If you want the Government to ditch Willie Jackson’s bill to steal money from tech companies to give to media companies, you can use the Taxpayer’s Union site to e-mail Ministers.
it appears shots were fired at Trump at a rally. He is bloodied but okay.
Unless the shooter turns out to be Melania, this will deliver at least two more swing states to him.
Last week I blogged a speech from Simon Upton, highlighting five inconvenient truths he highlighted to the Environmental Defence Society. A reader has suggested I also cover the rest of his speech, which also had good food for thought.
We need innovation and a focus on increasing value, not producing more.
Economies can grow by ‘working harder’. This has been the main driver of growth in New Zealand over recent decades – importing more people, working longer hours, using land more intensively. We know the outcome.
Another option is working smarter. In other words, seeking productivity growth. Here our record is dismal to say the least. Yet this is where something closer to what we can call ‘green growth’ happens.
Very much agree that productivity growth is essential. Working harder is good, but has a limit. Productivity growth is the key.
Resources are limited. Time is limited. But our capacity for innovation is unlimited. This is where we need to focus.
Resources are limited in that there is for example a finite amount oil on the planet. However as we found out with peak oil, our estimate of when we reach those limits proved to be highly inaccurate due to new technology. The reality is we will never come close to reaching the hard limits of resources, but we will come against the soft limits, which is where it becomes too costly to extract them. And of course we need to consider the environmental impact of any extractive industries.
Unlike most small advanced economies, New Zealand has no companies in the Forbes 2000 list of top global firms. These tend to be firms that support much higher research and development spending, create and export value-added products, and ultimately support prosperous domestic economies. These large companies act as anchors for successful local industries.
I didn’t realise we had none. Australia by comparison has 31.
One way to do that is to focus on services that make little call on natural resources. For example, the potential for a global software-as-a-service company like Xero to grow in a global market is essentially unlimited. But as a nation, we haven’t seized the opportunity to ply businesses like this with as many skilled workers as we can muster. Xero, like others before it, has progressively shifted its operations overseas in search of the skills and capital it needs to grow.
Xero has been our biggest success story, but unfortunately yes it is now an Australian company.
We need to ensure the value of the environment is recognised and not drowned out by the narrative of traditional economic value. To do that, environmental value and economic value need to be brought onto the same playing field. In Going with the grain, I suggested increasing payments to landowners for ecosystem services over time. Biodiversity credits are a good example, provided they can be made to work. The big question is where the money should come from. The logical answer is by increasing levels of environmental taxation over time.
If environmental taxes aren’t used to increase the overall tax burden, but are used to either reduce other taxes, or initiatives like biodiversity credits, then I think they can play a useful role.
Congestion charging now looks to be on the cards with cross-party support. Road user charges that reflect the true capital and maintenance cost of heavy freight on our roads would help mode shift.
As readers will know, I am a big fan of congestion charging.
Tama Potaka announced:
New Zealanders will get to enjoy more of our country’s natural beauty including at Cathedral Cove – Mautohe thanks to a $25 million boost for conservation, Conservation Minister Tama Potaka announced today. …
Coromandel’s Cathedral Cove will receive $5m to plan, build, reopen and maintain an overland track as part of continued recovery work from Cyclone Gabrielle damage.
Great that the Minister has delivered on reopening Cathedral Cove. It shows the difference a good Minister can make with a recalcitrant agency.
This is fascinating. It is not unheard of for MPs to lease office space from an associated entity. But it is unheard of that their taxpayer funded office is a secret that isn’t listed as an office for them. And it seems it is a secret from the public also.
I’m interrupting my series on the Trump lawfare to cover this topic. One of the most frequent refrains from President Donald Trump is that the 2020 US Presidential election was stolen by electoral fraud perpetrated by the Democrats. The Democrats, anti-Trump Republicans, RINOs and almost all of the media wholeheartedly reject the claim and call Trump (and his supporters and a section of conservative media) perpetrators of “The Great Lie” about the 2020 election. Elite opinion overwhelmingly is of the view that Joe Biden was legitimately elected in 2020. Trump’s adamant belief in the stolen election became the focal underpinning of the massive protests on January 6, 2021 where a small number of unruly elements in the crowd broke into the US Capitol during the House of Representatives’ process of certifying the votes from the Electoral College, the last step in the complex process of certifying the 2020 Presidential election. The Democrats held a special Congressional hearing about January 6th where they accused Trump of fomenting an insurrection after the then Democrat controlled House impeached him a second time for what they said was his attempt at usurpation of the election just before his term was up.
