A guest post by Lucy Rogers:

As readers may be aware, in February the IPCA issued a report criticising the law of protest in Aotearoa as unfit for purpose. While I think the IPCA report is inadequate as a comprehensive response to the cases in question (and it does not purport to be) it does however raise some important points.

The current system is costing a lot of money

One such point is that because there is no requirement for protest organisers to notify Police in advance of street marches, Police are having to pay exorbitant amounts of taxpayers’ money (to the tune of $25,000 a pop) for experts to create traffic management plans for street marches on main roads with less than two days’ notice.

The IPCA proposes a “mandatory” notification system

Owing to this and other concerns, the IPCA proposes a “mandatory” requirement that protest organisers provide Police with 21 days’ advance notice of specified categories of protest to facilitate adequate and cost effective policing. Nevertheless, this supposedly mandatory system would not in the IPCA’s recommendation attach criminal penalties if protest organisers do not comply. The IPCA says that the incentive for compliance would be protesters’ immunity from prosecution following compliance with parameters issued by Police in advance of the protest.

The Police already have powers to manage protests (and should do)

I am aware that many readers are likely to react with alarm to Police having powers to set parameters around protests due to the possibility of abuse. However, I remind the reader both that the Police already have powers to set parameters around protests and that this is in fact necessary to maintain public order. The Albert Park fiasco is evidence enough of that. 

My proposed tweaks

Accordingly, I support the IPCA’s recommendation, but with the following two tweaks:

1. 21 days’ notice is an excessive requirement. Reduce that to seven days. Seven days is reasonable when it comes to (say) protests obstructing main roads (and is actually barely enough time to facilitate effective policing).
2. Make the notification system optional but formalised. This avoids the problem of categorising which protests require notification and which do not.

Protest organisers will be aware of the likelihood of a volatile response

The IPCA raise the problem of Police not necessarily being aware of which protests are likely to provoke a hostile reaction from certain sections of the public. I think an optional but formalised notification system (which is in effect what the IPCA proposes) avoids this problem because protest organisers themselves will be aware of the likelihood of a hostile response and will in turn comply with the notification system, thus avoiding the need for Police intelligence.

The notification system would require Police to maintain public order

Just as the notification system would immunise protesters against arrest following compliance with Police instructions, it would formally require Police to protect protesters from violent counter-protesters (and vice-versa). At present although officers swear to maintain public order in oaths made when admitted to the Police, I cannot find any legal provision specifically identifying penalties should they intentionally fail to do this. Legislation could make this more explicit.

The notification system would increase Police accountability

Another benefit of this system which I do not believe the IPCA have raised is that rather than leaving policing decisions in large part to officers on the day, it would enable protest organisers to challenge unfair Police directions (or inadequate protection of protesters) in court via urgent injunction. The system in fact arguably increases Police accountability.

So to conclude, I support it

Nobody believes in the right to protest more deeply than I do. In fact I would gladly die for it. But in my view this proposal would help to prevent Albert Park scenarios in future, protect the right to free speech, protect protesters from counter-protesters, protect counter-protesters from protesters, and save the taxpayer money. Not only that but as at present, people could choose not to comply with it (but with the caveat that in that case they may not expect the benefits of compliance). What’s not to like? 

All of which is to say that I am an enthusiastic supporter of Police doing their jobs, and non-selectively.

Peter Bisley writes:

In the current competitive scenario, the average address in New Zealand has 2.05 options within 10 minutes’ drive. Full entrance of The Warehouse into groceries at all current locations would increase this to 2.77. Demerger of PAK’nSAVE from New World and Four Square, without The Warehouse, would increase the average options per address to 2.66, while both options simultaneously would give the average address 3.37 grocery options within 10 minutes’ drive.

Duopolies are better than monopolies but you need more than two options for true competition. The rule of Three and Four is that a stable competitive market has three competitors with the largest no more than four times the market share of the smallest.

The combination of The Warehouse going full supermarket and spinning off Pak’NSave looks like it would be very useful.

The NYT reports:

As Paul Walczak awaited sentencing early this year, his best hope for avoiding prison time rested with the newly inaugurated president.

