This (now deleted) tweet from Maori Party co-leader Rawiri Waititi proclaims caucasians as an archaic species that is becoming extinct.

As of 8 am Thursday I have not seen it reported in a single media outlet.

Now imagine an ACT MP had sent a tweet where he or she said Maori are an archaic species that is becoming extinct. Do you think there would be no reporting of that?

On the contrary media would be camped outside the ACT Party offices demanding to know if the MP has yet been sacked. It would be leading every news bulletin in the country.

Now to make it clear, I think Waititi’s tweet is stupid, not harmful. My issue is the double standard.

UPDATE:

Hilariously the tweet is now being blamed on a junior staffer. When National used that line around a petition being removed from a website (and staffers are far more likely to be running a website than tweeting on behalf of an MP) it led to weeks of stories mocking them, and demands that the staffer be identified etc.

But it’s now almost 11 am and still not a single story on the tweet.

Stuff reports:

The Government’s own Unite against Covid-19 page appears to contradict the prime minister’s claims a worker at KFC Botany broke the rules when she was required to isolate.

Case L, who is a sibling of a Papatoetoe High School student (Case I) who tested positive, went to work at KFC in Botany Downs on February 22 and 23, then tested positive three days later while in quarantine.

She believes she was unfairly singled out by the prime minister for not self-isolating, and said she was given official advice to the contrary. …

But when the subject was raised on the Unite against Covid-19 Facebook page on February 26, a response in the comments section from the Covid-19 team said Case L was not required to isolate at the time.

This was because there was no advice at that stage for household members of casual plus contacts at the school to self-isolate or get a test.

“The family complied with the advice they were given at the time,” the post read.

The Unite Against Covid-19 page is run by the Department of PM and Cabinet.

So DPMC says Case L did not break the rules while the PM says she did.

Who do we believe?

Stuff reports:

A Hutt City councillor found in “material and serious” breach of standards has been sent a letter signed by nine others around the council table calling for his resignation.

“We have completely lost confidence in you as a Hutt City councillor, and ask that you resign from your role as a Hutt City councillor immediately,” the letter, obtained by Stuff, sent to councillor Chris Milne said on February 24.

Responding on Tuesday, Milne said he would not resign.

Mayor Campbell Barry, as well as Deputy Mayor Tui Lewis and seven councillors – Simon Edwards, Josh Briggs, Andy Mitchell, Naomi Shaw, Deborah Hislop, Brady Dyer, and Keri Brown – all signed the letter calling for Milne’s resignation.

Milne on Tuesday sent Stuff the response – signed by him as well as councillors Leigh Sutton and David Bassett – denying the claims against him and calling for Barry to stand down, so an investigation could be made into allegations about him.

This is basically a group of Crs trying to bully off Council a Cr whose politics are different to them, because he seeks to hold the Mayor and Chief Executive to account.

Cr Milne’s letter is on his Facebook page and raises serious issues.

Personally I think code of conducts for Councils should be abolished. They just allow one group of Crs to sanction what others can do or say. Let the voters decide if they like how a Cr behaves.

If voters in his ward in Lower Hutt don’t like how Cr Milne does his job, then they won’t vote for him. But having a group of Crs trying to force another Cr off Council looks self serving.

A guest post by Melissa Lee MP:

There is an elephant in the room right now for the media and I’m not sure they want to talk about it. They have just received $55 million towards ‘sustainable public interest journalism’. This is in addition to the extra $50+million in different pots received last year during the pandemic for Government contracts and transmission fees as well as of course the ongoing access to increased crown funding already in place prior to the pandemic from both National and Labour Governments towards NZ on Air, RNZ and other community broadcasting and media initiatives.  This is putting aside normal COVID-19 relief options to businesses at large, additional funding for the screen sector which will inevitably cross over to wider media organisations as well as countless other sources of opportunity to take a turn at the chisel hacking into new streams of Crown Revenue as opposed to seeking that revenue from audiences.

