Stuff reports:

For the next hour, in a video seen by more than 5000, the leader of the New Zealand Public Party spins a story about the Jewish nation. Using historical half-truths and debunked documents he enlightens his audience about its connection to a Satanic conspiracy, and a global plan to engineer a third world war.

He’s at pains to coat the language, expressing love for his “Israeli whānau”, and asserting that although the Jews killed Jesus, it’s only the Zionists, those Jews behind the nation of Israel, that are the real threat.

“It’s a Satanic deception.”

The voice of New Zealand Jewish Council spokesperson Juliet Moses brims with cool outrage when she explains that the Jewish people have heard this message before.

“Anti-Semitism is at its heart a conspiracy theory,” she says.

“It sees Jews as a shadowy nefarious cabal controlling world events and people in accordance with their evil agenda.”

“It’s insidious poison… I felt like I needed a shower after watching the video,” she says.

It is perhaps no surprise that someone obsessed with conspiracy theories also promotes anti-semitic ones.

The conversation started civilly enough, but soon became heated after the two disagreed about the history of the Jewish nation.

“The next thing he said was ‘we all know whose money controls the world’, so he inferred that we Jews control the world banking system.”

“That’s the line that Adolf Hitler used.”

“Billy went on to say the Rothschilds were Satanists and that Israel is a part of the bigger picture… he was essentially saying Jews control the world. All the same anti-Semitic crap I’ve heard since I was a boy.”

If we do control the world, we’re doing a bad job of it.

A few years back the two bumped into each other and sat down for a cup of coffee.

“He told me the Jews are responsible for all the world’s troubles… he genuinely thinks that. The Zionists control the banks. He was firmly of the belief that they’ve got a lot to say in New Zealand.”

Te Pou says he was dismissive at the time. But watching the crowd at one of Te Kahika’s recent rallies, he felt the need to speak out.

That last quote is from Shane Te Pou. So we have multiple witnesses to what Billy TK says and believes.

It’s a pity we don’t have ranked voting in NZ, so I could rank Advance NZ bottom.

The NZ Medical Association President, Kate Baddock, said that NZMA opposed legalisation of cannabis and urged a no vote at the referendum.

This prompted a backlash from several doctors, who said their views were not canvassed.

Dr Baddock responded:

She said the NZMA position is clear.

“Our position on cannabis has been around the harms of cannabis,” Dr Baddock said.

“It’s been there since 2012. It’s been reiterated a few times over that time, and this is a board and organisational position – it’s got nothing to do with me personally.”

A doctor has suggested to me I should look at what the 2012 policy actually says. Extracts are:

The NZMA believes that cannabis use, as with all licit and illicit drug use, needs to be viewed in terms of social determinants and the social gradient, whereby people living further down the gradient are at greater risk of drug harms.

The NZMA supports a harm reduction approach to cannabis use.

The NZMA believes the response to cannabis use should be one whereby cannabis users are diverted into education or treatment programmes. Law enforcement should target the suppliers of cannabis.

So the 2012 policy endorses a harm reduction approach, not a criminal approach. And specifically says users should be given education and treatment, not prosecuted.

So the 2012 policy strongly supported a change from the status quo. Now it was advocating decriminalisation rather than legalisation, but in terms of a binary choice between legalisation and the status quo, the 2012 policy is much closer to legalisation than the status quo.

So the decision by Dr Baddock to claim the NZMA is against legalisation, on the basis of the 2012 policy, is very dubious.

The real issue is why NZMA did not consult members and form a position on the referendum? The referendum has been known about for three years. As the 2012 policy only advocated decriminalisation, why didn’t the NZMA Board start a process to ascertain whether the majority of doctors supported the status quo, or legalisation?

Was it because they didn’t want to know the answer?

Excellent analysis from Eric Crampton. Basically the level of assets you hold is age dependent. Almost no one under 40 will have over one million of assets, but a large proportion of those aged over 60 will.

So the Greens’ policy will hit those who has retired and have little or no income, and drive down their savings every year they stay alive.

News.com.au reports:

NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian has declared: “I won’t resign” over bombshell revelations that she conducted a clandestine relationship with former MP Daryl Maguire who is now the subject of a corruption probe.

After confessing for the first time that she was in a “close, personal relationship” with the father of two, Ms Berejiklian has declared she has no intention of standing down as premier because she “hadn’t done anything wrong”.

