPs who are starting to create fissures in the facade of unity and raise the spectre of another long stint in the wilderness of opposition for the left. –  Tova O’Brien

More bad polls for Chris Hipkins and Labour could very well see the scrap boiling over from former MPs to current ones and what usually follows then, are questions over leadership.

That’s when the opposition death spiral truly begins. – Tova O’Brien

The files aren’t easy to read, but I urge you to do so. We believe the files show that what is called ‘gender medicine’ is neither science nor medicine. The experiments are not randomized, double-blind or controlled. It’s not medicine since the first goal is to do no harm. And that requires first and foremost, informed consent.  – Michael Shellenberger

If people want to have arguments about the merits of the school lunch programme or the Government’s boot camps for prisoners, there’s lots of arguments they can make if they’d like to without getting into these kinds of personal attacks. Once you start doing that you’re actually promoting division and extremism. – David Seymour

If she wants to get into a rational debate about what to do with youth offenders, for example, we are very happy to have that debate. That level of name-calling is not actually advancing the debate. It is actually advancing a more divided society which is, ironically, the opposite of what she’s supposed to be about. – David Seymour

She offers a choice between having a coffee with her or not being brave. Here’s another option, I just don’t want to have a coffee with her because she sounds dull and unpleasant. – David Seymour

Beneath the benign-sounding talk about fighting racism, the jargon about ‘deconstructing whiteness’ makes it clear what the purpose of these roles really is – namely, to force lay members and clergy alike to get on board with the Church of England’s wholesale adoption of critical race theory (CRT). – Alka Sehgal Cuthbert

It cannot be stressed enough that none of this has anything to do with addressing racism where it actually still exists in our society. Of course, there are plenty of well-intentioned Christians who support such measures because they feel passionate about addressing injustice. The talk of ‘anti-racism’ has led them to believe that this is a continuation of the Christian social-justice tradition – in the mould of the civil-rights activism of, say, Archbishop Desmond Tutu. But in Britain in 2024, racism is no longer a significant force in society. Arguably, it is those who preach about ‘white privilege’ and ‘deconstructing whiteness’ who are doing the most to keep racial divisions alive. CRT dogma encourages people to see race everywhere and to obsess over racial differences.  

Perhaps the bishops believe that piggybacking off secular, identitarian movements like BLM will help make the church seem more relevant and get people back into pews. In truth, all it will do is drive congregations further away from the church – and, more importantly, further apart from each other. Ideas of racial difference should be absolutely anathema to any organisation in a modern democracy – let alone to an institution that supposedly believes in universal equality before God. The church’s identitarian turn should alarm us all. – Alka Sehgal Cuthbert

By protecting people from the consequences of their own foolish actions NZ has only created more ‘need’. In other words, the ‘undeserving’ have been rewarded.

This is a direct offshoot from the philosophy of ‘non-judgementalism’ which is absolutely rife through the social services and charity sectors, and even health and education. It is formally taught. Every needy individual is a ‘victim’ of circumstances, never their own poor decision-making. – Lindsay Mitchell

The welfare system is now the lifeblood of criminals. People who trash other people’s property, who threaten and abuse neighbours, who keep aggressive dogs as status symbols, who have not a skerrick of regard for others, turn up at WINZ demanding to be placed in emergency housing. And they are. – Lindsay Mitchell

Between the passage of the Social Security Act in 1938 and the early 1970s the percentage of working-age people on a benefit never exceeded two. Today it stands at almost twelve, with the time people stay dependent growing every year. – Lindsay Mitchell

As a society we have created this level of reliance by believing and acting on a bad idea. That we must not judge others. We must not mention their faults and shortcomings. We must bend over backwards to not blame the person responsible for their own troubles. That’s the ‘kindness and compassion’ we are taught to aspire to.

Until Louise Upston said something quite contrary but actually utterly sensible.

In assessing applicants for emergency housing case managers must take into account whether they have “unreasonably contributed” to their need. – Lindsay Mitchell

It’s the individual who should experience the consequences of their own unwise actions – not everybody else.

So let’s support Upston and encourage her to take this new approach further. I would vouch that the majority of New Zealanders want to help people who, through no fault of their own, need a benefit and public housing. But that willingness does not extend to people who chronically cause their own misfortune. – Lindsay Mitchell

Pronoun policing, the noisy punishment of so-called ‘misgendering’, is not about creating a fairer, nicer society. It’s about reprimanding dissent. It’s about shaming those – especially women – who fail or flat-out refuse to genuflect to the new ruling-class ideology of gender identity. It’s an instruction, a warning, from on high: ‘Embrace our ideology and speak our language or we will destroy you.’ The war on ‘misgendering’, which is a war on truth, is woke’s most tyrannical manifestation. – Brendan O’Neill

The trans ideologue’s reduction of womanhood to a consumer product, a thing that can be purchased and put on like an old rag, a ‘designer’ product, like a bag or a shoe – yeah, I’d call that misogynistic, narcissistic and shallow. – Brendan O’Neill

Yes, it’s controversial now to say a man is not a woman. To give voice to biological reality. To recognise the existence of sex. It is a testament to the swirling authoritarianism of our times that virtually overnight it has been made a damnable offence to express a truth humankind knew for tens of thousands of years: that there are men and women and they are not the same. – Brendan O’Neill

That very word – ‘misgendering’ – is undiluted doublespeak. It is not ‘misgendering’ to refer to a man as a man – it is gendering, the accurate and truthful description of a person’s sex. The rebranding of correct gendering as ‘misgendering’ is a sinister and slippery assault on truth-telling itself. It makes the truth a crime and it makes the lie received wisdom. It makes social pariahs of those who speak the truth and social saints of those who indulge in falsehoods. In this case, the falsehood that someone born male and who went through male puberty and who even fathered a child – something only us fellas can do – is literally a woman and anyone who says otherwise is scum.

When the neo-witchfinders scream ‘Misgenderer!’ at women, really they are demanding that those women recant their scientific heresies and submit to the post-truth delirium of the transgender ideology. It is an attempted forced conversion to a new religion. The religion of ‘gendered souls’, which posits that a person’s mysterious inner gender sometimes runs counter to their pesky biological casing. – Brendan O’Neill

In refusing their pressure to convert, in preferring the lonely road of truth to the fleeting solace of succumbing to the dogmatic mob, Rowling didn’t only stand up for women’s rights and freedom of conscience – she struck a blow for truth itself. Seekers after truth were once damned as ‘heretics’, now they’re labelled ‘misgenderers’, but many clearly still recognise that the hard life of adhering to reason is more fulfilling than the easy life of yielding to theocracy. – Brendan O’Neill

If ‘misgendering’ is criminalised, then truth itself is criminalised. Our right to describe what is in front of our eyes – the most fundamental right in a free society – would evaporate. – Brendan O’Neill

The sacrifice of free speech, open debate and public life itself to the feelings of a handful of men is insane. As Rowling said, ‘I know a lot of you think the UN should intervene whenever women bruise your egos, but there is no human right to universal validation’. – Brendan O’Neill

The truth is that it’s not the people, nor the nature of their government, nor even the fact that they are suffering, that engages the Western progressive, it’s the identity of the nation, or nations, inflicting the suffering. If the nation inflicting pain and suffering on the Palestinians was an Arab nation, a Muslim nation, would hundreds-of-thousands of Westerners be marching in protest? After all, while tens-of-thousands of Gazans are dying at the hands of the IDF, similar numbers of Sudanese are being shot and starved by their fellow Sudanese. Who is chanting and waving flags for them?

Not many, if any. Because it isn’t death and suffering that Western progressives are concerned about, it’s who to blame. If it isn’t being inflicted by human beings like themselves, upon human beings emphatically unlike themselves, then, really, they’re not that interested.

Where is the international movement against the oppression of women in Afghanistan to equal the international movement that grew up to fight the oppression of Blacks in South Africa? There is no such movement. Why, because those responsible for oppressing Afghan women are defiantly misogynistic, murderously homophobic, fanatical Islamists. If only they were Americans or Europeans! Then it would be a very different story!

Can it really be that simple? Is it simply a matter of the Western Left’s overwhelming self-loathing? Having failed to change their own societies – doubtless because “their” workers were too fat and happy to bother, or, more likely, too culturally conservative to see revolution as anything other than a mortal danger to all but the most unpleasant kinds of human being – did the Western Left simply decide to stop cheering for the genocidal cowboys, and start rooting for the indigenous Americans?

Or, in George Galloway’s case – the Palestinians.   –  Chris Trotter

You may not care about the culture war but the culture war cares about you.

It's teaching your children lies about history, biology and their potential.

It is sowing racial division. It is undermining the things that made your society great.

You can't sit this one out. Sorry.

— Konstantin Kisin (@KonstantinKisin) March 8, 2024

The politicisation of our response to climate change is a dispiriting aspect of contemporary discourse. – Damien Grant

It is unrealistic to force humans to accept a lower standard of living by reducing our use of fossil fuels. It is also immoral, as the cost will be paid by the world’s poor to ensure that the seafront mansions of Martha’s Vineyard and Omaha retain their value.

For you and I doubling the cost of energy reduces our lifestyle, while it will prove fatal for many whose economic existence is already marginal.

Perhaps the solution isn’t restraint but innovation, which is how we escaped the Malthusian trap and saved the whales. – Damien Grant

Reasonable minds can disagree with the ideas presented by Lomborg, but reasonable minds would have to be in the room first. – Damien Grant

One of the first rules in broadcasting is to be where your audience is, and the decline in audience for linear TV or what we used to just call television, has been stark.

Growing up in the 1970s and 80s, everyone watched TV almost every night. Now I myself haven’t watched the 6pm news bulletin in years. I thought it might have been due to post-politics stress disorder, but the truth is that by that time of day I’ve seen and heard most of what I want to see online or on radio, and I don’t need to see the overt editorialising that often seems to accompany the news on old-style television. – Steven Joyce 

The only unique thing about New Zealand media is New Zealand stories and New Zealand angles. The rest is available anywhere. –

Video storytelling from a trusted brand could still be a powerful marketable service, but it needs to be reimagined for the modern media environment.

There is a role for regulators in all this, although perhaps not the one currently before Parliament. I remain completely unconvinced that requiring social media companies which provide traffic to domestic media creators to pay for that privilege makes any sort of sense.

On the other hand, taxing them on the same basis as domestic media companies by refusing to allow them to send inflated service fees home to their international parents that minimise their New Zealand tax, would be both fairer and probably more lucrative. – Steven Joyce 

Change can be hard, but it also brings opportunity. Computerisation and deregulation of radio back in the day allowed yours truly and a bunch of other university students to challenge the old paradigms and help bring about much greater choice in the radio industry.

These days there are a plethora of ways to tell stories and entertain people. The trick will be to find the way that works and the business model that pays for it. It will be there. We just need to make room for the innovation which will bring it. There is no way that Facebook and Tik Tok are the final word in modern media. – Steven Joyce 

Quotes of the week

Dear politicians, your personal problems are not ours. – Andrea Vance

Sobbing influencers, armchair diagnoses, therapeutic language, TraumaTok, over-sharing celebrities. The victim is the hero of our entitled age.

