Critic announced:

2025 marks Critic’s 100th year in print, and we are incredibly proud to announce our intention to produce a book to commemorate this milestone. A centenary only comes around once, and we’d be over the moon to see this project happen. Our deadline is March 2nd to secure a starting sum of $70,000, which will cover editorial staffing costs.

I’m a former sub-editor of Critic, and have donated towards the 100th anniversary book. Student newspapers are an amazing incubator for many great journalists and others. Salient has had Barrie Saunders, Huge Rennie, Elle Hunt, Toby Manhire etc. Critic has produced Matt Nippert, Patrick Crewdson, Chris Trotter, Henry Cooke etc. While the politics are often not mine, they are fun and always happy to challenge authority.

If you went to Otago University and have fond memories of Critic, feel free to donate. Details are:

Reference: Critic100
Account Number: 12-3196-0003943-00

A guest post by Lucy Rogers:

I am aware that there are a proportion of the public who distrust the IPCA specifically because of perceived deficiencies in the report last week. Accordingly I want to provide what insights I can here. Having said that it comes with the caveat that this post is by no means comprehensive for the simple reason that the report is 156 pages long. Nevertheless I have read large sections of it, including much of the stuff about Albert Park.

The alleged problems with the report include inter alia the following:

1. The report did not cover every single issue in relation to the cases it covered e.g. it did not explicitly recommend disciplinary sanctions against the police officers who arrested me, which is perceived as a “whitewash”.
2. The fact that the report attributes police misconduct in part to inadequacies in the law re: protest in Aotearoa is intended as a “whitewash”.
3. Changes to the law re: protest (especially requiring police notification 21 days in advance of any protest) are intended to suppress free speech (or will have that effect).
4. The tone of the report was too measured.

The report did not cover everything

Yes, it is true that the report did not cover every single issue in relation to my case. It did not cover disciplinary sanctions and it did not cover other issues like the fact that I was refused the right to speak to a lawyer (despite requesting to do so, and providing a colleague’s number on the spot) or that I was subject to an illegal search. This is also true (or so I am told) of the Albert Park case.

The IPCA process is not over yet

However, the IPCA informed me long in advance that the report would not cover disciplinary sanctions re: the officers in my case. Rather, following publication of the report it said it would sit down with me and discuss disciplinary sanctions as well as any outstanding issues that I wish to raise. This was in part because the Albert Park complainants had been waiting for a very long time indeed for the outcome of their complaints (and were annoyed about the fact) and the IPCA wanted to speed up publication.

It is possible that something similar may happen with the Albert Park case

I imagine that something similar may occur in the Albert Park case, however any such process would depend among other things on the willingness of the complainants to undergo further interviews in a case that is dragging on. I note that the report was specifically about identifying issues in Aotearoa’s law re: protests and focussed primarily on aspects of the relevant cases which related to those issues. I note also that Speak Up for Women (whom, by the way, I am not associated with) have said in their press release that overall they are content with the report. Further, I note that the IPCA have a high workload.

The attribution of blame to inadequacies in the law re: protest is not a whitewash

I get why some people see the IPCA attributing police misconduct in part to inadequacies in the law as whitewashing. For example, the report says of my case that “the reasons provided for needing to act are consistent with a mistaken belief among some officers that their powers extend to the ability to arrest for anticipated breach of the peace.” (I was arrested for breach of the peace.) In other words, police are not aware that violence or threatened violence (which had not occurred when I was arrested) are a requisite element of breach of the peace.

In fact, I agree

That sounds like it’s trying to make excuses for police conduct. But in fact I agree, even though if anyone has a right to be aggrieved it is I. It was my experience when I was arrested and at subsequent protests that the police did not know what breach of the peace was. Although at present I have no strong stance I am open to the IPCA’s recommendation of statutory reforms introducing criminal offences tailored to protest situations which have more specific parameters than extant legal provisions.

