The Bank of England has announced that they plan to replace famous historical figures from their banknotes, and replace them with cute animals. No I’m not joking. They cite a poll and the fact animals are harder to counterfeit.

Their current notes are:

• £5 – Winston Churchill
• £10 – Jane Austen
• £20 – J. M. W. Turner
• £50 – Alan Turing

All great choices – their most famous PM, author, painter and mathematician.

In NZ the people are:

• $5 — Sir Edmund Hillary
• $10 — Kate Sheppard
• $20 — Queen Elizabeth II
• $50 — Sir Āpirana Ngata
• $100 — Ernest Rutherford

Also all great choices, and a great way to get kids interested in history.

Hillary being placed on a bank note was very unusual, because he was alive at the time. As I understand it the rule was to never having a living non-royal on a bank note in case they do something bad later in life. Imagine the embarrassment if one of your bank notes had a felon on it. But Hillary was held in such high esteem, that a (worthwhile) exception was made for him.

CBS News has run a story that should be unexceptional, but is in fact very rare. It was a story about widespread fraud of taxpayer subsidies. Such stories previously have only been done by bloggers and citizen journalists, with most mainstream media rushing to put them into “context”. Here you have CBS lead the way. Here is what they found in California.

• Fraudulent enrolment of health people in hospices
• A 1500% in hospice companies in LA since 2010
• LA County has six times more hospices per capital than the national average
• 700 of the 1800 LA hospices have red flags indicating possible fraud
• 500 hospices are all located within 3 miles of each other – the most dense concentration in the US
• One street alone has 137 hospices on it!
• 89 hospices are registered to a single building!

May we see more of this type of journalism.

Stacie-Marie Laughton’s record is:

• Sentenced in 2008 to 7 1/2 – 15 years in prison for conspiracy to commit credit card fraud and 3 1/2 – 7 years for falsifying evidence
• Served four months before being released under the condition of 10 years of “good behavior.”
• Elected to New Hampshire House of Representatives in 2012 (not disclosing conviction), but resigned as probably ineligible
• Arrested in March 2015 for a phoned in bomb threat against a hospital – six month suspended sentence
• Elected to New Hampshire House of Representatives in 2020 and 2022
• Aug 22 – convicted of repeatedly texting 911 during non-emergencies
• Nov 22 – charged with stalking and violating a court order
• Dec 22 – resigned from NH House
• Jun 23 – charged with distributing child sex images and aiding and abetting in the sexual exploitation of children
• Nov 25 – pleaded guilty – faces up to 30 years in prison

A recividist offender, who still managed to get elected and re-elected. Amazing.

As a preface: I do not have a strong opinion on the death penalty one way or the other, although I lean against it. The purpose of this article is twofold: (1) to establish that regardless of where one stands on the issue, Western hysteria surrounding Israel’s policy change re: the death penalty is excessive and intellectually dishonest, and (2) to highlight some issues with Israel’s policy on the issue.

It is important to realise that the 250 hostages that Hamas captured on 7 October 2023 were traded for thousands of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons including people who had committed terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. The hostage-to-terrorist ratio was extraordinarily high: on 15 October 2025 for example Hamas traded 24 Israeli hostages for over 2000 Palestinian prisoners, including 250 prisoners serving life sentences for acts of terrorism: https://www.nbcnews.com/…/joyous-scenes-israelis…

For example, Muhammad Aref Samhan was released after murdering 23 civilians in a terror attack on a bus in Jerusalem in 2003. I suspect many of the people currently in fits of hysteria over Israeli policy would feel differently in the shoes of Micah Avi, who is the son of one of Samhan’s victims and who spoke to the media about his experiences having to watch his father walk free.

Another example is that Yahya Sinwar (who was serving four life sentences at the time for terrorism offences) was notoriously released in 2011 as part of a hostage deal whereby 1027 Palestinian prisoners including people who were serving sentences for terrorism offences were swapped for a single Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit. Yahya Sinwar then became the leader of Hamas in Gaza and orchestrated the mass rape, torture and murder of Israeli civilians on October 7 2023. That is the problem with releasing mass murderers.

Thus, Israel’s policy to date of imprisoning people convicted of terrorist offences has meant that Hamas has incentive to kidnap more Israelis to swap them for prisoners in Israeli prisons. Regardless of where you stand on the death penalty, I think it is important to understand that context to the recent law change. It’s easy to take the moral high ground when you’re living in Aotearoa and not surrounded by maniacs like Hamas who hate you and want to kill you.

