Geoffrey Miller wrote:

On Tuesday, foreign minister Nanaia Mahuta announced New Zealand would provide an additional NZ$4 million in humanitarian aid to UN agencies, while immigration minister Kris Faafoi provided details of a new ‘2022 Special Ukraine Policy’ that will give work visas to Ukrainians who already have family in New Zealand.

The special two-year work visas for Ukrainians require sponsorship from New Zealand-based Ukrainian family members, of which Faafoi says there are around 1600.

EU countries are currently accepting an unlimited number of Ukrainian refugees and are offering them residency for three years, with no visas required. Outside Europe, Canada announced at the start of March that it will also accept an unlimited number of Ukrainians for a period of at least two years, regardless of whether or not applicants have existing ties to the country.

It is true that New Zealand’s new visa programme – which the government believes will benefit around 4000 people – will undoubtedly help some Ukrainians who are fleeing the war. However, the requirement for existing family ties and sponsorship means that the programme is not open to Ukrainians generally and is far more restrictive than the offers from the EU and Canada.

As Miller points out, the policy only helps Ukrainians who already have family here. It doesn’t help the 99.9% of the 4.5 million refugees who don’t have family here.

Meanwhile, New Zealand’s general refugee quota remains at the annual 1500 level that Labour set in 2020. This target – an increase from the previous 1000 – has not been met. Just 263 refugees arrived in the 2020-1 year and only 463 have been resettled in the current year – a shortfall which the government attributes to the “global impact of Covid-19.”

So in the last two years we have taken 2,500 fewer refugees than our quota. We should immediately announce we will take say 4,000 refugees in the next year.

Here’s what other countries have done:

1. Poland 2.7 million
2. Romanian 700,000
3. Hungary 430,000
4. Moldova 413,000
5. Slovakia 320,000
6. Germany 310,000
7. Czechia 300,000
8. Bulgaria 150,000
9. US 100,000
10. Italy 90,000
11. Turkey 58,000
12. France 45,000
13. Lithuania 44,000
14. Austria 42,000
15. Israel 35,000
16. Sweden 28,000

Surely 4,000 is not too much for New Zealand

Curia did a poll of 1,000 New Zealanders for the NZ Jewish Council to try and measure how prevalent certain anti-Semitic tropes are in New Zealand. The full 102 page report is here.

Sir Peter Gluckman gives an overview:

For 2000 years, Jews have suffered from stereotyping, stigmatisation, ghettoisation and persecution. The origins of classical antisemitism lie in religious doctrine highlighted by examples such as the 12th Century York massacre and the Spanish and Portuguese inquisitions of the 15-17th Centuries. Then in the 19th Century, antisemitism took a nationalistic and racial turn highlighted by the Dreyfus affair, then by Nazi ideology and the ultimate tragedy of the Holocaust. This antisemitism has re-emerged as these incompletely eradicated memes and Holocaust denial become conflated with conspiracy theories and alternative-right politics. And an even more recent trend has been the global emergence of left-wing associated antisemitism with its own internal paradoxes – for this group, for whom most forms of
discrimination are unacceptable, antisemitism does not appear to count.

We see antisemitism with the far right and the far left.

Given the question “Jews don’t care what happens to anyone but their own kind” only 52% disagreed with that proposition, 13% directly agreed with it and the remainder (some 35%) claimed they don’t know. Is that genuine ignorance or is it a convenient way to avoid an answer that they might otherwise have given?

Rather sad only 52% disagreed.

Some of the findings are:

• 17% said Jews have too much power in international financial markets
• 19% said Jews talk about the Holocaust too much
• 15% said Jews in NZ are more loyal to Israel than New Zealand
• 16% said Jews are not indigenous to Israel
• 6% said the Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves and 20% were unsure if they did!

