Curia was commissioned by the Free Speech Union to conduct a survey of academics at the eight NZ universities on how well academic freedom is working for them. Academic freedom is a legislative right in the Education and Training Act, and something all of society should be concerned with protecting.

The results are here.

A key table is this:

For an academic to score their level of academic freedom a 2.5 or lower, means they must feel severely restricted or unfree. I would have thought you might have 5% or so rating so lowly, but for some measure it was between 20% and 30%.

The proportion of respondents who rated their freedom as a 5 or lower out of 10 on each measure was:

1. Free to engaged in research of choice 21%
2. Free to criticize the Government 28%
3. Free to regulate subject matter 32%
4. Free to teach and assess 34%
5. Free to question and test received wisdom 45%
6. Free to raise differing perspectives 47%
7. Free to debate or discuss gender and sex issues 47%
8. Free to debate or discuss Treaty issues 50%

What is also of interest is a huge gap between those who think academic freedom is working well for them, and those who don’t. I commented:

It is clear the distribution is not a normal bell curve with most responses around the middle. For the freedom to question and test received wisdom you have 21% saying it is very low and 38% very high. Different academics perceive their level of academic freedom dramatically different from their peers.

If I was the Minister of Education I would want to know who so many academics do not feel they have academic freedom, despite the legislation.

Many readers may have heard about the Azov Battalion in Ukraine, which is often cited as proof of Putin’s claims that he wants to denazify Ukraine. Of course far right parties in Ukraine got less than 2% of the vote, and the President is Jewish, but the Azov Battalion is often cited.

Well this very good FAQ puts things into context. I learnt a lot from reading it.

An OIA finds that 105 staff have resigned from the Reserve Bank in the 15 months from Jan 21 to Mar 22. As they have around 400 staff that is a massive 25% turnover in 15 months. Almost, as if there is a problem!

a guest post by Milkenmild:

Kiwiblog readers may have noticed recently some advertising for this interesting book.

Party Hopper is the autobiography of Peter McCardle, MP for Heretaunga from 1990 to 1996 and a NZ First list MP from 1996 to 1999. His was a relatively brief, but turbulent parliamentary career. He alienated himself early from his National Party colleagues by voting against the 1991 benefits cuts. Re-winning his Heretaunga seat in 1993, despite the swing against National, did not help his prospects. He was enthusiastic about joining Mike Moore’s proposed centrist party, before finishing the parliamentary term as an independent and joining NZ First. He played a significant part in the infamously dragged out coalition negotiations in 1996, and was appointed Minister of Employment – the role he most coveted. When Jenny Shipley broke up the coalition in 1998, McCardle left NZ First to remain a minister, but retired from parliament at the 1999 election. Almost immediately, he began a second political career, first as an adviser to the Act parliamentary team until 2005, and then with National Party health spokesmen and ministers until 2017.

A party hopper indeed. Having an inside seat at many of the most dramatic political ructions of the past thirty years, McCardle has many interesting details to share. But that is not the heart of the book, which is dominated by three themes – family, faith and employment policy. The first two themes provide the foundation for McCardle’s political motivation.

Working as an employment centre manager, he developed firm convictions that there needed to be a combined approach to welfare and employment, and a focus on the long-term unemployed. His ideas did not fit with departmental approaches. He tried his luck as a parliamentary candidate, and was a surprise winner in Heretaunga. His mission, almost zealotry, was to implement his employment ideas, and he pursued this irrespective of any conventional party loyalties

His ambitions were fulfilled with the creation of Winz in 1998, from a merger of the Employment service and the Department of Social Welfare, and McCardle busied himself with the creation of his cherished ‘one-stop shop’ and work-for-the-dole schemes. After  parliament, he found himself in demand as a parliamentary researcher and loyal aide to Act and National Party MPs.

The book is a good combination of personal life and behind-the-scenes political machinations. Those looking for much criticism or dirt will not find it here – McCardle comes across as too nice a guy to make enemies or seek revenge on any enemies in print. His Cathollic faith is the bedrock of his life, giving him comfort through life’s vicissitudes and an acceptance that things are meant to be – all part of God’s plan.

I found the best parts of the book to be the descriptions of his electorate campaigning and the endless negotiations that are political life. I could have wished for more about his experiences as a city councillor and DHB member, as illuminated by his time in politics at the national level.

Radio NZ reports:

Hamilton police found four children aged 7, 10, 11 and 12 holding stolen toys at the scene of a break-in at a shopping centre last night, with one of the children injuring themselves in an attempt to get away.

