Henry Cooke writes:

Lawrence Xu-Nan is not a native English speaker. But he speaks it a lot.

The first-term Green MP has spoken more in Parliament than any other MP this term. Not by a little either – Xu-Nan has said 420,000 words, over four times the 102,000 words the average MP has managed.

Xu-Nan has made 1,302 speeches in the House. This is part of the job of an MP – to debate and scrutinise legislation. He has done it six times more than one of the TPM co-leaders. This is a duty many backbench MPs are less than keen on (it can be rather boring!) but it is important.

I reported back in March that Francisco Hernandez has asked three times as many written questions as any other MP. This is also part of the job – gathering information in your portfolios. It takes a lot of time to not just ask the questions (of course staff help), but to read through all the answers and work out what information is useful.

You don’t have to agree with an MP on policy issues, to want then to be diligent and hard working. We should praise Xu-Nan and Hernandez for taking their roles seriously. Some MPs seem to think their job is to get social media likes only.

Stuff reports:

A social media faux pas while en route to a tangi caught Green Party Co-Leader Marama Davidson out as she was “snapped” by her colleague driving over the speed limit on Sunday.

Davidson was travelling to the tangi of former Te Pāti Māori president Whatarangi Winiata when she was exposed by fellow Green MP Hūhana Lyndon, who shared a video of Davidson behind the wheel on Instagram as part of a series showcasing the pair’s journey.

What Lyndon did not account for, however, was the speedometer appearing in full view of the camera, and on it, evidence of what Davidson would later say was a self-proclaimed “error”.

In what can only be described as an inadvertent oversight by Lyndon, the said video showed Davidson was driving at 121kph, 11kph over the designated speed limit on the Kāpiti Expressway.

Having your own colleague pout your speeding is rather hilarious.

The Greens have previously been vocal opponents to speed limit increases, and a party press release last year said the government was “playing politics with people’s lives” when it moved to raise the limits on rural undivided roads.

Do as I say, not as I do!

Jamie Tahana at The Spinoff writes:

Rawiri and his co-leader, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, often speak in terms of broad manifesto. They now want to change the system, not achieve change within the system. They don’t want a seat at the table, they want to smash it.

This is indeed a very insightful way to think about it.

I remind people that there have been over 100 public polls since the election and all of them have said Labour can’t for a Government without Te Pāti Māori.

The Herald reports:

Labour leader Chris Hipkins says his party talked to Superintendent Rakesh Naidoo “several months” before he decided to become a candidate.

And that is when he should have informed the Police.

The policy says at the earliest opportunity. It doesn’t say once your are confirmed which is the latest opportunity.

This is not rocket science. You let your employer know, so they can manage any potential conflicts. You have every right to stand for Parliament, but you must let your boss know early on, so they can take steps to mitigate any issues.

Hipkins said the party ran a shortened selection process for Naidoo so he could make a decision “very late in the piece, so that he could continue to preserve the independence of the police”.

Actually what this means is they put in place a special process so he could hide his intentions from Police.

“He didn’t go through the regular candidate selection process, which takes several months. He went through a different process which took us, literally a matter of days.

“That was because we wanted to make sure that he could protect the independence of the police and so could we.”

Again it has done the opposite. If Labour had not conspired with him to run a special process, then he would have told his boss months ago he was thinking of standing. His boss would have then worked on a plan to ensure he was in a role where he would not face any conflicts. If in the end he didn’t stand, then he would resume his normal role.

“Now, yep, there were conversations earlier on, over several months, but we deliberately did a process for him that was shorter so that he didn’t have to, finally confirm that he wanted to go ahead with a candidacy until right at the last minute.”

Labour and Naidoo choose secrecy over transparency. It was the wrong decision.

The Labour leader said people in different public agencies volunteer to run as candidates for parties across the political spectrum. 

“This is not new, this is not unusual.” 

If a senior member of the police ran as a candidate for an opposing political party while Hipkins was Police Minister, he would “fully understand that”, he said.

State sector employees running for Parliament is indeed not unusual. There is nothing wrong with it. What is wrong is not following the rules and disclosing at the earliest opportunity. If he had done that, then there would be zero issue.

