I interrupt celebrations on the centre-right in New Zealand over the successful three-way coalition arrangement and the great policies to be enacted with an issue that one hopes the new government will eventually have to confront. For those who are acronym deprived, EVs are Electric Vehicles and ICEVs Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles. As various 1^st world countries attempt to reach either net zero (or significantly reduced carbon emissions), the cutting edge, indeed the picture child, for these efforts are EVs. Various governments are using a combination of carrots (EV purchase subsidies, free use of express motorway lanes, free access to central cities by avoiding congestion charging etc.) and sticks (enforced EV mandates on vehicle manufacturers, higher taxes on ICEVs like NZ’s now soon to be scrapped ute tax, congestion charging and ever-increasing excise taxes on petrol and diesel). Some countries and US states have gone as far as indicating dates in the next 12 to 15 years after which no new ICEVs will be able to be legally sold.

The purpose of these two essays is to propose that such bans will never be carried out because it will not only not be possible to get to net zero in any country without prohibitively massive costs and a huge reversal in standard of living and travel independence, but it will also not be possible for the world’s economies and mining capability to replace ICEVs with EVs for the many reasons I will explain.

The reasons for the ultimate failure of the drive for exclusive EV use will be divided into two Posts, the individual or consumer level problems (what I will call the Micro problems) are covered in Part 1 today and then there are the industry, countrywide and international barriers (that I will call the Macro problems) that I will cover in Part 2.

MICRO PROBLEMS

1 – Purchase pricing differential

Anyone wishing to buy an EV of any type will find the purchase price is usually at least 10 to 15%+ more expensive than the equivalent model, size and speced ICEV. The differential still holds even with EV buyer incentives like trade-in bonuses, tax credits or outright government subsidies. This differential comes into even sharper focus when looking at the secondhand EV market which has its own additional set of challenges with thin supply, early model EVs with rapidly shrinking battery range and then the looming cost of a new battery that will range from USD$5,000 to $10,000 for the smallest cheapest entry level EV like a Nissan Leaf all the way to USD$15,000 for a Tesla Model 3 and up to $25,000 for the luxury Tesla S. The raft of new luxury EV SVUs will have replacement batteries priced similarly to the Tesla S. For these and other reasons, the re-sale or residual value of EVs are plunging not only as more second EVs come on to the market but because of the battery replacement cost and other issues that will be covered today. Paying more up front and getting less on a trade-in for a new EV versus an equivalent ICEV adds to the total cost of ownership beyond the sticker price and the running cost equation.

Manufacturers of EVs also are targeting their new releases to the middle and upper segments of the car market meaning there are relatively few affordable EV options versus many affordable ICEVs. This skewering of EV offerings to more expensive market segments and the purchase price premium is acting as a real barrier to entry to all but the well healed upper middle-class professionals, dedicated environmentally sensitive consumers and high-income earners. Low-income families and migrant and Polynesian communities have little extra cash to pay a premium for an EV or to shell out thousands for a replacement battery even if they are able to obtain a quality cheaper secondhand EV. As market penetration of new EVs increases then the prices and availability of second-hand EVs should improve. The big promise made by the green advocates of EVs is that, over time, technology will make batteries more efficient and cheaper thus gradually reducing the new vehicle pricing gap over ICEVs. As will be seen in Part 2 of this analysis, this is a forlorn hope for quite some time into the future.

2 – Range issues

Range anxiety is usually the No. 2 biggest reason cited by people not making the jump to EVs and the concerns are well founded, and they combine with the charging issues (covered in #3), to present significant hurdles to widespread majority EV acquisition. It is true that as time and battery technology has advanced, so has the stated range of new EVs, but they are still well below the range of the equivalent ICEV. Over the years travelling across the US and other countries, I have rented a good range of mid sized vehicles (Mazda 6, Toyota Camry, Nissan Altima/Maxima, Kia K5, Hyundai Elantra/Sonata, Honda Accord, Checy Malibu, Dodge Challenger etc). Each of these cars have a highway range of between 420 and 500 miles (675 to 800kms) assuming highway fuel consumption. Large SUVs and utes/pickup trucks with larger tanks feature 500 to 600 mile ranges (800 to 965 kms). Most modern mid sized EVs have a real highway range of only 200 to 250 miles (320 to 400 kms) with larger SUV and pickups around or maybe slightly over 300 miles (480kms). Now those are best case scenario ranges which are on average half the ICEV average.

Then there is the impact that extreme heat and cold has on range – in the case of heat it is the need to constantly use the power draining air conditioning which is an issue in probably half of the US, most Australian cities and in southern Europe. For the other half of the US, Canada and most of Europe and Japan, the issue is the cold in the winter. The cold has a double impact on range being the need to heat the car interior AND the impact on the battery because of the cold. There are a large number of real world actual owner range tests that you can view on You Tube that show that range in cold weather reduces around 30% on average. This adds to the range anxiety issue as even the EVs with the best range, the car in cold weather is effectively reduced to a range of under 200 miles or 300kms meaning more frequent re-charging stops on a long journey. In large countries like the US, Canada and Australia, these range restrictions are more keenly felt.

Towing is another issue particularly for tradies and other people who rely on a ute or pickup and the need to carry a heavy load in the bed and/or in a trailer for their livelihood. Despite the larger batteries for the larger EVs, a heavy load also reduces the range by up to 30% and again, there are plenty of comparison videos on YT that track the impact of the temperature and the weight of cargo on the range. In all instances, the effective range is now down to a third or less of the equivalent petrol/diesel work vehicle. For the self-employed, more frequent stops for charging will impact on their income and for companies employing trade staff, their efficiency on the job is hampered by time wasted charging the EV thus reducing profitability.

3 – Charging issues

(i) Home

The dream of the lower running costs of EVs that is promoted by environmental lobby groups and those who sell EVs is the fact that, for most city use, an EV can be plugged in at home and can recharge overnight when power tariffs are usually the lowest. There are number of issues that crop up even then and this scenario is a best-case scenario only. First off, this convenience only works for those who live in what the Americans call a single-family home or in other words a dwelling on a separate section with a car port or garage. But with the global shift to smaller, more affordable, more compact and densely populated housing, for people (particularly younger people with no or a small family), apartment living makes it much more difficult to connect an EV to your own power supply. Many complexes have no off-street parking and those that do, there is no plug infrastructure in underground car parks to enable an apartment tenant or owner to hook up from their designated parking spot. As new apartment blocks allowing for EV charging are constructed, the charging plug maybe available but not at the cheap rate your power company is charging for what you use in your apartment but at a rate that the Body Corporate or Homeowners Association charges as the power plugs will be in common usage areas.

