Supporters of New Zealand remaining a constitutional monarchy, say that the status quo is fine. That unless you can point to a problem, why change.

I don’t think the status quo works well, from a constitutional point of view. It doesn’t work well, because it gives the PM far too much power.

In New Zealand the effective head of state is the Governor-General. The perform both the ceremonial roles, but also the constitutional roles such as appointing a Prime Minister who has confidence of the House, approving an election etc. And while it is rare for the GG to have to use discretion, it is not unheard of. The most famous case being Sir John Kerr in Australia. But they have been used twice at state level in Australia. In Canada two PMs have had GGs refuse requests leading them to resign. And in NZ we almost had the GG intervene in 1984 when Muldoon refused to act on the advice of the incoming PM.

In 1993 the GG appointed a committee of four people to advise her on who to appoint PM, as there was a hung Parliament. If Peter Tapsell had not become Speaker, she would have acted on the advise of this ad hoc committee,

So it is naive to think we will never have a situation where the GG has to use their reserve powers. And that is the problem with the status quo.

Who effectively appoints the GG? It isn’t Parliament. It isn’t even Cabinet. It is the PM, in his or her sole discretion. And the PM effectively has the power to sack the GG immediately. If Whitlam had realsed what Sir John Kerr was planning to do, and had got in first and advised the Queen to sack Kerr, she would have been obliged to do so.

It is somewhat mickey mouse to have the Head of Government unilaterally appoint (and be able to sack) the effective Head of State – whose job may require them to act independently if there is a question around the confidence of the House.

The King (weird to write that) can not intervene in a dispute between the GG and the PM. If asked to, he must back the incumbent PM by convention. If a GG refused a call by a PM to have an early election (as they have lost the confidence of the House), the PM could get the GG sacked and replaced within 24 hours.

So the status quo is somewhat broken. I want a system where the effective head of state can’t be sacked at whim by the Prime Minister of the day. I want a system where Muldoon can’t appoint a former National PM as GG and Geoffrey Palmer can’t appoint a Labour Party Mayor as GG.

That system is simple. You have Parliament appoint the Head of State by a 75% super-majority. This will mean that you’ll never get a politician again. The only people acceptable to a 75% super-majority of Parliament will be those who have distinguished themselves in areas outside politics.

The Herald reports:

A third government agency is reviewing the process by which it engaged a consultancy wholly owned by Gannin Ormsby, the husband of Government minister Nanaia Mahuta.

The news follows the admission that, contrary to its policy, the agency followed no formal conflict of interest process in procuring the work.

All of the contracts were non-contestable. They were not part of an open process.

Kāinga Ora said that no written work was supplied by Ka Awatea under the contract. Rather, Rama Ormsby “facilitated” 14 workshops and six hui with Auckland iwi.

And there was no written output from the huis?

The facilitation work began in August, 2020, however, a written contract was not signed until October, 2020, by which point fully half of the hui and workshops had already taken place.

Questioned about this timeline, Kāinga Ora’s Te Ariki Pihama, deputy chief executive of the agency’s Group Māori, said the agency had a verbal agreement with Ka Awatea to commence work in August.

So it was a verbal agreement!

The National Party’s Simeon Brown said he has twice written to the Public Service Commission and called for an investigation into the wider picture of government procurement, Gannin Ormsby, and other of his family members.

Both the National and Act parties say the “extraordinary pattern” of government contracts awarded of Minister Mahuta’s husband and other family members requires comprehensive investigation by either the Auditor General or the Public Service Commission.

Kāinga Ora, the Ministry for the Environment, and the Department of Conservation, all contracted work from Ormsby’s company, Ka Awatea Services, in October and November 2020. All of the contracts were awarded on a sole source basis, without competitive bids.

I should stress I have seen nothing to suggest that Nanaia Mahuta has acted inappropriately. The issue is more that public service agencies seem to be bending over backwards to give contracts to her relatives, without following any sort of robust process.

The other issue is that the outcomes or outputs from the contracts have been derisory.

Stuff reports:

A Victoria University of Wellington lecturer has retracted an emotionally charged email in which he claimed students had “lied” and “cheated” after many failed to watch his queer criminology lecture online.

Lecturer Ti Lamusse told his Criminology 316 students they had shown “profound academic dishonesty and demonstrated disrespect for your teaching staff and the people whose lives you could have learned about if you had bothered to do so”.

The line, “I am ashamed of you as a cohort of students,” was formatted in bold.

Lamusse said he was “in tears” after seeing fewer than a third of his students had watched the lecture on Monday, September 12, which took him “three weeks to prepare”. Lamusse told his students that if he had acted in the same way, he would be deeply ashamed of himself, and his whānau would be ashamed of him.

He broke down in tears because not all his students watched one of his lectures? My God.

“I also worry what it means to graduate with a degree in criminology, if you’re able to lie and cheat your way into passing. The thought of many of you using your degree to find work at the NZ Police, Ministry of Justice or Department of Corrections fills me with dread.

“If you don’t engage, in even a basic way, with your course content, I am deeply concerned for the social harm you may cause,” the criminological theory lecturer said.

He then called his entire class liars and cheaters and said that the thought of them finding jobs was dreadful and they are so bad, they will cause harm.

How does he still have a job? The answer is easy,

Lecturer Lamusse is a hard left activist (he has written on how to grow the “revolutionary left”). This gives him immunity from consequences. If he was not, and identified as being on the right and send such an e-mail to an entire class, he would be suspended on the spot and out within days.

