ACT announced:

“New Zealanders shouldn’t have to choose between their career and their right to free speech,” says ACT Public Service spokesperson Todd Stephenson.

“Today ACT is announcing a 2026 election policy to stop professional regulators acting as ideological enforcers. ACT will, if returned to Government, introduce legislation to this end. …

ACT will:

• Ban regulators from disciplining members for lawful expression outside their professional practice.
• Require regulators to remain institutionally neutral on political and ideological issues.
• Restrict mandatory training to matters directly related to professional competence and public safety, not affirmation of contested ideological positions.
• Strengthen judicial oversight so courts can properly rein in regulators that exceed their statutory authority.

“To be absolutely clear, professional misconduct will still be professional misconduct. If a nurse harms a patient, a teacher abuses a student, or a professional breaches their duties, regulators should come down hard.

“But if somebody expresses a lawful political opinion, supports a political party, signs a petition, attends a protest, or posts a view online in their own time, that is none of their regulator’s business.

Only a law change will stop the woke left trying to impose their political beliefs as a condition of registration on professions. If the Government isn re-elected, I hope ACT insists this is in the Coalition Agreement.

A guest post by a reader:

Without knowing anything about this project but having plenty of public sector experience with projects I can tell you exactly what happened here.

Firstly, the service was unable to say with precision what it wanted from this project because its own strategic and operational objective-setting was hopelessly immature.

Secondly, the service was supported by an immature procurement function which was unable to challenge this outcome vacuum resulting in both these functions (the substantive service-owner and the procurement function) looking to each other to provide clarity as they went to the market.

Thirdly, the project management staff were not project professionals but generic public servants who thought they’d like to have a crack at something else and lacked formal expertise in project methodologies and the subject-matter itself, and spent their time perpetually anxious.

Fourthly, the first three elements resulted in supplier-capture with the public servants deeply grateful to find a supplier able to meet their undetermined needs and also well-placed to both overcharge and underdeliver.

Fifthly, while there was a chart showing governance relationships and an identified project owner and sponsor neither of these positions had the skill, expertise or heft to effectively challenge the project or its supplier as it went wrong.

Sixthly, over time as funds were sunk and progress stalled, the paralysing public sector risk-aversion came to the fore making it extremely difficult for staff who were already out of their depth to screw up the courage to escalate.

Seventh, the project sponsor who as we have already remarked lacked the ability to turn the project around found it simpler and less threatening to distance themselves from the project in the hope that any adverse consequences would stick to those involved in day-to-day activity rather than those “sponsoring” it from the lofty heights of the executive office.

Finally, the collegial and comfortable public sector ethos of distributed accountability meant the governance group members never felt compelled to stick their heads above the parapet and call out the emperor’s nakedness.

I hope any reports cover the following:

1. Executive sponsorship means exactly that and if anyone is to hang, that is where you start.

2. Public service risk-aversion is a blight on everything they do (much of it driven by politics one has to admit) and staff need to be encouraged to call out failure loudly and early rather than let it drift for fear of being the bearer of bad news.

3. Generic skills do not qualify particular people to be procurement staff, project staff or subject-matter experts; the public sector needs to recruit to the level the complexity of its tasks demands.

Stuff reports:

Ginny Andersen appeared to subtly confirm a major Labour Party education policy at a conference last week, but her party says the policy had already been announced — it’s just almost no one had seen the announcement.

While speaking as part of a political panel beside education ministers Erica Stanford and David Seymour, Andersen said she would cancel “mandated testing” for primary-aged students.

Oh yes, let’s just give parents no information at all on how their kids are doing.

“Parents will receive that information in their next report card. Labour wants to take that away from parents,” she said, after the event.

She added, “Labour’s plan to scrap twice-yearly progress checks in reading, writing and maths shows they are out of touch with parents. Parents do not want less information about how their children are doing. They want more.”

Parents want more information than a 10 minute meeting twice a year. Now some schools are already very good at keeping parents informed, but many schools are not. A consistent standard of progress checks will mean all parents will be in the loop, and have clear and consistent information on their child’s progress.

Chris Bishop announced:

More than 150 outdated and obsolete laws are likely to be repealed as part of the Government’s statutory spring clean, Attorney-General Chris Bishop says.

