An interesting chart from Federated Farmers showing their members’ confidence in their economic conditions.

So around 2010 confidence went positive. From 2012 to 2017 it fluctuated up and down. In 2018 it dropped to -34% and stayed low but then in 2021 it plummeted to -80% which is about as negative as you can imagine. This is what happens when you try and regulate a sector to death.

The change of government saw a massive boost in confidence. However it is now only +6% indicating that future conditions are still pretty uncertain. I suspect much of this is Trump’s 15% tariffs on NZ exports.

A dramatic graph. The rest of the world has kept coal consumption almost static for the last 30 years while China has tripled its consumption.

This comes from Doomberg who argues that the Chinese Communist Party financially supports climate activists to hinder American energy development, with an example being the Energy Foundation China which has disbursed over $500 million to more than 4,000 climate-related projects.

Jamie Beaton writes:

For too long, New Zealand’s education system has been content to drift in a sea of mediocrity. Everyone has known for a long time that NCEA is broken. Thirteen years ago, when I finished high school, it was widely recognised among my peers that the system was too easy, gameable, and a disservice to our students.

Not many people found an education company while a teenager, and within a decade have grown it to be worth around a billion dollars. I reckon he may know something about education globally.

The basic hallmarks of a good education system are: 1) standardisation, so grades are meaningful and comparable nationwide; 2) world-class benchmarking, to ensure if a Kiwi excels in our schools, they can compete globally; and 3) robust assessment.

The interesting thing with that list is NCEA appears to fail not just one pillar, but all three. It does not have standard grades, it is not benchmarked, and it does not have robust assessment.

Obviously, we need to foster curiosity, a love of learning, intellectual debate, and free inquiry. However, a system that breeds curiosity and one that has rigorous examinations aren’t contradictory. In fact, when students are deeply engaged in school, their ability to be curious in class is far higher.

Yes, it is not an either/or.

In my work with Crimson Education, I’ve witnessed countless brilliant New Zealand students struggle to gain admission to elite universities not because they lack talent, but because NCEA hasn’t equipped them with the academic rigour required. When you compare NCEA to the International Baccalaureate or Cambridge A Levels, the gap is stark and sobering. 

I have been surprised to see issues like testing and rigour become political footballs. They can’t be – and any team that wants to try to advocate for inward-facing mediocrity will always lose in the long run. The need for Kiwis to be able to win on the world stage with an education system that matches our ambition is critical. We cannot look inward and pat ourselves on the back as the world relentlessly marches forward without us.

I still get angry remembering the article where some school principals said it was unfair some students would not be able to get NCEA even though they couldn’t read, write or do simple maths. Mediocrity dressed up as equity is so wrong.

True equity means ensuring that if a student chooses the New Zealand curriculum, and they throw everything they’ve got at their education, there is no door in the world that isn’t open to them.

That’s the ambition we want.

Emeritus Professor of Population Health Ruth Bonita writes:

The Government’s decision to introduce a lower excise rate for heated tobacco products (HTPs) has been widely framed as “giving tax breaks to tobacco companies”. It’s a provocative line – and politically potent – but it doesn’t help us have an honest, evidence-informed discussion about how to reduce smoking harm, particularly for the most disadvantaged New Zealanders, or how to deal with conflicts of interest.

Let’s be clear: this isn’t a corporate subsidy, so long as the reduced tax is passed on with cheaper products. It’s an excise adjustment applied to a class of tobacco products that heat rather than burn tobacco. (Like vaping products, HTPs are marketed as smoke-free alternatives to cigarettes, but are not the same thing.)

Combustion is what makes smoking lethal. Cigarettes burn at over 800C, releasing thousands of toxic compounds. Heated tobacco products operate at much lower temperatures and don’t produce smoke – just an aerosol – with far fewer harmful constituents.

Making a reduced harm product cheaper than a greater harm product is a very sensible strategy, that has been proven to work with products such as vaping.

