Despite almost every economist alive saying the stupidest thing you can do in a recession is to raise taxes, this is what the Greens are promising.

We now can clearly see what a Labour-Green Government will look like. Labour will say as little as possible on tax, but then sign up to the Greens’ tax plans as a price of coalition after the election.

And what the Greens want is massive. First of all they want the top tax rate to go up 9% from 33% to 42% for those on over $150,000. They’ll also hike it 4% for those earning $100,000 to $150,000.

So every dollar over $150,000 you earn will be taxed 42%. So let’s look at what happens to $10,000 of income over that level. They’ll take 42% in income tax leaving you $5,800. $750 of that will probably go on GST at 15% if they spend it. So that means they get left with $5,000. The Government has taken half.

But it doesn’t stop there. Let’s say you’re worked hard and are now in your late 50s and have a mortgage free house and a KiwiSaver. Say it comes to $1.5 million. Then you’ll be paying another $5,000 in their asset tax.

The Greens tax policies will punish people for saving, for being old and for being female.

A fair few elderly people will have assets of over $1 million when they retire. Their house alone may be worth that and if they want say $50,000 a year income on top of NZ Super you’ll need $1 million in shares, funds, retirement accounts etc. Also they’ll be worried about having to pay for possible hospital level rest home care when they get very elderly which can cost $1,100 a week.

The Greens will punish those retired people by taxing them. If they have $2.5 million in assets, then they’ll pay $20,000 a year in asset tax.

Also their policy is that a $1.5 million home owned by a couple isn’t taxed but owned by a single person is. So you’re not paying the asset tax, and then your partner dies and wham the next day you get a bill from the IRD saying you now need to pay asset tax on your home.

Of course the super wealthy will pay nothing. They will have all their assets in trusts. This asset tax will just affect the prudent retired person or small business owner who has managed to save some money, but don’t have fancy lawyers to hide everything in trusts.

ACT have announced their party list. The top seven are:

1 – David Seymour
2 – Brooke Van Velden
3 – Nicole McKee
4 – Chris Baillie
5 – Simon Court
6 – James McDowall
7 – Karen Chhour

In 2018 I would have said the range of possible MP numbers for ACT was one to two. But now I think they are looking to get somewhere between three and five MPs. They could even end up higher with a good campaign.

Please to see Brooke in a high winnable place. She’ll make a great MP and is the future of the party. Brooke comments:

“I switched from being a Green Party voter to an ACT supporter while studying economics and international trade at Auckland University. The ability for free markets to lift countries from hardship was a revelation for me,” says Ms van Velden.

Something they don’t teach that much at university!

New candidate Nicole McKee has been ranked at number 3. Nicole is a small business owner having delivered firearms safety education in rural and isolated communities for New Zealand Police. She also has a background in law, firearms component imports, was the co-ordinator of the nation’s volunteer firearms safety instructors for the Mountain Safety Council and the spokesperson for the Council of Licenced Firearms Owners and its Fair and Reasonable Campaign.

The law abiding firearms community feel betrayed by NZ First and no doubt will be pleased that Nicole has a winnable ranking.

Chris Baillie is a small business owner, full-time secondary school teacher, former policeman of 14 years. He currently owns a local hospitality venue employing 30 staff. He has a strong interest in sport and music, being an enthusiastic supporter of the local jazz scene. Mr Baillie has been ranked at number 4.

“I believe in personal responsibility and personal freedom, in particular the right to free speech, and believe that less bureaucratic and government intervention in our lives is the way forward for New Zealand,” says Mr Baillie.

Simon Court is ranked number 5 on the ACT list. Simon is a civil and environmental engineer with 23 years’ experience in roles for the private sector and local government. This includes ten years leading engineering, planning, tendering, and construction teams primarily in Auckland, Wellington, and Fiji. Simon has three boys at high school. They share a love of loud music, fast cars, biking, fitness, good science, and good ideas. His youngest son has Down Syndrome and Simon intends to take a disability perspective to Parliament.

“I believe in the principles of the Party where communities, individuals and businesses lead the way. ACT promotes innovation, not regulation – reducing waste to landfill, bringing real sustainability in construction and building, and clean water in towns and country are critical issues. One way of solving them is replacing the RMA, which is not fit for purpose and needs to go.

Dr James McDowall has been ranked at number 6. He owns several small businesses. He also works for a large NGO in the mental health sector. James lives in Hamilton with his wife and young daughter. He has led the development of ACT’s firearm policy in the wake of the Government’s 2019 Arms Amendment Act.

“I have supported ACT for 15 years. Being a member of two pistol clubs in the Waikato is a part of my life. I was proud that ACT stood for common sense when it mattered most. I’m a libertarian who is sceptical of big government. My experience in business and the community sector has taught me that government has a role but when it oversteps that role it becomes part of the problem rather than the solution,” says Dr McDowall.