The Post reports:

Police Commissioner Richard Chambers has expressed severe displeasure over the process that led to a superintendent standing at a high spot on the Labour list. …

Chambers said he had only learnt about the possibility of Naidoo being a Labour candidate on Thursday afternoon, ahead of the list-ranking process that happened over the weekend.

“On Thursday afternoon I was informed by his supervisor that Superintendent Rakesh Naidoo was considering standing as a candidate for the Labour Party in the general election. On Sunday afternoon, I was told Superintendent Naidoo had confirmed he had accepted a position on Labour’s list,” Chambers said in a statement.

“Superintendent Naidoo has not contacted me directly on this and I am very disappointed that he did not inform me or his supervisor that he was in discussions about his candidacy at an earlier stage.”

“The Police Manual requires staff who are intending to stand for public office to advise of their intentions as early as possible. That is essential to ensure conflicts of interest and work tasks can be managed so that the neutrality and impartiality of Police is not brought into question.”

Instead of as early as possible, it was done as late as possible. There is no way he only decided last week he wanted to stand, and a few days later he is a highly ranked list candidate.

The process in the Labour rules is:

1. Nominations open for up to two months
2. Regional List Ranking Conferences
3. National Moderating Committee

This is again a process that takes months, not weeks or days. And he told his boss about it only four days before it was announced.

I suspect he will argue that he only made a final decision to stand last week – basically once he was told he had a high list ranking. But that is not the test. It is about intentions.

The question media should ask Mr Naidoo is on what date did he sign the internal nomination form seeking to be a candidate for Labour. I bet you it wasn’t just this week.

Another question would be whether his name went to a Regional List Ranking Conference, and when was that held.

I’ve managed to locate the Police Manual online. It is very clear:

Police employees intending to seek election to any elected public office must advise their District Commander or Director at the earliest opportunity so that the potential impact on their role as a Police employee and any necessary plan of action can be discussed early.

So it is black and white – the earliest opportunity. This would be before you even sign a nomination form.

By Lucy Rogers

Today Iran violated the April ceasefire by firing missiles at Israel. In response, Israel fired missiles at Iran. RNZ’s headline was literally “Israel hits Iran with new strikes despite Trump admonition”:

RNZ make it sound like Israel is the one at fault here, in my view deliberately. This is shocking reporting.

I’m reminded of Malcolm Muggeridge’s quote: “People do not believe lies because they have to, but because they want to.” Why do people want to believe lies about Israel? A reminder by the way that the Islamic Republic is an evil and monstrous dictatorship.

According to my understanding RNZ receives taxpayer funding. National should do something useful for a change and scrap it.

Stuff reports:

Transport investigators say it’s “too soon” to say what caused a serious train crash on Wellington’s Johnsonville line. …

Speaking on Sunday, Cook described the crash as a “serious incident” but said investigators were still at an early stage and no conclusions had been reached about its cause.

It could take between 12 months and two years to produce a report on the accident, Cook said.

That’s just crazy. Two years to report on why a relatively slow moving train derailed. This is not about why a plane crashed. If they don’t have a very good idea within five days, there is something wrong.

Audrey Young notes:

The Public Service Association more than most unions has attempted an appearance of political neutrality, not least because the concept lies at the heart of its members’ work. But perhaps it should give up the pretence.

The press release with its response to the announcement of $2.4b of cuts was headed: “Public Services will be decimated by reckless plan to fire nearly 9000 workers”.

“This is an act of wilful destruction of the public service and all New Zealanders will pay a price for this reckless plan,” it said.

Its response to a similar move by the then-Labour Government on August 28, 2023, to find $4b in savings was contained in a press release headed: “Public service workers must help identify savings in Government new cost cutting drive”.

It was issued by the same person, national secretary Duane Leo, at the same union, for even deeper cuts, but by a Labour Government.

The press release cooed some more: “While it’s never a good time to cut spending on public services, we understand as revenue falls during challenging economic times, savings need to be found”.

There is no doubt that the PSA does some great work on behalf of its members and there is no doubt that this Government is more hostile to unions than a Labour Government would be. But perhaps the PSA should just drop the pretence and affiliate to the Labour Party.

