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”.

Rodney Hide has a tale that should be in a Monty Python comedy, but sadly is the reality in too many schools. He wanted to address the school board over his concerns that the relationship and sexual education curriculum the school was using, was inappropriate for 13 year olds.

• Rodney spent nine months trying to get ten minutes of board time to discuss this
• He sought advice from the NZSTA that board meetings are held in public and can be recorded
• The morning of the meeting, the principal informed him he can’t record it. Rodney told him his advice was he could
• Then the board chair told him he could not record it as the board has discretion to perform its functions as it sees fit. Rodney pointed out this doesn’t mean overriding the law that they are a public entity
• Then the principal told him recording the meeting was against the tikanga of the school. Rodney said that doesn’t override the law.
• Finally the principal said it would be inappropriate for Rodney to talk about the sex education curriculum in detail to the board because one of the board members is 16 years old and it would be inappropriate to expose her to this

So you have a school board that says what you teach 13 year olds, can’t be talked about in front of 16 year olds!

You can read at the link what Rodney wanted to say. He makes many valid points about how the curriculum minimises statutory rape etc. Shame on the school board with being more concerned about circling the wagons rather than listening to legitimate concerns.

An important speech by Chris Bishop to the Committee for Auckland. Key aspects are:

• Congestion stifles economic growth in Auckland, with studies showing that it costs between $900 million to $1.3 billion per year. Congestion is essentially a tax on time, productivity, and growth. And like most taxes, I’m keen to reduce it.
• The government will be progressing legislation this year to allow the introduction of Time of Use pricing on our roads
• Any money collected through time of use charging will be required to be invested back into transport infrastructure that benefits Kiwis and businesses living and working in the region where the money was raised.
• Modelling has shown that successful congestion charging could reduce congestion by up to 8 to 12 percent at peak times (DPF: In New York travel times are down 10% to 30%)
• New Zealand can raise our productivity simply by allowing our towns and cities to grow up and out. 
• The Government will be allocating funding for its share of the cost of accelerating the grade-separation of 7 level crossings in Takāanini and Glen Innes.
• This approach 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.
• My aspiration is that in 10-20 years’ time, we have 10-20 storey apartment blocks dotting the rail line as far west as Swanson and Ranui.
• One barrier to proper high-density in Auckland, including around City Rail Link stations, is undoubtedly the current settings of the 73 viewshafts that have restricted the height of the city since the early 1970s
• A study done in 2018, looking at this one view shaft – the E10 – showed that its cost was roughly $1.4 billion in lost development opportunities. This is just the impact of one of the 73 viewshafts.

Roger Partridge writes:

A new submission to the Committee from banking experts Andrew Body and Simon Jensen provides fresh evidence of these costs. Their analysis shows the Reserve Bank’s capital rules add between 0.25 and 0.375 percentage points to mortgage rates compared with Australia. For a million-dollar mortgage, that means between $2,500 and $3,750 in extra annual interest payments.  

The Reserve Bank requires banks to hold enough capital to survive a one-in-200-year financial crisis. No other country sets such an extreme standard. Most aim for resilience against a one-in-100-year event. 

Making matters worse, the Reserve Bank keeps adding requirements to its conservative settings. Banks must now conduct climate-related stress tests and meet complex reporting obligations, even though the high capital requirements already protect against such risks. 

The central bank also requires banks to hold more capital against farm lending than Australian regulators. A New Zealand farmer faces higher borrowing costs than an Australian farmer, even though both sell into the same global markets. 

I’m increasingly of the view that the reserve Bank should have independence from the Government only for its monetary policy decisions around the OCR. However the financial regulatory decisions they make should either be shifted elsewhere such as the FMA or be subject to government approval so costs can be weighed by against benefits.

A guest post by Reynold Macpherson, Chairman of Rotorua District Residents and Ratepayers:

I watched the launch of this committee online this morning and was left with ambivalent feelings. While I strongly support Te Arawa having a fair and proportionate influence on Council policymaking, I was struck by the way politically critical implications were overshadowed by a cultural tide of goodwill and, at times, naïveté.

