Over the years I’ve had various Wellingtonians approach me about setting up, or getting Jordan and the Taxpayers’ Union to set up, a dedicated Wellington ratepayer pressure group to fight for more fiscal prudence and better governance in our city.  Jordan and I have always turned away the efforts as nine times out of ten, they are usually some sort of attempt of a council ‘ticket’ rather than an independent watch-dog type organisation.

Wellington has been in a funk before. In the 1970s and 80s it was arguably the least ‘cool’ city in New Zealand.  As Mark Blumsky used to quip, for him success was avoiding people’s heart sinking when they found out their Ansett “Mystery Weekend” was to Wellington.  And, to be fair, it was turned around.  A string of good mayors and Council leadership (think Fran Wilde, Kerry Prendergast, and Mark Blumsky) were able to develop what became branded as “Absolutely Positively Wellington”, “the coolest little capital”, and “the middle of middle earth” successively, by driving through sensible projects like the Cake Tin, a remodelled waterfront leveraging off the building of Te Papa, as well as attracting events that added to the culture and liveability of the city.

But we are back in the funk. Instead of leading, our City Council is squabbling, failing to deliver basic public services and infrastructure, and financially mismanaging itself. Our near-bankrupt Council can’t even keep the water flowing, and nearly half our water is lost to unattended leaks as residents of our capital city were asked to stockpile emergency rations over the summer.

A ‘right wing’ group or ticket isn’t necessary – just a return to sensible civic leadership and a half decent Council which is willing to make the tough calls we need to get Wellington’s financial health, transport, and cultural mojo back.

I was involved on the periphery of the formation of the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance (when I was on the board of the Taxpayers’ Union, we gave Jordan a leave of absence to set it up). Although the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance spun out of the Taxpayers’ Union it has never been particularly ideological and attracts considerable support even from Auckland’s most Labour-aligned suburbs.  It just goes to show that wanting to see increased transparency, less waste, and better quality governance at Wellington’s town hall isn’t an issue of left or right.

So, as a Wellington ratepayer, I’m putting the call out there for expressions of interest to help to set up a Wellington ratepayer group to:

1) Unite Wellingtonians against unaffordable double digit rate hikes year after year due to massive projects like the $330 million town hall redevelopment (costing over $4,000 per household).

2) Fight back against the hundreds of millions of dollars wasted on pet projects such as corporate welfare for Reading Cinemas whilst basic infrastructure like roads and water pipes are left to crumble and rot.

3) Force back the curtains on our local democracy by giving ratepayers the tools you need to easily submit your views on the Council’s often cloak-and-dagger public consultations.

4) Hold Councillors to account for the decisions they vote for, so residents can make        informed choices at the ballot box in 2025.

I’m asking for expressions of financial support (to cover the set-up and the first few months of operating) and for volunteers.  After crunching the numbers, we think it’ll need $56,000 to properly get it off the ground (that includes initial invites for ratepayers to join-up) and are looking for that sort of level of support before we commit to taking on the challenge. None of that goes to me – I am a volunteer in this, because this is my home, and I want a better city.

If this is something you would be interested in, please drop me a line on [email protected] or pledge an amount on the webpage (www.wellingtonratepayers.nz)

This is an all or nothing project. If not enough Wellingtonians are motivated to help right the ship and we don’t raise enough money to get this off the ground, then there is no point in starting a half-hearted project that is unlikely to be effective.  On the other hand, if successful, it could make a huge difference to smarten up the Council, and our City. And that would be good for more than just our rates bills!

Click here if you’d be willing to chip in to start the fight back

Newsroom has won in the Court of Appeal over whether it can make available its video exposing the then practice of reverse uplifts because the faster parents were the wrong ethnicity.

A key quote:

The story was unquestionably one of significant public interest, as evidenced by the impact it had on the Minister and the suspension of the practice of reverse uplifts. It is reasonable to assume that the suspension of Oranga Tamariki’s practice would not have happened — or at least would not have happened so quickly — had it not been for the powerful impact of the video. It was powerful precisely because it depicted the real life effects of the reverse uplift policy and the associated raw emotion. Clearly too, the foster parents’ concerns about the way they were treated by Oranga Tamariki were valid and worthy of ventilation. The right of freedom of expression must encompass not only the rights of the media but also the rights of the foster parents to tell their story and the right of the public to hear it.

