A guest post by David Garrett:

I was pleased to see that both National and ACT have pledged to reinstate the highly effective three strikes (3S) law. What concerns me is that rather than recognizing the “manifestly unjust” proviso as needing clarification, for some odd reason ACT’s coalition agreement with the Nats provides that the definition of a strike offence needs clarifying. God only knows where they came up with that idea – one of the features of the New Zealand  version of the law which differentiates it  from the Californian version is that there is absolutely no ambiguity regarding what is and is not a strike.

To avoid the injustices which unquestionably  arose from the ambiguity of the law in California – where relatively minor offences could become “technical felonies” and thus strike offences –  I determined from the beginning that there must be no such ambiguity here, so what became s.86A of the 3S law listed all of the strike offences. They are all offences of serious violence attracting a maximum sentence of seven years or more. If it’s not on the list, it cannot be a strike. Not ever. So as I say I cannot see how whoever drafted ACT’s agreement can have thought the definition needs “clarifying”. Perhaps they mean they need to add certain offences – such as burglary – to the list. The Act was deliberately  so drafted that no other changes would be required other than the addition of a new offence.

ACT has pushed for making burglary a strike offence – something I absolutely agree with. But they have also suggested that a separate 3S law covering burglary is necessary – it isn’t, unless they propose something different from the exponential three stage regime the orginal law provided for. 

  Back in 2010, we said the purpose of the law was two-fold: to deter those who were capable of deterrence, and for those unwilling or unable to change their violent behavior, to keep them away from the rest of us for as long as possible. In the 12 years the law was in force, there were about 13,000 first strikers, 650 second strikers and 25 third strikers.  Those figures provide  an excellent example of what is called “specific deterrence”, i.e. deterrence of a certain group or class of people, in this case strike offenders. This is different from “general deterrence” which means – for example – that the prospect of prison is supposed to be a deterrent for the rest of us.

What is more important than raw numbers  is a comparison of strike offending for a period – let’s say ten years – prior to the law coming into effect vs. the ten years after. For reasons best known to themselves, Justice officials were always very reluctant to keep stats on strike offending – I personally believe they were afraid of their fixed ideological  position – that it would not work – being disproved. To be fair, the National governments after 2010 were also not keen on closely monitoring the effects of the law or keeping reliable and informative stats.

Opinions on the change in striker numbers pre and post 3S are various; some commentators have said there was close to a 40% reduction in second and third striker offending after June 2010 when the law came into force  as compared to the previous ten years. In a briefing paper to the Select Committee considering the Bill repealing 3S, Justice noted rather grudgingly that there was “a statistically significant reduction” in such offending. If anyone  has some better numbers than that most unsatisfactory statement, please let us know in the comments.

So much for deterrence. What we do  know is that over 650 offenders – the second and third strikers –  spent longer in jail that they would otherwise have absent 3S. That was the second limb of 3S in action: incarcerating for longer periods those who would not or could not modify their behavior than hitherto.  Of the 25 odd third strikers virtually none of them – including none  of  the murderers – faced the full force of the law as parliament intended to be the case. Instead in all cases, it was determined that it would be “manifestly unjust” for them to be imprisoned for the maximum period prescribed for the offence in question.  In short, the “manifestly unjust” proviso – insisted on by National – was re-written by the judges of the Court of Appeal.

The manifestly unjust proviso

The “manifestly unjust” proviso (the proviso) in the 3S law was lifted word for word from s.102 of the Sentencing Act, which deals with sentencing for murder. For clarity, the relevant section reads as follows: 

102 Presumption in favour of life imprisonment for murder

(1) An offender who is convicted of murder must be sentenced to imprisonment for life unless, given the circumstances of the offence and the offender, a sentence of imprisonment for life would be manifestly unjust.

Section 102 (1) allows a judge in appropriate cases  to depart from the presumption of life imprisonment for murder and instead impose a lesser sentence – in theory at least, the sentence need not even be imprisonment. 

In the 21 years the Sentencing Act has been in force I am only aware of a handful of cases in which the proviso has been used to avoid a life sentence for murder. While I stand to be corrected, I believe that all of those handful of cases have been where one elderly spouse kills his or her terminally ill mate at the latter’s request, or where there is a murder-suicide pact that is only partially successful in that only one spouse dies.

