The Post reports:

The Crown has dropped its case against a man accused of damaging a Treaty of Waitangi exhibit at Te Papa Tongarewa in December 2023.

A judge in Wellington District Court was told on Tuesday that the move came after defence lawyer Julia Spelman had given the Crown a draft of a defence expert’s evidence for the future trial of Te Wehi Ratana, 31.

Does anyone think charges would have been dropped if it was say a protester who damaged the Tino Rangatiratanga flag as a protest? No of course not.

Ratana had also taken part in climate change protests that disrupted traffic around Wellington several times in 2022 and 2023.

He and others stood trial on a charge of endangering transport but a jury could not agree on verdicts against him. In that case the Crown decided it was not in the interests of justice for the Ratana and others to stand trial again.

We have a justice system that encourages law breaking – so long as it is left wing activism.

Radio NZ reports:

US military investigators believe it is likely that US forces were responsible for an apparent strike on an Iranian girls’ school that killed scores of children on Saturday but have not yet reached a final conclusion or completed their investigation, two US officials told Reuters.

If the deaths were caused by the US, this was one of the worst mishaps in modern warfare. It is a tragedy for the families involved.

There is no suggestion it was deliberate, but that is little comfort to the parents who have the unimaginable horror of having to bury their children.

I hope there is a full investigation into what happened, if for no other reason than to minimise it reoccuring.

Simon Brown has blogged his submission to the Medical Council:

Let me start by stating I support the Council’s goal of promoting culturally responsive care and addressing health disparities. New Zealand’s healthcare system must evolve to meet the needs of our diverse population, and I acknowledge the well-documented inequities in health outcomes for Maori, such as lower life expectancy (7–8 years below non-Maori), higher rates of preventable deaths, and unmet primary care needs (44% for Maori). These gaps are real and demand action.

My core concern with the drafts, however, is their tendency to conflate socioeconomic status (SES) with systemic racism as a primary causal explanation for these disparities. While the draft documents do not explicitly state “systemic racism” it is evident from the use of terms like “systemic bias,” “unfair systems,” “institutional structures,” “power imbalances,” and “colonial histories”. This attribution of systemic racism remains unproven on rigorous scientific grounds and risks embedding socially and scientifically contested interpretations into professional standards, potentially at the expense of more practical, evidence-based solutions focused on prevention, education, and individual responsibility.

So the goal is good, but the draft is bad.

However, the drafts’ mandatory requirements for medical doctors to “actively acknowledge and address your own power, privilege, biases” and “use your professional influence to work in partnership with Maori to identify and dismantle unfair systems and power imbalances” imply acceptance of “systemic racism” as a settled fact. This goes beyond encouraging respect and self-reflection; it mandates endorsement of a causal framework that conflates SES-driven problems with racism, without sufficient causal evidence.

The Medical Council is trying to impose a political view on all doctors, without evidence.

The Medical Council’s role is to ensure clinical competence and patient safety, not to enforce interpretive frameworks on causation. By conflating SES with racism, the drafts risk dividing the profession and distracting from holistic solutions. I urge the Council to refine these statements to prioritize evidence, prevention, and individual agency alongside equity. I believe this balanced approach is better suited and will better serve all New Zealanders.

Hopefully the Council listens.

Andrew Little has released his Triennium Plan for WCC. Let’s take a look at it.

Create a $50,000 per annum External Legal Advice Fund for representatives to test the council organisation’s legal advice by seeking an external legal opinion.

Excellent. Really important governors can access legal advice directly.

Strive to keeping rates as low as practicable in an effort to make Wellington more affordable, while acknowledging there will always be a range of views about what that means.

I blogged in September what that would look like. “Well the Whanau Council has a 12% rates increased planned for next year, so a minimal success would be getting that to under 10%. The current Council has further rates increases of 7% for out years. So rates increases of under 5% from 27/28 would qualify.”

Protect the Council’s ownership stake in Wellington International Airport Ltd.

Why? As a minority shareholder you have no real say, and it means you are not independent when dealing with the airport. I’d sell the airport shares and invest it in water infrastructure.

Rapidly review approved capital projects valued at $1 million or more where construction has not started (or a future tranche has not started), so representatives have assurance each is realistic and affordable.

Good.

Any identified expected cost escalation of more than 5 percent in any project worth $1 million or more must be reported in writing within 7 days to the Chair of the project’s authorising committee and the Mayor’s Office

Good, but amazing this was not already the case.

The Herald reports:

Senior Government minister Louise Upston visited Gloriavale in late January, months after refusing to rule out closing the religious community following allegations of child abuse in the community.

