Adrian Taylor (a member of the Kaipatiki Local Board) writes:
Now into the second half of their second term Labour are looking down the barrel of the inevitable swing NZ voters have historically made between Labour and National: 2023 could be anyone’s at this stage. However the party bigwigs at Labour seem to have decided that the best approach to consolidating their unprecedented gains at the 2020 election is to swing the party’s support base into action to dominate local authority elections this October. …
The New Zealand public has no taste for this any more than the excesses of the National Party a couple of terms into full flight. We like fairness and we are social minded, so we vote Labour, and we like independence and entrepreneurship, so we vote National, and those are the two fundamentals that keep us swinging between the two parties. It is my understanding that the National Party actually have a policy of not getting involved in local body elections: which I totally commend — and I’m a left leaning voter. (For transparency I have typically voted Labour and/or Green, I even stood for the Greens back in the late 90s and more recently I have voted TOP as well.)
So Adam is a left leaning voter, but he nails this point:
Labour should realize how bad the optics of this are going to be because the screaming question will now be: how will a local board team or Auckland City Councillors who have run on a Labour ticket be able to oppose their local Labour MP or the Labour Government on any of the many central government issues and policies that have a direct impact on councils, local boards and their communities? The answer is: they won’t, which means they will not be able to advocate for and represent their communities with a truly independent voice.
They won’t of course. In fact that is not even their role. A Labour Councillor’s job is to represent Labour to the Council, not to represent ratepayers and residents to the Government. They are bound by party rules that forbid them from voting against the party line.
The National Party is concerned the government is trying to cover up any part ministers might have played in the response to the occupation of Parliament in February and March.
A request to bring the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) before the justice select committee to discuss the terms of reference for its investigation into the Parliament occupation was denied by the Government.
And there is no sign of the Government launching its own independent review of the response, weeks after Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern incorrectly suggested the IPCA could look into the actions of Speaker Trevor Mallard.
Hmmn, could there be a shorter term for incorrectly suggested?
It comes as a February 12 email to residents at the Kate Sheppard Apartments, opposite Parliament, suggested deputy Prime Minister Grant Robertson was aware of tactics to play loud music and health messages all night from Parliament’s speakers, in an attempt to deter protesters.
In seeking to grill the IPCA over its terms of reference, National wanted to determine once and for all whether the actions of the Speaker, and ministers, would be within the investigation’s scope.
The letter sent to residents said “tonight there will be loudspeakers going thru the night telling people they are trespassing and to move on and also loud health messages”.
“Our local MP, Grant Robertson, has phoned and apologised for the disruptions that there will be and has offered any help needed.”
The email was sent at 4.21pm on February 12, roughly two hours before the loudspeakers were turned on.
If Grant knew, then Jacinda knew. This means they either assented, or at a minimum didn’t suggest it was a bad thing to do.
No wonder they don’t want an independent inquiry into what happened.
Just like they won’t do a Royal Commission into the response to Covid-19. We’ve spent tens of billions of dollars, and have taken draconian (but often justified) actions in the response. It is hard to think of any issue more needing a Royal Commission to look into it, but the Government seems as allergic to accountability as they are to delivery.
A copy of my submission against the bill is below.
Please take time to do your own submission. It is really really important that this law not proceed.
You can submit here, or use a template at Protect Your Vote. The latter option is very quick as you can just edit a standard submission against. If possible please ask to be heard, as the more people who want to be heard will make it harder for the Government to ram it through Parliament quickly. Submissions close on Wednesday.
SUBMISSION OF DAVID FARRAR ON THE ROTORUA DISTRICT COUNCIL (REPRESENTATION ARRANGEMENTS) BILL TO THE MĀORI AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
About the Submitter
This submission is made by David Farrar in a personal capacity. I would like to appear before the Committee to speak to my submission.
The overall Bill
I submit that the bill should not proceed as to breaches the fundamental human right of equality of suffrage.
Equality of Suffrage
This bill, if passed, would end equality of suffrage for local body elections in Rotorua. It would amend the Local Electoral Act 2001 which requires wards to have, within a certain tolerance, the same electoral population per Councillor.
This bill would give the Māori ward three Councillors for an electoral population of 21,700 and the General ward three Councillors for an electoral population of 55,600. This means the vote of someone on the general roll will be worth only 39% of the vote of someone on the Māori roll in terms of Ward Councillors, and 58% in terms of the whole Council. That breaches equality of suffrage.
When Kate Sheppard campaigned to give women the vote in 1893, she wasn’t just campaigning for universal suffrage, but also equal suffrage. She would not have been happy with a law which told women they can vote, but their votes will be worth only 39% of the vote of a man.
