The GDP data is bad – very bad. The economy has shrunk in the last two quarters. The question is why. There are two broad arguments. They are:

• This is due to the austerity regime of Nicola Willis and her savage public sector cuts
• This is due to the high interest rates imposed by the Reserve Bank to bring inflation down under control which skyrocketed under Grant Robertson.

Let’s examine the claim that Nicola Willis has imposed an austerity regime on NZ. The 2023 Budget forecast core crown spending of $141.3b in 2024/25 which is 32.3% of GDP.

The 2024 Budget forecast core crown spending of $143.9b in 2024/25 which is 33.4% of GDP.

So spending in National’s first year is actually $2.6b higher than Labour were forecasting. To claim this is austerity means you are either a moron, or you think Grant Robertson practised austerity.

And the savage public sector cuts? Well the EFTS headcount is only 296 less than in June 2023. Is it credible that 296 fewer public servants can lead to a 2% drop in GDP?

So it is fairly easy to conclude that Argument 1 is about as solid as a puddle. Sadly this has not stopped Chris Hipkins and Helen Clark trying to argue this. They really should be arrested by the misinformation police.

How about argument 2. Well the Reserve Bank says the average floating mortgage rate until a couple of months ago was 8.6%, almost double that of three years ago. On the average mortgage of $550,000 this means weekly repayments of $985 a week, compared to $628 a week. So that is $357 more a week or over $18,000 a year.

In April Canstar found our mortgage rates were 1.4% higher than in Australia and their cheapest rates were 2.1% lower than NZ. In the UK rates appear to be around 5.5%., Canada is a bit lower than that. So interest rates in UK and Canada are 3% lower than in NZ.

This is the reality that the antidote to inflation is harsh. High interest rates do cause recessions. The solution is of course not to let inflation continue. The solution is to not let inflation get out of control in the first place.

Grant Duncan writes:

What’s unusual lately, though, is to see university administrators taking public stands on contentious political events, shutting down or de-platforming certain people, and imposing particular political opinions as the “correct” opinions. As an academic whose job it was to study, understand and talk about political ideas and policies from across the spectrum and through history – including ideas that I may have disapproved of – this trend felt wrong and oppressive to me. It felt that way to many students too – and not only the conservative ones. I know that because they told me so. And it’s not as if I was against diversification of the curriculum. On the contrary, I’ve found it exciting to study and write about different civilizations and their political traditions and philosophies. My books are proof of that.

What troubled me was the oppressive atmosphere – the opposite of how a university should be. This went as far as bullying and silencing of non-conforming thought, on one hand, and the uncritical acceptance of some research that seemed shoddy to me.

This is the first hand experience of someone who was an academic up until a couple of years ago.

So, a wider range of people attended universities, taught by a cohort of lecturers with predominantly left or even Marxist opinions.

I sometimes wonder what proportion of lecturers are Marxists.

Some academics who embraced demographic diversity decided that “being diverse” was a more important criterion for hiring and promotion than “being academically accomplished”. But they could not tolerate political diversity. To sensible folk outside the academy, this was patent nonsense. But many academics doubled down by imposing their left-wing ideas through compulsory “identity politics” and by blaming all ills on “neoliberalism”.

While I was always in favour of a more equitable society, I opposed the indoctrination, or the political project of trying to produce a new kind of graduate who’d go forth into the world and transform it in ways that would realise their lecturers’ fantasies.

I also sometimes wonder at what stage a centre-right Government might start to question the wisdom of spending $4 billion a year on tertiary education, if it is being used to indoctrinate students, rather than educate them.

Think of the opportunity cost. Imagine what you could achieve if half that $4 billion went on making early childhood education universal from age one?

Radio NZ reports:

Stats NZ is reviewing its systems after data incorrectly overstated Wellington’s job losses.

As more Health New Zealand cuts were revealed, business employment data painted a very bleak picture of the capital.

Economist Shamubeel Eaqub compiled data from this source that showed that from a year ago, the number of jobs in Wellington City has dropped 19,430.

That is equal to 11.6 percent of the jobs in that area.

