Judith Collins writes:

Legislation coming at Kiwis includes:

Fair Pay Agreements that sound soft and kind, until we realise that they are nothing but a return to compulsory unionism and the nationwide awards system that stifled New Zealand’s innovation, drive, and success before 1991. The only place they seemed not to operate was in the owner-occupied businesses known as family farms. No wonder farming led innovation and the adoption of new technology.

Three Waters; which is accompanied by what should be declared false advertising – $4 million of taxpayers money spent on advertisements seemingly trying to convince Kiwis that our drinking water isn’t safe. For the record, it’s a crock. And $710 million spent by Government from the Covid-19 Recovery Fund, essentially bribing local councils to fall into line. …

Putting that aside, what is really behind Three Waters is a wish to take the assets of local government, and put the governance into four groups half appointed by councils and half by iwi.

It has little to do with water quality and a lot to do with control.

You might ask, “what of He Puapua?” Well, that’s the roadmap that the Ardern Government seems to be sticking to. Clearly, it is the only plan that they seem to have. KiwiBuild, the plan to build 100,000 houses in 10 years, was a $2 billion flop.

It’s not a total flop. After four years they have finally made 1% of their total!!

Thankfully, National has a Covid plan. We’re asking the Government to adopt it. The lot of it. Not just a bit. Do it now.

Then we start rebuilding the economy. That means rebuilding trust. Trust that the Government won’t take more. Trust that the Government won’t make it harder to build a home, to have a home, to take a punt on being in business.

That also means, embracing new technology. That means taking New Zealand to the top in the world’s education ratings. That means getting our kids to understand that maths and science are fun. That coding is awesome. That it is the way to open their opportunities. That technology is the way forward. That increased productivity doesn’t mean working more hours for less, but working fewer hours for more output and income.

That means, embracing success. That means ridding ourselves of the notion that turning up is enough. That means deciding to be the best we can. Every, single one of us. That must be us.

That’s what we can do. That’s what this country needs.

And, in the meantime, can the Government please stop telling everyone to “be kind”, until it decides to be competent.

Everytime I see an NZTA billboard demanding I “be kind”, it has the opposite effect on me.

The Herald reports:

Hawke’s Bay-based Mongrel Mob life member Harry Tam was granted an essential workers exemption to travel into locked down Auckland.

That’s nice for Harry.

Newstalk ZB can reveal Tam was given the green light to travel into the city, to encourage gang-linked unvaccinated individuals to get the jab.

It comes after it was this morning revealed that Waikato’s Mongrel Mob chapter president Sonny Fatupaito was given the same exemption.

This is the mob president who claims they have gone straight but whose No 2 has been charged with meth dealing?

It comes after Covid-19 Minister Chris Hipkins this afternoon finally confirmed there were quite a large number of gang members in this outbreak.

This has been widely speculated on, but the Government won’t front with numbers. They are happy to tell us the exact number of people linked to a Pacific Island church, but not the numbers linked to gangs. Why not? Do they know that NZers would be shocked how many are gang related?

Now if Fatupaito and Tam are honestly travelling into Auckland just to promote vaccinations to gang members, that can be justified. But are we just taking them at their word, that is what they are doing? Are we measuring effectiveness? Are they actually getting gang members vaccinated? It’s one thing to claim they are doing something, but surely the Government is actually verifying it?

So in theory you can make the case for them to able to cross the border, but what will annoy many people is that the Government is so inflexible for other New Zealanders, such as the man whose wife is giving birth to triplets. I guess he wasn’t able to tell the Government “Jacinda trusts me, don’t you”!

Craccum reports:

n official report of UoA’s first drug checking event states it was a success, and resulted in tangible harm reduction outcomes.

During re-orientation week, Know Your Stuff (KYS) ran a pilot for a free, confidential, drug checking service in Albert Park, supported by UoA’s Student Wellbeing Team and the New Zealand Drug Foundation (NZDF). This event was possible due to legislation passed last year, allowing drug and substance checking services to operate legally in New Zealand, with the aim of minimising drug and substance harm.

The clinic ran for three hours on July 19 at full capacity, with a total of 35 drug samples tested at the event. The most common drugs seen were MDMA, ketamine, and amphetamines. According to testers, the majority of people who visited the clinic were inexperienced drug users.

Drug checking is a proven effective drug harm reduction strategy. According to KYS, drug checking reduces the risk of death from drug use by ensuring people know what substance they have, and the risks associated with it so they can make an informed choice. An official report of the event revealed only 57% of the samples tested were consistent with what the client had presumed them to be.

After further ESR testing of one sample presumed to be a fake Xanex, it was determined that the drug checking service most likely saved a person’s life. “If the full pill had been ingested, it would have resulted in death within a couple of hours for the consumer.”

I’m all for drug testing. It reduces harms and saves lives.

I have had the privilege of attending three NFL games and two Division 1 College matches. I love the game but it has been an acquired taste. With little local sport the NFL season is an opportunity. It may be the world’s greatest game!? Here is a guide for kiwis.

