TVNZ says it is dealing with about 50 formal complaints over its coverage of the latest 1News-Verian political poll, with some viewers – as well as the Prime Minister and a former senior Labour MP – critical of the tone of the 6pm report.
TVNZ political editor Maiki Sherman’s reporting of the poll results – all three parties that make up the coalition Government have lost support – was described by Prime Minister Christopher Luxon earlier today as “a little frothy and sensationalist”.
Among various adjectives, metaphors and analysis, Sherman variously described a “nightmare” poll for the coalition that would “absolutely rock the entire Parliament”. …
Former Labour MP Stuart Nash told Newstalk ZB’s Heather du Plessis-Allantoday: “I thought the TV One reporting on it was absolutely shocking, if I’m honest with you.
“I thought the tone that they portrayed was the sort of tone you do three weeks out from an election, not two and a half years,” Nash said.
It was more the sort of hype you would expect from Newshub that has a reputation for always being rather over the top, and did seem out of place on TVNZ which has tended to be more sober.
But was this a one off, or is there a pattern with how they are reporting polls. Take this one on the Fast Track Bill:
#POLL: Just 40% of people support the Government's Fast-track Approvals Bill, while 60% don't, didn't know, or didn't want to say – according to a new 1News Verian poll 👇 https://t.co/WIQKWc9rOy
The actual result is 40% in favour and 41% against. To add together those against, those unsure and those who didn’t answer as 60% not in support is very misleading.
So in this case you actually have 52% who say the public sector cuts they support (agree or are too little) and only 35% say they are too much. That is actually a 17% difference but once again TVNZ adds in the 13% unsures to the anti Government option.
So in all three reports, TVNZ has added ensures and refused to say, to try and make it look like there is greater opposition to the Government than there is.
One poor framing could be bad luck. To do it three times, is a very very bad look.
“An SEP,’ he said, ‘is something that we can’t see, or don’t see, or our brain doesn’t let us see, because we think that it’s somebody else’s problem. That’s what SEP means. Somebody Else’s Problem. The brain just edits it out, it’s like a blind spot. If you look at it directly you won’t see it unless you know precisely what it is. Your only hope is to catch it by surprise out of the corner of your eye.”
An IPSOS survey in 2023 asked: “How much do you agree or disagree with the following? With parental consent, transgender teenagers should be allowed to receive gender-affirming care (e.g., counseling and hormone replacement treatment).”
59% of New Zealanders strongly or somewhat agreed with that. 26% disagreed and 15% weren’t sure.
This survey was cited in a trans-friendly news item in The Post.
Around the same time, a Curia survey asked: “Some people have proposed banning puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and physical sex-change surgeries for children under the age of 18 who identify as transgender. Would you support or oppose this kind of ban?”
54% supported this proposed ban. 27% were opposed and 19% unsure.
This survey was cited – and commissioned – by the conservative Family First NZ.
Majorities supported two apparently contradictory statements.
Well, not exactly. The two propositions put to the public are differently worded and don’t directly contradict one another in all respects.
The IPSOS survey asks about “gender-affirming care” including counselling and one of a number of possible medical interventions. It makes the significant qualification of parental consent, but doesn’t mention medical judgement or scientific evidence.
The Curia item asks about a “ban” (for under-18s) on three kinds of medical intervention, and doesn’t mention any psychological interventions such as counselling. “Banned”, however, is clearly the opposite of “allowed”.
It looks as if one survey shows majority support for allowing hormone replacement treatment for under-18s with parental consent, while the other shows majority support for banning it outright regardless of parental consent or medical opinion. That implies, in theory, that some people (maybe around 13% or more) are able to express contradictory opinions on this topic, depending on who’s asking and how they ask. And up to 19% of people may be unsure either way.
The problem’s in the survey design. The IPSOS question uses “soft” terms such as care, affirming, counselling and consent. The Curia question uses “hard” medical terminology, such as blockers, hormones and surgery. The language used gives differing impressions.
Different language can and will get different results. This is why it is critical to always report the exact question asked. It is not that any set of questions is biased, just that they can reflect different things.
The Ipsos survey mentions parental consent. The Curia one does not. I don’t know if parental consent would be needed for such treatment, but it is far to say assuming that would impact the result.
Likewise as Grant Duncan points out, soft vs hard terms can affect the result. Generally I prefer specifics.
And then there’s “priming”: our response to one thing will be affected by how we responded to others, especially when closely connected in time.
The question that appeared to precede the one mentioned above in the IPSOS survey was: “How much do you agree or disagree with the following? Transgender people should be protected from discrimination in employment, housing, and access to businesses such as restaurants and stores”. 84% of New Zealanders agreed with that one.
