The TU blogs:

Across Kāpiti Coast, Whakatāne, and Whanganui, ratepayers have footed the bill for over $2 million in corporate (and middle-class) welfare to maintain regular flight services to Auckland. From 2018 to date, KCDC have gifted almost $1.5 million dollars in grants and interest-free loans to Air Chathams. Accompanied with hundreds of thousands in loans splurged by Whanganui and Whakatāne district councils on their routes, the total value of welfare is brought to more than $2 million.

Appalling waste of ratepayers money either subsidising airlines or airline passengers.

What is more is that, regardless of how cost-ineffective the provision of these services is, there remains a striking contradiction at play with the Councils’ climate change initiatives. Kāpiti Coast for example, crows about their climate change approach, acknowledging the importance of reducing their carbon footprint wherever possible. Whakātane and Whanganui are also strong advocates. Yet, they are all more than happy to subsidise gas guzzling aircrafts which, consistently, have been running on reduced passenger numbers.

Hilarious hypocrisy where they loudly proclaim we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and then they provide a subsidy to airlines.

Fox News reports:

My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell, an ally of former President Trump who has aggressively pushed baseless 2020 election denial theories, has been ordered to pay $5 million to a software developer who debunked Lindell’s data around the election.

Lindell, who promised to pay the $5 million award to anyone who could debunk his data that purportedly proved election fraud, was ordered to pay the sum by a private arbitrator, who ruled that Robert Zeidman, a software expert, successfully disproved Lindell’s claims, in a decision first reported by CNN.

So why does he have to pay $5 million?

Lindell then launched the “Prove Mike Wrong Challenge,” offering $5 million to anyone who could prove that the data was not valid. Zeidman entered the contest, submitting a report that concluded the data did not include information from the 2020 election. When Lindell’s team said Zeidman did not win the contest, he filed the arbitration.

“Based on the foregoing analysis, Mr. Zeidman performed under the contract,” the ruling said. “He proved the data Lindell LLC provided, and represented reflected information from the November 2020 election, unequivocally did not reflect November 2020 election data. Failure to pay Mr. Zeidman the $5 million prized was a breach of the contract, entitling him to recover.”

An expensive boast.

A guest post by David Garrett:

When I hear some young snowflake(s) whining about “feeling unsafe” or needing “a safe space” because someone is saying, or might say,  something they don’t like, I feel my blood pressure rising. It is ANZAC Day next week, and I thought it was timely to record in one guest post the sacrifices made by those in Bomber Command in WW II – including the 1800 New Zealanders who were among the 55,000 young men who gave their lives hitting back at Adolf during the period 1940-44, when bombing was the only offensive weapon the allies had.

After the “Miracle of Dunkirk” in early May 1940, Britain stood alone, largely disarmed – most equipment was left on the beaches, including all heavy equipment – and in dread of the invasion which most serious historians now think was virtually inevitable if the Battle of Britain was lost. Due to the actions of “the few” from June to September 1940 the invasion was thwarted. We should remember the contribution to the Battle of our own Air Vice Marshall Keith Park – as he then was – of whom Sir Charles Portal, Chief of Air Staff, later said “if any one man won the battle of Britain he did”.

Without wishing to take anything away from those brave young men who flew their hurricanes and spitfires against overwhelming  German numbers, the Battle of Britain lasted three months, with about 800 pilots lost. Bomber Command’s battle lasted nearly five years,  and more men were lost in one raid than were killed in the entire Battle of Britain.

Once the Battle of Britain morphed into the blitz in September 1940, the only offensive  weapon  the Allies’ had at their disposal was bombers; in the early part of the war the aircraft were  totally inadequate two engined Blenheims, and the rather better Wellington – the latter built with a geodesic framed fuselage which gave it great strength, and the ability to take considerable punishment and remain in the air.

From the beginning, all aircrew in Bomber Command were  volunteers – volunteers who were expected to complete a thirty mission “tour” before being posted to a reserve or training squadron for a time. In 1940-42 the chances of an  aircrew member completing those thirty missions was about 1:20 – even later in the war with much better aircraft and navigation aids at their disposal, those chances never got any better than 1:3. So during those first two years, those brave young men – the average age of a bomber crewman was 21 – knew that they had very little chance of completing their tour.

