Not a huge amount of change in the last three days, except five of the six forecasts now have Trump winning Pennsylvania, and hence the White House.

Almost 32 million Americans have already early voted.

Geoffrey Kabat writes:

In 2003, UCLA epidemiologist James Enstrom and I published a study of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)—also called “secondhand smoke” or “passive smoking”—in the British Medical Journal (BMJ). Using data from the American Cancer Society’s prospective study of 1 million adults, we concluded that ETS exposure was not associated with increased mortality.

Since that conclusion flew in the face of the conventional wisdom that had long driven state and local bans on smoking in public places, our study understandably sparked a controversy in the public health community. But the intensity of the attack on us in the pages of a medical journal—by critics who were certain that our study had to be wrong but typically failed to provide specific evidence of fatal errors—vividly illustrates what can happen when policy preferences that have taken on the status of doctrine override rational scientific debate.

We see this in so many other areas of science. Findings that contradict policy preferences are often attacked by scientists.

The response to our paper was largely political. This was evident from the fact that the ACS attacked the paper during the two-day embargo period, before it went online. The clear intent was to delegitimize the study in the court of public opinion. This initial attack invited others to pile on, alleging flaws in our methods. But as the BMJ‘s editors pointed out, those charges generally were not backed by any reference to actual data from the paper.

The head epidemiologist at the ACS condemned our paper as tobacco industry “disinformation,” and other tobacco control activists went even further, citing our paper in a federal racketeering case against cigarette companies. They alleged that the paper was part of a tobacco industry conspiracy to discredit scientific evidence concerning the hazards of smoking. This use of lawfare rather than open scientific debate seemed designed to have a chilling effect on researchers studying passive smoking, discouraging them from reporting politically inconvenient results.

The organizers of this attack felt it necessary to portray us as corrupt agents of the tobacco industry, even though we had long track records researching the effects of smoking and other questions in public health. Our paper included a 200-word declaration stating that the tobacco industry had no involvement with the paper.

We saw similar with the Covid-19 science. Anyone who deviated from the accepted line was pilloried.

The new paper from the American Cancer Society, published last April in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, comes 21 years after the brouhaha over our BMJ paper and sheds further light on the controversy. This major ACS paper aims to further reduce the incidence of cancer by providing data that can be used to improve policies and practices. …

The “population-attributable fraction” (PAF)—that is, the share of cancer deaths that could be prevented if a given risk factor were removed—is 28.5 percent for cigarette smoking and 0.7 percent for secondhand smoke—a 41-fold difference. Although the PAF for secondhand smoke is statistically significant, the magnitude of the risk is negligible and similar to the risk estimate in our BMJ paper.

So the ACS attacked the paper 21 years ago, but has now just released its own study that backs it up.

For the scientific enterprise to succeed, unpopular findings must be discussed objectively, rather than dismissed summarily as obviously wrong. Leveling ad hominem attacks at researchers for alleged pro-industry bias is no substitute for a rigorous and fair-minded analysis of the data.

The part in bold should be nailed up on the wall of the Royal Society.

One can of course still make a good policy case for banning smoking in enclosed areas, even if the risk of actual cancer or heart disease from second hand smoke is low. You can make a policy case on the basis it is very unpleasant for people to be subject to second hand smoke on the basis of irriting the eyes, making you cough, the smell etc.

Radio NZ reports:

Waikato public hospital has told nurses not to speak to patients in any language other than English.

A memo sent to all nursing staff last Friday, obtained by RNZ, said concerns had been raised about other languages being used, and that exclusive use of English in all clinical settings was safer for treating people.

A doctor who saw the memo said it was clearly aimed at Indian, Filipino and Pasifika nurses, who were healthcare “heroes” but were now being victimised.

No one is being victimised by being asked to speak in English in health clinical settings, just as English is also the required language for aviation. The need for clarity and clear communication saves lives.

Having said that, there should be some flexibility. If both parties to a conversation are more fluent or comfortable in another language, then I have no problem with that being used. So if a patient is more fluent in Mandarin, and a health professional speaks Mandarin, then that helps clear communications.

