Luke Malpass writes:

Hypocrisy, thy colour is Green.

Or, perhaps more specifically, thy name is James Shaw. …

The leader of the Green Party, which purports publicly to be the party of the downtrodden and dispossessed, has inadvertently revealed itself for what many think it actually is – a party that mostly serves well-heeled Kiwis in secure and well-paid employment that care about the environment, climate change and want to go cycling and tramping on the weekend.

Funding private schools for certain things isn’t necessarily a bad idea, provided it is done through some sort of equitable and transparent process, but the kicker is that this was discretionary money given to just one school at the behest of Shaw.

Shaw wasn’t a passive decision maker on this. He promoted it, and pushed it to other Ministers.

Stuff understands that the school’s proposal for funding was originally rejected by both the Treasury and the Cabinet committee of the Government’s economic development ministers.

No surprise. The major economic benefit goes to the shareholders of the school who get free money for what they were planning to do anyway.

It is almost inexplicable that Shaw thought this was a good idea on political grounds, or justifiable on equity grounds. Even the idea that this “creates jobs” also looks dubious (interestingly, the Government’s fix-it man, Sir Brian Roche, sits on the group that looks at these proposals). At best, it substitutes one set of jobs for another, as much of the employment will be temporary and go to builders and contractors.

Again it was a transfer of wealth decision, not a job creation decision.

Jason Wells writes:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is quite rightly “incredibly angry” at her officials for pushing out incorrect Covid-19 testing information.

But New Zealanders have every right to be incredibly angry at the Government for letting that official message remain unchanged for almost an entire day.

That message was that everyone in South and West Auckland should get a Covid-19 test – even if they are asymptomatic.

t was posted from the Government’s official Covid-19 social media channels and led to queues of people in the area looking to get a Covid test.

That means that people with legitimate Covid symptoms faced a much, much longer wait as likely thousands of people scrambled to get tested.

The fact that the stuff-up occurred in the first instance beggars belief.

The information affected roughly 700,000 people in South and West Auckland.

This is a systems failure, not a human failure.

Anything that goes out on the official Covid-19 account should be triple checked. It should be impossible that an instruction for 700,000 people to go get tested should be an error.

The incorrect post went up at roughly 5pm last night; it was reported on by most major news sites and made it to some Sunday newspapers as well.

Despite this, no formal correction notice was issued until the next day, according to Ardern.

And by formal correction notice, Ardern meant the All of Government communications team – the people in charge of the post – had notified newsrooms across the country, telling them the information was wrong.

The Herald, which ran the story that the Government was advising all people in South and West Auckland, received no such notice.

This is despite reporters seeking comment on the post.

In fact, Health Minister Chris Hipkins was interview by MediaWorks radio this morning and made no mention of the fact this critical bit of information was wrong.

Ardern revealed the information was incorrect at her 1pm press conference this afternoon.
Even then, she waited to be asked about the post rather than issuing the correction in her opening statement – a statement watched by hundreds of thousands of people each day.
Ardern said she had made it clear to the officials involved that they needed to fix the error.

Despite this, the post remained on the Unite Against Covid-19 Instagram page until almost 1.30pm.

So the incorrect information didn’t stay up for 10 minutes or 20 minutes or even two hours but for around 20 hours.

That is simply huge incompetence. How could those who knew this was wrong not have immediately arranged a high profile retraction?

Stuff reports:

The Speaker has referred independent MP Jami-Lee Ross to the Privileges Committee for misusing edited parliamentary TV video for political ads.

Trevor Mallard ordered the anti-vaccination video – posted by Ross’s party and that of Billy Te Kahika’s NZ Public Party – to be removed from social media, but that’s been met with a blunt refusal.

Parliamentary footage of an exchange between government minister Megan Woods and National’s Erica Stanford was edited for use in the political ad, posted on several sites.

Mallard considers it a potential breach of privilege and has referred it to Parliament’s Privileges Committee – which has an extensive range of powers to censure MPs. …

The news outlet AFP has produced a critical fact check of the video, describing it as “misleading” and as making “false claims”.

The video is a malicious case of editing. It falsely claims that a recent law change will allow mandatory vaccination of citizens when it is about requiring people not already in NZ to potentially require vaccination before entering NZ.

