Former Judge and barrister Anthony Willy has an excellent post on the famous SOE case which is held up to have decided that the Treaty of Waitangi was a partnership. He demolishes this argument by quoting, well the actual judgment. The case was about acting in good faith. Well worth a read.
Stuff reports:
Businessman and philanthropist Phillip Mills wants to go on the record, despite facing backlash for his political views.
He was labelled “hypocrite of the week” by the Taxpayers’ Union last Maybecause he was one of 100 wealthy New Zealanders who told the Government they want to pay more tax.
Mills, of fitness empire Les Mills, hadn’t paid back the Covid-19 wage subsidy which supported the 12 gyms dotted between Auckland and Dunedin. Mills said the gyms – shut down during lockdowns – had yet to make a profit. Its international branch, its fitness brand selling clothing and fitness classes, has paid back the subsidy.
But when asked if he will answer questions about the opaque world of political donations, he wanted to speak out. He sees the comments from the Taxpayers’ Union as an attempt at stopping him speaking in support of progressive values.
Calling out hypocrisy is a risk, if you are a hypocrite. The TU paid back its subsidy but Less Mills has not paid back its $4.5 million. Their UK subsidiary had a 2 million pound profit in 2022 and their global revenue is estimated to be US$950 million. And the part-owner wails he wants to pay more tax (which he could voluntarily) while refusing to pay back the wage subsidy. What he really means is he wants others to pay more tax.
Some voters could see big money as having a pernicious influence on politics, but Mills said his donations are not transactional – he is simply backing a world view he believes in (richlisters backing the political right made the same argument in the first part of this series, which you can read here).
“It is about our belief around economic justice,” he said. “I think that people who are donating purely selfishly are misguided, we all suffer if we don’t deal with climate change, we all suffer with terrible inequality.”
But he finds it hard to believe some of the richlisters backing National and ACT aren’t motivated by their own gain.
Don’t you love it. When I donate to my preferred party it is because I am not selfish and care. but when other people donate they are motivated by self gain.
I hope NZ doesn’t resume funding UNRWA. Here’s some numbers (from Israel but not rebutted) on them:
We should fund other UN agencies like the World Food Programme and good NGOs providing relief. But it is clear that funding UNRWA is akin to indirectly funding Hamas.
So 60% of taxpayers receive more in income support and benefits that they pay in tax. That leaves 40% funding those 60% and the vast majority coming from the top 10%.
It is a useful reminder we have a tax and welfare system which is already highly redistributive.
Liam Hehir writes:
Ronald Reagan said that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”
Fast forward to present-day New Zealand and we have a new champion in the scary nine word category: “We’re Kāinga Ora and we are your new neighbours.”
Sadly this is true. It is probably fair to say that some people have always been unenthusiastic about having state houses as neighbours, but most accepted that it is important to have social housing for those in need. But that goodwill has been destroyed by the free reign given abusive tenants over the last six years.
The National-led government now wants to strike a different balance. Quite naturally, political and media opponents are horrified by the idea. The idea that somebody would lose their state subsidised house just because they menace their neighbours with a axe, however, does not seem so unreasonable to most people.
I’ve not even bothered to poll on this, because it is obvious 85%+ would agree.
Consequences for badly behaved Kāinga Ora tenants inevitably involves the harsh reality that some of these individuals will become homeless. They may be driven to seek temporary shelter with family or friends, a solution that’s not only temporary but can also strain personal relationships and resources. In the worst case scenario, they may end up living in a garage or a car.
But this outcome was not caused by the government. Provided that there is a fair process involved, the outcome was the result of their abusive behaviour. It sometimes feels as if the left think of social housing tenants as livestock rather than people, as if they were not in control of their ability to threaten to kill their neighbour’s dog and burn down her house.
Exactly., You can simply decide not to abuse your neighbours.
Children, of course, are often the innocent victims in this scenario. Nobody chooses their parents. The loss of a home underlines the impact of adult decisions on the youngest and most defenceless members of society.
It does not follow that we must enable abusive tenants, however, as if their children are a human shield that gives them immunity from minimal standards of acceptable behaviour. If an ordinary renter or homeowner breaks the covenants of their tenancy or mortgage then the fact that they have children does not entitle them to continue living in their home forever.
In the case of Kāinga Ora tenants, the parents have the benefit of having the government as a landlord and below market rents. Parents who are willing to jeopardise that by using the place for gang meetings, in full knowledge of the consequences, are unfit parents.
We need to accept that turning this situation around may require significant bolstering of the already unfunded foster care system. If our first concern is to secure children’s material needs, those are not likely to be provided by such irresponsible people. Greater levels of intervention than the provision of a home is required.
