Canadian PM Justin Trudeau is resigning this week, in advance of a no confidence vote in his Government he was going to lose. The majority of his MPs had called for him to go.

It will be interesting to see if a change of leader means the no confidence motion still goes ahead. But regardless of whether the election is early 2025 or later in the year, the Liberals look to lose more than half their seats.

Stuff reported:

More Kāinga Ora tenants have been evicted for disruptive behaviour in the first four months of this financial year than over the previous two full years due to an improved system to tackle problems.

The improved system is a new Government that told them it would not tolerate tenants who abuse and terrorise their neighbours.

In the 2022-2023 year there were 57 warning issued. That jumped to 202 in the 2023-2024 year.

A whopping 375 warnings were issued between July 1 and October 31 this year.

So the number of warnings is around 20 times higher than two years ago. Again a good thing that abusive tenants now face consequences.

Newsroom reports:

A letter sent by Opposition leader Chris Hipkins to BlackRock asking for assistance to ensure 160 terminated SolarZero staff are paid what they are owed has been met with silence.

Hipkins sent a letter to David Giordano, BlackRock’s managing director of climate infrastructure, on December 4, one week after news broke that NZ’s leading solar panel company was going into liquidation. 

Hipkins’ letter outlines to Giordano the substantial role SolarZero had played in adding capacity to the energy market and his own government’s work with BlackRock to develop climate infrastructure, before broaching the topic of the solar company’s collapse.

“Due to the closure of SolarZero, close to 200 people have lost their jobs right before Christmas. They are concerned they have not received their holiday pay or notice period and several contractors are worried that they will not be paid,” Hipkins wrote.

It was Hipkins’ Government that poured taxpayer money into SolarZero, so maybe Labour should help out the staff?

If they had not put $150 million of corporate welfare into the company, it probably wouldn’t have taken on so much debt, and collapsed. The same happened with Mt Ruapehu. The board would have probably made different decisions, if they didn’t have $150 million of free money.

I support the principles of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, but suggest an alternate way to achieve the desired outcomes.

I think it is useful to approach the issues this bill covers in steps. The first step is whether it would be a good idea for there to be a legislative definition of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

I think Parliament would be derelict in its duty, not to provide a legislative defintion. If Parliament is to pass dozens of laws referring to the Principles, it should provide certainity on what it means in doing so.

The next step is whether the three proposed principles are the correct interpretation of the intention of those who signed the Treaty. This is very challenging, as there is legitimate disagreement and debate on this. The historical record can be intepreted in multiple ways, and the dominant interpretation has changed massively over time from Sir Apirana Ngata to today. This actually makes the case for why there should be a legislative definition.

While I personally like the proposed principles in this bill, I favour certainity over personal preference. I would challenge opponents of the current version of the biill to propose alternate wording for the principles, rather than have Parliament provide no guidance at all. Then there could be an informed debate between two versions of the Principles.

I would much rather have a legislative definition of the Principles that I 75% agree with, than no legislative definition at all.

An alternative approach to this issue, if providing a legislative definition of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi is not possible is to take the principles of this bill and entrench them in the Bill of Rights Act as principles of a liberal democratic country – and note that no interpretation of the Treaty can override entrenched human rights such as equality of suffrage.

A possible wording could be:

No policy or action by the Government (including Treaty of Waitangi issues) can over-ride the following:

* The Executive Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and the Parliament of New Zealand has full power to make laws in the best interests of everyone; and in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.
 
* Everyone is entitled, without discrimination, to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law; and the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights including equality of suffrage and the rights of Citizenship by birth.

NB – Submissions are open until 11.59 pm Tuesday. You can submit here.

NewstalkZB reports:

Police have restrained more than $2.5 million in assets, including four properties in Gisborne, after a discovery of undeclared tobacco was intercepted at the border.

It comes after Customs intercepted 110kg of loose tobacco and more than 230,000 cigarettes – approximately 10,000 packets – concealed in Chinese tea packets in November last year, bound for residential and business addresses in Napier and Gisborne.

The black market is already very active in New Zealand. The last Government’s plans to gradually prohibit tobacco would have just seen it grow even more rapidly.

Prohibition has failed for alcohol and cannabis, so it is strange to see people so upset that this Government dropped Labour’s plans to prohibit tobacco.