Mr. Walczak, a former nursing home executive who had pleaded guilty to tax crimes days after the 2024 election, submitted a pardon application to President Trump around Inauguration Day. The application focused not solely on Mr. Walczak’s offenses but also on the political activity of his mother, Elizabeth Fago.

Ms. Fago had raised millions of dollars for Mr. Trump’s campaigns and those of other Republicans, the application said. It also highlighted her connections to an effort to sabotage Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s 2020 campaign by publicizing the addiction diary of his daughter Ashley Biden — an episode that drew law enforcement scrutiny. …

Still, weeks went by and no pardon was forthcoming, even as Mr. Trump issued clemency grants to hundreds of other allies.

Then, Ms. Fago was invited to a $1-million-per-person fund-raising dinner last month that promised face-to-face access to Mr. Trump at his private Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Fla.

Less than three weeks after she attended the dinner, Mr. Trump signed a full and unconditional pardon.

Many Presidents have made bad or dubious pardons, but giving one three weeks after someone’s mother donates $1 million is a new low.

I was interested in how the demographics of the Youth Parliament (selected by MPs) compares to the demographics of Parliament itself (elected and selected by parties). The comparison is:

So in terms of gender, closer to the NZ population for women.

In terms of ethnicity, Parliament has far fewer Asian MPs than the general population, but in Youth Parliament they are slightly over-represented. Likewise for Pacific.

The Daily Sceptic reports:

This document was supposed to support the case for banning the AfD. Specifically, it was supposed to convince those who matter that ban proceedings have a good chance of success with the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe. On this front, the dossier is a dismal failure. This is why our new Chancellor Friedrich Merz has suddenly decided – in the 48 hours since the thing was leaked – that he opposes banning the AfD after all.

We have to be very clear about the standards here. For a party to be banned in the Federal Republic, it must be opposed to the “freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung”, or the “free democratic basic order”. This is an ideological trinity consisting of human dignity, democracy and the rule of law. Pure opposition is however not enough; the offending party must also seek to overcome at least one of these triune deities in an “aggressive” and “combative” fashion. The anti-democratic agenda must moreover be associated with the party as a whole. Practically, this means you need to get party leadership militating aggressively against democracy and/or the rule of law and/or human dignity.

The BfV assessment falls so far short of this standard, you have to wonder if there are saboteurs working secretly to defend the AfD inside the offices of constitutional protection. To say that this thing is shit would be an understatement.

So the dossier against the AFD falls short. But the part that interested me was this:

you need to get party leadership militating aggressively against democracy and/or the rule of law

If that is the German definition of an extremist party that should be banned, which party in NZ would that best apply to?

Politico reports:

A federal court has struck down President Donald Trump’s tariffs on dozens of countries, saying his effort to justify them with broad claims of national emergencies exceeded his legal authority.

The unanimous ruling of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade strikes a blow to one of the central planks of Trump’s economic agenda at a time he is seeking to use tariffs as leverage to strike trade deals around the world.

This is not a surprise, but is very significant.

Trump is President, not King, Congress passes laws that set tax rates and tariff rates, just as in New Zealand the Prime Minister can’t unilaterally declare a tax or tariff.

The GOP has a majority in the House and Senate. If they want higher tariffs, they can try and pass a law imposing them.

Arguing that New Zealand exports to the US constitute a national emergency, was never to go fly with a court.

As Eric notes, very amusing that the usual deranged people who blame Atlas for everything, aren’t giving Atlas credit for stopping Trump’s tariffs!

Radio NZ reports:

More than 80,000 Kiwis must quit smoking before the end of the year to meet the goal of Smokefree 2025, which was launched 14 years ago.

But Professor of Public Health Chris Bullen tells The Detail that it is unlikely to happen – “I don’t believe so, sadly.

“The evidence suggests we are not heading in the right direction fast enough,” says Bullen, who is also the director of the National Institute for Health Innovation.

“We have got more work to do in 2026 and beyond.”

The smokefree goal aims to have less than 5 percent of the population smoking by December, but the latest data reveals there are still about 300,000 daily smokers across the country.

The daily smoking rate has dropped from 16.4% to 6.9% since 2011, which is a huge reduction. It is correct that it is unlikely to drop 1.9% in one year, as those remaining are a small but persistent hardcore.