Scoop points out:

A report last week about job losses in Wellington has been corrected by Stats NZ. Stats NZ has told The Post that incorrect data was supplied which inflated Wellington’s job loss numbers. The actual number of job losses was closer to 2000 ‒ a 2% drop instead of 11%.

This is a huge difference. And like most misinformation, many people will not see the correction. The claimed of 20,000 jobs lost in Wellington was all over social media, while the correction is almost invisible.

Sort of related to this, we have the latest GDP data:

New Zealand’s gross domestic product (GDP) fell 1.0 percent in the September 2024 quarter, following a revised 1.1 percent decrease in the June 2024 quarter, according to figures released by Stats NZ today.

The update to the June 2024 quarter growth rate reflects the incorporation of annual data, a process completed by Stats NZ each October. In this instance, while the June quarter growth rate has been revised downward, the overall level of economic activity has been revised upward over a longer period.

Revisions to GDP data are normal, and to be encouraged. However this is no minor revision – it is the largest I can ever recall. Three months ago Stats NZ said:

In the June 2024 quarter, compared with the March 2024 quarter: GDP fell 0.2 percent

A revision from -0.2% to -1.1% is huge. The difference is about $4 billion. Decisions were made on that GDP data by the Reserve Bank, the Government, banks etc. It basically isn’t good enough.

Greg Presland writes:

She was recently at the Northern Club in Auckland, heard Winston Peters say something and responded by questioning the veracity of what he said.

Greg is trying to defend the Judge, but is making it worse. Because the Judge is now claiming:

“I did not realise that it was the deputy prime minister who was speaking when I made these comments, or that the event was a NZ First function,” she wrote.

So Greg’s version of events is one that the Judge is now denying. But you have to give him marks for trying.

The language being used against them is somewhat overblown and overdramatic. “Gatecrashed” is apparently having a look into a neighbouring room. 

You enter a room you are not invited into, and yell out that the person speaking is lying. How is that not gatecrashing? If it was reversed and a NZ First MP went into the judges function and called them names, I’m sure Greg would call that gatecrashing.

Requiring them to never express a political opinion even when within the hallowed confines of the Northern Club is a bit much. After all I thought there was an unwritten rule that what happens in the Northern Club stays in the Northern Club.

Oh Greg is trying so hard here. There is of course a big difference between expressing an opinion quietly to a colleague at a function, and yelling out loudly that the Deputy PM is a liar. Not even Greg could possibly believe what he is saying.

And I hate to breach the secrecy surrounding the law profession but many lawyers hold very strong political views.

My first job was in a very conservative downtown lawfirm. I can recall clearly how the conveyancers and commercial lawyers were all deep blue National supporters. But amongst the court lawyers, those who took the administration of justice very seriously, were a number with progressive political views.

Greg once again shoots and misses. Of course lawyers have political views, as do teachers and accountants and engineers. So what. We’re talking about a judge, not a lawyer. And we are not talking about their private views, but their public behaviour in shouting their views out loud.

And as for judges I know a few who quietly seethe at what this Government is doing and what previous National Governments have done.

This is no surprise.

One of the top donors to the Labour Party is a former High Court Judge.

Does Greg know what former means? Did he donate large amounts while on the bench? No.

Others also hold strong views. I can recall as an example one Judge getting his clerk to pass me a note in a busy list court asking for contact details so that he could make a private donation to the Labour Party.

Astonishing. Greg doesn’t even realise what he is revealing – that a Judge while sitting in court got his clerk to arrange a donation to the Labour Party for him.

Suggesting that people at the top of their game who have invested a lifetime in pursuing justice should have no political views is absurd.

Again Greg is either very stupid or missing the point on purpose. Judges are allowed political views. They are not allowed to shout out that they think the Deputy PM is a liar.

A guest post by a reader:

Most of us have by now no doubt seen the start of an interview with David Seymour on TV One Breakfast where he took the host to task for the manner in which the discussion was introduced.  Essentially (partly my words and partly his) he suggested the introduction  made at least one mistake of fact and was unreasonably “framing” the matter as divisive.  

I want briefly to suggest two ways in which the Bill has been viewed simplistically if not unfairly, then suggest a counter-argument, and then swing back to media framing.

A significant criticism of the Bill proposed by TV One, is its supposed divisiveness.  On one level that is transparently true.  The Bill has divided us and thus ipso facto it is divisive.