An extensive amount of research on the subject of the alleged electoral fraud has been published. The object of this Post is not to go over the specific allegations of fraud at this time. Regular readers of this Blog will know that I opined at length on this subject across 4 posts in January 2021 here, here, here and here. Since then, there has been significantly more work done in various states on the subject, most of which, in my opinion, has advanced the case for 2020 election fraud. There also have been some well-meaning attempts at exposing aspects of the fraud that have fallen short of what their proponents claim to be able to show.
Perhaps the most frequent comment made by politicians, commentators and media (and their so-called ‘fact checkers’) as the strongest proof that the 2020 election result was legitimate is because, if the electoral fraud accusation was true, then Trump and Republicans would have been able to prove their case in court and, to them, proof of the flimsiness of the fraud allegations comes from the fact (so the narrative goes) that none of the allegations have stood up in court and that, in case after case that heard the matter, the courts ruled against Trump. End of story!! The debate is over! Trump is a sore loser! And anyone who believes the 2020 election was stolen from Trump is a conspiracy theorist! These mantras have been heard thousands of times since January 2021. Indeed, our esteemed host and blog owner has echoed this sentiment on many occasions and doubtless is one of the various reasons why he holds such a low opinion of Trump.
As we are learning, the mainstream media have long since graduated from merely reporting political matters through a left-wing lens and giving liberal progressive slants to perpetrating outright lies. A number of these hoaxes (and the breathless MSM reporting of them) were summarised in this Post. There are however different categories of media lies, from the inconsequential and minor to the huge and game changing (e.g. the lie that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation or the lie that Donald Trump was elected thanks to Russian collusion). The media line that Trump’s election fraud claims were thrown out of every court where he (and his allies) tried to allege fraud is an outright falsehood and this Post will dissect why that is the truth.
There is a most comprehensive analysis of all 88 of the 2020 election fraud cases brought by Donald Trump (and his campaign) and by state Republican party litigants found here, published by a consortium of concerned conservatives and it goes over every single one of the 88 election integrity cases filed with links to all the actual court documents, filings and findings.
The headline finding is this:
Of the 88 cases filed, only 28 (or 31%) were decided on the merits of the cases. By merits I mean that the evidence being litigated was actually heard, presented and cross examined in court. For the majority of cases, they were dismissed WITHOUT A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE EVER BEING PRESENTED IN COURT. Of the 28 cases where the evidence WAS able to be presented, 75% found in favour of Trump or the GOP litigant! Of the filed cases, 80% were filed in the battleground states that Biden only narrowly won: Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvanis, Arizona and Nevada.
Overwhelmingly, the cases that were dismissed without hearing a single piece of evidence were rejected for so-called lack of standing. This is a time-honoured way for a partisan Democrat controlled court to appear to be doing their job but in reality, they did not want to see Trump’s lawyers bringing forth any evidence of voter fraud. Other prominent reasons were “Dismissed: Moot” which is legalese for events have overtaken your case (i.e. Congress has already certified Biden) and so your allegations are moot or no longer worth hearing. Laches (a legal term for lack of timeliness) was the third most common reason for dismissal. It is ironic that many of the cases dismissed for laches were attempted to be filed earlier and court clerks told the attorneys that you’re trying to file too soon!
It is important to note that the biggest and most comprehensive fraud allegations were amongst the cases where courts refused to hear evidence. So, it is utterly dishonest for anyone to dismiss Trump’s allegations of electoral fraud by hiding behind the “he had his day in court and his spurious claims were thrown out” line because he never had his full day in court. The cases that were decided in his favour have seen certain modifications to vote counting and ballot management procedures in a few states that certainly will somewhat improve election integrity but the blockbuster claims, the vast array of affidavits filed by thousands of ballot counters, scrutineers and poll watchers, the massively researched and thoroughly documented cases were never presented in evidence in any court especially one where a proper remedy could be ruled.
