The ABC reports:

The ABC’s 2025 federal election coverage will be the last to feature Antony Green AO in an on-air role.

The national broadcaster’s chief election analyst is stepping down after more than 30 years in a role he helped create.

Antony is the GOAT when it comes to elections analysis. I was thrilled to meet him a few elections ago when we were both on TV One for a NZ election.

He is across the electoral systems, boundaries and data for all states and territories in Australia. He publishes the electoral pendulum after each election showing the swing needed for each seat to change hands.

He has provided live analysis for the network on about 100 state and federal election programs, winning the universal respect of politicians, parties and electoral experts, as well as unexpectedly becoming a cult figure on social media.

People joke (but mean it) that nothing is official until it has been called by Antony Green.

It isn’t just that Antony is such an expert on electoral data and systems. He is totally non-partisan, providing expert analysis, not opinion. He is unfailingly polite and responds in great detail to questions people ask.

He covers his decision over on his own blog. The comments in response speak for themselves.

Newsroom reports:

Local Government NZ president Sam Broughton intends to embark on a fight-back against the Government’s most contentious “back to basics” proposal: caps on rates rises. According to the Government’s fact sheet, these are intended “to protect ratepayers from excessive rate increases, and to limit council spending on non-core activities”.

Broughton argues the plans announced last year by Luxon constitute an attack on local democracy – that elected councillors should be accountable to their ratepayers, not to central government. Councils are closer to their communities, he adds, so they understand infrastructure priorities better.

First of all it is simply untrue that it is simply infrastructure that leads to massive rates increases. It is spending decisions by councils in all areas.

A rates cap is a blunt tool, but there is a simple solution to refine that bluntness.

If a Council wishes to increase rates beyond the rates cap, then it has to put it to a referendum of residents with details of what additional projects would get funded. That way ratepayers get to decide what they are willing to fund.

Chris Lunch reports:

Health Minister Simeon Brown says he will demand an explanation from the Pharmacy Council over its competence standards for pharmacists, which have been described as “deeply disturbing.”

It follows inquiries to his office by chrislynchmedia.com over the standards, published on 15 June 2023 and enforced from 1 April 2024, which require all pharmacists to be “confident to perform waiata tautoko,” a Māori support song, and to advocate for “giving effect to te Tiriti at all levels,” “prioritising Māori voices and trusting Māori intelligence.”

Pharmacists must also be familiar with Māori health models such as Te Pae Mahutonga, which, according to the Health Ministry, refers to the Southern Cross constellation.

The woke virus has infected almost every professional registration body in NZ. It is time for a law which states no regulatory body can impose cultural requirements beyond the basic treat all cultures with respect. Requiring pharmacists to undertake political advocacy around te Tiriti is wrong.

I don’t care if my pharmacist can perform a waiata and I suspect neither do the vast majority of Māori. I want them to be able to advise me on the best medicines for my children.

At Patreon (paywalled) I write:

Some media commentators have taken these high level resignations as a sign of trouble within the Government – that implicitly, these resignations are a bad thing. I take the contrary view, that actually they are a very good thing.

The wowsers would have you believe that since alcohol laws were liberalised in 1989, it has been a disaster. In fact alcohol consumption is down massively.

Abuse of alcohol certainly does still cause massive problems in society. But the solution is targeting those who abuse alcohol, not making it harder for most adults to access alcohol socially.

NewstalkZB reports:

Wellington bar owner Greig Wilson is in a dispute with the Wellington City Council after being told he couldn’t distribute pamphlets advertising his bars during O-week at Victoria University. 

Wilson says he’s distributed the flyers for years – but the Victoria University of Wellington Students Association complained to the council’s licensing team that the flyers promoted a drinking environment with minimal pastoral and safety services.

The council subsequently wrote to Wilson, saying “from the inspectorates and police point of view, we believe that licensees must not be targeting students to draw them to their bars”.

That’s ridiculous. Students are adults. It is also safer for students to drink in a bar, than drinking at a party where you often get far far more drunk than is allowable in a bar.

The Herald reports:

An Auckland-based Canadian billionaire previously linked to an alternative news venture has taken a substantial shareholding in NZME, the owner of the NZ Herald, Newstalk ZB and BusinessDesk.

In a release to the NZX today, private equity tycoon James Grenon has been listed as a substantial holder of NZME, with a total shareholding of 9.3%.

