The Canadian election is on Monday (Tuesday NZ time) and the Liberal Party has gone from being 20% behind a few months ago and facing a loss of well over 100 seats to leading in most polls and projected to win re-election.
They may not get a majority, which needs 172 seats. Current projections have them getting 186 seats. 338 Canada projects they have an 89% chance of winning the most seats and a 68% chance of getting a majority.
The chances of a Conservative majority is now under 1% and in December the chances were over 99%! Trump has destroyed the chances of the Canadian Conservative Party with his attacks on Canada.
The seat projections are:
Liberals 186 (+26 from 2021)
Conservatives 124 (+5)
Bloc Quebécois 24 (-8)
NDP 8 (-13)
Greens 1 (-1)
The last few polls have shown the race getting tighter, so the Conservatives may do better than the projections, but the betting markets have the Liberals at between 82% and 88% favourites to win, so it would be a real upset.
TVNZ says it cut a story featuring an anonymous Destiny Church whistleblower from the digital version of a 1News bulletin out of an “abundance of caution”.
Some viewers claim the whistleblower’s face was too visible during the segment and say they were shocked by what they saw. …
Campbell, in the clips that aired on 1News, interviewed a woman who was said to be living in hiding after fleeing abuse from her former partner, a member of the Destiny Church’s anti-violence group, Man Up.
But the face of the victim – who is said to be “under a protection order” and “asked for her face to be hidden” – was too visible during the bulletin, according to some viewers.
That’s a pretty bad way to treat a whistleblower. Surely someone viewed the footage before it went to air?
This road will effectively connect the region to the rest of the country, replacing the unreliable goat track we are all too familiar with. …
For too long, Northland has been ignored by the decision-makers in Wellington and has languished as one of our most economically deprived regions.
People and businesses have suffered because of bureaucratic inaction and inefficiencies.
Those who live in the winterless north, often working in small operations and seasonal tourism ventures, can now see a future where their livelihoods aren’t determined by weather and how long authorities take to clear the roads.
Labour had derided the building of the northern expressway as a “holiday highway”, claiming it was only going to serve the wealthy bach owners of Ōmaha, Matakana and Mangawhai.
I have no doubt this will make a huge difference to Northland.
The difference between single laned and double laned roads is massive. In the former you travel at the speed of the slowest vehicle. In the latter you travel at around the speed limit (and have double the capacity).
Just look at how the combination of Transmission Gully, Kapiti Expressway and Otaki Expressway has transformed getting into and out of Wellington. Last week I got to Whanagnui in just two hours and 15 minutes. Used to be close to three hours.
You used to have around six to eight traffic jams of several minutes to half an hour or more to get to Levin. The change has been amazing – not just less time, but so much less stressful.
What Labour called the Holiday Highway will be a huge boon to Northland.
Climate change is no longer a top threat for the defence force in its latest spending plan. …
It marks a departure from the 2019 Defence Capability Plan, which identified climate change as a key driver of security events affecting New Zealand, mentioning it 13 times and dedicating a chapter to outlining how climate change would stretch the defence force.
Both the Defence Assessment 2021 and Defence Policy and Strategy Statement 2023 identified compounding impacts from climate change as one of the two top threats to New Zealand’s defence interests in the medium-to-long term.
If the Defence Force today listed climate change as one of the top two threats to NZ’s defence interests, I’d want the leadership put into a lunatic asylum.
Climate change is a serious environmental and economic issue. It might have an impact on defence and security in 50+ years time, but to have an article demanding to know why it is no longer in the top two shows how slanted the worldview is.
Currently the world is facing:
A land war in Europe
The collapse of NATO
A trade war which could lead to China moving faster on Taiwan
Iran closer to nuclear weapons
China doing live firing exercises in the Tasman Sea
The Israel-Hamas war
The collapse of trust in institutions
If you really think climate change is one of the top two security issues, then you most be living on Mars.
The “standard” sentence for murder in New Zealand is life imprisonment with a minimum non parole period (NPP) of ten years. This can be increased at the sentencing Judge’s discretion. For murder with aggravating circumstances, the sentence is life, with a minimum NPP of 17 years. Such sentences are rare. The third option is life without parole (LWOP) which thus far has only been imposed once, on the terrorist Brenton Tarrant.
