Chris Bishop has announced changes to housing laws which will make a huge difference to housing affordability. Almost every expert has said that to reduce pressure on house prices you need to both build up and build out. The NIMBYs oppose building up and the Greenies opposes building out. Phil Rayford in 2017 had some great policies, but backed away from many of them in Government. Chris Bishop in six months is setting a cracking reform pace. Key details are:

• New Housing Growth Targets introduced for Tier 1 and 2 councils, requiring them to enable 30 years of feasible housing capacity in their district plans, using ‘high’ population growth projections.
• New requirement that ‘price indicators’ (such as the difference in the price between land zoned for rural and urban use) do not deteriorate over time.
• Councils prohibited from imposing rural-urban boundary lines in planning documents (but can still have rurally zoned land).
• Tier 1 councils must deliver housing intensification along ‘strategic transport corridors’ (e.g. key bus routes).
• Tier 1 councils must directly offset any housing capacity lost due to reasons such as ‘special character’ elsewhere.
• Councils cannot set minimum floor area requirements for apartments and other houses, or require balconies.

Currently Councils just have to zone for immediate use three years of growth, and can choose low growth scenarios. By requiring them to zone for 30 years of high growth will mean a significant amount of new land made available.

The removing of the ability to set minimum sizes and balcony requirements will also make a real difference – some have said reduce apartment costs by $70,000 or so just for the balcony. Of course many developers will choose to still have balconies, but they can follow where the market demand is.

The 60 paragraph decision by Judge Jelas is an interesting read. Some extracts:

• The associate returned to Scotties the two dresses and bag that had been taken. The top however was not returned (so a deliberate decision not to return everything)
• Ms Ghahraman in her affidavit in support stated she is unable to fully comprehend or explain why she stole the items. She states she did not want to keep or wear the items stating some would never fit her and she would never wear or use them. (So she stole things she didn’t want, that just happened to be massively expensive!)
• Ms Ghahraman was effectively caught red-handed on the 23rd of December; it was that event that prompted her to return most of the stolen items through her associate. I accept the process of Ms Ghahraman accepting responsibility was most likely triggered by a realisation that she was under suspicion for theft. (yet she didn’t inform the Greens of what had happened)
• Ms Ghahraman describes the most upsetting aspect of the media attention was the large contingent of media who camped outside her private home for weeks (I agree this is very upsetting, as Jason Ede had to endure)
• [The clinical psychologist] is well placed to have provided an unequivocal statement of any causative links that may exist between the thefts and Ms Ghahraman’s mental health. He has not. It is not the role of the Court to make the inferences submitted by Ms Cresswell when [the clinical psychologist] himself has stopped short of doing so. (So it was the lawyer, not the psychologist who said the shoplifting was due to mental health)
• I consider a start point sentence of imprisonment of 20 to 22 months would be warranted. (So a small fine was actually quite generous to Ghahraman)

The UK exit poll (which has been accurate within 1 to 8 seats for the last five elections) is out, and it is slightly better news for the Conservatives than pre-election polling but still on track for their worst outcome in 190 years.

The real interest now is how many Conservative Big Beasts lose their seats, and who survives to stand for the leadership.

The Herald reports:

The Government’s $1.2 billion Regional Infrastructure Fund (RIF) opens to applicants today, though officials are still finalising the assessment process.

The pot will be divided into two parts. There’s $720 million for “resilience infrastructure” – helping to provide for regional resilience in the face of flooding and extraordinary storms, for example, and for the likes of energy security.

The second part is $420m for “enabling infrastructure”: projects that can underpin stronger regional economies and increase lagging productivity.

$60m is set aside for the Government’s “emerging priorities”, a designation that, in the case of the Provincial Growth Fund, proved to be distinctly slushy.

The $720 million for resilience infrastructure looks potentially useful.

I am sceptical of the $420 million for enabling infrastructure as that may just go to projects with inflated business cases as we have seen too often.

Eligible projects must be outside the metropolitan areas of Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch, and there are no regions with priority.

That’s an improvement.

Some grants will be made, but equity and debt, which may be on concessionary terms, will be the focus. And the fund’s investments will range, in the main, from $1m to $50m.

My preference is debt followed by equity followed by grants.