However, let’s examine that by analogy.

Imagine you and your significant other are having relationship difficulties.  Imagine that you sit your partner down one evening after dinner and suggest quietly and reasonably that it’s clear there are things you both need to discuss, and that after some early discussion between you it might be worth exploring these matters with a counsellor to see if resolution can be reached.

Imagine at that point your partner starts yelling and screaming, throws a few things, gets right up into your face and abuses you, and commences a tirade about the integrity of your marriage or other commitment.  Imagine that their position is that the sanctity of your past vows allowed for no further discussion irrespective of how things had moved in the interim.

Now note this analogy is offered around perceptions of behaviour not around what precisely the Treaty says or does not say.

My point is this.  Which is the more accurate way to frame those events, as an expression of divisiveness on the part of one party or as an overreaction on the part of the other?

Second point.  I assert as many many others have done that meddling (my word) with the Treaty has not started with ACT.  My working life has aligned with the growth of novel Treaty jurisprudence.  I have watched it from the sidelines while becoming increasingly concerned at the confusion and paralysis it is causing the public sector.

Again setting aside the substantive merits of this change, it is not a logical or tenable position to pour vitriol on ACT for wanting to do what others have done.  It is after all simply seeking a re-examination of the Treaty to ensure it meets current understandings and expectations.  That is no more than what has occurred over the last forty years.  The critics cannot have it both ways by treating the Treaty as dynamic when they want change and static when they don’t like the direction discussions of change are going in.

Now I am a Socratic man whose worldview is rooted in logic and rationality that underpin western culture.  So too I would suggest is David Seymour.

And that is the rub.  Maori reaction to the Bill is, it seems to me, rooted much more in the “vibe”.  That is, the symbolism of possible change is outrageous and an affront to mana irrespective of how we got to where we are today.  Now I “get” that may be a cultural response.  Personally it’s not one I favour and I have limited optimism for this country’s future if major issues are resolved in terms of subjective emotional responses to things.  But I do allow that others may have contrary views and/or want with the very best of intentions to leave room for them so far as this is possible.

But the two perspectives are ships passing in the night.  There is no ready way to reconcile them.  And that is precisely ACTs point.  If divergent views of the Treaty continue, and separatist understandings of what the Treaty mandates prevail, the society which evolves under its banner is unlikely to be much different.  And it is not hard to predict what will follow.  Fiji anyone?  

In my view then there are very clear grounds for regarding much criticism of the Treaty Bill as one-dimensional and unbalanced.  And so back to TV One.  Was its framing of the Bill unbalanced, if not biased?  Of course it was.    

A more balanced view could have taken any number of forms.  It could have used phrases such as “perceived divisiveness”.  It could have referred to the dynamic nature of understanding of the Treaty of which the ACT view is but another form.  It could have spoken of the Bill evoking “extreme reactions” which in my view would have been the most accurate way of describing what has occurred.  

None of this appears commonly in the media narrative.  Instead we have a stunning piece of illogic by which those seeking to reconcile diverging understandings are assumed to be sowing division by even raising the topic; a suggestion more farcical when it is noted that it is the other party (not formally but in terms of intellectual leadership) to the debate which has moved its views so as to create the divergence. 

All the best to us all as we grapple with these thorny issues while keeping the ship on course….. 

Matt Nippert reports:

Charity regulators have moved to deregister high-profile social services provider Waipareira, concluding a long-running investigation into its funding of chief executive John Tamihere’s political campaigns.

The decision follows a four-year investigation by Charities Services into Waipareira that has seen settlements reached and breached, accusations of racism, and Charities Services staff complain about bullying behaviour from Waipareira’s lawyers.

News of looming deregistration and the loss of its tax-free status broke in Waipareira’s own financial statements filed this week to the Charities Register, which end with a note stating: “On 23 September 2024, the trust received a formal notification from the Charities Registration Board (CRB) of its intention to make a decision to deregister the charitable entity Te Whanau O Waipareira Trust.”

No other decision was realistically possible.

Waipareira effectively made hundreds of thousands of dollars of donations to TPM’s 2020 election campaign and Tamihere’s own tilt for the Auckland mayoralty in 2019. 

