The online left are outraged that National has ruled out the Māori Party on the basis of a philosophical difference over one person one vote.

Many have claimed the Māori Party are not against this.

Others have tried for a red herring, that under MMP we have two votes. This is a moronic argument.

The principle at stake is called equality of suffrage – that your votes have equal weight. When we gave women the vote, we didn’t say their vote would only be worth 30% of a man’s vote. Equality of suffrage is a universal fundamental human right.

The Māori Party is explicit that they do not support this. Newshub reported in July 2021:

Maori Party co-leader Rawiri Waititi thinks Aotearoa could be the “best nation in the world” – but not necessarily as a democracy. …

“We need to start looking at how Maori can participate more equally and equitably in that particular space in a tiriti-centric Aotearoa. Not in a democracy, because… democracy is majority rules, and indigenous peoples – especially Maori at 16 percent of the population in this country – will lose out, and we’ll sit in second-place again.”

Also we had a bill before Parliament which would have abolished equality of suffrage in Rotorua. The Labour, Green and Maori Parties all voted for it at first reading. And here is what the Māori Party said about it:

MP for Waiariki and Māori Party co-leader, Rawiri Waititi, will defend Rotorua’s plans for equality in its proposed Representation Amendments bill.

The comments come after the attorney general, Labour’s own David Parker, called the bill discriminatory in a report released last week.

“I find it ironic that Mr. Parker has the caucasity to call a bill discriminatory that otherwise gives equal representation to Tangata Whenua and Tangata Tiriti.

The Māori Party doesn’t believe inequality at the individual level, but at the race level. It believes equality means 16% of the population have the same representation as the other 84%.

Education is in genuine crisis in New Zealand and the statistics are now widely known. Jan Tinetti, the latest Minister of Education, is currently flapping around trying to say that she did not manipulate attendance data releases to coincide with a policy announcement.

The data remains appalling in any case and, it is clear that schools have lost the room in terms of credibility with students/families across all deciles.

As I wrote in the NZ Herald earlier this week: “A very significant amount of faith has been lost in the system. The term 4 2022 full attendance statistics did creep above 50 per cent across all deciles but only because students on study leave all get marked present whether they were previously attending or not. These statistics are, of course, accentuated for low-decile students (30 per cent), Māori (38 per cent) and Pasifika (34 per cent) students.

It is striking that Asian students – stereotypically seen as diligent – fully attended at only 58 per cent. As one Asian student from a very expensive private school said to me, “With all of the disruptions in the last three years we went searching and found superior teachers online and worked out that we can actually do better academically by grouping together and working on our own.”

The trend around the world is for parents/students to withdraw from the “system” and seek better alternatives.

Concerns have been twofold – both the quality of the education provided and the content being taught.

I see some merit in this pivot and helped provide an opportunity for some through assisting with starting Mt Hobson Academy Connected (though not now involved) – an online school with significant social interaction. While the Ministry of Education is coy about numbers here, Stanford research in the US shows 1.2 million children have left the public school system.”

The PPTA and Ministry of Education have been in negotiations since May 2022 on a new collective contract. This week teachers/schools have started rolling strikes. The impact of these are huge – and completely unjustified.

Here is an example. I co-founded a school called South Auckland Middle School. It was a Partnership School and is now a Designated Character (State) School. They serve 180 students/families in Manurewa South Auckland. They are on strike tomorrow – the second time this year. They are imposing on parents or putting the children on the street in South Auckland. Add to that Teacher Only Days, days lost through the storms, and a range of illnesses for students. SAMS people – I am ashamed.

There is a cost of living crisis and teachers are trying to sound tremendously hard done by. They know very little of the needs of a family truly struggling. Grand-parents looking after a number of children. Parents in prison and/or absent. Long term benefit dependance. The influence of gangs. Fruit and vegetable prices up 20% in a year. Etc.