“Ti also uploads 70-plus PowerPoint slides for each lecture, and then in the lectures recites the PowerPoint slides word-for-word. Because of this, many students, including me, do not feel the need to watch the lectures, as they can get the same information from reading the PowerPoint slides,” the complainant explained.

Translation: The students don’t listen to the lectures because they are as boring as fuck, as they just recite a series of slides.

A request to interview Lamusse on September 15 was refused by the university. However, in a statement, the university said it was “aware” of the email.

“The university does not condone the approach taken by this lecturer, which is not in keeping with our institution’s values of respect, responsibility, fairness, integrity, and empathy.

“Resolution processes are under way with this staff member and the students involved,” the statement said.

This will be a wet bus ticket.

Personally I don’t think he should lose his job for being a snowflake and having a meltdown at his students. People make mistakes. But the hypocrisy is what gets me. So many others have been forced out of jobs for far less, such as writing a letter defending science!

The Herald reports:

Transport Minister Michael Wood has rejected official advice to delay public consultation to give councils the power to ban cars on some roads until after October’s local body elections.

Under Wood’s “Reshaping Streets” reforms, councils will have the power to “prohibit or restrict the use of motor vehicles, or one or more classes of motor vehicles, on the roadway”.

So they want to ban the vehicles that generally provide the funding for the roads!

Wood went ahead with public consultation on the proposals last month after the Department of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Transport advised him to wait until after the local body elections.

The Department of Internal Affairs said “it would be inappropriate to consult closely before an election” and the Ministry of Transport agreed, saying it would “overlap heavily with the pre-election period” with consultation finishing three weeks before the election. …

They really hate making it wasy for people to have their say.

• The Pike River Coal Mine tragedy in 2010 killed 29 people and had a fiscal cost of around $100 million. The National Government held a Royal Commission of Inquiry
• The second Canterbury earthquake in 2011 killed 185 people and had a fiscal cost of up to $30 billion. The National Government held a Royal Commission of Inquiry.
• The Havelock North water contamination in 2016 killed four people and had a minor fiscal cost. The National Government held a Government Inquiry.
• The Covid-19 pandemic has had between 2,000 and 3,000 deaths and has had a fiscal cost of over $60 billion. Labour refused to hold a Commission of Inquiry into the response.

Labour are being stupid by not holding a Commission of Inquiry. We need to learn from what has happened, not pretend it was perfect.

A terrible story at Stuff about 22 Christian Glass from Christchurch.

He crashed his car in Colorado and called the Police for help. He had ADHD and freaked out a but and wouldn’t leave the car when the Police arrived. After an hour they smashed his window, tasered him and then shot him five times.

He had a small knife (which he told the dispatcher about) but was no threat to anyone. He obviously needed a counsellor, but a bullet.

I am so glad I live in New Zealand where the sort of thing would be unimaginable. You have to work very hard to get the Police to shoot you in NZ – basically trying to kill them with a baseball bat.

The OCR was last above 4.75% (was 5.00%) in December 2008. The floating mortgage rate then was 8%.

The median house price is $800,000 so with a 20% deposit, a typical mortgage would be $640,000.

At a 4% mortgage rate, the monthly payments will be $3,055 and total interest would be $460,000.

At an 8% mortgage rate, the monthly payments would be $4,696 and total interest would be $1.05 million.

There is going to be a lot of pain next year.

My major submission is that Standing Orders should be amended so that it explicitly allows for any party or MP to do a minority report on a bill, including their own marked up version of the bill, and further that at second reading the member in charge of the bill can move for a particular version of the bill to be adoped by the House, even if not the majority report of the committee.

I support the proposition that ACT has advanced previously that select committee membership should be allocated on the basis of non-executive membership of the House. In practice this would mean that the Government would rarely have a majority on select committees.

If an opposition dominated (or tied) select committee makes changes to the bill not in accordance with the majority of the House, then these amendments can only be made the Committee of the House stage which is far from ideal.

By explicitly allowing select committes to publish minority reports and minority bill versions, and allowing the House at second reading to adopt them, this would mean a much more orderly approach than using the Committee of the House stage and would ensure work done by select committee members is worthwhile, even if not supported by the majority of the select committee.

That SO 249(1) be amended to read “Subject to paragraph (2), a select committee must, in its report, include differing views when one or more members indicate a wish to do so, including a marked up version of a bill that differs from the majority version.”

That SO 305 be amended to read

“1) The motion on the order of the day for the second reading of a bill is that the bill be now read a second time.

2) The member in charge of a bill may also move a motion that the amendments to the bill to be considered by the House is the version put forward by a specific member of the select committee”

That SO306(1) be amended to read

“If the member has moved that the amendments to be considered are not those from the majority of the committee, thenAt the conclusion of the debate on the second reading of a bill, the Speaker puts a question that the amendments either the committee by majority be agreed to. There is no amendment or further debate on the question.

Stuff reports:

A teen driver who killed two mothers is considered unremorseful and a “risk to the community” following the crash he could not be jailed for.

Hayden Manoah can now be named as the teenager who killed Charlene Phuong and her mother-in-law Kay Leota, 44, in a crash on State Highway 1 near Waihola, southwest of Dunedin, on October 23, 2021.

The 17-year-old was sentenced to six months’ community detention and two years’ intensive supervision by Judge Michael Turner at the Dunedin District Court on September 9.

He killed two innocent people, and got a wet bus ticket of six months community detention. It’s not even home detention, more just like a curfew. Why not full home detention?

While his Youth Court appearances could not be considered for last week’s sentencing, the judge noted the teen’s previous offending included drink-driving and dangerous driving.

