David Seymour announced:
For the first time, the full scale and structure of New Zealand’s regulatory landscape has been mapped, exposing decades of overlap and complexity, Regulation Minister David Seymour says.
“In New Zealand there are over 260 regulators. This includes 95 in central government, 79 in local government, and 57 statutory bodies, committees, or tribunals,” Mr Seymour says.
The total number is bad enough, but look at how many one entity may have rot deal with.
As you can see here, the dog control system actually has five regulators – the Department of Internal Affairs, the Ministry for Primary Industries, the Ministry of Health, the Department of Conservation, and the Ministry of Justice.
What’s more, those five regulatory agencies govern dog registration and control with 11 Acts of Parliament, so not just the Dog Control Act.
Day-to-day, the task of carrying out dog control, split between central and local government, is delegated to at least a dozen different groups of people, depending on where you are and what dogs are doing, from various types of rangers, authorised officers, the Police, the SPCA, DOC staff and public health.
So five regulators for dogs!
Law News reports:
Labour will introduce evidence-based policies to combat crime if it wins this year’s election, not the “bumper sticker” populism promoted by the current government, the party’s justice spokeswoman Camilla Belich says.
Let’s look at the evidence, shall we.
This is the number of violent crimes victims from the NZ Crime and Victims Survey. It has dropped 79,000 in the last 16 months.
How’s that for evidence.
A record six bills were drawn from the ballot. They are:
My summary and thoughts on each bill:
Paul Goldsmith announced:
National will continue to ensure there are real consequences for crime by abolishing good character assessments at sentencing for all sexual offending, National’s Justice Spokesperson Paul Goldsmith says. …
“As the law is written today, judges are required to take into account testimony from individuals willing to speak to an offender’s character – former coaches, employers, and family members willing to state on the record that any offending is the exception, not the rule.
“That might serve the interests of well-connected offenders, but it rarely serves the interests of victims.
“The consequences for the victim remain, regardless of the former reputation of the perpetrator.
“Under National, judges will be prohibited from treating good character as a mitigating factor at sentencing for all sexual offending.
I can understand the anger victims feel when offenders get lighter sentences because they are well connected and have dozens of people provide character references.
However it is hard to see why you would abolish good character as a mitigating factor just for sexual offending.
The Herald reports:
A sexual violence campaigner is “stoked” that National is planning to ban judges from considering good character references while sentencing sex offenders, but lawyers warn the change could lead to less fair sentencing.
While character references could still be provided to the court under National’s planned law change, judges will not be able to take the submissions into consideration.
Defence lawyer Samira Taghavi said the references matter because they help the court assess true culpability, likelihood of reoffending, and prospects of rehabilitation.
Taghavi said it was “dangerous” and “knee-jerk populism” that would cause real injustice in practice. …
“For repeat sex offenders, I doubt you would find anyone writing meaningful character references in the first place. Their prior convictions make ‘good character’ claims implausible – judges already give such evidence little or no weight in those cases.”
It would be good to have some hard data on this issue. How often is good character given a discount in sexual offending cases? The problem is it is almost impossible to get this data.
I’d love a future Government to legislate that all court sentencing notes be made publicly available. This would allow AI analysis of thousands of cases and get hard data on sentencing factors.
Two AUT academics write:
Our research used Stats NZ’s Integrated Data Infrastructure to follow more than 250,000 school leavers from the 2015 to 2019 cohorts.
We examined whether the first-year fees-free scheme affected participation, programme choice, retention and completion.
Tertiary participation was already falling before the fees-free scheme began. After accounting for that trend, it does not appear to have increased tertiary participation.
We also found no clear evidence the policy encouraged students to enrol in bachelor’s degrees rather than certificate or diploma-level study, or that it improved retention or completion.
Our findings on equity are especially important. Students from higher-decile schools were already more likely to enter tertiary study and a key question was whether a fees-free scheme narrowed that gap.
It did not. Students from lower-decile schools did worse relative to higher-decile students on participation, bachelor’s enrolment and retention.
The fees-free scheme did not widen the gaps but it failed to narrow them.
So Hipkins’ scheme failed on participation, programme choice, retention and completion!
Even reading our results as generously as possible, it may have affected the enrolment decisions of only about 400 students per cohort – more than $800,000 for each student whose decision may have changed.
The $800,000 per student is the best case scenario.
Almost $3 billion has been wasted on this scheme. It is coming to an end thankfully, but imagine the opportunity cost. Think if $3 billion had been invested in early childhood education instead.
Simon O’Connor writes:
Do you believe in law and order? Believe that being proud of your country is a good thing, and that managing who migrates here is prudent? Think children having a mum and dad is preferable? Can you define what a woman is? Are you perhaps skeptical of climate change alarmism or believe in free speech?
