Almost two years ago I wrote:

Jimmy Carter is 98, and in hospice care meaning he will die quite soon. Almost every decent person can only admire the work he has done as a former President, and his work ethic where he was still active into his late 90s.

He was not a successful President. I was just starting to follow US politics in 1980 when Reagan got elected and thought the US chose well. Most historians rank Carter in the third quartile, so a poor President, but not one of the truly terrible ones.

But as a former President, he has worked tirelessly for good causes. Not holding international talkfests, but actually getting out there and making a difference.

His Carter Centre has helped eradicate diseases and provided election observers for many decades. He has been a major figure in Habitat for Humanity which has built 35 million houses. Carter himself has led work projects constricting over 4,000 houses – and doing this well into his 90s.

He is a man of deep faith who has been teaching Sunday School at his local church since the 1980s. He even carried on teaching while battling cancer.

He is a great example of someone you can profoundly disagree with politically, but still respect immensely.

He made 100 years old, which was a pleasant surprise, but finally succumbed. The world is a worst place for his passing. To still be helping build houses for needy people at age 95 is astonishing. An incredible work ethic.

Radio NZ reported:

The report recommended reviewing the curriculum so it was clearer about the core knowledge and skills students should learn, and increasing relationships and sexuality education in the senior secondary school when many students needed it most.

Senior secondary school is where the most focus should be, as this is when most children become sexually active.

A primary school principal said their school removed gender identity from its lessons “to appease, to calm, and to ensure that RSE continued in our school”.

I have no problems with gender identity being taught at secondary school. A case can even be made for intermediate schools, but I think it is quite inappropriate to be teaching gender identity to primary school age children.

I’m not against having character questions as part of residency applications but I note that these questions could see TPM co-leader Rawiri Waititi fail to get residency, if he was an applicant.

In 2023 he said:

It is a known fact that Māori genetic makeup is stronger than others

He also once said about European New Zealanders:

‘archaic species is becoming more extinct as a new Aotearoa is on the rise.’

If they are asking character questions, I hope they also include ones like:

• Do you believe it can sometimes be legitimate to use violence to achieve political ends
• Do you think religious beliefs should allow you to break the law
• Do you support equality of suffrage

Here’s my 20 predictions for 2025, which I’ll score at the end of the year. I got a low 10/20 right for 2024, a B+ in NCEA 🙂

1. National will outpoll Labour in at least 90% of public polls in 2025
2. Wayne Brown is re-elected Mayor of Auckland
3. Floating mortgage rates are below 6% by the end of 2025
4. Carmel Sepuloni will become Leader of the Labour Party
5. Pierre Poilievre will be elected PM of Canada, with a majority Government
6. If Labour stand a candidate for the Wellington Mayoralty, they will be elected Mayor
7. PM Luxon will do a Cabinet reshuffle with at least one Minister dropped out of the Ministry
8. The Government drops its bill to force Internet companies to fund media companies
9. Two South Island city Mayors are not re-elected
10. A Te Pati Maori MP will be referred to the Privileges Committee in 2025
11. Unemployment will peak at or before 5.5% in 2025, and then drop
12. Trump will get all his remaining Cabinet picks confirmed
13. Labor will be re-elected in Australia, but will lose its majority
14. Reform will outpoll Labour in at least five polls in the UK in 2025
15. The 2025 budget will have less core crown spending for 25/26 than was forecast in the 2024 budget.
16. There will be a ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war, lasting at least three months
17. There will not be an Ohariu seat after the new boundaries are finalised
18. Labour will commit itself to a Capital Gains Tax, if elected
19. At least 15 projects will be consented by the end of 2025 under the new Fast Track Approvals Law
20. The Treaty Principles Bill will not pass its second reading

A guest post by a reader:

The taxpayer subsidised study for 7355 PhD students in 2023. These are both foreign and domestic students. Because the foreign students pay domestic fees, NZ is considered a cost-effective place to do a PhD.

Breaking down those 7355 (data from the TEC website):

Natural and Physical Sciences 21.5% (n = 1580)
Society and Culture 20.1% (n = 1500)
Engineering and Related Technologies 15.2% (n = 1120)
Health 15.1% (n = 1110)
Management and Commerce 8.0% (n = 590)
Education 7.2% (n = 530)
Creative Arts 4.5% (n = 330)

Agriculture 0.95% (n = 70)
Horticulture and Viticulture 0.07% (n = 5)
Forestry 0.14% (n = 10)
Fisheries 0% (n = 0)
Environmental Studies 0.54% (n = 40)

And remembering that we mostly live in trade deficit and ultimately debt!