Vague law suits the police

I add however that although it is true that the police officers in question did not know what breach of the peace was, neither did they care. Which is to say: vague law actually suits police officers on a power trip who are just out to arrest someone. They do not need to succeed in a prosecution to avoid consequences. They just need an arguable case that their actions were justified. 

The police exploit this

Remember, the officers don’t personally have to pay legal costs if a criminal prosecution against someone fails. The defendant has to pay legal costs, but not the police officers who made the call to arrest. I know firsthand that the police exploit this. It is precisely what happened in Daniel Maxwell’s case, and the IPCA report specifically recommends that the police repay his legal aid debt for this reason. I think that more specific offences tailored to protests with clear parameters might protect the public from police abuse, as recommended in the IPCA report.

Remaining issues

I am not going to address the remaining issues at any length, except to say the merits of requiring protest organisers to obtain permits aside, in the course of my interactions with the IPCA the author of the report did not strike me as having an ideological axe to grind and I believe that suggestion to have been made in good faith. That does not mean of course that it is necessarily good policy.

I also note that while the report is indeed very measured in its tone (e.g. saying that the police “could [not] have believed” the contents of their own statements alleging that I was mentally ill and screaming at people, rather than saying “they lied”) that the IPCA has very good reason for seeking to avoid emotive language generally speaking, namely that it needs to avoid conveying bias for or against the police to the maximum degree possible. Personally, I take no offence.

The Herald reports:

Cutting the corporate tax rate could boost the economy by billions of dollars a year, according to modelling done by consultancy Deloitte.

Lowering the corporate tax rate is one of a suite of policy and tax changes the Government is mulling ahead of the May 22 Budget, as it tries to inject life into the country’s idling economy.

The modelling suggests if the corporate tax rate was cut from 28% to 25% – the rate applied to small businesses in Australia – the economy could end up being $25 billion larger over the next decade.

Put another way, New Zealand’s gross domestic product (GDP), which was worth $420b in the year to September, would be $25b higher between 2025 and 2034 than would otherwise be the case (all else being equal).

An additional 10,815 full-time jobs are also estimated to be created over the decade.

If the tax rate was slashed to 20% – the average across the Asia Pacific – New Zealand’s GDP would be $67b greater over the next 10 years, with an additional 27,765 jobs expected to be created.

This is a no brainer. The average corporate tax rate in Europe is 19.9%, is 23.7% for the OECD and 23.5% globally. 28% is too high. However spending will need to be reduced to match the drop in revenue, so the deficit doesn’t increase.

Over time the increase in the economy and the tax base would compensate for the revenue reduction, but we can’t afford to grow the deficit in the interim, so spending reductions would be needed to make corporate tax cuts viable.

A post by reader, commenter and sometime poster PaulL.

I read many recent comments on the situation and negotiation in Ukraine, including one this morning from our host.

I share the concerns about rewarding Russia for this war by crystalising the borders, and the downstream incentives of that. The question in my mind though is “compared to what?” Compared to a world where Russia never invaded? Yes, but that’s not the world we’re in. So what are the actual alternatives?

NewstalkZB reports:

A Horowhenua district councillor is under fire for working remotely – from the other side of the world. 

Councillor Rogan Boyle left the country in October and is said to currently be in Scotland with no plans to return any time soon.  

Horowhenua Mayor Bernie Wanden told Mike Hosking while Boyle has been attending council meetings on Zoom, it’s not good enough. 

Wanden believes Boyle should resign. 

Of course he should resign. He should have done so when he left NZ. It would be different if you were just overseas for say 3 months, but it seems he has relocated to Scotland.

I’ve been leaked a message he has sent to other councillors (but not Horowhenua ones) justifying his actions.

The proper thing to do isn’t to sneak out of the country and hope no one notices. It would be to tell residents you are leaving, and asking them if they want you to continue on until the election.