New Zealand is a common law country, which simply means that our law is derived from the law of England. Other such countries include the US, Canada, Australia, India, the West Indies – and Tonga, where I now live. There are of course considerable differences in the laws of the countries I mention – the most notable of course being the USA, the states of which have some offences which are nonsensical to an English or New Zealand trained lawyer. For example I haven’t the foggiest idea what “voluntary manslaughter in the second degree” might mean.
The laws of Australia and the UK are much more similar to New Zealand law. In all three cases, the sentence for murder is life – whatever that might mean in a particular jurisdiction – with a minimum NPP.( Interestingly there are no NPP’s in Tonga – in the Kingdom, life means life). All three countries – the UK, Australia and New Zealand – also now have LWOP as a possible sentence. (LWOP is referred to as a “whole of life Order” in the UK which means exactly the same thing).
The use of LWOP varies greatly between the UK, Australia and New Zealand. There are currently 77 “whole of life” prisoners in the UK. My research suggests that a person in the UK who kills two or more people, or someone who kills, is released on parole and then kills again, is almost certain to be sentenced to LWOP (much easier to write than “whole of life Order”). One significant difference between the UK and New Zealand is that it is possible to receive LWOP in the UK for an offence other than murder – in particular rape. This is not possible in New Zealand because the maximum penalty for rape is 20 years as set out in the Crimes Act 1961. UK judges seen to have a much wider degree of discretion than here. There appears to be no Sentencing Act in the UK, although I stand to be corrected.
I have been unable to ascertain the number of prisoners serving LWOP in Australia – I would be most grateful if someone with better research skills than I possess could tell us how many there are. Suffice it to say that there are a number – I would guess perhaps a dozen, but perhaps more or fewer. What is very clear is that minimum NPP’s in Australia are generally much longer than here, with thirty years being not uncommon. As in the UK, a double or repeat murder in Australia will inevitably attract a life sentence – if not of LWOP then with a minimum NPP of in excess of 25 and up to 30 years or more.
Here in New Zealand, other than Tarrant, the longest NPP remains the 30 year sentence – reduced from 33 years on appeal – imposed on William Bell for the murder of three people at the Panmure RSA in 2001. Bell committed his crime while on parole from a sentence for a particularly nasty aggravated robbery, during which Bell made it clear he wished to kill the service station attendant he attacked in the course of the robbery. Had Bell committed his crimes in the UK or Australia, I have no doubt he would have got LWOP. Instead he will become eligible for parole in 2031 – although it is fair to say he is unlikely to released. Well, that is unless the Green Party is then in charge of appointments to the Parole Board.
The next longest NPP I am aware of is 28 years imposed on Paul Tainui – formerly known as Paul Wilson – for the murder of Nicola Tuxford, a woman who was trying to help him but with whom he had become obsessed. Prior to the murder of Ms Tuxford, Tainui had killed his girlfriend in 1994, served 13 years of a life sentence, and been released on parole. In 2018 Tainui broke into Ms Tuxford’s house, lay in wait for her for eight hours, and upon her return, he raped and murdered her. At his trial in 2019, the Crown sought a sentence of LWOP, or if not that, then a minimum NPP of 30-32 years. The judge refused, and sentenced Tainui to life with a minimum NPP of 28 years.
The third relatively recent such case I am aware of is that of Pauesi Brown, who killed “good Samaritan” Austin Hemmings, who came to aid of a woman Brown was attacking on an Auckland street in 2010. Brown had killed his ex-girlfriend in Australia. He repeatedly stabbed his estranged girlfriend in the neck and chest while they were living in Melbourne in 1992. He was charged with murder, but the charge was reduced to manslaughter, and he was convicted in December 1993. He spent eight years in jail for that killing. Brown has a lengthy record of violent offences both in Australia and here.
