Stuff reports:

First-term councillor Tamatha Paul is poised to make a run for Wellington’s mayoral chains.

The 23-year-old said she was considering challenging incumbent Andy Foster, who had endured a torrid first term so far and was reportedly already planning for the 2022 election.

Paul told Stuff on Tuesday that a run for the mayoralty was “definitely something that I’m thinking about”.

If Paul runs and wins, she might be the first Mayor to never have paid rates directly!

There have also been several reports Rongotai Labour MP and former deputy mayor Paul Eagle was considering a mayoral run. However, when approached by Stuff on Tuesday, Eagle said he had no current plans to run for mayor.

LOL. That is the most half hearted denial I have seen. Of course he is standing.

Newshub reports:

Newshub can reveal just how hard Green Party co-leader James Shaw advocated for the $11.7 million promised to the privately-owned Green School in Taranaki.

The Green School was one of 150 projects getting a piece of a $3 billion pie – the shovel-ready infrastructure fund – and Shaw was willing to put them all at risk.

Newshub has obtained an email that went to Government ministers and the Treasury from Shaw’s office and it included a stark ultimatum.

“Minister Shaw won’t sign this briefing until the Green School in Taranaki is incorporated.”

The email said Shaw discussed the ultimatum with the Education Minister. 

“Minister Shaw has also discussed this one with Minister Hipkins.

“Sorry to be the spanner-in-the-works, but if we can get the project included, he’ll sign everything this afternoon,” the email said.

This is astonishing. James Shaw was so motivated to get $12 million for the private school that bears the name of his party, he blackmailed the Government by refusing to approve every other proposal, unless they included this one.

I seriously doubt Shaw was the only Green MP who knew of the funding proposal. You don’t blackmail the entire Government for a project unless you know you have your party with you.

It’s even been reported he hosted a meeting in his office with the school owners and Hipkins to try and convince Hipkins. How realistic is it that no other Green MP knew about this?

The Greens didn’t just advocate for this wealthy elite private school with 25 domestic students to get $12 million of taxpayer funding, they demanded it.

Radio NZ report:

The number of beneficiaries rose by 12 per cent in April this year, the highest increase ever in the past 24 years, and nearly double the next biggest increase.

A report, compiled by the Ministry of Social Development, has assessed the impact of Covid-19 on welfare recipients, and compared it with other recent economic downturns.

It found that, if Treasury projections are correct, and the percentage of the working population on benefits reaches 16.2 per cent, it would be the highest number ever – far eclipsing the rate of beneficiaries during the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), when it was at 12.4 per cent.

It would see the country return to a rate similar during the economic recessions of the late 80s and early 90s.

The real impact will be seen a month or two after the wage subsidies have ended and notice periods have been gone through.

Barry Soper writes:

We are all running the risk of losing our sense of humour (well maybe not all, but some of us).

To describe posts on Facebook by Judith Collins’ husband David Wong-Tung as ‘aggressive misogyny’, as some have done, is simply ridiculous.

The Nats are making good use of humour on the platform with what they are calling the National Party’s Meme Working Group.

The fiercely private Wong-Tung has been re-posting some of them on his personal Facebook site, like the one where they have tinted the Prime Minister’s face green, making her look like the Marvel comic character The Incredible Hulk, followed by one calling her The Incredible Sulk with a caption saying: “Don’t make me angry. You won’t like me when I’m angry.”

That of course was a play on her telling us she was indeed uncharacteristically angry over a call-out by the Government’s Covid team telling everyone in South and West Auckland to have a Covid test, regardless of whether they had symptoms.

If you had been waiting in your car for several hours waiting for a test you could be forgiven to being angry – particularly when you discovered the message should never have been sent.

Collins handled her husband of more than 40 years’ Facebook posts the way they should have been handled saying she’s never been able to get him to do anything she tells him to do.

She says Wong-Tung gets sick of people having a go at both of them but it’s up to him how he responds. Collins says if anyone has got the secret for how to control a 64-year-old man who used to play a lot of rugby and was a policeman then they should let her know.

He’s no sexist, she protests, he’s married to her!

And before everyone gets carried away, they should reflect on Jacinda Ardern’s partner Clarke Gayford – who hasn’t exactly been a wilting violet when it comes to defending her and indeed himself.