Bullen says part of the issue is, last year, the coalition government repealed three areas of the Smokefree law, most importantly the denicotinisation of tobacco products (where the nicotine is basically taken out of cigarettes) and banning the sale of tobacco products to those born after 1 January 2009.

“I think we could have gotten to the goal under the previous legislation, but that was repealed by the current government.

This is just nonsense, and we know it is because look at when these provisions were to come into force. The ban (which would not have worked) to those born after 1 January 2009 would not take effect until 2027, so claiming it would help you make a 2025 target is embarrassing.

A tobacco industry-funded report has just revealed that 25 percent of cigarettes sold in New Zealand are from the black market, smuggled into the country, largely from China and South Korea, and available on Facebook Marketplace, at construction sites, and in some dairies.

Black market cigarettes are about half the price of legal packets, which can cost up to $45.

But Bullen is not convinced the percentage of illegal sales is as high as reported. He says it is more likely around the 10-15 percent mark.

He believes the tobacco industry inflates the number – and the problem – to “encourage the government to ease up on being tough on their product”.

Here Professor Bullen has an opinion that the black market is not as high as as reported, but with not any proof or data to back his view.

One source of data is government excise revenue on tobacco. For the year to March 2025 it was $1.49b and in March 2023 it was $1.81b. So it has dropped 18% despite the rate going up and no reported change in smoking rates in this period.

New research, which overlays vape stores on school locations, shows 44 percent of schools have a vape store within a one-kilometre radius

This old chestnut. There is almost no area in urban New Zealand that is not within a 1 kms radius of a school. That is a 314 hectare circle. We have 2,500 schools.

Since 2020, it has been illegal to sell vapes to people under 18, but students as young as 10 and 11 are vaping across New Zealand today.

Yet he is convinced prohibition works!

Richard Prebble writes:

Claims standards of parliamentary behaviour have fallen are nonsense. Except for Te Pāti Māori, this is a well-behaved House.

The Speaker’s referral of the floor protest to the Privileges Committee was not discretionary. It was required by Standing Orders.

The Speaker was lenient. He could have ordered the Sergeant-at-Arms to end the Māori Party haka. Any MP who resisted is automatically suspended for the rest of this Parliament.

No Parliament can tolerate its proceedings being disrupted by protest.

In 1981, British Speaker George Thomas suspended Labour MP Ron Brown for 20 days for nothing more than placing a protest flag on the Commons table.

In 2023, the Tennessee House of Representatives expelled two Democratic lawmakers for leading a protest on the House floor.

Yes, there have been incidents of disorder in the House before, but all admitted their actions were wrong. No MP has ever refused a summons to the Privileges Committee. 

This is spot on. There is no general problem. Just a problem with one party. And indeed a three week suspension is lenient for the nature of what they did.

Across Europe, there are MMP parliaments with extremist parties that reject parliamentary norms. Europeans know it is a mistake to appease democracy’s enemies.

The democratic parties establish a “cordon sanitaire”. They refuse to form coalitions or alliances with parties that oppose democracy.

Here’s what is also unprecedented: the New Zealand Labour Party, long a champion of parliamentary democracy, has not set a cordon sanitaire and ruled out working with Te Pāti Māori.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins told Parliament that Labour wants no penalty on the MP who instigated the protest and just 24 hours for the party leaders – no real sanction in my view.

Parliamentary democracy is not safe with Labour.

TPM are proudly an anti-democracy party. They do not believe in one person, one vote. They want one person, six votes.

The Herald reports:

Amid public debate over a controversial art installation that encourages people to walk on a New Zealand flag, a woman has pledged to pick the flag up from the floor each day in protest. 

This comes after the Nelson installation, with the words “please walk on me” written on a New Zealand flag, sparked a feud between local leaders this week. 

Ruth Tipu took to social media to share her anger towards the installation, showing herself in a video picking up the flag and draping it on another art piece.

Ruth Tipu’s post said, “I’ll be down there every day to pick it up if I have to, and so should you.

“How dare we allow anyone to disrespect our National Flag, have some mana whanau to say something or at least go down and pick it up.

“It’s not right on any level to do this to any flag.”

She said, “My Koro went to war in the Maori Battalion and fought for his country under this flag what a disgraceful act to all those that died in the war for their country, our country, my country.”