There was also an interesting correlation between types of anti-semitism:

This survey found there is a relationship between those holding Zionophobic views and those who hold classical antisemitic views. It shows the more extreme anti-Israel sentiment someone has, the more classical antisemitic tropes they will believe in, and vice versa. For example, there is only a 25% chance that someone who holds four classical antisemitic views will hold no anti-Israel antisemitic views, and only a 29% chance that someone who holds four anti-Israel antisemitic views will hold no classical antisemitic views. This is consistent with a United Kingdom study which also showed a clear empirical link between the two forms of antisemitism.

And finally knowledge on the Holocaust is woeful, with only 42% able to cite the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust as six million.

Newsroom reports:

Progress at the disputed land, Ihumātao, remains stalled as the Crown waits for the final members of the governance group to be appointed, writes political editor Jo Moir

Māori Development Minister Willie Jackson had hoped the governance group, Roopu Whakahaere, would be up and running in February but it could now be late May before that happens.

It’s been 16 months since the Government announced the controversial land – home to a long-running occupation – had been purchased by the Crown from Fletcher Building for $30 million.

If it takes 16 months to even agree on membership of a governance group, the chance of there being agreement on any housing at all within the next five years is probably zero.

So the end result is taxpayers have shelled out $30 million of land that will just sit there unused, while we have a housing crisis.

So many interesting things said in Louisa Wall’s valedictory. Some extracts.

When I was forced out of my electorate in 2020, by the unconstitutional actions of the party president, Claire Szabó, and some members of council, I was devastated. The president accepted a late nomination, did not share the fact of its late receipt with the council until questions were asked, and then retrospectively tried to justify and legitimise her actions. 

The late nomination was that of Arena Williams, who was backed by Ardern and Robertson. Wall is right that accepting a late nomination is unconstitutional. It is likely Labour would have lost the court action Wall filed over this.

 I especially want to acknowledge Raewyn Turner and her late husband Trevor, and Andrew Beyer, who all served on the executive of my LEC, and to thank them for their continuous support. Further, I want to apologise to them for the actions of the party president and council members who disenfranchised them, without any basis or explanation, after years of loyalty. For me, people like Raewyn, Trevor, and Andrew—and those who are here today—are the foundation of Labour. The way they were treated in order to punish me is reprehensible and it is as a result of that corrupt process that I am standing to deliver my valedictory statement today.

A retiring Labour MP has referred to her party as running a corrupt process. That should be very newsworthy.

I have learnt that working across the House is the best way to make effective and long-lasting change. I have always been grateful to my colleagues in other parties who are willing to listen and are open to discuss issues, and I acknowledge that the engagement of colleagues on this side of the House has often been influenced by matters outside the issues. In my view, there is no place here for an us-and-them mentality. We need to be more kaupapa- rather than personality-driven.

I saw this first hand on the marriage equality bill. I sat on a cross party group that worked on getting the numbers for the bill. Louisa listened to advice on how to best get National MPs on board, and never went out and made the bill a party political issue. She put getting the law passed over party politics. It was the difference between the bill passing narrowly and the bill passing with a near two thirds majority.

It was during this journey that I experienced most acutely how personal politics can override kaupapa. For me, the debate around marriage equality was rooted in basic human rights principles. How could the State deny the rights of a group of people to enter into the State-recognised institution of marriage? While the deputy leader of the caucus at the time wanted more recognition of civil unions, I believe that advocacy for marriage equality was based on fundamental human rights, and that civil unions became a stopgap measure because it was not clear that marriage would get over the line. When I expressed this view, I was told that this would be the end of my career and I would be on my own.

So the then Deputy Leader (that would be a Mr G Robertson) told the MP who got marriage equality passed, that if she advocated for it as a rights issue, her career would be over. And it turned out he was right.

LA Mag reports:

It may sound like a Roland Emmerich sci-fi movie, but it’s actually more frightening. And much more controversial. It’s the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’s latest initiative to make Hollywood more equitable and diverse—more woke—by changing the rules by which films are eligible for Best Picture nominations. Here’s how it works: Starting in 2024, producers will be required to submit a summation of the race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability status of members of their movie’s cast and crew. If a particular movie does not have enough people of color or disabled people or gays or lesbians working on the set—and what is “enough” will be determined by a knotty tangle of byzantine formularies—then that movie will no longer be eligible for an Oscar.