Hamilton City Area Commander Inspector Andrea McBeth said multiple alarms alerted police to the break-in at Chartwell at about 1am.

When officers arrived at the scene, they found the four children holding stolen toys and other goods.

McBeath said the 11-year-old ran off after seeing police, but was not chased by officers who stayed with the other three remaining youths.

But while fleeing, the boy fell about 8 metres to the ground, injuring his arm. He was soon found by police and taken to hospital in an ambulance.

So four kids were out at 1 am breaking into shops and robbing them. It is impossible this was done without the parents knowing about it, or just not caring. The parents should be charged.

Stuff reports:

Opposition parties say Labour is misusing its majority by keeping useful information away from the select committees.

MPs from across the House, including National, ACT and the Greens say backbench Labour MPs – who make up the majority of members at most select committees – are actively blocking parliamentarians from accessing information from officials.

The Greens are in Government so it is also a Government party saying it.

The issue of select committee gatekeeping surfaced most recently with the National Party’s justice, police and mental health spokespeople being denied access to the police commissioner and also for a briefing on the damning Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission report.

But Opposition MPs say this has been an ongoing issue, since Labour won a majority at the 2020 election.

National Party leader Christopher Luxon said there was a trend where Labour MPs would block briefings and inquiries about health, policing and housing.

“For a Government that purports to be transparent and open, it’s blocking us from doing our job – which is holding them to account but more importantly, doing the right thing by New Zealanders who are asking some questions,” he said.

Luxon said his MPs started keeping a record of every time Government MPs blocked their requests for briefings or meetings with officials, which he said was happening more than once a week.

National had recorded 19 instances so far.

This is why I support ACT’s policy to have the Opposition have a majority on select committees, so the Government can’t block select committees from even asking questions.

Green Party MP Chlöe Swarbrick​ said she tried at every meeting of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, for six months, to get a briefing from Treasury and the Reserve Bank on how the two organisations forecast house prices.

She had the support of ACT and National’s Nicola Willis, but Labour successfully blocked the request as it has a majority.

Swarbrick said it made no sense for MPs to be that concerned about discussions or releasing information.

The Labour backbench Ministers are blocking on behalf of the Minister, because they don’t want Parliament (and the public) to have the information.

The Rotorua bill ending equality of suffrage in New Zealand has been killed, or to save face – they are calling it paused.

They planned to ram it through Parliament in a few weeks. The Māori Affairs Committee only opened submissions for two weeks. They started scheduling oral submissions before the written submissions had even closed.

But what stopped them wasn’t the Attorney-General’s advice it breached the Bill of Rights Act (they knew it did and didn’t care) but the fact in just two weeks we got over 10,000 New Zealanders to do individual submissions against the bill – including 2,500 who asked to speak to their submission.

This meant the Māori Affairs Committee would have had to meet for eight hours a day, five days a week for five weeks to hear all the submissions against. It made it impossible for it to be passed by 1 June.

I did my oral submission on Friday last week and let me tell you it was very very clear the Labour and Māori Party MPs on the committee supported the bill and wanted it to past.

What is impressive about the number of submissions, is that this bill was almost totally ignored by the mainstream media until after the initial submission period closed.

It’s great we have won this one, but have no doubt they will try again. The Māori Party are very clear that they do support ending equality of suffrage in New Zealand. Labour don’t come out and say so, but the fact they discussed this bill at caucus, decided to support it, voted for it at first reading, spoke in favour of it, and supported it at select committee hearings makes it clear that what stopped them isn’t a belief the bill was wrong, but because too many people found out about it.

So this battle is won, but the war is just starting. The Herald reports:

Chadwick said she would write to the Māori affairs select committee clerk to seek the pause.

“Given the public interest in this process, I am making the decision public now.

“We have always said the bill is about the right way forward for Rotorua and have always been committed to working through the parliamentary process with central government.

So Chadwick states that ending equality of suffrage is the right way forward for Rotorua.

Rotorua MP Todd McClay said he viewed the bill as an “utter and absolute waste of time and money”.

“The council should not pause the bill, [it] should throw it in the rubbish bin as fast as [it] can.

“It is the most undemocratic piece of legislation that I have seen.”

He did not believe the bill had the support of Rotorua people and should be withdrawn from Parliament.

I think it is far to say that is no exaggeration. I can’t recall any other law in recent decades that sought to reduce the power of people to 39% of other people, purely based on their race.