The artist has the right to do an offensive art display.

However the Art Gallery is funded by and controlled by the Nelson City Council and they should not be funding and displaying something that the vast majority of ratepayers would find offensive. The right to display is not a right to ratepayer funding.

Would anyone go pay to see this exhibit, if it was a commercial gallery?

Also can you imagine the outcry, if it was not the NZ flag. Think if someone did this display using the rainbow flag or the Tino Rangatiratanga flag or the Palestinian flag? The mob would be boring the gallery down.

Stuff reports:

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon made some comments about local government, and Wellington in particular, which its mayor Tory Whanau has rejected.

Speaking to Newtalk ZB, Luxon said there was “way too much ideology and party politics” in local government. “Wellington should be more than just a public service town. We’ve just gone and invested $500 million in film rebates in this country.”

He said there was ambition and aspiration in Wellington, but there needed to be a council that did the basics well, such as managing water, adding Wellington Water was a “total basket case”. …

Whanau, who in April said she would not run for a second term, took issue with the comments which she said were “once again a blatant punching down on Wellington”. She pointed out “groundbreaking, transformative projects are under way”.

I reckon every time Tory attacks Luxon, National’s party vote increases in Wellington!

Since 2020, the radio audience numbers are:

• NewstalkZB +110,800 listeners, a 20.7% gain
• Radio NZ -186,600 listeners, a 29.5% drop

Each one individually is remarkable. A 21% increase is listeners in five years is massive, especially at a time when most media is losing audiences.

But equally a 30% drop in listeners in just five years is also massive – the other way. If that was a commercial media outlet, they would be having to change things to stay afloat.

The difference between the two is huge. NewstalkZB has gone from 118,000 fewer listeners than Radio NZ to 180,000 more listeners. A new change of almost 300,000.

Newsroom reports:

It’s audacious. It’s astounding. We’re doing the time warp again. 

Even ministers struggled to comprehend the scale of the tax incentive scheme they’d signed off in the Budget. Shane Jones left his own noisy beer-and-crayfish Budget night party, upstairs in Parliament Buildings, to return to the House to check with other ministers whether there really was no cap on the size of an asset that could receive the 20 percent tax deduction.

Then he calls back, jubilant. Yes, he confirms, even a massive gas rig will be eligible. “These gas rigs, it’s a billion dollars for one. It’s been 600 or 700 hundred million, can go up to a billion.”

Yes, he agrees, combined with the $200 million for equity shares in gas fields, it’s Think Big all over again. “It’s certainly got elements of the Crown coming back into the market in a way that Muldoon formally helped develop natural resources and de-risk co-investors,” he says.

Got your eye on a fleet of company cars? Or a nice shiny skyscraper to house your business? Commercial buildings are also eligible. Developers are just talking through the nitty-gritty, now, like whether that extends to seismic strengthening.

There’s a debate to be held about whether or not there should be a cap on the Investment Boost scheme, but the article sort of misses the point when it paints this as a bottomless hole.

The scheme just really allows depreciation to be claimed earlier than is normally the case. This affects cashflow, but doesn’t in the long run change the amount of tax paid.

Let’s say you purchase a $100,000 asset with a 20% straight line depreciation rate. You would currently get the following “back” for it:

• Year 1 – $20,000 x 28% = $5,600
• Year 2 – $20,000 x 28% = $5,600
• Year 3 – $20,000 x 28% = $5,600
• Year 4 – $20,000 x 28% = $5,600
• Year 5 – $20,000 x 28% = $5,600

So after five years you have claimed back $28,000 from tax.

Under the new scheme it is:

• Year 1 – $40,000 x 28% = $11,200
• Year 2 – $20,000 x 28% = $5,600
• Year 3 – $20,000 x 28% = $5,600
• Year 4 – $20,000 x 28% = $5,600

So after four years you have also claimed back $28,000 in tax. The same amount of tax gets paid.

From a business point of view, it is definitely useful for cashflow getting that extra 20% in Year 1 – especially for longer lived assets which might only depreciate say 7% a year.