So you might make the best picture of the year, but if you didn’t hire enough gay camera operators, then you won’t be eligible for an Oscar!

Radio NZ reports:

He could well be hiding his face after today’s performance.

The 1pm Covid-19 media briefing today started ordinarily enough, setting out the government’s decision to move New Zealand to the orange setting from midnight tonight.

He tripped over the detail of what it would actually mean however, initially saying masks would no longer be required on public transport and flights.

“It won’t be as widespread as it has been up till now.”

But that would amount to a drastic shift and a softening of what is now the main line of defence – apart from vaccines – against the virus. Pulled up on this by reporters, he quickly changed his tune and sought clarification from his smartphone.

“I just didn’t bring the list, it was several weeks ago we made that decision around masks, so let me just double check I’m getting it absolutely correct for you.”

He says he “just had a mind blank” over which places the masks were still required, and apologised.

“That was my mistake. I did not refresh my memory sufficiently about mask requirements at orange before I came down here. I apologise for that. That was my mistake, the guidance is very clear. Yes I should have been familiar with that guidance before I came to do this, I will accept responsibility for the fact that I did not do that. There’s been quite a lot going on.”

He announced to an entire country that masks were no longer needed on public transport and flights, and he was wrong. This is not a minor detail.

Questioned over the logic on keeping masks for retail but not hospitality, he said there were “going to be a lot more people in a supermarket on a weekly basis than they’ll be out and about pashing on a dancefloor”.

It’s a crazy distinction. In a supermarket you have very little interaction with others, and lots of space. In a bar or nightclub you are pressed in tightly, and constantly interacting with others.

This is just another blow to retailers.

The Local Government Commission has done a determination for Rotorua which will see three Maori Ward Councillors elected, but without sacrificing equality of suffrage.

This means that the bill going through Parliament to over-ride the Local Elections Act is no longer needed, unless the aim of the Government isn’t to ensure there are three Maori Ward Councillors, but to take away equal suffrage from all other residents of Rotorua.

The LGC has abolished the at large seats and set up three wards:

• Urban General Ward – 48,410 people elect 6 Councillors – 8,068 population per Cr
• Māori Ward – 21,700 people elect 3 Councillors – 7,233 population per Cr
• Rural General Ward – 7,200 people elect 1 Councillor – 7,200 population per Cr

So the Local Government Commission has set a structure that provides for three Māori Ward Councillors, but retains equality of suffrage. They should be congratulated on a fine decision.

It would now be even more outrageous and unprincipled for Labour and Greens to proceed with an urgent law change to over-ride the law and set wards where people in a general ward have only 39% of the voting power of people in a Maori ward.

The LGC decision provides for three Māori Ward Councillors. It just gets rid of the at large Councillors, and basically provides that only people on the General Roll can vote for the other seven Councillors. This means the fundamental human right of equality of suffrage is retained.

The bill is now obsolete, unless the real purpose of the law change isn’t to ensure there are three Māori Ward Councillors, but to take away votes from the rest of the community.

If you have yet to make a submission on the bill, you can do so here. I recommend that you refer to the LGC decision in your submission and how it means that the Select Committee can now recommend the bill not proceed as it is trying to fix a problem that no longer exists.

The NZ Initiative has a useful research note on cost of living. They have looked at the Stats NZ data and worked out the extra costs over the last year are:

• Transport $1,042
• Food $478
• Housing $424
• Interest $262
• Rates $164
• Other $632

They also point out that our inflation rate of 5.9% is higher than 19 of out 20 largest trading partners. And possibly related to that our level of borrowing is one of the highest in the OECD during the pandemic.

Food prices are 7.6% higher than a year ago. I’ve charted below food inflation since 2000.

