One clause of the Magna Carta says:

All merchants shall have safe and secure exit from England, and entry to England, with the right to tarry there and to move about as well by land as by water, for buying and selling by the ancient and right customs, quit from all evil tolls

So tariffs have been hated for a very long time. We must continue to oppose them.

Richard Prebble writes:

Article Three, which granted the rights and privileges of being British subjects, has been reinterpreted to be a promise that successive governments will ensure equality, the socialist dream.

Governments can deliver equality before the law, the right of British citizens.

No government ever, anywhere, has delivered economic equality.

As we will never have economic equality, the tribunal has created an endless grievance that can never be met.

This is key – it creates an eternal cycle of grievance.

n my letter of resignation, I have recommended the Government implement its coalition agreement and upgrade the tribunal by appointing a senior High Court judge, as was done when the tribunal was first set up.

The tribunal insults the chiefs when it says the chiefs did not mean to accept the Crown’s protection, create a nation, protect their property rights and extend citizenship to all Māori.

I will not participate in turning the Treaty into a socialist manifesto.

The status quo is clearly in need of change.

The Herald reports:

A new report is calling for gang members to be segregated in New Zealand prisons to combat their significant and “problematic” influence over inmates.

Sociologist Dr Jarrod Gilbert’s new report, The Gang Influence of New Zealand Prisons, was commissioned by Corrections and found gangs had informal control over the country’s prisons.

Gilbert told Newstalk ZB’s Mike Hosking that while Corrections still “holds the keys” in prisons, gangs have too much influence and said it was detrimental to how they were run.

Seems a very sensible idea, as it would stop gangs using prisons to recruit new members, and also allow non-gang members in prison to have better options for rehabilitation.

As a huge supporter of free markets and personal liberties, I welcome this. Personally I would still allow contrary views on these issues (but Bezos owns it so he decides) but it is great to have the Washington Post state they will defend those two pillars of freedom.

Some think that this is Bezos taking the knee before Trump, but I think they are wrong.

I think this actually positions the Washington Post to be critical of Trump – but from a centre-right perspective. Trump is no supporter of free markets – he wants to put tariffs on anything that moves. And Trump is probably the largest threat to personal liberties today (his administration is now banning law firms from any government work, if they take on a client Trump doesn’t like), so the WP stance is unlikely to be cheerleading Trump on.

100,000 asylum seekers a year is massive, especially when you consider the many countries one has to pass through to get to the UK.

The right of asylum is an ancient right to flee a government or ruler that persecutes you. It goes back thousands of years. In the modern era the UDHR says:

Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

The problem is that we have people who do legitimately need asylum, but rather than seek it in the first country they pass into which is safe for them, they choose countries where economic opportunities are greater – such as the US, UK, Australia etc etc. Now you can understand why they want to do this, but does a refugee have the right to choose any of 200 countries to move to, or is the right only to get asylum in the first safe country they travel to?

I think that it now has to be seen as a right only to the first safe country, not to any country they choose. I think developed economies should take in many refugees and asylum seekers – but they should not be forced to take in every refugee in the world that can get to their borders.

Liam Hehir notes:

The real issue is the unnecessary complexity and arbitrariness of the current law. That isn’t being addressed. Instead we are getting a deluge of hand-wringing about “vigilantism” and doomsday hypotheticals about how shopping in New Zealand is going to become like an episode of Dog the Bounty Hunter.

The premise of the government’s reform is simple: New Zealand’s current citizen’s arrest laws are inconsistent and random. Right now, whether a security guard or shopkeeper can detain a thief depends not just on the crime itself, but on the time of day it happens. 

Tonight is late night shopping at The Plaza Shopping Centre here in Palmerston North. If go and steal something worth $800 at 8.59 pm, the store security guard cannot legally stop me. If he grabs my arm, he has committed assault, battery and false imprisonment. If I am running behind schedule on my crime spree and steal the item two minutes later, at 9.01 pm, the guard has some measure of protection in law. 