People who live in older homes in crowded inner-city suburbs may only have on-street parking and only the ability to have a three point higher voltage plug that also has to have an extension cord put into the street that can be tampered with. For those who live in cold climates, unless you have a heated garage or have a plug-in car engine heater, recharging in freezing conditions is a lengthy and more costly process because the battery has to be first warmed before it can be properly and quickly charged.

Finally, there is the very big and widespread issue of the capacity of a home plug to deliver a high-speed charge. If you simply use the same type of heavy duty plug as is used for a stove, fridge, washing machine or a stationary air conditioning unit then this cannot deliver power to the EV fast enough to affect a full charge overnight. One of the smallest EVs available is the Nissan Leaf and its 62 kw battery would take a whopping 18 hours to fully charge from a standard residential three point socket. EV owners soon realise that they need to boost the amperage to a larger more powerful 50 amp 7 w connector. For the Leaf this brings the full charging time down to 11 hours. These converters cost between $500 to $600 in the US and you’ll need another $1,300 for electrician’s costs to install. But what about a Hyundai Ioniq with a 77 kw battery or a Tesla X with a 100 kw battery or the Ford F150 Lightening (or similar large pickup or SUV) with a 131 kw battery? There is no possible affordable capacity upgrade that allows the owner of a larger EV that boasts the longest range with the largest battery where you can fully charge overnight at home. Then there are the wider issues of limits to the local suburban electricity grid capacity to handle mass switching to EVs for suburban in-home charging, something that I will cover in the Macro issues in Part 2. All of these problems push more EV owners to having to use public charging stations more than they ever planned with a whole new set of problems covered next.

(ii) Public

There are a host of issues with the public EV charging infrastructure. These issues will vary from location to location, city to city and country to country but many of them are present in most markets:

• Insufficient numbers of charging stations. This problem has two facets: gaps in ANY available fast chargers on certain key routes or, the more common problem, insufficient fast chargers in key locations leading to long queues to charge. California is supposedly EV fast charging nirvana and yet this video shows a huge queue in Burbank in suburban LA at 11pm at night! With even an optimal situation (newer battery, good fast charge station, no queue and reasonable weather) you’re looking at a 30 to 40 minute wait from near flat versus 5 minutes to refuel an ICEV from empty. There have been reports of so-called “charge rage” of frustrated drivers jumping queues and even unhooking cars left charging whilst an owner gets a coffee to avoid the long waits.
• Inconsistent charger styles. It is known that Tesla’s aren’t compatible with most public non-Tesla charger sites hence why they have invested in their own fast chargers. Because the installation of fast chargers is usually barely regulated, there are not uniform standards of charging ports forcing EV owners in some jurisdictions to have to spend hundreds of dollars on adapters. Continental Europe has largely avoided this issue with standardisation.
• Inconsistent electricity pricing. The providers of public fast charging stations are often entrepreneurs seeking recovery of the cost of installing the chargers that each cost USD$45,000 to $70,000. Unlike petrol stations who advertise their price per gallon or litre in large displays and the prices can be easily researched via Apps such as Gaspy (NZ) or Gas Buddy (US), an EV owner won’t know the price of the electricity they need until they insert their card at the charging station. Whilst gas prices in the US for instance fluctuate markedly from state to state and city to city due to differing state and county/city fuel taxes, in most countries there are more narrow petrol pricing bands making accurately costing of a road trip pretty easy. Electricity pricing is far more variable from not just city/state and country but time of day, the utility company providing power for a particular charging location and the fact that owners of the charging stations will adjust their prices at any given charging location based on demand like the surge pricing policies of the ride share companies. Because the driver of an almost flat EV battery usually cannot just keep going to another possibly cheaper charging site as is the case with an ICEV driver with so many petrol station options close by, they are forced to pay whatever price is on offer. Whilst EV owners can time an overnight charge at home to coincide with rates as cheap as $0.05c p/kwh nighttime domestic electricity tariffs, they can be hit with charges like $0.35 p/kwh or more on the road being many multiples higher making an EV road trip in some locations significantly more expensive than the ICEV equivalent trip.
• Vandalisation of EV charging locations and other connection issues. It is not uncommon for EV owners to come to a site of multiple charging stations only to find a long line behind only one or two chargers as the others have had their card swipe machines vandalised. The Wall Street Journal recently surveyed 126 non-Tesla charging stations in Los Angeles and 27% were out of order, an additional 10% had payment issues, and still more had connection or handshake issues. In the most EV charger saturated city in the world, fully half of the chargers could not be made to work. This compares to regular petrol stations were non operative pumps are extremely rare.
• Most public charging sites charge electricity by the minute rather than the kw/h. This is an issue in colder locations and at colder times of the year because, in order for the fast charger to recharge quickly, the charging site has to warm the car battery first before charging it. This adds to the recharge time meaning a recharge in the summer might take 35 minutes and the same EV at the same location in winter might take 15 minutes longer to charge and the driver is going to be charged for that extra time the car is hooked up the charger.
• Public charging locations can’t accommodate the needed electricity load when multiple cars are hooked up to their chargers. When you fill up at a petrol station, all the pumps pull fuel from a common giant tank. As long as the master tank is kept topped up regularly (and they are), every single pump can be pumping fuel at the same time and the volume of fuel moving from the master tank to the individual vehicle tanks is identical. This is not the case when multiple EVs are charging at the same time at an EV charging site. Electricity is supplied to the location at a fixed amount that comes down the underground cable and is then distributed to the individual fast chargers. If one vehicle is charging alone then that vehicle will have access to all the electricity being fed to the location. As more vehicles hook up, the power coming off the grid at the site has some ability to increase flow but generally there is an overall kwh limit to the site (unless the site owner has paid for additional expensive high voltage cabling) and so the power flow must now be shared amongst all the users hooked up and when a site has all chargers in use, this can significantly add to the charging time due to diffusing the electricity amongst the multiple users. What the owner hopes will be a 35-minute stop (the time EV manufacturers tell you about in their promotional material) can turn into a 90 minute or longer nightmare of queues to begin to charge and slow charge times due to the cold and diffuse electricity supply.

4 – Fire risk issues

There is an increased risk of spontaneous battery fires with any lithium-ion battery hence why airlines won’t allow you to have a smart phone in checked luggage. There has been a raft of high-profile incidents of electric cars spontaneously catching on fire and alighting nearby cars, houses and multi-level car parks. Two of the most spectacular were: the fire in an electric bus in Shanghai that spread to 40 other electric buses parked at the depot. Put “electric car fires” into You Tube and dozens of examples show up, and a fire at a Ford dealership in Detroit of a Ford F150 Lightening that saw almost an entire row of EVs ultimately engulfed. The problem with EV fires is they are more intense and take longer for firefighters to put out than an ICEV fire and they normally involve more damage to nearby vehicles and/or property. An EV can catch alight even with only slight damage to a few of the battery cells. Because it is hard to know what cells might be damaged without a complex and costly test, slightly damaged EVs may be ticking fire time bombs without the owners knowing.

