The Post reports:

Green councillor Nīkau Wi Neera and Labour councillors Nureddin Abdurahman and Ben McNulty will no longer commit to voting with the mayor’s policies.

The vote to sell the airport shares, spearheaded by Whanau in the Wellington City Council’s long-term plan meeting two weeks ago, was the final straw.

“We’re not going to be co-operating unconditionally in the same way that we were, until we receive some guarantees that the progressive agenda that the mayor’s office is supposed to be pursuing is the agenda that is actually going to be pursued,” Wi Neera said.

Doesn’t this speak volumes. An admission that the Councillors on the left have been co-operatunbg unconditionally with the Mayor, rather than actually forming their own views. They are not there to represent ratepayers, but their parties.

For the first half of the term, the progressive transport and housing decisions made with the council have been made possible by the eight votes of the Labour and Green councillors, including Whanau’s casting vote as mayor.

No longer. Without the votes of Wi Neera, Abdurahman and McNulty, Whanau will have to make compromises with independent councillors to maintain the eight votes needed to pass her core policies.

This is not a bad thing.

The three councillors will instead vote issue-by-issue. They will not re-enter the voting bloc unless the mayor agrees to set some boundaries or “red lines” around what might be on the table for the rest of the council term.

There we have it – they do not vote issue-by-issue. They simply vote as a bloc. This is why political party Councillors should not be on Councils.

“The mayor is not leading, the bureaucracy is governing us

The Mayor hasn’t spoken to some Cos for over a year.

“Council’s officers say: ‘Jump,’ and the response of the mayor’s office is to say ‘How high?’” McNulty said.

And the response of the Labour/Green Crs has been to say “Can we go higher”

McNulty said the three were standing up for what they believed in. He had stopped attending the Labour-Green caucus meetings because it was “not a healthy environment to have an opinion different from the majority”.

This is how our Council is governed.

“It’s not up to individual councillors what we can and can’t make decisions on,” said Labour councillor Teri O’Neill.

We are the Borg. Resistance is futile!

There were a lot of Labour-Green councillors who didn’t want to be in the same room as each other at the moment, Wi Neera said. “It is a really difficult time, and a lot of people have got hurt, and there’s healing that needs to happen.”

Oh because they voted differently on an issue, they now need time out, and it sounds like an abusive relationship where people have got hurt and need healing!

Whanau said she remained committed to leading Pōneke “with a progressive vision”.

The Reading Cinemas deal and the Town Hall had both been voted through with a progressive majority, she pointed out.

Good to know a progressive vision is to blow out a renovation from $43 million to almost $350 million and to hand out corporate welfare to a US multinational cinema company. I’d call that regressive.

The Telegraph reports:

In three years, Stephen Watson, the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police (GMP), has turned a failing force that was on its knees into the one rated most improved by the official police watchdog.

How bad was it?

When he arrived in the summer of 2021, GMP had been placed in “special measures” after failing to record 80,000 crimes – a fifth of that year’s total. Emergency 999 response times were the worst in the country, with serial warnings that it was failing domestic abuse and sexual assault victims.

So rock bottom.

Now, says Watson, every crime is investigated, emergency response times are among the best in England and Wales, arrests of domestic abuse perpetrators have doubled in a year and overall crime is down by 7.7 per cent. Since he took over, stop and searches have quadrupled to 46,029 in a year – a key reason, he believes, behind sharp falls in robberies, firearms offences and people presenting at hospitals with knife injuries. “It is about leadership and having an effective plan,” he says.

Stunning. And what did he do?

Instead, he believes it is about investigating every crime no matter how minor and thinking about crime “through the prism of the victim’s experience rather than the prism of some sort of Home Office classification”.

It echoes the US-inspired “broken windows” philosophy on tackling crime. “I expect my officers to enforce moving traffic offences, litter and graffiti, right the way up through the spectrum. It’s as much about the small stuff as it is about the big stuff,” says Watson.