While some will disagree, in my view the application of the proviso in such rare and unusual cases is entirely justified in a just and compassionate society. But here’s the rub: when the 3S law was passed, everyone commenting on the proviso assumed that it would be applied exactly as it was in s.102 (1) – i.e. only in very rare and unusual cases.

One Law Society worthy, now a DCJ, wrote an impassioned piece for the Law Journal lamenting the fact that the proviso was an inadequate guarantee against injustice. He clearly thought – as I and Judith Collins and everyone else did – that third strikers being given the benefit of the proviso would only happen very rarely, and certainly not in every single case of murder.

So how does Parliament now ensure that the judges follow the new  law? To be quite honest, I don’t know if that is even possible. Perhaps the new law could include a specific section spelling out the meaning of the proviso: e.g. “this sub-section shall only be available to a convicted prisoner in the rarest and most unusual of cases”. Perhaps a better approach would be to include a sub-section which said “this proviso is to be applied in exactly the same manner, and using the same criteria, as it is applied in s.102 (1) of this Act”.

Would either or both of those additions ensure that judges applying 3S 2.0 did what parliament intended? Frankly I have my doubts. The original proviso was clear enough – but activist judges rewrote it. If they could do that, they could rewrite the proviso in the new legislation now matter how carefully it is worded. Several commenters here have suggested that we need a “clean out” of activist judges. While such an outcome would certainly be desirable, it is simply not going to happen – our system of judicial appointments  does not allow it. Perhaps all we can do is be more choosey regarded who is appointed as a judge. They should all  be people who fully recognise that under our system parliament is sovereign, and their job is to apply the law, not rewrite it as they think it should be.

Stuff reports:

Let’s Get Wellington Moving will be dissolved, with ministers and local government announcing today they had agreed to end the initiative.

LGWM was one of those that sounded good in principle, but failed to work in practice. It had three masters – WCC, GWRC and NZTA but no real authority.

It was also confirmed today that central government will build and fund the Basin Reserve upgrade and second Mt Victoria tunnel; while the city council will bring the Golden Mile project in-house.

These are both excellent decisions. Having the Basin and Mt Vic tunnel as a sole project of the central Government means it will actually happen, and will help unclog SH1. Leaving the Golden Mile project to WCC means they have to somehow justify to ratepayers spending over $150 million on a project bitterly opposed by the majority of the businesses it claims to be for.

Stuff reports:

A teenager who raped a woman he had never met at knifepoint in Albert Park has been sentenced to two years and two months in jail.

The now-18 year-old appeared at the Auckland District Court on Friday having earlier pleaded guilty to charges of rape, threatening to kill and two charges of aggravated robbery.

The teenager’s lawyer asked for discounts amounting to 110% and an end sentence of home detention, so her client can continue with sex offender rehabilitation.

How can you ask for 110% discount? Does that mean they actually get rewarded for raping someone?

But Judge Claire Ryan refused on the basis it would be too lenient. While she granted discounts of 77%, she sentenced him to prison and called his offending “disgusting and disgraceful”.

A 77% discount is massive. National plans to change the law to maximise discounts to 40%.

She started with a sentence of 11 years and one month but provided a total discount of 77%, taking time off for early guilty plea, previous clean record, efforts at rehabilitation, youth, remorse and time on electronically monitored bail.

From 11 years down to barely two years. There will be more victims.

Matthew Hooton writes:

Yesterday’s shock 0.3 per cent decline in GDP in just the September quarter makes New Zealand the worst-performing economy in the developed world.

Even then, the result was inflated by record net migration, despite yet another massive brain-drain.

Per person, GDP fell an extraordinary 0.9 per cent in just three months.

On an annual basis, GDP fell 0.6 per cent. That compares with our main trading partners all growing respectably over the same period: Australia up 2.2 per cent; the US up 3.0 per cent; and China up 4.9 per cent. …

It’s too easy to blame the Ardern-Hipkins Government alone for yesterday’s calamity.

Any remaining vestige of integrity it had was shattered by Wednesday’s Auditor-General’s report on its $12 billion pre-Covid New Zealand Upgrade Programme and the $3b Covid-era Shovel-Ready Programme.

So much money wasted which could have done so much good, if spent well.

Stuff reports:

Former Crown-Māori Relations Minister Kelvin Davis will retire as an MP, finishing up on Waitangi Day.

The senior Labour MP, former deputy leader and MP for Te Tai Tokerau, told Stuff he had known for some time that this would be his last term in Parliament – but losing the electorate of Te Tai Tokerau to Te Pāti Māori candidate Mariameno Kapa-Kingi meant he was able to leave before the term was up.

