Stuff reports:

The luxury rental had a movie room, a pool, a fountain and a wine room.

But after signing a five-year lease, the tenants discovered the $6500/week property was poorly maintained, had water that was not fit to drink, and an “overbearing” owner who kept texting about the fish in the fishpond.

To make matters worse, the tenants began struggling to pay the rent after the head tenant’s business collapsed, forcing him to rely on his parents to cover his living expenses.

Putting aside for now the poor maintenance, I want focus on that the tenants committed to a $1.68 million house lease over five years. That is a massive amount of money, and I would have thought the only people who would sign such a lease would be those who actually had that cash in hand, or close to it.

In February, the tenants asked for a $5000 monthly rent reduction. The landlord agreed, but a week later, the tenants moved out, owing several thousand dollars in rent.

The main tenant told the tribunal his business had gone into liquidation. He had no assets or savings, and he was relying on his parents to pay his rent and living expenses.

His flatmate had only been living at the house part time, and was paying rent elsewhere.

Again who would sign such a long term and expensive lease, without any assets or savings. It is reckless. I can only assume they have very wealthy parents.

While Smith found the tenants were responsible for $70,000 in rent arrears, he deducted nearly $19,000 in compensation and exemplary damages for the owner’s failure to maintain and repair.

After applying the $25,000 bond, the tenants were ordered to pay their landlord $28,000. The adjudicator also agreed to cut their rental term to March 2025.

They are lucky it was cut so short.

Radio NZ reports:

A Richmond resident has been blindsided by a $1400 fee to keep three dogs on his property.

Owen Haring went to register his dogs before the 31 July deadline but was “really shocked” to find out that Tasman District Council requires a resource consent to keep three or more dogs on an urban property.

About five minutes down the road, in Nelson City, owners of three dogs require a permit rather than a resource consent because it falls under a different council’s rules.

It is ridiculous to require resource consent for a third dog. This should be an issue for permits or licensing, not resource consent.

Chris Bishop notes:

Wow. Hipkins asked on radio why we don’t hear about ram raids any more and if they’ve stopped happening:

Direct quote – “Nah it’s cause your Tory owners at NZME have just decided not to put it on the front page any more. It’s still happening, it’s just NZME have decided that it’s not in the Government’s best interests and they do the National Party’s singing for them and so they’re not covering it as much any more.”

For those interested, there were 714 ram raids in 2022, 495 in 2023, 209 in 2024 and thus far 45 in 2025.

Hipkins directly accuses the NZ Herald of being biased and in the pocket of the Government. When Winston has done similiar sledges in the past, the media run days and days of stories lamenting it and comparing him to Donald Trump. Will they do the same here? Will the Disinformation Project condemn this disinformation?

It’s all rather pathetic and desperate for a former Prime Minister and leader of a major political party.

And for those bad with numbers, that is a 94% reduction in ram raids. So maybe the actual question should be why the media aren’t reporting this huge decrease!

Paul Goldsmith announced new measures to deter and punish shoplifting. The new regime is:

1. Shoplifting up to $500 (say a few items at Pak & Save) – infringement fine of up to $500
2. Shoplifting over $500 (say $695 worth of clothing) – infringement fine of up to $1,000
3. Theft up to $2,000 (say a $389 cardigan) – up to one year imprisonment
4. Theft over $2,000 (say $7800 worth of designer clothing) – up to seven years imprisonment
5. Aggravated theft where the theft is carried out in a manner that is offensive, threatening, insulting, or disorderly – up to two years imprisonment

The infringement regime is a very good idea. An instant fine for low level shoplifting should see Police take action far more often.

Andrea Vance reports:

Councils declaring a climate emergency have collectively spent more than $1.26 million on international flights — racking up 777 trips, many to Europe and Asia.

Auckland Council leads the pack, spending $354,928.78 on 128 flights.

Trips included attending the C40 Waste Resources Network Meeting, the C40 World Mayors Summit, overseas “compliance audits,” and financing-related meetings. Officials also travelled to London, Singapore, and North America for debt issuance talks and climate engagement forums.

Queenstown Lakes District Council was the second-highest spender, shelling out $182,098 on international flights for staff and elected members between July 2019 and July 2024. …

Greater Wellington Regional Council made the most trips, clocking 208 journeys and spending $120,998.01 on flights, hotels, and car rentals between September 2019 and August 2024.

The hypocrisy of the Councillors. Every single Cr who piously voted that the Council declare a climate emergency should resign in disgrace.

Unless by their vote they meant that it was only an emergency for everyone but themselves, and in no way could they possibly have less international travel for their council.