You can’d do this, and be a charity. They knew this, but did it anyway.

The DIA statement said deregistration would see Waipareira revert to its previous status as a charitable trust, which faced no restrictions on political activity but came with tax consequences.

“The trust would also be able to continue its association with or support for political parties and candidates free from restrictions and obligations arising under the act. It may have tax implications for the trust, however this is a matter for Inland Revenue,” the statement said.

Charitable trusts face an income tax of 28%.

Charities law stipulates that deregistered charities need to distribute their assets to organisations that are registered or face a tax levied across accumulated assets. Based on Waipareira’s reported financial position, this one-off tax could amount to $30m.

It is a shame as historically Waipareira has done many good things for the communities they serve. But to use money given to them by taxpayers for charitable purposes, and channel it to political campaigns was just wrong.

The CBC reports:

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre says the House of Commons should be recalled now that NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh is vowing to bring forward a motion of non-confidence to take down the Liberal government.

“The Liberals don’t deserve another chance,” Singh wrote in an open letter on Friday. “That’s why the NDP will vote to bring this government down.”

This is a survival tactic for the NDP who don’t want to be associated with the Liberals anymore.

The timing of the next confidence vote is unclear, but likely to be in the first quarter of 2025 which will lead to an election in the first half of 2025. The only real uncertainty is whether Trudeau remains Liberal Leader to fight the election.

The Herald reports:

Labour’s finance spokeswoman Barbara Edmonds has replaced a graph that incorrectly stated the Ardern-Hipkins Government reduced New Zealand’s debt levels by about $31 billion in its second term. …

In fact, depending on what measure you use, Labour’s second term saw a rapid increase in borrowing thanks to the pandemic, reducing the tax take and increasing expenses. Debt increased by $72b or $36b by two of the most common recent metrics.

It is a concern that Labour’s Finance Spokesperson doesn’t even realise debt increased massively under the former Labour Government.

In June 2017 net core crown debt was $59.5b. In June 2023 it was $155.3b.

That’s an average increase of:

• $15,970,000,000 a year
• $1,330,000,000 a month
• $306,000,000 a week
• $43,7000,000 a day
• $1,820,000 an hour
• $30,376 a minute
• $506 a second

And Labour are claiming they reduced debt!

Stuff reports:

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon will not attend the national Waitangi Day events at Waitangi next year, he has confirmed.

His confirmation followed a letter from Hīkoi mō Te Tiriti organisers on Thursday morning, telling Government ministers they were not welcome at any Waitangi Day events.

Great. Easy call.

Stuff reports:

A District Court Judge accused of “verbally attacking” Winston Petersand other New Zealand First members at a Christmas party has been referred to the Judicial Conduct Commission.

The Post earlier reported that Judge Ema Aitken was attending an end-of-year bash for district court judges at Auckland’s exclusive Northern Club last month, when she gate-crashed a private function for Peters’ party in a neighbouring room.

Peters was reportedly making a speech when it is alleged Judge Aitken tried to enter the room and shouted: “He’s lying! How can you let him say that?”

Following questions from Stuff, the Judicial Conduct Commissioner office said the commissioner had powers to investigate incidents “on his own initiative”.

“That is the step he took yesterday morning when he read the various media references to this Judge.”

Whether our not this is a resignation offence is fairly easy to answer – just swap roles.

Imagine that at the same Northern Club evening with a gathering of judges and a NZ First gathering, it was a NZ First MP who gatecrashed the gathering of judges, yelled abuse at them, told them they were disgraces and accused the Chief Judge in attendance of lying. That MP would already be goneburger. MPs have had to resign for far less egregious conduct breaches.

And I don’t think I am alone in saying that we have higher expectations of judges than MPs. A District Court Judge has remuneration of $541,000 a year. They literally sit in judgement on people with the power to send people to prison. They are expected to have exemplary conduct, and they are required to be politically neutral.

Judge Aitken was either sober or drunk when she gatecrashed the NZ First function. And either option is bad for her. If she did it sober, then it shows a total lack of judgment and restraint. But if she was drunk – well she is the Judge that set up the Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Court pilot. How can she credibly judge others who have misbehaved under the influence? And being drunk is no excuse.