“If I had done something wrong, I would be the first one to consider my position. But I haven’t,” Ms Berejiklian said in a press conference on Monday.

“I’m an intensely private person and without question, I stuffed up in my personal life.

It wasn’t even an affair as she is single and Maguire was seperated.

But for the Premier to have a five year relationship with an MP who had to resign over corrupt activities is a huge error of judgment. I suspect it will be curtains for her.

As usual, this shows the 538 probability of Trump winning in 2016 and 2020. Three key points I’d make:

• Trump is at much the same probability three weeks out in 2020 as he was in 2016, which is good for Trump as he won in 2016.
• However in 2016 his odds doubled from 13% to 29% after the Comey letter. Will there be an event as helpful to him this time? Seems unlikely.
• He has been on a decline since August, going from 31% to 14%

Also Harry Enten makes the case that Biden is the most well positioned challenger since 1936:

Former Vice President Joe Biden is dominating President Donald Trump in the latest polls. No, the election is not over yet, and Trump still has a non-negligible chance of winning.But a look through history reveals that Biden is in a better position at this point than any challenger since 1936, when the first scientific polls were taken in a presidential race.

In the 21 previous presidential elections since 1936, there have only been five challengers who led at this time. Of those five, only one (Bill Clinton in 1992) was ahead by more than 5 points. None of those five were earning more than 48% of the vote in the polls.

In other words, Biden is the first challenger to be above 50% at this late juncture in the campaign.This also continues to mark a massive difference with the 2016 campaign. While Hillary Clinton was ahead of Trump by as high as 7 points in October 2016, she never came anywhere close to approaching 50% of the vote. Trump merely had to win the lionshare of the undecided or third party voters (who would bolt their candidate) to earn a victory in 2016.

This is a key point. If both candidates are under 50%, then you can win by grabbing the undecideds. But if one candidate is polling over 50%, you have a much harder case.

Even if every undecided or current third party voter went to Trump now, he’d still be down about 5 to 6 points nationally. That’s never been the case with an incumbent since 1936 at this point.Of course, it’s the Electoral College that matters. There are very few universes in which Trump could win the Electoral College, if he were to lose nationally by 5 to 6 points.

If the gap is 4% Trump has a non-trivial chance of winning. The current gap is 10.5%.

The three challengers in the polling era (Jimmy Carter in 1976, Ronald Reagan in 1980 and Bill Clinton in 1992) who defeated incumbents have all been trusted more than the incumbent to deal with what Americans thought was the nation’s most important problem. None, however, were trusted by more than 50% of the voters.Today, Biden has a huge advantage over Trump when it comes to the pandemic. The clear majority (59%) of likely voters in the last CNN poll said Biden would better be able to handle the outbreak. Just 38% said Trump would do a better job than Biden.As I noted in July, the only issue that really matters is Trump’s handling of the coronavirus. He’s failing in the minds of voters right now.

Trump needs to pivot away from Covid-19, but that is difficult to do when you have many of your senior officials have been infected with it, and 220,000 Americans have died from it.

A guest post by Camryn Brown:

Under Jacinda Ardern, Labour is fundamentally a do-nothing government. Both its success and its failures are directly attributable to its ability to get nothing done. While it’s reasonable to be grateful for the health impacts of Covid-19 being so close to nothing, voters should only give Labour another three years if they want to stagnate.

By the end of 2019, voters were sick of Labour’s failure to achieve. National’s surpluses were gone and yet poverty had increased, house prices were increasing faster than ever, surgeries were down, and health waiting lists were up. Labour’s promises to invest in Kiwibuild, light rail, tree planting, health, and education were either failures or, at best, merely tokenistic window dressing. National was consistently ahead in the polls by over 5% on the back of Labour’s thorough failure to deliver. Voters saw that Labour was a promise-everything, do-nothing government… and didn’t like what they saw.

Then came Covid-19. While 25 deaths are hugely tragic, New Zealand overall has been relatively unscathed by this deadly virus. The protection of Kiwis has been the Labour government’s great success. And how did they do it? By making sure nothing happened! Lockdowns stop the virus from spreading in the community by stopping the community. Suddenly, under Covid-19, the key to success was for Labour to do what they were best at — making nothing happen.

