Stuff reports:

But for the past month, 68-year-old Maria Barrett has kept herself locked inside her home, never tempted to leave a window or door unlocked.

She and other residents on the street have been left shaken after a neighbouring tenant had drawn a knife, sworn and threatened to murder them.

At this point any decent landlord with an ounce of common sense would evict the person threatening to murder your other tenants. But no this is Kainga Ora, whom Labour has instructed not to evict anyone ever.

“He spotted me sitting in the garage, and he said “what are you looking at you f…..g c…, I’ll stab you and all your family” and he was just going off, I just closed the garage.

“I was shaking…once he’s off you don’t know what’s going to happen.”

“It makes me feel really unsafe…why am I afraid to stay in my own home,” said Barrett.

No-one should feel this unsafe, let alone a 68 year old.

Residents in the neighbourhood have repeatedly called on landlord Kāinga Ora which manages the properties to remove the tenant and introduce tighter actions when screening tenants, but they say nothing has been done.

Kāinga Ora said they had 200,000 people living in their homes and the well-being of those residents was important to them.

No it isn’t. Actions speak louder than words.

In a statement they said complaints related this incident had been made since November last year and they were working with police while introducing new measures that could result in the removal of tenants if they were disruptive.

Translation: We have spent six months doing nothing but talk.

Steven Joyce writes:

There were more datapoints this week suggesting the public of New Zealand and its Government are currently inhabiting different planets.

Going on the statements from the Beehive, ministers are clearly focused on growing the public service, doling out a big climate change slush fund, taking the long handle to the public’s preferred means of getting around, implementing co-governance of public assets, and pouring another massive dollop of borrowed cash into the hungry maw that is their giant new health bureaucracy.

The public, on the other hand, are dealing with a runaway cost of living, shrinking household budgets, rising mortgage rates, diminishing asset values, a surge in aggressive criminal activity, long queues at the local hospital, a declining education sector and the growing realisation that economic activity is being frustrated by an obstructionist political class.

Such an excellent summary of where things are.

The Prime Minister and the Finance Minister have made it quite clear that it is for everyone else to tighten their belts — not the Government.

The Government is increasing spending, running deficits and increasing debt, which leaves taxpayers having to fund it all, plus cope with 7% inflation.

Newshub reports:

Since 2019, the transport agency’s spent $145 million on consultants, covering things like the environment and planning, versus just $200 million on actual construction.

Isn’t that amazing? Almost as much on consultants than on actually building roads.

But the Waka Kotahi spend up doesn’t end there. Since 2017, it’s more than doubled its PR team from 32 staff to 88 – 65 of whom are earning $100,000 or more.

NZTA used to build and improve roads so that non urban roads could be safely travelled on at the open road speed limit. Now they think their job is to not improve roads, so that they can lower speed limits on them, and hence they need more comms staff to explain why they are not building roads.

The public results are here.

Party Vote

• National 36.8% (-1.0% from April)
• Labour 34.2% (-2.6%)
• ACT 10.9% (+2.5%)
• Greens 9.7% (+0.3%)
• Maori Party 2.4% (-1.2%)
• NZ First 1.8% (+0.1%)
• TOP 1.4%
• Conservatives 1.3%

Seats

• National 47 (+14 from election)
• Labour 44 (-21)
• ACT 14 (+4)
• Greens 12 (+2)
• Maori Party 3 (+1)

Government

• National/ACT 61/120
• Labour/Greens 56/120

Country Direction

• Right 34% (-7%)
• Wrong 48% (+5%)

This is the first time the Taxpayers’ Union/Curia poll has shown the centre-right able to form a Government.

Newshub reports:

The National Party’s health spokesperson Dr Shane Reti claims the life expectancy for Māori has improved over time.

Appearing on The Hui on Monday night, Dr Reti challenged the idea that health outcomes for Māori had been abysmal and said Māori life expectancy had improved. He said in 1840, Māori life expectancy was 30 years of age and today it’s 73.4 years, so it had in fact improved.

This is not a claim. It is historical fact.

Incidentally in 1950 Maori life expectancy was 78% of non-Maori. Now it is around 91%.

What is wrong with NZ on Air? They hand out $220,000 for a hagiography about a second term Green Party MP. Why should taxpayers fund a 90 minute hagiography about an MP seeking re-election?

