Radio NZ reports:

Rurawhe, who served as the Te Tai Hauāura MP for three terms, also offered a candid reflection on Labour’s time in government, saying the party should’ve done more to bring the public along on key Māori policies.

He said that while he had advocated for a Māori Health Authority, Rurawhe said in hindsight that Labour had not convinced the broader electorate of the need for it.

“Unless people see themselves in the policy, they’re not going to support it,” he said.

If Labour were to pursue similar policies again, Rurawhe said the party would need to take a different approach, focusing on outcomes rather than structures.

“I think it is to concentrate less on the Māori Health Authority and focus more on achieving the outcomes that we want for Māori health,” he said.

Outcomes rather than structures – absolutely. Sadly I doubt his colleagues agree.

Asked about Te Pāti Māori’s chances at November’s election, Rurawhe was blunt about his opinion after months of infighting in the support party. 

“They’ll be lucky to keep one [seat],” he said. “I believe if it’s consistent across the whole country of what I’m hearing, then they will be lucky to have one seat.”

I hope he’s right.

NBC reports:

Japan’s conservative prime minister Sanae Takaichi has won a landslide victory after she gambled on a high-stakes snap election.

Takaichi, who took office in October after being elected leader of the governing Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), surpassed the 310 seats needed for a supermajority in the 465-seat lower house, Japanese public broadcaster NHK reported from the official election count Sunday evening. The supermajority allows her ruling coalition to override the upper house, where it lacks a majority.

I think it can also propose amendments to the Japanese constitution. But they also need to get 2/3 in the upper house and go to referendum.

For many voters, Takaichi — a motorbike enthusiast and heavy metal drummer — is a refreshing change of pace in Japan’s male-dominated politics, despite having traditionalist views that are not always seen as advancing women, and the appointment of just two women in her cabinet.

Much of the craze for Takaichi has been based less on her policies than on her style, with her pledge to “work, work, work, work and work” being named the catchphrase of the year. Items associated with her have gone viral, from the pink ballpoint pen she uses to take notes in parliament to her $900 black leather handbag, now sold out months in advance.

Wow she doesn’t believe in quotas, so she is anti-women. Luckily Japanese voters aren’t woke.

It looks like they have gone from 191 seats to 316 – a huge swing. It is the most seats won by a party in The Diet since 1942, so basically the largest ever post WWII result.

The Herald reports:

A damning review of the Teaching Council says the agency has lost focus on its core function of safeguarding children and needs transformative change to ensure it is meeting critical regulatory responsibilities. …

The report says the council is focused on “building the mana” of teachers and “being liked by the profession”.

However, this had come at the expense of child safety and key regulatory and stewardship functions.

“As a regulator, the council will not always be liked. Instead, it should aim to be respected,” Francis wrote.

I’ve chaired a regulator. This was a key thing you would know. Your aim wasn’t popularity but respect, predictability, and fairness.

To have the Teachers’ Council put popularity with teachers ahead of child safety shows why the Government has stripped it of some of its roles. Child welfare is too important not to do so.

Stuff reports:

New Zealand First is campaigning for a referendum to be held on the future of Māori electorates.

Let’s do the time warp again!

But this isn’t the first time Peters has called for a referendum on the Māori seats.

Ahead of the 2017 election, he said a binding referendum on the policy was a “bottom line” policy for his party. Yet, his coalition agreement with the Jacinda Ardern-led Labour Party did not commit to such a referendum.

Not only wasn’t it in the coalition agreement, Labour sources all say NZ First didn’t even raise it during the negotiations.

I’d personally like to see a referendum on the Maori seats, but not just on abolition.

I think we should have a referendum on what the Royal Commission on the Electoral System recommended in 1986. The chapter is here. Extract below

Parliament ignored this recommendation and unilaterally decided to keep the status quo. I say NZers should get to vote on the Royal Commission recommendation.