The clarion call sounds straight forward enough. Digital media (whatever this means in 2021) is taking away audiences and reducing revenue leaving media organisations without the means to carry on without Government intervention. Those from ‘Private media’ (whatever this means in 2021) claim they don’t get fair standing compared to that RNZ as a non-commercial state broadcaster and TVNZ, as a Crown-owned entity can achieve and I think they do have a fair point particularly when RNZ has been stepping into media spaces some would see as outside it’s remit even a decade ago and TVNZ has an, at best, ambiguous justification for continuing in its current state being owned by the Crown. We know the Minister is working on an RNZ/TVNZ merger which is of course going to end in tears, a lot of wasted money and no real solution for the question of what public broadcasting and media should look like in Aotearoa and that is just a small part of the landscape.

National at the 2020 election proposed to start afresh on a comprehensive review of our media sector, something that in the Ministers own briefing papers barely got a paragraph of mention, astonishing considering it was a keystone of their Broadcasting policy during the last Parliament and several more reviews, working groups and Ministerial Advisory panels around this sector have since been appointed and I am sure they are all talking across each other and not going anywhere.

I am also sure this is all happening on your tax dollars.

I’m actively beginning my own review of the media sector this year and hoping to get to communities like yours soon to talk face to face with everyone from industry stakeholders to ordinary kiwis about how they think our sector should operate because as much ‘fun’ as it can be talked about the problems in our public and private media sectors we also need to be aware there is so much potential, expertise and vision there too. Our Media agencies are winning awards globally in both private and public media spheres and this should not be discounted. We have to uplift and sharpen those talents and ensure if your tax dollars are used, that they are used competently, to provide the services all New Zealanders expect.

We also need to have a frank discussion about media independence. When too many people talk about ‘Red Radio’ on one side, and wanting to see key media and public figures de-platformed in private media on the other, we are at an impasse as New Zealanders decide on what we agree should be allowed ‘on the air’ and actually whether we want it taxpayer funded. We are actually at an impasse on what we consider ‘public interest’. A lot of the grievances recently are that our public media isn’t listening to all public voices, that it is leaning in one political direction and it’s not just RNZ. Concerns are being raised that NZ on Air isn’t funding or interested in public interest media from all partisan spheres. I raised these concerns directly with their CEO and we had a good and constructive conversation. I honestly don’t think the issue necessarily lies with NZ on Air itself. Coming away from that meeting, it feels more systematic as to whether those who NZ on Air work with are willing to raise those public voices and indeed whether those voices want to access the large pots of taxpayer dollars that both National-led and Labour Governments alike have provided to support diverse kiwi content from music to script to factual stories and more. What doesn’t help this situation is the effective politicisation of the NZ on Air Board and for that matter other Public Media Agencies.

Questions have been raised about the political activities of members of the board of NZ on Air and other media entities and these are fair questions when dealing with crown entities and Ministerial discretion exists for their appointment. It becomes even more disquieting when those appointed have a Governance role in the agencies that ultimately are funded to tell our stories and evaluate the news, let alone write it. The issue isn’t isolated either to Governance roles, the issue has shown in recent years also in senior executive roles or prominent media figures (I disclose in a past life some kind-hearted soul may have considered me in this category) seeking high office or positions of political influence. Earlier this week I read about David Farrar’s concept for an independent commission and consultation on appointing public broadcasting leadership in consultation with the opposition, I’m unsure if this is the best approach as it would lead to us all paying for yet another regulatory authority in all likelihood with the same result but I’m open to the conversation. When I say National wants that comprehensive all-encompassing media review we mean it, no holds barred.

So the questions really I want to put to you are will the $55million being offered for public interest journalism be ring-fenced from some, will there be interference or even the inference of interference like we saw in the last Parliament; and, when they say [The fund] will be open to all media entities; from large media organisations through to small, local entities, Māori, Pacific and ethnic media do they mean it and how fairly will it be given. Is this and the $50million during the Pandemic enough to make any media agency second-guess themselves before committing to a story, is this enough to scuttle or even delay through backchannels or in-house bureaucratic processes a story or a project that could impact the hand that feeds or perhaps the future of the pot of gold itself. I don’t like putting these questions and I am reluctant to do so because I do believe in the core good of the concept of an independent value for money crown supported public interest media. The reason I’m sharing this opinion is because I’m not hearing these questions being raised from the media itself.

I wonder if they’ll have the strength to ask them themselves, I’m keen to hear the answers.