Davis, who had also served as minister of Corrections and Oranga Tamariki, said whānau and friends told him it was important to return to Waitangi once more as an MP. It would also give him the opportunity to deliver a valedictory speech in late January, when Parliament resumes for the new year.

I recall donating to Kelvin’s campaign in 2014, to help him beat Hone Harawira. It shows how far things have moved on, that today Te Pati Maori is arguably more radical than Hone and Mana was.

I hope he has a productive career post-Parliament. I suspect we will see several other Labour List MPs leave in the next 12 months. Grant Robertson may be next if he gets appointed Otago University Vice-Chancellor.

Stuff reports:

The prime minister has made Attorney-General Judith Collins a King’s Counsel.

Christopher Luxon said it was an appropriate appointment, as Collins is now the Crown’s senior law officer.

He said it also reflected her career achievements and the responsibility she now holds.

Before entering Parliament in 2002, Collins worked as a lawyer at a number of private firms, establishing her own firm in 1990.

She also served as chair of the Casino Control Authority (1999-2002), president of the Auckland District Law Society (1998-99) and as vice-president of the New Zealand Law Society (1999-2000).

She was the sixth attorney-general to be made a Queen or King’s Counsel, the most recent being Christopher Finlayson in 2012.

Luxon said the appointment was made with the chief justice’s concurrence.

An excellent appointment – both on merit, and also for how upset some people on Twitter are.

Stuff reports:

European police have foiled a major Hamas plot to attack Jewish sites across the continent, with seven suspected members of the terror group arrested in raids in Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands.

The Hamas operatives were told to bring a cache of weapons, buried at an undisclosed location in Europe, to Berlin to attack Jewish institutions, German prosecutors said.

Maybe people will realise that what motivates Hamas is not a territorial dispute. They just like to kill Jews.

And have a look at what Palestinian are taught. Watch the video to find out who is responsible!

Stuff reports:

A judicial review has found demolition of a network of huts in Te Urewera was unlawful.

Twenty-nine huts were burned down in 2022 at the direction of Tūhoe’s post settlement entity Te Uru Taumatua following a decision by Te Urewera Board to decommission Department of Conservation (DOC) infrastructure within Te Urewera.

The move was supported by the director-general of DOC.

Wharenui Tuna of Tūhoe (Te Whakatane hapū) obtained an interim injunction to prevent the destruction of further huts in November 2022.

A further 10 huts were burned down following the interim injunction. Te Uru Taumatua denied responsibility and police were investigating.

Now, the High Court has found the DOC director-general, Te Uru Taumatua and Te Urewera Board acted contrary to Te Urewera Act in allowing the huts to be demolished.

So what consequences will the Trust Board and DOC face for their illegal destruction of 29 or 39 huts?

The court also found Te Uru Taumatua acted unlawfully by demolishing the huts without having in place an annual operational plan, and that Te Uru Taumatua and the director-general acted unlawfully by failing to prepare an annual operational plan for the past two years, as required by law.

The decision also said the board and DOC acted unlawfully “by purporting to adopt a retrospective annual operational plan authorising the huts’ demolition”.

The court described this as “a striking example of reviewable error” on behalf of the director-general.

So DOC tried to retrospectively cover up what happened. Shocking.

Liam Dann writes:

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon was right. He has inherited a recession.

Technically, economists require two consecutive quarters of data before calling a recession, but in the real world all the evidence suggests we are already there.

Across the whole year, gross domestic product (GDP) fell 0.6 per cent. In a year when New Zealand had record levels of net migration, that paints a grim picture.

Per capita, GDP was down 0.9 per cent.

It’s a terrible result. Once again a Labour Government leaves power with a shrinking economy. Grant has done it, and Michael Cullen did it before him (and the Cullen recession started prior to the GFC).

Go further back and the 4th Labour Government did some good stuff, but they left the incoming Government with a massive deficit. The 3rd Labour Government left an inflation rate of 14.7%. I wasn’t born when we had the second Labour Government, but you get the general trend!

The annual NZ Health Survey results were released yesterday and they’re great news in the smoking and alcohol areas, as the number of smokers and hazardous drinkers has dropped.