In what I regard as an outrageous sentence, Brown was sentenced to life with a minimum NPP of a mere 16 years – one year less than the prescribed sentence for murder with aggravating features. Again, had Brown killed for a second time in Australia, if not LWOP, he would have been given a minimum NPP of at least 30 years – double what he received in New Zealand – if not more.
In my view – which I am sure is a view shared by most New Zealanders – sentences for murder in New Zealand are ridiculously light, and as I have shown, far more lenient than in either Australia or the UK, two countries with which we compare ourselves. Prior to Tarrant, the Crown had applied for LWOP in at least four cases that I am aware of, all for either second killings, or the killing of children. In all four cases, the NPP’s were considerably less than the 30 years William Bell is serving.
Murder – particularly the murder of children – is rightly the most serious crime on our statute books. While it is fair to say the circumstances vary widely – from the “mercy killing” of a terminally ill spouse by the other spouse to the crimes committed by Bell and Tainui – I believe our sentences for the worse murders, such as those discussed in this piece are woefully insufficient, and do not come close to satisfying either the gravity of defying a person of life, or the public’s wish for the worst killers to pay commensurately for their crimes.
So how to change that? Given the nature and attitude of our judiciary, statutory direction is essential. The Sentencing Act could be amended to provide for a mandatory sentence of LWOP for any person who either kills two or more people, or is guilty of two killings separated by a prison sentence. We have already seen the folly of including a “manifestly unjust” get out of jail card. If that was part of any amendment I am as sure as I can be that the judges would avoid imposing LWOP.
I believe such an alteration to our law for murder would enjoy widespread support – even among Green voters. When Curia polled on the original three strikes law some years ago, to my considerable surprise it enjoyed the support of something like 45% of Green voters. The Green party by contrast would almost certainly vote against it.
New revelations this week show Te Pāti Māori still hasn’t produced an auditor’s report for its 2023 financial statements of political donations. The party told the Electoral Commission that a “delay with the auditing firm continued to be a problem” in explaining why its 2023 accounts remain unaudited. This was reported yesterday by BusinessDesk’s Denise McNabb – see: Still no sign of Te Pāti Māori audit report (paywalled)
This excuse comes despite Te Pāti Māori having already paid the audit firm for the work, and it highlights a troubling pattern: the party has repeatedly failed to comply with basic electoral finance laws. Te Pāti Māori’s ongoing issues with late and incomplete financial disclosures – from annual accounts to donation returns – raise serious questions about its commitment to legal obligations and political integrity. The general public should be concerned that a party which aspires to represent Aotearoa’s indigenous voice is also gaining a reputation for flouting the rules meant to ensure transparency and trust in our democracy.
Why would they bother to comply with the law, when the Police give them a free pass? The way you get compliance is to haul the party secretary into court. Instead the Police have closed the file, despite TPM now being almost 10 months later (and after three weeks it is meant to be escalated to a more serious offence).
I regret to inform you that cultural reports are back, wearing a wig and a false mustache.
In March 2024, Parliament passed the Legal Services Amendment Bill, which abolished public legal aid funding for section 27 reports, also known as “cultural reports”. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith stated:
“This will put an end to what has become a cottage industry costing the taxpayers millions with no benefits to the real victims of crime… legal aid funding for section 27 reports has increased from approximately $40,000 in 2017, to more than $7 million in the last financial year. It’s also resulted in further discounts at sentencing, something the Government is widely concerned about.”
As a defence lawyer, I am very familiar with cultural reports and it would often be my duty to arrange such reports for my clients. Critics cited three main problems with cultural reports:
– Cultural reports were very lucrative, with most cultural report writers charging $3000 or more per report, despite often not having any formal qualifications. For a 1-2 hour interview followed by a couple of hours writing the report, a seasoned cultural report factory could generate nearly $1000 per hour. By contrast, a qualified lawyer preparing written submissions for sentencing would receive a fixed fee of $450-$600 + GST for most legal aid cases.