Naku noa na,

MELISSA LEE MP
National Member of Parliament
National Spokesperson for –
Broadcasting & Media| Digital Economy and Communications | Ethnic Communities

A US legal blog writes:

We all realize what a catastrophe it was for RBG to choose to try to hang on until 2021. This isn’t 20/20 hindsight: many people said back in 2014, when the Democrats still controlled both the presidency and the Senate, that she was making a huge and selfish mistake, and indeed she was.

There’s remarkably little attention being given at the moment to Stephen Breyer’s failure to resign immediately upon Joe Biden’s inauguration, which is arguably an even bigger and more selfish mistake.

It’s simply delusional to think that the Democrats are certain to control the Senate for the next 22 months. If you look at American history, it’s not at all unusual for the party makeup of the Senate to shift over the course of a Congress. At the present moment, when Democrats have a numerical advantage of zero senators, and the average age of the caucus is approximately 107, the possibility of a disastrous sudden shift in the makeup of the body is greatly magnified.

The average age isn’t quite 107 but it is a good point that the one seat majority in the Senate may not last two years.

 DTGstl314 points out in comments that there are seven Democratic senators over the age of 70 representing states where Republicans would pick a successor in the case of a pre-election vacancy!

Breyer is 82 years old.

In the Senate there are five Senators in their 80s and 22 in their 70s.

But of course no one can make Breyer retire. So the ball is in his court.

Stuff reports:

A single mum from Tauranga still can’t find a place to call home, despite applying for more than 130 rentals.

A reader writes in:

Stuff/ SunLive from the Bay of Plenty covers the story of a young solo mum’s frustration at not being able to find a rental property, with properties becoming unavailable for unknown reasons after she was shown the flat.

It’s especially saddening because the young lady is a solo mum, and obviously would like to give her baby boy a better chance at life instead of living in a spare room at her parent’s place.

It all seems very strange that she is getting short shrift, and the media can’t seem to shed any light on the reason why she isn’t getting very far with landlords.

But a quick amount of homework, the kind a landlord might do, shows us that the young mum’s Facebook page has photos of a person who looks like her standing next to a motorcycle gang member (judging by the patches, the gang is The Greazy Dogs, located in the BOP)

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155806733671493&set=pb.672431492.-2207520000..&type=3

Now, maybe that photo isn’t the young woman, and maybe the photo is random and the people in the photo are unknown to her, but it’s perhaps not wise to post random photos of patched gang members on your Facebook page if you are looking to get hired for a job, or looking to put your best foot forward with a landlord.

It would also be unwise to suggest landlords could be bigoted against solo mums when maybe they are more worried about people having gang connections.

So could the media please do some basic homework when a sob story comes in the door complaining about how hard it is to rent a property?

It does seem common sense not to have photos of gang members on your social media, if you are trying to rent a flat.

I hope she is successful at finding a flat soon.

This post is about what is the best way for New Zealand to achieve its stated goal of net zero emissions by 2050.

It is not about whether temperatures are rising (they are).

It is not about whether greenhouse gas emissions are principally responsible (they are, but there is some doubt over the strength of the relationship)

It is not about whether we should have a target of net zero by 2050 (highly debatable, and depends on if big emitters reduce emissions).

It is purely about having had Parliament vote for a target of net zero by 2050, what is the best way to get there. By best way, I mean the way that has the lowest economic cost of New Zealand families and businesses.

There are broadly three paths you can choose:

1. An Emissions Trading Scheme
2. No ETS, and lots and lots of policies for every sector of the economy
3. An ETS and lots and lots of policies for every sector of the economy

In my opinion, they are in order of desirability. The best option is an ETS. The worst option is an ETS and policies. The middle option would be no ETS. I’ll explain why.

ETS

The detail of an Emissions Trading Scheme can be very complex. But the principle is very simple. Another name for them is a cap and trade scheme.

You require people to purchase “credits” for any significant emissions of greenhouse gases. You cap the number of credits and reduce that cap over time.

In 2018 NZ had 56 Mt of CO2 equivalent. By 2050 it needs to be zero. So you reduce the cap by 1.75 Mt a year. As you reduce the cap the price goes up.

They key aspect is the trade. By allowing businesses to trade, it means that each and every business (and household) can make a decision about how best to respond to the increasing cost of emitting greenhouse gases.