An excellent speech by Parliamentary Commissioner Simon Upton for the Environment to Environment Defence Society conference. He focuses on the real substance and challenge of improving the environment, as opposed to just making noise. His key points:

• Inconvenient truth 1: Stopping polluting industries here means shifting pollution elsewhere. We can close polluting industries, but in most cases we will simply import the goods that rely on them from other countries. It is relatively easy to suggest that we shun or close polluting industries. But the reality is that unless we are willing to put an equal focus on working out how to get consumers to stop consuming, demand for the output of those industries will continue to exist.
• Inconvenient truth 2: The dog that barks at every passing car gets dismissed. If we are not prepared to examine trade-offs critically, we will be dismissed as the dog that barks at every passing car. If a government wants to bolster the benefits side of the ledger, I would suggest we need to look at increasing the royalties that the Government charges mining companies on the public’s behalf.
• Inconvenient truth 3: Green growth is not an easy win. Calling for green growth – something I spent seven years working on at the OECD – isn’t the easy economic and environmental win some people imagine. While renewable electricity is usually far more efficient and therefore less damaging than fossil fuels, some ecosystems will be damaged by renewable energy and transmission infrastructure. The green growth vision of the future will continually trade one environmental issue for the next. We can’t escape that.
• Inconvenient truth 4: Change is costly. All politics is distributional and green politics more distributional than most. Talk about just transitions tends to be cheap. Meeting environmental standards cannot be optional. But neither do the means of achieving them need to be monolithic, if only because no two catchments are the same physically or socially.
• Inconvenient truth 5: Degrowth won’t be an easy sell. As a student of human nature my hunch is that if we tell people that they can’t have the stuff they’ve grown to expect, they will turn to thinking about how they can take it from others. That’s potentially a recipe for conflict.

The Hill reports:

Former President Trump has a 2-point lead over President Biden in New Hampshire, according to a poll published Monday, showing significant gains for Trump after Biden’s poor debate performance last week.

The Saint Anselm College poll found that 44 percent of New Hampshire voters would back Trump if the election was held today, to 42 percent supporting Biden. That’s a 12-point swing from an identical December poll, which found Biden with a 10-point lead in the state.

Biden won the state by 7.5% and is now trailing by 2%. This is because people watched the debate and can see Biden is not going to be fit to remain President until January 2029.

Also a CBS poll:

• 72% of voters say Biden not have have the mental and cognitive health to serve as President
• 41% of Democrats say Biden not have have the mental and cognitive health to serve as President
• 80% of Independents say Biden not have have the mental and cognitive health to serve as President
• 72% say Biden should not be running for President
• 46% of Democrats says Biden should not be running for President
• 82% of Independents say Biden should not be running for President

Bring on the convention!

It is amazing that Chloe Swarbrick still leads this chant, despite having been told that many Jews see it as calling for Israel to be destroyed (per the Hamas charter) and hence Jews living there to be wiped out (as Hamas did on October 7).

Now you an argue that those chanting it don’t mean it the way most Jews interpret it, so I guess one can only assume that Swarbrick has decided that the feelings of Jewish New Zealanders don’t matter, compared to the importance of her showing solidarity with those who chant it.

This to me is akin to a politician saying it is okay for them to use the N word in public, because they don’t mean it as a racist term, and the feelings of those who see it is disparaging doesn’t matter.

Nate Silver’s forecast has Trump ay 65% and Biden 35%. This seems about right to me, reflecting that while the popular vote is close, Trump leads in all the battleground states.

The Economist has Trump at 70% and 538 has him at just 49%. The 538 model seems far too cautious. Basically they are hedging their bets by saying it is so far out that anything could happen from Trump winning by 200 electoral votes to Biden winning by 200 electoral votes. They say there is a 22% chance Biden could win in a landslide. I can’t tally that with all the polls of the last year showing him behind in the battlegrounds.

MSN reports:

George Latimer defeated New York Representative Jamaal Bowman in the most expensive congressional primary in US history, a race that exposed the stark divisions within the Democratic Party over the Israel-Hamas war.

Latimer, Westchester County’s top elected official, was leading Bowman by 55.8% to 44.3% with 71% of the votes counted in New York’s 16th Congressional district, according to the Associated Press.

Good.

Bowman’s standing may have been hurt by his sometimes bizarre behavior. He authored blog posts that appeared to give credence to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Last year he was charged with a misdemeanor after pulling a fire alarm in the US Capitol building as members of Congress were attempting to cast a vote. And his recent rally with Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders was held in the South Bronx, which isn’t in his district.