Geddis and Benson-Pope don’t argue that this is defensible. They simply argue that changing it is too dangerous. And so, instead of engaging with how to fix the law, they resort to pure scaremongering. They warn that these changes could lead to “excessive force,” wrongful arrests or even racial profiling.

A principled approach would be to advocate for no power to detain for any theft, ever. That would be wrong, but principled. But defending the current law is unprincipled.

Massachusetts is one of the most liberal, Democrat-dominated states in the U.S. If you’re going to point to a state that takes a cautious, restrained approach to law enforcement, Massachusetts is the one. It’s hard to think of a jurisdiction that better embodies the soft-on-crime stereotype.

And guess what? Like a lot of places, it has a shopkeeper’s privilege law. 

Under Massachusetts General Law ch. 231, s. 94B, store owners are allowed to detain a shoplifter for a “reasonable amount of time.” There’s no requirement that the theft be above a certain dollar amount. No special night-time rule. No arbitrary three-year penalty threshold. If a shopkeeper has probable cause to believe a theft has occurred, they can hold the suspect and call the police. 

Massachusetts is a deep-blue, progressive state. Do people genuinely believes that New Zealanders can’t handle the same powers as store owners in Cambridge, Massachusetts? If so, that’s a remarkable vote of no confidence in our society.

I am happy to predict that the changes will become law, and the only consequence is more shoplifters get detained and arrested.

The liberal reaction to the announcement hinges on the idea that allowing businesses to detain shoplifters is somehow a greater risk to society than shoplifting itself. 

I think their view is that shoplifters are people, while companies are not people, so shoplifting is not a real crime. Never mind that people own companies.

At Patreon (paywalled)I have done my normal monthly summary of how Governments are looking placed for re-election. My intro is:

Nigel Farage is positioned to become the next UK Prime Minister, while the Liberals in Canada now have a real shot at retaining power thanks to Donald Trump.

My summary of relative chances in February is:

I would assess the order of likelihood of re-election as

1 The United States Presidency (Nov 2028)
2 Canada (October 2025)
3 New Zealand (Jan 2027)
4 Australia (May 2025)
5 The United Kingdom (Aug 2029) 

An important speech by Chris Bishop:

He announced:

• The first is replacing DCs with a Development Levy System,
• The second is establishing regulatory oversight of Development Levies to ensure charges are fair and appropriate,
• The third is increasing the flexibility of targeted rates,
• The fourth is improving the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act, and
• The fifth is broadening existing tools to support value capture.

These changes are very important. Councils have slow walked developments because they often leave them with costs that all ratepayers must fund. These changes will fix that problem.

So how does each work:

1. Under this new system, councils and other infrastructure providers will be able to charge developers for their share of aggregate infrastructure growth costs across an urban area over the long-term.
2. But it is important that prices are fair and appropriate, so we will also establish regulatory oversight of Development Levies, which will be integrated with the regulatory oversight of water services and rates.
3. We will allow councils to set targeted rates that apply when a rating unit is created at the subdivision stage. This will enable councils to set targeted rates that only apply to new developments.
4. The IFF Act was passed in 2020 so that developers could freely arrange private funding and financing solutions for enabling infrastructure. It was supposed to allow developers to bypass the issue of relying on councils for the timely provision of infrastructure. But at a high-level, the Government has agreed to make several remedial amendments to improve the effectiveness of the Act, particularly for developer-led projects. These changes will remove unnecessary barriers and make the overall process simpler.
5. We will enable IFF Act levies to be charged for major transport projects, e.g., projects delivered by NZTA. This change has the potential to kickstart our embrace of Transit Oriented Development or TOD. TOD promotes compact, mixed-use, pedestrian friendly cities, with development clustered around, and integrated with, mass transit. The idea is to have as many jobs, houses, services and amenities as possible around public transport stations.

So great to finally have a Government comprehensively tackle the barriers to housing.