– Cultural reports were explicitly aimed at securing lower sentences, giving the more soft-hearted Judges an excuse to give enormous sentencing discounts and allow home detention for even very serious offending. Report writers would boast on their websites about the discounts their reports had achieved. For example, one cultural report writer displays a testimonial on her website:
– “Your cultural report was a revelation. The Crown wanted 8 years. He got 6.5 years [less all the discounts above]. In the end he got 2y7m and will be eligible for parole very soon. I can’t wait to send you the sentencing notes. He got a really big discount.“
– Cultural report writers would not verify the offender’s claims, meaning offenders could sometimes exaggerate their backstory to secure greater discounts at sentencing.
The rebrand
When the “cottage industry” was shut down in March 2024, many cultural report writers gathered up their riches, packed away their templates, and moved on to new careers. But some of the more enterprising cultural report writers decided not to give up in the face of mere legislation. A plan was born to rebrand cultural reports under a new name, to allow the gravy train to keep on rolling. Goodbye publicly-funded Cultural Reports, hello publicly-funded “Alcohol and Drug Reports”.
Alcohol and Drug Reports have been ordered occasionally for many years, often by the Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Court (AODTC). Some defence lawyers would also request legal aid funding for such reports, even before the new law. But an OIA request has revealed that since legal aid funding for cultural reports was abolished in March 2024, annual legal aid funding for “alcohol and drug reports” has increased by 254%.
In the two years prior to the change in March 2024, $957,662 was approved for “alcohol and drug reports”.
In slightly less than one year after the change, $1,623,766 was approved for “alcohol and drug reports”.
The cultural report gold rush is over, and the “Alcohol and Drug Report” gold rush has begun.
The report writers
Could the 254% increase in the 11 months since the cultural report taps were turned off be a coincidence? Let’s look at who is providing the reports.
The OIA response from the Legal Services Commissioner did not provide the requested breakdown of which companies had been paid to prepare the “Alcohol and Drug Reports”. This was because “the information does not exist, as the Ministry does not record this information.” This is concerning for three reasons:
– This information could easily be collated. When a lawyer submits a quote from a report writer to Legal Aid for approval, the report writer’s company name is listed on the quote. Later, once the report is prepared, the lawyer forwards the report writer’s invoice to Legal Aid, and then pays the report writer themselves.
– More than $1.6 million in public funding has been provided for these “Alcohol and Drug Reports” in less than a year, a sufficient sum to be worthy of some basic record-keeping.
– Legal aid lawyers are rightly subject to transparency for the public funding they receive. Every year there is a table published which shows how much each legal aid lawyer has been paid that year. This allows for public scrutiny of the big earners who are in some cases receiving over $1 million per year in legal aid alone. There was no such table published when the cultural report industry was generating $7 million per year, which would have allowed the public to see who was profiting from the reports, and would have also allowed Legal Aid Services to audit and scrutinise how much each cultural report writer was earning. With some proper record-keeping, Legal Aid might have concluded that $3000 or more per cultural report was excessive given the gargantuan profits that were being made by some of the more prolific cultural report writers. Now, funding for “Alcohol and Drug Reports” has exploded by 254% and Legal Aid has no idea who is profiting from this, because they don’t keep any records of it.
So without any OIA data, how do we know who is providing the “Alcohol and Drug Reports”? It’s a matter of a simple Google search.
Formerly prolific cultural report writing companies are currently advertising themselves as available to write “Alcohol and Drug Reports”. Please note that in the absence of data from Legal Aid Services, I cannot confirm how much these companies received for “cultural reports” prior to the new law, and for “Alcohol and Drug Reports” under the new law. However, Google confirms that cultural report companies are currently advertising “Alcohol and Drug Reports”. For example:
– “Independent Research Solutions Limited”, of which the sociologist Jarrod Gilbert is the sole director and shareholder.
– “H2R Research and Consulting Limited”, of which the patched Mongrel Mob gang member Harry Tam is a 50% shareholder and director.
Legal Aid Services do not have any specific policies in place to insist on the report writer having any particular qualifications. For example, the “Alcohol and Drug Report” writers are not required to be a registered member of DAPAANZ – the Drug and Alcohol Practitioners’ Association Aotearoa New Zealand. Nor are they required to be registered counsellors, psychotherapists, psychologists or doctors. Thousands of dollars are being paid out per report to people who are not accountable to any professional standards board.