This performative victimhood has also seeped into our politics, accompanying any political failure, rule-breaking or wrong doing. – Andrea Vance

Like Z-list reality TV stars, mental health is the PR management tool of choice for a politician in a sticky situation.

Sharing demons is now the quickest way out of any political crisis: abandoning responsibility for poor behaviour and delegating accountability. – Andrea Vance

The personal crisis confessionals that accompany mea culpas or resignations have no value when they are issued as a political shield, and as a way to keep scrutiny at bay or shut down debate about the behaviour in question.

My heart would be softer towards these politicians, if these were conversations we were having outside of a scandal. – Andrea Vance

It’s hard to commiserate with politicians who choose to use social media to boost their profile, and stir up controversy and sentiment. And use those same platforms to issue statements excusing and diminishing their behaviour, all while avoiding legitimate scrutiny and questions from the public and media.

MPs opening up about their experiences with mental health used to be courageous and noble.

There were risks in admitting vulnerability in a high-performance world, being honest about these challenges did real good, reducing stigma and increasing awareness.

Now, it’s just a cheap excuse for those with a casual attitude to rules that most people abide by.

It undermines genuine victims: those who will go through distress at some time in their life and are met with a less forgiving reaction and an unresponsive mental health system. – Andrea Vance

This makes the 2024 election a contest between a dementing octogenarian and a dementing septuagenarian. How depressing. – David Farrar

To demand that the strength of everyone’s emotional responses to the events that occasion them be proportional to their importance is to demand the impossible. – Theodore Dalrymple

Distant events may be important in the abstract, but it is ones local to us that we feel most deeply about.

There is a quid pro quo or price to pay for this, of course: I cannot expect anyone who knows nothing of me to care very much about my fate, however tragic it might be. – Theodore Dalrymple

The fact that punishments can never be made exactly proportional to the seriousness of the crime is not a reason for them to have no relation whatever to that seriousness.  – Theodore Dalrymple

Among Westerners, exhibitionist self-hatred is the sign or even proof of true moral enlightenment and generosity, albeit that no one wants really to pay the corollary of it in hard cash. Among Middle Easterners, such hatred is a symptom of the gnawing self-contempt of people who want everything Western without having to admit that their own region of the world has contributed so little of late centuries to what they themselves desire and cannot go without. That their own societies have charms and even virtues of their own is not enough for them. They know that they are backward and have been intellectually parasitic on the West for generations, and—unlike the Indians, Chinese and Japanese—cannot see a way out of this situation. Their one glory, a world-evangelising religion, that was supposed to arm them with conquering eternal truth, has left them firmly in the rear. They can neither accept nor reject the West; thus, self-contempt is their destiny, alas. – Theodore Dalrymple

You know, we can all line up and be judgmental, and it is a crime, if that is what is proven, it still has to go before the court, but in the end, it’s a sad event.

Certainly, [it is sad] not only for the former MP involved but also for the image of politics in New Zealand. So others might be cheering from the sidelines about this, but I am not. I just think it’s disappointing for our country and for her personally. – Winston Peters

And frankly, when all is said and done, I hope whatever the problem is, she gets over it. – Winston Peters

If you saw some of the correspondence, or the calls, or the significantly nutty statements people make about you, you would give up. But the fact is, the world is full of trolls and you’ve got to get on with the job – not ‘harden up’ – but get on with it and ignore them. – Winston Peters

If we attempt to resolve territorial disputes between countries and peoples by going back centuries, we will only be stuck in a perpetual hell of endless conflict. Europe learned that the hard way in the 19th and 20th centuries. I can’t imagine that with the benefit of hindsight anyone would think that adjudicating who owns Alsace-Lorraine through a series of wars was worth the millions of lives the Franco-German rivalry ended up costing humanity.

Ultimately, all peace is made by putting the past where it belongs: in the past.

But there is also a different reality we must acknowledge: you can only make peace with people who want peace. – Konstantin Kisin

Coercive control is about taking away the person’s voice, and ultimately their identity.

“That’s how control is truly exerted. Like water torture, it’s a steady drip, drip, drip of tricks and manipulation that leaves the victim entirely at the mercy of their tormentor.  – Lloyd Clarke

I support Maori. I support them to look forward instead of back – which most do. I support them to get a decent crack at the cherry like everyone else. To get equal opportunity but understand that doesn’t guarantee equal outcomes.

But above all I support a set of rules we can all live with free from fear or favour.- Lindsay Mitchell

The previous government had its foot on the spending accelerator while the Reserve Bank had its foot on the brake.

Our Government understands that inflation is the thief that erodes the real values of people’s incomes and savings. We are focused on removing excessive inflation from our economy and won’t be satisfied until we have. – Nicola Willis

If 50 per cent of Māori children do not turn up for school this February, then it will not matter what happened in February 1840.- Richard Prebble 

When Labour left office, the number on Jobseeker Support was 189,798, a figure equal to the population of Hamilton, our fifth largest city.

Under Labour, at a time when employers could not get workers, the number on the Jobseeker benefit increased by 66,759. Last year the increase was 19,695. – Richard Prebble 

Among my wider whānau, I know two teenagers who left school with no qualifications. They tried work, cleaning and fruit picking. They lasted three weeks as cleaners and just two days fruit picking. It is easier to hang out with their mates and smoke weed.

It has always been the rule that to qualify for the Jobseeker benefit the beneficiary must take a suitable job. Just enforcing this rule will be enough to get these two young men into work. – Richard Prebble 

For the hardcore unemployed, only a work-for-the-dole scheme will get them into employment. – Richard Prebble 

The Left’s objective is to make us all dependent on the state. The Left has opposed any proposal for a work-for-the-dole scheme. While the Left is focused on 1840, Upston has an opportunity to implement effective welfare reform.

The coalition must make getting jobseekers back into employment an urgent top priority. – Richard Prebble 

 An unfortunate by-product of the pandemic has been a rise in intolerance of differing viewpoints. The single-mindedness devoted to fighting Covid-19 led to many who raised reasonable questions or concerns about potential wider social and economic effects, being abruptly ignored and shunned. Sadly, that intolerance has not faded, even though the threat of the pandemic appears less.

Nearly four years after it began social and political divisions across the world are more marked and sharply defined. Everywhere, reasoned debate is giving way to intractable positions. The search for the middle ground that used to be the hallmark of modern democratic societies is being derided as weak and replaced by the assertion of new absolutes as some sort of moral truth.  – Peter Dunne

New Zealand is not immune – our political divisions have become more sharply delineated and entrenched since the pandemic. The rising level of violent crime, an increasing lack of respect for institutions and political leaders at all levels, and the new dogmatism that has emerged around various political and social issues are all testament to that. We seem to have lost, or more worryingly deliberately thrown away, our capacity to listen to different views, let alone respect the right of others to express them, or even hold them in the first place. Nuance and subtlety have given way to absolute right and wrong. We are no longer the “each to his own” country we were accustomed to.  – Peter Dunne

 Where dogmatism prevails, extremism and intolerance follow. But that is not an argument against debate itself, more a warning not to let the extremes dominate. – Peter Dunne

As an open democracy, we ought to be mature enough to discuss important subjects such as the modern place of Te Tiriti in a considered, reasoned, and respectful way, without the rancour or bitterness now becoming apparent.  – Peter Dunne

John Daly commented on the transgender playing on the LPGA Tour saying “I would’ve won 100 tournaments if I threw on a skirt and called myself a tranny. That dude is as feminine as a Ford F-150.” pic.twitter.com/0sC5mCsdsA

— Tour Golf (@PGATUOR) January 21, 2024

We seem to be in a system where the defendant’s rights have increased … and the victim’s position has decreased,” he said.

Bringing the prison muster down isn’t the way to look at it.

What can we do to protect our communities from violence? One way, particularly with domestic violence, is education.

But I think there needs to be … a much tougher attitude to it, to be honest. – Kevin Phillips

The problem I have with them is our High Court bench used to be populated by experienced people who had a background in serious criminal and civil litigation and they got appointed to the High Court as a direct result of that.

I don’t think that’s happening any more.

They’re highly intellectual, they’re highly intelligent but they haven’t got the practical bloody experience and they’re making calls about things really outside their levels of expertise, – Kevin Phillips

I have a very simple belief that each of us is united by something much greater than any kind of history or culture – that is, universal humanity. 

The same rights, the same dignities for every person. And that is what has driven all the good movements in human history – votes for women, the civil rights movement in America, and the end of apartheid in South Africa, along with the rights of people of different sexualities … that’s what I believe. – David Seymour

We are not people who have to look at our family tree to find out how we fit in. We’re all New Zealanders with the same basic rights, and with that platform, constitutionally, we can get stuck into tackling the real problems and challenges that New Zealanders face – David Seymour

We are a small spunky country. Our size means we can be flexible and if we want to we can pivot and change quickly.

Yes there are big challenges but we are a country that people from around the world want to come to for better lives. We should be proud. We should be optimistic about our future. We should celebrate our successes and embrace the challenges.

Along with everything going for us, we have a growing problem that could affect our future. We are leaving too many of our young people behind. There are 34,000 under-25-year-olds on the jobseeker benefit. – Paula Bennett

How can we accept that 34,000 young people are on benefit and are not getting jobs? How can we rationalise that more than 500 of them have been on welfare for longer than five years?

At best they will be living pretty meagre existences. Life on a benefit is hard. There is not enough money and it can be isolating and lonely. The evidence shows that the younger someone is when they first receive a benefit – and the longer they stay on it – the higher their chances of suffering poor social and economic outcomes. – Paula Bennett

Our welfare system used to believe in mutual obligations. If you are going to receive money from hard-working taxpayers, you are required to meet certain obligations like being work-ready and actively looking for jobs. If you don’t meet these obligations, there should be sanctions. – Paula Bennett

We need to get back to having real requirements of people. Not just for taxpayers, but for the young people themselves. They are in control of their own destinies. There is a better life than one relying on welfare. We owe it to them to insist on mutual obligations.

It is cruel to leave them to languish on welfare. The humane thing to do is to wrap around support, give clear information on what is expected and then hold them to account. They deserve futures and to live happy healthy big lives in this wonderful country of ours. – Paula Bennett

It beggars belief that politicians trek to Rātana and Waitangi each year to account for how their respective governments are upholding their end of the Treaty bargain with Māori.

But there is precious little opportunity for the public to have a direct say on where relationships are moving outside of the too-blunt tool of the voting box. –  Fran O’Sullivan 

At Rātana, Luxon gave an assurance that the Government has no plan, and never has had plans, to amend or revise the Treaty of Waitangi, or Treaty settlements. The Government will honour the Treaty, without co-governance of public services, and will deliver for all New Zealanders. National believes in devolution and there is “lots of commonality of values”.

His job was to make sure that when he left his role New Zealand was more unified, and that strong differences of opinion did not mean less unity.

