A guest post by Rohan Pike:

The latest Australian Budget reveals a simple and uncomfortable truth: the black market for cigarettes is growing faster than anyone in Canberra predicted. This is a stark warning for New Zealand.

In just one year, the Australian Government has received 46% less tobacco excise and a massive $12.5 billion dollar drop ($16.5 to $4.1) in the last 6 years. Revenue has fallen off a cliff. It is a clear signal that policy interventions are being outpaced by criminal activity, and that the illicit tobacco market is accelerating.

The same dynamics that have fuelled this crisis in Australia exist in New Zealand as well: high excise, limited enforcement, and fragmented responses. These are precisely the conditions that allow illicit markets to take hold and scale quickly.

New Zealand has seen a 21% reduction in tobacco excise takings in the last three years and if that fall had been accompanied by a drop in smoking rates that would be welcome. Unfortunately, excise takings are falling but smoking rates are not (nor is the average daily consumption). This is clear evidence of a growing illicit market.

The criminal actors fuelling that market are undermining New Zealand’s commendable tobacco control efforts established over the last 20 years and putting your smokefree ambitions at serious risk. In short, the market is being flooded by cheap cigarettes.

The rise in violence in Australia has been the inevitable consequence of a criminal market out of control. But we also now see a rise in smoking rates across the country due to the widespread availability of cheap tobacco. If a similar pattern were to be repeated in New Zealand it would, at best, delay, or at worst, end your “smokefree” goals and reverse years of effective tobacco control. 

New Zealand is now approaching the tipping point when tobacco control becomes uncontrolled. While the creation of a new Action Group and the recent increase to funding for Customs are both welcome developments to combat the illicit trade, now is the time to turn these policy announcements into focussed, coordinated and sustained action.   

New Zealand still has time to get ahead of this. But the window is closing.

By Rohan Pike, former Australian detective

About Rohan Pike: 

Rohan Pike is a former Australian detective with decades of experience investigating serious and organised crime. During his career with the Australian Federal Police and Australian Border Force, he led and advised on major operations targeting transnational crime, including the illicit tobacco trade.

Rohan is now an independent consultant and commentator on organised crime and illicit markets.

He regularly provides expert analysis to media, policymakers and industry on border security, criminal networks and emerging illicit trade threats.

For more information, visit www.pikeconsulting.com.au

Labour’s $65 million costing for its $20 cap on public transport fares is looking beyond dodgy. We have three seperate scrutinies which all say it doesn’t add up. First Macroeconomics Professor Robert MacCulloch:

The Labour Party’s announcement that its newly proposed $20 weekly public transport fare cap will cost $65 million is out by a factor of at least three times. The Opposition Leader’s Transport Press Conference and Labour’s webpage (https://www.labour.org.nz/farecap) state, “On average, people will save around $25 a week” from the cap, some more, some less, and “hundreds of thousands of people would benefit”.

Census data from 2023 says 135,000 people use public buses, trains or ferries as their “main means of travel to work” (https://figure.nz/chart/x72mUPCCIJtePP5B). A weekly average saving of $25 per person for 52 weeks would cost the government $175 million. Should prices be slashed, demand for trips rises, increasing the subsidy to nearly $200 million. This estimate is conservative, since many people use public transport not associated with a commute to work.

Declaring that “hundreds of thousands of people” benefit and the saving is “on average $25 a week” does not add up to $65 million. It adds to at least three times that figure.

So MacCulloch says by Labour’s own claims, the cost would be at least triple what they say.

Then the TU breaks it down by region:

Using publicly available 2024/25 data from New Zealand’s three largest public transport-using regions, the Taxpayers’ Union estimates the annual cost to be: 

• Auckland: $118,061,733 to $141,051,370
• Wellington: $23,249,363 to $38,094,684
• Canterbury: $394,877 to $3,383,523

That puts the cost for just these three regions at $141,705,972 to $182,529,576 a year, potentially up to nearly three times higher than Labour claims for the entire country.

Unlike Labour, the TU has provided their workings.

And finally Simeon Brown points out:

Labour claims its fare cap policy will:

• Cost $65 million per year
• Save the average person more than $1,200 per year
• Benefit around 1.36 million New Zealanders who use public transport every year. 