Individual businesses will make decisions on issues such as whether or not to use electric cars, to travel by plane as often. Individual households will also decide on when it becomes economic to get an electric car, to insulate their house to reduce higher power bills etc.

The benefit of the ETS is certainty and flexibility. If you set a cap and have it reduce, then you will be on track to meet your target, so long as it includes all sectors. But you don’t have the Government deciding for every business and household how they meet that target.

By say 2035 I would expect the cost of petrol to be very high due to the ETS. The majority of New Zealanders will probably be purchasing electric cars. But if a family decides they still want to use a petrol car (say because they only have one car in the household and do shift work and don’t have time to charge an e-car) then they can still use a petrol car – they will just be paying more for it, and elsewhere in the economy someone else will reduce emissions because there is a cap.

The current ETS is not massively effective because politicians have wanted to shelter businesses and households from costs so you have issues around initial free credits, whether all sectors are in, can you trade internationally etc. But these can be changed. A comprehensive ETS with a continually reducing cap will reach net zero, and do so in a way which lets individual businesses and households decide what to do.

Non-ETS Policies

If for some reason a country doesn’t want to have an ETS, then an alternative is to have scores of policies to reduce emissions. In every sector the Government will decide what should be done. It will ban petrol car imports. It will ban coal burners. It will ban natural gas exploration. It will mandate a reduction in dairy cow numbers. It will require every source of electricity to be non-emitting etc etc.

These will reduce emissions. But not as well as an ETS. Sometimes they may even increase them, due to unforeseen consequences. If you ban natural gas, then coal imports go up. If you ban petrol car imports from a certain date, there might be a huge increase in car imports just prior to then.

Another problem with sector policies is it has the Government deciding centrally for everyone.

Also the cost of reducing emissions can be far far higher with pick and mix policies than an ETS. One estimate is that the cost of reducing a tonne of emissions under the ETS is $38 while some non-ETS policies will have a cost of $1,500 per tonne of reduction.

So a pick and mix of policies will reduce emissions in the absence of an ETS. It will cost more, have less flexibility and less certainty of hitting your target, but it will have some impact.

ETS and non-ETS policies

This is by far the worst option, and not even close. If you have an ETS with a reducing cap, then by definition all these other policies will not reduce emissions any further – not by one gram. If you ban petrol cars, then suddenly there is a surplus of credits and other sectors will emit more as there are more credits available.

Doing an ETS and non-ETS policies means you will not reduce any emissions beyond what the ETS is capped at, but you will impose much higher costs on the economy and remove choice and flexibility from businesses and households.

Sadly this is what both the Government and the Climate Change Commission is saying what we should do.

Politicians like to be able to announce policies so it looks like they are doing something. Just having a well functioning ETS that reduces emissions doesn’t get you into the media every week. But the reality is all these announcements will not reduce emissions any further than the cap in the ETS.

Now again this is not a debate about the temperature, the science or even the target. It is purely about how best to meet the target Parliament has agreed.

A properly functioning ETS is the equivalent of going hard and going early. It will achieve greater reductions at an earlier stage and for less cost.

This is what the the Government should commit to. Everything else is basically window dressing.

Newshub reports:

The COVID positive KFC worker, known as Case L, has told Newshub she’s upset the Prime Minister told the country she should have been self-isolating, as the official advice she got was that she didn’t need to.

She says she and her family have been ridiculed online, and wants an apology.

Case L tested positive on Friday February 26 after being shifted to quarantine with her family. She had attended work on Tuesday February 22.

When asked whether Case L should have been isolating rather than working, the Prime Minister answered: “Look, yes they should have”. …

Case L, the KFC worker said not only did she not receive any information from anyone instructing her to isolate, the information her sister, Case I, received was the complete opposite of what officials have claimed.

On February 14, Case I, received a text message stating: “casual contacts to isolate and test – their families don’t need to”.

Case L saw this message – so went to work. They’ve since been harassed online. …

The Prime Minister’s Office said letters from public health were sent to the family on the 17th and 19th telling the household they needed to be tested. 

But case L’s family said such advice was never received. 

“If they tried to contact us multiple times and send us letters and stuff, where is this evidence?” She said.

It is concerning that the Government is saying something very different to the Case L.

I wouldn’t jump to assumptions over who is correct. Surely what should occur is a public release of all communications between government agencies and Case L and Case I. Then we can judge for ourselves.