Karen Chhour is a self-employed mother of four who has lived on Auckland’s North Shore for the last thirty years. She strongly believes that, with the right tools, anyone in this country can make something of themselves. Karen is ranked at number 7 on ACT’s list.

“We have spent way too long trying to make a broken system work. I love this country but we have slowly taken away people’s ability to think for themselves without them even realising it. We have forgotten what hard work and choices mean as there is always someone else to blame. This does not do anyone a favour if we are no longer responsible for ourselves,” says Mrs Chhour.

All of them stand a chance of becoming MPs.

It is highly unlikely NZ First will be back in Parliament. So New Zealand will have a stark choice between a National/ACT Government or a Labour/Green Government.

We’ve just seen what a Labour/Green Government will mean – an $8 billion tax grab not just on your income, but also your assets.

The Herald reports:

The ministry said of the 2159 people in managed isolation from June 9-16, 1186 people had been contacted and had tested negative for Covid.

Of those, 800 were tested before leaving managed isolation and the remaining 386 were tested after.

So 1,359 were in managed isolation and released without a test, and after the Government announced no one would leave managed isolation without two negative tests.

And no one has lost their job for it.

Samira Taghavi writes in Stuff:

As a young woman, I came to New Zealand eleven years ago from the Middle East to undertake my Master of Laws degree.

Early on I was struck by how rights and freedoms are so frequently taken for granted by those born in this country. Because I come from a part of the world with so few protections, fair trial rights that protect people accused of crimes – of any type – are particularly important to me.

Now as a defence lawyer, I feel compelled to explain the very damaging effects to those rights that the Sexual Violence (Legislation) Bill would inflict if enacted.

So what are these rights in danger?

The first major change proposed that is of grave concern is the remarkable idea of prima facie outlawing relevant evidence benefiting the defendant, thereby increasing the likelihood of innocent men being convicted and imprisoned. So what actually is ‘legally relevant evidence’?

The answer is, ‘any evidence that makes a fact in issue either more or less likely to be true’. An example of a ‘fact in issue’ could be, ‘did they have sex?’

The particular evidence in question that this bill seeks to presumptively declare illegal is that of the prior sexual relationship between the defendant and the complainant. The fact that the two of them had had consensual sex on previous occasions could therefore not be traversed, as of right.

Of course prior consensual sex is not proof of current consensual sex, but it can be highly relevant.

Another championed justification is that consent must be given on every occasion – a necessary element recognised by the law for so long now that its mention is truly trite.

While contemporaneous consent is essential, a caveat must be remembered; sexual intimacy does not, in the moment, lend itself to forward-looking legalism.

As a moral certainty, there will never be a contemporaneously signed document proving consent and so instead where the defence of consent is raised, the whole issue before the court will be the reasonable grounds upon which the defendant’s understanding of consent was based.

Thus, the heart of such a defence is the previous concordats that the couple had – their routines, practices and certain ways of doing things, that demonstrate the defendant’s reasonable belief in consent.

This is key. Consent is sometimes implicit, not explicit. Sometimes it is verbal, sometimes somatic. Consent can be for some sexual activities, but not for others. And a defendant should have the right to defend themselves against a charge of not having consent.

One thing I look out for is indexes that measure how countries do on various criteria. They can be economic freedom or women’s equality or environmental etc.

The Human Rights Commission tweeted about one I had not heard of before – the Human Rights Measurement Initiative. NZ tends to do well in human rights indexes. We are No 1 in world in the human freedom index by Cato, No 10 in press freedom index, No 4 on democracy index etc.

So I expected HRMI to have us pretty well off. But instead I found NZ was a hellhole:

• Freedom from arbitrary arrest only 6.1/10
• Freedom from disappearance only 8.4/10
• Freedom from extrajudicial execution only 7.1/10
• Freedom from torture only 6.0/10

So it seems we live in fear of government agents arresting us without charge, making us disappear and killing us.

According to this index we are at higher risk of extrajudicial executions than Jordan!

The data seems nuts. I couldn’t understand it. Then I read their methodology.

This so called measurement of human rights is nothing more than the opinions of self-selecting human rights activists in each country. As far as I can tell there is no objective data at all, it is all subjective.

The Guardian reports:

Keir Starmer is facing a showdown with the left of Labour after his decisive sacking of Rebecca Long-Bailey reignited the party’s internal turmoil over the issue of antisemitism.

In a swift move, Long-Bailey was summarily dismissed as shadow education secretary for sending an approving tweet about an interview in which the actor Maxine Peake said the US police tactic of kneeling on someone’s neck was taught by the Israeli secret service.

Another version of the old “The Jews are to blame”. Good to see Starmer show no tolerance for this from one of his MPs.

Starmer is the most popular leader they have had since Blair. His approval ratings are between +20% and +30% compared to Corbyn who was -40%.