That makes him the third largest shareholder. It is a very significant stake.

BusinessDesk revealed in 2023 that Grenon – the founder of Calgary-based investment firm Tom Capital Management – was associated with an alternative news venture, The Centrist, and its sister website NZNE.

As BusinessDesk reported, “NZNE and its sister website, The Centrist, have emerged over the past year amid a proliferation of new media companies formed to challenge established ‘mainstream’ outlets, often targeting disaffected groups on the political fringes”.

The Centrist, as late as last month, was referencing commentary about recent NZME newsroom changes with a headline: “Is the Herald abandoning its role as a newspaper of record in favour of clickbait?”

This suggests that their new shareholder is not a fan of how the legacy media is performing. It makes his decision to buy shares all the more interesting. Is it purely a financial investment, or does he want to use his shareholding to try and change the Herald?

UPDATE: We have an answer. He is seeking to sack the entire board.

The Herald reports:

Phil Goff’s position as High Commissioner to the United Kingdom is now “untenable” Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters’ office says, off the back of “deeply disappointing” comments the former Auckland mayor made regarding Donald Trump.

Asking a question of Finnish Foreign Affairs Minister Elina Valtonen at a Chatham House event in London this week, Goff said he had been re-reading a speech from former UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill in 1938 after the Munich Agreement.

“He turned to Chamberlain, he said, ‘You had the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, yet you will have war’,” Goff said,

“President Trump has restored the bust of Churchill to the Oval Office. But do you think he really understands history?”

If Goff was not the NZ Ambassador, it would be an excellent question. I agree with his premise that Trump in appeasing Putin is actually making further wars in Europe more likely – Moldova is next I would say.

However Goff is the NZ Ambassador, and question can be seen as suggesting the NZ Government is comparing Trump to Chamberlain. Considering how massively thin-skinned Trump is to criticism, there is a non-trivial chance that Trump would hold a grudge against New Zealand for Goff’s comments – hence why Peters sacked him.

One interesting aspect is that I thought anything said at Chatham House was non-attributable. This is in fact the basis of the widely cited Chatham House Rule. So did this apply to that event? Maybe Goff thought that would allow him to ask the question. How did it become known he asked that question?

UPDATE: Looks like this event was not held under the Chatham House Rule, as it was live-streamed.

Radio NZ reports:

Two criminal lawyers have clashed over whether a sandwich should have been eaten in an interview room with allegations flying between both sides as to how the matter unfolded – and who said what. …

The court building had a lawyers’ room and three client interview rooms.

During a 15-minute court break, the first lawyer entered an empty interview room to eat a sandwich, a self-management measure for his diabetic condition. While he was there, a duty lawyer entered the interview room wanting to use it for a confidential discussion with her clients.

The lawyer eating his lunch said he did not want to leave and “words were exchanged”.

The diabetic condition is irrelevant. The interview room is for interviews. He could eat his sandwich elsewhere. There is in fact a lawyers’ room.

While the lawyer complained the duty lawyer had failed to maintain professional standards and did not treat him with respect, the duty lawyer said she was surprised and disappointed by his attitude and that his use of the complaints process was improper and an abuse of process.

So he was in the wrong, he refused to leave the interview room, and then has such a sense of entitlement he lodges a formal complaint against the other lawyer because she called him out.

He’s lucky their names were not made public.

Radio NZ reports:

Police have issued a formal warning over Te Pāti Māori’s failure to file audited financial statements to the Electoral Commission last year.

The party filed an incomplete 2023 statement in mid-December, well after the July deadline.

Once again the Police just make electoral law toothless. The accounts were due by 30 June. The Electoral Act states that the party secretary commits an offence with a fine up to $40,000 if they file their return between 1 July and 23 July, unless they have a reasonable excuse.

Further if the accounts are filled after 23 July, then it is a corrupt practice unless they have a reasonable excuse. That carries $100,000 fine and up to two years in prison.

“When the financial statements were filed on 16 December, the party told us that they had been sent through to the auditors for the audit report to be prepared, and that final versions of the financial statements and audit report would be provided,” the Commission’s manager or legal, regulation and policy Kristina Temel said.

“We followed up with Te Pāti Māori [in February] and on 12 February were advised the audit report was still being prepared.”

So two months after they filed their financial statements (that were five months late) they still haven’t provided the audit report which is a legal requirement.