The drop in the number of smokers shows we are on target to get down to 5% by the end of 2025, without needing the measures passed by Labour earlier this year (which are not yet implemented), being effective prohibition. The current policy settings are working, primarily because smokers are substituting to vaping – which is far far less harmful (but not harmless).

The alcohol wowsers would also have you believe everything is getting worse, but the official data shows the opposition. Here’s the changes over time:

Smokers

• Current smokers down from 18.4% in 2011/12 to 8.3% in 2022/23. Dropped 1.5% in last year alone.
• Youth smoking (15 to 17 year olds) down from 8.3% to 1.0%!!
• Maori smoking rate down from 40.3% to 20.2%. Dropped 2.1% in the last year.

Alcohol

• Youth drinking (15 to 17 year olds) down in the last year from 56.3% to 50.9%
• Hazardous drinking down from 18.7% to 16.0% in the last year
• Youth hazardous drinking down from 10.2% to 6.3 over last two years

Don’t succumb to the moral panic.

The Spinoff reports:

It was a hit exhibition connected to the juggernaut Harry Potter universe, one that began at London’s famed Natural History Museum, before travelling to Canada and Australia. “Fantastic Beasts: The Wonder of Nature… aims to inspire a love for nature and to raise awareness of conservation issues by highlighting to visitors their own relationship with wildlife and biodiversity.” Its next stop was to be Auckland, kicking off in March of 2024. The museum conducted a survey showing a willingness to pay that exceeded all previous exhibitions, and a large group of Harry Potter fans excited to have it arrive in their hometown.

Of the 500 people surveyed, a tiny minority worried about the views of Harry Potter creator JK Rowling – just two, one more than expressed concern about her implied support of witchcraft.

So they were offered a hugely popular exhibition that may have been their best selling ever exhibition, and support for it was overwhelming except for two out of 500 people who had an issue about the views of the creator, J K Rowling.

Read the full story for what happens next, but basically they spend months and months dithering, they have workshops, they hire an external consultant, they have senior staff vote 8-1 to proceed but they get spooked for a minuscule number of activists and cancel the exhibition.

They even debated about whether they could morally liver with JK Rowling making money from the exhibition. This was hilarious (in a pathetic way) because she doesn’t actually get any royalties from the exhibition, but even if she did she wouldn’t give a f**k about the amount of revenue compared to her massive income and wealth.

This is terrible decision making, in four ways.

1. 95% of people can separate the art from the artist. Richard Wagner was a terrible person but his music is amazing. I can listen to his music happily.
2. The views that some people object to from J K Rowling are not extreme. Many public opinion polls have shown her views to be ones shared by the majority of adults. Now reasonable people can disagree on what she has said, and how she has said it, but its ridiculous to consider her outside the mainstream.
3. The museum paid almost no regard to the hundreds of thousands of NZers who would have loved to have gone top the exhibition. They just didn’t feature much at all.
4. The museum is funded around 90% by ratepayers. By turning down a hugely popular exhibition, the museum will run at an even higher deficit

Why should Aucklanders fund a museum that effectively censors what exhibitions they’ll host on such flimsy grounds?

The Herald reports:

Two of the former Government’s massive infrastructure programmes totalling $15 billion were rushed against the advice of officials leading to chaotic, costly blowouts just months after they were announced. …

He found that ministers received ample warning from officials prior to NZUP projects being announced that some would struggle to be delivered on time and on budget.

Ryan was also critical of the poor bookkeeping, which in some cases was so dire that to this day it is “difficult to determine from publicly available information all the initiatives that have received funding from the NZUP”, meaning the public can’t see where all of the $12b had been spent.

So the Ministers were warned the projects could not be delivered on time or budget, yet announced them all anyway as they were desperate for a poll boost.

And to this day, they can’t even trace where all the money went.

Also prior to the announcement, both the Ministry of Health and Treasury warned ministers that many of the proposed health projects under consideration for the NZUP were not ready to be announced.

Treasury warned it had “due to the time and information available”, they had “low confidence” the projects would be implemented quickly.

“On 29 January 2020, about one week after this advice was provided, the Minister of Health and Associate Minister of Health publicly announced several health projects. These included some projects that officials had advised were not ready to be announced,” the report said.

It found the Government appeared to be in a rush to announce the projects.

Isn’t this typical of Labour – their entire concern was the announcement, rather than actually delivering.

Ryan was particularly alarmed that the Government continued to spend large amounts of money without proper due process, despite a number of reports raising concerns about where this kind of rushed decision-making can lead.