This is a win for media, but also for the foster parents.

Nicole McKee announced:

The Government is delivering on its commitment to bring back the Three Strikes legislation, Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee announced today.

The return is welcome in principle, but what is being proposed is actually pretty weak and even ineffective.

Cover the same 40 serious violent and sexual offences as the former legislation, with the addition of the new strangulation and suffocation offence;

They seem suitable offences to include, so that change is good.

Introduce a new requirement that the Three Strikes law will only apply to sentences above 24 months;

This will gut the law, and result in around 75% of violent and sexual offenders not getting strike offences. It will also incentivise judges to always do sentences of below 24 months where possible top avoid a strike.

There is an arguable case that the third strike (the one that gets you the maximum sentence without parole) should require a level of offending that is significant enough for a custodial sentence. But to apply that criteria to the first and second strikes will massively reduce the number of strikes, and hence the deterrent effect desired. Remember the first strike gets no extra penalty – it is the warning about future offending.

Extend the use of the “manifestly unjust” exception to allow some judicial discretion to avoid very harsh outcomes and address outlier cases;

This is going the wrong direction. Judges have already used the manifestly unjust provisions to undermine the law and avoid third strike sentences in the majority of third strike cases. If anything the judicial discretion should be restrained further by stating that use of manifestly unjust should be very very rare.

Also the new criteria to not have strikes for sentences of under two years, would remove the need for greater judicial discretion. So the combination will make the law pretty ineffectual.

Provide a limited benefit for guilty pleas to avoid re-traumatisation of victims, and to improve court delays; and

It is sensible to have this incentive, so a say 20% discount for guilty pleas would mean the sentence for a third strike rape would still be 16 years which would be significant.

See that people who commit murder at second or third strike receive an appropriately lengthy non-parole period.

Well the old law had life without parole, so this will reduce it – but we don’t know by how much.

The Minister intends to bring a draft bill and paper to Cabinet by the end of June, and to introduce the bill to the House soon after that.

The worst change hasn’t been mentioned at all. I understand the new Three Strikes law will reset all the serious violent and sexual offenders who got strikes under the old regime back to zero. This will send out an awful message, and also mean that it will take ages for any deterrent effect to take effect as everyone will be starting at zero again.

I would encourage everyone to engage with the legislative process to demand an effective Three Strikes law, not a weak one.

Stuff reports:

But another email noted the writer had received calls from Otago alumni “angry at the decision”. The response was likely to be worse than what the university received over Tuakiritaka, a reference to branding changes, the emailer said.

I had quite a few Otago alumni contact me, very upset also. Some even wanted to do a poll of alumni on the appointment, but there was no practical way to do this.

Meanwhile, another emailer wrote of the appointment: “They have made a very poor decision.”

Another emailer wrote: “As a former student I will not be donating another cent and will not be encouraging family to attend an institution that is seriously flawed from the top down.

“The university council should resign following this decision.”

The Council of course includes another former Labour Minister, and the Registrar is also a former Labour Minister.

But a former graduate was less forthcoming with praise, emailing: “I have left a significant amount of money to the university in my will. However I will be cancelling that.”

Ouch.

Another alumni, who had a history of sending offensive emails to the tertiary institution, wrote: “This must be one of the most gross and ridiculous decisions of the university to date.”

Some of that email was redacted, but the emailer added: “And to appoint such a failure of a politician to such an important post is ridiculous: a man who has virtually single handedly bankrupted our country, saddling every man, woman and child with crippling debt.”

Another former student emailed a list of questions under the OIA, including whether Robertson had been approached to put forward his candidacy.

One emailer expressed their concern, writing: “This is a continuation of the alarming trend of politicisation of the University of Otago, and is entirely inappropriate for an academic institution of your stature.”

