The Taxpayers Union points out:

The Taxpayers’ Union is telling Hastings Mayor Sandra Hazlehurst to ‘grow up’ after she used her casting vote to give committee voting rights, and a salary, to members of the Hastings District Youth Council: school-aged kids. …

“Let’s get real. It’s a thinly-veiled move by left-leaning councillors to stack council committees with even more idealism and inexperience. Using kids for political leverage needs to be called out for what it is.”

“It’s also undemocratic. These children have no democratic mandate or accountability. It’s a blatant attempt to ‘screw the scrum’ by cynical politicians and grifters.”

“Local government is in crisis and instead of the adults prevailing, Mayor Hazlehurst is inviting kids with, at best, year 10 business studies, to cast votes on governance matters of an organisation with total assets of nearly three billion.”

So ratepayers will be funding salaries and costs for 15 year olds to sit and vote on Council committees. And people wonder why there is such disillusionment with local government.

Stuff reports:

New Zealand’s Defence Minister has all but resigned herself to losing a $100m Navy ship, which struck a reef, burned, then sank while the 75 on board made a daring escape in strong currents and waves off Samoa.

“This is a ship that, unfortunately, is pretty much gone,” Defence Minister Judith Collins told a press conference on Sunday, the night after HMNZS Manawanui commander Yvonne Gray issued an abandon ship order after the vessel hit a reef.

“This could have been a truly terrible day,” if there had been loss of life, Collins said. “But actually it is a bad day.”

The cause of the incident will go to a court of inquiry but Gray’s call is being credited by Chief of Navy, Rear Admiral Garin Golding, as a life-saving decision.

It is great that there was no loss of life. A ship can be replaced, people can’t. However unless this was a freak accident, the crash and sinking was probably preventable and there will be great interest in the court of inquiry.

A guest post by Ewen McQueen, that the Herald refused to run:

Matthew Hooton wrote in the NZ Herald last week that “There’s no doubt that both Māori and Pākehā in 1840 understood tino rangatiratanga to be a bigger deal than kāwanatanga”.¹ However whilst this is undoubtedly the modernist position on how we should interpret the Treaty, the historical evidence suggests something very different.

Article One of the Treaty states that the chiefs agreed to “give absolutely to the Queen of England forever, the complete Government (Kāwanatanga katoa) over their land”. This is the late Prof Sir Hugh Kawharu’s back-translation of the Māori text into English.² Whilst many today prefer to ignore the strong and clear meaning of this Article, the chiefs in 1840 were under no such illusion. They quickly grasped the essence of what it meant. The British Crown would become the pre-eminent governing authority in these islands. Yes, their chieftainship over their lands and villages would be protected. But only within the context of the over-arching sovereignty of the Crown over all New Zealanders – including them. 

How do we know this? Because they told us. We have historical accounts of the debate at Waitangi that record what various chiefs said. In particular William Colenso’s account is generally accepted as an accurate description of proceedings.³ It shows that the idea of coming under Crown authority was indeed a very big deal for the chiefs. In fact Kāwanatanga katoa was the prime focus of discussion and debate. And that little word katoa is an important clue as to why. It is rarely mentioned. But it means complete, all-encompassing, totally, without exception.⁴ It’s no wonder it focussed the minds of the chiefs on the issue of Crown authority. 

Colenso’s notes showed many chiefs were initially reluctant to sign the Treaty, precisely because they understood it would establish an authority above theirs.  Tareha replied to Hobson “We only are the chiefs, rulers. We will not be ruled over. What! thou, a foreigner, up, and I down! No”.⁵  Another chief, Te Kemara, opposed the Treaty because it would mean “the Governor to be up and Te Kemara down”.⁶ Other chiefs expressed similar sentiments both at Waitangi and other locations around the country where the Treaty was signed. In the Hawkes Bay one chief, Te Hapuku, even drew a diagram showing the Queen above the chiefs.⁷  

These chiefs clearly did not see the Article Two guarantee of tino rangatiratanga as allowing them to retain unqualified chieftainship or “absolute sovereignty”, as Hooton and the modernists suggest. And taunts from local Pākehā settlers that the Treaty would make them slaves certainly wouldn’t have encouraged that idea. 