Incidentally women ratepayers actually gained the right to vote in local body elections in 1873, so this bill would undo 149 years of equal suffrage for women in local body elections, as women (and men) on the general roll in Rotorua will have their votes count for less than men (and women) on the Māori roll.
I quote Kate Shepperd who said “All that separates, whether of race, class, creed, or sex, is inhuman, and must be overcome”
Equality of suffrage is regarded as a fundamental and universal human right. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 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. New Zealand voted for this declaration on 10 December 1948.
Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also states “Every citizen shall have the right … To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage …”
Also the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Cl 12 states “Every New Zealand citizen … has the right to vote in genuine periodic elections of members of the House of Representatives, which elections shall be by equal suffrage and by secret ballot”
Again this bill eliminates equal suffrage in Rotorua, and is inconsistent with the spirit of both international and domestic human rights law.
The bill is not needed to have three Māori Ward Councillors
When this bill was put forward, the Rotorua District Council said that it was a choice between the model in the bill and their backup option of 1 Māori Ward Councillor, 1 General Ward Councillor and eight At Large Councillors. They said these was a strong desire for Māori to have three Māori Ward Councillors.
This is now the case, without this bill. The Local Government Commission has determined that the structure of the Council shall be three Māori Ward Councillors, six General Ward Councillors and one Rural General Ward Councillor. So this bill is not needed to have three Māori Ward Councillors.
The only impact of this bill now, would not be to increase the number of Māori Ward Councillors, but to reduce the number of General Ward Councillors so that residents on the General Roll have less power than their share of the population. It is a bill to remove equality of suffrage from 72% of Rotorua’s residents.
The Local Government Commission decision is, in my opinion, an excellent one that reflects the desire of the community to have more than one Māori Ward Councillor, but does it in a way that preserves equality of suffrage.
My view on the good job done by the Local Government Commission appears to be shared by Te Tatau o Te Arawa whose Chief Executive was described as “effusive” and “very happy” with the decision.
Te Tatau o Te Arawa in their submission to the Local Government Commission said they wanted to maximise seats at the Council table, rather than maximise the number of candidates people on the Māori roll could vote for. They also said the emphasis on “parity of voting” was not something emphasized during the consultation period.
The representation arrangements set by the Local Government Commission should be left alone, and not over-ridden by Parliament.
A major constitutional change should only be done after the community has had a lengthy debate, and vote.
This bill will end equality of suffrage on Rotorua for local body elections. This represents a major constitutional change for New Zealand, as it will set a precedent for other Councils, and for the House of Representatives.
It would be constitutionally repugnant to ram through a major constitutional change through Parliament with a badly publicized two week submission period. If Parliament wants to change New Zealand away from equal suffrage, then this should be subject to lengthy and widespread consultation, and a referendum.
A change away from equal suffrage is just as significant (arguably more so) than the change from FPP to MMP. Reducing the power of a group of citizens and residents so their votes are worth 39% or 59% of the votes of other citizens or residents in a rarity on democratic countries. The most pertinent example was Fiji whose 1990 constitution gave Indian Fijians just 69% the voting power of indigenous Fijians.
To set the precedent that equality of suffrage is no longer needed for local elections on the basis of a two week submission period (including Easter so only eight working days) should be inconceivable.
As Te Tatau o Te Arawa pointed out, this model was not explicitly canvassed during the submission period. 72% of Rotorua’s residents would have their equality of their votes downgraded, without an opportunity for them to have been meaningfully consulted, let alone voted on by them.
If Parliament wants to get rid of equal suffrage, then I would expect, at a minimum, a consultation period of 12 – 24 months followed by a referendum. I can’t imagine a worse way to proceed than an obscure local bill which has only eight working days available for submissions.
The need for social cohesion
Countries need high levels of social cohesion to prosper. This includes acceptance of election results as being broadly fair.
If a segment of society loses equal suffrage and has reduced voting power, then this will greatly damage social cohesion.
Proceeding with this bill, especially given the lack of consultation, will irrevocably damage social cohesion in New Zealand. Please do not do it.
Thank you for considering this submission. I would like to make an oral submission in support, and look forward to appearing.
April saw the NZ Initiative turn 10. It’s been great to see the huge impact they have had on public policy debates. Thought it was worth quoting from some people about their anniversary.
Bill English:
Ten years ago, I had the privilege of launching The New Zealand Initiative.
