Andrew Geddis and Claudia Geiringer write:

Secondly, there is a real question as to whether the s 70 notices are ultra vires. Section 70(1)(m) permits a medical officer of health, by way of public notice, to “require to be closed … all premises … of any stated kind or description”. It is by no means clear that permits the Director-General to close all premises, subject to an express exemption – as he did in the order. 

That is a very interesting point. Can a provision to close all premises of a specific kind be used to close basically all premises in NZ?

The s 70(1)(f) notice is arguably even more vulnerable. An initial question is whether the Level 4 Lockdown rules actually are a form of “isolation” or “quarantine”, given the broad exceptions for essential workers and essential activities that attach. Even if they are, it is highly debatable whether the Director-General’s power to “require persons … to be isolated or quarantined” empowers an order isolating or quarantining all persons throughout the country rather than specifically identified individuals. It is a power exercisable by a single public health official, with no requirement to consult anyone else in the making of the decision. Further, whereas s 70(1)(m) is framed as an “order” that must be published or broadcast to the world at large, s 70(1)(f) is framed as a “requirement” and contains no equivalent notice provision. This strongly suggests it is intended to be exercised on an individual-by-individual basis rather than a nationwide one. 

Again a very valid point. Was the intent to quarantine a subset of peeople, rather all NZers?

A third set of questions concerns the consistency of these notices with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA). The effect of that Act is that the Health Act notices can only impose limits on a range of civil and political rights (including the freedoms of expression, association, peaceful assembly and movement) if those limits are “demonstrably justified”. Combating COVID-19 clearly provides an exceptionally strong justification for limiting rights, and any court would be likely to accord the Government considerable latitude. Nevertheless, it can certainly be argued that some of the limits imposed by the notices go beyond what is necessary. For example, the s 70(1)(m) notice prohibits the physical publication and distribution of periodical magazines, despite allowing daily and weekly newspapers to continue to do so.

It’s a pity the magazine publishers have no money to challenge this in court. I think they would have a very good case.

Also we have the situation where the Police have admitted they were acting beyond their legal powers in the first nine days. The BFD has the memo:

I know that staff at the front line are using a range of tactics with the right intent but not supported by the law.

That is from the Deputy Police Commissioner.

What we know now is that those actions were ultra vires: acting or done beyond one’s legal power or authority. Businesses were closed on Police orders, shopkeepers threatened with arrest, and all without any legal basis. This may well open the government up to protracted legal action for harm caused by illegal action by the enforcement arms of the state.

Yes any actions taken in the first nine days before the Director-General of Health issued his notice are shaky.

I’m a supporter of the Level 4 lockdown. I think it is good pretty much everyone except the Minister of Health complied. But it does reek of incompetence that there may have been no legal basis for it for the first nine days, and a somewhat shaky one thereafter.

A more competent course of action would have been to pass specific enabling legislation.

Matthew Hooton writes:

There are early signs of megalomania in the Government’s economic response to Covid-19. It needs to be nipped in the bud.

In recent days, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Finance Minister Grant Robertson have signalled that they don’t see their role as limited to providing a general economic framework and guaranteed family-income system from which the post-Covid economy will evolve. Instead, it seems they want to personally pick which industries are doomed and which are set to thrive. …

We need to speak very plainly about this: these three career politicians have absolutely no idea what sectors of the economy are doomed, which have a future, and whether any particular commercial proposal makes sense. Add Economic Development Phil Twyford to the mix, and it risks the appearance of a circus run by clowns.

Winston thinks that we should and can compete with pharmaceutical giants and manufacture our own medicines. Bet you he won’t invest a cent of his own money in his ideas.

Free-market capitalism works not because it is individualistic — although it is — but because it collectivises everyone’s best guesses and analysis. In contrast, collectivist economic systems reply on the brilliance of individuals or, worse, committees. Again, we should speak plainly: central planners are not just often wrong, but invariably wrong, just like most of us.

Excellent analysis.

David Fisher reports:

Claims all community roadblocks have a police officer present collapsed less than a day after being made with police headquarters now admitting there was no officer at a roadblock on State Highway 1 where motorists were being refused onward travel.

Police had initially claimed the officer was there but have now admitted he was absent for 70 minutes. …

The next morning, an NZME journalist travelling on State Highway 1 north of Houhora in the Far North encountered a roadblock without a police officer. After presenting paperwork showing media were an essential service, those at the roadblock refused to allow onward travel. 