Newstalk ZB has confirmed Upston visited the sect on January 30, alongside officials from the Ministry of Social Development.

This story is puzzling. As far as I know a Cabinet Minister can’t close down a religious community. The Government can close schools etc, but if a group of people choose to live together, and follow a religion together, that is not something a Minister needs to approve.

The Herald reports:

A woman’s 14-year-old grandson was nearly mowed down by her neighbour’s car, while her son was threatened with a machete.

Now an elderly Tongan woman has gone to the Tenancy Tribunal after Kāinga Ora refused to terminate her tenancy despite the woman living in “constant fear” of the family next door. …

She and her son had reported the behaviour to Kāinga Ora numerous times during the tenancy but their response had always been to tell her and her family to keep to themselves and not engage with the neighbours. …

Kāinga Ora said it had considered whether it could terminate the neighbour’s tenancy under section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act (termination for assault) following the machete incident, but ultimately determined it could not do so because the neighbouring tenant herself was not home and the male at the address was not a listed tenant and had threatened this tenant’s son and not the tenant herself.

This is disappointing. Generally Kainga Ora has got better at dealing with abusive tenants, but this case shows they still have work to do.

They seem to hide behind a technically that the threats came from the tenant’s partner or friend, and were aimed at the other tenant’s son.

The organisation was also unable to apply to terminate the tenancy for antisocial behaviour as there had not been three incidents within a 90 -day period.

Three within a year would be a better test.

Tribunal adjudicator Melissa Allan said the tenant had been “left in a very difficult situation”.

“She has not felt free to move about her property, often remains inside, and has been subjected to unreasonable levels of noise, rubbish being thrown, screaming and yelling and threats being made to her family members.

“The landlord should have filed an application to terminate the neighbouring tenancy. It is not necessary for criminal charges to be proven or even laid. 

“The landlord only needed to prove, to the civil standard, that the tenant has been interfering with the reasonable pace, comfort and privacy of the tenant and that the breach is of such a nature and of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.”

By failing to take steps the landlord had breached its obligations, she said.

Kāinga Ora was ordered to pay the tenant $5000 in compensation for breach of landlord’s obligations and was looking to transfer the tenant to a tenancy that is more suited to her current health needs.

The Tenancy Tribunal got it right. It is unfortunate Kainga Ora didn’t.

Until a Government has the courage/determination to shrink the size of ITSELF – New Zealand has NO CHANCE of sustained economic growth – or excellence in any sector.

The size of the NZ Public Service workforce, as at December 31 2025, has just been released.

As opposed to the coalition saying they are frugal the lowlights are:

– Total Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) is now at 63,657. The Public Service workforce grew by 1.6% over the previous 12 months.

– The Ministry of Social Development grew by 2.6% to 9094 FTEs.

– Oranga Tamariki grew by 2.8% to 4713 FTEs.

– MBIE grew by 1.5% to 5892 FTEs.

– The Ministry of Education grew by 3.7% to 3976 FTEs – a very long way from the 2700 promised by National and ACT.

It would be very difficult to argue that any of those Ministries are high-performing. In fact – it is very eazyto find data that proves the opposite.

For the 2024/24 financial year core government expenditure was 32.5% of GDP. A weighted consensus is that below 25% is healthy.

The percentage of GDP in New Zealand dependent on government spending is approximately 43%. The low for that statistic is Switzerland at approx. 13%.

New Zealand’s tax/GDP ratio, at 34%, is above the OECD average. It is also well above countries we can look at with envy … Australia 29.4, Korea 28.9, Switzerland 27.1, USA 25.2, Ireland 21.9, Singapore 13.7, Hong Kong 13.1.

As of December 2025, approximately 13.2% of New Zealand’s working-age population (around 427,236 people) was receiving a main benefit, marking a 12-year high. This means there is roughly one main beneficiary for every 6.5 people in the working-age population. Jobseeker Support accounts for about 6.9% of this population.

New Zealand’s recent productivity growth is dropping and per-hour output falling over 20% below the OECD average, ranking it 38th in GDP per capita.

The, also just released, GDP growth for the December 2025 quarter was 0.2%. It is very hard to get any genuine economic growth when the HUGE reliance on government spending crowds out the private sector.

It is an election year. Who will, with credibility, propose to shrink the size of government in NZ to a level that allows genuine comparison with the best of the OECD?

[email protected]

Most US Presidents have done dubious pardons – Clinton re Marc Rich and Joe Biden re Hunter Biden etc.