As Max Hastings has written, the percentage of those who “funked it” and refused to carry on flying was tiny: about 1.5% over the whole bomber war. It is fair to note that those who did  feel unable to continue – for whatever reason – were treated very harshly, stripped of all rank in front of their peers, and required to do demeaning duties for the rest of the war. They were left their “wings” which was especially cruel – those left flying knew that the guy cleaning the toilets or emptying the rubbish had once been aircrew like themselves.  How much a role that treatment played in there being so few who refused to carry on is impossible to know.

By 1943 and the arrival of the four engine “heavies” – most notably the Avro Lancaster – the chances of surviving a 30 mission tour had improved notably, but as noted earlier, the odds never got better than about 1:3.  One’s chances of survival were also heavily dependent on one’s role on the aircraft. Because attacks most came from the rear, the tail gunner – or “tail end Charlies” as they were known – suffered by far the greatest attrition rate. 

There were some notable outliers. One John Wainright – later a novelist – survived some 70 missions – two and a half tours – before deciding he had “done his bit” and refusing to continue. He virtually dared the RAF to court martial him and try and get a verdict that he “lacked moral fibre”  (LMF) in the terminology of the day. The RAF took the wiser course and  transferred Wainright to a training squadron instead.

If a bomber was attacked from behind and survived to limp home, often the best way of removing the remains of the tail gunner from his turret was with a hose – I wonder how the snowflakes who felt they would be “unsafe” listening to Don Brash or one of those Canadians who were not allowed to speak here would feel witnessing the remains of  their close friend being hosed out of a gun turret? Collapsing on the ground blubbing hysterically in all probability. (And Yes I know – past generations have always doubted the ability of the present generation, but I believe the present generation of young men to be uniquely LMF. There has certainly never been this number of snowflakes before).

In the numerous individual accounts I have read of men who survived the bomber war one thing stands out – almost to a man, they ascribe their survival to  good luck rather than any great skill – they certainly never claim that they were somehow braver than their fellows who were lost. Many say “I have been on borrowed time since XX June 1944”, the date being the  day they got shot down and survived, or made it home by some miracle. (The Lancaster could get home on only two engines, and for very short periods it could fly  on one alone).

As the war went on, navigation aids got better and better for “the bomber boys”, culminating in the Pathfinder squadrons, consisting of elite pilots who could accurately find and “mark” the target for the aircraft following shortly behind them. But rather like mountaineering in the Himalayas, getting to the target and unloading the bombs  was only half the task; they still had to get home, often harassed all the way by night fighters and “flak” from the ground.  There are even dreadfully sad stories of bomber crews being lost as the came in on final approach to land on their bases in England – shot down by German night fighters circling the field hiding in the dark,  awaiting their return.

While the Lancaster was a superb aircraft in many ways – accepted by most to be by far the best four engine bomber in WW II – it had one major significant defect: it was difficult to get out of if it was on fire or badly damaged. There was the rear door, which required much clambering over obstacles in the dark to reach, and a rather  too small escape hatch in the front. Crew often didn’t wear their parachutes – because they were bulky and inhibited movement – so if an aircraft was hit it was often very difficult to first find and strap on the parachute, and then  get out of the burning or spinning aircraft  to parachute to safety while there was still time.

Of all the great many stories I have read about individuals in Bomber Command, the ones that stand out the most are those  in which the captain of a crippled bomber – the pilot was always the captain, regardless of rank – kept his aircraft flying so his fellows would have at least a chance of escape, knowing with virtual certainty that he – the pilot – would not survive the inevitable crash. I recall one particularly poignant photograph of a pilot looking as if he was asleep in his seat when the  aircraft he was piloting crashed into a waterway in Holland, and the water was drained to recover the remains of the aircraft. He was of course not sleeping but drowned – at age 21.I simply cannot imagine the snowflakes whining about Don Brash making them feel unsafe getting into one of those bombers “night after night” knowing – especially early in the war – that they were unlikely to survive their “tour”.  As I do every ANZAC day I especially remember  those 55,000 young men – almost 2000 of them New Zealanders – who gave their lives so that snowflakes 80 years later were safe from the tyranny that then threatened the world.

Stuff reports:

New Zealanders living in Australia will soon have access to Australian citizenship and its benefits after four years, in a major change to prohibitive immigration rules that have strained the trans-Tasman relationship for decades.