However, the flip side of this coin is that I am concerned that if Palestinians convicted of terrorism offences are swiftly executed, that denies the individuals concerned the opportunity to appeal. Due process including the right to appeal is a human right. If Palestinians are kept on death row while appealing convictions for terrorism, then the impetus for Hamas to kidnap Israelis appears to remain in place. It could I suppose be argued that even if someone spends a few years on death row that is shorter than spending many decades serving out a life sentence, and therefore the motivation for Hamas to abduct people is reduced somewhat.

Nevertheless, I find it grossly hypocritical of Israel’s critics in the West to go into fits of hysteria over Israel’s policy in this regard (I have seriously heard Netanyahu compared with Hitler) without criticising Hamas (or any number of Middle Eastern paradises) for having the death penalty. It is intellectually dishonest and contemptible to the nth degree to criticise Israel for executing terrorists who blow up school buses when the same people have never in their lives before criticised (say) Saudi Arabia or Iran for executing LGBTQI+ people for gay sex.

Shane Jones announced:

A project to extend Hamilton Airport runway will receive a $6.5 million loan from the Regional Infrastructure Fund, boosting resilience for Waikato and the national aviation network, Regional Development Minister Shane Jones says.

“Extending the runway will increase Hamilton Airport’s capacity to support a broader range of aircraft. Its location and proximity to major highways and link roads also make it a key hub for moving people and freight domestically and internationally,” Mr Jones says.

Apart from the fact that it is highly likely they will get no increased usage from a longer runway (which is already longer than Wellington, Palmerston North, Queenstown and Dunedin), why do taxpayers need to loan the money?

Why doesn’t the airport just get a commercial loan? Or get more equity from their shareholding Councils? The airport company has assets of $328 million and equity of $267 million. Last year they made a profit of $30 million yet muggins taxpayers is giving them a loan.

A speculative post by PaulL, occasional poster and commenter.

Sources of electricity in NZ are back in the news, and the Lake Onslow pumped hydro is being considered as a privately funded scheme. I have no particular problem with people spending their own money on this hoping to make a return, but I do agree with those on here who suggested that ultimately they’ll be looking for Govt to underwrite them somehow – committed contracts or some sort of bailout.

This post considers alternatives to cover NZ’s key electricity generation needs, and suggests an alternative approach.

Stuff reports:

Stronger productivity growth and structural economic changes are the only ways to deliver lasting gains in purchasing power for New Zealanders, according to the Reserve Bank.

While monetary policy can anchor prices through low and stable inflation, it cannot make the country more affordable on its own.

This is absolutely correct. You can’t legislate higher standards of living.

To achieve this, the central bank lead economist called for evolving structural policies that encourage competition, innovation, investment, and global engagement.

I can just imagine all the Labour/Greens/Te Pati Maori policies that will encourage innovation and investment!

The Herald reports:

Police allege the woman at the centre of the Jevon McSkimming controversy – known as Ms Z – sent dozens of “threatening” and “highly disparaging” emails to the wife of the detective investigating her. 

Some of the emails are said to have made “highly offensive” sexualised remarks about the complainant’s young children. …

She found details of her employer and job title and started sending emails to her work address, copying in senior police officers, the Lower Hutt mayor and a journalist.

The emails referred to the complainant’s young children, the police summary says.

Two things can both be true:

• Ms Z was manipulated by Jevon McSkimming and the Police horribly failed her by not properly investigating her complaints against her
• Ms Z acted appallingly in targeting the wife of a police officer with a barrage of sick e-mails

You can be a victim and a victimiser.

In response to that story, Ms Z told the Herald: “I accept not every step I took in raising my concerns was the right one.”

That’s putting it mildly.

Out of the Ministry

• Judith Collins (soon to be Law Commission President)
• Shane Reti (retiring at election)

Into Cabinet

• Chris Penk
• Penny Simmonds

Into Ministry

• Cameron Brewer
• Mike Butterick

Portfolio changes

• Associate Agriculture: Butterick
• Attorney-General: from Collins to Bishop
• Auckland: From Brown to Watts
• Defence: from Collins to Penk
• Commerce: from Simpson to Brewer
• Consumer Affairs: from Simpson to Brewer
• Digitising Government: from Collins to Goldsmith
• Energy: From Watts to Brown
• Environment: From Simmonds to Grigg
• GCSB/SIS: from Collins to Penk
• Associate Immigration: from Penk to Brewer
• Land Information: From Penk to Butterick
• Leader of House: From Bishop to Upston
• Deputy Leader of House: From Upston to Simpson
• Associate National Security: Mitchell
• Pacific: from Reti to Goldsmith
• Public Service: from Collins to Goldsmith
• Science: from Reti to Simmonds
• Small Business: From Penk to Brewer
• Space: from Collins to Penk
• Asociate Sport: From Bishop to no-one
• Statistics: from Reti to Simpson
• Universities: from Reti to Simmonds

Also Campaign Chair has gone from Bishop to Brown.