777 international flights!

Paul Goldsmith announced new penalties for coward punches that injure or kill. The maximums are:

• Eight years imprisonment when the offender intended to cause injury and caused grievous bodily harm
• 15 years imprisonment when the offender intended to cause grievous bodily harm and caused grievous bodily harm
• Life imprisonment (culpable homicide) offence for a one punch attack which results in death

No doubt the left parties will vote against.

Former Government Statistician Len Cook writes:

The Government Statistician must agree with key users, population experts and statisticians on a process for Identifying the full range of due diligence critical for the proposed census change. My own view is that the Royal Society should be funded to lead an independent review of the scientific integrity and validity of what is proposed.

An independent review is a very good idea, but sadly the Royal Society no longer has the credibility to do it. I’d have Professor Thomas Lumley lead the independent review.

The other countries with which we compare ourselves (Australia, Canada, UK) have no commitment to changing their next census to anything similar to the proposed New Zealand model. 

The countries which do use the records collected by the state in its health, welfare, taxation, policing and enforcement activities all began with a compulsory population registration process (Israel, the Netherlands, the Nordic Countries). 

This should cause some hesitation about the new direction.

We need to know the effect of changing the way that people are counted in population statistics.

An enumeration-based census enables coherence and consistency within and between responses because of the common reporting period. Population-wide administrative data will not usually refer to the same period for all individuals.

I can understand why the Government said no to running a census that was projected to cost $400 million.

But the answer doesn’t have to be not having a census. The better question would be why does it cost $80 a person to do what is basically a poll of the entire population?

The last Australian census cost only $23 a person.

Costa Rica managed a census for $2 million!

Paul Goldsmith announced:

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith is welcoming changes to toughen up the proposed anti-stalking law, including being triggered after two specified acts within 24 months. 

“This change better recognises patterns in stalking behaviour and time that can pass between incidents. For example, stalking that occurs around anniversaries would not be covered under the original 12-month period,” Mr Goldsmith says.

“We’ve said from day one victims are our priority. Returning them to the heart of our justice system underpins all our work to restore law and order.

“Stalkers have been able to evade real consequences for their actions for far too long. As I announced in November, the offence will have a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.

This is a significant change. The bill originally had a trigger of three acts within 12 months, and now it will be just two acts within 24 months. Two strikes and you’re out!

While I think this is justified, care will be needed that a strike only occurs upon proof, not accusation.

Ben Kepes writes:

I’ve been thinking about that old, and admittedly not very good, joke recently after being asked to speak with Radio New Zealand about the US strike on Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities.

I agreed to the interview on behalf of the New Zealand Jewish Council. As readers will know, I have no trouble talking. But when I sat down for the interview, I had to express my confusion about why I had been asked.

Yes, I’m Jewish. But the idea that Jews are collectively responsible for actions taken by the United States, ostensibly in support of its ally Israel, feels like quite a few degrees of separation from the role I actually hold. That role is, quite clearly, to advocate for the safety and security of Jews living in New Zealand.

Over the past few years, however, we’ve seen a growing conflation of Judaism and Zionism, as if they are one and the same.

A quick explainer for readers. Zionism is a school of thought that affirms the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish homeland and to exercise self-determination. The vast majority of Jews around the world are indeed Zionists. Being a Zionist doesn’t mean one supports every action by Israel; rather, it is simply, and seemingly innocuous opinion that Israel has a right to exist. Shouldn’t be contentious, but those the the times we live in.

Either way, believing in Israel’s right to exist is very different from being responsible for the actions of the Israeli state. To conflate Judaism, Zionism, and the policies and actions of the Israeli government is a step too far.

Ben is absolutely right here. This is why Peter Davis was so wrong when he basically said hatred against Jews was to be expected because of the actions of the Israeli Government.

Let me give a few numbers.

• There are around 16 million Jews in the world. That btw is less than 1% of the number of Christians or Muslims.
• Of the 16 millions Jews in the world, I’d estimate around 15.1 million are Zionists. That simply means they support the right of Israel to exist as a majority Jewish state. This is based on polls showing around 90% of Jews outside Israel support the right of Israel to exist, plus say 99% of Israeli Jews
• Of the 15.1 million Zionist Jews, around 7.2 million are Israeli citizens
• The 7.2 Jewish Israelis make up around 73% of Israel along with 2.1 million Israeli Arabs and 550,000 other Israelis.
• The Israeli Government is made up of 34 Ministers drawn from six parties from the 120 members of the Knesset.

