Stuff reports:

It is understood the Let’s Get Wellington Moving working group – an initiative led by the New Zealand Transport Agency in partnership with the Wellington city and regional councils – is leaning towards the most radical of four options proposed last year.

That option, which could cost up to $2.3 billion, includes moving SH1 traffic off Vivian St into a tunnel; widening the Terrace and Mt Victoria tunnels and Ruahine St; separating local and highway traffic at the Basin Reserve;

and adding a fourth southbound lane to the urban motorway between Aotea Quay and Ngauranga.

Widening the two tunnels is essential as is sorting out the Basin. We need four lanes from basically the Airport to far out of Wellington.

The scenario also proposed to replace two of the six traffic lanes on the waterfront quays with cycle lanes, establish cycle lanes on a two-way Vivian St, and give more priority to pedestrians along Willis St, Victoria St, Cuba St and Vivian St.

That sounds reasonable. Cycling in Wellington is damn dangerous and don’t really need six lanes on the quays.

A mass transit public transport system was recommended from Wellington Railway Station to Wellington Regional Hospital and the airport, via the suburb of Kilbirnie.

Light rail has not been proposed as part of the recommended option, leaving the option of a rapid bus route in the mix.

Any proposal for light rail in Wellington would indicate out of touch with reality. The last time it was costed the BCR was a miniscule 0.05. Not 0.5, but 0.05.

A brutal column by Duncan Garner. Some extracts:

I mean Golriz the Green was even hailing a 500-bed prison as a stunning success, a fresh approach to rehabilitation, until someone pointed out the truth. The double bunks she railed against were still there, and now in every second cell. Reality over principle is called cost.

They’d rather double bunk prisoners have that enough cells. And they call it a win.

It’s taken them three minutes to look as shabby, arrogant and as broken-down as a third-term government suffering rampant hubris and pleading to be put out of its misery. 

What is becoming apparent is the inability or unwillingness of the Prime Minister to discipline Ministers. John Key dispatched several Ministers when they erred, but it seems there is no limit to what you can do in this Cabinet. Look at just the last few months:

• A Health Minister who bribes a DHB Chair with the promise of future appointments if he stops speaking to the media
• A Communications Minister who caused the resignation of a top Radio NZ manager by improperly meeting her outside established channels
• A Foreign Minister with a pro-Russian foreign policy
• An unnamed NZ First Minister who sends in backbench MPs to threaten opposition MPs that projects won’t get funded if they stay involved with them
• A Regional Development Minister who routinely calls on board chairs to resign
• An Acting PM (Davis) who is unable to answer questions in the House, or in select committee, or in interviews
• A Defence Minister who uses the Air Force as a taxi service

Could Jacinda Ardern be a former prime minister at age 40? Perhaps. Maybe that’s unfair. Maybe not.

Lots of UN jobs out there, if so.

The oil and gas industry is on death row, no debate, no consultation, no future, just the rotten smell of decay when Ardern slipped on the destroy button – otherwise known as her climate change moment. An astonishing instance, making history by closing an entire industry without a debate around the Cabinet table.

The most arrogant move of all.

Andrew Little was finally doing himself justice until he publicly fell for one of the old dog’s tricks, believing Winston would support a headline that read “Soft on crime works, violent offenders to rehabilitate in the safety of your street”.

My question is why did Ardern even wait for Peters to hit the kill switch when, as PM, she had every right to pull the plug on dumb ideas. That she didn’t shows a worrying reluctance to play the ruthless card that Helen Clark wielded like a stick hovering over errant but scared and shaking ministers on an almost daily basis.

Both Clark and Key could be ruthless with their Ministers. But with Ardern there seems to be no fear of consequences.

Then there’s Willie, and someone called Carmel, and Stu’s 1800 cops that is really 1000. Oh dear, prime minister, rest up, use your pregnant pause wisely, take care and use your newly found parenting skills on your return to running your Government.

In the meantime, Grant’s directing play, but Winston’s in charge.

It might actually run smoother with Grant in charge, than Ardern.