“It’s very hard for an incumbent to lose. And Congressman Bowman did everything possible” to make that happen, J.C. Polanco, a political analyst and professor of ethnic and race studies at the Borough of Manhattan Community College, said in an interview before the race was called. “His team committed incredible political malpractice.”

Here’s some of what Bowman has done or said:

• Set off a fire alarm to delay a vote
• Was one of 10 votes against a resolution supporting Israel after the 7 October terrorist attacks
• Claimed allegations of rape of Israeli women by Hamas attackers was a lie
• Promoted 9/11 conspiracy theories
• followed an array of unhinged YouTube accounts that promoted everything from flat-earth content to claims about aliens and time travel to Chinese and Russian disinformation.
• No longer supports a two state solution for Israel and Palestine (wants Jews as a minority in a Palestinian state)
• Called his Democratic challenger an anti-Black racist

Stuff reports:

The man labelled New Zealand’s worst stalker has been jailed for running a “lengthy campaign of terror” by subjecting a further eight women to months of harassment, threats and unwanted sexual attention.

Glenn Green, who has an “extensive number of aliases”, is now known as Glen Anthony Carlion and Antonio Glen Castillano. He changes his name after each stretch in prison.

He has over 200 convictions that include stalking, harassing and breaching protection orders that go back 30 years.

He appeared at the Auckland District Court on Wednesday having earlier admitted charges of criminal harassment, causing harm by posting digital communications and obtaining by deception.

He was the only one in the courtroom wearing a mask.

Judge June Jelas sentenced him to four years and two months in prison.

Every time he gets out of prison, he victimises more women. Unfortunately the maximum sense for criminal harrassment is two years. Might be time to look at increasing it.

Samira Taghavi writes:

I have a question for lawyers of my age or older: in your student days, could you have imagined your law school dean writing that an eminent legal commentator, with years of senior court experience, was an “old racist dinosaur” who should “go die quietly in the corner”?

Unthinkable not that long ago.

My own respect for the value of debate was shaped in a country where there is no respect for debate, that country being the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Iranian regime explicitly seeks the demise of its enemies. We remember the promotion of the (nearly-successful) murder of author Salman Rushdie, for example. The Iranian dictatorship shows, I would suggest, that departure from disciplined debate can drag the undisciplined into violent rhetoric, making our society a more extreme and dangerous place – intellectually and physically. Wishing death upon your opponents not infrequently also silences them, an objective of regimes and hot-headed individuals alike. So it is deeply alarming to me now to hear Establishment voices in this country mimicking the intemperate language of merciless dictatorships.

Iran is an extreme example, but we should share the concern about the trend in NZ to suppress dissent.

One such campaign was against the recent Labour/Green-led group-think that resulted in the Sexual Violence (Legislation) Act, which makes the conviction of innocent defendants more likely.

Despite warnings that the campaign might attract unpleasant personal consequences, I chose to speak out. And the backlash was severe, including vicious emails wishing physical harm upon me.

For instance, following the publication of one of my articles on the then-bill, I received a reprehensible message suggesting that I should not be writing articles, but instead be raped. To me, that message and its maker underlined the severity of declining decorum in proper debates. The campaign, however, also drew support from those who recognised the importance of addressing difficult issues and reinforced my belief that engaging with tough topics is crucial.

Another disturbing thing I noticed in that campaign was that the New Zealand Establishment seems, like the Iranian regime, to have come to the view that, on many issues, there is only one true opinion and that other opinions should be silenced. The silencing is done with belittlement (such as labelling opponents “racist” and “sexist”), “deplatforming” and ultimately “cancellation”.

And we have NZ on Air which effectively will only fund those with the correct view.

In this context, the response from The Māori Law Society merits recognition for its reasoned and respectful tone. Such a response provides a commendable example of how to engage with contrary viewpoints. As highlighted by the reaction to Judd KC’s recent article in LawNews, there is a palpable need for platforms that facilitate thoughtful discourse. It is imperative for those who disagree with Judd KC’s opinions to see this as an opportunity to contribute constructively. I urge anyone who felt “offended” by his arguments to respond with a well-reasoned rebuttal for publication. This approach not only showcases the critical skill of persuasive discourse that is essential for any lawyer, but also reinforces the principle that differing views should be approached with logic and civility, rather than disdain or derogation.

This was once the norm.

I thought readers might be interested in a few more details around what it was like getting to Odesa and being there in wartime.

