Nanaia Mahuta has appointed a crew of foxes to guard the local government hen house

Nanaia Mahuta’s wide-ranging review of the local government sector should be laser-focused on increasing value for money for ratepayers.

But having looked closely at the review panel, we’re predicting it will do the opposite.

Firstly, the panelists are basically has-been local government insiders and professional bureaucrats. These appointees are the last people you’d expect to rein in the local government gravy train.

The terms of reference and the panel make up are disturbing. Instead of a focus on better infrastructure, more transparency, or accountability, it appears the Minister wants to move to a co-governance model with less democracy. 

In fact, the panel is tasked to “reimagine the role and function of local government”. That’s code for “growing the beast”, when what ratepayers need is a return to core services and abolishing the powers that allow local councils to duplicate central government activities like public health campaigns, climate action, and corporate welfare.

Greenpeace campaigner, school striker appointed to an MBIE working group

The just-announced Battery Project Technical Reference Group is meant to provide “technical expertise and sector knowledge relating to the quantitative analysis MBIE is undertaking, including modelling” for its hydro battery project.

But the Ministry has made two very odd appointments to this group:

• Amanda Larsson currently works as one of Greenpeace’s key staff. It’s hard to see MBIE appointing a Taxpayers’ Union campaigner for its reference groups – in fact, it would rightly cause controversy – but appointing a Greenpeace campaigner is no different in principle. Her contribution will inevitably be to advance an ideological agenda.
• Isla Day is 20 years old and helped to start School Strike 4 Climate. Her expertise is in organising protests, nothing to do with energy or environmental science. She does, however, appear to be carving out a cosy career filling seats in taxpayer-funded working groups – she’s also a member of a Wellington City Council reference group. We can’t blame her for jumping at well-paid opportunities, but you have to question the judgement of those who appointed her.

It’s one thing to have a political Minister making hare-brained and politicised appointments, but this group was appointed by public servants. How did no-one within MBIE raise red flags over such blatantly political appointments? Is public service neutrality is being eroded?

Members of the reference group are paid $560 per meeting. 

Quotas for government contracts will cost taxpayers dearly

Māori Development Minister Willie Jackson has introduced a five percent quota for government contracts awarded to businesses that present themselves as Māori or Pasifika-owned.

You may recall we were first to sound the alarm back in 2019 when found this idea buried deep in a Ministerial briefing. 

But some say the new quota doesn’t go far enough. First it was the Productivity Commission (under the leadership of Labour’s pet economist Ganesh Nana), and now the company that verifies the “Māori-owned” businesses wants the Government to combine the quota with a spending target for these companies (well they would say that, wouldn’t they!).

This is what political analysts call “mission creep”. Instead of focusing solely on delivering value for taxpayers, procurement policy is now being hijacked to hit politically-determined targets.

That means less competitive tenders, leading to either higher costs for taxpayers, lower quality services, or both. It’s also incredibly unfair for those businesses – many of which employ Māori – that will miss out on contracts purely because their owners don’t tick the right diversity boxes.

Court rort #1: cultural reports

Taxpayers forked out $3.3 million for the cost of “cultural reports” for offenders in 2020. That’s five times as much as the year prior.

These reports argue how each offender should receive a reduced sentence due to “personal, family, whānau, community and cultural background”.

And it appears a cottage industry has emerged: anyone familiar with the courts system can charge up to $6,600 to write one, copy-pasting the standard lines they know will work to convince judges to cut sentences.

Court rort #2: interpreters

Taxpayers paid private contractors more than $13 million in just five years for interpretation services for people facing the courts.

In many cases the Ministry of Justice is paying these interpreters more than $125 per hour.

As the Herald reports:

Examples include $1700 paid to a te reo interpreter for a one-day hearing in Kaikohe; $2628 to a Māori translator at a two-day hearing in Wellington; and a $3197 bill for two sign-language interpreters for just 3.5 hours’ work in January. The ministry said the cost included return flights.

Ihumātao deal found to be unlawful: here’s who needs to resign

Last week we learned that the Government didn’t just capitulate to illegal Ihumātao occupiers – it joined them in their illegality!

The Auditor-General released a damning judgement that the $30 million taxpayer-funded bailout should have been approved by a vote in Parliament.

Remember, the Government doesn’t have the excuse of ignorance here. Treasury had sternly warned the Government against using KiwiBuild money in this way.

There should be serious consequences. All eyes should now be on Attorney-General David Parker. It’s literally his job to ensure the Government follows the law. We say if he endorsed this illegal deal across the Cabinet Table, then he’s unfit for his position.

Will Grant Robertson bail out New Zealand’s own Bernie Madoff?