Before she became the Prime Minister, the fishing show host compared a Herald columnist as a bottom feeding fish for her criticism of him for trading on her image.

Ardern rightly laughed at the time saying that she wasn’t about start editing her partner’s social media comments.

We live in an ultra sensitive society where perceived transgressions are far too easily labelled by keyboard warriors as misogynistic, racist and bullying.

Hear hear,

Stuff reports:

National has announced a $4.8 billion plan to fix the nation’s classrooms and create modern learning environments for students.

During a visit to New Plymouth Boys’ High School (NPBHS) on Monday, National leader Judith Collins said $2b of the money would be rolled out under a five-year scheme called Fix New Zealand Schools Alliance, if the party won the election in October.

It would be part of a wider, 10-year programme, worth a total spend of $4.8b, which aimed to fast-track education infrastructure investment and get ahead of student roll growth.

News of any potential investment in schooling infrastructure was welcomed by NPBHS principal Sam Moore.

Smart move by National to presumably move this announcement forward.

And a very nice contrast with Labour and Greens frittering away money on pet causes.

Newshub reports:

Newshub can reveal the Green School which received nearly $12 million in Government funding hosted a ‘sacred ceremony’ run by a school parent who believes COVID-19 is a manufactured natural disaster.

The self-described ‘new age architect’ also planned a $15,000 tour of New Zealand that included planting crystals with the school’s students.

Christof and Alaya Melchizedek were excited to be selling the tour that would stop at the privately-owned Green School in Taranaki for the “main solstice piece” – a two-day activity with the children.

So the $12 million private school is doing a two day solstice piece for their students.

“We’re going to be laying down a crystal bed. Everyone will be bringing crystals from all around the world. We are going to be unifying them and bringing in this 5th dimensional consciousness,” Christof Melchizedek explained in a video.

5th dimensional consciousness is very difficult to achieve. It requires much more money than 4th dimensional consciousness.

1st dimensional consciousness is all one and connected with no past, present or future.

2nd dimensional consciousness is the plant kingdom and lower animal kingdom

3rd dimensional consciousness is normal human eaking consciousness.

4th dimensional consciousness is the astral plane where we dream

5th dimensional consciousness if the realm of higher level thought forms. Angels are from here.

It is very important to taxpayers that we give a wealthy private school $12 million so students can learn about this.

In a long Facebook post on Sunday, Melchizedek described COVID-19 as a “manufactured natural disaster”, a “UN 2030 vision” including “vaccinated nanochip technology” and “looming possibility of vaccination agendas” – all baseless claims circulated by conspiracy theorists.

The post was deleted after questions from Newshub.

Of course it was. Newshub is controlled by the UN and are part of the nanochip empire.

The crystal planting activity appears to have been thwarted by the lockdown, but the couple hosted a fundraising event at the school – a “lion’s gate abundance and manifestation ceremony” including “bio-energy field cleaning” and “DNA activation”.

DNA activation is of course vitally important. Where would be we if we didn’t activate our DNA.

The Government should apologise for the $11.7 million handout to the school that is hosting this mumo jumbo.

Stuff reports:

Former deputy PM Sir Michael Cullen has come out in support of a yes vote on the euthanasia referendum, as he faces a terminal cancer diagnosis.

Cullen said he did not want to lose his dignity as he entered his final stages and wanted the choice to be able to decide when it was right for his life to end. …

He was diagnosed in Feburary with Stage 4 small cell lung cancer and secondary cancer in the liver. While chemotherapy has “knocked back” the cancer, the 75-year-old Cullen said it will return and he will die earlier than he had expected.

Cullen said despite “excellent” palliative care in New Zealand he was concerned about dignity and control in his final days.

“Many of us with terminal illnesses think about what the last weeks or months may be like. Our health services talk us through this. Our good people in the hospice movement provide excellent end-of-life care for many. We are told our pain can be controlled to a tolerable level. This will suit many of us. But for many others, myself included, there is an overriding issue of control and dignity,” Cullen said.

He said he had carefully read the End of Life Choice Act, which the referendum seeks to make active law, and was confident the legislation was sound.

“I have carefully read the End of Life Choice Act. It provides safeguards against pressure coming on the dying person from others. Its scope is limited. It does not force any medical professional against their conscience. It respects the rights of those who find assisted euthanasia morally abhorrent,” Cullen said.

