Chris Lynch writes:

I recall another meeting was set up with my then “boss”, Lianne, and her press secretary because Lianne felt my questions were too hard.

My then boss, with no journalism background, reveled in the chance to head an “important meeting” while we all sat there emotionally pandering to someone who said she didn’t want to be mayor.

In the end, it was decided that not just topics, but question lines would be provided to the mayor’s office the night before any interview.

Astonishing.

My then boss decided it was better for the station to be seen to have the mayor on the show, putting aside my journalism integrity to appease council relations.

In a roundabout way, it was explained council was a commercial client.

Now consider the hundreds of millions of advertising the Government has spent through media, plus the $55 million of direct funding.

Thomas Coughlan writes:

Labour strategists will begin work making sure that whatever went wrong with the Collins campaign will not be repeated at the general election next year. If it does, Labour could be toast – simple as that.

You can’t win a general election just by winning Wellington.

Central government can ultimately have everything its way, but Labour now has to ponder whether it wants to go to war with a nation of right-wing mayors over Three Waters and RMA reform, or whether to drop or modify the policies (modification being far more likely) in recognition of the fact the electorate in many, perhaps most, parts of the country appears to have rejected them (we should note that Brown’s left-of-centre predecessor Phil Goff was also a Three Waters sceptic, seeing very little benefit for Auckland).

Ardern’s statement said she wanted to “make voting more accessible. Greater participation in elections is good for democracy!”.

The comment correlated with a remark made by Collins which suggested one of the reasons he performed poorly is the hodgepodge way local body elections are conducted, which has resulted in terrible turnout.

Goff was not a fan of Three Waters but he wasn’t really an opponent of it. He just politely and quietly said it wasn’t what he wanted. Wayne Brown will not be quiet or polite about it.

Turnout is not why the left lost. It was unpopularity. The Auckland turnout in 2022 is barely changed from 2019. The PM should be careful not to imply elections in which her sides loses are somehow illegitimate because of low turnout.

This post is by PaulL, a regular commentor and occasional contributor.   It is the third post in a series on the financial incentives to work and the impacts of our tax and transfer system on household formation.  The index to all posts in the series can be found here.

This post looks at an example household to understand their effective marginal tax rates and their incentives to go to work.  This example is a solo parent that has two children – one between three and five years old, one over five years.  They live in Auckland and have accommodation costs of $300 per week, so they receive an accommodation supplement.

This post is very detailed, as it explains how to interpret the information.  Subsequent posts will provide other examples, but with less detailed walkthrough.

If this household is entirely benefit supported, their weekly before tax income will include:

• $511 per week in Job Seeker benefit (arguably this person might qualify for the sole parent benefit instead), which is taxable
• $129 in accommodation supplement, which is tax free
• $231 in family tax credits – these exceed the tax payable, but are refundable so you can receive more tax refund than you paid in income tax
• They may be eligible for other, more targeted, benefits, those aren’t considered here
• The total weekly income, after tax, will be $792.41
• This is equivalent to a before tax annual income of $49,000 per annum

Just imagine this. You are in your 70s and driving through Napier when you see a distressed woman waving her hands and asking for help.

As you are not a sociopath you stop. She explains a man is after her and she jumps in your car and you take off.

Then another car screams past you, blocking you way. The man opens your door and starts bashing you in the face because you dared to help this woman. You escape luckily but the damage is so great you need facial surgery and your face is unrecognisable.

I hope the judicial system treats this case with the seriousness it deserves.

Thomas Cranmer writes:

Deep within the Water Services Entities Bill is a mechanism that will have significant influence at the operating level of the structure – it is a mechanism that is only available to mana whenua.

It is very obscure but very powerful.

Appropriately, given their controversial nature, the Te Mana o te Wai mechanism lies deep in the Water Services Entities Bill —in Subpart 3 of Part 4 of the Bill to be precise. Section 140 of the Bill simply states that “mana whenua whose rohe or takiwā includes a freshwater body in the service area of a water services entity may provide the entity with a Te Mana o te Wai statement for water services”. They can be provided by one or more iwi and can be reviewed and replaced by those iwi at any time. Once received, the board of the relevant water services entity has an obligation to engage with mana whenua and prepare a plan that sets out how it intends to give effect to that Te Mana o te Wai statement. And that is where it ends. The Bill is silent on what can (and cannot) be included in the statements and provides no guidance as to the outcomes that the statements are intended to achieve. In short, there are no limits to the scope of Te Mana o te Wai statements. The relevant water entity board must simply give effect to those statements “to the extent that it applies to the entity’s duties, functions, and powers”.