The Australian Labor government announced the changes overnight Saturday, hours before Prime Minister Chris Hipkins was due to leave for Brisbane. The changes will come into effect on July 1 and are retrospective, meaning some half a million Kiwis in Australia could soon, or within years, be applicable for Australian citizenship.

This is a great move by Australia. This is how it should be between Australia and NZ. A quick and easy path to citizenship.

NewstalkZB reports:

The new crossing over Auckland’s Waitematā might not include any additional lanes for cars and instead focus exclusively on walking, cycling and rail.

I know this sounds implausible, but it is exactly what they are doing in Wellington – a second Mt Vic tunnel, but cars to be banned from it.

Here the Government is saying they could spend up to $30 billion on a second harbour crossing in Auckland, and would ban cars from it.

Stuff reports:

The Government has delayed the establishment of a streamlined way for people to report threats and suspected terrorist activities – a key recommendation after the Christchurch mosque attacks – documents reveal.

The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the March 2019 Christchurch shootings said there needed to be a system for the public to easily and safely report concerning behaviour or incidents to a single point of contact within the Government. It was recommendation 12 of 44 made by the commission.

“This reporting system should be implemented in the next 12 months,” the commission’s report, released in December 2020, says.

About 28 months on, the system has still not been set up – and papers released under the Official Information Act show one of the hold-ups has been within Cabinet.

Just another example of how bad this Government is at delivery.

It should be easy for people to report concerning behaviour that could constitute a terrorism threat. But if you become aware that someone is becoming radicalised, who would you contact? 111? Not an emergency. Local police station – probably won’t be open. Call the SIS – probably the best idea, but not something everyone would be knowing to do.

So a simple reporting system, both online and phone, which concerns can be passed on is a very good idea. It could save lives.

I am often asked to make clear the NCEA system. I have done my best below but please keep in mind I only have an undergrad (Economics), a Masters (Education), a Teaching Diploma and a post grad in Sports Management. Oh … and 32years in the “system”.

Back in the day the National Certificate of Education Achievement (NCEA) replaced School Certificate, Sixth Form Certificate and University Bursary. University Entrance remained but the form it takes has altered.

Promises made were that “standardised assessment” would allow higher achievement (as opposed to set limits on how many could pass). At first you could only pass/fail but later Merits and Excellences were added for some standards. Life-long learning was to be encouraged as you could/can add to your “record of learning” anytime (actually a good thing but severely under-utilised).

Throughout the levels you study within Achievement Standards or Unit Standards. Achievement Standards have always been seen as more academic (and change was made so you could Achieve or with Merit or Excellence). Some Achievement Standards have been mainly internally assessed – others mainly examined. Unit standards have been a lower hurdle, trade directed and always internally assessed. As well as plain old L1, L2, or L3 NCEA – there has been a proliferation in all sorts of “certificates” (e.g. in Computing, Hairdressing). A student could decorate walls with these as pony club kids do.

When you pass an Achievement or Unit Standard at a particular level you get “credits”. A credit from either type is the same value (whether Physics or changing a bike tyre or organising a desk work-space).

A subject – e.g. Mathematics – could be made up of five/six Achievement Standards (effectively units of work that cover approx. 6 weeks) that describe what will be taught/learned and the mode of assessment. Roughly this could be Achievement Standards for Number, Geometry, Statistics, Algebra, Measurement, Research. Quite quickly it reached the stage that there were a limited number of Achievement Standards but MANY unit standards (a dog’s breakfast). It also has fractured having complete courses.

To Achieve L1 NCEA

Students need to accumulate 60 Credits from any Level (1, 2 or 3) courses and/plus students must have “Literacy and Numeracy” by having 10 credits in Math related standards (loosely) and 10 in English related standards (also loosely) i.e. a total of 80 credits. A well organised and motivated student (they do exist) will have 120 credits, have sat exams, and got a Merit or Excellence endorsement.

To Achieve L2 NCEA

Students need to accumulate 60 Credits from L2 or L3 courses (plus 20 from any Level) and have met the L1 Numeracy and Literacy Requirements.

To Achieve L3 NCEA

Students need to accumulate 60 Credits from L3 courses (plus 20 from any Level) and have met the L1 Numeracy and Literacy Requirements.