The comparison is stark. They call smaller savings sought by National as reckless wilful destruction but labeled larger proposed cost by Labour as “savings need to be found”

I contrast them to a far more principled union – the Taxpayers’ Union. While the TU is obviously fiscally conservative, putting them on the centre-right, they have often been harshly critical of the National-led Government over the last few years. Hell, sometimes I wince at their press release ripping into the Government.

But that is the difference – one union puts principle ahead of party. The PSA does not.

Labour have released their party list. People want to know who is likely to get in as a List MP. First how many overall seats will they get? On the average of the public polls it is 39. Then it is how many electorates will they win? Well purely on applying the current party vote in the polls to the 2023 results, Labour would win 26 electorates. Note this doesn’t take account of candidate quality, so isn;’t a projection – just an assumption.

So this would leave 13 List spots for Labour candidates who don’t win their electorates or are list only. So on current polling the Labour List MPs would be:

1. Willie Jackson
2. Megan Woods
3. Ayesha Verrall
4. Vanushi Walters
5. Kieran McAnulty
6. Rakesh Naidoo
7. Jan Tinetti
8. Damien O’Connor
9. Shanan Halbert
10. Chris Flatt
11. Kingi Kiriona
12. Camilla Belich
13. Glen Bennett

So which current MPs would miss out on current polling:

• Deborah Russel
• Georgie Dansey
• Dan Rosewarne
• Greg O’Connor (failed to get a list place)

I’m surprised that they have placed Camilla Belich so low. If Labour drop 2% in the polls, she could miss out – or if they win two more electorates than 26.

Generally when people follow a politician on Facebook, it is because they agree with them. So it is fairly unusual to have an opposition MP get a huge backlash from their own Facebook pages. But Ginny Andersen is managing it.

She posted:

It’s been a busy week meeting with principals, educators and communities who are deeply concerned about National’s education reforms.

One message came through loud and clear: our children are not all the same, so why are we building a one-size-fits-all education system?

The Government is modelling many of its changes on reforms introduced in England. More than a decade later, those reforms have failed to close achievement gaps. Disadvantaged students remain behind their peers, students with additional learning needs continue to struggle, and many educators question whether a highly prescribed curriculum serves diverse learners well.

Principals in South and West Auckland are particularly worried about the impact on their communities, who already facing significant challenges. They fear these changes will leave even more children behind.

Kiwi kids deserve a curriculum that reflects who we are as New Zealanders – our stories, our communities and our unique place in the world. We don’t need imported ideas that have already failed to deliver for many learners overseas.

The top comments are:

So not just everyone disagreeing, but the huge number of upticks to those thanking Erica.

And more:

These are not cherry picked. These are the top listed comments in her post. I hope she keeps her posting up!

The House has voted through the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill to select committee. I understand the intent of the bill, but is is really badly drafted. The key provision is:

13A Meaning of woman or female

In any legislation, regardless of gender identity,—

(a) woman means an adult human biological female; and 

(b) female means a human biological female.

13B Meaning of man or male

In any legislation, regardless of gender identity,—

(a) man means an adult human biological male; and 

(b) male means a human biological male.

So three big issues.

1. They define female as meaning a human biological female. So they say a female is a female. Umm.
2. They don’t define adult, making it 20 by default
3. They don’t define biological woman or male, which Liam Hehir sets out as a problem below

https://twitter.com/PronouncedHare/status/2056981151156437214

I also have a substantive problem in that the proposed law would potentially remove flexibility, where it is warranted.

My preferred legislative solution would be:

1. Define sex as meaning biological sex as determined by gametes.
2. Define gender as meaning your sex unless you have gone through a legal process to change your gender identity to either the other gender or non-binary.
3. Birth certificates would reflect sex
4. Passports would reflect gender
5. In legislation any reference to male or female would be assumed to be sex, unless explicitly stated to be gender. This would allow flexibility as appropriate.

Verity Johnson writes:

But I did spend, over the period of three days, over five hours talking to Gerry Brownlee one on one. We see the world completely differently. We have nothing in common. And I don’t think we share a single similar opinion. I don’t think he agreed with a single thing I said the whole time.

But I don’t think I’ve ever had someone listen so sincerely to what I was saying.

Nor engage so thoughtfully, and genuinely, in the points I’m trying to make.

And, above everything, care.