The email noted Robertson’s lack of an academic background “reflects unbelievably poorly” on the university.

“Again, I am appalled by this appointment, which materially diminishes a once great academic institution.

“Shame on you.”

It is of course normal for a Vice-Chancellor to have a PhD and be an academic leader. A BA is not quite in the same league.

Another emailed to say they were rethinking their seven-figure bequest.

“However, my family especially, and I, would be very concerned indeed if this bequest were in any respect subject to any type or level of political influence, such as a person’s political identity, as opposed to benefiting individuals or groups solely on merit and academic excellence.”

That’s a lot of money being potentially lost.

Peter Dunne writes:

But Labour’s current woes do not lie at Hipkins’ door alone. He is being constantly embarrassed and let down by the ineptitude of those around him. His main role these days seems limited to tidying up the mess made by his colleagues.

In the last week alone, he has had to call out Peeni Henare, someone who really should know better, for reposting offensive cartoons about Act leader David Seymour on Instagram. Hipkins has also had to deal with more personally abusive comments about a political opponent, this time Melissa Lee, from Willie Jackson, someone who is clearly incapable of knowing better. Add to that the seemingly ingrained superciliousness and sourness of Ayesha Verrall every time she opens her mouth, and it is little wonder Labour still looks to be struggling to come to terms with why it was voted out so comprehensively at the election.

If my party suffered a 24% drop in their party vote, the largest in history, I’d be asking why.

Yet Labour is not without talent in its ranks who could be pushing its case far more effectively at present without the embittered baggage some are carrying. New finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds has been a shining performer. Her interventions so far have been positive, well informed, and largely constructive. Not only does she need to be seen more frequently as the modern face of Labour, but also she needs to be joined by other newer faces in the caucus.

Edmonds is good.

Hipkins’ major challenge is to rebuild the face of Labour so that it can present its message with integrity and credibility. Hanging on to negative and polarising figures such as Jackson and Verrall, and others who still believe the public had no right to boot them out of government, not only tarnishes Hipkins’ leadership but does little to persuade the public that Labour has indeed learned the lesson of its defeat.

Hipkins needs quickly to divest himself of such albatrosses if Labour is to shake off the failures of its recent past. They need to be moved on, at least to the distant backbenches, if not out the door and sooner rather than later. If he cannot or will not do that, Hipkins risks becoming today’s Bill Rowling – a genuine and well-liked nice guy who led the Labour Party nowhere for nearly nine years.

A fair comparison.

A guest post by a reader:

There has been much outrage this week over the deaths of aid workers from western countries in Gaza.

I use the word “outrage” deliberately to reflect the moral element of the stance of Arab nations, many western governments and much of the media.  The outrage is predicated largely on the assumption the act was deliberate or highly negligent and that therefore it is demonstrably true that Israel is a morally degraded and aggressive state and that ……… moral superiority resides with the Palestinians (the dots indicating that we are usually left to deduce that last point rather than it being explicitly stated).

But as commentators continually wish to remind us, context is everything.

So let’s do a little simplistic analysis around whether or not Israel or Hamas is more morally reprehensible by asking a number of questions:

1. If the acts of barbarism of 7 October were deliberate and those of Israel this last week were also deliberate, is Israel less virtuous than Hamas?

2. If the acts of barbarism of 7 October were deliberate and those of Israel this last week were accidental, is Israel less virtuous than Hamas?

3. If the acts of barbarism of 7 October were accidental and those of Israel this last week were also accidental, is Israel less virtuous than Hamas?

4. If the acts of barbarism of 7 October were accidental and those of Israel this last week were deliberate, is Israel less virtuous than Hamas?

It can be seen that only under option 4 is moral outrage at the actions of Israel when compared to those of Hamas actually justified.  And of course Option 4 is off the table because it is clearly not possible for thousands of fighters to stream across a border to rape and kill “by accident” as that particular question would have us accept.

Moreover if as Israel contends the deaths were actually accidental then the moral element of continued outrage as between one side and the other in large part evaporates.