The Herald reported:

If elected, Labour will build the new Dunedin Hospital to the level that was promised at the 2023 election before the coalition Government said it would downsize the build, blaming cost.

They really hope voters have short memories. In 2017 they promised to have construction start before 2021. They of course didn’t. In fact after six years they still hadn’t signed off a final business case for the entire hospital (only the smaller inpatients facility).

If they had kept their word in 2017, the hospital would be almost complete by now. But their inability to even decide on a final business case after six years speaks volumes.

Periodically I do something stupid in some way to do with activity. A few bike crashes, stopping myself with my face when running down a forest track, ripping my knee open in an off-road duathon, a bee sting to find I had an allergy …

You get to test out the A&E Departments around the country.

After a concussion and a bit of blood flowing on Saturday I eventually ended up in the North Shore Hospital A&E about 3pm. There was about twenty people waiting in a range of states and ways.

The short story is the one that many people tell from NZ A&E experiences; i.e. I finally made it home about 3am.

The other experiences were much more remarkabe.

Every nurse, nurse assistant, administration person was remarkable. No one apperared stressed, every question was answered positively, they were entirely professional and explained why they were doing each task – including asking me repititive questions to ensure I was on the right planet.

The doctor did not become available for me until 9pm. He also took time, explained things clearly – including why they were taking next steps (CT of head and neck). For the next while I was in the emergency ward where the atmosphere was equally positive and it was also very clear that the staff treated each other well – not just the patients.

At about 1am the doctor appeared again – with good news. I had avoided skull and neck fractures but that it was now his job so sew up the cuts in my scalp. He took an hour, apologised every time I just about leapt off the bed, explained what he was doing and talked sport throughout.

I had to ask – nicely; “why does the whole A&E process take so long?”

His response was that it is something all of the front line staff desperately want to change and that they have worked hard to get their systems and approach right but that so much resourcing is soaked up by policy and administration. His previous experience overseas had seen a minismisation of the number of non-medical middle managers and external, Ministry, resourcing. He also noted that here any decisions seem to take 20 people to make just because so many have an oar to stick in that has little to do with patient care.

I tell the story because this week the nurses are on strike for pay and conditions. Hospitals are for providing care for paitients when they need it. Like education – clearly a massive amount of resource is diverted away to people and places that really do not achieve very much at all re the true purpose.

I also have no doubt that a lot of the non-medical people – and the Ministry people – are paid a lot better that the vast majority of those doing a brilliant job in the ward.

To the North Shore Hospital A&E people. I appreciated your care!

To the Nurses – all the best with your fight.

Alwyn Poole

Radio NZ reported:

The government wants to divide New Zealand along ethnic and economic lines, Chris Hipkins says, and he wants to be the leader who brings it together.

Is he serious? He led a Government that tried to see everything in ethnic terms, and caused the huge division we still have today.

And for the party of the wealthy urban elite professionals to talk about economic division is equally hilarious. They look upon many working class voters as a foreign species.

Grant Duncan writes:

If a vote for Labour means, in effect, a vote for Green and TPM leaders in cabinet, then many centrist voters will reluctantly stick with National, thanks all the same. Chippy can’t control those other parties or explain them away over the next two years.

Labour is polling in the high 20s or low 30s. They will only be able to become Government if Greens and Te Pati Maori deliver a further 15%+ to them. That means they will be able to demand a full three way coalition, with seats in Cabinet. Neither party has ever had to grapple with the responsibility of being part of Cabinet.

It is hard to describe how left wing and woke such a government would be. It would make the Ardern Government look like a moderate deliberative government.

Some very good humour from Chris Luxon in the adjournment debate, which I enjoyed.

And to all of my haters over there, to all of my haters over there who say I use too much management speak, well, I don’t know how I can be any clearer. What I would say to you is that we have some big goals to chunk down so that we can grip up the deliverables and benchmark our KPI targets.

Heh nice self parody.

Now, to my friends in the Green Party—Julie Anne, no need to get up. I saw recently that there’s a new Green MP that has a member’s bill to liberalise the use of parody, and I just think it’s just great—it’s just great—to see the Greens live those values by being a parody of themselves each and every single day. I have to say, if you folks weren’t so opposed to it, we would have happily—happily—added Darlene Tana’s resignation to our fast-track list.