However if there are more than two people present, then English should be used unless everyone can understand the other language. You shouldn’t have one healthcare professional unable to understand what is being said.

In 1992 the Canberra Times asked 300 political and history academics to nominate the five greatest Australian PMs. The results of that survey tells us much more about the academics than the PMs. Their top six were:

1. Ben Chifley, Labor, won 1 election, served 4.5 years
2. John Curtin, Labor, won 1 election, served 3.75 years
3. Alfred Deakin, Protectionist then Liberal, won 1 election , served 5 years
4. Gough Whitlam, Labor, won 2 elections, served 3 years
5. Robert Menzies, Liberal, won 8 elections, served 18.5 years
6. Billy Hughes, Nationalist, won 2 elections, served 7.5 years

Placing Gough Whitlam over Robert Menzies is so ridiculous it is funny.

Radio NZ report:

E tū union spokesperson Michael Wood, himself a former transport minister, told Nine to Noon on Tuesday privatisation would undermine safety.

“Having appropriate aviation security is one of the most safety critical things of the system, and the prospect of privatising those services does compromise them,” Wood said.

“We, alongside other unions, have real concerns about this and staff are extremely concerned about what this might mean for the safety of everyone who uses our airports.”

Around the world, almost all airport security is done by the private sector, not the Government.

The notion that changing airline security from the CAA to Airports is extremely concerning for safety is hysterical. The reality is you could abolish aviation security entirely, and 99.9999% of flights would be unaffected.

If security was privatised, Wood feared competing interests could lead to lacklustre safety measures.

“If they were airports or airlines who could deliver these services… [They] have an interest in other operational matters,” he said.

“If things are running late, that costs airlines a lot of money and that starts to bring other incentives into the system, other than the safety of ensuring everyone is appropriately screened and that process is done well.”

What Michael Wood is saying is that if airports ran airport security, then they might actually work to reduce massive queues, as it is in their interest to do so. Wow, that would be terrible.

NZ Initiative Chair Roger Partridge has written an excellent report, called Who Makes the Law?

It deals with how the Supreme Court has gone from interpreting law to making law, and how we can change this.

If I could pick any one report for Parliament to act on, then this would be the report out of the many good ones they have done. It is about fundamental democracy.

Partridge notes the following ways in which the Supreme Court has acted unconventionally:

1. The Court has embraced a very loose or ‘liberal’ approach to interpreting laws passed by Parliament. This approach involves the Court narrowly interpreting, ‘stretching’ or even ignoring clear statutory language the Court does not like. Through this process, the Court has essentially granted itself the power to rewrite laws made by Parliament.
2. The Supreme Court has changed its approach to the ‘common law’ – the body of law developed by judges over many centuries. The Court now thinks its role is to reshape or ‘develop’ the common law’s legal principles to give effect to what it thinks are contemporary social values. This means that unelected judges are making policy decisions that would traditionally have been left to Parliament.

There are many examples in the report. But what I like is that the report doesn’t just whinge about this. It proposes concrete actions Parliament can take to improve things. They are:

1. Passing legislation to overturn aberrant judicial decisions and ensure the courts give effect to Parliament’s wishes, such as the Ellis tikanga ruling to be over-ruled and replaced with a comprehensive statutory framework for how and when tikanga should be considered by courts
2. Adding ‘guard rails’ in the Senior Courts Act by defining the meaning of the rule of law to limit the Court’s activist tendencies.
3. Amending the Legislation Act 2019 to constrain the Court’s loose approach to statutory interpretation and to require judges to adhere more closely to statutory text
4. Make it clear that the courts cannot use common law presumptions to displace or qualify clear statutory words, adopt meanings inconsistent with statutory purpose or adopt unreasonable interpretations.
5. Repealing or amending provisions like section 6 of the Bill of Rights Act that invite judicial rewriting of statutes the courts do not like.
6. Supreme Court judges could serve for a set period (say, 5–7 years) before returning to the Court of Appeal. This would be balanced by promoting Court of Appeal judges to fill the vacated Supreme Court positions. Such a rotation system could help prevent our most senior judges from becoming too detached from practical realities.emphasise judicial restraint and respect for the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law

It is no surprise that some legal academics have reacted negatively to the report. They are no doubt delighted to have a progressive Supreme Court implementing a policy agenda they agree with.