The Ministry have offered (among other things)

• a new teacher starting on this step will start on $63,187 – an increase of 12.9%. Teachers who start on the first step without a specialist qualification will start on $58,505 in December 2024, an increase of 13.92% on today’s starting rate.
• New teachers who started in 2022 on the third step of the scale will be receiving $73,307 in 2025, including annual salary progression. This is an increase of $17,359, or 31% to their base pay over three years.

• moving the top of the teacher scale from the current $90,000 to $94,000 backdated to 1 December 2022, then $96,820 at the end of this year, and $100,000 at the end of 2024 – an overall 11.11% increase.

• approximately 66% of secondary teachers are on the top step of the scale and the average remuneration, including allowances and units, is around $93a,000 ($92,713), so with this offer, a large proportion of the workforce would to be earning $100,000 or more by the end of next year.

With massive issues with attendance, teacher quality, and results – some teachers have tried to say that every day matters – re attendance. But young people see teachers taking a day off to line their pockets. The strikes and, all of the whining and moaning about conditions and the nature of students will create an even greater aversion to teaching as a career. Schools like South Auckland Middle School – and all others striking – are both harming the future prospects of children and bringing the sector into disrepute. Parents and students will increasing disengage and the home-schooling, private and integrated sector is already exploding.

Teachers have 12 weeks holiday a year (and enough of the nonsense of working right through them). They are giving families with 3 – 4 weeks leave a year (and much lower incomes) a choice between taking a day’s leave, paying a babysitter, or letting their kids run wild.

Another plan of action is needed. Here is a clue, given NZ’s education results and international standing, DO A BETTER JOB!

[email protected]

Christopher Luxon has announced:

National has ruled out coming to any arrangement with Te Pāti Māori in forming a National-led government after the 2023 election, National Leader Christopher Luxon says.

“National is focused on making life better for all New Zealanders. We believe New Zealand is one country with one standard of citizenship, meaning one person, one vote.

“The bridge between National and Te Pāti Māori is too wide to close.

Very pleased to see this statement.

Voters now have a clear choice between a National/ACT Government or a Labour/Green/Māori Party Coalition of Chaos.

“National is deeply committed to improving outcomes for Māori, but doesn’t believe separate systems is the best way to do this.

The Māori Party and Green Party do not believe in equality of suffrage. Their policies are to effectively end equality of suffrage in New Zealand.

The NY Post reports:

Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation — and ordered to pay more than $5 million in damages — by a federal jury in writer E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuit accusing him of raping her in a Bergdorf Goodman fitting room decades ago.

Carroll, 79, held her head down as the verdict was read in Manhattan federal court — and nodded when she heard the jury finding in favor of her defamation claim for Trump, 76, branding her a liar when she came forward with her allegations.

The nine-person jury — three women and six men — decided the case after three hours of deliberations that began just before noon Tuesday.

This is not a surprising decision. As Trump is a pathological liar, putting him on the stand would almost guarantee he would get done for perjury. And considering he boasted about how he likes to grab women etc, again it is not surprising.

It is significant to some degree that a former President and presidential candidate has been found unanimously by a jury to have sexually assaulted a women, on the balance of probabilities.

Without diminishing what Trump has done, it is worth noting that Bill Clinton almost certainly sexually assaulted multiple women also. Clinton had the full establishment defending him at the time against Juanita Broaddrick.

Will this harm Trump’s chances of winning the Republican nomination? Probably not. He has too strong a lock.

It may harm him in the general election somewhat, but too early to tell. The latest polls have him comfortably ahead of Biden, but again it is early days.

Anyway I’m pleased for Jean Carroll. The jury listened to all the evidence, and decided they believed her.

Like many media outlets, I asked Radio NZ under the OIA for a copy or transcript of what Justice Minister Kiri Allan said at the farewell for her partner, Mani Dunlop, after it emerged that she had to apologise later for them.

Radio NZ declined to release a full transcript but did release two paragraphs which said:

There is something within this organisation that has to be looked at. Now I know that you said that you would pick up that, the wero, that Māni left. It is not for just you, it is for your SLT to pick up. It’s for your SLT to pick up. It’s for your boards to pick up. That there is something within the organisation that will not, and has not been able to keep Māori talent and that is a question that I think deserves some deep reflection….