Heritage NZ said:

Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga has recognised the exceptional significance of three Wellington historic places. These noteworthy buildings, built throughout the 20th century, are now Category 1 historic places on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero (‘the List’). …

McLean Flats and Gordon Wilson Flats, built in 1943-44 and 1957-59 respectively to provide state rental housing, are of outstanding significance for the way they exhibit how Modernism became a characteristic approach in New Zealand’s mid-20th century public architecture, and together reflect the evolution in Modern design before and after World War Two. They represent a period of optimism and determination to transform society through architecture. The Gordon Wilson Flats is the country’s sole remaining example of 1950s high-rise state housing and is therefore uniquely placed to demonstrate that chapter of New Zealand’s response to the need for housing. As examples of the state exploring different models of housing density, both blocks of flats make interesting contributions to current debates about provision of housing and urban spatial planning in New Zealand.

The flats listed are ugly eyesores. They look like they were imported from the former Soviet Union.

Deadline reports:

In Virginia, they do not like green eggs and ham, or Dr. Seuss.

The good Dr. Seuss, aka Theodor Geisel, has been dropped from the annual ‘Read Across America’ event, a national day to encourage reading. Dr. Seuss books have long been a staple of the program.

Dr. Seuss, a major supplier of content for television and film through such characters as The Grinch, the Cat in the Hat, and Horton Hears a Who, was banned because his books allegedly have “strong racial undertones,” according to the school system.

More madness.

I’m proud to say I have every Dr Suess book and regularly read them to the kids.

Stuff reports:

Lockdowns are the Government’s primary tool for cracking down on Covid-19 clusters that are deemed to be spreading beyond control. And, until Saturday, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern had never flip-flopped on a lockdown decision.

But exactly a year after the first Covid-19 case in New Zealand was discovered, Ardern for the first time ordered Auckland back into lockdown for the same cluster which Cabinet felt was under control after a three-day lockdown more than a week earlier.

That’s an interesting point. This is our fourth lockdown and the other three were all for new outbreaks. This is the first lockdown which is for the same cluster as a previous lockdown. It is the first lockdown flip-flop.

Susan Edmonds writes:

When the Government released a video this week revealing it had put 12 families into newly built homes through its progressive homeownership scheme, it generated a few double-takes.

“Transformational stuff on top of the raging success of KiwiBuild,” one Twitter user commented.

National didn’t need to make any more attack ads, another said, the party could just reproduce the Labour-created advertisement and allow the Government to take a shot at itself.

That’s not a bad idea. National could pay to spread the Labour ad further!

But 12 families in seven months – one-and-a-half each a month (ish) – how can that really be a success?

In the month of January alone 4957 houses changed hands for almost 20 per cent more than the year before and it’s estimated that house prices will rise more than 50 per cent in the first two terms of the Labour Government.

An excellent contrast.

In 2014 our Trust took up the challenge to improve education outcomes for some South Auckland children through the establishment of South Auckland Middle School (SAMS) for Years 7 – 10.

This is our long term NCEA data for students who have spent at least 1 year in that  school before going into another school for years 11 – 13.

– 85% of these children achieved Level 1 NCEA. (Decile 1 & 2 school leavers average is 78% L1 or above). This result is 17% above the nearest high school.

– 76% of these children achieved Level 2 NCEA. (Decile 1 & 2 school leavers average is 64% L2 or above). This result is 25% above the nearest high school.

– 45% of these children achieved Level 3 NCEA. (Decile 1& 2 school leavers average is 34% L2 or above). This result is 20% above the nearest high school.

These numbers are going up quickly over time as there are now cohorts out there who have spent the full 4 years with us. I also expect them to actually be better when I re-check the data in April as some schools have extensions for loading 2020 credits. The NCEA results could all go up by 3 – 5 % and to trend up in the Covid year shows the exceptional effort and quality of work put in.

SAMS also had attendance at 90% (with only 4.5% coded “unjustified/truant”) – despite the Covid disruptions/uncertainty. SAMS and had only one suspension/expulsion in 2020.

The Middle School West Auckland academic data is still in process but is trending in a very similar direction. Children at both schools combine to be 90% Maori or Pasifika and decile 1.

