Marc Daalder writes:

A politician takes over as head of one of the major parties of a small island nation, replacing a predecessor who had become increasingly unpopular, jeopardising the party’s chances at the upcoming election.

Then, as Prime Minister after the election, the politician surrounds themselves with climate activists and scientists and begins, in response to massive protests and a clear mandate from the electorate for action on reducing emissions, rolling out evidence-based climate policy.

That includes an ambitious plan to totally decarbonise transport, the banning of the import of fossil fuel vehicles by 2035, investment for electric vehicle charging statements, continuing the transition to renewable energy, requiring big companies to list their climate-related risk, requirements to upgrade the energy efficiency of commercially-rented buildings and millions of dollars to research reducing industrial emissions.

Although, at first glance, the above story seems reminiscent of Jacinda Ardern’s rise to power, the politician in question is actually Boris Johnson and the small island nation is the United Kingdom. The key difference is in that last sentence, where the politician actually implemented policies that would significantly reduce emissions.

Good to see this analysis. All Ardern has done is set up a committee to advise on future policies. She hasn’t actually made any significant policy changes. Once again it has been rhetoric over substance, like with light rail and Kiwibuild.

Jacinda promised the Government vehicle fleet would be emissions free by 2025. Less than 2% are electric after three years.

Talk is easy. Results are harder.

A couple of months ago some of the usual suspects said that the Police should be defunded and not armed etc because most of the people shot by the Police have been Maori or PI.

Of the 21 people killed by Police between 1990 and 2015, seven are European, nine Maori, three Pacific and two others. Now I personally didn’t thunk the Police are shooting people because they are Maori, but because they were posing a threat to Police or others.

It got me wondering about the other side of the equation. What is the breakdown by ethnicity of those who have killed or assaulted police officers. So I asked the Police and they have responded.

There have been eight (now nine) officers killed since 1990 and the ethnicity of the killers is three Maori, two Europeans, one Pacific and two unknowns. So at least half of those who have killed Police are Maori or Pacific – much the same ratio as those killed by Police.

Not enough data to reach much of a conclusion but the assault data is more robust as there has been a shockingly high 16,000 assaults on police officers since 2010.

The ethnicity breakdown of people assaulting police officers is:

• Maori 50% (17% of pop)
• European 39% (70% of pop)
• Pacific 9% (9% of pop)
• Asian 2% (15% of pop)

No doubt the usual suspects will somehow also blame the Police for being assaulted so often by Maori and Pacific offenders!

Judith Collins has announced her new lineup. Big changes are:

• Simon Bridges moves to No 4
• Shane Reti to No 5
• Todd McClay to No 6
• Chris Bishop to No 7
• Todd Muller in No 8

In terms of portfolios the big changes are:

• Nicola Willis gets Education
• Shane Reti gets Health
• Harete Hipango gets Shadow Attorney-General
• Simon Bridges gets Foreign Affairs and Justice
• Chris Bishop gets Shadow House Leader
• Todd Muller gets Trade
• Michael Woodhouse gets Regional Economic Development

The full list is here.

A nice mixture on the front bench of experienced Ministers and newer MPs who would make great Ministers.

After the unscientific survey on Kiwiblog on perceived media bias, I decided to follow up with asking the same questions in a scientific poll by Curia of 905 New Zealanders.

The full results are on my Patreon.

The summary is:

Centre right and centre left voters agree that they perceive Stuff and Radio NZ as leaning left and NewstalkZB as leaning right. For the NZ Herald, One News and Newshub they disagree with each set of voters seeing the outlet as leaning the other way. 

Nikki Kaye has announced she is retiring from politics. I’m very happy for Nikki, but equally sad for National.

Nikki is one of my closest friends. We’ve been friends for around 20 years and often holidayed together. As a 28 year old she won Auckland Central off Labour – the only time in 90 years National has held the seat. She is one of the hardest working MPs and candidates I have known – her door knocking is legendary.