Well, congratulations, you are officially far-right according to various media commentators.
Far left activists tend to call anyone slightly to the right of them as far right. That is to be expected. The real issue is the media go along with them.
Search for “far right” and “far left” on NZ media websites and you get ten times as many results for far right. And ironically almost every “far left” mention is actually just a photo caption.
Radio NZ reports:
The government will pass a law preventing companies from being sued over climate change damage in many cases.
The law, which applies to current and future cases, will stop a High Court case against Fonterra and six other major emitters in its tracks.
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the Climate Change Response Act would be amended to prevent courts from making findings of liability in tort from damage or harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
I am 100% in favour of the law change. We have judicial activism gone mad. The courts invented a new type of tort where companies engaged in 100% legal activities can be sued because someone doesn’t like the Government’s climate change policies.
It is for Parliament to set climate policies, not the Supreme Court. This is not Parliament retrospectively amending a statute they got wrong. This is Parliament reasserting its sovereignity.
A privilege to attend the above event last Friday.
As opposed to ill-informed assertions that “every brain learns the same” world leading Neuro-Scientist David Eagleman (Stanford University); …
” … suggests that while the basic neural architecture is similar across brains, individual brains learn and adapt in unique ways due to life experiences and genetic predispositions. He emphasizes that the brain is highly malleable and constantly rewiring itself, but the specific pathways and connections formed are unique to each individual.” (The Brain: The Story of You)
I have known Tennille and Gavin Murdoch, the Forest School founders, for a while. They are wonderful educators and the Forest School has existed for 10 years as a one-day a week provision for students near their Orewa base. They thoroughly deserved the approval to create a Charter School.
The key theme of the opening was very much that across NZ there are many children, for a range of reasons, who need a different provision and a range of teaching/learning methods to thrive in education and begin to find their place in the world.
The children attending this school are clearly loving it. It was also obvious that the parents of the children are a HUGE part of the provision.
Having been to a significant number of Charter Schools in NYC and the wider USA I do hope the government can get the settings right in their second term (assuming that they are re-elected). The huge need is for large schools/chains to provide in a pathway changing way for marginalized groups. New Zealand has the biggest achievement gaps in the OECD and the current government has barely attacked the problem and even seems comfortable with Ministry made predictions that the new qualifications will accentuate the gaps. As present less than 0.2 of 1% of children in NZ have the Charter School opportunity. Keep in mind the Ass. Minister’s post-election promise was:
“Seymour says he’s learnt much from his previous attempt to establish the charter model here, although most of the lessons were political rather than pedagogical. This time, he’s going big and going fast.
“There’s probably going to be a couple of hundred of these schools by the time Labour gets back into power. And it’s going to be big, powerful communities with lots of capital and lots of lawyers.
As an aside; my wife came from Brazil 17 years ago. What a privilege for her to meet and have a photo with Deputy Prime Minister Dave Seymour.
The Herald reports:
The Skotel Alpine Resort owner in Whakapapa Village claims the Department of Conservation is pandering to failed businesses in the Tongariro National Park when it comes to allocating staff accommodation.
Sam Clarkson is seeking village accommodation for at least eight Skotel employees, essential for fire evacuation, he said, but all buildings currently vacant are reserved for a possible future operator of the derelict Chateau Tongariro. ,,,
Clarkson said he’s at a loss to figure out how Skotel can warrant just two staff beds, while the Chateau commanded 116 staff beds when it closed in 2023. (The measure of beds is based on bedrooms.
Skotel has 56 guest rooms, a dining room and 35 fulltime staff.
The Chateau has about 115 guest rooms and a dining room, and, for many years, included the operation of a cafe and tavern. In its deeper past, its operations also included ski field businesses such as rentals.
It had about 36 staff when it closed, but, according to the Ruapehu District Council, its staff numbers averaged 75-100 from 2015 to 2020.
This seems bizarre. The Skotel is actually there and operating (I stayed there with the kids recently, and it was great) yet they can only get two beds for their staff, while 116 are reserved for a defunct hotel.
Why not allocate eight to Skotel for this season, and revise the following?
The ratio between the two seems out of kilter, even if the Chateau is open. Wouldn’t a better way be to just auction off the beds each season and allow any local business that wants on site accomodation for staff to apply?
The Herald reports:
Resources Minister Shane Jones invited leaders from the minerals sector and diplomats, including a high-ranking official from the US State Department, for a critical minerals roundtable at Parliament today.
Jones spoke frankly with attendees about the US’ keenness to develop minerals supply chains and about the Government pondering minimum prices for certain resources in order to establish viable operations for their extraction.
During the part of the meeting open to media, Jones said he wanted to create a “narrative” that critical minerals were a “legitimate part of the New Zealand economy”.