“But it offers to people like me the chance of finishing the life I have enjoyed so much in a way consistent with my moral beliefs and my sense of the dignity of human life.”

“It is not about what some rather too lightly dismiss as ‘being a burden’. I do not want my only choice being to die in a near-comatose state on morphine, which has been administered knowing it will shorten my life anyway.”

“I do not want to lose control of my bodily functions so that my dignity has disappeared with the ebbing of my life. When I reach those last stages, if that is the prospect, I want the choice to be able to decide when the time is right to complete the circle of life.”

On this occasion I am in agreement with Sir Michael.

Many people may not know that the ability to sentence someone to Life WIthout Parole is very new in New Zealand. It has existed for just a decade.

The genesis is that National in 2008 campaigned on bringing in a Life Without Parole sentence for the worst murders. ACT has a similar policy and also a three strikes policy.

On 18 February 2009 the National/ACT Government introduced the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill which amended the Sentencing Act 2002. This had a clause which said:

If the court that sentences an offender convicted of murder to imprisonment for life is satisfied that no minimum term of imprisonment would be sufficient to satisfy 1 or more of the purposes stated in subsection (2), the court may order that the offender serve the sentence without parole.

This was separate to the three strikes provisions which got most of the focus, and was in the same bill. The provision is restricted to offenders aged 18 or older.

It passed first reading 64 votes to 58.

The select committee made significant changes to the three strikes provisions, but left the LWOP for the worst murders unchanged. It then passed second reading on 4 May 2010 by 63 votes to 59.

The committee stage was on 18 May 2010 and the third reading on 25 May 2010 by 63 votes to 58.

I’m glad Parliament did pass the bill and brought in the sentence of Life Without Parole, as no lesser sentence would have been appropriate in the case of the Christchurch terrorist.

A guest post by Jess McVicar of the Sensible Sentencing Trust:

Article 1: The faults in our system                                                                   

For 16 months Michelle has continued to live in fear. Every day she is being threatened by the one person she should be kept safe from – her perpetrator. Intimidation, stalking, harassment, property damage and unwanted visits keep Michelle on constant high alert.

This is the life of a woman who must continuously look over her shoulder, hoping her offender will not harm again, hoping that while she is waiting for his trial to happen, he will not kill her. But her life is in the hands of the Justice system.

Her everyday life has been affected by this selfish, violent, devious perpetrator who has been released on bail, only minutes away from her home. He has bail conditions set by the court, yet he continues to ignore them, stalking her, and threatening both Michelle and her family.

Why does she not just complain to the authorities you ask? She has – numerous times! But she has been told time and time again he is not doing “quite enough” to warrant being in technical breach of his conditions. Michelle has had to call the police so frequently that they have now asked her to stop calling 111. Why? Because every time they go to her home the perpetrator has gone. The police need a photo, or a video recording. To do this Michelle must put herself at risk. He has worked out how to avoid the security cameras at her home. He has been before the Courts for breaching his bail, but the Judge let him go. He should have been held in remand until trial, but unfortunately Michelle’s voice, her ongoing fears and concerns were not considered.

Sadly, Michelle’s case is not the only one like this. In 2019 there were 5995 applications filed for Protection Orders: an increase of 9% from 2018. 5487 of those Protection Orders were breached and 3008 people were charged with breaching protection orders in 2019.

In October 2018 Samuel Pearson 26, snuck into a home in Pukete. He snatched a 30-centimetre butcher’s knife from the kitchen before creeping into the bedroom where two girls aged three and four were sleeping. The children’s father woke to the girl’s fearful screams.

He rushed to the bedroom where he was faced with Pearson wielding the knife at the child. Pearson pushed the three-year-old’s face into a pillow and held the knife to the back of her head.

He then threatened to hurt the girl, who was distraught and crying.

The girl’s father lunged at Pearson to protect the child, tackling him into a wall. Pearson lashed out, inflicting stab wounds to the father’s temples and arm.

Pearson was on bail at the time of the violent home invasion for attacking a car with a scooter and repeatedly punching a man during a separate incident two days earlier. He previously admitted to intentional damage, assault with intent to injure and male assaults female in relation to the first incident on October 13 that same year.