You can’t fly into Ukraine so you fly to Moldova and then transfer on land. For me this was four flights – to Auckland, Singapore, Istanbul and then Chisinau. I ended up detained in Chisinau for around an hour as immigration authorities there hadn’t someone from New Zealand before and didn’t realise we were on the visa free entry list (despite me telling them). Also they wanted to know the location of the conference I was attending in Odesa, but I couldn’t tell them as I didn’t know. For operational security reasons we were only told 12 hours before it started. Eventually I got released and had a three hour drive across the border.

A typical cobblestone street.

The Potemkin Stairs which are 20 metres wide and 140 metres long.

The Air Alert app which warms you of potential incoming missile strikes.

This is the bomb shelter in the hotel I was staying at – basically just a room in an underground level. There were usually two or three alerts a day. The only time I didn’t got into the shelter was on my final night there. The alert went off at 1 am and I knew I had four flights the next day, so I just rolled over and went back to sleep, banking on the low probability of the strike being near our hotel.

Beautiful music and singing at the welcome function.

The lounge of the hotel the conference was at. Beautiful decor.

A local string quartet at the farewell dinner.

Local architecture.

Beautiful city gardens.

There is around a three hour queue at the border leaving Ukraine. This is because no Ukrainian men aged 18 to 59 are allowed to leave due to conscription. My driver just drove past the queue straight to the border. I asked why we didn’t have to join the queue and he said it was because I had diplomatic status. This cave me a moral quandary because of course I don’t (many at the forum did) and I pondered informing him of his incorrect assumption. But an aversion to three hour queues won the day and I was waved through!

Statues at Chisinau Airport. My flights home were via Istanbul, Hong Kong and Auckland. Sadly I caught Covid-19 on the return flights, so then had five days of isolation when home.

A third in a series of polls in Palestinian Territories. The poll of 1,500 Palestinians found:

• 67% support the 7 October attacks
• Only 9% think Hamas committed war crimes on 7 October
• 90% say they have not seen any videos of killings on October 7
• 61% wants Hamas to rule Gaza after the war
• Satisfaction with Hamas is at 75%
• Only 32% support a two state solution

I want a two state solution, but can’t see how one will ever happen.

Brooke van Velden announced:

Minister of Internal Affairs Brooke van Velden says this coalition Government is delivering on our commitment to expand the terms of reference for the independent Royal Commission into COVID-19 Lessons Learned.

“There will be a second phase to the Royal Commission which features new commissioners and an expanded terms of reference. It will focus on matters of ongoing public concern including vaccine efficacy and safety, the extended lockdowns in Auckland and Northland, and the extent of disruption to New Zealanders’ health, education, and business,” says Ms van Velden. …

“The current commissioners, Professor Tony Blakely and John Whitehead, will resign in November after delivering a report on the first phase of the inquiry in November. I will confirm the appointment of new Commissioners, along with the detailed terms of reference, in August.

I can see why the Government has done this, but it is fairly inelegant to have effectively two different sets of Commissioners for different phases.

The two remaining Commissioners for the first phase are people of integrity, but both somewhat compromised. One was a frequent unofficial advisor to the Government and key officials on the response, and the other was a former Labour parliamentary staffer (and then civil servant). This will make it easy to dismiss their conclusions. However starting the whole thing again doesn’t appeal either.

Paul Goldsmith reports:

The Government is taking immediate action to support New Zealand’s media and content production sectors, while it develops a long-term reform programme, Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith says.

“Firstly, the Government will progress the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill with amendments, to support our local media companies to earn revenue for the news they produce. 

“I have looked closely at the design of the legislation and will be changing the approach to align more closely with the Australian digital bargaining code to give all companies greater certainty. …

“ACT have indicated they will not support the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill. However, the leaders of the three coalition parties have agreed ACT can hold a differing view. This means the bill will rely on the support of other parties to pass.

This is both an unprincipled and a stupid decision. I can handle principled stupid decisions and even unprincipled smart decisions but this is neither.

It is unprincipled because it is forcing successful companies in one industry (social networks and search engines) to fund failing companies in another industry (media). The only rationale for this is that Google and Meta have money and Stuff doesn’t. Will we see Netflix levied money to fund home video rental stores? Will we see Foodstuffs levied money to find Whitcoulls?