In the face of such taunts the chiefs sought counsel from trusted Pākehā advisors. The French Catholic missionary Pompallier was, unsurprisingly, not an enthusiastic advocate for the Treaty. However he advised the chiefs that the decision was up to them, and the key question was “whether it is preferable for you to recognize and obey a great European chief, rather than to live as you have lived until now”.⁸ Henry Williams, the Anglican missionary who translated the Treaty, met with many on the evening before the signing. He later wrote that he explained again the Treaty, clause by clause, and how it meant “they would become one people with the English…  under one Sovereign, and one Law, human and divine”.⁹

Nowhere in the historical records do we find any indication that either the chiefs or the Pākehā protagonists understood anything other than that Kāwanatanga katoa meant the Crown was being established as the pre-eminent governing authority in the land. This was the key question under debate. This was what the chiefs had to agree to – or not. The significance or meaning of the Article Two guarantee of tino rangatiratanga hardly even featured in the proceedings. Of course it was important. But it wasn’t the main question at stake. 

As it transpired, after initial reluctance and doubt, most chiefs agreed to the Treaty. They did so not because of assurances of “equal partnership”, but because they were persuaded of the benefits that Crown authority would bring. These included law and order, peace between tribes, and increased opportunity for trade. Tāmati Wāka Nene for instance acknowledged Hobson would become “our Governor” and urged him to remain as “a father, a judge, a peacemaker”.¹⁰  Many others likewise invited Hobson to stay as Governor for both Māori and Pākehā. One was Tāmati Pukututu who accepted Hobson as “a Governor for me, for us, for all.” ¹¹

These statements clearly don’t fit with the modernist narrative that the chiefs only agreed to the Governor having authority over Pākehā. However they are the historical facts. Hooton and the modernists need to engage with them, rather than ignore them. They also need to stop offering shallow interpretations of Te Kawenata Hou (the Māori New Testament). 

It is true that this document would have had significant influence on how the chiefs understood the Treaty. In the 1830s Christianity had been widely accepted among Māori. Tens of thousands of copies of Te Kawenata Hou had been printed, and were eagerly sought. Hooton would have us believe it contributed to the chiefs understanding of rangatiratanga as “absolute sovereignty”.  

However in Te Kawenata Hou the term rangatira is a general term for leadership. In contrast kawana is a very specific term used to denote governors who represent the authority of kings. To use Hooton’s example of Pilate – as the kawana (governor) he represented the sovereignty of the Roman empire in Jerusalem. He had the authority to tax and to execute judgement. The local Jewish leaders who wanted Jesus crucified had to get his permission. Those leaders are described in Te Kawenata Hou as rangatira. From this the chiefs at Waitangi would have quickly understood what was being proposed in the Treaty. And it certainly did not involve them retaining “absolute sovereignty”.

As we debate the future of the Treaty in our constitution we need truth-telling about our history. The assertion that in 1840 the chiefs did not agree to Crown sovereignty being established over all New Zealanders does not reflect the historical evidence. It is certainly true that the Treaty affirmed chieftainship. But any discussion about how to implement that today needs to align with the original Treaty vision. That involved chieftainship under Crown sovereignty – not in place of it. 

Ewen McQueen blogs at RenewNZ and is the author of “One Sun in the Sky: the untold story of sovereignty and the Treaty of Waitangi”

References

1. Matthew Hooton, “Act achieves total victory on Treaty Principles bill” 

NZ Herald 13.09.24

• www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz – Prof Sir Hugh Kawharu Maori translation of Treaty

• William Colenso “The Authentic and Genuine History of the Signing of the Treaty of Waitangi”, published in 1890 based on notes Colenso took at the time

• Te Aka Maori-English Dictionary – www.maoridictionary.co.nz

• Ibid Colenso page 24

• Ibid Colenso page 17

• Claudia Orange “The Treaty of Waitangi” 1987, page 81 – Te Hapuku’s diagram

• Waitangi Tribunal “He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti: The Declaration and the Treaty” Wai 1040, 2014, page 368

• Caroline Fitzgerald (ed) “Te Wiremu – Henry Williams: Early Years in the North”, Huia Publishers, Wellington, 2011, page 317

1. Ibid Colenso page 27

1. Ibid Colenso page 21

The Herald reports:

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith authorised “every constable” in New Zealand to take Kim Dotcom into custody and detain him until he could be handed over to American officials, as part of ongoing efforts to deport him.

However, police have confirmed they won’t be “implementing surrender at this point” because Dotcom has since started judicial review proceedings.

The media are reporting this breathlessly as if this is something unusual, only done for Kim Dotcom.

I’m guessing, but I suspect the order is identical to every other extradition order. It is a standard part of extradition.