The legislative cleanup is being run in stages led by the Parliamentary Counsel Office, alongside the Department of Internal Affairs for local Acts. To date, 152 outdated Acts have been identified for repeal.

Exciting stuff for legal nerds. But important. The fewer laws on the book, the easier it is to know what the law is.

Bishop is proposing the repeal of:

• 85 Local Acts
• 15 Public Acts
• 36 Private Acts
• 17 Provincial Acts

A reader comments:

The RNZCGP is outdoing them and GP’s are sick and tired of it to the back teeth.1/4 of my CME  is about “Cultural Safety and Equity.

25% of my  continuous medical education is spent on this. Every 3 years the same stuff! Over and over again! Why not just once.

That means every 3 years we struggle to do something. I was reduced to learn about the pronunciation of place names instead of the new blood pressure guide lines.

Shoot me now!

GP’s are sick of this, totally. But they all fear to be called a racist.

The woke virus carries on until it kills its host. The RNZCGP now gives the same weighting to “cultural safety and equity” as to “patient outcomes”

And I have seen screenshots showing they get credits for place name pronunciation. Madness.

The seconds Greens policy I am looking at is Agriculture. They key aspects are:

• Ban all synthetic nitrogen fertilisers
• Adjusting stocking rates according to the holding capacity of the land;

So what would this cost?

• The ban on nitrogen fertilisers has been estimated to cost the economy $19.6 billion and destroy 70,000 jobs. The only country on Earth to do this was Sri Lanka, which led to soaring food prices, reduced crop yields, and a major economic crisis, before they backtracked. So the Greens are advocating for something that has been proven to be a disaster.
• The adjusting stocking rates policy is code for shooting cows because they fart and burp too much. They have talked in the past about a 20% reduction, which would reduce export earnings by $5.4 billion a year.

So policy number 2 would cost the economy $25 billion a year and get rid of 70,000 jobs. Makes their ACC policy look modest.

Radio NZ reports:

Almost all of Parliament is backing the 30-year Infrastructure Plan, with the government agreeing in full to 13 of 16 recommendations and four further actions.

The remaining three recommendations are supported in principle, and the government says further work is required.

Labour and the Greens have also offered explicit support, with both parties writing forewords to the government’s response, welcoming a long-term non-partisan approach – although the Greens wanted the government to go further.

This is a very welcome development. Big kudos to Chris Bishop, Kieran McAnulty and Julie-Anne Genter for working together to achieve this.

The full response is here.

There is a sort of peace deal between Iran and the US. If it holds, the fuel crisis is over. I’ll do a separate post on the merits of the peace deal, but for now want to focus on the response in NZ.

The Government’s response was cool, calm and measured. They did not panic. They did not print money. They did not borrow to spend billions of dollars. They did not introduce restrictions. They provided targeted relief to low and middle income families, and invested in greater fuel capacity and storage in NZ. They gave regulatory relief.

Many on the left were demanding that we go immediately to rationing. The Greens demanded that the Government spend much more money. They also demanded free public transport. They would have spent billions, as the last Government did on Covid-19 (of which $30 billion was spent in projects that had nothing to do with Covid-19).

So hopefully the peace holds, and I for one am grateful the Government did not panic. I note petrol is already down below $3 a litre in some areas.

On Kiwiblog recently a site stalwart responded to my criticism of the NACT education plan/progress with a frank: “What would you do?”

My credentials to suggest another pathway.

– a child of a genuinely low income and significantly problematic childhood. A solo mother, born in 1934, into a family with 11 siblings, might give you an idea of my platform. Add to that growing up in Aramoho, Wanganui.
– a survivor of a very poor high school.
– a Bachelor of Business Studies Degree (Economics, Accounting) from Massey at its peak.
– A teaching diploma from Christchurch College of Education.
– A Master’s Degree in Educating High Ability Students.
– A Post Graduate Diploma in Sports Management.
– A teacher, Head of Department, Sports Coach at Tauranga Boys, Hamilton Boys, St Cuthberts.
– A founder and 20 year Principal of Mt Hobson Middle School.
– A founder and 8 year Academic Adviser of South Auckland Middle School.
– A founder and 7 year Academic Adviser of Middle School West Auckland.
– A key researcher of the LEAVERS data of every NZ high school each year.
– A high level rugby and athletics coach who has, for instance, contributed to the development of 18 players who have competed in rugby world cups.
– A parent of three children with are qualified at a tertiary level with two at degree level and one at PhD – and each involved in remarkable careers.
– etc

The first point on how to improve all things education in NZ is that, so long as any government think that they are the podium of truth in this area – they will fail and all improvements will be marginal (at best).