From the government’s point of view of view, it doesn’t cost much in the longterm. There is a cash flow impact as you get less tax early on, but over time you end up collecting the exact same amount of tax. The only real fiscal impact long-term on the government is the cost of borrowing over the time period.

If we take the example above, the government has to wait five years for its $5,600. It borrows at 3.5% so the cost is $196 a year or $784 so a $100,000 asset costs the government around $800 not $20,000.

The Herald reports:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters wants to make it very clear: he won’t be working with Labour after the election if the party is still led by Chris Hipkins. …

“When I ruled out Hipkins in 2023, I ruled him out permanently,” Peters said (he actually ruled out Labour in November 2022, three months before Hipkins became leader).

In other words, barring a leadership change in Labour, it looks like the only conceivable grouping Peters would consider after the election will be something on the right.

This is very very significant, even if not surprising.

This means the only practical way for Chris Hipkins to become Prime Minister (again) is by agreements with Te Pati Maori and the Greens. He can’t rely on just one of them – he needs both. There have been 55 public polls since the last election and not a single on of them shows Labour able to govern just with the Greens. Even if TPM abstained, not one of them shows Labour and Greens could form a Government. They must get the support of Te Pati Maori to have a chance at government.

The three parties of the right should and must spend all of election year making clear that a vote for Labour will be a vote for Te Pati Maori to be in Government (and for some of the Greens $88 billion in new taxes).

The BBC reports:

Fights arranged in school via social media, then filmed and shared online.

Pupils leaving lessons upset about social media comments.

These were regular occurrences at Cardiff West Community High School – one of the most “challenged” schools in Wales – until mobile phones were banned as part of a range of measures introduced to tackle bad behaviour.

“Almost overnight, exclusions [for violence] reduced,” said head teacher Mike Tate, who introduced the ban at the secondary school in Ely, Cardiff, last summer.

Mr Tate, who also banned shouting, said internal truancy – when pupils are in school but not lessons – was now “almost nil” and there was better focus in classrooms.

Amazing what a large impact there can be from a small but important change.

Thomas Coughlan writes:

Much of the commentary has focused on how small this Budget is – its $1.3 billion allowance of “new” operating money being the smallest in decades. While correct, that misses the fact that the package of new spending decisions, the line-upon-line of budget decisions (the tax credit change, the learning support funding, etc) actually totalled $6.7b a year – a vast sum, which might be larger than some of Labour’s last budgets.

What makes this Budget different is that $4.8b of that new spending came from cuts, money siphoned from somewhere to somewhere else. Some $600m came from new charges and just $1.3b was chucked on the credit card. That’s quite different from Labour’s final budgets, which were weighted in favour of funding new spending by borrowing. 

Funding budget priorities through cutting low quality spending areas is far far more preferable to me, than funding them through borrowing.

Reuters reports:

President Donald Trump said on Tuesday he would order the lifting of sanctions on Syria at the behest of Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, a major U.S. policy shift ahead of an expected meeting with Syria’s Islamist President Ahmed al-Sharaa. …

The surprise move came despite deep Israeli suspicion of Sharaa’s administration, worries initially shared by some U.S. officials. Israeli officials have continued to describe Sharaa as a jihadist, though he severed ties with al Qaeda in 2016. Israel’s government did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

I think it is the right thing to give Sharaa a chance. Yes he was a terrorist for many years, but the reality is that there are no entirely good guys in the factions in Syria. Maybe the Kurds, but Turkey would disagree.

Sharaa is in power, and he is saying the right things. This might just be his media studies degree at work, but giving him a chance to rebuild Syria without sanctions may lead to Syria becoming more stable.

If it doesn’t work out, the sanctions can always go back on.

Early last year I married, for the second time, and my new wife came from Brazil 16 years ago. When we visited her country and family, last year, we talked a lot about corruption there (the series The Mechanism is an outstanding watch). I told her that I believe that there is a MASSIVE amount of “soft corruption in NZ” – where power (a big budget, lots of staff, influence, re-election) is the currency – as opposed to monetary bribes.

Professor Robert MacCullouch is a very highly qualified economist with a chair at the University of Auckland. I read his work often (as a person qualified in economics and education) and appreciate that he has, until now, fearlessly supported positive actions from government and the business community – and challenged those he sees as negatives.