Finally, a Prime Minister who supports strong debate. – Fran O’Sullivan 

This is not to say positions aren’t strongly held and passionately believed in. Just that we are a complex people, and political foes are often relatives and friends in other contexts. We are a product of our history and the history of our ancestors, but often those histories cross over and don’t suit sharp boundaries. – Steven Joyce

Broadly 80 per cent of New Zealanders across all ethnicities want to just feel like we all belong. They see us as a multicultural society which is at the same time proud of our unique Māori heritage. They want to see improvements in outcomes for disadvantaged Māori, but they don’t want to feel excluded themselves on the basis of ethnicity. They believe historic breaches of the Treaty should be remedied, and they also believe one person, one vote is sacrosanct.

They are uncomfortable with public service ministries being divided on ethnic grounds but they do believe there is room for different types of service provision to different groups, including ethnic groups. These days, no one bats an eyelid at the Wānanga or Whānau Ora – both of which do great work.

The truth is that if we go back far enough, all of our ancestors moved here. It is also a truth that a treaty was signed between the British Crown and indigenous Māori. It is true we have done a better job than most countries in reconciling our indigenous culture and history with the benefits, challenges and opportunities of modern Western life, but it is also true we have much more to do.

What we need now is our new Prime Minister to pick up the challenge and chart a path that ensures the broad middle holds. As we head towards Waitangi Weekend, we should celebrate what brings us together not the relatively minor differences that drive us apart.

We are a small country. Our strength is in celebrating our diversity and our shared history, encouraging initiative and personal responsibility, and working to provide opportunities for all. In that way lies success. Political and social media-fuelled angst from either extreme about our differences only drives us apart.  – Steven Joyce

How much more malfeasance are we going to see from our public servants white-anting the democratically elected government? How much more are we going to see mainstream media putting the boot into the new government as often as possible?

Where are the stories about the failures of the public service bureaucracy to be politically neutral while working their jobs? – Ken Lomax

How many more stories are we going to hear about that indicate left-wing public servants are failing to work with the democratically elected government?

Where is our democracy? Has it died or is it just terminal? – Ken Lomax

Our current account deficit, as a percentage of GDP, peaked in the December 2022 quarter at 9% but remains unsustainably high at over 7%. The improvement appears to be partly driven by a revival of overseas holiday makers but a structural issue remains. We do not produce enough goods and services to maintain our lifestyle. – Damien Grant

At some point, if we do not address the trade deficit the value of our currency will fall and we will be forced to import less. – Damien Grant

In the coalition agreement there was some tweaking to allow overseas investment to be a little easier. This is not enough. The Overseas Investment Office should join the Productivity Commission and Te Pūkenga and be disestablished. – Damien Grant

No benign strategic environment

New Zealand is joining allies in defending Red Sea shipping:

New Zealand is deploying a six-member Defence Force team to the Middle East region to uphold maritime security in the Red Sea, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says.

“Houthi attacks against commercial and naval shipping are illegal, unacceptable and profoundly destabilising.

“This deployment, as part of an international coalition, is a continuation of New Zealand’s long history of defending freedom of navigation both in the Middle East and closer to home.”

The team will contribute to the collective self-defence of ships in the Middle East, in accordance with international law, from operational headquarters in the region and elsewhere. No NZDF personnel will enter Yemen. It is part of a continuous New Zealand defence contribution to maritime security in the Middle East since 2013.

Foreign Minister Winston Peters says the strikes being carried out by the international coalition are against Houthi military targets which have played a role in attacking commercial and naval vessels. 

“These efforts support international security and the free flow of trade on which New Zealanders rely,” Mr Peters says. 

Defence Minister Judith Collins says the Houthi attacks show a disregard for international law, peace and stability, and the coalition response is an inevitable consequence of their actions. 

“Our NZDF personnel are highly trained and this deployment will see them work alongside their counterparts on an important mission. New Zealand supports global stability and this deployment shows our commitment to efforts to address a serious threat to that stability.”

Mr Peters says New Zealand’s actions to uphold maritime security in the Red Sea should not be conflated with its position on the Israel-Gaza conflict. 

“Any suggestion our ongoing support for maritime security in the Middle East is connected to recent developments in Israel and the Gaza Strip, is wrong.  We are contributing to this military action for the same reason New Zealand has sent defence personnel to the Middle East for decades – we care deeply about regional security because our economic and strategic interests depend on it.”

The deployment is mandated to conclude no later than 31 July 2024.

A fact sheet on the deployment explains:

• Freedom of navigation is an integral part of New Zealand’s national prosperity
and trade security. New Zealand has contributed to maritime security efforts in
the Middle East and elsewhere continuously since 2013 to protect not only our
vital national interest but also the international rules-based order.

• The decision to deploy a team of six NZDF personnel to uphold maritime
security in the Red Sea has been made with these same goals in mind:
defending lives, de-escalating tensions, and restoring stability to the Red Sea. . . 

Concern for the safety of crews and cargo has already forced ships to reroute which is adding delays and costs to global trade:

Nearly 15 percent of global seaborne trade passes through the Red Sea, which leads to the Suez Canal, linking the Indian Ocean with the Mediterranean. . . 

Massey University supply chain lecturer Carel Bezuidenhout said the conflict meant that passing through the Red Sea was pushing up insurance costs for shipping companies. 

“Most of them are actually avoiding that and taking the longer route around the Cape of Good Hope down at the bottom end of Africa. That adds substantial distance and delays to the supply chains, so in time we may start seeing a slower and non-responsive supply chain.” 

Bezuidenhout said all industries could be impacted if the conflict continues, but some sectors – like the kiwifruit industry – might be hit particularly hard. 

“When we start harvesting kiwifruit and we want to get those fruit to Europe as fast as possible, then it is going to become problematic for us to add another two weeks to get around the Cape of Good Hope.”  . . . 

It’s more than 20 years since then Prime Minister Helen Clark said we had a benign strategic environment.

Whether or not that was right then is debatable but it certainly doesn’t apply now and New Zealand must play its part to counter those who show no respect for rule based order, human life and trade security.

It wasn’t just $55 million

Winston Peters reckons media outlets were bribed by the $55 million Public Interest Journalism Fund.

He is not the first to make such an accusation.

Last year, the Platform outlined conditions media signed up to in return for funds from the PJIF:

. . . That is essentially how the Public Interest Journalism Fund is set up – like a loan. Not only do applicants have to thoroughly explain how they will adhere to the particular co-governance model of understanding the Treaty in order to get the funding in the first place, they have to agree that should they deviate from presenting this perspective NZ On Air can say that they have defaulted on the agreement and demand the funding be repaid. . . 

What are the odds that a funding application that included a ‘Te Tiriti response’ that disputed modern ideas of co-governance – even criticised it – would get funded? Slim to none would be my expectation.

Instead, Kiwis wanting to produce and create their content will need to leaf through the provided Framework, tick the boxes, and fall in line. That means, among other things, promoting ideas laid out in He Puapua, agreeing that due to colonialism we live in a society that perpetuates racism, supporting a vision for constitutional reform of New Zealand, and restructuring of “non-Government organisations…according to te Tiriti o Waitangi”. . . 

If you click on the link above you’ll find the general terms of the agreement include default if you breach the agreement or if we reasonably believe you are likely to breach this agreement.

That would have made the media very, very cautious and very, very unlikely to cover dissenting views.

Karl du Fresne called it Project Pravda:

. . . The government has done its best to ensure continued media support for this ideological project by creating a $55 million slush fund supposedly created to support “public interest journalism” but available only to news organisations that commit themselves to the promotion of the so-called principles (never satisfactorily defined) of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. 

What has been framed as an idealistic commitment to the survival of journalism is, in other words, a cynical and opportunistic bid for control over the news media at a time when the industry is floundering.  This is a government so shameless, or perhaps so convinced of its own untouchability, that it’s brazenly buying the media’s compliance. . . 

Was the PJIF bribery?

Definitions of bribe include: dishonestly persuade (someone) to act in one’s favour by a gift of money or other inducement; to try to make someone do something for you, often something dishonest, by giving them money, gifts, or something else that they want; and to give money or a favour in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust. 

It’s going too far to say there was dishonesty but the fund required the media to adhere to the previous government’s Treaty-centric views and influenced the way Māori issues were covered.

Ben Espiner shows it wasn’t just $55 million.

. . . In 2022 TVNZ and Stuff accepted $500,000 between them from the Government in exchange for a number of programming and print deals, including an hour long 1news special on climate change, five news articles on 1news.co.nz, a selection of interviews with climate experts on Breakfast TV and a 7 Sharp interview with a government official.

All of these were presented as news content, none of them were adequately marked as government advertising. To quote broadcaster Mike Hosking at the time ‘if that isn’t media corruption, I don’t know what is’. The story received almost no coverage other than this comment. . . 

On top of that there was a lot of advertising paid for with public money and a friend who worked in the media was told to moderate criticism of the government for fear the outlet would lose these ads and the income that came with them.

It’s no coincidence that trust in the media has declined:

The AUT research centre for Journalism, Media and Democracy (JMAD) has published its fourth Trust in News in Aotearoa New Zealand report, authored by Dr Merja Myllylahti and Dr Greg Treadwell. The 2023 report finds that general trust in the news and news brands is continuing to erode.

In 2023, general trust in news declined from 45% to 42%, continuing a downward trend that was already evident in 2020 when the survey was first conducted. . . 

In 2023, all the major New Zealand news brands suffered a considerable decline in trust. Trust in RNZ fell 14.5%, Whakaata Māori 14.3% and Newstalk ZB 14%.Smaller brands such as interest.co.nz, BusinessDesk and Crux were less impacted. . . 

The media’s hysterical outrage in response to Peters will have done nothing to improve that.

At least one outlet said his criticism had distracted attention from the Prime Minister, failing to see the irony that it was the media’s response to the criticism that created the distraction.

Some went on to criticise the PM for not hauling Peters into line in a manner not dissimilar from children running to parents to get them to discipline a sibling.

The PM isn’t Peters’ parent and his response was refreshingly measured:

. . . Luxon said, “it’s not the way I would describe it, but I actually also don’t support the fund either”.

“Many New Zealanders, they don’t think it was a good idea … and I will be one of those people that didn’t think it was a good idea.

“It actually leads to perceptions of bias, rightly or wrongly, I just say to you, that’s the perception whether that’s real or not, doesn’t really matter. That’s what the perception creates.” . . 

The response of the media to the accusations which showed no self-awareness reinforced perceptions of bias, perceptions bolstered by a survey of journalists:

. . . Fortunately, the Worlds of Journalism Study in late 2022 has now provided some useful data through their survey of working journalists.

The study found a massive 81% of NZ journalists classified their political views as left of centre and only 15% as right of centre. So rather than have a 1:1 ratio of left-leaning journalists to right-leaning journalists, you have a 5:1 ratio.

This is in stark contrast to the New Zealand population. The 2020 election survey by Auckland University found 28% of respondents identified as left of centre and 43% as right of centre. So journalists are very unrepresentative of New Zealand in terms of political views.

New Zealand journalists were also far more likely to hold extreme left views. 20% of journalists said their political views are hard or extreme left, compared to 6% of adults. On the other side of the spectrum, only 1% said their political views are hard or extreme right compared to 10% of the adult population. . . 

That’s more journalists on the far left than the total who regard themselves as right of centre which explains the government war on the new government:

We are in an extraordinary situation where the mainstream media are openly at war with an elected government. This has never happened before in my lifetime, and to my knowledge never in New Zealand history.

