One of the “safeguards” in the Electoral Integrity (waka jumping) Act is that a party leader needs the support of two thirds of their MPs to expel an MP from Parliament. S55D(c) of the Electoral Act says that a statement by the leader must:

state that, after consideration of the conduct of the member and his or her response (if any) by the parliamentary members of the political party for which the member was elected, the parliamentary leader of that party confirms that at least two-thirds of the parliamentary members of that party agree that written notice should be given by the parliamentary leader

So you need two-thirds of MPs in that party to agree. But does that include the MPs they are trying to get rid of? What is the definition of a “parliamentary member of a party”.

The Electoral Act doesn’t define it but S55A says the following:

• Every MP is a parliamentary member of a political party unless they were elected as an independent
• Their seat becomes vacant if they cease to be a parliamentary member of the political party for which the MP was elected, which only happens once a formal notice is delivered to the Speaker that complies with S55D

So my reading of this is that until a notice has been delivered, you are still a parliamentary member of the party for the purposes of the Electoral Act, so you count towards the two thirds majority needed.

This is important for Te Pati Maori, as if you could the two MPs expelled from membership towards the requirement, then they need four out of six MPs in favour – and it appears they only have three as Kaipara appears to be with them.

But if you don’t need them for the requirement, then you only need three out of four remaining MPs, and they may have that.

Now I was very confident my interpretation was correct. In fact I even told a reporter they had it wrong when they said TPM only needs three MPs, not four, to expel the other two from Parliament. But an article by Audrey Young quotes the Clerk of the House saying different:

The question is whether expulsion from Parliament would require two-thirds of six MPs, the number elected in 2023, or two-thirds of four MPs, the current number in the caucus. If it is the former, the co-leaders would need to get the agreement of two others, presumably Kaipara and Maipi-Clarke. But if it is four MPs, they need the agreement of only one other.

The Clerk of the House, David Wilson, told me this morning that it appears the two expelled MPs would not be included in the count.

He said that part of the current legislation had never been tested in court.

“However, the advice to the select committee that considered the legislation in 2018 was that once a member has been treated as an independent member by the House (ie the Speaker makes a statement to that effect in the House) the member is not treated as a parliamentary member of the party for the purpose of the act and therefore would not be part of the two-thirds of parliamentary members needed for the purposes of s 55D(c).”

It also appeared to have been the Supreme Court’s view in the Donna Awatere Huata case under the earlier incarnation of the legislation.

“So, it appears that s 55D(c) would not require the two expelled members to be included in the two-thirds majority of parliamentary members.”

Now when it comes to issues around Parliament, I would go with what the Clerk of the House says, over my own reckons around 99 times out of 100. I have huge regard for the Clerk.

But I’m not convinced I am wrong in this case. I have read the Huata case and it is true that they said Awatere-Huata was no longer a parliamentary member of ACT. But their focus was on whether ACT were able to use the waka jumping law against her, and not on whether for the purposes of the two thirds majority you include her or not. To me the Electoral Act is quite clear that you are a member of your parliamentary party until such time as the formal letter is filed with the Speaker.

A stronger argument is the advice to the select committee in 2018. The Ministry of Justice did say that if a party had expelled an MP who is in a caucus of two, then the remaining MP can get them expelled from Parliament. If it went to court, this could signify that the intent of the law was that the two thirds majority would exclude the MPs who had been expelled from the party.

However I still think this conflicts with the wording of the Act, and advice from the Ministry of Justice is not as persuasive as say a speech in Hansard about the intent of the law from an actual Minister or MP.

We may find out in time. If TPM do try to expel from Parliament the MPs for Te Tai Tokerau and Te Tai Tonga with fewer than four MPs in favour, then the Speaker will have to rule on how to interpret the law. I would expect the Speaker would favour the view of the Clerk.

It is very possible though that one of the two MPs would seek a judicial review of the statement under S55D before it gets submitted to the Speaker, in which case the High Court will rule on it.

If it turns out that the two thirds majority needed doesn’t include the MPs the party its trying to expel, then it shows the law is even more dangerous than thought.