He had also been caught driving 163kph past an unmarked police vehicle.

Manoah, who had a learner licence, had been released from Youth Court orders for only three days when the fatal crash happened.

And he is only 17!

The taxi driver who picked him up from the hospital said Manoah was “bragging about being involved in a crash”, the judge told the court.

In a later taxi ride, Manoah was “egging on a friend out of the car window”, who then began accelerating and weaving in and out of traffic.

No empathy. Possible sociopathy.

The whānau disputed that the teen was remorseful, describing him in court as uncaring and slouching in his chair during a family group conference.

Henderson said because of his age, it was likely a defence mechanism – he was too immature to process the emotions and gravity of what he had done.

The judge was unconvinced. He said a psychological assessment said the teen “demonstrated what is no more than self-pity”.

He is not going to change.

Danyl Mclauchlan writes:

Where IS all the money going? In the past few months the government has created a new anti-terror research centre, committed $300 million to replace the school decile rating system with an equity number, created a new ministry for disabled people, a new national health provider, a new health authority for Māori, a new ambassadorship for Pacific gender equality, a new supermarket watchdog. It’s hard at work creating a new mega-sized public media entity – estimated cost $350 million – and establishing four new regional wastewater entities at an estimated cost of $296 million (the total three waters reform is priced at about $2 billion). It has purchased Kiwibank for $2.1 billion. 

Some or all of these might turn out to be worthy enterprises but there’s a huge assumption in this government and on the left more broadly that they can only be Good Things – that questioning the rapid expansion of the administrative state can only be right-wing hate speech, part of a covert neoliberal plot to gut health, education, welfare. 

Aren’t we seeing an erosion in state capacity alongside all this centralisation and expansion? Aren’t outcomes in health, education and welfare trending down rather than up? What’s going on? You can’t have effective public services without bureaucracies, but it’s not clear that the torrents of money flowing into them are delivering more value to the public or to the marginalised communities some of them are named after. It’s almost as if the primary role of the administrative state is shifting from serving the people to the redistribution of wealth to the staffers, lawyers, PR companies, managers and consultancy firms that work in them, or for them. A billion dollars a year in public sector consultancy is an awful lot of money when you’re running out of teachers and nurses because you don’t pay them enough, and the fire trucks are breaking down.

The contractors and consultants have never had it better.

 In 2019 the government unveiled its Road to Zero campaign. This approach to road safety, funded at $3 billion over the next three years, “adopts a vision of a New Zealand where no one is killed or seriously injured in road crashes”, which it pretends it will realise by 2050, and which is accompanied by a $15 million advertising campaign (including the famous $30,000 in illuminated zero signs). The transport agency delivering the campaign, Waka Kotahi, has seen a dramatic increase in staff, especially comms staff. NewsHub reported it has “more than doubled its PR team since 2017 – when Labour took power – from 32 staffers to 88, 65 of whom are earning $100,000 or more.” It has more managers, more HR administrators, more accountants. It spent $25 million refitting its offices. But road deaths are trending up even though petrol is more expensive so commuter miles are down. RNZ reported that Waka Kotahi have only installed a fifth of the median barriers they were supposed to, and fewer than a fifth of the side barriers.

More median barriers, less PR!

Q+A released a Kantar poll of 500 Wellingtonians this morning on the Wellington Mayoral election. The results were:

1st preference

• Paul Eagle 28%
• Tory Whanau 26%
• Andy Foster 20%
• Ray Chung 13%
• Unsure 47%

STV prediction:

• Paul Eagle 51%
• Tory WHanau 49%

The Q+A poll is an actual scientific poll and the results stand in contrast to the bogus poll that the Dom Post was hyping up that had Whanau on 47%, Eagle on 17% and Foster on 15%.

A guest post by Rowena Edge, Spokeswoman, Saves Women’s Sport Australasia:

Alice Soper (Why sportswomen don’t need ‘saving’ from transgender athletes, 25 August) and Save Women’s Sport Australasia agree on many important things. That participation in sport is the beginning, not the apex for many athletes. And that women are fiercely competitive.

            We also agree that years of under investment in women’s sports, misguided policy, people learning on the job, decisions being made by people with no lived experience, sexual harassment and bullying, and pay disparities have roots in sociology. Or more specifically, sexism.

            Finally, Alice is absolutely right when she says that sportswomen are not damsels in distress in need of “saving”. I come from a sport mad family of high performing athletes. Within our whanau we have those who have represented New Zealand in multiple sports on the international stage and at Olympic level, as well as those who channel their competitive spirit into community level sport. Our sportswomen are strong, competitive, smart and dedicated.

            Their participation and success is only possible because of the existence of the female category. A category that allows them to participate in fair and meaningful competition against other women. And, when it comes to contact or combat sports, one that also protects them from the increased risk of harm that competing against a male-bodied athlete could result in.

            If it was not for the existence of, and the protection of, women’s sporting categories we would have no female medalists or even contenders on the international stage in any sport where strength, speed, or stamina matters. New Zealanders would have never heard the names of athletes like Alison Roe, Susan Devoy, Sophie Pascoe, and Lisa Carrington. As much as some people may wish to deny reality, biology and physiology matters because we play sports with our bodies, not our identities.

            Ms. Soper appears to be comfortable with the loss of meaningful and fair competition for women and increased risk of injury in some sports by the inclusion of male-bodied people, as is her right.