Having adopted a nauseatingly sycophantic approach to the former government, consistently ignoring issues that showed it in a bad light and subjecting it to only the gentlest scrutiny while mercilessly savaging the opposition, the media are now in full-on attack mode.

The level of hostility toward the Luxon-led government is striking. All pretence of balance and neutrality has been abandoned. 

The hostility isn’t universal but it’s vehement.

The message is clear. The mainstream media are sulking because they think the voters elected the wrong government. They are angry and indignant that despite all their efforts, New Zealand swung right on October 14.

They are wilfully tone-deaf to the public mood because they think they know better. It means nothing to them that the voters had had enough of Labour’s ideological excesses. At best, the high priests of the media (or should I say high priestesses, since the worst offenders are female) are indifferent to democracy; at worst, they resent it because it gives power to the hoi-polloi – the deplorables, to use Hillary Clinton’s word. . . 

Perhaps it would help if the press gallery got out of Wellington, which opted for red and green at the election in sharp contrast to the blue wave that swept the country, they might understand that there are other views than theirs and then they might also understand why voters wanted change.

“We want change”

A majority of New Zealanders voted for change in the election and now we’ve got a government to deliver it:

The new coalition government of National, ACT and New Zealand First will be stable, effective and will deliver for all New Zealanders, National Leader and incoming Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says.

“Despite the challenging economic environment, New Zealanders can look forward to a better future because of the changes the new Government will make,” Mr Luxon says.

“I said on election night that we would be a government that would deliver for every New Zealander, regardless of who we are, where we are and whatever our life circumstances. How the coalition parties do that has been at the core of our negotiations.

“New Zealanders have put their trust in us. In return, we trust New Zealanders. We believe in this country. We are ambitious for it. We know that, with the right leadership, the right policies and the right direction, together New Zealanders can make this an even better country.” 

The three-party coalition government is the first in New Zealand’s MMP history, with all parties represented in Cabinet.

• • New Zealand First Leader Rt Hon Winston Peters will be Deputy Prime Minister for the first half of the three-year Parliamentary term
  • ACT Leader David Seymour will be Deputy Prime Minister for the second half of the term
  • Mr Peters will be Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Mr Seymour Minister for Regulation.
  • The 20-strong Cabinet will have 14 National Ministers, three ACT Ministers and three New Zealand First Ministers 
  • Nicola Willis will be Minister of Finance, Brooke van Velden will be Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety and Hon Shane Jones will be Minister for Regional Development
  • There will be five ministers from National, two from ACT and one from New Zealand First outside Cabinet
  • ACT and New Zealand First will each have one Parliamentary Under-Secretary 

“The Government will manage a strong economy that will ease the cost of living and deliver tax relief, restore law and order, deliver better public services and strengthen democracy.

“The coalition documents between National and ACT, and National and New Zealand First, provide for both ACT and New Zealand First to support the major elements of National’s policy programme including our 100-day plan, our 100-point economic plan, and our tax and fiscal plans, with some adjustments.

“The National and ACT agreement provides that the Government will progress a range of ACT initiatives, and these will be supported by New Zealand First. Equally, the National and New Zealand First coalition agreement outlines a range of New Zealand First priorities, which will be supported by ACT.

“The coalition parties believe people should be rewarded for their effort and hard-working Kiwis should keep more of what they earn. National campaigned on that commitment and, next July, the Government will deliver it.

“The tax package will continue to be funded through a combination of spending reprioritisation and additional revenue measures. However, as part of National’s agreement with New Zealand First, the proposed foreign buyer tax will no longer go ahead. Policy changes will help offset the loss of revenue from that change.  National’s fiscal plan also had buffers which give confidence that tax reduction can still be funded responsibly. 

“The coalition parties have adopted ACT’s policy to speed up the rate at which interest deductibility for rental properties is restored.

“Delivering tax relief is just one part of the Government’s plan to rebuild the economy. The Government will ease the cost of living, reduce wasteful spending, and lift economic growth to increase opportunities and prosperity for all New Zealanders.”

“Restoring law and order will be as important to the Government as it is to the public. In addition to National’s policies to tackle gangs and youth crime, the parties have agreed with ACT to re-write the Arms Act, and agreed with New Zealand First to train no fewer than 500 new Police.

“Part of treating taxpayers’ money with respect is getting better value from public services. We will set targets, like shorter wait times in hospitals, and public services will be delivered on the basis of need.

“To lift educational performance, every class will undertake an hour a day each of reading, writing and maths. The parties have agreed to adopt ACT’s policies to reintroduce partnership schools and to allow state schools to become partnership schools.

Other key policies in the agreements include:

• • A new agency, accountable to the Minister for Regulation, will assess the quality of new and existing regulation. This agency, proposed by ACT, will be funded by disestablishing the Productivity Commission
  • A Regional Infrastructure Fund, proposed by New Zealand First, that will have $1.2 billion in capital funding

“I thank the public for their patience since Election Day. It’s a credit to our country that we now handle the MMP process with such calm and maturity.

“I also thank the caretaker government for their assistance during the transition period.

“It’s exciting to be on the cusp of delivering a big policy programme with two coalition partners who, alongside National, are determined to make New Zealanders’ lives better.

“On election night, I said that we’d listened to the public and heard a description of a better New Zealand. New Zealanders want change that makes our lives easier. We want change that improves our opportunities. We want change that makes this great country even better. The Government is going to deliver that change and we are ready to get on with it.”

The National and Act agreement is here

The National and NZ First agreement is here

The list of Ministers is here

 

Another MMP flaw

MMP has many flaws.

They include the power it gives to parties rather than the public; bigger electorates making it harder to service; and the ability for tail waggery.

The death of Act’s Port Waikato candidate, Neil Christensen, is sad for his family and friends and a loss to both the veterinary community and the people whose poultry he looked after.

It also shows up another flaw in our electoral system.

The death means that the candidate election will be cancelled and a by-election has to be held.

This means the election result will be based on a 120-seat Parliament with 71 electorate seats and 49 list MPs, rather than 72 electorate MPs and 48 list MPs.

. . . Port Waikato is currently held by National MP Andrew Bayly, who is likely to win the seat again. He won 38.74 per cent of the candidate vote, while 36.17 per cent of the party vote went to National despite Labour’s strong nationwide showing.

Bayly will now likely be a list MP – he is number 15 on National’s list – after the election, and if he wins the byelection, National would gain an extra MP off its list. . .

This ought to be a safe National seat but a by-election opens up the opportunity for game playing.

It happened in Northland when Labour didn’t stand a candidate, Winston Peters won the seat and his party got an extra list MP while National, which had held the seat before its MP resigned mid-term, was then an MP short.

One of the supposed benefits of MMP is that it gives proportional representation.

But an electorate win that results in another MP, whether from the party that had previously held the seat or another one, upsets the proportionality.

A by-election is also very expensive for both taxpayers and parties.

There are better systems than MMP and there must be a better way for it to function than this.

To get change, vote for strong, stable change

If you want to change the government you have to vote for change.

If you don’t want more economic mismanagement with the social problems that result from that you have to vote for change.

If you want positive change you have to vote for a National-led government.

The best way to get that is to give your party vote to National.

The second best is to vote for Act.

Voting for any other party might result in a National-led government and the change we need, but it might not.

Around half the people who voted for NZ First in 2017 wanted the party to go with National. Its leader, Winston Peters, chose Labour and in spite of what he says, history shows that what he says isn’t always what he does.

We need a strong and stable government without the tail waggery.

To get positive change we have to vote for strong, stable change.

It’s crunch time pic.twitter.com/lHCBW3vs3V

— Christopher Luxon (@chrisluxonmp) September 24, 2023

Who do you believe?

Two men, two different versions of what happened – who do you believe?

Winston Peters has refloated claims then-National leader Bill English confided in him at the start of 2017’s coalition negotiations that he was about to be “rolled” as National leader – and that was one reason New Zealand First opted to put Jacinda Ardern’s Labour into power.

Peters made the claim on live TV on Thursday night during the Newshub Nation ‘powerbrokers’ debate, a claim he had also made in an interview with Newsroom and in an article in 2022.

Asked by host Rebecca Wright if people could trust him to negotiate with the party that won the biggest vote at the election, Peters said: “Excuse me, excuse me you don’t understand why we didn’t go with the majority vote in 2017 do you?”

Wright: “Will you go with it this time?”

Peters: “No you don’t understand how critical it was because I was talking to a man who in his first conversation with me says they are about to roll me.”

Last month, Peters volunteered the same, unverifiable claim to Newsroom in a sit down interview. 

“I’d only just walked into the room and English pulled me aside and told me that there could be a coup and he could be about to get rolled.

Asked who was supposedly being lined up to take over, Peters said “Judith Collins.”

He defended his decision to take his votes elsewhere, to a Labour Party that had attracted 37 percent of the 2017 vote to National’s 45 percent, by saying: “How could I negotiate with someone who might not be there in a few weeks? Ring him up and see what he says, he won’t deny it, he can’t.”

Last night Newsroom asked English and he not only denied it, he slammed it.

In a text, English said: “Deny. It’s a ridiculous claim.”  Pressed for more, he said: “Mr Peters’ claim is a fabrication.”

The former National leader went a step further, suggesting Peters’ claim now “indicates he could find a reason to go with Labour again after this election”. . . 

You can believe the one doing his best to rewrite history, the one who said he wouldn’t take the baubles of office then did, the one who said no but later said yes.

Or you can believe Bill.

 

Can’t afford to be fooled again

An email forwarded several times made it to my inbox. It was an attempt to persuade readers to vote for NZ First.

The reasoning was that two parties wouldn’t be able to form a government so National and Act would need the support of NZ First.

That reasoning isn’t reasoned.

A vote for NZ First is a vote that isn’t going to National or Act and therefore increasing the chances of something even worse than the current ineptitude – a Labour, Green Te Parti Maori shambles.

One of Winston Peter’s arguments in seeking support is that he was a hand brake on Labour but he doesn’t say that’s only because he put that party in the driver’s seek.

That is like an arsonist seeking support for helping to put out a fire he lit.

The only alternative to a Labour-led government is a National-led one.

If that’s what voters want the best way to get it is to vote for National, the second best is to vote for Act.

Any other vote is a vote against a National-led government.

Voters who don’t learn from history will doom us all to a repeat of the disfunction Peters brings to government and they’ll be helping to sabotage the urgent change that’s needed to get the country back on track.

We simply can’t afford what will happen if people let themselves be fooled again.

Did you see the one about. . . .?

While politician fiddle the big questions go unanswered – Bruce Cotterill :

It’s amazing how, after years of inaction, this Government is passing legislation like there’s no tomorrow. Workers in health and education have finally had pay offers they can agree to. Both Three (or 10) Waters and the first phase of David Parker’s replacement for the Resource Management Act have been pushed through this last week, despite promises by the likely new government that they will be immediately repealed.

This week they’ve even snuck in a last-minute bill that would change the voting age in local body elections from 18 to 16, a policy warranting debate yet totally drowned out by the pre-election noise.

And they wonder why people don’t trust politicians. . . 