Now, none of this is to say that Labour’s do-nothing culture wasn’t a danger to our Covid success. It worked for implementing lockdowns, but Labour had to be talked into locking down in the first place. Voices outside of government also had to talk or shame Labour into adding border restrictions, providing enough PPE and flu vaccinations, setting and following MIQ rules, making MIQ sufficiently secure, properly testing in MIQ, properly testing MIQ and border workers, and properly testing in the community. Labour can take credit for doing these things before disasters occurred, but credit is also due to those who prodded them out of inaction. And also to luck.

But, the main thing has been that Kiwis have been safe. The public have been happy with that and have rewarded Labour in the polls. That gratitude now looks like it might deliver another three years of Labour government.

Is that what Kiwis really want? I have to believe it’s not. Kiwis definitely want safety, but safety isn’t in play in this election. The Covid response template is set and a government of any stripe can and will follow it. The choice in this election is between letting Labour’s do-nothing stagnation waste three precious years while building a mountain of debt for the next generation or National delivering three years of progress towards a better New Zealand.

Voters now know what Labour means. They say “let’s keep moving” but we haven’t been moving forward and they don’t know how to. They can imagine and sell a vision but have no idea how to get there or how to avoid obstacles and pitfalls on the way. They have plenty of hope for the future but no hope of delivering anything necessary to achieve it. They are capable of following advice given in the form of instructions but are not capable of independently making decisions or combining advice from various sources to form their own opinion. When Phil Twyford and David Clark are their stars, they have no stars. They are a government that asks working groups to think of what to do and the public service to figure out how to do it and provides nothing but an expensive layer of public relations and credit-taking. They are always reactive, never proactive.

So, Labour is desperate to make this election about anything other than delivery. They attack National as mean when National is honest about the need for tough choices and the need to make sacrifices to benefit the next generation. They attack National as desperate for power when National is desperate for New Zealand to do better. They attack National as unsafe when National has consistently driven for a stronger and more coordinated Covid response. They attack National as focused on the economy over people when National recognises the economy as critical for wellbeing. They attack National for not aiming for the sky on poverty and the environment when National aims for achievable progress and delivers it. Labour does all these things because they know they’re do-nothing. Their only hope is to scare Kiwis into thinking National is a fire so we stay in their frying pan.

So, thank Jacinda and her team for New Zealand’s awesome health outcome. Be grateful to them for it. Love them for it. But, don’t hand them the keys to the country. They don’t know what to do with them.

Audrey Young writes:

If Jacinda Ardern leads Labour to a second term in Government, the question of who should be Deputy Prime Minister is problematic.

Part of the problem goes back to how she became leader. It is a uniquely Labour problem involving Labour deputy leader Kelvin Davis and the man many people assume is the deputy leader, Finance Minister Grant Robertson.

Deputy Prime Minister is not just a titular role.

When Ardern took time off to have a baby in 2018, or had long trips overseas, Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters was required to take charge of the Government, run Cabinet, be prepared to answer any questions in Parliament and at press conferences on any Government matter.

Even without long trips overseas, the Deputy PM usually fills in for the PM on Thursday in the House.

The one advantage for Labour in having a Green or New Zealand First deputy would be it would avoid the conundrum over Labour deputy leader Kelvin Davis.

The reality is Labour has a depuity leader who is not up to being Deputy Prime Minister. Robertson or Hipkins or Parker would be, but Davis is not.

It is usually arranged for Davis to be out of the House on a Thursday when Ardern is also not there, leaving it to Robertson, No 3 in Labour and No 4 in Government, to run the show.

Yep they actually have to hide him.

At https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/has_labour_delivered you can see the home page for the advertisement.

There is an initial $15,000 ad buy underway which Facebook says should get it seen by 175,000 to 500,000 people. We’ve raised more than that but I can only book at one stage the maximum limit on my credit card. Will calculate how much more we have and do a boost tomorrow with the rest.

We’ve had hundreds and hundreds of people donate. Again great community support for this crowd funded ad.

Newshub has Jacinda’s rally speech. As some media are reporting it uncritically, I will point out some inconvenient facts:

So imagine if you will that it’s 2030. 

Imagine a year 13 years after I became PM, so only if I get five terms can I be judged against what I promise.

We are now a country where children living in poverty has halved.

Her current commitment is to do so by 2027, so in fact this is a promise to make even less progress.

Where we’ve ended our housing waitlist. 

The waitlist which has grown 330% in her first term.

We’re a country that runs on 100 percent renewable energy.

Renewable electricity has dropped in her first term.

And now, in the year 2030, we have long eliminated COVID-19 too, and our economy and country has built back better.