The preceding question in the Curia survey was: “Do you believe that primary age children should be taught that they can choose their ‘gender’ and that it can be changed through hormone treatment and surgery if they want it to be?” And 76% said “no” to that.
The IPSOS survey led with a question about rights (to be free from discrimination) that all respondents hold, and this set a more positive frame for the next question.
The Curia survey, in contrast, had primed respondents with a question that evoked protection of “primary age children” from premature exposure to delicate and complex issues including sex-change surgery. It was more likely to put the respondent (especially if they’re a parent) in a frame of mind to disapprove of medical intervention in the next item.
There’s no perfect survey that’s devoid of priming effects. Indeed, this very subject-matter may be too complex and highly charged to be fit for simple survey questions on a five-point scale.
I would not use the term priming, as that suggests you ask a question purely to influence later questions. I won’t do that. In fact ethically you need to publish all questions that could significantly influence the response to a later question.
The issue for pollsters is clients often want to poll on half a dozen different questions on an issue. You can’t do them in six different polls, so you have to ask them in one poll. This is not to prime people, but to find out where support lies for various propositions.
Pollsters do look at question order when questions can influence each other. If there is one question that is obviously most important, then try to ask that first. But sometimes all questions are equally important.
Again it is important that reports include all relevant questions asked in order, so people can judge if there is any influence.
Dr Cass recommends, for example, “extreme caution” and “a clear clinical rationale” if considering “masculinising/feminising hormones” from 16 to 18. So it could be provided as part of a research programme under multi-disciplinary medical and psychological supervision. Her review concludes with neither “ban” nor “allow”. It’s not that simple.
My personal view is the same. I do support under 18s being able to access some clinical treatments, but that the younger one is, the more cautious you should be, and the more serious the intervention, the more cautious you should be. So sex change surgery on a 14 year old is a no, but hormone treatment on a 17 year old could be a yes.
Polling can’t get into these complexities generally. What they can do is give an indication of where opinion is on high level issues. If you want more detailed consideration, then focus groups can be useful.
And you mentioned that Governor Shapiro was able to relax and pause a bunch of rules. What he was able to do was declare a state of emergency. There had been a tanker with more than 8,000 gallons of fuel. It overturned. It set on fire. And then the bridge above it collapsed.
And in declaring that state of emergency, the normal procurement rules, the normal contracting rules, the normal going out for comment rules, the normal ways you might sue or have to do environmental review, all of that got swept away. So Mike Carroll told me that he got the call that this had happened. He makes his way to the bridge as fast as he can.
And not far from him are two contractors who are already doing work in that area. And basically, by the day’s end, he has chosen these two contractors to manage the demolition and the rebuild. And he could only do that because all of this got waived.
I said, how long would that have normally taken you? And he said to me that the normal way — and here, I’m quoting him — so in a traditional delivery of a project, it would be months. We’d hire a consultant to design it. We’d need final design approved by the Federal Highway Administration. Then there would be bidding from interested contractors. Then we’d process the bids. Then we’d issue a contract.
So that would be 12 to 24 months. And he said, that is probably an underestimate because you’d have to do a bunch of things before you got to that point in the process to even get the process off of the ground. It’s not like they threw everything out the door. They used union labor to rebuild this. They had union labor going 24 hours a day, which would not normally be allowed. But again, under the emergency rules, it was allowed.
So normally it would take two years just to issue a contract, and here the bridge got fixed in 12 days!
FENZ is as you say Management and commanders, regional commanders – and their deputies
Front line staff. 80% of front line firefighters are volunteers. They do not receive any form of renumeration
So there are paid front line and volunteer front line
Most paid front line are rostered to work 2 day shifts then 2 night shifts then 4 days off. There are 4 “watches” with a colour code. There is a 5th colour code who I think work daytime only
Most nights, most of those paid staff get a full nights sleep. Bedrooms are provided
In most “Regions” other than a rare major event, the hours of actual work is a very small part of the rostered work shifts. Central city stations (Auckland Wellington CHCH) have more demand on their time but the placed like Masterton, Lower Hutt, Kapiti, Hastings etc have little time actually engaged in fire related activities – and that includes non firefighting activities
So if I read this correctly, over eight days a paid firefighter will only work two day shifts???
The Remuneration Authority will soon decide what pay rise MPs get. This used to be an annual exercise. I lobbied for years that they should avoid the pressure of annual pay rises, and just have their pay set for each term of Parliament.