Thinking about it, it would be weird if an order didn’t authorise every constable. Would you expect the Minister to hand pick Constable Jones and Sergeant Brown?

So basically it is a non-story.

The usual suspects are up in arms because the Government diverted $30 million for teaching teachers te reo, to an initiative to teach students maths. This is the reality of government – you have to set priorities.

The Herald also notes:

Education Minister Erica Stanford said the Te Ahu o te Reo Māori initiative “isn’t accredited” and is more than double the cost of “similar courses” with a price tag of $100 million.

“An evaluation of the programme found no evidence it directly impacted progress and achievement for students.

“The review also couldn’t quantify what impact the programme had on te reo Māori use in the classroom.”

So the initiative defunded was not accredited, was twice the cost of others, did not improve student achievement and have no quantifiable impact on te reo use in the classroom.

She said 22% of Year 8 students are at the expected standard for maths and 12% of Year 8 Māori students are where they should be.

The Minister was referring to where students currently sit against the new curriculum set to be introduced.

“I am not prepared to look parents in the eye and allow the 60,000 kids starting school next year to be on a similar trajectory.”

And it is going to an area of critical importance, where almost four in five students are below where we need them to be.

Seems a no brainer to me.

So we have:

• Debbie Ngawera-Packer spent $39,000 in airfares in three months which is $3,000 a week. She lives in New Plymouth where return airfares from Wellington are around $400 a week.
• new retiring Labour MP spent $15,000 on land travel after Parliament rose
• Another former Labour MP claimed 9.000 kms of car travel over a year. They were a Minister during this period so also had access to VIP Transport, planes and taxis.

None of them good looks.

Liam Hehir sums them up:

Waka-jumping laws are fundamentally undemocratic and wrong—except when a coalition agreement forces us to support them, after which we will vote for their repeal to affirm our opposition, but then consider using them ourselves if a rogue MP becomes an embarrassment. We remain against them in principle, except in situations that demand practicality, which we will still oppose while acting upon them, so long as 75% of our members agree.

An excellent summary of their highly principled position.

A guest post by a reader:

On Tuesday 24 September I had the misfortune to watch Jenny-may Coffin interview the PM on the Government’s tighter guidelines for working from home in the public sector.

Let us count the ways in which this interview demonstrates the deeply facile and unbalanced nature of what passes for news and inquiry on TV1:

1. The whole interview bar one small snippet at the end was about WFH.  Only in an organisation severely out-of-touch would this be the main subject of a chat with the PM.  Normal folk have long since returned to work, recognise the right of the employer to have a view on such things and are getting on with life.  It is not for them a matter which warrants this focus.  The fact TVNZ gives it such attention says a lot about where it is at culturally.  Maybe small matters like the Middle East, Ukraine, and the economy would have been more worthwhile subjects.  Oh but I forgot, those subjects limit the opportunities to play gotcha.

2. The issue was posed as a matter of contrasting but equally legitimate claims within the employer/employee relationship.  No regard for employment law.  No regard for the commendable but discretionary flexibility of the public sector up to this point in allowing WFH.  In brief no regard to onus when placing the matter in context.

3.  The PM was requested to provide evidence for the merits of the change.  Wrong question JM.  See above points.  Maybe you should have asked the PSA to attend and justify the benefits to the employer of WFH?

4. Note also the inherent laziness of this approach.  Instead of me as a journalist or my producer getting online and researching the merits of WFH I will ask the PM to do it.  If he has none then I have a gotcha.  And if he does I have the equally compelling views of the unions to hit back with (see next point).  Such rigour….

5. Repeating in an interview union and Labour Party talking points without interrogation is vacuous nonsense.  What self-respecting journalist would simplistically suggest that only public sector redundancies are driving hospitality industry difficulties in Wellington and that WFH pays no part in the downturn?  Good on the PM for reaching for the “rubbish” word he pulls out these days.

6. Nowhere in this interview or any interview done by JM or Daniel is evidence of the interviewer listening to answers.  So feeble is their craft that the format is a list of prepared questions asked regardless of answers being elicited.  It’s pathetic.  By way of contrast it was a treat to hear John Campbell actually listening and thinking in a couple of interviews over the last month.  

Is there no one at TVNZ who is sufficiently wired into the wider community to ask themselves whether their work touches the concerns and ideals of a glazier from Henderson, or a farmer from Southland, as much as a policy analyst from Miramar.  Or perhaps the policy analysts are the only ones watching as they “work” from home? 