What, is she saying it might tax five or six more years to eliminate Covid-19?

COVID didn’t end child poverty. COVID didn’t end the housing crisis. COVID didn’t make climate change disappear. 

All those stats were getting worse, before Covid-19 struck.

But thankfully, before the pandemic arrived on our shores, we sowed the seeds of change.

The only seeds of change were stagnation.

We’ve built over 600 Kiwibuild homes

They promised 100,000 in ten years.

We will see 100 percent renewable electricity generation brought forward to 2030. 

Again they have gone backwards on this goal.

I voted yesterday in Porirua. Little surprise that I voted for National and Brett Hudson. I also voted yes on both referendums. I thought I would explain here why I voted yes.

I am one of the 20% of adult NZers who has never tried cannabis and I doubt I ever will. In fact only once have I even used an illegal drug (I was offered some Ecstasy in Sydney on NYE a decade or so ago).

I think there are harms caused by some cannabis use, just as there is harm caused by some alcohol use – in both cases by those who are heavy users. They harm themselves, and sometimes others. The Christchurch and Dunedin longitudinal studies have good evidence on this.

I think New Zealand would be a better place if fewer people smoked cannabis. I also think NZ would be a much much better place without Meth or P.

So why did I vote yes. Here’s 11 reasons why.

1. The status quo has not worked. When 80% of adults have used an illegal drug, making it illegal has failed.
2. It is far easier to educate people on safety issues and consequences around a drug, if it is not illegal. You can reduce harm with a focus on education and safety.
3. I’d rather people have the option of buying cannabis from a legal regulated outlet that asks for proof of ID, and can ensure the product is relatively safe, than from gangs or their dealers
4. The tax revenue from legal cannabis sales could be used to fund greater drug rehabilitation services, to reduce the number of high end users or addicts.
5. Meth or P is a terrible drug that both destroys people’s lives but also can cause them to maim or kill others under the influence. I’d like to break any linkage or cycle between cannabis and P by having one legal and one illegal.
6. I’d rather the tens of millions of dollars and hours of Police time spent on cannabis related crimes was spent on reducing serious violent and sexual offending.
7. Having cannabis legal, but restricted to adults, should see a reduction in young people smoking cannabis. We have seen this with alcohol, with a big drop in youth drinking over the last decade.
8. Even though it is not very common now, I don’t think people should end up with criminal convictions simply for personal use or possession of cannabis.
9. Legalisation would reduce (but not eliminate) revenue for gangs.
10. A legal regulated regime can be tweaked and improved over time to keep the focus on reducing harm. You can’t really tweak or improve an illegal regime – you have no control over it at all.
11. A criminal law which 80% of NZers have broken is a bad thing. You want criminal laws to be widely respected. Having laws that are widely ignored doesn’t promote adherence to the law.

There are challenges and risks with legalisation. You don’t want more drugged driving. You don’t want more young people using cannabis. You don’t want people think that something is good or okay simply because it is legal.

But I think these are manageable challenges. I think overall a legal regulated and controlled regime will produce better outcomes for New Zealanders than an illegal regime that operates beyond the law, and has failed to deter NZers.

I was equally bemused and amused to get a call from a radio journalist saying they’ve heard I’ve called the election for Labour. This was news to me, to put it mildly. It seems someone has got excited over this tweet I made on Friday night:

This was me doing a sarcastic pisstake of if you were a Labour supporter who had their hopes on Jacinda winning. Any journalist who thinks that this is me conceding the election, needs a humour transplant, or worse.

In both my Patreon and here I provide detailed analysis of how I see things. Here’s my current take.

• Of course Labour is in a strong position. They are ahead in the public polls, are a first term Government and have benefited from the normal patriotism over politics instinctive response to a disaster.
• NZ First are in huge trouble and are highly unlikely to make it
• The Greens are running a significant risk of not making it also. In this Patreon post I analyse their latest ONCB result and say that their true level of support is probably between 3.3% and 7.1%. so they have a non-trivial risk of not making 5%.
• ACT are doing well and could well be the third largest party in Parliament

So while Labour is in a strong position, there is a credible path to victory for National. It is:

• NZ First and Greens don’t make it
• There is a 4% swing from Labour to National or ACT in the last two weeks. The last two ONCB polls have had only 6% or 7% between Labour and National/ACT.