Here’s a list of all of Trump’s predictions about the likely number of deaths in the US from Covid-19.

1. 26 February – close to zero
2. 10 April – 55,000 to 75,000
3. 17 April – 60,000 to 65,000
4. 20 April – 50,000 to 60,000
5. 27 April – 60,000 to 70,000
6. 29 April – 70,000
7. 1 May – under 100,000
8. 3 May – 75,000 to 100,000
9. 8 May – 100,000 to 110,000
10. 27 May – 100,000

The death toll today is now over 185,000. The increase in the US continues to be exponentially more than other badly impacted countries. Since the end of June the increase in deaths has been:

• Belgium 1.3%
• Spain 2.2%
• Italy 2.2%
• France 2.7%
• Sweden 9.6%
• US 47.5%

The Herald reports:

A day before Auckland is due to come out of lockdown, experts are calling for a rethink on the city’s Covid-19 restrictions as new cases of the virus across the city show no sign of slowing down.

The Ministry of Health reported 13 new cases today including 11 in the community, the highest number for almost two weeks.

Auckland University Professor Shaun Hendy, whose modelling has guided the Government’s response to date, said ministers should reconsider moving Auckland to alert level 2 on Monday – and if the change still goes ahead, employers should keep workers at home if possible.

“If you can work at home, you should continue to do so for the next few weeks,” he said.

Otago University Professor Michael Baker said Auckland should stay at least at a heightened “level 2.5” with the planned limit of 10 on social gatherings and everyone wearing masks in all indoor spaces outside their own homes.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern declined to comment today but is due to confirm alert levels at 1pm tomorrow.

One of the problems is we still don’t know how the outbreak happened. It is still a mystery how the family at the centre of this cluster got infected themselves.

This is absolutely right. The decisions are inherently political.

A guest post by Deane Jessup:

I am a firm believer that where there is demand, the market will find a way to supply. Covid-19 has mostly accelerated digital change that was already happening. Some will adapt, some will not; and most taxpayer subsidies are counterproductive. At best they are acting as a band-aid, at worst a form of trade protectionism.

Imagine company (a) that does not take the subsidy; instead, they adapt their business model to the new market. Sure, some staff will be made redundant, but at a time where the welfare net is equipped and motivated to catch them. They will have the time to reflect, retrain, and adapt. The company itself might survive, thrive, or close. Still the sooner that happens, the sooner everyone affected has the time to find a new way of working, to adapt. I am certain that, Covid-19 or not, the market was already changing. I don’t just see it, I am a driver of it; and what better time to explore new options than when you have enforced time on your hands. If company (a) fails but market demand is still there, new companies will spring up to replace them. Best case, company (a) adapts and becomes successful; an outcome much more likely if they are not artificially keeping their existing busines model alive.

The other side is company (b) – they take subsidies and keep staff on furlough, whilst waiting for a return to ‘normal’. By supporting this we are running up billions of taxpayer debt and company (b) is still burning their cash reserves, preventing affected people from shifting to new education and development options. Best case, things return to a semblance of normal (looking unlikely), and their business is at risk of a faster death next time. Worst case, this company is out-maneuvered by competitors who find a way to operate and the end occurs for them anyway, near immediately.

This situation is not unprecedented or unpredictable; every major technological change has caused this throughout history. Look up Boulton and Watt, Kodak, Polaroid, Blockbuster, Borders Group, etc. Don’t believe it was happening anyway? Read this from 2013. Could we predict the human impact? Watch Humans need not apply from 2014. Who knew a pandemic could accelerate this? Read this Atlantic article from 2018. We missed all this, and had to make hard decisions with limited information! Sure, but we could still recognise and adapt – this is a good read from five months ago.

Why am I worried about the economy? Billions of dollars of debt funneled into the wrong place only delays the inevitable, especially when we are already overdue a change to thinking. We could be investing in digital education for those displaced; incubating innovative startups with models that work, and embracing this horrible event for long term benefit not cost.

And don’t get me started about huge investments in physical education campuses, public transport, and the wrong kind of housing. Most are zombie industries already holding us back. The lack of plan around Covid-19 is one thing but squandering our response by not treating it as an opportunity is a whole other level of disaster. One we are poised to feel for decades.