Newsroom has a summary of taxpayer money spent on Mt Ruapehu:

• 2018 – $10m towards financing the Sky Waka (pre-insolvency)
• 2020 – $5m for operating expenses (pre-insolvency)
• November 2022 – $2m loan to support RAL (in insolvency)
• December 2022 – $6m loan to support RAL (in insolvency)
• June 2023 – $5m loan to support RAL (in insolvency)
• October 2023 – $7m loan to support RAL (in insolvency)
• March 2024 – $7m loan to support RAL (in insolvency)
• March 2024 – $3.05m Tūroa purchase support
• December 2024 – $5m Whakapapa purchase support (committed)

How often have we been told this is the final assistance. We are now deep into the sunk cost fallacy.

Oliver Hartwich writes:

As Estonia’s former Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, now EU foreign policy chief, put it, “Why are we giving Russia everything they want even before negotiations have started?”

The dangers of this approach are enormous. A victory for Putin would embolden every authoritarian regime worldwide. It would signal that military aggression pays, that nuclear blackmail works, and that the West’s security alliance is not worth the paper it is written on.

Let us be clear about what is happening. The US is not just abandoning Ukraine. By pre-emptively ruling out NATO membership and accepting Russia’s territorial gains, Washington is capitulating to Moscow’s demands before negotiations even begin.

As former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt observed on X, “It’s certainly an innovative approach to a negotiation to make very major concessions even before they have started. Not even Chamberlain went that low in 1938.”

It is hard to think of a worse way to try and negotiate an end to the war. Unilateral concessions before you get anything in return.

Just as letting Hitler take the Sudetenland did not prevent World War II but made it more likely, surrendering Ukrainian territory to Putin will not bring peace. As I noted last year (Europe’s precarious security could invite Putin to expand war, 26 January 2024), European weakness will only encourage Putin further.

Moldova is probably next, and Georgia and Poland are very worried also.

If Ukraine falls, China might move on Taiwan, calculating that US deterrence is at a low point. Iran could escalate in the Middle East through its proxies. North Korea might fire missiles over Japan or even test nuclear weapons in a show of defiance. Aggressive powers will all be emboldened if America leaves Ukraine to Putin.

Incentives matter. Rewarding Putin for his acts of aggression encourages more aggression.

What we are witnessing is thus the end of the post-World War II international order. German foreign affairs expert Thomas Jäger put it starkly: “The rules-based international order existed only as long as it was supported by US power. That is over. It has not existed since 12 February 2025.”

The old rules-based order Jäger refers to was built on international law, mutual defence commitments and secure borders – all policed by the US.

The new world emerging will be more like the 19^th century: great powers pursuing their interests through force – and smaller nations forced to accept their fate. That order terminated with the two world wars.

This time, it will be worse. Today’s great powers have nuclear weapons, cyber warfare capabilities and a whole arsenal of tools for destabilising other countries through disinformation and economic coercion.

Sadly this is right, and we need to start building alliances that do not rely on the US.

In mathematics, the main topic of PISA 2022, Singapore 15-year-olds in score 575 points compared to an average of 472 points in OECD countries.

According to the most recent PISA results, New Zealand students’ average score in mathematics is 479, which is slightly above the OECD average, but represents a significant decline from previous years, with the score dropping 15 points from 2018, indicating a concerning trend in New Zealand’s mathematical performance compared to other developed nations.

David Seymour’s response is tiny Charter Schools – including a Remuera French School.

Minister Stanford seems to have taken on significant guidance from the Singapore system. That is not a bad thing as we could learn a great deal. She is trying and working hard.

When I was studying Mathematics and Statistics at an under-graduate and graduate level we would often have to do “proofs”.  This would always come to a place where an action or condition was a necessary but not “sufficient” condition.

As a nation what we need to be fully aware of is that any improvement we make with schools/curriculum is necessary but not sufficient.

Many miles above schools is parenting and – internationally – there are huge research correlations between parenting, including two parent homes, and school success.