Their importance in the governance structure of Three Waters cannot be overstated.

A number of people have observed that this is not co-governance but simple governance. The boards must give effect to the Te Mana o te Wai statements. So it doesn’t matter who is on the board, and who owns nominal shares. The legislation basically means the water entities must do as they are instructed via these statements.

This is a major change in policy in New Zealand.

An editorial from The Times (est 1785) on Jacinda’s UN speech:

Freedom of speech is the essence of a free society, the freedom from which all others flow. The right to
express dissent or advance views that may clash with those of the majority or of those in power is what
differentiates a democracy from an authoritarian state. It is perhaps not surprising, then, that comments by Jacinda Ardern, the prime minister of New Zealand, in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly last month have caused alarm.

They have caused alarm, but few people in NZ would know this as media have ignored the criticism of the speech in major media outlets in the UK, US and Australia.

An example that Ms Ardern gave of the sort of misinformation and disinformation she thinks need to be suppressed was climate change denialism. There is certainly a broad scientific consensus on climate change. But although those who deny it may be wrong, they should be heard. Science advances by testing hypotheses and weighing evidence in open debate. The same goes for those who doubt
the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Their views are wrong.

Reputable publishers are not obliged to give them a platform. But they should not be banned.

There is a huge difference between not giving someone a platform, and banning them from social media.

The promotion of terrorism, glorification of violence, celebration of acts that threaten the security of the state. These are things that no society allows. These are liberties denied in defence of liberty itself. But silencing critical voices as “disinformation” is the tactic of tyrants, as the Putin regime’s approach shows.

Very strong words from a normally staid newspaper.

s

d

This post is by PaulL, a regular commentor and occasional contributor.   It is the second post in a series on the financial incentives to work and the impacts of our tax and transfer system on household formation.  The index to all posts in the series can be found here.

When we talk about incentives to work what matters is the impact on the next dollar – the impact at the margin.  People care about the impact of the change from their previous situation.  I wasn’t working and now I am.  How much extra money do I get than I had before?  I was working 20 hours a week, now I’m working 24 hours.  How much extra money do I get?

At a headline level the lowest marginal tax rate in NZ is 14%.  So if I work four extra hours at minimum wage, I should get $21.20 x 4 hours x 86% = $73 cash in the hand.  Easy, right?

But remember that I’m getting a benefit.  I may be getting an accommodation supplement.  I may be getting childcare support, and I get tax credits via working for families.  All those government programmes have some form of threshold and abatement rate.

If I work an extra hour I get $21.20 gross income.  

• I lose $3 to tax.  
• If I’m over the $160 weekly income threshold, my jobseeker benefit will also be reduced by 70 cents in the dollar. I lose another $14 in benefit reduction.
• I may also have accommodation supplement.  If I cross the earning threshold I’ll lose 25 cents in the dollar. 
• If I’m a parent I’m probably getting Family Tax Credit.  I’ll lose 27 cents in the dollar if my household income is more than $33,000 per annum. 
• If I’m not getting a main benefit I may get In Work Tax Credit, and I’ll lose 27 cents in the dollar on that
• If I’m a sole parent I’ll be getting a subsidy on my childcare. That has income thresholds at $840 a week, $1,250 a week, $1,400 and $1,500 a week, each of which reduce the amount paid.

Matthew speaks truth to power here,

The Kapiti Coast District Council has listed a $500,000 loan to Air Chathams as a loan to a community organisation.

This looks like trying to disguise corporate welfare as a charitable endeavour.

Air Chathams is of course a for profit company.

Stuff reports:

A teacher yelled racist abuse at an outnumbered group of police officers dealing with an aggressive crowd of Mongrel Mob members. …

Police were attempting to calm the situation when Morrison arrived, driving her Suzuki Swift through the group of police and others.

Morrison got out of her car and began to enflame the situation, yelling racist abuse at several of the officers, who were at that stage trying to leave the area due to being outnumbered.

When Morrison was later arrested she admitted her poor behaviour and apologised for her racist slurs, but not for attacking the officers.

It goes without saying that she should not be allowed anywhere near kids and a classroom.