Robert MacCulloch is a professor macroeconomics. He writes:

Let’s build the prosecution’s case. Exhibit A is that the defendants already admit it. At the last meeting of the Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC), members confessed that “annual consumer price inflation is expected to peak around 7 per cent in the first half of 2022”.

Are the shocks hitting us short to medium term? No.

The bank says, “A broad range of indicators are highlighting … ongoing inflation pressures.”

Has the misconduct of monetary policy, which has been inciting the inflationary breach, ended? No. The bank says that the Official Cash Rate (OCR) “is stimulatory at its current level”.

Not only has NZ’s inflation target been ignored, but those responsible for achieving it are still pouring gasoline on the fire.

Yep inflation is three times what it should be, and the Reserve Bank still has a stimulatory setting for the official cash rate!

Exhibit B comes from Professor John Taylor, inventor of the “Taylor Rule”. That rule is a simple formula explaining how a Central Bank can quell an inflationary shock. It has proved a robust guideline when setting Official Cash Rates around the world.

The rule states that an increase in the OCR of more than one percentage point is required when inflation increases by one percentage point. The reason is to ensure that real interest rates go up to reduce borrowing.

Without a rise in real rates, debt-financed spending can continue to fuel inflation.

So what’s been going on in NZ? Annual inflation, measured at March 2021, was 1.5 per cent. Annual inflation at March 2022 was 6.9 per cent. In other words, inflation has risen by more than five percentage points this past year.

However, the RBNZ has only increased the OCR by a little over one percentage point over the same period, sending short-term real rates deeply negative.

The Taylor Rule is powerful evidence that there has been no intention, whatsoever, of our authorities to meet their obligation of keeping inflation on target.

This is important to note. The Reserve Bank has chosen to keep inflation high, despite being contractually obliged not to do so.

After keeping the cash rate so low for so long and embarking on a $53 billion Quantitative Easing (QE) programme, the bank is now in panic mode. It is panicking at the prospect of a full-on policy reversal that will highlight past mistakes and provoke widespread debt distress.

Those having trouble paying back their mortgages in the next few years can blame our RBNZ Governor and Finance Minister. They encouraged a borrowing binge to buy houses at wildly inflated prices, financed by dirt cheap credit, turning a blind eye to the breach of the target to which they mutually agreed and not learning the lessons of the Global Financial Crisis in 2008.

Printing cheap money comes with a cost.

The official defence is that other Central Banks are just as bad. That’s not true. Not one of them operates under the same laws as ours.

The US Fed Chairman and Treasury Secretary have not broken any agreement. By comparison, our RBNZ Governor and Finance Minister have driven a truck through the single most important agreement underpinning our economic security since 1989.

I don’t understand how the Reserve Bank Governor hasn’t offered to resign. He basically has one job – keep inflation under 3%. It’s 6.9%.

Radio NZ reports:

The Electricity Authority has confirmed Transpower is responsible for unnecessary power cuts to 34,000 consumers on one of the coldest nights of the year.

The authority’s final report on the 9 August power cuts confirms Transpower’s coordination and communication failures for the unnecessary outages.

At the time, power cuts hit without warning, catching thousands off guard with no time to fill their hot water bottles or find torches.

So the outages were caused by an entity owned 100% by the Government. But who did the Minister try to blame at the time. The Herald reported at the time:

As temperatures plunged across the country and Kiwis reached for their heaters and hot water bottles, tempers flared in Parliament over the power outages that plunged thousands into darkness on Monday night.

Energy and Resources Minister Megan Woods turned up the heat on power companies for the outages while defending the Government’s decision to ban offshore oil and gas exploration.

Woods also wanted answers to more difficult questions like whether the electricity market would function properly in the future and whether the big gentailers had turned off generation to maximise their profits.

Woods herself appeared unconvinced by power companies’ excuses for the outages saying the incident “prompted further questions on whether the system is fit for purpose”.

Woods told Parliament that the “market failed” to deliver “security of supply” on Monday night.

So Wood blamed the gentailers, the market and profits for the outage. None of which was true. The outage was caused by the Government owned Transpower.

We see this all the time, Ministers hate the private sector making profits and always try to blame it. Just recently David Clark is trying to blame the massive inflation rate on supermarket profits, rather than on monetary policy!

The High Court has ruled major aspects of the MIQ system were illegal. Readers will recall the Government’s initial lockdown was also illegal, as was one of their vaccine mandates, so in terms of trampling on the Bill of Rights Jacinda has a record.

The court decision includes details of many NZ citizens who suffered massively through MIQ not being fit for purpose.