None of this is to detract from the tragedy of those recent deaths or the events as a whole.  None of it either is intended to make morally repugnant actions less so.  But it does help challenge the way in which the noise of moral outrage is so often deployed in unbalanced ways reflecting subtle or overt biases.

One final note to those who wish to contextualise Israel into moral opprobrium beyond the above snapshot of recent events; in other words those who say Israel got what was coming to it on 7 October for what has happened over many decades.  Exactly the same kind of analysis as above is possible with all the major wars and other actions fought over all those years.  It’s never been a morally one-sided conflict.  Fact is that at worst Israel is morally on the same page as the Palestinians and at best (as I would argue) it’s in a significantly better place.  But whichever way one wants to cut it, one-sided versions of Palestinian victimhood and moral superiority as a consequence do not wash.

d

Scotland passed a law against so called hate crimes. As you can see it is a very objective law.

What has been the result of this new law?

Almost 8,000 hate crimes were reported to Police in just one week. Scotland has much the same population as New Zealand, so how many more Police would we need if we had the same response.

Let’s say a police officer needs two hours to assess and deal with each complaint (on average). One officer could do 20 a week, so you’d need 400 more officers just to cope with the people complaining.

Steve Maharey writes:

This is what could be done.

Television New Zealand (TVNZ) is a commercial broadcaster running a programme schedule that, with some exceptions, has little to do with public broadcasting. It should be sold.

Trying to merge it with Radio New Zealand (RNZ) is a fool’s errand because the two entities are from different worlds. One is oil, the other is water.

The cash raised from the TVNZ sale should then be put into a trust that would oversee the expansion of RNZ into a 21st-century media organisation covering everything from broadcasting to social media and print. The new organisation should also receive funding from the Government via the trust.

It is vital the new organisation be independent of government. Any legislation should be free from the kind of instructions the previous Government loaded into its otherwise sensible and still-needed Public Interest Journalism policy.

I have long advocated selling TVNZ and putting the proceeds from the sale into public broadcasting. A senior Labour MP once told me that this is what National should have done, and I agree.

The problem is this is a solution that would have worked a decade ago, as TVNZ was more valuable then. Today a sale of TVNZ would probably generate very little capital because linear TV is dying.

Crucially, the new entity must not take advertising.

That money should flow to commercial media who will need to go through a major restructure.

Not having state broadcasters compete for advertising would help, but again the solution is ten years too late. Advertisers are abandoning media because simply it is less well targeted as social media where you can set exactly who views your ads.

A slimmed-down commercial media with more access to advertising dollars would make for a more viable model. It is possible that a government could help with this by limiting entry to the market.

No, no, no. The job of Government is not to protect incumbents.

Newsroom reports:

he tribunal is currently investigating the Government’s decision to repeal section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, which lays out the obligations of the children’s ministry in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi. Last week, the Waitangi Tribunal issued a summons to Minister for Children Karen Chhour when she refused to provide evidence behind the decision to repeal.

While Crown lawyers have said they will seek judicial review of the summons in the High Court, Jones and Seymour have broken rank to openly criticise the tribunal. …

In response, Te Hunga Rōia Māori / Māori Law Society wrote on Wednesday to Luxon and Attorney-General Judith Collins, saying Jones’ comments are likely to have breached Cabinet Manual conventions against influencing or criticising the judiciary.

“These comments are inappropriate and unconstitutional. The Cabinet Manual  provides that ministers must ‘exercise judgement before commenting on matters  before the courts or judicial decisions’ (clause 4.12) and that ‘Ministers should not  express any views that are likely to be publicised if they could be regarded as reflecting  adversely on the impartiality, personal views, or ability of any judge’,” co-presidents Natalie Coates and Tai Ahu wrote in the letter.

“Minister Jones’ comments directly bring into question the performance of the Waitangi  Tribunal, an independent Commission of Inquiry established by legislation that serves  a function akin to a Court and over which a Judge presides. The comments, which are  paired with a threat of executive review of the function and purpose of the Tribunal could also have a chilling effect and reflect adversely on Waitangi Tribunal decisions going forward.”