The Herald has done an article alleging that somehow the Papakura selection was unfair because Emma Chatterton, who won, entered the meeting with Erica Stanford.

I have no view on the outcome of the selection, except to say I’d love to see both Nancy Lu and Emma Chatterton in caucus. I don’t know who the other candidates were.

But the suggestion that who someone walks into a selection meeting with, would influence delegates is ridiculous. First of all, I doubt many people even notice who walks in with whom. But let me explain what the typical selection process is.

1. Candidates often meet each of the 60 delegates 1 on 1 in their homes to discuss their background, plans, and make a pitch for support
2. There are three Meet the Candidate meetings where they give a short speech, and answer detailed questions from delegates.
3. The final selection meeting where they do a 10 minute speech, and answer a question on behalf of the Leader and the President

How nominees perform at those meetings has 100 times more impact, then who walks in with who.

Sources, who have spoken to the Herald under the condition they remain anonymous, have claimed they felt Chatterton was advantaged ahead of the selection. Multiple sources have pointed to Chatterton walking into the final selection meeting alongside senior minister Erica Stanford, for whom Chatterton works as a senior advisor, as an action some considered could influence delegates.

Well it could influence delegates, just as the colour of your tie could influence delegates. But I have more regard for delegates not being morons, than the anonymous sources.

Lu told the Herald she believed the selection had been “fair” and claimed the first she’d heard of concerns was in media reporting yesterday.

So thee concerns are not coming from the candidate who lost.

Shirley Haslam, a member of National’s Papakura electorate executive committee, was one of 60 delegates who voted on who the party’s candidate would be. 

Speaking to the Herald, Haslam rejected any suggestion that senior figures tried to influence the vote.

“We never saw Judith, we never saw Erica,” she said.

“We certainly had people from the [National Party Auckland] regional office, they came and they ran the official meetings, they were all run by the book and it was very strict.

“It’s really disappointing that somebody thinks that.”

In my experience senior figures trying to influence the vote, will usually backfire. Local delegates take badly to pressure.

Radio NZ reports:

A prominent backer of the Lake Onslow pumped hydro scheme says he’s already fielding interest from international investors.

It is a project that has been around for years, picked up by the last Labour government, but then scrapped after the election amid strong criticism from National.

Now it is being backed by a private-sector firm, The Clutha Pumped Hydro Consortium, and the government has agreed to refer the scheme for possible fast-tracking.

I was adamantly opposed to it as a government project where taxpayers would be forking out $16 to $28 billion.

But if a group of private investors wish to raise capital for it, then that’s great. I have 100 times more confidence in the investment decisions of people investing their own money,. than I do on politicians investing my money.

A spokesperson for the Ministry for the Environment said the Minister for Infrastructure had issued a decision to refer the project to the Fast-track approvals process.

“It is eligible to lodge a substantive application to be considered by an expert panel.

It clearly qualifies.

Stuf reported:

Government proposes sweeping changes to alcohol laws

The changes are far from sweeping. They are good, and tidy up some stupid stuff, but it is not a major change.

• Limiting who can object to a licence application or renewal to those who live or work in the same council area, or within 1km of the proposed premises. Licence applicants would also be given a formal right of reply to objections.
• Preventing licence renewals from being declined solely because a local alcohol policy has changed.
• Allowing clubs to apply for on-licences if they wish to serve the wider public.
• Allowing certain restaurants with on-site retail areas to sell alcohol for customers to take home.
• Streamlining special licence requirements to make it easier to host events.
• Creating a permanent mechanism allowing licensed premises to open and serve alcohol outside licensed hours to televise major events such as the Rugby World Cup.
• Exempting hairdressers and barbers from needing an on-licenceto supply their customers a limited amount of alcohol such as a beer, glass of wine, or gin and tonic.
• Extending cellar door tasting provisions beyond wineries so other producers such as breweries and distilleries can charge for tastings without needing an on-licence.
• Allowing licensed premises to meet their legal obligations by stocking either low-alcohol or zero-alcohol drinks.
• Clarifying responsibilities for rapid alcohol delivery services to ensure alcohol is not delivered to underage or intoxicated persons.

As I said, all pretty minor but useful changes. It is good that someone living in Auckland can’t object anymore to an application in Wanaka.

