Roger Partridge writes:

The LNG terminal is not the Government’s preferred energy policy. It is the consequence of its predecessor’s.

In October 2018, I wrote about the gulf between virtue signalling and virtue. The occasion was the release of MBIE’s Regulatory Impact Statement on the Ardern Government’s ban on offshore oil and gas exploration.

MBIE’s advice was sobering. Rather than reducing emissions, the Ministry warned the ban would likely increase global greenhouse gas emissions, as production shifted to less efficient plants overseas. And far from making New Zealanders more prosperous, it would make them poorer. The mid-point estimate of losses to the Crown alone was $16.6 billion.

I warned then that the Government would be judged not by the virtues it signalled, but by those it delivered. The verdict is now in.

The exploration ban did not reduce emissions. It capped New Zealand’s offshore gas reserves at a stroke, scaring off for the foreseeable future the investment needed to discover and develop new fields and extend the existing ones.

So the impact of Labour’s gas ban was known and predicted seven years ago. Today we are paying the price.

As domestic gas became harder to secure, generators leaned on the only fuel that was stockpilable, dispatchable and available at scale: coal. A policy designed to hasten decarbonisation made New Zealand more dependent on its dirtiest fuel.

Labour’s ban was an economic, environmental and energy disaster.

The result was the electricity crisis of 2024. Wholesale prices spiked. Winstone Pulp International closed, costing 230 jobs. Transpower came perilously close to ordering rolling blackouts. This was not a market failure. It was the predictable consequence of regulatory choices that had stripped the market of the tools it needed to function.

Rarely has such a high price been paid for virtue signalling.

Roger Partridge writes:

A principal who runs a school well does not get to tell parents what to cook for dinner. The authority is real – but it is specific. It does not travel home with the children.

The Reserve Bank of New Zealand seems to have the same problem – mistaking authority in one domain for authority in everything adjacent.

Previously the Reserve Bank seemed to think it was in charge of climate change and the Maori economy. They were so far out of their lane, they would driving through a forest instead of the motorway.

The latest foray into an area where they have dubious authority does at least involve money, which is something they have a legitimate interest in.

The Bank released a consultation paper proposing to require banks to establish over 1,200 new “full-service” cash sites across the country. New Zealanders in urban areas would be no more than a three-kilometre walk from free cash services. Rural residents would face no more than a 15 to 30 kilometre drive. Banks would bear the cost – an estimated $104 million a year, at least in the first instance.

This to me is akin, to NZTA telling petrol companies they must have a petrol station within 30 kms of every house, and they must keep these maintained even if 90% of the vehicle fleet is now electric.

The substance of the proposal is only one issue though. Partridge notes:

The 84-page document does not identify any express statutory power authorising the Bank to mandate where banks provide retail cash services. It relies instead on three propositions: that “one of our functions is ensuring the cash needs of the public are met”; that providing cash services is part of a bank’s “social licence to operate”; and the Bank’s self-described role as “steward of cash.”

None of these is a legal power. The Bank’s central banking function under section 116 of the Reserve Bank Act involves issuing currency, monitoring its distribution, and monitoring the impact of technology on the public’s needs. Those are observational functions – not a power to compel private businesses to establish a national cash distribution network. “Social licence” is a rhetorical concept, not a regulatory authority. And “stewardship of cash” is a title the Bank gave itself.

What the Bank appears to be doing is borrowing the coercive authority it holds as prudential regulator to keep the banking system sound – where it can impose binding requirements on banks under prudential legislation – and deploying it in a domain where no such power exists. 

Prudential regulation guards against systemic risks – the kind that can bring down the banking system.  It does not cover the colour of the bank’s carpets, the hours they keep, where they operate shopfronts or where they place ATMs.

Mandating minimum geographic cash coverage across the country is a service requirement, not a financial stability issue. And no financial stability regulator in any comparable country has used prudential powers for this purpose.

If Parliament wants the Reserve Bank to dictate where ATMs must be, then they should explicitly give that power.