1. Choose a good team. The current team to watch is the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. They have three of the NFL greats – Brady, Gronkowski and Sherman and won last year’s superbowl.
2. Understand that these athletes make Sonny William Williams look like a local club midget. Gronkowski is 6’5, 130kgs and runs 40yards before Sonny gets out of the blocks. He throws defenders around like rag dolls and catches bullets from Brady with one hand (not real bullets – I am not talking Chicago here).

He looks a lot like me at my best:

3. It is good if those who can cook in the house make nibbles for the duration of the match and possibly even dress-up (use your imagination). This is one of the key plot themes of the great movie Silver Linings Playbook.

4. Before the game it is important to go down and catch a few fish. Like I did on Monday at the Russell wharf.! No … I really did. Yes – that Snapper is 52cm. (I caught great squid last night but I am never one to brag).

5. The game starts and just before that the very great Tom Brady (now 203 years old) runs the length of the field and fist pumps and brings the whole opposition crowd to their feet. Brady is the GOAT of world sports! Fact! He now plays for the Bucs. Great Patriots coach Bill Belichick scowls but that is how he normally looks – win, lose, or getting castrated.

6. Brady is not only a great QB but is also a testimony for the inference that if you win 7 superbowls you get to have a very good looking wife.

For any men on KB – I know she is not as good looking as our wives but she does have more money and speaks a funky language.

7. Prepare well. The game is going to last three hours. Do not start drinking in the first two quarters – there is a long way to go. Tea, Miso soup, or iced coffee is best even for the first three quarters. After that – you are allowed a beer (Jacinda said that earlier this week – not even joking). Beware of extra time!

8. To the game itself: It is the USA equivalent of a great Cricket One Day International but with more brains and grunt. It is chess on legs. The intellect required to be a good quarter-back is the equal of the collective IQ of NASA. Even the cubby guys (and I mean CHUBBY – 6’8″ and 300 pounds) on the front line need to know what is going on – while consuming huge quantities of food just to keep breathing (sometimes they need pure oxygen – again – not even joking).

9. As stated above. The game lasts a while and kiwis tend to complain about the breaks (forgetting what happens at the end of every cricket over). I generally make use of the time to read a full novel in the breaks –War and Peace by Tolstoy on Monday … can you believe that Prince some-one-or-other?

10. Often the game is decided by a tiny margin. Today it was a field goal attempt that glanced off the posts as it was o.ooo1 degree out. The kicker was immediately fired and may even have been shot. They often are never heard from again and rumour has it that they play the odd game in a place called Canadia.

11. At the end of the game – as a fan – if you have chosen to follow the Tampa Bay Bucs you will feel vindicated. My financial suggestion would be to re-mortgage your house and place a bet on the TAB of the Bucs winning Super-Bowl 2022 (please note – not legal advice).

12. The USA is not politically correct. When I went to a game in Boston my son and I got lost in the crowd on the way in – true story. They had two chants – 1. “Brady is better” (he was playing for them back then) and “Manning has a vagina”. Please note that we did not join in the second chant. One 6’8” fan did grab me and throw me around a bit and ask me who I thought would win. Bay of Plenty meant nothing to him and I am lucky to be alive – I should have said Wanganui.

You need to get to know this game. The relevance to NZ – apart from Monday entertainment under-lockdown is that it may even be the cure for covid. There were 66,000 people in the crowd just out of Boston and not a mask to be seen. They have this weird thing called FREEDOM.

Stuff reports:

Hutt City Council chief executive Jo Miller threatened to take legal action against three councillors, accusing them of defamation after they raised concerns about her actions as the manager of the local authority, according to emails and legal correspondence.

The threats, issued through lawyers, contributed to David Bassett’s decision to resign abruptly in June after 14 years on the council, including nine as deputy mayor. The by-election to replace him will be held on September 24.

Local government experts said moves by a chief executive to sue the councillors – who are technically her employer – were unusual.

More than unusual – it suggests an extremely toxic culture. Councillors should not be threatened with defamation for raising concerns about the Council.

Another good humorous videoing skewering James Shaw for his pending flight with 14 staff to Glasgow.

CNN report:

Top American generals warned President Joe Biden that the Afghan military would collapse. Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said in essence on Tuesday that both former President Donald Trump and Biden had botched negotiations with the Taliban — and the net result of the US actions was a “logistical success but a strategic failure.” …

Generals Milley and McKenzie said that they advised the Biden administration that unless the US kept 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, the Afghan military would collapse. They also said that the ground commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Austin “Scott” Miller, provided the same advice.This clearly contradicts what President Biden told ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos last month — that the US military didn’t advise him to keep 2,500 troops in Afghanistan.In answer to a question from a senator, Gen. Milley conceded that the abrupt and complete US withdrawal had “damaged” US credibility around the world.Milley also said that both the Trump and Biden administrations made a mistake by putting specific dates on the US withdrawal rather them making it a conditions-based withdrawal.

I recently listened to a podcast which has former US Secretary of State Condi Rice on it. She laid out three simple ways the withdrawal could have been done far more successfully. They were:

1. Don’t give a specific withdrawal date as that destroys morale for Afghan Govt forces
2. The US shouldn’t have closed its airbase before the withdrawal was complete. Trying to withdraw through Kabul Airport was a huge mistake.
3. The withdrawal should have been done during winter when there is basically no fighting by the Taliban, as it is too cold. The insistence on being out by the 9/11 anniversary out PR ahead of safety

Biden now has an average -15% rating on his handling of foreign policy (which was meant to be his strength). In May it was +15% so a huge drop.