“There’s no doubt in my mind that if you don’t tend to anti-social behaviour, which is symptomatic of crime, eventually things will deteriorate to the point where you get embedded endemic, deep-rooted crime and anti-social behaviour.”

We now have this in NZ. In Auckland, Hamilton and Wellington there is so much anti-social behaviour employers are moving out of the city.

There is no link between UNRWA and Hamas, no none at all. We know this because UNRWA commissioned a report that said so.

Gavin Ellis writes:

The Fair Digital New Bargaining Bill should be placed on a figurative Viking funeral ship, pushed out into the water, and set on fire. …

There are several reasons why the House should simply let the poor thing die in peace.

The first, and most obvious, is that similar legislation in Australia and Canada is not working. After a Married At First Sight honeymoon, the Australian system fell victim to Meta’s arrogant capriciousness. It simply refused to renew its commercial agreements with Australian news media. In Canada, it stopped carrying the country’s news altogether. What makes anyone think New Zealand would be treated more favourably?

Of course the same would happen here.

Overall, the bill’s many wounds and contusions are not survivable. It would be best to torch the remains and board another longship.

Hopefully the Government agrees.

A guest post by Alex Murphy from the Taxpayers Union:

Kiwis made it clear at the election what they wanted to see from this year’s Budget: real income tax relief, a much smaller state, and most importantly, public debt coming down.

Unfortunately, last week’s Budget fell well short of those expectations.
 
Not only has Treasury said we’ll be stuck in the red for at least another four years, but Kiwis won’t be getting the tax relief they asked for, and the state will remain just as big and greedy as it was when the Coalition took over.

Worse still, the Government is planning on spending more this year than Grant Robertson did last – $6,930 per household more to be exact. So much for ‘brutal cuts’, Nicola Willis’ Budget was practically a whole buffet!

Kiwis voted for fiscal restraint, though, not another budget buffet. So, what could the Government have done differently?
 
Well, for starters, it could have actually delivered Kiwis with the tax relief they deserved. 

As the Finance Minister said time and again before the budget, Kiwis haven’t a tax break in 14 years thanks to inflation stealing more and more of their real incomes by artificially forcing them into higher and higher tax brackets. 

The magic number we were looking for was a $49 per week reduction in tax for the average Kiwi worker. Anything less is only a partial catch up to the last 14 years of rampant inflation. Nicola Willis managed just $25 a week, taking us back to 2021. That isn’t tax relief, that is just shortchanging New Zealanders.

Had the Government actually taken the knife to public spending like it said it would, Nicola Willis could have simultaneously given Kiwis their $49 a week in tax relief and put the books back in the black.

Dare I say a chap from Argentina managed it a few months ago, and the Government certainly wouldn’t need to go as far as him.

Instead, by palming these savings decisions over to the department heads who presided over the last six years of expansion, it’s no wonder why the Government is now finding itself empty handed.

As far as staffing cuts go, the Government should have chopped public service numbers down by at least the extra 18,000 bureaucrats hired under Labour. The measly 4,000 reductions it plans to make simply won’t be anywhere near enough to carve out the enormous layer of fat brought in from the last six years of indulgence.

The Government has already taken a hammering in the media for barely plucking a few stray hairs. It may as well have ensured that its cuts were at least as drastic as they have been characterized to be.

And tackling the back-office bloat is just the start of what the Government should have done to find savings.

Take the billions of dollars’ worth of corporate welfare schemes, for instance, that continue to line the pockets of multinationals and other special industry groups.
 
Willis’ Budget not only keeps the corporate gravy train running, but dishes out even more favours, including nearly $200 million to the bigwigs of Hollywood , and a brand new climate-based ‘heavy vehicle’ fund that will see the biggest companies continue to milk the taxpayer,  for no environmental gain.

Again, this is not what New Zealanders asked for.
 