Judge Sygrove noted Morrison had three pages of previous convictions.

How did she get registered in the first place?

Ipsos have released their latest regular polling of major issues in New Zealand. The top five issues (people can nominate up to three) are:

1. Cost of Living 58%
2. Housing 33%
3. Healthcare 32%
4. Crime 31%
5. Economy 23%

Below are how people assessed which party was best on each issue, and how that has changed from a year ago.

• Cost of Living – National 40% (+12%), Labour 26% (-11%)
• Housing – National 36% (+13%), Labour 33% (-21%)
• Healthcare – National 30% (+10%), Labour 34% (-11%)
• Crime – National 36% (+9%), Labour 26% (-9%)
• Economy – National 44% (+8%), Labour 28% (-10%)

So National leads on four of the top five issues. The one that Labour has dropped the most on is housing.

Henry Cooke writes in The Guardian:

Stories are trotted out about New Zealand being “the least corrupt country in the world”. But that isn’t what the index actually measures. It uses a survey of academics and business types to measure perceptions of corruption – which is a reasonable indicator of corruption, but not an actual direct measure, and one open to accusations of bias towards rich countries.

At the start of this year, New Zealand’s then justice minister Kris Faafoi was one of those quoting the nation’s high standings in the index, issuing a press release that again confused a corruption perception index with an actual corruption index. Now just 10 months later – and only three months since leaving the cabinet table – Faafoi has left parliament and started his own lobbying firm.

This is an appalling situation. A politician who was intimately involved in the conversations that shape our country now has a job trying to influence the way those conversations go, and is armed with the knowledge that only someone involved in those conversations would have – from the individual positions of other ministers to highly sensitive information from public servants.

It is unprecedented and appalling.

The rules should not allow him to be reading cabinet papers in June and then lobbying his former colleagues on the same matters in October. Other countries – ones that aren’t naive as us – have so-called “revolving door” policies to stop this very thing, forcing elected officials to cool down for some period of months or years before engaging in lobbying.

One simple way to implement this would be for the PM to issue a Cabinet Office directive that no Minister or official will meet with a lobbyist who has been a Minister within the last three years. It doesn’t need a law change, just a simple decision.

Those who leave politics do have a right to build a new career, and use the skills politics gave them in that new vocation. But the public has every right to be appalled when the turnaround is this quick, and the service on offer is not just the skills and knowledge of a seasoned political operative, but also the connections retained from someone’s time acting as a servant of the public.

It is all about timing. Clayton Cosgrove only became a lobbyist nine years after he was a Cabinet Minister. Roger Sowry also didn’t become a lobbyist until nine years after he was a Cabinet Minister. Nine years is okay. Nine weeks is not.

Bryce Edwards writes:

Faafoi’s two-way trip through the revolving door is utterly brazen. There are no other examples in recent New Zealand political history – and probably no other examples in the OECD countries – of such a short period of time between running government policy to then trying to influence them on behalf of private business.

Even Donald Trump placed a five year ban on members of his Cabinet from becoming lobbyists afterwards.

The media need to ask the Prime Minister how comfortable she is with a cabinet minister quitting his job to immediately become a lobbyist who will be trying to persuade his former colleagues on behalf of vested interests.

Maybe even at her press conference today.

Part of democracy is your side loses sometimes, even often. It is how the system works. It is always a good idea to be a gracious victor and also a gracious loser.

The victories for the CR in the local elections has seen some very bad losers, starting right at the top.

The turnout in 2022 is looking to be near identical to 2019 when the left did very well. Did you hear the PM in 2019 declaring that there has to be an inquiry into the low turnout?

The very clear dogwhistle from the PM is that the left only lost because of low turnout, implying the results are somewhat illegitimate.

I have been advocating for over a decade two simple reforms to lift local election turnout – allowing people to return their ballot paper via the Internet (as overseas Kiwis do in general elections) and having the Electoral Commission in charge of local elections. Despite select committee recommendations, the Government has done nothing in the last five years to advance these. Only when they get walloped, do they seem interested.

Then you have journalist Donna Chisholm declaring that Aucklanders are racist as f*8K because they elected Wayne Brown over Efeso Collins.

Did Donna proclaim Aucklanders were all racist bigots in 2019 when they chose Phil Goff over John Tamihere?

Of course not. You are only racist when you vote against a left wing candidate.

