Guest Post: Free speech is crucial, but not enough- we all need to contribute

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

A speech by Winston

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.

General Debate 17 September 2022

Rat cunning

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.

The importance of Ukraine

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!

Beck pulls put

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.

A second bullying allegation

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.

General Debate 16 September 2022

The $15 billion white elephant no one wants

Stuff reports:

Normally, the mayor of a city is grateful if a g​overnment comes along and offers to drop $15 billion in their town.

Of the four most prominent candidates to be Auckland mayor – Viv Beck, Efeso Collins, Wayne Brown and Craig Lord – Collins, the candidate endorsed by the Labour Party, is the most in favour of such a money drop when it comes to the light rail project.

He says he will encourage the Government to go with a cheaper surface light rail option, but won’t stand in the way if it decides to press ahead with tunnelled light rail anyway. “I disagree at the moment with the current proposal to go underground, or to tunnel parts of it.”

No one wants it because they know it will never happen, and you could do much much more with the money.

Matt Lowrie, editor of Greater Auckland, a public transport advocacy blog, says the tunnelled light rail option is effectively the worst of both worlds.

He also argues it doesn’t represent great value, because for $2b more you could experience the full advantages of a light metro system and for $7b less you could have a surface light rail system which would be accessible to more people. Or, you could spend that $15b on something else entirely.

“We could be building two or three other light rail lines around Auckland for that; or around the country, we could be using that money to build hospitals or more housing or a bunch of other things,” Lowrie says.

On this I agree with Lowrie.

Within the infrastructure industry, he says there is little confidence that this project will actually be delivered. “A lot of people are hesitant to support the project with too much capacity within their organisations because they’re not confident that this will ever actually go ahead.”

Of course it will never happen. Its a fantasy, just like Kiwibuild.

More mega-merger problems

Stuff reports:

Just weeks after the resignation of its chief executive, Te Pūkenga has been dealt another blow as its chief financial officer has quit – just months into the job.

Te Pūkenga – the country’s largest tertiary education provider – is now being led by an interim CFO and an acting CEO.

Matthew Walker joined Te Pūkenga as CFO in July, saying: “I’m really looking forward to hitting the ground running.”

A CFO who leaves after less than three months? That is unheard of and indicates there must be something very seriously wrong at the organisation that is Chris Hipkins’ baby.

Taxpayers’ Union Curia poll September 2022

The public results are here.

Party Vote

Seats

  • National 47 (+14 from election)
  • Labour 42 (-23)
  • ACT 16 (+6)
  • Greens 13 (+3)
  • Maori Party 2 (nc)

Government

  • National/ACT 63/120
  • Labour/Greens 55/120

Preferred PM

  • Jacinda Ardern 36.5% (-3.0%)
  • Christopher Luxon 25.9% (+6.4%)

This is the first time the Taxpayers’ Union/Curia poll has shown the wrong direction at 50%.

Audrey rates Labour’s Maori caucus

Audrey Young rates the members of Labour’s Maori Caucus. The summary is:

  • Adrian Rurawhe: Exceeded expectations
  • Kelvin Davis: Pedestrian
  • Nanaia Mahuta: Distracted
  • Peeni Henare: Sheltered
  • Willie Jackson: Active
  • Kiri Allan: Big Future
  • Meka Whaitiri: Solid
  • Rino Tirikatene: Treading water
  • Tamati Coffey: Adjusting
  • Willow-Jean Prime: Dependable
  • Jo Luxton: Disciplined
  • Paul Eagle: Unsettled
  • Shanan Halbert: Dedicated
  • Arena Williams: Ambitious

Also worth noting that Audrey said re Mahuta:

But distracted by Three Waters reforms and a series of stories about public sector contracts awarded to her consultant husband. They have reached such a pitch that she herself should refer the matter to the Public Service Commission or Auditor-General to get an independent opinion and draw a line under it. 

That’s an excellent idea.

General Debate 15 September 2022

Food prices hit a new high

Prime Ministerial Decision Making the Ardern Way

“It is important to acknowledge the passing of the Queen.

I know what NZ kids need to do that. They need another day off! It is not like Decile 1 attendance is already at 22% and across the board it is below 50%.

No use waiting and using one of the days in the holidays. What should happen is that we will make the 26th of September the day – the start of the last week of term – that may even encourage families to turn it into a three week break and get away early. 

And – as it reduces by one day the time they are supposed to attend it will make the attendance figures look a bit better.