The Reserve Bank itself recognised this just six years ago. In its October 2019 “Future of Cash” consultation, the Bank proposed that new regulation-making powers be added to the Reserve Bank Act. The Bank said these powers were “only intended to be invoked if there is risk of a significant reduction in access to cash across the country.” The envisaged model was that the Reserve Bank would design regulations and recommend them to the Minister of Finance, with parliamentary oversight.

Parliament then had two opportunities to grant those powers – the Reserve Bank Act 2021 and the Deposit Takers Act 2023. It enacted the Bank’s other 2019 proposal (standards for banknote-processing machines), but not the cash access mandate. The current consultation skips over all of this. The Bank is asserting a power that Parliament was asked to legislate and chose not to grant.

If the Bank believes it has the statutory power to compel banks to establish a national cash distribution network regardless, it should say so.

I agree. They should release legal advice that they have the power, if they wish to proceed.

To me it is like the BSA – government entities trying to expand their power by dictate rather than legislation.

AP reports:

A former Army National Guard member who had spent eight years in prison for attempting to aid the Islamic State opened fire on a classroom at Virginia’s Old Dominion University on Thursday before ROTC students subdued and killed him, authorities said. 

He had yelled “Allahu Akbar” before the shooting, which left one person dead and two wounded, according to the FBI.

Terrible. But could have been much worse.

Dominique Evans, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Norfolk field office, said at a news conference that the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps students showed “extreme bravery and courage” and prevented further loss of life by stopping the gunman, Mohamed Bailor Jalloh. 

The students subdued him and “rendered him no longer alive,” Evans said. “I don’t know how else to say it.” She confirmed Jalloh wasn’t shot but didn’t provide further details.

That must be the euphemism of the year – “rendered him no longer alive”.

The unarmed students managed to subdue and kill an armed terrorist. I hope they all get medals.

The NZ Herald has an op ed by John Howard and Tim Ewing-Jarvie on national security.

I was privileged to hear them speak recently on this issue, and it was hugely illuminating (and depressing).

Before we get into what they say, it is worth highlighting what they have done – as that is relevant to their opinions.

Major General Howard was the head of defence intelligence for NZ. More impressively he also served for several years as the deputy director of the US Defence Intelligence Agency. He was only the second non American to serve at that level. It has more than 16,000 staff and is a major contributor to the US President’s Daily Brief. He previously led our deployment of 7,000 troops to East Timor, now Timor-Leste.

Major Tim Ewing-Jarvie was the Chief Instructor of the NZ Army Combat School. He spent three years as an advisor in The Pentagon, and previously was the Recon and Sniper Platoon Commander.

Both gentlemen have seen combat, and have worked professionally in intelligence at the highest levels. They know more the the average blogger, to put it mildly.

They write:

The United States–Iran war has punctured any residual belief that distant conflicts stay distant, with airspace disruption affecting flights through Middle East hubs and adding renewed pressure to the prices of energy, key imports and inputs. Set this alongside Russia’s war in Ukraine grinding into its fifth year, a pressured Nato, the weaponisation of trade and escalating tension across the Indo-Pacific.

We are a long way from Helen Clark’s benign strategic environment.

It’s fair to say that national security is not a policy area most people encounter directly, in the same way personal experiences of a classroom, a hospital waiting room, or a burglary shape views on education, health or crime. But national security is not all about warships and intelligence agencies. It’s about protecting New Zealand’s freedom to prosper (economically, ideologically and physically) and the resilience of those systems and dependencies that underpin everyday life.

In other words, it is really really important.

Addressing these challenges may, for one, call for broader public-private information sharing, greater contingency planning with critical sectors, and a more explicit national view of which dependencies (energy, medicines, critical minerals) warrant prioritised investment for greater resilience. We need to talk more about the potential function of government subsidies to offset commercial viability issues in the process, and the prioritisation of infrastructure resilience. Perhaps more challenging, we also need more nuanced discussions about our sensitivity to resource extraction at a time when the inputs needed to secure sustainable technologies could become increasingly unaffordable, or inaccessible, without valued chips to trade.