To Achieve University Entrance

Students need NCEA Level 3 including 14 credits in each of three “approved subjects” at Level 3. There are approximately 60 of these and yet many schools fail to have their Y13 students doing even three of them – therefore they cannot get UE. They also need UE Literacy – 10 credits at Level 2 or above, made up of: – 5 credits in reading – 5 credits in writing. They also need UE Numeracy – 10 credits at Level 1 or above (the same as the requirement for NCEA numeracy – a very low bar). Universities will also have points requirements to get into certain courses.

If you want to really blow your mind – go here for the “approved subjects” list.

There has been tinkering over time to make things more or less academic, etc, not worth detailing. It is like a mansion built by drunk idiots, in the dark, with no overall plan, over 30+ years.

As it became clearer and clearer that you could get right through all of these qualifications and lack any real ability to be numerate or literate the 2018 Labour government, under pressure (boom, boom, ba bep), chose to introduce “Co-Credits” in Numeracy and Literacy that are, theoretically, at L1 but can be sat in any year (even Y7). They are worth 10 Credits each and have been designed to ensure a basic level of both aspects. If you cannot pass them, you cannot get any qualification. (They have created them as on-line assessments  which is stupid but I won’t detail the reasons here).

They were supposed to be compulsory in 2023. Three things have screwed that up.

1. Labour’s union affiliated hatred of assessment meant that no one had any idea just how badly students were being taught and doing in these basics. This has been deliberately hidden for years and years.
2. Hipkins failed to put in place any effective teaching and learning programme to rectify a situation that he had chosen not to discover.
3. Trial testing over the last three years have had appalling results and even the most recent ones showed that if the co-credits were made compulsory in 2024 (a year later that original intended) up to 50% of students could/would leave school with no qualifications (and 90% of decile 1 students).

Therefore Hipkins/Tinetti has now chosen to make them compulsory in …. 2026 and stipulate a grab bag of alternatives that schools can use in the meantime (although the well-prepared ones will use the co-credits next year).

The overall “cluster balls-up” (I needed to coin a new phrase to stop myself crying for the kids) of our system, and the degree needed to understand it, is one of the reasons the NCEA has both lost credibility and has little impact as a motivator for many students. Many of those who are moderately organized – accumulate credits throughout the year in all manner of ways – get to the number needed and switch off (not bothering with exams) and often will even leave school at the end of term three and go and work.

On top of the mess it was in 2018 – only Hipkins/Labour could have made it worse – and in spectacular style. Add to this the “Curriculum Refresh” (which is appalling) and …

How many teachers, bureaucrats, parents and politicians could pass a test on this from their everyday knowledge?

[email protected]

One News reports:

A key role for the Human Rights Commission is to be independent of the Government and to hold it to account on its human rights record – including on race relations.

Foon also donated $1000 to National Party candidate Tania Tapsell’s campaign in the same year.

“I spoke earlier about having received and declared an in-kind donation from the Foon family in 2020 when I was a back bench MP,” Allan said in a statement this evening.

“It is fair to say I couldn’t recall all of the details of all of my donors when questioned earlier, but having had the opportunity to review I can say I also declared a $1500 cash donation from Meng and Ying Foon in 2020 as well.”

Allan had earlier said: “I didn’t take any monetary donations from Meng Foon.”

A company called Triple Eight Investments Limited also provided Kiri Allan a rent subsidy worth $9185 according to the declaration.

Triple Eight Investments has three directors, including Meng and Ying Foon.

“The in-kind donation I referred to was from a company that the Foons were directors of, for a rent subsidy on a campaign office space.

“This was a campaign office, not an electorate office, and no parliamentary funds were used,” Allan said in her statement.

This is incredibly bad judgement from Meng Foon. Once he was appointed a Human Rights Commissioner, he should not have been donating money to any MPs election campaigns.

He donated over $10,000 to Kiri Allan, who is now the Minister responsible for deciding if he gets reappointed, and $1,000 to National’s Tania Tapsell. Both donations were inappropriate, but the Allan one especially has now created a significant conflict of interest.

Foon has probably doomed any chance of reappointment now. It would be a terrible look to reappoint someone who donated $10,000 to the Minister, even if she recuses herself. And I can’t see National reappointing him, if they win.