We are looking at these two, and we are looking at this organisation and how it treats its talent. Want to know… she doesn’t need to do it, it’s not her role to carry that anymore. So it’s to this room, and the people within this place to grow and nurture, show that they have a viable future within this organisation. That you can come in as an intern and that you can get to the top spot, not just because you are Māori but because you have trained them well, you have nurtured them well.

Now the comments are clearly inappropriate. She is a Cabinet Minister and a member of APH which effectively signs off on who gets appointed to boards such as Radio NZ. Her comments lambasting the board come very close to an illegal directive.

Having said that, I do appreciate the context was one of emotion with her fiancee leaving Radio NZ after ten years and failing to get the Morning Report job.

Ironically I do think Dunlop was discriminated against in not getting the Morning Report job, but not due to being Maori. I have no inside knowledge but I suspect being engaged to a Cabinet Minister was seen as problematic for a job which involves interviewing a lot of Cabinet Ministers.

If that was the reason, that is a pity. I don’t think your choice of partner should be held against you. Jane Clifton is an example of someone who wrote wonderfully acerbic articles about both National and Labour, while partnered up with Murray McCully and then Trevor Mallard.

So I wouldn’t have a problem if Mani Dunlop had gained the Morning Report job. I’d judge her on her performance in the role, not on preconceptions.

Anyway back to Radio NZ, and their refusal to release the full transcript. This looks bad for three reasons.

1. Kiri Allan has herself said she has no problem with it being released
2. The Prime Minister has already had a copy of the transcript, seemingly from Radio NZ staff.
3. The refusal under the Official Information Act includes as a reason to “protect the tikanga of RNZ and its kaimahi”

Protecting the tikanga of Radio New Zealand is not grounds for refusal under the OIA. And the section of the ACT they cite only applies to natural persons, not organisations.

So I have appealed the decision to the Ombudsman. Only the second time in twenty years I have done this I think. It is not that I think the full transcript will contain any proof of further wrong-doing, but that the refusal by Radio NZ is so obviously flawed.

Newshub reports:

Newshub can reveal the Education Minister’s office instructed officials to delay the release of attendance data so it could be timed with a truancy announcement.

Jan Tinetti has previously said she had nothing to do with the delay and now the National Party is accusing the minister of being caught in a lie. …

Tinetti is also under pressure about the attendance data itself and whether her office instructed officials over when it should be released.

In February, under fire in the House, she said: “I can categorically tell that Member that the Ministry of Education is responsible for the data. I have no say over that.”

Newshub can reveal the minister’s office very much did have a say over that.

Emails obtained under the Official Information Act show that on December 14 the attendance data was ready but the minister delayed the release saying she wanted more information.

On February 14, Tinetti’s office told officials the plan is to release the data after her upcoming truancy announcement

A week later the ministry again asks when it will be released and her office again replied it would be after the announcement.

“This stinks to high heaven. The Minister of Education should have known that her staff were actively planning behind the scenes,” said National’s education spokesperson Erica Stanford.

Newshub asked Tinetti if she was aware her office was holding up that data release.

“Not at that time,” she said. 

Stanford said: “She’s got caught out in a lie and tried to cover it up.”

But Tinetti said there is “no lie there”. 

“Absolutely no lie there. I stand by my statement at the time in the context that I made it.”

It is a blatant lie.

The Minister’s Office has no power in its own right. It speaks on behalf of the Minister.

The notion that her staff would tell the Ministry to refuse to release the data for two months, without the Minister’s knowledge is laughable.

There is a pattern here. First we get told the PM’s Deputy Chief of Staff knew about the Nash letter and never told anyone about it. Now we are told the Education Minister’s office heaved the Minister into delaying attendance data for two months, behind the back of the Minister.

I’m surprised Tinetti is not before the Privileges Committee for misleading the House.

Newshub reports:

The Chief Ombudsman has called out Minister for Māori Development Willie Jackson over a “trend of human error” in his office causing delays with responding to the Official Information Act (OIA).