But as the libertarian Cato Institute point out, Trump’s pardons are in a different league:

Biden’s pardons eliminated roughly $680,000 in financial penalties (fines, restitution, and forfeitures) owed to victims or the government. In contrast, Liz Oyer, the former lead pardon attorney of the United States, has calculatedthat Trump’s second-term pardons have forgiven criminal debts of more than $1.5 billion. This staggering sum—composed of money owed to crime victims and to government treasuries—has been zeroed out by presidential edict.

$1.5 billion owed, wiped out by the President. This is more than a thousand times as much as before.

Trump has normalized the pardoning of disgraced politicians, such as former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernandez (who orchestrated a spree of state-sponsored drug trafficking leading to a 45-year prison term), Nevada legislator Michele Fiore (who embezzled $70,000 out of a police memorial fund for personal expenses like rent and plastic surgery), Virginia sheriff Scott Jenkins (who handed out badges to untrained businessmen in exchange for $75,000 in bribes), and Tennessee House Speaker Glen Casada (who defrauded state government with a fake-payee kickback scheme).

The Honduran pardon especially is unbelievable.

Trump pardoned Paul Walczak (who evaded millions of dollars in taxes) after Walczak’s mother raised millions of dollars for MAGA candidates and paid a million dollars to dine with the president at Mar-a-Lago. Trevor Milton—the securities fraudster mentioned above—donated $1.8 million to Trump’s campaign before a presidential pardon wiped out all $660 million of his restitution obligations. (That is, if nothing else, an impressive ROI.) 

Indeed, an excellent return on investment – for the criminal, not the justice system.

Another Trump pardon recently immunized Texas Congressman Henry Cuellar (D) and his wife from prosecution for receipt of bribes. Trump evidently hoped Cuellar would return the favor by switching parties to the GOP; when that didn’t happen, the president released an angry statement on Truth Social, criticizing Cuellar for “Such a lack of LOYALTY, something that Texas Voters, and Henry’s daughters, will not like. Oh’ well, next time, no more Mr. Nice guy!” Previous presidents would surely take offense at the suggestion that a pardon could be traded for something of value; Trump took offense apparently because Cuellar didn’t hold up his end of the trade. 

He doesn’t even pretend!

At least the specter of corruption in previous presidential administrations (Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich, or Biden’s pardon of his son) appeared to be an exception to the rule. Today, however, the evidence is piling up that, for this president, corruption is the rule, not the exception.

Yep.

Chuck Norris has died aged 86. Some facts about Chuck Norris:

• When Chuck Norris arrived at the gates of Heaven, St. Peter showed his ID to Chuck Norris.
• Chuck Norris got Coronavirus. Now the Coronavirus is in isolation.
• Chuck Norris doesn’t have any enemies. Well, not anymore.
• Jaws stays on the beach when Chuck Norris swims. .
• Chuck Norris was once run over by a tank. He refused to pay for it.
• Chuck Norris was given a Tonka truck for his 5th birthday, the result is the Grand Canyon.
• Chuck Norris went to a feminist rally and came back with his shirt ironed and holding a sandwich.
• Chuck Norris found the last digit of pi.
• Chuck Norris once walked away from a fight with two broken ribs and a dislocated arm. He hasn’t given them back yet…
• North Korea’s borders are closed to prevent Chuck Norris from entering.
• Chuck Norris’ hands are protected under the 2nd Amendment.

Feel free to include your favourite ones in comments.

The Education Select Committee released a report into harms online and young people. They found:

• That the Government establish an independent national regulator for online safety in New Zealand
• That the Government progress its consideration of restricting social media access for under-16-year-olds,
• Ban “nudify” apps and prohibit the creation and distribution of non-consensual
  deepfake sexual imagery

The last recommendation. is sensible, and I doubt anyone opposes it.

On balance I support restricting social media for under 16 year olds, so long as it canoe done in a way that doesn’t require NZers to scan in their ID to use social media.

I don’t support a government regulator for the Internet. The Australian version has become a monster. We have Netsafe which does a good job, and CERT.

A guest post by a reader:

The Prime Minister wants a culture of ‘yes.’ A New Zealand that builds. An RMA replacement premised on the enjoyment of property rights. He has said so many times, in many rooms, and with great conviction. 

Good on him. It is what would-be homeowners need, too.

But Auckland’s actual homeowners got upset about apartments. Then the Prime Minister discovered the word ‘impose.’

Here is what happened. Housing Minister Chris Bishop directed Auckland Council to plan for two million homes. Residents in leafy National strongholds like Remuera, Mt Eden and Botany were furious. 

David Seymour, the man who spent a decade fighting for property rights and against the RMA’s culture of ‘no,’ became one of the most prominent opponents of intensification in his own electorate. Not in my backyard, Minister.