There have been a number of small, localised election integrity cases that have been brought to local courts where, upon viewing the evidence of fraud, a judge has ruled an election invalid and has either vacated a result or most usually, ordered a fresh election. None of the major 2020 fraud cases that produced vast amounts of evidence ever got to see the light of day in a court. Say what you want about Trump, but the truth is, when it comes to his allegation of a stolen election, he has yet to have his full day in court no matter how many times his political opponents, the media and never Trumpers on the centre right say that the 2020 election was clean and properly conducted and that Joe Biden was legitimately elected. If current polling holds until November, Trump will finally get his proper day in court as there is no doubt that very public hearings on what happened in the 2020 election will be held and all the evidence of fraud will finally be fully presented.
If you are interested in the very many comprehensive reports that have been published on the 2020 election fraud, they can be found here. I challenge any person who is skeptical about the fraud allegations to read even just the three Peter Navaro reports and come onto this blog and argue Joe Biden was legitimately elected!
The Herald reports:
A four-year investigation into the legality of the Waipareira Trust’s provision of hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations to political campaigns linked to its chief executive John Tamihere has finally concluded, with the case referred for determination by peak regulator, the Charities Registration Board.
It shouldn’t have taken this long.
The development marks a key milestone in and signals an imminent conclusion to the long-running case, which began looking at $100,000 provided to Tamihere’s unsuccessful run for Auckland Mayor in 2019 but was later widened to scrutinise finance and in-kind support provided to Te Pāti Māori’s general election campaigns in 2020 and 2023.
Tamihere was a candidate for Te Pāti Māori in the 2020 election, and has been the party’s president since 2022.
At issue is long-established case law forbidding charities from supporting or funding political parties or candidates, with regulator Charities Services advising on its website: “Charities may support the policies of a political party where they’re consistent with its charitable purposes; however, they have to ensure that they’re independent and don’t provide support or funding to a political party.”
They have broken this prohibition many times. They think the law doesn’t apply to them.
Subsequent annual reports filed by Waipareia for the 2023 financial year record the related-party loan was repaid in May 2023, but also state the trust’s executives – of whom Tamihere is the most senior – that year also received a pay increase of 77% to each earn an average of $510,679.
So it is quite possible the Trust merely increased massively the salaries of key staff, so that the staff could then repay the loan.
The board, comprised of lawyers Gwendoline Keel and Loretta Lovell, and consultant Dr Bev Gatenby, typically meets monthly.
Keel, the board chair, stood down from her role last year after standing as a candidate for the Labour Party in the Port Waikato electorate. She ultimately lost that race, and Charities Services said following the election that she had since resumed her chairing duties.
Not ideal. A candidate should not be on the board of the regulator who decides if charities are breaching rules on political neutrality.
The electoral pact between the centrist and left candidates succeeded massively. The National Front were beaten into third place due to 200 candidates withdrawing to stop vote splitting.
This is not a bad thing. I am no fan of the National Front, but will admit their current leadership is more palatable than the old one.
But let’s look at the leader of the left bloc, Jean-Luc Mélenchon. He could also be described as an extremist – far left. His stances include:
100% tax rates, support for Putin, abolishing a right to private ownership – tis is loony extremism.
It would be nice if the media critiqued the far left as vigorously as they do the far right.
Enter your captions below – as always funny. not nasty.
George Clooney writes:
I’m a lifelong Democrat; I make no apologies for that. I’m proud of what my party represents and what it stands for. As part of my participation in the democratic process and in support of my chosen candidate, I have led some of the biggest fund-raisers in my party’s history. Barack Obama in 2012. Hillary Clinton in 2016. Joe Biden in 2020. Last month I co-hosted the single largest fund-raisersupporting any Democratic candidate ever, for President Biden’s re-election. I say all of this only to express how much I believe in this process and how profound I think this moment is.
I love Joe Biden. As a senator. As a vice president and as president. I consider him a friend, and I believe in him. Believe in his character. Believe in his morals. In the last four years, he’s won many of the battles he’s faced.
But the one battle he cannot win is the fight against time. None of us can. It’s devastating to say it, but the Joe Biden I was with three weeks ago at the fund-raiser was not the Joe “big F-ing deal” Biden of 2010. He wasn’t even the Joe Biden of 2020. He was the same man we all witnessed at the debate.