Brilliant.”

JA (Minister for Child Poverty Reduction – always working out ways to make things just a little worse).

RIP Ken Douglas

Stuff reports:

New Zealand’s most well-known trade union leader, Ken Douglas, aged 86, has died.

Known as Red Ken, Douglas led the union movement from 1979 to 1999, first as the Federation of Labour Secretary, then as the inaugural president of the Council of Trade Unions.

A controversial figure, he was the leader of the Socialist Unity Party in the 1970s and was the target of much anti-union vitriol from former Prime Minister Robert Muldoon….

During the Cold War he remained a supporter of the Soviet Union and politically was an internationalist.

As the leader of the Socialist Unity Party he stood for Parliament in the safe Labour seat of Porirua three times. His best result was 70 votes.

Former colleague and friend Angela Foulkes​, who he worked with when the Council of Trade Union was established, said Douglas was the most important union leader since the World War II.

Ken Douglas had terrible political views but was a very decent person.

In later life his views modified and he was elected to the Porirua City Council and spent nine years on the Capital & Coast District Health Board from 2001.

Other roles included terms on the boards of Air NZ, NZ Post and NZ Trade and Enterprise.

I know people who served on boards with him, and they all praised how astute and constructive he was.

He was one of the giant political figures of the late 20th century. My condolences to his family and friends.

Royal popularity

In light of the accession of King Charles III, I looked at the latest data on favourability of members of the Royal Family in the UK. The net favourability in May 2022 was:

  1. The Queen +69%
  2. Catherine +62%
  3. Prince William +61%
  4. Prince Edward +21%
  5. Prince Charles +19%
  6. Camilla +8%
  7. Prince Harry -25%
  8. Meghan -39%
  9. Prince Andrew -82%

Will be interesting to see how they have changed with Charles now King.

General Debate 14 September 2022

Will Solomons become a failed state?

Stuff reports:

The Solomon Islands government has been accused of a “power grab” after Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare announced he is postponing next year’s general election.

Parliament voted last week, 37-10, to delay the election to 2024.

The opposition warns the government’s move could rekindle violence in the Solomons, its growing ties with China drawing concerns, at home and abroad.

MP Peter Kenilorea Jr said postponing the elections would allow Sogavare to consolidate his control over the Pacific nation or, worse, suspend elections altogether.

An election delay should only happen in times of extraordinary events such as a global war, and with bipartisan support.

The constitutional amendment delays the dissolution of the current parliament from May 2023 until the end of next year, shortly after the Pacific Games, and pushes the election to early 2024.

Sogavare also argued in Parliament that the “Solomon Islands could not successfully host both the games and an election next year because of the logistical requirements”.

What nonsense. If they are incapable of hosting the games and running an election, they should resign as incompetent. And the games are six months after the election.

China’s increasing influence in the Solomons is unmistakable, Kenilorea said.

“From the $50 million sports stadium it is building for the Pacific Games to its growing influence over local policing and politics, to a plan for Huawei to build more than 150 telecommunications towers that critics say could enable Chinese surveillance, it is concerning.”

All the signs are bad for the Solomons.

Ukraine regaining territory

Stuff reports:

In the end, the Russians fled any way they could on Friday (local time), on stolen bicycles, disguised as locals, abandoned by their units.

Hours after Ukrainian soldiers poured into the area, hundreds of Russian soldiers encamped in this village were gone, leaving behind stunned residents to face the ruins of 28 weeks of occupation. …

The hasty flight of Russians from the village was part of a stunning new reality that took the world by surprise over the weekend: The invaders of February are on the run in some parts of Ukraine they seized early in the conflict.

On Saturday, the Russian Defence Ministry confirmed that Russian forces had retreated from the Balakliia and Izyum area in the Kharkiv region, saying a decision was taken to “regroup.”

On Sunday, Ukraine’s commander in chief, Valery Zaluzhny, said Ukrainian forces had retaken more than 3000 square kilometres of territory, a claim that could not be independently verified, adding that they were advancing from the east, south and north.

“Ukrainian forces have penetrated Russian lines to a depth of up to 70 kilometres in some places,” reported the Institute for the Study of War, which closely tracks the conflict. They have captured more territory in the past five days “than Russian forces have captured in all their operations since April,” its campaign assessment posted Sunday said.

That is an astonishing reversal, and great to see.