The PM heard the feedback. He slashed the target to 1.6 million and told the Herald that suburban intensification ‘should go away.’ So far, so political. Governments listen, governments adjust. Nothing new. 

But then Luxon revealed what he really thinks about property rights and zoning. He did not want, he explained, to ‘impose intensification’ on people.

Read that again.

Intensification is not something imposed on people. It is something property owners do with their own land. When your neighbour builds a townhouse, that is not the state imposing anything on you. That is your neighbour exercising the very property right the Government’s RMA replacement is supposed to protect.

By framing building as imposition, the Prime Minister has, apparently inadvertently, articulated a principle that demolishes the foundation of his own reform. If a landowner simply building on their own land counts as imposing on the neighbourhood as a whole, then the neighbourhood has grounds to object. It is exactly how the RMA works now. It is exactly what the replacement was supposed to fix.

Seymour said, ‘Not in my backyard (electorate).’ Luxon replied, ‘Understood, we will remove your constituents’ right to build.’ The property rights champion and the property rights Prime Minister, dancing a perfect tango to undermine the property rights reform.The old RMA gave everyone a veto over everyone else’s land. The new one promised to end all that. Instead, the Prime Minister has just explained why it should continue. He is simply too pleased with his own reasonableness to realise it.

The Herald reports:

Dr Isabelle Chambefort, general manager – energy at Earth Sciences New Zealand (formerly GNS Science), makes it clear minerals have always been critical.

“Humanity has been developed around mining.

“It has been the keystone of civilisation. It gave economic stability and gave us an increase in our technology.”

Since ochre and flint played their early part in human development, minerals with names like vanadium, germanium and zirconium have taken up the “critical” mantle.

“With the transition away from fossil fuels to more renewable energy, it is highly demanding on new materials, new minerals and new elements.”

The anti mining activists think we should leave everything in the ground, and just import it all from China. I think that is daft. In fact it is critical we are as self reliant as possible when it comes to critical minerals. Here’s a few on the list just published by the Government.

• Zirconium: Fuel cells, auto catalysts, bearings
• Antimony: Defence, electric vehicles (EVs), medical
• Cesium: Cancer treatments, electronics, optics, aerospace, photovoltaic cells
• Cobalt: Battery and energy storage applications, steel alloys, fertiliser and livestock health
• Copper: Power transmission, electronics, EVs, fertiliser and livestock health
• Zinc: Anodising, corrosion protection, fertiliser and livestock health

As the rules based order fades, it becomes even more vital we mine as much as we can of the critical minerals we need, rather than rely on supply chains that can disappear within days.

I saw this online:

CANZUK International has released a comprehensive public opinion analysis examining attitudes toward a proposed CANZUK alliance among citizens in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. …

New Zealand: 75% Support

In New Zealand, 75% favored participation in a CANZUK alliance, with only 18% opposed and 7% unsure.

I was interested in which polling company was used for the NZ portion, as I assumed it was a poll. But you had to download the full report to find the following:

The methodology employed digital sentiment analysis, a modern, large-scale approach that synthesises weighted favourability signals from a broad range of public discourse. This included social media comments, likes, shares, reposts, news articles, op-eds, editorials, informal online polls, and digital petition activity.

Advanced artificial intelligence tools—incorporating natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning models—were used to classify sentiment, detect contextual nuance (including sarcasm and mixed views), and weight contributions from verified geographic sources. Unlike traditional probability-based polling (e.g., random-digit-dial telephone surveys or stratified online panels), this method draws on organic, unprompted conversations rather than prompted responses.

Sentiment analysis can be very useful and interesting. I know the Trump campaign relied on it greatly. I am a fan of sentiment analysis.

However I am not a fan of presenting sentiment analysis as what most people would think is a poll result. Saying in NZ 75% favoured participation implies a scientific poll.

What they should have said is something along the lines of

“Online sentiment analysis in New Zealand found 75% of comments were favourable towards CANZUK”. You shouldn’t have to download the full report to find it it wasn’t actually a poll.

An Area Standards Committee of the Law Society fined Stephen Franks and Franks Ogilvy for, well being lawyers. They sent a letter on behalf of their client to health professionals involved in “gender affirming care”.

The ASC found that they had “used a legal process for an improper purpose”, censured them and fined them.

I have no doubt that the decision to censure them was related to the policy position of their clients.