The court judgment in the Moana case is now online, and this is a critical case to understanding the fracas around Judge Callinicos, who presided over it. It was his questioning of Oranga Tamariki staff during it that led to the Acting CE of OT approaching the heads of bench to complaint about how he felt his staff were treated, and then led to the heads of bench approaching Judge Callinicos while the trial was still underway.

The summary of the case is that Moana’s mother was not deemed capable of looking after her, and she was placed with a foster family where she thrived. However the foster parents were not Maori, and despite Moana having spent three happy years there, OT tried to transfer custody and care of Moana to another family, who were Maori.

Now let’s look at some findings of fact by Judge Callinicos about OT staff:

It is apparent from the evidence that, unbeknown to the caregivers, [GW]’s lawyer and the Court, certain Ministry personnel had been planning to retract from the purported permanent placement of [GW] with the [S]’s and instead place her with [RQ]’s caregivers. The evidence in support of this being a clandestine strategy is both
strong and concerning

So he found OT staff had a secret strategy to remove Moana from her caregivers and this was hidden from the caregivers, Moana’s lawyer and the court.

The evidence demonstrates how [the first social worker] operated simultaneously in two worlds; what she said or wrote to persons external to the Ministry, and what she communicated internally of it. The external and internal communications were often polar opposites.

The OT social worker said one thing internally and the polar opposite externally. Beginning to see why the Judge may have been hard on them – especially considering nothing less than the entire future welfare of a child is at stake here.

The fact that any social worker (Permanency, Caregiver or Allocated) undertakes their role without reading the
statutory plans, but instead relies solely on the untested comments of another social worker, is a process that is destined to yield poor outcomes. It renders the statutory report process nugatory and could place children at risk of harm to their well-being. The quality of any decision, whether by a social worker or a Court, is intrinsically linked to the quality of input information relied upon in formulating that decision.

Again starting to see who OT staff may have had a hard time in court.

They subsequently made a s 15 report of concern and uplifted her from her day care without informing the caregivers. The uplift was done in breach of the condition to the s 101 order which the Chief Executive had consented to

They broke the terms of the custody order.

Judge Harrison recorded her concerns as to what she called the “untruthful, unprofessional…and emotionally abusive” statements made by one social worker.

This was the finding of the Judge who heard the attempt to remove Moana from her caregivers. Rather damning.

The first failing by the Ministry arose from inadequate production of relevant information to [GW]’s lawyer and the caregivers following their respective requests under the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA).

OT failed to provide documents they were legally obliged to.

However, when the Chief Executive’s third witness was being examined it again became apparent that nondisclosure of relevant documents was still occurring. At that juncture it was not possible for the hearing to continue, as to do so would have meant a repeating pattern of witnesses having to be recalled for further examination each time the Ministry provided further documents, when such ought to have been produced months before the hearing occurred.

This is a huge issue. Twice OT broke the law by not providing full documents under disclosure. Would it be any surprise that he Judge would be unimpressed with OT legal staff? In fact he had previously successfully complained to the Law Society about two of them. I suspect it was due to stuff like this.

The failing by the Chief Executive to produce relevant documents within its power, possession or control was on a not insignificant scale. The Ministry had failed to produce a large number of correspondences between its officers which were of relevance to the issue of why the Chief Executive made its decision to reverse the permanent placement of [GW] with the caregivers.

The non disclosure was not a few minor memos. It was massive.

Given what has become evident in this proceeding, it is a concern as to whether the inadequate disclosure evident in this proceeding is an issue confined to this case, or whether the issue may be more widespread.

It seems it is likely OT doesn’t fully disclose information in other court cases. This is profoundly troubling, especially considering what is at stake in most of these cases.

Then we get to the bit where the Judge actually explains why he questioned the OT witnesses so vigorously:

It is against a background of the unique and convoluted circumstances that confronted this Court, that no stone could be left unturned in order to formulate reliable determinations of fact. In situations where the waters are so muddied, the Court is entitled if not obliged, to adopt an inquisitorial approach to ensure that all evidence relevant to the child’s welfare is not hidden from view. If some witnesses were upset by examination, either by counsel or questions from the Court, then I am sorry for their upset. But I would ask them to reflect upon the quite disturbing dynamics that
were being elicited from the examination regarding the performance of duties which are vital for the safety and welfare of children. If they hold to the view that matters intruded into judicial conduct, then they have an appropriate avenue for redress available to them.

Basically he had to adopt an inquisitorial approach because it was the only way to get to the truth.

[The first social worker] denied that she recognised the signature on that document. When another document bearing the same signature was put to her, she accepted that the initial document had in fact been signed by her. I find it implausible that a person would not recognise their own signature, particularly where the denied and accepted signatures bore a remarkable resemblance.

So this OT social worker said under oath that she did not sign a document, and only recanted under questioning. The very questioning that OT then complained about to the heads of benches.

This is where it is farcical for the heads of benches to insist that their attempt at intervention wasn’t to affect the outcome, just the in court behaviour. It is naive to think the two can be separated. If the Judge can’t rigorously interrogate witnesses who are lying, then the outcome of the cases may be radically different.

