The plan was to rush the Rotorua bill through hearings and Parliament before 1 June so that they could end equality of suffrage for the Rotorua District Council in time for this year’s elections.

They even had already scheduled oral submissions to start this week, thinking they only had a few score to get through.

But around 10,000 people have made a written submission against this awful bill (despite almost zero coverage in the media), and I understand around 2,500 of you have asked to speak to your submissions. This has made it impossible to ram it through, and they have conceded this by extending the written submission deadline to Wed 04 May. So you can still submit at the link above, or through Protect Your Vote. The Government has realised how bad a look it is to try and ram through such a massive change in a fortnight. People power is winning.

Graeme Edgeler has done an excellent submission against the bill here. Graham Adams has covered it on The Platform and Paul Goldsmith has written in the Herald:

In Ukraine, people are giving their lives to defend what freedoms they have to determine their own destiny.

One of the core principles of our democracy is one person, one vote. That we, as New Zealanders, are all treated the same. Our individual votes have equal power in deciding who governs the country and in decisions affecting our lives.

Astoundingly, this principle is currently under assault by the Labour Party, led by Jacinda Ardern.

Tamati Coffey, a Labour List MP based in Rotorua, has introduced a Local Bill for the Rotorua District Council that seeks to throw out the one person, one vote principle, as it is enshrined in the Local Electoral Act.

This is what we need every person to know. Labour no longer support one person, one vote. They are trying to legislate an end to equality of suffrage in New Zealand.

We need to stop this bill, and then stop them trying to do it again.

One News reports:

A group of unvaccinated New Zealand resident visa holders are threatening to take legal action against the Government, saying they are stuck overseas and are unable to return to their homes.

Many are long-time permanent residents and residents of this country, who have lived here for decades.

Aucklander Holly Atkinson is one of the group’s 750 members, which calls itself “The Forgotten of New Zealand”.

The long-time permanent resident has lived in New Zealand since she was 9 years old, but travelled to South Africa in March. She was planning to return through MIQ after spending two weeks with her grandfather, who had been violently attacked in a home invasion.

So she has lived here since she was nine, is a permanent resident, eligible to vote in our elections and has a job in NZ, but the Government won’t let her return home.

While her decision not to be vaccinated was a “personal choice”, she felt the discrepancy between citizens and resident visa holders was unfair – with one able to return, and the other unable to cross the border.

“It’s really, really tough feeling like I am basically shut out, so please, I would love it if you let me back in,” she said.

“If MIQ had said to us, ‘hey, you actually can’t get back in, because you’re unvaccinated and a permanent resident’, I would still be in New Zealand now.’

Lawyer Matthew Hague made the same argument in a letter to the Government earlier this week. He argued that there was “no risk” to changing the policy, as there are currently thousands of Covid cases in the community every day and all travellers are tested anyway.

“They have jobs in New Zealand, they pay taxes, their children go to our schools, many are on the pathway to citizenship and we’re asking the Government to treat these people fairly,” he said.

“Every single international returnee to New Zealand has to provide a negative covid test before they enter New Zealand, and there’s simply no justification for excluding residents and permanent residents, there’s no risk from this group of people.”

One can only agree.

However the argument is sparking debate; public health physician Professor Michael Baker believes increasing the number of unvaccinated people in the community would increase risk generally.

“In principle every extra person we add to New Zealand’s who’s unvaccinated increases the risk of transmission of Covid 19 and any other disease they’re not vaccinated for,” he said.

“In addition they run the risk they’re more likely to wind up in hospital seriously ill and potentially occupying a bed that’s needed for other patients.”

On the basis of that argument, we should also ban fat residents from returning home. They are far more likely to need hospitalisation if they get Covid-19.

Stats NZ has confirmed that the cost of living in New Zealand is increasing at the fastest rate in 32 years at 6.9%.

While there are international factors at play, it is misleading to gloss over the 68% increase in government spending since Labour took office, combined with the huge borrowing done by the Reserve Bank.