This is from an Associate Professor on Twitter. I actually like much of what he says in other areas, but here I have to laugh at the reference twice to how informed commentators say there is no real concern about the Supreme Court. This is probably the case in university law schools, but let me say that amongst lawyers and politicians on the centre-right there is huge concern that has been growing for some time.

The Supreme Court decision on the Three Strikes Law was such an act of blatant defiance, that it is no surprise there has been a backlash.

Nicole McKee announced:

The Government is listening to New Zealanders and Cabinet has agreed to recommend modifications to the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill, Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee says.

I’m glad they took on board that the bill as introduced was so watered down from the old law, that it would not be worth proceeding with. And the two changes made go in the right direction, but fall short of what I hoped for.

“Originally the Bill set the threshold for triggering the regime at more than 24 months imprisonment across the board. While the qualifying sentence exists to ensure severe penalties are reserved for serious cases, we agree with submitters that this was set too high and are lowering it to make sure that offenders face appropriate consequences for serious violent and sexual offending.

Cabinet is proposing that the qualifying sentence threshold will be reduced to more than 12 months imprisonment at the first strike. As a result, more offenders will face stiffer penalties if they go on to commit serious crimes.

The threshold will remain at more than 24 months imprisonment at strikes two and three to ensure that the resulting stiffer penalties are reserved for more serious offending, as is the intention of the Three Strikes regime.

So they have lowered the threshold for first strikes from a 24 month sentence to a 12 month sentence. In reality this may not capture many more people as if a prison sentence is for less than 24 months anyway, it is often converted to home detention.

The threshold for first strikes should be conviction of a qualifying offence. There is no extra penalty for a first strike – but they get the formal court warning about future strikes. Why would you want to allow people to avoid getting a warning if they get home detention instead of prison? The idea is to deter.

“We are also making sure that those who received strike warnings under the previous regime for offending which meets the qualifying threshold will keep these warnings going into the new regime. Those who were warned under the previous regime will face consequences if they continue to offend.”

It was outrageous that those who had strikes under the old law were being reset to zero strikes. So it is good that some of those strikes will be carried over. But rather than carry all strikes over, they are only going to carry over strikes that would have been strikes under the new law. This means between half and two thirds of strikes won’t be carried over.

A test of this revised bill is whether it meets the test laid down by Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, who in opposition said:

“It is unimaginable that offenders such as Wiremu Allen, who was convicted of a third strike offence which entailed breaking into a house, demanding money from the victim and then shooting him, would not receive the maximum mandatory sentence today.

So how would Wiremu do under the revised bill:

He got 10 months for his first strike offence of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. That strike is not carried over because he would not get a strike under this law.

Ge got 13 1/2 months for his second strike of robbery. That strike is not carried over because he would not get a strike under this law.

So Wiremu is happy. Neither of his first two strikes would be strikes under this law.

His third strike of a home invasion armed with pistols where he bashed the victim and his associate shot the victim in the knee would at best be a first strike under this law. He would have to bash or strangle at least two more victims before he gets what Goldsmith said he should get – the maximum sentence without parole.

It seems the Government has been captured by officials again. They knew they had to make changes to the bill as introduced, but have made the smallest possible change. It is no surprise officials are against the bill. They probably all studied criminology at Victoria University. There’s only one criminologist in NZ who actually believes in deterrence.

To see how bad the advice is, look at this article in the Herald:

The Government has toughened Three Strikes 2.0 in response to feedback that the initial proposals were too soft.

How much tougher can now be revealed: the Ministry of Justice estimates that 4312 more first-strikers, 649 more second-strikers, and 88 more third-strikers will be added in the regime’s first 10 years, compared to the estimates for the original proposals (7795 first-strikers, 266 second-strikers, and 11 third-strikers).