They have partly moved towards that. There is only one determination for the term, but it occurs after the election, not before – which I prefer. My preferred model would be the salaries are deterred three months prior to an election, so anyone elected knows in advance what the salary will be, and it won’t increase during the term.
The increase may be quite large as they salaries have been frozen since 2017 for various reasons. The problem is a large increase will look bad at a time when the Government is urging fiscal restraint elsewhere.
So I have another solution to the problem.
I have also long advocated that the minimum wage should be linked to the median wage. This would mean that the way to increase the minimum wage is to have a growing economy where the median wage is growing also.
Well the same could go for MPs. The higher the median wage of the economy, the higher an MPs salary is.
The median FT salary is currently just under $65,000.
MPs salaries are:
MPs $164,000
Select Cmte Chairs $180,000
Minister outside Cabinet $250,000
Cabinet Minister $296,000
Deputy PM $335,000
PM $470,000
This would give ratios of:
MPs 2.5 times median wage
Select Cmte Chairs 2.75x
Minister outside Cabinet 3.85x
Cabinet Minister 4.5x
Deputy PM 5.2x
PM 7.25x
No more of having the routine of people complaining if the increase is too high, if it is the exact same ratio as the median wage.
UPDATE: The Authority has made its determination, which is a modest 2.8% increase for most roles compared to 2020. They have also done determinations through to 2026, by which stage the increase is 11% over 2020. That is still pretty modest.
However the full remuneration packages are still considerable. This is what they now are:
That’s why I’m writing to tell you the story of a case we’ve just taken on, standing with a man called Paul Burns who I’m defending in court on behalf of the Free Speech Union.
You may ask why he is before the Court. Good question.
Well, (brace yourself, now) according to the police, Paul engaged in a debate in a public place. For that, the police arrested him and charged him with a crime of speaking with “an intent to offend”!
If he is convicted he will be fined $1,000 and acquire a criminal record.
Paul Burns has a strong view on abortion – one that, personally, I don’t share. But far be it for me to let that get in the way of us defending his speech rights.
Paul feels so strongly about abortion that he wants debate it in public, and he puts his own money on the line to do so.
Taping $100 worth of cash to a sign, he offers this money to anyone who ‘proves that slavery is more evil than abortion.’ He stands on the street in Wellington with his sign and debates his opinion with anyone who chooses to stop and engage with him. He is forceful but polite and respectful, and only locks horns with people who are interested.
Several weeks ago, he was speaking with a group of young people, when one of them claimed that abortion is not only not evil, it is a good thing, because there are too many people in the world.
Because of climate change, depopulation is needed, so fewer births are good. To this, Paul asked him, according to that logic, why don’t you kill yourself? That is it. That is what he said.
It’s a provocative question, for sure, but one that follows in the context of the discussion. If the world is overpopulated, how do you justify your existence?
Apparently the police have not heard of irony. It is a standard debating tactic to turn a person’s own logic against them to try and show what is wrong with it. It is not meant to be taken literally.
Paul was not telling people to kill themselves. He was arguing exactly the opposite: killing is wrong. A child of ten understands how arguments like this work.
But Paul was arrested for it. His trial is scheduled for the 17th of May.
This is appalling. Like Dr Mulgan, I have a very very different view on abortion to Paul Burns. But I am aghast that he has been arrested and charged for debating the issue in public.
But today, the New Zealand Banking Association (NZBA) has asked the Government to consider leading scam prevention in New Zealand.
How about the banks fund a national anti-scam centre, rather than taxpayers?
Banks made a profit of $7.1 billion last year. I have no problems with that, but if they then ask taxpayers to fund something which clearly is in their interest, I respectfully suggest they stick aside 0.05% of their profits to fund it.
Killer Beez gang member Zane KJ Hepi was on electronically monitored bail and living at the Grace Foundation drug treatment facility in November 2022 when he covered his ankle monitor in foil and absconded, using the next hour of freedom to commit an aggravated robbery.
Hepi, 25, appeared in Auckland District Court for sentencing this week on the aggravated robbery charge. It was the latest chapter in a long history of offending and subsequent sentences, Judge Brooke Gibson pointed out.
The judge ordered a sentence of four years and eight months’ imprisonment, to begin only after Hepi finishes serving his current prison term, imposed in August for two burglaries and other charges, including the dramatic escape. …
He asked for an end sentence that wouldn’t be crushing for his client, leaving him without hope.
“Well, it’s pretty hard [to impose anything considered crushing] in the New Zealand sentencing regime,” the judge retorted.
This is correct. Recidivist prisoners just go in and out of jail for short periods of time generally.