It comes from some of the same team who also wanted funding for a hagiography about Jacinda Ardern and how she was the true hero of the Christchurch Mosque Massacre.

Stuff reports:

Te Pāti Māori says it considered standing a candidate in the Tauranga by-election, but opted not to over concerns about safety and racism in the region.

Party president Che Wilson said racism and hate speech in Tauranga made it a “safety issue” for the party to participate in the upcoming by-election.

Astonishing that Tauranga is so unsafe for Maori as it has had a Maori MP for 35 of the last 38 years!

I think Auckland Light Rail has eclipsed Kiwibuild as the Government’s worst delivery failure.

Jacinda’s first promise as Labour Leader was Light Rail to Mt Roskill would be complete in four years. Now they are saying it will take seven years just to complete the business case!

If they were a company, you would sue them for false advertising.

By comparison National signed off on a business case for Transmission Gully after just one year in office.

A guest post by Gary Benner:

A White Paper on How to Better our Parliament & Electoral System

It is suggested that these changes be referred to the “Ardern Changes”, not because they are
advocated by our current PM, but for the reason that they are necessary because of her performance
at the head of a party with an absolute majority in the New Zealand MMP based Parliament.
This experience has disenfranchised so many New Zealanders, and enabled career politicians to
take control of not just the economy, but the very culture of New Zealand, promoting a divisive and
hateful atmosphere throughout the whole of our society.
The current experience with our government raises a number of issues to be
addressed:

The House of Representatives does not represent the citizens of New Zealand anymore
(not sure it ever did actually). Once MP’s are elected and move into the “House of
Representatives”, they are no longer truly able to represent their constituents, as they almost
all have to adhere to Party dictates, as evidenced clearly by the existance of Party “Whips”.
This then gives inordinate powers to just a few people at the top level of the party in
power.

The “Party System” in conjunction with MMP enables the control of the parliamentary
process by elite members of the various political parties, and a dominance of a generic “left
versus right” polarisation that drowns out creative and dynamic solutions being developed
and implemented.

Where dominance of one party exists, they have the ability to control all processes such as
Select Committees without any checks and balances.

Lack of independence with the Speaker of the House. The current one is a prime example.

So called “Captains Calls” that bypass the democratic process.

The position of Governor General has no significant function, apart from ceremonial, and
needs to given some teeth.

The total lack of transparency and accountability, despite this being part of the current
government’s election promises.

A group of major national media organisations trained to be dependent on government
handouts, with the apparent lack of an aggressive questioning of government policies and
actions.

Out of date statistical data on what is really happening in our country.

Proposed changes:

1 All 60 Electorate MP’s must be independents, and not aligned to any political party. They
should have a commitment to represent solely the region for which they were elected. Their
campaigning should be directed at their track record in governance, business acumen,
and backed by a local team to hear and include the ideas and needs of all persons in their
electorate.
2 The 60 List Members will be as at present, party aligned, and will campaign on their Party’s
policies, track record, and the skill sets of their members. Each Party registered must
document a set of planned policies which they will be allowed to put forward for voting in
parliament during the next term, should they be elected. This allows parties to attract
talented individuals who do not wish to split their focus between their career speciality
and local service.
3 The party with the most votes have the mandate to form a cabinet and elect a PM from
within their ranks, and to set the legislative calendar as per their documented policies
published prior to the election. Any additional legislation introduced, as driven by
circumstances will have a higher percentage level of votes in parliament to pass.
4 Select Committees will remain, and should be assigned to List MPs. The Party with the most
votes gets to select the Committees it wishes to head, as per their proportion of members.
Obviously Finance will be the first they will choose. Then the party with the next greatest
number of MP’s chooses its allocation, and so on. The same process will then apply to
Committee membership, with no Committee having more members in proportion to the
Party count. This would allow for the removal of the 5% minimum for MMP representation,
and the need for parties to have to formally create coalition arrangements. Simply, the party
with the most votes gets to lead.
5 The Speaker of the House has to have a role re-definition, focusing on the operational
processes of the House alone. The appointment should come from outside the members, and
perhaps a member of the Judiciary that is satisfactory to a minimum of 75% of the House
members as a whole. Nominations could be approved by the current Governor General.
6 All legislation brought to the House must be debated in full, with matters of “urgency”
meeting specific criteria, that will be allowed only by a preliminary vote of 75% of the
voting members. This criteria should be available only for matters of National Emergency,
such as adverse events, war etc. All other legislation should proceed through the full
process.
7 All legislation brought to the House, to proceed through the standard process, will proceed
through the three stages as at present, but voted on by the electorate MP’s alone. List
elected Members will not participate in the vote, as this is an affirmation stage for legislation
they bring to and formulate for the House to consider. This is what creates the balance – one
side creating the legislation, knowing it has to be approved by the other. A poor man’s upper
house.
8 A legislation review process should be implemented, so that all legislation must be reaffirmed
after 12 months. Any legislation that fails to be re-affirmed should be removed
from the books. This is similar what I believe is the Swiss System. As a background process,
all past legislation over 25 years will require an affirmation, or marked for review as
appropriate. Perhaps one a month chosen by ballot submitted by all MP’s. This will ensure
legislation is refreshed, or removed as appropriate.
9 The Governor General to have an enhanced position, and one that is elected every five
years. In the current situation, the Queen, or her successor, must approve the election of her
representative. In the event of a rejection, should that ever happen, then the reasons must be
communicated, and a new election held. Or perhaps candidates nominated need the Royal
assent to be on the ballot.
The requirements for the position of Governor General are one that ensure the person is able
to fulfil the special role.
9.1 They have never participated in public party political activity during their life
9.2 They have had a career encompassing governance, public duty, have not been
part of any organisation advocating for, or public lobbying for action on behalf of a
specific group or set of moral or political goals, and they must have an unblemished
reputation.
9.3 They are retired from any current career for a period of two years, prior to being
nominated. Nominations must be supported by a full resume of the individuals career
and experience, achievements and proof of party independence.
9.4 All duties with other organisations, or any association where there is a potential
for partiality are relinquished
9.5 If they have significant investments (greater than $1M), these are placed into a
Blind Trust managed by a fully independent professional firm for the duration of their
appointment.
9.6 Their duty is to affirm all legislation passed by the House of Representatives, that
in their view, it serves the best interests of the citizens of New Zealand as a whole. They
have the following options for every item of legislation:
9.6.1 affirm the legislation as presented
9.6.2 return the legislation to the House with a list of concerns – if returned then
any further voting requires a 70% threshold. Any such legislation passed in this
manner is then automatically entered into the books.
9.7 The Governor General should have access to enough resource to take take
specialist advice on matters of a technical nature, but this must be limited, and not an
excuse to create a separate public service.
10 To ensure that Electorate MP’s are fully engaged with their electorate voters, a
number of activities must be implemented as a minimum:
10.1 They will employ a local team of three staff who are working constantly in the
region to deal with issues raised by constituents.
10.2 Monthly public “town hall” meetings, live streamed, with “all comer” questions
able to be asked. Those asking technical questions should indicate in advance, or expect
the answer to be deferred to the next meeting. In large electorates these must be
distributed around the region, with at least one remote location every three months. (eg.
East Cape). Maybe also have the opportunity for (local) List MP’s also to attend and
answer questions.
10.3 An online forum available for all constituents to air opinions on current matters,
and where the elected MP must respond to those issues, for all to see.
10.4 A recall election for an electorate MP must be held if a petition with 5,000 or
25% of the voters (whatever is the lessor) signatures is received by the Electoral
Commission. Only one per term can be held in each electorate. Each application must be
validated by the Governor General to ensure it is not frivolous.
10.5 Parliament should only need to sit two weeks every month, giving the time for
select committees in Wellington to undertake their work, and electorate MP’s to spend
time in their respective regions.