This is speaking truth to power. He is saying the Joe Biden on the debate wasn’t an aberration. It is the Joe Biden who is now 81, and wants to stay President until he is 86.
Clooney is one of their most prolific fundraisers and of course an iconic screen star. His op ed is having far more impact than a mere member of Congress or Senator would have.
But our party leaders need to stop telling us that 51 million people didn’t see what we just saw. We’re all so terrified by the prospect of a second Trump term that we’ve opted to ignore every warning sign. The George Stephanopoulos interview only reinforced what we saw the week before. As Democrats, we collectively hold our breath or turn down the volume whenever we see the president, whom we respect, walk off Air Force One or walk back to a mic to answer an unscripted question.
A strategy of gaslighting 51 million people won’t work.
We are not going to win in November with this president. On top of that, we won’t win the House, and we’re going to lose the Senate. This isn’t only my opinion; this is the opinion of every senator and Congress member and governor who I’ve spoken with in private. Every single one, irrespective of what he or she is saying publicly.
I think it is a matter of when, not if, Biden withdraws.
The Otago University statement on free speech is stunningly good. The drafts from VUW, Massey and Auckland are full of weasel words that will allow universities to suppress unpopular views. But the Otago one is so good, it should be a template for the other seven universities. Some extracts:
Free speech is the lifeblood of a university. It enables the exploration of ideas, the challenging of assumptions, and the uncovering of truth through open exchange. It allows students, teachers and researchers to know better the variety of beliefs, theories and opinions in the world. Only through a preparedness to challenge, question, and criticise ideas can progress in understanding take place. …
The University affirms that it will not restrict debate or deliberation simply because the ideas put forth are thought by some to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. It is for the members of the University community – its students and staff – to make those judgments for themselves. The University is not a place for safety from ideas – it is a place to engage in critical thought and debate in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. Our students will not be prepared for a complex and challenging world unless they have experience negotiating conflict and disagreement.
What I love about this section is they explicitly rule out that the university’s role is to keep people safe from ideas. The other universities all talk about how they do need to keep people safe from speech or ideas.
The University therefore guarantees all members of its community, including invited visitors, the right to advance ideas in the spirit of free and open enquiry. Furthermore, in its role as critic and conscience of society, the University provides a space in which contrary and unpopular positions can be advanced free from political interference or suppression.
The inclusion of invited visitors is also important.
This commitment to free speech does not mean that any utterance is appropriate in a university setting. The University may properly restrict expression which violates the law. Moreover, the University accepts no duty to provide a space for those who are not members of its community to advance their ideas or theories in ways which fundamentally undermine the University’s character as an institute of higher learning. The University may also reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the University.
These are all reasonable. There is no inherent right for me (for example) to speak on campus or book a room. However if I am invited by a staff member of affiliated club or society, then as an invited visitor I would have a right to speak.
Although students, staff, and visitors are free to criticise, contest, and condemn the views expressed on campus, they should not obstruct, disrupt, or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express those views.
Protest is not the same as disruption. Again great to be explicit on that.
I am normally so depressed by what is happening in universities with free speech, that this is like a ray of sunshine. It is better than what I thought any NZ university would adopt.
I do wonder why Otago’s is so good. I may be wrong, but I suspect Grant Robertson as VC may be part of the reason. Maybe he wasn’;’t involved as he has just started, but one advantage Grant brings to the role is he hasn’t been cloistered in academic groves for decades, where 95% of conversations are people agreeing with you and 5% where they are too scared to disagree. He comes from a background where he is constantly exposed to speech he disagrees with.
I suspect Grant understands that NZ universities are at some risk of losing their social licence. 20 years ago, even 10 years ago, the vast majority of NZers would say universities are unambiguously good as they are key institutions in top level research, in training up graduates and professionals and in forming part of a vibrant civil society.
But today many on the centre-right of politics are now regarding universities in a very negative way. Research is also impossible now without making it relevant to the Treaty of Waitangi and universities have become hostile to dissenting views time and time again. I don’t think enough vice-chancellors realise how precarious their position has become. With the Government facing a hard task getting the books back into surplus, cutting funding to universities which are seen as inimically hostile to non-left views becomes rather attractive. A growing number see universities as actually bad for New Zealand (I disagree, but I worry greatly about their direction).