This is disgraceful.

The road blocks are vigilante actions. The Police should have closed them down, not supported them.

As this report shows those running them are stopping New Zealanders from going about their legal work.

Richard Tranter got sentenced to eight years and three months jail for vehicular manslaughter.

The sentence is a pretty long one for vehicular manslaughter but it did make me wonder if whether the degree of sheer recklessness can ever push you over the line to murder? Probably, not but this must come close. The key details:

• 112 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood
• deactivated two of the vehicle’s safety systems – namely the ABS brakes and the dynamic stability control system
• Reached a speed of somewhere between 178 and 186 kph in an 60 km/hr zone
• undertook two vehicles
• Was videoing his own driving with his cellphone and said ” I’m having a good night. I don’t give a fuck in the world. How about that y’all. I think I’m doing 180, I’m not quite sure. It’s alright, we’ll still pass people. Not a care in the world. I don’t give a fuck, why don’t just take the left-hand side, already, three, two, one, wooo. Fuck you. Not a care in the fucking world.
• Then ploughed into a car at an intersection, killing the other driver

The disabling your own safety systems plus the driving at three times the speed limit while videoing your driving is basically as reckless as you can get.

Mediaite reports:

President Donald Trump told Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer to “make a deal” with the “angry” armed protesters who have been protesting the state’s coronavirus lockdown measures, calling them “very good people” in a Friday tweet.

“The Governor of Michigan should give a little, and put out the fire. These are very good people, but they are angry,” Trump tweeted. “They want their lives back again, safely! See them, talk to them, make a deal.”

The protests have been ongoing for several weeks and have been covered repeatedly by Fox News. In mid-April, protesters deliberately jammed Michigan roads, while on Thursday, armed protesters stormed the Michigan Capitol in military gear and attempted to gain access to the House floor.

Call me old fashioned but I don’t regard armed people who storm a parliament as “very good people”. They should be treated the same way as if armed antifa activists stormed a state capitol.

In July 2019 I blogged on a laughably light sentence of 30 months for Fraser Milne for the following:

• Driving too fast and swerved to avoid the victims’ car
• Did a u-turn, followed them and forced them to stop
• Demanded they pay for any damage to his car and threatened them that he was in a gang
• They drove away. He followed them and tried to cut them off again.
• They stopped. He tried to force the doors open. Hit the car. Swore at them and yelled his pit bull would eat them
• They drove away. He went to some shops where he made racist remarks about the victims (they were NZ Chinese) and spotted them driving past.
• He chased them for 10 minutes of over 140 km/hr
• When they wouldn’t stop, he hit the back end of their car with his, causing their car to flip into the air
• The car landed upside down. It almost slid down a steep bank. Two children were thrown from the car.
• He approached the upside down car and rather than offer assistance continued to yell racial slurs and threaten violence to the father
• All five people in the car had injuries including a skull fracture in the youngest child

The Court of Appeal has seen sense and increased the sentence to 57 months.

Newshub reports:

Judith Collins has hit David Clark with perhaps the most damaging insult she can come up with, calling the Health Minister “the Phil Twyford of this year”. 

That’s a great sledge but it got me thinking.

Should we turn this into an annual award?

It could be awarded for the Minister who has the biggest gap between what they promised and what they delivered?

Finalists at this stage would have to be David Clark and Shane Jones.

The Daily Mail reports:

When Panorama turned its gunson the PPE crisis, five medics savaged the Tories’ approach. Yet they ALL had Labour links. …

Fallout from its overnight broadcast led the BBC’s Tuesday morning bulletins.

But it has since emerged that all five of the doctors and nurses Panorama chose to interview were longstanding Labour Party activists or supporters.

This was not shared with viewers, in what appears to be a flagrant breach of BBC guidelines.

Every single person interviewed was a Labour candidate, member, activist or supporter, yet the BBC said nothing.

OF course not even disclosure would be enough. You can’t claim to be a neutral broadcaster and spend an entire program quoting activists for one party.

The Government has published the final version of the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill which will go to a referendum with the election.