She went on to win Auckland Central four times, including beating Jacinda Ardern twice. She became National’s youngest ever female Minister and one of the youngest Ministers of Education.

Auckland Central will miss having her as their MP. She got involved in scores and scores of projects and delivered real results for an electorate that had been taken for granted.

Her cancer diagnosis in 2016 was a huge shock as she was so young and so fit and healthy. It was a stark reminder how cancer can strike anyone, and Nikki showed huge tenacity in fighting it.

She has spent more of her adult life inside Parliament than outside it, and so there is a lot to do outside politics. She’s already done the Coast to Coast three times, so I don’t know what her next big challenge is, but I’m sure she’ll succeed at it.

Stuff reports:

New National leader Judith Collins has stripped Michael Woodhouse of the health portfolio over his involvement in the COVID-19 leak.

On her first full day as leader Collins replaced Woodhouse with Shane Reti, and promoted Reti to the front bench. …

Speaking to reporters at 3pm, Collins said that Woodhouse had been given the portfolio of Pike River Recovery, and the economic portfolio of regional development, in addition to his associate finance role.

She said that she had spoken with Woodhouse about the leak, and that he had made a mistake, but she still had confidence in him. “He’s a top performer,” she said.

She had advised him that the right thing to do when he received the email from Boag was to not reply, and to tell the Health Minister immediately.

She said Reti was “delighted” to be moved to the front bench.

A well deserved promotion for Shane Reti, and politically also very useful as it allows National to move on the from fiasco over the health leaks.

The 2020 Jonesie Awards were held this morning at Parliament by the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union. The awards celebrate the best of the worst of government waste at the central and local level with a glitzy Oscars-style ceremony.

You can read the full nomination and winners list here.

Congratulations to all the winners – in particular Phil Stoner Twyford (yes that’s really his middle name) for taking home this year’s lifetime achievement Jonesie. Good on him for fronting up to accept it.

The Taxpayers’ Union’s work is made possible by its 57,000 subscribed members and supporters. To add your name, click here.

Bari Weiss writes:

But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions.I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong. 

I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.

But it does.

A fascinating poll in Texas by the University of Texas at Tyler for the Dallas Morning News. The UTT poll normally has a small bias of 0.3% to Republicans.

Trump won Texas by 9% in 2016 but in this poll is trailing by 5%. They found:

• Biden 46%, Trump 41%
• 9% of Republicans in Texas will vote Biden
• Covid-19 approval ratings:
  • Local leaders: +39% net approval
  • Governor Abbott: +8% net approval
  • President Trump: -14% net approval

Texas has 38 electoral college votes, second only to California. On current polling Trump is behind in the 13 largest states.

112 days until the US election. Can Trump turn it around?

Newshub is reporting Judith Collins has been elected Leader of the National Party.

Game On!

UPDATE1: National has confirmed Judith has been elected.

UPDATE2: Gerry Brownlee has been elected Deputy

Two very experienced and effective MPs. This will excite a lot of National supporters and activists.

UPDATE3:

As a huge Lord of the Rings fan, I love this take:

The Taxpayers’ Union’s Jordan Williams and Neil Miller, sit down with political commentator and Stuff columnist Damian Grant discuss the runners and riders of the sudden National Party leadership race.

You can subscribe to Taxpayer Talk via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, iHeartRadio and all good podcast apps.

The tenures of 14 leaders of the National Party, in order:

1. Sidney Holland, 16 years, 298 days
2. Keith Holyoake 14 years, 140 days
3. Jim Bolger 11 years, 257 days
4. Robert Muldoon 10 years, 148 days
5. John Key 10 years, 15 days
6. Adam Hamilton 4 years, 24 days
7. Jenny Shipley 3 years, 304 days
8. Bill English 3 years, 97 days
9. Don Brash 3 years, 30 days
10. Jack Marshall 2 years, 147 days
11. Simon Bridges 2 years, 85 days
12. Jim McLay 1 year, 117 days
13. George Forbes 172 days
14. Todd Muller 53 days

I’m hoping the next leader has a tenure somewhere in the range of the top five!