Some of the findings are:

• It was not an appropriate mechanism where demand significantly exceeded supply and those seeking to access that supply had a fundamental right that was potentially impacted to different degrees. The virtual lobby did not prioritise New Zealand citizens over non-citizens and nor did it prioritise on need or the delay experienced by a citizen.
• The offline emergency process was too tightly constrained to address this deficiency
• The respondents have not shown that a less rights impairing MIQ system was not reasonably available and that would have sufficiently achieved the Government’s public health strategy during the Relevant Period.
• The respondents have not shown why an online system could not have prioritised New Zealand citizens over others or prioritised based on the time period that a person had been seeking to return
• Nor have the respondents demonstrated that wider criteria for offline applications and a corresponding greater number of rooms allocated for those applications were not reasonably available alternatives to the system as it operated.
• The emergency allocation process as it operated was an inadequate method of seeking to ensure that New Zealanders could return if they were facing unreasonable delays or had a need to return that warranted priority.
• The evidence indicates that at least some New Zealanders experienced unreasonable delays in exercising their right to enter
• The combination of the virtual lobby and the narrow emergency criteria operated in a way that meant New Zealanders’ right to enter their country could be infringed in some instances in a manner that was not demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Ministers knew all about these problems and chose not to fix them. It would have been relatively simple to prioritise people based on how long they had been waiting to return. It would have been simple to prioritise NZ citizens over visiting DJs. But they didn;t.

Interesting to look at the current Covid-19 death rates per million capita for the Australian states, and New Zealand. They are:

1. Western Australia 44
2. Tasmania 87
3. ACT 117
4. New Zealand 133
5. Northern Territory 163
6. Queensland 164
7. South Australia 185
8. NSW 332
9. Victoria 434

Some huge differences there. Victoria had long and strict lockdowns but ended with the highest death toll (so far). Western Australia has a rate of around 1/4 of New Zealand and 10% of Victoria.

Stuff reports:

Workers at Hutt City Council’s resource consents team are walking out the door, exhausted and unable to cope with record numbers of applications, a staffer says.

The council has come under fire from developers and planners who say the “broken system”, in which processing times have blown out to nine months, is putting a halt on works and increasing costs.

“The amount of stress and burnout is unreal,” said the employee, who requested anonymity.

The council received a record 650 applications last year – an increase of 50% on the previous year, which has been put down to the relaxation of housing intensification rules and an increase in developer contributions.

The increase was predictable. Of course if you put fees up, there will be more applications before they go up.

The staffer said the consents team had shrunk from 12 staff six months ago to about five. Some of those who left were so desperate to leave they did not secure new jobs before resigning. They expected more would be leaving soon.

So staff are bailing out. A good employer can retain staff by paying them more, or hiring in extra staff or contractors to reduce the load. They can even sub-contract other Councils to handle some consents for them.

The employee said the influx had been anticipated, but no planning or additional resources were put in place to cope.

So it is a failure of governance and management.

Planning consultant Dr David Batchelor​ raised concerns over the council’s application of the discounts.

Correspondence between Batchelor and a member of the planning team shows the council initially declining to apply the late discount to additional charges invoiced to one of his clients. After citing sections of the RMA to the staffer, the council, after consulting a legal advisor, later agreed the discount should be applied to those charges.

The Council is legally obligated to discount the fees for late consents. An applicant shouldn’t have to argue and persuade the Council to do what the law says.

Two former Labour MPs have their say. First Richard Prebble:

Last week only one issue was so urgent that a select committee needed to meet in Parliament’s recess. The Māori Affairs Select Committee met to consider the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangement) Bill. The purpose of the bill is to reduce the value of my vote.

The bill proposes, among other things, to create a Māori ward and a general ward both electing three councillors. There are 21,700 voters on the Māori roll and 55,600 voters on the general roll. My vote will be worth 39 per cent of a vote in the Māori ward.

It might be the first time in the last 100 years that Parliament has voted for a bill to reduce the value of the vote of a segment of the population. Rotorua already has three Maori seats mandated for them – this bill is about reducing the power of those on the general roll.

Parliament regards just six provisions as so important for democracy that they can be only changed by the vote of 75 per cent in parliament or by a majority in a referendum. One such provision is clause 36 of the Electoral Act that guarantees everyone, regardless of race, has an equal vote.

This is an important point. At a national level equality of suffrage is deemed so vital, nothing less than 75% of Parliament can change it. But at a local level, Labour and Greens can end it within a few weeks.