These increased fire risks have a range of complex and costly implications. Will car parks have to be modified to allow wider spaces between vehicles to reduce contagion fire risk, who pays for the more stringent fire safety provisions like the need to bring higher volumes of water to the site so the firemen who fight EV fires have sufficient volume to douse the more intensive EV fires? My prediction is that car park owners will simply avoid these additional costs and ban EV use. Will apartment complexes allow EVs to park underground due to the risk of a complete building fire after contagion to other underground parked vehicles? Will EV owners eventually be forced to park in spaces away from buildings and other vehicles adding to EV owner cost and inconvenience? The number of EV fires is only going to increase as the numbers on the road mushroom. EV supporters say there are more ICEV fires but that’s because in most countries, over 95% of all vehicles have an ICE but ICE fires are much easier and quicker to contain. EVs that have caught on fire and, if the fire has been contained before total destruction, the burnt out remains have to be specially quarantined because of the high risk of a re-sparking or a spontaneous re-ignition. This imposes big costs on car repair shops and panelbeaters who again, like the car park owners, may avoid the hassle by refusing to work on damaged EVs. These are massive safety issues that are only just now being looked at and the solutions are going to mean more cost and inconvenience to EV owners not the least of which is rising insurance costs arising from the fire risk issues that I cover next.

5 – Running costs issues

(i) Insurance

If you get an insurance quote for an EV compared to its comparable ICEV equivalent (e.g., BMW i4 vs BMW 4 series, Mini Cooper, Hyundai Ioniq, for the US the Ford F150) you’ll find in the US, Australia and New Zealand about a 20 to 30% insurance premium for like for like EV versus ICEV full comprehensive collision insurance. This is because, if the battery is only slightly damaged, it has to be replaced not repaired due to the fire risk (covered in #4 above). In the UK, due to the number of high-profile EV fires and the generally higher costs of repair of damaged EVs, insuring an EV has become a very difficult and costly task with owners facing cancellation of coverage, a tripling or more in premiums and an increasingly larger number of UK Fire and General insurers refusing to cover EVs. Whilst Tesla does offer its own vehicle insurance product, this is currently only available in the US. How long before Fire and General insurers in other first world markets begin to adopt the strategy and pricing structure now prevalent in the UK? If so, then much of the running costs savings for the average EV owners would be offset by the massively higher insurance premiums.

(ii) Repairs and maintenance

Whilst it is true that an electric engine has massively fewer moving parts than an ICE, there are more complex construction methods and more costly other parts to an EV. There are also inferior economies of scale in producing the parts for EVs so they cost more and there is not the same network of service locations even within the dealerships of EV manufacturers so scheduling service appointments can be trickier. Tesla of course do not have full-service dealerships in the traditional sense sending instead a service van to your location. Routine maintenance is cost effective and can be done quickly but anything more complex means time-consuming and costly repairs due to the difficulty in finding EV certified and trained mechanics, and that’s before we factor in the fire risks that are beginning to burden repairers with potential costly liabilities and extra storage spacing requirement that they may seek to avoid.

(iii) Tyres

EVs are on average 25 to 30% heavier than their ICEV equivalent due to the weight of the battery. This means more strain on the tyres and so, depending on the model, some EV owners find themselves having to replace their tyres twice as regularly as the equivalent ICEV.  Increasingly manufacturers use heavier and stronger EV specific tyres, but these cost the same 30% premium to replace even if they last longer than regular tyres. Either way, an EV owner is paying more for tyres than the ICEV equivalent.

(iv) Battery replacement

EV batteries can die if left in extreme heat or cold or are overcharged. EV batteries lose 2 to 3% capacity every year. There are lots of websites and You Tube channels instructing EV owners on how best to protect their battery and prolong its life. It is interesting that, on the one hand EV proponents tout the lengthening ranges now capable with more powerful batteries being installed but preach prudence by not charging to the maximum to preserve battery life. If you follow battery life instructions, then you are effectively lopping off the maximum range of your EV by 20%. Whilst an 80% charge will suit those who use an EV pretty much only to commute in the city, it adds to all the issues cited earlier to increase the frequency at which an EV owner must charge up for long trips. The high cost of battery replacement is a major issue for EV owners because either they must find $10,000+ for a new battery for the smallest of EVs or face a very low re-sale on an older EV when they come to sell or trade. Horror stories of huge costs some EV owners have had to wear in order to replace the battery abound, the worst being that of Simrat Sooch of Stoney Creek, Ontario, Canada who was quoted CAD$50,000 to replace the battery in his Hyundai Ioniq and he chose to scrap the car instead and got a measly $1,000! As stated earlier, this is causing the residual value of EVs to plummet. Comparing the value of an equivalent say 8-year-old ICEV of similar make and quality, the lower trade/sale value of the EV become yet another cost EV consumers must absorb versus staying with an ICEV.

Conclusion

Part 2 will cover some very large issues that act as major real physical resource availability barriers to widespread EV production. Part 1 has focused on the consumer side of EVs and on the various factors that are now limiting widespread EV adoption. In most first world the ecology conscious consumer who wishes to make a public point of supporting the environment by purchasing an EV (some would cynically call this virtue signaling) has pretty much already bought an EV. It is an observation that EV purchasing households to this point have been amongst the upper/professional middle class and higher because almost all have a second ICEV so the issues of taking EVs on long journeys are avoided. If you only ever tootle around town or have an ordinary commute to work in an EV and charge from home at night, many of the issues mentioned here are minimized. But that is not where governments want this product to remain. In order to meet net zero (or similar) targets, middle and working class consumers will have to transition. In part 2 I will cover the resistance to mass EV transition recently occurring with almost all the major car manufacturers. This is because of stalled EV sales and massive and growing inventories of unsold EVs as the penetration of EVs into the truly mass car markets is happening very slowly because of all the above issues. Negative word of mouth from all the dramas and unforeseen additional costs borne by EV owners for whom it is their only car is only going to further erode confidence in EVs as a viable and convenient sole family transportation solution. With consumers voting with their feet to opt to stay with ICEVs what will follow is the same consumers voting at the ballot box to reject attempts by governments to force this transition. In this matter, I predict that eventually the mandates to phase out ICEVs will be scrapped due to mass consumer electoral revolts from the proposed solution.

A guest post by Lucy Rogers:

Yesterday at about 5pm I was arrested on Queen Street for peacefully protesting a pro-Palestine rally. I had popped out to grab coffee after being in a work meeting for the afternoon and I saw the protest occurring on Queen Street. I walked into a nearby shop, purchased an A2 piece of paper and wrote “SELECTIVE CONDEMNATION OF GENOCIDE IS EVIL” on it with a marker pen. I then stood on the pavement on Queen Street as the protesters walked past and held the sign above my head. I was silent and peaceful, and several metres away from them.