To be clear, I’m a New Zealand citizen. I proudly hold a New Zealand passport. I am not an Israeli citizen. I do not vote in Israeli elections. And while I’d like to think I’m important, I have no special access to the Israeli government and certainly no ability to influence its decision-making.

Of course, I have opinions about what’s going on in the region, just like I have opinions about the war in Ukraine, the humanitarian crisis in Sudan, and the atrocities committed by the Syrian regime. But having opinions and being held responsible for them are two different things. I can’t imagine a world in which Iran, a country currently led by a leader who has vowed to end Western civilisation, has nuclear weapons. But there is nothing I can do to influence that.

Sadly far too many people do use their disagreement with the actions of the Israeli Government to demonise Jews.

The 16 million Jews in the world disagree on almost everything. There is an old saying that if you have two Jews you’ll get three opinions. You have Orthodox Jews, Progressive Jews, Secular or Cultural Jews. Some are liberal, some are conservative etc etc.

The 15 million Zionist Jews also disagree on almost everything except that Israel has a right to exist, as a Jewish majority state. But within that you get little agreement. Some support the 1947 partition borders, some support the 1948 borders, some support the 1967 borders, some support 1979 borders, some support the 2004 borders etc etc. Most support a two state solution. There is no one view amongst Zionist Jews except that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish majority state. On everything else, massive disagreements.

The 7.2 Jewish Israelis also disagree on many many things. Around 1 in 4 support Likuk. Around 48% support government parties and 42% opposition parties. Some support the actions of the Government in Gaza, some do not. Some supported the initial response, but now think the war should end. Many Israelis are European, but significant numbers come from Ethiopia and India. Many come from other Middle East countries such as Turkey and Iraq. Some support the new settlements, some do not.

It ia also worth reflecting that there are fewer Jews alive today than there were in 1939, despite the global population having more than tripled. Lest we forget.

The Herald reports:

A new public toilet block is causing a stir in the capital with its rainbow lighting exterior and $2.3m price tag dubbed a “bit of an overkill” by a neighbouring property owner.

The Inglewood Place toilets opened last week on the corner of Taranaki and Dixon streets in Wellington’s CBD. …

The new block replaces toilets removed from nearby Te Aro Park in 2022, after they became a hot spot for crime and antisocial behaviour and represented a “cause of hurt for mana whenua due to their proximity to Te Aro Pā”, the council said at the time.

What caused the hurt to mana whenua due to proximity to Te Aro Pa? Was it the toilets or the crime?

Anyway $2.3 million for toilets seems rather excessive.

Matua Kahurangi writes:

Alright, you’re gonna need a vodka for this one. The New Zealand Government has just announced it will send another $16 million of taxpayer money to Ukraine. $16 million taken from hardworking Kiwis and sent overseas to a conflict that has nothing to do with us. While people in this country are sitting on surgery waitlists, teachers are burning out in overcrowded classrooms, and the health system is on its knees, Cindyboy thinks it’s a priority to bankroll one of the most corrupt nations in Europe.

Ukraine is fast becoming the global grift that never ends. 

I like a lot of what MK writes, but here I vehemently disagree with his framing and conclusions.

Ukraine is receiving foreign aid because Putin invaded them, and they are fighting for their survival as a democratic independent country. I am sure they would much much much rather Putin never invaded, and that they wouldn’t be reliant on foreign aid.

Blaming Ukraine for needing aid, is like blaming the Falklands for needing assistance when Argentina invaded.

And I disagree the conflict has nothing to do with us. By that logic Hitler invading Poland had nothing to do with us. We have a huge vested interest in a rules based order, rather than a might based order.

Stuff reports:

Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka has asked his officials for urgent advice around “electioneering” concerns related to a Whānau Ora advertisement encouraging Māori to sign up for the Māori roll was released this week.

The half-hour ad was rolled out by the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency this week, featuring artist and activist Tame Iti (Ngāi Tūhoe).

The agency’s chair Merepeka Raukawa-Tait, a former Te Pāti Māori candidate, has defended the ad as being part of her mission to advance Māori wellbeing, but senior ministers on Wednesday raised alarm.

Speaking to reporters at Parliament, Potaka said he had written to Te Puni Kōkiri (TPK) – which administers funding for Whānau Ora – for an assurance that public funding had not been used for “electioneering”.

This is almost certainly a case of taxpayer funded lobbying for partisan self-interest.

WOCA is part of the Tamihere Empire, all funded by taxpayers. Tamihere is the TPM President. WOCA is spending money to try and persuade people to swap to the Maori roll, which means more Maori seats that TPM can try and win. It is naked self interest.

