Pleased to see at least one journalist asking tough questions of TOP. It is alarming that the party leader doers;t even know her own party’s rules, especially one as important as the board being able to over-rule the caucus. I guess this is what you get when a party leader is not a long-standing member, but someone who applied for it as a job,

The TOP Board is more powerful than any other party’s board. One of the board members is also a major funder of TOP. The powers of the Board include:

• Selecting the Leader
• Appointing all Electorate candidates
• Ranking the Party List
• Can over-ride the decisions of the caucus
• Appoints the policy committee which sets policy for the party

I know of no other party where the board can over-ride the caucus. This means that if they are part of a Labour-led Government, the board, not the caucus, will have the final decision on every bill and policy.

The caucus will be salespersons for the Board. The caucus will not have the power to elect its own leader, or decide without over-ride on how they will vote in Parliament.

UPDATE: The Board has announced it will ask for an SGM to remove its power to over-rule the caucus,

TOP has proposed a 1.75% tax on the value of urban land (except Maori communal land) and 0.5% on rural land. It is worth noting that land values have been declining for the last five years, so TOP’s policy is to tax you on an asset that is declining in value!

The average household in Auckland would pay almost $15,000 a year in TOP’s land tax – so an extra $280 a week. In Queenstown it would be $360 a week more tax.

Our primary sector would be whacked. The median arable cropper would be paying almost $1,000 a week in land tax. Vineyards $420 a week and beef and sheep farmers $830 a week more.

I’m sure this will of course lead to cheaper food prices!

Attorney-General Chris Bishop had made a hugely important speech. He politely but firmly pushes back against the courts making law, rather than interpreting law. He notes:

So what does it mean to say that, of the three arms of government, Parliament is sovereign?

The answer I want to expand on, is that Parliamentary sovereignty means that significant public policy choices should be made by Parliament.

This is because – of the three arms of government – Parliament has by far the best claim to both a democratic mandate, and the necessary institutional expertise, to make public policy choices.

This position used to be uncontroversial and long-standing, but I think the time has come for a robust assertion of the traditional, orthodox view that Parliament is our country’s supreme law making body.

The lanyard and academic classes quite like the idea of enlightened people such as themselves making public policy choices, rather than Parliament. But that is not their mandate.

Even where issues are hotly contested, and a broad consensus is not forthcoming, Parliament’s democratic mandate means that everyone has had the opportunity to have a say, whether or not their view ultimately holds sway. Through the democratic process all voters are respected as equal, and therefore each voter is treated as a bearer of rights. If voters don’t like the choices made by Parliament, they can vote to change Parliament’s composition.

Parliament is supreme, because the voters are supreme.

There is a difference between adopting a reasonably-available rights-consistent interpretation and interpreting a statutory provision to advance a public policy choice that the legislature has not adopted.

We have seen this occur three times now. The Supreme Court just ignored the clear statute of the Three Strikes law, as they didn’t like it. They massively expanded the role of tikanga in the law from cases between Maori, to the entire legal system. They also said that the courts can have a role in setting climate change policy, rather than Parliament.

Parliament and the Government should have acted quicker in all these cases. The only way you will stop judicial power grabs, if if you stamp them out promptly and surely. I’d have a standing agenda items for Cabinet called “Recent Supreme Court decisions”, and if the Court has exceeded its mandate, Parliament should introduce a bull to reverse their decision within weeks.

Development of statute law is for Parliament, not for the courts. Changing social values and mores are reflected in the democratically elected legislature, not an unelected and by definition unrepresentative judiciary.

This should not be controversial. But I doubt it is taught in law schools anymore.

(Not that the media even seem to but notice that aspect of the polls).

I have lived and worked in Auckland, primarily in Education, from 1998 until now (with a 6 year gap when I was in the BoI, which co-incided with your covid response).

I will try and keep this reponse to points.

• The combination of yourself and Jan Tinetti were the worst “Minister of Education” team I have ever observed.
  