I think the point stands that changing the focus of the Marsden fund is a minor move relative to the huge investment that the taxpayer makes (through the TEC) in social science and humanities research in the tertiary sector, and while those social science and humanities research activities can identify what is wrong with NZ, they rarely create new wealth or foreign earnings that we might spend to fix the challenges we face (e.g. increasing social housing, fixing potholes, building cycle lanes in Westport (ain’t going to happen :)) increasing benefits, getting more doctors or teachers, addressing inequality, getting greater school attendance and achievement, etc.).

We need to earn more money, and while our export economy (which is strongly based on primary sector exports) serves us well, the appallingly low numbers doing PhDs (or studying at the undergraduate level) in ‘Agricultural, Environmental and Related Studies’ must be a much greater concern than minor changes in one research fund.

One also needs to realise that just because we are doing research in one area or another, doesn’t mean that that research is applied and used to inform better practice. We need people that can not only do research, but who can use that to realise material advantage or improvement in NZ. That is how our agricultural and horticultural scientists carry some of the weight of our collective well-being on their shoulders!

The reader makes a good point that the changes to the Marsden Fund should just be the beginning of focusing our research priorities so that they can improve New Zealand.

The FSU announced:

Today, the Free Speech Union will sue both Hutt City Council and its Chief Executive, Jo Miller (in her personal capacity), after they censored an insert at Council libraries and information centres, breaching Hutt City residents’ freedom of expression, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

“Last year, the Hutt City Council removed a paid advertisement inserted in newspapers from all council sites. We believe this is an unlawful act that flies in the face of ratepayers’ speech rights.

“The insert was from ‘Treaty of Waitangi – An Explanation’ by Sir Āpirana Ngata and was published in 31 NZME and Stuff newspapers by the New Zealand Centre for Political Research (NZCPR). 

“We’ve attempted to communicate with Miller and the Council to find a resolution, but it’s fallen on deaf ears. So now we are taking action.

“Hutt City’s reasons for banning it from its premises were that it “spread a very particular political viewpoint” and was “viewed as spreading misinformation”.

“We simply cannot have local councils and bureaucrats dictating what information ratepayers do and don’t consume. It’s as simple as that. 

“Hutt City ratepayers deserve to think for themselves, and the Council has a responsibility to uphold free speech under the Bill of Rights Act. We’re ensuring that the Council and Chief Executive are held accountable.

Amazing that the Council tried to suppress a brochure quoting the arguably most esteemed Maori New Zealander – who is on our $50 note.

Some councils are notoriously reluctant to say they got it wrong, and won’t do it again. The only way they can be incentivised to behave properly is if there is a cost to their arrogance – and having them lose in court is costly to their reputation.

Andrea Vance does her list of the 50 most powerful people in Wellington. Some extracts are:

• 1 Nicola Willis & Chris Bishop
• 4 Dame Therese Walsh
• 5 Sir Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh
• 7 James Cameron
• 8 Nick Leggett
• 16 Patrick Morgan and Alex Dyer
• 24 Paul Tolich & Neale Jones
• 29 Fleur Fitzsimons
• 44 Tory Whanau

44 seems a bit high for the Mayor!

Upcoming elections will mean by mid 2025 they will be:

• US – Trump, right
• UK – Starmer, left
• Canada – Poilievre, right
• Japan – Ishiba, right
• Italy – Meloni, right
• Germany – Merz, right
• France – Macron, right (centre)

So Starmer will soon be the only left leader in the G7. This is a major change from a few years ago.

Politico reports:

Donald Trump’s team is crafting an executive order to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants, a monumental move the president-elect’s allies say is a key step in their long-term strategy: getting the issue before the Supreme Court.

The effect of Trump’s order would be to exclude the children of undocumented immigrants and short-term visitors to the U.S. from the right to citizenship by birth that is established under the 14th Amendment. And while there are few details on what exactly he would do and how sweeping the action would be, immigration restrictionists say Trump could do several things, including directing the State Department to refuse to issue passports to children without proof of the parents’ immigration status or the Social Security Administration to withhold Social Security numbers.