Not sure which jibe was better the JAG one or the Darlene Tana one.

To my friends in the media: can I just say thank you for always holding me to account and for always being so fair and balanced! I wish you a very happy and safe holiday—please do take as long as you need.

Heh.

I saw a lovely headline—it was an absolutely lovely headline about David Seymour finding love. And while I know David and Winston’s working relationship has been stronger than so many predicted, to be honest, I did think it was still quite a bold description of their relationship.

That one had me LOL.

Secret Santa with ACT this year was a disaster, though. They wouldn’t stop taking credit for every present.

Heh.

Radio NZ reports:

Labour’s Willie Jackson has taken aim at the coalition government for what he called “taking Aotearoa down a path of division and hate.”

It is a trick in politics to accuse your opponent of what you yourself do.

Which side of the debate on TPB uses violent rhetoric and demonises those who oppose? It’s pretty obvious, isn’t it.

The Herald reports:

Staff at a charitable trust working with Northland’s most vulnerable kids held crying families as they told them their services were under threat.

Stand Tū Māia plans to take Oranga Tamariki to court over its decision to terminate a three-year funding contract worth $21 million a year.

The organisation is seeking a court injunction and the existing contract enforced, to stop the government department from acting as if it has been cancelled.

I know nothing about this, but when I read a story like this I wonder why. So I do research. I look for their annual accounts. They are not on their website, but the charities register have them.

A wise accounting professor once told me to ignore income and expenditure and balance sheets as they can be easily adjusted through decisions such as whether you classify something as expenditure or capitalising an asset etc. He said always look at the cashflow. So I looked at their cashflow surplus in recent years. It is:

• 2020: Cash surplus of $3.1m on cash in of $24.7m
• 2021: Cash surplus of $0.8m on cash in of $23.7m
• 2022: Cash surplus of $2.9m on cash in of $25.4m
• 2023: Cash surplus of $9.2m on cash in of $36.6m

That is just from operating activities. Their total cash on hand has grown from $5.2m in 2018 to $28.0m in 2023. Now I don’t know if this is related to the OT decisions, but it certainly seems interesting that in five years their cash on hand has increased by around $23 million.

The Post reports:

A district court judge and her reality TV star partner have apologised for “verbally attacking” Winston Peters, Casey Costello and other New Zealand First members at a Christmas party.

Chief Judge Heemi Taumaunu has also apologised on behalf of the court.

Judge Ema Aitken and intensive care specialist David Galler were attending an end-of-year bash for district judges at Auckland’s exclusive Northern Club last month, when they gate-crashed a private function for Peters’ party in a neighbouring room.

The rumpus started as Peters was making a speech. It’s alleged Aitken tried to enter the room and shouted: “He’s lying! How can you let him say that?”

So Judge Aitken was presumably drunk (it is worse off she was sober), gatecrashed a NZ First party and abused the Deputy PM – calling him a liar.

This would be terrible behaviour for any person, but for a judge it is fatally inappropriate.

A video clip from the party also shows prominent barrister, Michael Reed KC, refusing to stop taking photographs of NZ First guests, including Shane Jones’ wife Dot, despite strict club rules.

That is creepy.

Attorney-General Judith Collins, who is the Crown’s senior law officer, said she was aware of the incident and “appalled by it”.

“I have told the Chief Justice that such behaviour is completely unacceptable and I expect it to be addressed,” she said.

The appropriate way to address this is by resignation.

According to an incident report, compiled by an independent lawyer acting on behalf of Northern Club and NZ First, based on witness statements, Aitken left the dinner to use the bathroom and heard Peters’ speech as she passed.

The report says she accused Peters of lying, in a comment to Holly Howard, who asked her to leave.

“However, Judge Aitken continued to shout and make a scene … Judge Aitken then told Ms Howard that there was a room full of judges next door, and they would be very interested to hear about this,” the incident report said.

Threatening and bullying behaviour.

In the second video, the report reveals, Reed tells the staff member: “Don’t touch me because you will be sued for a lot of money.” He also tells him “Can you be quiet, can you be quiet?”

The sense of entitlement is high.