The Ombudsman said Jackson’s office has consistently failed to respond to correspondence from the Ombudsman’s office and a lack of compliance with statutory requirements was “unacceptable”.

In one case, the minister’s office’s failure to follow recommendations in a timely manner meant the Ombudsman considered referring the case to the Solicitor-General. But, after an apology from the minister’s office, decided against it.

This sadly is a new low for compliance with the OIA and a new high for hubris.

A Minister of the Crown just flagrantly broke the law and ignored OIA requests and the Ombudsman’s Office, and only stopped once they were threatened with a referral for prosecution.

There are only two possible explanations here:

1. The Minister’s staff were totally incompetent
2. The Minister instructed the staff to ignore the OIA

Each of the three complaints involved the minister failing to respond to the requester within the maximum timeframe allowed under the legislation, the Ombudsman said. In two of the cases, the minister also failed to respond to requests from the Ombudsman for an explanation of the delays, the statement said.

Just ignoring the Ombudsman is unheard of.

The Ombudsman recommended the minister make responding to the request a “priority”, review his office’s procedures and remind his staff of the statutory obligations.

However, the recommendations weren’t met by the specified date of October 28 meaning “the minister did not meet the public duty to observe the recommendations”. 

“As such, the Ombudsman informed the Minister of his intention to refer the case to the Solicitor-General for consideration and that he would publish a case note.”

This should be a sackable offence.

The Electoral Commission has published the party donation returns for 2022, and boy do they show a lot of people are donating money to change the Government.

A lot of focus has been on the amounts donated, but equally important is how many people are donating. Here is a summary table I have done.

So in terms of people donating over $1,500, National has had 501 donors, ACT 128, Greens 55 and Labour just 45. Not even Labour’s own caucus has donated over $1,500.

Now we can break these donors up into size. The small disclosable donations are those who donate $1,501 to $5,000. National had 320 of those, ACT 50, Greens 38 and Labour 28. The average donation in this range was $3,000 for National, Labour and Greens and $3,500 for ACT.

Next the medium disclosable donations of $5,001 to $15,000. National had 140, ACT 56, Labour 10 and Greens 5. Average donation ranged from $9,000 (Labour) to $12,000 (ACT).

Then the large disclosable donors of above $15,000. National had 41, ACT 22, Greens 12 and Labour just 7. Average size was $21,000 Greens, $35,000 Labour, $57,000 ACT and $63,000 National.

So there are two big stories here. The first is that National and Act have had a very very high level of donations for a non-election year. Between them over 600 people have donated over $1,500 to change the Government. I think this reflects a degree of hostility to the Government not seen before.

The other big story is how donations to Labour have dried up. Not even their caucus are donating to them. The Greens have had more donors over $1,500 than Labour.

Comparable years for Labour in Government are 2019 and 2007. Their level of disclosable donations in those years was:

• 2019: $780k
• 2007: $1,270k

Of course Labour has got the advantage of parliamentary funding for a caucus of 65, so they will be using that to the max up until the regulated period.

Politico report:

A jury on Thursday convicted Enrique Tarrio, the former leader of the Proud Boys, and three allies of a seditious conspiracy to derail the transfer of power from Donald Trump to Joe Biden, a historic verdict following the most significant trial to emerge from the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

Jurors also convicted the four men — Tarrio, Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs and Zachary Rehl — of conspiring to obstruct Congress’ proceedings on Jan. 6 and destroying government property. The jury acquitted a fifth defendant, Dominic Pezzola, of seditious conspiracy but convicted him of obstructing Congress’ Jan. 6 proceedings as well as several other felony charges.

This is not a minor thing to be convicted of. What could they be facing?

The five defendants face lengthy potential sentences. The seditious conspiracy and obstruction charges carry 20-year maximum sentences, and prosecutors are sure to seek significant sentencing enhancements that could stretch those sentences far higher than others handed down so far in Jan. 6 cases. The lengthiest Jan. 6 sentence to date — to a retired New York City police officer named Thomas Webster who brutally assaulted a D.C. officer on the front line of the riot — was 10 years. Prosecutors have sought sentences for three defendants — Webster, Patrick McCaughey and Guy Reffitt — of more than 17 years, but so far judges have rejected their harshest recommendations.