Critical minerals are, well critical. We should absolutely be mining them – both for our own use, and to export. Any anyone against that should hand in their cellphone, computer and electric car.
A major concern of the meeting was price. Resources prices can fluctuate wildly. Resource powers, including China, have been accused of dumping resources on the market to collapse prices, making those states’ competitors unviable. This allows those states and firms to retain market dominance for certain minerals.
Jones discussed the possibility of establishing a price floor to combat this in a discussion with Sloper, the Australian High Commissioner.
“It’s been reported to me there are firms in Australia and at various times in New Zealand who do shutter because there’s no point in them operating if the price for a certain key mineral collapses,” he said.
But Jones said there were challenges in establishing a minimum price for resource exports because it potentially violated provisions in New Zealand’s free trade agreements, which generally prevented the Government from intervening in pricing.
‘We’ve struggled with how do we commit to a floor price without violating the provisions of a host of trade agreements that successive New Zealand governments have signed up to,” Jones said.
He added it was “fair to say there’s been an allergic reaction from some of the senior politicians to the idea of a floor price”.
As there should be. We got rid of minimum prices for farming in the 1980s, so let’s not bring them in for mining.
Like many I am not against cycleways. I am against cycleways done badly.
The new shared path cycleway between Wellington and Petone is a great example of one done well. The existing cycleway is terrible and actually ends 1 km before Petone – on the wrong side on SH2!
What I like about this one is:
I am keen to try running it soon. Run to Petone, have a coffee there at one of their great cafes, and then run/walk home.
The NZ Herald reports:
The audio of an exercise by Labour candidates and supporters in the Wellington region on how to avoid answering difficult questions from the public has been widely leaked. …
Edmonds: “Every week I have to stand up in the House and ask a duck-faced horse – did I get that right – questions every single week, and I have the glory of being able to question her, or debate her in debates and to talk through media …
Charming. Don’t you recall all the outrage over anonymous trolls on Twitter comparing Ardern to a horse, and here you have the No 3 in Labour calling Nicola Willis a duck-faced horse.
The Post reports:
Wellington is set to lose what is described as its only sexual harm prevention organisation, with Government funding cuts blamed.
RespectEd Aotearoa ‒ founded in 2015 by Wellington Rape Crisis, WellStop, and HELP ‒ has announced it will close in August. Three staff will lose their jobs. …
The Public Service Association Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi (PSA) said the closure would lead to preventable sexual violence unless the Government restored funding.
“Prevention works,” said PSA national secretary Fleur Fitzsimons.
“When you cut prevention funding, more people will be raped and subjected to sexual violence.”
Locking up rapists works also. Where is the proof that this particular organisation has been effective? Just because you have good intentions, doesn’t mean you are effective.
“Without a change of course, RespectEd Aotearoa will not be the last to fall,“ Fitzsimons said.
“The blame for this, and the consequences of rising sexual violence, sit squarely on the Government’s shoulders.“
RespectEd staff member Juliet Leeming said the closure came as sexual violence was on the rise.
It is not surprising that a former Labour candidate blames the Government for everything. But do we actually have rising sexual violence? The best data in the Crime and Victims Survey. The media just report claims without checking them, but we like to look at data. So what has been the annual prevalence rate for sexual assaults:
So the prevalence rate is actually lower than any time in the last seven years. An inconvenient fact.
The ODT reports:
Jo Galer is on track to win the Dunedin City Council by-election over former mayor Aaron Hawkins.
At 1.30pm today, Ms Galer (8845 votes) was in first place and Aaron Hawkins (8099 votes) was second, followed by Conrad Stedman (6482 votes) in third.
The result is based on counting of about 85% of returned voting papers.
It takes a special talent to go from being elected Mayor, to being unable to even win a ward seat. Tory Whanau managed it, and now Aaron Hawkins. The final result was very close, but again so rare for a former Mayor to be unable to even win a seat.
Ms Galer, who was endorsed by Crs Russell Lund and Lee Vandervis, stood on a platform of prioritising basic infrastructure including in South Dunedin, capping rates and stopping cycleways.
Sounds a popular position.
These are eye witness accounts, not third or fourth hand rumour. The Daily Mail also has extracts, from morgue staff:
The terrorists shot their eyes, their faces and their breasts, and even targeted their most intimate parts, to destroy their beauty and rob their loved ones of a final goodbye.
Women were stripped, bound, stabbed, shot and burned. They were executed both during and after rape amid an orgy of violence in which 1,200 people were killed and 250 taken hostage.
Heads were decapitated. Pelvic bones shattered. Even after death, sexual assault continued.
At this point, I think of the NZ academics who called October 7th legitimate resistance.