            However, many people do not share her views. Save Women’s Sports Australasia had heard from female athletes and the parents of girls across New Zealand who have been impacted by the inclusion of male transgender people in their sports category. They have included cricketers, cyclists, roller derby players, swimmers, netballers, runners, hockey players, weight lifters, and mountain bikers, among others. They have shared stories of how they have been injured and given up sports that they love. They have told how they have been ostracized by people they have previously considered to be friends, called bigots and transphobes, and dismissed by their sporting organisations when they raised concerns.

            This never happens, people like Alice Soper tells us. Except it does, and it is growing as more sports organizations fall into line with Sport New Zealand’s relentless insistence that the inclusion of male people who identify as women is more important than fairness to, and the safety of, female players.

These are the words of one woman who contacted us, “During one training, I was elbowed sharply in the stomach, knocking the wind from me, and on another occasion was held and shoved with such excessive force that I had a panic attack. All aspects of my physical and mental safety were ignored… I never felt comfortable again and subsequently felt that I had little choice but to leave the sport which I had loved for the previous eight years.”

As another example, right now in a community cycling club in New Zealand there is a male transgender cyclist who holds the award for both best female cyclist of the season as well as best overall cyclist. Why? Because this cyclist not only cleaned out the women’s field, posting times so fast that no female had a chance of competing for first place, but on some occasions even beat the fastest male competing in the men’s category.     

This is what kindness and inclusion now looks like. Female athletes being forced out of sports that they love and out of their rightful placings and recognition because including males in their category is considered to be a higher priority.

Sportswomen don’t need saving, but their category certainly does.

Note: the column was written as an opinion piece in response to another opinion piece by Alice Soper and published by the New Zealand Herald on 25 August that referred to the work of Save Women’s Sport Australasia. The New Zealand Herald declined to publish this response.

A guest post by Tomas O’Brien:

When recently attending the Free Speech Union!s event at the University of Otago, I was
struck by two thoughts: who was there, and who wasn!t.

I have already come to realise I traverse two increasingly separate worlds. As a student, in
the shadow of the ivory tower of academia, intersectionality, anti-racism, post-colonialism,
and the destruction of anything old, white, and male reign supreme. Yet, among my wider
family – and to many others in this country – these ideas butt up against the values which
have enabled us to build this liberal democratic society. As an example, in the views of the
latter group, co-governance is perceived as an unjustified exception to the principle of equal
universal suffrage, which many have fought and died for. Whereas, in uni-land, it is seen as
the opposite: a necessity to fix past injustice.

In between these two worlds, day-by-day, tension is growing as they diverge further apart.
We are becoming a polarised country. It seems clear to me, that the only way to resolve
these tensions within society is dialogue. Robust, critical, unrestricted, and open dialogue –
and the fostering of a spirit of curiosity to understand the other!s world view.

Consequently, I find the failure of anyone on the political Left to turn up to the event hosted
by the Free Speech Union at Otago University, which sought to both protect and define the
limits of freedom of speech, highly disappointing.

If freedom of speech means anything, it means giving others the right to say things you do
not want to hear, even if these things appear upsetting or abhorrent. Moreover, up until very
recent times the university has, as an institution, held itself out to be the arena in which all
and any ideas can be contested – believing that it is only in this contest, no matter how
difficult or controversial it may be, that truth can be found.

However, it now seems that many (perhaps most) within the university system refuse to
contribute to this contest. Moreover, for the most controversial topics, they even refuse to
allow it to occur at all. Then, when those in the other world get louder and more vexatious
towards them in reply, they are outraged. They pursue an ideology that seems to censor
anyone who rejects their world view. It is ideological hubris in the extreme.

All that said, I equally do not doubt that some people on the political Right simply wanted to
use the event as a platform to hurl abuse. Their ad hominem attacks did not focus on the
contest of ideas; they played the person, not the ball, and through this stifled genuine
debate. I find it difficult to reconcile what I heard at points within the event with what I
believe is freedom of speech!s requisite duty; the duty to allow others to speak – and the
duty to then listen.

Whilst, to his credit, Peter Williams did guide the panel (of Michael Woodhouse MP, James
McDowall MP, and Dunedin Mayoral candidate Lee Vandervis) in fielding difficult questions
from the crowd despite these outbursts, it was clear this was not the productive debate it
could have been.

From the Left, there lacked the courage to front up and listen to those who think differently
the courage to present their views on freedom of speech (and its limits) reasonably and
rationally despite what they might have construed (probably correctly) as a hostile crowd.
And from the Right the wisdom to control their emotions – to focus on reason – and give the
debate the creditability it deserved.

Thus, instead of leaving with a concept of freedom of speech befitting of both worlds, I was
left in a relative quagmire. I agreed with what was said by the panel for the most part – but
it was unchallenged – and I am the poorer from it. Moreover, the outbursts unfortuantely
justified the Left’s refusal to attend. The steady march of polarisation within our country
carries on.

Free speech has been the foundation on which liberal democracy has been built. In all its
imperfectection, I believe it remains demonstrably the best option available. The work of the
Free Speech Union to protect the liberty of speech, from both the Left and the Right, is thus
crucial. Yet free speech is in itself not the full solution. It takes each of us to show up and
respect the other side for the peace and stability we enjoy in our country to be maintained.

*Tomas O’Brien is a supporter of the Free Speech Union and law student at Otago University

I don’t think I have ever blogged a speech by Winston before, but so much of this one resonated I want to share it. He delivered it in late August:

Good afternoon, and thank you for the invitation to speak to you this afternoon.

And thank you for taking time out in your busy lives to be here.

Recent political developments in New Zealand are of grave concern to all those who believe in democracy, freedom and the rule of law in our country.

We meet here today the beneficiaries of our forebears’ vision 168 years ago (1854) to govern New Zealand with democratic principles.