We are currently considering proposing to Corrections and the Minister placing a version of our school model into prisons to try and provide a genuine academic/learning base that would then allow inmates to access the qualifications levels on offer. Our model is both transferable and can be scaled.

Why? Because of the data/information below.

Corrections data has:

– 70% of released Under 20s – re-imprisoned within 48 months.

– 67% of released 20 – 24 year olds re-imprisoned within 48 months.

– 62% of released 25 – 29 years olds re-imprisoned within 48 months.

https://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/research/reconviction-patterns-of-released-prisoners-a-48-months-follow-up-analysis/re-imprisonment-rates-by-age-at-release

“Educational and employment opportunities are hampered by literacy levels lower than the general population. As many as 70% of those in prison have significant literacy problems. There is clear evidence that participation in prison literacy and education programmes (especially those with a vocational focus), is associated with higher post-release employment and lower recidivism (7% to 46% reduction in recidivism across different meta-studies depending on study and outcome measure).

It is now well understood that prisons act as recruitment centres for gangs (especially for young offenders) and underpin the illegal drug trade. Imprisonment leaves those incarcerated with high rates of undiagnosed and untreated alcohol/drug addictions and mental illness. They have a negative impact on the next generation, given that a high percentage of people in prison are parents. These issues disproportionately affect Māori.”

https://www.pmcsa.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/Using-evidence-to-build-a-better-justice-system.pdf

[My note: Parental educational outcomes and perceptions are currently a driving determinant of many school outcomes.]

From corrections:

“Research shows that participation in education and employment can significantly reduce the risk of re-offending following release from prison. Educational achievement is also important in enabling offenders to fully participate and benefit from other rehabilitative programmes.

Many prisoners lack the necessary literacy and numeracy skills and qualifications and work experience to gain and sustain employment after their release.

We estimate that approximately 57% of prisoners do not have NCEA Level One Literacy and Numeracy Competency, and that these learners are also likely to have few or no formal qualifications.”

https://www.corrections.govt.nz/working_with_offenders/prison_sentences/employment_and_support_programmes/education_and_training

[My note: The Literacy and Numeracy bar is NZ’s lowest qualifications bar:

Literacy requirement

Minimum of 10 credits through either:

• Specified assessment standards – specified assessment standards available through a range of subjects including English for Academic Purposes unit standards 22749, 22750 and 22751 (minimum total of 10 credits); OR
• Unit standards – package of three literacy unit standards (total of 10 credits
   – all three required).

Numeracy requirement

Minimum of 10 credits through either:

• Achievement standards – specified assessment standards available through a range of subjects – (minimum total of 10 credits);OR
• Unit standards – package of three numeracy unit standards (total of 10 credits – all three required).]

“Early alternative environments and prosocial links (e.g., through sports, education, cultural and youth groups etc.) are recommended for children and young people, especially before age 16 to 19, when gang membership can already be entrenched. There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of gang membership ‘prevention’ programmes per se,  in the absence of dealing with social risk factors.”

https://www.pmcsa.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/Using-evidence-to-build-a-better-justice-system.pdf

My questions:

– how pervasive and effective are the educational opportunities currently available to prisoners (I have read what corrections say they offer?)

– what are the best mechanisms/people to work with to create this opportunity?

– what else should I know & who should I talk to on this topic?

​Alwyn Poole ([email protected])

Villa Education Trust

In September 2017 there were just 4,000 families on the Priority A waiting list for public housing. Labour called this a disgrace. With three years and three months of kindness, the number of families is 20,339.

Shows you what a difference a kind caring Government can make

Just five days after the Government moved Auckland to Level 1, they have now slammed it back to Level 3 as of 6 am Sunday.

Auckland will be locked down for seven days, and the rest of New Zealand will be at Level 2.

My thoughts are with everyone in Auckland. It must be hell for families and businesses coping with such rapid changes.

Three of thr four Governors of the biggest states in the US are in trouble.

The largest state, California, has Governor Gavin Newsom (D) in trouble. His approval rating has dropped from 64% to 48% and he is facing a recall petition.

The organisers have until 17 March to get 1.5 million signatures. They so far have 1.825 million but need a margin as some will not be valid. If they get verified them the recall vote goes ahead and two questions are asked.