Now, I talk a lot of smack about politicians. About an indifferent, unshakable, elite old school mentality of The Establishment that has screwed over a whole new generation of New Zealanders.

I assumed he’d be the poster boy for that. And I got him totally wrong. I arrived thinking I’d loathe him. I left thinking I should go drinking with him next time I’m down here.

In other words, I wrote him off as a pale stale boomer male who’d bounce between patronising me and dismissing me. And in doing so, I learnt a lot more about myself than I did about him.

I’m pleased Verity got beyond the caricature.

Before the Mayoral election I blogged:

Received a pamphlet from Andrew Little in the letterbox. He makes five key pledges in it, so I thought it would be useful to record them here, and analyse how one could judge if he has kept his word, if he is elected Mayor.

They are:

1 Keep Rates down

A rates increase no larger than inflation would fulfil this promise well. But what could count as even a partial success? Well the Whanau Council has a 12% rates increased planned for next year, so a minimal success would be getting that to under 10%.

The current Council has further rates increases of 7% for out years. So rates increases of under 5% from 27/28 would qualify.

I said under 10% would be a minimal success. Little and the Council got it down to 5.8%. That is a pretty decent achievement. I continue to be impressed with Little’s initial year as Mayor.

The Herald reports:

The Government is introducing sweeping changes to copyright law, which will see songs like I See Red by Split Enz, Dragon’s April Sun in Cuba and Hello Sailor’s Gutter Black enjoy extended copyright protection.

Copyright protection for these songs would expire in the next two years without the law change.

As they should. It was released 48 years ago. 50 years is more than enough time to be copyrighted. Without finite copyright limits we would be paying copyright of Shakespeare and Mozart.

I think the maximum copyright term should be 50 years or life + 20 years.That is enough to reward the creator and if they die, their children.

Copyright reform as been on the cards since the last Government entered into trade agreements with the UK and the EU that promised to align some parts of New Zealand’s domestic law with international standards.

The changes must be made by May 1, 2028.

The laws extend the copyright protection period for most works by 20 years, so they are protected for either 70 years from the creator’s death or 70 years from publication.

So we have to do it, under the FTAs. But that doesn’t mean we should try and sell it as a good thing for NZ. It will mainly benefit huge multinational studios.

Copyright for life + 70 years means it could be 150 years until something enters the public domain.

Grant Robertson’s 2023 Budget included forecasts for 2026/27. This allows us to directly compare what Grant Robertson said Labour would spend in 26/27 vs what Nicola Willis said she would spend.

Grant said he would spend $31.6 billion on health. Nicola Willis announced $33.9 billion. That’s $2.3 billion more, or 7.2% greater, And again this is comparing 26/27 vs 26/27. The actual increase from 23/24 is 20.2%. So Nicola Willis has funded the health system 20% greater than in 2023, and 7% greater than Labour promised in 2023.

Grant said he would spend $20.9 billion on education. Nicola Willis announced $24.1 billion. That’s $3.2 billion more, or 15.3% greater, And again this is comparing 26/27 vs 26/27. So Nicola Willis has funded the education system 15% greater than Labour promised in 2023.

Cutting back office expenditure does allow you to spend more on frontline services.

Anyone who claims this is an austerity budget is either one of:

1. Certifiable
2. Stupid
3. Dishonest

A new political party “Palestine Free from the River to the Sea” are explicitly saying that “Our purpose in creating a party is not to seek power, but to raise awareness. If we can reach 500 members quickly we will qualify for government funding to be used in campaign advertising. Every cent will go towards supporting the cause of Palestinian liberation.” See: https://www.psna.nz/news/newsletter-no-242

They go on to clarify that “You can join even if you belong to another party. We don’t ask for your loyalty to us. We don’t even ask that you vote for us.”

Finding 500 members who do not even intend to vote for you in order to qualify for taxpayer funding to promote a political message is an abuse of the system, and shines a spotlight on the fact that political parties should not be receiving taxpayer funding in the first place. If a political party cannot fundraise enough for its own political advertising, it shouldn’t be running for Parliament.

According to the Elections NZ website, $4,145,750 is currently being allocated to all parties for political advertising: https://elections.nz/media-and-news/2026/2026-broadcasting-allocation-decision That’s almost the entirety of the IPCA’s $5,000,000 annual budget. Scrap taxpayer funded political advertising which has now shown itself to be open to abuse by fringe parties like the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party or Vision New Zealand, and give it to the IPCA instead. I daresay this country will do without a few extra social media ads for parties which have no hope of getting into Parliament.