Radio NZ reports:

Universities want a big increase in equity funding for struggling students, and say money should be targeted based on students’ NCEA results, rather than race or disability.

The government’s review of universities asked how to tackle barriers to student success.

Universities New Zealand’s submission said students who passed 90 percent of their first-year courses were most likely to be successful at university. …

The report said equity funding should therefore be targeted to students with the worst school grades.

Having equity funding targeted towards people based on their actual grades, rather than their race seems very sensible.

David Harvey writes:

One of the critical features of legal education is that it encourages and demands independence of thought and expression and that independence is crucial for the Faculty of Law and those who teach.

Faculties of Law play an important constitutional role in upholding and protecting the rule of law – the idea that law constrains power and holds power to account. To do this, the Law School needs to be independent and be seen to be independent from all other interests. Its existing independence as a faculty enables it and its students to openly scrutinise illegalities and abuses of power by both public and private actors, and to highlight injustice wherever it occurs in the community.

Thus legal education is not just a gateway to a career in law but also a tool for personal development, societal contribution, and professional growth. It equips individuals with the skills, knowledge, and mindset to succeed in diverse fields while fostering a deeper understanding of justice and governance.

All of this is at risk at the University of Auckland.

The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Auckland released a proposal document dated 12 November 2024 entitled “Consideration of the future organization of the Faculties of Law and Business and Economics.”

The proposal suggests merging the Faculty of Law with the Faculty of Business & Economics to form a new, comprehensive faculty that leverages the strengths of both disciplines.

Which means the law school will lose some of its autonomy.

Under this proposal it will become a Department under the umbrella faculty of Business and Economics. The Dean will lose his or her seat at the Council table. Any advocacy for the Law School will be done by the Dean of Business. The independence and identity enjoyed by the Law School will come to an end with the merger.

A loss of independence through combining the Faculties will also alter the academic frame within which our staff and students operate. Every faculty has its own values, culture, priorities and interests, and changing where the Faculty of Law sits in the University will have a significant impact on these core parts of the Faculty’s identity as well as the Faculty’s teaching and research pursuits.

Hopefully the proposal doesn’t proceed.

The Herald reports:

A plan to house 10 child sex offenders in a building near multiple Auckland schools and daycares has been dropped after a strong community outcry.

Despite allegedly originally telling those opposed to the plan that it was not up for consultation, Corrections has scrapped the proposal just weeks out after receiving “feedback”.

The transitional house was set to be leased in the suburb of Alfriston, Takanini, about 1.5km from one of the local primary schools.

I agree a child sex offender shouldn’t be housed within a block or two of a school, but 1.5 kms away from a school is not close by. There will in fact be few areas in New Zealand not within 1.5 kms of a school.

If you draw a 1.5 km radius circle around a school, that will cover an area of 7 million square metres which is 700 hectares or 1,700 acres.

Grant Duncan writes:

The arguments from the TEU and the Greens are intellectually weak, as they only want “free” speech on campus for ideas which they’ve pre-approved, as if they were the academic arbiters, if not the censors. (Who do they think they are?) Anything that opposes what they approve can be de-platformed or shouted down or banned on health and safety grounds.

The reality is both organisations despise free speech. They don’t want debate – they just want acceptance of their views.

In a free society, one is free to say all kinds of incorrect or even offensive things – although beware of public disapproval and of the defamation action, if one goes too far. It’s not an authentic use of freedom, however, to abuse and insult others. Speech that’s motivated by hatred isn’t really “free”: it’s in thrall to a negative emotion. But, from that, it doesn’t necessarily follow that “hate speech” should be outlawed. The law might step in, but only if we could identify a real harm, or threat of harm, to a person or community. After all, the speech-act of threatening to kill is a crime.

In principle, I’m not against the government’s proposal to require universities to adopt a freedom of speech statement. I’m just sorry that there seems to be a need for it, as university communities have let themselves and society down on more than one occasion. They could have set a better example, but they didn’t, and so parliament may have to make them think again.

Too often the left define hate speech as speech they hate, rather than speech which is criminal. There is a big difference.

Penny Simmonds announced:

Tertiary Education and Skills Minister Penny Simmonds and Associate Minister of Education David Seymour today announced legislation changes to strengthen freedom of speech obligations on universities.