In the broad canvas of history, down through thousands of years, democracy is a most rare form of government.

We no longer can take the sound governance of our country for granted.

As you know modern New Zealand emerged from colonisation by the British, many centuries after Maori arrived in New Zealand.

The British themselves historically had been colonised many centuries before in their own country.

We fortunately long ago ceased to be a colonised country.

In the process since gaining self-government we have dropped the bad parts of colonisation.

We have dropped a class-based society in favour of equality for all.

We have dropped the tyranny of the few in favour of democracy for the many.

We have dropped privileged autocracy in favour of the rule of law.

We have dropped government by an elite few in favour of one person, one vote, – with each vote being of equal value.

Abraham Lincoln’s ‘Of the people, By the people, For the people’ has also been our shared aspiration.

At a time when there was no universal franchise anywhere in the world we nevertheless made a start towards a goal of one person, one vote.

Then in 1867 four seats were established as the beginnings of Māori representation in Parliament and in 1893 we were the first country to give women the vote.

This small country in 1893 was setting out to be a world leader in democracy.

The pathway of democracy in New Zealand has been far from smooth or perfect.

The evolution of social order rarely is.

1854-2020

However, since 1854 New Zealand has, with two wartime exceptions, had an unbroken line of elections every three years, and only 8 other countries around the world share that proud claim.

On our journey for fairer representation New Zealand has had many firsts.

In 1993 New Zealanders in a referendum chose to move from First Past the Post to Mixed Member Proportional (MMP), and our first MMP election was held in 1996.

The 1980’s Royal Commission on electoral reform which led to the 1993 referendum said that, in time, MMP would prove in its diversity of representation that there would be no further need for the Māori seats.

From the early 1900s until 1975, to register on the Māori roll one had to qualify as having half or more Māori ancestry.

The Labour Government of 1975 changed that prescription so that all one had to have to qualify on the Māori roll was the ability to recite a Māori ancestor.

That means today that even someone with 1 part Maori in 512 qualifies for the Maori roll.

On that basis, and by the 1975 electoral prescription, the majority of Maori today are on the general roll not the Maori roll.

Until 1978 only four Maori had ever won representation in a General seat. James Carol in Gisborne (1887), Ben Couch and Rex Austin in 1975, and myself in 1978.

However, since MMP in 1996 many MPs with Maori ancestry have entered Parliament and in far greater proportion than their ethnic numbers in New Zealand.

The Royal Commission’s expectation was correct.

Against that brief historical backdrop recent political developments are justifiable cause for alarm at where our country’s democracy is heading.

Sadly today we are facing a government ‘Of some people, By some people, For some people’.

Labour is destabilising our democracy.

Their baseless excuse for doing this is a manipulation and distortion of the Treaty of Waitangi, with the intent of giving overriding power to Iwi.

Neglect of Maori Needs

Ladies and gentlemen,

There are four critical things that Maori want:

1. Safe, affordable housing.

2. Ready access to our health system should they need it.

3. Access to a first world education system where their young can progress as far as their ambition and commitment can take them, and

4. First world incomes.

Free to be equal because they have been trained to be.

These Maori aspirations are not unique.

All over New Zealand that is what everybody needs.

And all over the world that is what all people want, and enlightened governments understand that.

However, today in New Zealand the present Labour government is doing very little for those four needs and everything for ‘cultural trickle down’.

Labour, and their cultural fellow travellers, have a mistaken belief that plastering the public sector with Treaty references and Maori unintelligible titles will by some process of mysterious political osmosis improve the lot of the whanau, or Maori family.

They are wantonly blind to the grave dangers of separatist policies and indeed the lessons of history.

And believe this. The greatest victims of these policies will be ordinary Maori, in whose name and numbers these misguided policies are claimed in the first place.

Majority Maori numbers are ignored whilst elite minority Maori interests prevail.

The Civil Rights movement in the United States saw black Americans seeking to break down the doors to access the best institutions white Americans enjoyed.

Black Americans kept their eyes on the prize and ended up with countless black representatives, and a black American President chosen in an open franchise.

In contrast, back here all sorts of separate race based institutions have become the norm.

Back here Labour is tampering with our democracy at our peril.

You’ve all heard of Labour’s plans for Three Waters. Except on the details you want to know about Labour’s plan, they simply don’t make sense.

And that is because cleaning up and securing our water systems, which everyone agrees with, is a trojan horse, a camouflage for Labour’s hidden agenda of separatism.

Under Labour’s Three Waters, four new massive water agencies will control our water assets and water infrastructure.

You will pay their costs directly.

A twelve-member Board will control each new agency.

6 will come from local Iwi and 6 will come from the local Councils – the very Council’s who, in your name, provided the assets.

And here’s the rub.

75% of each new Board must agree before a decision can be arrived at.

Do the maths.

Who will have the final say?

Your Council or the local Iwi?

In the whole of the South Island the 20 local body authorities will have 6 seats in total.

This screams unfairness, inequity, and malignant bias.

No amount of smiling and hand waving at the camera can disguise what’s going on here.

Labour wants to take community owned assets, owned by all New Zealanders of widely diverse backgrounds, and strip them away from their rightful owners and hand them to shadowy corporations.

These unaccountable creatures will be all powerful, and as the Auditor General has already warned, not accountable to the community.

These shadowy corporations will bypass you in favour of private Maori Tribal corporations becoming water barons.

These corporates were not created to advance the public interest – but to inflate the elite interests of some of their own members.