It is also a very stupid decision. Most media is already left leaning as most journalist have a left worldview. The Government is going to pass a law to fund a media that will oppose almost everything that supporters of the Government believe in. Even worse, it will set up a structural incentive for the media to become even more left leaning. Let’s say the Government forces Meta and Google to hand over $20 million a year to local media. Well Labour and Greens next election will insist that levy be doubled to $40 million, and of course that will create an institutional bias in favour of the parties that will benefit media the most. And Te Pati Maori will no doubt insist 50% of the left go to Maori media companies.

It is also very possible that the proposed law will fail, in that Meta will simply block all NZ news links rather than be forced to pay a levy.

The Marsden Fund used to be a prestigious fund that attracted the highest quality science research projects. But alas since Grant Robertson expanded its focus to the social sciences, we now get the following funded by taxpayers through the Royal Society:

• $360k into the popularity of true crime podcasts
• $360k for Co-designing and Decolonising Gender Education
• $360k on people’s experiences of employer provided housing
• $360k for de-sexualisation of te reo Māori domains
• $860k for The Diverse Roles of Indigenous Women in Food Systems
• $660k for Mapping Buddhist Law in Asia 
• $660k for design and content of picture books reflecting indigenous language, culture and evolving national identities

I hope they had a little bit left over for physics, chemistry, biology etc!

1 News reports:

Lauren Dickason has been sentenced to 18 years imprisonment for murdering her three young daughters in their Timaru home nearly three years ago.

She is eligible for parole in just six years.

Justice Mander said “there is a direct causal connection between your mental illness and your offending which significantly reduces your moral culpability”. 

“This tragic event would not have occurred if not for the major depressive disorder that you suffered.”

This is true, but suffice to say many many parents have major depressive episodes and don’t murder their children.

Graham Dickason said he made the decision early on to forgive Lauren for what happened. 

“Her punishment is already severe and her life will never be the same. 

“I hold no unforgiveness or anger towards Lauren.”

He is a better man than me.

Thepublica reports:

A 20-year-old woman in Hamburg, Germany, has been sent to prison after making “hateful” remarks towards a migrant who was involved in the gang rape of a child. The woman is just one of 140 people being investigated for making “harmful comments” towards the rapists.

However, despite DNA and WhatsApp evidence, eight of the nine men convicted walked free with probation and spent no time in prison at all. The ninth was sentenced to two years and nine months in prison without parole. 

The case caused outrage in Germany, both for the brutality of the rape itself and the lenient sentences given to the rapists. As a result, one of the men had his identity and phone number circulated on Snapchat by furious sleuths.

Angered by the news of the case, a 20-year-old woman from Hamburg messaged the number through WhatsApp. The unnamed woman called him a “dishonorable rapist pig” and a “disgusting miscarriage.” She added: “Aren’t you ashamed when you look in the mirror?”

The targeted rapist then reported the woman to police, and she was charged with sending him insulting messages.

The woman has now been convicted and sentenced to a weekend in prison for her remarks — meaning that she will have spent more time in jail than 8 of the 9 rapists.

I’m not for doxxing, but it is no surprise it happens when child rapists are not sent to prison.

As previously reported the TPM MP had her marae’s van converted to a campaign billboard during the campaign, which raises issues of breach of charity status.

The other issue is whether the use of the van was disclosed as a donation in kind by the marae to her, in her expense return? It does not appear to be, so the Electoral Commission should investigate.

The Herald reports:

Taranaki’s Waitara High School implemented a mobile phone ban at the start of 2023, more than a year ahead of the Government’s official move.

But it was only for pupils in Years 9 through 12.

Year 13s got to keep their mobiles.

“They can wear mufti and sign-out without parent consent. It’s a transition to adulthood,” principal Daryl Warburton told the Herald. It made sense for them to keep their phones, he thought. “I was reluctant to ban a device that’s so central to modern life. It was better to teach them how to use it responsibly.”

Now, he’s a convert to the Government’s total ban, which includes Year 13s, and break times.

Not having phones had got rid of a significant distraction in class and last year the academic results in Years 9 to 12 were up 15-20%, the principal said.

Wow that is significant.

“We had the best results in the history of the school, except Year 13 – so we saw the correlation.”

This year, with the total ban, senior academic performance has also increased.

So Year 13 acted as a control.

And on a social level, “kids used to message each other in the hallway, from one metre away”, Warburton said.

“Now break times and lunch times are absolutely raucous.” Tag and bullrush are back. There’s been a notable rise in minor injuries.

I guess an increase in injuries is a good thing 🙂