The Waitangi Tribunal is not a judicial body. In fact it is far from it:

• Only 5 of the 20 members are even lawyers
• Members are appointed by the Minister of Maori Affairs, not the Attorney-General
• Unlike judges who are appointed for life, members are appointed for three years terms – ie they are temporary appointees made by the Government of the day

So criticising the Waitangi Tribunal is not the same as criticising the Maori Land Court. They are different creatures.

An interesting circular by the Cabinet Office on how the coalition Government will operate. Some key aspects:

• All Ministers must be consulted as appropriate in line with their portfolio responsibilities, no matter which party they represent. Alongside the process of Ministerial portfolio consultation, political consultation will also occur where required. On some particularly significant or sensitive issues, the political consultation process between the parties may supersede the usual Ministerial portfolio consultation processes.
• Consultation between parties will be undertaken on all significant policy proposals and government appointments, and other sensitive or controversial issues – including implementation of the coalition agreements.
• All legislative proposals must first be consulted between National, ACT, and New Zealand First to ensure that there is sufficient parliamentary support for them to proceed.
• Ministers’ offices should advise all Chiefs of Staff of upcoming draft bills. Papers seeking approval for the introduction of bills should not be submitted to LEG until the Minister’s office has received confirmation from other parties that there is support for the bill to proceed.

Stuff reports:

House Speaker Gerry Brownlee is planning to cut back on the 4000 swipe cards which let people enter the Beehive without passing through security.

Parliament and ministerial staff, and members of the press gallery are among those with the access cards who have been police vetted. However, there are others who may have access to the cards but have not undergone the same vetting processes.

He raised it as one of the means in which Parliament was going to better deal with abuse, harassment and threats, which new Otago University research published on Wednesday revealed had increased on every measure – and was mostly aimed at women.

This seems a strange response to the problem of abuse of MPs. Presumably the abuse and threats and harassment doesn’t come from people who have a parliamentary swipe card. If it did, they would lose it.

The recent visit to Singapore by the PM has seen some commentators say we should have a defence posture such as Singapore’s where there is no defence treaty with the US.

This shows how seriously Singapore takes its ability to defend itself. We are barely spending 1% of GDP on defence and Singapore is almost spending 3% of GDP. If we don’t want to rely on others, we need to do more ourselves.

There have been two terrible attacks in Australia.

The first, was the stabbing of 18 people by Joel Cauchi, with six dying. The method of attack, plus the fact an infant was stabbed, had many think it was a terrorist attack. But it seems it was a combination of mental illness, and hatred of women. The stabbing of the infant especially is incomprehensible.

The only silver lining was the heroism shown by various people such as “Bollard Guy” and the Inspector who shot him.

Two days later six people were stabbed at the Wakeley Church, including Bishop Elmanuel. The attacker was a 16 year old boy who was angered by the Bishop’s criticism of Islam. Again so sad to think of a child who thinks killing people for their words is justified. His smiling as he was held down by a police officer basically caused a riot, as it was live-streamed.

But the silver lining is the Bishop, who said:

“I forgive whoever has done this act, I say to him, ‘You are my son, I love you, I will always pray for you,’ ” he said, adding he also forgave “whoever sent you to do this”.

So two terrible attacks showing both the worst and best of humanity.

The Herald reports:

An unlicensed driver “panicked” and fled after she fatally struck and ran over a motorcyclist.

Fatima Mohammed, 48, driving a Honda CR-V, did not stop after running over Ian Charles Johnson with both the front and rear sets of her car’s wheels at a Hastingsroundabout last June.

Police found her later at the house of a friend.

Johnson, 73, died in Wellington Hospital almost three weeks after the crash, having suffered multiple injuries including fractures of his ribs and spine.

Accidents can happen, and we should not judge too harshly drivers, unless they are clearly reckless. But what we should be harsh on is leaving someone to die, and not stopping. When you flee the scene of a serious accident, you are saying you care more about what happens to you than the injured person.