I would be planning as if this is an opportunity, and my investments would be in completely different areas. If there is interest, I may write a follow-up piece on where and why.

One thing gives me hope for change; every time see a Labour campaign billboard, it says “let’s keep moving”.  After the last few weeks, the irony will not be lost on many.

Stuff reports:

Road police have scrapped their speed buffer on roads in favour of a no tolerance approach.

All motorists edging over the limit at any time of the year can now expect to be pulled over and possibly fined, national road policing manager Acting Superintendent Gini Welch confirmed on Friday.

It brings an end to a long-standing convention that law enforcement would let minor speeding breaches slide.

“We don’t have a threshold,” Welch told Stuff, “we don’t have anything other than the speed limit.

“That’s what we will enforce.”

But road safety campaigners doubt the no-tolerance approach will be effective, labelling it “petty, vindictive and ineffective”.

This is a naked revenue grab that has nothing to do with road safety.

People should not get fined because they were driving at 51 km/hr instead of 50 km/hr. It is in fact quite difficult to keep a constant speed (without cruise control) so you often have your speed move around a few km/hr. This is exactly why you have a tolerance.

If there is no tolerance then the only way to be safe is to probably aim to drive 5 km’hr under the speed limit.

Road safety campaigner Clive Matthew-Wilson said this zero tolerance approach would pointlessly alienate ordinary motorists without solving the real problem.

“The current police anti-speeding campaign will never lower the road toll, because it’s targeting the average motorist rather than the high-risk groups.

“That’s like trying to stop bank robberies by targeting shoplifting.”

He said it was actually quite hard to maintain a steady speed in modern turbo-charged cars.

“As soon as you take your foot off the accelerator, your speed drops right back.

“As soon as you accelerate, it’s very easy to be over the speed limit in seconds.

Exactly.

Speed advisory signs, which simply show motorists what speed they’re doing without issuing a ticket, was favoured by Matthew-Wilson.

“That’s how they do it in Sweden, which has the world’s lowest road toll.”

These are great. Without fail they always make me slow down until I get to the legal speed.

If you believe the wowsers the 1989 liberalisation of our liquor laws saw a huge uptake in alcohol. That allowing supermarkets to sell alcohol was a mistake. That longer hours for bars was a mistake etc.

But Stats NZ has just released the alcohol for consumption stats for the year to June 2020. There was an average of 9.06 litres of alcohol per adult. In 1989 it was 10.97 litres. So it is 17% less than before liberalisation.

Since 2005 they have also tracked the individual types of alcohol. Changes since 2005 are:

• Beer -24%
• Wine -7%
• Spirits with under 23% alcohol +53%
• Spirits with over 23% alcohol 0%

The problem isn’t the law. The problem is the minority who are problem drinkers.

On my Patreon I have written at some length on why I think ACT are doing so well. I give ten reasons that range from Covid-19 to free speech to NZ First.

A guest post by Mikenmild:

Kiwibloggers may have noticed an article about one of New Zealand’s major art prizes being awarded to an artist for a sheet of paper covered with typewritten forward slashes.

The drawing prize was endowed in 2012 by arts patron Chris Parkin. Interviewed in 2013, he said “drawing should be every artist’s boot camp; an essential return to basics, the framework for everything which follows. I’ve got no idea why the value of drawing was diminished but I still think it forms a sound basis for any artist.”

The prize was established in partnership with the New Zealand Academy of Fine Arts. The NZAFA’s director at the time, Warren Feeney, also commented: “Drawing is so fundamental to making art; gathering information, note taking, testing out possibilities and ideas, recording accurately and speculatively, a record of time passing, evident in the artist moving ink, pencil, pastel, etc, across the surface of the paper.”

Many people, I am sure, would agree that ‘ moving ink, pencil, pastel, etc, across the surface of the paper’ is essential to a drawing.

The prize has now been awarded eight times:

2013 AO Folded Moire Drawing by Monique Jansen. A drawing by pencil on paper that was then folded to create an optical illusion.

2014 Observer by Douglas Stichbury. A a charcoal drawing on paper of a man absorbed in using a piece of equipment.

2015 The Floor We Walk On by Gabrielle Amodeo. Not a drawing. The artist described it as “rubbings of the entire 942m floor-space of the house,” creating a floor-print.”