If you felt life got worse in the last five years, you were not alone. The 2023 General Social Survey data lets us see the changes since 2018, and 2021. Changes are:

• Enough income to live on down from 68.1% in 2021 to 60.9% in 2023
• Have had to cut back on fruit and veggies to save money – up from 23.3% in 2018 to 47.7%
• In a poor state of general health – up from 14.7% to 19.2%
• Feel safe at home at night – down from 86.7% to 80.1%
• Feel safe out at night – down from 61.9% to 55.1%
• Mean trust for other NZers – down from 6.8/10 to 6.5/10

So after Labour’s wellbeing budget, fewer people had enough income to live on, more people had to cut back on fruit and vegetables, more people had poor health, fewer people felt safe at home or out and trust in other NZers fell.

Defence News reports:

The armed forces of New Zealand and Australia have swapped deputy commanders at their respective joint forces headquarters, signaling that they consider the defense of their nations an interconnected affair.

This is very significant. It signals how close Australia and NZ are, and how important it is to have interoperability.

The appointment of New Zealand Army officer Maj. Gen. Hugh McAslan is the highest-level senior posting of an officer from a foreign military into the Australian forces. The corresponding Australian appointment went to Army Brigadier Michael Bassingthwaighte.

So a NZ Officer will be the highest ranking foreign officer to serve in the Australian Defence Force.

New Zealand’s Defence Minister Judith Collins and Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles welcomed the appointments during the Oct. 2 South Pacific Defence Ministers’ Meeting (SPDMM) in Auckland.

As China’s launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile into the South Pacific shows the increasingly fraught and dangerous strategic environment, it is reassuring to have Australia and NZ move closer together.

This chart uses data from the General Social Survey. As you can see trust in four vital government institutions increased slightly from 2016 to 2018. Since then it has plummeted for all four institutions. A movement of an entire point on a ten point scale is huge.

Parliament and Media have never ranked as highly. Trust in Parliament though rose from 2014 to 2021 but in the last two years dropped 0.8 points. Media trust was fairly constant from 2014 to 2018, but then the Government set up the Public Interest Journalism Fund and they have declined to a new low.

The fifth health target is that 95% of patients wait less than four months for elective treatment.

Again in 2015 and 2016, over 99% got treatment within four months. It has now dropped to 61.8%. A shocking decline.

David Seymour announced:

“Schools will have to play their part in setting a good example as well. This means not taking teacher-only days during term time. Under existing regulations, and terms in the union contracts, teacher-only days are only legally allowed to be held out of term time, unless authorised by the Minister of Education. 

Teacher only days are important to have. The question is when should they be held.

I have no problem with teacher only days during term times for early childhood services because many are open 50 out of 52 weeks a year, so there is no choice.

However primary schools have 12 to 13 weeks of school holidays. Four of those weeks are for teachers to take annual leave, but that leaves eight to nine weeks where schools are closed but teachers are expected to be working. It is not unreasonable that any all-staff meetings and training take place during those eight to nine weeks, so parents don’t have to take annual leave from their jobs to look after their kids.

I wasn’t aware that teacher-only days during term time was meant to be the exception, not the norm. Good to see that enforced.

A guest post by Michael Littlewood:

So, John Horner of the Financial Markets Authority thinks that KiwiSaver’s reaching $100 bn “…is something to celebrate; for a relatively small country like New Zealand, it represents a coming of age of KiwiSaver.” (FMA 24 September 2024 here).  Others in the financial services industry praise KiwiSaver while some call for higher minimum contributions or even for it to be made compulsory.  So, is $100 bn saved through KiwiSaver that big a deal?

I thought it might be interesting to look at the top-down data for all households to see whether KiwiSaver has actually changed things since it started 17 years ago.

Michael Cullen was KiwiSaver’s principal sponsor.  He thought that traditional workplace superannuation didn’t ‘work’ so, in 2004, he set up the Savings Product Working Group to develop a “generic work-based savings solution”.  Michael Cullen thought the SPWG’s recommendations didn’t go far enough and a much beefier KiwiSaver emerged, with some chaotically organised, last-minute changes, in 2007.

Initially, change to KiwiSaver was a constant but things have settled down in recent years.

Here’s the question: is KiwiSaver working?  Are households actually saving more?  Are they better prepared for retirement? What do the numbers look like?

The Reserve Bank used to produce quarterly data on all households – what, in aggregate, they owned and owed.  Statistics New Zealand now gathers those numbers and publishes them here as ‘National accounts (income, assets, and liabilities)…supplementary table 1.5B’.