BusinessDesk reported last week the donations listed in the financial statements were also $5792.58 less than had been reported in the donations and loans return the party filed in May last year.

And the figures in the statements don’t match their statutory donations return.

Asked if any charges would be dropped if the party submitted its audited statement – albeit late – police said they considered the matter resolved.

This is the really outrageous part. The Police have said the issue is resolved, despite the audit statement not being provided. So the Police have effectively told TPM they can ignore the Electoral Commission with impunity.

“Police take allegations of election irregularity seriously. We are satisfied the Police response in relation to this matter was appropriate.”

Do you don’t. The Police have done a terrible job with electoral law breaches since at least 2005. It is well past time electoral law enforcement was removed from them.

Adrian Orr has resigned as Reserve Bank Governor. I normally try to highlight the good as well as the bad when someone resigns, but I have to admit in this case I struggle.

I welcomed his appointment in 2017. I noted the currency rose on his appointment and that he had a very good legacy at the NZ Super Fund. And this is true – I thought he did an exceptional job at NZSF, and thought he would do the same at the Reserve Bank.

I think he had a number of failings in his role as Governor. These were:

• Bullying. I’ve lost count of how many stories I have heard about Orr acting in a threatening way to either RBNZ critics or senior bank executives. His behaviour would be unsuitable for any senior regulatory role – but especially one so powerful as Reserve Bank Governor. The more powerful the role, the more restrained you should be (unless you are Donald Trump it seems).
• A refusal to admit errors. When an analyst points out the Reserve Bank predictions have changed dramatically in a few months, the Governor lashed out at them. There was never any concession about errors made in the Covid-19 response. Admitting that you made mistakes is a strength, not a weakness.
• A near tripling of staff numbers at the Reserve Bank. Incredibly even after the change of Government when all other public agencies were reducing staff numbers, the Reserve Bank continued to expand massively. The number of staff earning over $100,000 has gone from 140 to 436.
• Operating expenditure has gone from $69m to $186m since 2016
• Inflation exceeded the 3% agreed limit for 13 consecutive quarters, or over three years – peaking at 7.3%
• Around $11 billion of losses in Covid-19 interventions
• A focus on policy areas that are at best tertiary concerns to the Reserve Bak such as Te Ao Maori and climate change, rather than the core focus of inflation
• Excessive regulation of banks, increasing costs to consumers

I hope the Reserve Bank Board recommends a new Governor who will do the following:

• Overwhelming focus on monetary policy and inflation
• Reduce staff numbers and operating costs
• Reduce regulatory costs on the financial sector
• Abolish their DEI and social policy focus
• Welcome constructive criticism

Radio NZ reports:

Principals from schools in the country’s poorest communities have united to call for an end to new NCEA reading, writing and maths tests.

They warn the online tests will create a generation of school-leavers with no qualifications and most will be Māori or Pacific.

After two rounds of reading, writing and maths tests last year, the failure rate for teens from low-income schools was through the roof.

Disgusting and disappointing.

A few years ago universities and employers were pointing out that students were gaining NCEA Level 1 without being literate or numerate to even basic levels. In other words, they couldn’t read, write or do simple maths.

So the Government put in place a literacy and numeracy requirement in order to get NCEA Level 1. And many students are failing these requirements because after 11 years of schooling they are still functionally illiterate and innumerate.

And the solution from these principals is not to come up with a plan to lift numeracy and literacy with their students, so they actually have good options going forward. Instead their response is to demand the literacy and numeracy requirements be abolished so that illiterate and innumerate students can still get their NCEA Level 1.

Paul Goldsmith announced:

The Government is clamping down on retail crime by giving businesses more powers to detain those stealing from them, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith and Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee say. 

“Retail crime increased 85 per cent between 2019 and 2023, including a 91 per cent increase in victimisations relating to theft,” Mr Goldsmith says.

An 85% increase in just four years!

“Currently, no one, including retailers and security guards, is protected from civil or criminal liability if they arrest and detain a person stealing goods valued at less than $1,000 during the day. The operation of the Crimes Act 1961 hinders people from stopping offending as it occurs right in front of them.

An unworkable law.

• Amending the Crimes Act so that citizens can intervene to stop any Crimes Act offence at any time of the day.
• Requiring that a person making an arrest contact Police and follow Police instructions.
• Clarifying that restraints can be used, when reasonable, when making an arrest. 
• Changing the defence of property provisions to the Crimes Act so it is clear that reasonable force may be used. 