1 News reported:

US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth says New Zealand is “freeloading” off the American military because of its low level of military spending.

Multiple media have reported along these lines, but the truth is that Hegseth did not target New Zealand. It only came up because of a question by a journalist that was designed to generate a headline.

It is true that the US wants all friendly countries to increase defence spending, and has said they think 3.5% of GDP should be the minimum. Wanting allies and friends to spend more has been US policy for many decades. Trump has been much more muscular (and successful) in promoting this.

The speech to an Asia-Pacific conference did not mention New Zealand. In fact it was a plaudit to South Korea:

If you want to see what burden sharing looks like, consider the Republic of Korea. South Korea has invested consistently in its own defense, not because, because it does not have the luxury of treating war like an academic exercise. They live on the front lines, and so they build real combat power. President Lee’s decision to increase defense spending to the new global standard of 3.5% and to assume greater responsibility for its conventional defense reflects simply a clear-eyed understanding of the threat environment. It won’t be easy, but it’s necessary for the security and prosperity of his country. This was a hard-nosed decision, because they see the world as it actually is. We applaud the pragmatism and leadership demonstrated by Seoul. The region will be far more stable and more secure when other allies and partners follow that path.

Hegseth also went on to praise increased spending by Philippines, Australia, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and Japan. His speech wasn’t chiding, it was in fact praising allies for doing more.

He then did the stick to go with the carrot:

President Trump is setting the gold standard. We demand 3.5% from our allies and partners, and we are going well beyond that number. We expect every single ally and partner to match that kind of resolve. For those nations that rise to this challenge that embrace responsibility as true partners, the benefits will be clear. As our strategy states, we will prioritize working with model allies those nations who are most capable, clear-eyed and ready to defend their national interests. For those nations, we are moving them to the front of the line, expedited arms sales, deep industrial base collaboration, expanded intelligence sharing, the list goes on that benefits many.

But for those who believe they can continue to free ride on the generosity of the American taxpayer, hear us now. Those days are over. Allies who refuse to step up and carry their own weight for our collective defense will face a clear shift in how we do business. 

So this was aimed at every ally and partner in the world. No mention of NZ.

Afterwards journalist Anna Fifield asked a question:

I couldn’t help but notice that New Zealand was missing from your list of countries. There, they have recently outlined a plan to get from 1 percent to 2 percent of GDP, a long way from 3.5. Would you consider New Zealand to be a free rider?

Now this was a legitimate question, but it was also one in which there could only be one answer. Hegseth has just done a speech saying we want everyone to be at 3.5%, so he is hardly going to then say “Oh except New Zealand”. His answer was:

I appreciate the question. I listen, I mean, if I’m being honest, 2 percent is not enough, and so 2 percent is free loading, but I don’t have anything against New Zealand. I want partners to step up. I didn’t intentionally leave it off my list. I look forward to working with the new Defence Minister there and enhancing those capabilities. I think that relationship has been a very fruitful one for a very long time, but I think, as my friends [Australia’s] Richard Marles and [the UK’s] John Healey know, I’m probably the most blunt with our closest friends about what our capabilities are, and where they need to be to ensure that we’re locking arms and shields, considering the threats of the world.

So he simply answered the question by saying 2% is not enough, but went out of his way to say he has nothing against NZ.

The way other media (not Fifield) have framed this as some sort of public rebuke of NZ is rather silly. He simply answered a question.

Stuff reports:

The world is watching New Zealand’s housing crash — and asking what went wrong

This headline has it entirely wrong. House prices were unaffordable in New Zealand. They have fallen to more affordable levels. This is not a crash. This is the impact if policy designed to lower prices, so that more people can afford to buy a home.

This is not to say that falling house prices have not had some negative consequences. I suspect that the subdued economic growth is partially because households feel poorer because their house is on paper worth less than three years ago. We don’t take into account that our next house is also cheaper – we just focus on our current house.

But all policies and pros and cons, and the massive increase in house prices wasn’t sustainable. The correction is painful for some people, but still necessary.