During the past three years we have had a majority government for the first time under MMP. The result has been a Labour Government that has ventured uncharacteristically beyond its traditional centrist position. It has become more radical in its attitudes to crime, health, education, debt and race relations in particular. All are currently in various stages of crisis. But for the Government’s inability to execute policy, we may well have had yet more radical outcomes.

However, as we line up for the election, we seem poised to return to the past, where one of the two major parties will present a relatively centrist line, while its likely partners in government take up the role of “radicals”.

As a result, we have seen Chris Hipkins scrambling to take Labour back to the centre line. He’s pushed the party radicals and poor performers, including Nanaia Mahuta, Andrew Little and Willie Jackson, into the background and put several controversial policies on his so-called bonfire. In doing so, he has promoted those MPs without baggage to make the lineup look more user-friendly. Unfortunately for him, most were promoted too early and he has problems right across his front bench as a result.

This week, in a move long overdue, the Government continued the cleansing of its record by abandoning the Covid-19 policy framework. Hipkins is distancing himself from the recent past as quickly as possible.

Meanwhile, many voters are frustrated that the National Party under Christopher Luxon is not doing more to agitate and criticise the various “woke” policies of the incumbent Government. But he’s toeing the centrist line and leaving that to Act, which is playing that role effectively.

Desperate to get the Government’s performance off the election agenda and replace it with his cost-of-living concerns, the PM has now forced his finance minister to swallow the dead rat that is eliminating GST on fresh fruit and vegetables.

What the PM doesn’t seem to understand is that, despite our concerns about price rises, dropping GST on fresh fruit and vegetables is counterproductive. Apparently, the change will save families between $4 and $5 a week. That assumes the full impact of the change passes through to the end customer, which of course it won’t. He’s overlooking the cost of making the change. Computer systems alone, at the IRD, the growers, the wholesalers and of course the retail grocery businesses, will chew up the savings.

Most seasoned observers have picked this up quickly. Never before have I seen a policy from any political party so roundly and so quickly criticised by the experts. Within a day of the GST announcement, Radio NZ had assembled 12 economists and tax specialists to give their opinion on the policy. Every one of them was heavy in their criticism. Even the finance minister, having previously dismissed the idea, struggled to defend it when quizzed by media during the week.

And hard on the heels of his concern about the cost of living came Hipkins’ announcement of further tax increases, supposedly to finance another grand infrastructure dream. The $20 billion announcement for road maintenance, busways and cycleways included a declaration that it would be paid for by an additional 12c per litre in petrol tax. That will make the total tax take on unleaded 91 to $1 per litre for Aucklanders and 90c for everyone else. In other words, when you put 60 litres of gas in your car, you’ll be paying $60 in tax. Of that, $7.20 will be the new tax. This from the same prime minister who just a few days earlier was heralding the $4 to $5 saved each week by the new and complicated GST policy.

There is a serious lack of credibility when a government that has failed to implement a single substantial infrastructure project, and furthermore presided over the rapid deterioration of existing infrastructure such as our roading network, now expects us to believe they can deliver some $65b of new projects. And they want us to start paying the new tax before we see the new roads.

Just ask Aucklanders how they feel about the improvements delivered to the transport network as a result of the additional regional fuel tax that was levied back in 2018. The money was intended for transport projects that would “otherwise be delayed”. And yet, we ain’t seen nothing yet!

You don’t fix roads, or for that matter schools and crime and hospitals, by continuing to tax those who can’t or won’t pay. In fact, you don’t fix anything unless you create an economy that can pay the bills. Hence the old quote from that Bill Clinton aide who said: “It’s the economy, stupid”.

A government will deserve the money it raises when its policies ensure the country is successful. That will be when the people, their businesses and corporate New Zealand are all making money and paying tax. Increased success means increased tax.

But the problem with the New Zealand economy is that our core areas of income all come from sources we don’t control. We sell agricultural products that are priced by others, compete for tourism dollars against countries that are similarly stunning but closer and cheaper to visit, and compete for international students against universities that are better resourced. Simply put, our markets set the price for what we sell because, with a few small exceptions, we haven’t been innovative, creative or productive enough to generate large-scale businesses that offer something unique to the world.

And yet, as we sit on the edge of an economic precipice and the verge of a critical election, I’m yet to hear a major policy idea from any party that is going to play a part in transforming New Zealand.

Instead, we hear about tinkering around the edges, with GST being the latest in a line of relatively minor headline-grabbing bribes, aimed at a small number of voters who may swing from one side to the other.

In other words, the incumbent Labour Government does not look like a group of people who desperately want to make a major difference to the country’s outlook. Rather, they appear to be an unqualified, shoddy and desperate group, grasping for power with nothing but their own interests in mind.

We have eight weeks to see something different. I’m not holding my breath.

Chris Hipkins, Winston Peters, as bad as each other – Mike Hosking :

In my opinion, Chris Hipkins and Winston Peters are as bad as each other.

Look up Kirsten Murfitt, who will stand for New Zealand First in the Bay of Plenty, and have a read of the commentary around her online activity.

Once you have read about her online activity, look up the New Zealand First website and see if any of that activity is mentioned (small clue, it isn’t).

What it shows is that Peters is seizing the opportunity to dip into the extreme end of the political debate in order to garner votes – in other words, he will hang with anyone in the pursuit of power.

Then we come to Hipkins, who it seems to me will say anything to get your vote.

The GST on fruit and vegetables announcement is denounced by every tax expert going, it has been rejected by the tax working group and it has been rubbished over and over again by his own Finance Minister and, yet, in a last-ditch attempt to promise anything, he has. . .

At the moment my hope is we want better, a lot better than we have had foisted upon us these past six years.

As I have said for months now, my sense of the pending election is that it is a foregone conclusion, such is the damage done to so many aspects of this once-brilliant country.

The polls are showing this to be true.

But what the polls also show is that they are capable of producing “talking points”.

This is why Peters is back making headlines.

A couple of polls have him at 5 per cent, and with it, the implications that he may be back to cause more carnage. . .

Election campaigns are also filled with mad claims and desperate pitches.

One of the weaknesses of MMP is that too many voters don’t appear to have worked out that minor parties especially can say literally anything, because they know full well it will never have to be delivered on.

A lot needs to happen for a minor party to actually pony up with a promise.

1) They need to get 5 per cent or win a seat; 2) They need to be part of a coalition; 3) They need to have a bottom line or two around policy; 4) Those bottom lines have to be adopted.

The Greens, for example, have no bottom lines, so you have no idea what, if anything, will ever see the light of day, even if they end up in a position to be part of a government.

Peters gets around specific promises by telling voters we can’t know until the votes are counted, as though that makes any sense at all. . . 

At a time when this country is in desperate need of genuine leadership, of thought-provoking transformative redirection, of experience, of maturity, of a fairly major reset, we have the vacuous thought bubbles of attention seekers and desperados.

One of them – in my view – is a gnarled old hack who has ravaged the political landscape for far too long, and the other is the Prime Minister.

Ah, democracy. They say every election is the most important ever, I have never personally said that or indeed believed it, until this one.

Who fact checks the fact checkers ? – Toby Young :

Last week, a retired physics professor called Nick Cowern said it was time to get tough with ‘climate denialists’. ‘In my opinion the publication of climate disinformation should be a criminal offence,’ he posted on Twitter. He was ridiculed, but what sounds ludicrously over-the-top today could easily become the norm tomorrow. At least four EU member states have made it a criminal offence to spread disinformation – Hungary, Lithuania, Malta and France – and others including Ireland are preparing to do the same. In the UK, the Online Safety Bill will introduce a new false communications offence. . . 

One of the problems with criminalising ‘climate disinformation’ is there’s no infallible authority the courts could rely on to determine whether a particular claim about something climate-related is true or false. Advocates of net zero and other measures designed to reduce carbon emissions often use the term ‘climate deniers’ to describe their opponents, thereby persuading themselves that proving them wrong would be easy. But even the most hardened sceptics wouldn’t dispute that average global temperatures have increased in the past 150 years. Rather, the argument is about the role of human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels, in global warming and how much impact changing our behaviour would have. We also dispute just how catastrophic rising global temperatures are, and are unimpressed by the hyperbole of the environmental lobby (‘global boiling’). In other words, proving us wrong isn’t as straightforward as pointing to temperature data.

I suppose the prosecution could summon distinguished climate scientists as expert witnesses, but then so could the defence – for instance Dr John Clauser, last year’s joint winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics, who’s just signed a declaration stating there is no climate emergency. No doubt the would-be jailers would invoke the ‘97 per cent of scientists agree’ canard, but not only is that stat dubious, it’s also a non-sequitur. As Einstein said when 100 physicists published a book rubbishing his theory of relativity: ‘Why 100? If I was wrong, one would have been enough.’

Perhaps Exhibit A for the prosecution would be a ‘fact check’ by a reputable news organisation. Last year Reuters took issue with a piece by Chris Morrison in which he noted that Arctic sea ice was making a comeback and the coverage was well above a 2012 low point. This was said to be ‘misleading’, although the figures came from an official EU weather source. Reuters’ experts said that the sea ice was not recovering, pointing to a declining trend over a longer time period. One of them didn’t dispute the ice had recovered since 2012, but said it was a ‘wiggle’ and should not be cited as evidence that ‘climate change isn’t real’, which Chris hadn’t claimed. Nevertheless, he was accused of ‘cherry-picking’, although the sea ice improvement continues to this day. Send him down m’lud. . . 

Setting aside the difficulty of securing convictions, what would be the point of criminalising ‘climate disinformation’? History teaches us that you cannot legislate against ‘fake news’. Far from stopping its spread, it just adds to its allure. As the Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, the best way to counter what you think of as false speech is not enforced silence but more and better speech. If Nick Cowern is so sure he’s right, he shouldn’t be afraid to debate the ‘climate denialists’ in the public square.

Crossing the line: criticising trans activism vs bashing trans people – Christina Buttons :

Few topics are more politically volatile right now than trans issues. Matters such as pediatric medical transition and questions about access to and the purpose of women’s sports and spaces are complex debates that require nuance and time. Unfortunately, discussions of these issues are generally dominated by extreme, intolerant ideologues who fail to distinguish between ideas and people. As someone deeply concerned about some aspects of trans ideology, it pains me that the discussion of these delicate issues more often resembles a Jerry Springer marathon than a meaningful public policy debate.

Pushback against the more extreme aspects of the transgender movement is absolutely warranted, but it isn’t a partisan issue, despite how frequently the political left and right portray it as such. Like so many issues that get caught in the warring political tribes dynamic, we should refrain from seeing ourselves in an existential fight against evil, irredeemable forces. The fact remains that most people across society are good and have good intentions — even those who disagree with you politically. Those of us who are critical of the excesses of trans activism need to raise awareness and a better understanding of the actual issues. And currently, it is the left that will require the most persuasion from us.

The stakes are too high to take the wrong approach. Pediatric gender medicine needs to be subjected to systematic evidence reviews. The widespread implementation of “gender-affirming care” — a dangerously broad medical model supported by weak evidence — is a genuine cause for alarm. If we do not want the left to dismiss our valid concerns as mere bigotry, we must approach these matters judiciously. Otherwise, US-based medical organizations will continue to dismiss even the most reasonable calls to reconsider their treatment protocols as simply part of a right-wing moral panic.