The mayor is ignoring no taxation without representation. The general roll voters provide most of the council’s rates. Why should we pay rates if we do not get an equal say in how our rates are spent?

And this is one problem with ending equality of suffrage – a minority will get to determine how much tax the majority must pay.

And Shane Jones:

In short, this Bill proposes to circumvent the Local Government Act and ditch the principle of one person one vote. According to the council, there are 21,700 voters on the Māori roll and 55,600 on the general roll in their boundaries. It is proposed that the former will elect three members from a Māori ward and the latter will elect three members from a general ward onto the council. Do the math yourself, it’s a definite ethnic gerrymander.

That’s a good term for it.

This local Bill must have been discussed and approved by the Labour Party caucus. There is no constitutional duty on a political party to rubber-stamp local bills – certainly not one this contentious. The Rotorua council was deeply divided over this Bill. It should never have got onto the floor of our House of Representatives. It seeks to weaken the very principles that legitimise the existence of MPs.

This is a key point. Labour discussed this bill in caucus. They knew it ends equality of suffrage in New Zealand, and they all voted for it. They could have voted it down at first reading.

Stuff reports:

A $7.7 million initiative to make Wellington’s central city safer appears to be failing to curb crime.

Two men were shot and critically injured opposite Te Aro Park on Dixon St in the early hours of Saturday. It sparked a retaliatory shooting at an occupied home in Tawa – part of ongoing gang tensions between the Mongrel Mob and the King Cobras.

Te Aro Park attracted so much crime it was one of the locations that inspired the Wellington City Council, police, and other agencies to in 2021 launch the Pōneke Promise – an initiative to improve safety through measures such as lighting, laneway improvements and a new community hub.

Police and the council were asked for any evidence the promise was working. Data from the police website for central Wellington between March 2021 and March 2022 – and the same period one year earlier – shows a small drop in assaults, robberies and burglaries, but small increases in sexual assaults and thefts.

So $8 million spend and no decrease in crime.

Wellington City councillor Diane Calvert said the promise had failed and people were avoiding the area.

The proliferation of emergency housing in the area was part of the issue and the Pōneke Promise was just putting a plaster on the problem, she said.

“People currently don’t feel safe to walk, shop and visit, let alone cycle.”

It is impossible to ignore the impact of the emergency housing in the CBD.

Councillor Jill Day said the council working with other agencies could only strengthen the response to the “very serious issue” of safety in the city.

“This sort of change takes time, but I am confident that the Pōneke Promise is focused on delivering the change that is needed to make the central city safer.”

But councillor Tamatha Paul said the promise needed more resourcing. Health-based, compassionate responses were always worth the investment, she said.

So Cr Calvert accurately points put the problem, while Cr Day gives platitudes and Cr Paul thinks we need to spend more on being compassionate to gang members.

Councillor Fleur Fitzsimons agreed: “The language of blame and failure will not solve these problems. The solution lies in improving education, ending poverty and the work of the Pōneke Promise.”

Cr Fitzsimons also goes for platitudes and blames it all on poverty. By this logic poverty must have skyrocketed since 2017, as crime in the CBD has.

Councillor Sean Rush said the agencies involved “can only do so much” and described the safety issues as “a failure of government policy”.

“Housing gangs in the CBD does not fix homelessness. We have to deal with government policy that invites them into the very heart of where our most at risk young people are.”

Cr Rush correctly works out the problem.

Stuff reports:

Billionaire Elon Musk tweeted “Yesss!!!” after Twitter’s board approved his US$44 billion (NZ$66 billion) acquisition of the social media company, and has said he will revitalise the world’s “digital town square”.

Musk says he intends to make Twitter “better than ever”, while saying the platform has “tremendous potential”.

He intends to enhance the product with new features, including making the algorithms open source, defeating the spam bots and authenticating all humans.

This is potentially very exciting, especially the publishing of the algorithm. It will allow us to see exactly how Twitter works.

The outspoken Tesla CEO, the world’s wealthiest person, has said he wanted to buy Twitter because he thinks it’s not living up to its potential as a platform for “free speech.” He says it needs to be transformed as a private company in order to build trust with users and do better at serving what he calls the “societal imperative” of free speech.

This basically came about because Twitter suspended the satirical Babylon Bee from Twitter because of their satirical story announcing Rachel Levine as Man of the Year. So because some employee at Twitter decided to suspend the Babylon Bee, Musk purchased the entire company!

Musk has described himself as a “free-speech absolutist” but is also known for blocking or disparaging other Twitter users who question or disagree with him.

There is no contradiction there. Sad the journalist thinks there is.