The Finance Minister has confirmed a new insurance scheme for collapsing banks and finance companies, funded by via levies on banks.

There are a number of reasons for alarm here:

• Guaranteeing an effective bailout for banks will see those banks take greater risks with their lending. That’s exactly the kind of moral hazard that led to America’s sub-prime mortgages and the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. The Reserve Bank argued this very point, recommending the guarantee be capped at $50,000 per depositor, per institution. But Grant Robertson went for double that amount, $100,000.
• The cost of the new levies on banks will naturally be passed on to deposit-holders. As if term deposit rates weren’t already low enough!
• The inclusion of finance companies in the scheme is likely to see deposit-holders pay for bailouts of fraudulent finance companies. In fact we wrote to the Finance Minister in October warning him that the Serious Fraud Office prosecutes on average about one Ponzi scheme a year, and under the Government’s proposals, those Ponzi schemes would become eligible for deposit insurance.

We asked Treasury officials if they gave the Minister any advice on this last problem. To our astonishment, they haven’t.

Hamilton City Council shouldn’t throw $10 million into a pond

A private developer wants Hamilton ratepayers to pitch in $10 million to an inland lagoon resort.

That is completely unjustified, considering the Council is already proposing a nine percent rate hike.

If the lagoon proposal makes good business sense, then it shouldn’t need a ratepayer subsidy. There’s a risk the lagoon fails to pull in punters and becomes a stagnant pond. That risk should be borne by the developer, not Hamilton ratepayers.

It’s a concern in and of itself that the developer had the cheek to ask the Council for ten million bucks. Hamilton City Councillors need to eradicate any perception that they’ll hand over ratepayer money to every passing monorail salesman.

Taxpayer Talk: is this ACT MP a “nutter”?

Another two episodes of our Taxpayer Talk podcast have gone live.

	Stuart Nash recently called ACT MP Nicole McKee a “nutter” for her views on firearms. I chat with her to help Taxpayer Talk listeners decide for themselves. Listen here.
	The New Zealand Initiative’s Oliver Hartwich and our own Jordan Williams discuss National’s policy to pay councils for consenting houses. Listen here.

You can subscribe to Taxpayer Talk via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, iHeart Radio and wherever good podcasts are sold.

Satire: Government creates one new job

The Government has today appointed a “Minister for Announcements.”

This announcement was announced at an announcement hosted by the Acting Minister for the Announcement of the Minister for Announcements, Chris Hipkins, while he was IDed on his way into the Upper Hutt Cossie Club.

Hipkins said: “For too long, Ministers have had to make individual announcements about their own announcements. National’s nine years of neglect almost certainly caused this crisis. It is time to centralise announcements to improve efficiency. Centralising always works.”

Hipkins introduced journalists to the new Minister of Announcements, Georgie Dansey, a first term list MP.

Ms Dansey is an MP you think about so infrequently that you probably don’t realise that photo is not of Georgie Dansey – that is Jill Pettis, a Labour MP who left Parliament in 2008.

This is the first-term list MP, the now Hon Georgie Dansey.

Except that she isn’t an MP – because while this time it is actually Ms Dansey pictured and she was a Labour candidate last year, she was ranked 84^th, last on the list. She once told The Spinoff that she would have been an MP if only 5.5 million New Zealanders voted Labour.

The actual Minister of Announcements will be Megan Woods on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and Chris Hipkins for Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Ramadan. However, for any really good news, announcements will be made by Jacinda Ardern and the country’s first man, Dr Ashley Bloomfield.

When asked about the actual results of all the announcements over previous years, Hipkins snapped back: “Don’t change the subject. This has nothing to do with outcomes.”

Gallery journalists described the Minister’s aggressive response as “like being savaged by a vegan lemur.”

Editor’s note: This last section of the newsletter was provided by Taxpayers’ Union Analyst (and occasional in-house comedian) Neil Miller.

We can’t save the world, if we can’t keep the lights on

As you can see, the range and craziness of what is going on in Wellington (and many town halls) is out of control. Our team has never been busier calling out the madness and fighting for taxpayers across a huge range of files.  But we can’t save the world if we can’t keep the lights on. Our work relies on the financial support of our supporters like you. Click here to make a secure donation.

Have a great week,

Louis Houlbrooke Campaigns Manager New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union

And did the the state-owned BBC even mention it? We’re told they didn’t, and it’s no great surprise. Older readers will remember the similarity with huge protesting crowds in East Germany in 1989.

MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA –“When one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.” –Joseph Goebbels, January 12, 1941 in Die Zeit ohne Beispiel.