Unfortunately, it appears Philip Morris International hasn’t yet passed on the tax savings to the small number of HTP users in New Zealand – this is the real scandal.

If this is the case, then the trial will probably not result in any reduction in harm as smokers won’t transition. In that case it should not be extended. Decisions should be based on evidence, not hysteria.

Critics argue there’s insufficient evidence that HTPs help people quit, but the UK Office for Health Improvement and Disabilities, the UK Committee on Toxicity, and the US Food and Drug Administration all acknowledge HTPs reduce exposure to toxicants compared with cigarettes. That doesn’t make them harmless – but being less harmful than smoking is enough to warrant a differential tax.

I agree. Do not let perfect be the enemy of good.

The example of Japan is instructive. There, HTPs make up over 30 percent of tobacco sales. Though vaping is banned, cigarette consumption has plummeted by 40 percent in some markets. Surveys suggest many smokers switched completely to HTPs. Youth uptake has been minimal. No policy is perfect, but that’s a shift in the right direction.

Again, lets follow the evidence.

In a country that leads the world with its Smokefree 2025 goal, we should be asking how to accelerate the decline in smoking, not defending a one-size-fits-all excise regime that’s increasingly disconnected from the realities of risk, behaviour, and equity.

If HTPs can help some people switch, pricing them appropriately is not a scandal. It’s a good policy – provided it’s transparent, monitored, and grounded in evidence, and the tax savings are passed on to consumers.

Again, a refreshingly sensible approach.

Stuff reports:

Hamas leaders could be forced to leave Gaza after Middle Eastern states united behind a new plan to end the 22-month-long war.

Qatar and Turkey, two of the group’s main patrons, have thrown their weight behind a French and Saudi peace initiative that sharply increases pressure on Hamas to disarm, surrender power and accept exile.

Senior Gulf officials said the rare display of regional unity could isolate the movement to the point where it has no option but to comply.

“We genuinely believe we have a shot at this,” one diplomat said. “Hamas is in a corner. They don’t have much choice.”

Israel’s long and bloody war in Gaza has left Hamas so enfeebled that Arab officials believe there is now a “golden opportunity” to deliver a final blow.

I’ll believe it when It happens, but this would be a great outcome which would give Palestinians in Gaza a chance to live in peace. The war has been terrible, but a Hamas free future for Gaza would at least make the toll of war slightly better.

Saudi Arabia and France are driving an initiative aimed at the holy grail of diplomacy: a two-state peace deal creating a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

With Washington struggling to make headway, Paris and Riyadh co-hosted a conference at the United Nations in New York this week that forges a grand bargain between Europe and the Arab world.

Under a plan led by Jean-Noel Barrot, the French foreign minister, Arab states agreed to isolate Hamas in return for European recognition of Palestinian statehood before – rather than after – a final deal with Israel.

I support there being a Palestinian State, but it is somewhat performative to recognise a state without being able to say what are its borders you are recognising.

Chris Bishop announced:

Cabinet has agreed to a series of important legislative changes to enable the transition of New Zealand’s 3.5 million light vehicles to paying for our roading network through electronic road user charges, rather than petrol tax, says Transport Minister Chris Bishop.

“The abolition of petrol tax, and the move towards all vehicles (whether they be petrol, diesel, electric or hybrid) paying for roads based on distance and weight, is the biggest change to how we fund our roading network in 50 years,” Mr Bishop says.

Road user charges is a far fairer way of funding roads, than petrol tax (which is very simple though). Paying based on distance travelled and weight is fair.

However I would go one step further and ideally also have charges based on the type of road travelled. Travelling on Transmission Gully should cost you more than travelling on an unsealed gravel road. The more modern and expensive the road, the more you should pay for it.

“The current RUC system is outdated. It’s largely paper based, means people have to constantly monitor their odometers, and requires people to buy RUC in 1000 km chunks.