In percentage terms, the number of first-strikers would increase by 55%, second-strikers by 244%, and third-strikers by 800%.

This is just nonsense. You can tell that by looking at the numbers for the 12 years the much tougher law was in place for. The numbers were:

• 14,687 First strikers
• About 750 second strikers
• 25 Third Strikers

So there were 25 third strikes under the original law in 12 years and the Ministry is saying under this softer law, there would be 88!

Using the thresholds in the introduced bill, only 7 of the 25 third strikes would “earn” three strikes. Under the new threshold, that increases marginally from 7 to 8.

So we have 12 years of actual data showing under this law, there would only have been eight third strikers. Yet the Ministry says it will lead to 88 third strikers. The addition of two extra qualifying offences could not explain this huge difference.

And officials said a retrospective regime contravened a fundamental justice principle: that you should only suffer penalties that existed at the time of the offending.

Officials are bullshitting Ministers. Carrying over strikes earns under the old law is not retrospective in any way. As I stated in my submission:

Legislation is retrospective if it applies to an event or action that has already taken place. Carrying the strikes over would have no impact on an individual for their past actions, unless they commit a crime in future. The punishment will apply to their decision to commit a crime, in the knowledge of what the law now provides.

No criminal will be given a penalty that didn’t exist at the time of their offending. The officials are completely wrong in calling it retrospective. They hoodwinked Ministers initially on this. The officials should be called before a select committee and asked to justify their advice which contravenes not just the general definition of retrospective but also the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee guidelines.

While it is very close, the poll based projections are that Kamala Harris is more likely than not to lose to Donald Trump. She is now attacking him on the grounds he is unfit for office. While I agree with her, that is not going to get her the few remaining swing voters. Anyone who thinks he is unfit is already with her. Those undecided are not unaware of who Trump is, and just calling him a fascist won’t persuade them.

In my Patreon post (paywalled), I outline the one way I think Harris can win the election, and that is by focusing on an area that is a weakness for her, but can be turned into a strength – inflation.

The Herald reports:

The whānau of a man on a hunger strike to protest constitutional injustices says he was close to death when the court ruled Francis Shaw has the right to make his own decisions, even if he could die.

Shaw, a Rimutaka Prison inmate, is now 92 days into his hunger strike.

“He was going to die if he didn’t have any fluids, that’s a definite,” his brother Cameron said.

Shaw, who was jailed for 10 and a half months on charges of common assault, assault with a weapon, and possessing an offensive weapon, told prison staff on July 17 he was on a hunger strike and had not eaten since arriving there two days earlier.

I’ve lost track of how many hunger strikes Shaw has had. Hew doesn’t seem to be very good at them.

I think his first one was in 1989!

In 2020 he wanted a Maori Parliament.

In 2021 he was striking for a written constitution.

There’s been lots of stories about his various hunger strikes in prison. Sadly very few stories about all the victims of his criminal offending.

The Herald reports:

A review of legislation that gives the Crown the power to take private land for public infrastructure projects like roads, schools and police stations has been completed.

The review could potentially lead to faster and simplified land acquisition processes.

Some caution is needed here. The RMA reforms are about allowing people who already own property to easier develop their own property.

The Public Works Act is about the ability of the Crown to take your property off you, without your consent.

It is what you call a necessary evil. Without it, no new roads could probably ever happen. But it is ripe for misuse, if it is made too easy.

“For example, all infrastructure projects that use the act must meet a high threshold of being of national and regional significance. While a high threshold is important for protecting private property rights, there are many worthy and necessary projects that are vital for a particular region or community but may not be nationally significant.

This sounds good in theory, but can you trust local government not to abuse it? The Wellington City Council is talking about using the Public Works Act to confiscate Johnsonville Mall off Stride Properties, purely because Stride won’t redevelop the mall. Using the PWA to try and blackmail a property owner into spending money that isn’t commercially sensible is reprehensible.

In New Zealand we have only one election on election day, and the Electoral Commission releases results in real time. The media do provide commentary on how the parties are doing, but most people can work out who has won for themselves.