Bryce Edwards has written in this recently: (I have point-form summarised somewhat):

‘Chumocracy’ and the Suppression of Prof MacCulloch

– NZ needs more people like Robert MacCulloch willing to speak out. But if the price of dissent is this high, how many will choose to do so? His story is a good example of what happens when you dare to speak truth to power in a small country where the elites are all too interconnected.

– MacCulloch {has] launched some heavy broadsides at the way that political and business elites in this country are ruining the economy and the political process by their dysfunctional hold on power in which dissent and debate are suppressed using patronage and threats.

– MacCulloch announced this week that he is closing his long-running blog, explaining that “National, Labour and Big Business NZ have begun to complain and threaten me at the highest levels about my writings”.

– MacCulloch has outlined how the attempts of himself and others to hold powerful interests to account have been met, not with reasoned rebuttal, but with threats, blacklisting, and institutional pressure designed to silence dissent. His experience provides a rare insider’s account of how New Zealand’s political and business elite police the boundaries of acceptable debate. MacCulloch explicitly claims to be closing his website after receiving “threats from current and former cabinet ministers”. “You get excommunicated from the little cosy group of inbred Wellington officials and high-ranking boards.” He says he has become “persona non grata”.

– MacCulloch’s core accusation is that New Zealand operates on a system of “soft corruption”… Corruption in New Zealand takes the form of you scratch my back, I scratch yours.”

– The message conveyed to him, particularly from figures associated with the current National-led government, was that positive political commentary would be rewarded with political appointments. MacCulloch argues that this patronage system is how the “inbred club” maintains control over appointments to high public and private offices. MacCulloch said he was essentially excommunicated by New Zealand’s political establishment for criticising government economic policy and elite appointments.

– A central theme in MacCulloch’s recent and past analysis is the existence of a “cosy inbred club” running New Zealand. This … he argues, comprises interconnected individuals across politics, the corporate sector, and the civil service, who are often “promoted way beyond their abilities”. “Every high-status job in the country is just a job for mates”, and appointments are “so corrupt it’s beyond belief – now it’s just a group of people going from one big job to the next even when they’re not qualified and don’t deserve the job”. He argues that the last Labour government entrenched a culture of ideological appointments, and the National-led government is continuing the same pattern – just swapping in their own preferred cronies [Or not appointing anyone – re the Ministry of Education.]

– MacCulloch describes corporate New Zealand, particularly the NZX50 companies, as a “disaster”, run by “accountants and lawyers” who “all know each other”, with many boards forming an “inbred club”. He notes the poor performance of many top companies.

– MacCulloch says elite capture of high-status jobs blocks talented young people from progressing: “They can’t get promoted because you’ve got these bums occupying these big positions of power.” Hence, young New Zealanders are leaving the country.

– [And] MacCulloch is lamenting the “inbred culture of the civil service in Wellington” where “the same old types in charge – being career bureaucrats with law, accounting, communications, or vague ‘management’ backgrounds”.

Why all this matters.

– MacCulloch’s experience should serve as a warning for anyone who believes in open debate, academic freedom, and political diversity. He is an Oxford-trained economist, a respected professor, and someone who engaged constructively across the political spectrum. Moreover, he holds the highly prestigious “Matthew S Abel Chair of Macroeconomics” at the University of Auckland.

– This about defending the public sphere from being captured by a narrow set of insiders. It is about meritocracy, open debate, and resisting the cartelisation of ideas.

– New Zealand needs more people like Robert MacCulloch willing to speak out. But if the price of dissent continues to be this high, how many will choose to do so?

– As MacCulloch points out, this is a “soft corruption” of jobs for the boys and girls – New Zealand political and economic system has become one where entry to the upper echelons is extraordinary closed, with political appointments being reserved for mates, or the “chumocracy”.

I responded to Bryce Edwards on this:

Hello Bryce

Your piece on the Prof is outstanding.

Although I am not in the same class as Robert – having an economics and education background at least allows me to understand.

In terms of speaking out on the education system. National/ACT loved me with the original Charter Schools (a MUCH better programme than this time around) and my critique of Labour and the MoE when National was in opposition. Indeed – I organised an outstanding education summit for Erica Stanford in Cambridge when she was the opposition spokesperson for education. I also presented to the NZ Economic Forum at Waikato Uni 2023.