The Daily Mail reports:

Sussex Police released a humiliating apology for defending the gender of a legally male paedophile online, after the Home Secretary said the force should be focusing on ‘catching criminals’ not ‘policing pronouns’.

Suella Braverman waded into the Twitter storm after the force said they ‘would not tolerate’ any hateful comments towards the gender identity of convicted paedophile Sally Ann Dixon, 58. 

Dixon, who was born John Stephen Dixon, was convicted of 30 counts of indecent assaulted which took place in the late 1980s and 1990s before she transitioned. …

Sussex Police tweeted that they: ‘do not tolerate any hateful comments towards their gender identity regardless of crimes committed. This is irrelevant to the crime that has been committed and investigated.’

Ms Braverman MP piled in saying: ‘Sussex Police have done well to put a dangerous criminal behind bars. But they’ve got it wrong by playing identity politics and denying biology. Focus on catching criminals not policing pronouns’

Several hours later the force issued an apology saying their previous tweet was ‘inconsistent’ with their usual style and emphasised the public are allowed to ‘express themselves freely within the boundaries of the law’.

It shouldn’t need the Home Secretary to get involved for a police force to stop threatening people for not using preferred pronouns.

And people wonder why some of us are nervous about bring in hate speech laws in NZ!

One can only enjoy this amicus curiae submission from The Onion in a Supreme Court case about parody. Their introduction is typical Onion:

The Onion is the world’s leading news publication, offering highly acclaimed, universally revered coverage of breaking national, international, and local news events. Rising from its humble beginnings as a print newspaper in 1756, The Onion now enjoys a daily readership of 4.3 trillion and has grown into the single most powerful and influential organization in human history.

In addition to maintaining a towering standard of excellence to which the rest of the industry aspires, The Onion supports more than 350,000 full- and parttime journalism jobs in its numerous news bureaus and manual labor camps stationed around the world, and members of its editorial board have served with
distinction in an advisory capacity for such nations as China, Syria, Somalia, and the former Soviet Union.

On top of its journalistic pursuits, The Onion also owns and operates the majority of the world’s transoceanic shipping lanes, stands on the nation’s leading edge on matters of deforestation and strip mining, and proudly conducts tests on millions of animals daily.

But they are intervening to make a serious point:

Third, the Sixth Circuit’s ruling imperils an ancient form of discourse. The court’s decision suggests that parodists are in the clear only if they pop the balloon in advance by warning their audience that their parody is not true. But some forms of comedy don’t work unless the comedian is able to tell the joke with
a straight face. Parody is the quintessential example.

Parodists intentionally inhabit the rhetorical form of their target in order to exaggerate or implode it—and by doing so demonstrate the target’s illogic or absurdity.

And in summary:

This Court has traditionally been hesitant to chill speech, and the prospect of chilling parody by imprisoning its practitioners provides equal cause for caution. “What may be difficult to communicate or
understand when factually reported may be poignant and powerful if offered in satire.” Rogers v. Grimaldi, 695 F. Supp. 112, 123 (S.D.N.Y. 1988), aff ’d 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989). “ ‘[T]he last thing we need, the last thing the First Amendment will tolerate, is a law that lets public figures keep people from mocking them.’ ” Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass’n, 95 F.3d 959, 972–73 (10th Cir. 1996) (quoting White v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 989 F.2d 1512, 1519 (9th Cir. 1993) (Kozinski, J., dissenting)).

The Onion intends to continue its socially valuable role bringing the disinfectant of sunlight into the halls
of power. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 67 (1976) (quoting Louis D. Brandeis, Other People’s Money and How the Bankers Use It 62 (National Home Library Foundation ed. 1933)). And it would vastly prefer that sunlight not to be measured out to its writers in 15- minute increments in an exercise yard.

I hope the Supreme Court agrees with them.

With the exception of Wellington, the major local body races were a disaster for the left today. Labour should be very worried so many of its supporters were wiped out. I’m not jut talking the big cities, but all over the place. Starting from the North.

Auckland

Wayne Brown won in a landslide over Efeso Collins with a 55,000 majority to date. A huge mandate for change. But it wasn’t just the Mayor.

In Albert-Eden-Puketāpapa C&R won (for now by 300 votes) the second seat off Julie Fairey, who is close to royalty on the left.

In Howick Maurice Williamson took out Paul Young who often voted left.

In Waitākere Ken Turner took out Linda Cooper who also often voted with Goff.