“Freedom of speech is fundamental to the concept of academic freedom and there is concern that universities seem to be taking a more risk-averse approach,” Ms Simmonds says.

“Universities should promote diversity of opinion and encourage students to explore new ideas and perspectives. This includes enabling them to hear from invited speakers with a range of viewpoints.”

The proposed changes to the Education and Training Act 2020 will set clear expectations on how universities should approach freedom of speech issues. Each university will adopt a freedom of speech statement consistent with these expectations.

This is excellent news. since Don Brash was banned from speaking at Massey, it has been clear there is a serious problem where a subset of academics and students insist on deplatforming views they don’t agree with on the grounds it makes them feel unsafe.

The expectations agreed by Cabinet are:

• Universities should recognise that freedom of speech is critical to maintaining academic freedom.
• Universities should actively foster an environment where ideas can be challenged, controversial issues discussed, and diverse opinions expressed, in a respectful manner consistent with any university codes.
• Universities’ policies and procedures around freedom of speech should be clear, consistently applied, and focused on fostering genuine debate rather than restricting it.
• Universities should not as institutions take positions on matters that do not directly concern the role or functions of the university.
• Universities should not limit freedom of speech of staff or students, except where it violates the law or as required to avoid disrupting the ordinary activities of the university.
• Universities should seek to uphold their role as critic and conscience of society by providing a platform for invited speakers of diverse viewpoints.
• Universities should not deny the use of university premises by an invited speaker on the basis of their ideas or opinions.

None of this should be controversial, or even needed. But it clearly is. I look forward to seeing the actual bill.

Stuff reports:

Former minister and Te Pāti Māori founder Dame Tariana Turia has died after suffering a stroke, aged 80.

“The whānau of the Honourable Dr Dame Tariana Turia advise, with deep sadness, the passing of their beloved kuia at Whangaehu Marae in Whanganui in the early hours of Friday 3 January 2025,” a statement on the Te Ranga Tupua Facebook said.

“A mother of six; grandmother; great-grandmother and great-grandmother of over 80 mokopuna, Kahurangi (Dame) Tariana will be remembered for spearheading a movement of transformation inspired by her belief in whānau being able to define their own solutions.

“Her introduction of the concept of Whānau Ora in 2002; and her leadership as the first Minister for Whānau Ora in 2010, has been instrumental in changing the ways in which the State have worked for Māori and Pasifika families over the last two decades.

This is sad news. She showed herself to be a person of huge principle when she resigned from Labour in protest over the Forehore and Seabed legislation. It was likely to be the end of her political career. Helen Clark sacked her as a Minister. But she won the (un-contested) by-election and the newly formed Māori Party won four seats at the 2005 election.

She served as a Minister again from 2008 to 2014 in the John Key led Government. Many Ministers have said she was excellent to deal with. That doesn’t mean they agree a lot – it means she worked to achieve outcomes she saw as desirable by focusing on issues, not demonising people.

She will be missed.

A reader writes in:

Let’s Identify New Zealand.

In an attempt to heal (for some, the wound is too deep) the current division in the country.
The government could ditch the Principles bill and replace it with a referendum on the official name of the country. Apparently there is no official name of the Country.

Lets keep talking while this is a hot topic.

What a leadership opportunity for the PM to start on the road to unity.
He has already supported the idea of a referendum (see below)

The referendum would be in the form of a choice for New Zealand’s Official, legal name..
a) New Zealand
b) Aotearoa
c) Aotearoa New Zealand

In settling the matter, the Government would edict that NZs official name be used in all Government (central and local) entities. Also be used in any affiliated bodies and bodies funded by government. Yes Passports may have to have a name change, so what?

This would include any official communication from such bodies.

Individuals of course, given the right of freedom of speech, can refer to the country by any name they wish

Reference:  The last attempt at a name change was ideological and is still in process
https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/06/02/petition-to-change-nz-to-aotearoa-presented-to-parliament/

Mr Luxons response per TV1 News

National leader Christopher Luxon said the proposed name change is a constitutional issue and constitutional issues should go to referendum.
 “You don’t just go make those decisions unilaterally.
“Make your case, spend the capital, take it to the New Zealand people, they decide.”