That email shows an alarming degree of deception to the child’s lawyer, as her statements are at complete odds with the background agendum she had been pursuing at the very same time to encourage a halt to permanency. This email cannot be construed in other than extremely positive terms about the [S]’s, how they are working well with the
Ministry, how it was the social worker who was coordinating access and how she hopes that permanency of placement will move quickly.

Here the social worker was saying in external reports that the caregivers were doing a “fantastic job” while internally she was lobbying to get them replaced. And remember this is happening within an incredible powerful government agency.

The concerns posed to the reliability of her evidence increased when she again stated that her actual position was not as she had stated in her report

Mickey Mouse.

Despite her repeated allegations that the caregivers had no cultural sensitivity or concern, she was unable to provide any plausible explanation as to why her statutory report to the Court indicated the converse. When the contradiction was put to her, she replied that she had no answer. In addition, there was no evidence produced by any witness that these purported concerns about their cultural capacities was ever raised with the caregivers.

So as you read through the Judgement, you are probably like me asking why it is the Judge who is being criticised here. Why has the Minister not sent a rocket into OT for such terrible behaviour by OT.

When I raised with [the first social worker] the concern that she was now saying the information in her Court reports was false, she responded by stating; “The information in that report is not false, it just doesn’t have the full information”. Her response is concerning as it infers she believes it is acceptable for any person to provide only an edited or selective picture to a Court, especially in an affidavit or statutory report.

Indeed.

She asserted the caregivers were racist towards her. There is not a skerrick of evidence supporting such a conclusion. Rather, the evidence is overwhelming in demonstrating that from the outset of her role, her judgement was influenced by a view that, regardless of all other factors and principles, Māori children must be with Māori caregivers.

And nevermind what was best for Moana. The Judge notes:

While it is and must be an ideal goal that children of a specific cultural group be with caregivers who are from the same family or cultural group, sadly that may sometimes not be achievable. The key flaw in applying a belief driven approach to social work or legal practice is that it distracts from the mandatory holistic assessment of what outcome is in the well-being and best interests of the subject child according to the significant array of mandatory principles in ss 5 and 13.

Very sensible.

I share Judge Harrison’s concerns about the social workers’ actions. Given this recording was quickly used in support of
an attempted without notice application to effect a change in placement, I regret to conclude that the recording was a device used to expedite achievement of what the social work team was desirous of doing. It was a miscalculated attempt to usurp the very purpose of this substantive hearing.

Basically what they tried to do was get Moana removed without notice by claiming she was in danger. If Judge Harrison had granted this, then the main case under Judge Callinicos would probably not proceed.

Now in case you think the Judge was hard on all witnesses, he notes:

Mrs [H] was an impressive and insightful witness. Impressive is perhaps an understatement as to the sheer dignity and mana of Mrs [H]. What stood out is that she gave her evidence from an absolute sense of obligation to advise the truth, there was no hint of her evidence being coloured by desired outcome: a trait which can often arise in cases where protagonists are as polarised as in the situation before me. Mrs and Miss [H] are to be commended for their honesty, insight, compassion and gentle presentation of their recollections of circumstances. There was no point at which I held any doubt about the accuracy of their evidence.

I’m pretty sure Mrs H and Miss H did not feel bullied in the court – probably because they didn’t lie to it.

And so what did the Judge find:

When Oranga Tamariki became involved for [GW], she was in very poor state: her teeth were so decayed that a dentist had to extract the majority of her front teeth. She had a club foot which required surgery to rectify. [JQ] also had rotten teeth which required removal and he was underweight, … In addition to her poor physical condition, it is possible that she may also have been the victim of sexual molestation. She was traumatised by her experiences and by disruption to her developing attachments. She was afraid of males. She was in this state when she was placed with Mr and Mrs [S],

Poor girl.

From the very moment [GW] went into the care of Mr and Mrs [S] she found; love, stability, devotion, nutrition, freedom from family violence and substance abuse. Her medical and emotional needs were and have been consistently met,

Caregivers like Mr and Mrs S do amazing work.

The actions of the social workers from the incident on 8 January 2021 and for the week or so thereafter, were emotionally and psychologically abusive of [GW]. There was no reasonable justification for such extreme actions. The actions were driven more by Oranga Tamariki’s entrenched desire to remove the child from a stable placement than
anything to do with her well-being, objectively measured. … Instead, the most abusive actions have actually been driven by the Ministry and its persistent questioning of a 5-year old child to elicit information supportive of the Ministry’s case.

OT is meant to help children, not harm them.

The final decision by the Judge seemed very pragmatic. The caregivers are given custody of Moana. The Maori parents who were willing to look after her were given guardian status so they are involved with decision making. Mrs and Miss H are also given access, so Moana will have many adults caring for her, but in the custody of the caregivers who have done such a good job these last three years.

If you have time, read the entire 145 page judgment and it will be crystal clear why OT went running to the heads of benches complaining about the Judge, They got caught out not just lying to the court, but breaking disclosure requirements on multiple occasions. No wonder they were having a bruising time in court – but that was the fault of OT, not the Judge.