These numbers summarise the top-down position for all households.  We can work out an average for each household but that isn’t very useful, given the uneven distribution of assets.  We can’t uncover a ‘median’ household’s position, nor distributions around the median.  That would make an interesting analysis over time and is what we need to test the real benefits of KiwiSaver to the country and to savers.

Regardless, the total numbers are interesting, particularly as we have them in a consistent sequence over the 25 years since December 1998.

Can we tell whether KiwiSaver is working?  As Michael Cullen originally intended, KiwiSaver has largely supplanted the traditional workplace superannuation schemes, helped by the removal of their tax preferences in the late 1980s.

Here are the numbers from Column G1.2 of Table 1.5B or ‘Net equity in superannuation funds’.  This now includes KiwiSaver.

• December 1998: Superannuation $30.8 bn.
• June 2007 (KiwiSaver started): Superannuation $31.7 bn.
• December 2023: Superannuation (including KiwiSaver) $138.7 bn.

These are all dollars of the day, so let’s compare them with total net household wealth at each of those dates to see whether KiwiSaver has shifted households’ perceptions about saving specifically for retirement:

• December 1998: superannuation was 7.1% of total net wealth.
• June 2007: superannuation had fallen to 3.3%.
• December 2023: 6.0% (4.5% for just KiwiSaver).

As might have been expected, the relative importance of superannuation savings fell between 1998 and 2007, due in part to the withdrawal of tax breaks.  Employers that were driven by those tax breaks wound up their schemes.  The general uncertainty surrounding the government’s initiatives would not have helped.

The numbers do show that, despite KiwiSaver, total superannuation savings are lower today, as a proportion of households’ net wealth, than they were 26 years ago, in 1998.  Despite the savings industry’s claims for KiwiSaver’s success, I would not rate that performance very highly.

Taxpayers have spent about $14 bn in direct subsidies to KiwiSaver contributions in the 16 years to 2023.  The administration costs incurred by Inland Revenue alone, never mind by the industry and employers (and the FMA), would also be relatively significant.

Has New Zealand received good value for those subsidies and costs?  That’s at least questionable.  Should taxpayers continue to spend about $1 billion a year in subsidies to members’ contributions ($1.06 bn in the year ending 30 June 2024)?  We should at least ask that question and start a debate.

So, what to do?

But we can’t start a proper debate about KiwiSaver without better data.  The ‘top-down’, aggregate data on households’ assets and liabilities are interesting, but not good enough.

A colleague and I wrote a comprehensive submission for the Retirement Commissioner’s 2019 Review.  We listed herenine key ‘reforms that really matter’, in our suggested order of priority.  Number 2 on our list was a proper longitudinal survey of households’ finances. Unless we know, over time, what households are doing in their financial lives and what their aspirations are for the long term, public policy debates must take place in a vacuum.  Endlessly analysing KiwiSaver numbers in the absence of wider household data is pointless.

We can’t know whether things need changing, nor the chances that any proposed change might actually work.  We can’t even see whether current policy is achieving its objectives.

Is KiwiSaver working?  At a high level, seemingly not but we just don’t know.  I think we should find out.

The fourth health target is for 95% of patients to wait less than four months for a first specialist assessment.

From June 2015 to June 2017 almost 100% of patients got a first assessment within four months – 99.8% and 99.2%. It fell for the next six years to 69.6% and then to 61.5%

The impact of this decline is huge. There are 175,000 on the waitlist so eight years ago only say 2,000 would be waiting more than four months. Now 70,000 are. Another huge repair job needed.

The PPTA have been having their annual conference. Now you would hope that they would be busy debating vital issues like how do we improve numeracy and literacy. How do we lift achievement rates for NCEA, how do we lower truancy rates etc etc.

But as their conference papers show, alas their focus is on the much more important topics of:

• Stopping Red Unions from gaining members
• Removing all references to gender from their constitution and replacing she/he with they
• Replace all references to The Treaty of Waitangi with Te Tiriti o Waitangi
• Lobbying for taxpayers to fund Queer Community Liaison roles in all schools whose jobs will be to campaign for Queer Rangatahi and their rights
• PPTA to become a peace organisation and lobby the Government on foreign policy
• Change the name of Canterbury Region of PPTA to Waitaha
• Change the name of Hutt Valley Region to Te Awa Kairangi
• Change the name West Coast region to Te Tai o Poutini
• Opposing refocusing the curriculum on academic achievement and not ideology

Fills you with confidence, doesn’t it.