Meet the new reports, same as the old reports
It is also clear from a quick search of legal databases that “Alcohol and Drug Reports” are often just cultural reports in drag. For example, in The King v Wharekura [2025] NZHC 751, a decision dated 1 April 2025, the Judge stated:
I have the benefit of two reports that were prepared for your sentencing: a pre-sentence report, prepared by Corrections; and an alcohol and drug report, prepared by four report writers…
The pre-sentence report [prepared by a probation officer from the Department of Corrections] assesses you as being at a high risk of further violent offending… the writer does observe that, despite assertions that you wish to use your time in prison to better yourself, you have accumulated 11 misconducts in prison for tattooing, seven for possession of homebrew, two for possession of non-prescribed medication, one for fighting, offensive behaviour toward staff, and possession of razor blades and cannabis oil…
I turn now to the alcohol and drug report. That report provides that it includes a component under s 27 of the Sentencing Act. Under that provision, the Court can hear from people on (amongst other things) a person’s background and on the way in which it may have related to the commission of an offence.
I observe at the outset that the report writers are not trained in medicine or psychology and that their findings are based on self-reporting from you. But the information is helpful and the report writers have relevant qualifications, one of them having a speciality in addiction which enables a useful perspective.
You are of Waikato-Tainui – a proud and just people, who suffered immeasurable loss when the Crown invaded and then confiscated Waikato-Tainui’s tribal lands and taonga. The widespread loss, suffering and deprivation has lasted for generations. It weighs heavily.
The above case highlights the difference between a pre-sentence report prepared by the Department of Corrections and a legal aid-funded “Alcohol and Drug Report”. The first aims to provide a neutral report regarding the background of the offender, the reasons for the offending, and the prospects of rehabilitation. These reports are by no means perfect but generally aim for a neutral perspective. “Cultural reports”, or their rebooted franchise of “Alcohol and Drug Reports”, aim to minimise the sentence, and just like section 27 “cultural reports”, will canvass alcohol and drug use as well as cultural and family background. Despite the new moniker of “Alcohol and Drug Report”, much of the focus remains on cultural factors which have nothing to do with drugs or alcohol.
The website of Harry Tam’s “H2R Research and Consulting Limited” openly admits this:
“With the recent defunding of s27 reports, our AoD reports also include insights into clients’ personal, family, whānau, community, and cultural backgrounds in their drug and alcohol assessments.”
Where these “Alcohol and Drug Reports” commissioned under legal aid, this is at best a calculated evasion of the new section 99(4)(ca) of the Legal Services Act 2011, which states:
“The Commissioner must decline… any claim to the extent to which it is for a disbursement incurred in relation to a report or statement (whether oral or written) of a person called by an offender under section 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002;”
Conclusion
Cultural reports are symptomatic of deep-rooted issues in our justice system – issues which are too extensive to cover in this post. It should come as no surprise that when the Government has attempted to weed out one of these issues, the weed has stubbornly regrown. It is now up to the Government to once again weed out the problem, this time hopefully by root and stem.
The latest NZ Crime and Victims Survey has found a massive drop in the number of New Zealanders who say they were the victim of a violent (including sexual) crime in the last year.
Now recall these are over a 12 month period so only the last two data points reflect an entire year under National. Basically from 2022 to 2024 the number of NZers who were violently or sexually assaulted increased from 160,000 to 215,000 or 45,000 more victims. It has now dropped to 157,000 and hopefully will continue to decline.
So in the 12 months from July 2023 to June 2024 62,000 Māori were the victims or violent or sexual assaults. In the last 12 months it was only 23,000 – a reduction of 37%.
I am awaiting the press release from Te Pati Maori welcoming this.
I knew immediately on the day of my arrest that there was something terribly wrong with police oversight and accountability structures in this country, and said as much in a Kiwiblog article at the time. The impunity with which the Police acted (e.g. not caring or reacting when I recorded their QID numbers, and the fact that they did not bother to delete footage from my phone recording my arrest) told me straightaway that they had got away with this kind of behaviour again and again and again.