In Singapore approximately 7% of children are in single parent homes.

In New Zealand approximately 20% of children are in single parent homes and 31% of Maori children.

If we are to adapt curriculum practices from a nation, like Singapore, we need to massively support children who do not come from the family norms there.

The key priority for education in New Zealand is not crappy school lunches, or even methodological change … it is enhancing parenting at every level. Until then we are pushing manure uphill with a very loose rake.

Completely shrinking and re-purposing the Ministry of Education is another NECESSARY but not sufficient condition. There are still over 4,200 employees despite the NACT pre-election promises to bring it back to 2,700 (also BLOATED and ineffective).

Our change programme is way too slow and another example of National incrementalism.

Alwyn Poole
[email protected]
Innovative Education Consultants Ltd
Education 710+ Ltd
alwynpoole.substack.com

On my Patreon (paywalled) I cover the approval ratings for 51 Mayors, and look at what the top 12 have in common, and the bottom 10. Also cover the massive change over time of the ratings for Wayne Brown and Tory Whanau.

Newsroom reports:

Erica Stanford says she is “wildly displeased” over an error that led to the Ministry of Education producing inaccurate teacher workforce projections.

The Ministry of Education’s latest teacher supply numbers project the sector will be short 750 primary teachers and 500 secondary teachers this year – a far cry from the ministry’s previous report that projected a surplus of 1050 primary school teachers and 61 secondary teachers for the year.

That is a huge error.

The discrepancy came about through an error in the ministry’s 2023 Teacher Demand and Supply Planning Projection, which failed to account for the additional teacher release and non-contact (administrative) time gained by teachers in their latest collective agreement.

Stanford said the ministry’s failure to include this in its modelling made the 2023 data “wholly unreliable” and has written to the Public Service Commissioner and education secretary.

When asked about the ramifications of the error, Stanford said: “The first ramification is that they have a wildly displeased minister who has written to the Public Service Commissioner and the Secretary of Education to advise them of how important getting good data is for the integrity of making good policy decisions.”

This was a consequential error. If you know the projection is you will be short of teachers, you can work to plug the gap. But when you are told there will be a surplus of teachers, then you won’t.

Newsroom reports:

Councils could soon be required to follow a standardised code of conduct, after a series of high-profile stoushes involving local body politicians in recent years.

The news has been cautiously welcomed by local government representatives, but one expert has warned against codes being “weaponised to muzzle political opponents”. …

Watts’ priorities for a standardised code included highlighting freedom of speech for elected members, democratic decision-making, and conflict-management principles, without restricting council decisions.

Too often Councils have used codes of conducts to muzzle Councillors because of their political views. The principles cited seem to push away from that, which is good.

Victoria University of Wellington law professor Dr Dean Knight told Newsroom council codes of conduct were “a well-meaning idea that turned into a monster” and needed a reset.

“The real danger here as we’re seeing numerous instances of them being … weaponised to muzzle political opponents and to be used as an instrument of politics.”

Dean is very right on this.

The ultimate penalty for councillors’ misbehaviour came through the verdict of voters at local body elections, rather than by “unduly chilling” their ability to speak their minds and hold council staff to account for poor advice.

Agree.

Sky News reports:

Tony Abbott has accused Donald Trump of “living in a fantasy land” after the US President launched an extraordinary attack on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

America’s 47th President hit out at President Zelenskyy overnight, accusing the Ukrainian leader of being a “dictator” and claiming Ukraine started the war with Russia.

Responding to the comments from London, the former Australian prime minister said the world was currently in “a bit of a dangerous place” as he urged President Trump not to reach a peace agreement that amounted to a “surrender to a vicious dictator”.

“Let’s be very clear, Putin started this war. Russia started this war, and anyone who thinks otherwise is living in fantasy land,” Mr Abbott told Times Radio.

Tony Abbott is of course right. Zelensky is no more the aggressor in this was than Churchill was in WWII. Ukraine did not invade Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine.