Immediately I was accosted by a group of nearby police officers who grabbed my sign off me and tore it up. They physically manhandled me and attempted to push me away from where I was standing. I refused to move and demanded my sign back. At this point I started recording them on my phone.

They refused to give my sign back and threatened to arrest me for breach of the peace and failing to comply with the lawful order of a police officer if I didn’t move on. As a criminal defence lawyer I was unfazed by this because I knew that I wasn’t breaking any law. The cops cannot tell you to do just anything: they could not for example order me to perform a handstand. I continued to refuse, asked them where in the law it said that they had the right to dictate where I stood in a public place when there was no obstruction to foot traffic, and finally attempted to walk to one side of them to silently observe the protest without my sign. (I was not carrying an Israeli flag or any other indication of being pro-Israel and because they had taken my sign there was no indication at this point what my views even were. I was just another person on the street.) It was then that the cops grabbed me from behind, handcuffed me and arrested me. All of this is on video. They then locked me in a police van. It is the following day and I still have a sore shoulder from where my arms were wrenched behind my back without warning. I also experienced sleeplessness last night.

One thing I found disturbing is that the cops were completely unfazed at me recording their police ID numbers or at arresting me even when they knew I had the means to identify them. They let me go as soon as I undertook not to return on that day. (I explained that I was only prepared to make such an undertaking because I had to get back to a work meeting, and that otherwise I would gladly stay in their van.) This shows that they didn’t care whether they had any chance of successfully prosecuting me or not. They even offered to give me information on how to lay a complaint.

What this suggests in my view is that they have misused laws against breach of the peace, resisting police and perhaps other such laws again and again and again. Section 39 of the Summary Offences Act 1981 reads as follows:

Any constable, and all persons whom he calls to his assistance, may arrest and take into custody without a warrant any person whom he has good cause to suspect of having committed an offence against any of the provisions of this Act except sections 17 to 20, 25, and 32 to 38.

I suspect that the police, who in ordinary circumstances are the ones who decide whether to prosecute someone (I have no reason to believe there is a different body set up to take criminal complaints against police officers) have taken a very liberal approach to what constitutes “good cause to suspect” a crime, and that has been used as a way for them to avoid consequences for the misuse of power without the matter ever even reaching the courts. The cops (I suspect) protect their own. They just wanted to shut me up for the duration of the protest, release me with or without charge and then get away with it.

I suspect too that these powers have been misused in cases more marginal than mine. Because I was in a very tense situation I did raise my voice, but I did not assault the cops, swear at them, drag my feet on the ground when they grabbed me or jerk my body around. I commented to the cops that I was a law-abiding person and one of them said he could tell. But I’m sure the cops have arrested plenty of people who were less polite, and hence where there was less sympathy for them. However, being unfriendly to cops is not a crime.

The whole thing has been an eye-opener for me. If there isn’t already I think there needs to be a body independent of the police set up to review complaints against police and determine whether to prosecute them. (Their actions constitute assault, false arrest, theft, wilful damage to personal property, kidnapping and a host of other crimes.) I would be interested to know how many criminal complaints against these police officers have been made and never upheld.

I am also concerned that being threatened by police with arrest for things like failing to comply with the lawful order of a police officer would be intimidating to people less familiar with the law about what the police can and cannot tell you to do. I suspect that the police deliberately exploit people’s ignorance of the law.

I add by the way that I do not consider myself to be a pro-Israel protester. I was very deliberately not carrying an Israeli flag even though flags were available from the same shop I bought the paper for my sign from. Although until recently I was a lifelong supporter of Israel, the complete blockade of food and water to all civilians in Gaza absolutely appalled me. The blockade was only lifted following American pressure and even then it was only lifted partially. Collective punishment is a war crime and I am not unsympathetic to sending home the Israeli ambassador.

I am not a pro-Israel protester. I am an anti-hypocrisy, anti-bias and anti-racism protester. I cannot understand how anyone in good conscience could exclusively protest Israel when Israel is responding to genocide, hostage taking and mass rape so brutal it broke women’s pelvic bones. By all means protest Israel’s actions. My question is why they aren’t also protesting Hamas. Being critical of Israel is not necessarily racism (I am critical of Israel) but a lot of it is. For many years now Hamas have fired missiles at civilian targets, Israel have responded with missile strikes on military targets while going to huge lengths to avoid civilian casualties, and then everyone has sided with the Palestinians. For those with eyes to see the bias was already apparent, but these appalling post-October 7 pro-Palestine protests have exposed once and for all what truly motivates these people: anti-Semitism.

Selective condemnation of genocide is not just evil but hypocritical, biased and racist.

This is an appalling story, that NZ Police arrested someone for peacefully holding up a sign, on the basis that it might upset the protesters. This is a sign that our right to freedom of expression remains under threat by the establishment. It is also difficult not to conclude that if roles of counter-protester and protest cause had been reversed, the Police would have never ever acted the way they did.

The encounter was mainly captured on video and is embedded below.

Andrew Bayly has win the Port Waikato by-election, receiving over 14,000 of the 18,000 or so total votes.

This will result in Bayly giving up his spot as a List MP, as he is now an electorate MP. This will make Nancy Lu the 123rd Member of Parliament.

Luke Malpass writes:

When New Zealanders tossed Labour out, they tossed them out hard. Labour went from over 50% of the vote to just over 26%.

From being the sole party of government, it had its vote halved. The centre-left, as defined by the combined votes for Labour and the Greens, was a bit over 37%.

Now we have taken a look behind the deal between National and ACT and NZ First, one thing is for sure. Those who voted for change are going to get it good and hard.

In a broader cultural sense, Christopher Luxon will lead the most right-wing government in a long time. Not necessarily on the economic-reform side as traditionally understood, but as a shared general world-view.

That is because it is reflective of three men who believe that the fundamental thrust of New Zealand government has moved from what the state is good at or should appropriately do, to a whole bunch of things that sit on the periphery of most people’s concerns.

I think this analysis nails it. The vast majority of New Zealanders have said they thought New Zealand was heading in the wrong direction, and voted for change. And the coalition agreements deliver that change.

In education, there will be a focus on the basics. In law and order there will be tougher sentences, more funding for Corrections and a harder line taken on crooks. In the public service, spending will be clamped down on. The emphasis on Māori names and language will take a back seat to core competencies.

Imagine that – a focus on core competencies!

But back to Labour. Its evisceration on election night will now be a cause of deep reflection as it grapples with how to effectively oppose a Government that will tear down many things it held dear and which could well resonate with the public.

Just how honestly Labour grapples with this and how early it does so will give a clue about just how long it will be in opposition

I think Labour are in denial over how badly out of touch they were with working class New Zealanders.