“These three claims cannot all be true. 

“If 1.36 million people are each saving more than $1,200 a year, the cost of delivering those savings would exceed $1.6 billion annually – not $65 million.

Labour must release their own detailed costings and assumptions, for their budgeted cost estimate to have any credibility.

The Taxpayers’ Union released:

Labour’s plan to cap public transport fares would pour another $65 million into a system which is already 87 percent subsidised, up from 61 percent in 2015/16.

Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:

“Taxpayers are already picking up almost 90 cents in every dollar spent on public transport, which the average subsidy last year of $17.65 per boarding. Households already subsidise public transport to the tune of $1,373 a year, and Hipkins wants to slap another $65 million down for them to pay.”

“This is dressed up as a cost-of-living policy, but it does nothing for the vast majority of households. Only 6 percent of Kiwis are regular public transport users, and nearly 90 percent of rides are in Wellington, Auckland, and Christchurch.”

Public transport is already 87% subsidised by the taxpayer and Labour thinks that is not enough. And they come up with a policy that will do zero for the vast majority of Kiwis.

Helen Clark posted on Twitter:

So here Helen says there was absolutely no attack on Don Brash or Tim Groser. Liam Hehir then does some detective work:

So Clark actually called for Groser to be removed as a WTO Chair.

And as for Don:

Clark called Don Brash a loser. She further said “decision was “right on the border of ethics” and discredited the office of the Reserve Bank Governor…”

And here Clark is saying they will inform the WTO that they have no confidence in Groser any more:

It’s not the hypocrisy which is the issue here. It is the brazen bare faced deception and rewriting of history.

The Post reports:

An independent review will be held into the procurement of Wellington City Council’s sleek new $600,000 library website, as new questions are raised about why a link to a commercial business based in the Bay of Islands – now removed – was being promoted on the homepage.

The Post revealed the true cost of the $595,801 spend on Te Matapihi ki te Ao Nui – a separate marketing site for Wellington’s central library and cultural hub – in May.

Mayor Andrew Little confirmed an investigation would be held into “not just the service provider” – but also the decision-making around it, including who got to sign it off, who didn’t, and how it got “out of control”. The terms of reference are still being finalised.

Critics labelled the site a “gold-plated” promotional stunt, a “glorified brochure” and an “atrocious” waste of ratepayer money because it provides little information for users wanting to book rooms, search catalogues, or join up it, instead redirecting people to the council’s actual library website.

Most reviews don’t actually end up with anyone being held accountable, but this waste of money is so bad, that I have a little hope that this review may actually lead to change.

I suspect part of the problem is simply a culture of not wanting to save money. A budget probably represents a target, rather than a cap. Actually for WCC a budget is often not even a cap!

Questions that should be asked are:

• Who set the budget for the website? Was it set before or after a tender?
• Who set the specifications for the website? What were they? Were they met?
• Was it a competitive tender?
• What was the difference between the highest and lowest bid?
• Did anyone at WCC ask if $600k is a good use of money for a website?

The Post reports:

In an address hosted in Wellington by the Electricity Retailers and Generators Association on Friday, Liebreich said the world was now “almost in the middle third” of the transition to green energy.

Wind and solar energy accounted for about 90% of all new generation worldwide, while deliveries of cars and light trucks powered by internal combustion engines were falling, after peaking in 2017, he noted.

The Middle East conflict was providing “another turn of the screw” on fossil fuels, he said.

You hear stuff like this a lot, and hey I’m all for more green energy. But cherry picking some stats is not the same as the hard data.

The International Energy Agency lists energy by type, since 1990. The share of global energy from coal, gas or oil was 81.8% in 1990. In 2023 it was 80.7%. Yes fossil fuels are a greater percentage today than in 1990. There has been a big growth in renewables but they remain

Here’s the percentage of each type of energy in 1990 and 2023:

• Oil 37% to 30%
• Coal 26% to 28%
• Gas 19% to 23%
• Biofuels/Waste 10% to 9%
• Nuclear 6% to 5%
• Hydro 2.1% to 2.4%
• Solar/Wind 0.4% to 3.3%

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.