I did not know where the problem lay
I had no experience of laying complaints about police however and did not know where the weak link in the chain lay, although I was certain there was one. Given the rumours flying around about the IPCA I initially suspected that was where the fault lay, but was eventually persuaded otherwise after observing the outstanding integrity of IPCA staff firsthand over a long period of time. I have also written about that previously on Kiwiblog.
The problem is with the PPCU
It is now obvious to me that the problem is neither with IPCA staff, nor with the IPCA judge, but with the Police Professional Conduct Unit (PPCU) which is a department within the New Zealand Police that investigates complaints of police misconduct. This, not the IPCA, is the body which actually investigates the overwhelming majority of complaints about police officers, despite the fact that the IPCA’s very existence acknowledges the PPCU’s inherent conflict of interest.
I was never contacted by the PPCU or interviewed
When I laid a complaint about the police officers who arrested me, the IPCA and the PPCU commenced separate investigations into the matter. Nobody from the PPCU ever even told me that the PPCU investigation was happening. Although the investigation concluded months ago, to this day I have never received a single email or call from the investigator who was running the case, and I was never interviewed for my side of the story.
Typographical errors are no excuse
I do add that when I enquired recently why I was never contacted for an interview, I was informed that one, singular email was sent to the FSU inviting me to be interviewed and that there was a typographical error in the email and it was never delivered. I find this a laughable excuse: the PPCU could have made more efforts to try and contact me if it was seriously interested in truth. According to the FSU the PPCU was never in any other contact with them whatsoever.
Daniel Maxwell was not interviewed either
I add also that Daniel Maxwell (who was arrested on the same day I was) was not interviewed by the PPCU either in relation to his case, but despite the fact that he was never even asked for his side of the story the Police were sufficiently certain of the facts to claim in the press release on 18 February 2025 that “the intent of the officers was to ensure the man’s safety.”
Officer Q was not interviewed
The PPCU arrived at its conclusions about my case in a report which it sent to the IPCA c. April – May 2024. At this point the most senior of the police officers who arrested me (old mate Officer Q) was not interviewed, despite the fact that he told the most serious lies about me e.g. that I was mentally ill and screaming at people. When I enquired recently why he was not interviewed, I was told that his notebook evidence was deemed sufficient.
Notebook entries are no substitute for an in-person interview
But a notebook entry making allegations about someone is no substitute for an in-person interview. The purpose of an interview is not just to passively receive a person’s side of the story, but to ask searching questions to determine whether what is being said is true. In my view, the reason that the PPCU did not interview Officer Q is that it exists to whitewash police conduct and does not care about the truth: it simply accepted the police narrative.
The IPCA told the PPCU to reconsider its conclusions
When the IPCA received the PPCU’s initial report in mid-2024, it told them they needed to review their conclusions in the light of a second piece of video footage which the IPCA had discovered which was taken by a member of the public. Despite this, over a year later in the police press release in response to the IPCA report which concluded that my arrest was illegal, the police claimed that my arrest was justified and reiterated facts which were debunked in the IPCA report, without providing any reason for rejecting the IPCA’s findings. The press release was based on the PPCU’s findings.
My OIA request was refused
I add in passing that I submitted an Official Information Act request enquiring a) what percentage of complainants who lay complaints about police officers are not asked for a statement and (b) what percentage of complaints against police officers are actually upheld. The Police refused to provide me with an answer to a). But I have been told by someone in a position to know that it is not uncommon for the PPCU not to even bother interviewing complainants.
Conclusion
The police investigating complaints of misconduct against their own officers is a classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse. In my opinion resources need to be transferred from the PPCU to the IPCA in order that investigations into police misconduct are not performed by people with a conflict of interest.
The coalition has directed Health New Zealand to say “women” instead of “pregnant people” in its communications about health issues.
Associate Health Minister Casey Costello wrote to interim chief executive Dr Dale Bramley on 27 March, telling the agency to use “clear language”.
“Recent documents that have reached my office from the Ministry of Health have referred to women as ‘pregnant people’, ‘people with a cervix’ or ‘individuals capable of childbearing’,” she said in the letter.