Mark Lister writes:

During 2013 and 2014, John Key’s National-led Government sold just under half of Mighty River Power (now known as Mercury NZ), Meridian Energy and Genesis Energy and listed them on the NZX.

A few years after that, I recall asking the chief executive from one of those companies about the biggest change he’d noticed since the sharemarket float.

Without hesitation, he said “scrutiny” because of the added pressure to manage the business sensibly, spend every dollar wisely and have a clear strategy.

There’s nowhere to hide when you have an army of experienced analysts and savvy investors watching and judging your every move.

Those three companies are much better businesses today than they were 10 years ago and that’s reflected in the earnings and share price growth we’ve seen since. 

Contrary to popular belief, this success hasn’t come at the expense of consumers.

According to MBIE, electricity costs per unit have increased at less than half the rate they did when these companies were in government ownership.

It has been a win-win-win. Consumers are facing smaller increases than in the past. The Government got to use the capital on more important areas and has higher dividends with 51% than they used to get with 100%, investors got to buy shares, and the companies improved with the discipline and scrutiny of being on the stock exchange.

Other assets in local or central government hands wouldn’t look out of place listed on our sharemarket, including the likes of Kiwibank.

We’ve recently seen a string of uncomfortably impressive profit announcements from the big New Zealand banks, all of which are headquartered in Melbourne or Sydney.

If Kiwibank was listed, it would have a better chance of becoming a genuine competitor to these Aussie giants, with the bulk of its earnings remaining here.

The mixed ownership model has been a huge success in New Zealand, providing the best of both worlds to the taxpayer.

It’s fostered stronger businesses and broadened the range of options available to local investors, helping keep more of our investment capital within our shores.

A partial float of Kiwibank is a great idea. Landcorp also.

There are 28 Ministers in the Ministry – 19 National, 5 ACT and 4 NZ First.

17 are electorate MPs and 11 are List MPs.

17 (61%) are men and 11 (39%) women.

8 of the 28 are Māori, or 29%. This is more than twice as much as the share of the adult population.

25% are in their 20s or 30s, 39% in their 40s, 25% in their 50s and 11% aged 60+.

46% are from Auckland, 25% from rural areas, 14% from provincial cities. 11% from Wellington and 4% from Christchurch. 89% are from the North Island.

1 News reports:

Winston Peters and David Seymour will share the Deputy Prime Minister role. Peters will have the first half of the three-year Parliamentary term, Seymour the second.

Peters will be Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Seymour takes a new role of Minister for Regulation.

A 20-strong Cabinet will have 14 National ministers, three ACT ministers and three New Zealand First ministers. 

Nicola Willis will be Minister of Finance, Brooke van Velden will be Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, and Shane Jones will be Minister for Regional Development.

As part of National’s agreement with New Zealand First, the proposed foreign buyer tax will no longer go ahead.

ACT’s policy of speeding up the rate of interest deductibility for rental properties is restored is adopted.

The parties have agreed with ACT to re-write the Arms Act, and agreed with New Zealand First to train no fewer than 500 new police officers.

Sharing the Deputy PM role is a good solution – much better than having co-deputy PMs as the Greens would do!

Full Ministerial list is below:

Ministerial List 

for announcement on 24 November 2023

Notes:

1. Warranted portfolios are listed in the left-hand column.  Other responsibilities assigned by the Prime Minister are listed in the right-hand column.
2. Appointees will be entitled to use the honorific ‘Rt Hon’ or ‘Hon’ only after they have been sworn in as Executive Councillors, or if they have previously been granted the right to use the honorific for life.
3. Ministers will be Cabinet Ministers unless otherwise indicated.

Have read through the two agreements and there is some great stuff there – better than my expectations. Some of the stuff I’m especially pleased about:

• Legislate to improve the quality of regulation, ensuring that regulatory decisions are based on principles of good law-making and economic efficiency, by passing the Regulatory Standards Act as soon as practicable.
• Deliver savings in public sector spending by reducing non-essential back office functions, with expenditure reduction targets to be set for each agency, informed by the increase in back office head count at that agency since 2017.
• Amend the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 2021 to remove the dual mandate
• Repeal the Fair Pay Agreement regime by Christmas 2023.
• Expand 90-day trials to apply to all businesses.
• Repeal the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023 and the Spatial Planning Act 2023 by Christmas.
• Replace the Resource Management Act 1991 with new resource management laws premised on the enjoyment of property rights as a guiding principle.
• Remove the Kāinga Ora Sustaining Tenancies Framework and ensure appropriate consequences for tenants who engage in repeated antisocial behaviour.
• Work to replace fuel excise taxes with electronic road user charging for all vehicles, starting with electric vehicles.
• Allow landlords to issue a 90 day notice to a tenant to end a periodic tenancy without providing a reason or applying to the Tenancy Tribunal.
• Liberalise genetic engineering laws.
• Repeal the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration.
• Restore Three Strikes legislation, with amendments to tighten the definition of strike offences andensure some benefit for pleading guilty.
• Reintroduce partnership schools and introduce a policy to allow state schools to become partnership schools.
• Replace the Fees Free programme with a final year fees free policy with no change before 2025.
• Amend the Education and Training Act 2020 such that tertiary education providers receiving taxpayerfunding must commit to a free speech policy.
• Disestablish the Māori Health Authority.
• Require Medsafe to approve new pharmaceuticals within 30 days of them being approved by at least two overseas regulatory agencies recognised by New Zealand.
• Repeal the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Act2022 to remove the requirements for denicotinisation and the reduction in retail outlets.
• Implement sanctions, including electronic money management, for beneficiaries who can work but refuse to take agreed steps to find a job.
• Remove Section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989.
• Remove co-governance from the delivery of public services.
• Ensure government contracts are awarded based on value, without racial discrimination.
• Repeal the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Act 2022.
• Restore the right to local referendum on the establishment or ongoing use of Māori wards, including requiring a referendum on any wards established without referendum at the next local body elections.
• Introduce a Treaty Principles Bill based on existing ACT policy and support it to a Select Committeeas soon as practicable.
• Let Kiwis keep more of what they earn with tax relief of up to $100 per fortnight for an average income household and a FamilyBoost childcare tax credit of up to $150 per fortnight.
• Build infrastructure with 13 new Roads of National Significant and four major public transport upgrades.
• Reduce Core Crown expenditure as a proportion of the overall economy.
• The Parties commit to establish a fast-track one-stop-shop consenting and permitting process for regional and national projects of significance. 
• Cancel Auckland Light Rail and Let’s Get Wellington Moving and reduce expenditure on cycleways.
• Commit to training no fewer than 500 new frontline police within the first two years.
• Reform the Fleeing Driver laws to curb the increase in fleeing driver incidents.
• Where appropriate, require prisoners to work, including in the construction of new accommodation in prisons or pest control.
• Introduce the Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers legislation which will create aspecific offence for assaults on first responders which includes minimum mandatory prison sentences.
• Introduce the Coward Punch legislation which will create a specific offence for anyone who injures orkills someone with a coward punch.
• Investigate the introduction and implementation of Degrees of Murder Sentencing legislation.
• Support to select committee a bill that would enact a binding referendum on a four-year term of parliament.
• Ensure publicly funded sporting bodies support fair competition that is not compromised by rules relating to gender.
• Ensure all public service departments have their primary name in English, except for those specificallyrelated to Māori.
• Require the public service departments and Crown Entities to communicate primarily in English -except those entities specifically related to Māori.
• Protect freedom of speech by ruling out the introduction of hate speech legislation and stop the LawCommission’s work on hate speech legislation.
• The Coalition Government will defend the principle that New Zealanders are equal before the law, with the same rights and obligations, and with the guarantee of the privileges and responsibilities of equal citizenship in New Zealand.
• The Coalition Government will work to improve outcomes for all New Zealanders, and will not advance policies that seek to ascribe different rights and responsibilities to New Zealanders on the basis of their race or ancestry.
• Restore the right to local referendum on the establishment or ongoing use of Māori wards, including requiring a referendum on any wards established without referendum at the next Local Body elections.