I’d be surprised if they get anything less than five years, and it could be a lot more than that.

Andrew Butler KC dispels some myths about becoming a republic:

1. First, becoming a republic doesn’t mean we would leave the Commonwealth. 
2. Second, becoming a republic does not mean the Treaty of Waitangi dies. 
3. Third, it is misleading to suggest that a New Zealand republic must have a president, with powers like that of the US president.

He also gives some reasons for change, including:

• First, nationhood. Our head of state should reflect who we are. We believe in egalitarianism and merit, not inherited wealth or titles. All Kiwis should be eligible to be head of state, not just people born into one English family.
• Second, transparency. The monarchy and how it operates within New Zealand is obscure.
• Third, constitutional maturity. We stand on our own two feet in the world today, with our own identity, our own foreign policy. Our constitutional arrangements should reflect that we are Kiwis, not British.

The Herald reports:

A mental health patient at Auckland Hospital was made to wait 94 hours in the emergency department because there were no beds available in the psychiatric unit, according to a damning internal email obtained by the Weekend Herald.

The nearly four-day delay was “the longest any patient, under ANY service, has ever waited for an inpatient bed in our department”, a senior emergency doctor told hospital executives in an email on March 29, soon after the person was finally admitted to the adult mental health ward.

“Anecdotally, it may be the longest ever stay for a MH [mental health] patient in any New Zealand ED,” the doctor said.

Two other acutely unwell patients were “marooned” in ED at the same time. They waited 58 and 65 hours to be admitted to Te Whetu Tawera, the 58-bed inpatient psychiatric facility, the email said.

Amazingly in 2018 the Government announced $1.9 billion more for mental health funding, but none of it seems to have gone on stuff like extra mental health beds!

Stuff reports:

Prime Minister Chris Hipkins says the fast-tracked free trade agreement with the UK has the potential to grow New Zealand’s GDP by $1b a year.

But a UK minister says he doesn’t expect that the UK’s meat market will “change radically”.

Hipkins is in London for the King’s coronation and is meeting with UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on Friday (UK time).

Sunak and Hipkins jointly announced overnight that the free trade agreement between the two countries will come into force at the end of May.

Is that really fast-tracked? Let’s see what was said when it was signed.

“We are aiming for this historic agreement to enter into force by the end of 2022, after both partners have ratified the agreement through our respective parliaments,” Damien O’Connor said.

So rather than being fast-tracked, it is actually coming into force at least five months late!

Still better late than never. It is great to have the FTA.

Bryce Edwards writes:

In announcing her departure from the Labour Government on Wednesday, Meka Whaitiri failed to point to any substantive policy and philosophical differences with the party she had represented in Parliament for nearly 10 years. Likewise, yesterday Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer was unable to point to any particular reason for Whaitiri’s resignation and insisted Whaitiri had no “beef” with Labour.

Without Whaitiri being willing to provide any justification for her departure from Labour, speculation can be fairly drawn that it is simply about her own personal ambitions, gripes and vanities. In particular, Whaitiri’s switch to Te Pāti Māori appears to be about her thwarted career ambitions. She was sacked by Jacinda Ardern in 2018 after a nasty altercation with one of her staff. 

Whaitiri never seemed to accept any fault in the dispute, displaying a lack of contrition and unwillingness to explain what happened. Her most notable statement following the dispute was that “In this country, we have a hierarchy; white men, white women, brown men, brown women, and sometimes brown women have to talk extra loud to be heard”.

Whaitiri was disgruntled when she did not make it back into Cabinet after the controversy, and even considered jumping ship to Te Pāti Māori in 2020. Subsequent reshuffles – especially the most recent ones under new prime minister Chris Hipkins – appear to have been the tipping point for Whaitiri, as she is said to have been aggrieved that other younger Māori MPs were promoted over her. It also looked likely that Whaitiri would lose her ministerial position outside of Cabinet after the next election.