And further to ensuring there was no new corporate welfare, the Government should have also canned its existing corporate welfare teats such as Callaghan Innovation, NZTE, or the hundreds of other tax credits, grants and funds dished out by ministries every year.

But wait there’s more.

The Government could have also decided to pull the plug on its state media arm and sell it off. Seeing as polling continues to show that New Zealanders trust neither RNZ or TVNZ’s ability to provide balanced and impartial news coverage, the Government may as well have pushed them off its books now while they still might be worth something.
 
Not only would this have brought in some quick cash when the Government needs it most, but passing these organizations over to the private sector would have ensured that all news content from TVNZ and RNZ would be directly accountable to the consumers that fund them – not set by agenda-driven bureaucrats.
 
In short, had the Government listened to Kiwis, gone line-by-line through the finances, and actually cut out the waste, Nicola Willis could have quite easily delivered Kiwis with the tax relief they deserved, all while getting the books back into order.
 
Instead, we’ve been given a budget that shortchanges New Zealanders, keeps the state as fat as ever, and sees our debt continue to spiral out of control.

This really could have been the next mother of all budgets. Instead, it was the mother of all disappointments.

Alex Murphy is a Senior Researcher at the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union

I’m in Ukraine for a few days, attending the Black Sea Security Forum. For reasons of operational security I can’t blog any details of the Forum until it has concluded, but I can blog about why I am here, and my impressions to date.

I’m here because I think what happens in Ukraine matters. It is not a complicated conflict. Ukraine wants to remain a democratic country where its 40 million people determine their own future. Russia wishes to conquer it and turn it into a puppet state, or even use it as the start of reforming the former Soviet Union. It’s probably the most morally unambiguous conflict since World War II.

So what happens is vitally important to 40 million Ukrainians who are fighting for their nation’s survival as an independent democratic country, but it is also important to the world and New Zealand. As one of the smallest and least powerful countries in the world, we benefit the most from a rules based international order, as opposed to a might based international order. A defeat in Ukraine will not just encourage further Russian expansion in Europe, but will embolden other autocratic regimes.

So when I was given the opportunity to attend the Forum, I thought about it for many weeks, only making a final decision to attend a few weeks ago. I feel very strongly my responsibility to my seven and four year old to remain alive many more years for them, and to be more risk adverse than in my youth. But weighing up against that, the actual risk is very low for me – not zero, but very low. Odessa is a fair way from the frontlines. There are missile attacks from Russia, but a very useful phone app warns you of them, and tells you where the closest shelter is. So far the biggest risk was probably the three hour drive from Moldova, where my driver weaved in and out of traffic constantly as he overtook anyone slower than us.

Ukraine being at war is noticeable. There are military vehicles everywhere along the main road.

Ukraine is not a wealthy country, like many former Soviet countries. The GDP per capita is less than 10% of NZ or around 25% on the PPP basis. Around the same as Vietnam and Ecuador. The outskirts of Odessa look very typical Eastern European, but once you get to the city centre, you have remarkable beauty.

The Odessa Opera House which happened to have on a stunning performance of the Don Quixote ballet the evening I arrived.

Every building (and I mean every) in Odessa flies the Ukrainian flag. It is a reminder of how powerful national symbols can be as a unifying force.

The City Gardens, which is surrounded by cafes with outdoor dining, so was my dinner venue last night.

Deribasovskaya Street.

As I said at the beginning, I can’t yet blog details of the speakers and discussion (or venue) of the Forum, but will do so when I can.

Henry Cooke has a fun piece looking at what may have happened if Winston had picked National in 2017. I agree with most of it, as logically argued.

Cooke says that National would have got a 5th term in 2020, but lost in 2023. Both are probable. However I do wonder if an English/Joyce Government would have let monetary policy get as loose, and the cost of living crisis in 2022/23 may have been lessened. But hard to imagine a sixth term unless Labour had totally self destructed.