He’s also got them back up to 40% in the polls.

Stuff reports:

A payout of millions of dollars to ensure the survival of AJ Hackett Bungy New Zealand has been criticised as “corporate welfare” for a company with wealthy shareholders.

It was announced on Wednesday that the bungy jump firm could get up to $10.2 million from the Government to help it remain in operation despite the disruption of Covid-19.

It will receive a $5.1m grant in the first year, with a possible loan of up to $5.1m available in the second year if borders remain closed to international tourists. …

But economist Cameron Bagrie said the payout was inappropriate. “I’m not convinced that jumping off a bridge is a strategic asset. I would have thought that’s an asset you can hibernate and wait for the demand to come back. Bungy jumps are now a strategically important asset? You have to look at this through a common sense lens and think, really?”

He said while the operation might have a couple of lean years without tourists, it had a long and successful history that it could draw from to finance it.

I was supportive of the wage subsidies as they were temporary and a level playing field. Any employer who qualified could get one.

But now what the Government is doing is hand picking selected businesses to get money from taxpayers. Should the Minister of Tourism be deciding that a bungy jump operation is more deserving than a jet boat company?

Stuff reports:

The majority of the Otago Regional Council want her gone, but chairwoman Marian Hobbs isn’t going without a fight. …

Nine of the 12 councillors want Hobbs removed, with an extraordinary meeting called for July 8.

Those opposing her argued their concerns were over governance not water, including Hobbs bypassing council and seeking support directly from the Environment Minister’s office.

It takes some effort to get three quarters of your own Council wanting to sack you just 18 months after electing you.

The problem seems to be that she thought her loyalty was to Labour, not to the Regional Council.

A guest post by a reader:

International Education and a Land of Broken Dreams.

It is an industry worth $5.1 Billion, but most of its traversers will tell you it is modern day slavery. Over the past decade it has run amok throwing all care to the winds. Today, over 300,000 of its constituents confront an uncertain future and the more desperate are inches away from starvation. Does New Zealand have any empathy for its migrants?

Since the change of governments in late 2017, immigration has become that elephant in the room which refuses to move out. Other than David Seymour’s regulatory system (“Own Your Future”), there are two perspectives on immigration in New Zealand politics. The “they are on their own and we will pay for their tickets back if they complain” line of thought, and the “we need a more humane approach” line. The former is indicative of the “suck them dry, spit them out” tendency which many temporary migrants are beginning to believe various New Zealand governments favour, the latter is still only a vision. Both ignore one fundamental truth; New Zealand has taken no steps to regulate the commercialization of its international education sector abroad. Take for example the various Indian students who seem to be falling prey to their own countrymen vis-à-vis exploitation. Offshore agents sell them dreams of a better life, a virtuous people and a chance to raise their kids far removed from the hustle-bustle of a developing world. Most often persuade their families to part with their lives’ savings to pay for what they believe to be the best path abroad, education. Once they arrive here, they realize they have been duped. The solution? There is no solution. Innate failures of various governmental departments have isolated many migrant communities whose distrust is highly evident. It is no great wonder then, that these students are then picked up by unscrupulous employers who wring every penny out of them. As for governmental policies, it is often the victims who are penalized and not the employers.

Another ugly corollary which has emerged in the last few years is the phenomena of migrant workers. The country is welcoming them with open arms with the lure of a “new life,” read Residency. We have bakers, chefs, carpenters, electricians, managers, transport officers and what not now employed in various capabilities. Some have gone the hard yard. Let me relate to you the example of my handyman. He arrived in the country still an adolescent, his caretakers were unable to meet the system’s requirements. How could they? Their employer simply vanished after his business burnt down in seemingly mysterious circumstances. The relevant authorities proved blind to their plight and his parents left.

“They currently live on a small farm in almost feudal circumstances back home,” he told me. As for him, he was left here to study and contribute towards the country. Since then, he’s become a proficient jack-of-all trades with almost a decade of experience behind him. “Every time I go to apply for Residency,” he told me, “the laws change.” The day he acquired his 140 points, the government lifted them to 160. When he got his 160, the rate went up to $25.50. When he got the $25.50 rate, he was laid off due to the Covid. Blast me for being a softy, but here is a young man with skills which many builders will kill for. His accent is Kiwi (“yeah-nah” he told me when I asked him why he was not married yet) and he is able to integrate with various ethnicities. “Not a single day off in a year” his previous employer told me proudly. “I paid him $27.00 per hour to work 5 days,” the man elucidated. “Why don’t you find a Kiwi?” I inquired. “In this world,” I was gruffly told, “we have to make do with what we get and if there is such a skilled individual available then of course we will jump to have him even though the legal hurdles are many. And we were offering training along side the $27.00, the few local kids we had turn up did not really last long. It was the safety net which they had which prevented them from displaying any passion.”