1. New Zealand desperately needs a Crown Entity for Parenting.

– Non-interventional and free from political influence.

– Promoting, through the broadest means, the very best developmental science/practices for children from conception to 5 years old.

– Bringing people such as David Eagleman and Ben Carson to NZ to widely promote best practice in parenting and development.

– A KPI of NZ becoming the world’s best nation for parenting.

The key aspect of high-quality education in NZ is high-quality parenting. Good schools clearly help but it is the parents that do the hard yards. At present the perception is that good parenting is strongly correlated with wealth and the ability to have stimulating resources in the home. We need to break this pattern/perception.

The actual practices in the crucial first five years do not need lots of money;

– good basic nutrition.
– good shelter and clothing.
– parents free of drugs and alcohol – from conception.
– MANY words being spoken every day. And positive words.
– Eating together.
– Minimising screen time and maximising activity and human contact.
– Parents reading to their children EVERY night.
– Music in the home.
– etc

2. The Ministry of Education needs to be completely re-structured and re-purposed.

(This section is a repeat from an earlier post … and many before that … plus the support from Oliver Hartwich who stated that the solution to the Ministry was TNT.)

The influence, incompetence and shear absorption of taxpayer funding of the Ministry of Education has to be significantly diminished.

The Ministry of Education was largely exempted from Nicola Willis’ budget reductions. Why? No explanation was given. The leadership under Hipkins, Ardern, Tinetti is still largely in place. When Hipkins became the Minister there were approx. 2,700 education bureaucrats. When Labour finished it was above 4,000.

During January to March the Ministry of Education grew by a whopping 341 FTEs up 8.9%. They were employing nearly 4 people a day and still dominate Seek. The total FTEs now stands at 4,176. It is one of the great examples of David Graeber’s BS jobs, and all manner of studies into bureaucratic behaviour, where you employ more people and see a HUGE decline in performance.

This is a scene from inside our Misery of Education that was leaked to me.

The Ministry staff don’t even like working there: “only 41% would recommend the MoE as a good workplace, 26% say they intend to leave within 12 months”.

Which NZ politician has the courage to walk into this institution with a bathroom sink?

3. Attendance must be dramatically improved – especially for the lower socio-economic levels, Maori and Pasifika.

Phonics and the one hour of math and one hour of reading a day at primary schools is a good thing but, – it is of marginal value until we have HUGE emphasis and improvement to get the vast majority of children attending school. I know of Ministry data that clearly shows that attendance correlates with achievement/progress well ahead of any pedagogy (e.g. phonics) or type of workbooks being used.

For some reason the Ministry has broken Equity Index (EQI) numbers into seven levels. Low EQI schools (having students with the least barriers to achievement) saw full attendance at 80.1%. For high EQI schools it was 48.8%. This clearly shows that those who will benefit if practices, curriculum and qualifications improve … are the ones already doing well

4. The EQI system (formerly Deciles) needs a significant review.

A recently completed post grad analysis at University of Auckland showed: “EQI has a consistent negative association with achievement indicators”.

– 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.

– 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.

The amount and differentials are simply WAY to small to make the difference that the EQI system is supposed to achieve.

5. The human aspect of education needs to be advanced. Workbooks make much less difference than the public is being told. The things that do are; school leadership, very clear and aspirational programmes to increase teacher quality and retention. Very few students remember a great facility or workbook– but they will tell you about their great teachers.

I received this connection last week from someone I taught in the 1990s:

“Thank you for your teaching so long ago. Your class gave me a love for business. Whilst not academically-gifted, I always excelled in the workplace so thank you for kicking it all off.”

Unions are arguing for a teacher aid in each class. That is too much – but there needs to be many more of them and there needs to be a clear training pathway.

6. A great Designated Character School model would be significantly better than Charter Schools.

The Charter School policy is a bust with tiny schools and just 0.2% of NZ schools attending them after nine years of effort. No State Schools have converted – including none of the former Charter Schools who are clearly voting for the Designated Character model with that decision.