When I have critiqued NACT’s education work (or lack of it) – I have heard from all sorts of people telling me to be quiet (Taxpayer’s Union, NZ Initiative, former MPs x 3, etc). Despite being in frequent contact with Erica Stanford when she was in opposition – I have heard nothing from her when she has been in government (except having a third party tell me she was “devastated” by my critique).

When Labour was in power – Oliver Hartwich told media that TNT was a solution for the Ministry. NZ Initiative is silent on such things when National are in. Michael Johnston of the Initiative is one of Stanford’s close advisors.

Seymour has also spoken negatively of me in the media as I have criticised the pathetic Charter School roll-out – even bringing up my divorce from my first wife while on Hosking (in the same conversation where he blasted Jenny Shipley). The Charter School roll-out has been dominated by telling lies about the level of funding (just $10m until June 30^th 2025) and spending $30million (of $123million until the end of 2026) on the Charter School Agency (an entirely incompetent mini-bureaucracy who have also done as much as they can – some of it clearly illegally – to discredit me).

I am sure others could share similar experiences and are beginning to do so.

I will not stop speaking out on the continued decline of the NZ system – or the broken promises and lack of action the Stanford/Seymour/MOE. It is highly unusual that a new Sec for Ed has not been appointed and that the Ministry of Ed is still at a “head-count” of over 4,200 despite the promise to bring it back to the pre-Hipkins of 2,700.

In the current environment the people that most need to challenge the current government are those that supported them into office. The need to ask them to keep their promises! – in the same way that a great sport club’s fans ask the team to actually perform.

The education changes are incremental – at best. If the boat is already sinking fast then putting your fingers in a few holes is just not going to work.

And … shutting down dissent is an awful way to go about anything.

Alwyn Poole
[email protected]
alwynpoole.substack.com/

John Bowie has a great tribute to Bob Jones, that fans would enjoy reading. One extract:

He could be irascible, infuriating, and absolutely impossible to pigeonhole. One minute he’d be railing against the “tosh” of religious instruction -he once docked his daughters’ school fees to protest it- the next he’d be giving up his beloved fly fishing on the grounds of animal cruelty, lamenting that “they’re bloody well fighting for their lives, of course they put up a fight,” delivered with a desk-thumping gusto that could rattle the crockery

He funded legal campaigns for the wrongfully imprisoned in the  Teina Pora case.  He supported women’s refuges after being shocked by stories of domestic violence and in particular its effects on children, and handed out scholarships to daughters of refugees who filled his office foyer with hope and gratitude and went on to become doctors, lawyers, engineers. 

Those who saw him as a right-wing, racist, misogynist were those who not only didn’t know him, but didn’t get him either.  The failed attempts to strip his knighthood for his suggestion of a Māori Gratitude Day reflects on the woeful wokeness that created the emetic and clueless miserabilists who were ignorant of many things, including his work with oppressed and victimised segments of our society, particularly women and children.

He was a person whose generosity to family, friends and causes were many – but recognition for them was verboten.

No naming a charitable foundation after himself. He just wrote cheques and asked for nothing in return.

Tom Scott also shares his memories:

His passing brings back memories of the death of legendary, trail-blazing broadcaster Neil Roberts, another charismatic rogue with a pirate’s charm. The former head of TVNZ died from cancer in 1998. A bunch of us, including Bob, flew up from Wellington for the funeral staying in the same hotel. We gathered the night before in Bob’s suite for drinks. But instead of giving Bob a good listening to we listened to TVNZ chief political reporter, Richard Harman’s moving account of his final hospital visit to his old friend, leaning over his wasted body, pressing his ear close to Neil’s lips to hear his last whispered words. I wish I could tell you what those words were, but Bob, who was in serious attention deficit at this juncture, erupted angrily. “OH, FOR FUCK’S SAKE, HARMAN! WE ALL LIVE! WE ALL DIE! GET OVER IT!”  

Bob’s death, while a shock, was not entirely unexpected – for most of his life he burnt millions of candles at both ends. There was no one else like him and there will never be anyone like him again, proof, if any were needed, that God doesn’t make the same mistake twice. 

Definitely one of a kind.