The summary of it is here. Key aspects are:

1. Allow adults aged over 20 to buy cannabis from licensed retailers
2. Adults aged over 20 can grow 2 cannabis plants at home, to a maximum of 4 per household
3. Adults aged over 20 can legally possess up to 14 grams (a joint has 0.3 to 1 gram generally) of dried cannabis
4. Those under 20 who possess cannabis can get fined but not a criminal record
5. There would be potency limits and quality standards for cannabis
6. Cannabis products would have to show the amount of THC and CBD and recommended maximum daily limits
7. Advertising of cannabis products would be banned
8. Health warnings would be placed on cannabis products
9. An excise tax based on weight and potency would be levied and would fund services to reduce harms from drug use

Looks infinitely better than the status quo I have to say.

The Guardian reports:

The inspirational second world war veteran Captain Tom Moore has been appointed an honorary colonel to mark his 100th birthday on Thursday in recognition of his efforts that have raised nearly £30m for the NHS.

The centenarian will become the figurehead for the Army Foundation College in Harrogate, which trains 16- and 17-year-olds, on a birthday that will be celebrated with more than a hundred thousand birthday cards – and two special flypasts.

Two helicopters are due to fly over Moore’s home in Bedfordshire in the afternoon, while the flight of a wartime Spitfire and a Hurricane will be broadcast live on BBC at 8.20am, to avoid large numbers of people trying to travel and see it.

The veteran said it was “quite extraordinary” that he was turning 100. “It is even more extraordinary that I am doing so with this many well-wishers and I am in awe at the response my walking has had”.

Well-wishers have also sent him more than 125,000 cards, which are being stored at his grandson’s secondary school ahead of delivery – and he is also due to receive a personalised message from the Queen.

The events cap a heady period in which Moore first captured the nation’s imagination by raising millions by meeting a promise to walk the length of his 25m garden 100 times before his birthday to raise money for NHS charities.

The veteran originally set out to raise £1,000 but donations wildly exceeded that, and he completed his efforts in the middle of the month, surrounded by a guard of honour. At that point he had raised £12m, but it has continued to rise and passed £20m on 17 April.

What an amazing acheivement. It is now at 30 million pounds.

The Guardian reports:

It’s been quite a six months for Boris Johnson. In rough chronological order – the prime minister’s timelines have always had a tendency to get messy – he has won a general election, taken the UK out of the EU, acquired a dog, finalised a divorce, got engaged to Carrie Symonds, announced they were expecting a baby together, taken 10 days’ holiday during the early days of the coronavirus pandemic, been admitted to the intensive care unit at St Thomas’ with Covid-19 and become a father again.

That is a huge six months – election, Brexit, engagement, ICU and a baby.

Just how many children Boris now has is anyone’s guess.

It is at least six, but probably seven and possibly more. They are:

• Lara Lettice Johnson aged 27, born to Marina Wheeler whom he married five days before (he was married to someone else at conception, with an annulment four weeks before birth)
• Milo Arthur Johnson aged 25, born to his then wife Marina Wheeler
• Cassia Peaches Johnson aged 23 born to his then wife Marina Wheeler
• Theodore Apollo Johnson aged 21 born to his then wife Marina Wheeler
• Stephanie Macintyre aged 11 born to his mistress Helen Macintyre
• Another child to an unknown mother according to a court judgment in the Macintyre case
• Baby boy Johnson born April 2020 to his fiancee Carrie Symonds

Statistically there are probably more!

Newshub reports:

Public health experts have told Newshub the Health Ministry’s data on COVID-19 cases is meaningless and we haven’t won the battle on community transmission. 

The concern is that in-depth, targeted community testing is still yet to begin. 

Auckland University School of Medicine Professor Des Gorman says we can’t claim to have stopped community transmission.

“Quite frankly, given the way we’ve been reporting data and given the extent of testing we’ve done, I suspect that question [of stopping community transmission is still to be answered,” he says.

Another epidemiologist, Otago University Professor Nick Wilson, also agrees we are “some way” from being able to claim we’ve stopped community transmission because the level of testing in New Zealand has not been at a high enough level for long enough.

Another epidemiologist, who asked not to be named, agreed telling Newshub “we have not won anything yet”.

It comes after Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said on Monday we had won the battle against community transmission.

“There is no widespread, undetected community transmission in New Zealand. We have won that battle.”

So who do we believe?

“If they’re confident that the community prevalence is trending to zero, and if they’re confident they can track people within 48 hours, and if they’re confident they can isolate cases, we should be at level 2. If we’re not there, presumably one of those three platforms is yet to reach the stage of confidence,” he says.