One think I like about the recommendation is it would probably lead to several Maori parties, representing different views. There would probably be conservative Māori Party, a socialist Māori Party, an urban Māori Party, an Iwi rights party etc. And this is how it should be as Maori don;t have one monolithic view. Abolishing the seats in favour of no threshold for Maori parties would allow all Maori who wish to support Maori parties to have representation in Parliament. It would get rid of the arrogant notion that Te Pati Maori (for example) speaks for Maoridom. It would also mean no more seperate rolls.

A guest post from the Sensible Sentencing Trust:

The October sentencing of Daytona Thompson in the High Court at New Plymouth has  reignited debate about how New Zealand responds to single-punch killings.

Thompson fatally struck Daniel Nganeko outside the Tukapa Rugby and Sports Club in  July 2025. There was no provocation. The blow caused Nganeko to fall backwards and suffer catastrophic head injuries. He died three days later in Auckland City Hospital.

Justice Paul Radich adopted a starting point of seven years’ imprisonment. However, after applying discounts for a guilty plea, youth, background factors and the impact of imprisonment on Thompson’s child, the final sentence was four years and two months. 

Under current parole rules, eligibility arises after one-third of the sentence has been served. In practical terms, that means Thompson can seek parole by the end of this year.

The case highlights a structural issue within New Zealand’s sentencing framework that manslaughter carries no statutory minimum term of imprisonment. While the maximum penalty is life, actual sentences vary widely and are heavily influenced by discounts.

The result is that in cases involving a single fatal punch, the effective time served can be very short.

Single-punch deaths, also called Cowards Punch, are almost always prosecuted as manslaughter because the Crown cannot prove intent to kill. But, the absence of intent does not alter the outcome for the victim or their family. A life has been taken in violent circumstances.

Under section 102 of the Sentencing Act 2002, murder carries a mandatory life sentence with a minimum non-parole period of 10 years, but manslaughter has no equivalent sentencing floor. Full discretion is in the hands of judges to set starting points and apply mitigating factors and Justice Radich made clear in this case that he was required to apply the law as it stands and could not take into account community sentiment or proposed legislative changes.

Those proposed changes refer to the Crimes Amendment Bill currently before Parliament. It proposes to introduce a specific designation for coward-punch manslaughter. However, it does not alter sentencing ranges, introduce mandatory minimums, or adjust parole eligibility provisions. In practical terms, the reform is not worth the paper it is written on.

All victim advocates like the Sensible Sentencing Trust are asking for is that the Government at least bring our sentencing up to the same levels of comparable international jurisdictions. In Australian jurisdictions such as Victoria and New South Wales, legislative reforms over the past decade have addressed single-punch deaths directly. 

Courts in those jurisdictions frequently impose total sentences in the range of 10 to 11 years for aggravated one-punch killings, with non-parole periods commonly set around six or seven years.

Proponents of judicial discretion argue that mandatory minimums risk rigidity and injustice in individual cases. But, Parliament regularly sets statutory baselines for serious offending when it considers certain conduct to warrant consistent denunciation and deterrence. 

Murder is the clearest example. The Government’s return of the three strikes regime, despite amendments, reflects similar legislative intent.

The issue, therefore, is not whether Parliament can set minimum non-parole periods for particular forms of manslaughter. It clearly can. The issue is whether it chooses to do so in the case of Coward Punches causing death.

The Coalition Government campaigned on strengthening law-and-order responses and restoring public confidence in the justice system. The current Bill signals recognition that single-punch deaths have become a distinct category of concern. However, without changes to sentencing parameters, the practical impact will be negligible.

Justice Radich’s remarks illustrate the constitutional boundary. Judges apply the law and Parliament defines it. If sentencing outcomes are viewed as disproportionate, the responsibility for reform lies with legislators, not the judiciary.

NZ First and ACT have both historically supported firmer sentencing in cases involving serious violence. Their influence within the current parliamentary arrangement gives them the ability to press for amendments to the Bill to give it some teeth.

Sensible Sentencing Trust says they can do this by establishing a statutory minimum non-parole period for unprovoked single-punch killings of 8 years imprisonment, being two years less than the present mandatory minimum term for murder, 10 years.  

Reasonable people can differ on whether the mandatory minimum for a Coward Punch causing death should be 8 years or something a little less.  But, without Parliament clearly laying it out at law, the Judiciary cannot impose measurably firmer sentencing.