• Your government made an understandable initial response to covid with closed borders. From that point on you lost the plot.
  
• You created situations where there was no nuance – the list is endless but – funerals missed, super-markets open but butchers and fruit shops closed, a lottery to come into the country but no circumstances being considered (e.g. being a pregnant reporter having to shelter in Afghanistan). Plus other false statements about people travelling within the nation.
  
• Arbitrary rules adopted that have since been significantly exposed, e.g. masks, 6m gaps, etc.
  
• Hiding information on the possible side effects of vaccines for young people – that are very likely to have resulted in injuries and deaths.
  
• Knowing, from March 2021, that the mRNA vaccines did not prevent transmission and yet imposing public sector mandates, in October of the same year, that destroyed many careers.
  
• Keeping Auckland (and, by association, Northland) locked down much longer than was needed/effective. Just as one example – this cost myself a tourism business and a $3.5million property in the Bay of Islands. That is a metonym for so many people in Auckland/Northland having lost life savings, restaurants, tourism businesses, employment … because you and your team had become enamoured with authoritarianism within your echo chamber.
  
• Auckland/Northland is still suffering. The coalition has not done enough to improve things but it has been a but like trying to pull the Titanic up with cotton after you had punched a hole in it.
  
• Not bothering to hear the concerns of protestors in Wellington and cheering on your Uncle Trevor while he hosed them and Michael Wood when he called them a “river of filth”.
  
• Being a part of a government when the PM clearly stated that she was creating “two classes of people”.
  
• Not having the personal/professional integrity to appear in person before the Covid-19 Royal Commission or to release the Pfitzer contracts (etc).
  
• Being a part of a government whose “economics” drove up debt, inflation, interest rates to such a destructive level that Eonomists are no longer talkng about when there will be a recovery – but “if”.

“Chippy” – I have met with you a few times and they were positive encounters. Somewhere along the way you lost focus that your role was to improve things for NZers. I figure the only reason that you are still Labour leader is that no one else wants the role and only 15% of the nation want you as the PM.

What is your best move for the country in this moment?

[email protected]

Jim Tucker writes:

Toi’s money has come from profits made by the TSB bank, not only from clients living in the region, but nearly half from people living elsewhere (who don’t get any say).

If the case goes beyond the first full High Court hearing and the losing side decides to fight on in the Court of Appeal or even at the top of the justice mountain, the Supreme Court, costs could reach millions of dollars.

There’s also another irony: the litigants on both sides could conceivably face big reimbursement claims.

Such a risk to individuals and donors involved in the society is far less – what’s left of their kitty would be forfeited, but personal wallets are immune.

However, if a full High Court hearing finds Toi’s trustees have been negligent to the highest level of the word’s meaning, their built-in protections would be invalid and they would be held personally liable.

Whatever way the full hearing – if it eventuates – goes, that’s the point where both parties will need to make a big decision: do they spend more public money appealing, or do they call it quits while Toi remains relatively unscathed?

In fact, someone else is likely to resolve that dilemma: the buyer, Heartland Holdings, would probably walk away.

So, the TSB debate has moved on from a widespread public discourse to a hazardous and expensive legal battleground, with a massive number of Taranaki philanthropic dollars at stake.

The purpose of the Toi Foundation is to serve the Taranaki Community. It appears they are seriously offside with the community they serve. They are of course not appointed by the community, but by Ministers. The majority were appointed by the previous Government.

I wonder (putting polling hat on) if anyone has actually polled the Taranaki community on whether they support or oppose the proposal to sell TSB Bank to Heartland?

Samira Taghavi writes:

Earlier this month, Labour’s health spokesperson Dr Ayesha Verrall questioned Health Minister Simeon Brown about the appointment of lawyer (and medical doctor) Roderick Mulgan to the Medical Council of New Zealand.