The Taxpayers’ Union is New Zealand’s largest political pressure group on the centre-right. We advocate for Lower Taxes, Less Waste and More Accountability across central and local government.
Through our grassroots campaigns, hard-hitting research, and 24-hour communications operation, we persuade decision makers to deliver better public policy.
We are looking for two part-time student interns based in our Wellington office to support our campaigns team. The roles are extremely varied and can be tailored to suit the individuals. In any given day, you could be:
Filing OIAs and LGOIMAs with government departments or councils to expose examples of wasteful spending;
Drafting media releases for our public spokespersons on breaking news stories;
Writing briefing papers or short reports on public policy issues;
Helping create videos and other content for our social media platforms;
Contribute pieces to New Zealand’s largest political newsletter;
Participate in our voxpops or stunts with Porky the Waste Hater or the Debt Monster; or
Staffing our stand at external events such as Fieldays and agricultural shows around the country.
We are also looking for one intern to lead on compiling our annual Ratepayers’ Report (www.ratepayersreport.nz) that allows ratepayers to compare their councils’ performance with others around the country.
We cover topics across all areas of the public service, so whatever your university subject, there will be something of interest.
No prior work experience is required. This is a place to learn and grow your understanding of politics. Our team will train you with everything you need to get started.
We understand that students have a hard time juggling their studies with work, so hours and days are highly flexible to fit with your timetable.
Previous Taxpayers’ Union interns have gone on to work in government departments – including Treasury, DPMC, and DOC – as well as in the Reserve Bank, the leader of the opposition’s office, private financial companies, consultancy organisations, law firms, and advising current ministers.
If you have a keen interest in politics and want to gain some valuable experience in the field, we would love to hear from you!
To apply, please send a copy of your CV along with a cover letter outlining what you could bring to the role and why you would like to work at the Taxpayers’ Union to Callum Purves, COO and Head of Campaigns at Callum@taxpayers.org.nz
The Government will boost Pharmac’s budget by more than $1.7 billion over the next four years, increasing the national drug purchasing entity’s overall budget to almost $6.3b.
This is a good example of what you can manage to fund, if you are saving money in other areas.
The Government is making legislative changes to make it easier for new early learning services to be established, and for existing services to operate, Associate Education Minister David Seymour says.
The changes involve repealing the network approval provisions that apply when someone wants to establish a new early learning service, and stopping the introduction of new person responsible requirements that were taking effect in August of this year.
“Providers and parents are best placed to decide where early learning services should be established. Where there’s demand from parents providers will follow,” says Mr Seymour.
“Current network approval provisions introduced by Labour give government the right to decide where services should be. They also make setting up new services complex and inhibit competition.
Labour seem to detest the early childhood sector because unlike the school sector, parents get lots of choice as to both the location and type of school they send their kids to.
When we were looking for an ECE for Ben, we researched 10 local centres. There is no zoning, so as parents you weigh up for yourself the attributes important to you. We visited four centres and then settled on a preferred one, which we waitlisted for before Ben was even born.
Labour wanted the Ministry of Education to decide if new centres would be allowed to be established and where. Basically they were seeking to turn a sector with choice and competition into a replica of the school sector.
Another reason to be happy for the change of Government.
The Judge’s ruling in the Lehrmann case in Australia seems to have got things just right. To a degree few come out of it with credit. Major findings were:
To remark that Mr Lehrmann was a poor witness is an exercise in understatement. As I will explain, his attachment to the truth was a tenuous one. I would not accept anything he said except where it amounted to an admission, accorded with the inherent probabilities, or was corroborated by a contemporaneous document or a witness whose evidence I accept.
Ms Brittany Higgins, Mr Lehrmann’s accuser, was also an unsatisfactory witness who made some allegations thatmade her a heroine to one group of partisans, but when examined forensically, have undermined her general credibility to a disinterested fact-finder.
But what does not reflect caution was standing up to her Minister and the Chief of Staff of another Minister when Ms Brown thought they were intent on protecting their own interests at the expense of allowing a young woman to make her own decision as to whether she would involve the police – even at some risk to her professional career. This showed integrity in resisting pressure she subjectively considered inappropriate and evinced a concern for the autonomy and welfare of Ms Higgins. In these circumstances, to be later vilified as an unfeeling apparatchik willing to throw up roadblocks in covering up criminal conduct at the behest of one’spolitical overlords must be worse than galling.
Basically Lehrmann lied about not having sex with Higgins. Higgins lied about Government Ministers covering it up. She was the victim of sex she was too drunk to consent too. However she tried to make it about a Government coverup, when the reality was that in fact Ministers wanted to refer it to the Police, but were stopped by doing so because of concern it would take the decision away from Higgins.