Ardern has very impressive communication skills, but you need more than that to be PM. You need to actually manage what can be a very challenging team of Ministers.

Key was very good at this. He had regular performance appraisals with his Ministers. Every three months or so they would have one on one meetings to discuss the political and policy goals they were aiming for, and receive counsel from him on how they were going.

Radio NZ reports:

The White Ferns teenager Amelia Kerr has made the highest score in a women’s one day international cricket match, scoring 232 not out in the third and final match between New Zealand and Ireland in Dublin.

The 17-year-old Wellingtonian batted the entire innings as New Zealand scored 440 for three batting first.

Kerr’s innings included 31 fours and two sixes in a 145 ball innings.

Getting 232 not out in an international match is an incredible feat for anyone. Doing it as a 17 year old is just amazing. A huge talent.

The Herald reports:

Co-leader Marama Davidson said Sage had been constrained by the Overseas Investment Act in making the decision.

“The minister was constrained by a flawed Act which says we are unable to take environmental and Treaty decisions into account. This decision does not sit with Green kaupapa and longstanding Green Party position,” Davidson said.

Davidson is quite wrong in blaming the decision on the Act, saying you are unable to take environmental decisions into account.

S17(2) of the Act details factors for assessing any application. They include:

• whether there are or will be adequate mechanisms in place for protecting or enhancing existing areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna
• conditions as to pest control, fencing, fire control, erosion control, or riparian planting
• covenants over the land
• protecting or enhancing existing areas of significant habitats of trout, salmon, wildlife protected under section 3 of the Wildlife Act 1953, and game as defined in sections 2(1) of that Act
• providing, protecting, or improving walking access to those habitats by the public or any section of the public
• conditions for conservation
• agreement to support the entry on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero of any historic place, historic area, wahi tapu, or wahi tapu area under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014

So blaming the decision by Sage on the Act is a cop out.

Newsroom reports:

Winston Peters’ new court action over his seven year superannuation overpayment is actually claiming a total of $1.8 million from bureaucrats and former ministers – damages that ultimately may have to be paid by the taxpayer if he is successful.

This is beyond outrageous. Peters was receiving superannuation payments in excess of his entitlement. It is still not known how this occurred as Peters refuses to give a privacy waiver so we can learn details such as whether he received annual confirmation letters of his living status.

Peters is receiving almost $400,000 a year (total package) as Deputy PM, and claiming his NZ Super of $16,000 a year. And on top of that he wants $1.8 million from taxpayers because his over-payments were made public.

I remind people of course NZ First still owes the taxpayers $158,000 from the parliamentary spending ruled illegal by the Auditor-General in 2005.

Peters is about to become Acting Prime Minister yet one of his listed targets is Attorney General David Parker who sits with him in the cabinet room. 

The Attorney General is placed in a horrible position. He has to decide whether to not just defend the lawsuit, but if Peters drops the suit (or loses it), whether to pursue Peters for the costs to the Crown (and taxpayers).

Taxpayers may end up spending well over $100,000 defending public servants from the Peters lawsuit. Will Parker agree to seek full costs from Peters if he loses?

Worth reading the comments on Mark’s post. A lot of very upset people. I wonder if the Prime Minister would agree that being grabbed and groped by a prisoner against your will is low level and not that serious.

Just because an indecent assault is not a violent rape, that doesn’t mean it is low level.

In light of half the Auckland Council doing an open letter complaining about Phil Goff’s leadership, there have been two stories trying to explain why this happened.

The first is by Simon Wilson of the NZ Herald and the second by Tim Murphy in Newsroom.

I found it interesting how different they were. There was a small amount in common – that the withholding of the stadium report was the final straw.

The Newsroom story covered the following:

• Enough of the sidelining, political manipulating, off-hand chairing of the big meetings and secrecy
• Enough of the blindsiding of councillors with policies made public via favoured journalists
• Enough of the favouritism of flunkies on the council who will never vote against Phil’s wishes
• The Auckland Council is notorious for its secrecy
• The council has been shown publicly to have deliberately subverted the Official Information Act in at least two instances
• Goff was implicated in those delays
• Calling out the high-handed reign of Goff.