I’ve read this elsewhere also. Unless one of these is missing, we would be at L2. The government should be upfront and say which component is missing.

Oliver Hartwich addressed the Epidemic Response Committee and had some wise words:

I hope the Government listens.

Stuff reports:

Raising taxes to recover the billions of dollars the government has been spending through the Covid-19 crisis may not be the best way forward, says former Prime Minister Sir John Key. …

In an interview with Radio Tarana, Key praised the government’s efforts to contain and eliminate Covid-19, but warned of consequences of the large spending during lockdown keeping businesses afloat and paying wage subsidies.

“They’re spending a tremendous amount of money and it’s appropriate that they’re doing so, but the question is will they try and recoup that through higher taxes?

“I certainly hope that they don’t, not in the short term anyway, because that will slow the economy down further and cost more jobs,” said Key, who served as Prime Minister 2008 to 2016.

I hope they listen to Key but I suspect they won’t. I think Labour will look to use this crisis to do what they have long wanted – to whack up taxes.

A guest post from MrTips:

The lockdown for COVID-19 had to happen, there is unlikely to be anyone with a combined pulse and brain who thinks life could continue ad lib as it did before. But I personally believe there is room for genuine debate about how much lockdown is/was needed. Hindsight is always 20-20, but there is also a case to be made based on “fool me once on me, twice on you”. We need to address the REAL consequences of severe lockdown before we contemplate doing it again.

Prior to us going to Level 4, many of my scientific and medical colleagues had already thought beyond the 4 weeks and expressed concern about the potential for loss of acute clinical service to people who genuinely needed it. Heart attacks, cancer, road accidents, important elective services. On top of this, the government and MOH flu vaccine and PPE distributions to GPs and some tertiary health divisions have been claimed as abysmal. Being closer than most to the action, I know who I believe.

In the last week or so, the economic consequences and debates have begun. The economic, societal and mental health consequences of lockdown are predicted to be severe. This could be classed as an understatement. But now, the medical consequences of a Level 4 type lockdown are becoming apparent. On the 16^th of March 2020, Austria went into a Level 4 harsh lockdown, about 2-3 weeks after its first COVID19 case. Sounds familiar. They are now loosening the restrictions. Also sounds familiar. But is there a previously unappreciated medical cost? This research article in the number one ranked European Heart Journal suggests there is. Metzler and colleagues looked at the cost of lost services in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) during the first two weeks of the lockdown, compared with the two weeks before. The conclusion? Estimated excess ACS deaths due to the lockdown likely exceeded actual COVID-19 deaths in Austria to 29 March (110 vs 86). So, the true COVID-19 related death toll at the time could reasonably be argued as more than twice the “official” rate. Given that the Austrian COVID-19 death toll went from 86 on the 29^th March to 491 on the 21^st April, one could be forgiven for being concerned that unmet acute cardiac service deaths rose to over 600! And that is just for one condition. What about cancer? Suicides?

If this single result bears out in further post-lockdown research (underscored by ICD-10 COD records) then it paints a bleak future indeed. Unfortunately, this outcome will almost certainly be repeated in other European jurisdictions, once their data comes to publication. So, its highly likely Austria got more than they bargained for; so will we. Now that we plan to loosen from our Level 4 restrictions, it is going to be very important for authorities to consider the TOTAL medical consequences of the lockdown. We only have 14 COVID-19 deaths to date (22 April). How many heart attack deaths do we have over the last month, who could have been saved but for reduced service, or its non-take up? Given that one New Zealander dies every 90 minutes from heart disease under normal circumstances, we really need to know. Further, the Austrian data suggests if we go into lockdown again, it’ll just get worse, and could be absolutely futile. Losing your hard earned business from this virus would be absolutely heart breaking – possibly fatal. Turns out, it may be just as heart breaking in medicine as well.

Taxpayer Talk is back. This week Jordan and Joe interview Act MP David Seymour on the worrying signs of the politicisation of the Reserve Bank, and Grant Robertson’s suggestion of monetising the Government’s debt. 

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

Support the show 

Michael Reddell writes:

As far as I can tell, we have seen not a single pro-active release by the government or any of its ministries or agencies of any analysis or advice generated with those agencies and relevant to decisionmaking, or evaluation of decisions, on responding to the coronavirus, or the economic or social effects of the virus and private or public responses to (the risk of) it.  Perhaps worst is the Ministry of Health, which appears to have a central role in advising the government, and exercising some powers itself: they have belatedly released some (questionable) Otago University modelling, and belatedly released the Verrall report on contact tracing, but we have seen not a word of their advice or analysis, or of any frameworks they are using to shape their advice.