Under this interpretation, you could have a party of say 12 MPs. Let’s say 10 MPs decide they have no confidence in the leader. However the leader has a majority of the party’s ruling body. The leader could get those 10 MPs expelled from the party, and then the two remaining MPs could vote to expel those 10 MPs from Parliament. If they were List MPs, then their spots would be taken by the next on the list.

This makes control of the ruling body incredibly vital. You no longer need a majority in caucus, if you can get the ruling body to expel MPs from the party, and then from Parliament.

To a degree this is what is happening in TPM. There is no dispute over policy or principle. The Tamihere faction thought one or both MPs might challenge for the leadership, and hence got them expelled from the party before they could challenge. And now they might be able to get them expelled from Parliament also. They could even pressure the remaining TPM MPs to vote to expel them from Parliament, by threatening to expel them also if they don’t comply.

Stuff has details of the transport plan by the Government for Wellington. It is brilliant. The noisy people against are a small minority. Many polls have shown strong support for increasing the capacity of the Mt Vic and Terrace tunnels. The same people fought the inner city bypass for years, and today it is entirely uncontroversial and has improved getting through the city considerably.

The key details are:

• Four laning SH1 between Kilbirnie and Hataitai, eliminating the massive traffic jams you get when the lanes merge at Kilbirnie.
• A second Mt Vic tunnel for eastbound traffic, and the current one becomes westbound traffic only
• Upgrading the Basin Reserve so North-South traffic is separated from East-West traffic.
• An extra third lane on Karo Drive and Vivian Street
• A second Terrace tunnel for southbound traffic and the existing one becomes northbound only

What this basically delivers is four lanes on SH1 from the airport to Otaki. It will be hugely hugely popular, once delivered.

This video shows what SH1 will look like, if implemented. Have a view – it looks great.

Nathan Boulter has pleaded guilty to murdering a Christchurch woman.

I have followed Boulter for a while, because he kidnapped and held hostage his former girlfriend on Great Barrier Island in 2010. She only survived because she tricked him. Great Barrier is a place I have visited many many times with Nikki Kaye (who was their local MP) and the island is a wonderful community. The kidnapping of Nortessa Montgomerie by him, was like the kidnapping of a family member to many Islanders. Everyone knows everyone.

As it happens I recall hearing that it was actually some of the locals on the island who located Boulter before the Police did, and that they gave him what is best to be described euphemistically as a very stern talking to about what they thought of his actions, and how he would get a further “stern talking to” if he ever appeared on Great Barrier again. By coincidence it seems he also injured himself trying to run away down a bank.

Here is his record:

• Sep 2010 – charged with assaulting Montgomerie
• Oct 2010 – charged again with assaulting Montgomerie
• Dec 2010 – released on bail
• Jan 2011 – kidnapped Montgomerie, assaulted her boyfriend
• Jun 2012 – Jailed for eight years, six months
• Sep 2018 – given parole, noted he had 13 past convictions
• 2019 – stalked another women
• Jul 2020 – jailed for two years and five months for threatening to kill
• March 2023 – given parole
• Next two years – in and out of prison
• Jan 2025 – released from prison
• Apr 2025 – jailed for threatening
• June 2025 – charged with threatening behaviour
• Then 16 days after latest prison release, murdered a woman

The Parole Board in 2023 said:

• The Parole Assessment Report said that Mr Boulter has positive behaviour, and he has said that he is determined not to do this again.
• The Board considers that any undue risk Mr Boulter poses can be met by way of special conditions. 

They were wrong. He has stalked and threatened so many women, it is absolutely unsurprising that he finally killed one.

His sentences were all manifestly inadequate. You might give someone a one month sentence for their first threatening offence, but when he has been doing it for so long to so many, you should be keeping him locked up as long as possible.

The murdered women’s death was preventable. This is why we need a regime where repeat violent offenders don’t get short sentences and don’t get parole.

I sent in an OIA to Crown Law on the 16th of October asking:

any communication between Crown Law and the Broadcasting Standards Authority around whether a person who publishes audio and video over the Internet can be regarded as a broadcaster under the Broadcastings Act 1989.