It is very rare in fact for countries to automatically give citizenship to people born in the country, whose parents are not legal residents. Take the NZ Citizenship Act:

the person was born in New Zealand on or after 1 January 2006, and, at the time of the person’s birth, at least one of the person’s parents was a New Zealand citizen; or entitled in terms of the Immigration Act 2009 to be in New Zealand indefinitely, or entitled to reside indefinitely in the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau.

So the substance of what Trump wants to achieve is basically to copy our law. However as their citizenship clause is in the US constitution, it may not be something that can be achieved by executive order. The 14th amendment says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

The part in bold can be read as meaning it only applies to legal residents. The best way forward would be for the US Congress to pass a law stating that citizenship only applies children of citizens and permanent residents. This is likely to be given more deference by the courts than an executive order.

This is PJ. The Herald reports how in 1995 she abducted and raped a 12 year old girl.

“She tied a rope around the girl’s neck, causing her to lose consciousness, and dragged her into another room where he stripped and raped her.”

It’s very very unusual to have a lesbian rapist.

Some great questions for those who cheered on the killing of a healthcare CEO:

1. Are we allowed to assassinate the CEOs of other industries you view as harmful (e.g., fossil fuels), or is it open season only on insurance executives? – Murdering Brian Thompson will do literally nothing to increase the availability or affordability of healthcare.
2. Is it justified to shoot someone in the back simply out of frustration with the industry in which he works?
3. How far down the corporate hierarchy can we target? Are all employees of insurance companies valid targets for assassination, or only senior executives? What about mid-level executives? Managers? Actuaries? Entry-level analysts? The custodians who clean their offices?
4. CEOs are hired by boards of directors, who, in turn, are elected by shareholders. If it’s morally acceptable to assassinate the CEO, it should also be fair to kill the shareholders who appointed him, no? If this is the case, what level of ownership is required to merit inclusion on the kill list? Are the 10 shares I own in a Robinhood account sufficient? What about if I don’t own shares directly but I own mutual funds that hold shares?
5. As a society, we generally agree that murder is a more serious offense than other violent crimes, such as carjacking, assault, or kidnapping. If it’s acceptable to murder an insurance CEO, is it also acceptable to violently assault him, steal his car, and hold him hostage?
6. The largest insurance operator in the US is the federal government, via Medicare. Is it therefore acceptable to kill political officials, since Medicare also denies some claims?
7. Who determines the industries for which assassination is justified and merited? For example, if a religious extremist murdered the CEO of a pharmaceutical company that produced abortion drugs, how would you be able to condemn that in a logically consistent manner?

A good decision by Winston Peters:

Racing Minister Winston Peters has announced the Government’s plans to end greyhound racing in New Zealand.

“This is not a decision that is taken lightly but is ultimately driven by protecting the welfare of racing dogs.

“Despite significant progress made by the greyhound racing industry in recent years, the percentage of dogs being injured remains persistently high and the time has come to make a call in the best interest of the animals,” Mr Peters says.

The injury rates were horrendous. Winston is known to be very very pro-racing, so for him to agree to this is no small thing.

Earlier he announced:

Racing Minister Winston Peters has announced the introduction of legislation to amend the Racing Industry Act 2020 which will extend TAB NZ’s current land-based monopoly for sports and racing betting to online.

There should be no monopoly. There should be a level playing field, with multiple companies offering betting under the same regulatory regime.

Lottie Evans from the NZ Initiative proposes:

Most national holidays revolve around either somber reflections or consumerism. It is time for New Zealand to formally recognise the cultural phenomenon that best captures our national spirit: Crate Day.

This celebration, traditionally held on the first Saturday of December, represents the best of our nation. For the uninitiated, Crate Day involves the sophisticated activity of consuming an entire crate of your local beer while engaging in classic Kiwiana activities. Swimming at the beach, sitting in the back of a truck bed, or watching at least four boys attempting to light one barbeque are all officially endorsed escapades.

The economic benefits are clear. Just think of the local breweries whose products are essential to the celebration. But by making this a public holiday, we would provide support to countless other small businesses. Manufacturers of chilly bins, local dairies providing pies and hopefully water, along sellers of headache tablets (for the day after), would all benefit. …

Other critics may worry that turning a grassroots celebration like Crate Day into a formal holiday would diminish its charm. But I say what we really need a holiday that truly celebrates what New Zealand is. Forget the faux summer Christmas adverts with Santa in a swimsuit and jandals. Forget the confusion of lighting fireworks to celebrate the foiling of a gunpowder plot 400 years ago on the other side of the world. Crate Day would be a holiday by New Zealanders for New Zealanders.