The present framework leaves a clear gap between public expectations and sentencing outcomes. Introducing a new label without modifying the sentencing architecture risks reinforcing that gap rather than resolving it.

The purpose of sentencing, under section 7 of the Sentencing Act, includes holding offenders accountable, denouncing conduct, deterring similar offending, protecting the community and providing for rehabilitation. The weight assigned to each purpose is ultimately a legislative choice reflected in statutory structure.

But, if Parliament intends to signal stronger denunciation and deterrence for coward punch killings, it must do so through substantive change, not merely tweaking the name of the offence. Legislative clarity, consistency and proportionality are central to maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system. If Parliament believes that the taking of a life through an unprovoked act of violence warrants a more substantial custodial response, the law must reflect that belief in concrete terms.

A label alone will not determine time served. Sentencing provisions will. The Government have an opportunity right now to amend their Bill and make meaningful change for victims.

Submissions on the Crimes Amendment Bill close at midnight tonight, Monday 16 February.  You can submit here:

I had the privilege of attending a Bill Bryson event in Auckland on Thursday evening.

While I had laughed at many of his travel books, he made the greatest impression on me – as a teacher of Science (etc) – with the Short History of Nearly Everything published in 2003. From that point on I recommended the book to every student/family I worked with … especially the illustrated version. An 8 -18 year old student reading the book (let alone adults) and taking 6 months to a year to do so … would have what the Economist called – “the greatest science primer ever”.

As anyone who studies science properly knows – there are no scientific FACTS. There are historial facts about how theories develop and the people that develop them but the scientific method is always:

Hypothesise
Test/Experiment
Reject the hyposthises or develop a new one to test against.

Any person who states that any field of science is “settled” is deeply ignorant.

Given the extent of the topic Bryson spoke/was interviewed very well. It is not easy for NZers to understand all of the inferences of a laconic person from the American Mid-West – but he grasped his audience well.

His motivation for writing The Short History of Nearly Everything 2.0 was simply that so much had changed in scientific fields in 20 years that he needed to do an update and … his publisher wanted him to sell more books.

If students, families, schools are truly looking for knowldge rich texts … this is a great example … not the nonsense being developed by the Misery of Education.

PS: He also told some travel stories. I used to tricycle to school in Thames when 5yo – past the Prices factory. The workers would stop me to be cheeky and teach me swear words to mention to the teachers when I got to school … this story appealed from Bill Bryson on Thursday night:

“In the 1950s, a friend of Catherine’s moved with her young family into a house next door to a vacant lot. One day some builders arrived to put up a house on the lot. Catherine’s friend had a three-year-old daughter who naturally took an interest in all the activity going on next door. She hung around on the margins and eventually the builders adopted her as a kind of mascot. They chatted to her and gave her little jobs to do and at the end of the week presented her with a little pay packet containing a shiny new half crown, or something.

She took this home to her mother who made all the appropriate cooings of admiration and suggested that they went to the bank the next morning to deposit it in her account. When they went to the bank, the cashier was equally impressed and asked the little girl how she had come by her own pay packet.

“I’ve been building a house this week,” she replied proudly.

“Goodness!” said the cashier. “And will you be building a house next week, too?”

“I will if we ever get the fucking bricks,” answered the little girl.”

-Bill Bryson, “Down Under” p169.

[email protected]

The Post reports:

Transmission Gully motorists will be able to travel at a new 110kph speed limit between Wellington and the Kāpiti Coast.

The new speed limit will take effect from 12.01am on Monday.

The new higher speed limit applies to the 27‑kilometre section of State Highway 1 between the Linden and Paekākāriki interchanges, currently 100 kph. Heavy vehicles and vehicles towing trailers will continue to have a 90kph limit.

“This change is part of a wider effort to fix the basics of our transport network and set it up for the future. We’re committed to providing state highways that help people get where they need to go quickly and safely,” Transport Minister Chris Bishop said in a statement.

Since opening in 2022, Transmission Gully has recorded low crash rates, with no deaths despite more than 150 barrier strikes.