Sadly also true. If you’re a kid in a household where the adults threaten to kill the neighbours, then the biggest issue isn’t your house – it is your parents.
In the meantime, the Green Party’s ongoing support for abusive tenants points to a warped sense of morality. Tamatha Paul says the government’s policies amount to a “coalition of cruelty punishing people for being poor” which is a misrepresentation that obscures the real issues that social housing providers and neighbours must grapple with.
Being provided with a house at a subsidised rent, with the expectation of basic civil behaviour, is not a punishment for being poor. It is a form of generous support for the poor by the community.
If you are evicted after attacking the maintenance man with a blunt weapon, you have not been punished for being poor. You have been punished for shocking violence against someone trying to maintain the house you have been provided with.
The Greens values are so warped on this.
Ipsos has published their excellent Issues Monitor for February 2024. Below I look at key findings, and compare them to 12 months ago.
Top Issues (can choose three)
Govt performance is at 4.6/10 – just below the 4.7 the last Govt had. The Govt will want to see that improve quickly.
The party deemed best (and margin to next party) on each of the top 10 issues is:
This is very good for National. They lead Labour on all the top five issues and eight of the top ten issues. And they lead Labour by far greater margins than a year ago.
The Herald reports:
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon believes the cancellation of SailGP racing in Lyttleton following dolphin sightings speaks to New Zealand’s “obstruction economy” and its level of “red tape”.
However, he acknowledged SailGP organisers agreed to protocols concerning environmental protection and said a balance needed to be struck between running “world-class events” and protecting the environment.
Addressing the event being unable to go ahead on Saturday, DoC deputy director of general operations Henry Weston noted that in New Zealand, the Marine Mammals Protection Act and Marine Mammals Protection Regulations direct how vessels must behave around marine mammals and says it is illegal to harass or disturb them.
“All vessels and people involved in the SailGP event, including any support boats or spectators, must abide by this legislation. It is a legal requirement. People controlling vessels who encounter a dolphin or other marine mammal must travel no faster than idle/no wake speed if within 300 metres of a dolphin, and not herd, harass or obstruct marine mammals or cut through groups,” Weston said.
This wasn’t about boats trying to hit dolphins or even being within a few metres of them. The rules mean you can’t race if one dolphin is within 300 metres!
Sure SailGP agreed to the rules, but it would be nice to weigh up benefits vs risks.
There is a tiny risk that one out of 15,000 dolphins may feel slightly distressed as yachts race a few hundred metres away, and it may feel pressured to swim somewhere else.
Weigh that up against the thousands of people who had paid tickets to watch the race, and the preparation of all the teams.
It is important to differentiate the need to trim back the massive increase in the public service, with the impact it has on individuals and their families.
The next few months will be a very challenging time for many public servants. They face possibly losing their own job, but also there being very few new jobs to apply for in the next few months. This means that they have to worry about paying the mortgage, kids expenses etc. No-one should lose sight of this.
It is not the fault of individual public servants that government spending is $18 billion a year higher than Labour promised it would cap it at. The vast majority are hard working and dedicated to their jobs. The fault is the previous Ministers who managed to simultaneously oversee a huge increase in spending and in public service numbers, and also a decline in most actual public services.
So while the cuts are necessary, they should not be seen as something to celebrate. At the end of the day any family losing a source of income is a matter of great distress to them, whether they be mine workers or public servants.
Hopefully the recession will end soon, and new job opportunities will be created.
Stuff reports:
Police are maintaining that the incident was not gang-related. However, Stuff understands that both Mongrel Mob and Black Power members were involved in the brawl.
A resident on Lytton Road told RNZ she saw people wearing Black Power patches, while a Black Power gang member told Stuff “it may be gang members, but it’s not a gang context”.
A fine distinction. If it wasn’t gang members involved, it is far far less likely a 21st would have ended up with two people dead. Most people don’t take knives to parties.
This is a seriously good political ad, despite being nine minutes long. He brings back memories of the US at its best, makes a compelling case against the status quo, and uses his father and uncle to link back to those better times.
Now RFK is a very flawed candidate. I’d even call him crazy adjacent. But if he does more ads like that, he is going to get a fair few votes. The big question will be who he takes more of them off – Biden or Trump.
The crucifixion of Jesus is considered a well documented historical fact, along with his baptism. While the exact date is unknown, most scholars say it was in 30 AD, so 1,994 years ago.
Regardless of your beliefs, have a Happy Easter.
My response would be:
Our country is not a students’ association, and it shouldn’t be governed as if it is.
The attack by Islamic State terrorist in Moscow was an act of evil. 133 innocent people died. Islamic State is an evil organisation.