It is natural to feel frustrated and angry in the face of what many of us sincerely believe to be an unfolding medical scandal — but we must redirect this energy into constructive dialogue and strategic action rather than resorting to counterproductive hyperbole. People’s beliefs can change with exposure to new information. I’m living proof: I used to be a so-called “social justice warrior”, but I changed my own views on “gender medicine” (and other important issues dumbed down by the culture wars) after discussing the issue with people who presented compelling evidence and reasoned arguments, rather than inflammatory rhetoric.

Our best chance of facilitating positive change is to try to gain a deeper understanding of the issues involved, learn how to communicate more effectively, base our arguments on credible evidence, avoid taking part in online pile-ons, and employ precise, careful language that addresses beliefs or specific policies — not individuals. The first step is understanding the beliefs and policies involved. Conversations about transgender issues can be difficult because there are so many different interpretations of the relevant terminology. Even the basic definition of what it means to be trans is a subject of intense debate.

Many people on the political left insist that everyone possesses an innate and immutable “gender identity” present from birth, which can be known from a very young age, and rarely, if ever, changes. In this view, being transgender is an inborn trait (like sexual orientation) rather than a choice: people are born that way, and they have no say in the matter. For many, to question these views is to attack the very existence of trans people.

This belief is sincere, but it is not accurate. The empirical evidence does not support the idea of an inherent, hardwired “gender identity.” There is currently no objective test — neither neurological nor of any other kind — that can differentiate between an individual who identifies as trans and one who does not, especially when we control for confounding factors like sexual orientation. Even most definitions of gender and “gender identity”, increasingly cemented into law and public policy, are circular and self-referential.

However, there is a wealth of evidence that gender nonconformity — encompassing preferences, behaviors, traits, and presentations that deviate from the norm associated with one’s biological sex — is a natural part of human variation, influenced in part by prenatal testosterone exposure. Gender nonconformity is strongly associated with homosexuality and is particularly prevalent among those with autism. Prior to 2006, gay male children dominated pediatric gender clinic referrals. That has changed dramatically in recent years. Nowadays, adolescent females, many of whom are autistic, make up the majority lining up at gender clinics. For activists, this apparently doesn’t even raise an eyebrow. It is simply a sign of greater societal acceptance. For me and many others,  given the permanent impacts of gender medicine, such a rapid flipping of demographics warrants, at a minimum, closer inspection. Up to 35% of adolescents referred to the largest gender clinic in the UK displayed “moderate to severe autistic traits”, with some pediatric gender programs reporting that approximately half of the youth in their studies are autistic. Shouldn’t that set off alarm bells?

People are born with various inherent traits, such as gender nonconformity, sexual orientation, and neurological differences like autism. Additionally, some individuals may be born predisposed to psychiatric conditions, which may include gender dysphoria — the significant and persistent distress with one’s biological sex. However, a predisposition towards gender dysphoria does not guarantee a transgender outcome. In fact, the vast majority of children who experience gender dysphoria do not identify as transgender into adulthood. Most of them simply end up as homosexual adults. . . 

It’s especially difficult to admit that you might have been wrong if you have already taken drastic and irreversible steps to medically transition yourself or to allow your child to medically transition or if you are a healthcare professional who has facilitated the medical transitions of your patients. That’s why it’s so important to approach this topic sensitively and refrain from catastrophizing. Detransitioners have frequently pointed this out, requesting not to be referred to as “mutilated” or “ruined” — descriptions that insinuate that they are damaged beyond repair.

Many people grappling with gender-related distress are in genuine pain. They are struggling to reconcile fundamental human needs of identity and belonging. They deserve our compassion and understanding, even as we critique the ideologies and practices that we believe are causing so much harm.

I am firmly convinced that those of us who are critical of trans ideology possess the best evidence and the most compelling arguments. We need to take the ethical high ground. Some socially conservative commentators seem primarily focused on gaining popularity by publicly dunking on their opponents. But genuine persuasion isn’t about who can land the most devastating verbal blow. Civility and decorum are themselves conservative values, and we demean ourselves and our cause when we forsake them in favor of mudslinging.

Now, more than ever, we need open and constructive dialogue with people of different viewpoints, especially those from the left. If we want to convince people, we need to learn to communicate more effectively, and that means challenging beliefs without alienating people. We can do so only by making calm arguments supported by evidence from reputable sources. We’re unlikely to see a dramatic shift in public opinion overnight, but each respectful interaction we foster brings us closer to achieving public awareness of these issues and ultimately, more informed and evidence-based policies.

GST carveouts – Eric Crampton :

. . . Labour’s proposed pulling GST off of fresh and frozen unprocessed fruit and vegetables. It might give $4/week in savings on average, and less than for lower decile households that spend less on fruit and veg.

They’ve pitched it partially as a response to cost of living pressures. But the income tax thresholds haven’t been adjusted since 2010. If you only partially adjusted the bottom tax threshold to account for inflation since 2017, increasing it from $14k to $17k, you’d give everyone $210. Even jobseeker benefits are now above $17k.

So beneficiaries would get the $210 as well.

The same $4/week, except everyone gets that amount, rather than more going to those who spend a lot on fresh vegetables.

And without wrecking GST.

It’s so stupid. . .

GST policy breathtakingly cynical – Oliver Hartwich :

Election years rarely see the best economic policy ideas. It is easy enough to understand why. Principles can go out the window when the stakes are either gaining power or losing it.

But this year’s assault on the tax system from the Labour Party is worse than usual.

Prime Minister Chris Hipkins’ announcement on Sunday that a re-elected Labour government would remove GST on fresh and frozen fruit and vegetables is not just bad policy. It is policy the prime minister knows is bad.

And he knows that we know it.

We know this because Finance Minister Grant Robertson publicly derided the idea in March last year. “GST is a comprehensive tax which makes it very easy to administer, and people in the room who’ve been in other countries with more exemptions will know it becomes an absolute boondoggle to get through,” he said.

“Boondoggle” was a good word choice. It means an unnecessary, wasteful or fraudulent project.

That is an apt description for a policy Labour’s Tax Working Group dismissed as “complex, poorly targeted for achieving distributional goals and generat[ing] significant compliance costs”. For good measure, the working group added that “it is not clear whether the benefit of specific GST exceptions are passed on to consumers”. Boondoggle indeed.

In making the announcement, Hipkins tried to bat away the criticisms by saying other countries, including Australia, take GST off fruit and vegetables. Indeed, he said, if anything, not having carve-outs for certain items meant New Zealand was an “outlier”.

But describing our GST system as an outlier was sophistry. A better descriptor would be enviable. That is because overseas studies have repeatedly singled out New Zealand’s GST system as the best in the world. Because successive governments have resisted the slippery slope of carve-outs, GST in New Zealand is more broad-based and efficient at raising revenue than anywhere else.

The reasons why the GST-free fruit and vegetables policy suffers from so many shortcomings are easy to understand.

Let’s start with cost and complexity. GST exemptions bring grey areas. Infamously, the UK tax authorities endured 13 years of litigation with Marks & Spencer over whether a tea cake was a tax-exempt biscuit or a taxable cake. The Australian Tax Office faced a similar battle. It included flying in an Italian expert as part of litigation over whether a mini ciabatta is a taxable cracker or non-taxable bread. 

Since Labour’s policy was first foreshadowed by National’s Nicola Willis last month, an endless stream of experts has explained that New Zealand will not be spared.

The boundaries between fresh and frozen fruit and vegetables and other processed food may seem clear-cut. But only a moment’s reflection reveals the problems. Is a pot of mixed cut melon fresh or processed? Does coating it in lemon juice to preserve it make a difference? Likewise, is a bag of bite-sized celery sticks fresh vegetables or a processed snack? Is peeled garlic processed?

And what about minted frozen peas? Does coating them in mint mean they are processed or simply frozen? You can almost see the tax lawyers rubbing their hands together in glee.

But if complexity impairs the policy, its poor targeting should be its downfall. In making the announcement, Hipkins claimed that all the savings from removing GST from fresh and frozen vegetables would be passed on to consumers. Based on an average spend of $32.50, that would see a consumer save nearly $4.25 a week.

But, as the prime minister knows, the evidence contradicts his claim. Labour’s Tax Working Group reported that the most comprehensive research estimated that changes in value-added tax rates for specific goods and services have an estimated average pass-through rate of only about 30 per cent.

There are many reasons for this low pass-through rate. But imagine a simple example. If supplies are short because of a cyclone, removing GST at the till just means grocery retailers will be bidding against each other for what supplies are left if demand goes up. The benefit passes through to suppliers who have stock left.

It is difficult to predict what pass-through might be for a whole category like fruit and vegetables. But at a 30 per cent pass-through rate, over four years, the policy will cost the Government $2.2 billion in lost GST revenue and benefit consumers by only $660 million. A cool $1.54b would be dissipated along the way.

Hipkins claimed that the newly established grocery commissioner would ensure savings get passed on to consumers. But the problem will not be with the supermarkets but with their suppliers. In any case, if ensuring full pass-through was as easy as the prime minister claims, governments overseas would surely have ensured better outcomes in their own countries.

The policy is also a scattergun approach to helping families squeezed by the cost-of-living crisis. The benefits of any savings passed through to consumers will benefit the rich and poor alike. Indeed, as high-income households spend more on fresh fruit and vegetables than low-income households, they will gain more from the policy than the households the policy aims to help.

The $2.2b-and-rising hole the policy creates in the Government’s finances is a further problem. The prime minister has ruled out wealth or capital gains taxes. But the lost revenue will have to be made up somewhere.

In speaking to the policy, Robertson made clear that part of the burden would fall on landlords, with Labour planning to help pay for the policy by reintroducing a ban on the deduction of depreciation on commercial buildings as a tax expense. Yet some of the resulting increase in commercial landlords’ tax costs will ultimately flow through to commercial rents and from there to the prices paid by consumers. This is yet one more messy consequence of the GST proposal.

All this makes the proposal an incredibly bad way of helping low-income families. And all this is well known to the prime minister.

Labour’s focus groups may like the policy idea. If presented with something for nothing, who wouldn’t? But there are few free lunches with policy reform. And this reform brings overwhelming problems.

In proposing the policy, Labour is simply exploiting ignorance. Breathtakingly cynical may be too mild a description.

Labour’s recipe for GST-free fruit and vegetables – Oliver Hartwich :

Ingredients:

• 1 cup contradiction (finely chopped)
• 500 grams of voter polling (preferably gullible)
• 2 tablespoons of economic nonsense (no substitutes)
• A generous pinch of legal complexity
• A dash of ambiguity (to taste)
• A sprinkling of international tax quirks
• A heaped spoonful of political expediency

Preparation:

1. Start with the contradictions: Begin by asserting that the policy will help low-income families. Avoid noting that the wealthy will nevertheless save the most money, or acknowledging that the policy might not lead to increased consumption of fruit and vegetables. Stir until thoroughly confused.