So the Otago University statement goes a long way to regaining that social licence. They of course need to live up to its great words, but the statement makes me proud to have attended Otago University.
The ODT also reports:
Otago University philosophy professor James Maclaurin, who helped lead the engagement process on the statement, said it had been several months in the making.
“A lot of universities have statements on free speech — we think it’s an essential thing for the university to be a champion of free speech.
“We also thought it would be good to get out in front of the government’s plans to require universities to have policies on free speech.”
Prof Maclaurin said the meetings and engagements were “oversubscribed”. …
Prof Maclaurin said the university could develop a course or offer workshops on free speech.
“I think it’s going to be a great thing.”
Well done Professor Maclaurin.
Rugby is by no where near a key in terms of school quality – but the major boys schools do put a lot of emphasis on it and see success as a form of prestige.
Last Saturday St Peter’s in Epsom 1st XV (1306 students) beat Auckland Grammar (2,600 students) – at Auckland Grammar – 13 to 10. This was even after having to bring benches for their reserves from their own school.
There are other criteria to learn from too – especially academics.
Both schools have almost the same Equity Index number (EQI) – the measure that replaced deciles. In terms of ethnicities that struggle in our system St Peter’s has 13% Maori and 23% Pasifika. For AGS those numbers are 9% and 8%.
And yet – Education Counts (the Ministry of Education’s statistical arm) lists:
Anyone interested in improving education in NZ would do well to think about how the very successful schools are doing what others are failing to do.
Alwyn Poole
Innovative Education Consultants Ltd
www.innovativeeducation.co.nz
alwynpoole.substack.com
www.linkedin.com/in/alwyn-poole-16b02151/
ps: Had these two articles up this week:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/structured-literacy-school-testing-three-lessons-to-restore-nzs-education-system-alwyn-poole/3DXP3RCDW5AOBLLTEH3MMMEKAA/
www.localmatters.co.nz/health/charter-school-founder-sets-sights-on-south-warkworth/
The Herald reports:
The Herald can reveal the Government is considering a “reconciliation package” to hapū Patutokotoko, after the group raised red flags about the commercialisation of the Tūroa family name on Mount Ruapehu.
Documents from Te Arawhiti state Patutokotoko has “consistently raised concerns” about the commercial use of the name Tūroa. Around the 18th and 19th century, Te Peehi Tūroa was a rangatira of the Whanganui-based hapū and was deemed an influential leader.
I’ve got a much better idea than having taxpayers hand over money because a private company uses the name Turoa.
How about no money is handed over, and they just stop using Turoa? Call the ski field Ruapehu South. That won’t cost a cent, especially for taxpayers.
Stuff reports:
ACT leader David Seymour says a Ministry of Education decision to shut down a Manawatū kindergarten appears to be “acting against the will of the community”.
In comments made to Stuff, Seymour said he would be asking ministry officials to explain why they were closing Country Kindy, when he met with them on Monday.
“I am very concerned by this action. It would appear that the ministry is acting against the will of the community, rather than upholding standards on its behalf,“ he said.
Country Kindy, between Feilding and Palmerston North, had been stripped of its licence over curriculum issues, a decision the Early Childhood Council described as an “overreach”.
This is unusual. Normally you only close an institution if it is unsafe. So what are the sins done by Country Kindy:
A 2022 Education Review Office report found children’s culture, language and identity at the kindergarten were not consistently reflected in the curriculum.
It also found learning partnerships with tamariki and whānau Māori were not evident, and the kindergarten had not made clear progress with previous recommendations.
So they close down the only Kindy in the area, despite the support of parents.
UPDATE: The closure is delayed for at least 12 weeks, which is good.
BBC reports:
Reformist Massoud Pezeshkian has been elected Iran’s new president, beating his hardline conservative rival Saeed Jalili.
The vote was declared in Dr Pezeshkian’s favour after he secured 53.3% of the more than 30 million votes counted. Mr Jalili polled 44.3%.
This is somewhat hopeful.
Dr Pezeshkian, a former heart surgeon, is critical of Iran’s notorious morality police and caused a stir after promising “unity and cohesion”, as well as an end to Iran’s “isolation” from the world.