So heaps I’m really happy about. This is a very good policy agreement. There are some things I wish had survived such as raising the Super age but you can’t get anything.

Stuff reports:

The woman who killed her elderly father by setting his house alight has died suddenly, the day after she was found guilty of murder.

Lynne Martin, 63, was found dead in the cells at the Gisborne Police Station on Thursday morning, Stuff understands. 

She was being held there before being transferred to prison, after a jury on Wednesday afternoon found her guilty of murdering her father, Ronald Allison.

Allison, 88, died when his house near Te Karaka, about 30 km from Gisborne, burned to the ground in the early hours of January 25, 2013.

I don’t think one should celebrate anyone committing suicide, but it is fair to say that Martin seemed a pretty despicable person.

Killing your 88 year old father is bad enough, but to do it by burning their house down so they die one of the more horrible ways possible is pretty sociopathic.

Excellent. If, as expected, it is a full coalition, this will be the first three party coalition government under MMP. While much of the focus tomorrow will be on who gets what portfolio, I’m going to be most interested in the policy details.

There is such a huge job to do turning around the disaster that Labour has left in health and education, that I almost pity the new Ministers.

A guest post by David Lupton:

So Wayne Brown wants to introduce congestion charging.  Good on him.  There will be the usual complaints on this blog by those who would think it absurd to have a system where you queue for hours for subsidized bread but think it normal to queue for hours for subsidized roads. Congestion pricing for Auckland has been discussed for years but no-one has had the balls to introduce it.  At one time the excuse was that we didn’t have the technology.  That is no longer the case.  

But will it work?  Ah that’s a question.  The answer depends on what you define as working.  It will definitely reduce congestion, the scheme proposed will not eliminate it.  And it does depend on how you define congestion.  For a road that is operating at capacity – ie maximum sustainable flow – the traffic speed will be about 75% of the free flow “three o’clock in the morning” speed.  It seems to me that is the sensible situation to be aiming for.  Engineers refer to the situation where speeds are more than 75% of free flow as “normal” flow and only when the speed drops below that as “congested flow”.  This is how Singapore defines it, and how the value lanes in the US operate.  The congestion charge is varied to keep the traffic flowing at about 75% of the free flow speed.  

Is that what Wayne Brown is proposing? Apparently not.  From what I have read so far, it sounds like a fixed fee is proposed that is invariant with time and place.  This is the same as London and a few others.  Yes it will reduce congestion, and yes it is better than nothing at all, but because it will be too high at some times and places and too low at others (it may be right twice a day like a stopped clock) it will not fully decongest the roads and it will cause some unnecessary hardship.  

To understand what a better congestion charging system would look like, we have to realize that the way congestion affects us is not always intuitively obvious.  First of all a congested road carries less traffic than if it is uncongested. Ok you knew that, but the corollary is that an effective congestion pricing scheme means more people can travel at their preferred time rather than less.  You don’t get priced off, you get priced on.  But note that I did say an effective scheme.  To achieve this you need a toll that is high in the peak and low in the off-peak like airline charges.  A fixed toll doesn’t work because it provides no incentive for people to go earlier or later to benefit from the reduced rate. 

But we already pay for our roads I hear you cry, and yes we do  – or at least we did until the last government started syphoning the money off into pet schemes.  New Zealand had one of the best user-pays schemes in the world and it worked well, at least as far as the national highway system was concerned. Heavy trucks, cars and buses all pay an objectively assessed allocation of the total land transport budget based on the costs they impose on the system.  But it only works on average. The motorist driving in suburban Auckland pays about the same fuel taxes per kilometre as the peak hour motorway commuter and yet the cost of providing for the latter is much higher than for the former. 

What would an effective charge look like? I have already alluded to the scheme in Singapore and for value lanes in the US.  In the latest version of the Singapore scheme, the toll is varied dynamically to ensure a target speed is maintained.  If traffic starts to slow, the toll is increased, if it speeds up, the toll is reduced.  The US value lanes work the same way.  Value lanes are simple to manage with a single variable toll.  In Singapore we are taking a city-wide scheme and they have opted for a distance-based scheme.  The ideal for a city-wide scheme is actually time based.  You can show mathematically that the optimum toll is proportional to the difference between the actual time and the free flow time.  The rate per minute is set Singapore style to ensure that the traffic flows at a target speed, but unlike the distance charge, a charge per excess minute adjusts automatically to deliver the ideal toll at all times.  Even though the toll is variable, it is predictable.  We already have signs that tell us the expected time for our trip and Google can predict the best time to travel tomorrow. 

But don’t we need better public transport first? Not really.  Given adequate notice, the private companies that provide our bus services will buy more vehicles. Bus services will benefit from uncongested roads, reducing trip times and the fleet requirement.  Our huge subsidies to public transport were justified (pre climate change) in the belief that getting people out of their cars will reduce the need for more urban roads. Sorry folks but if you have congestion pricing for roads you don’t need subsidized public transport any more – the market will be more than happy to provide it unsubsidized. 

What about the poor?  You will hear that cry a lot if the plan goes ahead.  Not from the poor but mainly from the usual suspects.  As I noted earlier, we already pay for roads on average.  A fully dynamic pricing scheme that is designed to be revenue neutral shifts the burden from those who travel outside peak hours or in the suburbs to those who need to get to the office at 8:30am – generally not the poor.  Because with dynamic charging you can adjust the timing of your trip to minimize the cost, this form of pricing should be welcomed by those who like to speak for the poor.  Because it replaces rationing by queueing by rationing by price, it should also appeal to the economists amongst us.  A revenue neutral scheme would return the revenue by abolishing the Auckland petrol tax and reducing the fuel levy generally.  Similarly, a large proportion of the costs of local roads is met by property taxes.  Congestion pricing could shift some of the costs from the ratepayer to the commuter. 