If there is such advice, and it is legally privileged, I would still like to know whether such advice was sought and given, even if the actual advice can’t be provided.

Crown Law has responded:

We have found no record of any advice provided by Crown Law on the matter you identified.

This is very telling. Crown Law is the Government’s Legal Advisor. If the BSA had gone to Crown Law for legal advice on whether a publisher of video or audio over the Internet can be considered a broadcaster under the Broadcasting Act, and considered that advice in deciding that they were, then they would be on more defensible grounds.

But they didn’t. They just got around a table and said “Hey let’s expand to include the Internet”.

This whole episode just reeks of bad faith.

The Herald reported:

Tourism New Zealand is spending $6.3 million to bring the Michelin Guide – the world’s most famous restaurant ranking system – to Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Queenstown.

Inspectors have been dining here anonymously for more than a year with the first local edition of the guide due for release on June 4 next year.

An estimated 36,000 more international visitors could result from the guide’s move into New Zealand, Louise Upston, Minister for Tourism and Hospitality, said today.

With respect I don’t think being in the guide will bring a single more international visitor to New Zealand.

Does anyone in New Zealand fly to Australia just to go to a nice restaurant?

A Michelin Star will definitely be a huge boon to a restaurant getting one.

It could well lead to more domestic tourism. If a restaurant in Christchurch got a Michelin Star, I would probably find an excuse to visit Christchurch so I could dine there, once I got a booking.

But I don’t think it will in any way impact how many people decide to visit New Zealand from overseas. So on that basis, I regard it as a poor investment from Tourism NZ.

A Summary of Cameron Bagrie’s Business Desk Piece on Education (all quotes below)

– Do we have equality of opportunity in schooling?  We’d like to think so. I’ve heard many politicians talk about it. We do not have it.

– Education is one of my bugbears that I consider an essential part of the economic formula for addressing social challenges and increasing living standards.

– In the race of life and schooling [some] have a massive head-start courtesy of wealth, parents’ education and income, the school zone grown up in, family support, whether parents own their own home or rent, are still married, haven’t been in prison, or subject to physical harm to name a few.

– The operational funding for primary and secondary schools, including teachers’ salary, was around $7.9 billion in 2024. It works out to be around $9,300 per student.  This excludes private schools.

– Teacher’s remuneration is the biggest cheque by a long shot coming in around $5.4 billion in 2024. The government directly funds that but try running a budget with a fixed wage cost representing 70 percent of your operation. You do not have many levers left to play with if you have an unexpected expense or underlying pressures.

– To help level the playing field, schools have access to Equity Funding.

– The EQI is a mechanism that tries to understand the relationship between social and economic factors and student achievement. The EQI determines how much equity funding a school receives in addition to their regular funding. The higher the EQI, the more funding the school receives per student. It starts at zero (EQI 344) but goes up to around $1,100 per student (EQI 569).

– Attend a 350 EQI school and the data tells us more than 80 per cent will get NCEA level 3 and retention in school to age 17 is more than 90 percent. Sixty percent will get a bachelor’s degree or level 7 qualification.

– Attend a high EQI school (>500) and the average for NCEA level 3 achievement is less than 40 per cent though there are outliers. The (average) percentage progressing to getting a degree is less than 10 percent. The same divergences apply with attendance.

– Equity Index funding in 2024 was less than $250 million in total against direct spending of $7.9 billion. Compare that to $2.5 billion of departmental output expenditure and several hundred million on school lunches.

– EQI funding is around 3 per cent of primary and secondary schools operational and teachers pay funding, yet it is one of the mechanisms we are trying to level the playing field. Three percent! I almost fell off my chair.

However, as a comparator, consider what as parents you might pay in donations if your child goes to a low EQI school. Odds are it’ll be more than $1,100.

I recently visited a school with very low attendance and lots of gang related students. The principal showed me the Budget. EQI funding was 5 per cent of total funding. Some things that chewed up their EQI contribution … Loaner uniforms. Stationery. Sport transport and payment of fees (because parents can’t).  Licenses.  Vandalism. Bus hire for trips and visits. This is before a cent is directed at core teaching.