But my handy man is not the only victim of a broken system. His circumstances are shared by many. Strangers in their own homes; to be cast adrift while in New Zealand. “This entire system,” a lawyer once told me, “runs on one thing.” “Money, money, money, money.” “International students are paying upwards of $20,000 per year (semester in some cases) in fees. Where does this money go? Towards Kiwi kids. And what do the foreigners acquire? A somewhat quality education, but the initial trap used to lure them from their own homes’ snaps shut in their face. They are pretty much told, ‘thanks for giving us your money. Yes, we allowed some people representing us to make big promises, but we frankly do not care about you beyond your wallet. There is the door, please pull it shut on your way out.’” From the large hue and cry which is raised after any exploitative employer is concerned, two things emerge. The ‘we will go harder’ line from the powers that be who unwittingly abet the culprit rather than the victim. And the fact, that the victims have totally denuded themselves at home. Their assets, properties and bank balances are empty; all in pursuit of a dream sold to them. Some will return to whatever fate awaits them. Others will overstay. And the main factor? Hollow promises. Come on New Zealand, we are a country which shirks from purchasing merchandise from sweatshops but cannot see the virtual slavery in our front yards. And this is a booming trade. Application fees, taxes, medical fees, annual visa renewal fees, rents, bills and whatever these temporary migrants purchase. All go towards financing Kiwis among who a certain portion will cry during election times, “enough is enough! Kick them out!” And the shameful fact? Temporary migrants work themselves to the bone, day and night, to be allowed to live the Kiwi Dream. Most have acquired their experience and skills in country making them proficient teachers to teach our future generations. But in testing times, their voice is the first to be strangled.

And now with the Coronavirus pandemic, the migrant voice has effectively been kicked to the curb. And no, I am not talking about Winston Peters. His smugness is justified. His bluntness immaterial, the man had probably envisioned such a scenario a decade prior. And now that migrants are expectantly looking towards that government to help them whose words brought them to our shores, the empathy and kindness suddenly seems to have evaporated. “The message we are essentially getting,” one concerned activist informed me, “is that we are not welcome anymore. That suddenly we are not good enough to be declared Kiwis and that we will receive nothing from the government.” How shameful was it to see on one hand the media saying that “yes, migrants can approach Civil Defence for aid” and on the other Newsroom running a piece where a migrant is given “two cans of beans” to last the lockdown. “Am I a thing?” a child of a migrant family next door asked me. Her mother is an IT specialist and her father a glazier. Both have lost their jobs. Their companies went “under” along with their fortunes. “We are relying on charity to eat from day to day,” the father told me. I left their house wondering, why indeed would a five-year-old be forced to inquire whether she is an object? Come on New Zealand, we are better than this.

“Now of course the economy is tanking,” a young Filipino labourer tells me. “But hey, we are essential to that economy. Do you really think that after a decade of relying on us, employers are suddenly going to be able to train Kiwi tradesmen by themselves and in time? Their workers will be the teachers and we are those workers” he proudly affirms. “The Immigration system is shattered, everyone knows this” a young Sikh tells me. “And it needs to be rectified. Over the past two years, the Labour government has taken steps towards fixing it.” “But,” as my newfound friend tells me, “migrants are like fish in a leaking tank with the cracks increasing.” “How long,” he muses, “before someone in the higher-up’s decides ‘right, damn it all. Let us just shatter the tank and began anew.’ What happens to the fish?” And this fear is beginning to gnaw at the migrant community’s heart. The acquirement of Emergency Powers by the Immigration Minister a few weeks prior has elicited much fear than relief. “We are truly scared for our futures,” a young Italian woman tells me. “Are they going to constrict the rules further so that we are forced to depart anyway? Is there some mass exit policy in the works? What do we return to when we are forced out from here?” “There will surely be winners and losers,” another studious lawyer tells me, “but we are requesting some form of amnesty for at least those temporary migrants who are working in fields essential to the country’s economic recovery. The tradesmen, doctors, nurses. Those who have been here for 5 years or more. Some of these people are now refugees. Things will never be the same again in their own countries, and as for New Zealand they are instrumental in their fields. Do we really need to show them the door at a time when the economy is our primary concern?”

And the call for amnesty is now not solely a migrant call. Imagine my surprise when I pulled up the Daily Blog on Saturday night only to read Martyn Bradbury, the country’s most opinionated man, supporting calls for a general amnesty for migrant workers. Some salient quotes:

“We can’t entice migrant workers here, have them exploited by unscrupulous bosses and then tell them to piss off back home.” And,

“We should offer an immediate amnesty to all migrant workers in NZ to become permanent residents and make Union membership compulsory for those workers BUT right after that amnesty, we must close all immigration until a vaccine is widely available.”