You can vote below for who your preferred National Party leader is. The candidates listed are not necessarily candidates. This is just a fun poll to see where Kiwiblog readers lie.

The results will be posted tonight after the caucus meeting starts, so there can be no question of it influencing the results (not that it would anyway).

UPDATE: Over 4,000 votes cast and the results are:

1. Judith Collins 67%
2. Simon Bridges 12%
3. Nikki Kaye 6%
4. Mark Mitchell 6%
5. Gerry Brownlee 4%
6. Amy Adams 4%

No recount needed for this one!

The National caucus meets tonight to elect a new leader. I don’t know who is standing, but I will blog on candidates as they declare.

For each candidate I will do a blog post on the case for them, as I see it.

I assume Judith Collins will be a candidate. What is the case for Judith:

• Experienced. Has been an MP for 18 years, and a Minister for nine years
• Well-known: Doesn’t need to be introduced to the public
• Assured: Judith would be confident in taking on Ardern and Labour
• Economic credibility: former Minister of Revenue and Energy & Resources
• Strong media presence: Does weekly spots on the AM Show
• Strong brand: Labour are trying to say no one knows what National stands for now. People know what Judith stands for

As I said, I’ll do a case for any other candidates as they declare.

Todd Muller announced at 7.33 am:

I have taken time over the weekend to reflect on my experience over the last several weeks as Leader of the Opposition.

It has become clear to me that I am not the best person to be Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the New Zealand National Party at this critical time for New Zealand.

It is more important than ever that the New Zealand National Party has a leader who is comfortable in the role.

The role has taken a heavy toll on me personally, and on my family, and this has become untenable from a health perspective.

For that reason I will be stepping down as Leader effective immediately.

I intend to take some time out of the spotlight to spend with family and restore my energy before reconnecting with my community.

I look forward to continuing to serve as a loyal member of the National Party team and Member of Parliament for Bay of Plenty.

I will not be making any further comment.

Please respect the privacy of my family and me.

Poor bastard. It is such a tough and often unpleasant job. I wish Todd well. He is a great guy.

The Herald reports:

The family of a man shot dead two decades ago is taking a civil case against the police in the High Court at Wellington.

In 2000, Steven Wallace walked down Waitara’s main street using a golf club to smash shop windows, a taxi and then a patrol car with officers in it.

Wallace was shot dead by senior constable Keith Abbott, who in 2002 was acquitted of murder when the Wallace family took a private prosecution against him.

The 23-year-old’s cause of death, according to the Independent Police Conduct Authority’s subsequent report, was a fatal wound to his liver.

“[Doctors] confirmed that even if first aid had been rendered immediately after Steven was shot, he would not have survived.”

The family believes there were other tactical options available to the police, and has argued Wallace was deprived of the right to life.

The shooting of Wallace has been found to be justified by an internal Police review, by the IPCA and by the High Court.

The internal Police review is worth a read. Wallace:

• smashed 100 window panes with a golf club
• attacked an occupied taxi with a baseball bat
• Tried to run over a cyclist in his car
• attacked an occupied police car with a golf club
• was told to drop his weapons by the Police and specifically told they were armed
• advanced on a retreating police officer
• warned Wallace again they were armed
• ignored calls to talk
• ignored a warning shot in the air from the Police
• kept advancing on the officer who warned he would shoot him if he came any closer
• held the baseball bat above his head and told the officer he was going to harm him with it
• said “You fucking arsehole “I’m going to kill you”

And then the officer shot Wallace dead.

The family of Wallace of course mourn his loss. But they also harassed the family of the constable who shot him, until a court instructed them to stop harassing her.

It is very sad that Wallace died, but he is to blame, not the Police.

The Serious Fraud Office has announced:

The Serious Fraud Office has commenced an investigation in relation to donations made to the Labour Party in 2017.