This is good news. I would note however to might not lead to much faster speeds as in my observation many vehicles already travel at around 110 km/hr on the road.

The car haters claim that new or better roads don’t reduce congestion or travel times, but this is so clearly false. The time it takes to get past Levin now is so so so much faster than a decade or so ago.

You used to get significant delays at:

• Paremata Roundabout
• Pukerua Bay merging traffic
• Paraparaumu
• Waikanae
• Otaki

Each of these delays could range from 1 minute to half an hour or more. Levin to Wellington on a Sunday afternoon often could take more than three hours. Now it is barely an hour.

The Post reports:

Wellington mayor Andrew Little has given a personal pledge to bring down the city’s commercial rates differential but doesn’t yet know if he has the council backing he will need.

Shouldn’t be hard. The six independents should all be in favour. Little makes seven. He only needs one Labour Councillor with him to do it.

“But I accept it has got out of whack.” He added, that dropping the commercial multiplier could mean a “significant” increase in residential rates if care was not taken.

“That’s why getting spending under control is so important,” he said.

Yep. You need to restrain spending to be able to change the differential.

The Herald points out:

Residential properties are charged a base rate, while commercial and industrial properties are charged 3.7 times that level.

It equates to the capital’s commercial ratepayers being charged $20,000 more on average than those in New Zealand’s other main centres.

Businesses are covering about 48% of the city’s rates burden in Wellington, compared with Auckland and Canterbury where that number is closer to 30%, according to analysis by the chamber.

This is part of why so many businesses have shifted to Auckland or closed down. If we want a vibrant city, we need an affordable city.

The Herald has documents in relation to the court case between Te Pati Maori and Mariameno Kapa-Kingi. What is fascinating is how they reveal the extent of the Tamihere family control of the party. It goes well beyond what we already knew. Here is what has been revealed:

• President: John Tamihere
• Co-leader: Rawiri Waititi, son-in-law of John Tamihere
• General Manager: Kiri Tamihere Waititi, daughter of Tamihere
• Secretary/Treasurer: Lance Norman, employed by John Tamihere’s WOCA
• Waiariki electorate co-chair: Monica Waititi, sister-in-law of Rawiri
• Te Tai Hauāuru electorate chair: Hinemoana Durie-Shedlock, sister-in-law of John Tamihere
• Ikaroa-Rawhiti electorate chair: Te Rina Lemon, niece of John Tamihere

So a majority of the officers and at least three of the seven electorates are all linked to one man.

Could you imagine this occurring in any other party?

This would be like the National Party that has Bill English as Leader, Maria English as General Manager, Maria’s husband as a deputy leader, Mary’s sister as a regional chair, Libby English as another regional chair and Jo Coughlan as a third regional chair. It would be unthinkable.

The Herald reports:

A Judicial Conduct Panel investigating the actions of a judge has been played a video of a King’s Counsel being asked to leave a New Zealand First event, with a party official claiming the respected lawyer was “entitled”, “unstable” and she feared for her safety.

“I asked him to leave,” the party’s secretary Holly Howard said today during her evidence about the alleged incident at Auckland’s exclusive Northern Club in November 2024.

She claimed Michael Reed, KC refused to leave, took photos of those gathered, and threatened to sue her and a staff member if they touched him.

Reed was being a boorish bully. He gatecrashed a private function and started throwing his weight around.

Now Judge Aitken is not responsible for what Reed did, but his behaviour gives an insight into that night.

“Don’t touch me or I will sue you for a lot of money,” Reed is heard telling a Northern Club staff member in the video played to the panel.

”Will you tell Winston from me please that I’m upset about being a New Zealand First supporter. I’m on the mailing list,” Reed continued.

So Reed clearly knew it was a NZ First function. In fact it seems clear that he went into the room purely because it was a NZ First function.

The judge – who says she did not realise it was a political event or that the speaker was Peters – appeared to be focusing her comments at NZ First Cabinet minister Casey Costello, adding, “How can you let him say that?”