Hear, hear! Why is this man not a politician yet?

So, what is the main point of my rambling story? There are four actually:

1. No human is an economic unit to be used, abused and then discarded during testing times as now. We seriously need to rethink our Immigration system but not by sacrificing those migrants in the country who are crucial to economic recovery. They should be granted amnesty immediately and then the Immigration system rectified.

• No human is a piece of garbage that we rip as much out of them as possible and then dump them into the tipping bin. Minister Galloways, please read this. This is for you sir. Here is your chance to go down in history. Do not strangle already present migrants in the country for economic/electoral gains. All Kiwis are out of work but not all Kiwis will return to work or the same industry. Is it better to invite migrants over with callous words through unregulated agents and then expel them under the veneer of “reform?” Or is it better to allow them to wholly integrate with the country, work shoulder-to-shoulder with Kiwis in rebuilding it while you sort out a broken Immigration system?

• Kiwis cast a glance at yourselves. Migrants confront a precipitous future because of you. They have been exploited and robbed off their every penny in your name. Find it in your heart to bless them with sympathy and forgiveness, whatever their sin. Let the ones crucial to your economic betterment join you and stand alongside you on the frontlines of recovery.

• Again, Minister Galloways and Prime Minister Ardern. You stand on the cusp of history. Believe me, it is no big lie to assert that today’s Labour party has punched above its weight. Why stop now? If indeed you want to fix the ever-shattering tank of our current Immigration system, now is your chance. Heed Bradbury and the various Unions he is quoting. Gift that amnesty to those people who-despite their paperwork-are still rending their heart and soul for a better New Zealand. Do not drown the fish while you shatter the tank. Let our $80 Billion shame become our $80 Billion mercy. It is the least we can do for the people wiping our geriatric butts, rebuilding our leaky homes, manufacturing products for our exhibitions, vaccinating our kids and praying for our success. It is a given, temporary migrants outside the country will need to be sacrificed. But that will cut numbers and free up jobs here. But the ones here should not be herded out like lambs to the slaughter.   

“Be kind,” “compassion,” “they are us,”- these statements follow Labour like ants after honey. But are these principles for voiceless migrants? The ball is in the government’s court.

I’m not a fan of quotas but I’m relatively relaxed about having them for medical schools to ensure we do have a medical profession that can relate to their communities. However I always assumed that those quota places were around 10% of the total. In fact, it seems the quota places now make up the majority!

Stuff reports:

For this year’s intake, Otago had 202 places available for first year students entering from its intermediate year. (Otago does not take first year students from other universities).

Of those, 120 were given to those entering under a raft of categories.

Of those, 58 were Māori, 20 were Pasifika, 1 Māori/Pasifika and 29 entered through the rural gate.  Eleven students went in under the low socio-economic category and one under a new refugee category. That left only 82 general entry places (40 per cent).

So 60% of places go to those on quota schemes and only 40% to general entry. That seems massively out of whack.

Looking at percentages for the 2020 intake, Māori and Pasifika students took up nearly 40 per cent of the places at Otago for first year health science students and 28.1 per cent of the total places for first year students at Auckland.

Which means you can get an A+ average and still not get admitted, because you’re the wrong ethnicity.

You need to average 95% in your exams if you’re European or Asian but can get in on 70% average if you’re Maori or Pasifika.

Now it is important to point out this is only about entry. Once you’re in, all students have to meet the same levels of competence to graduate. So this isn’t about quality of doctors. It is about whether it is fair someone with a 93% grade average should miss out just because they are the wrong ethnicity.

Duncan Garner writes:

This Government can barely deliver a letter.

Certainly all its cornerstone, showpiece, flagship promises – call them what you like – have failed, the latest being the so-called transformational billion dollar light rail project from the Auckland CBD to the Airport.

Phil Twyford the builder – could he build it – No, he couldn’t.

What can this lot do? Why are Aucklanders paying the extra 10 cents a litre petrol tax – remind me of the transport projects we’re paying for again?

What a massive fail. And add it to the list of shame.

Kiwibuild – fail.

Capital Gains Tax – fail.

Reducing Child Poverty – fail – the Children’s Commissioner says benefit levels need to rise for that to happen.

Climate Change? Fail – sure the zero-carbon law is here, but farmers and truckies have an out – years of consultation is hardly transformational.

But at least they have suceeded at one thing:

They have had one success though – on Wednesday night – a law passed allowing prisoners who have served less than three years to vote at this election.

Passing this law under urgency!

A pretty decent result. Probably a mixture of National doing better and Labour having a bad week.

I’ve done a fuller analysis on Patreon where I’ve declared there are four winners and one loser from the poll.

A guest post by Mikenmild:

A while ago, Nostradamus suggested I contribute a piece for Kiwiblog on the Official Information Act (OIA). As a person with some experience of answering information requests, and of seeking information, I’m happy to do so.