“Obviously we want peace, but it can’t just be a surrender to vicious, naked aggression. It can’t be. The basis for peace has got to be that Ukraine can live in independence and security going forward,” he said.

Sadly Ukraine will have to surrender some territory for a peace deal. It means the Ukrainians who live there will no longer have a say in who governs them, and will lose all the democratic and civil rights they had as Ukranians. But the quid pro quo must be security guarantees for the rest of Ukraine, otherwise there will be nothing to stop Putin then invading again in a few more years and grabbing more territory.

Three bills drawn from the ballot are:

Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill by Kieran McAnulty.

This is a rare excellent bill from a Labour MP that would allow licensed businesses already permitted to open on ANZAC Day morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday and Christmas Day to sell alcohol.

Hopefully it will get overwhelming support at first reading.

Enabling Crown Entities to Adopt Māori Names Bill by Shanan Halbert (Labour)

This bill enables the Governor-General, by Order in Council, to establish Māori names for Crown entities in addition to or instead of the names given to them by their empowering Acts.

Not exactly a priority issue, but seems worthwhile. I have no issue with Crown entities having an English and te reo name, so long as they don’t only use the te reo name.

Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment (Duty to Provide Financial Services) Amendment Bill by Andy Foster (NZ First)

This bill is intended to prevent registered banks “debanking” or withdrawing banking services from New Zealanders, body corporates or companies, whose political views or outlook may not align with the sensibilities of that institution.

The issue this bill seeks to solve is a very real one. Some banks are saying petrol stations won’t be eligible for services in just five years. Businesses can’t survive without access to banking facilities, and it is up to Parliament to decide if an industry is legal – not banks.

However banks do have the right to decide who they take on as customers, so there is a balancing act. There may be better solutions such as having Kiwibank as a bank of last resort for organisations that can’t access banking services elsewhere.

I’d support this bill to select committee so the issue can be discussed, and solutions considered. Beyond that would depend on the evidence at select committee.

Politik report:

That commits the Cooks to consult with China before it takes part in any bilateral or multilateral international meetings.

And in a requirement that is raising eyebrows the action plan commits the two countries to “provide support to the candidates of each of the two countries during the elections of the various boards and committees of the organisations to which we both belong.”

So the PM of the Cooks has signed an agreement requiring them to consult with China before taking part in any international meetings, and to vote for any Chinese candidates standing for election in international elections.

I wonder what the price was for their selling themselves to serfdom?

The Herald reports:

A group of 109 never-lived-in new homes in Auckland and Wellington are for sale from the Crown, which was contracted to buy them from private developers, who failed to sell their stock in a tough market.

The housing schemes all have an underwrite via KiwiBuild because previous Governments backed new schemes to boost supply by agreeing to bail developers out if they couldn’t sell.

Housing Minister Chris Bishop said the 109 properties were part of the last Government’s KiwiBuild programme, built by private developers to sell at a capped price to mostly first-home buyers.

“The developers were unable to sell the homes and as a result they exercised KiwiBuild’s underwrite option. This meant the Crown through Kāinga Ora was obliged to purchase the homes. Kāinga Ora is now attempting to minimise losses to the Crown by selling the homes as a portfolio package,” Bishop said.

Kiwibuild is the gift that keeps on giving.

Jacinda entered politics to end child poverty. One thing she did (which was good) was to ensure we have annual data to monitor it. There are nine different measures of child poverty. Six of them don’t actually measure poverty – they just measure income inequality (so if your income goes up 5% and the median 6%, you are deemed to have gone into poverty which is nonsense). The useful measures are:

• Percentage of children living in households that experience material hardship (primary)
• Percentage of children living in households that experience severe material hardship (secondary)

You can debate whether you compare from the year starting when someone comes into office, or the year afterwards, so let’s do both for the primary measure.