There are currently 281 studies, with 209 peer-reviewed, demonstrating the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine as a prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-19. Ivermectin has 89 studies, including 48 peer-reviewed, demonstrating its effectiveness as prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-19.

Both Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine have been on the market for decades, with mountains of data demonstrating their safety and efficacy. These drugs are also dirt cheap to manufacture and store. All of the foregoing is great news if the goals of U.S. government and big pharma is public health and eradicating COVID-19. But those never have been and never will be the goals. “They” want everyone injected with synthetic mRNA, synthetic DNA and nanoparticles.

Google confesses propaganda agenda, bans all Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine information — Rangitikei Environmental Health Watch

(from Free Speech, Act Party)

Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta’s speech on China has been described as just dreadful.

Free Press has acquired an earlier draft of the speech. The MFAT employee who wrote it has not been seen lately, and the final version Mahuta delivered was quite different. Nonetheless, we’ve reproduced it below, in case you’re interested.

---

 

Greetings,

(namecheck various people for a while)

Now we turn to the question of how a small nation should respond to tyranny. Some believe there is only one human right, might.

As the Milesians told the Athenians in the Peloponnesian War: since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

That quote has thundered down the ages, but it has also been disproven by the ages. It is a short-term play. People who live by that creed find life is hungry, brutish, and short.

In the long term, the world has become prosperous thanks to the rule of law. By recognising the inherent dignity and the creative potential in every single soul, we unleash the creative powers of a free society.

No amount of power can protect a dictatorship from the laws of nature. Suppressing people requires suppressing their minds. Suppressing minds suppresses creativity. No creativity means no prosperity. When your population expect six per cent economic growth every year, that is a dangerous game.

That growth also requires resources. When uprising is only a food shortage away, when you need cement, iron, and coal every day, you recognize you are interdependent with the world.

Let me pause to say my comments are by no means a criticism of China or the Chinese people. This is not a discussion about race or nationality. It is about human rights and philosophy. In fact, our Kiwi Chinese neighbours are the most strident in warning us of the Chinese Communist Party, for whom my remarks are intended.

The CCP might think New Zealand would be an outlier in the coalition of free societies. That would be a mistake. We intend to use our voice to promote human freedom.

By the same token, New Zealand is not picking sides. We are assembling a side. It has to be a side committed to solidarity in favour of universal human rights. We stand for them on principle because the lessons of human history are crystal clear. We also stand for them together, we are calling on likeminded nations to form a coalition of the free.

We note that the Americans were happy to let the Australians take the lead championing a World Health Organisation inquiry into COVID. Here’s the question: did the Americans withhold exports to China when China targeted Australian barley, or did they profit off of filling the gap left by the Australians’ principled stand?

Defecting from the coalition is as bad defecting from one’s responsibility to basic human rights.

The coalition of the free must assemble around a standard of human rights with agreed sanctions for Governments that violate them. No country’s size absolves it of the obligations of humanity.

We say to the CCP that the genocide in the Xinjiang is wrong. The world knows it is wrong, and it is only a matter of time before your own citizens find out and know it is wrong too.

The same could be said for the interference of PLA linked expatriates in our and other countries’ democratic elections.

The destruction of Hong Kong democracy is wrong. The intimidation of the people of Taiwan, who wish to live freely and democratically is wrong.

Your embassy’s interference in our universities is wrong.

Intimidating your neighbours one at a time is wrong and the correct response is a collective one. That is the kind of response that New Zealand proposes the world adopt.

The coalition must be prepared to retaliate with trade sanctions in proportion to any intimidation of any member. None of this is new. It’s been done before. It was called NATO, and what defeated the evil of communism can defeat authoritarian capitalism, too.

Some might say its brave for such a small nation to make this call. The truth is, it would be too dangerous not too. We cannot sit by and watch tyranny slowly but surely grow, today Hong Kong, tomorrow Taiwan, the next day the South China Sea. How long can we believe it will not arrive in the South Pacific?

I invite every friend from around the Pacific rim who believes in human freedom to join the coalition for freedom, staying home is too dangerous.

(media release)

National is calling on the Government to let New Zealanders have more of a say on whether they want a Māori Health Authority, Leader of the Opposition Judith Collins says.

“The Government has stated that it has a te Tiriti obligation to segregate healthcare in New Zealand, dividing us into Māori and everyone else. As far as the National Party is concerned, segregation was an appalling idea last century and it remains an appalling idea in 2021.

“Before we rush down this path, we need to pause and consider where segregated systems will lead us. If our te Tiriti obligations demand a separate health system, do we also need a separate education system or justice system? This is an important conversation we need to have before we take even one step towards carving up our communities.