If they are allowed to exist the mass majority of all New Zealanders, regardless of ethnic background, will pay and suffer for it.

Ladies and Gentlemen, when did Labour ever ask you for your consent to these changes, to your assets and your ownership?

All manner of changes are being dumped upon New Zealanders that were never mentioned in the run up to the 2020 election.

In short, a government that is fanatical about mandates, on these matters, has no mandate.

This is their ‘pandora theory’.

Once out of the box, once they have established it in law, they believe you won’t be able to change it. This is a single finger salute.

This is a politically divisive agenda, based on their version of Treaty rights, that was hidden from voters at the last election.

Their claims of being ‘the most transparent government ever’ is being exposed daily for the charade it is.

Co-governance means Bro-governance

Everyday, at a time of economic and social crisis, Labour is pressing on with co-governance, shorthand for bro-governance.

So many of you are struggling to make ends meet.

So many of you are busy with the necessities of life, families, and work.

Who has the time to keep up with this government’s cultural and political re-engineering?

Take for example our new health agency – or Whatu ora.

Everywhere Labour is hell bent on fertilising their projects, policies or organisations with artificial Maori names.

All communication is about understanding and if over 95% of the country can’t understand the words they are hearing, or reading, what is the purpose here?

I say artificial because Whatu ora, literally means the satisfied eye.

So which eye are you the public being shown as Labour cracks on with it’s ‘wokemana ideology’.

Cultural Entitilitus

Sadly these manufactured names represent a type of ‘cultural entitilitus’, caused by Labour fabricating the Treaty to suit their agenda of co-governance.

‘Cultural entitilitus’ is a condition where Maori tribes have not an equal say but a privileged say in our system of public governance.

An egregious example is the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngai Tahu Representation) Act, stopped back in 2019 by NZ First, but recently re-introduced and passed in Parliament in our absence.

This law allows Ngai Tahu to appoint up to two members to the Environment Canterbury Council with full decision-making powers.

Everyone else in Canterbury has to campaign including other Maori, but not Ngai Tahu. Is that the democratic future you voted for in 2020?

And what an irony.

As this was rammed down the country’s throat just days ago, so has been the name change to our country. Aotearoa was never the Maori name for New Zealand.

On this attempted change the government has, No mandate, No referendum and No vote from you.

Again, when did they ever ask you what you think.

We have spent billions of taxpayers and private dollars trying to sell our country’s name to the international market.

Exports is our life blood.

It’s one of the critical drivers behind our economic wealth.

Exports, not the government printing money, is one pathway to a better future.

And the name of the country behind our exports has been a critical part of our market.

Yet, everyday on television and radio, using your taxpayer funds without any consent from you, they seek to impose a name change on our country.

It’s as though what you think doesn’t matter.

And the further irony is the arrogance of imposing a name change for New Zealand whilst ignoring the whole of the South Island and Ngai Tahu.

Ngai Tahu’s name for the South Island is Te Wai Paunamu.

So Ngai Tahu get two people on the Council and lose their majestic name and mana of the place where they live.

This is an insult to Ngai Tahu.

This is an insult to every South Islander.

This would be comical if it wasn’t so serious.

Treaty Entitilitis

Sadly, Treaty Entitilitis is spreading in government and bureaucracy everywhere.

Even the police are not immune.

Their belated anti-gang push is called Tau-whiro – a phase of the Maori calendar.

And Labour has established a separate Maori Health Agency or Te Aka- a word which means tap root.

This is just more woke elitism.

Labour believes it knows best, and New Zealanders are growing more alarmed.

They know Labour has no authority to rank our citizenship based on race.

A system change where the Treaty override means a Maori veto for so many policies at the central or local government level.

If you doubt that, look at the Resource Management Act.

This statutory rats nest has led to a distortion of Maori beliefs.

Local Council proceedings, dealing with your issues, are bogged down with unmandated cultural mutation.

Too many have become afraid to challenge many fairylike accounts of history.

And the cultural gatekeepers and fellow travellers dismiss alternative views and perspectives as being racist or members of the ‘tin hat brigade’.

A gaslighting cancel culture is growing in New Zealand and we need to stop it in it’s tracks, right here, right now.

Largely untested, often indulged, these tikanga traffickers are a paralysis on development.

And its adding huge hidden costs to so many ordinary individuals and businesses – huge cost to all New Zealanders including Maori.

Private property rights are taken hostage while Maori cultural statutory provisions are twisted and turned.

If you doubt this ask your lawyer, or developer, what percentage of cost increase this has meant on your new house purchase?

What was once one of the greatest property-owning democracies in the world is rapidly sliding into housing unaffordability and crippling renting for life.

And all the while the critical four issues to uplift Maori development are gathering dust.

Treaty Entitilitus is a diversion, a detour, a roadblock to real Maori progress.

Having miserably failed Maori in the four things they really want, today’s Labour Party, with a largely bought off compliant press, boast about progress on the things that ordinary Maori never asked for, whilst ignoring those needs they do ask to be addressed.

The recent diatribe by the Hon Willie Jackson which slams the ‘one person, one vote’ outrage is alarming not only for its content but its ignorance of history, facts and the essence of democracy.

He claims that the recently passed Ngai Tahu Bill is how a “partnership promised in the Treaty is fulfilled”. Apparently, those that disagree are weaponising ‘one person, one vote’, a piece of linguistic gymnastics that no democrat can follow.

Leaping from the UK to the USA he opines that the UK House of Lords is not one person one vote, and that the US Electoral College is not one person, one vote.

This is chilling.

Clearly an absence of historic understanding of how those two institutions began, or exist, is not of concern to him.