In the US it is very different. There is no central count for the US election. Each state does its own count. And sometimes they are delegated down to county level also. Also you have almost 500 races for Congress plus thousands of other races.

The Associated Press is the main media outlet that monitors all the vote counts, and projects winners. They don’t determine the winner, but their projections are widely reported.

There is an interesting article on Stuff about how they do this. Some key facts:

• Have been calling races for 175 years
• 6,823 races this year to be called
• 5,000 staff will work on the election results
• 99.9% accuracy rate
• They call a race when they determine/believe the trailing candidate can’t overtake the lead of the leading candidate
• 4,000 staff at vote counts. 800 vote entry clerks who check data
• 60 staff on decision team, experienced in election law
• For a call on which presidential candidate wins a state, a race caller and a statewide analyst have to agree the trailing candidate can’t win, and they take it to a decision editor. All there must agree for the call to proceed
• If a state will put a candidate over 270, or close to it, the decision also has to be endorsed by the executive editor, the VP and head of news, and the Washington bureau chief

Fascinating to see what their process is. I suspect the key states will not be called for a couple of days, as they will be so close.

1 News reports:

The Government has pulled funding from the country’s flagship research centre into white supremacy and violent extremism. …

He Whenua Taurikura research centre in Wellington received a letter from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) on Friday, saying funding would end in December. It has been run under a trust since 2022.

“Members of the trust are disappointed with the sudden change in direction by government, done in the name of cost savings,” a trust spokesperson told RNZ.

“The $2m the government saves by cutting this research will almost certainly increase the risk of significant loss of innocent life in vulnerable communities at the hands of extremists.”

The only people impacted will be the consultants and contractors. The reality is this taxpayer-funded so called anti-extremism centre was run by extremists.

The co-director called the Government a death cult recently. That is about as extreme as you can get.

They funded hard left activists such as Emma Rakete, Byron Clark, Kate Hannah and Kyle Matthews.

Now I’m all for all of the above people saying what they want, and researching what they want. But I’m not for their activism being funded by the taxpayer under the guise of fighting extremism, especially when their own politics are to the extreme left.

The Herald reports:

Te Pāti Māori claims a police operation targeting Mongrel Mob members and associates alleged to be involved in a drug distribution network was “terrorism” and motivated by a “racist agenda”.

It is amazing that a political party defends drug dealing gangs, and hates the Police so much they call them terrorists. TPM say they are for ta ao Maori and against colonisation, so why are they so pro-gang? There were no gangs pre-colonisation. They are a recent invention. Gangs are in no way part of the traditional Maori worldview of Manaakitanga – they are the opposite.

On all polls, Labour could only form a Government in coalition with Greens and Te Pati Maori. Could you imagine having Ministers who regard the Police as terrorists? What will it take for Labour to rule out coalition with TPM?

CNN reports:

Three economists were awarded the Nobel Prize Monday for their research into how the nature of institutions helps explain why some countries become rich and others remain poor.

Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James Robinson will share the prize, which carries a cash award of 11 million Swedish kronor ($1 million).

The Nobel Committee praised the trio for explaining why “societies with a poor rule of law and institutions that exploit the population do not generate growth or change for the better.”

“When Europeans colonized large parts of the globe, the institutions in those societies changed,” the committee said, citing the economists’ work. While in many places this was aimed at exploiting the indigenous population, in other places it laid the foundations for inclusive political and economic systems.

“The laureates have shown that one explanation for differences in countries’ prosperity is the societal institutions that were introduced during colonization,” the committee added.

Countries that developed “inclusive institutions” – which uphold the rule of law and property rights – have over time become prosperous, while those that developed “extractive institutions” – which, in the laureates’ words, “squeeze” resources from the wider population to benefit the elites – have experienced persistently low economic growth.

So colonisation that led to the rule of law and property rights led to prosperous countries, while colonisation that focused on extractive industries stayed poor.