“Labour needs to be honest with all New Zealanders about how they are interpreting the Treaty and how far they intend to take ‘co-governance’. We can argue the language and meaning of the Treaty, but the Prime Minister and her Government should be open and transparent about how they are approaching it at the very least.

“What the Government has proposed is very different to the advisory body recommended by the Simpson review and it has been very vague about what public consultation, if any, there will be on its Māori Health Authority. National believes there should be a formal consultation process.

“Further complicating things, the Government’s Cabinet Paper reveals that the Māori Health Authority will also have the power to veto any decision made by Health NZ. What does the Government hope to achieve by separating our healthcare along racial lines and then placing the power of veto in the hands of one race-based institution?

“Equality is a core value of the National Party and we will not budge on our position that every New Zealander, no matter their race, should have access to the same rights and opportunities including access to healthcare.”

This is the set of correspondence that we have been sent from an Official Information request. The council reply to Te Kura Kaupapa is obvious, but it’s not obvious which reply dated 19 March was sent to the first two complainants of 26 February, which are similar although not the same.

Obvious questions, apart from who sent the Te Kura Kaupapa letter to Stuff, are:

1. Despite the comments by the present Mayor to Stuff media, the first complaints, which were received by the council the day after the 25 February meeting, concerned alleged assault and abuse from Te Kura Kaupapa members against ratepayers in the public gallery. Why weren’t these initial complaints mentioned by the mayor? 
2. Why didn’t the mayor, when speaking with Stuff, mention that he had initially apologised to the aggrieved ratepayers in the audience who had filed the complaints? How sincere are we supposed to regard these ‘apologies’? 
3. Why did the mayor claim to Stuff that he did not know the identities of anyone involved in the alleged incidences, claiming that there had been unsuccessful efforts to identify those involved, despite having the names of three of those present? Is this because to acknowledge them would have necessitated admitting that there were conflicting accounts? 
4. Why did the mayor, having three complaints from ratepayers in attendance, not attempt to investigate their allegations before proceeding to Otaki with the Race Relations commissioner to apologise to the students for alleged incidents that no councilor or staff member had witnessed?
5. Did someone in council forewarn Te Kura Kaupapa that complaints of physical and verbal abuse had been filed by ratepayers?
6. Did Te Kura headteacher Heni Wirihana Te-Rei file a complaint with KCDC a week later to pre-empt possible blowback from the ratepayers’ complaints about his students? What efforts did Te-Rei make to corroborate the accuracy of the allegations? 
7. Why was the ‘matter considered closed’ by Gurunathan and Mr Maxwell in reply to ‘an official complaint’ filed by a ratepayer, dated 26 February, yet His Worship proceeded to Otaki to apologize to the Te Kura students? 
8. Why did His Worship assume that the Te Kura account was accurate, yet summarily dismiss the complaints of verbal and physical abuse filed by three of those present, and subsequently corroborated by others present? 
9. While the present mayor claims that ‘the buck stops’ with him in ‘ensuring the safety of all’, why did he not mention to Stuff the concerns of the ratepayers for their safety, despite having privately acknowledged their concerns and apologised? Are the aggrieved ratepayers who claim to have been subjected to verbal and physical abuse, relegated to non-persons?

What’s better: a backyard full of birds or a pay raise? When it comes to happiness, a new study suggests the richness of bird species holds more value.

While it’s no secret that being rich takes much of the pressure off our day-to-day lives, researchers in this month’s Ecological Economics journal found living near natural surroundings, especially in areas with more species of birds, had a closer link to life satisfaction than income.

Analyzing data from 26,000 adults across 26 European countries, compiled from the 2012 European Quality of Life Survey, the researchers conclude that diversity in nature, especially of birds, had the greatest influence on people’s moods.

“The happiest Europeans are those who can experience numerous different bird species in their daily life, or who live in near-natural surroundings that are home to many species,” said the study’s lead author, Joel Methorst, a doctoral researcher at the Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre, the iDiv, and the Goethe University in Frankfurt, in a press release.

Read the rest on NationalPost (Canada)

The Infection Fatality Rate is about .044 of what the WHO said it was going to be. From Kit Knightly at off-guardian.org: With every new study, with every new paper, the “deadly” pandemic gets less and less, well, deadly. The most recent data review, published in late March, puts the infection fatality ratio (IFR) at 0.15%.That is, once again, pretty much the same as a normal flu season. The new paper is the work of Dr John Ioannidis, whom you likely remember. He is an eminent epidemiologist and statistician who publicly urged the need for “good data” last spring.

Covid’s IFR just keeps DROPPING, by Kit Knightly — STRAIGHT LINE LOGIC