What about the technology? Well you already have the required technology in your pocket.  What would be needed would be an app on your phone that would function very much like the Uber app  – this could be combined with number plate recognition and pre-and post payment schemes to address privacy and other concerns.  A potential model would be a cordon pricing scheme with a fixed charge with the option of signing up for the phone-based scheme that would be designed to deliver a lower charge.  If that were the plan, Wayne Brown’s scheme might be the first step.  Lets hope so.  

The Government caucus will have 68 MPs in it (after Port Waikato). National 49, ACT 11 and NZ First 8.

If Cabinet is proportional to that there will be 15 National MPs, 3 ACT MPs and 2 NZ First MPs in a Cabinet of 20. If the total Ministry is 28 Ministers, then 20 would be National, five ACT and three NZ First. Of course we don’t know if it will be proportional.

Who would be in Cabinet and the Ministry if you go off current caucus or list rankings and exclude new MPs (except for NZ First)? It would be.

1. Christoper Luxon
2. David Seymour
3. Winston Peters
4. Nicola Willis
5. Chris Bishop
6. Shane Reti
7. Paul Goldsmith
8. Louise Upston
9. Brooke van Velden
10. Erica Stanford
11. Matt Doocey
12. Simeon Brown
13. Shane Jones
14. Judith Collins
15. Mark Mitchell
16. Nicole McKee
17. Todd McClay
18. Melissa Lee
19. Gerry Brownlee
20. Andrew Bayly
    
    Outside Cabinet
    
21. Penny Simmonds
22. Karen Chhour
23. Casey Costello
24. Simon Watts
25. Chris Penk
26. Nicola Grigg
27. Tama Potaka
28. Mark Cameron

This is not prediction. In fact I am sure this won’t be the Ministry. This just shows who would make it based on current caucus rankings.

Below is the list of books I read to my children as they were growing up.

The human brain is strongly geared towards narrative and our intelligence and character is developed through hearing, reading, watching and experiencing story. Reading at the child’s cognitive level – as opposed to the reading skill level they have also enhances the development of imagination and creativity.

Yesterday I had lunch with a very good dad of three children between 4 and 10. I mentioned that there is significant evidence that children are missing out on film/movies. My hypothesis was due to them being on Youtube (etc) and especially the phenomenon of “shorts”. I saw a school facebook post the other day saying that a class had gone to a movie and, although 90 minutes was a long time to focus, they did enjoy the experience.

The dad did also point out that sourcing movies can be difficult as it is not the same as wandering down to the video store and wasting half an hour choosing. It also gets expensive having a whole range of subscriptions.

So first task I want to do for this gentleman – and also circulate – is the movies kids should see and that families can watch together. I will then work out where they are and how to see them.

Please put your ones in the comments …

#1 The Princess Bride.

…

ps The books I read to my children.

The Lord of the Rings                                                J. R. R. Tolkien

The Hobbit                                                                 J. R. R. Tolkien

The Father Christmas Letters                                     J. R. R. Tolkien

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight                              J. R. R. Tolkien

The Adventures of Tom Bombadil                            J. R. R. Tolkien

Farmer Giles of Ham                                                  J. R. R. Tolkien

Smith of Wootton Major                                            J. R. R. Tolkien

Leaf by Niggle                                                            J. R. R. Tolkien

The Magician’s Nephew                                             C. S. Lewis

The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe                       C. S. Lewis

The Horse and His Boy                                              C. S. Lewis

Prince Caspian                                                            C. S. Lewis

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader                              C. S. Lewis

The Silver Chair                                                         C. S. Lewis

The Last Battle                                                           C. S. Lewis

Pilgrims Regress                                                         C. S. Lewis

The Back of the North Wind                                      George MacDonald

The Princess and the Goblin                                       George MacDonald

The Princess and Curdie                                             George MacDonald

The Golden Key                                                         George MacDonald

The Complete Fairy Tales                                          George MacDonald

Phantastes                                                                 George MacDonald

The Last of the Mohicans                                          James Fenimore Cooper

The Adventures of Tom Sawyer                                Mark Twain

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn                         Mark Twain

Tom Brown’s Schooldays                                          Thomas Hughes

The Enchanted Castle                                                E. Nesbit

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy                         Douglas Adams

The Tanglewood’s Secret                                           Patricia St John

Treasures of the Snow                                                Patricia St John

The Victor                                                                  Patricia St John

Rainbow Garden                                                         Patricia St John

The Mystery of Pheasant Cottage                              Patricia St John

Star of Light                                                               Patricia St John

The Secret of the Fourth Candle                                Patricia St John

In the Grip of Winter                                                  Colin Dann

The Big Fisherman                                                     Lloyd C. Douglas

The Robe                                                                    Lloyd C. Douglas

The Jungle Book (1 & 2)                                            Rudyard Kipling

Just So Stories                                                            Rudyard Kipling

Robinson Crusoe                                                       Daniel Defoe

Swiss Family Robinson                                              Jonnie Wyss

Treasure Island                                                          Robert Louis Stevenson

To Kill a Mocking Bird                                              Harper Lee

Fantastic Mr Fox                                                        Roald Dahl

The Minpins                                                               Roald Dahl

James and the Giant Peach                                         Roald Dahl

The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar                         Roald Dahl

Revolting Rhymes                                                      Roald Dahl

The Giraffe the Pelly and Me                                     Roald Dahl

Dirty Beasts                                                                Roald Dahl

Chalie and the Chocolate Factory                              Roald Dahl

Esio Trot                                                                     Roald Dahl

My Year                                                                      Roald Dahl

The BFG                                                                     Roald Dahl

Boy                                                                             Roald Dahl

George’s Marvelous Medecine                                  Roald Dahl

Danny The Champion of the World                           Roald Dahl

Going Solo                                                                 Roald Dahl

Matilda                                                                       Roald Dahl

The Secret Garden                                                     Frances Hodgson Burnett

Hans Andersons Fairy Tales                                      Hans Christian Anderson

I Am David                                                                 Anne Holm

The Silver Sword                                                        Ian Serraillier

Peter Pan                                                                     J. M. Barrie

Artemis Fowl                                                              Eion Colfer

Winnie the Pooh                                                         A. A. Milne

And Then We Were Six                                             A. A. Milne

Wind in the Willows                                                  Kenneth Grahame

The Little White Horse                                               Elizabeth Gouge

Aesop’s Fables                                                           Aesop

White Fang                                                                 Jack London

Dragon Boy                                                                Dick King-Smith

Babe                                                                            Dick King-Smith

Charlotte’s Web                                                          E. B. White