I believed then and believe more firmly now that New Zealand needs institutions independent of government and the public purse to broaden and deepen our intellectual life. …
In our small and isolated nation, the unchallenged dominance of the state leads to passive compliance and intellectual sclerosis. …
Another such counterbalance is the robust, privately funded New Zealand Initiative. With its independent viewpoint, it has consistently influenced public debate and created change through its intellectual capacity. …
Education policy is the clearest example of the state’s intellectual stranglehold. The Initiative proved itself to be a serious research organisation by using integrated government data to slay some sacred cows about the dumb decile system and school performance. The Initiative’s work was sufficiently dangerous, no wonder it had to be officially ignored. …
Public institutions and corporates dress themselves up in the language of wellbeing, transformation, equity and the just transition – language made meaningless by overuse and under-delivery.
The New Zealand Initiative is at its best when it cuts through the fog of good intentions and gets to the nub of what actually happens or could happen. It has done an admirable job of maintaining clear economic principles while it grapples with politicised current issues.
Josie Pagani:
It’s hard to have a reasonable debate today. So, hats off to the Initiative team on your 10th birthday for always being up for a fight.
I have fought with you on TV, radio, Twitter, and in the newspapers. We’ve rumbled over wages, housing, taxes, immigration. And like ‘mouth-ey’ street fighters who refuse to stop even when the crowds have gone, we’ve kept the punches going on email.
Your evidence challenges me. I’ve even changed my mind a few times. Maybe you have, too.
We need the disruption of think tanks like yours. Where else can we have a decent argument these days?
Oliver Hartwich:
Much of our politics would be better if we accepted that even our friends can sometimes be wrong – and that our usual opponents may occasionally have good ideas. Both sides usually want to achieve similar things, just by different means.
And so, over the years, we have tried to reach out as much as we could. To disagree gently with those on our side when they deserved it. To find agreements with those opposite when they were right. And to do both in a good-humoured, friendly, and engaging way. …
And so, after a decade at The New Zealand Initiative, I hope we have been clear without being boring. That we tried to make ourselves understood at least as much as we tried to understand others. That we write and speak in a language that connects thoughts and people.
Our goal is to add ideas, colour, and nuance to New Zealand’s debates in our often-polarised world.
Roger Partridge:
Assessing the work of think tanks is notoriously difficult. Counting outputs is one way. And as our role is research-led, research-based outputs must be the starting point for assessing our success.
On this score, we have produced more than 100 research reports and research notes on the most diverse range of policy reform issues, 40 submissions on parliamentary bills and government discussion documents, more than 1000 columns in the media, close to 1500 columns in our own Insights newsletter, and countless interviews on radio, TV and in the print media. But outputs are only a proxy for a think tank’s achievements. The real measure of success is outcomes. …
Our research on housing affordability focusing on “incentives” is a good illustration.
When Oliver joined us in 2012, New Zealand already had a housing affordability crisis. But Oliver’s research suggested the debate about the housing market’s problems was all wrong.
At the time, discussion focussed on demand-side problems. Too much population growth. Too many foreign buyers. Too many property speculators. And so on.
Oliver pointed to Switzerland, a country with almost the same level of migration-based population growth as New Zealand, which had experienced only a tenth of New Zealand’s house price inflation.
In a series of research reports, Oliver and the team argued that the key feature in countries with stable pricing was that the supply of land for housing development flexed with population growth. And they identified the incentives faced by local councils as the critical factor at play.
In countries like Switzerland, local councils and their ratepayers benefit from inwards migration because the new residents more than pay for the infrastructure needed to support their housing. Yet, in New Zealand, population growth is an unwelcome burden for cash-strapped local councils and their ratepayers. Migrants pay GST and income tax to central government. But none of this cash flows back to councils. Little wonder, our research suggested, that councils like Auckland’s use planning laws to restrict development, pushing up house prices.
In Free to Build: Restoring New Zealand’s Housing Affordability, we proposed a range of public policy solutions to change the incentives faced by local councils to solve the housing affordability problem. The solutions ranged from the unusual to the extreme. Or, at least, that is how they were regarded at the time.
We suggested infrastructure bonds should be used to fund new infrastructure development. The bonds would be paid for with a targeted rate on the new development. That way, councils facing funding pressures would get new ratepayers without having to incur infrastructure funding costs. Their incentive to oppose costly new development would be reversed.
More extremely, we recommended central government return the GST on every new house built to local councils. That way, local councils would profit from new housing and would be incentivised to facilitate it. The first recommendation found favour with (then) opposition housing spokesman Phil Twyford. As incumbent governments so often do, the National-led government subsequently adopted the idea. The responsible minister, Steven Joyce, even recruited our lead researcher while implementing our infrastructure bond reform proposal for a 3,500-home development in Wainui on Auckland’s North Shore. Other developments were planned to follow in quick succession. …
I’m looking forward to what they achieve in the next ten years.