We need to be prepared.

Take one example. What if China moves on Taiwan within the next 12 months? If the US uses up the huge bulk of its offensive capacity in Iran, this could tempt China to move earlier than later. China is building 10 warships a year and a new aircraft carrier every three years or so.

I used to think China moving on Taiwan was possible, but not probable. I now think it is probable – more when, not if. President Xi has said multiple times they will unify, with force if necessary. We should believe him.

Has the NZ Government got a plan for what to do if this happens? Have we war gamed what the effect on our supply lines will be, on the economy – let alone the diplomatic and military response. Do we have a mitigation plan for this eventuality, that we are already putting into place?

Some other thoughts I have had, since hearing them speak.

1. We should follow Australia in identifying critical industry supply chains, and directing the industry that over the next x years, no more than y% (say 50%) should come from one country.
2. We should consider a Director of National Intelligence who co-ordinates all the intelligence functions from Defence, SIS, GCSB, Customs, Police etc. However only to do this if it doesn’t just become an extra bureaucratic agency.
3. Should the National Security Advisor be the Chief Executive of DPMC (who has many other things to look after), or be a standalone position?
4. Should our commitment to increase defence spending to 2% of GDP be legislated, so that future governments follow through (or explicitly change the law). We have made the commitment in theory, but most of it is set for many years away.

I think we underestimate how devastating for regional security (and our economy) a conflict between China and Taiwan would be. Hoping it never happens is not a strategy.

The Auditor-General has reported on expenditure by the Chatham Islands Council while Paul Eagle was CEO, and it is damning.

The Council owns a house that it rents to the Chief Executive as part of the employment package. By 2022, maintenance work on the house was overdue. …

The incoming Chief Executive requested additional works after he inspected the house in late 2023. The former Chief Executive then requested an increased budget of $500,000 in October 2023, which the Council approved. The Chief Executive took over managing the project when he started in the role and sought further changes to the scope of the work.

$500k on a house renovation is massive. But for the Chatham Islands Council it is over 10% of its annual budget – just on renovating the CEs house!

The Chief Executive provided documents to our Office that gave an inaccurate record of certain events and when they happened

This is very serious. They were:

• quotes and contracts for work on the project to upgrade the Chief Executive’s house that appeared to be from the builder, but which the Chief Executive had edited or created;
• procurement memorandums that were dated in 2024 but had been created by the Chief Executive after June 2025; and
• a contract variation with a supplier that the Chief Executive had edited to state an incorrect variation date.

Wow.

We consider that the Chief Executive’s actions were unacceptable and demonstrated exceptionally poor practice and judgement. We have not reached a view on the legality of the Chief Executive’s actions. In this case, we consider it sufficient to draw the Council, Parliament, and the public’s attention to the matter.

The Auditor-General often speaks diplomatically. Here they do not pull their punches.

Last night I and a number of NZ Against Hamas members attended what was for me one of the most entertaining events of the last 12 months: a mass protest of a few hundred Kiwi Iranians against a dozen or so elderly communists who turned up to a meeting in Mt Eden War Memorial Hall in Auckland against American and Israeli military strikes on Iran. (That’s not an exaggeration: I only saw about a dozen people turn up, although I suppose more might have sneaked in the back to avoid being booed by the Iranians.)

We live in a crazy world

I’m not sure what was most hilarious: white people in Socialist Aotearoa t-shirts yelling at the Iranians for supporting the strikes, a Kiwi Iranian giving a speech condemning the commies for their “white saviour complex”, Kiwi Iranians shouting “Thank you Bibi, thank you Trump!” in gratitude for the strikes on Iran (a left-leaning Jewish member of NZ Against Hamas who was standing next to me commented with amusement that she thought the Iranians liked Bibi a lot more than she did), Kiwi Iranians shouting “Come out terrorists!” at the end of the event so that they could boo them, or Kiwi Iranians dancing for joy to “Ayatollah is Dead, Khamenei is Dead!” blasting rhythmically from a loudspeaker to music.