So the Judge is testifying (presumably under oath) that she did not recognise Peters’s voice, did not see Peters, did not see the two large NZ First banners and also did not recognise Casey Costello. She just happened to very soberly comment to a total stranger that another total stranger was lying. I mean, who hasn’t done that.

Howard said another man then appeared in the foyer, who was “loitering” outside the room for about 20 minutes.

She claimed the man accosted Peters as the veteran politician was leaving the venue, accusing him of “doing a shit job”.

Howard said she later learned the man was the judge’s husband, celebrity doctor David Galler.

And here is where it gets interesting from a further story.

Judge Aitken said it was only as she was being escorted away from the room that she looked over her shoulder and realised that speaker was the Deputy Prime Minister.

She returned to her own function and took a seat at her table, admitting: “Oops, oh God. I’ve just called Winston Peters a liar.” 

The judge said she warned her husband not to get involved and had no idea he would later disrupt the NZ First function, allegedly calling Costello “despicable” and accusing her of “killing hundreds of people”, in apparent reference to the party’s tobacco policies. 

Judge Aitken said she only got wind of Galler’s alleged behaviour days later when she received a call from another judge.

So she is saying she told her table that she had just called the then Deputy PM a liar by accident. The table would have been aware this would be very very bad for her, and her husband ignored her explicit instruction not to get involved, and he did so anyway. And more remarkably she didn’t notice he was gone.

The judge said she felt “pressured” to write the letters but was prepared to offer a genuine apology for her behaviour, which she described as “completely out of character”.

So the Judge didn’t;t really want to apologise.

Judge Aitken defended “venting” comments she made in another letter to Judge Taumaunu in which she wrote, “There is a time and place to get involved and this is one of them”, and “I can no longer stay silent” in the face of divisiveness “coming from politicians”.

To me this tally undermines her claim that she had no idea at all the speaker was Winston Peters and that it was a NZF function. In this letter she states she can’t remain silent and must respond to what politicians are saying.

She really doesn’t seem to understand what being a Judge entails.

She also expressed disappointment at the contents of a letter of apology sent by Judge Taumaunu to the NZ First Party president, in which he “unreservedly apologised” on behalf of the entire district court. 

Judge Aitken felt this was unfair on other judges, given the incident was of her making alone.

It wasn’t. The two other people who disrupted it were spouses of judges. They were only at the function in that capacity. The bottom line is an event for judges led to people being harassed and abused at a neighbouring event. Entirely appropriate the apology should be on behalf of the wider court.

The Australian Liberal Party has just rolled leader Sussan Ley, and replaced her with Angus Taylor. Ley was in the moderate faction and Taylor in the National Right or conservative faction. The Liberals had fallen behind One Nation in recent polls, which is what precipitated the change. However it is far from clear if this will help them recover support.

Only three Australian Liberal leaders had served more than six years – Robert Menzies 20 years, John Howard 16 years and Malcolm Fraser almost eight years.

Ley was leader for only 276 days. The only shorter tenure was Alexander Downer’s 252 days who was between John Hewson and John Howard.

NZ National has longer surviving leaders. Holland did 17 years, Holyoake 15 years, Bolger 11 years, Muldoon 10 years and Key 10 years.

The Herald reports:

Labour MP Cushla Tangaere-Manuel is suggesting her party will work with Te Pāti Māori “when they sort their issues out”.

It follows Labour’s Māori caucus co-chairman Willie Jackson telling a Waitangi Day festival crowd his party will “work with the Greens, the Māori Party, whoever” to oust the coalition Government.

It is very simple. They will do a deal because they must do a deal. They are just trying to hide it.

There have been 88 public polls since the last election. In all 88 polls, Labour needs Te Pati Maori to have any chance of forming a Government. Not a single poll shows Labour can do it with just the Greens.

The only question is whether Labour (if they win) will do a coalition with Te Pati Maori, or have a confidence and supply agreement (which makes TPM more unpredictable).

Stuff reports:

With a fiery show outside Parliament, politicians heard how “discriminatory” immigration rules mean Pacific Islanders are being blocked from attending funerals, graduations, and other important events in New Zealand. …

Unlike travellers from more than 60 other nations, who can get online travel authority (NZeTAs), travellers from the Pacific face far more stringent paperwork to enter New Zealand.