A man who strangled his ex-partner then attacked her again while on bail has won his appeal and may serve the rest of his sentence on home detention.
Nathan Graham Parry (34), a Mosgiel concrete worker, was last year jailed for two and a-half years after admitting charges of strangulation, assault with intent to injure and assault in a family relationship.
Because the sentence was above the two-year threshold, home detention could not be considered.
Parry appealed to the High Court and Justice Rob Osborne agreed the outcome was manifestly excessive.
He reduced the prison term to 22 months and opened the door for an electronically-monitored sentence, should an appropriate address be found.
So he attacked her once by strangling her, and then again on bail, and he now gets home detention only!
Justice Osborne agreed that Judge Turner had taken a starting point in constructing the sentence that was too high and ruled he had been too harsh when considering the second episode.
“An important feature of this case, unlike some more serious cases of strangulation, is that there was neither a threat to kill nor a loss of consciousness or infliction of urinary incontinence. In fact, the strangulation was relatively brief, as noted by the judge,” Justice Osborne said.
If you strangle someone for a non-brief period of time, you kill them!
He has strangled her twice – once on bail. The chances that he will do so again while on home detention are high.
Before listening to it, I thought the chance of another civil war in the US was minimal and in a country like New Zealand, neglible.
But the guest was Barbara Walter. She is one of the leading global experts on civil wars and has created a predictive model for civil wars based on her 30 years of studying civil wars. She has looked at multiple factors such as poverty, inequality, religious diversity, size topography. In total they have analysed 50 different variables and found there are two factors that are the most predictive of civil war.
The second most powerful factor was if a government wasn’t a fully democracy or a full autocracy, but something inbetween. Now consider whether abandoning equality of suffrage (a fundamental human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) moves a country into that category.
But get this. The most important single factor is when one or more major parties in a country’s political system doesn’t organise around left-right political values but around identity – race, religion or ethnicity.
When I heard her say this on the podcast, it chilled me. This is an expert who has studied civil wars for 30 years, and she said these are the two most influential factors.
This made me even more convinced about the harm caused by policies which prioritise race and ethnicity over citizenship.
The Tourism Recovery Ministers decided to fund all tourism businesses that scored more than 15 out of 30 points in the assessment process. They also decided to fund all eligible Māori tourism businesses, including those that scored less than 15 out of 30 points in the assessment process.
So if your owners have the right ancestors, you got funding from the Government even if you scored 0/30!
However, all decisions to spend public money come with an obligation to ensure that the decision-making is consistent and transparent. We saw limited evidence explaining the reasons for the decisions. Without those records, those who have made the decisions are not able to adequately explain why funding was provided. In my view, this is not acceptable practice, regardless of the circumstances. To ensure that the public can be confident in the integrity of the decisions made, the reasons for this should be clearly explained and well documented.
In other words we have no idea if Ministers just gave out money to their mates, as there was no documentation of their reasons.
This, combined with the decisions made that diverged from officials’ advice and the limited documentation to explain the divergence, makes it hard to determine whether the funding was applied fairly in accordance with the published criteria and the extent to which it represents value for money.
So Ministers overrode recommendations of neutral officials, without explaining why.
The Tourism Recovery Ministers agreed to fund Whale Watch Kaikōura. We have not seen any evidence to identify what criteria the Tourism Recovery Ministers used when making this decision. We also did not see any advice from Ministry officials. On 10 June 2020, the Minister announced that Whale Watch Kaikōura had been provided $1.5 million grant funding.
So WWK got $1.5 million of taxpayer money from Ministers on the basis of no criteria and no advice.
Home builders waiting months for overdue resource consent applications are also likely waiting on thousands of dollars owed by the Hutt City Council in discounts.
Stuff have reported claims of the council taking up to nine months to return consent applications. Developers and planners said the “broken” system was hobbling housing projects by delaying construction and increasing costs.
So not only is the Hutt Council unable to process consents on time, sometimes taking 800% longer than allowed, they are not refunding a portion of consent fees, as required to by law!
Authorities are obliged to provide a discount of 1 per cent for every working day beyond the time limit, up to a maximum of 50 working days.
The discount does not appear to be advertised on the council’s website as it is with other local bodies. Sally Gepp, president of the Association of Resource Management Practitioners, said the onus was not on applicants to ask for the rebate.
“The regulations do not require that a consent applicant proactively seeks a discount. They specify that the council ‘must give the applicant a discount’.”