Among the matters raised by Verrall was that Mulgan has sometimes represented – amongst the many regulatory-body cases he handles – medical practitioners facing allegations of sexual misconduct. The exchange was brought to my attention by several lawyers who were troubled by what Verrall’s questioning appeared to suggest about the role of defence counsel.

Verrall’s questions – probably written by a non-legally qualified staffer – displayed an egregious lack of understanding of the delineation between the respective roles of advocate on the one hand and adjudicator on the other.  Lawyers, however, understand the distinction well.

As a criminal defence barrister myself, I found the premise underlying Verrall’s questions insulting to the defence bar and contrary to the fundamental principles of our justice system. From her  line of questioning, it appears to follow that defence counsel offering representation to those facing unpleasant allegations should be presumptively barred from appointment, or be very seldom appointed, to the bench or other adjudicative positions.

In fact, a lawyer’s willingness to represent somebody accused of serious or repugnant conduct tells us entirely nothing about that lawyer’s personal values, sympathies or capacity to exercise independent judgment. Rather, the promotion of the rule of law requires lawyers to fearlessly advocate for clients against the vast power of the State or regulatory bodies that can destroy livelihoods.

It is somewhat alarming that a senior Labour MP seems not to understand (or not to care) that lawyers advocate for clients, regardless of their personal views. Does she think Golriz Ghahraman would be unsuitable for certain roles, because of her previous clients?

A lawyer’s responsibility is not to decide whether a client is sufficiently virtuous to deserve representation, but to ensure that allegations are properly tested, legal rights are protected and consequences are imposed according to law. This means a lawyer who argues that a doctor should retain the ability to practise no more endorses the alleged misconduct than a defence barrister seeking an acquittal or proportionate sentence endorses the offending alleged against a criminal defendant.

It’s sad one has to explain to a senior MP (and former Minister), like you would have to explain it to a 10 year old.

Simeon brown points out:

After National alerted New Zealanders to the 11 new taxes on the table between Labour and its coalition partners, Chris Hipkins claimed that two of the taxes are not Labour Party policy.

Chris Hipkins and the Labour Party cannot be trusted on tax, and today they’ve again proven why, National’s Campaign Chair Simeon Brown says.

“After National alerted New Zealanders to the 11 new taxes on the table between Labour and its coalition partners, Chris Hipkins claimed that two of the taxes are not Labour Party policy.”

“Hipkins told media yesterday and again this morning that the Streaming Tax was never Labour policy.

“If that is the case, then why did senior MP Willie Jackson have a Members’ Bill to introduce a streaming tax in the biscuit tin as of this morning?

“Hipkins has tried to mislead the public and the media on the Streaming Tax. And it’s the same with the Ute Tax and the Capital Gains Tax.

“In September 2020, Labour said the Ute Tax was not their policy. Labour won the election in October 2020 and by June 2021 it introduced the Ute Tax. So that promise lasted eight months.

“Chris Hipkins ruled out a Capital Gains Tax under a government he led. Labour is campaigning on one now.

If there is a Lanour-Green-Te Pati Maori-TOP Government after the election, the only question is how many of the 11 new taxes get implemented.

Stuff reports:

Labour leader Chris Hipkins has admitted he wasn’t aware of a member’s bill proposing to introduce a tax on streaming companies when he ruled the policy out.

Leader Chris Hipkins last week confirmed to Stuff that his party was not campaigning on introducing a streaming levy, despite his broadcasting and media spokesperson, Reuben Davidson, confirming in January that the party would seek advice on one if elected.

So the party leader was unaware that one of their very few polices was a streaming tax.

Hipkins said the party had made final decisions on the streaming tax “in the last few weeks,” but the bill had remained online due to an administrative oversight.

“We became aware of it, it was dealt with,” he said.

So it was never their policy, they simply had a bill to make one law!!

A guest post by David Schnauer- author of Uncomfortable Economics:

Compliments to Ashley Church for a well argued Post headed “Declining house prices are killing our economy”.    In this Post, I  put the opposing case. High and appreciating house prices have not been good for New Zealand. Instead they have done and continue to do this country major economic damage. 