A guest post by Marley Joseph:

New Zealand’s public hospitals are facing a doctor shortage, yet Health New Zealand—the bureaucratic body overseeing our public health system—continues to artificially limit the number of hospital internship positions available to newly qualified doctors. Without these placements, graduates cannot gain full registration and are effectively locked out of the workforce. Meanwhile, instead of hiring more permanent staff, hospitals are forcing already overworked junior doctors to take on unsafe levels of extra shifts just to keep the system running. This isn’t a funding issue—it’s a case of government mismanagement and poor workforce planning that is burning out staff and driving talented doctors overseas.

Finishing medical school doesn’t make someone a practising doctor. After years of study, graduates must complete a two-year hospital internship (PGY1 & PGY2) before they can work independently. Health New Zealand controls how many internship positions are available each year, yet despite hospitals constantly reporting shortages, these placements haven’t kept pace with demand. In 2024, 563 new doctors were ready to start work, but 25 were left in limbo due to a cap on internship positions. Even worse, hospitals rarely advertise new PGY1 positions—openings only occur when an overworked junior doctor resigns. If there’s truly a shortage, why aren’t more permanent roles being created? Meanwhile, hospitals claim they can’t find enough staff.

With hospitals refusing to create permanent positions, the burden falls on existing junior doctors, who are forced to work extra shifts and take on additional responsibilities just to keep services running. Instead of hiring more staff, hospitals rely on a broken system—expecting junior doctors to not only do their own jobs but also cover the duties of missing colleagues. This means that during the day, a single doctor might be responsible for twice the number of patients because no one else is available. After hours, hospitals often don’t have enough staff on duty, so exhausted doctors are called back in from home or coerced to stay long past their scheduled shifts. Across four separate weeks in 2023 (Week 6 of each quarter), Auckland’s major hospitals spent nearly $2 million on 2,900 of these additional shifts, adding up to 17,500 hours of extra work. If that trend continued across the year, it suggests Auckland alone is short by around 110 full-time junior doctors (RMOs), costing taxpayers an estimated $26 million annually in temporary staffing fees. To put this into perspective, $26 million could fund the salaries of more than 300 full-time junior doctors each year, providing continuity of care and reducing burnout. Instead of investing in a permanent workforce, Health New Zealand is funnelling taxpayer dollars into a revolving door of emergency shift cover—an approach that neither fixes the crisis nor provides sustainable care for patients. And this is just Auckland—it doesn’t include rural or regional hospitals, where shortages are often even worse. 

Nor does it account for the growing deficit of Senior Medical Officers (SMOs), meaning junior doctors are increasingly left to manage complex cases without proper supervision. While some may argue that a lack of supervisors limits the number of junior doctors that can be trained, the reality is that failing to expand these positions only worsens the SMO shortage long-term. A sustainable workforce starts by ensuring a steady pipeline of trained doctors who, with experience, can relieve the burden on senior staff—rather than forcing them to pick up the slack left by chronic understaffing. All that money goes toward patching holes rather than developing a stable workforce. If we continue down this path, costs will only balloon further, and the shortage will worsen. So why does Health New Zealand continue throwing millions at a short-term fix while refusing to create the permanent roles that would solve the problem?

If funding isn’t the problem, then why is Health New Zealand still refusing to expand training positions? Year after year, it chooses to fund emergency shifts instead of creating the permanent jobs hospitals desperately need. Rather than addressing the workforce crisis, policymakers seem more comfortable maintaining the status quo—even as the costs of inaction keep rising. Hospitals claim they can’t find enough doctors, yet bureaucratic red tape continues to block qualified graduates from entering the workforce. Meanwhile, private locum agencies thrive on these inefficiencies, profiting from a system designed to fail. It’s unclear whether this is the result of poor workforce planning, bureaucratic inertia, or a system that has become financially dependent on short-term staffing solutions. With multiple key Health NZ executives resigning in recent months, it seems even those in charge don’t have a clear strategy. But what is clear is that this crisis isn’t being fixed—and taxpayers, patients, and frontline doctors are paying the price.