As I argued prior to the last election; what is needed is a fully open Designated Character School policy that takes care of property and does not limit attending numbers. This can also enhance the Catholic school system. Given the nature and needs of the NZ system this is a better development pathway for new and innovative schools.

7. We should significantly enhance the Private School system.

Any reading of our school leavers data shows that private and designated character schools dominate the top level.

In Australia 36% of children attend private schools with a government subsidy of $14,000 per student.

In NZ 3.6% of children attend private schools with a government subsidy of $1,400 per student. That amount is then lost to schools as NZ is one of only two OECD countries that charge GST/VAT of school fees. The UK being the other as they have recently begun applying VAT to private school fees and 20,000 students, so far, have left their school of choice.

Private schools save the government a fortune for every student and the savings could be used to enhance state schools. ACT and National say that they believe in choice but have simply been pathetic in this area. As have Labour when the children of people such as Willie Jackson and Barbara Edmonds have attended top private schools.

This is the top 35 schools from 2024 LEAVERS for UE. Can you see a pattern?

Manukau Christian School
Diocesan School for Girls
St Cuthbert’s College
Rangi Ruru Girls’ School
Iona College
Pinehurst School
Kristin School
Craighead Diocesan School
Baradene College
ACG Parnell College
Marist College
Saint Kentigern College
Woodford House
St Mary’s College (Ponsonby)
St Oran’s College
King’s College
Christchurch Adventist School
Columba College
Waikato Diocesan School For Girls
Wellington Girls’ College
Samuel Marsden Collegiate School
Queen Margaret College
Hutt International Boys’ School
St Hildas Collegiate
ACG Strathallan
St Matthew’s Collegiate (Masterton)
Liston College
Carmel College
Chilton Saint James School
Scots College
St Peter’s School (Cambridge)
St Peter’s College (Epsom)
Villa Maria College
St Dominic’s Catholic College (Henderson)
ACG Sunderland
St Catherines College (Kilbirnie)

8. The curriculum writing process under the current government has to be immediately and fully reviewed.

There is a strong sense in the sector that subject experts have been ignored and that the consultation process is farcical. This should be acknowledged and genuine engagement with the sector established. Sometimes you just need to stop and go back to the beginning.

There is also concern that almost all resource publishing contracts are going overseas.

There have been some silly claims made. None more so that Elizabeth Rata on Newstalk ZB, June 1, who told Andrew Dickens that:

“I think the move to standardise the curriculum throughout the country will mean that we don’t have pockets of children who miss out [on a good education].”

If anyone truly thinks that just changing the curriculum will solve all of our education problems then they really do need to get out more.

9. Consider mandating the Cambridge exams and upper school curriculum – with NZ aspects is subjects such as History.

We are truly in danger of creating 12 years of chaos in education in NZ. It would be much cheaper, simpler and internationally comparable – and easier to implement – to simply mandate the Cambridge exams and upper school curriculum.

10. A great deal more needs to be done for the children in the middle of these changes.

In 2024 15.9 students left our high school system with no qualifications. This was a decade high. The 2025 leavers data will show that nearly 20% of students will leave our high school system (after at least 13,200 hours of taxpayer funded instruction) with no qualifications. The impact on those students – and society as a whole – will be massive and a great deal could have been done by Stanford/Seymour and co to change those outcomes. This is on their watch.

There is still the opportunity to change things for students going through the NCEA system up until 2030.

11. The government needs to fully and effectively re-engage with Maori and Pasifika re Education.

 There is a very powerful perception that this government is, at best, negligent of the interests of Maori. Significantly more so than the Key government – and especially in education. It was a mistake to withdraw the clause for schools to “give effect to the Treaty” from the Education Act and Minister Stanford telling Jack Tame that it was her decision – without consultation – reinforced perceptions. Over 1800 schools/ECEs have written to say that they disagree with the Minister. A cabinet paper also states that the new qualifications system will, at least in the short term, negatively impact results for marginalized groups – including Maori.

These areas need to be openly faced up to and addressed. Not doing so is a part of the reason why Labour still leads National with respect to education in the Ipsos polls.

12. Enhancing being LITERATE above functional literacy.

While there is some, very limited data, that appears to show the change to “Structured Literacy” is having a positive impact for children, I see three significant issues.

One; is that the lack of full attendance for marginalized groups means that they have very little chance of improving – regardless of the programme.