“Only women and people of the female sex can get pregnant and birth a child no matter how they identify.”
What is amazing is that 18 months after a new Government came in, the health bureaucrats were still using terms that attract endless derision. Rather than do the common sense thing, they have carried on their woke agenda, and forced the Minister to actually write to them to tell them to stop it.
For the avoidance of doubt, any individual who is pregnant should be treated with respect, and communicated with in line with their gender identity.
But that level of respect and politeness is not the same as trying to delete all references to women from maternity services. The vast vast vast majority (99.989%) of pregnant women identify as women. To throw away the term women in regards to pregnancy because a minuscule percentage of pregnant women identify as a man is just crazy.
Data from the US finds that around 400 of the 3.6 million annual births are to transgender males. That is a rate of 0.011% or 1 in 9,500. To insist that the term women can no longer be used for pregnancies because 1 in 9,500 pregnant women identify as men is again crazy. Now again those 1 in 9,500 should have their gender identity respected by the health system on an individual basis, but not at the expense of deleting all references to women from pregnancy.
According to an official information response from the Ministry of Social Development, 5,997 were dependent on welfare by the end of the year. That’s 35.2 percent.
Most would have been born onto a benefit.
Of the 17,397 born in 2023, 7,737 were on a benefit by age two. That’s 44.5 percent.
The equivalent percentages for non-Maori babies are respectively 11.4 and 14.8 percent
These extraordinarily high Maori numbers aren’t due to unemployment – just one in ten of the Maori babies born last year became dependent on a Job Seeker benefit. Eighty percent have sole parents.
The future expected time on a benefit for sole parents is 17 years.
Growing up in homes where nobody works is bad for children. They are more exposed to transience, abuse and neglect, violence, poor educational outcomes, poor health outcomes and substance abuse.
Reducing the number of Maori babies born into households with no working adults would do 100 times more to reduce inequities in health, education, incomes and life expectancy than anything related to the Treaty of Waitangi.
The number who see the US as an ally has fallen to 43% (down 6 pts since early March), meanwhile Brits are actually more likely to say that Donald Trump is an enemy rather than an ally of the UK 30%-28% and 33% say he's neither. In contrast 71% say Canada is an ally, 61% France. pic.twitter.com/phhbpeeDki
Pope Francis has died aged 88. He was Pope for 12 years, a Cardinal for 24 years, Archbishop for 27 years and a Bishop for 32 years. He was born Jorge Mario Bergoglio and was the first Jesuit Pope. He was also the first non European Pope in 1300 years.
The 115th papal conclave to elect the 267th pope will convene in the next few days with 135 cardinal electors, so 90 votes needed to elect the new Pope. The first papal conclave was in 1276.
The Dean of the College of Cardinals would normally preside over the papal conclave but Cardinal Re is 91 years and Cardinal Sandri the vice Dean is 81 years old so the presiding Cardinal may be Cardinal Prevost from Chicago.
There is, in New Zealand, a certain powerful, tightly controlled organisation. It has secretive membership numbers, opaque finances and a history of safeguarding and other scandals. It boasts strong connections at the highest levels of New Zealand public life.
Its followers, who include a number of former government ministers and current opposition figures, meet regularly. They are expected to adhere to internal discipline. Dissent is discouraged and an exclusive loyalty enforced.
We know there are at least 500 members, but there’s no way to know how many more. It’s probably in the thousands. We just don’t know. It’s a closely guarded secret.
To become one of the group’s elect, members must first submit to a formal pledge ceremony. This isn’t symbolic. The individual must sign a formal document to uphold the group’s principles, in front of two verified insiders. Only then can they be considered for advancement. Upon elevation, they are required to strictly adhere to the organisation’s programme in public, regardless of conscience or private concerns.1
Its members are known to go door-to-door in pairs, engaging strangers with a pre-prepared message. They keep record of these encounters. They return if you don’t give a firm answer. If they’ve ever knocked on your door, there is a good chance they have notes about you.
Cults of personality abound. Former leaders are sometimes revered figures whose very images are sometimes displayed as sacred icons. On occasion, this even extends to the current leader. Merchandise bearing the visage of the leader may be available.2
When leaders fall from grace, of course, history is quietly revised.