A guest post by Louis Holbrooke:

A survey by Today FM has ranked Hōne Heke as the second greatest New Zealander of all time, behind Sir Edmund Hillary.

Heke’s ranking is well-warranted. He iconically cut down the British flag at Kororāreka (Russell) three times, a rebellion that has become a cornerstone of our national history. However few New Zealanders are aware of what specifically motivated the famous warrior.

Hone Heke was an anti-tax campaigner. In 1841 he was angered by the new Government’s introduction of tariffs on tea, sugar, flour, grain, spirits, tobacco, and all other foreign goods. As James Cowan writes in The New Zealand Wars (1922):

And when the storekeeper had passed on the increases to his customers, with no doubt a considerable extra margin of profit for the Maori trade, the warrior [Heke] who came in to renew his supply of whin, or twist tobacco, to purchase a new blanket or a musket, or to lay by a store of lead for moulding into bullets, received the clearest proof that the Treaty which he had signed had not improved his condition of life.

Moreover, Heke was inspired to rebellion by the way America had responded to British-imposed taxes with full-blown revolution:

[US Consul] Mayhew had helped to instil into the minds of Pomare and Heke a dislike to the British flag, consequent on the imposition of Customs duties. From him and other Americans the discontented chief had heard of the successful revolt of the American colonies against England, and the lesson was not forgotten; he burned to do likewise.

Heke went so far as to fly the American flag as a symbol of his anti-tax, anti-colonial crusade – an image that tends to be excluded from modern illustrations of Heke’s protest.

From [former US Consul] Smith he obtained an American ensign, and paddled on to Kororareka; and when the flagstaff fell to a Ngapuhi axe for a second time up went the foreign colour on the carved sternpost of Heke’s war-canoe. The warrior crew paraded the harbour, their kai-hauta, or fugleman, yelling a battle-song, Heke at the steering-paddle, the American flag over his head.

Heke’s anti-tax rebellion wasn’t just provocative – it was effective. In exchange for Ngapuhi surrendering a token number of muskets and Heke offering to erect a new flag mast, the Government declared the Bay of Islands a free port, and abolished all customs duties.

The truth of Hōne Heke’s rebellion deserves to be more widely-known. His story was the beginning of a proud lineage of anti-tax protest that is today carried on by the Taxpayers’ Union (even if we prefer to use arguments over axes). So congratulations to Hōne Heke for rightfully being recognised as one of the greatest New Zealanders. If it were up to us, he might even be ranked number one. How many taxes did Sir Ed cut, after all?

Enter your captions below. As always, funny, not nasty.

Kevin Norquay writes:

We all know them: “friends” who say they have your best interests at heart, then run off with your girlfriend, dive into your fridge and quaff the champagne you were saving for your wedding anniversary, or tell you they know someone dying of the very disease you have.

If you respond with annoyance at such betrayal or absence of feeling, you’re the problem, not them.

“What is it with you man? She wasn’t right for you, I did you a favour,” or, “alcohol is bad for you, jeez” or simply a forlorn head shake that implies you’d best hurry off and get your affairs in order.

Which brings us cheerfully to our friendly “be kind”, “listen to the science”, “we’re so transparent” Ardern-Robertson government, which seems to be now acting like a “friend” who would like you to look the other way, so it can get on with what’s good for it, such as getting re-elected.

A great analogy – they are the friend who screws you over and then can’t understand why you are not grateful to them for it!

In 1863, US President Abraham Lincoln called democracy “government of the people, by the people, for the people”. In 2022 NZ, it’s starting to look more like “of the people, by the party, for the party.”

How else to explain health officials in November telling the Government MIQ was “no longer justified”, yet having the Government keep inbound MIQ in place for another 15 weeks, then trying to avoid releasing the details publicly?

“Listening to the science” now carries a taint, as decisions made could be seen as party political, rather than public health related.

It’s an erosion of trust. Why cover up things that are supposedly done in our best interest?

They fought to keep it hidden for four months.

Robertson echoed that, adding: “I continue to believe MIQ did a significant job in keeping New Zealanders safe and in saving lives.”

There’s that “friend” again, telling us all the secrecy was for our own good. Whether MIQ did a good job is not the point here, it’s when that good job might have ended.

You could argue “we listen to the science” remains accurate, with the coda “but our decisions are based on the politics”, but transparency was always a fiction written boldly on a blocking PR wall.

What’s the next slogan: “You’ve got to be cruel to Be Kind?”

I think their next slogan is “We’re tweaking democracy”