It staggers me that the two bench heads would listen to the complaints from OT, and decide they had substance, and would intervene with Judge Callinicos before the case was completed.

A guest post by Larry Mitchell:

Why, in writing to my Pakeha friends, do I need to think twice before mentioning that next week, we celebrate the beautiful, mellifluous, musical, often tear-jerking (think National Anthem/Haka/”Pokare”) … experience of and respect for our Maori-Te Reo language? 

A taonga (treasure) and yes … an Official Language of Aotearoa-New Zealand.

Now there are several words in the above sentences that will raise the hackles of some of my friends and coupled with my need to ‘think twice” both indicate some rather hidebound out-dated sensitivities. 

Well to hell with it, enough of the sensitivities.

The objectors, always in my experience, older white people, are currently  pushing against an inevitable tide for further Maori language enrichment of our conversations.  

Consider also how many Maori words are increasingly becoming an accepted part of our vernacular? … count to 100 for starters. It ain’t likely to stop folks.

I believe that Te Reo is a unique gift to all New Zealanders, a gift because of its ability to say things in a unique Kiwi way, a way that we all can understand and treasure. 

This notion of a gift though, comes often in the face of resistance from Pakeha/White people, people who may never  have stopped to ponder the language’s beauty, its sounds and the feel of spoken Maori in its fullest significance. Whether this is on a Marae, at a funeral (Tangi), or just by adding meaning for its place in our Pacific way of life, “here”  … “not over there”. 

Take the word “Mana” as an example. Note:  “I” use a caps “M” intentionally, such is the significance of the word itself. The word is in widespread use here in New Zealand, by all ethnicities, because “we get  it” .It is a “Big” word freighted with both deep spiritual and common meanings alike. 

And “We” all know what it means. Other languages have no suitable substitute for Mana as they fail to carry the Maori word’s fullest meaning, freighted with all of its significance … of a personal stature, of one’s earned (and inherited) cultural and hierarchal positions, all deserving of respect. 

Word associations and context are often significant. Mana is a word closely connected to Utu (revenge-comeback- “the protection of ones Mana”). However, the word Utu is possibly too brutal and tribal for general use these days. Both are “Big” words but the connection of the two, elevates the meaning and significance of the “Mana” word.  

Mana takes some explaining to a new immigrant or to an overseas visitor.  There seems to be no exact English equivalent (“standing” does not do it Justice) … no word has quite the same power as the fullest meaning … of the Maori word … “Mana”. There are many other Maori words in common usage similar to Mana even if they have become assimilated and are used only due to our general acceptance.   Potae for Hat, Kuri for Dog, Turangawaewae for … a place to stand. 

“Acceptance” of Maori words and language in our conversations and now increasingly in the media are good enough justification are they not for their use?  

We enrich our Kiwi language with more Maori words which often, and tellingly, have no exact English equivalent. Taiaha, Marae, Pounamu and possibly hoha are further examples.This can be a rare thing indeed for improved English spoken word power when the over 65,000? words already in use in the English language are considered.

So where is this headed? For mine … I’m planning to join my son and daughter’s conversational Maori classes this Spring. Maybe you could give the idea some thought too? I sign off with my new “learnings”…  the Maori phrase de jour … 

“Nga mihi nui mahana whanau” 

Translation: … “easy … why don’t   you   do it”.

A guest post by Jonathan Ayling, Free Speech Union Spokesperson:

The development of effective vaccines within twelve months of COVID-19 emerging is of
historic significance, yet it has occurred at a time when many people the world over have
lost faith in traditional institutions and officialdom.

Some are convinced that mass-vaccination is the final component alongside measures like
mask mandates and lockdowns to implement a global totalitarian conspiracy aimed at
acclimatising liberal societies to extreme social control. Others laugh out loud at that notion
and eagerly found a way to skip the queue to acquire a vaccine. In the middle, many just
have questions they want answered before getting vaccinated. Not everyone who has
doubts about getting vaccinated is a tin-hat wearing bumpkin — they might be nervous
about how quickly the vaccine was developed or are sceptical of the motives of big pharma.

Regardless of your stance, it should be patently obvious that shaming the other side into
compliance is a hopeless expectation. While I myself am scheduled to get the vaccine, many
intelligent and educated people now fall into the vaccine-hesitant camp. Shutting down their
genuinely held concerns and classing them as stupid and uneducated goes no way towards
changing their minds or bettering public health outcomes. The good news is that sunlight is
the best disinfectant — free speech allows for bad ideas to be defeated because we get to
know why they are bad.

Access to information is crucial in a pandemic. Here in New Zealand, the 1 pm daily press
conferences have become a ubiquitous feature of lockdown life for many. Kiwis have also
turned to the news media and social media to better understand this new enemy and gain
insights into how best protect themselves. But alongside verified information, they’ve been
bombarded with stories from both sides that have either misinformed or disinformed them.

It has long been said that free speech allows for the truth to be discovered through a fierce
competition of ideas. In a free marketplace of ideas, every idea has the opportunity to be
considered against others. Individuals are then free to make up their own minds and can
choose to accept or reject ideas based on how well they stack up against others. In theory,
free speech allows any idea to enter the marketplace, thus facilitating the search for truth.