A guest post by John Stringer:

Some national-wide polls in the US are suggesting a 1% difference between the candidates (Biden v Trump 40.9 v 41.6%). Trump has led Biden by about 0.7% since early March. But, this is a distraction, as the election is determined BY STATE (ie Electoral College votes) which accrue to 270 to get a winner. As at mid-May Trump is at 313 College votes by State polls. In one sense, ‘popularity’ ACROSS AMERICA is electorally irrelevant.

There will be some big poll movers: the verdict in the Trump electoral spending trial (soon); and the two scheduled debates.

But as it sits, Trump is ahead in polling in State poll averages (all polls in those Electoral Colleges by average over time).

State Analysis

There are some key States to watch, the ‘Deciders’ or ‘Flippers’ as they are sometimes called. In the past Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio. But things have changed. A lot!  But first the SAFE States, that went to either candidate by a safe 12+ points (in recent polls).

Safe BIDEN (12%+ lead in averaged State polls)

With Safe TRUMP added in (12%+ lead in averaged State polls).

This puts the Electoral College counter at Biden 191 v Trump 122 with all the blank States still in play.

A number of these blank States historically LEAN TOWARDS a candidate (say with a 6%+ point lead) and these

can be shaded a hue of Red or Blue to intimate a likely winner. So, you could speculatively ‘add’ votes to a candidate.

Once you add in the LEANING States (historically: 6%+ lead) to the SOLIDS (historically 12%+ lead) you are left with only 

10 States in play, offering 180 Electoral College votes. Without the 10 factored in, it looks like 226 Biden v Trump 132.

We might call these the ’Top 10 that will decide the Election’. 

1.FLORIDA  (30 Electoral Votes) no longer a swing state as it has historically been.

2.TEXAS  (40)

3.Pennsylvan (19)

4.OHIO (17)

5.GEORGIA  (16)

6.N. Carolina (16)

7.MICHIGAN (15)

8.ARIZONA (11)

9.WISCON. (10)

10.NEVADA (06)

Elect. Votes (180)

But only 7 of these are true ‘battleground States’ in 2024 as 3 of the Top10 have large point leads to one candidate, more like an historic SOLID State as a change this time. So, they can speculatively be coloured Red or Blue based on all av polls.

~Stringer preceded DPF as a parliamentary staffer (Beehive press secretary) and political party professional (Nats) and has served on political boards. He has been involved in campaigns in NZ and the UK and was himself a parliamentary candidate.

Shane Jones announced:

Removing the ban on petroleum exploration beyond onshore Taranaki is part of a suite of proposed amendments to the Crown Minerals Act to deal with the energy security challenges posed by rapidly declining natural gas reserves, Resources Minister Shane Jones says.

“Natural gas is critical to keeping our lights on and our economy running, especially during peak electricity demand and when generation dips because of more intermittent sources like wind, solar and hydro,” Mr Jones says.

“When the exploration ban was introduced by the previous government in 2018, it not only halted the exploration needed to identify new sources, but it also shrank investment in further development of our known gas fields which sustain our current levels of use.

“Without this investment, we are now in a situation where our annual natural gas production is expected to peak this year and undergo a sustained decline, meaning we have a security of supply issue barrelling towards us.”

Having the lights go out is not a sensible energy policy!

Rebuilding investor confidence in New Zealand’s petroleum sector will require more than removing the ban. The Coalition Government is proposing further changes, agreed by Cabinet, to re-establish New Zealand as an attractive and secure destination for international investment. These changes were agreed in the New Zealand First and Act coalition agreements with the National Party.

Basically some sort of long-term contracts are needed, otherwise companies won’t commit to investments that a future Labour/Greens/TPM Government could make worthless.

VUW has decided it is morally obliged to refuse a $500 Embassy of Israel Prize scholarship intended for the student who published the best essay on the topic of Israel or the Holocaust.

However it accepts $360,000 a year from the Chinese Government.

I guess they don’t care about Uyghurs.