  My book Uncomfortable Economics went on sale on 20 July.  It begins by describing the long term underperformance of the New Zealand economy.  From the 1950s when New Zealand was one of the most prosperous countries, we have drifted steadily down the ranks of world living standards. That relative decline continues-  voters in 2026 rank   NZ’s economy as their major concern. Unless our drift is arrested, New Zealand in another decade risks dropping out of first world status.  

Why has that longstanding underperformance occurred?  The central thesis in my book:  the New Zealand economy is seriously unbalanced. Kiwis have far too much of our wealth in property; and far too little of our wealth in NZ’s real economy.  My book argues New Zealand will only lift its economic performance and start keeping up with more prosperous nations, by moving its wealth away from housing and on to growing its commercial sector.   Some quotations from the book develop this central theme. 

After describing the fabulously wealthy Swiss commercial sector: 

Successful countries generate their economic success by having a

wealthy and successful commercial sector. Compare this with

New Zealand. Where is our wealth held? We don’t have even

one multinational company based in New Zealand….

Meanwhile, much of our commercial sector is owned from

offshore: our four main banks, our insurance companies,

breweries, one of our two supermarket chains, much of our

food manufacturing. Wealth generated by those overseas owned

businesses does not accrue to Kiwis; it gets sent out of the

country to the overseas owners. It is therefore no surprise our

economy has underperformed over the last 75 years……….

Then a comment on the limited contribution capital appreciation makes to the overall economy: 

In our North Shore legal practice, we saw countless clients

who had purchased their family home 25–40 years ago for, say,

$50,000. Their $35,000 initial mortgage had long been paid off

and their family had grown up and left home. Those clients were

now selling their home for $1 million, downsizing and buying

an Occupation Licence in a retirement village for $700,000.

The remaining $300,000 was put aside as their retirement nest

egg…..The problem for the country is that capital gains contribute

almost nothing to the economy and are not subject to tax in New

Zealand, so don’t add to the public revenue and do nothing to

lift New Zealand’s economic performance.

Businesses deliver much greater social benefit than houses

My wife  Tricia and I ran a law firm on the North Shore for 20 years.

 By the time of our retirement the firm had approximately $1 million

 Invested in it, aggregated across work in progress, book debts, office

equipment, office fit out and furniture, etc. The law firm used

total funds approximating the value of a North Shore house.

 It employed about a dozen people. Those employees back then

collectively earned, say, $1 million per annum, from which they paid

 income tax, ACC, KiwiSaver etc. The firm made profits from which

it paid income tax, GST, ACC, KiwiSaver, etc. I expect the firm and its

 employees in total paid several hundred thousand dollars to IRD each year.

My point should be obvious. A house creates jobs and income

for the building industry when it is first built but thereafter

contributes little to the country each year. On the other hand, a

sum of money equating to the worth of an average New Zealand

house, invested in a business, provides employment, tax revenue

for the Government and goods or services for its customers. A

sum invested in a business delivers far greater national benefit

than putting that same sum into housing.

Excessive house prices have done major damage not only to our economy, but also to  New Zealand society:

The housing boom has done major damage to New Zealand society.

 It has made two-income households common (with children raised in

crèches) to pay the enormous mortgages required to buy a house.

The Government, with already overspent budgets, has stepped

in with Family Support and other measures to help struggling

families and made its deficits worse. 

Exceptionally high house prices are driving major social disparity

 between Kiwis who can (almost always with family help) get onto

 the property ladder and those who can’t. Excessive house prices

 have diverted funds into housing that should have been going into the NZ

commercial sector, to drive our economic progress. Much of the

money the banks lend into the New Zealand housing market –

around one dollar in five – is borrowed from offshore, meaning

New Zealand has high private international debt. The list of

negative consequences of high house prices is a very long one.