Wilkinson and Channel 10 were not found liable for defaming Lehrmann, but their conduct was seriously criticised by the Judge also.
Lehrmann comes out of this very badly. His claim that when they went back to Parliament at 3 am, it was just to work was risible. The judge commented:
Put bluntly, he was a 23-year-old male cheating on his girlfriend, having just “hooked up” with a woman he found sexually attractive. Human experience suggests what he then wanted to happen is not exactly shrouded in mystery. … commonsense suggests that it is obvious there was one dominant thought running through the mind of Mr Lehrmann as he was approaching Parliament House, and it was nothing to do with French submarine contracts.
If he had not denied that they had sex, then the issue of consent would have come more into play. But by lying so blatantly about the sex, he could hardly then argue that if it did happen, it was consensual.
The Judge commented:
“Having escaped the lions’ den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat.”
Lehrmann escaped a criminal conviction due to juror misconduct. To initiate defamation proceedings when he knew he was laying about the sex was indeed a very bad mistake.
“What I found most interesting as a minister [2017-2020] is sometimes I would sign off answers that would be information that I was really interested in, and it was easier to get that information from an opposition member submitting a written question than for me directly asking staff the question.
That’s Julie Anne Genter saying that opposition MPs were better able to get information from her department, than she was able to as their Minister!
This morning I was listening to the radio, and I was quite shocked when I heard Labour’s Justice Spokesperson, Duncan Webb, talking about the Three Strikes Law.
He said judges and lawyers hate it so much, they will find ways around it so they don’t have to implement it.
He said because the law will now only apply to crimes with sentences over two years – 24 months, “we will see a lot of sentences at 23 months because judges and lawyers… hate this.”
Now… that’s a shocker.
Because what that tells you is that it’s just accepted that if judges and lawyers don’t like a law, they’ll find a way around it.
It’s so widely known that Duncan just says it on the radio and nobody blinds an eyelid.
It’s the reason, apparently, that when we had Three Strikes last time, no one ever made it to their third strike fully.
Duncan Webb and Heather are correct. The old Three Strikes law was effective but Judges used manifestly unjust clause to stop almost every third strike penalty,. But at least second and third strikers did serve more time behind bars.
This new law could well see violent and sexual offenders get even shorter sentences than they normally would. If a judge has a potential say 30 month sentence they’ll definitely find some factors top reduce it to 23 months so they avoid having to do a strike which takes away some of their discretion.
The new Three Strikes law must remove the two year threshold for sentences for first and second strikes. It will not only gut the law, but it could well lead to revisit criminals getting even higher sentences than without the law.
State Highway 1 (SH1) through Wellington City is heavily congested at peak times and while planning continues on the duplicate Mt Victoria Tunnel and Basin Reserve project, the Government has also asked NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) to consider and provide advice on a Long Tunnel option, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says. …
“The Long Tunnel option has the potential to deliver up to 15-minute travel time savings between the region and Wellington airport, compared to around 2-3 minutes for the current parallel or diagonal tunnel proposals at Mt Victoria and the Basin.
“The option would also see better urban amenity through greater reallocation of surface level road space to active modes and public transport in the CBD and greater opportunities for housing intensification. Enhanced regional connectivity to the airport and hospital would also be achieved with reduced city and state highway congestion.
The vision that Steven Joyce had was four lanes from the Airport to Levin. This would make that possible. The four lane tunnel would go from Wellington Road in Hataitai to north of the current Terrace Tunnel. That would basically provide six lanes into and out of Wellington in the North and East.
The two critical factors would be cost and time. It is a better solution than just duplicating the Mt Vic tunnel, but perfect can be the enemy of good. If it can’t be funded and start construction in the next six years, then better to do the project that can be. However if it can be made practical, the time savings would be massive for Wellingtonians. You’re talking up to two and a half hours a week less time stuck in traffic.
US federal transportation officials are investigating an unauthorised inflight cockpit visit by a baseball coach for the Colorado Rockies during a United Airlinescharter flight last week from Denver to Toronto.
Video surfaced last week that appears to show Rockies hitting coach Hensley Meulens sitting in a pilot’s seat while the April 10 flight was at cruising altitude. It is against federal regulations for unauthorised people to be on the flight deck.
So what?
This used to happen thousands of times before 9/11. Kids and others would often be allowed in. The number of adverse events from this was basically zero.
Sure since 9/11 we need tighter security such as locked cockpit doors, and not allowing randoms in. But if someone is a well known person who can be assessed as posing no threat, let the pilots make a judgment call.