Our inflation rate is well above many of our major trading partners. The list below is of New Zealand and our top 15 trading partners. Only three of our top 15 trading partners have a higher inflation rate.

1. US 8.5%
2. Germany 7.3%
3. UK 7.0%
4. New Zealand 6.9%
5. Italy 6.5%
6. Thailand 5.7%
7. France 4.5%
8. Singapore 4.3%
9. South Korea 4.1%
10. Australia 3.5%
11. Indonesia 2.6%
12. UAE 2.5%
13. Vietnam 2.4%
14. Malaysia 2.2%
15. China 1.5%
16. Japan 0.9%

The Herald reports:

Finance Minister Grant Robertson batted away remarks by Reserve Bank Governor Adrian Orr today that suggested Governments should look at trimming spending to get inflation under control.

In 2017 core crown expenses were $76.3 billion.

Four years later it was $107.8 billion.

That is a massive 41.3% increase in just four years. Try and tell me that hasn’t contributed to inflation.

Even worse the latest forecast for this year is core crown expenses of $128 billion. That is a 67.8% increase over five years ago. Is the health system 68% better? Is the education system? Is anything? Or are they all in fact performing worse, despite a 68% increase in spending?

News.com.au reports:

The Coalition has made a stunning turnaround, according to the bookies, with their odds of retaining government drastically shortening.

LNP HQ will likely be taking the new odds as sign of a Miracle 2.0 for this year’s election.

The odds of the Coalition retaining government have dropped from $3.15 to $1.80 in just over a week, with two bookmakers making them narrow favourites.

That is a big movement. Odds of $3.15 implies a 32% chance of winning and odds of $1.80 a 56% chance.

Radio NZ report:

Couches, blankets and a broken pram are just some of the items that have been dumped in an empty section in the Tauranga suburb of Hairini.

While illegal dumping happens everywhere, it is the final straw for some residents who are frustrated with a lack of action from Kāinga Ora.

The 10 lots on Haukore Street are owned by the state housing agency and despite being fenced off, have become a dumping ground and are overgrown with weeds. …

They’re NZs biggest landlord and they can’t even stop empty sites from turning into a dumping ground.

Newshub reports:

An internal memo from the Ministry of Health has revealed there was no longer “any” health justification for MIQ way back in November 2021. 

It means stranded Kiwis could have come home for Christmas instead of applying for a spot in state-run managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ). 

Why has this only come out now? The short answer is the Ministry of Health didn’t want this advice out in public. They tried to keep it secret, refusing to release it until their hand was forced by the Ombudsman. 

So the Government kept Kiwi families from reuniting for Christmas, even after they had been told there was no health justification for carrying on with MIQ.

The memo expressly says that, way back in November, the risk posed by international arrivals transmitting COVID-19 was no longer higher than the risk of domestic transmission. 

The extra damning thing is that, looking at the full context of the Delta outbreak at the time, there were vaccine requirements for international arrivals and we had 80 percent of the population double vaccinated. 

There was ongoing transmission in Auckland and health officials agreed that right then MIQ was no longer justified. 

So cruel.

News.com.au reports:

Labor leader Anthony Albanese’s early campaign blunders have delivered a plunge in support according to a new poll with primary support dropping to just 34 per cent.

The findings in the Resolve Political Monitor suggest a hung Parliament is a real possibility with independents securing 9 per cent of the vote.

Mr Albanese has been under pressure in the first week of the campaign with unforced errors during press conferences including being unable to remember the national unemployment rate and stumbling over asylum seeker policy.

According to the Fairfax/Resolve poll voter support for the Labor opposition dropped from 38 to 34 per cent with a rise in the number of undecided voters.