Grant Duncan writes:

Its draft “Statement on Cultural Competence and Cultural Safety” begins with the obvious – “Aotearoa New Zealand has a culturally diverse population” – but leaps ahead to assert: “Some dimensions of identity result in power and privilege whereas others result in underprivilege, which can lead to discrimination or marginalisation”. No scientific grounds are given for that statement, and anyway it’s simply ungrammatical: it uses an abstract noun – identity – as if it were a thing with “dimensions” that can “result in power”. Unfortunately, such poor writing gets a pass in some university courses.

Assertions treated as fact by a medical body!

A good intention behind it is that people of different cultures, abilities, financial circumstances, etc. should be treated fairly and respectfully. We should all strive to make sure that happens. 

A good statement would simply say that.

Qualified and trained medical professionals are doing their best to care for our health and to do so ethically. But the draft statement is unethically bossy. It uses the word “must” five times, and the phrase “you should” also five times.

For example: “You must actively acknowledge and address your own power, privilege, biases, attitudes and assumptions that may affect the quality of care you provide.”

This is important. This is not best practice advice. This is a statement from the body that can deregister a doctor so that they never practice medicine again that they must follow this dictate.

She should identify and challenge offences that others weren’t aware they were committing.

If my GP fails to do so, could she fail her recertification?

Under such conditions, everyone is watching everyone else for the slightest deviation from non-discriminatory and equitable day-to-day behaviours. No one knows what that ideal set of practices actually is, however, because “there is no single fixed or right way to belong to a particular cultural group.”

You’re already screwed, as anyone anytime can accuse you of an offence you didn’t mean to give. And then you’ll have to undergo an ideological struggle session in order to be recertified. Yes, I’m afraid it does resemble Chairman Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Read Jung Chang’s Wild Swans.

It would be hilarious if it were not so serious.

The Post reports:

New Zealand is not planning to build any new single-sex state schools, even as research suggests some students – especially girls in some settings – can do better in them.

The difference in outcomes is stark.

• UE rates for boys in boys-only schools was 48% and 28% in co-ed schools
• In low decile (1-4) boys’ schools 32% gained UE, versus 15% in co-ed
• For Maori in low decile schools, 22.7% gained UE, versus 7.6% in co-ed
• UE rates for girls in girls-only schools was 55% and 39% in co-ed

I would say the research does more than suggest some students do better.

That has disappointed principals at single-sex state schools, who say parents should have more choice.

Single-sex schools are not for everyone, but I believe any parent should have the choice (and be zoned) for both a co-ed school and a single sex school so they can choose what they think is best for their child.

For more than six decades, the state has continued to operate boys’ and girls’ schools where they already existed, but has not added new ones to the network.

Isn’t this astonishing? Look at the difference in achievement, and the last new single sex school was in 1961!

The Ministry of Education told the Sunday Star-Times it was not planning to build any more single-sex schools.

The Ministry said that was not about hostility to single-sex schooling, but about how it planned for a modern and sustainable network. …

But a 2021 Ministry briefing said “constructing a single co-ed campus is more cost effective than building more schools”.

Of course one large school is cheaper than two smaller schools, but this comes with a huge future cost of denying parents and children choice. If your aim is to let each child reach their potential, then you are failing.

Erica Stanford has been the most amazing education minister. But she would be even more amazing if she announced she was overturning the Ministry ban on single sex schools, and that in areas of high population growth, new schools will be both co-educational and single sex.

The Post reports:

A sex worker rights group claims the Green Party has barred their chair from becoming a potential MP, saying she was told it would “distract” from the Green Party’s messaging goals.

Fired Up Stilettos (FUS) issued a statement claiming the Greens interrogated their chair, Bianca Beebe, regarding her past as a sex worker, raising concerns other parties would find archives of now-deleted nude photos and her history providing sexual services illegally on a work visa.

Being a sex worker has not been a barrier to being a successful MP. Georgina Beyer was a sex worker in her youth and she got elected Mayor of Carterton and then MP for Wairarapa multiple times.

The issue of potentially breaching a work visa is a legitimate concern.

Beebe responded saying “all of my advertising photos were great, so it would be pretty funny to have people attempt to shame me by sharing photos of me looking amazing. What’s next, they’re going to leak my school transcripts showing a high GPA?”

Heh, that is a great response.

You can read the full statement from FUS here.

The Broadcasting Standards Authority announced:

The Broadcasting Standards Authority has confirmed it has jurisdiction to consider a complaint about content transmitted by an online broadcaster.

In a decision published today, the Authority determined it can accept, and is required to consider under the Broadcasting Act, complaints about The Platform’s Live Talkback programme, because the programme meets the Act’s definition of ‘broadcasting’.