2. Add voter polling: Next, add in voter polling, but only the kind that confirms this is a good idea. If using other opinions, be sure to disregard them. Blend until smooth.

3. Fold in economic nonsense: Slowly incorporate economic nonsense by adding the idea that removing GST from fruit and vegetables will lower their price by exactly GST component. Do not acknowledge other market forces. Ignore economic advice. Throw in an extra $240m in unanticipated costs. Whisk until well combined.

4. Sprinkle with ambiguity: Generously sprinkle with ambiguity. Be vague about how to define ‘fresh vegetables.’ Should a potato crisp qualify? Or a washed carrot? Continue to leave unclear until the policy looks opaque.

5. Garnish with legal complexity: Complement with legal complexity by consulting lawyers on how to classify mixed food items. Spend significant time and money ensuring that a salad qualifies but a salad sandwich does not.

6. Stir in international tax quirks: Look to the culinary masters in the UK, who spent decades debating whether a certain biscuit was in fact a teacake. Then, take inspiration from Australia, where courts decided that an oven-baked Italian flatbread was a cracker for tax purposes. Blend these examples into the policy, until the delicious confusion and inefficiency are perfectly melded.

7. Season with political expediency: Finally, season with a heaped spoonful of political expediency, ensuring that the policy aligns with short-term political gains rather than long-term economic sense. Switch off your morals and conscience should you have any. Simmer until re-election.

Outcome:
Serve this dish to a nation expecting a thoughtful and effective approach to reducing living costs. Enjoy the unedifying spectacle of complications, contradictions, and international tax mishaps. Warning: may cause nausea in anyone expecting sound economic policy.

Pairs well with a glass of scepticism and is best enjoyed with a hearty serving of legal textbooks. Bon appétit, New Zealand!

The flowering of mediocrity – Theodore Dalrymple :

When someone is said to be lacking in ambition, it is usually meant as a criticism, as if people had a transcendent moral duty to be ambitious. How else but by ambition will mankind advance?

I grant that ambition is sometimes, or often, necessary, but it is a virtue, like bravery, that is not self-standing. To be brave in a bad cause is worse than to be cowardly in the same cause. And it hardly takes much historical knowledge to realize that ambition can be the closest ally of monstrous evil.

If everyone were ambitious, what a terrible world it would be! The constitution of human society requires people of very different qualities, the unambitious as much as the ambitious. In some respects, the unambitious, those who are not driven to achieve anything, are fortunate: They are not tortured by the idea that they must improve on what they have already done, that they must forever go onwards and upwards. They can be content with their lot in a way that the ambitious never can be. . .

One of the troubles of the modern age (it seems to me) is that its exacerbated individualism has spread ambition far too widely. Nietzsche had no time for the religion of the poor and humble, which he thought exacted a terrible price on superior persons rather like himself. He also seemed to extol the will to power as a cure of the cultural anemia brought about, in his opinion, by religion, particularly the Christian religion.

Whatever one may think of Nietzsche as a philosopher, his prediction of the decline of religion—or rather, the continuation of its decline, for he was only 7 years old when Matthew Arnold wrote his great poem about the decline of religious faith, “Dover Beach”—has come true, and power is the transcendent goal that has replaced salvation in the beyond.

Nietzsche disdained the multitudes and thought that it was superior persons who should seek power, admittedly not in the political field. What happened, however, was that huge numbers of people sought power as the only transcendent good; and given the normal distribution of most human qualities such as talent, it was inevitable that most people who sought (and achieved) power were mediocrities. In other words, the decline of religion, far from conducing to an age of personal and artistic superiority, as Nietzsche hoped, conduced to the very opposite, the flowering (if I may be allowed what seems like an oxymoron) of mediocrity.

Any other explanation?

Is there any other explanation or has Garrick Tremain nailed it?

Less principled than Peters

Tariana Turia resigned from Labour on a principle and her behaviour after that was generally principled.

Whatever, your views of Winston Peters and many examples of unprincipled behaviour as leader of New Zealand First, he resigned from National on a principle.

Meka Whaitiri resigned from Labour without an explanation to her colleagues, the party,  the people who elected her, or the public from what looks suspiciously like pique at not being returned to Cabinet.

When it comes to her resignation, she is less principled than Peters.

Would you trust him?

If National had ruled out working with New Zealand First in 2017, would it have made a difference?

Polls showed about half of NZ First’s supporters wanted the party to go with National, but we’ll never know if ruling the other party out would have helped National.

Now that Winston Peters has apparently ruled out working with Labour, would it help National to rule out working with him?

I say apparently because there is wriggle room in his statement:

“No one gets to lie to me twice,” he says this week.

“We are not going to go with the Labour Party, this present Labour Party crowd, because they can’t be trusted.

“You don’t get a second time to lie to me, or my party and they did.”

He starts with the Labour Party then says this present Labour Party crowd but what does that mean?

If Labour had a different leader, which is possible if the polls consistently show it would be unlikely to win a third term, would that be enough for Peters to change his mind?

Who knows? Would you trust him?

If we can learn anything from the past, it’s that what he says doesn’t necessarily mean that’s what he’ll do.

Apparently being clear about ruling out Labour ought to give voters certainty but there is some wriggle room, and it also takes away his party’s options which weakens it, making it more like the Greens and Maori Party who will never go with National, and Act who will never go with Labour.

The party could sit on the cross benches and if National and Act or Labour, the Greens and Maori Party didn’t have more than half the MPs needed to govern. They would they would then be forced to negotiate with Peters issue by issue.

That would be a disaster.

The country is in a mess and the mess will be worse by next year’s election.

A mess that bad needs a government we can trust and gives us certainty, neither of which can be assured if NZ First is in the mix.

Besides, one of that party’s strongest platforms is policy that both National and Act would deliver without it anyway – one person, one vote, no co-governance of public assets, and assistance based on need not race.

What then would we get if enough people vote to allow NZ First back into parliament? Uncertainty and instability if it was needed in government or sitting on the cross benches. Both could still allow Labour back into government.

That brings me back to the final comments in my previous post. If people don’t want a Labour-led government after next year’s election, they must vote for a National-led one and the only way to get that is to vote for National or Act.

Mallard campaigning for NZ First?

Two former MPs have been trespassed from parliament:

The former deputy Prime Minister has been banned from Parliament, a place he’d worked in for almost four decades.

Winston Peters has been given a two-year trespass notice after wandering through the anti-mandate protest at Parliament in February. That wander could be his last for two years. 

Speaker Trevor Mallard handed down the trespass notice after Peters spent a matter of hours speaking with protesters who illegally camped there for a month.

“We’re going to be inquiring with the Speaker as to exactly what legal advice he has taken in relation to this,” National’s Chris Bishop said.

“My understanding is he basically just went for a wander and a tiki tour.” . . .

Mallard earlier insisted trespass decisions were made by Parliamentary security, not him. But his boss said otherwise. 

“Ultimately, this is a decision for the Speaker,” Ardern said.  . . 

Mallard mishandled the protests badly.

Turning sprinklers on to soak them, and the lawn, and playing loud music.

Trespassing Peters, and former National MP Matt King, is another misjudgment that will hurt him and help Peters who has now been presented with a legitimate grievance and positive publicity.

It could even be seen as campaigning for New Zealand First by putting its leader in the spotlight like this.

He hasn’t decided whether to stand in Tauranga yet but this might persuade him to do so. Even if he doesn’t it will help him towards the 5% his party needs to return to parliament.

But surely even Mallard wouldn’t be that Machiavellian.

However, the alternative explanation is no better – it’s another massive error of judgment, more evidence that he’s not fit to be speaker, a role that requires prudence, and yet another sign he’s well past his use-by date.

That said, if Peters had a lot more self knowledge and humility than he does, he might muse on this being a consequence of his own actions in anointing Labour in 2017.

Another day another hole

We’re supposed to believe everything form the 1pm podium of truth but how can we when there are another gaping  hole between what we’re told and what’s actually happening has been exposed:

 Despite weeks of telling the public that ‘everyone’ in managed isolation is being tested for Covid-19 on day three of their stay, the Health Minister has admitted he knows these tests are not compulsory and his ministry does not know how many people haven’t had them.

Health Minister Chris Hipkins confirmed in writing on August 4 that day three tests were not compulsory and the Ministry of Health did not keep records of how many people had not received them.

This is despite Director-General of Health Ashley Bloomfield saying on June 9 that “from today, everyone in managed isolation will be tested twice for Covid-19”. The national testing strategy also requires day three testing.

Covid-19 testing is meant to occur on days three and 12 of a 14-day stay in managed isolation.

National’s Health spokesperson Dr Shane Reti says it is disappointing the Government spin machine continued to let the public think day three tests were mandatory when they weren’t.

“This is yet another hole in our border defences,” Dr Reti says.

“Recent revelations that not all border staff were being tested for Covid-19 were extremely disappointing given this is our first and most important line of defence against the virus.

“The Government’s complacent attitude to day three testing is equally disappointing. If we are truly a team of five million then we all need to take the game plan seriously.

“Day three testing is important. Dr Bloomfield has talked about how it is key to reducing the risk of someone leaving managed isolation infectious.

Someone positive but not tested on day three would have more than a week to infect others before the test results on day 12 were available.

“This is why National has reissued our request to re-convene Parliament’s Health Select Committee. We think it is important the Director-General of Health fronts up to explain the disconnect between the Government’s rhetoric on testing and what is actually happening.

“National will protect New Zealanders from Covid-19 and allow our economy to flourish with a comprehensive border plan that includes mandatory weekly testing of all border staff.”

The Minister’s answers are here.

Not only are people not being tested, border staff are waiting far too long for results when they are tested:

A senior employee in the managed isolation system says he has yet to receive the results of his coronavirus test 10 days on.

And neither have at least three of his colleagues.

The employee, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said he was tested at a pop-up centre at an Auckland isolation hotel on August 14 shortly after revelations 60 per cent of border workers had not received a Covid test.

On Monday, 10 days after his test, he was yet to receive his results.

He had also contacted his GP who said they had no record of him being tested on August 14.

As a result, he had been told to undergo another test sometime in the next week.

The man described the state of affairs as a “farce”.

“Something’s gone wrong.” . . 

Several somethings have gone wrong and something keeps going wrong.

But the news isn’t all bad – the Health Select Committee will reconvene next Wednesday, following pressure from the National Party and New Zealand First.:

National health spokesperson Shane Reti had written – for a second time – to the Health Committee chair asking for it to be reconvened. His initial request was rejected.

Reti wanted the Health Committee to call Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield, senior ministry officials, and the Health Minister, to grill them on the Covid-19 response.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said it was logical for the committee to meet to canvass the advice of those people on the alert level decisions taken by Cabinet this week.

“Given the economic and health consequences of the Cabinet’s decision it is appropriate for the accountability function to be performed while Parliament is sitting,” he said.

Committee chair and Labour MP Louisa Wall said she was happy for the committee to be reconvened and would invite the minister and Bloomfield to appear. . . 

The Epidemic Response Committee (ERC) that operated during the first lockdown hasn’t been reconvened. The Health Select Committee will be the next best way for the Opposition to question the Minister and DG of Health.