“I have made similar observations about aspects of the Strategic Tourism Assets Protection Programme, the Cost of Living Payment, the Provincial Growth Fund, and – most recently – the reprioritisation of the Provincial Growth Fund,” Ryan wrote, listing a number of other schemes he had investigated.

“It concerns me that significant spending of public money continues to occur without appropriate processes for ensuring value for money and transparent decision-making.”

So as the AG points out, this was not a one off. Tens of billions of dollars were spent on programmes that had no real scrutiny about whether they were value for money. This was not a bug, but a feature for Labour.

In today’s NZ Herald Sir Ian Taylor write a piece about a report from John Ryan and the Office of the Auditor General.

Key points are:

“On December 7 I was sent a link to the Office of the Auditor-General’s report on its “Inquiry into Callaghan Innovation’s procurement process” as it related to a complaint laid by an organisation called Manaaki/We Are Indigo.

In this surprisingly detailed online media platform, posing as a media release, the Auditor-General packages his report into six conveniently summarised attention-grabbing chapters, to which are added six timelines, two appendices and a video (helpfully labelled – “without music”) where it seems to me he basically interviews himself.

However, the terms of reference the auditor-general set himself meant that he did not investigate any of the claims made by the founders against Manaaki/We Are Indigo, placing instead the focus solely on the due diligence process that uncovered the allegations, effectively removing the founders from what I believe is an important and long overdue investigation into the start-up ecosystem in New Zealand.

I accept I am not an expert in reviews such as these but I was surprised to see how frequently the auditor-general used the term – “In my view ….”. He used it 14 times, and what surprised me most was it looked like he seemed to use it to dismiss “evidentially” based opinions that had been provided to him that appeared to run counter to his view.

There are other examples of reports seemingly being side-lined in favour of the auditor-general’s views, but how would anyone know when the report has been presented in a way that doesn’t actually highlight that there are other views that might be equally legitimate.

The overriding impact of such a carefully managed media release is that it has successfully moved the discussion away from the alleged activities that created the need for a due diligence process, placing instead the focus solely on the process by which those alleged activities were uncovered. In my opinion, the founders have become pawns in a power game they have little to no influence on.”

Sir Ian clearly highlights another poor investigation/report by the OAG. I say “another” as the experience I (Alwyn Poole) has with them from 2018 – 2021 was the most bizarre I have experienced in “professional” life.

This included an extraordinarily long and incompetent process followed up by a press release (November 2021) that was factually inaccurate and clearly designed to cause harm. It should be noted that it was reported on by RNZ and NZH within two hours of release and without inviting conduct from the Villa Education Trust.

I comment on specific flaws in John Ryan’s report in substack post (link below). However, it is worth reflecting the circumstances of the press release.

When we challenged the press release Mr Ryan flatly refused to engage with us (none of the VET Trustees has ever been contacted by or had a conversation with Mr Ryan). He also flatly refused to correct his statement or challenge the way RNZ and the NZH used it. He has not apologised. In fact – in a response that defies logic Melanie Webb stated:

“In your email, you ask for a conversation with the Auditor-General and note you have not had an opportunity to engage with him directly. While the Auditor-General [John Ryan] was aware of the issues in this case and involved in finalising the report, the interaction with you and other parties during the inquiry was managed by the Inquiries Team you dealt with.”

On other words, although he made deeply harmful and inaccurate comments in a press release, and throughout the report, he knows very little about it and couldn’t care less. How can this even be approaching the standard the OAG is trying to say they expect of others? All impressions taken is that John Ryan is an odious and imbalanced individual without the professional integrity to speak to people that he harmfully and inaccurately press releases against. He also clearly heads an incompetent team.

Respecting the desire for brevity on a blog I have the full details of what I submitted to the Education and Workforce Select Committee here:

https://alwynpoole.substack.com/p/the-role-of-the-oag-in-nz

For those with public sector and legal minds please have a read. Feedback always welcome (and moral support it was, and remains a hard time). Because John Ryan was challenged back he has been like a Fox Terrier puppy with a prized sock and has ensure that VET is referred to in this year’s report on schools – based on 2018. I have not been on the VET for over two years and never had any financial decision-making or spending power (it is called a separation of duty John – you use them to manage conflicts of interest) – but this nonsense still irks and besmirches. In the report one suggest John Ryan made is that we should have written a book he had written a few years back … I didn’t even know he existed.