Then he trumps that, excuse the pun, with a claim that with MMP ‘it’s one person, two votes’.

The fact that every voter is at the same level whether they vote one time or twice, under MMP, totally escapes him.

That is the prelude to his claim that ‘ the moment NZ extends the universal suffrage of representation promised to the indigenous people of our country there is outrage’.

Which begs the question.

Where is the constitutional and legal expert leading the charge on the government’s behalf on these matters?

There isn’t one. Not visibly.

But there is a Treaty gravy train with all manner of advisors making a fortune out of these changes.

There are many Maori businesses in this country that don’t need paternalistic, ‘we know best for you’ treatment from central or local government.

Does the Treaty mean Partnership?

It is truly staggering that a claim of partnership for Maori is being made based on the Treaty of Waitangi, when Queen Victoria was not in partnership with anyone, in the UK, or the British Empire, on the day before the 6th of February 1840, or the day after.

There was no universal suffrage anywhere in the world in 1840.

Hence to say universal suffrage was in the mind of either the British or the Maori on the 6th February 1840 is just ludicrous.

And then if local body representation is a direct connection of ratepayers to democracy, then why would someone paying rates in a local body area not be entitled to a vote in that local body election.

And Labour parliamentarians recently claimed that they would sort out that ‘anomaly’ too.

Wherever they vote, if ratepayers have more than one property in more than one local body area, their vote is worth the same as any other rate payer in that local body area.

A municipal evolution of the ‘no taxation without representation’ complaint which led to the American War for Independence, is now being regarded by some members of parliament as wrong.

A Williemander

Then, in an extraordinary leap of logic, Willie excuses the current government’s attempts to gerrymander democracy as a ‘genuine engagement to build bridges not walls’. This is a Williemander.

Sadly he’s right when he says ‘we are using the co-governance architecture that National and ACT built.

Mr Jackson’s defence is that ‘we have a new democracy’ since MMP was introduced in 1996.

More women, more Maori, and then more Pacifica and ethnic minorities’ in parliament.

Strange that – because I don’t recall when as one who was on the front line of that campaign for MMP back in the late 80’s and early 90’s ever seeing Willie Jackson or his ilk in that campaign.

As previously mentioned, the Royal Commission that led to MMP foresaw that in time many more Maori in Parliament would do away with the Maori seats.

Yet having grabbed the best of MMP, Willie and his ilk do not want to give up the worst of First Past the Post.

When NZ First arrived in Parliament as a Party in 1993 it was under First Past the Post, not MMP.

Again, the sad thing is that while many politicians push or succumb to pet projects for a certain Maori elite, the mass majority of Maori needing Housing, Health, Education and First World Incomes, remain on the scrap heap of their political concerns.

The proponents of co-governance base their arguments on the Treaty being a partnership. How they arrived at that conclusion is a legal, constitutional and linguistic mystery.

They have never been able to explain the origins and historical foundation for their claims.

Nor can they tell us why former Maori leaders in this country of the intellectual and cultural superiority of Sir Apirana Ngata, Sir Maui Pomare or Sir Peter Buck never made the claims that these legal and constitutional revisionists are making.

The moment the Court of Appeal in the 1987 ‘Lands Case’ handed down its judgement, certain Maori, having protested for years that the ‘Treaty is a fraud’, all of a sudden started arguing that the Treaty was a partnership.

And sadly, since 1987, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in our universities teaching students a distortion of that case.

When asked to explain what in that case gives them the right to make a claim of partnership they avoid answering in favour of their own misconceived interpretation.

Partnership in a constitutional and legal sense was never ever part of that 1987 case.

But it’s on the deliberate misconstruction of that case that claims have been made over, and over, and over again.

The fact that their claims would have required the Court of Appeal in 1987 to ignore the words and meaning of the Treaty of Waitangi is flippantly dismissed.

In the Treaty of Waitangi governance was conferred on the Crown.

The tribal leaders ceded, conceded or yielded government to the Queen.

That is why down through the decades Maori have often sought, when in dispute with a New Zealand government, to take their complaint to the British Monarch.

The rule of law is enshrined in the Treaty by reason of the Treaty’s promise of equality.

And in addition equality under the law is a basic element of the rule of law.

And that means policies that create inequalities under the law are repugnant to the rule of law.

Likewise, any policy that discriminates against race or equality in dignity and rights is contrary to the Treaty of Waitangi.

So what are we going to do about it?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We can have co-governance without democracy.

We can have democracy without co-governance.

But we cannot have democracy and co-governance.

We here today meet at an inflection in New Zealand’s history. A tipping point.

We’ve come to the crossroads so to speak, or rather we have been pushed to it.

And we have to make a decision.

The very foundations of our democracy, with all its faults, have been a privilege for all of us to live under.

Democracy for us has meant freedom, which so many populations around the world and down through the centuries, have never had the good fortune to experience.

New Zealand men and women have put their lives on the line to defend it.

And we are the lucky beneficiaries of the aspirations, dreams, sacrifice and hard work of others before us.

But we should remember the famous lines of John Philpott Curran all those years ago.

‘The condition of which God has given liberty to man is eternal vigilance’.

Today, and for months, the people of Ukraine have been fighting for their freedom gained but a mere three decades ago.

They should be an inspiration to us.

As we go to the election next year, we have got to join forces and make a commitment to save our democracy.

For this will be an election like no other in our time.

If we don’t win in this so critical cause and save our democracy our people face a bleak future like so many other nations.

Nations which found out all too late that insidious elements in their systems of Government, unchallenged, led to tyranny, abuse, inequalities and a slide to the third world, and consequent misery for all but the privileged few.