A previous Petition(2021) that went thru the select committee process 
The full report
https://petitions.parliament.nz/3d514d86-cf11-4dcd-b03e-ccade6ed0ef1

Our response to the petitions 
We thank the petitioners for raising this topic. We note Manatū Taonga’s comment that no single law makes “New Zealand” the official name; instead, the consistent use of it has created its official status. We have also observed that the use of “Aotearoa” is increasing in many different contexts. Many people now use the name “Aotearoa” or “Aotearoa New Zealand” without any official change at this time. We suggest that the petitioners may wish to consider starting a citizens-initiated referendum. To hold a citizens-initiated referendum, a person has to get signatures from at least 10 percent of eligible voters.

https://www.1news.co.nz/2021/09/28/1news-poll-reveals-what-kiwis-think-about-changing-nzs-name-to-aotearoa/

3 years is a long time in politics

Stuff reports:

At least 15 people have died in the attack on New Orleans’ famed French Quarter, according to a statement from the New Orleans coroner.

A driver wrought carnage on early on New Year’s Day as he steered around a police blockade and rammed a pickup truck into a crowd before being shot to death by police, authorities said.

The FBI is investigating the attack as an act of terrorism and said it does not believe the vehicle driver, identified as 42-year-old Shamsud-Din Jabbar, a US citizen from Texas, acted alone. An Islamic State group flag was found on the vehicle’s trailer hitch, the FBI said.

The French Quarter is always packed, but even more so on New Years Eve. The terrorist would have picked that as a location where he could kill the most people with a vehicle.

And a further story:

Firework mortars and camp fuel canisters were found stuffed into the back of the Tesla Cybertruck that exploded outside President-elect Donald Trump’s Las Vegas hotel, killing a suspect inside the vehicle and sparking an intense investigation into possible terrorism.

Hard to see how this isn’t terrorism with the link to Trump, and possibly Musk. The choice of a Cybertruck may have (unintentionally) saved lives as it seems the vehicle is so strong that it absorbed much of the explosion, preventing those outside being more seriously injured.

Te Pati Maori have written to organisations saying that if they are part of a Labour-led Government, they will pass retrospective legislation to punish organisations for actions that were entirely legal.

You wonder how much more they need to do, to have media hold them to the same account as any other political party. They say they don’t believe in democracy, and now they say they don’t believe in the rule of law. They also use violent imagery in their publicity materials. Isn’t this a classic example of what one would normally call an extremist fringe party?

The PSC released:

The Public Service Commission has received the final report on the inquiry into the protection of personal information. …

The inquiry took six months and was complex, involving six agencies, third-party service providers and findings that will impact all of the public service. Some matters will also require referral to other authorities for further consideration.  

“The inquiry’s findings will require a thorough response,” says Ms Baggott.

“The protection of personal information is paramount and it’s important we get the response right.”

The commission intends to release the findings and its response at the end of January.

It is hard to imagine there was no misuse found, considering they need six weeks just to work out a response. The referral to other authorities statement also strongly suggests that the blanket denials have not held up.

It will be fascinating to read the report, once it is released.

Hobson’s Pledge reports:

We attempted to book the Sunday Star Times, The Post, the Christchurch Press, and The Southland Times. It would have been a tidy sum of money for the financially beleaguered media outlet…

Our ad was very simple. Just words on a page communicating what is at the heart of the debate – equal rights. Vote for the Bill for equal rights. Say no to the Bill, say no to equal rights. 

Stuff has the right to refuse to run advertisements they don’t like. And we have the right to make a judgement about why Stuff is doing so.

It is no coincidence that almost all advertisements turned down by legacy media such as Stuff and the Herald are advocacy advertisements from centre right groups.

The media say they are so poor that they need the Government to pass a special law to bail them out, yet they turn down legal advertisements.

It is puzzling to me why this National-led Government is trying to pass a special law to force successful Internet companies to fund legacy media companies. Not only is it against core National principles of belief in markets, it is also practically one of the stupidest things they could do. Why would you reward legacy media companies for turning down advertisements from centre right groups? Doing so will merely create an even more hostile environment for the parties of Government.

Stuff reports:

A police officer has died after a car “being used as a weapon” hit her and a colleague, in a New Year’s Eve incident in Nelson.

After hitting the two officers, the vehicle allegedly returned and rammed a police car with an officer and a member of the public inside.