The response of the Putin Government was also evil, albeit in a lesser way.
The United States privately and publicly warned them of a likely terrorist attack on a concert, based on intelligence they intercepted from Islamic State.
Islamic State has publicly claimed credit for the attack.
Yet the Putin Government is publicly blaming the attack on Ukraine.
The ACLU said:
On March 18, the ACLU appeared before the U.S. Supreme Court to argue another free speech case of great significance. In this case, the ACLU represented the National Rifle Association (NRA) against government overreach and censorship. Some may have wondered why the ACLU was representing the NRA, since the ACLU clearly opposes the NRA on gun control and the role of firearms in society. In fact, we abhor many of the group’s goals, strategies, and tactics. So, the reality that we have joined forces, notwithstanding those disagreements, reflects the importance of the First Amendment principles at stake in this case.
The ACLU made the decision to represent the NRA in this case because we are deeply concerned that if regulators can threaten the NRA for their political views in New York state, they can come after the ACLU and allied organizations in places where our agendas are unpopular.
This gives me hope, when we see principles win out. The ACLU abhors the NRA but are fighting for them in court, because they believe Government shouldn’t be able to threaten you for your views.
Likewise am pleased in NZ where we saw the FSU defend the rights of libraries to have drag queen story time. I know quite a few FSU officers probably personally abhor the concept, but they put the principle first of not letting security concerns take away people’s right of free association.
It brings back the quote from Noam Chomsky:
“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all”?
Simeon Brown announced:
Cabinet has agreed on the coalition Government’s direction of travel for a new Land Transport Rule to be signed by the end of 2024. This new rule will reverse the previous government’s blanket speed reductions imposed on motorists across New Zealand, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says.
“The new rule will ensure that when speed limits are set, economic impacts – including travel times – and the views of road users and local communities are taken into account, alongside safety.
“The previous government’s untargeted approach resulted in blanket speed limit reductions across the country, rather than targeting high crash areas of the network. The new Rule will lead to blanket speed limit reductions being reversed by the end of next year, except where it is unsafe.
The new approach is basically just common sense. It’s amazing how many of the former Government’s policies were just ideology gone mad. Taking into account travel times, community views as well as safety is a balanced approach. Otherwise we’d just have a maximum 30 km/hr limit on all roads.
Stuff continues to break stories about Green MP Darlene Tana. The TLDR version is:
I think it is fair to conclude this issue isn’t going away anytime soon.
A quite stunning report by the Inspector-General of Intelligence. He has found that the GCSB hosted in New Zealand a signals intelligence system controlled by a foreign partner agency, and failed to even mention it to their Minister, or indeed their incoming Director!
He finds that the capability operated at GCSB:
How did this happen. Some extracts:
Late in 2011, the then Director-General, Simon Murdoch, noted in an email that GCSB legal
would need to be closely involved in the matter and that it would potentially require the
awareness or consent of the Minister, as well as consultation with the IGIS. This inquiry
found no record that the legal analysis, consultation and engagement with the Minister or
IGIS contemplated by Mr Murdoch occurred.
So Murdoch correctly said the Minister and IGIS should be consulted and a legal analysis done. It never happened.
Simon Murdoch’s tenure as Acting Director-General ended the week before Christmas 2011. On 3 February 2012 Ian Fletcher took over as Director-General.
The MOU was signed in March 2012 by a GCSB Deputy Director. My inquiry found no
records to indicate the Director-General was involved. Mr Fletcher advised the inquiry that
he did not recall being briefed on the capability when he started at the GCSB, and has no
recollection of the capability operating at GCSB or of Simon Murdoch’s concerns.
So a Deputy Director signed the MOU without doing what the Director had asked, and didn’t even mention it to the new Director.
I think it would be appropriate for the Deputy Director responsible to be named. Not briefing the Minister, the IGIS or the new Director undermines accountability.
Alwyn Poole
Innovative Education Consultants
www.innovativeeducation.co.nz
alwynpoole.substack.com
www.linkedin.com/in/alwyn-poole-16b02151/
Enjoy. This is so good that Creative NZ should give $100,000 to fund it!
I never realised that a bridge would collapse so thoroughly and quickly from a ship hitting it. While this was a horrible accident, it makes you think about how vulnerable bridges would be to deliberate attacks.
The loss of life is only six at this stage and could have been so much worse. Kudos to local authorities who managed to stop most traffic entering the bridge when they were alerted to the out of control ship. If this had happened at rush hour, the death toll could have been in the hundreds.
US $80 billion of trade travels in the now blocked waterway and the cost off rebuilding the bridge which the US Federal Government has pledged to fund) will be massive.