I want to start with some practical advice. There are fairly often comments on Kiwiblog about making requests, typically “someone should OIA that”. People should use the OIA: it’s a great tool.

There is possibly no single piece of New Zealand legislation better known to the public than the OIA. And it is easy to use. But here are three tips:

• Search for the information yourself first. There is a wealth of information already publicly available. In fact, one of the purpose of the OIA is to ‘improve progressively the availability if official information‘.Most public sector organisations make genuine efforts to publish more information. And searching for what is out there already will probably help you make a better request.
• Check fyi.org.nz. This is a wonderful website run by Open New Zealand (about which I know little but that it appears to be a group of largely anonymous public-spirited citizens). It makes information requests on behalf of anyone who cares to use the site, and publishes all the information received in response. It is useful for anyone who would like to request information anonymously, for example someone making a request for information from their own department ;-).
• Be as detailed and specific as you can in making a request. This makes it easier for someone to respond to your request, and reduces the chances of your request being rejected outright, or you getting a reply asking you to pay to photocopy 10,000 pages.
• Remember that most public servants actually do want to help. Outright obstruction is rare. Provide your contact details in your OIA request, and make it clear you would be happy to clarify anything.

Now, read on if you would like to know more about the OIA, and how practice around it has developed.

New Zealand’s OIA was part of a general trend in democracies from the 1960s to improve public access to government information. While Scandinavian countries had some freedom of information laws as long as two hundred years ago, significant impetus was provided by the USA’s 1966 Freedom of Information Act, followed by similar liberalisation in Western Europe.

Nearly forty years old, the OIA, with its local government counterpart, quickly became part of New Zealand’s uncodified constitution. The OIA represented a radical change from previous practice. In most jurisdictions, government information has been at least traditionally, and often legally, restricted. New Zealand’s OIA replaced an Official Secrets Act, which had prohibited any unauthorised disclosure of any government information.

Our OIA established the key principle of availability: information shall be made available unless there is good reason for withholding it. This presumption of public access to official information was based on the premise that it would allow New Zealanders to more effectively participate in law making and administration, and would promote the accountability of government ministers and officials. As the legal maxim puts it

‘Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.’

But the presumption of public access does not mean that all official information is released. The availability principle contains the proviso for withholding information for good reasons. The OIA established two sets of reasons for withholding information. Conclusive reasons generally apply where releasing information would prejudice key public interests, such as maintaining public safety, national security or international relations, managing economic policies, or safeguarding criminal investigations and fair trials. The key consideration here is the judgement of ministers or officials as to whether releasing the information requested would be likely to damage these interests.

The OIA has a further set of reasons for withholding information. These include personal privacy, protecting trade secrets and commercial interests, maintaining constitutional conventions, and the effective conduct of public affairs. In deciding whether to withhold information for any of these reasons, however, a public interest test is applied. That means such reasons cannot apply if outweighed by a stronger public interest in making the information available. An example of this could be an agency releasing details of tenders, usually thought to be commercially sensitive, if there were a wider public interest in establishing the probity of a decision.

There are other, more technical, reasons to withhold information, such as if the information does not exist or cannot be found, would require excessive collation or research to provide, or would soon be published anyway. Agencies can also refuse to confirm or deny the existence of some information.

Supervising the operation of the OIA is the Ombudsman. Originally a Scandinavian institution, an Ombudsman was established in New Zealand in the 1960s to provide an independent authority to investigate citizens’ complaints against the government. In the 1980s, the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction was extend to to reviewing complaints against decisions about official information. The Ombudsman is an Officer of Parliament, which affords him or her a considerable degree of independence from the government of the day. The Ombudsman can review complaints against decisions to withhold information, and the outcome of the review is generally binding upon the agency concerned. The Ombudsman has established a considerable body of decisions that have shaped how the OIA has worked in practice.

That’s the basics of why we have an OIA, and how it works. Now, to examine what happens in real life.

No government relishes being held to account. Government ministers, their advisers, and public servants (sometimes reluctantly) can slow down, or obstruct completely, the release of information.

The most common problem is the delayed release of information. The power of delay is proverbial (fans should consult C Northcote Parkinson re ‘The Law of Delay’). Requests for official information must be responded to within 20 working days (with a extended period over the Christmas and New Year holidays). This period is only supposed to be extended for two reasons: to search a large amount of information, or to consult properly on the request. This rather modest proviso allows, unsurprisingly, wide scope for delay. Organisations sometimes try to issue multiple extensions of the time limit for the same request – this is a no no, but they often get away with it. Organisations might also attempt to extend the time limit to a date far, far in the future. This too is prohibited, as the act requires decisions on the release of information to be made ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’. Arbitrary extensions of response time are distinctly unreasonable. Also unreasonable is deliberately withholding information until the 19^th or 20^th working day.