In summary :

New Zealand’s overpriced housing is the ultimate

result of this country’s wealth being significantly misallocated,

with far too much in property and far too little in our commercial

sector. This misallocation is doing major damage to the country,

both economically and socially. A radical change, weaning

New Zealand off its housing addiction, reducing house prices

and moving the assets freed up from the housing sector into

institutional saving and the corporate sector, is vital for our long-term

success as a country and as an economy. Indeed, I would

go so far as to say that the New Zealand economy will assuredly

continue its disappointing trajectory of the last 75 years, unless

and until such a rebalancing takes place. The reality facing New

Zealand in 2025 is that clear.

So, while you wrote an interesting Post, Ashley, I am sorry, but I must differ from you emphatically. Doesn’t it seem too good to be true, that Kiwis should seek to generate high living standards without hard work, and just by sitting back and benefiting from house price appreciation?  

Lower house prices do not just benefit first home buyers, as you suggest. They deliver economic gains which are far more fundamental and far more important than that.  Lower house prices are a critical part of rebalancing the whole NZ economy back onto our real economy.  It is that real economy which creates the incomes, jobs, goods and services and wealth which this country desperately needs, if it is to start climbing back up world GDP per capital rankings again. 

In the national interest, and in tandem with a strongly enhanced KiwiSaver scheme, Kiwis need to build their wealth in the future from hard work and from saving large KiwiSaver balances, not from house price appreciation.

 For the NZ economy materially to lift in performance going forward, house prices ideally need to decline a lot further over the next decade. 

RNZ reports:

The Green Party is campaigning on establishing a $2.4 billion trust dedicated to marae.

So they are proposing more money be given to maraes than we are spending on the new Dunedin Hospital which will have 251 beds and 22 operating theatres.

The Post reports:

The Holocaust will have a place in New Zealand’s secondary school curriculum from next year, in a move welcomed by educators but accompanied by concerns about the prescriptive nature of the curriculum.

The Ministry of Education’s revised year 0-10 social sciences curriculum, released on Wednesday, will be rolled out from 2027.

Students will learn about the Holocaust as part of the year 10 history curriculum, within a broader study of the world wars.

The inclusion comes after more than 500 submissions in support. One of these was from the Holocaust Centre of New Zealand, which has long pushed for the topic’s inclusion at secondary school.

I am one of those who put in a submission.

In a poll done by Curia in 2021, 53% of adults said they knew virtually nothing or just a little about the Holocaust. It was 65% for 31 to 45 year olds.

Only 39% of NZers knew that six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. With women it was only 31% and only 22% of under 30s knew this.

Hopefully this change will stop any further generations of NZers knowing so little about the Holocaust.

The Opportunity Party policy is or was that any criminal offender aged under 25 should be sent to the Youth Court for a family group conference, rather than go to an adult court. They say this is because 24 year old brains are not fully developed, so they should not be held fully accountable for their crimes.

In 2023, TOP campaigned on lowering the voting age to 16.

By Lucy Rogers

Before I continue: in the comments section of my last post I was accused of presuming that the factions I am describing are intellectually dishonest without providing any evidence for this assertion. In fact, I had proven quite conclusively in a previous Kiwiblog post that intellectual dishonesty is at play, and re-provided the link to that post at the start of this series. However, I reprovide it yet again for good measure: https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2025/10/guest_post_stop_accusing_anti-israel_westerners_of_antisemitism_and_start_accusing_them_where_appropriate_of_intellectual_dishonesty.html

I have never alleged that every person who disagrees with me on the Israel/ Palestine conflict (or for that matter other issues) is intellectually dishonest. I provided specific referenced examples of intellectual dishonesty which nobody has been able to refute, because there is no refutation available, and then sought to explain them. I have met two Westerners at the anti-Israel protests whom I consider to be intellectually honest, and a significant number of Muslims who have legitimate grievances with Israel in good faith.