Now again it is a challenging task, but far from unachievable. Let’s look at how polls have moved in the past in the last two weeks of a campaign:

• 1996: Govt dropped 6% from 40% to 34% in last two weeks
• 2002: Govt dropped 5% from 46% to 41% in last two weeks
• 2011: Govt dropped 6% from 53% to 47% in last two weeks

Under MMP elections are pretty much always tight. Even in 2008, 2011 and 2014 National never won Government by more than a couple of seats. Anyone who thinks the election is decided doesn’t understand MMP. And anyone who takes a sarky tweet as newsworthy should take a chill pill.

UPDATE: Newshub has gone from reporting news to inventing it, having broadcast a story tonight, totally misrepresenting this tweet. They didn’t even attempt to talk to me about it, unlike Radio NZ who did the courtesy of calling me.

This makes it timely to refer to Karl du Fresne’s post from Thursday on what has been an offensive by Newshub against National. We also saw this in the interviewing the party leaders after the debate. The body language and questions to the two leaders was starkly different.

TVNZ reports:

TVNZ’s election tool, Vote Compass, asked people: ‘From what you saw, heard or read about the debate, who do you think won?’

Among those who watched the debate, 32 per cent of respondents said ACT leader David Seymour won. 

Meanwhile, 21 per cent said Greens Party co-leader James Shaw won, 11 per cent said the winner was NZ First leader Winston Peters, four per cent said it was Māori Party co-leader John Tamihere and two per cent said Advance New Zealand co-leader Jami-Lee Ross won the debate.

Now this is a self selecting survey, but as those who watched the debate are self selecting also this is less of an issue than normal.

Matches general feedback that Seymour did very well.

It is quite possible after the election that Seymour will be leader of the third largest party in Parliament. Here’s the number of MPs ACT has had under MMP:

• 1996: Eight
• 1999:Nine
• 2002: Nine
• 2005: Two
• 2008: Five
• 2011: One
• 2014: One
• 2017: One

Again it is quite possible 2020 will see ACT’s largest ever caucus.

Action Zealandia don’t just dislike foreigners and immigration, but also the Joooos!!

It seems the Jews are behind the Black Lives Matter movement in the US according to the article!

Back in the heydays of Barack Obama’s ‘leadership’, there was a call to modify legislation to accommodate foreign interests, led by Rabbi Mark Diamond, director of the Los Angeles chapter of the American Jewish Committee.  Diamond organized one of those many interfaith ‘dialogues’ that consisted in looking out over the US border towards Mexico and complaining that there aren’t enough illegals living in America. The timing was important because an immigration reform was on the table and the Jews, ever thoughtful, wanted to make a spectacle and guilt trip Americans into accepting people that have no right to be in their country. It seems whenever the US is in talks about reviewing its legislation, agents of an enemy Nation have the cojones to step in and mislead public opinion, in order to interfere with the law-making process:

So the Jews are agents of an enemy Nation.

We have politicians in our government, making our laws, telling us what it means to be an American and in which direction America should be moving, who are citizens of Israel, and no one blinks an eye.

The enemy loves telling us who we are and what we stand for.

Again Jews are the enemy.

Jews continue to enmesh themselves into our societies via their nepotism and tribalistic cohesion

Jews are under the bed and enmeshed!

Today, we are not allowed to criticize or even notice certain things regarding Jews. A great portion of Western, Central and Eastern Europe (apart from Spain, UK, Scandinavia and the Netherlands) criminalizes dissension from the holocaust narrative. This event is not only promoted to the hilt on countries that played no role in it, but it is also the official State Dogma in those countries. Try questioning that dogma and see what happens – your mileage may vary. Just ask 91 year old Ursula Haverbeck if you’re allowed to visit her in prison, that is. That will teach her! For those who cannot visit her but are nonetheless interested in her point of view, I recommend her interview with Panorama, in which she declared passionately: “the Truth needs no laws”. Her sentence is set to end this coming November, so fingers crossed. Her crime was asking pertinent and inconvenient questions to State officials and then to Jewish organizations. 

She didn’t just ask questions. She married a Nazi and is a Holocaust denier. Now I disagree with the countries that criminalise Holocaust denial (while understanding why Germany does) but again she doesn’t just ask questions. She claims the mass destruction of Jews was a myth. She has claimed Hitler had a “divine mission” in the world-historical context. She has also threatened Jews with a new pogrom and claimed Auschwitz as a place of death is not proven, but just opinion. Sure she shouldn’t be in jail, but she isn’t exactly a benign person.