The Herald reports:

A grieving mother says she is “utterly disgusted” that the man who killed her son has been found not guilty of his murder on the grounds of insanity.

“There’s no justice. Not in this country anyway,” Pauline Dixon said after a court appearance in High Court at Napier on Wednesday.

Her son Patrick Reweti, 49 was killed by Chalton Mason Lawson in the Hastings suburb of Flaxmere on March 26, 2024. …

The court was told that at the time he killed Reweti, Lawson was psychotic, suffering from hallucinations and hearing voices, brought on by long-term methamphetamine use. 

He was using the drug every day.

I think most people would agree that someone who is insane due to factors they have no control over, such as schizophrenia should not be found guilty as they had no control over their actions.

But when your insanity comes from psychosis due to repeated drug use, I see that as somewhat different. It is well known that meth causes psychosis. If he had not started using meth, his victim would be alive.

Politico reports:

Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old democratic socialist lawmaker, is on pace to win the Democratic primary for New York City mayor — a seismic shift in what normally would have been a sleepy reelection for the incumbent, Eric Adams, and one that involved toppling Andrew Cuomo’s political comeback.

Cuomo conceded defeat late Tuesday night and said he called to congratulate Mamdani.

This is great if Mamdani wins the general election. One term of a 33 year old socialist trying to run the largest city in the US should prove enough of a disaster to discredit the socialist left for a generation.

CNBC reports:

Before this week’s annual NATO summit had even begun, allies reportedly agreed on Sunday to hike their defense spending to 5% of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035. Getting to that target, however is another matter.

The 5% figure is made up of 3.5% of GDP that should be spent on “pure” defense, with an extra 1.5% of GDP going to security-related infrastructure, such as cyber warfare capabilities and intelligence.

So really it is a 3.5% target. But that is an ambitious goal, from the previous 2%.

The top 10 countries in NATO for defence spending are:

1. Poland 4.1%
2. Estonia 3.4%
3. US 3.4%
4. Latvia 3.1%
5. Greece 3.1%
6. Lithuania 2.9%
7. Finland 2.4%
8. Denmark 2.4%
9. UK 2.3%
10. Romania 2.3%

It is no coincidence that those closest to Russia are all in the top 10. They know where the threat is.

Radio NZ reports:

More than 9000 people aged over 65 earn more than $200,000 a year, and another 33,000 earn between $100,000 and $200,000 – and the Retirement Commissioner says it’s fair to question whether they should be able to claim NZ Super as well.

They shouldn’t.

In principle all welfare should be means tested so that it goes towards those who need it. The exception is if the cost of means testing would be close to the savings from it.

Super costs around $28,000 a year per recipient. If you means tested it to only those earning under $100,000 you would save $1.17 billion a year. That is worth doing.

The Daily Wire reports:

Israeli secret service operatives used a fake phone call to trigger what appeared to be an “emergency meeting” among Iran’s top military leaders — and then targeted the location of the meeting.

Amit Segal told the Call Me Back podcast on Monday: “What Israel did was create a fake phone call for 20 members of the air force senior staff an calling them to a specific bunker in Tehran.”

This meant there was no one to give the order to fire the initial salvo of 1,000 ballistic missiles as Iran had previously threatened to do, he added.

The added bonus for the Israelis was that Iranian military leadership was essentially crippled from the moment of Israel’s first strike against the world’s top sponsor of terrorism.

To manage to convince 20 top Air Force generals to gather for a fake meeting is a very impressive intelligence operation.

As a result, no one was “alive to give the command to strike back” when Israel hit Iran with the first missile barrage.

You really don’t want to mess with Mossad.

The Herald reports:

New Zealand First MP Tanya Unkovich is resigning from Parliament to take up “coaching and consultancy” roles in the private sector. 

In a statement released this morning, Unkovich confirmed she had resigned as an MP, saying her skills would be of better use elsewhere. 

“Serving in the public sector has been a great honour and a unique opportunity, for this I am grateful for the trust placed into me. 

“I do believe however I can personally be of more service to New Zealanders through various avenues in the private sector, as well as coaching and consultancy.”

Being a government backbench list MP is not the best job in the world, unless you are in for the long haul and think you can become a Minister. So it is not a huge surprise that some people change their mind once they get in.

The new MP will be David Wilson, who stood in Upper Harbour. He shares his name with the Clerk of the House, so parliamentarians will need to be careful about who they think they are e-mailing!

Wilson is 65 and a former chief executive of the Northland economic development agency. He has a 1st class honours masters in public policy and a PhD in regional economic development.