They appealed to to Legal Complaints Review Officer, who overturned the decision. He noted:

The very purpose of a lawyer or firm sending a letter on behalf of a client is, in many if not most instances, to endeavour to lend weight to whatever concern, position or purpose the client seeks to express or advance. That is what lawyers do. This is why a client comes to its lawyer and says, “we need a lawyer’s letter about this”. This cannot conceivably be improper in principle.

Except to woke activists who think certain topics are beyond debate.

Advocacy organisations and lobby groups seek to put pressure on those holding opposing views and/or engaging in practices they consider objectionable in every walk of life all the time. Numerous, obvious examples solely in the health care field include abortion, assisted dying, recreational drug use, fluoridation, vaccination, blood transfusion and so on. Gender-related health care services are in no special category. Examples outside the health care sector are similarly legion.

Such a good ruling from the LCRO.

To exert pressure on a health care provider to refrain from undertaking medical procedures that a relevant interest group objects to, on whatever grounds, is legitimate provided the means of doing so is lawful. A lawyer writing a letter on behalf of a lobbyist client expressing the client’s views on a policy issue and on potential future legal developments in the field and asserted legal risks associated with it is a lawful activity.

The Committee’s finding that the applicants’ purpose in doing so was not proper, in terms of the first limb of r 2.3, cannot stand.

The members of the Area Standards Committee should be ashamed they weaponised the law so badly in their decision. Well it was a split decision, so the majority members anyway.

A journalist asked Nicola Willis whether she would advise people to “ease back on the accelerator” or consider working from home due to higher petrol prices.

Nicola explicitly said she was “very reluctant to adopt the role of the schoolma’am telling people what to do with their own lives”. She went on to say that people will make their own choices based on their circumstances. That NZers are sensible. So she was explicitly saying, no she won’t tell people what to do.

She carried on and said most Kiwis already know you can save fuel if your car weighs less, or you drive slower. Again this was in the context of her saying they don’t need to be told this by the Government.

So what does Labour do? They run a campaign taking the last few words of her answer, to make it look like she is telling people to drive slower etc.

It is a tactic of desperation.

As most readers will know, Stuff ran a story that said PM Luxon had asked the Samoan Government to give him a title.

This was a hugely damaging story. Anyone who read that would think incredibly poorly of Luxon.

It was false. This is beyond doubt. This has been confirmed by both Governments.

Now to be fair to Stuff, the Samoan PM did say that the NZ High Commissioner said that Luxon had asked for it. So that was newsworthy.

However where Stuff went wrong, was rushing out a story before they got a response from Luxon, MFAT etc. There was no journalistic justification for this. This was not an urgent story. Once upon a time media would put a negative allegation to someone for comment, before running a story. Why did Stuff not wait for a response from Luxon’s office and/or MFAT?

Did no one at Stuff think how unlikely it was that the claim was true, and that they should wait for a response before running a story that would lower the view of the PM in the eyes of anyone who saw it?

As it happened, the Samoan PM was wrong, or confused, or just making things up. If Stuff had waited for a response from MFAT and Luxon’s office, then they would have been able to run an accurate story. But instead they ran a story that many saw, and not all will have seen the later story. Even now there are many on social media who are quoting the original story, and spreading it.

It seems some claims need to be authenticated before publishing, but not others.

Nicola Willis wrote:

Chris Hipkins has let the truth slip about Labour’s Covid spending.

On Newstalk ZB yesterday he admitted the Labour Government would have gone ahead with many of its spending decisions even without the cover of the pandemic.

That matters, because the Covid Royal Commission found about half of the $60 billion spent in the name of the pandemic went on unrelated programmes and projects.

Both the Royal Commission and Treasury say that spending pushed up the cost of living and government debt.

In other words, the pandemic became a convenient excuse to spend taxpayers’ money on things Labour wanted to do anyway.

And if Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori get another chance, they’ll do it again: borrow more, spend more, tax more.

This is a very important point. They used the tragedy of a global pandemic to raid taxpayers pockets for a spending splurge. They spent $30 billion meant for Covid-19 recovery on every pet project they had. This meant that National inherited a permanent structural deficit, and increasing debt.

Now as we face a potential oil crisis due to the Iran conflict, the Government has less ability to cushion us from this global shock, because of what Hipkins and Robertson did.

They promised in 2017 to keep spending below 30% of GDP. I thought 28% would have been a better cap (our long-term average) but hey both Labour and Greens said they would cap it at 30%, and I could live with that.

They used the excuse of Covid-19 to load an additional $30 billion of non-covid expenditure onto the books, and blew spending up to 34% of GDP – a level way way in excess of our tax take. It was an act of economic sabotage that leaves us today much more vulnerable to the Middle East crisis that we would have been.