Anyway: if anyone can come up with a more succinct name for “people motivated primarily by hatred”, please say in the comments. But basically, although plenty of the other factions hate Israel, as I have been describing the hatred comes from some other external source: moral pride, intellectual arrogance, trauma, etc. The faction I am describing though are motivated primarily by hatred. The mentality is “I hate them, I don’t care about why I hate them, I don’t want to question why I hate them, I just hate them.”

This faction are by far the most radical, and they are thankfully a small minority at the anti-Israel protests. There are four people I can think of who are this extreme, although there are others who probably qualify but who are less overt about it. There is a Muslim woman and her two adult daughters who should probably be on some sort of watchlist, and then there is a Westerner who is on the far left, whom I shall call Mr O.

One of the three Muslim women in question (whom I shall call Ms D) has screamed in my face “I LOVE HAMAS!”, vehemently given me the finger on dozens of occasions, engaged in minor assaults like stamping on my foot repeatedly, torn up my signs repeatedly, told me to kill myself repeatedly, and told me when I was holding a sign about Hamas raping Israelis on October 7 that Hamas wouldn’t rape me because they “don’t touch scum”. (The police despite being offered footage of her tearing up my signs refused to do anything.) Her sister told me once that it’s OK to commit suicide bombings in Israel in civilian areas because IDF service is mandatory anyway.

Mr O knows that Hamas committed unspeakable atrocities on October 7 but does not care. In his view, the world falls into a simplistic moral binary where Israel is the oppressor and the Palestinians are the oppressed, which means that literally anything is justified in the name of “resistance”. He had an exchange with a member of NZ Against Hamas on Facebook in which the NZAH member said that Hamas was a terrorist organisation and Mr O replied that “a settler colonial terrorist genocidal ideological defining other groups as terrorists is just laughable.” He also said that Israelis do not get to decide the ways that the oppressed resist them.

In Mr O’s view there are good guys and there are bad guys, and if “resistance” involves physically ripping apart civilians while they are still alive and then having sex with pieces of their corpses and uploading footage onto victims’ own Facebook pages then that’s fine. (By the way, the Civil Commission report recently found that Hamas did exactly that on October 7 2023.) It’s for that reason that I don’t think “ideological reasons” are an adequate explanation for the hatred that this faction have: if it had anything to do with right and wrong then October 7 obscenities would give them pause.

I have never once in the two and a half years I have been attending these protests responded to the other side by responding to insults with insults or with any sign of aggression whatsoever, out of a deep-seated ideological commitment to loving my enemies stemming from my Anglican faith. I have dialogued with large numbers of them without raising my voice, and agreed with them on a lot of things. Also, I have never once carried the Israeli flag. As a result, I get on amicably with a fair number of people at these protests, and am friends with some of them on Facebook. They tend to conclude that I am misguided and need educating. Unlike the hate faction, they appreciate gestures like occasionally holding signs criticising Israel or saying that Palestinian lives have infinite value. That is because hate is not their primary motivation.

But the hate faction know that I do not hate them and do not care. I can respond with the peace gesture to being given the finger on an infinite number of occasions and they will still hate me. The world is black and white: I am on the other side, I deserve to die, and nothing will ever change that. That is the hate faction’s distinctive.

The Post reports:

A review into Labour’s top cop candidate, Superintendent Rakesh Naidoo, has cleared him of any breach of policy or confidentiality.

The review’s findings were released a day after an Official Information Act response showed that Naidoo had informed his supervisor about his potential candidacy two weeks before it happened, earlier than had been suggested in comments made by the Police Commissioner Richard Chambers and Police Minister Mark Mitchell, who were furious when the candidacy was revealed.

The original reporting was that Police were only told 2 to 3 days before the announcement, but it is significant that he did tell his boss he was considering it a couple of weeks before that.

You certainly can argue he still didn’t meet the test of the earliest possible opportunity, but regardless two weeks is considerably different to two days.

“Police is satisfied that Superintendent Naidoo complied with Police policy regarding informing Police of his intention to stand as a candidate for the New Zealand Labour Party, although it would have been prudent for Police to have been advised of the discussions at an earlier stage to support Superintendent Naidoo to manage any potential or perceived conflicts of interest and maintain political neutrality,” Anderson said.