There’s stuff that needs reporting on

As much as I enjoyed myself, one of the NZ Against Hamas admin team told me afterwards that he watched the live stream of the event online, and some things were said that need drawing to the attention of the New Zealand public. If we had a competent media I wouldn’t have to write about this here on Kiwiblog, but as usual the only thing the media bothered to report on is that there was a brief physical scuffle between one of the Iranians and one of the commies outside.

The speeches were outrageous

The speakers explicitly said that they want the Islamic Republic to win, that they don’t think it is totalitarian (event organiser Suha Aksoy literally said “Totalitarian regime? I don’t accept that! I don’t accept that!”), and that education for women in Iran is “as good as it gets”. Every time these absurd things were said, a roomful of “peace activists” applauded. Aksoy also criticised people who are on the fence, saying that: “By undermining with this both sides of the fence attitude, very silly attitude in my opinion, if we do that, we are weaking our comrades. Comrades in this anti-imperialist fight. At this point in time we do not have any option but to support Iran… this war must be won by Iran!”

Here’s the footage

NZ Against Hamas uploaded the relevant section of footage to our public Facebook page, view for yourself: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1592232115261293

Communist hypocrisy

I note in passing the sheer hypocrisy of communists criticising the US and Israel for military strikes on Iran to effect regime change, ostensibly in the name of respecting national sovereignty and of opposition to violence, when on the other hand communists seek to overthrow governments everywhere via violent revolution.

Twyford praised the group

But while the unhinged opinions of the local communist cell in its latest anti-war iteration do not come as any particular surprise, what concerns me is that just 10 minutes after Aksoy spoke, Labour Party MP Phil Twyford thanked the group for organising the meeting, and said “I must say, I’ve really enjoyed listening to all the contributors.”

The Labour Party needs to distance itself from fringe politics

I reiterate for emphasis: Phil Twyford said “all” the contributors, which logically includes Aksoy. In my view it is grossly inappropriate for a Labour MP like Phil Twyford to praise this garbage. It is the sort of thing I would expect to hear coming from a Green MP. I am deeply concerned that through people like Phil Twyford these views could enter the mainstream and that is why I am calling it out here and now. The Labour Party should immediately and publicly distance itself from fringe and extremist politics.

The Greens have published their draft list, voted on by delegates. It sees several MPs dropped to probably unwinnable places.

Steve Abel has the biggest drop from 9 to 14. He is probably the most environmentally focused MP in their caucus, so I guess he hasn’t done enough campaigning on Gaza.

Scott Willis drops from 12 to 16 – unlikely to be back on that.

New MP Mike Davidson may have a short tenure – going from 19 to 22.

The Greens appear to have successfully eradicated straight white men from their likely caucus. On current polling they get 13 MPs, none of which will be from that endangered minority! They almost managed to eliminate straight white women also, but one snuck through.

The latest data from Stats NZ on how much alcohol was available for consumption, per adult, shows it has declined again – for the ninth year in a row.

This is a huge decline. 24% since 2011. Overall people are drinking less – a lot less. This will be a mixture of people drinking lower alcohol products, less frequent drinking, and fewer people drinking.

This data should have huge ramifications for public health campaigns around alcohol. Broadly one can adopt measures to overall restrict the availability of alcohol (impacting all drinkers) or adopt measures to target problem drinkers.

A 24% reduction in overall alcohol (available for) consumption shows that the focus should be on problem drinkers, not all drinkers. Overall more people are drinking responsibly and less. We shouldn’t be making it illegal to buy a bottle off wine with your groceries if doing a late night shop. We should be using alcohol interlocks on cars more, cracking down on under age sales etc.

James Meager announced:

Golden Bay Air will be the first airline to receive a loan from funding ear-marked for at-risk regional air routes, Associate Transport Minister James Meager says.