In 2011 the spike was due to a GST increase that was compensated for with income tax cuts that boosted after tax incomes. So really this is the highest level since 2008/09.

Under the Clark Government food prices went up 37.4% from 1999 to 2008. Under the Key/English Government they only went up 12.7% over nine years.

By comparison under four and a quarter years of Ardern and Robertson, food prices have gone up 13.3%.

Robert Hamlin at Radio NZ writes:

As public utilities, individual supermarket sites should only be allowed to charge a single fixed and publicly stated margin on the goods they sell. This is a novel requirement, but it is core to the process of regulating a supermarket as a utility.

Think about how crazy this is. He is saying the Government should basically set all food prices in New Zealand. Any promotions, specials etc would be banned. Prices could not reflect demand. Supermarkets would have to apply the same margin to something they buy half a dozen of as to the stuff they sell 1,000 of a day.

The media will write hundreds of stories every year over issues such as the gender gap in wages, yet in the last fortnight they have totally ignored the looming massive breach of fundamental human rights being pushed through Parliament.

I am of course talking about the ending of equality of suffrage in Rotorua, with the law change that will give voters on the general roll just 39% of the voting power of those on the Māori roll for ward councillors. This law change will mean we no longer have equality of suffrage in New Zealand local government.

Now is this a minor issue? No. Look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 21(3) states:

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

The media have said almost nothing on this. The Human Rights Commission is silent. The Council for Civil Liberties is silent.

And it isn’t just international law this breaks. Look at the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990. Section 12 says:

elections shall be by equal suffrage

Now that is about parliamentary elections, but it is naive to think that once the precedent is set at local government level that equal suffrage isn’t needed, it won’t expand.

So we have this law change being pushed through Parliament ending equal suffrage, and the media are ignoring it.

Could this be linked to the $55 million they have taken from the Government requiring them to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi as defined by NZ on Air?

The Guardian reports:

Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen went in opposite directions on Monday in an attempt to drum up support from new voters they need to win the final round of France’s presidential election in less than a fortnight.

Macron headed north, where he spent several hours talking to crowds at Denain, a former mining town once controlled by socialists but now a far-right stronghold, and promised he would listen to candidates “who failed to qualify” in Sunday’s first round of the election.

Le Pen headed south into northern Burgundy where the Paris commuter belt meets countryside and where she already enjoys support.

Both candidates need to convince the 49% of voters who did not support either of them on Sunday and the 25.1% who did not vote at all if they want to win the second round on 24 April.

Both will be looking to poach some of the 7.7 million-plus voters who supported the radical left candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the only leftwing candidate to get anywhere near the second round with 21.95% of the vote on Sunday.

You might think people who voted for a far left candidate in the first round would never vote for a far right candidate in the second round, but it doesn’t work like that. Extremists tend to vote for extreme parties. At the real extremes, it is very difficult to distinguish between a fascist and a marxist – both are against democracy and freedom.

Macron got 28% and Le Pen got 23%. Who might go for Macron after voting for another candidate? The Republicans got 5% and the Greens 5% also. Add on the Socialists at 2% and 40% for Macron.

Le Pen starts at 23%. 7% voted for Zemmour. 3% for Lassalle and 2% for Debout la France. You have 35% for Le Pen.

That leaves the 22% who voted for Melenchon and 2% for the French Communists. Macron need to get at least 40% of their 24% to win.

I’d say he probably will manage it, but will be close.

The PM refutes that crime is getting out of control. Well let’s look at the official police data for violent offending:

Yep in the last three years, violent offences have increased 37% from 49,000 to over 67,000. That is an extra 18,000 people assaulted (or worse) so every day in 2021 50 more people were assaulted or wounded than three years ago.

By comparison, in the previous three years the number of violent offences rose only 7%.

And just to make things even better, they are about to change the law so repeat violent offenders will get shorter sentences and more parole.