“We’re not going to shift millions of drivers from a simple system at the pump to queues at retailers. So instead of expanding a clunky government system, we will reform the rules to allow the market to deliver innovative, user-friendly services for drivers.

“A handful of E-RUC companies already do this for about half of our heavy vehicle fleet and there are several companies, both domestic and international, with innovative technology that could make complying with RUC cheaper and easier.”

My preferred system is to have it like my power. Automatic readings every month, and a direct debit.

The usual suspects have got upset over the “opening” of an FBI office in Wellington. I guess they think law enforcement agencies shouldn’t communicate.

But what is really funny is that we have actually had an FBI office in Wellington for well over a decade. The only change is the FBI has upgraded its internal designation from a sub-office to an office. Still has the same capability, and the same FBI staff member there. It just means the staffer doesn’t have to go through Australia anymore.

So all this fuss is basically over the existing office being called an office instead of a sub-office.

Audrey Young chatted to Mark Mitchell, and he revealed his various health challenges from past injuries.

• Lung damage from the 1990s when he woke a sleeping mother and son to get them out of a house an arsonist had set fire to.
• A hammering to his face from four Mongrel Mob members he was following in relation to a gang rape. Maxillofacial surgery rebuilt the eye socket and released the nerve that had been trapped with broken bone.
• Stabbed by a young man with a Samurai sword, slicing through his elbow. Has never had a pain-free day since because it’s done all the nerves. Has had multiple operations to try and relieve the chronic pain
• Survived three explosions in vehicles caused by IEDs. In one he got a whole lot of shrapnel up into his lower back and backside causing nerve damage in his right leg.

It is no surprise that Mark doesn’t support the government funding the Mongrel Mob, as the last Government did!

It’s also a useful reminder of what harm can get caused to first responders.

– 1. The proposed changes to our national qualifications system:

• A semi-vacuum at Year 11.
• 4 out of 5 subjects to “pass” Year 12.
• 4 out of 5 subjects to pass Year 13. No clear guidance on University Entrance. The Minister, herself, predicting outcome declines in the early years of the changes.Consultation closing on the proposed NZ English Curriculum that, to me, appears highly restrictive and significantly boring – unless you are already over 60yo. https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2025/07/two_major_problems_with_the_proposed_nz_english_curriculum.html

– Marginal improvements in the 2024 leavers data for Lever 2 NCEA, Level 3 NCEA and UE.

– A decline in the NCEA Level 1 pass rates for leavers in 2024. This will set the trend for the next two years. 16% of all students who left the NZ education system in 2024 did not have Level 1 NCEA. For Maori that stat was 28%. To repeat 28% of Maori students who left the NZ education system last year (each of whom would have had at least 3,200 funded classroom hours) had no qualification at all.

– We are starting to discuss “norm-referenced” assessments again. This ignores much of the progress in neuroscience in the last 25 years. A teacher’s job is to significantly improve ALL students – like an athletics coach, dance teacher, music teacher, etc. Heading back to a School Certificate, 50% pass-rate, paradigm is like changing the length of the mile every time an athlete runs under 4 minutes.

– For Erica Stanford to be a good and effective Minister of Education – not just a populist – she has one job. She needs to imagine the outcomes of our school qualifications system as 100 houses and to ensure that – at each level – all are fit for purpose and excellent to live in. At present 16 houses of 100 at Level 1 are a mess. For Maori it is 28 out of 100. All of her changes so far do little except reinforce the position of the students who would achieve under any system. She appears to have been captured by a self-interested elite.

A truly effective society looks after those who need it the most. Stanford is significantly failing by that measure – and does not appear to have intent or strategy to change that trajecotory. If self-interest and the economy is important for many onlookers – what are the ongoing effects of 28% of Maori students leaving school with no qualifications at all.

[email protected]

Radio NZ reports:

The Green Party is demanding Māori names be reinstated to electorates in the capital.

It has launched a petition after the Rongotai electorate became Wellington Bays in boundary changes announced last week.