Comment to the Education and Work Force Select Committee on the OAG report into the South Auckland Middle School and Middle School West Auckland Designated Character School EBOT.

25^th June 2022

Background/Introduction

During the time the OAG report related to the VET was made up of five people – all acting voluntarily in that role. Two of the Trustees indeed had no professional role in providing any of the education management services. The VET was established in 2002 and has been successfully audited as a charity every year. A Trust of this form has no “owners”.

In 2018 the VET and its employees had a huge range of responsibilities.

1)     Oversight of Mt Hobson Middle School as a highly successful private school.

2)     Oversight of South Auckland Middle School (SAMS) as a Partnership School (PSKH). I don’t know why John Ryan inaccurately refers to it as a “Charter School” in his report – that was never a legal term for those entities.

3)     Oversight of Middle School West Auckland as a PSKH.

4)     Oversight of the closure process of South Auckland Middle School as a PSKH including significant legal work with effectively having to terminate all contracts (employment and otherwise).

5)     Oversight of the closure process of MSWA as a PSKH including significant legal work with effectively having to terminate all contracts and in-depth meetings with Ministry officials

6)     Application and work on the establishment of SAMS as a new school under the Designated Character model. Including an extra external evaluation that no other organisations were subjected to.

7)     Application and work on the establishment of SAMS as a new school under the Designated Character model. Including an extra external evaluation that no other organisations were subjected to.

In terms of the process of closing SAMS PSKH and MSWA PSKH the Ministry of Education informed us in no uncertain terms that it was a school closure and that there was no guarantee that our applications for the new schools would be accepted by the Minister. Under the terms of those contracts, it is also highly inappropriate that John Ryan included any information, amounts or inferences about the closure process. As the sponsor of those two schools the VET and all activities are outside the OAG jurisdiction and all references should be removed from the report. John Ryan knows this as he noted: “This inquiry is being carried out under section 18 of the Public Audit Act 2001, because it relates to a public organisation’s use of resources.” Neither the VET nor the SAMS PSKH, MSWA PSKH are/were public organisations. Incredibly poor work by John Ryan.

The two schools operated superbly throughout 2018 as PSKH and had notable metrics against schools of similar decile, size and year levels. Indeed, the Martin Jenkins final report on the PSKH model is a ringing endorsement of the schools including management, oversight and leadership.

Cognition Education reported: “In summary we find and conclude that in both schools, the management and staff are actively involved in continuous development, and the delivery, of a unique programme of teaching and learning which is based on a comprehensive ‘local’ curriculum that is aligned with the New Zealand Curriculum, and which provides for the personalised needs of priority learners ‘many of whom have been failed by the current education system.

Based on our findings and conclusions, and our experiences in a wide range of New Zealand State schools, Cognition has assessed the local curriculum, teaching and learning within both SAMS and MSWA as being unique and of a ‘special character’ when compared to that provided at ordinary state schools.”

To summarise to this point re the new schools. The VET applied to establish them. The VET was approved as “proprietor” (the legal term). The Minister appointed the five members of the VET to the combined EBOT for the two schools. The Minister acknowledged the quality of the governance, management and leadership and expressed an endorsement that we would do the new work of establishment.

The AOG took an extra-ordinary length of time and created huge amounts of stress and significant personal harm. When asked why things were taking so long they effectively told us they had bigger fish to fry. It took 18 months for them to carry out a report that has told us would not be necessary if the Ministry of Education assured them that there was no integrity issue. They subsequently directly refused to let us know what the Ministry had said early in the process until this appeared in the report and had come from the Ministry of Education.

[The Ministry told us that there was … no reason to question whether the [Establishment Board] and [Villa Education Trust] have acted in good faith and on a basis they deemed appropriate.

The report was, from that point, demonstrably, a waste of time. The Ministry appointed Governance Adviser had also commented:

We [the OAG] spoke to the governance facilitator engaged to support the Establishment Board during this time. He confirmed that a lot of work was needed and considered that no-one else other than Villa Education Trust could have done the necessary work. He recalled frequent meetings with Ministry staff at the time, and his view was that it was a new and challenging environment for all involved.