Committee Composition and Decision-Making Dynamics

The committee’s membership includes the mayor, all 11 elected councillors, and the chair plus four other members of Te Tatau o Te Arawa (elected to represent all Te Arawa constituencies). In an ideal scenario—where their five key projects consistently align with the intersection of the Te Arawa 2050 Vision and the Rotorua Lakes Council’s community outcomes—this structure could function harmoniously.

However, in a worst-case scenario, where committee votes split along tribal versus broader community interests, Te Arawa could hold a 9:7 majority if the four elected councillors with Te Arawa whakapapa align with Te Tatau. Even if the vote were split 8:8, Te Arawa would still wield a de facto veto. Even in a less extreme case, this potential veto power could cast a long shadow over the committee’s work.

The evidence from today’s meeting suggests that Te Tatau will push its priorities, secure the generally compliant endorsement of elected council members, and then present recommendations to the full Council with an expectation of formal ratification, funding through ratepayer contributions, and implementation. In effect, the committee appears to be a form of co-governance that advances Te Arawa’s priorities within the Council’s decision-making process.

Uncritical Reception of Te Arawa 2050 Vision

The Te Arawa 2050 Vision was received uncritically, with no effort made to compare it to Council’s Vision 2030 to identify areas of overlap or divergence. Given that Vision 2030 has been omitted from the Long-Term Plan 2024-2027, Te Arawa 2050 now stands as the dominant framework for envisioning the district’s future. A council without a clearly articulated vision lacks a solid foundation for its mission, objectives, programs, key performance indicators, and evaluation frameworks. This leaves it vulnerable to external agendas shaping governance priorities.

Bias in Project Selection Process

The process for identifying and ranking the five key projects was noticeably skewed toward Te Tatau spokespersons’ priorities. The online participant from Te Tatau was inaudible to other viewers except for a passing reference to rates. Unlike Te Tatau, which had clearly caucused and aligned its priorities beforehand, Council representatives had not clarified their priorities—allegedly to avoid predetermination—despite these priorities being outlined in the Long-Term Plan 2024-2034.

Initially, the discussion identified seven shared priorities:

1. Sustainable Wastewater
2. Housing
3. Voter Turnout
4. Rates
5. Digital Literacy
6. Reo Rua (Two Languages)
7. Technological Innovation

However, after lobbying by Te Tatau programme managers, Reo Rua surged to the top of the list, followed by:
2. Housing
3. Sustainable Wastewater Management
4. Election Management
5. Technology, Innovation, Connectivity, and Digital Engagement

Notably, Rates disappeared from the final list—a development that will likely come as a shock to residents and ratepayers who were expecting relief.

Projects that fell outside the five-priority limit included:
6. Engagement in Local Government
7. Rangatahi
8. Stocktake of Council Policies and Procedures
9. Civil Defence Preparedness

A key question now is whether officials drafting project plans for the next meeting in April will clarify where expectations exceed the legitimate functions of local government. Will they distinguish between must-havecore services and nice-to-have well-being initiatives as defined by central government?

Avoidance of Critical Governance Questions

Broader questions about governance quality were brushed aside. When asked about the meaning of “partnerships,” officials framed it as effective relationships aligned with participation and engagement requirements under the Local Government Act. There was no mention of co-governance, democracy, or an equivalent policy-making process for non-Te Arawa stakeholders.

Similarly, when concerns were raised about using public resources to boost voter engagement, the Chief Executive assured attendees that all staff activities would remain apolitical.

Conclusion

Te Arawa has now effectively secured an internal co-governance pathway to advance its priorities—enabled by a Rotorua Lakes Council that no longer has its own distinct vision and whose members have not developed independent priorities consistent with their accountability to all residents and ratepayers.

Ratepayers are advised to monitor this committee’s proceedings with great care.

Radio NZ reports:

Te Atatū MP Phil Twyford has written to the charities regulator asking for Destiny Church to be struck off.

Around 30 adults and young children had to be barricaded into a room in a library in West Auckland last weekend when a group linked to Destiny Church tried to drown out a Pride Festival Event in Te Atatū.

Twyford’s formal complaint to Charities Services alleges the church engaged in wrongdoing.

“Destiny’s actions were certainly oppressive, which meets the definition of wrongdoing in the law, and so they should lose their tax deductible status,” he said.