Despite its stated values of fairness and inclusion, the organisation has been repeatedly implicated in scandal:
A senior figure in the group was convicted on bribery and corruption charges, including exploiting vulnerable migrants for personal gain.3
A member was convicted of using forged documents during the 2010 local government elections.4
In one case, young foreign volunteers were brought to New Zealand and housed in what they described as overcrowded, makeshift accommodation while being used for unpaid work.5
In another, teenagers attending a group camp were exposed to harm in a night that included drinking. Parents were not promptly informed. Neither were the police. An investigation was conducted by the organisation did not release the full report.6
The organisation then went on to mishandle accusations of misconduct in and around the offices of its highest leaders. Under public pressure, a review occurred but, again, without full and complete public disclosure.7
Time and time again, we have seen the organisation exhibit a culture of investigations being handled internally or outsourced under tight conditions.
And yet, despite these red flags, this shadowy organisation has wielded significant influence over the machinery of government, with its members having held senior roles across public life, including in education, health and the justice system.
The secretive group is known variously as “The Party,” and “The Broad Church.” But its formal name is “The New Zealand Labour Party.”
DPF: I await the breathless media articles on this cult.
Consider removing the requirement for a street address in promoter statements in light of personal safety and security concerns of people participating in the election.
Consider amending the cut-off date for enrolments and updates to enrolment details to be prior to polling day.
Consider whether electoral law should move towards a single voting period.
All sensible stuff. A big focus needs to be on getting final results as soon as possible after election day. Ridiculous to wait three weeks for final results when you have also had advance voting for three weeks. Cut off enrolments a week before election day (which is still two weeks after advance voting starts and require all ballots to be received by election day, so we can get results within 48 hours.
Following the news that two reserve Bank managers had resigned, I checked out their management structure.
They have six Assistant Governors and a massive 27 directors or third level managers. Just looking at the job titles shows that there is obvious reductions that can be made. This is no reflection on the individuals doing those roles (who could be very good) – it is just based on what the Reserve Bank Act says the Reserve Bak should be doing. In short it is:
Monetary policy
Prudential regulation and supervision
Manage deposited compensation scheme
Financial system monitoring
Bank notes and coins
Now let’s look at the 27 directors. You have:
Prudential Policy
Financial Markets
Enforcement and Resolution
Financial Stability Assessment and Strategy
Specialist Supervision
Prudential Supervision
You could clearly combine those six roles (which are all around prudential regulation/supervision and financial markets) to two or three directors.
Talent and People Operations
Organisational Capability and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Physical and Personnel Security
These three are all HR related. You could make a case for the security role to be seperate so reduce to one or two directors.
Programme and Strategy Delivery
Strategy and Business Performance
Strategic Adviser
You don’t need three strategy directors.
Digital Solutions / Chief Technology Officer
Data, Statistics and Analytics
Knowledge and Information Management
Information Security (CISO)
These are all in the IT area. Now this doesn’t mean they should all be merged as CTO, CIO, CISO etc can all be need valuable roles. But it depends on the size and complexity of an organisation.
Risk and Compliance
Money and Cash
Legal Services/General Counsel
Economics/Chief Economist
Audit Services
Payments and Settlements
Communications and Stakeholder Engagement
Commercial Operations
These eight all seem uncontroversial for a Reserve Bank.
Māori activist and former MP Hone Harawira has criticised a recent Te Pāti Māori candidate for confronting Cabinet Minister Casey Costello at a food court on Tuesday evening. …
Former Māori Party and Mana MP Hone Harawira has come to Costello’s defence – criticising Huriwai-Seger in a Facebook comment, saying he stepped over the line.
“I’m not the biggest fan of Casey Costello but I don’t like you pushing youself into a woman’s space and I don’t like you telling her she’s ‘gonna get it’,” Harawira said.
“Pat youself on the back if you think that makes you a big man, but don’t try that on me or my wife,” Harawira wrote.
Not often I agree with Hone, but good on him for stating what the TPM candidate did was clearly wrong.