But should misinformation be permitted to enter the marketplace? Surely by its very nature
it sends us in the opposite direction we’d want to go on in our search for truth.

Fair enough, but if we decide that misinformation shouldn’t be permitted in the
marketplace, how do we decide, and more importantly, who gets to decide? Perhaps the
government must fact police and censor anything potentially false. But suppressing the flow
of information requires the Government to act increasingly like the Chinese or Russian
regimes. Not only is this something that anyone who relishes living in a free society naturally
resists, but its counterproductive to winning the war of ideas. Measures to censor bad
information only reassure the conspiratorially-minded that their ‘deep state’ world view is
the correct one.

Further, it occurs to me that the fact that government doesn’t always get it right (or more
particularly is sometimes slow to internalise new information). Just last week, Yale
Researcher Dr Anne Wylie told Nine To Noon “Things that are just downright wrong are
being said by the Prime Minister with regards to saliva testing so misinformation amongst
the government prevails.” I’d incline toward saying i) even well-intentioned government is
not foolproof; ii) Insofar as the vaccine hesitant are often suspicious of Government, moves
to control misinformation may do more harm than good; especially as eradicating bad
information (especially on social media) is vastly more difficult than eradicating a virus – and
boy do we know we know how hard that is.

If the end-goal is convincing as many people as possible to get vaccinated, then we must end
the stigmatisation and silencing of those who aren’t on board. Persuasion of the vaccinehesitant
through reason and evidence will do far more to maximise the benefit of
vaccination for our communities than ostracism and silencing.

Claire Trevett writes:

If there was one thing Sir John Key was right about in his critique of the Government’s response to Covid-19, it was his assessment that the MIQ system has become a national embarrassment. …

It falls well short of the Jacinda Ardern’s promise that, no matter what else happened, New Zealanders would always be able to come back.

The latest draw for MIQ slots highlighted that in the process of trying to make the MIQ booking system fairer, it has done the opposite. It has also been very bad PR for the Government.

The new ‘virtual lobby’ system in which people are randomly selected for places in the queue for rooms makes it abundantly clear just how much the demand is outstripping the supply.

For two rounds now, there have been more than 30,000 in that lobby – 10 times the number of rooms available. Even when the rooms for the rest of the year have been drip-fed out, there will be at least 20,000 left wanting.

And being able to return home to you country of citizenship is not a privilege. It is a basic human right.

News.com.au reports:

It’s political correctness to the supreme.

The American Civil Liberties Union is being ripped for a woke tribute to late women’s rights champion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — in which they changed her words to erase her use of “woman”, “she” and “her”.

The non-profit tweeted the tribute to the “champion” of “gender equality” on Saturday — the first anniversary of her death — saying, “We miss you, RBG. Your legacy lives on in this fight.”

The ACLU then posted one of Ginsburg’s famous quotes, but altered five sections to make women “people” and all pronouns “they” or “their”.

“The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a [person’s] life, to [their] wellbeing and dignity,” the altered quote read, hiding Ginsburg’s original use of “woman” and “her”.

It’s one thing to decide for yourself what names to use, but to edit a famous quote is Orwellian.

The Taxpayers Union reveals NZ on Air has just announced grants for 110 journalists to be funded by the Government. The split includes:

• Stuff: 20
• Radio NZ: 20
• NZME: 20
• Maori TV: 7

NZ on Air will only basically fund organisations that agree to their woke viewpoint on the Treaty (you have to agree with the left view that it created a partnership rather than the right view that it was about property rights) so this will lead to 110 left leaning journalists who all share the same basic viewpoint as parties of the left. It’s not that these 110 extra journalists will be consciously biased towards the Government. It is that they will share the same worldview and just naturally be sympathetic to it, and hostile to viewpoints outside their worldview.

The September 2021 Roy Morgan is out.

Party Vote

• Labour 45.5% (+6.0% from August)
• National 23.0% (-2.0%)
• Greens 9.5% (-2.5%)
• ACT 16.0% (+3.0%)
• Maori 2.0% (-0.5%)
• NZ First 1.5% (-1.0%)

Seats

• Labour 57 (-8 from election)
• National 29 (-4)
• Greens 12 (+2)
• ACT 20 (+10)
• Maori 2 (nc)

Governments

• Labour/Green 69/120
• National/ACT 41/120

Direction

• Right 57.0% (+4.5%)
• Wrong 32.0% (-5.5%)

The Roy Morgan poll is conducted over the entire month, so it includes periods where National was having problems (earlier on) and where Labour has struggled (later on).

But hard to escape it is a pretty good poll for Labour and a poor one for National. ACT in this poll is now just 7% behind National and they would gain 10 extra MPs and National lose four MPs if this was an election result.

With the Government finally admitting it has abandoned elimination strategy, it will be the October polls of more interest.

A large gender gap remains. National/ACT is 2% ahead of Labour/Greens with men but a massive 34% behind with women. Of interest is that with male voters ACT is now only 3% behind National.