Politics is a strange business.

It has the capacity to do so much damage to people.

Conversely, it has the capacity to do so much good for people.

It’s with that in mind that I ask you to get ready, to make a commitment today, right here right now, to be unwavering in our work to save our country.

If you do, the future is certain.

Democracy will prevail.

But it is ‘ Now or Never’.

We oppose co-governance.

We oppose their three waters take over.

We oppose our country’s name being changed.

We oppose separatism in policy and in law.

We support policies based on need, not race.

We support the rule of law where everyone is equal before it.

We support the right of free speech – and that means we support the right of New Zealanders to say ‘I disagree’ and not be mandated out of existence, not being mandated into being a second class citizen, and losing their jobs, careers, or their right to make a living.

We support the right of New Zealanders to disagree with government policy and not be punished for it.

And we are never going to work in Parliament with any political party whose policies threaten these fundamental rights.

We support democracy AND WE ARE GOING TO WIN.

CNN reports:

Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is claiming credit for sending two planes carrying migrants to Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts Wednesday, according to a statement emailed to CNN by his office.

“Florida can confirm the two planes with illegal immigrants that arrived in Martha’s Vineyard today were part of the state’s relocation program to transport illegal immigrants to sanctuary destinations,” the statement said.

“States like Massachusetts, New York, and California will better facilitate the care of these individuals who they have invited into our country by incentivizing illegal immigration through their designation as ‘sanctuary states’ and support for the Biden Administration’s open border policies.”

Purely as a matter of politics, this is serious rat cunning.

I’ve been to Martha’s Vineyard. It’s a gorgeous island, which is very popular with the East Coast elite.

Having hundreds of illegal immigrants dumped in their island paradise will capture the media’s attention like nothing else, and will I suspect be incredibly popular back home in Florida.

CNN reports:

For Putin, invading Ukraine was likely a first step in removing Russia from the post-World War II – and post-Cold War – international order.

A swift seizure of Ukraine would have dealt a painful blow to NATO, expanded Moscow’s sphere of influence and significantly shifted the balance of power in Europe, in Russia’s favor.

A Russian victory might also have set a dangerous precedent in regards to China, which has vowed to “unify” with the self-governing democracy of Taiwan – by force if necessary.

Under Xi, Beijing is already stepping up military activity around the island. An easy win for Putin would have further deepened Xi’s belief the West is in decline, and provided a template for an attack on Taiwan – a hugely consequential event that could reset the global balance of power.

But Ukraine fought back and instead of sabotaging the US-led order, the invasion has reinvigorated NATO, strengthened transatlantic ties and united the West.

Ukraine fighting back may end up saving Taiwan from invasion!

The Herald reports:

Auckland mayoral candidate Viv Beck has pulled out of the race today.

The Heart of the City chief executive is the second big name to quit, following the decision by restaurateur Leo Molloy to bow out on August 12.

Her late withdrawal means her name will remain on voting papers.

In a statement, Beck said: “My decision comes with a heavy heart but given the strength of concern about issues that need addressing across our region, it is important to avoid splitting the centre-right vote,” said Beck.

It is heartening that both Leo Molloy and Viv Beck have put aside their personal ambitions, for the sake of getting a change at Auckland Council.

If Aucklanders want a change from the status quo, the only real choice is Wayne Brown. He will go through the Council like a mortar. Some of his pledges:

• Instruct council chief executive to cut the staff bill for officers earning more than $300,000 by 30 per cent
• tell City Rail Link to clear Albert St of site offices and stick to one lane for concrete truck deliveries to free up space for struggling businesses.
• stop ratepayer funding for Eke Panuku Auckland and Auckland Unlimited, saying they eat about $100m of ratepayers’ money a year with very little to show for it.
• Wants rates to be at the lowest level to provide the services needed.
• Move Ports of Auckland

Incidentally the final Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance/Curia poll on the Auckland Mayoralty will be released on Wednesday 21 September. Those attending the Mayoral Meet the Candidates meeting at Jack Dickey Community Hall in Greenlane will get the results first, as they will be presented immediately prior to the candidate debate.

Stuff reports:

Labour MP Anna Lorck is undergoing leadership training and is doing her “best to be a better manager of staff” after a second former staffer has accused the backbencher of bullying.

The MP’s former executive assistant, who Stuff has agreed not to name in order to protect his career prospects, is one of three to work for Lorck since she entered Parliament in late 2020. …

The second Lorck staffer, who was offered support by Parliamentary Service, described persistent bullying which included a “public scolding” that prompted another Labour MP to check he was OK.

The staffer said he was regularly denigrated during his six months working for the Tukituki MP and told he was not up to the job. He said the treatment felt “emotionally abusive”.

He quit last September, and said his already fragile mental health took a massive dive as a result.

There’s not a lot of detail to go on here, but having two of your three staffers accuse you of bullying is either very bad luck, or an indication of a problem.

“During his time working at Parliament the Parliamentary Service, Labour whips and I were all involved in extensive support to help him in his job, alongside his union,” she said in a statement.

“I was devastated to hear how he felt after he finished working for us and I hope he’s doing better now.”

She said she was doing her best to be a better manager of staff. “I’ve taken these and other concerns raised on board and I’m currently working with an experienced leadership coach on this.

Not quite sure what a leadership coach is, but I find the best resource for a new MP is other MPs. I recall advising more than one Minister to look at how Ministers such as Roger Sowry or Paula Bennett ran their offices, as they had massively happy staff despite high pressure portfolios.