So the Newsroom report makes very clear there are huge issues of culture and secrecy and Goff playing favourites.

Now the Herald report:

•  It’s true they have a right to know what’s going on, but it’s also true that Goff has a duty of care with confidential information
• Some are on the firm left of the political spectrum, others on the firm right. Some have a political outlook very close to Goff’s, but they just don’t seem to like him. A few of them are ambitious politicians.
• Mike Lee … seems almost consumed by personal antagonism to Goff.
• Wayne Walker and John Watson are … on a short fuse with Goff as well.
• Sharon Stewart consistently opposes the mayor from the right.
• Stewart has claimed she feels “bullied” by Goff but her example – that she was lobbied to vote for the regional fuel tax – is odd. Both Labour and National lobbied hard on that issue, and why not? It’s politics.
• Two more rightist councillors, Greg Sayers and Daniel Newman, appear to have political and personal motives. They oppose Goff’s policies and both seem keen to position themselves as an opposition leader-in-waiting.
• Fletcher is not big on teamwork.
•  Fa’anānā Efeso Collins. He’s one of six members of the Labour Party on council, but he has drifted away from Goff and routinely votes against him now. That’s odd. Collins may want to become the leading next-generation leftist voice on council, or one day head to Parliament, but to do either he will need to find a way to work with his Labour colleagues.
• Whatever the explanation, the council has a toxic culture problem and it’s the mayor’s job to be the adult in the room. He has to fix it.

So the Herald story goes through the nine Councillors and basically undermines them all directly or indirectly. Almost no examination of the culture issues complained about (except the report catalyst). Basically the Herald story implies:

• Casey is the only honest critic
• Lee, Walker and Watson just don’t like Goff
• Stewart needs to harden up
• Sayers and Newman have political motives
• Fletcher is not a team player
• Collins is also not a team player
• Goff is the adult in the room

So you have the unprecedented step of half the Council complaining about the Mayor’s leadership style, and the Herald article manages to avoid any criticism of Goff at all, but snidely undermines all but one of his critics.

Radio NZ reports:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has swung in behind his MP Shane Jones, joining him in savaging Fonterra and its chairperson.

Mr Jones – who is Regional Development Minister – yesterday attacked the dairy giant, saying it needed to be restructured and its chair should “catch the next cab out of town”.

Mr Peters defended the comments and said “heads should roll” at Fonterra.

“It goes to the top and the buck stops there,” he said.

“I can’t believe somebody responsible would be in the job still.”

In March, the dairy cooperative announced its first ever loss, of $348 million for the six months to September.

“A massive hundreds of hundreds of millions of dollars loss needs an explanation … there needs to be some accountability,” Mr Peters said.

At Parliament, Mr Jones told reporters he stood by his criticisms which he said he made in his personal capacity.

It’s ridiculous to claim Peters and Jones are speaking in a personal capacity. If they were, no one would care what they think of Fonterra or report it. They’re not farmers or shareholders.

If Jacinda Ardern came out and said that the Governor of the Reserve Bank is incompetent and should be sacked, would anyone think she was speaking purely in a personal capacity. Of course not.

And to make it beyond doubt Jones made the comments on the way out of the Debating Chamber, and referred to the Government now being scared to take on Fonterra.

For Ardern to claim he was not speaking as a Minister is farcical. It just shows she is unable to exert any control over her Government.

Speaking at Fieldays in Hamilton, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern endeavoured to distance the government from Mr Jones’ comments.

“Ministers share personal opinions all of the time, but what I’m making clear here is was he said is not government policy … end of story.”

Ms Ardern said she would not be disciplining Mr Jones as he made clear his comments were his own opinion.

So can any Minister now call on any board chair to be sacked and it is nothing to do with the Government?

It is a form of nasty bullying. The companies involved can’t respond as they would to other critics, because they are Ministers who can make life difficult for them.

The people whose opinion counts about Fonterra are actual farmers. If they think Fonterra is doing badly they can vote against Directors.