Stuff reports:

Tesla CEO Elon Musk won’t be joining Twitter’s board of directors as previously announced. The tempestuous billionaire remains Twitter’s largest shareholder.

Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal tweeted the news, which followed a weekend of Musk tweets suggesting possible changes to Twitter, including making the site ad-free. Nearly 90 per cent of Twitter’s 2021 revenue came from ads.

This is no surprise as Musk is not suited to the discipline of being a board member.

Musk purchased 9% of the company because he wants to make changes to it. He has a huge following with 81 million followers and he is opposed to Twitter becoming more of a censor.

The catalyst was Twitter suspending the right wing satirical site The Babylon Bee because of a satirical story announcing Rachel Levine as their Man of the Year, after she was named one of 12 Women of the Year by USA Today. Musk is a huge fan of the Babylon Bee and even did a two hour interview with them.

So he is now Twitter’s largest shareholder. I wonder if he might purchase a majority shareholding in the company. It is worth US$37 billion and 51% would be around US$18 billion. Musk is worth around US$274 billion so he could do it for less than 10% of his wealth.

I hope he does.

Universal suffrage is about whether a country allows all adult citizens to vote regardless of gender, race, religion, property, income, wealth or social status. We achieved this in 1879 for male New Zealanders and 1893 for female New Zealanders.

Equal suffrage is about each vote having equal power. If you had a law which said women only elect 20% of the MPs despite being 50% of the population, then you would have universal suffrage but not equal suffrage. It would be outrageous if women had less voting power just because they are women.

Another example of unequal suffrage is the old rotten boroughs in the United Kingdom. In the 1831 UK General Election, 152 electorates had less than 100 voters in them. This gave the residents of those areas hugely disproportionate political power.

Another example of not having equal suffrage is Fiji under their 1990 constitution. It said 37 seats are reserved for indigenous Fijians, 27 seats for Indian Fijians, and six for other races. The respective populations were 329,000 and 348,000 for the first two groups. This means the number of MPs per 10,000 population was:

• Indigenous Fijians 1.12
• Indian Fijians 0.78

So this meant the vote of an Indian Fijian was worth only 69% of the vote of an Indigenous Fijian.

This was universal suffrage, but not equal suffrage. It was widely condemned around the world.

This is what Labour and Greens have just voted for in Parliament. They have voted for a law change in Rotorua where the votes of people on the general roll will be worth only 39% of the votes of people on the Māori roll, for Ward Councillors.

They are ending equal suffrage in New Zealand. Despite this massive constitutional change, the media have barely reported on the issue.

You can submit against the bill here. If you don’t speak up now, it will be too late once this is established as a precedent.

The 47th Australian Federal Election will be on Saturday 21 May 2022.

It is likely to see Anthony Albanese become Prime Minister – the seventh since John Howard. Of the nine elections since 1993, the Coalition has won seven of them. But a fourth term for the current Government seems unlikely.

The Coalition has not led in any poll since January 2021. That is 88 polls in a row that hasn’t had them ahead.

The latest polls has Labour 8% ahead on two party preferred. That is a landslide under their electoral system.

Also an issue is Morrison. His net satisfaction is -12% compared to -1% for Albanese.

Also Albanese has overtaken Morrison as Preferred PM for the first time- rare for an opposition leader.

Of course the campaign may change things. If the Coalition can maintain a focus on economic issues, they worked for them last election. But it will be a big gap to close in just six weeks.

The Taxpayers Union point out:

An official information response shows the Wellington City Council has spent more than a million dollars on the Island Bay cycleway since its completion in 2016.

In 2016, the Wellington City Council installed a 1.7km cycle-way along The Parade in Island Bay. A lackluster consultation process saw the preferences of local residents shunted aside by a loud minority of lycra activists and the resulting cycleway failed to provide safety for motorists or cyclists.

Despite its completion, an additional $1,093,759 has been spent on the cycleway in recent years – apparently on consultation and planning. 