Oliver Hartwich has written a very enjoyable satirical novella, called The Martian Audit. An extract from Chapter 1:
Xylos lowered the ramp. He stepped out, ready to embrace the acoustic guitar lifestyle.
He was met with a silence that was not so much peaceful as it was litigious.
A white ute sat by the fence line. Leaning against it was a man.
He was not smiling. He did not have a dog. He was wearing a high-visibility vest that seemed to absorb the joy from the surrounding air.
He checked his watch. He checked the landing struts. He made a note on his clipboard.
“Greetings,” Xylos said, extending a long, slender hand. “We come from the Valles Marineris. We seek the simple life shown on your transmission Country Calendar.”
The man looked up. His name tag read WAYNE. His eyes were the colour of a council meeting room wall.
“Afternoon,” Wayne said. “South Wairarapa District Council.
You the owner of this structure?”
“It is a Class-4 Interstellar Transport,” Xylos corrected.
“Right,” Wayne said. “So, a non-consented dwelling.”
He walked around the ship, tapping the hull with a pen. “You’re in a Significant Natural Landscape overlay. You’ve exceeded the height-to-boundary ratio. And judging by the sheen on this alloy, you’re well over the visual reflectivity limits. I’m going to have to issue an abatement notice.”
The novella is free to download and read.
There are often calls for the US Cabinet to remove Donald Trump from office using the 25th amendment. One of the lawyers who helped draft the 25th amendment makes an important point:
Its purpose is limited and precise: to address presidential inability and fill a vacancy in the vice presidency. It was not meant to address political dissatisfaction with a president. ..
The framers of the 25th amendment declined to place in the amendment a definition of inability. They made reference to conditions or circumstances that would prevent the president from discharging his powers and duties, mentioning physical and mental illnesses, permanent and temporary.
Lawmakers at the same time, however, were clear that unpopularity, incompetence, impeachable conduct, poor judgment and laziness were not covered by the term “inability.”
These issues should be dealt with by impeachment, or an election. Not by the 25th amendment.
I’m amused that Labour parties always claim they are the party of diversity, yet UK Labour is about to replace their white male leader with another white male leader (Milliband or Burnham). All 19 leaders of the UK Labour Party have been white males.
While the Conservative Party doesn’t bang on about diversity. It just elects who they think is the best person for the job. And since 1977 they have had three female leaders, one British Indian leader and one British African leader.
Matt Nippert reports:
Charlotte Stanley, general manager of regulator Charities Services, addressed the Charities Review Board in July 2024 to deliver the findings of a five-year investigation into political funding by the Waipareira Trust for the campaigns of its chief executive, John Tamihere.
This funding occurred through what she described as “inflated payments” to Tamihere, a former candidate for Auckland mayor, and later Te Pāti Māori candidate and co-leader, and current party president.
Stanley recommended the Charities Review Board (CRB) take the ultimate sanction available to it and deregister Waipareira.
“The trust had engaged in support for political candidates or parties by way of support to its CEO, which is not charitable. In addition we think that the trust also does not qualify as charitable because of inflated or excessive payments to its CEO for his personal benefit,” Stanley told the CRB, according to briefing notes for the meeting.
Ms Stanley was 100% right, but sadly her board are cowards and backed down.
Here’s what the so called charity did:
It is worth noting 99% of their income comes from taxpayer funded contracts. They have charitable status because they are meant to be helping the community, not the CE’s political ambitions.
Henry Cooke writes:
There are good reasons for our politicians to look seriously at the long-term affordability of superannuation.
It is by far our largest benefit, and largest single-ticket item, taking up around 16.6% of tax revenue and 5% of GDP. It costs close to five times what we spend on the unemployment benefit or more than our entire educational system. And given we are both living longer and having fewer children it seems set to eat up more and more of the wider budget. …
One of the reasons superannuation has become such a big-ticket item is the way it is “indexed” – the way that it automatically goes up over time.
All other benefits are indexed to match regular price inflation. So if you’re severely disabled and get a supported living payment, your benefit goes up in track with the price of a basket of goods every year – hopefully meaning you can continue to pay for the necessities in life.
But because superannuation is seen as a special other type of payment whose beneficiaries are more deserving, it is indexed to wage inflation. Wage inflation typically outguns price inflation over time, and this means that people on super don’t just keep up with prices rising, they keep up with wages too.
Treasury had a look at what changing the indexation to regular price inflation would look like recently. It would unsurprisingly save a huge amount of money – reducing the necessary taxes by so much that GDP per person would be $4900 higher per person by 2065.
This I 100% support, with one minor change. I’d index NZ Super to say inflation +0.25% so the level does increase slightly in real terms, but not as much as indexing it to the average wage does.