One problem that developed since the 1990s has been the habit of departments referring information requests to ministerial offices. Technically, this can be justified under a ‘no surprises’ policy. Practically, however, if affords an opportunity for a minister’s political staff (press secretaries and their ilk) to interfere in, or delay, a response. This practice also allows ministers and their advisers to ‘game’ the process, most notoriously by releasing the information to friendly journalists or bloggers as well, or even providing those outlets with further details not covered by the original request. Departments, quite naturally, tend to defer to suggestions from their ministers’ staff. Unless a request involves information actually held by a minister, there should really be no need for a department to do anything other than inform its minister that information has been released.

The ultimate delaying tactic, however, is to refuse to release information, even when it is pretty clear that this is not justified by any of the reasons specified in the act. This effectively challenges a frustrated requester to complain to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is a wonderful institution, and frequently upholds complaints about refusals to release information. The Ombudsman’s processes can be cumbersome. They are thorough, but not especially timely. It is impossible to imagine the OIA working at all without the backstop the Ombudsman’s authority provides.

Despite these impediments, the OIA actually works rather well. Given some research, imagination and persistence, an amazing range and volume of information can be obtained. And we all benefit from better information about what the government is doing on behalf of us all.

Stuff reports:

Green Party co-leader James Shaw says NZ First are breaching their coalition agreement with Labour by axing Auckland light rail.

In some of his harshest ever words against the party, Shaw said NZ First’s killing off of Auckland light rail this term was a “slap in the face of Aucklanders” and breached the coaliton agreement between Labour and NZ First.

Transport Minister Phil Twyford admitted on Wednesday that neither of the Government’s proposed light rail plans for Auckland could progress because NZ First were against both of them.

It is convenient for them to blame NZ First, but the reality is they could proceed if they wished to.

NZ First only get four votes in Cabinet. Cabinet could vote 16-4 to proceed. The Coalition Agreement doesn’t give NZ First a veto on Cabinet decisions.

As far as I know, no special legislation is needed, so there is no vote in the House.

Health Minister David Clark has managed the near impossible – to unite right and left on Twitter for his throwing of Ashley Bloomfield under the bus, as captured so well by a Newshub cameraman.

Toby Manhire has an excellent article on The Spinoff which looks at Clark’s refusal to take responsibility for anything, and points out you can share responsibility rather than blame it all on your CEO.

It is true, of course, that Bloomfield had accepted responsibility for the mistakes. But responsibility is not an unshareable concept. Difficult to share: gummy bears, scooters, the human soul. Easy to share: responsibility. Take some! Get in! Of course I take responsibility – I take it enormously seriously, I take responsibility for the health system as a whole, and I will do everything in my power to make sure mistakes such as these do not happen again.

I want to focus not just on this episode, but make the case that Clark has in fact failed in multiple areas. Being a Minister should be about far more than just reading papers your ministry gives you. His going mountain biking is trivial compared to the real issues.

Not fronting press conferences

Clark was missing in action for most of the pandemic. He was rarely at a press conference. Contrast that with the swine flu pandemic where Tony Ryall held them twice a day. Ryall as Health Minister was the primary briefer.

Away from Wellington for two months

It is beyond belief that Clark was not one of the Ministers to stay in the Beehive during the lockdown. If there was any great confidence in him, he would have been there with Ardern and Robertson. He should have been playing a major role in directing and advising. He is the Minister of Health during the greatest health threat in a century.

Instead he was at home moving house, mountain biking, going to the beach and doing zoom calls.

Not been on the frontlines

Newshub reports he has yet to visit an isolation facility. Again Ryall as Minister during a pandemic was out in the front lines several times a week. He would hold his press conferences at airports, at hospitals etc. He knew that part of leadership was being at the coalface.

This also allows you to pick uo problems. You gain a huge amount talking to staff on the frontlines. If he visited some GP clinics early on he would have known what the Ministry was saying on testing and PPE was not the reality on the ground.

Again I recall Ryall used to pop into local hospital A&E clinics if he had a spare 30 minutes in a city and ask patients there how they had found the experience. Hugely valuable.

Reactive not proactive

A Minister should have a ministerial office that is there to trouble shoot and solve problems before they boil over. This requires a proactive approach.

A good Minister will know the ministry staff beyond the executive leadership team and even call them from time to time. The info that comes to a Minister formally is so filtered and reviewed that you miss out on the nuance.

More importantly a Ministerial office should be constantly doing a scan of media and social media for stories that could bite them, and then alerting their ministry to issues that need attention. There has been weeks of stories on social media about people not being tested at the border, lax isolation facilities etc. A competent Ministerial office and Minister would have been onto this well before it blew up into major stories.