The BSA is acting in incredibly bad faith here. This should be the final nail in their coffin. Time to abolish the BSA and instead have the Media Council (which is industry, not government) handle complaints over all member media companies, regardless of medium.

How do we know this is in bad faith. Here:

Under this policy, it will not at this time seek to extend to online content providers the requirements around public notices or levies

This is how we know it is bad faith. The BSA is saying they will consider The Platform a broadcaster so it can hear complaints against them, but it will not consider them a broadcaster for other purposes.

This is Mickey Mouse. You can’t have a government body say we will treat you as a broadcaster for one purpose, but not for another. The Broadcasting Act either applies to you, or it does not.

The BSA are just desperate to remain relevant. ACT has a members’ bill to abolish them. I hope it gets drawn from the ballot.

The Herald editorial:

The credibility of Labour Party leader Chris Hipkins has taken yet another blow.

On Friday, the Herald exclusively revealed on its front page that Hipkins, the former Covid Response Minister, was made aware of the potential vaccine risks in March 2022, when tens of thousands of 12- to 17-year-olds had yet to get a second jab.

Hipkins had earlier claimed he never got the advice.

In fact Hipkins had received continuous advice on this issue from July 2021.

Almost all Kiwi parents would have wanted to hear that advice and to be able to make an informed and personal decision about whether their child had a second dose.

You can’t make an informed decision without the information.

During the height of Covid in 2022, Hipkins was forced to formally apologise to journalist Charlotte Bellis after he released personal information without her consent and making false statements about her.

Later that year, there were more calls for a Hipkins apology and retraction after he and the Government accused a woman of providing false information to gain travel permits to cross the Northland border – sending the region into lockdown.

In 2023, after Cyclone Gabrielle, Hipkins was again forced into an apology, this time to road workers after he publicly cast doubt over their claims they had been threatened with guns.

Wow, almost as if there is a pattern!

Te Pāti Māori announced:

“Following the decision by Mariameno Kapa-Kingi not to rejoin the Te Pāti Māori caucus, the party has selected a new candidate for Te Tai Tokerau”, said Te Pāti Māori President John Tamihere.

“We are absolutely determined to hold the existing six Māori seats, and hopefully also win Ikaroa-Rawhiti. Only by doing so, can we guarantee the end of this racist corrupt Government”, said Tamihere.

“Our new candidate has spent most of his life fighting against colonialism and corruption. He has a great love for the outdoors and the conservation estate. He will be a forceful voice against injustice. We look forward to David Tamihere winning the seat for us in November 2026″ concluded Tamihere.”

The Herald reports:

A former mayor who lost her licence after getting too many speeding tickets is being called on to resign from her role at Wellington Free Ambulance.

Dame Kerry Prendergast, Wellington Mayor from 2001-2010, now serves as the chair of the ambulance organisation.

She last week admitted to having her driver licence suspended for three months before Christmas after racking up 100 demerit points from five speeding infringements.

The admission has raised the eyebrows of paramedics, and prompted the head of the New Zealand Ambulance Association to call for disciplinary action or a resignation.

Kerry has donated over a decade of her very valuable time to Wellington Free Ambulance. The union head comes across as an ungrateful wally. He should be grateful Kerry has donated so much time to WFA.

Someone should ask the union wally if he has ever ever broken the speed limit, and if so will he resign?

The Post reports:

Wellingtonians have delivered a muted rejection to the Government’s $2.9 billion to $3.8b planned tunnels and highway extensions through the heart of the city, with the loudest shout of “no” coming from the east.

No they haven’t. The proper story would be “Most submissions were against”. That is not the same as Wellingtonians. The vast majority of Wellingtonians don’t bother submitting on transport project plans. Green MPs however organised lots of submissions.

Curia did a poll for Wellington Airport in November 2025. It is scientific and weighted to the adult population. It found 67% support a second Mt Vic tunnel with just 16% opposed. 74% support roading improvements around the Basin and Arras Tunnel.

NewstalkZB reports:

Ōhope man Gordon Dickson knew perfectly well what he was doing when he slipped a red suitcase through the automatic doors of the Whakatāne District Council building, sparking a bomb scare, a judge has ruled.

In a reserved decision reached following a defended hearing conducted over two days in November and December, Judge Paul Geoghegan said he was satisfied Dickson intended to waste police time and resources and found him guilty.

He will appear for sentence in the Whakatāne District Court on April 15.

A Gordon Dickson was the Labour Party candidate for Selwyn in 2014. I wonder if it is just a common name, or the same person?