Stuff reports:

Labour will repeal the three strikes legislation if it wins the election as part of the party’s drive to reduce the prison population.

You reduce the prison population by reducing offending, not by letting serious repeat offenders out quickly.

The three strikes law has actually seen a reduction in serious reoffending. The very thing the left often say its vital.

It is likely Labour will have the numbers to repeal it (if they form Govt, as NZ First won’t be there), but they will regret doing so. The reason is because their repeal of the law will be able to be tied to specific violent crimes in future.

Most law changes around parole or bail or sentencing have decisions made by Judges or Parole Board etc and you can’t say with certainty what the sentence would have been under the old regime.

But three strikes is different. It does give certainty. For a second strike you lose parole eligibility. It doesn’t affect the sentence just eligibility for parole.

So let’s take an example of how this would work. Let’s say Andy has a 1st strike offence for violent assault. He gets released in 2021 after Three Strikes has been repealed. A few weeks later he commits another violent assault. He gets sentenced to five years jail.

Under three strikes, he would serve the entire five years. Once they repeal it he will be eligible for parole at some stage after one year and eight months. And if he gets parole and commits a further offence in that period between early release and his full sentence date, then one can fairly and conclusively say the law change allowed that crime to occur. If Andy gets out after three and a half years and six months later kills someone, then the MPs who voted to repeal three strikes will be held responsible for the law change that allowed him to do so.

And there won’t just be one or two Andy’s. There are 12,000 criminals out there with a first strike offence. There will be hundreds who will go onto do a second strike, and who will then get out early on parole and bash, maim, rape or kill someone. And everyone of those victims will find out their crime happened because Labour repealed the law to give parole to repeat serious violent and sexual offenders.

It will take some time, but the backlash when it comes against those MPs who vote to repeal the law will be massive. They will have to confront victims and their families and explain why they thought abolishing a law which had reduced serious reoffending was a good idea.

So Labour and Greens will probably get the votes to repeal the law, if in Govt. But they will pay the price for it electorally down the track. This sort of law change isn’t one where it happens and is forgotten about. It will hurt them, make no mistake.

Remember this is a law only 20% of New Zealanders disapprove of. It is supported by a greater than 3:1 majority. The majority or plurality of Labour and Green voters support it. Now again that won’t stop their MPs from repealing it, but it will hurt them as the consequences become apparent.

Biden, for the first time, has a double digit lead in the 538 poll average. It is now 10.1%. It was 6.6% just three weeks ago.

A double digit gap is generally considered landslide territory.

People need to understand that while there are polling errors, they will not reverse a 10% gap. The average Brexit polls had a loss by around 2% and they won by around 2%. In 2016 the national polls had Clinton ahead by around 4% and she won popular vote by 2%.

Polling errors can be significant in very close races. They are not in landslides.

Of course there are 25 days to go, but that isn’t a lot of time. There may not even be any more debates, and some states have started advance voting.

Also he really can’t help himself. After it is revealed the Governor of Michigan was the subject of a plot to kidnap her and hold a “treason trial”, Trump’s literal very first words were “Governor Whitmer of Michigan has done a terrible job”. That’s not going to convince any swinging voters.

Anyway for those who think I am relentlessly negative on Trump, I am writing a blog post on the 10 things I most like about Trump. I will also do one on the 10 things I least like.

The appendix got in the way this week, but despite that I have finally managed to navigate the extremely un user friendly Facebook process to get authorised to do political ads.

Am just doing a trial run with the ad with a $50 spend and once that is done, will push go on the full campaign. I’ll do a seperate post on how much was donated. Huge thanks to all those who have. It’s quite exciting to crowdfund an ad.

The Herald reports:

Wellington City Council is investigating giving mana whenua voting rights and remuneration on council committees.

Councillors unanimously voted this morning in favour of a report being undertaken into the legal and logistical steps of it.

Māori partnerships portfolio leader councillor Jill Day led the move with a notice of motion, which was tabled at a strategy and policy committee meeting today.

She choked up when she reflected on the Māori world view.

“Just for a minute imagine what it’s been like to watch for generations your land alienated, your names replaced, and your identity removed from the community, and every time you would like to participate you’re reminded that you can’t because of this law or this process. The rules are stacked against you.”

It is true there has been land alienation etc in the past. But what is the law or process that stops Maori from participating in Wellington City Council? What are the rules that Cr Day says are stacked against them?