The PM announced a series of so called steps for Auckland. It is not even clear how these steps fit into the Covid alert levels and whether they would then lead to Level 2 or Level 1. Basically they are:

• Step 1 – from Wednesday Aucklanders can gp hunting, visit a beach and merge two bubbles together for a maximum size of 10. Also ECE returns.
• Step 2 – at some unknown time based on unknown criteria Aucklanders will be able to go to the zoo or a pool and have groups of up to 25 outside. Retail allowed again.
• Step 3 – at some unknown time based on unknown criteria hospitality will open with a limit of 50

So what has reaction been like:

The Greens have said:

The Green Party says the Government’s planned roadmap for Auckland risks the safety of vulnerable communities and children.

Not so happy are they.

This meme on Facebook sums it up well.

So as far as I can tell it looks like Auckland will be in Level 3 for months, but they may get to go hunting or go to the zoo!

Ben Thomas writes:

In the excitement over North Korea expert Sir John Key’s column this week, another quite remarkable opinion piece went largely unnoticed.

A newspaper column by Phil Grady, acting Deputy Director of Mental Health and Addiction, one of the top-ranking public servants at the Ministry of Health, praised the new mental health strategy launched by his minister, Andrew Little.

It was a “once-in-a-generation” initiative, and gave him “genuine hope for the future of the country’s wellbeing”.

Grady’s language, coming from a member of the public or from a mental health lobby group, would seem merely enthusiastic, rather than the over-the-top oratory of the DPRK. Coming from a public servant it was nonetheless quite out of the ordinary. …

Their role is to advise on and to implement the government’s (in the sense of the elected politicians, the prime minister and her Cabinet) policy. Part of that implementation may include explaining and informing about government policy, but it should not include arguing for it in public or offering personal praise.

Following that logic, what would Grady do if a new government was elected, with a different mental health policy? Would he praise it as even better? Would he write a column criticising his new minister? The issues become obvious.

Excellent points by Ben Thomas.

Senior public servants shouldn’t be writing op eds in newspapers praising their Minister and saying their strategy gives them hope for the future of the country. It both sycophantic and inappropriate.

Barrister Tony Ellis has lodged a further complaint with the Judicial Conduct Commissioner after the preliminary report to his initial complaint regarding the alleged interference by the heads of the district and family courts in a case involving Oranga Tamariki. What is revealed in the complaint is staggering and will absolutely shake your faith in the establishment. It reveals a major rift in the judiciary with no fewer than 60 Judges approaching Judge Callicinos appalled by the behaviour of the heads of benches towards him, including the Chief Justice. Just think about that – around one quarter of the judiciary is alarmed by what has happened – but are unable to speak publicly on it.

Normally I would try and summarise an external document, but Ellis has made the case so well and strongly, I would do it a disservice if I did. So it is embedded below for you to read.

I am in 100% agreement with Dr Ellis. That is probably a rare thing. He is a liberal activist lawyer. I am pretty conservative on law and order issues. As a conservative I tend to have higher trust in the system and institutions. Before this case, I would have said I had huge trust in the Office of the Judicial Conduct Commission, as I have had in the Inspector-Generals for Police and Intelligence etc.

But this cases has exposed rottenness. It is important, as it is about judicial independence, and about an incredibly powerful government agency whose staff are found to have lied in court, using back door lunches to try and pressure the Judge to go softer on them.

I am going to be blogging a series of pieces on this, to explain in detail the multiple multiple wrong doings from secret lunches, to smearing a Judge without even interviewing him etc. I should also state for the record that before this case came to light, I didn’t even know Judge Callinicos existed. Actually the one person I do know in this case is Sir Wira Gardiner the former acting head of OT, and I have huge huge regard for him as a person and for his abilities. So I am going against my own friendships here by the stance I take on this case.

I also want to make clear this is not a left vs right issue. Everyone should be alarmed by the events that have unfolded here. There shouldn’t be anyone who thinks that a powerful government agency should be able to exert pressure on a Judge in a case that is going badly for them via secret lunches with heads of benches.

Judicial Indep HOB 03-10-21 by David Farrar on Scribd

Stuff reports:

Billy Te Kahika Jr can now be revealed as the latest man charged with filing false candidate donations and obtaining a total of $15,000 by deception.

The former co-leader of the Advance New Zealand party was charged in September. On Monday his lawyer, Paul Borich QC, confirmed name suppression could now lapse for Te Kahika and not guilty pleas have been entered.

Te Kahika is charged with causing a loss valued at $10,000 to another person, by deception and without claim of right, between July and August 2020.

He is further charged with obtaining ownership of a pecuniary advantage – namely $5000 – by deception and without claim of right in August 2020.

As I understand it, the SFO are basically alleging he pocketed donations intended for one of his political parties. The details will come out in trial, and of course accusation is not guilt.

Will be an interesting trial, when it proceeds.

Tracy Watkins writes:

New Zealand, we need to talk about MIQ.

We all know it’s broken. The good news is that there are a lot of smart people out there who believe it can work a lot better. But the biggest obstacle to fixing it may be you.

It’s not just that it’s a cruel and inhumane lottery that keeps families and friends and loved ones apart while the Wiggles are waved through; or that it’s cut us off from the rest of the world – or even that it has become a convenient excuse for kicking the can down the road on critical economic decisions.

There’s two key problems with MIQ. The first is that incomprehensibly the Government refuses to increase the supply of rooms. If supply was allowed to meet demand, then there would be no allocation problem.