If Labour is re-elected, the party will have less share of the vote and will have to divvy up ministerial positions with MPs from other minor parties, possibly including Te Pāti Māori. Other rising stars in Labour would also be likely to make up a refreshed Executive.

So, although Whaitiri has given up a ministerial position – and some have painted this as courageous – this was a case of her reading the writing on the wall. With this move, Whaitiri is now in a position to come back after the election as a more significant political figure, potentially even as a Cabinet Minister representing Te Pāti Māori.

This is spot on. The defection is about personal ambition, not principle.

The proportionality of Parliament has been distorted – something that the Labour Government previously stated as a reason for bringing in the waka jumping law, which Whaitiri has been able to step around. It is clear that both Te Pāti Māori and Labour have done everything they can to prevent Whaitiri from being ejected from Parliament under the waka jumping law. Labour wants to avoid souring their relationship with Te Pāti Māori because its path back to power after the election is likely to be predicated on that party’s support.

Labour has obviously calculated that to invoke the waka-jumping legislation – which they have every right and ability to do – would not be in their interests, even if it would be the principled thing to do. It also appears that Labour and its Speaker have bent over backwards to prevent Whaitiri from inadvertently triggering the legislation.

The wake jumping law is a bad law – but it is a bad law that Labour and Whaitiri voted for. They should either implement the law, or repeal it.

Stuff reports:

Embattled Green MP Elizabeth Kerekere has finally spoken out about the party’s investigation into her, hitting out at the co-leaders.

Kerekere told Green Party members, who will ultimately decide her fate, that she believes the Green co-leaders, James Shaw and Marama Davidson, have made it very difficult for her to continue as an MP.

This is a real escalation. If the members now vote to keep Kerekere in a winnable spot, it is an effective vote of no confidence in the co-leaders.

She also denied calling Chlöe Swarbrick “a crybaby”, saying it was actually a response to another message – and she was talking about herself. That crybaby message, which was accidentally sent to the entire Green caucus, led to the Green Party commissioning its own investigation into Kerekere’s conduct – and other bullying allegations surfacing against her.

Sure, you were referring to yourself when you said “OMG, what a crybaby”.

Kerekere broke her silence during a Zoom call with about 400 Green Party members at 8pm on Friday. Sources who attended the meeting told Stuff that Kerekere criticised the investigation process, and said she’d only received its terms of reference on Wednesday.

If correct, that is ridiculous.

Sources from the meeting said Kerekere directly criticised Shaw and Davidson, claiming they had declined opportunities to de-escalate the crybaby saga. She suggested she felt pushed from the party.

Again, hard to see how this ends well.

UPDATE: Kerekere has resigned as a Green Party MP and will sit as an independent until the election.

Green co-leader Marama Davidson is Minister for homelessness. I can only assume she sees her role as to increase homelessness, as that is what has happened on her watch.

In three years she has only managed to author three papers on homelessness to cabinet and nine press releases on the issue, so on average one every four months.

Some Ministers have three papers in one Cabinet meeting!

But the Government did vote to spend $75 million on helping the homeless, but as usual they think the announcement is more important than the delivery. TVNZ reported:

In last year’s Budget, the Government allocated $75 million over four years to fight homelessness, with $12.6 million set aside for this year.

But so far, only $900,000 has been spent.

“A year ago, the Government announced $75 million dollars for homelessness services. Almost a year later, just a million dollars has gone out the door, about 1.3% of the money. It’s staggering incompetence,” National MP Chris Bishop said.

So 1.3% spent of the four year package and not even 10% of the funding for this year spent.

In the House:

Chris Bishop: Why has just over 1 percent of the $75 million announced last year been spent, when 24,000 families are on the housing register and nearly 3,500 households live in emergency housing?