The airline will receive approximately $1.1 million from the $30 million package set aside by the Coalition Government from the Regional Infrastructure Fund (RIF), designed to stabilise the sector and support regional routes in the short to medium term.

I’m against corporate welfare for regional air travel. I’m against corporate welfare for regional rail. I’m against corporate welfare for ferries to Waiheke Island. Commercial reality, not taxpayer subsidies or loans, should determine routes.

“Golden Bay Air’s loan will ensure the regional airline can refinance existing aircraft debt and fund essential ongoing major maintenance checks. This targeted relief will support it to maintain flights from Tākaka to Nelson, Karamea and Wellington,” Mr Meager says.

If there must be corporate welfare, I prefer a one off grant to a loan. If the business is solid, then it can borrow more commercially. If it is not solid, then a taxpayer loans doesn’t cover the core problem. It just leads to a sunk cost fallacy that as they owe us money, we most loan them even more.

The airline has capacity for around 17,000 passengers a year. If they need $1 million they should charge $6 more per flight (which start at $259) rather than sock the taxpayers.

The Herald reports:

MP Willow-Jean Prime has lost education in a reshuffle of the Labour Party’s shadow Cabinet, with the portfolio being handed to Ginny Andersen. …

Her credibility in the education portfolio came under scrutiny last year after the Herald revealed she had initially ignored and then declined briefings on the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) change programme.

I don’t think I have ever seen such political incompetence. She ignored and then declined multiple personal invites from the Minister on a vital education issue. And then when the changes are announced, Labour claims they should have been consulted and discover she turned down every opportunity offered her.

Camilla Belich is the party’s new justice spokeswoman. Justice was a portfolio held by Duncan Webb, who is leaving politics.

Belich is competent, and will be one to watch.

Another interesting aspect of Labour’s line up is that Hipkins doesn’t seem to trust his own deputy leader with any significant portfolio. Normally a deputy leader will have one of the real heavy hitting portfolios. Cullen had Finance, King had Social Development, Robertson had Finance. Parker had Finance and AG. Ardern had Justice.

But Sepuloni has three minor portfolios – Auckland, Women and Pacific. The Auckland portfolio is just a co-ordinating role. There is no ministry or power. Women and Pacific are tiny ministries with 42 and 89 staff respectively. These are roles normally held by the no 20 ranked spokesperson, not no 2.

Why does Sepuloni not have Social Development, or Justice, or Education etc? Why does the deputy leader have basically no significant portfolios?

The vote of an 18 year old deliquent in New Zealand is as important as that of Willy Apiata.

Anyone who wants to be in government and succeed in their ministerial portfolios needs to respect every voter and all of those who cannot vote – primarily children.

It is an easy avenue for supporters of a political party to denigrate the supporters of their opponents. The most famous in recent times would be the comments of Hillary Clinton when she stated that “half” of Donald Trump’s supporters could be placed in a “basket of deplorables”.

Even on this site esteemed people diminish supporters of opposition parties as being of lower intelligence, knowledge, etc. It does not help in any way. You have to respect every person/voter.

In the latest IPSOS poll Labour was shown to be more trusted on a significant majority of issues. I.e. Labour are ahead on:

• Inflation/cost of living.
• Healthcare/Hospitals
• The Economy (even with National)
• Housing.
• Unemployment
• Poverty/Inequality
• Drug & Alcohol Abuse
• Petrol Prices
• Education
• Immigration
• Household Debt
• Race Relations
• Transport
• Taxation
• Population

If National loses the election this year it is on them for doing a poor job and assuming that they would have two terms. It is also on their supporters for not holdiing them to account from the first minute – and for sending some of the Ministers up a garden path through the obsessions of their advisors.

Pointing at the oppostion and their supporters is simply deflecting responsibility.

CNN’s Stefano Pozzebon writes:

It is less than two months since US special forces captured Venezuela’s longtime authoritarian leader Nicolas Maduro during a nighttime raid in Caracas, yet it is hard to overstate how different the South American country now feels.

There’s a new buzz, an optimism that, to be frank, I have never seen before.