This workforce crisis isn’t just affecting local graduates—it’s also trapping foreign-trained doctors in limbo. New Zealand recently doubled the number of exam slots for internationally trained doctors (NZREX) from 90 to 180 per year, promising a pathway for them to work in our health system. But there’s a catch — Health New Zealand hasn’t expanded the number of internship placements they need to become fully registered. The result? We have built a system that is failing from both ends—turning away new Kiwi doctors while simultaneously inviting foreign-trained doctors to New Zealand with no clear path to employment. EInstead of solving the workforce crisis, we are actively worsening it. Many of doctors who have passed every required exam but remain unable to work—just like many Kiwi graduates. Instead of strengthening our health system, this failure has created a bottleneck where both locally and internationally trained doctors are being shut out while hospitals continue to struggle with staff shortages. It’s a baffling contradiction—our healthcare system is crying out for doctors, yet government inaction is keeping them on the sidelines. 

This crisis isn’t just about numbers—it’s about real people, both doctors and patients. When hospitals don’t have enough staff, doctors are forced to work back-to-back shifts with little rest. Fatigue leads to mistakes, slower response times, and missed diagnoses. Patients wait longer for care, and avoidable complications become more common. Hospitals are meant to be places of healing, but instead, they are running on desperation. Junior doctors, instead of learning and developing under proper supervision, are being stretched to their limits, covering chronic staff shortages with little support. Every resignation due to burnout forces remaining staff to work even harder, pushing more doctors to leave. It’s a vicious cycle that only gets worse with time.

Meanwhile, New Zealand-trained doctors, unable to secure placements at home, are heading overseas for better opportunities. These are doctors taxpayers have invested in, but instead of serving our communities, they are now treating patients in Australia, countries that recognise their value. If we keep losing doctors faster than we replace them, New Zealand’s healthcare system will be permanently crippled.

The solution is simple: let trained doctors work. Instead of wasting millions each year on emergency shift cover, that money should be redirected towards permanent positions that build a stable workforce. Expanding junior doctor placements isn’t just the right thing to do—it’s the most cost-effective and practical way to fix the shortage. Every dollar spent on short-term fixes could instead be used to train and retain doctors who will stay in New Zealand long-term. Likewise, if we are inviting more foreign-trained doctors to sit NZREX, we must guarantee a clear pathway to full registration. Otherwise, we’re just inflating numbers on paper while hospitals remain critically understaffed. The bottleneck isn’t a lack of qualified doctors—it’s Health New Zealand’s refusal to provide them with the final step they need to work. We already have the doctors. We already have the funding. If there were truly no capacity to train more junior doctors, hospitals wouldn’t be spending millions on emergency shift cover year after year. The system has found a way to fund reactive, short-term fixes—so why can’t it fund proactive, long-term solutions? The only thing missing is the political will to remove the barriers keeping them from serving our communities. If Health New Zealand continues down this path, the crisis will only escalate—more burnout, more resignations, and more Kiwi doctors choosing to leave for better opportunities overseas.New Zealand invests heavily in training doctors, expecting them to serve our communities. Yet Health New Zealand is actively blocking them from doing so—wasting taxpayer money on short-term fixes while letting homegrown talent walk out the door. Patients wait longer, doctors burn out, and our hospitals become increasingly reliant on expensive, unsustainable stopgaps. This is a manufactured crisis. We don’t have a doctor shortage—we have a policy failure. The solution is staring us in the face: expand the number of internship placements, give new graduates a clear pathway into the workforce, and stop throwing millions at temporary fixes. If Health New Zealand can afford to spend $26 million per year patching holes in Auckland alone, it can afford to train and retain the doctors we already have. The longer this inaction continues, the greater the damage will be. More doctors will leave, patient care will suffer, and the system will spiral deeper into crisis. Health New Zealand must be held accountable for these failures—and it’s time for the government to step in and demand urgent reform. If we genuinely want to fix our hospitals, we must stop blocking the very people who can save them.