The number of electorate seats will drop from 72 to 71 – the first ever drop under MMP. This is because the north island population did not grow as fast as the south island population. There are 16 SI seats, so the NI ones vary. The number of electorates has been:

• 1996: 65
• 1997: 67
• 2002: 69
• 2007: 70
• 2014: 71
• 2019: 72
• 2024: 71

The Boundaries Commission will set boundaries and work out which seat disappears. The largest drops in electoral population since 2020 are:

1. Mt Albert -3184
2. Mt Roskill -3160
3. Wellington Central -1697
4. Rongotai -1614
5. Auckland Central -618
6. Epsom -298
7. Pakuranga -87

So I’d say the most likely change is one fewer electorate in central Auckland.

These are the electorates that are over or under quota. Over 5% means they need to shrink and under 5% means they need to expand.

• Selwyn +14.0%
• Mt Albert -12.8%
• Epsom -12.4%
• Rongotai -12.3%
• Maungakiekie -12.2%
• Auckland Central -10.8%
• Pakuranga -10.7%
• Tamaki -10.4%
• Wellington Central -10.4%
• Palmerston North -10.3%
• Kelston -8.0%
• Ohariu -7.6%
• Rotorua -7.6%
• Mt Roskill -7.5%
• North Shore -6.5%
• Northcote -6.5%
• Napier -6.0%
• Ikaroa-Rawhiti -5.5%
• Invercargill -5.3%
• Mangere -5.2%
• Papakura +6.2%
• Whangaparāoa +6.4%
• Northland +7.0%
• Upper Harbour +7.8%
• Bay of Plenty +8.2%
• Kaipara ki Mahurangi +14.7%
• Takanini +17.7%

So what are the likely areas of change. We’ll start from the bottom:

• Southland: Invercargill to grow and and take area from Southland
• Selwyn to lose area to Ilam, Wigram, Banks Peninsula and Rangitata. Some flow on possible.
• Rest of South Island could stay the same
• Wellington: Rongotai to take territory from Wellington Central – possibly Brooklyn and/or Oriental Bay. Wgtn Central will then need to take a lot from Ohariu – Wadestown, Crofton Downs and maybe even Ngaio/Khandallah. Ohariu in turn will have to take in Linden and either move into Porirua, or some of the Western Hills from Hutt South.
• Palmerston North will grow in size and Bay of Plenty shrink in size.
• In Auckland looks very likely you lose an electorate around central to eastern Auckland. Takanini needs to shrink, as does Papakura so boundaries there may move south a bit.
• Up north Northland needs to shrink so boundaries may move north a bit including Northcote and North Shore which need to grow.

Sara Templeton has announced she will challenge Phil Mauger for the Christchurch Mayoralty. This is no surprise. The left are very unhappy they lost control of Auckland, Christchurch and Dunedin mayoralties.

Chris Lynch has a roundup of section from her colleagues:

• Halswell Councillor Andrei Moore: Not endorsing anyone
• Harewood Councillor Aaron Keown: Not endorsing Sara’s bid as she has not made good decisions for the people of my ward Harewood.
• Waimairi Ward Councillor Sam MacDonald: A mayor needs to have the leadership traits that allow for people to work together. I’ve worked around the same table as Sara for five years now, and that isn’t the case. We do not need deeply cynical, chip-on-shoulder, political/ideological leadership
• Riccarton Ward Councillor Tyler Harrison-Hunt: not endorsing anyone
• Papanui Ward Councillor Victoria Henstock: I question her ability to process opinions other than her own
• Fendalton Councillor James Gough said he respected Templeton’s decision to run but reaffirmed his support for Mayor Phil Mauger
• Cashmere Ward Councillor Tim Scandrett: Neutral
• Central Ward Councillor Jake McLellan said Sara’s announcement “was great for democracy to have candidates.
• Deputy Mayor Pauline Cotter did not say whether she would endorse Sara

Newsroom reports:

While the review came out of a NZ First policy, the work is being led by Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, who told Newsroom there was “a habit of forming, of just throwing in a Treaty reference – a very broad one – in every piece of legislation that was coming along without much thought as to what the actual consequences of that would be or wouldn’t be”.