This is a good change. The reality is many thieves do have a rat like cunning. They know that store security can’t detain them at the moment. So this is why in recent times shoplifters haven’t even tried to be covert, and just walk out brazenly.

Hopefully this law change will get support from all political parties.

Violent crime levels were steady until 2018. Then Labour’s policy of trying to reduce the prison population hit, and there was a massive 50% increase in just five years. The drop in 2024 of almost 2,000 is modest but a worthwhile start of reversing the trend.

Why Ryan Peake is a good example for every human.

Ryan won the NZ golf open. He won the $360k that went with is and the entry into multiple tours and events. As a gang-member with a deplorable background and serious assault conviction – he does not deserve accolades for that part … except he exemplifies Vince Lombardie’s:

“It does not matter how many times you get knocked down, but how many times you get up.”

Infinitely more importantly he is exposed to the question asked of Jesus:

Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times? Jesus answered, I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.

I do not know what Ryan Peake has done for his victims. I hope he has done everything that he is capable of – and been forgiven.

What I do know is that it is possible for humans to find redemption from their actions.

I failed at marriage after 33 years! I make significant mistakes every day.

I try 100% at everything I do but get a decent % of things wrong.

On many occasions sorry and better actions cannot make up fully for the damage that has been caused but it is far better that people try and get part way there – than to quit or be cast out.

Ryan Peake’s story is a great one!

Alwyn Poole
[email protected]
alwynpoole.substack.com

The Herald has another story with the usual suspects complaining that Judith Collins cut off the woke research gravy train by requiring funding to go on actual scientific research rather than how to create a Treaty of Waitangi compliant tax system.

The legacy media have run probably ten times as many stories attacking the changes and labelling them controversial, as they did highlighting some of the projects that were previously funded that was nothing more than woke activism seeking funds.

One aspect the media have not focused on is that the changes made by Collins will actually boost global rankings for our eight NZ universities. Why? Because 59% of the Times HE rankings are based on research environment and quality.

And the largest sub-factor is citation impact at 15%. They look at “the average number of times a university’s published work is cited by scholars globally”

Now how many global citations do you think the following will get:

• a critical gaze to the privileging of Pākehā-centred narratives in current research on roadside “Big Things” and “Weaving together feminist, participatory, and filmic geographies, this project seeks to re-centre alternative stories currently hidden in the Big Things’ shadows
• create opportunities to rekindle the ancient connection to the stars and re-imagine the meaning of death, while also advancing understandings about the practical application of Māori astronomy in contemporary times

It will be somewhere between zero and one probably.

Now below are the types of research projects that will get more funding in future:

• Can dietary lignans reduce abnormal cell growth?
• How do tectonic plates lock together?
• Are molecular metals like metals or molecules? A case study of superheated gallium clusters

These research projects, when completed, will be of interest to scientists globally and get cited multiple times. This will in turn boost the scores for NZ universities and boost them up the global rankings. It is a win-win.

The Herald reports:

The future of a proposed law that would force Facebook and Google to help fund the New Zealand journalism that contributes to their megabillion-dollar empires appears uncertain, in the wake of Donald Trump’s threats to impose tariffs on countries that target US companies.

As the NZ Herald revealed in December, the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill has been placed on hold. Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith had opted to instead wait to see how the Australian Government handled the global tech giants with its own enhanced legislation.

But the Aussies have now taken fright themselves, delaying any plans to toughen its laws in the wake of the tariff threats from the US president.

Well that is an unexpected benefit of President Trump – he’ll stop the NZ Government from progressing an unethical tax on tech companies to fund legacy media companies.

I would prefer the Government not proceed because it is an awful idea – both in principle and likely practice, but failing that I’ll settle for not proceeding to avoid trade sanctions.

A guest post by Lucy Rogers:

Today China sent its navy into the waters between Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia and commenced military drills. Commercial airliners were redirected mid-flight to avoid the live ammunition being fired. Furthermore, China have secured a naval presence in the Cook Islands. This was with the Cook Islands’ consent, despite the fact that according to its constitutional arrangements it is supposed to consult with us on anything that impacts on security or defence, which it did not do. 

What are the geopolitical implications of this?

DPF published a post today asking if we should panic. (I admit I have not read this as it is behind a paywall.) My answer is: not yet. I do not think invasion is imminent. I think China is testing how far it can go without reaction from NATO. However, I do think China’s actions should come as a wake-up call to Kiwis re: the possibility of foreign invasion.