This can also be seen as a form of protection racket. Some industries and companies donate generously to NZ First. I bet you Shane never comes out demanding their chairs be sacked. Allowing Jones and Peters to behave like this, is incentivisng companies to donate to NZ First as a form of insurance against these attacks.

Stuff reports:

Changes to international students post-study work rights could cost the economy $100 million a year, an economist says. 

ANZ economist Miles Workman said the “small” loss would result if fewer students came here to study, causing education providers’ profits to drop and reduced consumer spending.

If a $100 million is a small loss, I’d hate to see a big one.

Hamish Rutherford writes:

As Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern relocated to Auckland on Monday, in preparation for giving birth, circumstances combined to mark the occasion with two extraordinary Peters power plays.

First, he humiliated Andrew Little by refusing to support penal reform, after the justice minister had foolishly announced in advance that a paper was going before the Cabinet.

Little has pointed to cryptic remarks by Peters, seemingly justifying Little’s confidence that NZ First would support repealing the so-called “three strikes” legislation.

Given that Peters is famously hard to pin down on anything, if that really is all Little was basing his confidence in NZ First’

And Little has now made it far harder for himself to get any other reforms done.

But NZ First’s refusal to support Little’s penal reform pales in comparison to what would emerge on Monday evening.

Peters, still smarting over the alleged leaking of his superannuation overpayment in 2017, was taking legal action against State Services Commissioner Peter Hughes and another top public servant.

Forget that Peters is also suing two former National ministers (although that too is an unnecessary distraction for the Government).

Hughes is effectively the head of the public sector. The soon-to-be-acting prime minister taking this action is effectively the Government suing itself.

With taxpayers footing the bill.

The good news is that, according to descriptions from those who have worked alongside him, Hughes is the absolute last person in the public sector you would want to mess with. Peters may live to regret including him.

What Peters may regret is that presumably MSD in its defence will include details about the over-payments such as whether the form Peters signed stated he was single and whether or not he got annual letters asking him to confirm the (incorrect) single status. It may be that it was all a typo error caused by an MSD staffer, and Peters is blameless. But we don’t know as he won’t do a privacy release. However by suing the MSD CE, they presumably are entitled to use that information in their defence.

Ardern, who learned of the legal action just hours before the rest of us, has attempted to describe the action as a “private matter”, an absurd attempt by the prime minister to avoid the obvious: she is not in control of her deputy.

The Acting Prime Minister suing the top public servant is not a private matter.

Newshub reports:

Newshub has obtained a voicemail and emails which suggest the Health Minister tried to gag senior staff talking publicly about the state of embattled Middlemore Hospital.

In one case he even appeared to promise a board member, who he’d sacked, another job if they shut up.

“I notice more and more getting reported that is really not helping at all, and I’m hopeful that there won’t be much more commentary,” Health Minister David Clark said in a voicemail to District Health Board chair Rabin Rabindran.

“My fear is that if you and I keep commenting, the story keeps ticking along. I’d rather not have distraction about who said what when.” …

The voicemail was left on April 18th, two weeks after he sacked Mr Rabindran. In the same voicemail, Mr Clark offered him a new job.

“I would consider you for further appointments because I think that sends a message.”

So David Clark joins Clare Curran in Ministers who try to silence Board Chairs. But in Clark’s case he almost bribes him with an implied promise of future appointments if he shuts up.

Stuff reports:

Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson is facing intense backlash from members threatening to quit over a decision made by one of her ministers to allow a Chinese water bottler to expand.

Davidson has said she “doesn’t like” the decision after the co-leader of the Young Greens Max Tweedie wrote on an internal Facebook page that that he was “extremely disappointed” in the decision.

Land Information Minister Eugenie Sage, one of three Green ministers, announced the decision on Tuesday which allows in principle a Chinese water bottling giant to purchase land in order to expand their existing Otakiri Springs water bottling plant near Whakatane.

Welcome to the reality of Government. The Greens railed against both bottled water and foreign investment in opposition. Then in Government one of their Ministers approves the expansion of a Chinese water bottling operation.