Comments

1. This does not require a change in regard to the current Monarchist vs Republic debate, as it
   will work for both.
2. Little change to resources required in Parliament, as there is only role re-assignments.
3. Some changes for the Governor General, and at a local level, but worth it in the longer term,
   and would provide a segue to any republic moves in the future.
4. It ensures that the frustration felt in the general public that lead to the Convoy 2022 and
   public occupations around the country has not reason to happen again.
5. That the public has an ability to engage almost daily in political matters, instead of being
   relegated to literally a binary choice, in a once every three years circus, highly managed in
   the media, and leaving citizens unable to exert influence in real time.
6. There has to be mechanisms to ensure the independence of electorate MP’s. Non-aligned to
   any organisation, and a period of 3 – 5 years since holding office in any body advocating for
   a specific political outcome ( eg. Business Roundtable, Union etc).
   Other:
7. That all state funding of, and investment in media organisations is banned.
8. That voting patterns of all Electorate MP’s is published online in “real time”, so constituents
   can see and rate the independence of their MP.
9. That Statistics NZ have a mandate to publish all performance and quality information online
   for all government departments in real time, in complete form. This could involve the creation of
   “Dashboards” showing the current state of, and trends in all areas – Health, Education, Business &
   Finance, Crime & Justice etc. This data should also be shown relative to the same information
   (where possible) in other major countries. For instance we currently have extremely manicured
   health statistics, some of it obscenely out of date.
10. The independence of local MP’s is critical, and there may be a period of adjustment
    required, as it would be foolish to suggest that many good current MP’s aligned to the current model would be excluded immediately.

Emma Priest writes:

I was a senior Crown prosecutor for 11 years, prosecuting many sexual trials before I became a defence lawyer. Although my view on the criminal justice system as it applies to sex trials will be unpopular with some, I feel it is my duty to correct some misconceptions.

Rape is a devastating crime for the victim. A false conviction for rape, however, is a devastating injustice for an innocent defendant.

A conviction for sexual offending means years in jail, often followed by no employment, travel, and very real restrictions for the rest of one’s life. The stakes are enormous and the jury has to get it right. Measures to depart from traditional jury trials for defendants may be attractive but that does not make them just or desirable.

There is a reason we require conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Moses ben Maimon in the 1100s said “it is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death.” and this principle remains with us today.

It has been law for a long time that New Zealand lawyers cannot cross-examine complainants about their sexual history or reputation unless a judge decides it is relevant and a miscarriage of justice would result without it. It is unfair to suggest that slut-shaming is a hallmark of cross-examination. Complainants now have the protection of automatic name suppression, support people in court, and often appear via CCTV. Judges intervene where lawyers (infrequently) get close to the line.

It is important to distinguish between bullying and testing the evidence where the allegations are denied.

The term “bullying” has become as misused as “unsafe”. Vigorous cross-examination is not bullying.

Sometimes the complaint arises years or decades later. People make complaints to the police about a party that happened 20 years earlier. Think back to a party in your 20s, when maybe you met someone and had a sexual encounter. You were both a bit drunk and you thought they were “into you”. The police contact you now, 10 or 20 years later, tell you she didn’t want sex that night and that you are to be charged with rape. There is no statute of limitation in New Zealand and you can be prosecuted 10 years later – or 30 or 40.

I do wonder if there should be a statute of limitation on certain crimes in New Zealand. How do you defend yourself when your memories of 30 years ago about a specific event will be very poor. Having said, that you don’t want people to get a free pass because of time, especially if they were in a position of authority over the complainant – such as a parent or teacher.

We must push against a criminal justice system that starts with the presumption that complainants are telling the truth. Yes, I accept many are telling the truth, but there is much greyness. A complainant can honestly have not consented but, in that same encounter, a defendant can honestly believe there was consent. Both are right. This doesn’t take away from the complainant’s negative experience, but also it doesn’t mean the defendant is guilty of rape.

I think it is fine to start with a presumption of truth, but it shouldn’t end there.

The question must be “has the defendant broken the law?” not “do we believe the complainant?”

Yep.

It depresses me to write this, as I think Trump should be in prison. But I think he is very likely to be elected President again in 2024.

The logic is simple. Whoever is the Republican candidate is likely to win, and Trump is almost certain to be the candidate if he stands.

If it comes to a choice between a candidate strong on democracy and weak on the economy vs a candidate weak on democracy and strong on the economy, the latter will win out.

Biden has a -22% approval rating on the economy. Unless there is a major improvement by 2024, then that will sink him.

A CNN poll found Biden’s approval on the economy to be -32%. By demographic they are:

• Men -30%
• Women -32%
• People of Colour -9%
• Under 45s -29%
• Under $50k income -28%
• Independents -41%

I hope I am wrong. Maybe if neither Biden nor Harris stands, a different Democrat could beat Trump.

James Doolan of the Hotel Council writes in the Herald:

Let’s start with a quick recap of what tourism looked like before Covid border closures in March 2020. In normal times, Aotearoa hosted around 3.8 million international visitors each year including leisure tourists, business travellers and foreign students. Kiwis also travel domestically for work and leisure.