– We spend more on the winter energy payment than we spend on EQI funding.

The EQI funding rate rises by 1.5 per cent between 2025 and 2026.  Inflation is 3 per cent. The effective funding has been cut.

The EQI contribution needs to be lifted a long way if we are serious about equality of opportunity. $1,100 [at the MOST] is simply not enough.

[email protected]

Winston Peters announced:

The Government has saved the taxpayer billions with two new Interislander ferries from Guangzhou Shipyard International and no-nonsense infrastructure in Picton and Wellington, Rail Minister Winston Peters announced today.

“Two new ferries serving road and rail will enter Cook Strait service in 2029, thanks to a $596 million fixed price contract between Ferry Holdings and experienced shipbuilder Guangzhou Shipyard International,” Mr Peters says.

“The total programme will cost less than $2 billion, with the taxpayer contribution coming in under the $1.7 billion allocated at the start of this year.

“Spending less than $1.7 billion means the taxpayer has saved $2.3 billion while still getting the ferries and infrastructure they want, because we have done away with the expensive consultants who hijacked the project by adding more and more infrastructure until Treasury warned the project would cost $4 billion.

That is a massive saving. There’s now more money available to health and education infrastructure – rather than ferry terminals.

Readers may recall a decade or so ago Brian Tamaki blamed an earthquake on gay marriage. He was rightfully mocked for this. It’s both crass and lunacy to blame something like an earthquake on whether or not gays can marry.

Well to match that we have the MP for Tamaki Makaurau MP saying:

A Te Pāti Māori MP says the fire that devastated the Tongariro National Park could be a message from a paramount chief who died earlier this year. 

Oriini Kaipara, a former broadcaster who won the recent Tāmaki Makaurau byelection, said the blaze could be taken as a sign to return the land to Māori.

This is the same level of lunacy. But you can be sure very few people will say that Kaipara should be mocked for her views.

I believe both statements are lunacy. I don’t think God caused an earthquake because of a vote in Parliament and I don’t think Mahuika started a fire because of Tongariro National Park is owned by the Department of Conservation.

But to many on the left they would say that it is crazy to state that the Abrahamic God caused an earthquake due to a political issue, but the belief that Mahuika caused a bushfire due to land ownership is a legitimate cultural belief that should be respected!

Note I am not saying the belief in God or Gods should be mocked. It is when people ascribe specific events to Godly interference that they should be mocked – the idea that these people personally know it is divine interference.

On the 6th of November at 3 pm Mike Davidson gave his maiden speech as a new Green Party MP in Wellington.

At 4 pm he was meant to be getting sworn in at the inaugural meeting of the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board in Christchurch. He missed that meeting.

This is why MPs should not also be on local government. You can’t do both jobs.

Prince Andrew (or, as we must now call him, Andrew Windsor) was accused some years ago of sexual assault by Virginia Giuffre. She alleged that she was sex trafficked to him as a 17-year-old by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, the latter of whom was convicted of child sex trafficking in 2021. Queen Elizabeth imposed various sanctions on Windsor in 2022, and recently King Charles went further, stripping him of his titles and ejecting him from his royal accommodation.

Giuffre took a civil lawsuit against Windsor, resulting in a settlement involving a financial payout. Although I accept this is not a good look, it is notable that Windsor issued a statement at the time continuing to deny wrongdoing. The situation is entirely different from a finding of guilt by a court following due process. Nevertheless, he is being treated as if he were already found guilty.

In my opinion, if the Police are satisfied that there is a sufficient case to answer then Windsor ought to be prosecuted, a plea entered, an election as to trial by judge or jury made, and a finding as to guilt or innocence made on the evidence. If he is found guilty of rape, then he should face criminal penalties just like anyone else, most likely imprisonment. Stripping him of his royal titles is grossly inadequate.