So we have a co-leader attacking the decision of one of their own Ministers. More Mickey Mouse behaviour.

The Herald reports:

Police Minister Stuart Nash has admitted he didn’t read official advice on options for phasing in 1800 new police officers over five years.

“I didn’t read any paper that said phasing in over five years. For me, phasing in over five years was just not an option I was prepared to consider,” Nash told a parliamentary committee today.

The Government says it will deliver 1800 new officers over three years. There are concerns that will put more pressure on the prison system.

Nash was quizzed on the advice from police by National’s Chris Bishop.

“I don’t read papers like that because there is a coalition promise that I will work to deliver. Any paper, any suggestion, that we are not going to meet our coalition deal of 1800 police over three years, certainly one that suggests its going to take five years, I’m just not even interested in seeing,” Nash said.

“You are kidding? Are you seriously saying to the committee that you received a paper about phasing options for the coalition commitment that you are talking about and you didn’t read it?” Bishop asked.

“Not even interested,” Nash responded.

A Minister says he isn’t even interested in reading a paper that provides alternative options.

Nash said he “absolutely believed” that more police would reduce crime and the number of people in prison.

No, no, no,. Having more Police should indeed reduce crime, but that doesn’t mean fewer people in prison. It means the Police catch more criminals and put them in prison, which means they can’t keep committing crimes.

Michael Reddell blogs:

Yesterday the Green Party leader James Shaw (Minister of Climate Change) launched a consultative document on what form the “net zero by 2050” target might actually take. 

Reddell looks at the numbers:

The analysis by NZIER suggests that GDP will continue to grow but will be in the range of 10 per cent to 22 per cent less in 2050, compared with taking no further action on climate change.

Yes the Government is proposing to have the economy grow at 1.5% a year rather than 2.2% a year. So to cut economic growth by one third.

Modelling shows the impact of domestic climate action would be felt more strongly by lower income households, because a higher proportion of their spending is on products and services that are likely to increase in cost as we reduce emissions across the economy.

Our modelling suggests the households that are in the lowest 20 per cent bracket for income may be more than twice as affected, on a relative basis, than those households with an average income.

So a huge impact on struggling families.

We will give up –  well, actually, take from New Zealanders –  up to a quarter of what would have been their 2050 incomes, and in doing so we will know those losses will be concentrated disproportionately on people at the bottom. 

A kind caring Government.

To repeat, I would be surprised if ever before in history a democratic government has consulted on proposals to reduce the material wellbeing of its own people by up to 25 per cent.      Wars, of course, come at a very considerable cost –  and sometimes are worth fighting –  but again, I doubt any democracy (or perhaps even any tyranny) ever entered a war thinking that as a result of doing so they would be so much poorer 30 years on.  It is simply a breathtaking proposition –  the more so in a country that at the moment struggles to achieve any material productivity growth at all.

So their long term plan is we are all 25% worse off. But in exchange the PM gets applause from students at speaking engagements in London.

Danyl Mclauchlan writes:

But based on current polling there’s a very realistic scenario in which both support parties get wiped out; National wins a larger majority than Labour and forms a government with ACT, and patiently unwinds everything this government has and will accomplish. It’s a scenario that feels a little more probable every day.

Labour to date has been very unsuccessful at attracting support from those who didn’t vote for it. They are mainly just taking support off Greens and NZ First.

Few members of Ardern’s caucus have any Cabinet experience; most ministers from the Clark administration were purged during the bitter factional warfare that marked Labour’s time in opposition. Nor did many of the current ministers distinguish themselves as effective opposition MPs. Far from winning power by presenting a competent alternative government they’ve lucked into it by a sequence of random, dumb accidents: Key’s resignation; Turei’s speech; Little’s resignation; Jacindamania; Winston’s choice.

The accidental Prime Minister.

There’s an old political adage that you only need four or five strong, competent ministers to run the country; it’s not clear Ardern has that many to work with. 

Robertson seems to be the best performer to date. Up until this week you would have included Little, but no longer.