Two, is that some children are already bored witless. This is primarily those who start school already able to read. Right through our education system we need children inspired by great books and adults passionate about literature. Functional literacy and being genuinely literate are worlds apart and we should be aiming for children and young people being the latter.

Three; is that talking of “the Science of Reading” risks further sideling parents. Prior to the last election I attended a Literacy Conference in Wellington led by Michael Johnston. There were some very good aspects. At the end I asked the panel how they saw the role of parents in the proposed changes. To a person, the panel told us that they considered parents too busy to help and that the complexity of the process would be a barrier.

With these type of interventions you get a glee club patting themselves on the back for finally seeing the light while lamenting their past signs of applying the wrong teaching/learning theories. We then jump on a new merry-go-round for the next generation.

13. School lunches, if done, need to be done well.

In a home or restaurant being presented with a disappointing meal – with clearly little thought and effort – is deeply disappointing/affronting. It clearly says that you are not welcome or valued.

Spend more money. It will still be a tiny portion of the education spend of $7.5b.

Make the meals superb. Let the children know that are valued. Give them another reason to get out of bed and go to school. Once a week, make it a shared lunch with parents.

14. Be very smart with device use and AI.

Develop a genuinely expert research group – led by someone like Sir Ian Taylor – to accurately evaluate and report on the best use of technology and AI in our schools.

We have clearly over used devices and all applications need a review – away from the tech businesses.

With AI there are two major risks. Over implementing/applying without clear research. Going too slow and being left behind the world.

15. Have a strong emphasis on creativity, problem solving and entrepreneurship.

Much of the current emphasis is on the basics and also, through the push for vocational education, providing labour for industry and tradies to service our homes.

With our appalling productivity measures NZ is desperate for a generation of exciting innovators and risk takers.

16. Much work needs to occur to generate a greater understanding of neuro-science that will allow children to be seen with fewer limits. The idea of fixed levels of abilities is long gone but many schools and teachers act as if an accurate understanding of “intelligence” for a range of reasons – none of them good. Streaming children on an entry test or two is particularly stupid. We have to return to ideals. Having a goal that by 2030 that just 80% of Year 8s will be literate is appalling. Every teacher should teach on the basis that every child in front of them is remarkable and can do remarkable things.

[email protected]

A (alleged) copy of the agreement between Trump and Iran has leaked, and it is hard to overstate how bad it is. Some details:

• Includes reference to no fighting in Lebanon, which will mean US will pressure Israel to not respond to attacks from Hezbollah
• A minimum $300 billion rehabilitation fund for Iran!
• All sanctions, both global and US, on Iran to end!
• No deal on nuclear programme beyond kicking it to a working group
• Iran allowed to maintain status quo nuclear programme in absence of a long-term agreement
• US to issue immediate sanctions waiver on Iranian oil
• US to release all frozen funds to Iran

I can only hope this is a clever forgery and bears no relation to the actual agreement!

UPDATE: Sadly it is not a forgery. Bloomberg has confirmed it is the actual deal.

The Post reports:

Immigration officials stand accused by their own minister of misleading her and her predecessors for seven years, engaging in creative accounting to dodge scrutiny and removing people from a $33 million IT project when they raised questions.

And ultimately, they achieved nothing. The entire project is now being written off with nothing to show for it.

Immigration Minister Erica Stanford is “furious” and says she has lost confidence in her officials.

I can’t recall a Minister ever so angry before, and stating she has lost confidence. But it is for good reason.

“The report is very clear that ministers were not given full information, that in cases we were misled, that people were removed from the project when they asked questions about its viability, and that whole-of-life costs were not put to ministers for proper approval,” Stanford told a select committee on Tuesday. …

The project began to unravel in March 2024, when officials sought to push the cost to $40m, which required Cabinet approval.

Advice to the minister at the time said the project was “well progressed”, with an approach that was “sound and robust”, citing a positive quality assurance review in September 2023.

Stanford says she was also not told that her predecessor, Andrew Little, had already declined the same request twice in 2023.

Stanford said she refused the increase and requested the 2023 review, which in fact said: “given the project’s poor delivery history and its inability to meet agreed milestones, we have doubts as to whether the project will in fact deliver at all and we question its continuation”.