I have condemned what Destiny did. But if using force to disrupt an event qualifies as wrongdoing under the Charities Act 2005, then so does using force to disrupt legal meetings and operations, such as Greenpeace does. You have to be consistent.

My long held view is that in fact no church should automatically get charitable status. They should only get it if their actions are charitable, rather than merely because they have a religious belief.

The Act defines charitable purpose as:

charitable purpose includes every charitable purpose, whether it relates to the relief of poverty, the advancement of education or religion, or any other matter beneficial to the community.

I don’t regard advancement of religion as any more beneficial to the community that advancement of socialism or advancement of capitalism or advancement of political beliefs. Just because your organisation claims its beliefs are linked to a God or spiritual belief, why is that automatically charitable? Why should the Church of Scientology be a charity?

Now don’t get me wrong. Many churches do many charitable things. And all the activities done by Presbyterian Support or the Salvation Army etc that help struggling families should be charitable and tax deductible. But preaching a series of beliefs should not be charitable. Why should Brian Tamaki as a political party leader be non-charitable if you donate to further his beliefs, but Brian Tamaki as a religious leader be charitable if you donate to further his beliefs?

So I would remove advancement of religion as a charitable purpose and allow churches to gain charitable status on the same grounds as everyone else – do they relieve poverty, advance education or benefit the community.

Fran O’Sullivan writes:

It’s been interesting to read all the repetitive columns predicting Luxon’s demise – either imminently as my friend Matthew Hooton reckons or at the endpoint of a long, slow march to oblivion as my colleague Simon Wilson avers.

To paraphrase an old joke about economists and recessions, Matthew has predicted the demise of nine of the last five Prime Ministers!

The Prime Minister is imperfect – we all know that. He is clunky and prone to platitudes.

But he had the guts to wrestle control of a hopelessly moribund opposition party, knock it into shape, then forge a Coalition Government with two of the most wily politicians New Zealand has ever seen which is delivering on key pledges in the respective coalition agreement. …

It’s fair to say there has been a revolution at the heart of Government.

Luxon has been focused on the cost of living, fiscal issues and now economic growth.

As one player related, they had not seen before a Government with such energy and drive and a clear sense of mission. The PM’s quarterly plans were driving change.

The fact that Luxon is still a political neophyte wasn’t necessarily a negative. Sure, he would make mistakes. But there were some real advantages because he was not part of the machine. He not had nine years in Parliament to get institutionalised. He was impatient and demanded action: “He just wants stuff done”.

Luxon is very focused on delivery – a huge change from the previous Government.

The PM’s upcoming Infrastructure Investment Summit won’t bomb.

It has acted as a spur to get public infrastructure projects to the investable stage. Deals don’t happen overnight and it is ludicrous to claim if they don’t follow swiftly then Luxon should get the boot.

Chief investment officers have protocols to follow.

Now that Luxon has personally invited Labour’s finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds to take part, investors will take confidence that the adults from both sides of Parliament are in the room and committed to New Zealand’s long-term success.

It is very good that National and Labour are co-operating to try and attract foreign investment into New Zealand.

Critic announced:

2025 marks Critic’s 100th year in print, and we are incredibly proud to announce our intention to produce a book to commemorate this milestone. A centenary only comes around once, and we’d be over the moon to see this project happen. Our deadline is March 2nd to secure a starting sum of $70,000, which will cover editorial staffing costs.

I’m a former sub-editor of Critic, and have donated towards the 100th anniversary book. Student newspapers are an amazing incubator for many great journalists and others. Salient has had Barrie Saunders, Huge Rennie, Elle Hunt, Toby Manhire etc. Critic has produced Matt Nippert, Patrick Crewdson, Chris Trotter, Henry Cooke etc. While the politics are often not mine, they are fun and always happy to challenge authority.

If you went to Otago University and have fond memories of Critic, feel free to donate. Details are:

Reference: Critic100
Account Number: 12-3196-0003943-00

A guest post by Lucy Rogers:

I am aware that there are a proportion of the public who distrust the IPCA specifically because of perceived deficiencies in the report last week. Accordingly I want to provide what insights I can here. Having said that it comes with the caveat that this post is by no means comprehensive for the simple reason that the report is 156 pages long. Nevertheless I have read large sections of it, including much of the stuff about Albert Park.