Until very recently, I had similar comments to make about Jevon McSkimming. Although I maintain that everything I wrote about the presumption of innocence in relation to McSkimming in an earlier draft of this post was appropriate at the time, I have removed it in the light of the revelations this week as I do not think it appropriate to focus on that aspect of matters following the IPCA report.

The presumption of innocence is one of the great taonga (treasures) of Western culture for the simple reason that it is an important check on the arbitrary exercise of state power, but at present everyone from police officers to the monarch himself seem to be overlooking its importance. In my view Andrew Windsor’s titles ought to be reinstated, criminal proceedings against him commenced, and the titles removed again if he is found guilty (in addition to criminal penalties).

Oh, and to pre-empt the comments I can see coming: please spare me the tedious accusations that I’m justifying rape or child pornography: I’m not. I’m also not speaking out of any great love for the Windsors or for that matter McSkimming. (In fact, while a monarchist I have a fairly low view of the modern day Windsor family, and following this week’s events, an even lower view of McSkimming to put it mildly.) I’m speaking out of love of our legal system, and scepticism of trial by media.

US politics followers may have heard of Olivia Nuzzi.

She was a writer for New York Magazine and resigned after it was revealed she had a an affair with RFK Jr, while reporting on his presidential campaign.

She has just written a book about what happened, which seems to have upset Ryan Lizza, who was engaged to her at the time. He is also a journalist.

Ryan has just written a substack giving details of how he found out Nuzzi was having an affair with a presidential candidate she was reporting on. It is explosive, especially the final paragraph. Go read it, and you’ll see why.

All I’ll say is that I am a bit said that I was born in New Zealand, and hence can’t stand for President of the United States 🙂

Stuff reports:

The deaths of three children and their father at the scene of a Manawatū house fire are being investigated as a suspected triple murder-suicide, Stuff understands.

Dean Field died at a property on SH1 in Sanson that was consumed by fire on Saturday afternoon. It’s understood police believe he killed his three children – August, Hugo and Goldie, aged 7, 5 and 1 – before taking his own life.

It is hard to describe the rage I feel towards men like this. They are often in custody disputes and see their children as possessions. They get so full of hatred towards their ex, they would kill their own children rather than let the ex “win”. They are deeply evil.

You could include Tom Phillips in the above. He may not have killed his kids, but he treated them as possessions and effectively kidnapped them so that instead of growing up with friends, family and school, they lived in misery in the bush for three years.

As parents, our natural instincts are to do everything we can to protect our kids from harm. To have a parent kill or abuse their kids as a weapon against other adults is just evil.

This is a fascinating chart, from Putting Down The Vase. It looks at the combined favourability of the Labour and Conservative leaders. They note:

Previously, when one leader was in a rut there was usually someone else who voters liked. Major’s unpopularity in 1996 was offset by the popularity of Blair and Ashdown, Brown’s in 2009 was mitigated by the high ratings of Clegg and Cameron, etc. This is no longer the case. By way of example, in just 32 of the 476 Ipsos party leader survey questions since the start of 2011 has any leader scored a net approval rating above zero.

Of interest, this is not really the case in NZ. We don’t have the same time series of favourability ratings but in the 1990s it was pretty clear both Bolger and Clark were not popular.

For most of the period 1999 to 2017 the PM of the day tended to be popular, at least more so than the Opposition Leader was unpopular. And in 2017 both Bill English and Jacinda Ardern went into the election with +40 approval ratings. So if anything our leaders became more popular than the 1990s.

Fair to say that in the last three years, the PM and Opposition Leaders had ratings only slightly positive to slightly negative – so lower than the past. But still much much higher than in the UK where the latest Ipsos poll has:

• Starmer -66%
• Badenoch -47%

What a choice! This is why Farage will probably become the next PM despite being at -19% himself. -19% is not great but a lot better than -66%!