That seems like a fair conclusion.

The Herald reports:

A stoush has erupted between North Shore sister schools after a surprise bid by the junior high to cater for older students blindsided its senior counterpart, which says it is “disappointed” by the move.

The proposal could reshape the long-standing two-school model between Albany Senior High School and Albany Junior High School, with the Ministry of Education now considering an application.

Albany Junior High submitted the bid last week to extend its cohort up until Year 13. It currently only serves students in Years 7 to 10. 

Students then typically attend Albany Senior High, whose principal told the Heraldthe school remained “committed” to the current structure and was not told about the junior school’s bid until Friday.

Both Albany Junior High and Senior High are well regarded schools. They have high academic achievement, good ERO reports. So why would Albany Junior High upset the status quo?

To me the answer is about what is best for all kids, not just 80% of even 90% of kids.

As I understand it Albany Junior is a more traditional school, and Albany Senior more liberal. Now again both schools do very well, and most students manage the transition well. But some students probably don’t. Any transition can be challenging, let alone one between two quite different schools.

For the same reason I think any primary school that stops at Year 6 should be able to expand to Year 8, without needing Ministry permission. The Ministry seems to think it is more important to prevent a possible empty classroom at an intermediate school, than have students and parents able to decide whether an extra transition is in their best interest.

The Albany Senior Principal, Claire Amos (who I regard well) has written on this issue:

One of the most unhelpful habits we have in education is our tendency to turn false binaries into structures.

Traditional or progressive. Knowledge or skills. Academic or vocational. Teacher-led or student-centred. Rigour or wellbeing. Structure or agency. Explicit teaching or inquiry. And eventually, one kind of school or another.

I have been thinking a lot about pluralism lately. Not pluralism as simply having lots of different schools to choose from, but pluralism as the idea that our public education system should be capable of holding difference within it. Because our young people are different.

They have different strengths, different interests, different aspirations, different cultures, different identities, different learning needs and different ideas about what success might look like.

The answer to that diversity shouldn’t be to keep designing different schools for different imagined categories of children.

The answer should be to design every school well enough to meet them all.

That doesn’t mean every school should look the same. Quite the opposite. Schools should absolutely reflect their communities, their histories, their learners and their context. But I am increasingly uncomfortable with the idea that within one local community we might need an “academic” school over here, a “progressive” school over there, perhaps a “traditional” school down the road and a “trades” school somewhere else – that isn’t pluralism, that, my friends, is a freakin’ sorting hat.

I think this is an example of perfect being the enemy of good. Yes in an ideal world it would be nice if every single school is NZ was right for every single type of student. But quite simply, that is a detached from reality.

Almost every parent goes through a huge amount of time and effort to work out what school will be best for their kids. It is the biggest or second biggest factor in choosing a house location (which means only wealthier families get this option). It is why some kids get sent to integrated or private schools. It is why you get out of zone applications. It is why parents and kids go to multiple open days.

For example, single sex schools and co-ed schools are both great types of schools. Again 80% or even 90% of kids might prosper in either. But some kids are better suited to one, than another. They should not be denied that choice.

Claire writes:

Every school should be THE school for:

• Rainbow students.
• Neurodiverse students.
• Athletes.
• Artists.
• Scientists.
• Entrepreneurs.
• Introverts.
• Extroverts.
• Young people who want certainty and young people who want possibility.

That is what a public school should be. Not a school for a particular kind of kid. An effective school capable of responding to all kinds of kids.

Again this is a commendable aspiration, but it is not reality. And do you force thousands of kids into a school that isn’t great for them, as a sacrifice to an ideal that will probably never be met?

I can 100% understand Albany Senior High being upset by the Albany Junior application. I think it would have been courteous to have discussed it with them in advance. I think it is important to note that both schools are well regarded high performing schools.