During the past three decades, Parliament had not always been clear about what specific Treaty provisions meant or were trying to achieve, Goldsmith said.

“That’s left the courts, and the agencies themselves, and businesses and local councils all to free-range as to what it does mean and doesn’t mean.

“And that’s created uncertainty, and frankly some outcomes that need some revision,” he said.

“We’re trying to honour Treaty commitments, while at the same time, never losing sight of the basic expectations of people living in a modern, democratic society, primarily to be treated equally and to have equality before the law.”

Goldsmith said reconciling those two things was where the challenge lay.

He talked about making Treaty provisions more consistent, clearer and more specific. But this review was likely to lead to some of these clauses being removed from legislation – both retrospectively and when new bills came before Parliament.

Good to see the Government focused on removing ambiguity. This is an area that needs clarity.

Simeon Brown announced:

Local Government Minister Simeon Brown has today announced his intention to appoint a Crown Observer to Wellington City Council, following news that the Council will now be required to rewrite its 2024-34 Long Term Plan.

“I have been concerned about the Council’s ability to manage their Long Term Plan amendment and adoption process, following their recent decision to rewrite its 2024-34 Long Term Plan,” Mr Brown says.

No surprise.

The Department has found that the Council has demonstrated an inability to understand the mechanisms it has available to manage financial pressures it is facing.

This includes the Council choosing in its Long Term Plan to use rates revenue to pay for its water infrastructure up-front, rather than appropriately using debt financing. Local Water Done Well financing mechanisms enables further debt headroom for Wellington City Council to meet its under-insurance issues.

“The advice from the Department highlights that the 2024-34 Long-Term Plan shows the Council’s net borrowings for water services increase by just $66 million to fund this investment (6 per cent of the total), with the remaining $1.10 billion of capital investment proposed to be funded by rates (94 per cent of the total).

“This is an inefficient and expensive way to fund infrastructure investment. The Council is front-loading costs on current ratepayers rather than utilising debt financing to spread the cost over current and future users of the assets,” Mr Brown says.

“The Department estimates that the Council’s financing approach to water services as set out in the 2024-34 Long Term Plan would overcharge Wellington City residents by more than $700 million over ten years.

Debt to fund critical infrastructure is fine. Having 94% funded through rates is bizarre.

“The Government is clear that by proposing a Crown Observer, the Government is not taking responsibility for any of the decisions made by the Council. The Council and Mayor are democratically elected and are responsible for the decisions made by the Council, and will remain accountable to their constituents.

Wellingtonians voted for a Labour/Green Council and WCC proved a great example of how that works in practice.

Of the Council of 16, six are current or former Greens, and four are Labour. One is also former Te Pati Maori, so they are a living example of how well those three parties can do at governing.

David Harvey writes:

What concerned me, and why it is that I do not mourn the departure of the Disinformation Project from the landscape, was the lack of rigour and the approach that was taken. Critical theory and neo-Marxist analysis – the conflict between the “empowered” and the “disempowered” – dominated the discussion along with the use of imprecise and opaque language. A further matter of concern was the reluctance to publish the data which supported the conclusions that the Project had reached.

Yet Mainstream Media uncritically drank the Disinformation Project Kool Aid, citing their sound bites as authoritative when clearly they were not. In this respect the Disinformation Project was promulgating its own form of if not disinformation, then misinformation. If it is the latter then they were entitled to express their opinion. But it should have been something MSM should have critically analysed and they did not.

Fact checking done well, can be a good thing. For example the US based Factcheck is usually highly reliable and neutral. However other fact checkers have been appalling, such as AAP.

A rigorous neutral Disinformation Project could have been a valuable thing. But it wasn’t rigorous or neutral.

In the NZ Gazette today:

Under section 134(1) of the Electoral Act 1993, I, Gerard Anthony Brownlee, Speaker of the House of Representatives, give notice that the seat of Darleen Tana has become vacant by reason of her ceasing to be a parliamentary member of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, the parliamentary leaders of that party having delivered to me in accordance with section 55A(3)(b) of the Act a written notice that complies with section 55C of the Act.

She will not be missed.