Spending by people who “don’t live around here” is critical to many businesses, and it’s easy to guess what some of those are. Unsurprisingly, tourists account for 99 per cent of air passenger transport spending and 95 per cent of overnight accommodation spending.

Huge.

But the next one will be a surprise to most. Pre-Covid, 42 per cent of total spending in Kiwi restaurants and bars came from tourists. That’s more than $4.9 billion in revenue each year. International tourists alone were responsible for a gigantic one-quarter of total spending at our F&B outlets.

No wonder so many have closed.

Tourists eat out three times a day, seven days a week, not just on birthdays or when they’ve been able to organise a babysitter. Tourists are often on the trip-of-a-lifetime and far from home. Leisure tourists don’t have work tomorrow morning, or kids to get to school. If this is the only time they’ll be here, then of course tourists are more likely to splash out on the best, take the whole bottle and find space for dessert. In short, tourists are both wealthy and primed by circumstances to spend heavily on the experience of travel. 

Heh my eating out spending declined by around 95% after we had children.

Those 3.8 million international visitors are here for 10 nights on average, meaning 38 million visitor nights each year. By comparison, New Zealand’s resident population of 5 million multiplied by 365 days per year equates to 1.8 billion nights annually, ignoring the minor impact of outbound travel. When analysed this way, international tourists are just two per cent of the market, but they’re doing 25 per cent of the spending.

So spending 12 times as much.

Tourist spending on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday keeps the restaurant in business for your date night dinner on Friday. Tourists prop up the new, innovative and international-standard restaurants that we Kiwis think about only on special occasions. Without tourists, our F&B sector is smaller, less vibrant and duller than it should be. We’ve witnessed that for ourselves since international borders closed.

So next time you’re out at a restaurant, drink to the health of our tourism industry. Whether you like it or not, tourists subsidised your date night.

A good point.

Stuff reports:

A father and son who beat and cut the finger off a teenage burglar have been found not guilty on all charges.

William Burr was found not guilty on six charges, and Shaun Burr was found not guilty on four charges in the Hamilton District Court on Wednesday.

The men were discharged without conviction, after being accused of beating and cutting the finger off the teenage burglar who’d stolen from William Burr three times before.

In terms of the law, I thought they were clearly guilty. I could see a defence to beating the burglar, but hard to see a defence to cutting his finger (tip) off. I would have voted to convict (based on the evidence in the media, which to be far may not be comprehensive).

But clearly the jury just decided the burglar was a ratbag and that Burr’s rough justice was not something they would punish him for.

I wonder if part of the reason the jury let Burr off, is because they perceive the justice system as not working for victims. The burglar had already struck three times before, and was already on on bail despite clear recidivism.

There is a lesson here. You’ll get more and more juries unwilling to convict people for rough justice, if they think the actual justice system isn’t working.

Readers will recall I have blogged previously on Judge Callinicos who got pressured by the Heads of the District and Family Courts due to complaints from Oranga Tamariki that he bullied their staff in court.

Newsroom has reported on the Ombudsman’s review of a reverse uplift case (like the one Judge Callinicos was dealing with, and the findings are damning for OT. Some extracts:

Newsroom has been given a copy of Boshier’s final opinion by the Pākehā foster carers on their complaint.

He calls out Oranga Tamariki for a laundry list of questionable behaviours, including submitting misleading and unbalanced information to the court, flawed decision-making around moving the children, and contravening the Oranga Tamariki Act.

And more:

Perhaps most damaging to the state agency’s reputation is that it must ensure all documents submitted to court are accurate, and are reviewed “at an appropriate level” before filing.

And:

“What the Ombudsman uncovered in this case is serious. I mean, it’s bad. It’s malpractice. It’s abuse of power. He has found they didn’t act consistent with the legislation at that time.”

She says one of the most concerning aspects was misleading information making its way into court, meaning a judge did not have all the facts needed before making the decision to approve the uplift of the children.

“What this report clearly identifies is that the decision was based on misleading and incomplete information. It wasn’t a balanced account. So essentially social workers were influencing the outcome by being selective. Now that’s not how the judicial process is supposed to work. The judicial process is supposed to work by all the parties, to a dispute, having the opportunity to present their evidence to the judge and the judge who is the expert in the law, makes what he considers or she considers to be the best decision possible in the circumstances.