Marley Jospeh graduated MBChB in 2022.

Paul Goldsmith announced:

The Government has agreed to introduce legislation that will enable a four-year term of Parliament subject to a referendum, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says.

“As stipulated in the National-Act coalition agreement, the Bill is modelled on the ACT Party’s draft Constitution (Enabling a 4-Year Term) Amendment Bill.

“This means a standard term of Parliament will remain at three years, but with the ability to extend the maximum term of Parliament to four years. 

“The main condition is that membership of certain select committees is calculated in a way that is proportionate to the non-Executive parliamentary party membership of the House.

“Given the constitutional significance of the term of Parliament, this change would be subject to the outcome of a binding referendum.

I am a big supporter of a four year term and also having select committees more able to hold the Government to account (as we saw with the Covid-19 committee). They will both lead to better Government.

But I do not like the idea of the term of Parliament being sometimes three years and sometimes four years. It is confusing and could doom what is otherwise a very good proposal.

I suspect the Government is worried that if people vote for a four-year term, then a future Parliament (actually the House) could change Standing Orders to hand control back to the Government. But this is misguided, as history tells us that Standing Orders are far more enduring than legislation.

I asked the Office of the Clerk if the House has ever voted to amend Standing Orders on a narrow majority of the Government of the Day. This has not happened in living memory. There is a deep tradition of changes being made by consensus. In fact the only non-unanimous vote on Standing Orders was in 2003, and that wasn’t over the substance, but just over not being given more speaking slots in the debate.

So the better way for the Government to proceed would be:

1. Convene the Standing Orders Committee and propose that membership of select committees be proportional to non-executive MPs in the House, but that this SO will only become operative at the start of a four year term.
2. Have the bill only focused on the four year term, triggering a referendum on it at the 2026 election, but only to come into force at the 2029 election (ie the first four year term would be 2029 – 2033)
3. Publicise that a vote for a four year term would automatically see select committee control generally revert to the opposition, allowing better scrutiny of the Government of the Day

The Herald reports:

Wellington Water chairman Nick Leggett is right to “pause for thought” about whether his position is tenable, given the company he is accountable for has ripped off ratepayers.

More scathing reports about the water company’s failings have been released today – the latest of many reviews into Wellington Water in recent years.

The Taxpayers’ Union called the revelations “nothing short of scandal”, while Wellington City councillor Ben McNulty said the region has been “betrayed” by Wellington Water. 

At least one mayor in the region has already called for Leggett’s resignation but another said that would be “stupid”.

The reports found Wellingtonians have been paying nearly three times that of comparable councils such as Hamilton and Christchurch for unplanned pipe maintenance.

The problems with Wellington Water go back many many years. Nick was only appointed in mid 2023 to try and fix the problems. His position may no longer be tenable, but no one should think the long standing problems at Wellington Water are the fault of Leggett.

Ultimate control of Wellington Water lies with the Wellington Water committee. They appoint the board and set the overall  leadership and direction. The members are:

• Campbell Barry, Chair (Hutt Mayor)
• Ros Connelly, Deputy Chair (WRC)
• Anita Baker (Porirua Mayor)
• Tory Whanau (Wellington Mayor)
• Martin Connelly (South Wairarapa Mayor)
• Melissa Sadler-Futter (South Wairarapa Deputy Mayor)
• Wayne Guppy (Upper Hutt Mayor)
• Lee Rauhina-August (Mana Whenua)
• Helmut Modlik (Mana Whenua)

Porirua Mayor Anita Baker said she was horrified by the higher costs ratepayers in the region were paying but said talk of resignations was “absolutely stupid”.

“Pat Dougherty and Nick as chair have led this report and driven these findings and it’s taken a while because we’ve needed to get a new chief executive so, I think what they’ve done is really good and I would not understand why you would want to throw that out.”

What the Councils should be doing is setting clear performance targets for the board such as that the costs of pipe maintenance should be no higher than other water entities.

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.