(Details: alwynpoole.substack.com/p/the-role-of-the-oag-in-nz )

A note on the Interviews (April 13 & 14 2021)

The two people who carried out the interviews gave every impression of being under-prepared and having significant cognitive dissonance in terms of every aspect of the process of the application and operation of the schools. They asked questions outside their purview and often appeared distracted and seemed to ignore responses – possibly leading to John Ryan’s comments on “lack of evidence”. It was also significant that the interviewers complained that four of our Trustees had a support person with them. On three occasions it was Karen Poole. The Trust complained about the approach of the interviewers to the OAG but Melanie Webb refused to speak to any of the Trustees to establish any grounds for the complaint. She simply asked the interviewers and they said they had done a good job. Hardly seems a good practice for an investigator’s office. Webb then wrote to us to remind us that the interview content was “confidential” and that we were expected to keep to that. Their interviewers said the Karen Poole being a support person could have “intimidated” the other Board members. They are people we have known and worked with from as far back as 1998. Karen is as intimidating as a Marmot.

(details – including legal challenge to AOG on interviewers conduct: alwynpoole.substack.com/p/the-role-of-the-oag-in-nz)

Concluding Statement from Alwyn Poole to E&WSC.

I appreciate the Education and Workforce Committee’s interest in this matter. I consider in incredibly important that the John Ryan and the OAG is subject to effective oversight. Please do your job!

The Villa Education Trust, lead superbly by CEO Karen Poole, has done incredible work in the field of education and improved the outcomes of young people in the thousands. The organisation’s schools run efficiently and make such good use of funds that at SAMS and MSWA all school uniform, stationery and IT is provided for free and teacher student ratio is help at 15:1. Every official education report from ERO, Martin Jenkins, Cognition Education has been outstanding.

It is very hard to understand the way the John Ryan and team went about this process. The standards they claim to uphold in their evaluation of entities were by no means kept by themselves. Even the length of time taken shows deep inefficiencies.

The nature of the language used in both the report, as well as being incorrect in many places, also appears to be designed to cause maximum personal damage. The members of Ryan’s team seem to have taken personal dislike to Karen Poole as Trust CEO as evidence by comments from the interviewers and unfounded statements in the report.

It should be noted that the Ministry of Education were so supportive that they wrote the counter press-release to that of John Ryan.

John Ryan would have been aware of the public profile of the Trust and likely to have understood that his freewheeling press release comments would be picked up by media outlets. The three media articles remain up with harmful headlines and content that the members of the VET, let alone Karen Poole, do not deserve.

It is highly ironic that John Ryan and his team appear to have no level of being accountable for the harm they cause. At a bare minimum there should be a full and public apology & retraction of the report and press releases. Resignations would also be appropriate.

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

The Herald reports:

Wellington Mayor Tory Whanau has been plagued with allegations of serial leaking and dysfunction so, does this mean the council needs a Crown observer? Some of the city’s neighbours think Local Government Minister Simeon Brown should consider it but a law expert says they need to chill out.

There is growing concern that infighting and sniping at Wellington City Council is reflecting poorly on the wider region and may warrant Government intervention.

Things have got so bad that Greater Wellington Regional Council chairman Daran Ponter said newly appointed Local Government Minister Simeon Brown should consider appointing a Crown observer.

Having the Regional Council Chair call for central Government intervention at WCC is significant, even more so as Daran Ponter is a Labour Councillor, so this can’t be seen as motivated by partisan politics.

Tensions in Wellington have escalated recently after Deputy Mayor Laurie Foon laid a code of conduct complaint against five councillors, accusing them of leaking commercially sensitive information about a deal to buy the land underneath the shut-up Reading Cinema complex on Courtenay Place.

A public spat played out in public after councillor Diane Calvert claimed the council was facing a financial crisis and it was being kept behind closed doors, which Whanau said was laughable.

Handing over $40 million to a US multinational as corporate welfare is not commercially sensitive. It should be known to the public. And the Council clearly has a financial crisis with rates looking to double over five years.

Ponter said the council could bring in an experienced mediator, it didn’t necessarily have to be a Crown observer, but he said Brown should consider it if the council was unwilling to get help itself.

Simeon should give them three months to get their act together, and then appoint an observer if needed.

Joint statement from the Prime Ministers of Australia, Canada and New Zealand:

Australia, Canada, and New Zealand mourn every Israeli and Palestinian innocent life which has been lost in this conflict and express our condolences to all families and communities affected by the violence.

The loss of innocent lives on both sides is a tragedy for their families, and wider communitites.