This is very interesting. If I had to guess, I’d say the investigation was into Labour not naming people who paid tens of thousands of dollars for artworks as a donation to Labour.

And who ran these art auctions:

Wellington artist Karl Maughan provided Labour with two paintings for auction in the last year. He said he gave them to campaign staffer Barbara Ward, who works for Labour leader Jacinda Ardern.

If I am correct that this is what the SFO is investigating, then it will come down to whether Labour valued the artworks fairly. That determines who get listed as the donor.

Let’s say a painting went for $25,000. Now if the painting is worth $20,000 normally then the artist is deemed to have made a $20,000 donation and the bidder a $5,000 donation as they paid $25,000 for something worth $20,000.

And only donations over $15,000 get the identity published, so the person who paid $25,000 for it, has their identity hidden.

But what if the painting wasn’t really worth $20,000. Let’s say that is a nominal value but in reality it is only worth $7,000. Then the donor has made an effective donation of $18,000 and should have been disclosed.

And the story quoted gives us a clue that may be the case:

At the last Labour art auction, they sold three works by Mt Eden artist Stanley Palmer, from a numbered series of 20 prints of the end of the road at Karamea, on the west coast of the South Island.

Palmer believed the $20,000 paid for the three was what they were worth – but admitted they would usually have sold for around $2400.”They went for a lot more than I expected.” 

If they would normally only go for $2,400 then the donation value is $17,600.

So it will be a very interesting investigation, if I am correct in guessing this is the focus of it.

Dan Hannon writes:

Britain’s offer of residence rights to three million Hong Kong citizens has prompted Chinese threats of retaliation. What kind of retaliation, though, would be proportionate? Might China offer spaces to three million British citizens? I can think of one or two Maoist statue-smashers here who might want to take them up.

How odd that Beijing should see Britain’s visa policy as any of its business. The United Kingdom has always recognised that it has obligations to the people of Hong Kong. The basis of the 1984 accord was, essentially, that China could get the land as long as the people living on it kept, at least until 2047, the rights they enjoyed as British subjects. China has now flagrantly violated that deal, snuffing out political freedoms in Hong Kong and making it clear that the inhabitants of that territory will be treated like Uighurs or Tibetans – that is, as renegades to be brought to heel.

Britain’s response, in the circumstances, is remarkably modest. We have not aimed diplomatic or commercial sanctions at the Chinese. We have not taken any action against them at all. All we have done is to honour our promise to Hongkongers. If they cannot enjoy freedom under Chinese sovereignty, let them come and enjoy it under British sovereignty.

A great summing up. The best way the world can stand up this repressive move by China is to allow the people of Hong Kong to leave. To make China realise the economic successes of Hong Kong only work if there is political freedom to match the economic freedom.

The arrival of several hundred thousand enterprising and industrious Hongkongers (it is vanishingly unlikely that all three million will take up the offer) will enormously boost our economy. Conversely, their departure will impoverish China, which has done very well out of having a low-tax, low-regulation, high-wage entrepôt on its doorstep, blessed with secure property rights, global trading links, common law norms and judges who don’t take bribes.

I’d love to see New Zealand offer say 5,000 places to Hong Kong citizens, once Covid-19 is over.

Stuff reports:

The man convicted of the Christchurch mosque attacks will represent himself when he is sentenced next month. …

Justice Mander said the shooter’s choice to represent himself will not affect the sentencing, which would proceed on August 24 as planned.

The court would appoint standby counsel for the sentencing hearing, whose role is to represent the accused should he later choose to be legally represented.

The accused will be sentenced on 51 charges of murder, 40 charges of attempted murder and a charge of committing a terrorist act after he entered shock guilty pleas to all charges in March.

The sentencing is scheduled to start on August 24 and is expected to take three days.

I’m puzzled by how the debate over sentencing will take three days.

The sentence for murder is an automatic life sentence under s172(1) of the Crimes Act, unless it is manifestly unjust. There can be no debate a life sentence would be manifestly unjust.