Unfortunately, there are many stories like this, and more victims who have been violently harmed, murdered, abused or threatened by someone who is on bail.

Yet there is a push to repeal the Bail Amendment Act, which in turn will see a rise in crimes such as these.

The changes to bail brought in by the Bail Amendment Act 2013 simply ‘reset’ the bail law to a standard the public expected – and that should have already been in place.  For many years, the New Zealand public had repeatedly expressed their outrage and deep concern at the extent of crime committed by offenders on bail.  The fact the remand population has increased so significantly reflects just how lax the law used to be.

 Labour, National, NZ First, ACT and United Future all supported the changes – at all stages of the Bill.  Members from both major parties spoke eloquently in support, acknowledging the need to tighten up in this crucial area of our justice system.

The mistake they made was not taking into account the rise in crime, and the long waiting process between an accused’s first appearance and a trial. The Bail Amendment Act extended the range of offences without reverse burden of proof to include Class A drug offences, murder and serious violent or sexual offences.

It did however see a rise in those held in remand across all classes of offences, and the question must be raised as to whether Judges have misused the Bail Amendment Act or has the Bail Amendment Act allowed Judges to better manage defendants who continuously are in breach of bail conditions and had their final warning?

Currently there are over 3000 people held on remand, which makes up more than 35% of New Zealand’s prison population, but they are not held on remand for committing a lower level crime.

There is a large, biased conversation going around about the climbing numbers of remand prisoners. Who or what is to blame, how did we get into this situation, why is nothing being done?

So far, the dialogue seems to be limited to blaming the Justice system, or the Bail Amendment Act, or wait for it…..the defendants or offenders are victims.

At some point commonsense must be brought into this push to overhaul the Justice system. The vast majority of those charged with offences are subsequently convicted of them. Our crime and victimization rates will not reduce if we ignore evidence of risk to victims or our community while waiting for the wheels of justice to reach that conclusion.

So, what could be the possible commonsense approach without putting the community and victims at risk of being harmed? A faster and smarter approach in the courts system!

The current process can be anywhere from 6 months to 2 years – if not longer, and that is before there is even a trial. It is an absolutely appallingly drawn out process involving administrative work, ongoing meetings between the lawyers and judges, debating over name suppression, bail amendments, or bail applications, and often there will be 6-8 court dates set (call-over hearings) for just these administrative reasons.

There are many stories released about defendants having issues with this, and what harm it is causing them, but why are the stories of the harm and the effects it is having on the victims not being told? The victims not only have to wait the agonising process out, but they are also living with the aftermath of the offence committed against them. They have to try and rebuild some form of normality in their lives. And then if the defendant has been released on bail, they live with the continuous fear that they will return and harm them again.

A victim has no input at all over bail applications and locations, even if the bail address is in close proximity to the victim, they are lucky if they are even kept up to date with the progress of the case, and technically they are not entitled to go to the call over hearings.

In the meantime, remand doesn’t need to be any more punitive than is necessary to protect those who may be at risk from a defendant. What we need urgent action on is rehabilitation and prevention programs. That’s where we need the work to be focused on, not the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.

But as defendants who are held in remand custody are still considered innocent until proven guilty, they cannot be forced to attend a program (no prisoner can be forced into a program for that matter), hence why they are not available for remand prisoners. But without at least the option to voluntary attend a course or programme, the defendant on remand has no opportunity to spend that time improving their chances of living a better life on release.

Assertions of widescale injustice are also exaggerated. Time spent on remand is credited against any eventual term of imprisonment, meaning the impact on most defendants is neutral. The only real injustices are with those who are acquitted (around 9% of cases) or who or receive a sentence that would not have seen them imprisoned for that length of time. We would be better off providing compensation to this small minority than trashing our current bail laws. 

The rhetoric that Three Strikes Law and the Bail Amendment Act are “tough on crime” is just theatrical nonsense. Having a commonsense approach to crime does not mean being tough on crime, it is about a sensible balanced approach. Protecting victims of violent crime is not about being tough on crime.

The answer to reducing crime is not about removing the victim’s right to protection and safety.

What has our justice system learnt from the death of Christie Marceau?!

Jess McVicar
National Spokesperson
Sensible Sentencing Trust

*Victims name has been changed.

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.