We unequivocally condemn Hamas’ terror attacks on Israel on October 7, the appalling loss of life, and the heinous acts of violence perpetrated in those attacks, including sexual violence. We condemn Hamas’ unacceptable treatment of hostages and call for the immediate and unconditional release of all remaining hostages.

And politician that doesn’t agree with the above is justifying murder, kidnapping and rape as legitimate tools to achieve political ends. Likewise anyone demanding an immediate ceasefire that doesn’t include the release of remaining hostages is showing they don’t care about them.

We recognise Israel’s right to exist and right to defend itself. In defending itself, Israel must respect international humanitarian law. Civilians and civilian infrastructure must be protected. We are alarmed at the diminishing safe space for civilians in Gaza. The price of defeating Hamas cannot be the continuous suffering of all Palestinian civilians.

All good also. They explicitly state Israel has a right to exist (something 85% of Palestinians oppose) and defend itself, but stress the response must be within international humanitarian law and there is a limit to how far they can go in defeating Hamas.

We want to see this pause resumed and support urgent international efforts towards a sustainable ceasefire. This cannot be one-sided. Hamas must release all hostages, stop using Palestinian civilians as human shields, and lay down its arms.

An unconditional ceasefire rewards Hamas. Everyone wants a ceasefire, but it has to be more than just giving Hamas more time to rebuild their attack capability.

There is no role for Hamas in the future governance of Gaza.

Absolutely.

We support Palestinians’ right to self-determination. We oppose the forcible displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, the re-occupation of Gaza, any reduction in territory, and any use of siege or blockade. We emphasize that Gaza must no longer be used as a platform for terrorism. We reaffirm that settlements are illegal under international law. Settlements and settler violence are serious obstacles to a negotiated two-state solution.

I also don’t like the settlements. I would happily trade the settlements for peace.

We recommit ourselves to working with partners toward a just and enduring peace in the form of a two-state solution, where Israelis and Palestinians can live securely within internationally recognised borders. 

The challenge is that only around 10% of Palestinians support a two-state solution.

Radio NZ reports:

Legislation to scrap the Reserve Bank’s employment mandate is being rushed through Parliament under urgency, with the opposition decrying it as “pointless” and a backward step.

The bill, being passed under urgency through all stages, is the first piece of legislation for the new government.

It would remove the Reserve Bank’s dual-mandate, meaning it would no longer be required to push for maximum sustainable employment levels across the country.

This would leave it able to focus solely on its other mandate of keeping inflation in the target range of between 1 and 3 percent: avoiding the dangers of deflation where costs go down, while keeping costs from rising too steeply.

Labour had brought the dual mandate in after campaigning on it in 2017, saying a focus on employment would contribute to the overall health of the economy. National and ACT campaigned this year on returning to the single target, saying this would keep it focused on inflation.

The dual mandate means the Reserve Bank has conflicting instructions. A sole mandate of keeping inflation below 3% is not pointless to the millions of New Zealanders who have suffered from runaway inflation for the last two years.

Minister for Children Karen Chhour released:

Assaults and unlawful behaviour within Oranga Tamariki’s youth justice facilities are unacceptable and offenders should receive proper consequences for their actions, Minister for Children Karen Chhour says.

“Last night a fight broke out in the Muriwai Unit at Te Puna Wai Youth Justice Residence in Christchurch. Five young people have been identified as instigating the fight and five staff members and three young people have suffered injuries. 

“I have requested advice on what current procedures are in place for incidents like this and what more can be done to ensure serious young offenders are held to account for their actions.

“Under the previous government offenders assaulted staff and broke out of facilities and fast food was given to bribe them to stop. If people within youth justice facilities cause trouble they should expect to see real consequences for their actions.

“By restoring the value of right and wrong we will have better outcomes in youth justice facilities. This government is focussed on dealing with serious youth crime and young people must learn that bad and unlawful behaviour will not be tolerated.

“No staff member should go to work and feel unsafe. My thoughts go out to victims and their families who have been affected by this assault.”

Such a change of attitude, and so refreshing.

Radio NZ reports:

A Māori legal expert is urging Te Papa to listen to protesters and remove its large display of the English version of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Twelve people were arrested on Monday after attacking the exhibition and using spray paint and an angle grinder to damage a wooden display panel.

The group, Te Waka Hourua says the English text wrongly states that Māori ceded sovereignty.

I do hope Te Papa doesn’t give into vandalism. Both texts, and the differences between them, should be on display.