As it happens two of the 15 City Councillors are Maori. This is roughly the same proportion as Maori are of the overall Wellington City population.

Councillor Fleur Fitzsimons said the definition of democracy recognised the legitimacy of first peoples.

“In New Zealand, the Treaty of Waitangi is what gives this council and the whole state any legitimacy to be here at all.”

That is an interesting stance. By this logic, the Governments of Australia, the US and Canada are all illegitmate as they didn’t have a Treaty.

I regard it as a good thing we did sign the Treaty of Waitangi. I think our record with regards to indigenous populations is far better than many other countries, because of it. But that is different from saying the Treaty is what gives the Government legitimacy.

As to the actual issue of Mana Whenua reps on Council committees, I don’t actually oppose that so long as final decisions are made by the full elected Council.

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is in a three-way race for the Nobel Peace Prize, according to bookmakers – with Donald Trump hot on her heels.

The world’s most prestigious awards are announced tonight about 11pm NZ time.

Most bookmakers have Ardern in the top three nominees, with the World Health Organisation and climate activist Greta Thunberg. The US president is fourth favourite, say bookies.

There are 318 candidates this year – of which 211 are individuals and 107 are organisations.

If Trump is the 4th favourite with the bookies, that says a lot about the bookies. Not saying Trump’s Middle East peace deals are not highly laudable – just that it is inconceivable he would win given who makes the decision.

The WHO would be a strange choice. They certainly play an important role in battling Covid-19 (especially in the developing world), but they have not been standout performers, to say the least. If they win, it will be more an act of solidarity as they are under fire.

So that leaves Thunberg vs Ardern. If it is between those two, I’d have to say Ardern is the more deserving. Her actions after March 15 had an actual positive impact around the world. Rather than have a backlash and reprisals from Muslim majority countries, NZ’s response to the massacre was praised widely, and the end result was the opposite of what the terrorist wanted to achieve. Not all of that is due to Ardern, but certainly some of it is.

Thunberg has certainly motivated a large number of people, and led to protests and strikes around the world. But has there been any actual change of substance due to her advocacy? No.

Of course it may go to someone outside the bookie favourites.

Whether Ardern wins or not, the publicity around it will probably help coming a week before the election.

Franks Ogilvy write:

The letter was written for a group of Hutt people dismayed by the Hutt City Council’s plans for a new kerbside collection scheme.  Some became concerned by biased and incomplete disclosure by the Council in its required consultation with residents. Others have concerns about the loss of incentives for waste minimisation, or loss of choices about collection and bags and bins.

The consultation disclosure left out important options. It should have been balanced, fair and objective. Instead it was obviously intended to steer people into supporting one option apparently preferred by some Council officers and the Mayor.

Under those insiders’ preferred option Hutt households will lose their current Pay as You Throw choices among competing suppliers. Kerbside collection costs will be buried in rates. That reduces the natural reward to people who minimize their waste. Low waste producers will subsidise people who produce lots of waste.

If you want to reduce waste, then you should charge high waste producing households more than low ones.

The consultation, and the information provided to Councillors who made the decision, did not properly explain costs and risks. From what we have seen in thousands of pages of Council information obtained under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, Councillors were likely to have been misled by significant omissions and wrong statements. Among the misleading claims was that Council had to make an urgent decision, because waste contractors would not offer bag collection after the middle of next year.

Many Hutt people will be aware that Councillor Milne has been trying to warn Councillors of the risks in the kerbside collection proposals. He investigated discrepancies in the information fed to Councillors (and the public), including that an end to bag service could not be avoided. That seems to have been intended to stampede Councillors. They were pressed to allow a seriously irregular process that pre-judged the outcome of the consultation. The Council asked contractors to bid on a closely specified new system at the same time as the Council was pretending to consider ratepayers’ views on other options, with an open mind.  

Among the tender terms was a prohibition on tenderers talking to Councillors, exactly at the time that Councillors might want to hear from those who know costs and unexpected risks in the proposed new system. That prohibition was imposed despite the decision on tender success being expressly reserved to Council officers, away from Councillors. So Councillors were told they could not talk to the people in the best position to know of problems in the Council officer recommendations, allegedly because it could undermine the tender integrity, even though Councillors would not see the final tender assessments and would not be involved in awarding the successful tender.

It is no surprise that a judicial review is being filed.