“I was, as I’m sure you can appreciate, furious at being provided with advice that was diametrically opposed to the truth on such a critical project,” Stanford said.

So the review concluded the project was off course, missed milestones and doubted it should continue. Yet officials told the Minister that the review was a positive quality assurance review. That isn’t spin – that is deception.

The Post reports:

Health Minister Simeon Brown has removed the leadership of New Zealand’s medical regulator, accusing the Medical Council of pursuing an “ideological agenda” and becoming distracted from its core responsibilities.

Brown has declined to reappoint chairperson Dr Rachelle Love and deputy chairperson Simon Watt, despite both remaining eligible for reappointment under the statutory nine-year term limit.

The decision appears to be unprecedented.

Unprecedented and absolutely necessary. The Medical Council had decided that their job was no longer simply to make sure doctors were competent, but to impose a political and ideological requirement on every doctor in NZ where they would have to agree with a left wing view of the world or face deregistration.

Of course the Minister would take action.

Brown said the regulator was straying into ideological territory, pointing to its recent consultation on two draft statements setting out updated expectations for doctors on cultural competence and safety and Māori health and wellbeing.

These required clinicians to understand how culture affects health outcomes and how bias and systemic factors can contribute to inequities.

“You only need to look at the council’s recent consultation documents, which ask doctors to examine their own ‘privilege’, to challenge the ‘dominant culture’ of the health system, to study the difference between cultural appreciation and cultural appropriation, and to help ‘dismantle’ systems,“ Brown said.

“Kiwis expect the Medical Council to be focused on strengthening the medical workforce, not on an ideological agenda.”

They were seeking to impose a political and ideological view of New Zealand on every doctor in NZ. That is not their job, so they got the boot. Great.

The problem is almost every regulator – from real estate to law has caught the woke virus. The only long-term way to stop them is a law change saying regulators can only impose requirements around competence – not around ideology.

An alternative approach would be to allow competing regulators for an industry. I suspect the vast majority of a profession would move to the regulator that simply imposes competence requirements rather than political and ideological requirements.

Politik reports:

But Labour may have got the jump on ACT with its leader announcing that it is highly unlikely to go into coalition with the Greens or Te Paati Maori, but instead will simply do confidence and supply agreements with the two parties.

This will actually make any Government less stable, and actually make Te Pāti Māori more powerful.

In a coalition, you are all around the cabinet table. It involves compromise and negotiation and good faith. It is hard work, but it means that you work together.

If Labour refuses to allow Te Pati Maori into Cabinet (and of the 100+ polls since the election, none show they can govern without them) then Te Pati Maori has no vested interest in compromise (not something they excel at anyway). It means that Labour will have to go to TPM on every single law, every policy, every Budget and plead with them to support it.

The bottom line is it doesn’t matter whether TPM is in Cabinet, outside Cabinet or not in the Executive at all. The maths remains the same – Labour can’t govern without them.

A vote for Labour will mean a Government that is dependent on the whims of Te Pati Maori.

Some people think that the scrutiny of Superintendent Naidoo is because he is standing for Labour. It isn’t. It is simply because he didn’t follow the rules laid out in the Police Manual. If he had, none of this would have happened.

Consider what would have occurred if he had approached his boss four months ago when Labour first talked to him about standing. I imagine it would have been something like this.

“Hey, I need to let you know that the Labour Leader has asked me to consider standing for them at the election. I’m tempted to say yes if am likely to have a high enough place on their list, but I won’t know until June if that looks likely”

“That’s great you’ve been asked. Would be very good to have more MPs with Police experience in Parliament. I really appreciate being given an early heads up. We need to work out a plan to protect you and the Police, while you decide. Let me chat to the Commissioner, and we’ll touch base next week”

“Okay I’ve talked to the Commissioner, and what we thinks will work well is if we put you into a special role for three months while you are deciding. You can head up the Taskforce on xxxx, and your deputy will act in your role. This means you are not having to interact with the Minister while you are deciding, and won’t be party to any discussions around government policy in this space. If you decide not to stand, then you can just go back into your old role and carry on. No one apart from us will know you were thinking about standing. If you do decide to stand, then you can carry on heading up the Taskforce until you take leave”

This is all he had to do. He is not the first person in the public service to decide to stand. These sort of discussions occur often,. and mitigation strategies are worked on.