The alleged problems with the report include inter alia the following:

1. The report did not cover every single issue in relation to the cases it covered e.g. it did not explicitly recommend disciplinary sanctions against the police officers who arrested me, which is perceived as a “whitewash”.
2. The fact that the report attributes police misconduct in part to inadequacies in the law re: protest in Aotearoa is intended as a “whitewash”.
3. Changes to the law re: protest (especially requiring police notification 21 days in advance of any protest) are intended to suppress free speech (or will have that effect).
4. The tone of the report was too measured.

The report did not cover everything

Yes, it is true that the report did not cover every single issue in relation to my case. It did not cover disciplinary sanctions and it did not cover other issues like the fact that I was refused the right to speak to a lawyer (despite requesting to do so, and providing a colleague’s number on the spot) or that I was subject to an illegal search. This is also true (or so I am told) of the Albert Park case.

The IPCA process is not over yet

However, the IPCA informed me long in advance that the report would not cover disciplinary sanctions re: the officers in my case. Rather, following publication of the report it said it would sit down with me and discuss disciplinary sanctions as well as any outstanding issues that I wish to raise. This was in part because the Albert Park complainants had been waiting for a very long time indeed for the outcome of their complaints (and were annoyed about the fact) and the IPCA wanted to speed up publication.

It is possible that something similar may happen with the Albert Park case

I imagine that something similar may occur in the Albert Park case, however any such process would depend among other things on the willingness of the complainants to undergo further interviews in a case that is dragging on. I note that the report was specifically about identifying issues in Aotearoa’s law re: protests and focussed primarily on aspects of the relevant cases which related to those issues. I note also that Speak Up for Women (whom, by the way, I am not associated with) have said in their press release that overall they are content with the report. Further, I note that the IPCA have a high workload.

The attribution of blame to inadequacies in the law re: protest is not a whitewash

I get why some people see the IPCA attributing police misconduct in part to inadequacies in the law as whitewashing. For example, the report says of my case that “the reasons provided for needing to act are consistent with a mistaken belief among some officers that their powers extend to the ability to arrest for anticipated breach of the peace.” (I was arrested for breach of the peace.) In other words, police are not aware that violence or threatened violence (which had not occurred when I was arrested) are a requisite element of breach of the peace.

In fact, I agree

That sounds like it’s trying to make excuses for police conduct. But in fact I agree, even though if anyone has a right to be aggrieved it is I. It was my experience when I was arrested and at subsequent protests that the police did not know what breach of the peace was. Although at present I have no strong stance I am open to the IPCA’s recommendation of statutory reforms introducing criminal offences tailored to protest situations which have more specific parameters than extant legal provisions.

Vague law suits the police

I add however that although it is true that the police officers in question did not know what breach of the peace was, neither did they care. Which is to say: vague law actually suits police officers on a power trip who are just out to arrest someone. They do not need to succeed in a prosecution to avoid consequences. They just need an arguable case that their actions were justified. 

The police exploit this

Remember, the officers don’t personally have to pay legal costs if a criminal prosecution against someone fails. The defendant has to pay legal costs, but not the police officers who made the call to arrest. I know firsthand that the police exploit this. It is precisely what happened in Daniel Maxwell’s case, and the IPCA report specifically recommends that the police repay his legal aid debt for this reason. I think that more specific offences tailored to protests with clear parameters might protect the public from police abuse, as recommended in the IPCA report.

Remaining issues

I am not going to address the remaining issues at any length, except to say the merits of requiring protest organisers to obtain permits aside, in the course of my interactions with the IPCA the author of the report did not strike me as having an ideological axe to grind and I believe that suggestion to have been made in good faith. That does not mean of course that it is necessarily good policy.

I also note that while the report is indeed very measured in its tone (e.g. saying that the police “could [not] have believed” the contents of their own statements alleging that I was mentally ill and screaming at people, rather than saying “they lied”) that the IPCA has very good reason for seeking to avoid emotive language generally speaking, namely that it needs to avoid conveying bias for or against the police to the maximum degree possible. Personally, I take no offence.