He has also called for “constructive negotiations” with Western powers over a renewal of the faltering 2015 nuclear deal in which Iran agreed to curb its nuclear programme in return for an easing of Western sanctions.
As I said, better than the alternative.
The Herald reports:
NZ First, a coalition Government party, posed the extraordinary question on X yesterday about what might have gone wrong.
“Is it true that the Aratere ran aground when someone put the autopilot on, went for a coffee, and then couldn’t turn the autopilot off in time when that someone came back…?”, the party posted.
Maritime New Zealand has cautioned that “conjecture” about the cause of the incident is unhelpful while an investigation continues, and KiwiRail says the “regulated number of qualified people” were on the ship’s bridge on the night of the grounding.
This is not a denial, and it is something that could be easily denied. Now generally one should be sceptical of anything Winston claims, especially about the Interislander, but maybe NZ First are on to something here.
UPDATE: They were right, reports The Post:
One mistakenly-pressed button sent the 17,816-tonne Aratere ferry off-course – but crew on the bridge couldn’t wrestle back control from autopilot before running aground was inevitable, a leaked internal safety bulletin shows.
It is understood that a key part of the investigation into the Interislander ferry’s grounding in the Marlborough Sounds on June 21 will be whether the bridge crew knew how to disengage the autopilot when using a recently-installed steering system.
So the ferry did not break down. It was crew error, yet the normal suspects howled that somehow this was the fault of the Government for not proceeding with the $3 billion+ new ferry project.
Stuff reports:
Police officers have responded with anger after their union reduced their pay offer to the Government at the eleventh hour of negotiations.
The union and the Government have entered into “final offer arbitration”. It’s an all-or-nothing, winner takes all dispute resolution process – where an independent arbitrator will pick either the Government or Police Association’s pay offer.
After more than a year of pay negotiations, police entered into arbitration – a unique process designed to ensure police officers don’t strike.
Police Association president Chris Cahill emailed unionised staff on Thursday evening to tell them the offer sent to the arbitrator was lower than the final offer put to the Government during negotiations in April.
“Because it is final offer arbitration in which the winner takes all, the assessment of your pay advisers and directors was to revise down our offer,” he said.
This is basically an admission that the Government’s offer was more likely to be found by the arbitrator to be fairer than what the Police Association was demanding. That is the only reason you would suddenly lower your offer for arbitration.
I’m not surprised officers are upset, because arguably the Police Association has misled them as to how generous the Government’s offer really was (first ever overtime penal rates).
It will be very interesting to see what the arbitrator decides, and what the actual gap is between the two final offers.
The comparisons between the pre-election polls and results for vote share was:
So Labour well under the polls, but the rest not too far off.
The seat differences are
| Pre-election poll | Exit poll | Actual | |
| Labour | 453 | 410 | 412 |
| Conservatives | 78 | 131 | 121 |
| Lib Dems | 67 | 61 | 71 |
| Reform | 7 | 13 | 5 |
| SNP | 19 | 10 | 9 |
| Greens | 3 | 2 | 4 |
So main difference between exit poll and results was Conservatives and Reform did worse and Lib Dems better.
The next Green MP in on the List is Benjamin Doyle. This is his MA thesis:
Here is a Master’s thesis crafted with, by, and for Rangatahi Takatāpui. It represents a labour of love for the community to which I belong, and seeks to generate understanding about the factors that enable LGBTQI+ Māori youth to embody and enact Tino Rangatiratanga. Principles of Kaupapa Māori Theory provide a paradigm through which this research is conducted, with particular attention paid to the Indigenous Research Agenda. Importantly, this rangahau seeks to offer an alternative to the conventions of hegemonic empirical academia by centering the voices and lived experiences of those who have historically been subjected to the dehumanising objectification of Western research practices.
I am amazed he was only ranked No 18 on the Greens List. I would have thought he would be a clear shot at No 3, with his exposure of the dehumanising objectification of Western research practices.
Ultimately, this research present nine key factors to be addressed and implemented in order to achieve this aspiration, including a call for conscientisation (both the self and the collective), resourcing and support, the removal of barriers to access, community intersectional reflexivity, space for collective Indigenous dreaming, and an ongoing commitment to Te Tiriti justice.
Community intersectional reflexivity!