No comment needed from me … from Newshub today.

“In the year to March, 12.4 per cent of people aged 15 to 24 were not in employment, education or training (NEET), and 14.2 percent of women. That was up from 10.9 percent in total in March 2023, and 11.5 percent for women.

For those aged 20 to 24, the rate was higher – more than 18 percent of women in this age bracket were NEET, up 27 percent year-on-year.

Northland had the highest NEET rate, at 16.3 percent of people aged 15 to 24, followed by Bay of Plenty, at 16.2 percent.”

Alwyn Poole
Innovative Education Consultants
www.innovativeeducation.co.nz
alwynpoole.substack.com
www.linkedin.com/in/alwyn-poole-16b02151/

The Herald reports:

A Treasury analysis of the Government’s tax cuts has found that the 20 per cent of households with the lowest incomes will see their weekly incomes increase by just $13 a week on average, which is just a third of the increase that the top 20 per cent of households will receive.

Any change to tax brackets or rates will always refund more money to those who pay more tax. They are the ones who have had the largest tax increases over the last 14 years.

What is the useful comparison is how the reduction in tax compares to their overall income. Here’s what they are as a proportion of average income for each quintile:

• 1: 3.1%
• 2: 3.4%
• 3: 3.3%
• 4: 3.0%
• 5: 1.8%

So the bottom three quintiles (low to middle) get the biggest boost in relative income and the top quintile the smallest.

Matt Nippert has looked at this previously and Philip Crump has done some more digging. TPM received $120,000 from the Aotearoa Te Kahu Partnership, which it failed to disclose. The purpose of electoral law is that we know the identify of major donors. So who is this very very generous donor?

I blogged in 2021:

The real mystery is AOTEAROA TE KAHU LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. Go to the register of limited partnerships and you find they act on behalf of AOTEAROA TE KAHU GP LIMITED.

Their shareholder is ATK NOMINEES LIMITED. And their shareholder is MORRISON KENT LIMITED. It is fair to assume Morrison Kent are not the actual shareholders but are acting for someone.

So this leaves the question who actually controls and funds Aotearoa Te Kahu and made the decision to donate $120,000 to the Maori Party?

Well the company has now closed down but the contact address was for a Greymouth Holdings which is registered to Mark Dunphy, the CEO of Greymouth Petroleum and former Fay Richwhite banker. The name may be a reference to the Kahu exploration well near Taranaki.

And former co-leader Tariana Turia praised the company in 2009.

Now I’m all for companies, including oil and gas companies, donating to political parties. But why was this hidden behind multiple entities, especially when the law requires the actual donor to be identified, if the donation is on behalf of someone else.

Questions that should be asked:

• Is the donation actually from Greymouth Petroleum?
• If so, did TPM know it was?
• Why was it hidden behind three other corporate entities?
• What was the rationale for the donation?

The Post reports:

In what will likely prove a controversial speech by Infrastructure minister Chris Bishop to Local Government New Zealand at the Public Trust Hall in Wellington last night, Bishop outlined a significant shake up of how infrastructure is paid for in New Zealand.

And it isn’t just in a speech. In a paper that went to Cabinet on “Improving Infrastructure and Financing”, obtained by The Post, Bishop spelled out the failures of the current financing arrangements and the Government’s new approach.

Between the cabinet paper and the speech, toll roads, congestion charging, public-private partnerships, water meters and GST-sharing for pro-housing councils could all be on the cards for the Government as part of a suite of changes to the way infrastructure is procured and paid for.

“Decades of underinvestment have left us with significant infrastructure needs that we cannot buy our way out of,” the cabinet paper said.

The cabinet paper paints a picture of underinvestment in a system where the life of assets is short because money that should have been spent on maintenance has effectively been siphoned off by councils and the Crown to spend on competing political priorities.

This is great stuff. The current funding system had led to an infrastructure deficit. We should have user pays for infrastructure such as roads and water. Great to see the Government unafraid of changing the status quo, as this is such a critical area to get right.