The Representation Commission confirmed final boundary adjustmentsahead of next year’s election.

“Rongotai means ‘sound of the sea,’ it has been the te reo name of our electorate for almost three decades and has been taken away with next to no consultation,” MP Julie Anne Genter said.

Rather than concentrating on issues affecting NZers such as the cost of living, they are doing a petition that is pointless. The reason it is pointless is because the Representation Commission can’t change a decision, once final boundaries are released. The final report is, final. It’s the law.

As for the substance of the decision, Wellington Bays is a pretty uninspiring name. But it is a technically correct name – the electorate has 19 bays in it. Rongotai is the name of a suburb in the electorate which has 40 people living in it, out of over 50,000 in the electorate.”

This is yet another attack on te reo, we have seen it with road signs, passports and now the name of an electorate,” Paul said.

The Representation Commission is primarily made up of public servants and is chaired by a judge. They are independent of government. And the hysteria is misplaced. They have also changed some names from English to te reo. For example:

• New Lynn becomes Waitākere (water falling from the rock)
• Bay of Plenty becomes Mt Maunganui (large mountain)

At Patreon (paywalled) I look at the four criteria under international law you need to recognise a state, and I wonder how the Government can or will answer questions about the criteria when it recognises Palestine.

Specifically what is the territory of the state they are recognising, and whom is the Government of the state they are recognising.

I have lots of details of opinion polls of Palestinians in Gaza. the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The East Jerusalem polls especially may surprise many.

Stuff reports:

NZ’s top security officials were all set to renew the terrorist designation of America’s “violently extreme right-wing populist” group the Proud Boys. But the chair changed his mind at the last minute. Explainer Editor Lloyd Burr delves through 119 pages of official documents. …

A lot of that advice – emails, discussion documents and even a draft announcement – were released on Wednesday, totalling 119 documents.

They show a whole lot of preparation and work to renew the APB terrorist designation – then an 11th hour decision by National Security Board (NSB) chair and Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) CEO Ben King not to.

But on June 17, the day before the deadline, King changed his mind, writing to his DPMC colleagues: “I wanted to have one last look at the assessments before I finally recommended a course of action to the Prime Minister, ahead of the deadline for renewal/redesignation.

“That’s because designating any entity as a terrorist entity is a significant step, and it’s important we maintain the integrity of the system.

“My review of the case for the Proud Boys, however, left me with questions about whether the evidence was sufficient to meet the test. The case, in my view, rests on judgements around intent, and what might have happened if the leadership were not incarcerated.”

The reference to incarceration is because APB leader Henry Enrique Tarrio had been sentenced to 22 years in prison over the Capitol riots. Other APB members had been imprisoned too. But President Donald Trump had pardoned them all earlier in the year.

I don’t know why Ben King changed his mind. Disappointingly he doesn’t consult bloggers on national security terrorist designations. But I’m happy to take an educated guess.

Generally speaking terrorist groups tend to be seen as such, by the government of the country they are based in. The UK Government saw the IRA as a terrorist group, the German Government saw the Red Army faction as a terrorist group etc. The exception tends to be where the government itself is a sponsor of terrorism, such as Iran.

The Trump Administration doesn’t see the Proud Boys as a terrorist group. To the contrary, Trump has pardoned many of them. So if New Zealand had renewed their designation as a terrorist group, it would be potentially seen as very insulting by the US President, if he was told about it.

King’s letter continues to outline his U-turn rationale: “I was not convinced, on a final read, that the Statement of Case met the test required by the Act.

“I want to be clear that Proud Boys is a distasteful, disruptive and corrosive organisation, and that its tactics and methods are well beyond the pale. But I think we require further work and reflection on the evidence base, which will feed into advice for the Prime Minister’s consideration.

“I have recommended to the Prime Minister that he should not proceed with redesignating the Proud Boys.”