But if Albany Junior High thinks it will be beneficial to some of their students to have the option to remain at their school until Year 13 instead of Year 10, I think they should be able to. Just as I think all primary schools should be able to choose to go to year 8 instead of Year 6. The focus has to be on what will be best for students, not what will be best for schools.

The BSA upheld the complaint against Sean Plunket and The Platform. This is part of what Plunket said that they said can’t be uttered on air:

[Reading]        ‘It will also allow us to better align our engagement with Māori communities and our operational work leading to a greater reach and impact.’ 

Plunket:          Does that mean you’ll put out more fires more efficiently, or not? 

[Reading]        ‘Rather than keeping this work within one branch, this approach encourages the whole organisation to take shared responsibility for delivering on Rautaki Māori.’ 

Plunket:          Whatever that is. 

[Reading]         ‘I’m also proposing the creation of a Pou Ārahi Kaupapa Māori and Cultural Communities role to provide strategic and operational and cultural leadership, ensuring that te ao Māori perspectives, values and tikanga–’ 

Plunket:          Tikanga, which is just mumbo jumbo stuff. 

[Reading]         ‘…are ingrained in how we function.’ 

Plunket:          Will that help you put out more fires more efficiently, I wonder? 

[Reading]        ‘The role would help ensure our services, policies and programmes are culturally appropriate.’ 

Plunket:          I never realised a fire engine had to be culturally appropriate and effective for the many different cultures across Aotearoa New Zealand – well, it’s called New Zealand, not Aotearoa New Zealand. This doesn’t look to help any other culture but the Māori culture, does it, [FENZ Chief Executive]?

So Plunket was arguing that he wants FENZ to focus on how to most effectively put out fires, and this is now not allowed if you are a broadcaster!

Nate Silver has launched his prediction model for the US mid-terms.

In the House have forecasts an 87% probability the Democrats take the House, with an average outcome of 233 seats to 202.

In the Senate it is closer, but the Democrats slightly ahead with a 56% probability the Democrats gain control of the Senate by 51 seats to 49.

He has the Democrats winning Ohio, Texas, Michigan and Maine, with the odds for each being:

• Ohio 58%
• Taxes 60%
• Michigan 69%
• Maine 70%

Will be interesting to see how they change over time.

Ruth Richardson writes:

As inflation rears its ugly head again, New Zealand First proposes stripping the Reserve Bank of its sole mission to fight inflation. In an exercise in virtue signalling, employment is bolted on as a second mission. Labour’s Barbara Edmonds wants the same.

This is sheer monetary policy vandalism, flying in the face of all the evidence that there is no trade-off between price stability and employment. That monetary policy can permanently deliver employment growth is nothing more than a cruel hoax.

This is very well known. If monetary policy could lead to permamently higher employment, then we would have examples of countries where it has. There are none.

New Zealand should not have to re-learn the harsh lessons of the loss of monetary policy credibility. Successful inflation-fighting involves getting two things right.

First, the central bank must have a clear, singular inflation mandate. That’s what anchors inflation expectations. If markets and workers believe the bank might tolerate higher inflation to chase employment goals, inflation expectations build, making inflation itself harder to control. That’s a formula for making everyone worse off, employment included.

Confidence in a central bank preventing higher inflation is critical. We have seen what happens when you lose that.

A single mandate gives a clear yardstick: did inflation stay near target or not? With two goals, a central bank always has an excuse. If inflation is high, it can point to labour market weakness as the reason it didn’t tighten harder and vice versa. That ambiguity weakens accountability and lets the bank dodge the blame for missing either target.

Yes, a dual mandate reduces accountability.

The Herald reports:

Labour leader Chris Hipkins has ruled out a governing deal with New Zealand First. …

Winston has responded:

It is hilarious that it took 12 months for Hipkins to rule NZ First out, and then to announce it as somehow newsworthy. It’s like announcing he has just discovered if you throw a ball into the air, it will drop down.