It is no better on the economic side.   On the purely economic response side, the Reserve Bank and its Monetary Policy Committee has appeared consistently complacent and slow to react, then lurching into the extraordinary commitment not to cut the OCR further no matter how bad the economic and inflation situation gets.  But none of their supporting analysis or advice, for far-reaching unconventional interventions (and not), has seen the light of day –  and, despite the Official Information Act, is unlikely ever to do so, successive Ombudsmen having proved extraordinarily deferential to the Bank.

On The Treasury side, pro-active release of papers relating to the annual Budget has long been a very positive feature.  But we’ve seen nothing at all of the analysis and advice that contributed to the large economic package –  some coronavirus related, some just electioneering –  announced a month ago, or any of the interventions since.   And, of course, we have seen not a hint of any advice or analysis provided to the government or the Ministry of Health in advance of either the inital partial lockdown decision or the latest extension of restrictions announced yesterday.    Is there even a hint of any sort of serious cost-benefit analysis in The Treasury’s approach/advice?  Are they even seriously near the top table at all?  We simply don’t know.   Even the economic scenarios paper released last week –  useful in its way – masked as much as it revealed, because most of the underlying analysis –  eg just how large are the economic losses at each of the government’s “levels” –  is hidden.

And, of course, we have seen precisely none of the Cabinet papers –  of which there must be very many, large and small, relevant to decisionmaking around the crisis over the last three months.  The Epidemic Preparedness Act can only be invoked on the advice of the Director-General of Health, but we’ve not seen the substance of his advice or recommendation.  We are told that yesterday Cabinet acted in accordance with the advice/recommendation of the Director-General, but we’ve seen no sign of that either –  including, thus, no ability to assess the Director-General’s advice on aspects that he (and his agency) know precisely nothing about –  not just the economic dimensions of choices, but those around liberty, rights, civil society and so on. It would be good some day to see, for example, the advice that led the government to acquiesce in the barbarism of banning funerals –  and, recall, they are still banned until next week.  At present, instead, we have nothing.

Reddell makes an excellent point. We’ve seen the most dramatic decisions of our lifetimes, and decisions that will costs tens of billiosn of dollars – and the Government has barely released any papers on which they made their decisions.

I asked Corrections how many convictions prisoners serving a sentence of under three years have.

Many might assume that the vast majority are first time offenders.

In fact only 23% have 10 or fewer convictions.

A massive 46% have 25 or more convictions.

17% have 50 or more convictions.

And 3% have 100 or more convictions.

These are who Labour wants to grant the vote to.

Spiked has an excellent profile of the great explorer Captain Cook. The woke generation are trying to turn him into a villain, so read this article to get a different view.

Here’s 10 things you might not know about him:

1. He was one of eight children of his father, a Scottish farm labourer
2. He only attended school for five years
3. He has no descendants. His six children died without children. They were James died age 31, Nathaniel died age 16, Elizabeth died age 4, Joseph died before 1, George died before 1, and Hugh died age 17
4. Cook almost encountered mainland Antarctica
5. Cook spent 12 years of his life sailing around the Pacific
6. The botanists on his voyages collected 3,000 plant species increasing the known plant species by 25%
7. William Bligh served under Cook
8. During the US War of Independence, Benjamin Franklin ordered US forces not to attack or detain Cook but to treat him as a common friend of mankind
9. He mapped more of the globe than anyone before him
10. None of his crew died from scurvy due to his insistence on them eating sauerkraut

Mark Jennings at Newsroom writes:

The best thing the Government could do to help New Zealand media right now is to get the Prime Minister on a Zoom call with Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg and ask him for $100 million.

In return for saving the New Zealand media, she agrees to let Zuckerberg off the hook that the Australian, French and other governments are planning to put him on by making Facebook pay for news content.

Eric Crampton points out:

I know that things are pretty tough in the newsrooms, but asking the government to run a shakedown operation to fund you is not all that hot.

We’ve seen this before.

The music industry demanded a tax on CDs to fund their previous business model.

The media industry are demanding a tax on Google and Facebook simply because they provided a better advertising advertising product than them.

I wonder if the horse and buggy people demanded a tax on cars?