After due process and a trial, the driver should be sentenced to life without parole. They tried to kill multiple police officers.

The victim was named as Senior Sergeant Lyn Fleming, age 62.

She is the 34th police officer since 1890 to be killed on duty. Thoughts are with her family, friends, colleagues and wider police family.

Police Commissioner Richard Chambers said at just after 2am, officers Fleming and Ramsay were on a routine foot patrol in Buxton Square carpark in Nelson when completely unprovoked, a vehicle drove towards them, at speed, hitting both of them.

By coincidence I was staying around 20 metres from Buxton Square last night, and got there not long before it happened. I was in Nelson for a friend’s 60th birthday party and after the fireworks at midnight tried to get a taxi back to Quest Nelson. The delay was so long I started walking and walked much of the six kms and got back to my room some time between 1 am and 2 am.

A terrible start to 2025.

Liam Hehir points out:

You might think the decision to cancel the so-called mega ferries for New Zealand’s Cook Strait was a mistake. Reasonable people can disagree on whether the new government’s pivot to smaller, more affordable vessels was the right call. But one thing should be clear: the situation was the Hospital pass from Hell 

You probably won’t pick that up reading Newsroom or Stuff. The simplistic media narrative here is that this has been a completely self-inflicted wound for National. 

But if the current situation is the disaster the journos are making out, it’s hard to see why they are also giving a free pass to Chris Hipkins. If this is a catastrophe (and that’s a big if), then he deserves much of the criticism – and it’s hard to see how both Labour and the press gallery expect to have it both ways here.

What Hehir is referring to is this:

As KiwiRail noted to incoming finance minister Nicola Willis, the 2023 PREFU made no meaningful allowance for the additional funding required to save Project iReX. This was despite repeated warnings from KiwiRail throughout 2023 that at least $950 million in additional funding was necessary to proceed.

Hehir points out there are are two explanations for this:

• Scenario 1: Labour Wasn’t Serious About Funding the Ferries
• Scenario 2: Labour Deliberately Hid the Problem

The conclusion:

If the mega ferries were so crucial we had to say yes to the extra cost then the omission of funding from the PREFU is not a minor oversight. It is a glaring example of political evasion that demands accountability. 

If we accept the argument of Chris Hipkins that the mega ferries were so critical to New Zealand’s infrastructure then we must also agree that he is condemning bimself. He was prime minister at the various key points and so he bears responsibility for that failure as much as anyone else does. The only thing more galling than his current outrage is the fact that he isn’t being asked any questions about it.

The hypocrisy is great.

Stuff reported:

A renowned Auckland University of Technology historian has cancelled an upcoming speech at the National Library of New Zealand, after claims they tried to censor what he was going to say.

Professor Paul Moon was set to give a lecture in February 2025 on British policy leading up to the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi.

“The library asked me to provide a summary of my talk, and when I did, they were concerned that the word ‘whakapapa’ was included, with no explanation as to why,” he said.

He “very reluctantly” removed it.

“I then received notice yesterday from the Library that they wished me to take out a quote from the summary of my speech by the historian John Seeley, which famously described the British Empire being ‘acquired in a fit absence of mind’.”

Moon says according to the libraries director, the reason was “there was some anxiety that this quote ‘could be seen as us agreeing with Britain conquering the world’.”

The quote, according to Moon, was actually about the “chaotic and disjointed process of policy development among the various branches of the British Government in the 18th and 19th centuries.”

Moon said the talk was set to be “orthodox”, with nothing

Sad to see the National Library trying to control what an academic can say in a public lecture they host.

The Minister weighed in:

Minister of Internal Affairs Brooke van Velden has spoken to Rachel Esson, the National Librarian responsible for the National Library of New Zealand, about the importance of the Government institution remaining impartial and not attempting to censor academics hosted to talk at the National Library.

“It is essential that Government agencies act impartially and do not attempt to censor the speech of academics. I have been assured by Ms Esson that the National Library share this view and look to host a range of speakers with diverse perspectives”, says Ms van Velden. …

The National Library often make minor edits to the summary of public lectures for length and clarity. However, changing an author’s summary out of political sensitivity is not acceptable and the National Library has acknowledged this.

Good to have the Minister make clear this was unacceptable.