Waka jumping Act on way out

The Waka jumping Act is on its way out:

The Electoral (Integrity Repeal) Amendment Bill has passed its first reading, marking one step closer to Parliament getting rid of NZ First’s ‘waka-jumping’ legislation, National List MP David Carter says.

“I’d like to thank the Greens for voting for this legislation. They have reasserted their values as a Party that stands up for free speech, and we look forward to working with them further to make sure this Member’s Bill passes.

“No credible democracy should ever have given the power to Party leaders to dismiss elected Members of Parliament because they don’t agree with the Leader.

“It is an affront to democracy. The public expects elected members to advocate strongly without fear of being punished by their Leaders for expressing different views.

“The free mandate of MPs is internationally recognised as fundamental to a parliamentary democracy. There are only a few countries with the draconian power for Party leaders to dismiss MPs, including Zimbabwe, Pakistan and Sierra Leone.

These are not countries whose attitude to democracy we should be following.

“As I will be retiring at the next election, I have passed responsibility for the legislation to Nick Smith, who shares my passion for good, democratic process.”

The waka-jumping Act was one of many dead rats the Green Party swallowed in return for joining Labour and New Zealand First in government.

It has now spat it out, incurring Winston Peter’s wrath in the process:

New Zealand First has a track record of pulling support for Labour-Green policies at the eleventh hour.

There’s been the capital gains tax, cameras on fishing boats, and more recently light rail from Auckland city to the airport.

Peters said comparisons can’t be drawn between light rail and waka-jumping.

“We did the work on light rail, the costings and the analysis did not back it up.”

He said the Greens’ were breaking their end of the deal.

“They’re signed up to the coalition agreement on this matter for three years and that term does not end until the 19th of September.”

Peters said the Greens can’t be trusted and voters should remember that on election day.

“You cannot possibly be going forward to the years 2020-2023 contemplating a party that can’t keep its word.”

Is this an instruction for his own supporters to vote for other parties?

But Shaw rejected that criticism.

“I think it’s a bit rich for Winston to suggest that we’re not trustworthy when in fact they’re the ones who have been entirely slippery with the interpretation of our confidence and supply agreement.”

Shaw said his party is fed up with New Zealand First not sticking to the spirit of an agreement.

“I would say that in recent times we have learned that it’s the letter of the agreement, rather than the spirit of the agreement, that’s what counts when it comes to New Zealand First.

“So when it comes to the repeal of the party-hopping bill I would say that we have observed exactly the letter of our agreement.”

So is he just playing the same political games as Peters?

“Well I learn from the master,” Shaw fired back.

That the government has held together when the antipathy between these two parties is so strong.

With just days to go before parliament rises for the election, any presence of unity has gone.

 

 

If they don’t trust & respect each other . . .

The three-headed labour, New Zealand First, Green government was always going to be a difficult one.

It would be hard to find any two parties more mutually incompatible than the two smaller ones.

That they sit in parliament on either side of Labour rather than beside each other which was the normal arrangement for parties in government says a lot.

That the government has held together this long has surprised many.

Could it be the Greens have come to like the diet of dead rats they’ve been forced to swallow? Could it be that Labour got so used to having its policies vetoed by NZ First, that it was prepared to accept no progress as business as usual? Could it be that Winston Peters was so determined to last in government for the first time, staying in became more important than accomplishing much?

Whatever the reason that’s kept the parties together, the cracks in the government are turning into crevasses with the end of term in sight.

Last week the antipathy between the Greens and NZ First got vocal:

. . . Green Party co-leader James Shaw has described New Zealand First as a force of chaos, while Winston Peters has warned any future Labour-Greens government would be a nightmare. . . 

It was Peters who started the war of words at a breakfast speech in Wellington this morning.

“If you want to take out some insurance in this campaign to ensure you don’t get the nightmare government I know you’re going to get, then I suggest you party vote New Zealand First,” he said. . . 

Has he forgotten it was he who gave us this government? To use Andy Thompson’s metaphor, he’s the arsonist who lit the fire, why reward him for helping to put it out?

Shaw was happy to respond.

“Well, I think that the nightmare that he’s got is that he’s not going to be back in Parliament.”

Shaw is known to be quite measured when New Zealand First pulls the pin on policies or puts a spanner in the works, but with the campaign unofficially under way he’s ramping up his own rhetoric.

“My experience of working with New Zealand First as a party in government is that rather than a force of moderation, they’re a force of chaos,” he said. . . 

Anyone who has taken even passing note of NZ First’s history would agree with that.

Peters also admitted stopping an announcement of a $100m Southland rescue package:

. . .He did, however, reveal he told Ardern she was travelling to Southland on behalf of the Labour Party, not the coalition government.

“The prime minister was going down with MBIE [Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment] and other ministers to talk about the future of Tiwai Point.

“We had a discussion the night before as to the positions the various parties might take,” he told RNZ.

“The prime minister was very well aware that she could speak on behalf of the Labour Party, but on this matter, not on behalf of the coalition because there was no paper, no agreement, no Treasury analytics to go behind it.” . . 

This is another reminder that in spite of being the minor partner, NZ First, has wielded power far beyond that granted by its voter support.

Apropos of misusing power, last week Peters faced questions over pressuring Antarctica New Zealand to take two of his friends to the continent:

. . .Foreign Minister Winston Peters directed Antarctica New Zealand to give two highly-prized spots on a trip to the icy continent to two women closely linked to one of South East Asia’s richest families. . . 

While denying any impropriety, Peters followed his usual modus operandi by attempting to deflect attention with a rant in parliament accusing several people of leaking information on his superannuation overpayments as a result of his  inability to fill in the application for superannuation properly.

He declined to repeat the accusations outside the protection of parliamentary privilege and all the people named by him denied the accusations.

It is no wonder the other parties in government are showing they neither trust and respect him and his party, feelings that are obviously mutual.

But if they don’t trust and respect each other how can they expect us to?

Something smells fishy

New Zealand First is smelling fishy again: :

Newshub has obtained an explosive audio recording of Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash talking about NZ First MPs Winston Peters and Shane Jones.

The recording was from February 2018, around the time the Government first delayed the rollout of cameras on nearly 1000 fishing boats – since then it’s been delayed again until at least October next year.

In it, Nash points the finger of blame squarely at them for delaying plans to put cameras on commercial fishing boats to make sure they don’t break the law. . . 

Michael Morrah has done a public service in reporting on this, not just because of questions over the delay to cameras but because of the link between the policy and donations.

Fishing company Talley’s donated $10,000 to Shane Jones’ 2017 election campaign. RNZ also revealed that Talleys donated $26,950 to the NZ First Foundation.

Newshub has verified these donations.

Talley’s Andrew Talley told Newshub “within the right framework cameras have a place in modern fisheries management”.

He says there’s “no connection” with donations and the camera delays. . . 

It would be hard to either prove or disprove whether there is a connection.

But there is a problem with NZ First and its foundation which the Serious Fraud Office has referred to the police.

Referral does not mean guilt and for everyone’s sake this must be cleared up before voting starts.

Whether or not it that happens, this story provides yet another reason for National to keep its resolution to rule New Zealand First out as a potential coalition partner.

Labour won’t be able to do that without collapsing the government unless but they agreed to having the dog as a partner and have to put up with the fleas.

Contradictions and confusion

Police Minister Stuart Nash says the social distancing breaches at the weekend’s protest marches was irresponsible.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said the marches breached the rules.

That was yesterday, after the event. Both were silent before the event when they might have been able to persuade people to protest in ways that didn’t breach the rules.

The PM gave us repeated warnings and guidelines for Anzac Day, why didn’t she speak up before the protests?

That she only voiced an opinion after the event is contradictory and confusing for those of us who thought we knew the rules and were keeping to the requirement to have no more than 100 people at an event and to maintain social distance.

But there’s more contradiction and confusion from DIrector General of Health, Ashley Bloomfield:

“There’s currently no evidence of community transmission in New Zealand so at this time, quarantine for 14 days after attending one of these outdoor events is not required.”

If that’s the case why are we still at Level 2 which is handicapping businesses which in turn is costing jobs and livelihoods?

But he says it’s still important that Kiwis remain “alert to symptoms and seek advice if they’re at all concerned”.

“Whatever the alert level in New Zealand, it’s clear COVID-19 will continue to be a global threat for some time and it’s important we remain vigilant – both as individuals and as a country,” Dr Bloomfield said.

“This means continuing to observe physical distancing to keep yourself and others safe, seeking appropriate heath advice, and most importantly staying at home if you’re unwell.”

Continuing to observe physical distancing – unless you’re at a protest or the PM or DG:

Photographs have emerged of the Prime Minister and director general of health posed for pictures close to wellwishers, prompting accusations of hypocrisy from a National Party MP warned by police for doing the same.

It has led to an admission from the Prime Minister it was a struggle to maintain “appropriate distancing” with people approaching wanting “handshakes and hugs”.

It’s been a struggle for the rest of us to maintain “appropriate distancing” at funerals and with family and friends but most of us have managed it.

Bloomfield also confirmed he was in a photograph with strangers but said it was only for a moment.

Northland MP Matt King produced the photographs after facing public criticism when he posted to Facebook photographs of himself with staff from a restaurant in Paihia where he had dined.

King told the Herald today coverage of the photograph led to a phone call from a senior Northland police officer who reminded him of social distancing rules.

“I felt sorry for the cop. He was a senior cop. He said: ‘This is not a formal warning – you’re standing too close‘.” . . .

It doesn’t help that there’s contradictory statements coming from the PM and her deputy:

With businesses hemorrhaging money by the day, the Government should be discussing the move to Level 1 now, not in a week, Leader of the Opposition Todd Muller says.

“The Prime Minister and her Cabinet could have discussed the move to Level 1 today. It’s not good enough that all they did was agree to meet again next week to make a call.”

National is demanding the Government immediately release the secret Cabinet papers on which it decided last week to stay in Level 2.

“Divisions between Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters are causing confusion about what the secret papers say about how safe it would be to move to Level 1,” Mr Muller says.

“The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have both read the same Cabinet papers but one is telling us it is too dangerous to move to Level 1 while the other says it would be perfectly safe.

“Moving to Level 1 as soon as it is safe is of the greatest importance to small businesses and the thousands of Kiwis losing their jobs each week.

“The public deserves to see the same advice Ms Ardern and Mr Peters are publicly disagreeing about.”

We also need to know the criteria for moving to Level 1 because it obviously isn’t what is on the Ministry of Health’s website or we’d already be there.

Alert Level 1 — Prepare

The disease is contained in New Zealand.

Risk assessment

• • COVID-19 is uncontrolled overseas.
  • Isolated household transmission could be occurring in New Zealand. . . 

Instead we’ve got confusion and contradiction over which gatherings can have more than 100 people and which can’t; between what the DG of Health says and what we’ve been told about Alert Level 2; and between the PM and her deputy and what’s on the website and what’s happening in practice.

The social and economic cost of this is far too high for anything but the clarity and certainty businesses need to make decisions and all of us deserve if the social licence the government lost at the weekend is to be regained.

Without it, more and more people are going to flout the rules in the certain knowledge that they, like the protesters, will be left to do as they will.