King is correct that the Proud Boys are corrosive. But that by itself doesn’t mean they are a terrorist group. Of interest is the fact that NZ was one of only two countries (Canada also) that ever designated them as such.

Ardern, Hipkins, Robertson and Verrall should be known in future as the Covid cowards. They made decisions that had devastating effects on the lives of many New Zealanders and they are refusing to answer questions in public from the Royal Commission on it.

Let us recall what some of their actions were:

1. Stopped New Zealanders from returning home, even to see dying loved ones
2. Made it illegal to leave your home, except for authorised activities or persons
3. Closed the schools
4. Banned unvaccinated people from bars, cafes and restaurants
5. Sacked unvaccinated NZers from multiple industries
6. Spent $66 billion, leading to huge inflation
7. Multiple lockdowns

They did all the above, on the grounds it was necessary on the evidence. They said they were the podium of truth, yet they refuse to front up and answer questions about the evidence their decisions were made on.

They truly are cowards.

We see a very different approach in the UK. Their Royal Commission has heard evidence in public from:

• Former Prime Ministers David Cameron, Theresa May and Boris Johnson
• Former Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon
• Former Northern Ireland First Ministers Arlene Foster and Michelle O’Neill
• Former Chancellor George Osborne
• Former Health Secretaries Jeremy Hunt and Matt Hancock

The difference I guess is the UK politicians are not cowards.

The Herald reports:

Days before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, five protesters broke into a British military base, intent on disabling aircraft that were set to be deployed in bombing missions.

It was March 2003, and the group said it wanted to prevent war crimes and protect civilians. 

Among those who later defended them in court was a 43-year-old human rights lawyer.

His name was Keir Starmer.

In a strange echo, 22 years later, Starmer would face a similar case, but now as Prime Minister of Britain.

In June, activists from a group called Palestine Action broke into a Royal Air Force base, sprayed red paint into aircraft engines and damaged the planes with crowbars. …

But a very different result ensued. 

The protesters in 2003 were prosecuted under criminal laws against property damage.

In June, Starmer’s Government announced that Palestine Action would be added to its list of banned terrorist organisations, alongside groups including al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and Atomwaffen Division, a neo-Nazi group.

It was the first time in modern British history, according to the Government’s adviser on counterterrorism laws, that a protest group that does not call for violence against people had been proscribed as a terrorist organisation.

Palestine Action sound like a bunch of idiots, which we have many of in NZ. They should be prosecuted for any damage they caused, but proscribing them as a terrorist organisation seems absurd.

Stuff reports:

A contender for Auckland’s mayoralty is promising to release a key policy this week after an embarrassing campaign blunder over the weekend.

On Friday, a press release sent out by Kerrin Leoni’s campaign team stated the Auckland councillor, and main contender to incumbent mayor Wayne Brown, would release her fiscal policy plan at the Avondale Markets that weekend.

“Kerrin Leoni will release her fiscal policies at the Avondale Markets on Sunday at 10am,” it said.

But when the day came, she was nowhere to be seen at the West Auckland market, and there was no mention of it elsewhere.

This doesn’t really scream competence, when you forget to turn up to your own policy launch!

Auckland Council is a $4 billion a year operation. Auckland needs a competent Mayor.

The former Ministers spent $60 billion of taxpayers’s money and imposed massive restrictions on New Zealander’s rights as part of the Covid-19 response. They are now refusing to answer questions on their decision making, unless it is done in secret, rather than in public.

This is such a huge contempt for the public. They were happy to stand up at the podium of truth every day, announcing their decisions. But they refuse to front up in public to answer questions on those decisions.

The Herald reports:

A new Treasury paper has criticised the last Government for overspending during the pandemic, leaving the country with a high level of public debt that makes it vulnerable to future shocks.

The paper calculated the total cost of the pandemic at about $66 billion. It put the total fiscal contribution to the pandemic – measured by additional spending and foregone tax revenue – as about 20.4% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), making the response “one of the largest among advanced economies“.