And in what will hurt most of all in Waitematā and Gulf, Mike Lee took out Pippa Coom. Now Lee is a long-term leftish but he is a fiscally responsible old school one and hated by the woke left who adored Coom.

This gives the CR a clear majority on the Council. Also a Mayor who will loudly stand up to the central Government on issues.

Rotorua

The retiring Mayor is a former Labour MP. The new Mayor is a former National candidate. Tania Tapsell got almost twice as many votes as the runner up.

Whanganui

A huge upset here. I wasn’t even aware incumbent Hamish McDouall (former Labour candidate) had a serious challenger. But he lost by 2,000 votes to Andrew Tripe after being re-elected unopposed in 2019. Tripe stood on an anti-three waters platform.

Lower Hutt

Labour’s Campbell Barry did get re-elected but by a narrow 1,300 majority, helped by hugely favourable coverage in the local media.

Wellington

Wellington is to New Zealand what San Francisco is to the United States. It went heaving Green, but significant that the Labour endorsed candidate came fourth.

Nelson

Nelson has had a very left leaning Council but former National MP Nick Smith won handily over the former Green candidate.

Christchurch

The moderate Phil Mauger replaces former Labour MP Lianne Dalziel and her preferred candidate of David Meates lost to Mauger.

Possibly more shocking is the ward results. Left leaning Mike Davidson lost out massively to Victoria Henstock. Likewise Pauline Cotter lost to Ali Jones. Both won easily in 2019 and their defeat means the left have lost control of Christchurch.

Dunedin

I had not followed Dunedin closely. I just assumed Green Party’s Aaron Hawkins would easily get back in as he had a massive majority in 2019 but he lost in a landslide to Jules Radich. When Dunedin goes right, you know you have a sea change.

There were many reasons why so many left candidates lost – three waters, anti-car transport priorities, rates affordability etc. If Labour is sensible they will listen to the voters and ditch their Three Waters legislation. But if they refuse to listen, well they may get the same shock next year.

The Daily Mail reports:

The owners of an Ohio bakery celebrated on Thursday their $36.5 million victory over the liberal arts institution Oberlin College in a defamation case, declaring that ‘David has overcome Goliath’.

The college had been ordered to pay after jurors ruled that it had defamed Gibson’s Bakery by describing the institution as racist, after the storeowner chased down three black students who stole from the business in November 2016.

How dare they chase students who steal from them.

The anger at Oberlin was whipped up by the former dean of students, Meredith Raimondo, who led the woke mob’s attacks against Gibson’s – and even turned up outside the business to screech accusations while toting a bullhorn.

That is what landed the college in court – their own dean of students led the charge.

Soon, the woke college — located in the small town of Oberlin southwest of Cleveland — ordered its campus food provider to stop buying cookies, bagels and other items from Gibson’s, hurting the bakery’s profits.

And even after the storeowners complained about the way they were being portrayed by college officials, they refused to retract their claims, protests continued, and the store was forced to lay off half its staff and cut opening hours. 

Truly vindictive.

I am driving in the South Island this afternoon so won’t be able to cover the local election results in detail but have embedded my Twitter feed below as I’ll try and cover interesting results in them there.

Most of the interest is in the three main cities.

In Auckland, the polls have Wayne Brown in the lead. However Efeso Collins has the entire Labour and Greens turnout machine behind him. Every City Vision candidate will have had a team trying to get supporters out to vote, and if they are successful that could propel Collins to a win.

Also of interest will be the results of ward elections in AEP, Howick, Manurewa-Papakura, North Shore and Waitemata which will determine the left keep a majority on Auckland Council.

In Wellington I expect Tory Whanau to gain the most first preference votes. The Greens get 30% party vote in Wellington Central and 24% in Rongotai. A lot of people don’t realise how young Wellington City is – 49% of adults are aged under 40. But winning first preferences is not the same as winning under STV. What will be crucial is where the preferences go from the candidate who comes third.

In terms of Council, there are a few retirements so the interest is who replaces them, as well as whether any incumbents get knocked out.

In Christchurch a Q+A poll had Phil Mauger way ahead of David Meates. Meates’ campaign team includes former Labour Mayor Garry Moore and Lianne Dalziel’s former campaign manager.

Other races of interest for me will be Rotorua and Queenstown with two young strong female candidates standing.

Let the counting start!