The cycleway is hated by many residents – it has actually made the road less safe for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists and destroyed some local businesses due to the loss of car parks.

I’m a fan of cycleways, when done right. The best example is the planned one between Wellington and Petone along the Hutt Road. It is going to be on the far side of the railway tracks and totally separated from the road. It will be safe, and it won’t be destroying current car parks which businesses need for their customers.

But for some people they hate cars so much, they don’t just want cycleways – they want fewer carparks. They want to make it harder for people to drive and park.

 Last November, the Council promised to spend $2 million to $14 million more addressing safety concerns arising from the cycleway’s poor design. Changes include painting the bike lane green and slightly widening the lanes with concrete ‘buffers’ between motorists and cyclists. The “improvements” mean motorists will lose 60-80 car parks on The Parade. The changes have been opposed by 66% of those who engaged with the brief three-week consultation, with 57% strongly opposed.

So rather than remove the Island Bay Cycleway, they will spend up to $14 million more on “fixing” it, which will means up to 80 fewer car parks for residents and businesses.

Meanwhile, Cycling Action Network, the lobby group that pushed for the installation of the cycleway, has been given $23,420 by the council since 2015.

Lobby groups should not be receiving ratepayer funding.

On average around 400 trips are taken on the cycleway per weekday. That’s just 200 commuters, or 2.9% of the suburb’s population. Based on the spending so far, someone who’s regularly commuted using the cycleway since its installation has enjoyed a $13,000 subsidy from ratepayers. Forking out millions more is madness.

$13,000 per cyclist!

James Hollings writes:

This week Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern denounced Russia over the atrocities discovered in Bucha, and promised more support for Ukraine.

That support included a second round of sanctions, looking at importation controls, and getting “our people supporting some of the efforts”.

That comes on top of our earlier donation of surplus military equipment; a total of 1066 body armour plates, 473 helmets and 571 camouflage vests. All very nice-sounding, but compared to what many other countries are doing, pitifully small, even mean. …

But what could New Zealand send? Well, actually quite a lot. It has 105 armoured troop carriers, or light armoured vehichles (LAV3s). Back in 2020 Stuff reported that the New Zealand Defence Force was struggling to find a buyer for 30 of them that were surplus to requirements. My understanding is they are still unsold – the Defence Force will confirm only that there are “ongoing discussions around the sale”. Why not send them to Ukraine?

The LAVs are powerful eight-wheeled vehicles that would provide good protection to Ukrainian troops. They were used by our forces in Afghanistan and, according to the Defence Force, protected troops from bombs on several occasions. Described by the Defence Force as a “world-class vehicle capable of providing protected mobility to soldiers on the battlefield”, the LAV3 is “highly mobile, and comes equipped with a lethal arsenal of weapons and systems making it an ideal vehicle for combat, security and peace support operations”.

This should be a no brainer. The last Labour Government purchased more LAVs than we could ever use (one of the worst spending debacles in decades). Donating the surplus to Ukraine is a win-win.

Claire Trevett writes:

As a result, life can be tough for Labour Police Ministers, which is precisely why the job usually goes to MPs who can at least talk a bit tough: Those who sit on the right-hand pews of Labour’s broad church – people like Dame Annette King, George Hawkins, and Stuart Nash.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was trying something different by giving it to Williams, who is not tough on crime and can’t put on a convincing show of it – and was chosen for those reasons.

We have a Police Minister who doesn’t believe we should be tough on crime, and that is why she was chosen!

Williams is also relatively inexperienced as a minister and that is showing – and is a liability in a portfolio which has rapidly become very political.

Labour’s liability is National’s asset.

Before that was her odd decision to refuse Mitchell’s request to meet with Police Commissioner Andrew Coster or any of the district commanders after he became police spokesman.

The only reason Williams could come up with for refusing it was that she believed police were “busy.” She may regret it and it was possibly counter-productive.

It is unprecedented to block the Opposition Spokesperson from meeting the Commissioner.