Stuff reports:

The IPCA analysed whether there was undue political influence impacting how police responded to the occupation. The main question around political interference centred around a meeting between Wellington MP (and then deputy prime minister) Grant Robertson, Attorney-General David Parker, then-Speaker Trevor Mallard and Police Commissioner Andrew Coster.

The MPs wanted the occupiers gone. After the meeting, Coster called an assistant commissioner and told him they needed to bring an end to the occupation.

“[Coster] made clear his expectation that there was to be a Police operation on the following day to clear Parliament grounds of protesters. The Assistant Commissioner told us he regarded this expectation as an order from the Commissioner,” the report said.

So did the meeting show undue political influence on the police?

The IPCA concluded there was no undue political influence. The investigation said those who attended the meeting between Coster and MPs did not believe there had been “express or implied direction” from ministers.

So the Commissioner has a meeting with the Deputy PM, the Attorney-General and the Speaker, where they say they want the occupation ended, and within minutes of the meeting ending, the Commissioner orders an operation to end it, and somehow this is not undue pressure?

If that is not undue pressure, then what would be?

What was the purpose of having the Deputy PM and Attorney-General attend the meeting, if it was not to pressure the Commissioner?

“There were some ministers in the room at the time, but it was ultimately the Speaker who instigated that meeting. He is the occupier of Parliament,” he said.

So again why were the Ministers there?

NZ First leader Winston Peters wasn’t convinced. He picked up on a statement from the investigation, where Coster said the meeting with MPs was “uncomfortable”.

“How on earth is this not raising a red flag for direct `political interference’,” Peters asked.

So the Ministers made the Commissioner uncomfortable, and persuaded him to order action against the occupiers, yet again somehow this is not undue pressure!

A National candidate in an unwinable seat two years ago shared a poem on Facebook that made a comparison between Jacinta Ardern and Hitler. National’s responses is to (correctly) make him resign.

A Labour MP compared John Key to Hitler and defends what she said, before eventually apologising. She is now a front bench Cabinet Minister.

Another 30+ year high for food inflation. The longer it goes on, the bigger the cumulative impact on Kiwi households.

This is how much food prices have increased since 2017:

• All food 27%
• Fruit 36%
• Vegetables 51%
• Cheese 50%
• Eggs 100%

Who has had their income go up 27% to cover a 27% increase in food costs?

It is a small step in the right direction that overall annual inflation has fallen from 7.2% to 6.7%. It is of course still twice the maximum agreed to by the Government and three times the midpoint targeted.

But what is really interesting is that all the decrease has come from the tradable sector, which is the sector with international competition. That has dropped from 8.2% to 6.4%. The quarterly figure for March 2022 was 2.4% and March 2023 was 0.7%.

But non-tradable or domestic inflation has actually increased from 6.6% to 6.8%. The quarterly figure for March 2022 was 1.5% and March 2023 was 1.7%. The 6.8% for non-tradable inflation is the highest since they started recording it over 20 years ago.

So basically what is happened is the international component of inflation is dropping, but the domestic component is still increasing. This suggests the OCR will still go up at the next review.

The Guardian reports:

Fox and the voting equipment company Dominion reached a US$787.5m settlement in a closely watched defamation lawsuit, ending a dispute over whether the network and its parent company knowingly broadcast false and outlandish allegations that Dominion was involved in a plot to steal the 2020 election.

That is a lot of money. Almost $1.3 billion in NZ dollars.

It is almost impossible in the US for a company to win a defamation case against a media organisation due to the first amendment. But the claims by Trump and his proxies were so clearly wrong (and Fox knew they were wrong) that they were facing a high probability of losing, hence they settled.

It is worth noting that if even one sliver of truth was attached to them, it would have come out. But what actually came out is that everyone knew the claims were batshit crazy, but they wanted to appease Trump’s cultish followers, so they aired them regardless.

That’s a billion dollar mistake they won’t make again.

Newshub reports:

Stephen Jack has tonight resigned as National’s candidate for Taieri, a National spokesperson has confirmed to Newshub.

Jack’s resignation comes after two controversial social media posts recently came to light.

The first was reported by Stuff on Sunday, revealing Jack shared a video in 2020 which contained the joke: “I like my COVID like I like my women. 19. And easy to spread.”