So the only thing to decide is what the minimum period of imprisonment without parole is. The normal minimum is 10 years, but s104(1) of the Sentencing Act says it must be at least 17 years if the murder was committed as part of a terrorist act or the offender has been convicted of 2 or more counts or murder.

So the real issue before the court is a choice of:

• A life sentence with a minimum period of imprisonment between 17 and x years
• A life sentence without parole

The longest minimum period of imprisonment was for William Bell for murdering three people and attempting to murder a fourth. He got 30 years. So there can be no debate really that x must be at least 30 years as 51 murders is far more than three murders.

But really, I think the only feasible sentence is life without parole. S103(2A) states that “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.”

The purposes above are accountability, denunciation, deterrence and protection.

If gunning down 51 people in an act of terrorism and wounding 40 others doesn’t qualify for the maximum available sentence, then what act possibly could? Would you have to nuke an entire city to get life without parole?

Parliament in 2010 legislated for life without parole to be available for the worst murders. A court that failed to impose it for these 51 murders would be flagrantly ignoring Parliament’s will in making this sentence available.

I don’t want his victims to have to worry that in 30+ years time they will have to track his parole status and make representations to the Parole Board about whether he should be let out. If he gets life without parole, then they can at least not have to think about him again, knowing he will never be released.

UPDATE: The three days for the hearing will not be primarily for arguments over the non parole period. There will be potentially 90+ victim statements to be heard from families members and those wounded.

Stuff reports:

Hundreds upon hundreds of babies are born each year in New Zealand with foetal alcohol syndrome, a devastating and incurable condition that can cause life-long problems.

It is transmitted during pregnancy when alcohol from the mother’s bloodstream reaches the developing foetus, and can cause heart defects, behavioural problems and intellectual disability.

The Ministry of Health says about 45,000 New Zealanders, from babies to adults may live with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. The ministry’s estimate is 1800 affected births each year, while some researchers using overseas data, estimate that figure to be closer to 3000.

With increasing awareness around the effects of alcohol on unborn children, a push for mandatory labelling on alcohol warning about those dangers has been in play since the 1990s.

The notion that warning labels on alcohol will lead to fewer cases of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder is fanciful.

It relies on the following:

• The mother being genuinely unaware of the dangers of drinking when pregnant despite being told at every appointment with their lead maternity carer, and it being on brochures they will have received
• The mother purchases a bottle of booze, and as she raises it up to have a drink she sees the warning label and suddenly realises it is harmful, and decides not to drink the bottle she has just purchased

The sad reality is that most of the very small minority of mothers who drink significantly while pregnant just don’t care. It is not a matter of ignorance.

I don’t mean the mother who has a small glass of wine once or twice during pregnancy. I mean the mothers who drink to excess and their kids get FASD.

I’ve got no problems with pregnancy warning labels on alcohol. They are already quite common. I just think a belief they will change anything is fanciful.

Stuff reports:

“Covid-19 has revealed a serious and growing issue. New Zealanders who have paid high taxes for years are being laid-off and made redundant but finding they get little back in benefits. New Zealanders in genuine, short-term need also face the stigma associated with welfare created by long-term beneficiaries who have made it a lifestyle choice.”

ACT proposed income tax rates should remain unchanged but 0.55 per cent of the tax paid would be allocated to a ring-fenced employment insurance fund.

On the loss of employment, a taxpayer could claim 55 per cent of their average weekly earnings over the previous 52 (or fewer) weeks. The maximum yearly payable amount would be $60,000.

Insurance could only be claimed for one week for each five weeks the person has worked, up to a maximum of 26 weeks per claim. Someone who has worked continuously for only one year could claim up to 10 weeks’ employment insurance.

Once a recipient has used up their employment insurance entitlement, they can move to Jobseeker Support and Electronic Income Management would apply.

I like this. It doesn’t give more money to people who spend most of their life on the dole, but is generous to those who have been in gainful employment and through no fault of their own, lose their job.