There will, almost beyond doubt, be another global finance shock in the next decade. If we have not reduced our debt significantly by then, we will be in a far worse position to respond to it. You pay down debt when times are good, so you can borrow when times are bad.

Willis pointed in particular to Treasury’s criticism of the last Government for spending the Covid-19 fund on things that were only tangentially related to the Covid response, such as the school lunch programme.

Stuff like the wage subsidy was a sensible intervention. But Labour turned it into a giant slush fund for all sorts of programmes. This meant that they left behind a spending track tens of billions higher than previously.

There has been some poor reporting on the eviction of Chloe Swarbrick from the House. She was not kicked out for saying that Government MPs had no spine. She was kicked out because the Speaker told her she had to withdraw and apologise for saying it, and she refused. It was her decision. Most days MPs get asked by the Speaker to withdraw and apologise for something the Speaker rules is in breach of Standing Orders.

It’s like a rugby game. You may think the referee has made the wrong call. But if you decide that you can ignore the referee and refuse to do what the referee says, then you get booted.

The Hansard shows what happened:

If we find six of 68 Government MPs with a spine, we can stand on the right side of history—

SPEAKER: That is completely unacceptable to make that statement. Withdraw it and apologise.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: No. 

SPEAKER: Then leave the House for the rest of the week. 

Chlöe Swarbrick withdrew from the Chamber.

It is clear as day. It was her decision to refuse the instruction of the Speaker that got her kicked out. It was her decision. All MPs know what happens ifs you refuse to withdraw a statement when ordered to do so.

How long it lasts for is up to Swarbrick, as the Speaker made clear:

I’m resuming the Chair to respond to a point of order that was raised earlier by Ricardo Menéndez March related to the decision I made earlier in the day to ask Chlöe Swarbrick to leave the House. The comment that I made was that it could be for the rest of the week. That was because, while it is true the member can only be removed from the House for the sitting day, the requirement for an apology does not lapse. And so if the member comes back in tomorrow and, at the start of proceedings after the prayer, takes a point of order and withdraws and apologises for the offensive remark, then that will be fine. If she doesn’t, then she’ll be leaving the House again.

So the decision is with Swarbrick.

The Herald reports:

Labour leader Chris Hipkins told his party’s education spokeswoman Willow-Jean Prime she should have responded to attempts the Government was making to brief her on the NCEA change process. 

But he doesn’t believe it was unreasonable for Prime to wait to speak with teachers and parents before meeting Education Minister Erica Stanford.

It is absolutely obvious bullshit that Prime was waiting to speak with teachers and parents first. They must think people are morons.

If that was the case, she would have responded thanking for the offer, and asking if it can be delayed.

Again if that was the case, Prime would not have ignored three seperate communications over three months from the Minister or her office. She basically ghosted the Minister. It’s appalling rudeness, let alone the stupidity. If an Opposition Spokesperson isn’t even able to respond to the Minister, what are they capable of?

And when she finally did reply, after being told by Hipkins office she had to, she just said no. And this was three or four months after she had been in the role. Had she not managed to meet any teachers or parents by then?

What also makes it ridiculous is the notion, that you would want to remain ignorant of what the Government is doing, while you talk to parents and teachers. If you took up the offer, you would then be able to talk to teachers and parents about the issues, and let their views influence your feedback.

Asked on Friday whether Labour was being hypocritical by not initially engaging, Hipkins said he believed “consultation involves more than just having a meeting where you tell people what you’re going to do”. 

“It actually does involve involving them in the process,” he said before noting he included the likes of National’s Nikki Kaye in his work.

Hipkins knows that isn’t what was offered. His spokesperson was offered multiple times a chance to meet the Minister, meet officials, meet the advisory group, have any questions answered and also explicitly “cross-party collaboration”.

The difference is Nikki Kaye wasn’t an arrogant idiot who refused invitations from the Minister.