What is unusual is when you only tell your boss you are standing, four days before the public announcement. What is unusual is when the party puts in place a special process, explicitly so you can avoid telling your bosses you are thinking of standing.

In the March Quarter the Public Service workforce grew from 63,657 FTEs to 64,535. A quarterly increase of 1.4% and 12 month increase of 2.1%.

Ironically the Ministry for Regulation FTEs grew 11.6%.

The Ministry of Education grew by a whopping 341 FTEs up 8.9%. That total now stands at 4,176 and is approaching the June 2024 total of 4,387. That is in complete contrast to the pre-election promise to bring the Ministry of Education FTEs down to the pre-Hipkins total of 2,700. An estimate of the cost of employing a FTE in the Ministry would be at least $200,000. That means there is currently a broken promise of $295,200,000 per annum with the 1,476 extra staff. Money that would have plenty of better uses in education as, after 35 years in the sector, I have no idea what most of the education bureaucrats do.

[email protected]

The Post announced:

In a bombshell move, former National Party strategist-turned consultant Matthew Hooton has been chosen as the new editor of The Post, replacing outgoing Editor in Chief Tracy Watkins. He hopes NZ’s powerful institutions are ‘a little unsettled’ by his appointment, and has big plans to accelerate the brand to become Kiwis’ primary news source.

It is fair to call this a bombshell move.

I think it is a very smart, albeit somewhat risky, move.

Matthew did not seek out this role. He was headhunted for it. He has been exceedingly happy as a Visiting Associate Professor at the National University of Mongolia. He doesn’t need the job – he is doing it for the challenge.

First of all Matthew is a brilliant writer. He got hired as a 19 year old speech writer because he was that good. His columns for the NBR and now the Herald were major attractions for their paywalled products. His Friday columns reverberate around Wellington and New Zealand. I can’t think of a more impactful columnist.

Assuming editors do actually still edit, Matthew will be a great asset to the journalists at The Post and SST. He knows how to write, and write well.

The Post and SST are (for now) part of the Stuff Group and are generally perceived as left of centre. Matthew’s appointment will neutralise that (at least in the short-term) as Matthew is of course a centre-right classical liberal. This will expand the potential readership and subscription base.

This does not mean Matthew will turn The Post into a more sympathetic paper for the National-led Government. Off memory Matthew has been at war at, or strongly critical, of every single National Party leader since Jim Bolger, except possibly Todd Muller. Matthew has written more mean column centimetres about National leaders than even The Standard.

What are the risks?

The first is that the existing readers and subscribers may leave, if they don’t like the newspapers under Matthew. I think this is unlikely though. I think there will be curiosity over what it will look like.

The second is there may be some staff resistance. Matthew has managed staff before but here he will have 100 to 200 and managers and unions etc.

The third is Matthew is what I call an idiot savant. Not in the literal sense. What I mean is with around half his columns I think Matthew is a genius, and with around half I think he is crazy. He has the ability to say outrageous things with total conviction. Sometimes he goes too far, and lawyers get involved. I recall working with Matthew once on a campaign by 2 degrees against outrageous mobile termination rates charged by (then) Telecom and (then) Vodafone. The way Matthew referred to the two big telcos was incredibly amusing and defamatory 🙂

Matthew will not be a status quo editor. This doesn’t mean it will be revolutionary change as in fact The Post is quite successful already. But I expect it will become harder hitting.

I’m looking forward to seeing The Post and SST under his stewardship.

In case it isn’t obvious, I have known Matthew for around 35 years.

At Patreon I write:

Now that Labour and Greens have published their party lists, we can look at who might be in Parliament based on the latest polls.

The analysis used my previous data on which party is ahead on paper in each electorate, so one can project hope many List MPs they might get, and who they would be.

Nicola Willis’ gnomes have crunched the numbers on Labour policies to date. Now they haven’t actually released that many policies, but already the ones they have add up to $21.0b over the next four years. Their proposed CGT will bring in only $2.8b, which leave an $18 billion hole which they have to fund either through huge take hikes, or more borrowing.

Labour have responded complaining about their policies being put under scrutiny, but noticeably not disputing that the calculations are in any way wrong.

In both Australia and the UK, labour parties have got elected promising one things on taxes, and then quickly breaking their word and hiking taxes they promised not to. NZ will be no different.