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: It is absolutely unacceptable that even one person is experiencing housing insecurity. We are very clear that Aotearoa should be a place where everyone has warm, affordable, secure housing where they can put down roots, and I want to be clear that the Budget 2022 funding is only one aspect of this Government’s response to homelessness. Delivery of the Homelessness Action Plan has been ongoing and crucial. There are a range of drivers which contribute to the housing insecurity, and work is under way across Government to address the range of issues, including housing affordability and supply; poverty; access to and availability of social support services and health services—and we know there is definitely still more work to be done. My role in the Homelessness Action Plan has been absolutely crucial to focus the Government’s efforts on preventing and interrupting homelessness.

SPEAKER: That was a lot of information, but it didn’t actually address the basic part of the question. Mr Bishop, do you want another question, or do you want to ask that one again?

Chris Bishop: Oh, I’ll ask that one again, if that’s all right, which—it is very simple—why is only just over 1 percent of the money announced in Budget 2022 in relation to homelessness services being spent a year later?

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: All of those initiatives are working exactly to plan, and by July 2023—which is what we said they would do—those initiatives will be ready. These are a new way of working; Mr Bishop should move away from the old way of working that simply counted numbers out the door, as opposed to an enduring solution that the communities are authentically helping us to lead, and that absolutely does require the time to get these initiatives right.

SPEAKER: That still doesn’t answer the question. I’m going to give the member an additional question.

Chris Bishop: When she says that these programmes are working exactly as planned, is she telling the House that it was a design feature of the announcement that no or very little money would have gone out the door a year later and the metrics for success, as to analysing the effectiveness of that money, will only be developed once the money starts being spent?

Like shooting fish in a barrel. She keeps saying it is all going to plan with the same fervour and one gets told we have always been at war with Eurasia!

Damien Grant writes:

In the last 50 years, according to the published report, of the 311 wealthy families, only 62 enjoyed an inheritance in the last 50 years, and the total that was transferred was just $411 million, a fraction of the net worth of these individuals. Most received little or nothing at the start of their commercial lives.

The majority of those with serious capital in New Zealand today made their wealth in a free market by providing goods and services on an industrial scale that others were willing to pay for.

The days of the richest people being inherited wealth are long gone, and that is a good thing.

Let’s be honest. The number of citizens who pay more than their “fair share”, if we consider that to be sharing the tax burden equally amongst all of us, is low. There is a small number who do most of the heavy lifting, who pay a huge percentage of the tax burden.

Despite the hysterics of the report, the 311 maligned families paid, according to a graph included in it, roughly $1 billion in tax in the 2021 financial year. 

So 311 families paid 1% of all state revenue. This was higher than in past years, where the average has been 0.5%.

We have the analysis back-to-front. These small number of citizens are the engine of our economy. They are the superstars both in terms of fuelling New Zealand by their innovation, risk-taking and the contribution to employment and commercial life. And on top, they massively subsidise the rest of us with an outsized contribution to the Crown’s reserves.

Well stated. But that won’t stop Labour and Greens coming for them if they win the election.

Stuff reports:

The Green Party is refusing to say how long the investigation into its MP Elizabeth Kerekere will take – in turn fuelling frustration from the party base.

More Green members, who are being asked to rank the party’s members and MPs to form its list, have spoken to Stuff, concerned the party is purposely “dragging out” the bullying investigation into Kerekere.

Multiple members, who had been closely aligned with the party – and had worked closely within the caucus and for MPs – say they’re going to cut ties with the party altogether. They’re angry at how the party is treating Kerekere, an MP who some have alleged is a bully.

It is bizarre that it has dragged on for weeks.

Another source, who as a party member was privy to Green caucus discussions and has been highly involved in the party, said the wider bullying claims were hard to believe.

“I wouldn’t say that Elizabeth Kerekere is the bully in the Green Party caucus,” they said.

“Everyone has their bad days in caucus – but I’ve seen nearly every other MP in the Green Party be a lot meaner to the other MPs in caucus than I have Dr Kerekere… This is not the MP I think they should invest their time into investigating.”

Fascinating. This insider claims that Kerekere is an amateur mean girl compared to other Green MPs. So who is the biggest bully in the Green caucus?