2016 The Catastrophe by Hannah Beehre. Not a drawing. Blotches of Indian ink on paper, with some tea stains because ‘she was drinking a cup of tea over the paper and accidentally dropped the tea bag on it.’ Some claimed to discern shapes of frogs, mice and bats in the work.

2017 State Block by Kirsty Lillico. Not a drawing. ‘Salvaged’ carpet cut to the floor-plan of a 1940s apartment , then partly hung, partly draped on the floor. According to the judge, it ‘challenged the conventional idea of what drawing can be.’ Apparently, the work also ‘questioned the failure of privatisation to solve the current state housing crisis’.

Parkin admitted Lillico’s work would not have been his first choice as winner of the prize, felt the piece met the competition requirements. It was “still lines, at the end of the day”. “It certainly stretches the drawing concept … somebody has taken a knife, and started a line and taken it for a walk.”

2018 Long Echo by Jacqui Colley. Not a drawing. Aluminium etched with acid and black oil pigment.The artist said it “mimicked the colonisation of the now mechanised land”, and referenced Māori rock drawings.

2019 Every Valley by Michael Dell. Might be a drawing. Charcoal on canvas. The artist said that it represents Pigeon Valley, near Nelson.

2020 Forward Slash by Poppy Lekner. Described above － not a drawing. Lekner had ‘worked with typewriters previously, and created Forward Slash the day before entries closed.’

Seventy-six finalists were exhibited in 2020. By my count, over forty of them cannot really be considered drawings. Apart from the overall winner, seven of the 10 merit prizes of $500 were not drawings.

Some of these ‘not drawings’ were ingeniously constructed. Simon Attwool’s Home, which received a merit prize, was made from ‘charcoal collected from a burnt out house screen printed on paper mounted on 1176 matchbox trays.’ Julia Humpfer’s Runners – Beginning Taxonomic Collection was ‘recycled pantyhose stretched on MDF.’ Morag Stokes’s Just Dicking Around ＃2 used ‘graphite and Chinese ink applied to Yupo paper with extra-large ribbed condoms.’

Hey, I do get it. Either most of these artists are taking the piss, or they seriously believe that they are at the cutting edge of contemporary art. Artists can have fun with art; they can challenge boundaries; thay can confront viewers. But I can’t help but feel sorry for what has resulted from Chris Parkin’s desire to promote the value of drawing.

Stuff reports:

Covid-19 has contributed to median incomes falling for the first time since records began in 1998, Stats NZ says.

Stats NZ labour market statistics for income in the June quarter showed median weekly incomes were lower in the June 2020 quarter than they were a year ago, down 7.6 per cent to $652 a week.

This is why it is so appalling that Councils are increasing rates, when incomes are falling.

It also shows that what we really need from the Government is to lift after tax incomes or lower the cost of living. One way would be to temporarily cut the rate of GST, as this would benefit every household.

I strongly recommend people read the full sentencing notes of Justice Mander in R vs Tarrant. At the risk of sounding gushing, they are a judicial masterpiece.

It is not an easy read at first. It is very hard going reading the facts of the massacre. There are essentially four parts to it:

1. The facts – Justice Mander describes what Tarrant did, who he killed and wounded in the order he did it. This part is pretty awful, but it brings home how absolutely cold hearted and monstrous the massacre was.
2. The victims. Justice Mander spends a paragraph on each victim and turns them from names into people for those of us who didn’t know them. The 13 year old without a dad, the software engineer, the physician, the sportsman, the taxi driver, the student, the welder, the dentist, the farmer, the pilot, the geologist, the 14 year old, the three year old etc etc. Justice Mander pays tribute to all of them.
3. The survivors (also victims). Justice Mander also deals with their stories and the horror they carry with them.
4. Tarrant. Mander sums Tarrant up as empty of any empathy for his victims and entirely self-centered. A deeply impaired person who has hatred of people he sees as different to him.
5. The sentencing. Justice Mander has done such a thorough job of considering all the options around whether or not the sentence should be life without parole, that I’d say any potential appeal is doomed to failure. He has made sure this decision is watertight. He masterly dismissed the argument that a guilty plea means he should avoid a LWOP sentence saying “the massacre of so many people and that was undertaken in an attempt to kill so many more, cannot be moderated to any lesser finite sentence because the offender has finally faced the inevitability of his conviction and pleaded guilty”. Very cleverly he instead applies a discount for the guilty plea to the attempted murder sentencing, so it can’t be argued no provision was made for the guilty plea. A strike of genius. And then the summary “Parliament has provided a sanction for such crimes in the form of a life sentence without parole that can only be imposed in the case of the very worst murders. Its use must be taken to have been intended only when the circumstances clearly warrant its imposition. The unavoidable rhetorical question in sentencing you today is, if not here, then when?” And that leads to the Life Without Parole decision.
6. Finally is what is almost farcial, but necessary, Justice Mander ensures strict compliance with the law by issuing a first strike warning to Tarrant. Justice Mander recognises it is an empty exercise in this case, but makes sure again the sentencing is watertight.