So Judge Callicinos rightly criticised OT staff for acting in ways like that described above – and for his trouble he had two heads of benches (later joined by the Chief Justice) tell him he had to be nicer to OT.

There should be apologies flowing to Judge Callicinos from those responsible.

A raft of Government reforms along with local body elections have increased the Taxpayers’ Union’s workload – so we’re looking for new team members in our Wellington office.

We’re seeking part-time paid interns for positions in administration and research. These positions would suit Victoria University students with all-round skills and a keen interest in politics and campaigns.

Scepticism of big government is a plus, but we hire from across the political spectrum.

Your classmates and lecturers might not share the Taxpayers’ Union’s mission of lower taxes, less waste, more transparency – so a sense of humour and a thick skin is a must!

Hours are negotiable, and while we are not an accredited Living Wage Employer™ (we prefer not to pay accreditation fees to left-wing lobby groups), we do pay a living wage.

Previous Taxpayers’ Union interns have gone on to work in government departments including Treasury, DPMC, and DOC – as well as in the Leader of the Opposition’s office and in private financial consultancies.

You can send a resume and brief cover note to [email protected].

Eric Crampton writes:

Governments like scapegoats. A good scapegoat can take the blame for something that is a government’s fault. It can also help justify measures the government was itching to take for other reasons.

When all goes well, a very good scapegoat can do both.

On Wednesday, Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs David Clark blamed the supermarkets for inflation.

Yep, it wasn’t printing too much money. It was New World and Countdown to blame!

Greed is a poor explanation for inflation, not because companies are altruists, but because greed is always with us. It isn’t cyclical.

Should we credit corporate public-spiritedness for the five years from December 2011 through December 2016 when inflation ran well below the midpoint of the RBNZ inflation band?

Of course not. Monetary policy drives inflation, not changes in greed.

It is depressing that a Minister thinks we are so stupid, they run such lines.

Even worse, Clark implicitly compared March quarter food price figures with December quarter CPI figures. March quarter inflation figures will not be released until later this week. It is currently impossible to say whether food price inflation is above or below the overall CPI.

We now have this data and food price inflation of 6.7% is lower than overall inflation of 6.9%. And food only makes up 18.5% of the overall CPI – 71.5% is other consumer costs such as housing and transport.

In short, the minister was wrong from beginning to end. Absolute economic ignorance would be the most charitable explanation, but even then he might have considered asking Treasury’s advice.

More plausibly, Clark was scapegoating the supermarkets to justify populist measures against them, or to deflect attention from his government’s failure to keep the Reserve Bank on target, or both.

Voters should be wary of policies justified by scapegoating.

Hey look at that, over there, don’t blame us.

Quite amazing if you look at the majority of the leaders of the US Government. You have:

• President Joe Biden, 79
• House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 82
• Senate President pro tempore Patrick Leahy, 82
• House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, 82
• House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, 81
• Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, 71
• Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, 77
• Senate Majority Assistant Leader Patty Murray, 71

One bad dose of the flu could knock out three of the top four in the line of succession!

The Herald reports:

Transport Minister Michael Wood has conveyed his expectations over the importance of “responsible and proportionate spending,” after his Ministry spent $10,000 on two large red prop ‘zeros’.

Waka Kotahi spent $4885 per number earlier this year, Newstalk ZB can reveal.

The props – which glow red and stand about shoulder height on Wood – were part of the agency’s Road to Zero campaign.

I thought the two zeros are the Ministers pictured!

This symbolises what the Government is about. Waka Kotahi’s job is no longer to allow New Zealanders to travel using the medium that best works for them – but to slow roads down rather than make them safer.

If anything is a good indication of fading support for Labour, it is the 2021 donation returns. Labour got half as much money as the Greens! They got less money than NZ First and Social Credit combined. Total donations (excluding non-anonymous under $1,500) were:

1. National $1,025,311
2. ACT $830,442
3. Greens $403,787
4. Labour $207,836
5. NZ First $107,289
6. Social Credit $106,496

Labour’s paltry donations are not just a lack of large donors (over $15,000). Here’s who much each party got from smaller donors ($1,500 to $5,000):

1. National $336,585
2. ACT $121,600
3. Greens $79,250
4. Labour $56,563
5. NZ First $47,305

Labour had only 18 of these smaller donors compared to 120 for National.