The second offensive post reported earlier on Wednesday showed that in 2021, Jack reposted a poem on his personal Facebook account originally shared by an Otago farmer. In the since-deleted post, which Newshub has seen, it likened former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to Hitler.

“Cindy’s showing us her colours; we know why she chose red. She started out a communist and lately this has spread,” the poem read.

“Just as Hitler had the SS, our prime minister’s on the job. She’s given up on the police and bought the Mongrel Mob.”

Comparing politicians to Hitler is always a very bad idea. It is insulting to victims of Hitler, and always makes you look unbalanced.

Radio NZ report:

The Green MP at the centre of a party investigation, Elizabeth Kerekere, has been accused of ongoing poor behaviour – including badmouthing and undermining her caucus colleagues and staff.

Five individuals close to the Greens – including current and former staffers – have spoken to RNZ under the condition of anonymity after Kerekere accidentally sent messages to a group chat which were unsupportive of Auckland Central MP Chlöe Swarbrick.

Those spoken to by RNZ said the messages were characteristic of the Tai Rāwhiti-based MP’s behaviour since her arrival at Parliament in 2020.

Many were unhappy with Kerekere putting her own interests ahead of the party, and wanted the inquiry widened to cover her broader behaviour and for it to report back before the party list was finalised.

As I mentioned a few weeks ago, a Green insider had previously told me that Kerekere was one of the most unpleasant people they had ever met.

Now what is interesting is that the Green hierarchy still ranked her No 4 on the draft party list, promoting her four places from last time. Why?

One source told RNZ Kerekere had exhibited “bullying” and “general mean girl behaviour” throughout this term.

“Elizabeth has a tendency to call people ‘racist’ if they disagree with her,” the source said. “People walk on eggshells around her.”

Ha, welcome to the centre-right. We get called racist for daring to disagree with people on the left almost continuously. Not as pleasant I guess, when it is done within your own party.

Newsroom details four pieces of misinformation (or disinformation) from Three Waters Minister Kieran McAnulty. I won’t detail them all here, but do want to focus on the most egregious.

Below the board, or below the belt? That’s the question prompted by McAnulty’s further attempt to minimise the role of these representative groups. He says every district council will have representation on their local water services entities through the regional representative groups, where council representatives and iwi will form a partnership to provide strategic oversight and direction to the entities.

“These groups will continue to sit below the governance board, in which each member will be appointed on merit and qualification,” he says.

Under questioning, he says the 50-50 council/iwi membership survived only because of the representative groups’ subordinate status. “I was comfortable with what has been proposed, because it’s a regional representative group. It may have been a different outcome if this was actually the governing board, but it’s not.”

But it’s not correct that the representative groups are subordinate. Somewhat like a congress of shareholders, they will appoint the directors to the governance board. According to the bill before Parliament (and the government says this won’t change) they will provide regional and local level direction and oversight, including setting strategic and performance expectations, and approving the strategic direction.

By any definition they sit above the governance board. To claim these bodies sit below the boards of qualified directors is wrong, and downplays the importance of the council and iwi stakeholders in determining how the water assets are managed for their communities. 

I’m glad this lie has been called out because it is an important one.

They are not below the governance board. They effing appoint the governance board. You don’t sit below something if you appoint it.

On my Patreon I have given details from a Curia poll of 1,000 New Zealanders about whether eight media outlets are seen as right leaning, left leaning or neutral.

The eight media outlets are:

• TV: One News and Newshub
• Radio: Radio NZ and NewstalkZB
• Newspapers: NZ Herald and Stuff
• Internet based: The Spinoff and The Platform

Five of them were seen to lean to the left, one was seen as roughly balanced and two as leaning to the right.

Stuff reports:

Teachers and education experts say the Government’s plan to reduce the funded teacher to student ratio for years 4 to 8 by one will have little impact.

On Monday, Education Minister Jan Tinetti​ announced plans to change the class size funding, allowing them to reduce the ratio from one teacher for every 29 students to 1 to 28.

So few students are even attending school, the actual class size on any day will be far less than what a school is funded for.

But even putting that aside, the Hattie analysis of over 1,200 studies of education impacts found that class size changes have a minor impact.

See if you can find class sizes there.

A class with a size of 15 vs a size of 30 will have an impact on children’s learning. But a size of 28 vs 29 is really going to have minuscule impact.