One part I do want to quote is this:

It is difficult to look beyond the wicked nature of each murder and the pain and suffering you have caused to individual victims, to their families and loved ones.

However, you are not only a murderer but a terrorist.

Your actions go further than demonstrating contempt for the sanctity of life. In the name of a political or ideological cause, you sought to violently intimidate the community, and coerce the country’s peaceable form of government and social order — essentially to attack New Zealand’s way of life.

The beliefs upon which you rely to justify your crimes are rooted in religious and ethnic antipathy and intolerance. The hatred that lies at the heart of your hostility to particular members of the community that you came to this country to murder has no place here. It has no place anywhere.

New Zealand rightly places great value on its diverse and culturally rich
community. It recognises the contributions made by people of many racial and ethnic backgrounds and of varied faiths and cultures. Extremist beliefs and ideologies that seek to promote violence and hate are anathema to the values of acceptance, tolerance and mutual respect upon which our inclusive society is based and which this country strives to maintain. Where warped and malignant ideology manifests itself in such violence and causes such appalling harm, it is incumbent on the Court to respond in a way that decisively rejects such vicious malevolence.

The vicious malevolence will never leave prison alive. Let’s remember what he did, but forget all about him.

Personally I am a fan of private schools. They add diversity to the NZ school system and allow around 3% of students to attend schools which can be innovative in a way most state schools can’t. The 25% subsidy for their operations seems reasonable to me as it is only around $1,500 per student and taxpayers actually save money by having students attend private schools as if everyone was in a public school we would be paying over $6,000 per student.

The Green School New Zealand looks like an excellent innovative school. They have found a niche in the market and have invested in it. I don’t mind that it is owned by a for profit company and that the owners will profit from it, just as I don’t mind that the early childhood education centre my oldest son attends is privately owned.

But this $12 million grant to the Green School is horrendous, for a number of reasons.

1. This is a brand new school that only opened in 2020. It has no track record of governance, management or education to judge it on. This is not some long established school that has proven itself.
2. The school doesn’t even have full registration yet. It is on provisional registration
3. According to Radio NZ the current roll is only around 50 students, of which around half are domestic. This means that $12 million has been given to a school with 25 domestic students which is an average subsidy of $480,000 per student. Compare that to around $6,000 a student for state schools and $1,500 for other private schools.
4. It is one of the most expensive schools in New Zealand, costing around the same as Kings. It costs $5,300 just to register and $24,000 in tuition fees for NZ students or $43,000 for foreign students. So anyone attending in 2020 has paid $29,300 or $48,300.
5. If a child attended the school for all 13 years of primary and secondary it would cost the family $317,300. The families who can afford this are clearly in the top 1%
6. The school charges annual interest rates on late fees of 36%
7. The school said it was already planning to expand to 500 students, yet this $12 million is trumpeted as allowing it to expand to 250 students – a fewer number than they already planned

Former Green MPs are not happy:

Unions also not happy:

Post Primary Teachers’ Association regional chair Erin MacDonald also had equity on her mind.

“Providing a private school with $11.7 million of government funding is not a good use of government funds to provide equity of access to students in our region.”

MacDonald said the region’s Enviroschools – which also had sustainability focus – got $10,000 annually.

The Educational Institute represent 50,000 teachers.

Its national secretary Paul Goulter said teachers were angry at Green Party co-leader James Shaw.