Keeping my part brief:

The Ministry of Education applied a brutal vaccine mandate to teachers (including Correspondence School staff) in late 2021. However – they decided that 41% of their own staff would not be covered by the mandate as they promised not to leave their offices.

The Teachers Council followed up school staff mandated out with a letter warning them about not complying with directives.

NZTSOS says that over 1200 educators and support staff lost their jobs, with many who did not comply leaving education forever.  In our data bases there are not only teachers and principals, but special education staff, school counsellors and school support staff.  We also have to remember that we had many who were mandated who complied under pressure and some were vax injured.

Here is a response to an OIA request on the situation.

29/08/2024

fyi-request-28084-1e925192@requests.fyi.org.nz

Tēnā koe

OIA: 1334434 – Vaccination exemptions for Ministry of Education personnel

Thank you for your email of 17 August 2024 to the Ministry of Education (the Ministry) requesting

the following information:

I would like information regarding the number of COVID vaccine exemptions that were

requested for MOE personnel and other educational organisations (Such as NZSTA, NZEI,

PPTA, NZPF), how many were successful, and how many people each successful

exemption covered.

Your request has been considered under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act).

Approximately 59% of the approximately 4,352 Ministry employees were covered under the

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021 when it was in effect. Exemptions could be applied for under clause 9 of the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations)

Order 2021. Seven Education-related applications were received and processed by the Ministry,

with all decisions referred to the Minister for approval. All of these applications were declined.

The other organisations listed in your request are not subject to the Act. The Ministry does not hold records relating to staff at these organisations, and this part of your request is therefore refused under section 18(g) of the Act, as the information requested is not held by the Ministry, and we have no reason to believe it is held by another department or organisation subject to the Act.

Thank you again for your email. You have the right to ask an Ombudsman to review my decision

on your request, in accordance with section 28 of the Act. You can do this by writing to

info@ombudsman.parliament.nz or to Office of the Ombudsman, PO Box 10152, Wellington 6143.

Nāku noa, nā

Emma Drysdale

Manager Official and Parliamentary Information

The OIA request was from an outstanding former Principal who was mandated out. She followed up with this.

“I received some of the additional information I requested in the OIA request today.  41% “didn’t need” to apply for an exemption, because they claim they ‘didn’t leave their offices’.  Funny, how they were allowed to do that, yet I couldn’t use that excuse to ‘stay in my office’ AND worse got terminated for my non compliance!!! None of them got terminated!  Double standards evidenced again! “

Alwyn Poole
alwyn.poole@gmail.com
Innovative Education Consultants Ltd
Education 710+ Ltd
(both sites currently being re-done)
alwynpoole.substack.com
www.linkedin.com/in/alwyn-poole-16b02151/

Parliament has established a special select committee to consider submissions on the constitutionally important Parliament Bill. It has eight MPs, being:

• National 2
• Labour 2
• Greens 1
• ACT 1
• NZ First 1
• TPM 1

So the committee is split 4/4 between the Government and Opposition and also 4/4 between the two large parties and the four smaller ones. It will be chaired by former Speaker Adrian Rurawhe.

The bill passed its first reading unanimously. It is nice to be in a country where important constitutional issues can be dealt with in a non partisan way.

The media have moved on from Labour’s Associate Foreign Affairs Spokesperson saying that the murder, rape, torture and kidnapping of 1,000+ Israeli civilians was justified. They ran one story, and abandoned it despite the lack of apology or sanction.

Now let’s compare this to a story in 2020 involving Todd Muller. What did Todd Muller do? Did he endorse rape and murder? Did he praise torture and kidnapping as justified? No, he had some US political memorabilia in his office including a Trump MAGA cap (alongside a Hilary Clinton badge).

This resulted In an avalanche of stories, running for several days. The media went out to groups such as the Islamic Women’s Council who condemned it. Yes they asked the IWC for their views on someone having a MAGA hat in their office, yet don’t approach the Jewish Council over an MP endorsing the murder, rape, torture and kidnapping of Jews.

They quoted political expert Dr Siouxsie Wiles on why what Muller did was reprehensible. They also quoted neutral academic Shane te Pou. They wrote columns on it. They did a couple of dozen stories, until finally Muller agreed to hide the hat from view. They followed up with articles on how the hat is a symbol of racism and white supremacy. They got comments from the Race Relations Commissioner.

So consider all that coverage over a hat, and compare that to the lack of coverage of an MP who claims murder, rape, torture and kidnapping was justified – and is an official spokesperson for the party on these issues.