Defence spending is not the answer

Spending more on our defence budget is not the answer, even if we could afford it. China is a nation of a billion people: we are a nation of four million. (I add in passing that this also illustrates by analogy the stupidity of people who want to destroy our economy in the name of fighting climate change: if chronic polluters like China and India exist, what difference would it make if every single person in Aotearoa stopped driving cars?)

The answer lies in the willingness of the Western powers to defend us

There is one answer and one answer only: our existence as a free country depends on NATO’s willingness to defend us. Isolationism is not an option for New Zealand. The problem is that the US cancelled its mutual defence treaty with us when we banned American nuclear ships from our harbours in the 1980s. (I have never forgiven David Lange for this. It wasn’t about principle: it was about anti-Western politicians smugly giving the finger to the US at a time when the USSR was still a major power.)

The US won’t save us out of the goodness of their hearts

So what to do? In the event of invasion the US like every other nation will act according to its own interests. Human beings are not altruistic. Sure, it might save us but it might not. It has no more reason to do so than Taiwan. Is anyone honestly 100% confident that the US would definitely save us in event of invasion?

Our ties with the UK are the answer

The real answer lies in our historic connection not with the US but with the UK. If the UK defends us in the event of war then western Europe, the US and Canada will defend us as well. At present our head of state is currently the King of England, and I suggest that the UK might be more inclined to intervene on our behalf in the event of invasion if that continues to remain the case. It is in our interests to play up our sense of connection with the UK, and for that to remain part of our cultural identity. 

The monarchy alone is not the answer: we need closer relations with the UK in general

Of course, the monarchy alone is not the answer, although patriotic sentiment amongst British voters might serve us well in a way that it could not in the US. (In the US it will always boil down to pragmatic concerns.) We need closer relations with the UK in other areas so that our interests are their interests. Conveniently, the UK has recently exited the EU, which may facilitate the process of developing better relations (love it or hate it the FTA we signed with them shortly afterwards was a direct consequence of Brexit: EU laws required the UK to sever economic relations with us as a condition of joining).

Ideas for closer relations

Here are some ideas for closer relations:

1. I would like to see a mutual defence pact with the UK, Canada and Australia (and the US, if they’ll have us).

• I would love to see an arrangement in which the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand sign a freedom of movement treaty whereby we have the right to live in one another’s countries. Winston Peters for all his many failings mooted something like this sometime in the last few years.

• I would also like to see an arrangement whereby we pay domestic fees to attend one another’s universities. As a dual British/ New Zealand citizen it is not fair that to attend Oxford or Cambridge I have to pay international students fees even though I hold British citizenship, whereas until fairly recently EU students paid domestic fees.

Te Tiriti concerns are no obstacle to remaining a monarchy

I note in closing that as deeply as I believe that the mana of Te Tiriti o Waitangi should be honoured, that is an argument for the monarchy not against it as the rangatira ceded sovereignty/ kāwanatanga to Queen Victoria. The argument is not about whether Te Tiriti entails ending the monarchy: it does not. It is about the extent of the cession of sovereignty and the extent of iwi self-determination today, and whether we can facilitate that to a greater extent.

More in Common have done some fascinating research on “progressive activists” (what we might call woke activists) in the UK. They are only 8% to 10% of the UK population but dominate the media, the arts, the universities, the NGOs etc.

The report divides people up into seven groups, being:

• Progressive Activists (8%)
• Civic Pragmatists (12%)
• Disengaged Battlers (9%)
• Established Liberals (13%)
• Loyal Nationals (22%)
• Disengaged Traditionalists (14%)
• Backbone Conservatives (22%)

Some key beliefs are:

• 42% are more ashamed than proud to be British
• 62% want to increase or maintain immigration at current levels
• 49% think woke culture is good for society
• 54% want to prioritise stopping hate speech over free speech
• 63% support breaking the law to protest an unfair system
• 52% think the Brexit vote wasn’t genuine and due to media manipulation
• 67% would never campaign on an issue with someone who voted Reform
• 27% would never campaign with someone who support’s Israel’s right to exist
• 79% think children should be able to change their gender

As you will see one the full report, these beliefs are held only by a small proportion of the overall population, but because of their dominance in the media, arts, universities etc their views are treated as the “norm”.