“What really upsets is when they point to the Green’s policy on public education it actually says public funding for private schools should be phased out and transferred to public schools, so what gives?”

Goulter said spending public money on profit-orientated private schools was wrong.

“And then with an overlay of trying to attract overseas students … Why any school would be trying to have a business model that’s built around the attraction of international students at the moment, I have no idea?

Again I’m in favour of private schools receiving the modest $1,500 per student subsidy. I’m totally against a school hand picked by Green Party Ministers because it shares their name and ethos to get a massive $12 million for a school with 25 domestic students.

Also the claim by James Shaw that it will produce $43 million a year of economic growth to the region is just farcical. I bet you that is a claim from the people who got the money, and not the view of officials.

Brenton Tarrant gets sentenced today. It has been a moving three days as victims and their families testified on the impact of them. I’ve been moved to tears by the story of the three year old who was shot, but also by the families who told Tarrant they had no room for hate, so they forgave him. It was reported that even Tarrant reacted to this. One can only hope that perhaps it got through.

The other aspect which is worth noting is how many people told him that his plan to cause hatred and backlash backfired. This is objectively true. He picked the wrong country to do this in. Again credit to Jacinda Ardern for her role, but NZ’s response to this actually got praised around the world by many Muslim countries and caused within NZ a huge uprising of goodwill towards Muslim New Zealanders. I can only hope he realises what he did was wrong and achieved the opposite of what he wanted.

But we will never know. For reasons not apparent Tarrant both pleaded guilty and has also chosen not to speak at his sentencing. I don’t know whether this might signify some empathy for his victims, or it might just mean he thinks his message through his manifesto is stronger without him adding to it.

Regardless of his motives in pleading guilty and not speaking, I am glad of both. Many feared he would use the trial to try and justify what he did and promote his views.

One can only hope he does get a Life Without Parole sentence so his victims and families never have to think about him again. They will never have to face multiple Parole Board hearings in a few decades time, where they have to relive what happen as they argue to keep him in prison.

Just because he saved the state the time and money of a trial should not mean he gets a lesser sentence for such an unparalleled crime. Again yes he did spare the multiple victims a contested trial, but there are only so many victims because of what he did.

Let’s hope the Judge agrees.

UPDATE: He has been sentenced to Life Without Parole. Beyond pleased.

UPDATE2: Tarrant didn’t oppose Life Without Parole, which probably made it easier to occur. I do wonder if he didn’t oppose it as he wants to be a martyr to his “cause”, but regardless we can now forget about him and let him rot.

A guest post by Neil Miller:

Wellington City Councillor Rebecca Matthews should apologise to the Wellington hospitality and gaming industry for her unfounded allegation that venues with pokies machines had to frequently change chairs because gambling patrons “regularly” urinated on themselves rather than give up their seat.

I was immediately suspicious of this claim which she used to justify a ‘sinking lid’ policy for pokie machines. None of the six publicans I called had experienced this issue even once over many years. They also did not know of any others who had to constantly change urine-soaked chairs.

To find out the Councillor’s evidence for her comment, which was made in an official meeting and received media coverage, I sent in a request under the Local Government Official Information and Meeting Act 1987. To their credit, both Councillor Matthews and the Wellington City Council responded quickly.

However, that was because there was very little to report.

Councillor Matthews said “this was reported to me from a friend a few years ago who was researching the gaming industry in Auckland.” 

The Acting Head of Assurance at Wellington City Council declined my request for the evidence behind Councillor Matthews’ claim saying “the Council does not hold any information relating to your request.” The only material they held on urination in gaming lounges was Councillor Matthews’ own statement.

In my opinion, after a long time working in the political arena, “a few years ago a friend said it might have happened in Auckland” is one of the weakest justifications I have ever seen for a significant policy in Wellington.

For the record, I support the sinking lid policy.  However, decisions as important as this should be based on evidence, not an old anecdote which besmirches a whole industry.

Councillor Matthews should withdraw her comment and apologise.

You can email Cr Matthews here – [email protected]

Neil Miller is a former hospitality journalist and was New Zealand Beer Writer of the Year.
Disclaimer: Neil has an interest in the award-winning brewpub Fork & Brewer. The Fork has never had pokie machines.

HDPA writes:

Can you believe that the Government still isn’t doing the day three testing?