In a world of increasing complexity, it is time to embrace this celebration of local industry, summer vibes, and questionable judgment. A day where the most critical thinking you have to do is, “One by One, Two by Two” in the hopes of finishing all 12 drinks by midnight.

Nothing says “New Zealand” quite like turning informal drinking into a national institution.

This is a great idea. I think we should replace Labour Day with Crate Day.

Nicola Young writes:

This week’s vote to demolish Wellington’s City to Sea Bridge is a waste of money that will needlessly remove a much-loved part of our waterfront, and replace it with an at-grade pedestrian crossing over six lanes of traffic.

Incredibly, several leading engineers have said demolition isn’t required, including advice to councillors from Spencer Holmes (shared below) during this week’s Environment and Infrastructure Committee debate.

We’re told the bridge is a seismic risk because of the few occasions when a large number of people stand on the ‘deck’ (which includes the roof of Capital E) during major events at Civic Square. But demolition is an extreme measure, and there are smarter, more cost-effective solutions, like using temporary barriers and security staff to restrict numbers for these rare events. This would reduce the bridge to ‘Importance Level 2’, like all other footbridges in the country, rather than ‘Importance Level 3’ – the standard required for large public venues.

Another Councillor said that this solution was looked into but rejected. I’m certainly against spending tens of millions of dollars on strengthening the bridge, but if there is a way to keep the bridge without having to spend tens of millions either demolishing it or strengthening it, that would be a great thing.

This is a great achievement, and shows how critical grassroots funding is to success. To have 11,000 New Zealanders donate to you is a sign that they think you are doing a great job.

Nick Clark of the NZ Initiative has a good report on how democracy doesn’t work well at local government level. He gives some examples:

• Wellington City Council requires a Crown Observer to address mounting dysfunction.
• Carterton District Council attempted to exclude an elected representative from key decisions for expressing views consistent with her election platform.
• At Waitomo, a mayor who campaigned for a rates freeze, was subject to a complaint for publishing personal views ahead of a council vote on its rates increase.
• Gore District Council saw relationships deteriorate to the point where both mayor and chief executive officer (CEO) faced calls for resignation.

Nick touches of five improvements or solutions. They are:

1. Let voters have a direct say on big decisions. Have referenda on major projects
2. Make it easier for mayors and councillors to get information and speak up. CEOs block Crs from basic info. They should be able to ask written questions like MPs that must be answered within five days. Also standard performance reporting to allow comparisons between Councils.
3. Give mayors their own support team. Extend the Auckland model where the Mayor is guaranteed a certain amount of funding for their own office, rather than having the CEO determine what level of support their supposed boss gets.
4. Give elected representatives powers similar to those of company board members. I think the Government is looking at a law change in this direction.
5. Consider the ‘strong mayor’ system that works in Germany. This is basically when the Mayor is Chair and CEO,. You sort of have this in London also. This one is quite radical, but would be worth considering in larger cities.

Happy 2029th birthday to Jesus.

I hope everyone has a relaxing Christmas Day with family or friends.

Newsroom reports:

Carr, who ends his five-year tenure as the commission’s first chair on Sunday, was also given an opportunity for a parting message to policymakers by the select committee.

“What my kids would say is I should have known this stuff a long time ago. I think we’re past the stage where any of our elected leaders can afford not to know and understand that human activity is changing the climate. That the science is telling us that it is changing more rapidly than we thought. That the science is explaining better how it shows up in our backyards,” he said.

“That those who continue to promote the combustion of fossil fuels in the open air without permanent carbon capture and storage are, in my view, committing a crime against humanity.”

The term crimes against humanity is generally associated with genocide etc. Here we have the outing Climate Commission Chair saying that merely advocating for the use of fossil fuels in the future is a crime against humanity.

How long should these people be jailed for, according to Carr? Because surely that is the minimum punishment for crimes against humanity.

Is Carr saying that Shane Jones should be imprisoned for disagreeing with him?

This rhetoric from Carr is what leads to murders as recently seen in the US. If you label disagreement of opinion as a crime against humanity, you are giving a green light for violent extremism.