Albo has had a shocker first week. Not only his gaffes on economic data and asylum seeker policy, but also his claim that he was an economic advisor to Hawke Government. He did this, as that Government was seen as very good economic managers. But it was a massive massive exaggeration (an 8.5 on the Golriz scale). He was in fact an electorate staffer to Tom Uren who was a bitten opponent’s of Hawke, and merely Minister of Local Government outside Cabinet.

Acumen have published the 2022 Acumen Edelman Trust Barometer. The trust rating for different entities is:

1. My employer 80%
2. Business 61%
3. NGOs 57%
4. Government 57%
5. Media 41%

Also only 23% say media is a unifying force in NZ and 55% a dividing source.

Also a huge 64% say journalists and reporters are purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations.

Former NZ Herald Editor-in-chief Gavin Ellis writes:

I have been accused of being a “bullying, old, white man”. I emphatically deny the first but plead guilty to the remaining three charges as the truth stares back at me from the mirror.

The charges were laid when I called for less rigid interpretation of the rules I had helped to write for a social media page. No, you didn’t misread that: I called for a relaxation of moderation, not a tightening.

The accusation of bullying therefore left me confused but then a light went on in my head.

Of course! Bullying is when you say something with which someone else disagrees.

Exactly. And by saying something, another person disagrees with, you are not just bullying, but causing harm. They may even feel unsafe.

What worried me was the willingness to bring down a shutter on discussion that interfered with a particular world view.

That isn’t a generational phenomenon limited to millennials and Gen Zers. It is a current affliction that spans all demographics and many socio-political beliefs. In her book Fascism: A warning, former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright spoke of an unwillingness to listen to what others say and, in some cases, to even allow them to speak. Rather than thinking critically, she said, we seek out people who share our opinions and who encourage us to ridicule the ideas of those whose convictions and perspectives clash with our own.

Journalists should have no part of that sort of thinking. Yet I fear this generation of journalists is complicit in some of it.

Matters dealing with race, gender (old men excepted), image and identity are handled with kid gloves. Debate on some subjects – such as the mātauranga Māori letter to the Listener signed by seven scientists – has become one-sided. ‘Old-fashioned’ views have no validity. We can only guess at what subjects get no exposure at all.

The media haven’t covered a bill that ends equality of suffrage in NZ, because presumably it is an old fashioned view. Likewise how often do they cover the huge educational gap between boys and girls in education system? Around 1% as much as the pay gap between men and women.

Journalists should not use perceived majority views as some sort of selection yardstick. To do so risks falling into what German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann called a “spiral of silence” that stifles alternative opinion. The centrifugal force which accelerates the spiral of silence is fear of isolation and I wonder whether the prospect of falling victim to ‘cancel culture’ leads journalists – perhaps unconsciously – to become party to it.

We will be in trouble if journalists or media organisations start to condition their approach to the news by avoiding those things that might isolate them. It is a form of self-censorship that is little better than imposed constraints. And it, too, is a downward spiral.

It is a downward spiral, and we are on it.

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.

Stuff reports:

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

1. 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

2. I submit that the bill should not proceed as to breaches the fundamental human right of equality of suffrage.

Equality of Suffrage

3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. I quote Kate Shepperd who said “All that separates, whether of race, class, creed, or sex, is inhuman, and must be overcome”
8. 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.
9. 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 …”
10. 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”
11. 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

12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
    
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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
25. Countries need high levels of social cohesion to prosper. This includes acceptance of election results as being broadly fair.
26. If a segment of society loses equal suffrage and has reduced voting power, then this will greatly damage social cohesion.
27. 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.

David Farrar

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.

The ODT reports:

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.

I never thought I would ask such a (I assumed) preposterous question. But it has weighed on my mind since I listed to a 538 podcast asking how likely is it the US will have another civil war.

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.

A scathing report by the Auditor-General. Some extracts:

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.

Stuff reports:

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.

The council has admitted in the past six months it has not paid out anything under a Resource Management Act (RMA) regulation which requires authorities to discount consent fees when applications remain unprocessed beyond the statutory 20 working day time limit.

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?