After all those times they promised us they’re testing people coming back into the country twice before they’re let into the community, they’re still not testing everyone on day three.

I couldn’t believe my ears when I heard Chris Hipkins admit that in today’s 1pm press conference.

Mostly, because we’ve been here before. Mid-June, they were busted not doing the testing when Thelma and Louise left their Auckland hotel without being tested. Following that, the Prime Minister went on her Facebook Live and told us her expectations hadn’t been met.

But we were assured everyone would now be tested. Twice. Day three and day 12.

But fast forward two months and their assurances aren’t worth the time we spend listening to them. Still not happening.

Now, before they start spinning you that day three tests are not important, yes they are. That’s why they assured us that day three tests would be done.

Day three tests are important so they can find the people who have Covid and move those people to other quarantine facilities so they’re not still mixing with other people in the managed isolation hotel lobbies without face masks – like we’re seeing in the pictures – and making them all sick too.

Because, by the way, if some of these people get sick just before leaving the hotel and coming into the community, their day 12 tests may not necessarily pick up the Covid which takes 5-6 days to incubate.

One more thing that we were told at 1 pm, that turned out to be false.

What is shocking is the Government can’t even say how many adults in isolation skipped their Day 3 test. It appears that even after many months of Covid-19, they still don’t have a database or even an Excel spreadsheet that tracks people in MIQ.

It starts with the time we were promised the police were checking on all returning Kiwis isolating when at home, and they weren’t checking. It includes us being told everyone coming out of managed isolation were being tested first when they weren’t. And it goes up to us being told all border workers were being tested when they weren’t.

It’s not an isolated example.

 I don’t believe a word of what she and her Government now say about their Covid response.

I now do not trust them to keep Covid out of this country anymore.

Can’t blame her.

Stuff reports:

The Green Party has been caught bending its own party policy after a private school in Taranaki was given $11.7 million to fund an expansion programme.

The money comes from the Government’s $3 billion shovel-ready projects fund, and was announced in a press release from Greens co-leader James Shaw who said the grant to Green School New Zealand would help the school expand its roll from 120 students to 250, creating 200 jobs.

This is a private for profit school that charges between $24,000 and $43,000 a year. It doesn’t even have full registration, yet it just got given $12 million.

Even if you accept the spin it will help expand the roll by 120 students that is $100,000 per student. But the last data the Ministry of Education has is it has 11 domestic students.

Green Party policy is opposed to state funding being given to private schools, and wants it to be gradually phased out.

‘Public funding for private schools should be phased out and transferred to public schools,” says the party’s current education policy.

So their official policy is to ban public funding of private schools (ie the 25% subsidy per student), and then they go give $12 million to one tiny private school, because well they personally approve of the school.

As far as I know no other private school in NZ has ever received public money for their property. They get 25% of the average operational cost for a state pupil which is around $1,500 per student. Pretty small biscuits. And here we get $12 million to one small private school.

The sheer scale of the funding is significant. When the Government announced a $400 million package to upgrade New Zealand’s ageing public school infrastructure, it was capped at $400,000. The grant to the Green School would be enough to fund nearly 30 schools at that rate.

Just up the road from Green School, New Plymouth Boys’ and Girls’ High Schools each received $400,000.

Both those schools have more than 1,200 students. So they get around $330 per student while the Green school gets over $100,000 per student.

Stuff reports:

A high speed rail service between Hamilton and Auckland is expected to slash travel times but could cost up to $14.425 billion to launch.

The tentative figures are contained in an initial rapid rail business case released by Transport Minister Phil Twyford​ on Tuesday.

No doubt Labour will announce this as policy in a few weeks, promising it by 2024, yet not actually delivering anything until 2124.

Let’s look at what numbers you would need using this service to keep the subsidy to say under $100 a person.

6% cost of capital on $14.425 billion is $865 million a year. So each day it costs $2.37 million. So if you could get 24,000 people a day using it, the subsidy would be *only* $100 per passenger per day.

Of course 24,000 would be around 1.4 of Hamilton’s working population. And to transport 24,000 people a day you’d need 310 carriages! That is equal to 7.5 kms of carriages. Of course you’d have more than one train a a day but say you have 10 – still need each stop to be 750 metres long!