I moved to Caracas in 2016.

So the author actually lives in the country.

Last week, one of the most surreal moments I witnessed took place not in Caracas, but in a Chevron-run oil field in the middle of nowhere called Petroindependencia1.

CNN was one of three international outlets invited to tag along, as Rodriguez chaperoned Wright around her country to showcase the potential of what are thought to be the largest oil reserves in the world.

The moment seemed straightforward: two leaders visiting an industrial complex, shaking hands, smiling for the camera and making a nondescript speech or two.

What I had not expected to see was Rodriguez and Wright traveling in the same vehicle with minimal staff, Rodriguez amicably switching from English to Spanish to make sure the secretary was comfortable, and the pair discussing the finer technical details of how oil wells work (crude de-emulsification processes, anyone?)

So after 27 years of hostility, you have the two Governments working together cordially at the highest levels.

Similar caution was palpable among several diplomats I spoke to. The consensus, at least among the international community, is that Venezuela is taking the first small steps toward democracy but that it should not rush ahead. …

Nobody in Caracas is fooling themselves: the country is on its knees, and a lot of work is required before Venezuela can be great again, but even the harshest critics must acknowledge the enthusiasm.

Perhaps, the most surreal conversation I had was not hearing a Chavistapresident singing capitalism’s praise, or friends who have been out of the country for eight years finally looking for a flight to Caracas; but a European diplomat who, after a long pause, told me: “At least for now, we’ve got to admit that Trump got this one right.”

So far, so good.

The Telegraph reports:

I think this is a good idea. Everest is the tallest peak in the world, but is not the most difficult technically. This means you get lots of people paying to climb it, and huge queues on the mountain.

Requiring climbers to have climbed another 7000m+ peak in Nepal will both reduce demand for Everest, but also increase the skills of climbers.

Shane Reti has announced he will retire at the general election. He has been an MP for 12 years, during which time he has been deputy leader, acting leader and a senior Minister. Shane is a hell of a nice guy, and one who has been absolutely driven by a desire to improve NZ’s health system. He served as a GP for many years, and also studied at Harvard Medical School.

His Whangarei seat is relatively safe for National, so will also be keenly contested I am sure.

So every Labour Government except Lange’s inherited a surplus from National.

Every single Labour Government since at least the 1950s has left National with a deficit.

Imagine what sort of deficit a Labour/Greens/Te Pati Maori Government could chalk up in a term?

The Royal Commission has released their second and final report. Some key aspects:

• a significant change in circumstances occurred in October 2021 when decision-makers realised that elimination was no longer achievable, even as vaccination rates were increasing – and they did not account for this clearly in the strategy and subsequent alert level decisions 
• Macroeconomic impacts now appear worse than forecast at the time
• The Government did not make Rapid Antigen Tests easily accessible by the private sector until early 2022, after the existing PCR testing system had been overwhelmed. 

Simeon Brown points out:

• “The Royal Commission has now confirmed that Chris Hipkins kept Auckland locked down longer than required, despite receiving advice that restrictions could end sooner.
• “The Royal Commission has also confirmed that unredacted Cabinet papers reveal the Ministry of Health warned Hipkins the Auckland boundary was unnecessary and impractical and should be lifted.
• Around half of Labour’s $60 billion COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund had nothing to do with the pandemic;
• Labour’s ‘shovel-ready projects’ failed Treasury’s test of being timely and temporary;
• Highly stimulatory fiscal and monetary policies pushed house prices far above comparable countries and fuelled inflation;

Justice Radich has just made the following rulings:

• The suspension of Kapa-Kingi as a member of Te Pāti Māori on 23 October 2025 was in breach of the Kawa (rules) and, therefore, was unlawful.
• The expulsion of Kapa-Kingi from Te Pāti Māori or to cancel her membership in Te Pāti Māori on 9 November 2025 was in breach of the Kawa and, therefore, was unlawful.
• They must now inform the Speaker that Ms Kapa-Kingi is reinstated to Te Pāti’s parliamentary membership

It is very rare for the judiciary to make rulings such as this, but the way TPM went about their decision making was so flawed, that the Judge felt he had to. This is a humiliating loss for Tamihere and his deputy co-leaders, especially the explicit instruction that she must be returned to caucus.