And yet despite, or perhaps because of this, some ministers are already displaying the election-losing arrogance that it took National’s cabinet three terms – and three election victories – to build up to.

Yep they have managed in six months what most Governments take nine years to achieve. And this critique comes from someone who was a member of the Green’s campaign committee.

I like this government, but I feel like it spends a lot of time making sure that people like me – educated urban liberals who are very unlikely to vote National – like it and not enough time appealing to the soft National voters who people like me don’t really like, but without whom a second term is increasingly unlikely, like it or not.

The three strikes debacle is a great example of that. Labour activists hate the law, but most of New Zealand likes the idea that hardcore violent and sexual recidivists don’t get parole.

Claire Trevett reports:

Bridges wanted to know if the proposal had gone through a Cabinet committee. “You wait and see, all right? It’s not a yes, it’s not a no, it’s time for you to be patient,” Peters told him.

Things got slightly less opaque after that, thanks to Labour’s Grant Robertson.

Bridges asked if Little was right to say NZ First was at the table when Cabinet agreed to reforms including three strikes. Enter Robertson, sitting two down from Peters, who said quietly to Peters: “Yes.”

Peters stood: “Yes.”

The next question asked if there was a breach of protocol around consulting coalition partners.

Grant Robertson mouthed “no” at Peters.

Peters stood: “No.”

The ease of this prompted a delighted laugh from Robertson until he realised media had spotted him and Peters’ supply of answers dried up.

An Acting PM who can’t even answer questions without Grant rescuing him. Sad.

Mike Yardley writes:

Housing New Zealand is flagging a major attitudinal change when it comes to responding to illegal drug activity.

You may recall two years ago a state house tenant was served with a 90-day termination notice, and suspended from accessing state housing for 12 months, after she admitted selling 60 tinnies of cannabis a day from her state rental. The drug-dealing mother had four children under 8 and the typical gaggle of bleeding hearts rounded on the state housing agency for booting her out.

But since December, at Labour’s behest, Housing New Zealand has ushered in a “zero-eviction” policy for illegal drug activity. Yes, it was ridiculous that the agency wasn’t conducting baseline meth-tests at the start of a tenancy. No doubt some tenants unfairly carried the can for the offending of previous tenants. They will all now have their records wiped-clean.

But this new uber-lenient policy is an equally ridiculous over-reaction, whereby illegal drug use will no longer carry any sanctions. No stand down periods from accessing state housing and no evictions.

There is a difference between recognising the health risk from residual P is minor (and refusing to allow anyone to live there) and saying that tenants can use or deal drugs as much they like in state houses.

Surely obeying the law should be a requirement for tenancy.

As Housing New Zealand’s Chief Executive, Andrew McKenzie, confirmed last week, “where illegal drug use took place in its properties, the tenants would not be evicted or referred to police, it would instead help them to access the help they needed.” Only drug manufacture would prompt a call to the police. 

I’m with National’s Housing spokeswoman, Judith Collins, who has denounced the new policy as a step too far.

“It should be that they get help, or they get out. It’s not fair to taxpayers, to those on the waiting list, or to those living next door to these drug users – some of whom are children. This will send completely the wrong signal to them.”

So you can use drugs and sell drugs as much as you want from state houses and Housing NZ won’t even mention it to the Police. The only thing you can’t do is manufacture it there.

Simon Bridges points out:

The Prime Minister is misleading New Zealanders by falsely claiming prisons are full of low level offenders in order to try and justify the mess her Government is making on law and order and its refusal to build a new prison, Opposition Leader Simon Bridges says.

Yep the PM claimed prisons are full of low level offenders. Politik reports her words:

“The American style approach of building mega-style prisons and filling them with low-level criminals is not working.

Did those second strikers I profiled look like low-level criminals? Her statement is just out of touch with reality.

Bridges points out:

“The Government’s own figures show that 98 per cent of prisoners are locked up for Category 3 and Category 4 crimes. These are offences punishable by two years in prison or more. These include murder, manslaughter, rape, aggravated assault and sexual violence.