So they have not told anyone about the rule, and have not given any discounts – despite it being a legal obligation.
Council correspondence with applicants shows it is starting the 20 working day timeframe well after applications are received. The 20-day mark is meant to be a maximum allowable limit, not a target.
Applicants are being told, “it is taking about six weeks for an application to be allocated to a planner… it will usually take up to 20 working days to complete the process.”
Gepp said the council’s interpretation of the 20 working day time frame was also inconsistent with the RMA.
She said the target time frame started when an authority received an application.
This is also an outrageous breach of the law. The 20 days starts with application, not six weeks later when the Council gets it shit together.
If the Council is unable to meet its statutory obligations, is it time for a Commissioner?
The government is planning to introduce a biofuels mandate, which the Herald reported on recently (paywalled). As we’ve come to expect from this government, the mandate won’t achieve the outcome it aims for, makes no economic sense, will have unforeseen impacts, and is poorly timed. Of course, it has the potential to be popular with green voters, despite achieving nothing. The Herald canvas none of these concerns at all, simply noting that it’s intended to reduce emissions, and that it’s been talked about for a long time without ever having been implemented (but no interest in explaining why).
I’ll address each of my statements in turn.
Firstly, this mandate is unlikely to achieve the goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. This is partly because biofuels don’t actually reduce carbon dioxide emissions much, because they tend to consume a lot of diesel and other fossil fuels in growing the plants. The net reduction of carbon dioxide emissions is low or even non-existent. Eric Crampton has a good article on this, there is a substantial literature on the matter that he is drawing on.
Biofuel mandates and subsidies are more often a political tool to lock up votes in marginal electorates via pork barrelling. In particular this is true of primary votes in Iowa (a large corn state, and the first US state to vote in primaries), and the sugar electorates in Australia. NZ has a proportional voting system, we don’t need pork barrelling in marginal electorates. This government also hasn’t typically been in favour of subsidies to farmers (even overseas farmers).
It also won’t reduce emissions because transport fuels are already covered by the ETS. Any reduction in transport fuel emissions simply reduces the transport fuel credits used from the ETS, and leaves those credits available for someone else to emit. The whole point of having an ETS is that it drives the least cost reductions in emissions – so if adding ethanol to fuel was already the cheapest way to reduce emissions, it’d already be happening without a mandate. If it’s not the cheapest way, then that means we could be getting higher emissions reductions from the same spend of money. This means that the policy is economically illiterate, or I guess if I’m being kinder just makes no economic sense. The most economically sensible way to reduce emissions is to simply buy credits from the ETS and shred them (or to simply issue fewer credits in the first place).
It will have unforeseen impacts. Increases in biofuel use means diversion of arable land from producing food to producing biofuels. In particular it means diversion of corn, grain and sugar from food uses (as animal feed or directly as human food) to biofuels. This will, on balance, increase food prices and reduce food availability. The government appear to not be considering this (therefore, an unforeseen consequence – unforeseen of course only by the government, because plenty of other people forsee it).
Those with a mechanical bent, particularly owners of classic cars or boats, will also know that biofuels behave differently in your engine. Sure, for most modern cars they have been engineered to expect this up to around 10% biofuel. But my 2003 boat probably won’t, my brother’s 1984 ute probably won’t, and potentially your 10 year old lawnmower or weed eater won’t either. These costs will fall on individuals, fixing pipes and hoses that are impacted by the ethanol. These impacts will disproportionately fall on those who drive older cars (likely poorer people).
Finally, the timing of this announcement shows once again a tin ear from this government. At a time of high fuel costs, and the government having just cut excise tax (temporarily), they’re now talking about adding 5-10c a litre of costs to transport fuels (costs that are likely to achieve no sensible policy outcome). Furthermore, during a war in the Ukraine that is impacting exports of food crops, in particular corn and wheat, the government is talking about introducing a policy that would divert corn and wheat into the creation of biofuels. Sure, NZ is a tiny part of world demand, but in the same way we should “do our bit” for climate policy internationally, we should “do our bit” for food security. The Paris agreement on climate change in fact specifically requires that climate change policies not threaten food production, and specifically mentions the fundamental priority of food security.
Bottom line, this is a policy that won’t actually reduce carbon emissions for two entirely separate reasons, will increase costs, will have negative impacts on some NZers, and will increase the diversion of food crops to fuels at a time of war and where poorer countries are about to have severe shortages of those same food crops. It takes a special talent to spend money to achieve nothing, and at the same time make the world worse. We can only hope that it also turns into a political albatross as people understand the proposal.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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 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.
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%.
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.