Ironically it may prolong the conflict, as Putin can no longer declare a ceasefire when he is looking weak. But it will weaken his position back home.

The bravery and tenacity of the Ukrainian defenders is stunning.

Dutch madness

Stuff reports:

A Dutch city has become the first in the world to ban advertisements in public places for holiday flights.

From 2024, ads relating to fossil fuel products and services will be barred from being displayed in public places in Haarlem.

That means any billboards on buses, shelters and screens promoting air travel and non-electric cars will be barred, as the city moves to address the climate crisis.

As part of the changes, Haarlem will also be to be the first city in the world to ban adverts for meat.

There no limit to the fascism that lurks behind some politicians.

A cap and trade emissions trading scheme will achieve the goal of net zero emissions. But that is not enough for the control freaks. They want to shame you or force you into living your life in a way they morally approve of – vegetarians that never travel anyway you can’t bike,

General Debate 13 September 2022

A complaint to the Dom Post

I very rarely lodge formal complaints with the media. In fact I am unsure if I have ever done a formal complaint, as I prefer to just critique stories on Kiwiblog.

But this story in the Dominion Post and on Stuff was so bad, I have filed the below complaint. I will advise of any response.

Anna Fifield
The Editor
The Dominion Post

Dear Anna,

I write to complain about the article titled “Poll: Whanau clear favourite” which appeared on Page 3 of the Dominion Post on 12 September 2022, and an online version at https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/wellington/129847685/tory-whanau-clear-leader-in-straw-poll-for-wellington-mayoralty?

The online version is slightly better than the print version, as the headline is more nuanced.

The poll reported by the Dominion Post was not a poll, but an online survey of Dominion Post and Stuff readers (and non-readers who were sent a link). It has no predictive value, and limited news value. The survey is not representative due to the following factors:

  • Respondents were not randomly selected
  • It will be dominated by people who read Stuff and are active online
  • It is trivial to vote multiple times (stealth browsers etc)
  • Candidates can e-mail links to their supporters asking them to vote
  • Respondents may be ineligible to vote by way of being aged under 18 or living outside Wellington City

The New Zealand Political Polling Code (https://www.researchassociation.org.nz/Resources/Documents/Political%20Polling%20Code%202014.pdf) advises media that best practice is to “Only use the term “poll” for scientific polls done in accordance with market research industry approved guidelines, and use “survey” for self-selecting surveys such as text or website surveys.”

The print story does acknowledge the survey is unscientific but not until several paragraphs in, by which time the damage is done. To take the story in order:

  • The headline of “Poll: Whanau clear favourite” is misleading as readers who only see the headline will think that a poll which is representative of residents has shown Whanau as the favourite. The lack of any qualification before the word “poll” in the headline is especially bad. An acceptable headline could have been “Online survey of readers favours Whanau”
  • The lead paragraph states “A straw poll of Wellington mayoral candidates has first-time runner Tory Whanau with a huge majority over her two main rivals” will lead readers to think Whanau is not just leading, but set to win with a massive majority. The use of the word “straw” won’t signal much to the average reader, or clearly indicate it is not representative
  • The second paragraph states “It is intended to give an indication of which candidates are viable”. The self-selecting survey is incapable of indicating which candidates are viable. It can only indicate who is popular amongst those who choose to take part in the self-selecting survey. To suggest it has predictive value for the election is wrong.
  • The third paragraph states “It only allows one vote per computer”. This is wrong. It is trivial to get past any restriction based on cookies or IP addresses.
  • The fourth paragraph states “It is just one snapshot in time, rather than a scientific survey”. Almost all polls are snapshots in time. It is not the fact it is a snapshot in time that makes it unscientific. It is the nature of the survey.
  • The fourth paragraph states “No other known polls have yet been released.”. This elevates this unscientific survey to the level of scientific representative polls
  • The story also asked three candidates for the reaction to the survey. This again implies that the survey was somehow something of significance that should be reacted to.

I do not advocate that media should not report at all on the results of their online surveys. But I would expect any report to be relatively brief just along the lines of “The results of our online readers survey was ….”. But the Dominion Post:

  1. Wrote it up as a major story dominating the highly read Page 3
  2. Ran a headline that was deceptive
  3. Treated the survey as significant, and needing candidates to respond to it

I can’t recall any other major media outlet ever treating an survey of this nature as a story that deserves around 75% of their page 3.