Very low level.

“It is also worth noting that people on remand or serving sentences in New Zealand prisons have an average of 46 convictions on their criminal record.

The Sentencing Act actually requires Judges to only send someone to prison as a last resort. It says you must do a non custodial sentence if possible.

The prison population comprises the following by offence category

1. Category 1 (infringements and fines) – zero
2. Category 2 (term of imprisonment of less than two years) – 224 (2.1%)
3. Category 3 (term of imprisonment of more than two years) – 9,698 (91.0%)
4. Category 4 – (murder, manslaughter, treason, piracy, slavery, public corruption) 738 (6.9%)

Stuff reports:

NZ First has confirmed a repeal of the Three Strikes law is off the table after its caucus met at Parliament on Tuesday morning.

It comes after Justice Minister Andrew Little was forced to backtrack on the proposed repeal that he was planning to take to Cabinet on Monday after NZ First indicated it wouldn’t support it.

In a press conference on Monday morning Little tried to leave the door open on Three Strikes being repealed in the future, saying NZ First didn’t support a “piecemeal” approach and wanted to see the total justice reform package.

However, sources told Stuff later on Monday there was no chance the repeal would remain on the table after NZ First MPs had spent weeks consulting with its voter base and was reluctant to budge on a law and order issue that has been a long-held party position.

The caucus met on Tuesday after which its law and order spokesman Darroch Ball confirmed in a statement “Three Strikes is not the priority in this necessary reform effort”.

The NZ First statement is here. They say:

The Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010, known as ‘Three Strikes’, progressively increases consequences for repeat serious violent and sexual offenders. Ministry of Justice figures show that since the law passed fewer people have been convicted on ‘second strike’ offences.

“The law provides a firm framework to deter recidivism, and sends a clear message to our most serious offenders,” says New Zealand First spokesperson for Law and Order, Darroch Ball.

The left go on and on about the need to reduce reoffending (and I agree), and here you have a measure that has seen reoffending drop. So why are they trying to repeal it?

“We’re talking about serious violent or sexual crimes – murder, rape, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, kidnapping, and aggravated robbery. We need to protect our community from these recidivist, highly dangerous offenders.

So much for Little’s spin that NZ First might still back repeal as part of a wider package.

Basically his political management of this issue has been a disaster.

The Herald reports:

If prisoner numbers continue to climb and there are not enough beds to go around inmates could find themselves sleeping on mattresses on the ground, Corrections Minister Kelvin Davis says.

So rather than have enough beds to match the prison population, Labour’s policy is to have prisoners sleeping on mattresses on the ground. Wow, that will end well.

Paul Goldsmith released:

Shane Jones’ admission this morning that his Provincial Growth Fund is a political tool is backed up by new figures released this morning revealing Northland as the main recipient of taxpayers’ money, National’s Regional Economic Development spokesperson Paul Goldsmith says.

“The Provincial Growth Fund should really be renamed the Political Survival Fund after more than half the funding announced so far has gone to one region – one with less than 10 per cent of regional New Zealand’s population.

“MBIE information shows Northland has sought $54.6 million from the fund so far. Applications from all the other regions combined amounted to $240 million.

“Yet Northland projects have received funding up to $61 million – even more than they’ve asked for. While the rest of the regions have had to make do with $42.4 million combined, plus a $7.5 million grant to the Howard League covering the whole country, including Northland.

“Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones and New Zealand First haven’t hidden the fact they see their party’s survival linked to winning a Northland seat. Now the Minister has confirmed that the rest of New Zealand are paying for it.

So around 60% of the spending from the fund has gone to an area with under 10% of the provincial population.

It is no secret that after Winston got rejected by Northland, their strategy is to have Shane Jones stand there in 2020. And taxpayers may end up spending hundreds of millions of dollars just to try and win Shane a seat.

Shane of course needs the help I guess. His record is:

• 2005 – got 24% of the electorate vote in Northland
• 2008 – got 29% of the electorate vote in Northland
• 2011 – got 34% of the electorate vote in Tamaki Makarau
• 2017 –