This is because the overstaying rates from those countries are high. I blogged previously how 1 in 50 people from Samoa and Tonga illegally overstay and effectively become illegal immigrants.

These rules have been a long-lasting barrier for families split across New Zealand and other Pacific islands. But it could soon change, with NZ First leader Winston Peters promising to try and change the rules by the end of the year.

Make no mistake about what this means. It means Winston is advocating for a policy that will open up the borders to thousands more illegal immigrants.

“All the Pacific people want is a fair go, according to what other nations are getting. And they’re not getting it,” Peters told reporters, outside Parliament on Wednesday.

He said it was “a disgrace” that New Zealand made it so hard for people to visit from the Pacific.

Here’s a simple solution. Any country that has an overstaying rate of say less than 0.25% gets automatic visitation rights to New Zealand. So if a Pacific country doesn’t have a lot of overstayers in NZ, they get to join the countries that basically get visa free travel. However if the rate goes over 0.25% then that country loses that right. Have this apply to all countries, not just the Pacific. That would be fair.

But Winston is calling for countries with the highest levels of overstaying (by a factor of 10) to get visa free entry into NZ. It is opening the borders to huge numbers of illegal immigrants.

So a vote for NZ First is a vote for more illegal immigration. They want less legal immigration and more illegal immigration.

UPDATE:

I asked ChatGPT to make me a billboard based on Winston’s new policy. I hope you all like it.

The Herald reports:

The Government’s flagship regional development body has more than half of its loan book flagged as at risk after recording a surge in impairment write-offs over the past year.

Crown Regional Holdings (CRH) warehouses government regional development initiatives and manages hundreds of millions of dollars in loan and equity funding provided to businesses.

Most of its balance sheet covers the Provincial Growth Fund (2018-2021) and the Regional Infrastructure Fund (2024-) championed by Shane Jones during his two recent stints in the Government.

CRH’s provision for loan impairments for the year to June 2025 increased sharply from $19 million to $28m. The notes record now more than half of CRH’s $433m loan book is considered at risk of – or is currently in – default.

I’m not a huge fan of any corporate welfare. There are a few discrete industries where you can make an economic case such as film/TV subsidies as you are globally competing with other locations. But overall I’m am very sceptical.

It seems to me loans are the worst form of corporate welfare. If a venture is commercially sound, they should be able to get a commercial loan. But when they get a loan from the Government, they feel less pressure to repay it, because the Government is less likely to hold them to account for late payments etc. So we end up with a massive proportion of loans at risk.

If there has to be corporate welfare I would almost prefer it is just a straight out grant. If there is a case for an art museum in Kerikeri, then you give then a couple of million, but after that it is up to the entity running it to make it break even. But when you do a loan or equity from taxpayers, you have an ongoing exposure.

There has been an exception such as the fibre to the home programme which was done primarily through loans, and was a stunning success. However that had a very very clear objective, and was done through established companies who were not risky.

Stuff reports:

It is a New Zealand first. A District Court judge is having her conduct examined by a Judicial Conduct Panel after she allegedly shouted “he’s lying” as Winston Peters was making a speech at Auckland’s Northern Club.

Must be tempting to make Winston Attorney-General as a response 🙂

Now, a Judicial Conduct Panel, comprising of Brendan Brown KC (former Court of Appeal judge), Justice Jillian Mallon (Court of Appeal judge) and Sir Jerry Mateparae (former governor-general) will hear evidence about what happened on November 22, 2024. …

Stephens said that report should set out – with reasons, findings of facts and the panel’s opinion – whether Aitken should stay in her role and why.

The decision would sit with Goldsmith.

“The Attorney is the ultimate decision-maker,” Stephens said.

That is not quite right. If the Panel doesn’t consider removal is justified, then the Attorney-General can’t remove the Judge. It is only if the Panel concludes removal could be justified, that the Attorney-General then gets the discretion over whether they get removed.

If the Panel considers removal of the judge is justified, I can’t imagine any Attorney-General would decline to remove them.