Some aspects of the ruling:

• The suspension decision was made at a meeting where no notice of it was given to anyone, key members were missing or excluded, the need for consensus was ignored, none of the process laid out in the rules was followed and tikanga principles were ignored.
• The expulsion was not referred to the Electorate Council or Disciplinary and Disputes Committee as required
• The National Council meeting that expelled her did not include all its members
• The process was not followed at all, “not even in a passing way”
• The decision was made without “even providing notice of it” and “would appear to be entirely at odds with the approach to decision-making that the Kawa prescribes”
• There have been fundamental errors of law and breaches of natural justice

In terms of not just finding the process flawed, but ordered she be returned to membership and caucus the judge noted:

The extent of the breaches of the Kawa in this case is such that in my view, it would be fundamentally unjust if I did not award relief . The respondents have not just breached the Kawa’s rules but the very essence of the tikanga principles that, expressly, underpin the rules.

Makes you wonder about the sincerity of their leadership who always go on about tikanga, when they so clearly ignore it in their own work.

Tamihere now needs to decide (let’s not kid ourselves anyone else is the decision maker) if he tried to expel her again. Also if they don’t try to expel her again, do they readmit Takuta Ferris to membership?

George W Bush writes about George Washington:

Few qualities have inspired me more than Washington’s humility. I have studied the corrupting nature of power, and how retaining power for power’s sake has infected politics for generations. Our first president could have remained all-powerful, but twice he chose not to. …

After leading the United States to victory over Great Britain in the Revolutionary War, Washington was at the height of his power. Some suggested that he should become king. Instead, General Washington resigned his military commission in 1783.

To say this was not normal was an understatement. Even today we see military leaders seize power from democratic leaders. Washington was a military leader who gave up power.

As America’s first president, Washington knew “the first of everything in our situation will serve to establish a precedent.” So after two terms in office, with a distrust of long-seated rulers still fresh on America’s soul, Washington chose not to run again for president. And by once again relinquishing power rather than holding on to it, he ensured America wouldn’t become a monarchy, or worse.

And this precedent held as a convention until WWII, and was then made a constitutional requirement. It is one off the most important restraints on power the US had – Presidents can’t use the immense power ion their office to try and get re-elected endlessly.

Louise Upston announced:

In an historic moment, New Zealand will host its first-ever State of Origin match next year at Eden Park, a major event expected to draw thousands of international visitors and deliver a significant economic boost for Auckland. …

“Hosting State of Origin is expected to attract over 10,000 of our Aussie neighbours, generate more than 50,000 international visitor nights, and inject an estimated $17.4 million into the economy.

It has been reported that around $5 million was paid to have the game played here. There is a role for taxpayers to fund events which will bring people to NZ (as opposed to events that attract domestic tourism only).

But is $5 million for 10,000 tourists a good investment? That is $500 per tourist. Will the average Aussie really stay for five nights? If so, then yes the tax take off the increased economic activity probably means a good investment, but I am sceptical of these projections.

What I hope we see if hard data after the event around how many actual Australians purchased tickets for the game, and their average stay in NZ. That will guide us as to whether it was a good decision or not.

A reader who is a postgraduate student in Christchurch offered to read The Press for four weeks, and analyse what proportion of news articles, opinion columns, letters and cartoons were left, right and neutral. The summary of his findings are:

Neutral includes stories etc that just aren’t political at all.

So the ratio of left leaning to right leaning is the following:

• News: 8:1
• Opinion: 4:1
• Letters: 10:1
• Cartoons: ∞

Now one might say as it is a centre-right government, you expect more critical stories and columns as they are the Government. But does anyone think these numbers would be reversed if it was a centre-left government?

The full spreadsheet is available below.