1. Should Newsrom be recalled/sacked
2. Who should replace him as Governor

Last recall over 130 candidates were on the ballot which means you can win with a low percentage. Newsom can’t be included in the names, if he loses the first part of the vote.

Texas is the second largest and the loss of life due to power outages during ice storms has hurt Governor Greg Abbott (R). His approval rating has dropped from 56% to 39%. He is facing re-election in 2022.

In New York (4th largest) Governor Andrew Cuomo has multiple scandals ranging from hiding the number of deaths in rest homes to allegations of sexual harassment from a former staffer. He is in his third term and up again in 2022. A recent poll had only 38% saying he should get a 4th term.

So three of the big four Governors all in real trouble, but for very different reasons.

Newshub reports:

Judith Collins is vowing to overturn the “undemocratic” law that scraps the ability for Māori wards to be overturned by a local poll, if National wins the election in 2023. 

The law change was passed in Parliament on Wednesday night under urgency. It was contentious because Labour only gave the public two days to make submissions. 

“The way we elect our councils is a fundamental part of our democracy. This legislation takes away the ability of New Zealanders to have a voice in this decision making,” Collins said after the law passed. 

Excellent to see this pledge. It is outrageous Labour voted to abolish the right of local residents to decide on their electoral system because people had voted the wrong way to what Labpur wanted.

I previously blogged on how the Climate Commission had not released the full model and data for their economic modelling which drove their interim recommendations.

Industry groups, businesses and NGOs need this data so they can both check the Commission’s modelling, but also so they can submit alternative proposals. Without it, the consultation process if fatally wounded.

Yesterday the Climate Commission’s Chair and CEO fronted the Environment Committee, and what they said does not appear to be correct.

The Chair said:

“But I think we have to distinguish what is already available, which is the inputs, the analysis, the sensitivity analysis, the outputs”

I’ve been informed by multiple people this is untrue. The Commission has no published a sensitivity analysis and only some inputs have been published.

The Chair also said:

“I think we do need to be clear, we have always released the assumptions, the body of evidence and the work available on our web site.”

Again I am informed this is not correct. Specifically they have not released the critical marginal abatement costs, and only some of their assumptions.

In response to a question on whether they have released the marginal abatement costs, the CEO said:

“Our models have inputs in terms of cost projections and assumptions around there. We have put the input assumptions on our web site. Marginal Abatement Costs are a particular way that people sometimes look at the costs of particular individual technologies. Our approach has been using these models, there’s cost data on the web and we’ve had a number of webinars.” and ““We have cost data on the web.”

Again they have only released some of their input assumptions, and they have not released either their marginal abatement costs or their cost paths.

The CEO then implies they have bene using cost paths instead of marginal abatement costs:

“We have cost paths for different technologies, they’re inputs into parts of our modelling.”

“Yeah, it’s a different thing from marginal abatement costs, they are static. We can send you material on marginal abatement costs and how you think about them in the broader modelling context. There’s stuff in our evidence report that goes into that.”

This appears to be an attempt to justify why they have not released their marginal abatement costs, by implying they used cost paths instead. However in their actual published report they do not mention cost paths once, but refer to marginal abatement costs almost a dozen times.

Now people may get sore heads focusing on the difference between marginal abatements costs and cost paths. I do. But that is not what is important. What is important is the Commission clearly does have data on marginal abatement costs, and is refusing to release it, and is misleading the Environment Committee about it. And the question has to be why?

The Commission is meant to be a neutral body of experts that will help deliver bipartisan policy recommendations over the next 30 years to deliver the best path to net zero emissions. They are at grave risk of shooting themselves in the foot at the first hurdle by their ongoing refusal to release all the data, and now to try mislead about it.

The gold standard for the Commissions would be to actually release online their economic model for others to use, and the source code for it. Then everyone could check it, and use it for their own proposals and submissions.

If that gold standard is not available (say because they have not used a full economic model, but are just using excel spreadsheets) then the minimum they should do is release the full data – the spreadsheets, the assumptions, the marginal abatement costs, and the inputs.

The Green Party should be pressuring the Commission on this. They have been champions of open data. James Shaw wants his legacy to be partisan consensus on the policy path forward. This will never happen, unless there is full data transparency. You can’t expect people to submit on what will be the biggest change to the NZ economy since Think Big without access to all the data.