The appeal by Brendon Tarrant is a desperate bid for attention, rather than a serious judicial process. Tarrant is obviously unhappy that he has faded from public consciousness, so this is a way to try and get a few more minutes of fame, or infamy.

It is dangerous to predict the Court of Appeal, but I would be staggered if they order a new trial. Let’s look at what has been reported:

The Christchurch mosque shooter claims that he was effectively “forced” to plead guilty because of harsh prison conditions that drastically impacted his mental health.

If he didn’t want to have harsh prison conditions, he shouldn’t have shot scores of innocent people.

“I did not have the mind frame or mental health required to be making informed decisions at that time,” the gunman said. 

“I think the issue is, did I really know what I wanted to do or what would be a good idea? No, I didn’t actually.”

The legal test isn’t whether you were in perfect mental health. It is whether you were either clinically insane or mentally competent. Tarrant has provided zero evidence he was mentally incompetent apart from his own assertions.

Tarrant’s lawyers, who met with or phoned him some 40 times while he was awaiting trial, said he didn’t exhibit any signs of serious mental illness.

This is how you know it is not serious. His own lawyers have said he showed no signs at all. He’s just having a go because he can.

He said that there was limited reading material made available to him in prison, and the process for requesting more books was not explained to him.

This is what he claims is torture and harsh treatment!

He said he went through roughly two books per week and would request articles and content about world events from his lawyers, some of them about himself and others about things like the Notre Dame Cathedral burning down.

Oh poor diddums. He didn’t have unlimited access to articles about himself.

The appeal is a farce. But everyone has the right to an appeal so it has to have due process. But unless the entire Court of Appeal themselves go clinically insane, there won’t be a new trial.

Chris Bishop announced some significant and sensible changes to the driver licence system. They are:

• You only need to pass a practical test for your restricted licence, not for a second time a few months later when you get a full
• The learner period for under 25s goes from 6 to 12 months
• The restricted period for under 25s is 12 months
• The cost of a full licence drops by $80
• Getting demerits on a restricted licence will extend the restricted period by six months
• A zero alcohol limit regardless of age for all learner and restricted licence holders

These look like they should lead to safer learner drivers, but also fewer costs and hurdles.

The NZ Energy blog has excellent analysis of this decision. They write:

To readers of this Substack this will come of no surprise and was expected. It’s not a good solution for New Zealanders but it is a necessary.

Necessary is the key point. We simply don’t have enough of our own energy for peak times. The less supply you have, the higher prices go.

For New Zealand’s industries to operate at full capacity, to protect the electricity system against dry year risk, to displace coal fired generation and to ensure reasonably priced domestic reticulated gas, we have typically needed a supply of about 200PJ annually. This translates to approximately 550TJ of daily production.

As of a couple of days ago the daily production had dropped to approximately 225TJ, or about half of what is historically needed to support NZ Inc’s economy.

A failure to act could have been disastrous.

I liken what we are experiencing to Germany if the Nordstream pipeline had been blown up slowly. German manufacturing capacity is now severely constrained, and the country is de-industrializing rapidly as they head into a third consecutive year of recession.

The Greens probably want us to go back to the 1200s, but I’d rather we don’t.

Importing LNG is a last-resort attempt to avoid being pushed over the apex of the Seneca Cliff by the energy-physics of production and the economy. It’s like jamming a finger in the dike to hold back the flood.

It will never compete with unconstrained pipeline gas. Too much energy is lost in liquefaction, shipping, and regasification. The EROI (Energy Return On energy Invested) is low, which means costs are high.

If we had acted years earlier we might be able to avoid the extra costs of importing LNG. But we didn’t, and so we do.

We can debate whether LNG is expensive. But the real question is: compared to what?

Compared to biogas? Too little, too long to scale if it even could.

Compared to electrification? Higher the energy costs, billions in capex and it has it’s own security of supply issues as a result of the dwindling gas supply.

Compared to doing nothing? Empty factories, lost exports, lights that don’t come on.

LNG won’t save us. But it will buy us time.

And right now, time is the one resource New Zealand can’t afford to run out of.

I’m pleased the Government has acted.