The second is that there is no prioritisation. Unless you are The Wiggles or a famous sportsperson you have to take your luck with the MIQ lottery. Someone wanting to return home to see a dying relative is treated the same as someone who decided to go overseas on a holiday and now wants to return.

There has been no shortage of ideas from New Zealand’s most innovative thinkers on how to improve the system, while still keeping people safe.

But those ideas all go seem to go nowhere. Why? They keep hitting the same wall of bureaucratic and government inertia. There is no political will to make MIQ work better – and that’s because there is no public appetite to open the tap, even with safeguards.

Whenever change is proposed, or the Government’s models questioned, an angry mob steps in to shout it down as treason.

Whatever happened to the number 8 wire Kiwi? Or are they all stranded overseas?

Sadly, maybe.

A reader writes in:

There seems to be something ugly going on in the latest adverse events reporting from the Covid vaccine in New Zealand.

In the latest week of data (to 4th September) 14 people are reported as dying after vaccination (an increase of 35% in a single week).  The total number of people reported as having died after vaccination in NZ is now 54 (double the number of those who have officially died from the virus).  The figure has more than doubled in the last 4 weeks of reporting (from 26 to 54 deaths).

602 adverse events are classified as serious.  These include life-threatening and/or life-changing events such as strokes, heart attacks, DVTs, thromboses and embolisms, acute liver and kidney injuries, and Guillain-Barre’ syndrome.

There have been 4,615 adverse events reports in the last 2 weeks of data alone, an increase of 42% in the cumulative total since 1st March.  This is 5 times higher than the previous average of adverse events reported per week.

Data may be found here: https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/vaccine-report-overview.asp

The swine flu vaccine was stopped in the USA after I think 50 reported deaths.

I believe we are now at the point where the adverse reaction data show a disproportionate amount of death and harm in relation to the deaths and harm caused by the virus (very few people are reported as dying in the current Auckland outbreak).  I do not know what is the tolerance of the government for deaths, disablements and other harm from the vaccine (except that it appears to be high).  No vaccine or medicine is safe in absolute terms, it can only be safe relative to other things (e.g. to the effects of a disease).

I have no axe to grind. David, you are used to working with stats.  Why don’t you put to one side your oft-stated love of the vaccine (I have no problem with that – these are personal decisions) and crunch the numbers dispassionately yourself?

I’m blogging the e-mail and response, because I think it is important to respond to people’s concerns.

Medsafe produce excellent weekly reports on adverse events. This is excellent transparency. The latest one is here. They show that there have been a total of 18,0777 adverse events following immunisation, of which 666 are classified as serious.

The most common non serious AEFIs are dizziness, headaches, pain at injection site, lethargy and nausea.

There have been 60 deaths of people within three weeks of receiving the Covid-19 vaccine. The Independent Safety Monitoring Board reviews those deaths and has found one is likely due to the vaccine. 27 are not thought to be linked, 10 can’t be assessed due to lack of information and 22 are still under investigation.

So one is linked, 27 are probably not, 10 we don’t know and 22 are under investigation. Now 60 deaths sounds like a lot but 720,000 people have had their first dose and 455,000 their second. Even if all 60 deaths were linked (they are not) then it is a 0.005% fatality rate. Or 1 in 20,000.

But as the Medsafe report shows the natural death rate for people over a three week period is in fact greater than the 60 who have died. Normally there would be almost 1,000 deaths for the population dosed in a three week period and in fact there were only 750. So there is no reason to think the deaths are linked, as if they were you would expect excess deaths.

We only know of one confirmed death. That is a 1 in 1.2 million rate. Even if you somehow believe all 60 are linked (they are not) it is 1 in 20,000.

There are some significant serious adverse effects. They include heart attacks, thrombosis, kidney injury, strikes and arthritis. They will seriously affect your quality of life.

There have been 666 of them. So that is around one person in 1,700 has a serious side-effect. This is not zero. It is low, but not zero. No one should be claiming vaccines are entirely risk free. No medicine is.

All the adverse effects information is public (as it should be).

So how do the adverse effects of the vaccine compare to adverse effects of Covid-19? John Hopkins has the case-fatality ratio as ranging from 19% in Yemen to 0.6% in NZ. Globally the average is just over 2%. Now cafe fatality data is not perfect as we undercount both those who die from Covid-19 and those who are infected by it. But these imperfections will not make it anywhere near 0.005% (worst case from the vaccine).

In NZ the death rate from Covid-19 is 118 times greater than the worst possible death rate from the vaccine. And it is 7,000 times greater than the best possible death rate from the vaccine.

How about non fatal but serious impacts? The vaccine has around 1 in 1,700 suffer a serious side effect. Compare that to the 1 in 8 who get Covid-19 and still have symptoms after more than three months. I prefer 1 in 1700 to 1 in 8.

There is an age component to this. The older you are the more likely it is Covid-19 will kill you or give you serious damage. The younger you are, the less likely this is. That is why at this stage the vaccine is only approved for those aged 12 or older.

So it is great we have such thorough data on adverse effects, but nothing I have seen in it makes me thinks the risks of the vaccine are even in the same ballpark as the risks from getting Covid-19.