Judge Mackintosh said a case of this type was difficult because careless driving was a charge with a lower penalty and there was no way she could impose a sentence which reflected the emotional impact on the victims.

The maximum sentence for a charge of careless driving causing death was a short term of imprisonment but in such circumstances it had to be commuted to a community-based sentence.

She ordered three months of community detention with a curfew to be at home from 7pm to 8am every night.

She also imposed 150 hours of community work, 12 months of supervision, and ordered reparation of $15,599.

The maximum term for careless driving causing death is only three months. Bot for failing to stop, it is five years. For the latter offence, community work seems inadequate.

Audrey Young writes:

Brickbat

Goes to Luke Somerville, spokesman for Renters United, for his wholly negative response to the pet bonds policy to encourage landlords to let tenants to have pets: “Every renter has a story about their landlord trying to charge them hundreds of dollars in rent for a mark on the wall. What’s to say we are not going to see more of that now?” (RNZ). Hey Luke, how about talking on behalf of the tenants who want pets?

It was such a totally negative response to a policy that so many renters are genuinely keen on, that it made me wonder whether the spokesman was a partisan operative.

It turns out he was the campaign manager for Julie-Anne Genter. That would explain it. Perhaps the media should report this, when they quote him as a so called spokeperson for renters. The other spokesperson just got elected as a Green Councillor, so it would be interesting to know if there is anyone involved with Renters United who is not a Green Party operative.

As their main policy is to bring back Muldoon style rent controls, I suspect not.

The drop in overall inflation to 4% is welcome, but it masks we still have a real problem.

This shows the annual inflation rate for both tradable and non-tradable inflation. Most of the tradable sector is international, so we have benefited from the trend there. But non-tradable (generally domestic) inflation remains very high at 5.8% and has barely come down from its peak.

I would not be counting on interest rate reductions too soon.

The Guardian reports:

Angela Rayner has pledged to step down as deputy leader of the Labour party if a police investigation finds she has committed a crime, amid allegations of breaching electoral law and avoiding capital gains tax.

Greater Manchester police (GMP) said on Friday that they were investigating the sale of her council house in March 2015, after she was accused of giving false information about where she was living for the first five years of her marriage before she was elected as an MP in May 2015.

The issue basically is:

Rayner bought her council house on Vicarage Road, Stockport, in 2007 for £79,000 with a 25% discount under the right-to-buy scheme.

Government guidance says a tenant can apply to buy their council home through the right-to-buy scheme if it is their “only or main home”.

Mark Rayner, now her ex-husband, had a property of his own about a mile away. They decided to keep their separate properties after their son was born prematurely in 2008, as Rayner said she needed a lot of support from a wide network of friends and family during this period, a decision that was maintained even after their marriage in 2010.

For the eight years that Rayner owned her Stockport home, she was registered on the electoral roll as living there and insists it was her “principal property”, while her partner lived at his home.

However, neighbours at the two properties have rejected her claims that she lived apart from her husband for the first five years of their marriage, with her brother living at her house from around 2012, according to reports. Daly has made GMP aware of these claims.

It is an obvious nonsense that she actually lived apart from her husband for the first five years of their marriage,.

NZH reports 565 positions to go.

4,509 – 565 = 3,944 remaining employed.

3,944 – 2,700 (in 2017) = 1,244 to get back to pre-Labour (Hipkins) level.

While it is hard for people to lose positions many of the new roles since 2017 have done little or nothing to help the children of NZ get a better education. If fact – the attendance and success of those students – has moved inversely to the willy-nilly employment strategies of Iona Holstead and her Deputy Secretaries.

I haven’t seen it announced that Holsted (and her off-siders) have accepted responsibility for both the dire situation with the education system and the fact that 565 have been shown the door.

There is little integrity if the top 12 have not fallen on their envelope openers and allowed Stanford and Seymour to bring in good people and bring the system change that our children, families, society and economy desperately needs.

Alwyn Poole
Innovative Education Consultants
www.innovativeeducation.co.nz
alwynpoole.substack.com
www.linkedin.com/in/alwyn-poole-16b02151/