Not over operational issues

The notion that Ministers don’t get involved in operational issues is a myth at best. Sure not with the Defence Force or the Police, but they do everywhere else. In fact a huge part of the job is risk management around operational issues. When you don;t do it, well remember Novopay?

If I was Minister of Health and the Ministry said they now have a policy of requiring all those in isolation to be tested, I’d be asking them, okay so how will you manage that in practice? Who is recording who is in isolation? Who is recording testing? Are they talking to each other? What is your plan for ensuring this is implemented well? I want to see that details by 10 am tomorrow.

Why Clark should go

It is fair to say not all Ministers perform at what I call the Ryall or Robertson level. And in many portfolios it isn’t that important, such as Ministry for Women, DIA, Consumer Affairs etc.

But Health, even in normal times, is a critical portfolio which does need a Minister who can lead. And Health during a one in a 100 year pandemic especially needs a Minister on top of their game, and sadly that isn’t David Clark.

What Labour should do is shift Chris Hipkins to Health. Hipkins has got through most of his educational reforms, and he definitely has the political skills and leadership to handle Health.

Ardern of course only has sacked someone to date for assaulting their press secretary, so it is unlikely she will act. But she should. Another three months of Clark as Health Minister is a threat to the high levels of confidence the Government currently has.

Of course as a National supporter I’d prefer she doesn’t take action. The polls don’t tend to react to just one week of bad headlines. But they do to a month of bad headlines, and she has to ask herself does she think they will stop without a change?

NewstalkZB reports:

The Government is being accused of a “sneaky” shifting of the goalposts on one of its flagship policies, as Budget documents reveal a major change in focus for the fees-free study policy.

Documents from this year’s Budget reveal a stark shift in the way the Government measures the success of the policy, which provides tertiary students with a year of free study.

The scheme was a cornerstone of Labour’s 2017 election campaign.

In 2018 and 2019, the performance measure for the scheme – how the Government measured the policy’s success – was: “The percentage increase in first time domestic learners (including industry training) at level 3 and above”.

In other words, how many new students went from high school into tertiary training, or university.

But, according to Budget 2020, that focus has been scrapped in lieu of a purely financial goal.

Documents show the performance measure is now: “Average fees-free payment per learner for first year of education.”

That average fee is “at least $5,759” – meaning the Government rates the performance of the policy a success based on how much money is given out.

This massively expensive election bribe didn’t lead to any increase in enrolments. They promised it would. That was the official measure of success.

So having failed to achieve the goal of the policy, they have given the policy a new goal – the more money we give out, the more successful the policy is deemed!

Bob Jones writes:

I listened to Trump’s speech in full. Frankly it was horrendously alarming, even by Trump’s abominable standards. At times he struck me as verging on insanity.

That he’s a grotesque, psychopathic, ignorant, lying megalomaniac is well established. But this was something different. On two occasions he left even his audience bewildered as he launched into rambling, often incoherent nonsense.

I thought the highlight was Trump demonstrating he can drink a glass of water with one hand, closely followed by his 10 to 15 minutes of rambling defence of why he walked down a ramp slowly.

The Herald reports:

Late last night, the Ministry of Health said 51 of the 55 people granted early leave between June 9 and 16 had not been tested before they left managed isolation.

It had taken more than a week for that question to be answered because an integrated IT system did not exist – but is now being built – and health officials had to match name and date of birth details from their systems with information held at isolation facilities.

The 55 people represent the highest risk because they didn’t complete 14 days of managed isolation before being in the community, and the prerequisite of a negative test before leaving was not observed.

Of the 55, four were tested before leaving managed isolation, and two of the four were tested the day they left, meaning the results were unlikely to have been known when they left.

So basically only two of the 55 released early were known to be safe. Even for this Government, that is a new level of incompetence.

Radio NZ report:

Pressure is mounting on the government and health officials to explain how many people left managed isolation without being tested for Covid-19 since 9 June.

The Opposition leader says it is an absolute shambles and a “national disgrace” that the information is still unavailable a week since it was first asked, despite repeated requests from politicians and the media.

It has been eight days, and they still can’t answer what is the most basic of questions – how many people have left without being tested.

Stuff reports:

The Government has conceded its flagship transport has been put on ice, again.

It had been obvious for months the project was troubled, with coalition partners NZ First openly saying it wouldn’t progress this Parliamentary term.

The Government has now conceded that the project has been axed with Transport Minister Phil Twyford saying it would be kicked back to officials after nearly three years of deliberation.

Auckland Mayor Phil Goff said he was “disappointed” and “frustrated” with the outcome.

This is a huge broken promise. Ardern promised it would be built and working by the end of next year.

The problem wasn’t NZ First. The problem is it took the Beehive geniuses three years to even try and decide the route and the type of rail. Stuff which should have taken three months took three years.

The project was beset by leaks from NZTA, suggesting incompetence and a lack of direction from the Beehive.

More than suggesting incompetence.