Stuart Little                                                                E. B. White

The Knight and the Squire                                         Terry Jones

Watership Down                                                         Richard Adams

The Odyssey                                                               Homer

Anamalia                                                                    Graeme Base

The Eleventh Hour                                                     Graeme Base

The Discovery of Dragons                                         Graeme Base

The 27^th Annual African Hippopotamus Race           Morris Lurie

The Snow Goose                                                        Paul Gallico

Gullivers Travels                                                        Jonathan Swift

Oliver Twist                                                                Charles Dickens

365 Bible Stories                                                        God

Alice in Wonderland                                                  Lewis Carroll

Through the Looking Glass                                        Lewis Carroll

Alan Quartermain                                                       Rider Haggard

Exodus                                                                        Leon Uris

The Storm                                                                   Frederick Buechner

On the Road with the Archangel                                Frederick Buechner

Son of Laughter                                                          Frederick Buechner

Wuthering Heights                                                     Emily Bronte

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

The NZ media convinced the outgoing Government that they somehow have a divine right to advertising revenue and Facebook and Google should be taxed to fund NZ media. This is what has occurred in Canada, and the result was the tech giants said the benefit from stories being promoted on social media benefits the media far far more than the tech companies. So they turned off the ability to share Canadian news on social media.

The result was a huge revenue drop for the media, and now the Government is bailing them out. This is what Labour wanted to implement in NZ!

Stuff reports:

A former communications manager who sexually abused her ex-boyfriend’s stepdaughter and continues to deny the offending has been discharged without conviction.

This was despite the victim speaking in opposition saying she would feel disheartened and disappointment about the criminal justice process.

Jemma Taylor, 38, was charged with three charges of sexual conduct with a child under 12, but a jury found her guilty of one charge and couldn’t reach verdicts on the other two charges.

The survivor was 11 when Taylor sexually abused her one night in 2012 and continues to live with the ongoing effects of what happened to her.

I thought sexual abuse of an 11 year old is a pretty serious thing. It seems it isn’t and you can get discharged without conviction for it despite being found guilty and denying it.

I do wonder if a man in his late 20s who abused an 11 year old would also get a discharge without conviction?

The BSA found:

However, the majority found one comment by rainbow community activist Shaneel Lal was materially inaccurate, and justified a finding of a breach.

Lal said Parker had told her followers that “due to the transgender agenda, cisgender women are being kidnapped, blended and put into meat for human consumption”.

The BSA found viewers “would have perceived Lal’s statement as an assertion of fact, and it had the potential to mislead viewers as to Parker’s perspective”, given Parker had not stated the “transgender agenda” was responsible for the relevant crime.

“The misleading characterisation of Parker’s statement…strayed into the realm of personal attack. It detracted from, rather than contributing to, viewers’ understanding of the issues being discussed – an unfortunate outcome in a broadcast considering such important, topical and contentious issues,” the BSA said.

This is not surprising.

The irony is that the discussion was about limits around freedom of speech, and Lal was saying speech should be more restricted, and Lal then lied about what Parker has said.

They found:

Freedom of expression allows for the criticism of Parker’s publicly expressed views. It is not a tool intended to facilitate the general vilification of an individual. In our view, Lal’s misleading characterisation of Parker’s statement again strayed into the realm of personal attack. It detracted from, rather than contributing to, viewers’ understanding of the issues being discussed – an unfortunate outcome in a broadcast considering such important, topical and contentious issues. For these reasons we consider the harm potentially caused by the statement does justify a restriction on the right to freedom of expression.

Lal argued expression should be less free, and Lal got his wish!

Newshub reports:

The Labour MP said one way to reduce the time needed is to make sure the Electoral Roll is as up to date as it can be, cutting down on the need for people to enrol or update their details on or close to the day.    

“I reckon that New Zealand should update the Electoral Roll based on the IRD database rather than having a separate Electoral Roll that sort of doesn’t talk to other databases,” he told Newshub.   

“A lot of other countries in Scandinavia and Canada base their Electoral Roll on their IRD database or some other national database and it would save a hell of a lot of money, get a more accurate roll, entitle people to vote and have a quicker conclusion after the election.”    

Parker, the former Revenue Minister who oversaw the Inland Revenue Department (IRD), said the main benefit of using the IRD database is that virtually every voter has an IRD number.   

“All students do, obviously everyone in work, whether they’re self employed or waged or salaried, every beneficiary, everyone has an IRD number,” he said.   

“The Inland Revenue Department system is very, very sophisticated, [and] was recently upgraded. That upgrade was completed in the last few years and the capacity to use the data that they now hold for export into other databases like the Electoral Roll I’m sure could be achieved.”   

This has some merit.

The Electoral Roll database does actually get information matched to other databases. They actually match against:

• Drivers licences
• Vehicle registration
• Benefits.
• Passports.
• Student loans.
• Citizenship

But a full match against the IRD database would be useful to also do.

RNZ report:

New National MP Cameron Brewer has apologised for a “poor attempt at humour” after celebrating the return of “stale, pale males” in his election night victory speech, having ousted Labour’s Vanushi Walters from Upper Harbour.

In a recording of the speech leaked to RNZ, Brewer can be heard declaring himself a “glass ceiling breaker” to laughs from the crowd.

“I’ll be the first male MP for Upper Harbour,” he says to cheers. “Stale, pale males are back!” …

Contacted by RNZ, Brewer said the remarks were intended to be funny and self-deprecating but accepted they were unwise.

“If anyone is offended by this comment, of course, I apologise… I don’t want to be the subject of distraction,” Brewer said.

“In my defence, it was a private function, but nonetheless, it was a silly thing to say. It was clearly a poor attempt at humour, and it’s something I wouldn’t say again.”

Brewer told RNZ he was disappointed the speech had been leaked and regretted that his “minor offence” could have poorly reflected on him or the National Party.

“It was an exciting election night victory. We were all a little bit excited. And hence, my speech possibly went off the core message of gratitude.

“It’s a lesson for a first-term MP that even if you’re in a private function, cracking jokes, you’ve just got to be ultra careful as to what you say.”

This is just ridiculous and should not be a story. It was obvious self-deprecating humour. I hate the fact the offence police seem determined to take all humour and joy out of life.

Stuff reports:

The man shot by police on Thursday in Wainuiomata on Thursday, Tane Wipa, is believed to have been deported to New Zealand in 2012 due to a history of violent offending, Stuff understands.

He was in fact a second striker – the ones whom Labour and Greens changed the law for, so that for their third strike they wouldn’t serve the maximum sentence with parole.

His 2018 Appeal Court decision states he has at least 15 offences since he was deported here in 2012. Three of them for violence. As usual, he did his second strike while on parole.

Recidivists like Wipa should not be given parole. It should be a rare privilege, not a right.

I look forward to the law being reinstated.