In just the last 12 hours I have had multiple people comment to me on the survey, not realizing it was an unscientific survey rather than a scientific representative poll. I have no doubt that the story has led to a huge degree of misinformation.

Potentially tens of thousands of Wellingtonians have been misled by the headline and details of the news story. The brief mentions part way through of it being unscientific did not counter the overall impression that this survey was important enough to be reported on so prominently

I would ask the Dominion Post to take corrective action with regards to this story. I say this noting that any corrective action may not be able to undo the misinformation effect of the story. It may have a significant impact on how people vote.

The best outcome would be for the Dominion Post to commission an actual scientific poll to give readers a true snapshot of the race of the mayoralty and undo the damage from your story.  And for the avoidance of doubt, no I am not touting for business.

If that is not feasible, I would suggest a follow up story with similar prominence to the original story apologizing for the headline and implications in the original story that the online survey could be interpreted as indicating which candidates are viable, or leading.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am asserting that the story breached principles 1 and 6 of the Media Council Statement of Principles.

I believe principle 1 is breached as the story was inaccurate and misled readers as to the significance of the survey and the public support for the mayoral candidates.

I believe principle 6 is breached as the headline lacked any reference to the unscientific nature of the survey, by labelling it as a poll – contrary to the explicit industry best practice guideline by the polling industry.

Regards

David Farrar

Freedom!

The Government has announced:

  • The end of the traffic light system
  • The end of mask mandates except in healthcare and aged care facilities
  • The end of vaccine mandates for travel
  • The end of isolation requirements for household contacts

The vast majority of New Zealanders will welcome this as long overdue.

It will be interesting if we have another Covid-19 like pandemic in the future because if we do, I am not sure there will be the widespread support and acceptance for restrictions such as the lockdowns. Don’t get me wrong – I supported the original lockdown as a necessary evil. But I think people resent that restrictions of various sorts went on for not just two months, but two years.

This is not to criticise the Government’s decisions in 2020, but to reflect the reality of where people are today.

What we really need is a Royal Commission of Inquiry into NZ’s response, so we can evaluate what could be done differently next time.

A scathing review of $1.1 billion given to Oranga Tamariki

The Herald reports:

Treasury gave the Government a scathing review of its $1.1 billion investment in Oranga Tamariki in the 2019 Budget, calling the spend a “disparate collection of ideas” that was “not governed by a clear organisational strategy“.

Sounds like the Government!

In the first Wellbeing Budget, the Government invested $1.1 billion over four years into Oranga Tamariki to transform the organisation.

As part of that funding, Children’s Minister Kelvin Davis was meant to report back to Cabinet on whether any transformation had taken place every six months.

The first report was back in April 2021, but the papers released under the Official Information Act say that “from… Treasury’s perspective” the report itself “did not meet the expectations Cabinet set”.

The next report was due at the end of the year. Once again, Treasury felt the report itself was sub par, and underplayed issues at the agency.

Treasury papers and correspondence show the agency was scathing about the lack of progress.

“This will be the second report back Cabinet receives, and while it is a significant improvement on the first, some key issues remain,” the papers say.

They add that Treasury had to second short-term staff to the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki to “provide financial expertise”.

Treasury was concerned Davis’ original Cabinet paper had “not adequately addressed” the “key issues” of Oranga Tamariki’s lacklustre performance.

So taxpayers put $1.1 billion into OT to transform it, and the Minister didn’t want to tell his colleagues that basically it was a waste of money, so he glossed over it.

One report from Treasury highlighted that Oranga Tamariki did not have “effective fiscal controls” – controls on how money was spent effectively.

The report said Oranga Tamariki did not have the “necessary reporting and accountability systems in place, to ensure spending is high value and within budget”.

It said that “[s]ignificant decisions are frequently made before funding is in place, such as raising expectations with partners regarding contracts for services, or hiring permanent staff without ongoing funding for those staff”.

Treasury gave the example of Oranga Tamariki’s leadership deciding to reprioritise $42 million in underspent funding without Cabinet approval.

Because of the way that funding was reprioritised, Oranga Tamariki created an ongoing cost pressure of $20 million each year that would need to be funded in subsequent Budgets.

“OT have not sought Cabinet or joint ministerial approval to re-prioritise this $42 million, and have created an ongoing cost pressure of $20 million into subsequent years directly attributable to these decisions,” the paper said.

This is sackable territory. They spend $42 million without permission. In the private sector you would be sacked or worse.