• Jun 17 – Jun 23: 4,500 more children (-0.2% pop share) in material hardship households
• Jun 18 – Jun 23: 9,000 more children (+0.1% pop share) in material hardship households

So basically more children in materially deprived households, and almost no change as a percentage of the population. But how did the evil Key/English Government go? Again let us use both Jun 17 and Jun 18 so there is no cherry picking.

• Jun 13 – Jun 17: 56,200 fewer children (-5.4% pop share) in material hardship households
• Jun 13 – Jun 18: 48,200 fewer children (-4.8% pop share) in material hardship households

Maybe someone should be making a film about John and Bill and the 50,000 kids they lifted out of poverty.

I never thought I would see the day where the US is voting with Russia, North Korea, Iran etc against all its traditional allies. It really is shameful. Thank God in WWII, FDR was President.

A guest post by Lucy Rogers:

The reaction to my last Kiwiblog post on the IPCA seems to have been generally positive, which is nice. There were a couple of recurring themes in the comments, however, which need clarification. 

The IPCA investigate a low proportion of complaints and this foments distrust

I am well aware that the low numbers of complaints which are in fact investigated by the IPCA cause distrust amongst members of the public as the IPCA are perceived to be sweeping stuff under the rug and selectively ignoring meritorious complaints. In fact, in the comments section of my previous post on the IPCA someone whose complaint was not investigated said more or less precisely this. 

The reason that the IPCA investigates a low proportion of complaints is that it is understaffed

In fact, the IPCA is underfunded and understaffed. 98% of complaints are not investigated by the IPCA, although about 30% are referred back to the Police for investigation. This is despite the fact that, as Warren Young mentioned to me once, workloads of IPCA investigators are very high. In other words, politicians have over-described the IPCA’s role while under-providing funding, even grossly so. The IPCA then takes the blame for this and is accused of whakapōhēhē (dishonesty). But the problem is with politicians, not the IPCA. Blame David Lange. 

This is a common story

I add in passing that as a (junior!) criminal defence lawyer myself I can relate to this. I know of a case (albeit not one I personally worked on) where the media reported that the Judge appeared to impose a shockingly low sentence where the real story was not judicial softness but the fact that the Crown had inadequate funding to obtain a certain report. But people didn’t suspect a deeper explanation because of a preconceived narrative.

How my case came to be investigated

How my case out of goodness knows how many complaints that year came to be investigated by the IPCA I do not know. But I suspect that four factors may have been involved:

1. The Free Speech Union laid a complaint on my behalf.
2. My case received media attention.
3. The IPCA identified legal issues raised by my case which were connected with other protest-related cases like the Albert Park case and wanted to explore this.
4. I had very strong evidence to support my case. As the police have discovered, it is difficult to argue with video footage (although having said that, video footage doesn’t seem to have been an obstruction to writing falsehoods about me in the press release).

The IPCA only investigates the rare case

Without these factors I suspect my case might not have been chosen from the pool (although I do not know). In other words, I suspect it is only the exceptional case with particularly egregious police misconduct or which poses legal policy issues (or some combination thereof) which the IPCA is likely to investigate. That is emphatically not their fault. It does not mean that they go drinking every Friday night with their mate Officer Q. It’s a question of government funding.

This is speculation

Of course, this is speculation on my part. I’m neither a police officer nor an IPCA staff member: I’m a self-described pleb with opinions and a pen. I do not want to deter people from seeking recourse with the IPCA if a police officer misbehaves. It could be that given the sheer volume of complaints that the IPCA receives that the 2% of complaints that it investigates amount to more than just cases fitting the criteria above. But I am making educated guesses.

There is more yet to say (in particular about the recent report, which has been interpreted as whitewashing police actions and/or an attempt to curtail freedom of expression) but I think it more suited to a further blog post than attempting to do the subject justice at the tail end of this one. 

In my Patreon (paywalled) I analyse the German election results, where AFD got its support from, and predict that they will be the largest party in the Bundestag after the next election.