While I am not a fan of the BSA appointing itself as chief censor of the Internet, I do like some of the research they have produced. The annual survey of offensive words is always interesting, and they have just done a survey about trust in media which is interesting. They find the following factors that makes a news provider trustworthy:

• Reporting supported by credible evidence 69%
• Unbiased reporting 66%
• In-depth reporting 64%
• Prompt correction of mistakes 63%
• Stories show all perspectives and are balanced 62%
• Accurate headlines 62%
• Opinion and news are separate 62%

And the other way is the factors that make a news provider untrustworthy:

• Clickbait headlines 70%
• Not correct errors 69%
• Too much opinion 64%
• Too much attack journalism 61%
• Ads pretending to be news 60%

Now looking at those lists, it is no surprise why trust in media is so slow.

We see clickbait headlines all the time. Media are notoriously slow to correct errors. TV news always has reporters share their opinion, mixed into the story. And even I am often taken in by advertorials, as the disclaimer it is sponsored content is often hard to spot.

Radio NZ reports:

RNZ understands MPs Oriini Kaipara, Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, Tākuta Ferris and a representative for Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke met without their party co-leaders.

The Tamihere family may have a majority on the TPM National Council, but it looks like they don’t in caucus.

Hard to see Kaipara and Maipi-Clarke voting to expel Ferris and Kapa-Kingi from Parliament, if they are meeting with them.

However the co-leaders are safe as they are appointed by the National Council, not caucus.

At Patreon, I have exclusive Wellington poll results about the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and MPs for Rongotai, Wellington Central and Ohariu.

Radio NZ reports:

Far-right US influencer Candace Owens’ Auckland event next year has been cancelled, after the commentator was earlier denied entry into Australia.

Owens lost her bid to enter Australia after the country’s highest court backed the government’s decision to deny her a visa over concerns she could “incite discord” in the community.

The NZ event’s venue Trusts Arena confirmed the event was cancelled some months ago, due to its controversial nature.

They should not have done this. Owens should not be denied a venue just because she is “controversial”. Hosting an event is not an endorsement.

Let there be no mistake. Owens is a deeply repugnant person. I can’t decide if she is evil or just amoral. Her baseless accusations that Charlie Kirk was murdered by his own staff or colleagues in TPUSA and the Jews is almost sociopathic.

But her views should be countered, exposed and ridiculed – not shut down by a venue.

Unlike other public service entities who are appointed by the Public Service Commissioner, the Commissioner and statutory Deputy Commissioners of Police are selected by the Prime Minister. There are usually multiple qualified candidates, and they get to pick the one that they think will do the best job.

And Labour’s record is almost beyond belief – they managed to pick four “duds” in a row. Not one, not two, not. three but all four of their appointments turned out to be seriously flawed.

Their four appointments were:

• Wally Haumaha appointed by PM Ardern in June 2018 as Deputy Commissioner. Transpired he had defended officers accused of raping Louise Nicholas, and was accused of bullying by three different female government staff. He called convicted rapist Brad Shipton a “big softie” and Bob Schollum a “legend” with women. Another office said that Haumaha said “we have to stick together” in regard to the Louise Nicholas allegations against the men. The IPCA said his behaviour was improper, inappropriate, unprofessional, belittling and humiliating.
• Andy Coster appointed by PM Ardern in April 2020. The IPCA said that Commissioner Coster failed to inform the PSC panel his knowledge of Deputy McSkimming’s relationship, inappropriately tried to influence the NIU’s investigation into Ms Z’s complaint and to persuade the IPCA that the matter could be resolved quickly. which he sought to bring a serious criminal investigation to an unduly rapid conclusion so that it did not impact on a job application process.
• Tania Kura appointed by PM Hipkins in April 2023. The IPCA said that Kura failed to make sufficiently robust enquiries, failed to refer the allegations to the NIU and the IPCA.
• Jevon McSkimming appointed by PM Hipkins in April 2023. Has pleaded guilty to possessing child sexual exploitation and bestiality material.

Ardern and Hipkins are just the unluckiest Prime Ministers around to have had all four of their top Police appointments turn out to be sub-standard by pure coincidence.

Little to say here – the Ministry numbers speak for themselves

“Highlights”: Full attendance statistics (90% of days attended)

The Minister responsible (Seymour) getting into a blame game over a possible 1% difference shows that he has simply not grasped the enormity of the problem and all of the long-term consequences being built up.

[email protected]