Radio NZ reports:

The Education Ministry spent nearly $3 million on one course that enrolled just 42 students and had 29 graduates over two years.

Annual funding of $4.5m for the Te Kawa Matakura course was axed in last month’s Budget, with the government citing consistent underspends and low enrolments.

The level 5 diploma in the knowledge and customs of indidual iwi had just two intakes of students in Te Tai Tokerau in 2020 and 2021.

This is staggering. They spent $100,000 per graduate for a level 5 diploma course!

A great graph from Eric Crampton and Bryce Wilkinson:

So the light blue line is the situation just before the 2017 election. Spending at 27% of GDP and forecast to stay between 26% and 28% until 2031. Labour and Greens promised to keep spending to under 30% of GDP.

Then came Grant Robertson’s well being budget. It saw spending rising to 29% of GDP and forecast to be between 28% and 29% until 2033. This is the reasonable sort of difference you might expect – a centre left government spend 1% to 2% more of GDP than a CR government.

Then Covid-19 hit. Spending rose to 33% of GDP, which was justified as a temporary measure with wage subsidies etc. But two years later it is at 34% of GDP, rather than back down to say 30%. This is where the Government just threw money at anything that moved.

The 2023 PREFU forecast spending still being 31.5% of GDP this year.

The 2024 Budget shows spending just 0.6% lower than PREFU for 2025. This is mainly because GDP is now forecast to be much lower. We won’t get back under 30% until 2027 (if fiscal discipline holds). So the only real way to fund extra spending will be findings savings elsewhere, or having the economy grow faster than projected. It won’t be until 2031 that we are at the level Grant Robertson projected in 2019.

Radio NZ reports:

A science fair hot air balloon kit made by Mat from a coke can and a plastic bag is part of Zuru lore.

It was the first of their constructions, and they began making and selling more of them, eventually getting them into local shops.

In the early 2000s, Mat and Nick – dropping out of university where he was doing a law degree – decided to go all-in and moved to a remote part of Guangzhou, China, where they began manufacturing toys.

Anna followed a few years later. The siblings tell the story of doing it tough for several years – including sleeping under a table in the Hong Kong showroom – before they managed to get a break when Walmart took an interest.

100 years ago almost all the wealthy inherited their wealth. Today most billionaires become one through being entrepreneurs. They create something of value.

They now employ 5,000 staff and are trying to create an automated property construction factory for houses. I don’t begrudge them that they are worth $20 billion, I celebrate it. Their wealth is not at the expense of others – it is by providing things of value.

The left parties want to introduce an asset or wealth tax on anyone who gets too successful. Not content with taxing income, they want to redistribute assets also. But what do you think will happen if they ever succeed in NZ? I can tell you what – the Mowbrays will probably relocate somewhere and take all the income tax, company tax etc they pay with them.

The provisional election results for the European Parliament are:

• EPP, centre-right 184 (-3) seats
• S&D, centre-left 139 (-9) seats
• Renew Europe, centre 80 (-17) seats
• ECR, right 73 (+11) seats
• ID, far right 58 (-18) seats
• Greens, left 52 (-15) seats
• The Left, far left 36 (-4) seats
• Independents 45 seats
• Others 53 seats

You need 361 seats for a majority. The right had 301 and the left 227.

Overall the right groupings lost 10 seats and the left groupings 28 seats (total number fell with UK out).

The Herald reports:

The Government will stop funding the controversial Mongrel Mob-led drug rehabilitation programme Kahukura.

Police Minister Mark Mitchell confirmed funding would not continue under the coalition Government, describing initial decisions by Labour to support the programme as “perverse”.

“We are not going to fund the Mongrel Mob to deliver programmes around meth when they are some of the biggest dealers in methamphetamine. It’s just perverse.”

Good. A reminder that it was Jacinda Ardern’s personal decision to fund the programme.